Anyone Care To Have A Crack At This?

[ICTHUS]

Is the Roman Catholic Church a true Church of Jesus Christ? Is it really a Christian denomination?

This post will proceed with the assumption that protestant theology is correct (Westminster Confession of Faith standards) and with the assumption that the Papists are wrong in their views. There are other threads in which this can be argued, of course, but the question I’ve had in my mind for some time is whether they can be considered a true Christian denomination while being wrong on the points at which they disagree with Protestants.

Ignoring the elevation of tradition to the level of Scriupture, the sale of indulgences, the distortions of the priesthood, the mass, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the fabrication of purgatory, etc., I would like to focus only on the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Romanist view of justification, I believe, is all that is needed to show that the Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church of Jesus Christ.

The Council of Trent published its decree on justification in 1547 in response to the Reformation, and at that time it was declared “irreformable.”

The Council of Trent teaches that justification means to be made righteous. Not to be declared or accounted righteous, but to be made righteous:

[color=purple]"In that new birth there is bestowed upon them the grace whereby they are made just." Justification is "the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just but that whereby He maketh us just."[/color] (Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 3)

Rome teaches that people earn the merit of Christ as unbelievers by their "good works":

[color=purple]"Congruous merit is the favorable quality associated with the good works done by the unregenerate man before his conversion and by which it is congruous it is fitting for God to be moved to bestow grace on him."[/color]

Chapters 5 & 6 Cannon 4 Session 6 The Council of Trent says that man's will "[color=purple]cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification[/color]" and then goes on to outright teach merit of salvation and salvation by works as well as the eternal damnation of anyone who disagrees:

[color=purple]"If anyone saith that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, or that the justified man by the good works that he performs does not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life let him be accursed."[/color]

[color=purple]"If anyone saith that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is inherent in him, let him be accursed[/color]." (Cannon 11)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches salvation by works, pure and simple, and at Trent it was declared that those who disagree with its doctrines were "anathema"--accursed and damned to hell forever. This view of justification was declared irreformable at Trent and confirmed and declared irreformable again at Vatican I and Vatican II. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church still espouses these damnable heresies today and cannot therefore be considered a true Church of Jesus Christ, due simply to their view on justification and without any of their other many problems being considered.

However, this does not mean that I believe everyone within the Roman Catholic Church to be damned. I believe it is possible that someone could be in that organization and be inconsistant in their beliefs in a way that made it possible for them to truly be believers. I am discussing the official position of the system here and its official status.

[phatcatholic]

ugh! i'm not in the mood........

maybe later

[akamarymag]

Gollie G to bad u have the beliefs of the church all twisted up.

The Catholic Church does not believe that people earn their way into Heaven through good works.
The Catholic Church does not teach that works are more important than faith, and it has never taught that concept.
St. Paul and St. James do not have different views on faith and works, they are completely in line with one another, they’’re just focusing on different aspects of life and salvation. Any good Biblical scholar, Catholic or Protestant, can see that.
The Catholic Church does not believe in the concept of ““once saved, always saved””. It is completely unbiblical that once we accept Christ as our Savior, nothing we do (no matter how bad or how sinful) can cost us our salvation

1st of all the church doesnt teach that you can earn your way to heaven trough works! We teach, beieve and yes know that faith without works is dead. Check this out (James 2:14-26)

Read these two verses and ask yourself, do they contradict each other?
““For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law”” - Romans 3:28
““See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”” - James 2:24
They seem to disagree, right? Well, that’’s what a lot of people think, but in actuality, they don’’t. Sadly, entire religions have broken apart and God’’s family has continued to sever ties because of this supposed contradiction.
St. Paul and St. James were not disagreeing (although it might appear, upon a quick glance that they are) but they are actually in complete agreement, though two sides of the same coin.
When Paul mentions ““works”” he is talking about observances of Jewish law, like circumcision, purification rituals, regulations on what foods to eat……that sort of thing.
When James mentions ““works”” he is talking about Christian corporal and spiritual works of mercy like those we are called and commanded to perform……like the Beatitudes (Matthew 5).
St. Paul is trying to explain to Jewish Christians that they are no longer bound to Jewish rituals and laws in order to be ““justified”” or ““in right relationship”” with God. St. James is trying to explain that just a mental acceptance and invitation of God ““faith”” is not the end, but the beginning to a life in Christ, one which must serve others in order to ““bear fruit that would remain”” (John 15), otherwise they’’d be in trouble because ““the dead are judged according to their deeds”” (Rev. 20:12-13).
In a nutshell:
Paul is talking about faith as something cerebral, or ““mental””.
James is talking about faith in action, faith working through love.
Paul is talking about ““works”” as Jewish ceremonial customs.James is talking about ““works”” as Christian acts of charity (Beatitudes).
Paul is talking about how to get into Heaven.
James is talking about how to live on Earth.

