Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Didn't we have this discussion, oh, about five or six times before? You claim you are saved by "your works" yet you want to somehow exclude the "laws". The "Law" said such things as "Thou shalt not kill.; Thou shalt not steal.; Thou shalt not commit adultery.; etc." so do you mean to imply that your "works" do not include refraining from the "thou shalt nots"? Or are they part of the whatever, just "think for yourself"???
I think it is rather you who has not understood the nature of the argument. The dispute, you say, is whether salvation is a result of "works of love alongside the faith" and the verse clearly indicates that we are saved by grace THROUGH faith not by works. You conclude because it doesn't describe what those works are you can then assume it excludes your "works of love". Yet there are other verses such as Titus 3:5 that say, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us". So unless you now want to count any "work of righteousness" out of your imaginary category of "works of love", then you are creating your own doctrine contrary to Scripture.
If someone wants to be saved he/she must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, being Catholic is a denomination of Christianity. When a person is saved he/she is a member of the spiritual body of Christ and automatically is catholic - because that simply means the universal body of Christ. A person can be part of Christ's body no matter what denomination he/she belongs to. Being a Roman Catholic sure doesn't guarantee that, that's for sure, but neither does being a Baptist!
You most certainly must do that. Salvation of yourself and others depends greatly upon your overcoming the Protestant heresies big and small. There is no greater threat to the Western civilization today than Protestantism in any of its forms.
they placed their repentant faith in Him to save them by His blood and righteousness, they would be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit, God “purifying their hearts by faith.” (Ats 15:8,9) This is what evangelical faith overall has historically preached
Good, That is Catholic teaching.
If Rome preached the kind of gospel that convicted men if their desperate need to be saved by Jesus blood in the light of their sins and unworthiness and inability to morally merit eternal life, rather than presupposing them to be Christians (mainly) by paedobaptism, and then fostering confidence in the power of the church and their own merit for salvation, then we could have some fellowship in the Spirit
The sacraments of the Church are what internally configures souls onto their eventual salvation. The Evangelical thinks that once he convinced someone in the “desperate” (why is it desperate, by the way? Despair is a mortal sin) need to be saved, he then is done, when the reality is that this is when that converted soul needs to turn to the Church and be healed, -- the job of the Church begins when you guys quit.
[Cites Romans 4:2-5 with supposedly Catholic insertions]
Apparently you don’t understand. Justification is a lifelong process. The justification Abraham received in Gen. 15:6 is indeed one that involved no works (the sacrifice was a demonstration of grace already conferred). No rewriting of the scripture is necessary to hold the only scriptural position which is Catholic, and in this case the scripture does describe justification by faith. But this is not the single time Abraham was justified. He was also justified before that when he crossed the desert (Gen 12, compare Hebrews 11:8); he was also justified after, as he offered Isaac up for sacrifice (Gen 22, compare James 2:21-23). I believe we discussed this before. In general, therefore, justification is by faith and works, even though exceptionally justification is possible by faith alone – as well as, we might conclude from Matthew 25, by works alone.
Regarding Eph. 2:10: The mention of works in v. 10 which are the result of faith does not negate the distinction as to what saves. Souls are saved by grace to do good works; they do not do good works to be saved, though their works testify that are saved and will be rewarded.
False. If the intent of St. Paul was how you say it, he had worded it very poorly: he did not say that works are the result of faith and his topic is salvation rather than any rewards that might accompany salvation. Further, verse 10 says the opposite of what you try to make it say: the good works are “what God had prepared so that we should walk in them” rather than something we “do not do to be saved”. The Scripture says “white”; you read “black”. See how ruinous Protestantism is to human condition?
the faith that saves is of a nature that works, else you must discard baptism by desire.
First, baptism is not works of any kind. Baptism by water is not works either, as the only person Who works in it is God. Declarations of faith in the Evangelical setting are not baptism by desire because usually the one who makes the profession is baptized already and if he is not, there is a true Church just a few blocks down where he can be properly baptized into the Catholic faith. Since he does not go there, yet he can, not being nailed to anything, all these chest-beatings during an “altar call” are delusional. However, the faith that saves is indeed in the nature that works, this is why Faith Alone is a false slogan.
Regarding Matthew 25:31-46: That does not say that, their good works merit justification, but describes Jesus blessing them who lived out their faith. Just as Jesus blessed faith (Lk. 8:13) and said “thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace” (Lk. 7:50; cf. 18:42) so He can just as easily bless faith manifested in works. Such souls were justified by faith, and by faith they overcome, and it is through faith and patience one inherits the promises. (Heb. 6:12)
No it doesn’t merely “describe Jesus blessing them who lived out their faith”, - have you read it? There are indeed passages in the Gospel where Jesus blesses people and praises their faith, but Matthew 25:31-46 does much more than that: it establishes the basis of judgement and it is by the good works and not by faith alone. Which should not surprise anyone interested in the scripture, since the scripture plainly says that we are not saved by faith alone in James 2:24.
Rm 3 places all under the law, directly or indirectly, by letter or intent, showing no one could merit justification,
No one could merit justification by law. It never said that no one could merit justification at all, since St. Paul as a Catholic Christian was not teaching any kind of Protestant despair. Justification is available to some as he says both in Romans 2:7 and then again Romans 3:27.
in need of justification through faith
Yes, that is the Catholic teaching. The faith that works and not faith alone, as we’ve seen.
Abraham's works were excluded even though they were done before the law
His circumcision was “excluded” (Rm. 4:9-11). Other works justified him (Heb 11:8-9, Heb 11:17, James 2:21.
You continually assume no distinction is being made between faith and works when they plainly do as regards the means through which one is saved, that being a faith which works by love, not works gaining salvation
I see many places in the scripture where the distinction is made between grace and works, and many where distinction s made between faith and law, and not once is says that faith is opposed to works. Specifically, the notion that works are not “gaining salvation” when done in faith is nowhere in the scripture.
