Sola Fide is driving me crazy!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter SojournerOf78
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Philthy:
Hey Brian - I’ll wrestle with ya on this works stuff, and I promise to be nice :o Your green, Im black. Let me start by bringing up one of your last posts:
As opposed to me…Id grapple with him and tap him out…but thats just my style.
 
Brian,
I am having a hard time understanding how you can claim that Catholics can obtain absolution of sins without confessing them to a priest.
I didn’t say absolution. I said forgiveness, also called “remission of sin.” Absolution has a very specific meaning in the Catholic Church. Observe,

From Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:
**ABSOLUTION. **In the sacrament of penance, the act by which a qualified priest, having the necessary jurisdiction, remits the guilt and penalty due to sin.

REMISSION OF SIN. The true and actual forgiveness of sin.

CONTRITION. The act or virtue of sorrow for one’s sins. The virtue of contrition is a permanent disposition of soul. However, only an act of contrition is required for the remission of sin, whether with or without sacramental absolution.
The Catholic Church also speaks of “attrition.” This is sorrow for sin that is NOT based upon love of God above all, but merely upon fear of punishment and/or detest for the ugliness of sin. If one were to have attrition, instead of true contrition, then their mortal sins are not remitted unless they receive absolution in the sacrament of penance. Attition is also called imperfect contrition or “contrition of fear”, as distinct form perfect contrition or “contrition of charity.” Attrition is not sufficient for remission of mortal sin without absolution.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.” (CCC 1452)

“The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be** brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance**.” (CCC 1453)
 
Brian,
40.png
brianberean:
It also seems that you must at least admit that the RCC teaches that works (with faith) are necessary to regain justification after committing a mortal sin. Confession to a priest and penance are works, correct?
Brian
No. Sorrow for sin, whether attrition or contrition, is “a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 1453). In my view, is no more a “work” than repentance.

Let’s look at the two definitions …

"REPENTANCE. Voluntary sorrow because it offends God, for having done something wrong, together with the resolve to amend one’s conduct by taking the necessary means to avoid the occasions of sin. To repent is to be sorry for sin with self-condemnation. (Fr. Hardon, ibid.)

Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.” (CCC 1451)

Believe it or not, I have debated with a Protestant who believe love is a “work” added to faith, because Catholics preach “faith working in charity” is required for justification, and not “faith alone.”

I think such attempts to “prove” Catholics preach “works salvation” is ridiculous, however.
 
40.png
Trelow:
RIGHT! now draw my triangle.
DIFFERENT MEANINGS!!
WE HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS!
****!
A Catholic says “faith, hope, charity”
We look at the Protestant translation and it says “FAITH!”.
I tried that with some Protestant friends. They said “No, we do not mean faith=faith, hope, and charity; we by Faith Alone (Sola Fide) ‘by believing on the name of Jesus are you saved!’”. Nothing else is necessary. They, and a large percentage of Protestants, believe that they only have to believe. If they do that, they can do any thing they want, Steal, Kill, Rape, anything - They Have Been Saved and nothing can take that away from them, ever for any reason.
 
40.png
brianberean:
Sounds like a response the Pharisees might have made to Jesus.

Breathing could also be considered a work, but not in the same legalistic requiremental sense.

Brian
Breathing is involuntary. I’m not sure how that could be considered a “work”.

Maybe I should ask your definition of “work”. It is used in a couple of different ways in the NT, ie. the way Paul uses it in Romans and Galatians vs. James’ usage.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Trelow:
RIGHT! now draw my triangle.
DIFFERENT MEANINGS!!
WE HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS!
****!
.
I’m right there with ya! I think that a lot of misunderstanding occur due to misunderstandings of each others terms.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
RBushlow:
I tried that with some Protestant friends. They said “No, we do not mean faith=faith, hope, and charity; we by Faith Alone (Sola Fide) ‘by believing on the name of Jesus are you saved!’”. Nothing else is necessary. They, and a large percentage of Protestants, believe that they only have to believe. If they do that, they can do any thing they want, Steal, Kill, Rape, anything - They Have Been Saved and nothing can take that away from them, ever for any reason.
But Satan has that kind of faith (mental assent). What Satan lacks though is what Paul refers to as the “obedience of faith (Romans 1:5, 16:26)” and “faith working through love (Gal. 5:6)”. It is necessary for salvation that one have an ACTIVE faith. An INACTIVE faith is dead. If you have all faith to remove mountains but don’t have love you are NOTHING (1 Cor. 13:2). Paul doesn’t say that you are nothing except saved, but rather nothing…period.

