What's the Problem with Soli Deo Gloria?

[Truthstalker]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

 

[VociMike]

“The glory of God is man fully alive.” - Ireneaus

 

[jemfinch]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

And we have no problem with it. Nor do we have any problem with Sola Christi, as long as it’s understood that we can still share in Christ’s work and role as mediator. Sola Gratia is of course not a problem.

The only Solas that we Catholics have problems with are Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. And heck, we can accept the former as long as it’s understood to be living faith, faith formed by love; and we can even accept the material sufficiency of Scripture, as long as we do not claim that it is formally sufficient.

Jeremy

 

[Mannyfit75]

And we have no problem with it. Nor do we have any problem with Sola Christi, as long as it’s understood that we can still share in Christ’s work and role as mediator. Sola Gratia is of course not a problem.

The only Solas that we Catholics have problems with are Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. And heck, we can accept the former as long as it’s understood to be living faith, faith formed by love; and we can even accept the material sufficiency of Scripture, as long as we do not claim that it is formally sufficient.

Jeremy

Well said.

 

[exiled]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

Isn’t every soul in heaven a testament to Christ’s glory? After all, not one of them is there on his own merit, it is all due to Jesus Christ. So yeah, He gets all the glory.

 

[John_Hiner]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

As with all of these disputes with Protestant formulations, we are on slippery ground. In most cases, the Catholic view cannot be opposed easily or directly to the Protestant view, because the Catholic understanding includes the Protestant view in some way.

For example, if one asserts a Protestant position as “faith alone saves,” it would be a mistake for a Catholic to disagree, as though this view were in opposition to the Catholic truth. In fact, under the correct circumstances, faith alone does save. Imagine a man who has jumped out of an airplane; his shut and backup both fail. As he falls toward the ground, he thinks about his life and what he has heard about Christ. For the first time he sees the light and believes. Seconds later, he is killed on impact.

In this hypothetical, has the fallen man been saved? Assuming that the facts are as stated (something we cannot know in any actual case before we die), the Catholic view would be that this man was saved in the sense that he will be admitted to Heaven. He did not have baptism, good works, or formal communion with the Church, and he received no sacramental grace to assist him. He did not even have the time or knowledge to consciously desire or intend to be baptized, if he lived. However, in Catholic thinking he has enough to be saved, because he did not have time for those other more palpable things. Here we have a case of a man saved by “faith alone.”

(Of course, grace “goes before” faith here. It was God’s grace that allowed the man to hear the things that allowed him to believe even in the minimal way that he managed. It was grace that allowed him the presence of mind to think of God rather than be consumed by fear or panic. Hence, when we say “faith alone” even in this case, we mean that faith was all that the man contributed; God’s contribution, grace, preceded the man’s response. But, I do not believe that this is denied by the Protestant view of the proposition “faith alone saves,” so it is not directly relevant to the question we are considering.)

For these reasons, Catholics should not deny “faith alone” in any thoroughgoing way, because we do not disagree with it when understood in the correct sense and context.

Likewise with “soli Deo gloria.” If it is understood in certain senses, this formula too is correct and acceptable; however, there is an important sense in which it can be fairly understood which would present problems and deny important truths.

Ad majorem gloriam Dei.

John Hiner

 

[Bishopite]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone) one of the five “solas” during the reformation is not a problem if properly understood. And yes the honor and power to Mary and the saints is ulitimately given to Christ alone, much like when we see the moon which reflects light because it is given that light from the sun. Mary and the saints (as do we who follow Christ) reflect the light given to them by the Son also.
Think of it this way, Catholics never pray OUTSIDE the body of Christ; some say… "then WHO is Mary? She is part of the body of Christ.

Getting back to the Soli Deo Gloria, the reformers used soli deo gloria in an attempt to say to the Catholic Church that honoring Mary the saints, or former popes, but this was and is silly since it isn’t wrong to give “honor” to humans, just in their proper position and we never give them the same honor as we do God, who ALONE do we worship. Even now, when we go to court we address the judge as “your honor.”