The texts you posted (Rm. 11:32-36) only describe the conclusion of a long dissertation in which faith/believe is mentioned 11 times
The conclusion is actually Romans 12:1, “I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.”, and yes that is the conclusion: the service of self-denial is necessary for salvation and not faith alone.
the relationship between grace and human freedom, which is behind this issue, is an age old one which is not fully resolved in Roman Catholicism itself
That is because the Fathers of the Church never taught one way or another regarding the issue of how the free will interacts with predestination of the elect; they just taught that both the free will and the predestination are part of the divine plan. Several opinions were voiced about it overtime and those the article mentions are all compatible with Catholic Christianity. The Church is comfortable not defining things that the Apostolic Church left undefined. The case of the doctrine of Faith Alone is different as it is clearly heretical contradicting both the patristic consensus and the plain word of the scripture.
But again, “To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rm. 4:5) refers to works of the law and those apart from it
The reference in that passage is circumcision and not any works in general.
This kind of faith may be realized in an act of obedience, but can precede such,
Yes it can, exceptionally. As St. Augustine asked, what of one who has not works? But that observation is not the same as the doctrine of Faith Alone, which incorrectly states that faith is alone providing initial justification in every case. It is not.
none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification
Yes. Neither works or faith merit salvation which is by grace alone. However, as the scripture (Mt 25:31-46, Eph 2:5-10) teaches, one who has works of love will be saved not because Christ owes it to him, but because His sovereign will is to save him.
No, not only. We see from Matthew 12:32, for example, that some sins may be forgiven in the “world to come”, and again 1 Cor. 3:13 refers to the trial when the works are made manifest on the “day of the lord”. Understand though that the purgatory is in no way outside of the presence of the Lord, as in fact, it is His love that purifies the soul as if by fire.
your proof text for believers suffering purification has been shown to be invalid
No it hasn’t been (when, by whom? Did I respond?). That is exactly what 1 Cor 10-15 is, believers being purified and the reference to “day of the Lord” indicates it happens after they die. Of course, the fact that there also is chastisement throughout one’s life (which your quotes show to exist, and no one argued otherwise), -- does not contradict the fact that there is also final purification in Purgatory. If anything, chastisement in lifetime (also known as justification) shows that when necessary it continues after death in the life eternal.
Faith alone does not deny that preparatory works is required to be done so that he be prepared and disposed to obtaining the grace of Justification, but that He is moved, granted and gifted to believe. And that such a faith is one that endures, bearing fruit. […] That justification is instrumentally procured by faith alone (but not one that is alone)
So faith is not alone and also is alone. This is ridiculous, and of course it contradicts the direct scripture on the subject
[quotes form Romans 4 regarding Abraham’s faith and canons 9, 32 of Trent]
Canon 9 merely re-states what James 2:17-26 says: that one is not justified by faith alone, and indeed even though in the life of Abraham we see stages of justification that involved no works, precisely, no circumcision, we also see stages when his justification was based on works of crossing the desert and offering up Isaac. So canon 9 is in no way overturned by Romans 4. Canon 32 says further that good works “performed by the grace of God” merit “the attainment of eternal life”. That is a summary of Matthew 25:31-46, and again, in no way is overturned by Romans 4:11, which merely points to the fact that the children of Abraham were not justified by their circumcision.
damning all Protestants
Anathema does pertain to all Protestants, so long as they hold to the counterscriptural theological fantasy of Faith Alone. An anathema is a form of instruction in the faith: it shows which beliefs fall outside of the authentic Christianity. However, since everyone is judged by their works and individually it is quite possible for individual Protestants to be saved by their good works. Further, as far as the canon law is concerned, indeed the non-Catholics cannot be anathemized; it is simply a good idea for them to be aware that their views are not compatible with the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.
in the theological dialogues of the last thirty years, Reformation Christians have made a convincing case that what they mean by sola fide is not what Trent condemned [quote from “Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission”].
Father John Neuhaus was sure full of hope in 1995. So, what about you: do you agree with Canon 9 and 32?
[Romans 4 is not in the context of works of the law], as Abraham was justified before the law, and not by good works which he did prior to the law, and before circumcision
Romans 4 mentions circumcision in every verse between 9 and 12 and justice of the law in every verse 13 through 16. The point of the discourse is that “is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”. The reason for the letter is to explain to the Romans that they need not be circumcised. Faith is contrasted to the works of the law and even specifically circumcision, not to just any works.
we want to contest sola fide then their definitions must be dealt with
Yes. I understand that. Indeed, no Protestant yet has come up with the idea that we should do bad works. Faith Alone means that justification is apprehended through faith alone but the faith must be accompanied by works at all times. I can repeat that, but it does not make it any less nonsensical nor less counterscriptural.
you will say it is not the fault of the faith but of the people not obeying it. Likewise Evangelical faith,…
Yes. The difference is that the Catholic faith is a heritage of antiquity and early Middle Ages, and Protestantism has the dirty paws of modernity all over it, and yet the Catholic remnant thrives.
The fact that Rm. 4:7 is from Ps. 32:1,2 and contrasts circumcision does not negate imputed righteousness as being something credited versus an actual interior holiness (though the convert has that also), but it confirms it.
The scripture needs to be read in the context in which the inspired writer wrote it. In Romans 4 the context is the absence of the need for the Romans to be circumcised. You remove isolated verses from Romans 4, and build a nonsensical soteriology of faith-alone-yet-not-alone on them. Just face the scripture as written: we are not saved by faith alone.
under grace the believer is both rightly motivated and enabled to pursue fulfilling their righteous of the law
Right, because he is not saved by faith alone.
it was not works but faith that instrumentally appropriates justification, but again, it is a working type of faith.
That is not what James 2:21-24 says about Abraham, and faith alone “instrumentally appropriating justification” while being “working type of faith” is sophistry not found in Romans anywhere.
Annalex: There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others.
Daniel: Rather, i have dealt with all the main verses on justification by faith, while in response you sought to ignore or misconstrue distinctions in them, and use James and Mat. 25 as your real proof texts, while you misrepresented sola fide as teaching a faith with no prep work or a faith that does no works. In the above, i was responding to the premise of your use of Ja. 2, in which the example of Abraham's justification is Gn. 22, and pointed out that this would deny Gn. 15:6 as faith being what is counted or righteousness. If we allow a faith-works prior to that then it still denies Rm. 4, as in contrasting faith with works as justificatory, it refer to Abraham's works prior to justification. "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. " (Romans 4:1-3)
The scripture mentions justification of Abraham three times. The first time, Gen 12 is by works of faith, the second, Gen 15 is by believing what God tells him (compare to Luke 1:18-20), and the third is Gen 22, by offering up Isaac. None of these episodes deny the other, yet in order to build up your theory you have to ignore the first and the third episode, and then construe the second episode as being a Faith Alone model. I understand that there are distinction between the Faith Alone as you theorize it and Faith Alone of the common type that denies any works, preparatory or done in faith, but this distinction is not important to me, because it simply masks the cardinal error of separating faith and works under some dubious verbiage.
