We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[rinnie]

Eric,

Luther wrote, in his Smalcald Articles:

The sentences I bolded are at the heart of Lutheran teaching. True faith saves and true faith necessarily produces good works. I guess it comes down to a question of whether we do good works because we are saved or that we are saved because we do good works. Lutherans respond with the former.

It is neither Pastor Gary. We are saved because of the great Love of Christ. It is because of his love for us that he saved us from original sin, and left us the grace of the sacraments. The reason we do good works is a RESPONSE to that grace the we got from God. And our good works are because we want to respond to that grace that was freely given, and give back that Love to God, and please him. But it is not our good works that save us, it is our good works combined with the grace that save us. It is not the works they we do, it is wanting to do them because we truly want to please God that saves us. So it goes back to Gods love for us, and our love for God. And when you love God you want to obey him, and do what he asks of us.

 

[gcnuss]

It is neither Pastor Gary. We are saved because of the great Love of Christ. It is because of his love for us that he saved us from original sin, and left us the grace of the sacraments. The reason we do good works is a RESPONSE to that grace the we got from God. And our good works are because we want to respond to that grace that was freely given, and give back that Love to God, and please him. But it is not our good works that save us, it is our good works combined with the grace that save us. It is not the works they we do, it is wanting to do them because we truly want to please God that saves us. So it goes back to Gods love for us, and our love for God. And when you love God you want to obey him, and do what he asks of us.

Rinnie,

I don’t think we’re that far apart.

From the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:

1. We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

 

[motstraumen]

It is neither Pastor Gary. We are saved because of the great Love of Christ. It is because of his love for us that he saved us from original sin, and left us the grace of the sacraments. The reason we do good works is a RESPONSE to that grace the we got from God. And our good works are because we want to respond to that grace that was freely given, and give back that Love to God, and please him. But it is not our good works that save us, it is our good works combined with the grace that save us. It is not the works they we do, it is wanting to do them because we truly want to please God that saves us. So it goes back to Gods love for us, and our love for God. And when you love God you want to obey him, and do what he asks of us.

Not to speak for Pastor Gary, but I think you are speaking past each other. Perhaps a better way of stating our understanding of salvation is not Sola Fide but Sola Gratia, grace alone. But I am beginning to wonder if our two churches understand grace differently.
We believe that yes, good works are our response because we are so awe-struck and humbled that our God has saved us. But our response cannot be combined with God’s grace, they are in fact, when you go far enough, his actions as well, and therefore reflective of his glory. Therefore as Paul says no one can boast. And Paul declares that God says, “my grace is sufficient.”

 

[rinnie]

Not to speak for Pastor Gary, but I think you are speaking past each other. Perhaps a better way of stating our understanding of salvation is not Sola Fide but Sola Gratia, grace alone. But I am beginning to wonder if our two churches understand grace differently.
We believe that yes, good works are our response because we are so awe-struck and humbled that our God has saved us. But our response cannot be combined with God’s grace, they are in fact, when you go far enough, his actions as well, and therefore reflective of his glory. Therefore as Paul says no one can boast. And Paul declares that God says, “my grace is sufficient.”

From Pastor Garys last response, I would say no. But now from your’s I kinda wonder too myself. From what I was taught no one earned grace. God gave it to us all through Baptism, freely, it was a gift. But like any other gift you either accept it freely and openly with all your heart and soul. Or you just let it sit. And not use it. That is why James said if you do not use it, kinda use it or lose it, because faith not combined with works is useless. Its like me saying I really should help you, and I can, but I am not going to. I had the grace from God to know the right thing to do, but I still had the free will from God to do it. It was up to me. So to say okay now I have the grace, I can do the works but I would rather not, then my grace was useless. Because I had it but refused to use it, so it did me no good. Its like you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t drink it for him. God can lead us with his grace to do his works, but he is not going to do it for us. We get accused of seeing that way of saying God did not do enough on the cross. Of course he did, if he did not do what he did on the cross Grace would be impossible for anyone. But by his cross he made it possible, he did all he could do, now we either accept it or not. He will not force us. If we accept it, we do his works, quite simple, if not we don’t. He laid down the rules. The ten commandments. If you love me, follow me.

 

[rinnie]

The more I am readying you response I do agree we are different. You believe we cannot combine Gods grace with our works, And I cannot see separating them. Its God’s grace freely given, and our love and response to that grace that makes works not only possible, but our free gift freely given back to God. We never earned Grace, It was free. But we took that free gift and used it to glority God. Its like God gave us a seed, but we can either plant it and make it grow. Or leave it in the package. We planted it, and made it grow and grow and grow. Thats good works. Leave it in the package thats dead works.

