Works as understood by Catholic?

[Jim_Baur]

I would like to know the teaching of the Catholic Church on works.

I do not have the time, talent,energy and tools to do the research.

I would truly be delighted if there is a wonderful person who can explain it in simple and concise language–thanks!

I really what the information for my own enrichment.

Again, THANKS!!!

 

[DavidFilmer]

I would like to know the teaching of the Catholic Church on works.

The teaching of the Catholic Church on Faith and Works may be found in the Epistle of St. James:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

James 2:14 - 25​

The Church also makes clear that none of our works have merit apart from the Grace of God. Canon 1 of the Council of Trent says

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

The Catechism also covers this topic, especially in Articles 2005 - 2010.

​

 

[jmcrae]

I would like to know the teaching of the Catholic Church on works.

I do not have the time, talent,energy and tools to do the research.

I would truly be delighted if there is a wonderful person who can explain it in simple and concise language–thanks!

I really what the information for my own enrichment.

Again, THANKS!!!

There are several accusations against Catholics involving the concept of “works.”

First, the accuser might say that Catholics are “saved by works.” This could mean anything from considering the Sacraments to be “works,” to thinking that following the rules and regulations for fasting and church attendance are “works” to those who think Catholics think they are saved by doing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

To the person who says that the Sacraments are “works” my reply is that the Sacraments are given by God for our benefit, and that although we must actually participate in the Sacraments to benefit from them, it is God who is doing the actual work involved; not us. We are simply present to the experience.

To the person who says that following the rules for fasting, mass attendance, etc., are “works” - how is it that it’s a “work” when a Catholic does it, but “good spiritual discipline” when a non-Catholic does it? Surely we would all agree that fasting, prayer, attendance at Church, and other spiritual disciplines are essential to our growth as Christians. We only cheat ourselves by not doing these things. Are we “saved” by them? It is not the doing of these things that saves us, but that we are remaining in God’s will for our lives, and seeking out God’s will, that keeps us on the road to Heaven, and ultimately saves us.

Finally, we are commanded, so far as it is within our power, to do the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. St. James commands this in his Epistle. Now, can these save us, all by themselves? No - it is the fact that we are doing them for Jesus that saves us. An atheist who does the same works for self-glorification or even just because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, isn’t going to be “saved” thereby - he also has to commit his life to Jesus.

I don’t know if that deals with your question at all, but it’s what came to mind.

 

[Drawmack]

To the person who says that following the rules for fasting, mass attendance, etc., are “works” - how is it that it’s a “work” when a Catholic does it, but “good spiritual discipline” when a non-Catholic does it? Surely we would all agree that fasting, prayer, attendance at Church, and other spiritual disciplines are essential to our growth as Christians. We only cheat ourselves by not doing these things. Are we “saved” by them? It is not the doing of these things that saves us, but that we are remaining in God’s will for our lives, and seeking out God’s will, that keeps us on the road to Heaven, and ultimately saves us.

I would like to point out a difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching that the Catholic should be ready to address if progressing down this path. Most (I can’t speak for all) Protestants believe that church attendance is good and profitable, but they do not believe that missing church is a sin – the Catholic Church teaches that missing Mass (except I believe with good reason like illness) is a sin. I think, and I could be wrong so feel free to correct me on this point, that Catholic teaching is also that not following the fasting rules and what not are sins as well. This, to some Protestants, means that these teachings elevate these practices above good spiritual discipline and turn them into something that is necessary for salvation.

Now, that I’ve point that out I would like to state something very clearly. I do not think that anyone will be condemned for think that something which was not a sin is a sin (though the opposite may be true). Therefore if you believe these are sins and approach them as such that will not condemn you weather they are sins or not.