Faith alone is NOT enough. LOVE is a necessary ingredient for salvation.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Hmmmph! I was very non-threatening and considerate in giving what I felt were thoughtful responses to brianberean’s queries in my post (#100) and I got totally ignored! Was what I said that stupid? Go ahead, you cna tell me the truth…
 
40.png
RBushlow:
Is it your contention that you do not have to repent, Just acknowledge Jesus as Lord?
No. Repentance is a gift of God and not a work. It does not save, but an individual cannot be saved without it. Salvation includes deliverance from sin as a ruling power in one’s life. Coming to Christ for salvation must mean a turning from sin (repentance) or Christ cannot be received.

Brian
 
Before Trent, if one insisted canonical books ought not to be in the Bible, they were heterodox. If they insisted they are not in the Bible, their assertion was incorrect and illicit (unlawful, contrary to the binding authority of the Church). After Trent, if one insists they ought not OR they are not in the Bible, they are heretical.
Cardinal Cajetan:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.)

It certainly appears that Cajetan says the deuteros are not in the canon. Was Cajetan (the person the pope picked to debate Luther) a heretic?

Brian
 
40.png
brianberean:
No. Repentance is a gift of God and not a work. It does not save, but an individual cannot be saved without it. Salvation includes deliverance from sin as a ruling power in one’s life. Coming to Christ for salvation must mean a turning from sin (repentance) or Christ cannot be received.

Brian
Hmmm…so I take it youre saying that you have been delivered from all sin in your life???
 
40.png
Philthy:
Hmmmph! I was very non-threatening and considerate in giving what I felt were thoughtful responses to brianberean’s queries in my post (#100) and I got totally ignored! Was what I said that stupid? Go ahead, you cna tell me the truth…
No offense Phil, but I’m quickly approaching burnout on this thread. I probably would have booked a while ago, but I ran into Dave who actually produces evidence and sources to back up his arguments. Anyway, thanks for the offer.

Brian
 
40.png
SojournerOf78:
Hmmm…so I take it youre saying that you have been delivered from all sin in your life???
See underlined. Try to read more carefully.
No. Repentance is a gift of God and not a work. It does not save, but an individual cannot be saved without it. Salvation includes deliverance from sin as a ruling power in one’s life. Coming to Christ for salvation must mean a turning from sin (repentance) or Christ cannot be received.
Brian
 
Dave,

My doublespeak detector is going off. Maybe you can clarify this seeming contradiction:

Harden:
However, only an act of contrition is required for the remission of sin, whether with or without sacramental absolution.

CCC:
“When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.” (CCC 1452)

???
ABSOLUTION. In the sacrament of penance, the act by which a qualified priest, having the necessary jurisdiction, remits the guilt and penalty due to sin.
REMISSION OF SIN. The true and actual forgiveness of sin.
Does this seeming sophistry (the difference between absolution and remission) have a precedent in Scripture?

Brian
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Brian,
No. Sorrow for sin, whether attrition or contrition, is “a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 1453). In my view, is no more a “work” than repentance.

Let’s look at the two definitions …

"REPENTANCE. Voluntary sorrow because it offends God, for having done something wrong, together with the resolve to amend one’s conduct by taking the necessary means to avoid the occasions of sin. To repent is to be sorry for sin with self-condemnation. (Fr. Hardon, ibid.)

Contrition is “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again.” (CCC 1451)
But the CCC says works must accompany contrition (plan to have recourse to sacramental confession, accompanied with obligatory penance).

Harden seems to agree:
Penance means repentance or satisfaction for sin. If we expect God’s forgiveness we must repent. Penance is necessary because we must expiate and make reparation for the punishment which is due our sins…Christ instituted this sacrament to give us a ready and assured means of obtaining remission for the sins committed after baptism…A person must be in a state of grace to merit divine mercy for his venial sins…Satisfaction must be made for sins already forgiven because normally some—and even considerable—temporal punishment is still due, although the guilt has been removed…We make satisfaction for our sins by every good act we perform in a state of grace but especially by prayer, penance and the practice of charity…All prayer merits satisfaction for sin…The patience acceptance of trials or humiliations sent by God is expiatory. Our works of satisfaction are meritorious if they are done while in a state of grace…Sacramental satisfaction is the penitential work imposed by a confessor in the confessional in order to make up for the injury done to God and atone for the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance imposed by the priest, and deliberate failure to perform a penance imposed for mortal sin is gravely sinful…Sins can also be exipiated through indulgences (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden: Image, 1981, #1320, 1322, 1386, 1392, 1394). (quoted from Webster’s site)
Believe it or not, I have debated with a Protestant who believe love is a “work” added to faith, because Catholics preach “faith working in charity” is required for justification, and not “faith alone.”

