L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Besides, there were no protestants to speak of until the 16th Century.
Even then many of today’s protestants might be appalled at how “Catholic” some of those early protestants might appear!
- Status
Even then many of today’s protestants might be appalled at how “Catholic” some of those early protestants might appear!
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I promise you guys if you read his homilys on Romans and Galatians you will notice that be believed that man was justified by faith only and not by works of righteousness whihlch we do.
He puts together the forgiveness of sin and justification, showing that the clearing of our immoral stance before God is what is in mind
He puts together the forgiveness of sin and justification, showing that the clearing of our immoral stance before God is what is in mind
L
LeeGrizz
Guest
Protestantism was just a rehashing of many other heresies.Besides, there were no protestants to speak of until the 16th Century.
O
onemangang
Guest
Possibly
, or we could try to read a preconcieved sola fide in to what St. John Chrysostom was saying Even if St. John Chrysostom had a Sola Fide view (we would then have to define Sola Fide, because that is not universal in thought, in “Reformed” circles) why would that change anything? We as Catholics do not reverse engineer, or attempt to historically reconstruct our theology, by reading past letters of men. Our deposit of faith has been given to us through the unction of the Holy Spirit speaking through council. Catholicism is a revealed religion, the Church is not trying to glue back together a broken stained glass window, She is buzy being an active participant in unveiling it.
S
Shin
Guest
‘When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘Yes, the priest stands at the altar, the priest stands there and makes a long supplication, not in order that fire from heaven may consume the things that lie to open view, but that grace, lighting on the Sacrifice, may thereby in flame the souls of all, and show them brighter than silver purified in the fire. Art thou ignorant that the soul of man could never bear this fire of the Sacrifice, but that all would be utterly consumed, were not the aid of the grace of God abundant? For if one would but consider how great a thing it is for a mortal, and one still clothed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to be nigh to that blessed and immortal nature, he would then see how great an honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘Priests have been given by God a greater power than a father or a mother has.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be strong in his teaching, patient, and hold fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine? What care and pains does this require! Moreover, he is answerable for the sins of others. To pass over everything else: If but one soul dies without Baptism, does it not entirely endanger his own salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil that it is impossible to express it in words. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value that the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of how great a punishment must the losing of it bring.’
St. John Chrysostom
'When, then, you make the sign of the cross on the forehead, arm yourself with a saintly boldness, and reinstall your soul in its old liberty; for you are not ignorant that the cross, is a prize beyond all price.
Consider what is the price given for your ransom, and you will never more be slave to any man on earth. This reward and ransom is the cross. You should not then, carelessly make the sign on the forehead, but you should impress it on your heart with the love of a fervent faith. Nothing impure will dare to molest you on seeing the weapon, which overcometh all things.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘If we knew that a place was unhealthy and subject to pestilence, would we not withdraw our children from it, without being stopped by the riches that they might heap up in it, or by the fact that their health had not as yet suffered? . . . Among seculars shipwrecks are more frequent and sudden, because the difficulties of navigation are greater; but with anchorites storms are less violent, the calm is almost undisturbed. This is why we seek to draw as many as we can to the religious life.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘The Holy Scriptures do not know any distinctions. They enjoin that all lead the life of monks.’
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Chrysostom
‘Yes, the priest stands at the altar, the priest stands there and makes a long supplication, not in order that fire from heaven may consume the things that lie to open view, but that grace, lighting on the Sacrifice, may thereby in flame the souls of all, and show them brighter than silver purified in the fire. Art thou ignorant that the soul of man could never bear this fire of the Sacrifice, but that all would be utterly consumed, were not the aid of the grace of God abundant? For if one would but consider how great a thing it is for a mortal, and one still clothed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to be nigh to that blessed and immortal nature, he would then see how great an honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘Priests have been given by God a greater power than a father or a mother has.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be strong in his teaching, patient, and hold fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine? What care and pains does this require! Moreover, he is answerable for the sins of others. To pass over everything else: If but one soul dies without Baptism, does it not entirely endanger his own salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil that it is impossible to express it in words. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value that the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of how great a punishment must the losing of it bring.’
St. John Chrysostom
'When, then, you make the sign of the cross on the forehead, arm yourself with a saintly boldness, and reinstall your soul in its old liberty; for you are not ignorant that the cross, is a prize beyond all price.