 

[jmcrae]

I would like to point out a difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching that the Catholic should be ready to address if progressing down this path. Most (I can’t speak for all) Protestants believe that church attendance is good and profitable, but they do not believe that missing church is a sin – the Catholic Church teaches that missing Mass (except I believe with good reason like illness) is a sin. I think, and I could be wrong so feel free to correct me on this point, that Catholic teaching is also that not following the fasting rules and what not are sins as well. This, to some Protestants, means that these teachings elevate these practices above good spiritual discipline and turn them into something that is necessary for salvation.

Now, that I’ve point that out I would like to state something very clearly. I do not think that anyone will be condemned for think that something which was not a sin is a sin (though the opposite may be true). Therefore if you believe these are sins and approach them as such that will not condemn you weather they are sins or not.

The Scriptures say things like, “neglect not the assembly of the Church” and “When” (not “if”) "you fast … "

I think we would all agree that someone who doesn’t go to Church (whether it’s required of him or not) is not displaying the behaviour of the Elect - and he is probably “not saved.” As Catholics, we are just a bit more honest with ourselves on that point - that the person who neglects Sunday Mass is (apart from other factors) most likely “not saved.”

Same with fasting - we all agree (I think) that fasting is the means by which we cast out those demons in our lives that would turn our hearts away from God and harden us, thus causing us to ultimately not be saved. By requiring it, the Catholic Church is simply acknowledging that those who don’t do these things are not likely to be saved - which I think we all agree on, including those who don’t set these things down as written requirements, but nevertheless would see them as marks of the Elect when they are being done.

 

[VociMike]

I would like to point out a difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching that the Catholic should be ready to address if progressing down this path. Most (I can’t speak for all) Protestants believe that church attendance is good and profitable, but they do not believe that missing church is a sin – the Catholic Church teaches that missing Mass (except I believe with good reason like illness) is a sin. I think, and I could be wrong so feel free to correct me on this point, that Catholic teaching is also that not following the fasting rules and what not are sins as well. This, to some Protestants, means that these teachings elevate these practices above good spiritual discipline and turn them into something that is necessary for salvation.

Now, that I’ve point that out I would like to state something very clearly. I do not think that anyone will be condemned for think that something which was not a sin is a sin (though the opposite may be true). Therefore if you believe these are sins and approach them as such that will not condemn you weather they are sins or not.

The key to understanding the Catholic position here is to understand that the sin is not e.g. ignoring the rule about fasting. It is ignoring, rejecting the authority of the Church. “He who rejects you, rejects me.” We believe that to reject the Church is to reject Christ.

Yes, some rules may seem to be unimportant, and not deserving of any consequences, and yet look at the one rule that God set to Adam and Eve, and look at the consequences that flowed from breaking that rule. When we start judging which rules are important and which are not, we are placing our judgement over the judgement of those who have been granted divine authority and guidance. That is the conquest of pride over humility, and it never brings us closer to God.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I beg you to forgive my ignorance.

Does the Catholic Church teach that good works are absolutely necessary for salvation?

Example, an infant does not do any good works…

Also, a recent convert that dies a few seconds after baptism does not do any good works…

Both of the above are saved.

This, again, is for my own information.

What is the Church’s position?

Are works absolutely necessary for salvation?

Also, are not the works actually loving our neighbor, enemy, the wicked, needy, or self?

THANKS!!!

 

[Drawmack]

The Scriptures say things like, “neglect not the assembly of the Church” and “When” (not “if”) "you fast … "

I think we would all agree that someone who doesn’t go to Church (whether it’s required of him or not) is not displaying the behaviour of the Elect - and he is probably “not saved.” As Catholics, we are just a bit more honest with ourselves on that point - that the person who neglects Sunday Mass is (apart from other factors) most likely “not saved.”

Same with fasting - we all agree (I think) that fasting is the means by which we cast out those demons in our lives that would turn our hearts away from God and harden us, thus causing us to ultimately not be saved. By requiring it, the Catholic Church is simply acknowledging that those who don’t do these things are not likely to be saved - which I think we all agree on, including those who don’t set these things down as written requirements, but nevertheless would see them as marks of the Elect when they are being done.

