Was John Chrysostom Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LegoGE1947 said:
The thief on the cross next to Jesus is an example. The one who said “Remember me when you get to your kingdom!”
Click to expand...
right

as Pope Benedict XVI reminds us:

“…the so-called “Good Thief” straight away receives forgiveness and the joy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43)”

Pope Benedict XVI (21 November 2010)
 
I do not disagree with anything that John Chrysostom has said in John 6. In fact, I don’t know of any protestants who would disagree.
  1. I was not raised protestant, but Roman Catholic. I was raised in a Catholic church that consisted of much family and friends. No one really took God very seriously, and if there was any Christ-like people, I was blind to them. As for the theology of the Catholic Church, I grew up with the liturgy and I remembered all of it. I went to Catholic bible studies,etc,etc. Because most of the catholics I grew up with were easy-believist (just believe in God and do the right thing) there was never a real passion or zeal (and therefore true faith) in the Lord Jesus. The talk of Paul in romans 1 about how the gospel is the “power of God” unto salvation was something that I never saw in the Catholic Church.
  2. Out of all my experience as a protestant, I and my church and for that matter all the protestants I learned from world-wide insisted on “good works” even more than Catholics as a condition for eternal life. Ask yourself, how many of you have read the Westminster confession of faith on Repentance, Good Works, Faith, and Sanctification?? How many of you have read the Baptist Confession of 1689?? How many of you read the Augsburg Confession? The book of Concord? Charles Spurgeon, Bishop JC Ryle, Thomas Watson, AW Pink?? Now these are all people that I have major disagreements on, but none of them would ever endorse that the elect will be judged by a mere faith alone, but that their deeds will tell their destiny. I am quite frankly perplexed when I read what some you guys “think” the protestants believe with respect to good works.
  3. If Sola Fide is an invention of Martin Luther, then why is it in John Chrysostom? Do we just blame “Your taking it out of context”!!! OR are you guys willing to go through his homilies on Romans??
  4. Protestants have never taught that we are saved by faith literally alone. Protestants have always believed that a deep heart filled repentance is either intrinsic to faith or that it is one the other side of the same coin. Therefore, repentance consisting in a turning away from sin to be filled with love and the will of God is right there next to faith!!! However, what it is that is accounted for righteousnes?? Is it love? Hope? Good works? No, but only faith.
  5. In all of my experience as a protestant I have always read the teaching of Jesus literally . Meaning, I really do believe that if one does not bear good fruit he/she is cut down and thrown into the fire (Read the book REPENTANCE by Thomas Watson). I believe that if someone merely hears the words of Christ and does not do them, he will be condemned and suffer eternal hell. I believe that only those who have been full of love toward others will enter the kingdom of God. It is extremely odd to me when I get responses that simply assume that protestants do not believe this.In fact, i have ONLY heard this kind of teaching from protestants . Yes, I know catholics believe it, but they are not as vocal about it, they might as well reject it.
 
I really recommend Not by Faith Alone by Sungennis. I get the feeling that a lot of times when somebody believes a Church Father was protestant, it’s that they don’t quite get the subtleties of Catholic teaching on the subject and thus don’t understand that what the ECF is saying is actually Catholic. This was a book which really helped me.
amazon.com/Not-Faith-Alone-Biblical-Justification/dp/1579180086
 
Mystophilus said:
Er, no. He says that humanity is justified by faith, not by faith alone. He describes the process of theosis, by which, through the grace of God, we gradually conform ourselves to God.
Click to expand...
What proof do you have that he believed this?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
  1. I was not raised protestant, but Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
I was raised Protestant --and came into full communion with the Catholic Church years ago. Though I have to admit I am throughly Catholic (some “converts” retain many things from their eariler formation) --my love of Sacred Scripture and formation etc came very much from within the Catholic Church.

I have met some Catholics who where in need of conversion --of a deeper encounter with Christ …and I have known those who are very much lights in my sky. Shining forth the light of Christ to me and to all.

Being around Catholics who are not either formed well within the Church or who are not committed Catholics as they ought – is* just that*. Even being around some committed Catholics who (like many Protestants) do not have the theological background or the "zeal"one would like to see --is again just that. With billions of Catholics --one meets ones who are at various places in their Christian lives and conversion…

I suggest reading and re-reading the Homilies and Audiences etc of Pope Benedict XVI (not just what I linked) and reading other like things…

Also in particular I invite you to follow the Year of Faith that begins in a few days…especially the addresses and writings of Pope Benedict XVI during it.

Mark this page and refer back to it:

annusfidei.va/content/novaevangelizatio/en.html
 
Well I guess I am a bit biased .

