Protestant/catholic Relationship

[timwho]

oh hmm, that's interesting, always nice to know the depths of mischaracterization taught by those that don't bother learning xD. Now I can move on to more questions. . .

On justification:
Well half my interest in catholic theology comes form a new pastor coming into my church and having is first message on the magnificence of monergism, which I disagreed with. . . which brings my inquiry to the catholic doctrine of justification


The primary contention of Protestantism with catholicism is that of justification as put forth by Luther and Calvin. That being said, being in a Reformed church, my pastors and friends tend to follow in the footsteps of calvin in declaring the total depravity of the human soul and its inability to turn towards God hence the teaching of monergism. From what I understand, my beliefs regarding justification are closer to that of the synergism of Catholic theology

The catechism states "Moved by grace, man turns towards God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high." 2019 which echoes the synergism of the joint work of both God and man in the act of justification.

I wish to ask how the Catholic church refutes the the doctrine of total depravity when protestant justification of the theology seems pretty resolute (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html VI, 2). Or is it that the doctrine is also affirmed? 2027 than says "no one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion." Which necessitates an explanation of "merit" because according to protestant theology such "merit," as I understand it is impossible.

An explanation of merit is found in the joint statement on justification: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
but I find it lacking in that it doesn't explain to me where the criticism of "by faith alone, without works" come from by protestants. It would appear to me that both sides do affirm that salvation is by faith alone? Is this a misunderstanding on luther's part at the start of the reformation, or mine in understanding catholic theology? It would appear to be mine because of the above statement on justification from the council of trent.

I'm sorry if i'm overly confusing my thoughts aren't that coherent at 2 am xD.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i simply will quote holy scripture to the best of my abilities of present. Jesus "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." This scripture teaches me that all souls from the beggining desire a relationship with GOD but through the sins of the flesh this desire is clouded,true charity is reduced which can be regained through repentance and amends in word and deed. To my understand this does not make the flesh evil just weaker than the life of the spirit. Does this make our will stronger than that of GOD, that without our will GOD is somewhat weakened? No i don't believe so! Though jesus does require the willingness of the created to administer grace, though at times he probably does step in through the intercession of a saint or the moanings and groanings of ones soul for a relationship with the creator. The holy bible clearly states the soul groans on our behalf, is that equal for all peoples? Yes i believe so! For all souls are created in the image and likeness of GOD. And again scripture states we will be judged by every word and deed, though it doesn't say we are saved by word and deed, just like jesus says "repetative prayer won't get you into heaven." not that we can't pray repetatively/daily for the same thing and not that we can't pray in the ejaculatory form like repeating a verse over and over again for 5 or 10 minutes whatever the time. I believe jesus is saying that only GOD ultimately can get us into heaven. And jesus states himself that the 2 most important commandments are love the lord your god with all you mind heart body and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself, and that all else flows from these. But in the end good words and deeds are defenitely a part of the redemtive mission and can not be frowned upon in any manner. But than this is all just my discernment and i know little of sacred tradition of the holy catholic church, though i respect it as part of the redemtive mission of christ. Most of it is open to interpretation to a degree for any practising member of the holy roman catholic church unless the pope exercises his rite to infalibility with the grace of the holy spirit as a matter of faith and morals and no ifs buts or maybes on the matter.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i think we all do anethemas or whatever there called at times, jesus states the tounge is a double edged sword that can be used to bless or to curse, but if casting another into ghenna which happens in scripture i will give the prophet daniel as an example, in waiting for judgement so to speak and not the eternal damnation, than obviously the law courts of heaven,the angels and saints and GOD himself are the final judge as to whether the person remains under that state of judgement and seperation from grace. But than this is all just my opinion and i have no theological degree and nore am i of any standing in the holy roman catholic church except that of the layity.

[Groo the Wanderer]

table is best understood with gin and tonic....

[MIKolbe]

i think there is a bit of defintional anxiety as it comes to the word 'merit'. As we all know, words can change meanings throughout the years..In the 1800's saying, "I'm gay", meant something totally different than it does today. With this in mind, we have to 'transport' back to what the medieval and renaissance Church meant by that term. Hans Urs Von Balthasar was a 20th century theologian. In his words, the best modern equivalent for "merit" is "fruitfulness." In a nutshell, it is how we participate in God's life.