 

[eric51]

Eric,

Luther wrote, in his Smalcald Articles:

The sentences I bolded are at the heart of Lutheran teaching. True faith saves and true faith necessarily produces good works. I guess it comes down to a question of whether we do good works because we are saved or that we are saved because we do good works. Lutherans respond with the former.

I thought Germans were logical [LOL]. Being “saved” in a irreversible sense, only occurs when GOD judges one saved. That is after a temporal existence, and is based on one’s entire lifetime of conduct. Even a cursory reading of the bible tells one the word “saved” is used in several different senses.

Luther’s position, if it can be stretched to have even a modicum of basis, must use “faith” in a theological sense, in a Salvific sense. That type of “faith” includes works of charity; it doesn’t produce such works, but includes them in its definition.

Jesus, Scripture, ECFs, are perfectly clear upon this. If what Luther said is correct, and not only is such a position in complete conflict with precedent, but it is also completely illogical, then Christians from day 1 have gotten it completely wrong.

In Christ

 

[JonNC]

From Pastor Garys last response, I would say no. But now from your’s I kinda wonder too myself. From what I was taught no one earned grace. God gave it to us all through Baptism, freely, it was a gift. But like any other gift you either accept it freely and openly with all your heart and soul. Or you just let it sit. And not use it. That is why James said if you do not use it, kinda use it or lose it, **because faith not combined with works is useless. **Its like me saying I really should help you, and I can, but I am not going to. I had the grace from God to know the right thing to do, but I still had the free will from God to do it. It was up to me. So to say okay now I have the grace, I can do the works but I would rather not, then my grace was useless. Because I had it but refused to use it, so it did me no good. Its like you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t drink it for him. God can lead us with his grace to do his works, but he is not going to do it for us. We get accused of seeing that way of saying God did not do enough on the cross. Of course he did, if he did not do what he did on the cross Grace would be impossible for anyone. But by his cross he made it possible, he did all he could do, now we either accept it or not. He will not force us. If we accept it, we do his works, quite simple, if not we don’t. He laid down the rules. The ten commandments. If you love me, follow me.

I generaly agree with what you say here, rinnie. To me, in large measure, it is a matter of semantics. For example, anywhere you write “we accept”, a Lutheran is inclined to write “we receive”, a more passive expression of how faith comes to us. And it is at this point that we have free will to act on the faith that comes to us by Grace.
Again semantics: “because faith not combined with works is useless.” Where you write “combined with”, a Lutheran would write “followed by”. It is not the importance of good works that we seem to differ on, it is the placement of good works in the progression of justification and sanctification.
Were I to secretly take your statement, and make the changes in semantics I outlined here, my Lutheran brethren would probably say, “that is a Lutheran’s work”. (at least I hope so )

The question is, do these semantic differences reveal a truly deep difference in our understanding of salvation, and is it necessarily church-dividing?

Jon

 

[Selene]

I can reply that they do not only seem to be so, but that they are actually dead sure. What would be the use of any bureau for the dispensing of authentic information, if the officials had to warn inquirers that there was not even certainty as to whether they had gone to the right inquiry office! No. The True church which is really Christ’s own bureau for the dispensing of authentic information to mankind in His Name, must be visibly discernible as His. The invisible and undiscernible Church theory is impossible, and as I have just said, opposed to the Will of Christ.
Furthermore, Protestants are brought up with the idea that it is not possible for any human being to locate the True Church. So they continue in religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest, who follow any line of tracks without bothering to ask where it leads. And they love the risky adventure of experimenting for themselves that they search Scripture for every possible text which they think will support them…go figure…

Hello,

I am fairly new here, and I have not read everything on this thread. However, I did read the first part of this thread. I am Roman Catholic, and like you I also believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built. It is a church that can trace itself back to the Apostle Peter and can even trace its heritage and roots to Judaism. Afterall, Christianity is a branch that came out of Judaism.

What I find interesting as I read the Bible is how God chooses the humble, the lowly, the poorest, and the weakest to show His power. For example, He chose David, a youth, to conquer the giant Goliath. It was a mere youth and a shepherd boy with no military skills who defeated Goliath. God also picked Abraham (who was very old) and Sarah (who was barren) to bring forth an heir. Only God has the power to bring life to the womb of a barren woman, and only God has the power to turn a shepherd boy into a king. God also chose a group of slaves as His people and turn them into a great nation (Israel). I find it interesting in the Bible when God told Moses what to say to that group of slaves:

Exodus 19:6 " I will count you a kingdom of priests, a consecrated nation."