This is different than the contention that Abraham's justification was never by faith alone, but which produces works. We agree with growth in sanctification, and i can allow that one is justified upon faith-works in the sense that such confirms the justifying nature of faith. But apart from teaching that lost men are “dead in sins” and unable to escape his just damnation and gain glory on the basis of his own goodness or worthiness, and so must trust in the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless blood, then what happens when emphasizing justification by ones goodness and works of faith is that souls will see themselves as worthy of eternal life due to their self-perceived merit, and escape the abasement and contrition which heart looks for salvation by faith.
Yes, that is an acceptable and Catholic statement, and I never denied that Gen 15 is by faith apart from any works. It simply is not a complete description of the process of justification. Further, one indeed must understand that works of faith merit salvation because it is the sovereign will of God that they do. There is nothing we can think or do to obligate God to anything.
the difference is that the righteousness imputed is of Christ, and can never been improved upon, though its outworking must
First my link should be SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, sorry about that. Yes, and that ides, that one becomes poof-justified completely in one second and then somehow improves the “outworking” is not in the scripture. Again, in the case of Abraham, the scripture refers to his justification in three episodes that spanned a long time, and never mentions that any of these three episodes was one justification that “cannot be improved”. This is how the scripture describes the process of justification, in context and in detail:
[2] Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: [3] As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. [4] By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. [5] And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge;[6] And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; [7] And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. [8] For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. [9] For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [10] Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
(2 Peter 1)
necessary to distinguish what actually procures justification, though they are indeed inseparable in cause and effect outworking.
Faith has a role to play in justification. This is all Romans 4/Gen 15 say. It never says anything about procurement versus outworking.
the unmerited initial grace of forgiveness, which is sola fide
No, that would be Sola Gratia, the Catholic teaching, and not Sola Fide, a Protestant error.
Grace grants repentance and gives justifying faith, which works
It is grace that is justifying, not faith, but again, what you probably mean to express here is the Catholic doctrine of Sola Gratia.
While we are affected by the condition and works of others, as per Jn. 4:38 and 1Cor. 12:26) this is not that of a heavenly deposit out which Rome formally dispenses indulgences for full or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin
Why is it not? So, when St. Paul mortifies his flesh and endures suffering, it is building up the Church, but the moment St. Peter affirms that formally, it stops being so?
The treasure in heaven corresponds to the rewards laid up for the elect […]Likewise there are different degrees of punishment for the lost
You just described the Treasure of Merit, thinking that you disprove it.
the power to bind and loose is never autocratic or exampled as doing such, but must be soundly Scriptural
The scripture itself is the product of the Church’s power to bind and loose. That power, however, cannot be capricious: it has to accord with the deposit of faith once delivered to the saints.
it was not merit of works that procured justification [for the Good Thief on the Cross] any more than it was for the penitent publican of Lk. 18
Why, penance is works, both for the Good Thief and for the penitent publican, and it procured justification. Compare Acts 2:38-40.
essential initial justification is procured by faith, of a type that will show works
All justification is by both works and faith, because like you yourself admit, faith that shows no works is not faith – it is “dead” (James 2:17f).
In one sense believers are to seek to walk “worthy” of eternal life, and faith as manifested by works is recompensed, and the interdependence of the church works toward this working out of faith, but Rome has largely effectively turned this into an intricate and complicated systematized salvation, instituted and maintained by an autocratic magisterium which fosters faith in herself, and which effects mere religion over regeneration with its manifest evidences.
The detailing of some doctrines is done by the magisterium for the benefit of the faithful. See for example, the clarity that the canons of Trent produced, sharply delineating truth and falsehood between apparent confusion of the Reformation. It is a good thing. It is also in no way negates the simply life of faith and internal conversion, instantaneous or otherwise.
For the _time, sola fide does not mean faith which is alone
As you explained many times, Sola Fide means faith that alone procures salvation and is not alone because it has works. This is either meaningless or false. The simple and true statement would be that faith and works together procure salvation, and not faith alone.
Daniel: In principle this is not necessarily a problem, but what Rome derives from that is […] Councils basically ratified what had been largely manifest as being bread from heaven, but it was and is the Heavenly qualities of Scripture that resulted in their enduring acceptance among those who are born again by it.
I don’t see what you say contradicts what I say. Exept in minor details: not all Catholic scholars subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis; many including myself are fine with the Augustinian order of provenance (Augustinian hypothesis). And, of course “confirming the writings which had already been progressively established as being from God (but without an assuredly infallible magisterium” is an oxymoron: the Church confirming something and not confirming something else based on prior theological facts IS the assuredly infallible Magisterium.
That Christians and the ecclesiastical magisterium are to judge truth claims and formulate doctrine is Scriptural, but the problem is that an assuredly infallible magisterium itself cannot be judged, but its claims are as from God Himself, and assume the implicit trust He alone is worthy of.
Well, it can be judged. When someone formerly Catholic decides in the big head of his that he wants to instead become Protestant, he has judged the magisterium. What is cannot be, it cannot be ordered around by non-Catholics.
the position of this AIM to effectively being a higher authority than Scripture
This is another play of words. The magisterium cannot say today anything that contradicts the Holy Scripture. For example, if one pope one day wakes up and decides that we are saved by faith alone (or by that faith that while alone is not alone), and he proclaims it in contradiction to James 2:24, -- that pope then is no longer Catholic and no longer pope and no longer belongs to the Living Infallible Magisterium. So in that sense, unlike in Protestantism, the Catholic Church is solidly governed by the scripture. However, the Magisterium produced the scripture; the scripture is infallible because the Magisterium is infallible.
There is an important corollary of that. The Magisterium can, in fact, it MUST continue the teaching mission given it by Christ (Matthew 28:20). It is not bounded by truths already committed to the Holy Writ; however that what it teaches cannot contradict the Scripture because had it contradicted the Scripture the Church would have contradicted herself.
