Posted on 12/05/2005 2:55:19 AM PST by HarleyD
In order to properly understand the importance of Luther’s journey to Rome in the winter of 1510, it is important to understand something of the place and standing of indulgences in medieval Catholicism. I bring that up even though indulgences were not, in fact, the reason Luther went to Rome. At the time, Luther was an up and coming young priest in his order and he accepted the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding indulgences without reservations of any kind. His opposition to indulgences would come later and when it finally did come it was really only directed toward those scandalous abusers of the practice like Tetzel. No it would be later, much later in fact, before Luther would finally call into question the sacrament of penance and the whole concept of indulgences. You see when Luther visited Rome in the winter of 1510, he longed to obtain for himself and for those he loved just about any and every indulgence he could. Still that is not the principal reason he went.
Actually, when Luther went to Rome in 1510, it wasn’t because of indulgences …it was rather because he was sent. He was sent as one of two representatives for his monastical order, the Order of the Augustinian Hermits. He was sent along with another monk to represent one side of a conflict over how the Order of the Augustinian Hermits ought to be organized and governed. Now the details of that conflict aren’t very important. Besides, Luther wasn’t even the principal representative or leader on the trip. He was the junior partner…in fact, he was simply a traveling partner…the Augustinians required monks travel in pairs. But that was all right with Luther. His secondary role allowed him a good deal of free time to see and to explore the glories of Rome.
Now when Luther visited Rome in the winter of 1510, he wasn’t really interested in any of the great archaeological sites tourists want to see today. He wasn’t really interested in the Roman Forum or even the Pantheon. No, when Luther visited Rome in the winter of 1510, he was only interested in the great ecclesiastical sites. That is, he was only interested in seeing for himself those religious shrines and holy places that provided opportunities to do works of penance and to gain indulgences. That is why, of course, I mentioned the fact that to understand the importance of Luther’s trip you have to understand something of the nature and place of penance and indulgences in medieval Catholicism. You see…many…most of the religious shrines and holy places in Rome had indulgences attached to them. When a person visited such a shrine and listened to a mass…made confession and received communion, they were eligible to obtain whatever indulgence was attached to the place. The indulgence they received then reduced the amount of time or temporal punishment that person or whatever person they designated in their place would receive in purgatory. As a result, Luther’s journey to Rome, more or less, took on the nature of a quest…a pilgrimage…meaning that Luther was striving to obtain as many indulgences as he could. So, Luther wanted to see everything. Of course, what actually happened was that he saw and learned a great many things that disappointed him. But before I talk about that, I think I ought to take just a minute or two and put into your mind something of the difficulty of Luther’s journey to Rome.
The trip from Erfurt to Rome is six hundred and thirty-four miles by air. But, of course, Luther did not take the trip by air. Nor did he travel by coach or wagon or even by mule. No, Luther walked…he walked the whole long way. Just so you can get a sense of the kind of distance we are talking about…the trip from Erfurt to Rome is just about exactly the same distance as a trip from Arlington to Denver.
Of course the walk in his day would have actually been a lot longer than six hundred and thirty-four miles and the principal reason for the additional mileage was that Luther would not have been able to walk in a straight line from Erfurt to Rome. There was a small obstacle in his way…a small geological obstacle otherwise known as the Swiss Alps1.
Now during their trip, Luther and his companion would have walked from one major city or town to the next. In that regard they would have been fortunate. Larger towns had monasteries and since they were monks, they would have been permitted and even welcomed to stay in any number of monasteries along the way and that would have been important because it would have resolved the problem of food and shelter for them. Of course, they would not have always been able to make it from one monastery to the next in a day’s journey and would have had to sometimes manage for themselves.
Now, I mentioned the Alps a moment ago but I ought to add that in Luther’s day, travelers did not especially enjoy scenic trips through the mountains like we do today. That would have been especially true in winter. The travel would have been dangerous and it was grueling. The Septimer Pass heading down to Milan was lined with a number, perhaps hundreds, of crosses where travelers had been killed along the way.2 Many of the wilder spots in the Alps were so terrifying they were given names of places from hell.3 Still, the two monks made it in one piece.
Right before the two men reached Rome, Luther had to be hospitalized for a stomach ailment. Still, the two men managed to make it to Rome in just a little over a month, which if you think about it was really not bad at all. That meant that they averaged about twenty to twenty-five miles a day.