Consider what is the price given for your ransom, and you will never more be slave to any man on earth. This reward and ransom is the cross. You should not then, carelessly make the sign on the forehead, but you should impress it on your heart with the love of a fervent faith. Nothing impure will dare to molest you on seeing the weapon, which overcometh all things.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘If we knew that a place was unhealthy and subject to pestilence, would we not withdraw our children from it, without being stopped by the riches that they might heap up in it, or by the fact that their health had not as yet suffered? . . . Among seculars shipwrecks are more frequent and sudden, because the difficulties of navigation are greater; but with anchorites storms are less violent, the calm is almost undisturbed. This is why we seek to draw as many as we can to the religious life.’
St. John Chrysostom
‘The Holy Scriptures do not know any distinctions. They enjoin that all lead the life of monks.’
St. John Chrysostom
A
Adonia
Guest
Can’t we both rightly claim him? Yes, he was of the Eastern Church, but we love and revere him also for his many fine words.He’s Orthodox. He wrote the Liturgy the Orthodox use and he’s vested as an Orthodox bishop.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
True, and I trust you don’t mean to imply that either approach is heretical. Eastern Christians, like Christians in general before Augustine and Pelagius (except St. Paul at times, etc.), tend to approach the subject of salvation according to the order of execution rather than the order of divine intention. Both approaches are quite valid and compatible with each other.
St. John Chrysostom lived (basically) before the dispute between Pelagius and Augustine broke out, and he lived in the East that was not so involved in that dispute and so was not as affected by it in their later theology. Although, interestingly it is St. John Chrysotom that Thomists sometimes quote as a rare case of a Greek Father and a Father from before the rise of Pelagianism who wrote something relevant to those later Western disputes:
“Therefore thou hast what thou hast received, and not only this or that, but whatever thou hast. These are not thy merits, but God’s gifts.” (This is from a book that gives the citation In I Cor., 4: 7, hom. 12. though I don’t understand the format. It may include a biblical reference made in the text just before the Chrysostom quote.)
This has been used as support for the Augustinian/Thomist position that everything which makes one man better than another, even the better use of his free will, is a gift from God. It is also possible it is something the OP was referring to, though the quote is quite compatible with Catholic theology as long as it’s not taken in a boneheaded way that refuses to acknowledge any sense in which human beings can have merit by the grace of God.
R
Richca
Guest
M
mgoforth
Guest
I’ve just read through the section in question, which can be found here. I believe this might be the passage you’re referring to:
“…and righteousness, not your own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, believing.”
I totally understand how Protestants have misinterpreted the concept of faith and now view it as just a mental exercise. Let’s go straight to Christ’s definition so we don’t even have to quibble about what faith really means:
1. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21
Clearly there will be some people who sincerely think they have faith, but don’t fulfill all the requirements. So let’s see who Jesus says will be His true followers.
2. Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.” Luke 9: 23-34
Is mentally believing in Jesus the same as “denying ourselves” or “taking up our cross”? It doesn’t seem logical that they could mean the same thing, because I can believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for my sins on an intellectual level - I can understand that without doing anything hard or against my selfish nature. In fact, I did just that for years and years, I believed it all while continuing to commit the most horrible sins. Perhaps that’s why “once saved always saved” had to be invented?? The second mistake is needed to hide the contradiction left by the first.
Taking up the cross requires us to do something that we’re naturally uncomfortable with…not necessarily dying as a martyr, but maybe just preaching the Gospel to others who don’t want to hear it is our cross in life. They’re going to mock us, laugh at us, ignore us, or think we’re fools and that can be a form of suffering for Christ. But they will only do that if we perform the good work of preaching the Gospel. No one is going to persecute us for beliefs that we never speak aloud.
3. Here’s a very explicit teaching:
“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” Matthew 5: 14-16
Just to say that we believe without doing good works would be the same as lighting our lamp and putting it under a basket. We are required to display our saving faith to the people around us…unless it’s ok to ignore one of Christ’s teachings?
There are more examples I could give if you need, but I hope that makes the point clearly enough.