Tares are allowed to grow among the wheat, and the discernment of men is appealed to in establishing authority rather than requiring implicit faith in an AIM, infallibly claiming it is infallible, because the New Testament church is constituted to overcome by spiritual means and unfeigned faith and testimony
It is up to that very magisterium to decide at what point tares are allowed to grow and at what point they have to be thrown into fire, at times, literal fire. The criterion is in the scripture alongside the remedy: “lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it” (Matthew 13:29). If a dispute exists among Catholics, it is allowed to develop so long as it (1) becomes clear which side is biblical and which side is of the enemy and (2) the good are becoming infected by the wiles of the bad. This was a very real concern during the Reformation, when many honest Catholics were caught up in it, and this struggle culminated with the anathemas of Trent. But that is not the only case: we likewise smashed the Iconoclasts with great patience but also with great resolution; and today, the “aggiornamento” of the Church still might produce some cleansing at a future point. The Church is a strong organism, it fights infection well.
What i am saying is Scripture strips her claim to be assuredly infallible
You are saying that, but you are not proving that. You are the one whose doctrine is that we are saved by faith alone which is not alone, in direct contradiction to the explicit scripture devoted to this question of salvation.
Mt. 16:18 does not established Rome as the OTC, but His church is perpetuated by the obedient in faith, and His promises will be realized by the same
Mt. 16:18 established papacy as primacy of Peter among the apostles and it revealed that the Church will prevail against Satan. Yes, Catholic faith is the cornerstone of it. This is why it is so important to proclaim and profess the One True Catholic Faith, instead of fashioning one’s own, because otherwise the devil will snatch the cockle.
Cults claim the same. But the validity of them is not established by its means
I wear pants and bank robbers wear pants. That is because it is a logical thing to wear pants. But wearing pants does not make me a bank robber. I actually would like to know from you this: how come no Protestant Church ever claims to be One True Church? Where is that inferiority complex coming from? Aren’t you supposed to have that all-conquering faith?
An authority which claims to infallibly define both the extent of Scripture (the canon) and its meaning is effectively making themselves the superior authority over it.
I see. There are two meanings of authority and I think you are mixing them up. See, in this post, my paragraph that begins “This is another play of words”.
your [sedevacantists] will strongly argue Rome is in apostasy.
Just to clarify. Sedevacantism is the notion that the See of Peter is empty: the Holy Father is not the true Bishop of Rome. Criticism of the developments in Vatican II has a much broader base; the criticism comes from many diverse groups only a minority of which deny the validity of the present pontificate. Some of these groups are loyal Catholics, others are in irregular relationship with the Church that has been nevertheless greatly improving, and some, like the sedevacantists, are believing a heresy. Note, too, that this “fog of war” is not unique to modernity. There were periods of greater internal dissent in the Church during the so called Avignon captivity when the true Church was seated outside of Rome, and there was an apparent pseudo-pope enthroned. Many innocent people were caught up in it and assuredly God will not put it to their charge.
Having said that, like I said before, the Magisterium cannot say anything that contradicts its own prior teaching, including the Bible. In the hypothetical that it does, Christ told us that the faithful remnant will remain. I hope I will be in that remnant. It will be a trial, but that is why we live this life anyway.
God raising up men who correct them, with Scripture and God attesting to their correction. Men like Huss were such but whom Rome killed, like as did the Jewish magisterium to its reprovers, and Rome persecuted or killed some of her own.
I think our critics are correct about Savonarola; I don’t understand what his heresy was and I don’t see why he was condemned. Jan Hus was plainly a heretic, a proto-Protestant and his followers started a peasant war of vandalism and barbarity. By his fruit we know him. But as a general remark, yes, God raises people to steer the Church when she is in trouble; we just disagree who these people are. I think, for example, that the Pontificate of the Holy Father Benedict is such pivot when the Church is cleansed. Ultimately, it is Christ Who removes our blemishes (Ephesians 5:27).
Those are not my words, but those of Roman Catholic apologists
I did not argue against that.
Annalex: It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell.
Daniel: If such cannot qualify as Christians they cannot be real church members let alone successors to Peter.
Why? Judas Iscariot was among the chosen apostles; St. Peter was chosen by Christ to be pope and he betrayed Christ. The Catholic Church is made up of humans. They err. The promise to prevail against “gates of hell” and “confirm Pope’s brethren” was not a promise to each individual pope at every time of his life, but a promise of the orthodoxy and the eventual triumph of the Church as a whole.
He did not make the exception because he was not speaking of all kinds of works in the first place. Romans 4 is entirely in the context of Jewish law and specifically circumcision.
The strategy of RCAs to attack Luther
I don’t care about Luther. Just don’t make that jerk a hero, and you’ll never hear from me about him again.
it is a polemical tactic of RCA to misrepresent Sola fide, as you have
Either you yourself deny Sola Fide in your constructs when faith is simultaneously alone and not alone, or you obfuscate what most Protestants believe to be a fact, that we are not saved by any works at all, and good works are simply a product of salvation already in place. But I argued with you on your terms, and my objections were specifically to your conception of Faith Alone. If you cannot explain it any better, blame yourself, but I reject categorically the charge that I repeat some kind of ideological talking points without listening – through some effort, I might add, -- to what you say.
it was not because he did works of merit that [Abraham] received his justification [per Romans 4]
It was not because of circumcision and obedience to the works of Jewish Law in general that Abraham was justified according to Romans 4:3. Observe that the thrust of the argument is in verses 9ff :
This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. [10] How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.[11] And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: [12] And might be the father of circumcision; not to them only, that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faithful, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. [13] For not through the law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world; but through the justice of faith. [14] For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, the promise is made of no effect. [15] For the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression.
The context is not every kind of works but works that made Abraham specifically Jewish, that is circumcision and generally works of the law that is contrasted to justice of faith.
if a man cannot birth a nation, and is justified not because of his works but by faith, then it is "contra ability and contra merit."
You are making a reference to Romans 4 supposedly making an argument against ability and merit as being salvific on the example of Abraham physically unable to birth a nation yet doing so by faith. There is no argument from the Catholic side that justification without ability to do good works is possible. It is sufficient to look at any healing episode and see that the person being healed could not heal himself. What you need to find is a scripture that says that in general and regardless of anything else people able to do something and not doing it are nevertheless justified by faith alone. Such scripture is not in evidence.
