Sola Fide

[Jim_Dandy]

or Catholic Experience etc. How would you argue against Sola Fide

Sola Fide was invented in the 16th century by Martin Luther. He was sitting on the privy in the monastery tower reading Romans when he had his EUREKA! moment (according to a well-known historian). There is no mention of Sola Fide in the historical record until Protestantism began, although (some) Protestants twist the Scriptures and the Church Fathers to try to “prove” that Sola Fide was original Christian doctrine. Not so. Christ and the Apostles didn’t teach it. And no Christian believed it until the 16th century.

Salvation is by GRACE alone, through Faith, working in love.

 

[Tony888]

Sola Fide was invented in the 16th century by Martin Luther. He was sitting on the privy in the monastery tower reading Romans when he had his EUREKA! moment (according to a well-known historian). There is no mention of Sola Fide in the historical record until Protestantism began, although (some) Protestants twist the Scriptures and the Church Fathers to try to “prove” that Sola Fide was original Christian doctrine. Not so. Christ and the Apostles didn’t teach it. And no Christian believed it until the 16th century.

Salvation is by GRACE alone, through Faith, working in love.

I’ve only seen it claimed that Sola Fide was discussed by the ECF (which it was), not that it was a universal doctrine (which it never has been, even for Protestants)

 

[grandfather]

While it is true that we access justification by faith alone, the fact is faith can never be alone.

Jon,

I am not trying to insult you. What you wrote above is doubletalk. It is self contradictory.

If faith is not alone, but accompanied with other gifts then faith alone does not justify. It takes faith and the other gifts of grace.

Consider what Jesus said in the parable about the seeds that fell to different ground.

Well, actually, I question her Orders, based on the fact that she is a woman. But on the broader issue, I’m not insulted by Rome’s view of our Orders, considering their centrality of view regarding apostolic succession. I just believe they are wrong. I think, overall, however, the issue of the number of sacraments is not a great one for us.

So there is a question of authority. You say she has invalid orders. She and others who call themselves Lutheran disagree. She is the “pastor” of a local church. How can you settle the matter? Based on your mutual doctrine you must turn to scripture. There can be no church authority to decide the matter.

The Protestant George Fox said there are no sacraments. He also takes all of his doctrine from scripture and his authority to start a church based on his doctrine that he defines for himself, on his own with his Bible. This is what Luther did, and Calvin, Zwingli, and all the rest.

It shouldn’t, if one reads Augsburg. I think you would agree that chatechesis is a problem for Catholics, too.

The key there is the reading of Augsburg. It is no different than the reading of scripture. Who is to say what it means? When there is a dispute, who says what is right?. Take it to the Church scripture says, but sola scriptura strips all authority to teach from the Chuch. Anyone can concoct their personal doctrine, based on Augsburg, or scripture, and that is exactly what happened, how denominationalism, the fracturing of the Body of Christ happened.

Yes, Catholics are very poorly taught. It is a crisis.

A valid point. The protestantization of Lutheranism in America is a problem.

Things are just peachy in Europe?

Reread your post to me. Look at all the things where there is agreement. This is a big deal.

I sat next to a Lutheran minister at a lunch after a family funeral. He seemed like a pretty good guy, very sincere. He wanted unity. He told me that when the pope wrote his instruction saying women could never be ordained to the priesthood this was a tragic mistake, because it threw up an insurmountable barrier to prevent reunion with Lutherans.

This is the same guy who said his synod is in turmoil over the dispute about the necessity or existance of Orders.

Put yourself in the place of a Catholic listening to this. These Lutherans are having an argument over a sacrament. The side that says Orders are real and necessary also says his fellow ministers who are female have valid Orders and can confect the Eucharist, while some of those women say there is no such thing as Orders according to Luther, and some say there are. They can not figure out amongst themselves what’s up with Orders, but expect Rome to say they have them.

I did not even try to answer anything he said. I just listened in amazement, nodded to say I appreciated how difficult this was, and shrugged what can I say. It sounded like Abott and Costello with who’s on first. His tone said he wanted me to comment, maybe agree or sympathize with the difficult predicament.