St. Peter said a similar thing to the Christians

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a roayal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into His wonderful light.

Of all the Christian denominations, it was only the Catholic Church that became a nation just like the group of slaves that God freed from Egypt. The Pope is not just a religious leader, but also a Head of State. Of course, this does not mean that God is more concern with matters of government. Only God has the power to take the lowly and turn them into something great. Only He has the power to take a group of slaves and turn them into a nation and only He has the power to also turn His church into a nation.

However, the Protestants are also our brothers and sisters and considered a part of the body of Christ. While it is true that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, most Protestants are bonded with us in that they also believe in Jesus Christ as God and the Holy Trinity (CCC #838). Jews, Muslims, and other Non-Christians are also bonded with the Church in many ways (see #839=843 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Peace be with you,
Selene

 

[gcnuss]

Rinnie,

Somehow, I get the feeling we’re running around in circles.

It is neither Pastor Gary.

Are you saying that works neither precede nor follow grace? Perhaps the problem is that I have been speaking of faith while you speak of grace.

We are saved because of the great Love of Christ. It is because of his love for us that he saved us from original sin, and left us the grace of the sacraments.

No argument here.

The reason we do good works is a RESPONSE to that grace the we got from God. And our good works are because we want to respond to that grace that was freely given, and give back that Love to God, and please him.

No argument here.

But it is not our good works that save us, it is our good works combined with the grace that save us. It is not the works they we do, it is wanting to do them because we truly want to please God that saves us.

Here’s where I sense a problem. The phrase that I put in bold print seems to say that it is what we do – or simply want to do – that saves us. This, to me, contradicts the idea that salvation comes from God, through Christ, alone.

So it goes back to Gods love for us, and our love for God. And when you love God you want to obey him, and do what he asks of us.

I don’t have any argument with you in this.

 

[motstraumen]

The more I am readying you response I do agree we are different. You believe we cannot combine Gods grace with our works, And I cannot see separating them. Its God’s grace freely given, and our love and response to that grace that makes works not only possible, but our free gift freely given back to God. We never earned Grace, It was free. But we took that free gift and used it to glority God. Its like God gave us a seed, but we can either plant it and make it grow. Or leave it in the package. We planted it, and made it grow and grow and grow. Thats good works. Leave it in the package thats dead works.

We are different, but not (at least I don’t think) in the way you are stating. Grace is freely given, the nature of the word implies that fully. A gift is not a gift if it is earned. And that grace is imputed at Baptism. Just as you understand, I believe. My son and I had this talk this morning. I said “if you have the yard mowed by ten I will take you to McDs when I go for coffee (earned).” He said to his mother later, “Well, what difference does it make when I mow, I thought dad was going to take me just because (grace/gift).” Grace from our standpoint cannot be combined with works, but works flow naturally from grace, it has to. (I would hope that some day my son would mow the yard out of a sense of gratitude for all that we as a family do for him,but I digress) For us God does the planting, the watering, the hoeing, the growing etc all out of grace. Can we rebel against it? Yes, but again by God’s grace he sends his Holy Spirit to open the “package” and gets the seeds (Word) to do their thing. Again it is God’s will, not ours that does this, all to his glory. We cannot receive anymore than the greatest gift, Jesus Christ, and salvation through him alone.

I think where we are different is the word grace itself. For us it seems to be an overarching term with particulars, the grace of Baptism, the Grace of Communion, the Grace of forgiveness, the Grace of community. The emphasis is on the overarching Grace of God and the Kairos moments in our life that God reveals Grace to us., but when I hear Catholics speak of grace it seems to be more about the particulars. Am I wrong here?

 

[motstraumen]

I generaly agree with what you say here, rinnie. To me, in large measure, it is a matter of semantics. For example, anywhere you write “we accept”, a Lutheran is inclined to write “we receive”, a more passive expression of how faith comes to us. And it is at this point that we have free will to act on the faith that comes to us by Grace.
Again semantics: “*because faith not combined with *works is useless.” Where you write “combined with”, a Lutheran would write “followed by”. It is not the importance of good works that we seem to differ on, it is the placement of good works in the progression of justification and sanctification.
Were I to secretly take your statement, and make the changes in semantics I outlined here, my Lutheran brethren would probably say, “that is a Lutheran’s work”. (at least I hope so )

The question is, do these semantic differences reveal a truly deep difference in our understanding of salvation, and is it necessarily church-dividing?