Annalex: I do not see contrasting works of love and faith, in Romans 4 or anywhere.
Daniel: Of course not, as works are excluded, including Gentiles and without any qualification as to what kind of works, because they are not the basis by which one is justified
In Romans 4 the works that were excluded (in v.4) are works of circumcision (v. 9-15). Further, they were “excluded” in that particular instance of Abraham’s justification, of which we learn in Gen 15. But crossing the desert was works and that was in connection to the same promise of fecundity; of that we learn in Gen 12 and it is confirmed by St. Paul as exemplary works of faith in Heb. 11. In Gen 22 Abraham offered up his son for sacrifice and that was well was an instance of justification of Abraham where his “works made his faith perfect” (James 2:22-24). So even if Romans 4:4 excludes all works and not merely those St. Paul is talking about in the chapter, it does not logically yield justification by works alone.
Annalex: works are works of obedience that configure the soul properly overtime. In isolation, they are not salvific, but when they become a moral habit, -- a virtue -- they become works of pure love, when the worker does not even realize he is doing something for Christ (Mt. 25:37-39).
Daniel: So one must be justified in order to do works that will justify him.
No, one must simply do works out of obedience till it forms a habit, and that process is justification. Different models of justification exist and that is perhaps the most common one.
a survey of why Roman Catholics hope to go to heaven and why they do good works in that regards will reveal that their church is effectually fostering doing works in the hope of gaining eternal life, not a love that is disinterested in anything but love for God and man
The criterion of their salvation is that they do these works (Mt 25:31-46). The motivation might indeed be imperfect. But the Church as a whole can supply what is wanting in an individual, so long as he maintains a familial relationship with the Church (cf. Col 1:24).
what we see in Paul's exclusion of procuring justification by works by a good man prior to the law, (Rm. 4:1-3) and before circumcision, (Rm. 4:10,11) which corresponds to baptism, as well as works of the law, (Gal. 3:11,12) as well as “works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) and just “not [by] works.” (Eph. 2:8,9)
Romans and Galatians speak of works of the law where you cite them. In Titus 3:5 “εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη” is at times translated, confusingly, as “by works of righteousness” whereas “by the works of justice” is better in line with the following “excel in good works” two verses down. In Eph. 2:9 the contrast is between grace and works, and indeed it is works of any kind that you can take credit for; good works (not generally works but good works) are nevertheless an imperative as Eph 2:10 states. So you brought together a collection of quotes, the first four are very specifically mentioning works of the law and not the general works, in contrast to faith, and the last mentions general works but in contrast to grace. None of these supports Protestantism LITE that you advocate, let alone its vulgar variety.
Annalex: Abraham is justified in offering Isaac
Daniel: After also having been justified by faith
Yes, and justified by faith after being justified by the work of crossing the desert. Please, when you consider Abraham justified by faith in Gen 15, do not forget that his justification did not start there but rather in Gen 12 when God first directed his steps.
Grace is what God show, faith is what He gives in grace, and works of God are what grace effects through faith
This is a strangest definition of grace. Are you sure you don’t mean “sacrament”? Grace is commonly known as invisible. At any rate, god doesn’t just “give” faith; faith hope and charity are biblically the three responses to grace (1 Thess. 1:3, 5:8), all three generated in the man, whereas grace is ontologically with God and is in no way generated even by Him.
the head is justificatory faith, and works inseparably follow
Inseparably, but not automatically. Man has to will every work; this is why telling him that he is saved by faith alone is telling him perhaps something one has convinced himself to be the case, and yet something that is false. From today’s readings:
[16] If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. [17] He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. [18] Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him: [19] For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. [20] The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man. [21] He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin: [22] For he desireth not a multitude of faithless and unprofitable children.(Ecclesiasticus or Syrach 15)
they are all referred to as saints, but it was informal
Formal canonization indeed is a relative novelty in the Church, as in fact the separation emerged between men believed privately to be holy and men believed to be holy universally and whose holiness manifested itself in miracles.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) One must be made Godly in order to do works of faith and love
Yes, one must be initially converted. This does not mean we are saved b y faith alone, as one who hypothetically, received a certain faith, could produce good works, but chose not to, is not saved, -- his faith is dead. Note that Abraham, to one episode of whose life this verse is referring to, unlike such hypothetical ungodly convert, did plenty of works throughout his blessed life, and was justified also by his works (James 2:23)
Only by esisgesis do we read, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, but by works
Indeed, but we don’t read that. Grace is entirely, unreservedly not by works.
You continue to not only use Scriptural exhortations to do works as a response of being saved in order to negate prior distinctions that works do not save them
I simply read what is written and explore the context beyond Protestant prooftexts. It is not my invention that Eph. 2:8 is followed by Eph 2:10 and Titus 3:5 is followed by Titus 3:8. The prior distinction is between works and grace in the case of Eph. 2 and between works of justice and good works in Titus 3. Read it – it is right there.
as you are forbidden to you allow Rome to be wrong, your conclusions are required
This breaks my parser again
The issue was why Jesus went to the cross
Because He loves us.
Grace is not what God does, it is what He shows by doing something
Grace is, however you phrase it, something of God and in God. A few comments above I said more on the subject, see the paragraph that begins “This is a strangest definition of grace”.
2Tim. 1:9 is between faith and works
Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace (2 Tim. 1:9)
To think that one is saved by a kind of faith that will not work by love is wrong
Wrong indeed, I agree. We are not saved by faith alone.
You will not get that out of Rm. 3:26,27, but you will if you continue on in Romans, and anyone reading my words will see i often affirm the same, as Sola fide does, despite the constant misrepresentation by RCAs. Faith saves but it is a kind of faith that works by the Spirit
I just go by your representation of Sola Fide and I agree pretty much that the way you interpret Sola Fide the only thing that is wrong with the slogan is that it contradicts the scripture and mislabels the content. However, I can assure you that there is no shortage of Protestants, many on this thread, who believe in the vulgar version of Sola Fide: that faith alone saves, and works that one might do in gratitude for the gift of salvation do not make any difference in whether he is saved. That is the kind of counterscriptural vulgarity that I am primarily opposed to.