I come from a protestant church where is someone was lukewarm in their christian life, they were told they were lost and were in need of conversion or they were going to hell. Cuhrch discipline was practiced frequently. People came out with testimonies all the time about how they were lost and just repented,etc,etc…to be honest, I had enough of it. But that being said, it remains as part of something that has influenced me on what it means to be in church
 
Erick, if you’re going to read “alone” into every instance that you find where an ECF affirms that we are justified by faith then you are not only doing a disservice to your search but to any honest intellectual discussion any of us may have with you.

What we have been insisting the entire time is that “justified by faith” does NOT equal “justified by faith alone”. This is a protestant notion that you are reading into the texts. IOW, you’re reading everything only through that protestant colored lense.

Faith is our acceptance of God’s love for us in Christ. This IS the necessary response to God’s righteousness.

We are justified through this faith, but this faith also requires a response from us who are loved. Paul in Romans calls it “the obedience of faith.” It is the required obedience to do the things God commands to remain in a covenental relationship with Him(i.e. the Sacraments).

Justification entails sanctification, we are made holy because we have been justified.

The problem is that we are imperfect human vessels; IOW we leak.

That is why we have the Eucharist, to refill and continue in our sanctification.

But if we sin willfully, we not only lose our sanctification, we also lose our justification.

Because when you sin you reject God’s love for you in Christ, IOW you reject Faith. All sin is a rejection of Faith.

Yes, nothing outside of ourselves can separate us from God’s love in Christ, but we can through faithlessness or sin.

To be justified again after baptism requires repentance and confession. Both of which are acts of faith. To believe in the need of repentance is to again have faith in God’s love for you in Christ. And upon recognizing this need to repent this same love compels in us the desire to confess(and is the parable of the prodigal son). That is how we are justified when we confess to a priest, who acting in Jesus’ name ans with His authority, is able to impart on us the grace of justification through faith in God’s love in Christ.

In Genesis, which you keep pointing to, yes Abraham was justified by his faith. But his justification wasn’t complete until he entered into a covenant relationship with God through circumcision. Abraham, in recognizing God’s love for him, knew that he had to obey God(again, the obedience of faith) when God commanded of Abraham to make a covenant with Him. Abrahams jsutification was complete when their covenant was sealed by the sign of circumcision.

If Abraham had said to God, “Its ok God I believe you, I don’t need to cut myself to prove it,” the fact is that Abraham would not have been justified.

In all this you find the same pattern: God grants the grace and calls the sinful human, humanity responds to this grace by faith, and then through this faith obeys God’s commandment to enter into a covenant relationship with Him accoring to God’s will.

So it is not “faith alone”. It has never been “faith alone.” Read the texts with an open mind instead of the protestant colored glasses you have and this will become clear.
 
But St. John Chrysostom actually uses the phrase “faith alone”

Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them. Deuteronomy 27:26 And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to*** Faith alone ***was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? For it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, In you shall all nations be blessed, Genesis 12:4 at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of conclusion,

Galatians chapter 3

This is right in the midst of a context contrasting faith and works/law and Chrysostom does not see any harmony between a justification by faith and works with a justification by faith alone.

Also, if the Catholic is concerned that by “faith alone” we mean that all ya need to do is mentally assent to the facts about the gospel, then this is wrong. Faith is always rooted in conversion, repentance, etc,etc. Therefore, faith is never alone, but faith itself the means of being justified.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
What proof do you have that he believed this?
Click to expand...
What proof do you have otherwise?

Can you ask St.John Chrysostom on what it was he meant in regards to justification exactly, so that he may clarify?

Most of your threads seem like an attempt to reconstruct, or reverse engineer theology from past Saints, whom can not be questioned personally, so that they may be able to expound and clarify what it is, exactly they meant. The Questions you pose could only be answered by a living, breathing, voice, yet you consistently allude to the idea ,that what they said in their writings, were in concert with your particular Reformed brand of Justification, rather than Catholic thought.

Well, St.John Chrysostom and all the other Saints, happen to have a living, breathing voice, to speak for them, She is called the Church.
Whatever the past Saints may have written, said, or believed, She has clarified, and expounded on, in the council of Trent.
onemangang said:
Trent on Justification
Click to expand...
As I have stated before, by and large, “reformed” protestant theology is broken and fragmented. “Reformed” theology desparately seeks to pick up the pieces of a stained Glass window, that paints a beautiful mosaic. The sad thing is, the Catholic Church offers that beautiful stained glass mosaic to all, free of charge, and intact, yet many are not willing to accept, because they think it comes with a price. The only thing is, She charges no wage, for she is to be the servant of all!