I agree with everything that is written here. I also know that most Protestants believe fasting to be profitable and do fast. I think where some Protestants have a problem is in the church telling you to fast at specific times or to fast from specific things. Again, I have not problem with these things I’m just pointing out areas where a Catholic might want to be prepared for the discussion to go.

 

[Jim_Baur]

David Filmer

Thanks!

Relative to my abilities, your answer Also, thanks to all others who are helping.

THANKS!!!

 

[Drawmack]

The key to understanding the Catholic position here is to understand that the sin is not e.g. ignoring the rule about fasting. It is ignoring, rejecting the authority of the Church. “He who rejects you, rejects me.” We believe that to reject the Church is to reject Christ.

Yes, some rules may seem to be unimportant, and not deserving of any consequences, and yet look at the one rule that God set to Adam and Eve, and look at the consequences that flowed from breaking that rule. When we start judging which rules are important and which are not, we are placing our judgement over the judgement of those who have been granted divine authority and guidance. That is the conquest of pride over humility, and it never brings us closer to God.

By this argument everything goes back to infallibility of the Magisterium. If you want to take the discussion there, if you see that as the real problem underlying any theological difference than this is a fine position to take. But, be aware, that if you actually want to address the issue of why the Magisterium is correct on this point then you might want to avoid jumping to this argument straight off.

Personally, I think, that even if you do believe that infallibility is the real underlying issue to any divergence you might want to avoid turning everything to that issue right off. It may, and in (at least my case) in some cases, be more profitable to have an apology ready that shows how a particular teaching is inerrant. After demonstrating the inerrancy of the Church on this point then that can, more profitably, be relied upon to support inerrancy in general.

 

[Drawmack]

I beg you to forgive my ignorance.

Does the Catholic Church teach that good works are absolutely necessary for salvation?

Example, an infant does not do any good works…

Also, a recent convert that dies a few seconds after baptism does not do any good works…

Both of the above are saved.

This, again, is for my own information.

What is the Church’s position?

Are works absolutely necessary for salvation?

Also, are not the works actually loving our neighbor, enemy, the wicked, needy, or self?

THANKS!!!

The works are enumerated at newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm

As for if these must be done and the references that you state. I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure, the Catholic Church teaches that you must complete these works as you are able to. Thus an infant is incapable of completing them. A brand new convert has not had time to complete them. So those people are not really excused from completing them but they did not of the ability to complete them and inabilities will not be held against us.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Remember that good works cannot be done without grace (CCC#1821). The good works that James is talking about in James 2 are, properly speaking, done by the grace of Christ. Is there anyone here who denies that the grace of Christ has not a salvific pedigree? Of course not, but most people do not realize that when Catholics speak of such works, it is really the grace of Christ being applied.

Think of the parable of the talents. The master distributes gifts (grace) to the 3 men who then go out and do something with the gift. 2 of them bear good fruit from the gift but the 1 didn’t do anything with it and he was thrown into “the darkness”!

As to how there is a profession of faith involved for infants, refer, for instance, to the Instruction on Infant Baptism from 1980, which was approved by Pope John Paul II:*[T]he practice of baptizing children rests on an immemorial tradition originating from the Apostles, the importance of which cannot be ignored; besides, Baptism is never administered without faith:** in the case of infants, it is the faith of the Church**. (Instruction on Infant Baptism, #18)*You see this concept in Scripture when someone is “unable” to properly come to Christ him/herself, that someone else goes in proxy on behalf of that person. Think of the centurian’s servant who is healed because of the faith of the centurian (Mt 8:5-13), or the paralytic who was healed and forgiven because of the faith of his friends (Mk 2:3-5). Or the Canaanite woman who interceded for her daughter, healed by Jesus through the faith of the mother (Mt 15:22-28). It ties in beautifully with the parable of the talents. The child has not yet that measure of gift to profess his own faith (which as we know is dead without works), so therefore the Church is there to supply it on his behalf.