Jon

Well said, again Jon. Of course we (Lutherans) get a bit concerned when it comes to free will, don’t we. In Luther’s treatise on the bondage of the will and in our small and large catechism, we see how it is not our will but God’s will powered by the Holy Spirit within us that makes it possible to say yes to God’s gift of salvation. From the Small Catechism:

THE THIRD ARTICLE

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Christian (catholic) Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; just as He calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian Church He daily and richly forgives me and all believers all our sins; and at the last day He will raise up me and all the dead, and will grant me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.

We differ from our Catholic brothers and sisters in our understanding of cooperation.

 

[JonNC]

Well said, again Jon. Of course we (Lutherans) get a bit concerned when it comes to free will, don’t we. In Luther’s treatise on the bondage of the will and in our small and large catechism, we see how it is not our will but God’s will powered by the Holy Spirit within us that makes it possible to say yes to God’s gift of salvation. From the Small Catechism:

THE THIRD ARTICLE

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Christian (catholic) Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; just as He calls, gathers, enlightens and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian Church He daily and richly forgives me and all believers all our sins; and at the last day He will raise up me and all the dead, and will grant me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.

We differ from our Catholic brothers and sisters in our understanding of cooperation.

Yes. I tried to say that when I wrote: "For example, anywhere you write “we accept”, a Lutheran is inclined to write “we receive”, a more passive expression of how faith comes to us. And it is at this point that we have free will to act on the faith that comes to us by Grace. " As slaves to sin, it is only by grace that we come to faith, as we cannot do so on our own. Only after that point, do we have free will to act on faith, and participate in our sanctification.
Agreed?
Jon

 

[motstraumen]

Yes. I tried to say that when I wrote: "For example, anywhere you write “we accept”, a Lutheran is inclined to write “we receive”, a more passive expression of how faith comes to us. And it is at this point that we have free will to act on the faith that comes to us by Grace. " As slaves to sin, it is only by grace that we come to faith, as we cannot do so on our own. Only after that point, do we have free will to act on faith, and participate in our sanctification.
Agreed?
Jon

Ja Wohl! Yes, Indeed, Jon. This is most certainly true.

 

[motstraumen]

Jon,
In your phrase we may have a point of understanding with the RCC. So many Christians say “We take Communion.” whereas, in our tradition and the Catholic tradition, I believe we both say “We receive” and do not grab for the host, but receive it into our hands or mouth. I have felt that that makes a bit problematic with the “cleanliness” Lutherans who insist on the trays and cups, and no common cup. Some churches allow for the communicant to take their own little glass. :I think a good answer to that is a pouring chalice, but I haven’t persuaded this congregation in forking over a memorial to that cause yet. I need to get some of the local sisters to maybe help me out, what do you think?

I do have a question though for our brothers and sisters in the Catholic fold. What does it mean to “Make Communion.” ? “Bobby made his first communion.” It is something I have wondered about for a long time. The phrase just sounds foreign to me when it is Christ who makes the communion.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Hello,

I am fairly new here, and I have not read everything on this thread. However, I did read the first part of this thread. I am Roman Catholic, and like you I also believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ built. It is a church that can trace itself back to the Apostle Peter and can even trace its heritage and roots to Judaism. Afterall, Christianity is a branch that came out of Judaism.

What I find interesting as I read the Bible is how God chooses the humble, the lowly, the poorest, and the weakest to show His power. For example, He chose David, a youth, to conquer the giant Goliath. It was a mere youth and a shepherd boy with no military skills who defeated Goliath. God also picked Abraham (who was very old) and Sarah (who was barren) to bring forth an heir. Only God has the power to bring life to the womb of a barren woman, and only God has the power to turn a shepherd boy into a king. God also chose a group of slaves as His people and turn them into a great nation (Israel). I find it interesting in the Bible when God told Moses what to say to that group of slaves:

Exodus 19:6 " I will count you a kingdom of priests, a consecrated nation."

St. Peter said a similar thing to the Christians

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a roayal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into His wonderful light.