So, to answer was John Chrysostom Catholic? Yes, Eastern in communion with Rome!
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
But St. John Chrysostom actually uses the phrase “faith alone”

Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them. Deuteronomy 27:26 And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to*** Faith alone ***was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? For it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, In you shall all nations be blessed, Genesis 12:4 at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of conclusion,

Galatians chapter 3

This is right in the midst of a context contrasting faith and works/law and Chrysostom does not see any harmony between a justification by faith and works with a justification by faith alone.

Also, if the Catholic is concerned that by “faith alone” we mean that all ya need to do is mentally assent to the facts about the gospel, then this is wrong. Faith is always rooted in conversion, repentance, etc,etc. Therefore, faith is never alone, but faith itself the means of being justified.
Click to expand...
We have already covered the confusion of terms between Catholics and protestants as to how “faith” is defined.

According to our own definitions Catholics rightly deny and protestants rightly affirm that we are justified or saved by “faith alone.”

That’s not the issue here. Your contention is that John is somehow “protestant” in his teachings. The only way you can arrive at this conclusion is to read that view into his writings.

At the end of the chapter you cite John speaks of the necessity of baptism:
"Ver. 27. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ.”

Why does he not say, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have been born of God?” for this was what directly went to prove that they were sons—because he states it in a much more awful point of view; If Christ be the Son of God, and you have put on Him, thou who hast the Son within you, and art fashioned after His pattern, hast been brought into one kindred and nature with Him.

Ver. 28. “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for you all are one in Christ Jesus.”

See what an insatiable soul! For having said, **“We are all made children of God through Faith,” he does not stop there, but tries to find something more exact, which may serve to convey a still closer oneness with Christ. **Having said, “you have put on Christ,” even this does not suffice Him, but by way of penetrating more deeply into this union, he comments on it thus: “You are all One in Christ Jesus,” that is, you have all one form and one mould, even Christ’s. What can be more awful than these words! He that was a Greek, or Jew, or bond-man yesterday, carries about with him the form, not of an Angel or Archangel, but of the Lord of all, yea displays in his own person the Christ.

Ver. 29. “And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”

Here, you observe, he proves what he had before stated concerning the seed of Abraham—that to him and to his seed the promises were given. "

When John speaks of “faith” he is affirming the exact same thing I have said all along: the obedience of faith. The very things you affirm that are necessary to live a life of faith: Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, Eucharist, etc.

So if we were to define "faith "as “acceptance of God’s love in Christ and obedience to all the human acts necessary for man to respond to God’s love as established by Him and affirmed by His body-the Church-in order to enter a covenant relationship with the living Trinity” then, yes, we are saved by “faith alone.”

Any definition short of that is erroneous and un-biblical.
 
Faith is exactly what Paul says it is: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen”.

Faith is our conviction that the world was made without things that are seen. We believe because the word of God told us. It is an assurance of God’s word. Rahab believed that the God of Israel was God of heaven and earth, and this faith has it’s natural movement in the accepting of the spies. Abraham believed that God was going to perform what he promised, and thus the natural movement that flows from this original conviction was the life that he led. David believed that the LORD would not allow a uncircumcised philistine stop the promises of God to come to pass, so the natural flow of this conviction was his fight with Goliath.

We can go on and on and on. Faith is not the works that accompany it. This is why there are two different Greek words for “faith” and “works”. They have a different definition. They can be distinguished. They can be separated in concept. Faith is nothing else than being thoroughly convinced that God is going to perform that salvation that he promised. And this faith, it is is alive, will correspond in the works the flow from faith. If someone does not have the works that flow from faith, then their faith was dead which is the same thing as being in unbelief.

Why did Israel not make it into the promise land? Because they became athiests?? No, they forgot the character of God and the faithfulness of God and thus they lost heart to perservere. Therefore, disobedience and unbelief go hand in hand and faith and obedience go hand in hand, but they can be separated in concept and in time.

For Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6, where faith is what justifies him before God. Later on in life, Abraham perservered and proved that he feared God. Abraham did not reach another level of justification in his life, as if he was justified again and again, constantly going from condemnation to justification, back and forth , back and forth, etc,etc…Rather, James himself realizes that Abraham was justified by faith alone in Genesis 15:6 and views it as a prophesy.

“Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and thus faith was made perfect (the word for perfect is completion of it’s original intention). And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” (JAmes 2)

When Abraham passed that major test in his life, the prophecy of Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled. But how is it a prophecy? James uses the word pleroo “fulfilled”.