Now I bring that up, not because I want you to become experts on travel in medieval times but rather because I want you to understand something of the personal sacrifice involved when pilgrims traveled in Luther’s day. It was a terrifying undertaking and it was exhausting. It was dangerous and the danger was not just related to thieves and robbers but to disease, and to difficult geography and to inclement weather. Now that raises the question, “Why would anyone purposely want to go through that kind of journey?”
The answer is that the medieval Catholic believed the spiritual rewards associated with such a trip were great. Individuals could, by making a pilgrimage, do works of penance that that would restore the baptismal grace they had lost in committing sin. They could also obtain indulgences, indulgences which helped do away the debt of temporal punishment…owed for sin.
Now the reason that happened…the reason penance and indulgences were important…was because medieval Catholics viewed justification like this. They believed that at baptism a person received the grace of baptism and that a person was restored to a state of innocence.
They also believed that after that whenever a person sinned a measure of that justifying grace was lost.
Over a period of time, a person committing a measure of sin lost more and more of their justifying grace. It is almost as if they viewed grace as a substance that “leaked out” when a person sinned…something like water out of a bathtub. Now if a person committed a mortal sin…all of the grace they had received in their baptism was lost.
The question then became and this was a very important question…what does a person do to restore themselves to the state of grace they had before. The answer was they were to do works of penance. The Council of Trent put it this way…
Now to state that as plainly as I can, the Catholic Church taught that when a person sinned they lost the grace that they had first obtained in their baptism. It also taught that a person could restore themselves to a state of grace by doing works of penance. Penance then was a sacrament in that it was the vehicle through which God’s grace was received, or perhaps it would be better to say received all over again. God’s grace was first obtained in baptism and then if lost reattained through penance.
Now I am spending some time here because I want to distinguish in your minds the difference between doing works of penance and procuring an indulgence. Penance had to do with justification. That is penance removed the penalty of eternal punishment.
Indulgences, on the other hand, removed the penalty of temporal sin. Now that is hard for a good Protestant to grasp. We do not separate the two ideas. We believe that Jesus’ death redeemed us from the temporal and eternal punishment of our sin. Although, we do freely acknowledge that God does sometimes chasten us temporally for our sin. Still, that is not how good medieval Catholics looked at it. They believed that sin had to be paid for both eternally and temporally. They believed that baptism and penance removed the eternal punishment for sin. But they believed that purgatory removed the temporal punishment of sin. That is, a fully justified person might not go straight into heaven until the temporal punishment of their sins was obtained.
That is what indulgences did. They sped up or in some cases removed the temporal punishment of sin in purgatory. Now that is not always what people heard. Sometimes on account of their ignorance or on account of the unscrupulous nature of the person hawking indulgences people heard, “Commit whatsoever sin you desire and obtain forgiveness for it.” But that was never the official position of the church. Still that happened and it happened, I think, a good deal more than the modern church is willing to admit. Now in case you think I am being unfair in my explanation of the difference between “penances” and “indulgences” let me read to you a quote from the online Catholic Encyclopedia.
Now you can see, I think, why Luther’s trip to Rome was important for Luther. Listen to what Richard Friedenthal writes:
There were all kinds of opportunities to obtain indulgences in Rome but not only was it possible to obtain an indulgence, it was possible to obtain a plenary indulgence, which meant that not just a part but the whole of temporal punishment could be discharged simply by visiting a shrine and listening to mass while there and making confession and receiving communion.
It was common for pilgrims to not only obtain an indulgence for themselves but also for their family members. This was especially true for priests…who sought for themselves the right to say mass in any shrine they could for saying the Mass for themselves gained them additional merit. Luther was to say later and you have to understand the way Luther was to get this, “Oh! how I regret that my father and mother are still alive! What pleasure I should have in delivering them from the fire of purgatory by my masses, my prayers, and by so many other admirable works!”8
Anyway, Luther visited all of the shrines…that is, all of the important ones…including the seven major churches of Rome. We don’t have anything like a daily log of his travels but we know enough to know that he hit all of the major spots. Luther was terrified at the lack of spirituality and decorum manifested by the Italian priests. He disliked them immensely and they returned the favor…thinking of him as lumbering, German oaf.
