Posted on 12/05/2005 2:55:19 AM PST by HarleyD
So that Last Supper thing was just a joke? And when Paul says "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ", he was just kidding?
Nothing in the Bible says that the normative pattern for a Christian is a profession of faith apart from baptism and the other sacraments. God can make exceptions, but he also instituted those sacraments for a reason.
I don't quote "Catholic Theologians". When I quote, or if I paraphrase, I use the Catechism, the official teaching of the Church. As you may or may not know, individual theologians are NOT part of the Magesterium, the teaching authority, of the Church. Their "job" is to plumb the depths of current teaching, testing the limits of our faith, coming up with more current formulas of our faith. However, many go too far. Thus, while their opinions are interesting and perhaps illuminative, they are NOT the proper place to go to "quote" Catholic doctrine or beliefs.
I would like to note that Catholic Doctrine is not "variable" like Protestantism. Unfortunately, though, many Catholics are either not aware of their Church's teachings, or prefer to pick and choose what they think is the faith.
When you post your own conclusions which disagree with what the Church actually teaches, and you still hold to this view after shown wrong, that we don't believe "x" or "y", then isn't it fair to ask "why"? Is it not also fair to warn others that "the following is my opinion, although the Church 'claims' x or y"? Again, how fair would I be if I made the claim that Protestants are woman beaters because they believe women's place is in the home subservient to the husband? If I didn't stress that this was my opinion, but asserted it as fact, it is misleading, wouldn't you think?
IMO scripture must reign supreme. Scripture, unlike the whims of Popes and Preachers, is unchanging and if we adhere to scripture as the final arbiter of our doctrine and practices, and then call upon the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, then I believe we are safe. If, on the other hand, we put our trust in the arm of flesh we will eventually and inevitably drift off into unsound doctrines and unsound practices.
Scripture cannot be in contradiction to Apostolic Tradition. Since BOTH come from God, it is impossible for the two to contradict. This is what the Church teaches. We hold that there is no contradiction between the two. And implicitly, we are using Scripture as the "bar" to compare Apostolic Tradition, aren't we? Understand we consider "Tradition" as the original meaning of the word - teaching. As Paul says, this teaching includes BOTH oral and written.
I understand your concern that false traditions can be started. These are to be rejected, rightfully so. But I think it is important that a person keep an open mind that something MIGHT NOT BE FALSE. That is what, from my experience here, is not happening. They dismiss out of hand the possibility that Catholic traditions may be legitimately based on the Apostles' teachings, such as infant baptism. "Because it isn't in the bible" is a ridiculous argument, namely, because IT is not in the Bible itself. But the logic will continue to escape such people.
I BTW, IMO The protestant reformation was not only necessary but was long overdue. But then that is my opinion. I'm sure you differ.
I am honest enough to say that there were several positive ideas that came forth from the Reformation that has enhanced the Catholic Church or returned it to what its focus should be - for example moving away from an over-emphasis on Tradition to the detriment of Scripture. But now that the Catholic Church has reformed itself after Trent, why do people remain outside the Catholic Church? What are YOU protesting now??? Or do Protestants have other issues, other motives for their separation? It is not unusual for man to prefer himself over God. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this will continue. I pray it is just "invincible ignorance" and not willfully leaving the Church of Christ for some specter of it.
Regards
Do you dispute that the works of the Visible Church were not available to the thief, or that they are available to us, or that theft is a sin that separates from God?
A good point. One who feels they need to lie and misrepresent another's viewpoint, building a straw man, probably is insecure in their own beliefs but is not ready to explore the possibility that they might be incorrect. As usual, your points are quite fair minded.
Brother in Christ
I am disputing that works are necessary for salvation whether they are available or not.
It was not merely the theft for which this man was spiritually condemned. He was temporally condemned for theft and probably rightly so. But I'm sure his life, as yours and mine, was filled with sins of lesser or perhaps even greater magnitude than theft. Any of those sins separates us from God. It is Christ and Christ alone who can restore us apart from and unconditioned by anything we do.
It is by Grace you have been saved, through faith and not of works, lest any man should boast.
If you think you have contributed to your own salvation by your own hard work, then I think you are robbing God of the Glory that belongs only to him. Works are the evidence of salvation, they are not a requirement of salvation.
I'm not a protestant, and I don't think I'm protesting, but searching instead. But what I'm searching for is a way to believe -pretense of understanding and assent have failed me thus far- that my salvation is as inextricably linked to belief in infallibility, purgatory and the Immaculate Conception, as it is to the Mystery and Profession of Faith.
When they are available (you are not nailed to anything, are you?), and when and because you have faith in Christ, you should do what He asks us to do through His gospels, namely,
The disconnect between us and the Catholics, however, is that we steadfastly claim that none of these sacraments or actions enter into the conversion process. We Protestants tend to use a Pauline definition of justification, rather than James. (They don't contradict, but they do use "justify" differently.) Paul, and the Protestants, see justification as transactional, and rightly affirm that these sacraments and actions don't enter into the conversion process which is what we mean by "justification."
Catholics, however, tend to see justification as an ongoing process. They wouldn't deny that the sacraments and good works do not enter into the conversion process (well, they might for baptism, since it is held to wash away original sin). But, because Catholics see justification as a process making men more holy (that is, more in accord with the Virtues), they believe that works are absolutely neccessary for justification, and point to where James uses the word to mean that.
Protestants wouldn't deny that good works are necessary in order to conform oneself with the Virtues. They just don't use the word "justification" to describe it, but rather use a separate word "sanctification." For the Catholic, justification and sanctification are inseparable.
