Sola Fide - The Catholic Perspective

Difference 1: Faith Is Not Enough - Catholic/Orthodox teaching says certain works (rituals or sacraments are needed to be saved. Protestants say sincere faith is all that is needed.

“What good is it my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?...You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone...faith without deeds is dead.” (Jas. 2:14-26)

Difference 2: Salvation Is A Process. - Catholic/Orthodox teaching emphasizes the process of salvation. Protestants emphasize salvation as an event. Catholics emphasize a process of salvation while Protestant teaching more often refers to salvation as an event in time when we were forgiven (justification) followed by the process of becoming holy (sanctification)

“When an unclean spirit goes out of someone it roams through arid regions searching for rest but finding it none, it says, ‘I shall return to my home from which I came.” But upon returning it finds it swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings back seven other spirits more wicked than itself who move in and dwell there and the condition of that person is worse than the first.” (Lk 11:24-26)

“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,” (Phil 2:12)

Difference 3: No Assurance of Salvation. - Catholics believe that there is no assurance of Salvation which is why we have the Sacrament of Penance. We recognize that the love of Christ requires that we remain obedient to His commands. Jesus, as perfected in the Beatitudes, spoke very clearly about the way we needed to conduct our lives in order to attain heaven. Mainstream Protestants, by contrast, emphasize that since their salvation rests wholly on the mercy of Christ and that they can be sure they are going to heaven as long as they continue in repentance and faith. Some Protestants differ even more radically with the belief in the Perseverance of the Saints, the claim that once saved Salvation cannot be lost or forfeited by actions, sin or lack of works. ”

Difference 4: Justification Combined With Salvation. - Catholics often treat justification and sanctification as one thing. Protestants treat them separately. Orthodox teaches that justification (forgiveness) and sanctification (becoming holy) are one process which they call theosis. Catholic Teaching, combines justification (forgiveness of sins) with sanctification (becoming holy): justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

Difference Five: There is no Salvation outside the Church. - The Catholic Church teaches that there is no Salvation outside the Church. Protestant doctrine is the antithesis of this. The teaching that one cannot be saved outside of the Catholic Church is founded in every Scripture passage citing Jesus Christ, and the the Church He founded as necessary for salvation. Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s and from the time of Christ, all Christians who were not practicing heretical or pagan beliefs were members of the Catholic Church. Not only is it thus noted in Scripture but also by the early Church fathers:

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you" [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark" (ibid., 73[71]:11).

"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

"[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (ibid., 4:21[28]).

"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]). "Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5).

Differences in Catholics/Protestants viewpoint

It's my understanding that, according to the rules, statements like this in the article would exclude it from the "Caucus" designation.

As the rules state on the Religion Moderator's homepage...

The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

I wouldn’t say, “Faith is not enough.” To say, “Faith is not enough, you must have the sacraments” is like saying, “It’s not enough to buy the car; you also have to buy the engine.” If you’re not buying the engine, you’re not buying the car.

Fireman: “You simply have to put your trust in me. Will you?”
Woman in burning building, “Yes, I absolutely do!”
Fireman: “Then I want you to jump out of the window, and have faith that we will catch you safely.”
Woman: “That’s OK. I believe in you.”
Fireman: “Then jump.”
Woman: “No, thanks.”
Fireman: “But if you don’t jump, you’ll be burned in the fire!”
Woman: “You said all I needed to do was put my trust in you. I trust you.”

Likewise:

Jesus: “Whosoever shall believeth in me shall have eternal life”
Protestants: “We believe in you.”
Jesus: “This is my body. Take and eat of it. This is my blood, take and drink.”
Protestants: “No, that would be a work. All we need to do is believe in you.”
Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whosoever does not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood shall not have life within you.”
Protestants: “No, you must mean that symbolically.”
Jesus: “My flesh is real flesh, and my blood is real blood.”
Protestants: “No, we believe in you.”

Yeah, whatever... this caucus door is blown off the hinges, already, Natural Law, so sorry, but I wasn’t ever much for caucuses anyway.

With the rise of many new and highly exclusive caucuses, such as the Sola Fide Caucus, it is important for Catholics to understand and accept the root of these exclusions, not to criticize, but to illuminate and to compare and contrast the issues that have divided Christendom for over 500 years. I will not go into significant depth but hope that the ensuing dialog will. Differences in Catholics/Protestants viewpoint Difference 1: Faith Is Not Enough - Catholic/Orthodox teaching says certain works (rituals or sacraments are needed to be saved. Protestants say sincere faith is all that is needed. “What good is it my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?...You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone...faith without deeds is dead.” (Jas. 2:14-26) Difference 2: Salvation Is A Process. - Catholic/Orthodox teaching emphasizes the process of salvation. Protestants emphasize salvation as an event. Catholics emphasize a process of salvation while Protestant teaching more often refers to salvation as an event in time when we were forgiven (justification) followed by the process of becoming holy (sanctification)

Sorry, Natural Law, but the purpose of a "caucus" is to discuss an issue of interest to the caucus WITHOUT it having a title, content, or comments that specifically mention and challenge other groups.