The Council says that "the gifts of God are also the good merits of him justified." Is this saying "Salvation means God does half and we do half?" No. It is saying something far more radical. It is saying that God does it all and we do it all. Following Paul (who urged the Philippians to "work our your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose"), the Council asserts that the fruit borne by the believer is [i]real fruit[/i] which is really and truly [i]given[/i] by God and therefore really and truly a part of the believer's life. Instead of seeing salvation as "snow on a dunghill" (a mere legal decree of righteousness which gets us to heaven yet which leaves us unchanged in our inner being), the Council sees salvation as a process which really changes us in our inner being and conforms us to the image of Christ.

Essentially, Trent is saying that grace, incarnate [i]in[/i] us, has real, tangible and eternal effects [i]on[/i] us and our relationship with God according to our cooperation with it. Like the Parable of the Sower, the seed of the word bears fruit depending on the kind of reception we give it. If we freely respond to grace and do good, this changes us and makes us able to respond to more grace (which God, who is still prior) seeks to give. (Repeat steps 1 and 2 as necessary till sinner is perfected and glorified.) We do indeed bear fruit for eternal life. We are indeed rewarded for what we do. Yet it is all the work of grace.

Here is a really good article on what the Church means by 'merit'. This guy says it a whole lot better than me.. LOL...and I ended up copying and pasting his better parts... but here is the article... [url="http://www.mark-shea.com/merit.html"]http://www.mark-shea.com/merit.html[/url]

[Amppax]

I think a book that you would be interested in is Peter Kreeft's [i]Catholic Christianity. [/i]It is basically a walk through the Catechism, but Kreeft does an excellent job of saying the same things in a different way. He's also formerly a protestant, so that might help. I recall something about your question in the first couple of chapters. I'll see if I can find it.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340691064' post='2448975']
An explanation of merit is found in the joint statement on justification: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...aration_en.html[/url]
but I find it lacking in that it doesn't explain to me where the criticism of "by faith alone, without works" come from by protestants. It would appear to me that both sides do affirm that salvation is by faith alone? Is this a misunderstanding on luther's part at the start of the reformation, or mine in understanding catholic theology? It would appear to be mine because of the above statement on justification from the council of trent.

[/quote]

In my opinion, the joint statement seemed to be more of an ecumenical outreach, than a doctrine defining moment. Having quickly skimmed over the link you provided, I foung more of an affirmation of Grace Alone, and that our salvation is only attained only through Christ. If one wanted to make the arguement of prima fides (faith first), I think one could be made from that document. Though I am unsure of its precedence in catholic theology. (i think Scott Hahn put forth this argument somewhere as well).

I just don't see a repudiating of the catholic doctrine of faith and works beeing necessary for one's salvation.

[timwho]

And while I go and contemplate what has been presented (in that merit seems to be quite like unto what some Protestants call "Lordship Salvation," though it is indeed telling that google wants to add "heresy" to the end of that.) and come up with more questions on the theology of the Church (and find that book by Kreeft) I do wish to ask the general Catholic population here if protestants have ever tried to convert you xD. I find that those who leave the church and join protestant ones tend to not have a deep understanding of the doctrine which they left (and in that regard, I do find the Catholic church lacking) and protestants don't seek to understand catholic doctrine so I also find that among many protestants there is a belief that Catholics are a false church (which does bother be because it ignores the 1,000 years of church history between Augustine and Luther)

[Archaeology cat]

I cannot speak personally about attempts to convert me (I am a convert from Baptist to Catholic, but no one tried to convert me, and I've not been pressured by people to leave the Church), but a former roommate was pressured to leave the Church, and has done so. As you have observed, she didn't seem to be extremely well-grounded in the knowledge of her faith. It is quite sad, really, and you are right to note that catechesis is sorely lacking in some areas, though I think there's a move for that to get better. My pastor has clarsees and short lessons in the bulletin to help with catechesis.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340734881' post='2449116']
I do wish to ask the general Catholic population here if protestants have ever tried to convert you xD.
[/quote]

My aunt who is a very radical Evangelical/Fundamentalist.

I haven't been on here that long, and I might be forgetting, but I don't think I've ever met a Protestant who is as studied in History and Theology--for lack of a better word--as you are. (The fact that you've actually read from the Council of Trent says a lot, I think.)


There have been a few Protestants who have come on here and have "engaged in conversations" with us though.

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340734881' post='2449116']
I find that those who leave the church and join protestant ones tend to not have a deep understanding of the doctrine which they left (and in that regard, I do find the Catholic church lacking)
[/quote]

You observed right. lol.

But as of the past twenty years or so, I think there has been an improvement in catechesis, especially in my generation. I myself am a product of the "New Evangelization", being a fairly parseionate Catholic youth.