My Catholic mind was saying, this is why you need the pope, a teaching authority. It is scriptural. If you only could see it. That would have only sounded condescending or insulting, so I said nothing.

Seriously, they have read Augsburg and scripture. How do these people undo this?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’ve only seen it claimed that Sola Fide was discussed by the ECF (which it was), not that it was a universal doctrine (which it never has been, even for Protestants)

Uh, um, Sola Fide, one of the pillars of Protestantism, means Faith Alone.

Which of the ECFs do you imagine discussed Sola Fide?

 

[hn160]

Are you saying that Luther did not teach that salvation is by faith alone?

Or, ar you saying that Lutheran’s no longer believe salvation is by faith alone?

What Luther taught is historical fact, no?

What part of what I wrote didn’t you understand? Luther never said that faith in faith saves, he said that the object of our faith must be Christ, He alone saves,

I ran into a woman Lutheran minister once who said Luther did not teach there were two sacraments. Other Lutherans say he did. She felt very insulted that Rome questions her Orders.

Woman pastoress do not have valid orders, only men can be pastors, the ELCA which has woman pastoress is hardly Lutheran anymore.
.
I met a another Lutheran minister who said some ministers in his synod believed that Orders are necessary and it made others who insisted there is no such thing as Holy Orders angry. The same minister when he prepared prayers to be handed out for services, the responsorial kind, delineated the part for the people as “people”, and his part as “priest”. This caused some of the congregation some distress.

I did not say anything, but thought, Lutherans can not agree amongst themselves about the need or existance of Orders, they expect Rome to say they have valid Orders.

At any rate, most Lutherans I have met insist salvation is by faith alone, and others who see that is not possible, admit love of God is necessary, but to avoid repudiating Luther’s sola fide, say faith, hope and love are the same things.

The points of agreement are that salvation is by grace alone. Faith is a gift (grace). Grace or a gift can not be earned. Neither can the other two theological virtues, hope and love.

If love is necessary, even assuming faith and love are part of the same thing as the minister said, then we have to at least consider what love of God is under the light of scrpiture. Saint John writes, “The love of God consist in this, that we obey His commandments”. Jesus says, “If a man loves me he will keep my commands.”

Love then is impossible without obedience. Obedience is what we do, or do not do. What we do and do not do are works.

Our works can not save us, or salvation would not be by grace. But we can not be saved without them, or faith without works would not be dead.

The works of obedience, the love, necessary for our salvation are made possible by grace.

I think Lutherans and Catholics would agree there.

The confusion comes from Protestants believing that Catholics think they can earn salvation. Catholics do think we must do things to be saved, like repent of our sins, and what we do is a work, but that work is made possible by grace. We have to cooperate with grace.

Would any Luterans here agree with this? I am a sinner. I must repent of my sins to be saved. Repentance is something I must do, a work. I do not have the power to repent, free myself from my sins, for Jesus says whoever sins is a slave to sin. The slave must be set free by someone more powerful than the slave master. If I do repent of my sins the power to repent, to do what I must do to be saved, is given to me by God. It is a grace. All grace is unearned. God holds us responsible to do something with the gifts He gives us. We can not bury them in the ground.

 

[Tony888]

Uh, um, Sola Fide, one of the pillars of Protestantism, means Faith Alone.

Which of the ECFs do you imagine discussed Sola Fide?

The ECF wrote millions of words, how could you imagine their writings did not cover the topic. Found these on wiki in short order.

Clement of Rome (c. 30-100): “And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”[29]
Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”[30]
Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): “. . . a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”[31]
Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 20:7: “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”[32]
Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.”[33]
Ambrose (c. 339-97): “Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”[34]
Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat).[35]
Chrysostom (349-407): For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.[36]
Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.
Augustine (354-430): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.”[37]
Ambrosiaster (4th century), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”
Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?[38]

All I’m saying is there are both Pro- and Anti- Sola Fide quotes by ECF and in Scripture, if you look for them.

