Since 1963 there has been a growing debate in Protestant circles regarding the way in which St. Paul's teachings–particularly regarding justification–are to be understood. A significant number of authors, including Kirster Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright, have concluded that the standard accounts of Paul's teaching developed since the Reformation are simply wrong, that they read Paul's conflict with first century Judaizers anachronistically against the Reformers' struggle with the Catholic Church and what they perceived Catholic beliefs to be.
Although these authors have their own opinions about the details of what Paul meant, and while each gives different nuances to their understanding of Paul, there are certain commonalities among their thoughts, and this has given rise to the term "the new perspective on Paul" as a way of naming their school. (Though some of them have said, "the new perspectives on Paul" would be more accurate.)
MORE ON THE "NEW PERSPECTIVE."
One of the common themes in new perspective writings is that when Paul says we are not justified by works of the Law he does not have in mind the common Protestant claims that we do not earn our position before God or that we do not have to "do anything" for our salvation or similar conceptions that rely on the concept of "law" as something abstract, philosophical, or universal.
Instead, new perspective authors hold, the Law that Paul has in mind is something concrete and specific: the Mosaic Law or Torah.
Adherence to the Mosaic Law was constituitive of Jewish identity, and by saying that we are not justified by works of the Law what Paul was saying is that we are not justified by obeying the Mosaic Law, by being a faithful Jew.
Instead, we are justified through faith in Christ, through conforming to him rather than to the Mosaic Law.
What would a Catholic make of all this?
He might take it different ways. Through the history of Catholic thought there have been a variety of perspective on Paul (no pun intended), and the Church has not mandated one over the others.
However, it is worth noting that in the Year of St. Paul that Pope Benedict proclaimed, he devoted his weekly catecheses to St. Paul, and just of late he has been talking about Paul's teaching on justification, works, and the Law.
I've been having to sit on this story for a while as I waited for complete English translations of the audiences to start becoming available, but the first relevant one is now out and the second is due this Wednesday.
So let's look at two things that Pope Benedict had to say. First, there's this:
So what does the Law from which we are liberated and which does not save mean? For St Paul, as for all his contemporaries, the word "Law" meant the Torah in its totality, that is, the five books of Moses. The Torah, in the Pharisaic interpretation, that which Paul had studied and made his own, was a complex set of conduct codes that ranged from the ethical nucleus to observances of rites and worship and that essentially determined the identity of the just person. In particular, these included circumcision, observances concerning pure food and ritual purity in general, the rules regarding the observance of the Sabbath, etc. codes of conduct that also appear frequently in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All of these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had become uniquely important in the time of Hellenistic culture, starting from the third century B.C. This culture which had become the universal culture of that time and was a seemingly rational culture; a polytheistic culture, seemingly tolerant constituted a strong pressure for cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically constrained to enter into this common identity of the Hellenistic culture. This resulted in the loss of its own identity, hence also the loss of the precious heritage of the faith of the Fathers, of the faith in the one God and in the promises of God.
Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened the Israelite identity but also the faith in the one God and in his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a shield of defence to protect the precious heritage of the faith; this wall consisted precisely in the Judaic observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances in their role of defending God's gift, of the inheritance of faith in one God alone, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of the Christians this is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's Resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all peoples. The wall as he says in his Letter to the Ephesians between Israel and the Gentiles, was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us from polytheism and all of its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary.
So Pope Benedict's thought on this point appears congruent with that of the new perspective on Paul, at least in its broad outlines.
But the Pope went on to day something else, which may be even more surprising for some.
A few years ago, when I was writing a lot about jutification, I pointed out (and the thought was not original with me but had been developed by other Catholic authors) that, although the common Protestant assertaion that we are jutified "by faith alone" is intrinsically misleading, contrary to the language of Scripture (the only place that the phrase "faith alone" appears in in James 2, where it is rejected), and I don't like it, nevertheless the phrase can be given an orthodox reading if it is understood to be referring to faith formed by charity or fides formata caritate.
That didn't please some on both siders of the confessional aisle, who wanted to see an irreconcilable conflict between Catholics and Protestants on this point such that the phrase "faith alone" could
not be given any meaning acceptable from a Catholic perspective.
Pope Benedict seems to see it differently. Immediately after the above quotation, he states:
Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.
During my MA studies 15 years ago I was fascinated by Dunn’s interpretation of Romans, and lately I’ve been discovering N. T. Wright, and while I have yet to really engage his take on What Paul Really Said, I have read a discussion of his on the much-neglected theology of Romans 2 that makes fascinating reading.
The point that “works of law” refers specifically to works done in fulfillment of Torah is, it seems to me, simply and clearly correct. “Works” in Paul is an ambiguous term, sometimes referring to “works of law” but sometimes referring to “good works.” IIRC, “works of law” is only ever used in Paul in a bad sense; “good works” is only ever used in a good sense. They do not mean the same thing. Of course, the issue is compounded by the fact that “justification” as well as “faith” can be used in more than one sense.
I’m pretty sure Catholic acceptance of “sola fide” rightly understood (i.e., fides formata) goes back to the Reformation and even before. However, the tension between this formulation and its negation in scripture (“not by faith alone”) would seem to make it problematic as a touchstone or litmus test.
Of course, some Catholics have made “sola fide” a reverse litmus test. Benedict’s lucid, incisive analysis together with his exegesis goes a long way toward clearing up this misunderstanding.
I just finished teaching a parish class on St. Paul and his letters, and I found Pope Benedict’s weekly General Audiences on Paul to be superb for giving a concise, easily understandable catechesis on Paul. In fact, I ended up telling the class that it was okay to miss my class, but don’t miss any of the Pope’s weekly audiences! 🙂
I especially appreciate the Pope’s great balance on this subject. He doesn’t simply revert to worn Catholic reactionary arguments that don’t really advance the cause of unity. Instead, he finds the truth in the Protestant interpretations, all while never going against the Catholic belief. It really is a blessing to have him as Pope.
I have had apologetical discussions with many Protestants over the last ten years years and I have usually stated both of the points Pope Benedict made with regards to how St. Paul treats the concepts of faith and the Law. I always assumed that both of these points were the correct starting point, since: a) the Law was always understood to be the Torah and b) faith and hope are both subservient, in some ways, to charity, so that any true understanding of living faith must start from charity. If even the devils have faith, then St. Paul could not simply have been talking about faith, alone, but of the living faith that St. James talks about and what makes all things alive to God, supernatural charity.
I don’t think calling this the New Perspective on Paul the best way to label this theological development, since I think some Protestants are merely starting to catch up to Catholic thinking on the subject. It is a new perspective for some Protestants, however, so I guess the title is somewhat apt and I am glad to see that they are approaching the Catholic position.
Although some of the developments in Protestant thought are approaching the Catholic position, some writings are not, either because of some Protestant sticking point, as in some advocates of sola scriptura, or because the Catholic position itself has still not been as clearly developed as it might be. I do not know all of Dunn’s works (it has been a while since I read his treatments and I don’t recall if I read his treatment of Romans – probably, at least parts), but I am intimately familiar with his treatment of the Holy Spirit [Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today], and while I appreciate his exegetical skills, he has, in my opinion, seriously misinterpreted some of the texts in this area.
It is important for anyone doing serious research in apologetics or theology to read more than one work by an author so as to learn the author’s consistent vocabulary and assumptions. This applies both to Catholic and Protestant sources
The Chicken
I agree with the first part, but I do not see how the second part follows. What is he saying? He is saying faith creates charity fulfilling the entire Law. If the entire Law is being fulfilled we must be loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourself.
Do you love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself? If not, you are not fulfilling the law. Oh oh, what now?
Anyway, if you go back to point (a), Paul is equating our “love” of God and neighbor and “fulfilling the Law.” Paul says we are not justified by works of the law, thus we are not justified by our love either.
We are not justified by love or charity. We are justified by Jesus’ blood.
“while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” (Romans 5:10)
We were reconciled while we were enemies. We were reconciled while we had neither love nor charity.
Jeffrey,
Would you agree that we must not reject the gift of the salvific work of Christ? Or would you say that God saves us against our will?
Dear Jeffrey G.