“The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy—are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

Catholicism doesn’t have a problem with soli deo gloria, also we don’t have a problem with sola fide if it is understood in the proper sense; this is going to excite and raise hackles with some Catholics who have never heard of nor studied this issue, so I’ll explain what I mean.
Sola fide prior to and during the reformation meant intellectual assent alone or antinomianism (means we don’t have to follow the moral law of Christ) and is what Catholicism called fide informis or unformed faith THIS “sola fide” is what was and still IS condemned by the Catholic Church. Since the modern Protestant colloquial meaning of “faith” has changed Catholicism can accept sola fide if what a Protestant means is* fide formata* or formed faith.
Jimmy Akin of Catholic answers says it this way…

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to “faith working by charity.” In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fide formata or “faith formed by charity.” The alternative to formed faith is fide informis or “faith unformed by charity.” This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.
Whether a Catholic will condemn the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term “faith” is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).
However, if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.
A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word “formed” to clarify the nature of the faith in “sola fide” renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

…We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows: Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

And of course Catholicism still rejects sola Scriptura as it will always.

 

[DaveBj]

No problem at all, except for the grammar. “Sola,” to agree with “gloria,” which it modifies.

I believe J.S. Bach would put this (or something very similar) at the top of all his compositions. Of course, he was Lutheran.

DaveBj

 

[scylla]

A Catholic has no problem with Sola Deo Gloria as that is a Catholic teaching from before it was stated by Martin Luther.
It is nothing new, and has always been part of Catholic teaching, but was stated by Martin Luther to somehow accuse Catholics of not believing it.

---

It is like a person saying to a Christian that part of his system of belief is to truly love your neighbor.
Since this is a special part of his belief he can now ask do Christians even believe in loving your neighbor?
Why isn’t it in your creed?
The person says, “My belief says it, so yours must not.”​

Same thing with Sola Deo Gloria,
it was already and is already believed by Catholics.

As a side note:
A Catholic can’t believe in Sola Fide, but can believe we are saved by Faith as the Bible says.
Just not Faith Alone, as that would contradict the Bible and isn’t precise, unless it is understood correctly.
I can affirm Faith Alone, if it is understood to not mean a Faith which doesn’t include love or charity. But then that is just an awkward way to state, “Faith working through love.” Gal 5:6
So why not state it as the Bible does?

Sola Deo Gloria, I believe it as a Catholic, but the only way to state otherwise is to misrepresent Catholic belief.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right?

Yes ​

All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

There is a problem only if man is radically independent of God - that is, if man is equal to, & not created by, God. Man is nothing of the kind, so all glory belongs to God, & not to any creature at all I see no problem with any of the Five Solas.​

As for those words of St. Irenaeus - God is glorified by that, but man is not himself excellent or glorious or anything at all, independently of God. And St. Irenaeus’s words are not inspired Scripture, so they are not a rule for faith, useful as they may be. Scripture cannot be demoted in order to promote the Fathers. ##

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes ## There is a problem only if man is radically independent of God - that is, if man is equal to, & not created by, God. Man is nothing of the kind, so all glory belongs to God, & not to any creature at all I see no problem with any of the Five Solas.​

As for those words of St. Irenaeus - God is glorified by that, but man is not himself excellent or glorious or anything at all, independently of God. And St. Irenaeus’s words are not inspired Scripture, so they are not a rule for faith, useful as they may be. Scripture cannot be demoted in order to promote the Fathers. ##

I love your sig…

 

[jemfinch]

No problem at all, except for the grammar. “Sola,” to agree with “gloria,” which it modifies.

Soli modifies Deo, not gratia. It’s “Glory” (gloria, nominative case) “to God” (Deo, dative case) “alone” (modifies God).

Jeremy

 

[Nita]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology.

Afternoon Truthstalker,

It’ll never happen!! Catholic theology is just way too comprehensive to be squished into the confines of Protestant theology.

So, for the sake of your sanity, , just keep on with your study of Catholic theology. Therein lies sanity. Sure am looking forward to the day when I can greet you “Welcome Home”.