 

[grandfather]

What part of what I wrote didn’t you understand? Luther never said that faith in faith saves, he said that the object of our faith must be Christ, He alone saves,

This is playing with words.

Luther taught that by having faith, by believing that Christ died for sins and rose, you are justified (saved). Of course the faith is in Christ. Of course He is the savior who saves us. Luther taught that what we need to do, all we need to do on our part, is believe in Him, have faith that His incarnation, death and resurrection atone for sins.

If his doctrine had nothing to do with faith as a means of salvation, but the point he was making was about Christ then he might have called it Christ alone. He called it faith alone, because he believed he discovered a novel truth, one that had been missed by all the preceding generations of Christians. If what he was saying is we are saved by Christ alone there is no doctrinal dispute. But that is not what he was insisting.

Catholics hold that we need something more than faith. We need to also hope in God, and love Him and one another. We do all of these things by grace. The power to do them comes from God. The theological virtues, faith, hope and love, are infused into the soul directly by God as grace (gifts).

In order for a Lutheran to refute this position, he would have to show that scripture teaches otherwise. It does not matter what Luther taught or did not teach. It only matters what scripture says. So where does scripture not only say faith alone saves, but where does it say hope and love are not necessary to salvation?

It is boggling that any Christian might insist that a soul could be saved without the love of God. The obstinance is confounding.

Woman pastoress do not have valid orders, only men can be pastors, the ELCA which has woman pastoress is hardly Lutheran anymore.

I can’t say what is Lutheran or what is not. I am not Lutheran. I don’t belong to the sect. It is not my business. I don’t care.

From a Catholic outsider’s perspective this particular dispute among Lutherans or Protestants is like any other. One side says A is correct. The other says B. There is no church authority to decide which is right and which is wrong.

The Catholic Church, regarding this particular matter, had the same internal argument about women being ordained priestesses. The pope settled it. There are some who still don’t like it, but the pope settled the matter. The reason he gave for acting was to resolve controversy that was afflicting the Church, so the dissension could be stopped. It was time to move on and in order to do that people needed to know if it was A or B.

Luteran’s lack this mechanism for dealing with disputes. Peter’s successor has no voice. His authority is denied. They have the authority of scripture.

Luther’s novel methodology of dealing with doctrinal matters is to appeal to scripture alone, sola scriptura. What this methodology has led to is denominationalism, a constant dividing, the destruction of unity, contradicting Christ’s command found in scripture that His followers be one, unified, which is echoed by Paul in scripture.

What you end up with, practically, in practice, is what you declare above, that group over there is not Lutheran, separation. This is the inevitable consequence of what Luther began and it is repeated over and over again.

That group over there insists it is right, it has the truth in the way it practices faith, ordaining women in this case. They believe they are right as you believe you are, so you go your seperate ways, both insisting you are right, because you believe scripture is the source or definer of your doctrine and the Bible is on your side.

History shows that the consequence of embracing sola scriptura is division. It is not theology that proves this. It is history.

The only way to avoid getting into situations like the one you describe when you say those people over there are not Lutheran (of us) anymore, is to be rid of the doctrinal cause of the situation. Any doctrine that would lead to the constant division as witnessed in historical Protestantism, must be false. God’s will for us is unity as scripture affirms, but scripture alone will never create or sustain unity.

 

[benedictus2]

I have seen several recent threads about Sola Scriptura, but not about Sola Fide. This is interesting because I find it the hardest to understand or defend out of the 4 solas of the reformation (Fide, Scriptura, Christos, Gracia). Only faith is interesting because it was the main point on which my protestant training was based, but now I realized that the understanding was distorted. One of the things that was done was to equate Grace with Faith and to equate Justification with Salvation. Examples of this would be to say
“I am saved by FAITH alone”, when the correct understanding (even for the protestant) would be to say “I am JUSTIFIED” by faith alone". These misunderstanding were why Ephesians 2:8,9 were so convincing. Because when Paul says “It is by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH, etc” I read that as saying I was saved by my faith when in reality it is not emphasizing faith at all, but Grace. Another example is that we were taught that the Catholic Church said that you needed to have works to be saved. This is another semantic error because in the Council of Trent the Church declared that you needed faith and works to be JUSTIFIED. Hopefully I would like to discuss the true meaning of Sola Fide and its role in the protestants life.