I think such attempts to “prove” Catholics preach “works salvation” is ridiculous, however.
…and I’ve debated Protestants who claim Scripture is our sole authority…crazy Protestants… :eek:

Brian
 
40.png
RBushlow:
I tried that with some Protestant friends. They said “No, we do not mean faith=faith, hope, and charity; we by Faith Alone (Sola Fide) ‘by believing on the name of Jesus are you saved!’”. Nothing else is necessary. They, and a large percentage of Protestants, believe that they only have to believe. If they do that, they can do any thing they want, Steal, Kill, Rape, anything - They Have Been Saved and nothing can take that away from them, ever for any reason.
No offense but your friends are quite clearly idiots, or have a Pastor who is. I’ve been a faithful Methodist my whole life. Very much involved in the church from an early age. Only recently because of their tolerance am I buggering out. And I have never heard anyone teach that. Yes initial justification is non-revokable, God isn’t going to toss your original sin back on you. But the common understanding is that you sure aren’t going to go the Heaven by rejecting God. Now murder would be rejecting God, because you are putting yourself above him, same with any other mortal sins.

Granted there are many groups out-there who may very well teach such hogwash, but by and far they are the minority. I’ve got $5 that a good ol’ Southern Baptist, Pentecost, old Methodist, or Lutheran , well just about any Protestant preacher can give a much better “Fire and Brimstone” sermon than most Priests. If they haven’t heard one yet then they need to hear one. Because where I come from they are standard issue once a month, with a mini-one right before the offertory.

The problem is that as Protestants we under-define things, and Catholics over-define things. What done in Love for the Lord or for anyone else wouldn’t be a work?
 
Corpus Cristi:
You should read James 2:14-26. It implies that faith without works doesn’t mean that person has no faith at all. He says that faith without works is dead. The faith is there, but it’s dead. Lot’s of people like to stop at verse 17, but in my personal studies, I went on to the end of the chapter. I like doing that, because James calls these people who believe this “fools”, not that I’m calling you a fool, I don’t need to. Read that passage and see why.
I said that I agreed with St. James, didn’t I? But faith that is dead no longer exists, it is not faith at all. I still don’t like your attitude. I bet you haven’t even looked at the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Statement on Justification. I’d be surprised if you had. I came to this forum because my sister is thinking of converting to Catholicism and wanted my advice. I have an answer for her now. I was in Junior High School before I ever saw a Roman Catholic in the flesh. Growing up in western North Carolina there just weren’t any. In North Carolina, the fire-breathing Baptists were in the vast majority. They of course thought that they were right and everybody else was wrong. Then I did my doctoral work with the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, which bills itself as the"true visible Church of Christ on Earth" That’s why I’m not there any more. I am very suspicious of anyone’s claim to have a corner on the truth. I have admired the Roman Church for many years. I met some lovely nuns when my best friend went to a Catholic High School later on. I studied Patristics and Latin at a Vincentian Seminary while doing my undergraduate degree. I have always had a very high opinion of Roman Catholics, admittedly from a distance. I feel sort of like the man who said “The more people I get to know the better I like my Dog.” The more I see of Roman Catholic fundamentlists like you, the more I rejoice in the Reformation. Thank God for Martin Luther, is all I have to say. I must also say that oafish louts like you are not very good advertisements for Christianity of any sort, much less Catholicism.

A man died and went to heaven. St. Peter was showing him around the “many mansions”. There were great throngs of people in each mansion, rejoicing and praising God in Christ. There were Baptists and Lutherans of many sorts, Methodists, lots of different groups, all making a joyful noise. As they passed by a large mansion, the man saw a big crowd of people. St. Peter held his finger to his lips to tell the man to be quiet, and tiptoed by very quietly. When they were by, the man asked St. Peter, “Why did we tiptoe past that mansion? Who were they?” St. Peter said “Those were the Roman Catholics, they think they are up here by themselves.” I expect there will be lots of surprised people in heaven, when they find out that they are not alone up there. You may be one of them. Thanks for helping me make up my mind. I think I have finished here. You have a nice day.
 
40.png
Trelow:
No offense but your friends are quite clearly idiots, or have a Pastor who is. . . . ., same with any other mortal sins.

Granted there are many groups out-there who may very well teach such hogwash, but by and far they are the minority. . . . .

What done in Love for the Lord or for anyone else wouldn’t be a work?
I think that we have a meeting of the minds on these issues. Both of our teachings are in agreement with regard to salvation through faith with hope and charity. However, I am afraid that it is contrary to my experience that the “groups out-there” whos teaching is contrary are the minority. Most of them are not members of any mainstream denomination. Almost everyone I meet identifies themselves as non-demoninational “just christians”. There is very little thinking involved and they believe that “once saved. always saved” and nothing can change that. And they understand salvation to come from “faith alone”, not faith with hope and charity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top