The problem, here, it seems is a terminological one. What do you mean by,”justified”? Let’s start by defining terms. When you use the term justify, (not quoting from Scripture), you are using it in two different senses, at least as I understand how the terms are used in Catholic thinking:
We are not justified by love or charity. We are justified by Jesus’ blood.
The first use of justified seems to be a proper use, as I understand the term, but the second use might better be stated by the word, “redeemed”. I would read your sentence, thus:
We are justified by love or charity. We are redeemed by Jesus’ blood.
Redemption is a one-time affair, but to be justified (made just) relates to being in conformity with an objective standard and we can move closer or farther away from that standard by our acts and habits of charity.
That is the way I see the matter. Does it clarify things, at all? One can be redeemed and yet in need of constant justification. I know that St. Paul uses the word, “reconciled,” on the quote you gave, above and this is relates, first of all, to redemption and later, justification. The application of Christ’s blood is both a once and on-going affair. Christ’s blood makes you clean (redeemed), but then you have to stay clean by participating in his on-going actions in the lives of men, which is charity.
The Chicken
It should be understood that the Reformers were not at all unfamiliar with Roman Catholicism as it was being taught and practiced in their localities and personal experiences. Luther in particular was specifically concerned with the abuses he knew of in the parishes in Saxony. He believed himself to be a faithful Roman Catholic, correcting abuses which were -contrary- to Roman Catholicism.
The New Perspective on 2nd Temple Judaism does not indicate anything other than that specific passages use of the term “works of the law” mean ‘sacramentals’ of 2nd Temple Judaism, not mass-in-motion, which is how many confessional Protestants have (mis)understood it. It is nonetheless the case from numerous -other- passages that the penalty for our sins is death, and that we cannot ‘earn’ forgiveness of our sins by performing our own atonement. Good works do not justify because we could never come to the end of what we owe. Thus God the Father sent His only begotten Son to die in our place, on the Cross, bearing the punishment that we deserve, taking upon Himself the covenant curse that we deserve, that we might be forgiven of our sins. Our good works won’t cut it. They are however, how we are to live! But you can’t pay the national debt with two lepta.
It has -always- been Lutheran and Calvinist teaching that the faith which is saving faith performs good works, and loves God and all believers, if those are absent, then that faith is absent. Trent appears to have misunderstood this rather badly, rightly condemning a notion of salvation by mere intellectual assent. But no one was teaching that!
It is further not true to say that Protestants teach that we are saved *by* faith alone, as if faith merited the forgiveness of our sins. No, Christ atoned for our sins on the Cross. That grace which He thereby made possible, so that we might be forgiven and God remain just, is received through the means of faith alone. But as I have said, -that- faith is a product of this regenerating grace which also produces in us love and good deeds. The love and good deeds are not a coin by which we purchase the forgiveness of our sins, but they are inseparable from faith in the person who has received this justifying grace. I would not be at all surprised to find that I haven’t stated things as precisely as is needed.
That second quotation of BXVI is *exactly* what “we”‘ve been saying for something over 400 years. THAT is the faith we mean by the potentially misleading phrase “saving faith.” NOT the mere intellectual assent that was rightly condemned at Trent, but wrongly imputed to the reformers.
I am not sure if perhaps I am seeing in B XVI still the confusion between the forensic justification of our sins – forgiveness, and our being made completely Christlike in our character, which we do not label justification per se, but rather use terms like sanctification and glorification (and BXVI’s view of purgatory is apparently very close to the Protestant position on the grace of glorification which we receive when we see Christ face to face and are thus made like Him as the Scripture says (rather than the common Catholic piety of having to be made like Him before we can see Him)
He appears to be making great strides in clarifying the use of terms.
I think this is answered in the parable of the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal Son was always reconciled with his father, yet he was free to continue feeding the pigs and eating what they ate. Did he have to do anything to merit living in his father’s house? No. He was reconciled even while he was living recklessly. He never had to do anything to merit living in his father’s house.
The Prodigal son assumed he was no longer worthy to live in his father’s house. He assumed he would have to reenter the house as a servant, yet he was always able to live there as a free man, even when he was out living recklessly.
He was not saved against his will and he did not have to do anything (he did not have to enter as a servant, but a free man) to be welcomed in his father’s house.
“My son was dead…” but somehow still justified? I don’t get that
The Masked Chicken,
Someone certainly would already be just if he did, in fact, love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind and his neighbor as himself. If he did, he would be fulfilling the law and thus be already just (and indeed hardly need justification). But who does that? I do not. I am not, by my love, just. I need to be just to enter heaven, correct? What hope is there for me?
He good news is that we are justified by Jesus’ blood (Romans 5:9). We were not reconciled after we learned to love God and neighbor, but before, while still enemies. (Romans 5:10).
Solus Christus (Christ alone) is one of the “Solas.” Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus’ blood justifies.
Yet there it is. Would the father have embraced him and kissed him and threw him a party if he was not justified? Yet what did the son do to become justified? He assumed he was not worthy. He assumed he would have to enter as a slave. There was never a time his father would not have embraced him and allowed him to live in his home as his son.
Dear Jeffery,
You wrote:
I need to be just to enter heaven, correct? What hope is there for me?
There is hope, but that salvation must be worked out, “in fear and trembling.” This means with the realization that one might fall and need to be raised up, again. Jesus certainly can do that, since he is merciful to the contrite of heart. One does not love, perfectly, from the beginning, any more than one loves one’s spouse, perfectly, on one’s marriage day. One learns, little by little, how to really fully love one’s spouse, even as one tried and makes mistakes. Does your spouse love you less because you tried and failed or were less than perfect because of your human weakness? If a spouse can understand and forgive, so can God, if only one repents.
The Chicken
Would Paul’s teaching have been solely against the Mosaic law or also and even maybe moreso against the vast proscriptions to be found in the Talmud? Surely his teaching against a legalistic approach to salvation would have included the legalism in that body of laws.
It is further not true to say that Protestants teach that we are saved *by* faith alone, as if faith merited the forgiveness of our sins.
Which Protestants are you talking about? If you mean all, some of them need to work on their communication skills.
Jeffrey: There was never a time his father would not have embraced him and allowed him to live in his home as his son.
Me: With all due respect, I think you’re reading into the text. What the text clearly tells us is that there was a time when the Father DID NOT embrace his son. Why? because the son HAD NOT returned to him.
Why did the father only embrace the son after his return? Why was this ACTION required on the part of the son? Why didn’t the Father seek him out and embrace him in the pig pen? Because he was dead to the Father. Only after he became convicted of his transgressions, resolved to seek forgiveness, and actually sought that forgiveness did he become ‘alive again’ to the Father.
Chicken,
Yes, a Lutheran uses the term “justified” to mean forgiven, and the forensic declared without guilt. That works in the legal/theological terminology for justified. Such concepts are not alien to Scripture. Lutherans and other evangelical theologies would call what you call ‘justification’; ‘sanctification’.
I’m not so sure that evangelicals are ‘catching up’ with Roman Catholicism, but perhaps beginning to get past what Protestant Scholasticism and the polemics wars in Europe and America had wrought, namely the Aristotelian notion of ‘work’ pasted over ‘works of the law’.
Mary,
I agree! Jargon and shorthand phrases like “accept Jesus into your heart” (shorthand for essentially the same thing as “enthroning the Sacred Heart of Jesus”) can really mislead! As to which Protestants, I guess I mean only the ones who still believe that the Bible is composed of God’s actual words in the original autographs, I -think- that the Latin is “ipsissimus verbum Dei” and therefore manifest His teaching. I think that first John Paul the Great’s example and now Benedict XVI’s careful speaking has and is doing wonders.
Jeffery and Aussie, I think you are arguing in part over semantics, in part over imponderables, in part over the secret counsels of God which He has not chosen to reveal to us at this time.
Jeffrey,
As Aussie points out, and as I think you have softly acknowledged, salvation is not thrust upon us against our will.
At the same time, it is important to understand that the Catholic Church does not regard grace as within the natural capacity of man, as you’d no doubt strongly agree. No one in this debate is a Pelagian.
May we all, in fear and trembling, not veto God’s grace with our free will. Agreed? It’s just that most of the time, people don’t use such circumlocutions. It is understood that our love and charitable work has its source in God’s grace.