I think the one that gave a clear presentation of the error was Francis Beckwith (former President of the Evangelical Theological Society) in his conversion story "Return to Rome:.

In the second half of his book he explains that the problem with the Protestant understanding was this split between justification and sanctification.

 

[JonNC]

=grandfather;8626461]Jon,

I am not trying to insult you. What you wrote above is doubletalk. It is self contradictory.

If faith is not alone, but accompanied with other gifts then faith alone does not justify. It takes faith and the other gifts of grace.

Consider what Jesus said in the parable about the seeds that fell to different ground.

I’m not insulted, but I don’t see it as doubletalk at all, and certainly not contrdictory. Again, justification is operative by grace alone through faith. To say that faith cannot be alone, to define what a saving faith is doesn’t change the what Paul says.
Now, that said, I hear Catholics here talk about good works being the fruits of faith, and recognize, as the Joint Declaration says, that justification is the work of the Triune God.
I believe, that for the most part, the issue is in the definition of justification, and following, sanctification. It isn’t in how we view the nevessity of works.

So there is a question of authority. You say she has invalid orders. She and others who call themselves Lutheran disagree. She is the “pastor” of a local church. How can you settle the matter? Based on your mutual doctrine you must turn to scripture. There can be no church authority to decide the matter.

The way I settled the matter was leaving the ELCA for a synod that follows Augsburg.

The Protestant George Fox said there are no sacraments. He also takes all of his doctrine from scripture and his authority to start a church based on his doctrine that he defines for himself, on his own with his Bible. This is what Luther did, and Calvin, Zwingli, and all the rest.

Is George Fox a Lutheran (the obvious answer is no, since he rejects sacraments)? You can look at it as the same. If so, then you must look at the division between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, both claiming Sacred Tradition, in the same light.

The key there is the reading of Augsburg. It is no different than the reading of scripture. Who is to say what it means? When there is a dispute, who says what is right?. Take it to the Church scripture says, but sola scriptura strips all authority to teach from the Chuch. Anyone can concoct their personal doctrine, based on Augsburg, or scripture, and that is exactly what happened, how denominationalism, the fracturing of the Body of Christ happened.

And the same with Sacred Tradition. Orthodoxy, PNCC, Utrect, etc.

Yes, Catholics are very poorly taught. It is a crisis.

And for us, too.

I sat next to a Lutheran minister at a lunch after a family funeral. He seemed like a pretty good guy, very sincere. He wanted unity. He told me that when the pope wrote his instruction saying women could never be ordained to the priesthood this was a tragic mistake, because it threw up an insurmountable barrier to prevent reunion with Lutherans.

Actually, I see ELCA ordination of women as the barrier.

This is the same guy who said his synod is in turmoil over the dispute about the necessity or existance of Orders.

Problematic that any Lutheran would reject, out of hand, orders.

Put yourself in the place of a Catholic listening to this. These Lutherans are having an argument over a sacrament. The side that says Orders are real and necessary also says his fellow ministers who are female have valid Orders and can confect the Eucharist, while some of those women say there is no such thing as Orders according to Luther, and some say there are. They can not figure out amongst themselves what’s up with Orders, but expect Rome to say they have them.

I have no expectations in this regard. If you are under the impression that I am happy with the current state of affairs in pan-Lutheranism, you’re wrong.

I did not even try to answer anything he said. I just listened in amazement, nodded to say I appreciated how difficult this was, and shrugged what can I say. It sounded like Abott and Costello with who’s on first. His tone said he wanted me to comment, maybe agree or sympathize with the difficult predicament.

My Catholic mind was saying, this is why you need the pope, a teaching authority. It is scriptural. If you only could see it. That would have only sounded condescending or insulting, so I said nothing.