Of all the Christian denominations, it was only the Catholic Church that became a nation just like the group of slaves that God freed from Egypt. The Pope is not just a religious leader, but also a Head of State. Of course, this does not mean that God is more concern with matters of government. Only God has the power to take the lowly and turn them into something great. Only He has the power to take a group of slaves and turn them into a nation and only He has the power to also turn His church into a nation.

However, the Protestants are also our brothers and sisters and considered a part of the body of Christ. While it is true that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, most Protestants are bonded with us in that they also believe in Jesus Christ as God and the Holy Trinity (CCC #838). Jews, Muslims, and other Non-Christians are also bonded with the Church in many ways (see #839=843 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Peace be with you,
Selene

True, protestants believe in Christ, however, they and other non-Catholics do not believe in the Eucharist as the Real presence. They also do not believe in a lot of other Scriptural references of Christ that Catholics believe and in which we were the first to believe in this, considering we were the first Christians.
I cannot understand how you say that Muslims and Jews are “bonded” with the Catholic church since they only recognize Jesus as a man and not a Messiah.

 

[motstraumen]

True, protestants believe in Christ, however, they and other non-Catholics do not believe in the Eucharist as the Real presence. .

Again, please OTCA, don’t use such a broad brush. Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians et al believe in the Real presence. You can parse how you wish, but we are most adament about the bodily presence and for that matter full presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even some reformed of the more Calvinist persuasion will acknowledge a true presence although they call it a spiritual presence.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Again, please OTCA, don’t use such a broad brush. Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians et al believe in the Real presence. You can parse how you wish, but we are most adament about the bodily presence and for that matter full presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even some reformed of the more Calvinist persuasion will acknowledge a true presence although they call it a spiritual presence.

Lutherans believe in the real presence, but not in transubstantiation, see the tenth article in the Confessio Augustana.

However the Lutherans do not believe in the Real Presence as Catholics and Orthodox do. They reject Communion under one species and they reject that the bread and wine disappear leaving only the accidents. While it is not consubstantiation, it is called the sacramental union, that they receive not just the accidents, but the bread and wine also. Catholics reject this affirming dogma of Transubstantiation, which states that [it] the bread and wine are no more, only the accidents remain, but the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus . The Orthodox have the same belief, but do not term it, calling it a mystery.

Laus Deo

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Again, please OTCA, don’t use such a broad brush. Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians et al believe in the Real presence. You can parse how you wish, but we are most adament about the bodily presence and for that matter full presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even some reformed of the more Calvinist persuasion will acknowledge a true presence although they call it a spiritual presence.

Monstraumen, Anglicans have stated “It may not be about a change of substance, but it is about a substantial change”. In other words, they consider the Real Presence to belong to the realm of Spirit and Eternity and not about corporeal-fleshiness in which Catholics believe the Eucharist IS the flesh of Christ.
Also the external Eucharistic Adoration is not usually practiced by most Lutherans except for bowing, genuflecting and kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Lutherans use the terms “In, with and under the forms of consecrated Bread and Wine” and “Sacramental Union” to distinguish their understanding of the Lord’s Supper from those of other traditions.
Calling it a “Spiritual Presence” is hardly acknowledging the Eucharist as the Real flesh of Christ and the wine as Jesus’s Blood, real blood.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Again, please OTCA, don’t use such a broad brush. Anglicans, Lutherans, Moravians et al believe in the Real presence. You can parse how you wish, but we are most adament about the bodily presence and for that matter full presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even some reformed of the more Calvinist persuasion will acknowledge a true presence although they call it a spiritual presence.

And please stop saying “again OTCA”…it is truly annoying. I know in what I speak about.

 

[GKC]

Monstraumen, Anglicans have stated “It may not be about a change of substance, but it is about a substantial change”. In other words, they consider the Real Presence to belong to the realm of Spirit and Eternity and not about corporeal-fleshiness in which Catholics believe the Eucharist IS the flesh of Christ.
Also the external Eucharistic Adoration is not usually practiced by most Lutherans except for bowing, genuflecting and kneeling to receive Holy Communion. Lutherans use the terms “In, with and under the forms of consecrated Bread and Wine” and “Sacramental Union” to distinguish their understanding of the Lord’s Supper from those of other traditions.
Calling it a “Spiritual Presence” is hardly acknowledging the Eucharist as the Real flesh of Christ and the wine as Jesus’s Blood, real blood.

Anglicans say a lot of things. Many say precisely what is said in Trent, Session XIII. And practice Benediction and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, as was done on Corpus Christi, at my parish.

Good old OTCA.

GKC