I guess the Pope’s comments confuse, or perhaps concern, me a bit. The statement that faith in Christ “creates charity” seems contrary to established Church teaching so far as I can tell. Faith and Charity are each virtues which are given to a person by God. One does not create the other.
Perhaps somebody could explain what he is trying to say. I’m not trying to be some person who thinks he knows more than the pope; I just really don’t understand how to understand what he’s said in the light of other teaching, for example the concise teachings of Trent. Any help would be appreciated.
If the Protestants who think they are saved by faith do not believe that the Bible is really God’s word — they need to work on their communication skills.
That’s great! But when does it ever end? Am I doomed to fail and be forgiven ’till eternity?
That person that tries and fails has to be put to death. The human weakness has to die. Nothing short. That person can’t exist in heaven. That person has to die and be raised up again.
“We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6
Is his deciding not to stubbornly sleep with the pigs when he can sleep in a warm bed in his father’s house really an action? Is that a great feat worthy of celebration?
His older brother didn’t think so.
The Prodigal Son was always reconciled with his father, yet he was free to continue feeding the pigs and eating what they ate.
On the contrary, the parable clearly states that the son was not reconciled with his father until he had been forgiven and accepted by his father upon his return. It is impossible to sensibly interpret the parable to mean that the son was alwasy reconciled with his father, even during the years that he was estranged from his father.
Did he have to do anything to merit living in his father’s house? No.
Correct. In fact there is nothing he could have done to be reconciled with his father. His offense was so extreme that any attempt of his part of reconcile with his father would have only precipitated definitive ostracism and banishment by the community. Only the father’s choice to publicly reconcile with the son before anybody else could speak up about what his son had done could have saved the son from his just fate.
He was reconciled even while he was living recklessly.
No, the parable explicitly says that as long as he was living recklessly, he was not reconciled with his father. The end of his reckless living coincided with his reconciliation.
He never had to do anything to merit living in his father’s house.
Of course. It is never necessary to do something that is impossible to do.
The Prodigal son assumed he was no longer worthy to live in his father’s house.
And he was right about that. But his father forgave him, because he did not want to lose his son whom he loved.
He assumed he would have to reenter the house as a servant
No, he “hoped” he would be allowed to reenter the house as a slave, even though he had to know even that was an unrealistic hope. His father’s love was so astounding, however, that he received something more than he could have hoped for, complete reconciliation and restoration to his place in the family.
The son had rehearsed his little plan to reconcile himself: confess his sin and work as a slave. But when he got home, all he got to do was confess his sin — his father’s forgiveness was immediate, and he never got a chance to propose his plan of how he would earn his salvation through his own works. It is significant, however, that the reconciliation came when he had confessed his sin to his father. There can be no reconciliation without confession.
yet he was always able to live there as a free man, even when he was out living recklessly.
No, he would not have been able to do that until he came back home and accepted his father’s forgiveness.
He was not saved against his will and he did not have to do anything (he did not have to enter as a servant, but a free man) to be welcomed in his father’s house.
If he was already reconciled with his father even when he was completely estranged from him, then that would mean he was saved either against his will or without any regard for his will. In any case, a reconciliation while remaining alienated from the father is pretty pointless and ultimately meaningless.
It seems that Pope Benedict is moving the Church slowly towards the Protestant position regarding ‘saving faith’. I have always felt that he is a Protestant in disguise, however he can not come out and directly state that the Church has had an incorrect understanding of ‘salvation’, because the hypersensitive nature of Westerners is more interested in having their feelings cajoled then hearing truth.
Evidence?
“…we cannot ‘earn’ forgiveness of our sins by performing our own atonement. Good works do not justify because we could never come to the end of what we owe.”
-labrialumn
As a former Protestant, when I first went to Confession, I was struck by two things. First thing the priest says is prayer of thanks for the penitent’s gift of faith. So even in sin, the gift of faith is active. And when I had been absolved of the “guilt” of the sin, I was given a penance, which at first seemed rather unusual in its lack of severity and that seemed quite deliberate.
It was later that I understood the significance. The Church recognizes that there is nothing that anyone of us can give to God that he needs. As you point out, we would never come to the end of it. So why the penance? God desires that we love him. This penance is our act of faith. This is faith at work in us. The size of the penance is not relevant to what happens in our heart.
It is the same as the little boy who asks his father for $5 to buy his father a gift. When he brings the gift back, the father is pleased, delighted, filled with love for his son, not because his son gave him anything he didn’t have, but because the son gave him the little gift (the size of the gift does not matter to the father) from the love of the son for the father. That penance that the priest gives us, is the gift that we give back to God out of love, through grace working in our heart. It is so far from anything we deserve or could come up with on our own as to be laughable. It is all grace.
So I think that Catholics have a far deeper, richer understanding of fatih.
Well said Jordanes.
What I meant about always being reconciled is that there was never a time his father would not feel compassion for the son if he saw him “still a long way off” and run to him.
Bill912,
Please take a look at the following link:
http://www.patrickpollock.com/101heresiesofbenedictxvitract2.html. See for yourself if Pope Benedict is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. I think Benedict is espousing a form of universalism, which is blatantly wrong.
I have always felt that he is a Protestant in disguise, however he can not come out and directly state that the Church has had an incorrect understanding of ‘salvation’, because the hypersensitive nature of Westerners is more interested in having their feelings cajoled then hearing truth.
That’s clearly ridiculous, so let me diagnose your problem as to why you believe a patent absurdity. You have been conditioned, presumably by Calvinism, that divine sovereignty should be understood as an absolute divine will, which Protestants inherited from Ockham and which has similar philosophical origins from the corresponding doctrine in Islam. Because you have this exaggerated, distorted understanding of God’s sovereignty, you model your own concept of divine revelation and identity with God in the same way. In other words, the fact that you believe something by sheer force of will without any good reason shows virtue, through submission of your will to the absolute divine will, and that is why you presume that anyone who disagrees with you is stubborn and anyone who agrees with you is a covert Protestant. That is also why you accept absurdities like “imputed righteousness,” which is really God making something that is false to be true by sheer force of will.
While those ideas might have a sympathetic hearing among Nestorian Christians, some of whom also believed that union with Christ (and even in Christ) happened by sheer moral union of the will, it is antithetical to any kind of orthodox Chalcedonian Christology. Conversely, if you think straight about what it means for Christ to have both a fully human will and a fully divine will, then this understanding of divine sovereignty is untenable.
What you lack, then, is a sense of Christian history. St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. John Chrysostom all denied any sort of “alien righteousness” or “justification by imputation.” Yet not a one of them could remotely be called “hypersensitive.” Rather, they took the doctrine of the Incarnation seriously and rejected everything incompatible with it. And their conclusion was summarized perfectly by the Holy Father: “But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.” The Fathers are where his doctrine originates.
I would encourage you to learn the sources of your own Protestant doctrine, in particular to discover where it goes off the rails in terms of the divine sovereignty.
Just realized that salubrious was on the fringe Catholic side rather than the Protestant side. Oh, well, maybe this response will help on the charge of Protestantism.
Jeffrey G said:
We were reconciled while we were enemies. We were reconciled while we had neither love nor charity.
You’ve got the “we” part right, but you haven’t quite grasped the collective sense of Paul’s statement. He’s speaking of Christ’s reconciliation for all of humanity, the basis for our justification. We weren’t saved or reconciled by the giving of the Law; that was insufficient. All it could do was to point out our fallen state. You seem to suggest that if (per impossibile) someone had been perfectly righteous, he would have been justified. But even that would not have corrected original sin; it would not have repaired the human nature that was damaged by Adam’s sin and subject to death. Paul’s entire point was that even if someone had followed the law perfectly; he *still* wouldn’t have been justified, because the law was not given for that purpose. The breach was caused by Adam’s sin, and it can only be repaired by the second Adam. And likewise, Christ as the basis of redemption is the same for all human beings, not merely those to whom the Law was given. That was Christ’s finished work on the Cross: to establish the path of salvation for all humankind. You don’t have to take my word for it; St. Paul provides the context for his own remarks: “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” (Rom. 5:18)
You’ve confused collective statements about the basis of justification with the individual realization of that justification, which is over and above what is being discussed in most of Romans.