Seriously, they have read Augsburg and scripture. How do these people undo this?

Certainly an issue. I can understand Ratzinger’s comments years ago about who speaks for Lutherans.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think the one that gave a clear presentation of the error was Francis Beckwith (former President of the Evangelical Theological Society) in his conversion story "Return to Rome:.

In the second half of his book he explains that the problem with the Protestant understanding was this split between justification and sanctification.

I think Michael Root expresses the same concern.

 

[bogeydogg]

Perhaps to would be helpful to remember that justification is what God works in us in baptism. That justification if lived under in a life of penitence and charity leads to salvation. Penitence and charity are the outflow of faith which is God’s gift to us.

Salvation is the end of perseverance not the beginning of it.

God Bless

 

[grandfather]

The way I settled the matter was leaving the ELCA for a synod that follows Augsburg.

 

[grandfather]

Perhaps to would be helpful to remember that justification is what God works in us in baptism. That justification if lived under in a life of penitence and charity leads to salvation. Penitence and charity are the outflow of faith which is God’s gift to us.

Salvation is the end of perseverance not the beginning of it.

God Bless

Thank you!

I think you are saying that charity is necessary for salvation. We can not be saved without it. If that is what you are saying, you are defending the Catholic position in this controversy. If charity (love) is necessary, then faith alone is not enough.

I can not be justified without penitence, repenting of my sin. I can not be justified while I am impenitent. Christ does not justifiy me in my sins. His grace, the power of His grace enables me to overcome my sin and repent. By His mercy I am forgiven, when I repent. He said to His apostles to preach the good news of salvation for repentance of sin.

So I am a sinner who needs to repent and be saved. When the sin is removed I do not remain empty. Something else replaces the evil. That is charity, love.

Charity is eternal. We take it with us when we die. It is more powerful than death. Faith is not eternal. It enables us to find our way, but we no longer need faith after we die. If we do not love we are lost, no matter what we believe. If we Chrisitans do not love we give
Christ lip service, empty lip service.

 

[ignatius777]

I have seen several recent threads about Sola Scriptura, but not about Sola Fide. This is interesting because I find it the hardest to understand or defend out of the 4 solas of the reformation (Fide, Scriptura, Christos, Gracia). Only faith is interesting because it was the main point on which my protestant training was based, but now I realized that the understanding was distorted. One of the things that was done was to equate Grace with Faith and to equate Justification with Salvation. Examples of this would be to say
“I am saved by FAITH alone”, when the correct understanding (even for the protestant) would be to say “I am JUSTIFIED” by faith alone". These misunderstanding were why Ephesians 2:8,9 were so convincing. Because when Paul says “It is by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH, etc” I read that as saying I was saved by my faith when in reality it is not emphasizing faith at all, but Grace. Another example is that we were taught that the Catholic Church said that you needed to have works to be saved. This is another semantic error because in the Council of Trent the Church declared that you needed faith and works to be JUSTIFIED. Hopefully I would like to discuss the true meaning of Sola Fide and its role in the protestants life.

James clearly discounts the idea of faith alone

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The ECF wrote millions of words, how could you imagine their writings did not cover the topic. Found these on wiki in short order.

All I’m saying is there are both Pro- and Anti- Sola Fide quotes by ECF and in Scripture, if you look for them.

You must not imagine that the ECFs were defending Sola Fide as Protestants understand it. Read all of what they said. You’re proof-texting.

 

[Tony888]

You must not imagine that the ECFs were defending Sola Fide as Protestants understand it. Read all of what they said. You’re proof-texting.

Jim, I urge you to read twice before you post next time

I don’t support Sola Fide

I clearly indicated there are quotes by the ECF and in the Bible to support all sides (prooftext)

Ergo, the argument can’t be solved by quoting scriptres

 

[grandfather]

Jim, I urge you to read twice before you post next time

I don’t support Sola Fide

I clearly indicated there are quotes by the ECF and in the Bible to support all sides (prooftext)

Ergo, the argument can’t be solved by quoting scriptres

The ECF do not define dogma. They contribute to a process. Their thought is helpful. They are not infallible. Some became heretics. Origen comes to mind.