I went on to say ““while the publican simply humbled himself before God, trusting in his mercy to be justfied, and John has texts such as Jn. 6:29, while Acts has faith expressed in baptism resulting in regeneration[…]”
Yes. I have no quarrel with that.
when the actual issue of what means procures justification is dealt with then it is faith when the actual issue of what means procures justification is dealt with then it is faith
It is faith that worketh in love (Gal 5:6) and not faith alone, so you are pointing out a meaningless distinction to save your false slogan.
In an evidential sense it can be said one is saved by faith and works, for if the former will not effect the latter, if able, then it is sterile and not salvific. And a faith that works by the Spirit is what evangelical Protestant faith has overall shown, in contrast to Rome's predominate religious effects with her salvation on an installment plan
In any meaningful sense we are saved by faith and works. As to the “installment plan”, since you seem to understand that justification is a life long process, I don’t understand the desire to mock the work of the Church in fostering it along.
if a faith is salvific then it must be one that is fruitful by nature.
So therefore Sola Fide is nonsense as it presupposes works, and the entire controversy disappears.
it does works because it is fruitful by nature, being by nature a good and perfect gift from God, (Ja., 1:17) and is preceded by conviction and desire, that also being enabled by “the God of all grace.” This means justification occurs before works of faith, as one could not have such until he is justified and born again. And as said, if baptism by desire is allowed, Rome would hold to a pure faith appropriation of justification
First, we have no scripture that says that initial justification always occurs before works. We might agree that it does simply because people usually have a state of mind (akin to faith) before they do anything. But it is not as such in the scripture. Second, it is rather an exception that faith is not followed by works as most people are capable of some good works, just like mist people are capable of getting baptized by water.
Grace is the undeserved, unmerited favor of God
This is much better than “what God shows” and I agree with the entire paragraph.
God justifies the unGodly by a faith that will work, yet presently has no works of faith
Occasionally, but that does not elevate Sola Fide into any kind of soteriological principle, especially one flatly contradicted by scripture. The good works are still there with faith as its inseparable quantity, as you seem to agree.
Sinful man has no moral merit by which he may be justified
Yes, that is Catholic teaching. One burdened by sin should first have that sin confessed and absolved, and only following absolution is he capable of contributing to the treasure of merits through his works.
Yes. This episode, for example, means that someone used the word "brothers" describing the company Mary was with, and Jesus did not agree with that use, and offered His own, spiritualized sense of the word.
aa: Would be very nice of you.
Why? Is that a *work* that Jesus supposedly instructed in the Beatitudes, or is it something the RCC made up itself?
It is what St. John the Baptist did as he called sinners to penance.
This is why we don't see saints in heaven doing penance. But we on this earth are not saved yet, despite what your Protestant theological fantasy teaches.
It is what a saint and a prophet did and we, Roman Catholics, imitate saints and prophets.
I am busy with other posts on on going thread, among other things, and place a low priority on responding here on this dead one, if at all, as so much has been covered. Perhaps I will try to look through the latest and see if anything is worth responding to that has not been dealt with.
Thank you.
For the record, when I see a post to which I wish to respond, I take the visible part of the “To:” list (if it is too long, the trailing end of it is replaced by a row of dots). I then paste that list following the name of the author of the post and a semicolon. I do so because I assume that the author of the post would want the people he pinged to read the response as well as his initial post.
I can pick out a person or two but I cannot guarantee that I always remember who asked me what.
The matter gets more complicated when, as now, significant time intervenes between the post and my response. I read posts when I have time to respond and not before. So if one got himself on the “To:” line, and several posts down, he asks me to remove him, I will not see that request at the time I respond to the post.
I ask anyone who has special requests that need to be handled out-of-sequence to use e-mail.
I live in the world as it is. No one is "saved" till his life is judged in its completeness, at death. I have reasonable hope that Christ Whose sacrifice is surely sufficient to save me will see me through, so I would not describe this as "fear", though.
Is everything in the Bible “Protestant?”
Quite a bit in Protestantism is actually Catholicism, and those parts are int he Bible allright. What makes Protestantism Protestant is indeed stuff not found in the Bible. Your idea that people are saved before they actually are is among those.
[17] And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
[18] Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin
(Heb 10)
Right, this is a good reason to discard the once-saved-always-saved nonsense and get to the penitentiary.
>> “I live in the world as it is. No one is “saved” till his life is judged in its completeness, at death.” <<
.
Not found anywhere in God’s word.
You live in fear (a sinful condition of itself) if you are not one of God’s children.
That is your ‘reality’ not mine.
Is MARY SINLESS?. I read it briefly and it is typical Protestant ignorant pap. Let me cover it a bit.
It begins by confusing sinlessness with lack of omniscience. It is true that Mary did not quite know many things, including where Jesus was at all times or what exactly his purpose was. She is, in other words, human. This does not make her sinful. Next, the hapless author presumes that since Mary speaks of Jesus as her savior, she must have done something wrong, and shortly after that, that the very fact that she was uniquely graced indicated that she was sinful, since “only sinful people need God's grace”. That is stupid, too. The Church never taught that Mary “became sinless later in life”, it was her immaculate conception, not sinlessness that was “endorsed in 1850” (in 1854, really, even though the belief is ancient).The author apparently is not aware that sinlessness (absence of actual sin) is not the same as immaculate conception (absence of original sin). It is incorrect that “term is also used of Stephen in Acts 6:8” as anyone vaguely familiar with the Greek Gospel would know. The article is worthless. It does however, cite a few doctors of the Church, so let me dwell on these. First, the author is apparently unaware that no doctor of the Church is infallible all the time, not even when he is a pope. It is what consensus patrum says that constitutes the inerrant teaching of the Church. Moreover, the bulk of what the author cites does not even speak to whether Mary was indeed sinless, but rather uses some language from which one can infer, with a varying degree of certainty, that the Father thought so. One valid example is of St. Thomas Aquinas, the doctor of the Church, but his was a hypothesis rejected by the Church as a whole.
[That Mary is sinless] is never said of Mary
True, and it is said that generally “all have sinned”. But note that it would simply not be possible for any inspired author to say that, as no one was a continuing witness to her entire life. Her sinlessness cannot come as a consequence of divinity as was the case with Jesus. It is necessarily a belief of the Church that is not derived from a direct scriptural witness. While it might mean something to a Sola Scriptura Protestant, the Church never taught Sola Scripture either.