Jonathan,
I think you mistake that I am a Calvinist. I find it odd that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics think that anyone who questions the Pope or must be a Calvinist. I am a questioning Roman Catholic who mighty suspicious of a Pope who is makes blatant contradictions to Trent and Vatican I teaching. It is that simple.
Furthermore Eastern Orthodoxy was considered a heresy for almost 900 years.
A whole lot of American Catholics are have had their thinking influenced and colored by Calvinism, Jonathan, so I don’t think your rejoinder to salubrious is necessarily that far off just because he’s a Catholic.
I like the term “sanctification” better than “justification”, myself. It keeps the goal better in mind. We’re not just supposed to get saved at the last moment and at the skin of our teeth (unless that’s the best we can manage). We’re supposed to become little Christs, holy people doing holy things in the world, spending lots of time with God, and basically getting holier every day.
I see I cross-posted with salubrious earlier.
Don’t you figure, salubrious, that Pope Benedict is sort of *aware* of Trent? Do you think he doesn’t understand Trent… perhaps has read it wrong? Really?
I’ll restate my question because it’s gotten lost by this point, and because it is related to Salubrious’ statements.
To use Tim’s most recent inquiry of Salubrious as an example, I do not believe that Benedict is not aware of or does not understand Trent. I believe he most certainly does. However, I also do not understand how his catechesis is reconcilable with Trent insofar as it states that faith “creates charity,” or that charity somehow flows from faith. Faith and charity are distinct theological virtues which are each given as the gift of God and must each be received willingly by the sinner. Charity is not somehow contained in and given birth to by faith. So, given that I think the Holy Father certainly understands Trent, has anyone any thoughts on how his statements are to be understood in light of it?
I am a questioning Roman Catholic who mighty suspicious of a Pope who is makes blatant contradictions to Trent and Vatican I teaching. It is that simple.
Furthermore Eastern Orthodoxy was considered a heresy for almost 900 years.
Eastern Orthodoxy was schism, not heresy. Palamism might be heresy, and even that is questionable. In any case, I am Catholic. I would certainly not place any obstacle to someone who is Eastern Orthodox becoming Catholic, and I would encourage any Catholic considering Orthodoxy not to do so. Remember, Pope Benedict was the same man who opposed the Zoghby proposal as head of the CDF. This is not a wishy-washy universalist.
The problem appears to be that your interpretation of what Trent and Vatican I say is a typical American legalist view. (And being an American legalist myself, I feel qualified to say that.) You expect to be able to resolve everything by picking up some document, when it is written with a number of unstated qualifiers that the authors don’t bother to clarify until they need to be clarified. Trust me, I’ve had this discussion with several lawyers who either weren’t Catholic or left Catholicism, and when they identify these supposed contradictions and I reply with the unstated qualifiers, the immediate response is “It doesn’t say that anywhere!” It’s a typical overreaching effort to try to find a “hook” in writing, when Catholicism relies on the reader’s prudence rather than explicit statements, often speaking formally only to very narrow issues or specific circumstances.
Come to think of it, Tim might be right. That whole attitude even in American constitutionalism is originated with sola scriptura to some extent.
Faith and charity are distinct theological virtues which are each given as the gift of God and must each be received willingly by the sinner.
Yes, one can even retain theological faith and still be damned, much like the case of the demons. But clearly that must result from a defective act of the will on the part of the sinner; that obviously isn’t the way things are supposed to work, nor is it the sort of faith that St. Paul has in mind. St. James speaks to that issue more directly.
Of course Pope Benedict is familiar with Trent. I never claimed he wasn’t! Westerners have become wishy washy and non-committal in so many areas. I hear the misuse of the word ‘charity’, often used by Catholics as a defense mechanism to avoid conflict and justify wishy washyness. Trent and Vatican I are very CLEAR and much of the Church has become MUCH weaker since Vatican II. I have many friends that have apostatized from the Church and joined Protestant and Mormon organizations. Jesus said, ‘you will know them by their fruit’. Well the fruit of Vatican II stinks!
Jonathan, that’s true, but I don’t understand what point you’re making regarding the pope’s comments.
This is among the most commonly misapplied texts in the Gospels.
SDG,
Are you saying that you don’t know apply this text from the Gospel? Is this not strange a person with a MA does not know how to apply scripture? This is exactly the type of wishy washy thinking that is undermining the Church.
Dear Salubrious,
As a scholar, I can tell you that this is not the way research is supposed to be done. Pointing someone to a website of questionable value, which cites vague statements out of context, is certainly not the way to convince anyone, but rather, it encourages passing on a form of gossipy information.
Take one of the supposed heresies, bring them forth on this blog with in-context quotations and correct historical definitions and perhaps you will gain a hearing, here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. All you have done is state conclusions wildly at variance with common understanding. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So, far, I have seen little proof and only accusations.
If you have something to prove, then prove it or else apologize.
The Chicken
No.
Were you really confused on that point, or only pretending to misunderstand me? Just wondering.
Which type of “wishy washy thinking” would you be thinking of here, friend?
If I were inclined to speak of anything “undermining” the Church (which I’m not; the Church’s foundations permit no “undermining”), I’m sure I could think of more pernicious factors, and closer to home, than “wishy washy thinking.”
Shane:
I only meant that it is impossible for faith in its working sense to be present without charity. There is an notional distinction between the two things, and there can even be a real difference between them in cases where a defective will produces the absence of one or the other. But in their proper operation (i.e., salvation), they are one inseparable reality that is both faith and charity, which we might also refer to as sanctifying grace. They are distinct without separation, one might say; fragmentation is a result of sin.
As a protestant (Baptist and then Presbyterian) I considered salvation to be one thing, sanctification another.
As a Catholic my understanding has been that these are two aspects of the same process. There never is one without the other.
We can’t be sanctified and yet be unsaved, and we can’t be saved, ultimately, without being completely sanctified.
I don’t know, but it might be said that God saves us by sanctifying us. It is only by his grace that we are made capable of acting out of faith and love, so that we can never take credit for any of our holy acts.
In a similar way, faith in God and love of God are inseparable. One can’t love God and yet not trust him, and vice-versa. The two are always found together, and may, in the end, almost be different words for the same thing.
Faith involves trust, not mere intellectual assent. How could we trust him without loving him? How could we love him and not trust him?
Dear Jeffery G.
You wrote:
That’s great! But when does it ever end? Am I doomed to fail and be forgiven ’till eternity?
While you are in this life, that possibility always exists, but consider: when a person first gets married, how many times do they forget to leave the toilet seat up/down? It takes time, but people do learn. They do grow and doing the right thing becomes easier the more one loves. Besides, do you think anyone believes that they will ever have to stop apologizing to their spouse until the day they die? 🙂 Well, God is the spouse of your soul. He never messes up, but you can and all of that is taken into account. God loves to forgive. All one has to do is repent and start loving him, again
The Chicken
Something I want to flesh out, a little. When Pope Benedict says that, “faith in Christ, creates charity,” this is not to place faith first in importance. Love has priority of place, but what happens is that the will is attracted to the good, but the will is a blind faculty. It must be informed as to what the good is. Faith is attracted to the truth and the truth is a very great good. It informs the will as to what is the good and the will, strengthened by the possibility (which is hope) of reaching the good/truth moves towards the good. Thus, faith does bring about charity in the sense that it causes the will to move closer to a definite object or action or belief. It is charity, however, which is the prime motivator, because it is associated with the will.
The Chicken
Dear Fellas
There’s no need to tease the rad-trad flamer, because we obviously know that evil didn’t exist prior to Vatican II.
Jeffrey, and Luther writes in the Small Catechism that we are to live daily in contrition, faith, and obedience. This is that working out that the Bible talks about and Chicken and others have referred to. Where we differ *at least* in words is whether or not our sins are declared forgiven because of Christ’s work on the cross, or because God has worked in us with our cooperation to produce teleological holiness. We do not have disagreement that that holiness *will* be accomplished.
Jordanes gives a very good exposition of the Lutheran and evangelical view. If it is also the Roman Catholic view, all the better.