In one of the places where Luther was permitted to say Mass, one of the priests…the priest superintending the visitors who were performing the ceremony kept whispering, “Passa, passa, passa…” which is Italian for “Hurry it up…get a move on.” It irritated Luther immensely. But the Italians were used to visiting priests and the long lines of priests wanting to say Mass caused them to want to keep things moving. Richard Marius writes:
In another place, Luther recounted that one of the priests next to him had completed seven masses while he was still working on his first. The priest turned and spoke sharply to him saying, “Hurry up and send the Son back to His mother.”10
And in another place, when Luther was eating supper with a group of Italian priests he heard them brag openly about substituting in the Mass at the place where they were supposed to consecrate the bread these words, “Panis es, et panis manebis; vinum es, et vinum manebis.” Now, for a good Catholic such would have been blasphemous. What they were saying was, “Bread thou art and bread thou wilt remain.” The Luther added that the priests went ahead and offered the bread up for the adoration of the common people laughing all the while at their ignorance and superstition. It infuriated Luther. He later wrote, I was a thoughtful and pious young monk. Such language grieved me bitterly. If ‘tis thus they speak at Rome, freely and publicly at the dinner table, wondered I to myself, what would it be if… all — pope, cardinals, and courtiers — thus repeat the mass!11
But the behavior of the priests was really just a reflection of the lawlessness of the times. Many of the churches surrounding Rome were very difficult to get to because of bands of marauders that often swooped down on pilgrims robbing them of their money and offerings. In fact, while Luther was in Rome the situation had gotten so bad that the Pope had begun to send out a nightly patrol of three hundred horsemen to patrol the city. If they found anyone out on the roads they were punished. If they were armed they were immediately hung or thrown into the Tiber River.12
Now the most famous incident of Luther’s stay in Rome occurred as he climbed the Sancta Scala in one of pilgrimmages.13
It was one of the most important shrines in all of Rome. It was staircase and it was believed to be the very staircase Christ ascended and descended in His appearance before Pilate.
Now does any question come to mind with me saying that?
It should. Jesus ascended and descended the steps up to Pilate, if there were any steps, not in Rome but in Jerusalem and Jerusalem is 1,428 miles to the east. So the question that ought to come to your mind is, “Just how did a very large marble staircase wind up 1,428 miles away from where it was first installed?”
The answer to that question has been different in different ages. In Luther’s day, it was believed to have been magically transported from Jerusalem to Rome by angels. In our day, the faithful say St. Helen, who happened to be Constantine’s mother paid to have it removed and reinstalled in Rome.
Anyway, the Sancta Scala was enclosed in a small chapel just outside the church of St. John the Lateran. Pilgrims came from everywhere to climb the staircase on their knees and to kiss the steps and to pray an “Our Father.” Each step gained for the faithful pilgrim and indulgence of 9 years…that is, it removed nine years from a person’s stay in purgatory. There were certain steps that had crosses carved into them and each of those counted double. If a person climbed the whole staircase, and who could not climb the whole thing once there, procured for themselves or someone they loved a plenary indulgence, which meant a complete indulgence or release from all of the temporal punishment of sin to be suffered in Purgatory. Luther climbed the steps, all twenty-eight steps on his knees, kissing each step as he went and saying the necessary “Our Father” not for himself but for the benefit of his deceased grandfather.14
When he got to the top and tuned and looked back down his son Paul later wrote that Luther said to himself, “The just shall live by faith.” But I have to tell you I don’t think that is what he said at all. I don’t think he had come to that conclusion yet. In fact, I think he was still about five years away from his breakthrough understanding of the gospel. Besides, Luther himself says later that he stood up looked back down the staircase and said to himself, “Who can know if these things are so?”15
Now that was, I think, a remarkable conclusion for medieval Catholic monk to draw.
Luther had come to Rome with an innocence and naiveté and he was going back home to Erfurt a better, wiser, sadder man. Later he would say, He came to Rome with garlic and left with onions…which I think amounts to about the same thing. Now, I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. Luther was not yet a reformer…but the Lord had planted seeds of disillusions in his mind. He was no Protestant…he was still in every way a Catholic…but the Lord had started a rumbling deep down in his soul and the Lord intended that disillusionment to grow until Luther was altogether miserable. It would be necessary for the Lord to hollow Luther out completely before he would be able to receive and hold the truth of the doctrine of justification for himself. And Rome had had helped to push that process along. Luther was no longer quite so naive but he still believed in the medieval Catholic Church. He still believed that all that was needed was a strong reforming Pope to come in a sweep all the unbelief and unbelievers and put an end to all the abuses. But alas, that was not what was going to happen. The pope of the future, Leo X, was exactly the opposite of what Luther hoped for. The abuses were going to get worse and then the gospel was going to break in on Luther and subsequently on the whole world.