If anyone is interested in the development of dogma, tracing how certain ideas that became embraced as de fide, of the faith, and the controversies that surrounded the process, the ECF are a good source of information. History reveals in detail how all the reasoning went, who argued what and how it was all resolved within the Church. The authoirty to make determinations, settle controversies, was never an appeal to an amorphous body of ECF, although they contributed to the dialogue and made their opinions known, but to the bishops and the pope. This is true from determining the canon of scripture and resolving the early christological controversies.

 

[bogeydogg]

Thank you!

I think you are saying that charity is necessary for salvation. We can not be saved without it. If that is what you are saying, you are defending the Catholic position in this controversy. If charity (love) is necessary, then faith alone is not enough.

I can not be justified without penitence, repenting of my sin. I can not be justified while I am impenitent. Christ does not justifiy me in my sins. His grace, the power of His grace enables me to overcome my sin and repent. By His mercy I am forgiven, when I repent. He said to His apostles to preach the good news of salvation for repentance of sin.

So I am a sinner who needs to repent and be saved. When the sin is removed I do not remain empty. Something else replaces the evil. That is charity, love.

Charity is eternal. We take it with us when we die. It is more powerful than death. Faith is not eternal. It enables us to find our way, but we no longer need faith after we die. If we do not love we are lost, no matter what we believe. If we Chrisitans do not love we give
Christ lip service, empty lip service.

Yes I think charity and penitence are necessary for salvation.

What “Faith Alone” means, I think, ← NOTICE THE "I THINK" is that apart from faith being given us by grace we cannot be saved by our charity or penitence. A specious confession of faith does not save no matter how temporarily contrite a person may feel. But faith which flows from grace produces charity and penitence and thus is of itself effective to render salvation.

But…

That faith if it produces not charity or penitence is alone and not salvific. It is necessary to act on the grace which God has given us. In fact I would say it is impossible not to act. Some will accept God’s grace with an open heart and in them faith will work charity, penitence and perseverance leading to salvation. For the impenitent the grace of God will harden them and they will further their own destruction by the stubborn refusal to repent.

That is why Luther’s first thesis states that the life of faith will be lived by penitence.

Where I differ from the Reformed churches is that they would say grace leading to faith is the end of salvation (OSAS) I would say it is the beginning and produces the fruit in us by which God works through us leading to our salvation.

God Bless

 

[grandfather]

Yes I think charity and penitence are necessary for salvation.

 

[bogeydogg]

We do agree mostly we just use some words differently.

The major point of departure is the “infusion of grace”, which may again be a language problem more than a doctrinal one.

If I have understood Catholic Doctrine correctly, I think that infusion is the means by which God inheres actual righteousness into our souls, that righteousness which we must cooperate with producing charity, penance etc, leading to salvation.

I would say that the washing of baptism effects the removal of original sin, attaches us to Christ’s Body and enables us to live a new life through Him working in us. But that righteousness is always alien to us. The works that it produces are ours and they are pleasing to God by His mercy, but the righteousness that God will accept is not found in our works. God condescends to accept our works out of mercy, and it is grace to us that He does so, but those works are never condign they are always congruous.

I would also say that our penitence is always imperfect. Our contrition is never pure. I would also say that the person who is sorry that he is caught has a form of contrition, but that contrition may be selfish and contains no actual sorrow for sin and thus is not penitent in nature and so not part of saving faith.

I believe this because St Paul says our righteousness is filthy rags.

If I understand that right then it means that the best thing I ever did deserved nothing but condemnation, but God who is rich in mercy accepts on my behalf the actual merit of Christ accounting my feeble contrition, penitence and charity as righteousness for His sake even if they do not deserve it.

Therefore, while we should strive to cooperate with grace and live in penitence and charity and perseverance, we must always do so in the light of the knowledge that everything we do toward our salvation is nevertheless all of the grace of God.

God Bless