Faith and Works go together, and basically necessitate one another.
They are two sides of the same coin, and are not contradictory

The phrase faith alone only appears once in the Bible (if it is an accurate translation of Bible): ““See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”” –– James 2:24

How is that for irony?

Martin Luther added the word ““alone”” to Romans 3:28, in his German translation of the Bible –– in order for the scriptures to agree with the theology he was promoting and teaching.

By the way, doing so goes against scripture directly, ““I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book……”” - Revelation 22:18

Martin Luther, even after he left the church, still believed strongly in the Sacramentality of Reconciliation, the worth of a strong devotion to Mary and in the real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All of these are found in his personal letters, after he was censured and silenced from writing or speaking publicly by his own followers.

Anyway just so you know i’ve studied the teachings of martain Luther myself he was an extremest. He had good motives but took them to far. IM not going to deny there was major stuff going on at the time of the reformation but i will tell Catholics are Christians . We are THE church that Christ himself put together. Read acts if you disagree.

Anyway another thing to let you know. I was Lutheran until this Easter. Then i became Catholic...I would know what Martin was talking about.

All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic

Edited June 4, 2004 by akamarymag

[ICTHUS]

First of all, the above is not my piece, it is the work of a man by the name of Travis White. He is a Presbyterian. I am a Catholic. Perhaps I ought've made that more clear.

Secondly, whomever posts in response to this, please interact with the support he provides from the Council of Trent. I'm familiar with the Biblical arguments, but Travis attempts to use the Church's teachings to prove that she is not a Christian church.

[St. Catherine]

Edited June 5, 2004 by St. Catherine

[Cure of Ars]

ICTHUS it's good to talk with you again. Here is my take.

[quote]The Council of Trent teaches that justification means to be made righteous. Not to be declared or accounted righteous, but to be made righteous:

"In that new birth there is bestowed upon them the grace whereby they are made just." Justification is "the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just but that whereby He maketh us just." (Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 3)[/quote]


If God declares something it happens. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. In the same manner when God declares us righteous his words are efficacious.

[quote]Rome teaches that people earn the merit of Christ as unbelievers by their "good works":

[color=purple]"Congruous merit is the favorable quality associated with the good works done by the unregenerate man before his conversion and by which it is congruous it is fitting for God to be moved to bestow grace on him."[/color][/quote]


In Catholic theology there are two types of merit. To understand what is being said one needed to define the term, “Congruous merit” as apposed to “Condign merit”? Here is the difference;

[color=blue]Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, "Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter," Münster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum). Hence the reward of congruous merit always depends in great measure on the kindness and liberality of the giver, though not purely and simply on his good will. [/color](The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X, Merit)

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm[/url]



Travis fails to mention the following quotes that give the other side of the coin.


[color=blue]". . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight." [/color](Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter 5, Decree on Justification)


[color=blue]If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. [/color](Canon I on Justification)

[Apotheoun]

Mr. White fails to give a proper reference notation for the following quotation:

"Congruous merit is the favorable quality associated with the good works done by the unregenerate man before his conversion and by which it is congruous it is fitting for God to be moved to bestow grace on him."

I have been unable to locate this quotation in my English translation of the documents of the Council of Trent. As far as it concerns grace and merit I would note that the Council of Trent clearly teaches ". . . that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, [i]without any merits existing on their parts[/i], 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; [i]yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight[/i]." [Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Session 6, Chap. 5]

I would like to know where Mr. White got the quotation on 'congruous merit,' because quotations without proper reference citations are always suspect of manipulation.