Jonathan, I think you have an interesting and likely take on Calvinism. Calling imputed righteousness an absurdity, and saying that God would be saying an untruth in that case, is, I think, a failure to see the implications of the Atonement. If the sin is forgiven, *it is forgiven*, “though your sins be red as scarlet, I shall make you white as snow” “cast as far as the east is from the west.’ Imputed righteousness is simply God declaring what has in fact come to be: that Jesus was made sin for us, that we would be made righteous. HE bore the guilt and the punishment due that guilt, so that we would not have to. Thus justice *is* met, and “there is no longer any punishment for sin.” Of course, and I think that Roman Catholics and sometimes (antinomians) protestants think that means that God leaves us in our corrupt condition. He does not. He changes, is changing and will change us.
Shane, but does God ever give faith or charity without also at the same time giving the other? They may be distinguishable, but surely they are not separable?
labrialumn,
Simply put, one of the main problems for a Catholic with Imputed Righteousness Alone is the very word “Alone.” The Imputed part is not really a problem as I’ve come to understand it for a Catholic. Saying that it is this ALONE that Justifies falls short of the mark in describing what actually occurs.
Perhaps this is best seen in Luther’s “simul justus et peccator.” This is what is perplexing to a Catholic and I might add to the Historic and Orthodox understanding up to the Reformation. The following explains it very well. This is the only official magesterial response given by the Catholic Church regarding the Joint Declaration on Justification between Lutheran’s and Catholics:
The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner”, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 (“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them…”), is not acceptable.
This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks (4). The expression “Opposition to God” (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, “… God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love”, because man’s interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.
Now, there are seven other clarifications given. This one,however, is listed first due to its importance. In my understanding it is precisely our understanding of concupiscence and how to understand it properly that is one of the core issues. To me the problem can be resolved by looking at Baptism and what actually occurs at that moment. This is especially clear when looking at infant baptismal regeneration precisely because the infant can not engage his/her intellect and will to commit an actual sin. So, after their baptism is there anything in them that is at enmity with God?
Shane, I think the answer to your question lies in two different conceptions of the word “faith” within the 6th session of Trent itself. So, for instance, you are right in saying that faith, hope and charity are all virtues that are infused in baptism (cf. section 7):
[M]an, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.
However, even before this baptismal justification and infusion of the theological virtues, Trent speaks of the sinner “conceiving faith” in the section on preparation for justification (cf. section 6):
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing
This same section goes on to say that after conceiving faith (in response to grace), the person then goes on “to love Him as the fountain of all justice”. So it is true that even in the mere preparation for justification, the person is raised to faith, leading to love. To be sure, these are not the full-blown virtues we receive in baptism, but they order the person to receive these virtues.
Lastly, and this may be the more pertinent point, section 8 states:
[F]aith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons
To paraphrase, faith is the absolute foundation of every gift of justification, including charity. Without faith, we could never have the virtue of charity. In a loose shorthand, faith can be said to be an instrumental cause of charity. By God’s gift, faith conceives charity in baptism.
All subject to correction by more eminent minds.
Chicken – Thank you, that makes sense.
Labrialumn – You asked whether or not God ever gives faith and charity without also at the same time giving the other. Now, from the context of your question, it seems that we are treating faith and love in the sense of their being distinct, rather than in the sense of “saving faith,” which would incorporate the two concepts together.
Your question actually gets at a key point which was the motivation for my seeking clarification of Pope Benedict’s comments, that being the distinction between the concepts of faith itself producing love versus that of faith – as the Masked Chicken discussed in his previous post – which, while disposing one towards love, does not in itself contain or have the ability to produce love.
In other words, there are two different ideas about faith and love we are discussing here. For a moment, ignore which of them you believe is correct. That’s obviously important, but before considering which (if either) is correct, let’s make sure that you understand the two concepts and their differences. The first idea is that faith (true faith, rather than a false faith or such a thing) necessarily produces love: faith in itself produces love, just like a pregnant woman in herself produces a child. The second idea is that faith disposes one for love, but does not have the ability to itself produce love without God adding love as something separate: faith in itself does not produce love, just like a non-pregnant woman cannot in herself produce a child without the addition of something from the outside.
So given those two concepts, consider the epistle of St. James, in which it is said of Abraham that “his faith was active along with his works, and [his] faith was completed by his works.” Herein we see two important facts: first, that both faith and works were active in justifying Abraham, and second, that works completed his faith. These statements help to answer the question regarding whether faith produces love, or not.
Abraham’s faith, in and of itself, was insufficient to justify him. It needed to be joined to his works – that is, his love in action – in order to do so. The key here is that both were active. Were it that the works flowed from the faith, as a child from a pregnant mother, then one could not say that they were active. Neither could one say that the works completed the faith, for if the works were produced by the faith, then the faith was complete all along. If faith in itself produces works, then the works do not complete the faith any more than a child completes a woman’s reproductive capacity. Rather, a man completes her reproductive capacity, with a child as the result; apart from him, she is insufficient to reproduce. In the case of Abraham, faith was insufficient to justify him. It needed to be active alongside something else, namely works.
Clearly then, it is the case that faith does not itself produce love, but that love is added alongside by God. Now your question to me was an interesting one: does God ever provide them separately? The answer to that would be no. However, that does not mean that they cannot be found one without the other. As has been pointed out above, St. James explains that the demons have faith, but certainly lack in love. God, wishing all of His creatures to be saved, provides all that is necessary for salvation to them. The problem is that His creatures, fallen as they are, do not always accept all that He offers.
Thus, it may be that a man responds to the Grace of faith, while not responding to the Grace of love. A man may believe in Christ, believe in all that Christ has taught, and indeed be completely willing to believe in anything further that he may find Christ to have taught, but that man may nevertheless fail to respond to God’s gift of love, and may act selfishly. This concept is one that I think is easy for all people to relate to, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew, atheist, or anything else. Every human being has at some point in his life firmly believed in something, but failed to act accordingly. Labrialumn, you and I both have told others that a certain way was the way to behave, and indeed believed it ourselves, but failed to behave that way in our own lives.
This is because, to put it in common language, believing in something and following that belief are two very different things, or to put it in theological language, faith and love are different. I might believe (and I do) that listening compassionately to the concerns of others is the way one ought to participate in a conversation, but I may also fail (and I do) to actually listen to people and instead make myself the center of conversations. Similarly, a man may believe that giving to the poor, remaining chaste, and attending church are teachings of the true God and Lord Jesus Christ, and yet the man may fail to do any of these things.
Clearly, faith and love are found quite frequently one without the other. Either, then, God fails to provide both to His creatures, or His creatures fail to accept both.
Dear Rob,
You wrote (quoting the Council of Trent):
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing
This is an obvious reference to chapter 10 of Romans. Verse 10:17 says:
So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.
Which is the clear reference from Trent, but let’s look at this a bit more. Earlier in the chapter, St. Paul says:
Rom 10:2 I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, salvation starts with the zeal of charity, but before the gift of faith is given, the charity is blind and not able to please God. The purpose of faith is to enlighten charity and connect it to the supernatural, properly. We talk about the light of faith, well, consider faith as sort of like a flashlight. The light bulb is faith, the battery is charity and the body of the flashlight is hope. The battery drives the light, but until it lights up, one cannot see.
Thus, the zeal that St. Paul talks about and the excitement that comes with finding the faith is charity.
The entire part you quoted from Trent (part 5, 6) is this [sorry for the long post, but it is important to see this in context]:
CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33] grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Thus, the sequence is: 1) prevenient grace- 2) excitement (charity: recognition that there is a good to be had)- 3) faith (the enlightenment of the soul as to the nature of the good, which is Chirst)- 4) the generation of INFORMED charity (which begins to love Christ and which rejects the ways of sin)- 5) Justification (in which the virtues, up to this point prevenient, are actually infused at baptism, including Sanctification).
So, as I mentioned earlier, faith is the foundation of an informed charity. That word, informed, is crucial to remember when stating that faith is the beginning of charity. It is the beginning of informed charity, but grace itself is the beginning of charity as an action. Grace can move one to charity, but it is faith that must them be activated to make the charity pleasing to God (know how to please God). It is not right to say simply that faith leads to charity. It does not and I do not believe that this is how Pope Benedict means his statement. Faith leads to a type of charity that is truly Christian and hence a type of charity that loves Christ.