So was St John Chrysostom an early Protestant. No. He doesn’t say not to toil and labor, he just says that good works alone are not the basis for salvation. The Catholic Church is in complete agreement with that teaching. Faith is what’s needed…and any real faith will be accompanied by good works. IOW, good works are an inseparable part of true faith, proving that we really believe (in the midst of suffering) what we tell ourselves we do (in the comfort of our brains).
M
mommyof4
Guest
I haven’t taken the time to read through all of the responses, so I apologize if this was said earlier, but I would double check your source of his writings. I have run into the issue of Catholic writers (especially ones that don’t have copyright laws any more) being “protestantized” by protestant editors. I recently found this out the hard way with a book I bought named “Practicing in the Presence of God” that had all of the Catholic references removed and it was “revised” to reflect protestant views.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Mgoforth,
Actually protestants have never said that faith is simply a mental excercise. Maybe modern day apostate easy believism which neither strictly adheres the original confessions of faith nor the scriptures.
And no it’s not just in chapter 1. Read 3,4,5,6,9,10 on all the justification passages. He defines faith as not a work, but the conviction that God can do the impossible. Chrysostom teaches that justification comes out of the one time sacrifice of Jesus by faith apart from works, since the law keeps us deep in sin.
Faith is the beginning of a relationship between god and man. Its something that very few have, according to Jesus a gentile centurion had more than any Jew at one point.
Actually protestants have never said that faith is simply a mental excercise. Maybe modern day apostate easy believism which neither strictly adheres the original confessions of faith nor the scriptures.
And no it’s not just in chapter 1. Read 3,4,5,6,9,10 on all the justification passages. He defines faith as not a work, but the conviction that God can do the impossible. Chrysostom teaches that justification comes out of the one time sacrifice of Jesus by faith apart from works, since the law keeps us deep in sin.
Faith is the beginning of a relationship between god and man. Its something that very few have, according to Jesus a gentile centurion had more than any Jew at one point.
B
Bookcat
Guest
One is justified via “faith” not “works” (by grace!)
The Church Professes what Paul taught -and I would think St. John Chrysostom (who yes was a Catholic Bishop) --would be discussing in a homily what Paul taught.
Yes what Paul says in Rom 1:16-17 (and of course the rest) is very true. (As Paul meant it).
He is though very much earlier than the various discussions of “Justification” which came after the advent of Protestantism --so one needs bear that in mind.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is Catholic. What Paul says about being justified via ‘faith’ not ‘works’ – by grace is what we hold.
Such is by the sacrifice of Christ – his death and his resurrection.
B
Bookcat
Guest
“Precisely the supreme sacrifice of love on the Cross, which the Son of God accepted and chose willingly, becomes the source of our justification, of our salvation.”
–Pope Benedict XVI (4 March 2012)
"Looking at Paul, this is how we could formulate the basic question: how does a human being’s encounter with Christ occur? And of what does the relationship that stems from it consist? The answer given by Paul can be understood in two stages.
In the first place, Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).
This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).
“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.
Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24). With these words St Paul expressed the fundamental content of his conversion, the new direction his life took as a result of his encounter with the Risen Christ…"
–Pope Benedict XVI
Keep reading:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html
–Pope Benedict XVI (4 March 2012)
"Looking at Paul, this is how we could formulate the basic question: how does a human being’s encounter with Christ occur? And of what does the relationship that stems from it consist? The answer given by Paul can be understood in two stages.
In the first place, Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).
This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).
“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.
Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24). With these words St Paul expressed the fundamental content of his conversion, the new direction his life took as a result of his encounter with the Risen Christ…"
–Pope Benedict XVI
Keep reading:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
But Paul and john Chrysostom teach no mixture of faith and works for the righteousness of God. Catholics believe that righteousness of God is a progressive transformation over a life long process. Paul teaches the people have obtained '‘righgeousnsss’ in their faith that gifts then with justification, now and here apart from works because of what christ did on the cross
B
Bookcat
Guest
Read the above again.
(oh and Yes Paul sees that there is a “process” as you note in Christian life…we are to become more and more conformed to Christ…and that one may fall away and that one must preservere etc …we agree with him)
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The whole approach to the faith is different. What do you want examples of?