God brought forth His sinless pure spoken and written Word into the world using holy but fallen men who had sinned
From this true statement you infer that Jesus could have just easily received His flesh from a mother who had sinned. In theory that is true but that would break the immaculate nature of the Holy of Holies that prefigured Mary and is firmly stated in the Bible.
As for “full of grace,” the only person who is said to be “full” (plērēs) grace (charis) is the Lord Jesus Himself
No, also St. Stephen, although “πληρης χαριτος” is not the same expression as “κεχαριτωμενη” applied to Mary.
Believers themselves are said to be graced
Of course, although again, the expression is not the same in the original. “κεχαριτωμενη” happens to be a near-neologism employed by St. Luke. One can, of course argue how to best translate it, even though translations that say “favored” are clearly designed by Mariophobes who would not translate any other form of charis as “favor”. An honest translator should make note of the unique word formation employed here and conclude that it describes equally unique relationship to grace that Mary has.
(Skipping several inobjectionable paragraphs of yours)
Which [infant baptism] is contrary to the explicit requirements for conversion and baptism. (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:37)
But these requirements involved adults.
And i do not agree that infants are guilty of sins but that they are innocent.
The infants are innocent of actual sin, that is a sin they themselves committed. Why? Because actual sin has to be committed with full understanding of the moral dimension of sin, and an infant by definition is not capable of it. That is the sin one has to do penance for, or, as the Protestant jargon goes, to repent of. The infant is of course carrying the original sin, that is a certain condition inherited from Adam.
As for ex opere operando, the recipient must be properly disposed, and normally the minister is to be of God and appropriately gifted
The recipient must be disposed, but the minister has to be merely intending to do his part of the Sacrament as the Church intended it. So, for example, a sacrament requiring a priest remains valid if the priest is in the state of sin himself, so long that the priest intends to be a minister of it. (The opposite is the heresy of Donatism, against which St. Augustine wrote much). A sacrament not necessarily involving a priest, e.g. a Baptism merely requires that the minister of it, e.g. a doctor facilitating the labor, who may not be even Christian, -- merely intend to make the Child a Christian as the Christian Church understands it to be. That is because the role of the minister of a sacrament is (as St. Chrysostom said) “a tongue and a finger”, the actual work is done by God, it “works out of itself”.
Roman Catholic apologists who attack Prots as deficient in grace
Grace, like the Holy Spirit Who blows everywhere, cannot itself be institutionalized, so it would be wrong to say that the Protestants do not have access to Grace. It would be more correct to say that where Christ is there is the Catholic Church, so where grace is, the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ is. The Protestants suffer not because they have no access to grace, nor because God does not love them, but because they listen to traditions of evil men and separate themselves from the Holy Mother Church, to the extent to which they so separate themselves. Many do not run around slandering the Church at all, they simply live their lives the best they know how, and God bless them. My dear wife is a good example of that. She lived all her life thinking that her Protestant communion of faith was One True Church and the Catholics is just one strange denomination among many. Then, gradually, first as a visitor to the Catholic Church she came to know the Catholic Church to be her home, studies it more, loved her and converted, and now out-Catholics me in her devotions. Characteristically of all converts, she thinks fondly of Protestantism as a movement that brought her into the Church, as the case was, despite itself.
Annalex: There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. So those outside of it by the time they die according to their heart will not be able to save themselves, and those in it by the time they die according to their heart will be saved by the blood and righteousness of Christ, and again not because of anything in them as creature.
Daniel: So this means formal membership, and or at least with the required trust in her assuredly infallible magisterium? And are those Catholics who suppose they are somewhat morally worthy of eternal life, lost? Do you support a Roman monarchy? And what should be done with doctrinal heretics? Answer.
On trust in the Church and formality of conversion. It is possible that one on the threshold of death converts of the heart and not formally. Such was the conversion of the Good Thief. He did not know everything Christ taught, -- he just met Christ. His prayer, “remember me”, implied that he is ready to be taught by Christ and therefore taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Church that He will send down. He surely did not reject parts of the teaching of Christ like those opposed (protesting) the Church did.
On Catholics lost. I don’t know what in my speech that you are responding to prompted this strange question. Since “they” are Catholic, there is a good chance that the Church lead them to salvation through her teaching, the familiarity with Christ that is fosters, and grace and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost that the Holy Sacraments give. If at the time of death their Catholicity has made them holy they die and are saved, and if they, despite all that, die not in the state of holiness they are lost. Salvation is judged by our works (Mt. 25:31-46); Catholics merely have a better chance in life to be Christ’s sheep.
I actually support just about any monarchy, -- I am a monarchist. Certainly, the Papacy, and generally monarchy every place blessed enough to have a monarch. Where there isn’t a natural monarch, may God send one one day.
On what should be done to heretics, foremostly, the heresy should be clearly delineated as contrary to the authentic Catholic Church. If heresy is preached from a Catholic pulpit, the preacher should be expelled from it. If it is preached from, for example, a Protestant or some secularist platform, it is less of a concern, but again, the Catholic teaching should be clearly juxtaposed to it. As to criminal liability, it is a matter for the civil authority to decide, and always has been. It is not in American political culture to criminalize error and I can respect that. In principle, laws that somehow protect the value of the dominant religion are, I think, a good idea, so long as local diverse enclaves are allowed to form. For example, when a country singles out Christian symbols in the public space in preferential legal treatment to secular or non-Christian symbolism, I think it is smart, but again, it is not a very American thing.
Anticipating a likely question, I think it would be fine in America where Protestantism predominates, if and where it still does, to have a dominant legal position reserved to Protestantism, as it still is in some state Constitutions.
Finally, obviously monarchism is a rare political affiliation in America also among the Catholics, and these views are strictly my own.