Still Luther could not yet see it coming. Still, he was hopeful that things might be made right.
A month after he and his traveling companion had arrived in Rome, they set off again across the Alps and back to Erfurt. When Luther arrived he was transferred almost immediately to Wittenberg, which a very small town in comparison to Erfurt. He was transferred, I think, because Von Staupitz wanted Luther’s talent near him and he himself had been transferred to Wittenberg to take the theological chair at the new university. Luther was able to finish his doctorate work there and on October 18-19, 1512 he graduated as a Doctor of Holy Scripture.
Within the year, Von Staupitz switched him from teaching philosophy to teaching the Bible. Luther started first with the Psalms and then followed the Psalms with Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. After that, he began to teach Galatians. Somewhere, during the Epistle to the Romans he came to his understanding of the gospel.
Now, the conflict for Luther and the breakthrough for Luther came in the word “righteousness” as it is used in Romans 1:17.
NIV Romans 1:17…For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God…I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners…Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place…desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith…it is the righteousness of God revealed by the gospel, that is, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith…Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates…And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise.16
What that meant practically was that baptism and penance for medieval Catholicism was the key. Baptism made a person intrinsically righteous and penance provided an opportunity to restore righteousness lost through sin.
Now, part of the misunderstanding stemmed back to Jerome’s translation of the Latin Vulgate. Whenever he translated the word for “to justify” he used the word Latin word “justificare” which is derived from two Latin words…”justis” and “facere” which when combined mean to “make righteous.”
BGT Romans 3:28…logizo,meqa ga.r dikaiou/sqai pi,stei a;nqrwpon cwri.j e;rgwn no,mouÅ
VUL Romans 3:28…arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis
The basic change is fundamental. Originally Luther regarded the precondition for justification as a human work, something which the sinner had to perform, before he or she could be justified. Increasingly convinced, through his reading of Augustine, that such an act was impossible, Luther could only understand the righteousness of God…as a punishing righteousness. But in this passage, he narrates how he discovered a ‘new’ meaning of the phrase — a righteousness which God gives to the sinner. In other words, God himself meets His own demand, graciously giving sinners what He requires them to have if they are to be justified. An analogy may help...
Let us suppose that you are in prison, and are offered your freedom on condition that you pay a heavy fine. The promise is real — so long as you can meet the precondition, the promise will be fulfilled. Catholic theology worked on the presupposition, initially shared by Luther, that you have the necessary money stashed away somewhere. As your freedom is worth far more than the money, you are being offered a bargain. So you pay the fine. This presents no difficulties so long as you have the necessary resources. But Luther increasingly came to share the view of Augustine that sinful humanity just doesn’t have any money. In that regard, Luther was correctly reading the Bible’s analysis of man’s condition. Now, you can see why that caused Luther a problem. Since sinners you don’t have the money, the promise of freedom have any relevance to their situation. For Luther, therefore, and for Augustine before him, the good news of the gospel is that you have been given the necessary money with which to buy your freedom. In other words, the precondition has been met for you by someone else.
Luther’s insight, which he describes in this autobiographical passage, is that the God of the Christian gospel is not a harsh judge who rewards individuals according to their merits, but a merciful and gracious God who bestows righteousness upon sinners as a gift.17
It is the gift of the Lord Jesus to all those that call on Him in faith and I wonder this morning…I wonder if even here there might not be someone that is still trying to work their way into God’s favor…or trying to work their best to keep God’s favor. If you are, you never going to make it. You are never going to attain to a level of righteousness that will please Him because all you righteousness, not all you sin…but all your righteousness is as filthy rags. But He has promised if anyone will come to Him He’ll not turn them away.
NIV Matthew 11:28…”Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”
Now do you know what that means? It means he’ll rest you from pursuing righteousness to gain God’s favor. It means he’ll give you His own imputed righteousness to cover you over like a pure white garment and that He’ll make you to be at peace with God. That’s what Luther rediscovered and what Paul preached and what many of us have come to know experientially. You can know it too, if you don’t…just come…not by works but by faith.
Let’s pray.
Hmmm? I'd still argue that the faith is not "formed by works" of anything, but rather the "works of love" are a necessary consequence of faith, and if you don't see works, you don't have faith. But I don't know if that's what you meant.
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.
I almost agree. I think the patristics should be given significant weight in interpreting Scripture - and certainly no Christian has the right to re-interpret Scripture as he sees fit. One should disagree with the Early Church with great care. I would argue that the immediate historical context and the rules of grammar and textual construction would take precedence, however.
