The second "whole" is not "whole" at all, but is "healthy". The Greek is "ygies" and the Latin is "sana" (familiar to us as "hygiene" and "sanitation").
So, the Latin and the Greek match, but the English of both Douay and KJV achieves the correct meaning only in context, "whole of thy plague/disease".
As we concentrate on the first "whole", we note that both the dictionary meaning and the gospel usage employ the word to mean "saved" in medical or otherwise physical sense, but a related "sothenai" is used in the supernatural sense. In Latin the distinctions disappears as both are transalted by St. Jerome as "salvus". Both Douay and King James render it sometimes as "whole" and sometimes as "saved".
I gather that the woman, before she actually reached out and touched the garment, was on a path to hell had she dropped dead before she could reach Jesus. I really don't get that impression from this passage in any translation. What kind or number of works are required to move from one type of faith to the other?
We don't know either way about her before she touched the garment, but if we assume that her disease represents sin, then she was burdened heavily by sin and was not saved in the spiritual sense. We also know that no fixed number of works of veeneration (or charity) produces well-formed faith, -- just like, borrowing your baseball analogy, no number of bases taken delivers victory. This is the meaning of St. Paul's epistles to Romans and Galatians, as well as the parable of the workers at the vineyard, that works by themselves do not save. But they form the faith.
The distinction between declarative faith and formed faith is very important in the dispute about sola fide. This is a good article about it:
Whether a Catholic will condemn the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.
A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.
Conversion can be instantaneous, like that of the Good Thief, or St. Paul's, or this woman's. It could also be gradual and filled with setbacks, like St. Peter's or St. Thomas's. But fast or slow, it has to change the person.
We don't know either way about her before she touched the garment, but if we assume that her disease represents sin, then she was burdened heavily by sin and was not saved in the spiritual sense.
That's a bit of a stretch for me. I see her as someone who really did have a physical malady. She was really hurting, and looking for someone to help her. To me, the beauty in this story is in the demonstration of her faith, not with the baggage of being "super" undeserving with heavy sin upon her, but with the true faith of a regular person, a good person. We can all relate to being sick for no reason, and this woman was sick for many many years. She teaches us exactly what to do when we are physically sick and hurting. If ever faced with a long sickness like that, then would that I have her faith.
This is the meaning of St. Paul's epistles to Romans and Galatians, as well as the parable of the workers at the vineyard, that works by themselves do not save. But they form the faith.
I am not sure how you are using the word "form". If you mean what I would call sanctification, then I am with you. But in the context of the woman, you appear to be saying that she did not have "true" (formed) faith until she did the "work" of touching Jesus' garment. If so, then works are necessary before initial salvational status? In infant Baptism, my understanding is that the benefits of the work by the parents are accorded to the child and he is initially saved. But is the actual credit for doing the "work" also accorded to the child? I could see someone (parent) giving away the benefits of his own work, but I don't see how one (baby) could take credit for the work of another.
The distinction between declarative faith and formed faith is very important in the dispute about sola fide. This is a good article about it: ...
Thanks, that was a great article. From what I could understand, what you would call "unformed faith", I would call no faith at all. Also, what I would call "faith" you would call faith, hope, and charity (except for me the timing of the works would be different, i.e. works come after salvation). And so, what you would call "formed faith" I would just call faith. (I hope that's right :) Anyway, this was a very interesting read. If you haven't already posted it, I'll bet folks on the other thread would also be interested in reading this. Heck, it could even be its own thread. :)