[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340734881' post='2449116']
protestants don't seek to understand catholic doctrine so I also find that among many protestants there is a belief that Catholics are a false church (which does bother be because it ignores the 1,000 years of church history between Augustine and Luther)
[/quote]


You sound more Catholic right now than you realize... hahaha.

Edited June 26, 2012 by BigJon16

[MIKolbe]

I don't think, as a Catholic, anyone has tried to convert me. We do have people who stop by here and try to knock down what we believe, and then leave quickly...some do stay a while.

What I notice the most is people try to knock down what they [b]think[/b] the Church believes and teaches; and then refuse (for lack of a better word) to believe what we explain about Catholicism...

Conversations sometimes end up like this...

[b]"you guys worship Mary"[/b]
"actually we don't"
[b]"well you pray to her"[/b]
*dissertation about latria, dulia, and hyper-dulia results* *Etymology of the word 'pray' is presented*
[b]"no, no, no ...you worship to her"[/b]

[b]"because of the Eucharist, you are idolators"[/b]
"no. If we believed it was a piece of bread, then yes we would be. But it is Jesus, so it's not"
[b]"no, no, it's not Jesus, it's a piece of bread and you worship it..you darn idolator."[/b]

[timwho]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1340740776' post='2449149']
I haven't been on here that long, and I might be forgetting, but I don't think I've ever met a Protestant who is as studied in History and Theology--for lack of a better word--as you are. (The fact that you've actually read from the Council of Trent says a lot, I think.)

You sound more Catholic right now than you realize... hahaha.
[/quote]
I honestly think that Protestant understanding of what christianity is, is quite lacking. I do believe that protestants have a better overall grasp of doctrine (half the reason being that services are centred on the sermon, and not the Eucharist) Church history is more lacking in Protestant churches than Catholic churches because of the focus on "the priesthood of the believer" and the capacity for the individual to interpret scripture apart from tradition. It baffles me then, having this then as a central doctrine of exposition of scripture, that protestant groups call each other heretical (though admittedly such accusations are often limited to soteriology). I study church history because I believe it equally important to know where today's faith originates from, and even if I also believe in the priesthood of the believer, many men more learned than I have studied scripture, quite often what protestants describe as "new theology" has president in past theology though many don't bother to look.

I guess i should thank you being in a catholic forum, anywhere else and i guess that would be an insult. There are somethings that are relative, unfortunately.

My next question is on the stability of catholic doctrine. I mean to say, does doctrine change? I do realize that the answer to that is no, but then I offer the example of Tertullian and the change in stance regarding his formulation of the trinity. (Tertullian's Monatism is also interesting in that I find it eerily similar to today's Pentecostal movement, rejecting church history also tends to mean that many doctrines previously labeled heresy do seem to pop up) So things like the council of trent don't really change doctrine, they merely clarify it, but what is the church's stance on the seeming back peddling that occurred as the early church formulated doctrines regarding christology and other such things?

I suppose a related question is, how does the church justify monastic behaviour in that it wasn't advocated in scripture or in the earliest church, rather arising around the 400s in egypt (and then really only after the patriarch of alexandria made that hagiography on that one monk whose name I can't remember).

perhaps i should have put this thread in the transmundane lane xD

Edited June 27, 2012 by Timothy J. Hutama

[Adrestia]

Welcome and thanks for the thought-provoking questions. I used to have a very elementary understanding of the Catholic Church, then I moved to Georgia - the buckle of the Bible Belt. It was the unending questions from ill-informed non-Catholic Christians that made me research what the church really teaches and why. Now I have a middle-school understanding. :D

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340734881' post='2449116']I do wish to ask the general Catholic population here if protestants have ever tried to convert you xD.
[/quote]

Yes. Everytime someone invites me to their church, I also invite them to mine. They rarely accept my offer. In my youth I would accept any offer, mostly to avoid offending them, to satisfy some curiosity, and to learn. Now I never accept an offer unless they accept mine. I just don't have that much free time any more.

[timwho]

But since i find a majority of catholics don't really know what the church teaches (for even learning must take some effort) can you really say that you only have a "middle school" knowledge of doctrine. I would say that you probably have a "high school" knowledge of doctrine since you did bother to learn something. Of course the gap between high school and university is seminary so i doubt you'd ever be there

I should probably pop on with a friend to see what a catholic mass is xD I've seen one from a window above a chapel, but that doesn't really count. I can't take mass though, so idk.

Can I get this thread moved to transmundane *pokes Lil Red*?

Edited June 27, 2012 by Timothy J. Hutama

[Lil Red]

of course.