Once grace is understood as transforming grace rather than a coat of paint, 'sola gratia' becomes acceptable.
That's pretty much my argument.
I think, St. Thomas speaks of both baptism of desire and baptism of blood as exceptional forms of coming to Christ. I can check later.
To be fair, the Catholics don't exactly have their act 100% together either. This is not intended to be a cheap shot (so please don't take it as such!), but the pedophile priest crisis is at least as traceable to Catholic praxis as radical individualism, sectarianism, and the excesses of the megachurch movement are traceable to Protestant praxis.
Both groups have their issues.
And vice versa, faith grows with works. It is like growing a plant. The seed is there, but then you till the soil, put in fertilizer, chase away sparrows. You work, or else the seed does not grow.
Faith is not cheap. It has to be tested by actual sacrifice, -- pain, sweat, effort, work. Grace is there to form our faith, and it is formed by something we do. The two sons were asked to work in the garden. One said that he will, then changed his mind. That was a declaration of faith (in the wisdom of the father's command). The other did not say anything but worked. Now, who had real faith?
Other than from the lives of saints, how many believers do you know that gave their life for the faith? Christ asked for it.
Pederasts go to any line of work that gives them authority and access to children. So they go to priesthood. The Catholic insistence on celibacy (in one form or another it exists in all rites) and exclusively male priesthood has scriptural roots (even if that is the root cause of priestly pederasty, which many doubt). It is not there to chase altar boys around. So the sexual abuse is a side effect of Catholic praxis, while if I understand 'sola scripture' as in "Let's get together Wednesday, figure out what Christianity is, and get saved", you get sectarianism and mega churches as a direct consequence.
I'll be back later...
I hope I can help. I, too, have gone through such moments of waning faith. First, the Church presents beliefs to us, and we assent to them, whether we understand them fully or not. But there is a heirarchy of beliefs. In other words, the reality of the angels is a de fide truth to be held by all Catholics. However, it does not have the same hold or effect on our salvation as say the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not critical to salvation to fully understand and comprehend them - or, frankly, to even know about angels.
Secondly, we base our faith on what the Church reveals because we trust that they teach us what God has revealed for mankind. If we don't trust the Church's teachings, then how can we trust that the Bible is the Word of God? St. Augustine said that "if it wasn't for the Catholic Church, I would not believe that the Gospels were true". We believe someone because we trust them and their message. We trust historians have faithfully recorded that George Washington was the first President of the US. We trust the Apostles' witness that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Intellectually, that is what we base our beliefs on.
In the case of Christianity, however, we believe that Faith comes from God. It is a gift. Thus, from my experiences, I find when I am wondering about God or Catholicism, I pray for more faith. I pray that God sends something to bolster me. "Ask and you shall receive...". In time, we begin to experience that God does indeed answer such prayers and that it is no longer coincidence. We actually experience God's work in our lives. From such experiences, we grow in faith.
Regarding Catholicism and such things as the Immaculate Conception, I think it rests upon whether the Church was established by Jesus Christ, who is God. If we can answer that in the affirmative, then we trust that God will indeed guide His Church. Upon reading the Gospels and examining history, we find that the Church will inevitably face ups and downs. I believe this is God's Will while maintaining man's free will. But in the end, the only thing that God really promised to guard is the deposit of faith. He didn't promise that all would be saved, all would follow or all would live in peace and harmony. We know that He will guide His community, the Church, and its teachings that witness to Him. This is foundational to being a Catholic. Once we really accept that Peter and the Apostles were given the task to spread the Word, and that the Spirit of Truth would be with them, then we can accept their teachings - in faith first, and then in understanding later. We believe that God can be trusted to guard His witnesses from giving false testimony.
I hope this helps.
Regards
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."
An excellent example. Now. Is conversion, to you, a life-long process, or a one-time affair? How would you read the Gospels on this question? Is discipleship a one-time process? Catholics would say no, we are to "pick up your cross daily" and so forth. We see conversion, by experience, as a life-long battle, as Paul talks about in Romans 7, spiritual warfare. To us, then, we will fall out of God's good grace when we turn from Him (we call this mortal sin), but are "re-justified" when we turn back to Him in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Thus, sanctification, for us, (and like Abraham) is an ongoing project, a race, a battle.
