Justification: Agreement in 1541 between Catholics and Protestants on Justification

Mandate: The Newsletter of the Prayer Book Society ^ | July/August 2007 | Dr. Tory Lane

[sittnick]

Perhaps you don’t realize it, but your tone has a tendency to put off potential Tiber-swimmers. Reasoned discussion, as practiced by certain other members of this forum, can have the opposite effect.

I normally don't take that tone. However, when POST #1 calls a remarkable Council a tragedy, and the whole article seemed to be have its own conclusions assumed as fact, a forceful response seemed to be called for. Sometimes, a tepid response to certain types of insinuations can be taken for lack of deep belief in a position.

[swmobuffalo]

“Since anything ancient can be called into question as to its authenticity, the need for a continuous, organic authority is necessary. I believe that authority is in the Roman Catholic Church.”

I prefer to concentrate on the authenticity of the scriptures themselves rather than a man made authority.

Christ founded his church on Peter’s FAITH, not Peter himself as a clear reading will reveal. Given who Peter was, it was not unnatural for the early church to look to him for authority. Anything outside of Christ’s words are man made dogma. There is NO declaration in the scriptures that gives sole authority to the Roman Catholic Church.

[dixiechick2000]

Baptist bump!

[Cvengr]

Thanks for the post. A great read.

[sittnick]

There is NO declaration in the scriptures that gives sole authority to the Roman Catholic Church.

That is swmobuffalo's interpretation of Scriptures, many others understand it differently. And of course, the man-made authenticity of the English version usually cited is a copy of a copy can also be called into question, as can the canon of books in Sacred Scripture itself. Ultimately, the authority of the Fathers and of the Scriptures themselves relies on the authority of the ultimate Teacher, Christ. We believe Scripture because God is its author. As cited, Scripture states that not all of Christ's teachings are contained in it. The authority of the Church comes from Christ, and what the early Church taught helps us understand why the Church teaches what it does today. In that post I was answering a question asking if the teachings of the Church could be traced to any explicit, tangible source.

[GCC Catholic]

Thank you. This is both a good and interesting read. I think they did a good job explaining the balance between the roles of faith and good works.

That said, I see problems with it on several points. First, it still takes the Protestant view of Justification, that it is imputed, and not infused. That may or may not have been a showstopping theological issue then, and it may or may not be one now. However I think that more likely than not it would be a problem.

Even if this would have completely cleared up the issue of Justification, Trent would still have been necessary in order to clear up a number of other issues. Two which this document does not address (though it may in the other Articles) are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the special charism of the ordained priest. The Catholic belief of both of those are non-negotiable.

Lastly, before you can pronounce Trent a complete tragedy, you must be aware that the Protestants (at the very least the Lutherans) were invited to Trent to plead their case, and were granted safe passage to do so. They never took the opportunity.

[IrishBrigade]

I will put in a good word for the Letter of Clement and the Didache, however...

...and for the Shepard of Hermas, as well...

[AnalogReigns]

Hmmm, interesting points. That’s Regensburg, not Ratisborn though. It seems to me a figure before Calvin, Aquinus, and his followers were also quite Augustinian. I believe both the Western and Eastern churches though had become prima facia semi-Palagian, by an large though—a stance always popular even since Augustine’s own day.

[RobbyS]

Ratisborn is the old English variation of Regensburg, like Munich for Muenchen. As for Pelagius, the Eastern churchmen never understood what Pelagius and Augustine were talking about. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that Pelgius understood Augustine, or where Augustine was coming from. Pelagius had never had to deal with the likes of the Donatists, who were a bit like the Taliban.

[swmobuffalo]

“As cited, Scripture states that not all of Christ’s teachings are contained in it.”

So why make up what you don’t know for certain?

My interpretation is based on the translation of the original words and what they mean. And “rock” didn’t mean the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[AnalogReigns]

you must be aware that the Protestants (at the very least the Lutherans) were invited to Trent to plead their case, and were granted safe passage to do so. They never took the opportunity.

Actually I was aware of that. Given the experience of John Huss at Constance, just 140 years before, who was also given "safe passage" and promptly imprisoned and burned, it would be understandable if many Lutherans didn't trust the safety offered. However, you are incorrect that none came, some Lutherans did show up in the first part of Trent (the Council of Trent took 12 years, three sessions and three popes to complete--due to plague and wars, I believe.) The Lutherans were not allowed to vote or otherwise participate, seen as they were as heretics--so understandably they left.

Some 80% of the delegates to Trent were Italian too--even though probably well more than 3/4 of the population of the Roman Church at that time was not Italian. The Germans were severely under-represented (and I'm speaking of the Roman Catholic German states, not the Lutheran ones) as was the rest of central and northern Europe. The sense of unfairness at the time was such that the Roman Catholic Holy Roman Emperor Charles V chose to not enforce Trent's decrees in his realm.

As to justification, please note how the Regensburg document shows it having 2 parts, only the one part being imputeted...the other part very similar, if not identical, to the idea of infusion. This is NOT a standard Protestant formulation. This I think was the genius of the document--as one cannot call it fully Protestant or Roman in its formularies.

[Greg F]

Not to discount any FReepers out there who enjoy the fellowship that church membership brings, it’s just not my thing.
_________________________________________________________

For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.
Matthew 18:20

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved
Acts 2:42-46

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Hebrews 10:24-25

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
1 John 1:7

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2 Corinthians 13:14

[Greg F]

The formulation in this document does seem to me to be the current Protestant view of grace, even among strong Calvinists. After grace, there are still rewards and punishments for sin, but not the ultimate punishment of seperation with God in hell. It does seem to reject the Arminian view.

I think that most (many?) Protestant preachers would agree with the last two points in the document:

8. (1) Likewise, every Christian should learn that this grace and this regeneration have not been given to us so that we might remain idle in that stage of our renewal which we at first obtained, but so that we may grow in everything into him who is the head [Eph. 4:15]. (2) Therefore, the people must be taught to devote effort to this growth which indeed happens through good works, both internal and external, which are commanded and commended by God. To these works God has, in many passages from the Gospels, clearly and manifestly promised on account of Christ a reward — good things in this life, as much for the body as for the soul (as much as seems right to divine providence) and after this life in heaven. (3) Therefore, although the inheritance of eternal life is due to the regener- ate on account of the promise, as soon as they are reborn in Christ, nevertheless God also renders a reward to good works, not according to the sub- stance of the works, nor because they come from us, but to the extent that they are performed in faith and proceed from the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, free choice concurring as a partial agent.

9. The joy of those who have performed more and better works will be greater and more abun- dant, on account of the increase of faith and love, in which they have grown through exercises of that kind. (1) Now those who say that we are justified by faith alone should at the same time teach the doc- trine of repentance, of the fear of God, of the judge- ment of God and of good works, so that all the chief points of the preaching may remain firm, as Christ said: ‘preaching repentance and the remission of sins in my name’ [Luke 24:47]. (2) And that is to prevent this way of speaking [i.e. sola fide] from being understood other than has been previously mentioned.