Nita

 

[John_Hiner]

There is some problem with “Soli Deo gloria,” though it cannot be rejected completely.

First, let me say what I take the phrase to connote: it is a Latin phrase with no verb explicitly stated. The word “gloria” is the subject. “Deo” is in the dative case, meaning “to or for God.” “Soli” is also in the dative case and modifies “Deo.” Hence the raw translation is “Glory to or for only God.” (An alternate translation, “glory to the only God,” is not objectionable, though it is probably not the intended meaning.)

I think that Truthstalker is correct, if the phrase is taken to mean that all good things, and therefore all glory are ultimately attributable to God, since He is the maker and ruler of all, then the phrase is not objectionable.

Another sense in which the phrase can be fairy understood would be as advice: “When thinking of boasting of your own deeds, resist and refer any good you have done to God, passing any glory which you may be due on to Him.” In this sense, the phrase would be a reminder of St. Paul’s advice to the same effect: “That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:31 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.) And again: “But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not he who commendeth himself, is approved, but he, whom God commendeth.” 2 Corinthians 10:17-18 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

The difficulty comes, however, with another fair reading of the saying “soli Deo gloria.” It can be taken to mean “no glory to anyone besides God.” In this sense, which could be taken to condemn the honor given to Mary and to the other Saints, the phrase is unacceptable to Catholic understanding – because it misrepresents God.

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continuation.

Both the Old and the New Testaments attest to God’s giving glory to men:

“What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: and hast set him over the works of thy hands.” Psalm 8:5-7 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory . . .” 1 Corinthians 2:7 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats, four and twenty ancients sitting, clothed in white garments, and on their heads were crowns of gold. Revelation 4:4 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars . . .” Revelation 12:1 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“And whilst he prayed, the shape of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became white and glittering. And behold two men were talking with him. And they were Moses and Elias, appearing in majesty. And they spoke of his decease that he should accomplish in Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep. And waking, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.” Luke 9:29-32 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

Each of these, and many other parts of the Scriptures, attest to God’s generosity in giving glory to men and women. The Scripture also indicates that such glory can be merited – not earned in the sense that God would “owe” it to men, but merited in the sense that it is given in recognition of the good done by men as compared to what men are capable of doing or failing to do. Consider these writings:

“The Lord will reward me according to my justice: and according to the cleanness of my hands he will render to me.” 2 Samuel 22:21 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“Let nothing hinder thee from praying always, and be not afraid to be justified even to death: for the reward of God continueth for ever.” Sirach 18:22 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 6:1 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man.” Matthew 10:41 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

“His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. . . . For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away.” Matthew 25:21 & 29 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

Scott Hahn has a good characterization of this point. He asks something like this: Imagine you enter the throne room of a king and you find yourself among a crowd of people who are drably dressed, and miserable in appearance, though they do not seem restless or ill at ease. When you look up, you see a raised diadem on which sits a king richly appareled, clothed in gold and jewels, with his posture erect and his face glowing with pride. Next imagine that you enter another king’s throne room, in contrast to the first, in this room not only the king is richly dressed and proud and handsome in his bearing, but all of the people surrounding the throne and everywhere in the room are richly dressed and noble in bearing, even the servants and pages are dressed in rich and shinning livery. Which of these two kings would you think more glorious?

The Catholic must reject the sense of “soli Deo gloria” which means “no glory to anyone besides God,” because it slanders God by painting Him as a self-focused despot surrounded by inconsequential minions. Further, it would cause men to disregard the glory conferred by God on the Angels and Saints and other creatures. Rather, the truth is that God is a generous and kind ruler, who shares His glory and is all the more glorified by the power, nobility, and greatness of those who honor and worship Him, as He honors and glorifies them.

Ad majorem gloriam Dei.

John Hiner

 

[Contarini]

I seem to be on a quixotic quest to reconcile the Catholic Church with Protestant theology. Sanity may return, but not now.