In other words, if a Catholic had written an article on "Faith" and you posted it, labeled it a caucus, and then discussed it, then that would be ok.

As you can see, in the short exerpt above Protestants are specifically mentioned and taken to task no less than 4 times.

This clearly cannot be a "caucus" if the article itself argues against another group. That is a violation of the rules.

Additionally, saying that this article is directly advanced to oppose another caucus is also a violation.

This thread explicitly breaks the caucus rule.

Your comparison to the Paul/James thread is specious. That thread does not discuss Roman Catholicism.

This thread's stated purpose is to compare "differences between Catholics/Protestants viewpoints."

Are you and Natural Law unfamiliar with the rules stated on the Religion Moderator's homepage...?

"The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus."This is just about the most grievous example ever posted breaking the caucus designation rules.

You and I have had frequent exchanges, some actually pleasant despite our differences, Natural Law. I know you to be an intelligent individual who is quite capable of understanding that a “Caucus” is intended for likeminded believers to discuss their commonly held beliefs in peace, amongst themselves, and that beliefs outside that Caucus are not to be compared or disparaged.

So, I can only conclude that you want to undermine and eventually destroy the practice, by continually posting these threads that do not befit the designation.

For the life of me, I just don’t grasp why. We have open threads, wherein freedom of speech is given full reign, within certain defined bounds of civility. Differences can be aired there, and are, raucously, but no individual attacks. We have Ecumenical threads for discussion of differing beliefs, with much more civility. We even have Devotional threads, for nothing but reverential discussion. Then, we have the Caucus, where coreligionist can associate and converse, an intentional exclusivity without rancor or dissention. We all benefit from this array of options.

It’s the embodiment of our Constitution. Freedom of speech, association and religion, all under those various designations. It’s kept a certain degree of peace here. The Caucus was indeed originated by the RM at the behest of Catholic FReepers.

So, why are you at war with it? I’d really like to know.

Perhapps Protestants should not refer to books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas, etc. on Protestant threads, then, Huh?

Can’t have it both ways. (They can refer to Catholicism, but Catholics cannot refer to Protestant beliefs.)

It's difficult to tell if Roman Catholics are honestly this ignorant of the rules or just trying to get around them.

Read the rules posted on the Religion Moderator's homepage. They are clear, concise and easily applicable.

Or at least they should be unless other motives are involved.

They are not to speak of those things in opposition to them. Any protestant article that does that cannot remain a caucus. In fact, even comments to the thread that do that should be removed or the thread cannot remain a caucus.

Obviously, since the Protestant Church is out of the Catholic Church in the 1500’s, then the Fathers and many of the saints are also part of Protestant history.

The issue is using a Catholic belief as a foil or as a point of opposition.

In this article that is the standard practice.

In the article the other day about Sola Scriptura, there was not a single mention of anything Catholic.

books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas

Here. This might help.

On Caucus threads Roman Catholics are free to tell us what Roman Catholics believe about "books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas."

On Caucus threads Roman Catholics are NOT free to tell us what Protestants believe about "books of the Bible, Fathers of the Church, saints, doctrine, dogmas."

Do you understand the difference?

Likewise, because Catholics read Paul and James, I have requested that the sola fide be taken off of this thread

Salvation, that's such a weak argument that it should be seen as argumentative. The Sola Fide article does not once reference Catholics, Catholicism, Orthodox, or anything of the like.

It would be like my saying that the Catholics can't have an "Assumption of Mary" Caucus, because our bibles also contain Mary.

Can I propose something to everyone?

There are certain topics which need caucuses. From the Catholic point of view, for instance, sometimes it’s nice to talk about some Marian feast without having a hundred flamers to pop on to accuse of us idolatry. But doctrinal discussions specific to denominations are by their nature going to support one sect against another. And I’d rather not see people gaming some system by “mentioning someone without mentioning them.”

So I’d like to offer a truce: let’s VOLUNTARILY keep doctrinal threads open, while we take care to respect caucus threads.

346-5510

Protestantism exists solely as a protest against Catholic beliefs. Does that mean that any mention of any topic Protestants have adopted to replace Catholic Church teaching is totally off limits for Catholic caucus discussion?

This seems a bit more than arbitrary given that any and all topics Protestants have developed explicitly to oppose Catholic teachings qualify for Protestant caucus discussion, but even the discussion of preexisting contrary beliefs cannot be Catholic caucus discussion topics. You are aware that the Church addressed the question of faith alone more than a thousand years before there was a single Protestant?

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.