If you detested hearing the word of God, you would never be brought to faith. You must be inclined, at least a little, to hear the word of God (prevenient grace working love in the heart) before the word of God can produce faith.
Bear these distinctions in mind when reading the post that Jimmy made from Pope Benedict, otherwise, down the road, things could get somewhat out of wack. When he said:
It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity.
One must read this in the light of his earlier remarks:
Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love. [bolding, mine]
Faith that works through love is the informed charity I spoke of above. This distinction should be remembered in the rest of the discussion. It is not simply charity, per se.
The Chicken
Shane:
Your use of procreation to explain the faith/love connection is good. My flashlight analogy is included above because it was the closest I could get to a car analogy, which is obligatory in all scholarly work 🙂
Okay, no it isn’t. I could have talked about gasoline and engines and sparkplugs. Darn.
The Chicken
Jeffrey G said: Well said Jordanes. What I meant about always being reconciled is that there was never a time his father would not feel compassion for the son if he saw him “still a long way off” and run to him.
I’m glad that’s what you meant — just so you know that what you said doesn’t mean what you meant.
labrialumn said: Jordanes gives a very good exposition of the Lutheran and evangelical view. If it is also the Roman Catholic view, all the better.
I would be happy if what I said were the Lutheran and evangelical view, but I’m afraid from my own reading of evangelical works that Jeffrey G.’s exposition of the Parable of the Lost Son (“already reconciled” even before coming home and confessing to the Father, though thankfully Jeffrey has explained he didn’t mean that) is more likely to represent evangelical views, at least today. I’m pretty confident, however, that my exposition of the parable is in accord with St. Augustine’s and Trent’s teachings on grace, faith, and works.
Chicken – Is it your belief that Pope Benedict seems to be using the term faith in a more all-encompassing sense – that is, perhaps, a more Protestant sense – than it is used in the epistle of James and perhaps the Tridentine decrees?
Dear Shane,
You wrote:
Chicken – Is it your belief that Pope Benedict seems to be using the term faith in a more all-encompassing sense – that is, perhaps, a more Protestant sense – than it is used in the epistle of James and perhaps the Tridentine decrees?
No. In fact, I did not discussing faith, per se, at all. I was discussing charity and the more restricted, post-baptismal sense in which that Pope Benedict was using it in the quoted talk to explain how faith can lead to charity. Pre-baptismal charity can exist, but it is not supernatural, however, it can be an act of prevenient grace leading to faith-informed charity. I just wanted to make that distinction, least some be led to conclude that faith is always a precursor to charity. It is not. Faith is a precursor to a specific form of charity by a specific mechanism. I was trying to make that discussion more specific, since this is the context in which both Pope Benedict and St. Paul are speaking.
Again, my comments on the Tridentine decrees concerned how charity and faith interact to lead one to a better charity, post-baptism. As to how Pope Benedict uses the word faith – I do not have enough data to say anything. I would assume he uses it in the traditional Catholic sense.
The Chicken
The Chicken
[PLAGIARIZED CONTENT REMOVED]
“One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry”
And you believe this? Is it possible that Marsaudon wanted very much to take credit for something in which he had no involvement in order to bolster his own sense of the importance of Freemasonry?
Why so quick to take the word of someone you obviously consider one of the enemy?
The Church has always been infiltrated, rocked and battered by evil and error (like Arianism), and always recovers. If you believe that modernism has affected the Church, welcome to the club. If you believe modernism has prevailed against the Church and polluted even her doctrines and teaching, then I would say you have gone far wrong.
Of course it does.
Everything proves your point. It’s amazing, how it all comes together like that.
Aside to Shane: I’m hoping to put in my two cents on your question, when I have more than a minute for a snarky aside.
Let’s back this pony up. Salubrious, when do you think the Church went wrong? This may give me more of a clue to your thinking. Something strong enough to derail the Church when 2000 years of heresy could not, must be something really strong. Defend your beliefs, by all means, but show, rather than tell.
The Chicken
Calling imputed righteousness an absurdity, and saying that God would be saying an untruth in that case, is, I think, a failure to see the implications of the Atonement. If the sin is forgiven, *it is forgiven*, “though your sins be red as scarlet, I shall make you white as snow” “cast as far as the east is from the west.’ Imputed righteousness is simply God declaring what has in fact come to be: that Jesus was made sin for us, that we would be made righteous. HE bore the guilt and the punishment due that guilt, so that we would not have to. Thus justice *is* met, and “there is no longer any punishment for sin.”
I can’t see any sense to give these statements that wouldn’t create problems in Christology. I agree that Jesus was made sin for us, i.e., made an offering for sin. But I have no idea how that deals with imputation. If you mean that God viewed or declared Himself as a sinner or guilty, then that would obviously be an untruth, so I don’t see how that differs from what I said. It is obviously impossible for God to view Himself as a sinner, so it is also obviously impossible for God to punish Himself. Christ’s death was not a punishment; rather, he suffered death as an innocent and NOT as a guilty man, and that is precisely the sense in which he “became a curse” and “bore our sins in His body.”
Moreover, since there are Christians who still die, imputation must be false. If imputation were correct and Christ suffered death as a punishment, Christians should be excused from punishment and should not be punished by death. But Christians still die, so imputation must be false.
Ironically, this appears to have diminished your view of the Atonement. The effect of Christ’s death is broader than individual sins and universal in scope. It is sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind, and by restricting the effect to the imputed righteousness of particular sinners, you actually diminish the scope of Christ’s work on the Cross. His sacrifice reunited not just this or that individual but human nature itself with God, turning the consequence of Adam’s sin for human nature, the curse of suffering death, into the path back to God.
Dear Jonathan Prejean,
You wrote:
Moreover, since there are Christians who still die, imputation must be false. If imputation were correct and Christ suffered death as a punishment, Christians should be excused from punishment and should not be punished by death. But Christians still die, so imputation must be false.
Actually, you can go farther with this argument, but one must be careful. If there is no longer any punishment for sin, then what the heck are we doing in this life at all? Jesus did ask us to pray to God that we be spared the trial. If we can no longer sin, then what need would there be for this admonition at all?
To impute means (Merriam-Webster, on-line):
1 : to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly 2 : to credit to a person or a cause : attribute.
Being made righteous (the Catholic position) is not the same thing as being credited with righteousness (the early Protestant position). If Christ bore the weight for our sins and then that righteousness is imputed, at what point would the credit be applied? When we are baptized, all through life, at the point of death?
I think your point is right, at least in part. Death is a consequence of the weakening of the human condition by Original Sin. Original Sin is taken away at baptism, but the weakening is not, so we all die. More than that, we all have concupiscence, even after baptism, and it is easy to prove that we all still fail.
If righteousness were already imputed to us, then what would be the whole point in living, since heaven would be already waiting. The obvious answer to what you quoted would be: if righteousness is imputed, then once one is imputedly righteous, except for a few who may have to remain to get others into an imputedly righteous state, why shouldn’t death follow?
Also, imputed righteousness means that God has pre-judged before death, but this contradicts Jesus’s admonition to, “holdout to the end.”
The somewhat scattered Chicken (as in, not a very good post, sigh)
Chicken,
Clearly the CHURCH has never derailed or apostatized, because not everyone who is a member a local ‘church’ belongs to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. So Hell is filled with Protestants, Muslim, Mormons, and yes even Catholics.
This UNIVERSAL CHURCH has overcome Arians, Protestants, and Ecumenism. So I think it is the responsibility of all Catholics to compare Trent and Vatican I with Vatican II.
So I challenge you to refute the Heresies of Benedict.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/101-benedict.htm
Remember a good deceiver must always mix the truth with lies and that seems to be the strategy of Vatican II.
Again I ask what do Jews, Mormons, Muslims and Catholics have in common? Answer: Nothing!
P.S. So I wait for some Vatican II Catholic to call me a Calvinist again.
You’re right, Steve: Everything proves his point.
Bill912 and SDG,
Thank you for appreciating that I have proved my point. So instead of drinking the cool aid of freemasonary look at the evidence. Modernism/Enlightenment has been in vogue for 225 years and the Catholic church was successful in resisting it for 175 years. No, the problem is not modernism, but the traitors within.
Look at the British Bishops who have just softened their stance against ‘homophobia’.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=1294
Yet the Vatican II Catholic watches helplessly as their fellow Catholic defects to other sects.