Soli Deo Gloria: to God alone be the Glory, is one of the Solas of the Reformation. I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

Of course there’s no problem with it. There is a problem with what Calvinists think it means, but not with the phrase itself.

The whole “slogans of the Reformation” business is nothing more than marketing, if you ask me. It makes modern conservative Protestants, especially Calvinists, feel like they have something cool to sling around, but I can’t see that it does much to promote understanding of anything. The terms are either so obvious as to be meaningless as a marker for a particular Christian position (such as Soli Deo Gloria) or so vague as to be useable for a dozen different positions (Sola Scriptura, for instance), or both. The Reformers didn’t go around reciting these slogans, so attributing them to them is silly and misleading.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Of course there’s no problem with it. There is a problem with what Calvinists think it means, but not with the phrase itself.

The whole “slogans of the Reformation” business is nothing more than marketing, if you ask me. It makes modern conservative Protestants, especially Calvinists, feel like they have something cool to sling around, but I can’t see that it does much to promote understanding of anything. The terms are either so obvious as to be meaningless as a marker for a particular Christian position (such as Soli Deo Gloria) or so vague as to be useable for a dozen different positions (Sola Scriptura, for instance), or both. The Reformers didn’t go around reciting these slogans, so attributing them to them is silly and misleading.

Edwin

They don’t seem “obvious” to Catholics - if they are obvious, why do people object to them ? IMO, because they put man in his place, and don’t allow him to glorify himself. They remind him that he is a wretched & guilty sinner, who cannot save himself, who has no good that does not come from God Alone - In short, that is he, not God, who is in the dock. They would still be valid even if there had been no Reformation.​

 

[Church_Militant]

I maintain Catholics should have no trouble with this. If they die and go to heaven, all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone (Rev 5:13, 7:10).

So Catholics should have no trouble with Soli Deo Gloria.

First is the poor Latin…

Second is the problem that the non-Catholic who makes that statement is generally stating something from a badly over simplified premise.

Therefore, a Catholic, such as I, might be forced to say “No.” because though the simple statement may appear correct at face value, when properly understood from further exposition from both sides, they do not really agree.

A face value case in point. (Forgive me for being nitpicky here, but bear with me.)

You just stated.

"all the glory goes to Christ, not to themselves. Honor given to Mary and the saints is ultimately given to Christ alone, right? All honor and power and might and majesty belong to God alone

"My problem is that though I would agree fully with the line in red, I have a problem (as would all faithful Catholics) with what you state in the part in black.

Not because it is inaccurate per se…but because it is oversimplified and doesn’t go far enough. Honor to the saints is indeed honor to God, but…

All glory to God certainly…but not all glory to Christ alone because theologically that is an erroneous expression because we are Trinitarian in our beliefs and that statement would be incorrect (as stated) in that context. (Even though I assume that I understand that you, like me, understand that all glory is for all the persons of the Holy Trinity and not simply Christ alone. Since the fullness of the Godhead bodily existed in Our Lord then by simple God-given common sense that glory is shared by all 3 persons.

I may make that assumption…but without a proper expression of what you really do believe, so that I can be sure, I will have to disagree.)

I hope that I am making good sense here, and that you can see my point about pat catch phrases that may sound just fine at first blush, but really can turn out to be something that one cannot agree with theologically because Catholics and n-Cs do not always mean the same things when they make such a statement.

This is why discussion forums like this are such a god-send and why dialog between Catholics and Protestants is indeed so vital.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[jemfinch]

First is the poor Latin…

It isn’t poor Latin. If you think it is, you’re parsing it incorrectly.

Jeremy

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It isn’t poor Latin. If you think it is, you’re parsing it incorrectly.

Jeremy

If it means “Glory to God Alone” - then:​

“Soli” & “Deo” are both dative singulars, the adjective “solus” being construed to agree with the noun “Deus”. They are both in the dative singular, because the feminine noun “gloria” is in the nominative singular, & qualifies “Deus”. IIRC, this dative is what is known as a “dative of advantage”.

What really bothers me is a blunder like “Sola Christo” - .

Isn’t grammar fun ? ##