 

[Pax]

…
Most (I can’t speak for all) Protestants believe that church attendance is good and profitable, but they do not believe that missing church is a sin – the Catholic Church teaches that missing Mass (except I believe with good reason like illness) is a sin.
…
…

The Catholic position on missing mass is best understood by reading the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 8:1-3:
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

Hebrews 9:1-25
NOW EVEN the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place.
…
…

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance,
…
…
Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into a** sanctuary** made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own;

Hebrews 10:19-31:
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I realize that this is a lot to read and absorb. I placed in bold font, terms like sanctuary, blood, and covenant. It is important to ponder all of this to appreciate why Catholics believe it to be a mortal sin to deliberately skip mass on the Lord’s day. Moreover, the second of the ten commandments instructs us to keep holy the Lord’s day. Catholics believe that the book of Hebrews is linked to the Passover and the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord.

In the OT there was a sanctuary and in the NT there is a sanctuary. In the former it was the blood of animals that was sprinkled on and around the earthly sanctuary and altar. In the New Covenant, Jesus takes is own blood into the heavenly sanctuary. At the last supper, Jesus instituted the New Covenant in his own blood and said “Do this in remembrance of me.” Catholics take this literally and look at the second commandment and the words in Hebrews that instruct us against “neglecting to meet together.” This is the sin spoken of a verse or two later that will bring condemnation. We connect the blood of the covenant with not meeting together at mass and not receiving the precious body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. To neglect this is to have “spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?”

There is an interesting clue for Catholics in all of this in Hebrews 10:19 which says:

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,

It is important to notice, in all of the passages quoted, the use of the word sanctuary. The above verse indicates that we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus is in the heavenly sanctuary. Catholics see this as the Eucharist where the heavenly sanctuary is accessed by us here on earth. Receiving the body and blood of Jesus is where the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus that is presented to the Father in heaven is re-presented to us on earth. We have confidence to enter the heavenly sanctuary. We receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Savior. Deliberately refusing to gather together and to partake is to spurn the Son of God and to profane the blood of the covenant. It is for this reason that deliberately missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.

I hope this helps.

 

[Thing]

I would like to point out a difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching that the Catholic should be ready to address if progressing down this path. Most (I can’t speak for all) Protestants believe that church attendance is good and profitable, but they do not believe that missing church is a sin – the Catholic Church teaches that missing Mass (except I believe with good reason like illness) is a sin. I think, and I could be wrong so feel free to correct me on this point, that Catholic teaching is also that not following the fasting rules and what not are sins as well. This, to some Protestants, means that these teachings elevate these practices above good spiritual discipline and turn them into something that is necessary for salvation.

Now, that I’ve point that out I would like to state something very clearly. I do not think that anyone will be condemned for think that something which was not a sin is a sin (though the opposite may be true). Therefore if you believe these are sins and approach them as such that will not condemn you weather they are sins or not.

About going to Mass on Sundays or missing Mass on Sundays;

This is based also on the Ten Commandments - 3."Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.

Breaking the Commandments at one time attracted the penalty of death. So they were to be observed in a serious light. They represent what God wants, as it were, and the converse of them reflects what God does not want. So the spirit of the law was that to do the will of God gave life and to oppose the will of God brought death.

Since Apostolic times the sabbath has been moved to Sunday; the Apostles now met, not on the Saturday the jewish sabbath, but instead they met ‘on the Lords day’ the first day of the week, Sunday, to worship God with the ‘breaking of the bread’. Or, the Catholic Mass, in other words.

So continuing keeping holy the sabbath includes, but not exclusively, following the Apostles example of hearing Mass on Sunday. Not keeping holy the sabbath, for an Apostolic following christian, would be to refuse to hear Mass on Sundays for no other reason than to not observe a holy day.

 

[FCEGM]

I would like to know the teaching of the Catholic Church on works.