Hey everyone
As I said previously, don’t deceive yourselves into believing that a reasonable discussion with a rad-trad troll is feasible. It isn’t.
Matheus,
So the only way your able to discredit my statements is by making the fallacy of an ad hominem attack. It is statements like this that let the Modernist and Protestant humilate us.
Yet again you prove the validity of my statements of the Vatican II Catholic of being weak and unable to reason cogently .
Salubrius –
You want cogent reasoning? How about giving us some kind of argument to reason against? Some evidence besides “Can’t you see things are really horrible and that it’s all the fault of Vatican II?”
I will not waste time trying to unilaterally argue against broad, completely arbitrary statements like “The Pope is a Heretic”, “9/11 was an Inside Job” or “We Never Went to the Moon”.
Dear salubrious
Of course what I recommended to others applies also to myself, but your actions and opinions displayed thus far fit very well the profile of those of a rad-trad, which is a precise concept, unlike your childish “Vatican II Catholic” mocking drivel, whether you like it or not.
And if you appreciate a suggestion, please tone down your patronizing attitude toward those who happen to disagree with you. I used to be a sort of rad-trad sympathizer, so I may know one thing or two about your mindset. Believe me, I really wish that true interaction with you could be possible.
And I also hope that you copied your last paragraph, so that you won’t have to type it every time.
Matheus,
Again if you say that I can not be reasoned with, why do you keep responding to my posts. Does this not make you a hypocrite for not listening to your own advice?
Maybe you are too emotional of a person to be reasoned with? So you must resort to throwing tantrums and ad hominems.
I think your alias ‘Rotten Orange’ speaks volumes about your personal character.
Dear Salubrious,
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. To point to a website that proports to show 101 inconsistencies between Pope Benedict’s statements and the teaching prior to Vatican II is not a proof and asking other people to prove your point is shifting the burden of proof. Take one of the statements on that list and do due diligence to make your case. That seems reasonable, to me.
The Chicken
“I think your alias ‘Rotten Orange’ speaks volumes about your personal character.”
I might say I think your willingness to make such assumptions speaks volumes about yours. But I can’t really judge your character, only your deportment.
Have you taken some time to review Da Rulz? Insults and personal abuse of other posters are not allowed here. Repeated violations will result in posters being disinvited to participate on the blog. Please temper your rhetoric. Thank you.
Lots more information on “The New Perspective” on the Apostle Paul can be found here:
http://www.thepaulpage.com/index.html
Interesting…
What the Pope appears to be saying is…
FAITH is the tree
CHARITY is the fruit
It starts with Faith. But if Faith does not end up in Charity, Christ simply does not find that acceptable.
Is this a correct understanding? Or am I too simplistic?
Dear Marvin,
Read my post from the top of the page. It is an attempt (correct or not, I can’t say) to explain the relation between faith and charity in the context in which Pope Benedict used them.
The Chicken
salubrious,
Remember that these words of yours:
“Remember a good deceiver must always mix the truth with lies”
Might come arround to bite you
in this age…
or in the age to come.
May God grant you the Mercy of His Light, and the Grace of Humility.
PS. I wouldn’t call you Calvinist, but I am thinking that you could be called a different kind of protestant.
PPS. Your clumsy calumnies against the church and BenedictXVI in your link and your posts are very weak, out of context and strained by a protestant hermeneutic of suspicion and malice.
PPPS this is off topic unless you wish to substantiate, using Catholic sources, a claim that B16 here advocates protestant doctrine regarding Faith and Justification.
PPPPS May God grant you the Mercy of His Light, and the Grace of Humility.
[PLAGIARIZED MATERIAL REMOVED]
salubrious added”– for example, in infant baptism –” to twist the meaning of B16 words.
in the catholic rite of baptism is tied to the re-affirmation of the parents and godparents to raise the child up in the faith. That is the catechumenate.
as for the second read JA’s and SDG’s take on that Limbo question on this site, read the discussion to with an open mind. Please do not abandon the church and so endanger your soul.
By attacking the church in this way you become ‘protestant'(in your own special way) and can fall victim to the winds of culture.
here are the links to what JA said and what other contributed.
Please don’t blame others if they don’t respond to your accusations. They haveother priorities too.
jimmyakin.org/defensor_fidei/2007/04/limbo_document_.html
jimmyakin.org/defensor_fidei/2005/12/limbo_in_limbo.html
jimmyakin.org/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html
Lioren,
I have heard good arguments from both the Traditionalists and Vatican II Catholics. As of late this has caused a lot of confusion in my life, because there seems no way to elegantly resolve these differences. In one sense – I never thought I would say this – ignorance is bliss.
I still may not be rightly comprehending what you are saying, Pat. Please feel free to teach me, here.
It does seem that one possible interpretation of what you are saying is that the problem is semantic.
If you understand the “peccator” in the slogan as meaning “susceptible to concupiscence”, rather than “totally a sinner” in the sense of conscious enmity with God, would that help? I would suggest that this would be much closer to the evangelical catholic understanding of what that phrase means.
Jordanes, I am not sure whether Jefferey G is a heretic or simply doesn’t communicate accurately. What he has been stating is not Lutheran and evangelical teaching.
“no longer any punishment for sin” means that Christ bore it all. To teach that we must yet suffer punishment for sin , that is judicial punishment of our guilt, is to teach that Christ was not sufficient. That would be heresy. I do not doubt that I have not always written perfectly(!) Jordannes interpretation of what I wrote seems to me to illustrate that. Unlike God, I am not perfect in my writing(!) I see that he is reading phrases I used as meaning something other than what I meant when I used them.
Biblically, heaven is not our home, the unfallen cosmos is. The cosmos is fallen, so until the anakainensis at the end of salvation-history, those who have passed on dwell with God in heaven in what some Protestant theologians term “the intermediate state”. But we will be raised incorruptible, and we will live in the new heavens and the new Earth. We were made from the beginning – and God made no mistake – to be physical, and in God’s Image and Likeness.
Chicken, Does not God know perfectly that which will come to pass?
I don’t know how salubrious can determine when the magisterium is being orthodox and when it isn’t. He seems to think that he can, all under the principle of the magisterium being infallible and never-changing.
Lloren, I don’t think it is appropriate or acceptable to call anyone a protestant who rejects the five solas. That is about as valid as calling anyone a Roman Catholic who rejects any of them. Let us attempt to use terms appropriately. Perhaps you are looking for schismatic or heretic or dissenter or something else?
Labrialumn,
Thanks for responding. I’ll take a crack at answering your question. You asked:
“If you understand the “peccator” in the slogan as meaning “susceptible to concupiscence”, rather than “totally a sinner” in the sense of conscious enmity with God, would that help?”
In short, I would say, Yes! But, I think it would help the Protestant not the Roman Catholic. The item I referred you to states:
“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them….”
This is the Lutheran position as represented in the Joint Declaration. This is their understanding of Simul justus et peccator. Notice it is this view that states that man remains totally sinners. Sin still lives in them. This is not acceptable to a Roman Catholic.
Also, it seems important to remember that doctrines are inter-related. The belief that God imputes His righteousness to us is not a problem for a Roman Catholic. The problem is in saying that it is this alone that occurs. It is not. In fact, it can not be in order for other Truths to be maintained. This is why I used the infant baptism example and asked you the question: “After their baptism is there anything in them that is at enmity with God?” According to the above statement by Lutheran’s this infant still has sin living in them. IOW, God did not really wash away all this infant’s sin in their baptism even though we teach that God does wash away all sin- ie, Baptismal regeneration. Does this help?
PS- I am an admitted hack at these issues an apologize in advance if I have misrepresented anything.
Gentlemen,
Vatican II teaches that Catholics worship the same God as the Muslims
Tell me why this statements from the Catechism do not bother you?
Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”
Is this not an amazing blasphemy?! Catholics are worshippers of Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity; the Muslims are not!
This is so basic that the only scripture that comes to mind what was said 2000 years ago.
“For the time will come (and we are now there)
when they (many men and women who call themselves “Christian”)
will not put up with (endure) sound doctrine. (What the Bible and Church teaches …)
Instead, to suit their own desires,
they will gather around them a great number of teachers
to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth
and turn aside to myths. (Such as Ecumenism)”
(2 Timothy 4:3-5)
Salubrious,
You asked the following:
“Is this not an amazing blasphemy?!”