Many Catholics miss this prophetic meaning that James inserts into Genesis 15:6. It is very easy to read James as speaking of another justification totally disconnected and independent from Abraham’s justification by faith. All that james is trying to do is that faith, if it is going to save anyone, will have works that correspond. And thus Abraham’s justification by faith alone doesn’t really settle whether he was saved or not. It was a prophecy of what would happen later
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
But St. John Chrysostom actually uses the phrase “faith alone”

Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them. Deuteronomy 27:26 And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to*** Faith alone ***was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? For it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, In you shall all nations be blessed, Genesis 12:4 at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law; so he adds by way of conclusion,

Galatians chapter 3

This is right in the midst of a context contrasting faith and works/law and Chrysostom does not see any harmony between a justification by faith and works with a justification by faith alone.

Also, if the Catholic is concerned that by “faith alone” we mean that all ya need to do is mentally assent to the facts about the gospel, then this is wrong. Faith is always rooted in conversion, repentance, etc,etc. Therefore, faith is never alone, but faith itself the means of being justified.
Click to expand...
Your “preaching to the choir” here. The Catholic Church Professes what Paul (Sacred Scripture) teaches – that one is not justifed by “works” but by “faith”.

Amen!

One is not justified by “works of the law” …or by “good works”.

Next perhaps one can bring how St. John Chrysostom teaches that one is saved by the sacrifice of Christ and his resurrection --not one following the Law.

We agree with him!

Can “faith alone” be a phrase that is used if understood correctly in the right context? Sure. Can it be used in an context that would render it not true? Sure. Finding the two words together in a Father of the Catholic Church is doing just that. One can find the two words together in the Teachings of the Pope.

Can one say – “one is justified by faith alone and not the works of the law”? sure --for such is true.

Can one say that “one is justified by faith alone and one thus can intentionally skip “repentance”” --such would not be true (as many Protestants would agree…)

It all depends on what one means by ones words.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Faith is exactly what Paul says it is: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen”.
Click to expand...
Is the above true? Absolutely.

Taking one sense of the use of the term “Faith” by Paul …one aspect of Faith – is doing “just that” --taking one sense.
 
The difference between protestants and catholics on justification is simply this:

Protestants believe that God reckons faith in the gospel for righteousness, and this consideration of God is the the immediate cause of justification. The reason that God can reckon faith as righteousness, when faith is not a work, is because of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus putting away the guilt of our sin in the tomb. This gift of justification remains the same over the believer (Rom 8:33) because of the perpetual effectiveness of Jesus’ death and intercession for the forgiveness of sin. If one falls away, they do not end up saved. Only those who perservere and overcome will retain this gift of grace in Christ Jesus. Now protestants believe that the inward sanctifying grace of making us righteous is SIMULTANEOUS is the gift of justification, but they are not to be confused.

Catholics believe that only initially are we saved by faith with no meritorious works prior to contributing. But thenceforth we are justified before God as a process of being made holy on in the inside. It is not by faith, but by works. (Of course it is assumed that the worker believes). ``
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
The
Click to expand...
"Justified through the gift of faith in Christ, we are called to live in the love of Christ for neighbour, because it is on this criterion that we shall be judged at the end of our lives. In reality Paul only repeats what Jesus himself said and which is proposed to us anew by last Sunday’s Gospel, in the parable of the Last Judgment. In the First Letter to the Corinthians St Paul pours himself out in a famous eulogy of love. It is called the “hymn to love”: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal… Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way” (1 Cor 13: 1, 4-5). Christian love is particularly demanding because it springs from Christ’s total love for us: that love that claims us, welcomes us, embraces us, sustains us, to the point of tormenting us since it forces each one to no longer live for himself, closed into his own selfishness, but for him “who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Cor 5: 15). The love of Christ makes us, in him, that new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5: 17), which comes to belong to his Mystical Body that is the Church.

Seen in this perspective, the centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit. Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ. Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to “with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure… Do all things without grumbling or questioning… holding fast the word of life”, St Paul was to say further, to the Christians of Philippi (cf. Phil 2: 12-14, 16)…"

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html
 
Yes I know. I think any protestant would heartily agree with what the pope is saying there.

But Trent, which is an infallible doctrine says that we are not justified by the cross and forgiveness alone as the ground; but actual righteousness that we perform. Paul does not teach this. Justification is accomplished totally outside of ourselves in the cross and resurrection. We benefit from the death of Jesus through baptismal regeneration. Once baptized, we are justified in Gods sight, not because of the new righteousness and obedience that is in me by virtue of being raised with Christ, but because our debt of guilt is gone.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Catholics believe
Click to expand...
See the above quote from Pope Benedict XVI (again read it slowly --word by word)

I will note too that often this sort of discussion based on misunderstanding “terms” and their use. And ends up being what Paul refers to as arguing about words. 🙂

Often with one thinking “hey they believe such and such” where as no…such is not a correct representation…

Read the above and get back to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top