About the only souls one can have some degree of actual fellowship in Christ with are a few charismatics
You mean those in Steubenville? “Fellowship in Christ” cannot be an expression of actual endorsement of doctrinal error, or in your case, perceived by you error; I also think that serious limits exist on Ecumenical prayer between Protestants and authentic Christians. I was speaking on collaboration in political arena, -- that is fine and more can be done in the spirit of Manhattan Declaration.
the New Testament church did not use such carnal force to discipline its members
I generally agree that use of secular force is highly undesirable even when indirect. The Church is perfectly well equipped to run herself. I wish the Church only cooperated with secular powers when there is a crime against common law, such as with pederast priests of late. However, you cannot conclude that simply from the practices of the Early Church as she simply had no access to secular power.
must defend an institution as the infallible authority above the Scriptures.
It is an infallible institution that gave you the scriptures and whose teachings are, in parts covered by the scriptures at all, most compatible with it. What’s not to advertize? Speaking of advertizing, what denomination of Protestantism would you be?
[1 Cor 3:8-15] says nothing about the building being believers whose interior is purged by fire!
you are God's building (1 Cor 3:9)Rome's own stamped NAB commentators state
Why should I care what some soldout pseudo-Catholics at the NAB think? I can read the scripture myself, thank you, just like the Bereans.
Why is it not clear that (as shown before) “eating” has a high metaphorical use, while John calls Jesus many things thusly (Lamb, door, shepherd, etc.)
Because when the speech is metaphorical Jesus is not saying “truly, truly I say to you I am lamb indeed, look at the floppy ears… I am a door indeed, look at the hinges”, yet in John 6 half the chapter is devoted to drilling down the idea that shocking as it is the speech is not metaphorical and He will give His flesh to eat which is food indeed. His opponents understood Him literally and therefore left; His disciples understood Him literally and hence Apostle Paul writes about “discerning His body” in the Eucharistic meal.
you must try to wrangle eating literal food out of “the flesh profited nothing.”
Well, if the food in question were metaphorical, to suggest that eating it, metaphorically, does not profit the flesh would be rather silly, now, would it not?
… Shows that is it not “sola fide”. Nor is it necessarily “in one heart”; crossing the desert involved also at least two legs.
There is no “do” as in doing works of repentance prior to baptism that day […] but repented of unbelief and the heart behind that hour and “same day,” and were baptised in faith
Possibly, in the case described. Other cases of conversion described also outward works, such as giving away possessions (Luke 19:8). The point of penance is to do what is necessary for effective rependance as well as change internally. Your argument here is again, like your building Sola Fide on Gen 15, based on picking a verse you like and discarding the rest on the same subject.
if you require that evident formal or prescribed acts of contrition must always be exercised before forgiveness, though such may be seen, then you are fostering legalism
Authentic Christianity does not require that penance be done when there is nothing to repent of.
It was predicated upon having the aforementioned heart, and which at least Cornelius evidenced, consistent with the preparatory work sola fide recognizes, yet that did not justify him
That justified him enough to seek baptism. Justification is a process. “Preparatory work” is a part of it. We are not justified by faith alone.
Sola fide holds that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense
To borrow the colorful language of one political operative, I could probably drag a dollar through some Protestant trailer park and find you plenty who disagree with you here. Same in general on the conception of sola fide that nevertheless involves “preparatory work” and “out of which actions result” and which is “never alone”.
the abundant allegorical use of eating easily conforms this
Abundant allegorical use of eating prefigures the actual Eucharistic Feast the literal nature of which is explained in John 6. You realize that allegories in the Bible are there to point to realities, rather than to provide amusement, do you not?
elders/bishops were the pastors of the church, being one office not two, (Titus 1:5-7) and were not a separate class of sacerdotal priests
True, but the office of the priest was inherent to that. In other words, a bishop is also a priest, but the reverse is not always true. The separation between bishops and parish priests came about with the growth of parishes. If, hypothetically, the Church shrinks so that in any given town every Christian can fit in the cathedral, only the bishops will be priests once again, like in the Old Church.
“seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it” (1260). Yes, among the ignorant, some Protestants count. Note however, that in the West, unlike in the Muslim world, innocent ignorance of the truths of Catholicism is a virtual impossibility. I think, a greater case can be made for those who are Protestant as a result of cultural upbringing and lack of intense searching for the truth, like someone who is born in a uniformly Protestant country such as Sweden and never had a reason to question Lutheranism.
And Sola fide literature does likewise […] straw men burn easier
As it should have become clear, I do not have a big quarrel with how you understand Sola Fide. I know however that a good number of Protestants do not understand Sola Fide to have anything to do with a salvific and necessary nature of good works. So that is no straw man to correct at least them, and they abound on this forum. Your problem is less doctrinal and more rhetorical, as what you believe cannot really be called Sola Fide.
If a paraplegic who never heard about Jesus can be saved […] then one can be saved through faith
Did you mean to add “alone” as in “by faith alone”? Assuming you did, the answer is – yes, one can be saved by faith without works if he is a paraplegic, nailed to something, is a baby, etc. Not when he has a full ability to do works of charity, study, and penance but is just too busy chanting the “faith alone” mantra and pasting “I’ve been saved at 1st Baptist” sticker to his bumper.
his (Baptist) church shows more works of lovehis (Baptist) church shows more works of love
It is often the case, but just as often these works are canceled out by horrid theological errors, mariophobia and anti-Catholicism, common to all Protestants.
Annalex: That is because the Mass IS the Cross.
Daniel: That is heretical. Reenactment illustrates but does not do what the Jesus did on the cross
The Mass does not re-enact anything. The actual, one for all times sacrifice on the altar of the Cross 2000 years ago is what Mass actually in essence IS.
The Lord's supper commemorates that by remembering…
The Lord’s’ Supper was one particular Mass said before rather than after the Cross. The memorial snacks that Protestants amuse themselves by are just what you describe, but they only resemble a Divine Liturgy; they have little significance beyond, like you said, symbolic re-enactment.
The Lord's supper is not set forth as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins.
That is true in reference to the Holy Mass as well, as only those whose sins have been absolved can productively partake.
As often stated, “alone” does not mean a faith that is alone
So don’t say confusing things like we are “justified by faith alone” because clearly, and by your own understanding, we aren’t.
Last I checked, Pope Benedict XVI and nearly all other popes were in fact bishops of Rome.
Of most others we know plenty detail and their works survived. Linus, most likely, was killed quickly as were most early popes.
Clements' letter was of a pastoral nature
Yeah, right. Here's a sample:
You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people (57)yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. (58)
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin (59)
submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame (63)
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. (65)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.