If we try to reconcile terms, I think we are closer, though. For example, our initial justification, our Baptism, we agree on much of what happens. Nothing we do can lead us - God takes the initiative. It is all grace. I think Catholics believe that men can fall away (as God gives us free will to chose or reject Him), which then requires the necessity of being "re-justified" or made righteous again in God's eyes. (this righteousness, of course, is a result of God's grace, not our own unaided actions)
Thank you for your level-headed thoughts.
Brother in Christ
It is a mistake to ignore so much of Scripture that talks about reward and judgment based on what we do. I believe that the faith alone formula ignores these deeds of love necessary for salvation. The trick to understand the Catholic side on this is two fold.
First, we don't believe that anything we do is our own work. Faith, love, repentance, etc. is all God's grace. We, too, believe in salvation by grace alone.
Second, when we abide in Christ, our deeds of love are vivified by this very joining! We, being part of the Body of Christ, are able to really become transformed and do good deeds that are worthy in God's eyes - because He is enabling us to do it. Thus, when I love someone, it is God and I doing it. Thus, I will be judged on what I do in Christ and for Christ - vs. what evil I do without Christ and for myself.
Remember, I abide in Christ, and He abides in me. When I love, He is moving me to love. It is NOT my "work" alone.
I have tried over and over to explain this. I hope this is more helpful.
Regards
The early Church believed that martyrs for the faith went to heaven directly, even if not baptized. Thus, the term, "baptism by blood". Christ Himself speaks this way about the Crucifixion being a baptism, but I don't recall the verse.
Regards
Faith without works is dead (James)
Works without faith is dead (Paul)
Faith without love is dead (Paul)
I see there is quite an interaction between the two. When Christ speaks about obeying the commandments and such, I think everyone naturally presumed that faith, too, must be involved - how can you love without faith? And vice versus. When Christ speaks about faith and salvation, I think He is also presuming that we will express it through love and obedience to God. I notice that Paul never says that we are saved by faith alone, nor does he say that love is worthless for salvation. He does say that nothing matters but faith working through love. (try to figure out which operates to vivify what! It sounds like the chicken/egg dilemna)
Regards
If a Muslim or a Hindu does the same good works as a Christian, i.e., feed the poor, clothe the naked, love his neighbor as himself, are those works accounted unto them as righteousness? Will THOSE good works account for anything towards THEIR salvation?
Yes, they would, in the following sense. Christ judges the unbaptized based on the extent to which they were ignorant of His teaching. All that is asked of an unbaptized is that he follow the law written in his heart, as St. Paul describes it, that is the Natural Law. For example, that Hindu does not need the gospel to know that stealing and murdering is wrong and many Hindus refrain from theft and murder and live exemplary lives according to the natural law. This conditionis called invincible ignorance. The Hindu has not rejected Christ by being Hindu, -- he never knew Him. The question becomes, does Christ know the Hindu? If yes, then sovereign Christ can save him by converting him to His heart instantly, -- as He converted the Good Thief. That would be extraordinary salvation, based not on the sacraments of the Visible Church but on Christ's sovereign mercy, which is not bound but His own sacraments.
However, we should not presume Christ's Mercy on behalf of that Hindu any more than we should presume His mercy on our own behalf. If I had a Hindu friend I would work to convert him to Christ in his lifetime, even if I see enough merit in him to have hope of his extraordinary salvation. That is because the promise of salvation is only given to the baptized who die in the state of grace. While God want all to be saved, the best assurance of that comes through faith in Christ and a lifetime to prove that faith through works.
This is how I understand the Catholic teaching.
I tried that by defending Harley on this thread. All I got for my effort was a pile of grief.
You got a Papal declaration on that, or is that YOPIOS?
No, I am pretty sure it is orthodox Catholic view. The differences that exist are in how much emphasis is put on the extrardinary character of such salvation by invincible ignorance.
No, you don't have a papal declaration, or no, that is not YOPIOS?
No and no. I will look up the relevant Catechism tomorrow for you. What is a papal declaration?
You tell me. Is Catholic doctrine determined by papal declaration or by consensus of some committee?
My sense of it is that if it is done out of love, and not trying to obligate the Creator to owe them salvation, then it is not a "work". As I have mentioned, Paul's definition of "work" is when we do anything that tries to obligate God to reward us. He rewards us because He is righteous, not because He owes us. Thus, when a Muslim does something out of love with no alterior motive, we presume that that it is the Spirit of the Lord who abides in that man (as no one can do anything good alone).
That is how I see the Church's teachings and the Scriptures.
Regards
I stand corrected. Yes, your version is better.
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.