Adonia is right on with this one LeeGrizz. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches subsist in one another for 1000 years. You can’t say “they were just Catholic” as if there were demarkation lines that existed back then. The monickers evolved only as a matter of trying to distinguish one from the other, thus around 400AD during the time of St. John Chrysostom, such demarkations did not exist. On the other hand, St. John Chrysostom was the archbishop of Constantinople. We know which side of the demarkation that Church went to at the Great Schism.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Protestant do not deny the process if conformation to the image of Christ. This is called sanctification. The process of being made holy. Justification is never used this way in any antiquital document.
Also read what Chrysostom says in Romans 10
word would lead to pardon. But the sequel to stronger accusation, and such as does away with defence of any kind.
“And going about,” he says, “to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”
And these things he says to show, that it was from a petulancy and love of power that they erred, rather than from ignorance, and that not even this righteousness from the deeds of the Law did they establish. Matthew 21:38; John 12:19, 42 For saying “going about to establish” is what one would do to show this. And in plain words indeed he has not stated this (for he has not said, that they fell short of both righteousnesses), but he has given a hint of it in a very judicious manner, and with the wisdom so befitting him. For if they are still “going about” to establish that, it is very plain that they have not yet established it. If they have not submitted themselves to this, they have fallen short of this also. But he calls it their “own righteousness,” either because the Law was no longer of force, or because it was one of trouble and toil. But this he calls God’s righteousness, that from faith, because it comes entirely from the grace from above, and because men are justified in this case, not by labors, but by the gift of God. But they that evermore resisted the Holy Ghost, and vexatiously tried to be justified by the Law, came not over to the faith. But as they did not come over to the faith, nor receive the righteousness thereupon ensuing, and were not able to be justified by the Law either, they were thrown out of all resources.
Ver. 4. “For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes.”
See the judgment of Paul. For as he had spoken of a righteousness, and a righteousness, lest they of the Jews which believed should seem to have the one but be excluded from the other, and to be accused of lawlessness (for even these there was no less cause to fear about as being still newly come in), and lest Jews should again expect to achieve it, and should say, Though we have not at present fulfilled it, yet we certainly will fulfil it, see what ground he takes. He shows that there is but one righteousness, and that has its full issue in this, and that he that has taken to himself this, the one by faith, has fulfilled that also. But he that rejects this, falls short as well of that also. For if Christ be “the end of the Law,” he that has not Christ, even if he seem to have that righteousness, has it not. But he that has Christ, even though he have not fulfilled the Law aright, has received the whole. For the end of the physician’s art is health. As then he that can make whole, even though he has not the physician’s art, has everything; but he that knows not how to heal, though he seem to be a follower of the art, comes short of everything: so is it in the case of the Law and of faith. He that has this has the end of that likewise, but he that is without this is an alien from both. For what was the object of the Law? To make man righteous. But it had not the power, for no one fulfilled it. This then was the end of the Law and to this it looked throughout, and for this all its parts were made, its feasts, and commandments, and sacrifices, and all besides, that man might be justified. But this end Christ gave a fuller accomplishment of through faith. Be not then afraid, he says, as if transgressing the Law in having come over to the faith. For then do you transgress it, when for it thou dost not believe Christ. If you believe in Him, then you have fulfilled it also, and much more than it commanded. For you have received a much greater righteousness. Next, since this was an assertion, he again brings proof of it from the Scriptures.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes - and we profess what Paul teaches.
See the Pope above.
Paul is there speaking of what was later called “initial justification” – we can NOT enter thus into a state of “justification” by works.
Pope Benedict XVI noted:
“This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).”
and
“Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24).”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’d have to back-read the current book I am reading at it briefly touched on this topic. But essentially when an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic talks about “justified by faith alone,” it is a different understanding than when a Protestant says it. Context is everything. In fact, it is quite possible the Protestants came up with this concept from the Orthodox but didn’t quite understand what the Orthodox really meant by it. Or that they read one line of it and took off with it. I am quite surprised that through my reading of Orthodox theology, a lot of concepts we as Catholics normally treat as Protestant and reject, are actually rooted in Orthodox teaching. Therefore they are valid and Apostolic. But the Protestants do not transmit the faith fully, and that is where their error lies. Perhaps their problem lies in that they do not have the Apostolic Succession of Bishops who safeguard the faith or corrected by others who do. Or that they really sought the Orthodox just to build up their anti-Catholic polemics and didn’t really bother to learn the whole thing.
- Status