Unfortunately for us, when the Catholic Church was faced with Protestantism, no one at Trent seemed to see things this way. The version of Protestantism promulgated in Trent is every bit as much a strawman as any Protestant propaganda about Rome.
I agree that at the core the debate about the role of works is specious, at least with the Lutherans, because, of course, no Protestant suggests that we do bad works. But the outcome in religious praxis is drastic and keeps the Protestants away from the Sacraments of the Faith. Then, in order to create a bright dividing line where none should exist in theory, the doctrine of assured salvation through a single declarative act of faith is preached, which leads the Protestant to material sin of presumption. Thus the strawman imperils real souls.
" Works are the evidence of salvation, they are not a requirement of salvation"
It's so simple :)
I am arguing that the argument is very real and very serious, but in practice, very semantic.
Then, in order to create a bright dividing line where none should exist in theory, the doctrine of assured salvation through a single declarative act of faith is preached
Some Protestants (myself included) do not believe that just because you "prayed a prayer," you are ipso facto saved. As a Calvinist, I don't believe in once-saved, alway-saved because I believe in Perseverence of the Saints - that those who are really saved are discernable by virtue of the fact that they will endure to the end.
What do you mean by "requirement"?
It would be more accurate to say that works are not a pre-condition for salvation, but they are a necessary consequence.
That's a kind of truncated and primitive.
Justification == sanctification == holiness == becoming more deeply indwelt by the life of the Blessed Trinity. They aren't disconnected concepts, they're like different facets of the same diamond.
And when we talk about "works" or "good works," we don't include the sacraments at all. When a person is baptized, he is not performing a "good work". If any human is performing a good work, it's the minister doing the baptizing. But the real Person performing the good work is Jesus.
IMO whether or not you do those things will not affect your status as saved. If you steadfastly refuse to follow the instructions of Christ, I think it is an indication that you do not have saving faith however none of those things are necessary for salvation. Salvation is not contingent upon our works, but is contingent solely upon God's grace and mercy.
I believe it is signifcant that the first "convert" and the first man to enter into the Kingdom with Christ was nothing more than a condemned sinner who took nothing into the Kingdom with him other than his faith in Christ.
I also think it is significant that despite the fact that he did no rituals, did not get baptized, did not confess his sins, did not partake of communion, was not given last rites, did not tithe, did not do any works of charity, nevertheless he went directly to be with the Lord that day and apparently did not spend so much as an hour in any place called Purgatory. IOW he was immediately justified and sanctified and glorified by God entirely by a single act of faith and not by any works. IOW, when Christ said "it is finished" it was finished. Your salvation is contingent upon nothing more than the finished work of Christ on the cross. IMO if someone thinks their salvation is contingent upon them helping out God or otherwise doing things which will secure their own salvation, then they are robbing God of the glory which is his alone and taking away from the sacrifice Christ made on the cross.
Your faith is made manifest in good works, but it is by faith and faith alone that your salvation is secured. That is the method by which the Thief on the cross secured his salvation. It is the method proclaimed by Christ in John 3:16 and it is the method spoken of by Paul. It is... the gospel.
That's pretty close to the point I was trying to make - that Catholics see justification as a process including what Protestants call sanctification.
And when we talk about "works" or "good works," we don't include the sacraments at all.
Could you explain? Is this derived from the Catholic doctrine that the sacraments work ex operare operato?
Actually, let's look at this.
He didn't get baptized, partake of communion, or tithe, nor was he given last rites (as best as we can tell, anyway). He did, however, confess his sins - he admitted before Christ that he received the punishment his sins deserved. He also did a work of charity - defending an innocent man reviled by his executors.
I don't think you can tenably argue that the thief did't do good works. Those good works are the very reason we know he was the "repentant thief." (Gee, sounds like James.)
That's another argument for another day.
All these arguments are very abstract if viewed from the eternal Divine perspective. As long as it is clear that we are talking about the mysteries of predestination and Divine foreknowledge, you can say that the differences are bridgeable, and much is a consequence of the choice in terminology. For example, once faith is understood as faith formed by works of love rather than declarative faith, the 'sola fide' becomes a biblically acceptable doctrine. Once 'sola scriptura' is understood as reading the Scripture in the light of the patristic teaching and in the context in which it was written by the human writer, that becomes acceptable. Once grace is understood as transforming grace rather than a coat of paint, 'sola gratia' becomes acceptable.
Faith as a matter of ongoing conversion and spiritual effort then generates a hunger for the sacraments, charitable work, and self-sacrifice. We see it in all the converts. But this is exactly the point where Protestant indoctrination creates a mental block: "Oh wait, eating this is works! Praying this is tradition of men! Looking at that is idolatry! Confessing to a priest is clericalism!" So, -- and I repeat myself -- while much of Protestant soteriology is a permissible view on the same spiritual reality, Protestant praxis is very damaging. Presumption is just one wound it inflicts. The Zwinglian image of God as author of Evil is another. Radical individualism and self-propelled sectarianism is another. Megachurch mass hysteria is another. These are wounds on the body of Christ.
Thank you Jude. Quite so.
Also, according to the Catholic theology, his suffering on the cross was baptism of blood, and his proximity to Christ was his Eucharist and the Extreme Unction.
Nor would a formal performance of Christ's sacraments matter when the Master of the Sacraments was right there, body, soul, and divinity.
Surely Marlowe is not going to argue that the purpose of the Good Thief in the economy of salvation was to cancel the Sermon on the Mount or John 6.
I never heard of this. I figured the argument would be "baptism of desire," that, if the sacrament is unavailible, God is just and takes that into account.
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.