The short answer and the Truth is, No!, it is not an amazing blasphemy. The Roman Catholic Church; having proper authority from God to teach the Truth of the Gospel and protect it from error is infallible.
salubrious; you may find this series helpful
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=6035&pgnu=
labrialumn; perhaps schismatic could be a better term… I used protestant of a different sort to indicate the fundamental rejection of the teaching authority of the Magesterium
salubrious; the church has indicated that Islam claims a connection in real History with the God of Abraham. In so far as they seek to remain connected to that historic fact and its meaning they may worship imperfectly and incompletely.Insofar as their monotheism fits with Catholic monotheism, they seek the same God, imperfectly. That their actual history tied related to Gnostic myths and moon gods, -and that their monotheism is limited and incomplete-, demonstrates the lies and untruth that contaminate their understanding and interfere with the points of Catholic evangelistic contact with them.
Similarly with protestants you recognize the points where you recognize that they seek God in ignorance. Similarly also with sedevacantists, heretics, schismatics, liberals, cafeteria Catholics…
I think you have allowed antiV2 hobbyhorsists(!?) to define your issues, definitions and orthodoxy; and by doing that, you exclude, a priori, seriously considering the actual teaching of the True Catholic Church(the one with the Pope).
it should read:
“That their actual history is tied and related to to Gnostic myths and moon gods ”
… etc with bad sentence structure conceptual jumps… aw well, I never said I could write well.
Lioren,
I fail to understand this argument. Using the logic that you outlined, I can argue that Arianism, Pelagianism, and other ‘isms’ have a lineage back to Abraham. I find this reasoning leads to a major confusion among the flock. Currently, the Pope is trying to say that Luther was misunderstood and not a heretic. Again I must say look at the fruit, common sense tells us that anyone who rejects Christ is a heretic regardless of their claims of maintaining the faith of Abraham. Arianists, Donatists, and Protestants all claim to believe in Abraham but they have rejected the church – and we know there is no salvation outside of the church.
This is not true. Being untrue, it is opposed, deliberately or otherwise, to the eighth commandment.
Dear Labrialumn,
You wrote:
Chicken, Does not God know perfectly that which will come to pass?
In what context were you asking this question? Would you post a quote so that I might have some reference, please?
Dear Salubrius,
A heretic is someone who does not believe in God as taught in the Catholic Faith on at least one major dogmatic point. A heretic is not someone who does nor believe that God does not exist (an atheist) or that God does exist but has none of the attributes of the God understood in Catholic Faith (an agnostic or deist, possibly). Even devils believe in the correct God (not that I am saying that Moslems are aligned with the Devil).
Thus, it is perfectly possible for Moslems to worship the true God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but be very mistaken in their understanding, to the point of holding heretical doctrines, but not necessarily holding heretical doctrines about every single point of the Faith. Thus, the two statements are not contradictory, since the domain of discourse is of different sizes for the two propositions. Many Moslems, as many Protestants are in invincible ignorance. That is a doctrine of the Catholic Church and is Scriptural, as well (Luke 12:46-48).
The Chicken
Dear Labrialumn,
You wrote:
Chicken, Does not God know perfectly that which will come to pass?
In what context were you asking this question? Would you post a quote so that I might have some reference, please?
Dear Salubrius,
A heretic is someone who does not believe in God as taught in the Catholic Faith on at least one major dogmatic point. A heretic is not someone who does nor believe that God does not exist (an atheist) or that God does exist but has none of the attributes of the God understood in Catholic Faith (an agnostic or deist, possibly). Even devils believe in the correct God (not that I am saying that Moslems are aligned with the Devil).
Thus, it is perfectly possible for Moslems to worship the true God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but be very mistaken in their understanding, to the point of holding heretical doctrines, but not necessarily holding heretical doctrines about every single point of the Faith. Thus, the two statements are not contradictory, since the domain of discourse is of different sizes for the two propositions. Many Moslems, as many Protestants are in invincible ignorance. That is a doctrine of the Catholic Church and is Scriptural, as well (Luke 12:46-48).
The Chicken
Dear Labrialumn,
You wrote:
Chicken, Does not God know perfectly that which will come to pass?
In what context were you asking this question? Would you post a quote so that I might have some reference, please?
Dear Salubrius,
A heretic is someone who does not believe in God as taught in the Catholic Faith on at least one major dogmatic point. A heretic is not someone who does nor believe that God does not exist (an atheist) or that God does exist but has none of the attributes of the God understood in Catholic Faith (an agnostic or deist, possibly). Even devils believe in the correct God (not that I am saying that Moslems are aligned with the Devil).
Thus, it is perfectly possible for Moslems to worship the true God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but be very mistaken in their understanding, to the point of holding heretical doctrines, but not necessarily holding heretical doctrines about every single point of the Faith. Thus, the two statements are not contradictory, since the domain of discourse is of different sizes for the two propositions. Many Moslems, as many Protestants are in invincible ignorance. That is a doctrine of the Catholic Church and is Scriptural, as well (Luke 12:46-48).
The Chicken
Sorry for the multiple posts. Typepad went a bit haywire.
The Chicken
Salubrious:
“I can argue that Arianism, Pelagianism, and other ‘isms’ have a lineage back to Abraham.”
they claim a lineage back to Abraham. It is a point of evangelistic contact to the heretical people.
“I find this reasoning leads to a major confusion among the flock.”
Which you are striving to exacerbate. – is that good for eternal destiny, neh?
“Currently, the Pope is trying to say that Luther was misunderstood and not a heretic.” not true. Luther choose (like you, apparently) to regard the pope of his day as a heretic and refused to respect his teaching authority. Luther’s soul, by that act of his will, was greatly endangered.
“Again I must say look at the fruit”[]
“Arianists, Donatists, and Protestants all claim to believe in Abraham but they have rejected the church”
These also reject the church: cafeteria Catholics, and people who reject the teaching of the magesterium, those who say that the pope is a heretic and then distort his teaching and teach others to do so… if they were part, they are in even more grave danger. if they’ve known the truth and turned their backs, they, such as those who calumniate the pope, are in grave danger.
” – and we know there is no salvation outside of the church.” then those who are in invincible ignorance are in better connection with God and the church than those who have turned their back upon the church, defiling the sacraments by refusing to repent of their calumny against the church’s chief shepherd.
“Again I must say look at the fruit”
do that
This is really picky, but it’s Krister Stendahl, not Kirster. He passed away within the past year or two. 🙁
Jonathan and Chicken,
Your posts seem to indicate that there is no room for imputation whatsoever in justification/salvation in any sense. So does this mean you would not accept a theory of both imputed and infused righteousness as the ground of justification? I have here in mind the idea of duplex iustitia that was floating around amongst RCs before and during Trent such as Contarini and others; now of course this was scrutinized and rejected at Trent when it declared inherent/infused righteousness as the single formal cause (unica causa formalis), but I wonder if a formulation that had said infused righteousness was the *primary* ground in addition to imputed righteousness or some other formulation taking in both would be agreeable to you, or if imputation can simply have no place in salvation.
Dear The Dude,
To be both infused and imputed would be a contradiction, at least as the terms were used back during the reformation. To impute means to declare something that is either really not known or contrary to fact. Infused righteousness makes someone really righteous and not merely imputes it.
One could tale, perhaps, about infused and then declared righteousness, but even then, the declaration (which is not a mere imputation) adds nothing and is redundant.
The Chicken
Could someone please give me a little explanation of what “justify” means?
I understand it in it’s context (I think) but I’m just struggling with that it exactly means.
Thanks!
Dear Q-Bert
Instead of explaining it myself, I prefer to point you to this post from Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong’s blog; and to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Justification.
I hope it helps, but feel free to ask others here, who will certainly help you more than I could.
Q-Bert,
At the risk of oversimplification let me just state the following.
Calvinist( Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed Churches) : imputed righteousness
Methodist( Pentecostal, many Evangelicals): imputed + imparted righteousness
Catholic: Infused righteousness.
Thus to understand this topic correctly, one needs to understand all 3 positions.