I do not have the time, talent,energy and tools to do the research.

I would truly be delighted if there is a wonderful person who can explain it in simple and concise language–thanks!

I really what the information for my own enrichment.

Again, THANKS!!!

Jim, you might find this article helpful:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a127.htm

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am thankful for all of the help.

THANKS!!!

I will keep reading any posts, thanks!

Jim Baur

 

[brb2]

The Catholic position on missing mass is best understood by reading the book of Hebrews.

It is for this reason that deliberately missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.

.

Also dates to Exodus in OT. Any Big 10 offence is Mortal, ‘Grave’ Matter

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with everything that is written here. I also know that most Protestants believe fasting to be profitable and do fast. I think where some Protestants have a problem is in the church telling you to fast at specific times or to fast from specific things. Again, I have not problem with these things I’m just pointing out areas where a Catholic might want to be prepared for the discussion to go.

Sure, and I think even Protestants would agree that a large number of people (say, 1.6 billion of them) fasting and praying all at the same time is an extremely powerful witness to the world, as well as being of great benefit in driving out demons.

The requirements for fasting in the Catholic Church at present are extremely lenient. The fast before receiving Holy Communion is only one hour. Most people can go an hour without eating or drinking something, without even noticing any effect. One may choose to fast for longer than that, of course, but the Church’s requirement is only the one hour.

In addition, we have only two fasting days out of the whole year (by contrast, Muslims, Jews, and various pagan religions have a great many more fasting days than just two - I think Evangelical Protestantism and Liberal Protestantism may be the only two religious systems on earth that haven’t got any prescribed fasting days).

Even at that, the “fasting” for these two days amounts really to taking small meals, and not snacking between meals, since the requirement is that the person eat, at maximum, two snacks, and one meal, all without warm-blooded meat (cold-blooded meat such as fish is permitted). A person could have a snack of cereal in the morning, a snack of fruit and yogurt at noon, and a meal of vegetables and fish in the evening, and he would be within the requirements of the “fast.”

Again, the individual Catholic could certainly choose to make it a total fast, but that is not the Church’s requirement.

The next argument would probably be that, in times past, the fasts were much more strict. This is true, they were. What if, the person might say, the Pope were to go back to these stricter fasts? If he did so, it would be because he perceived a need for it. We would be given the grace to comply.

Another question that arises is, What about people who, for the sake of their health, have to follow a particular regimen? Again, the Church is not unreasonable. If someone has dietary requirements for their health, they are exempted from the laws of fasting. Furthermore, those under the age of 18, and those who have passed their 60th birthday, are not required to fast, nor are pregnant women.

 

[c_mat]

The way, I understand it is, “by grace you are saved, not by works, lest you boast - it is a gift of God” (Eph 2:6). This grace is given to us at baptism when we have declared Jesus Christ our Lord and entered the family of God. I believe the works Paul is referring to here is anything that we think we can do apart from God and His sacrificial love in Christ, to achieve our own salvation. Thus, works done in Christ are not antithetical to our salvation but contribute to our salvation. reading the Bible, praying, charity, etc etc, anything done not out of pride, but as a result of love of Christ and for wanting to do His will and serve Him would be a work that contributes to our salvation. Why? Because its not really an “earning work”, rather one that flows from grace. As St. james puts it, “Faith without works is dead”. Also, the Scriptures are pretty clear that in the end (Mt 25 and 1 Cor 3), we will be judged on “how” we have lived our Christian life - thus whether we put our Christianity into practice or works.

The problem that many Protestants have is not this concept of works, but work as a means of earning merit. the medieval Church was very much into the concept of “merit” and the “rewards of the saints” and how one saint’s merit could be applied to another. Some priests even took this further to say that earning merit by doing works could reduce one’s time in purgatory. The concept of merit is still not very clear to me ( a Protestant turned Catholic recently). i am still reading up on it. But this was the main thing that instigated the Reformation.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!!!