Catholocism Versus The Bible

[Anna]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 5 2004, 05:36 PM'] FYI tidbit of the day: Did you know for the act of perfect contrition one must be heartily sorry for their sin not because of a fear of punishment, but because one has disspleased God. [/quote]
Certainly we know this, Brother Adam.
Every time we go to Confession, as the priest prays the prayers of absolution over us, we are to recite an Act of Contrition:

[i]"Oh, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee. And I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. [b]But most of all, because I have offended Thee, My God, Who Art All Good and deserving of all my love.[/b]
I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to ammend my life. Amen."[/i]

Pax Christi. <><

Edited April 5, 2004 by Anna

[Brother Adam]

Anna, Martin Luther, as with all Lutherans, do not adhere to OSAS. They however believe the only mortal sin is the outright rejection of Christ as Savior.

hehe. the FYI was more for Dairygirl and Bruce.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Anna]

Yes, Adam, I was just backing up what you said about Catholic repentence with the actual words we use.

Regarding Martin Luther and OSAS, his words pretty well pave the way for men to create whatever doctrines they wish to believe, departing from the Apostolic teachings preserved by the Church founded by Jesus.

Since dairygirl likes to quote historical Church documents, I thought she might like to know of the historical writings of this father of protestantism.

Re-reading Luther's words, he seems to be saying, "Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his passion meaningless by not committing them?"


It's certainly a direct contradiction of the message of repentence he was taught in Augustinian seminary!

Pax Christi. <><

[Brother Adam]

Hey now. I was Lutheran from 8-18. And a very involved Lutheran. Yes, on some points Luther was crazy. But his intention of course, is not that we sin as much as we can. Don't do a "baptist".

Verbally, Luther would beat the hell out of a Baptist and most Lutherans today as he did to the anabaptists of his day.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Brother Adam

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 5 2004, 02:40 PM']
This whole post is a classic example of poorly dividing the Word of Truth and a lousy example trying to say Catholics believe in a false salvation. No one claims that any meritorious can replace the the atonement of Christ on the cross. What is claimed is that works with faith completes our own salvation. Did you catch that word? "Completes". Does not begin, but completes it. St. Paul went so far to claim that our deeds, done solely through the grace of God are united up with the sacrifice of Christ to "make up for what is lacking". [/quote]
umm...faith is what saves us.

works is what shows our faith.

you don't need works to have faith...when you get saved.

there is no "system of justification", and we need not go thru a long drawn out process to prove ourselves saved. so to say that one needs works IN ORDER to have faith is ridiculous...this is the R.C.I.A.

once you hand your life over to Christ, repent of your sins, and give him reign and the reigns(sp?)...that means putting your [b]faith[/b] in God...you're saved.

ONCE you are saved and begin walking with Christ, and have been discpled correctly, and possibly baptized, you do need them when you are saved to show your walk and relationship with Christ.

[Anna]

As he did to his wife?

har har!
Sorry,

Really.

Sorry. Shame on me.

Going to confession right now.

Seriously.

Pax Christi. <><

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote] Much work has been done on the Protestant side to make up a different kind of faith for James 2, one that still upholds their faith alone doctrine despite the clear words of James denying faith alone but such an attempt is fuitle. That just leads to switching the meaning of faith several times throughout the passage itself and ignoring context. [/quote]

[quote][b]Abraham [i]believed[/i] God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.?[/b] And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.[/quote]

Much work has been done on the Catholic side to make up a different kind of faith for James, one that still upholds their faith plus works doctrine despite the clear words of Paul and James' clarification of "how faith shows itself". That just leads to switching the meaning of faith several times throughout the bible and ignoring context.

"how faith shows itself"
[quote]Works and Belief cannot be separated. Together they are faith. The Catholic does not earn their salvation, but must participate in it.[/quote]

this is where we disagree. You insist that if you had faith, you would have to have works, and therefore they are next to synonymous. But we can not do God's will so our faith is what saves us even when we don't have the works. We can have faith without works, that's a given, but not without any works. "faith alone, but faith is never alone" deal. God knows how to judge your heart.

You are right that it is ultimately by grace as canon 1 shows. But how do you achieve this grace? According to the Catholic Church, as you just said, they are together one, and must participate in them. If you do not, you may just be doomed. But this is not in the bible, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

[quote]No one claims that any meritorious can replace the the atonement of Christ on the cross. [/quote]

I agree. The dispute between Catholics and Protestants is how to achieve this unmerited gift of salvation from God. In the Catholic Church, it is impossible to have a saving faith that God would graciously accept if you don't have works to sustain it. It is only by Grace that the RC is saved, and that is agreed for both sides.

But Protestants can have a saving faith despite their shortcomings and it is acceptable to God, though still by the grace of God. Even if faith and work are one, and I have lousy faith, I am still saved because it is God's work, not mine. (which ironically is faith) It is a minor point, but is the difference between the gospel of Paul and the gospel of the Catholic Church. And by this, Christ truly in every way called us, not the other way around. I realize the RC would insist they are being properly called. Think about it: "i "love" you, i will saved you from an eternity in hell if you do my will" "I have saved you, and love you, now do my will"
I suppoose we have to define saved. True protestants know that it means that you can *always* choose God, because he's saved you for eternity.



[quote]Catholics do not "earn their salvation through works"[/quote]
[quote]our deeds, done solely through the grace of God are united up with the sacrifice of Christ to "make up for what is lacking". [/quote]

I agree that you are saved by grace in the Catholic Church. But how do you achieve this grace? These two statements of yours seem to contradict each other in the false context you set for them. Here is this passage in context:

[quote]Colossians 1:24-29
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.[/quote]

I think the context that we just looked at suggests that Paul's sufferings fill up Christ's not by adding anything to their worth, but by extending them to the people they were meant to bless. What is lacking in the afflictions of Christ is not that they are deficient in worth or merit, as though they could not sufficiently cover the sins of all who believe. What is lacking is that the infinite value of Christ's afflictions are not known in the world. They are still a mystery (hidden) to most people. And God's intention is that the mystery be revealed, extended to all the Gentiles. So the afflictions are lacking in the sense that they are not seen and known among the nations. They must be carried by ministers of the word. And those ministers of the word fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ by extending them to others.

Edited April 5, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]But how do you achieve this grace? [/quote]

We do not "achieve" grace. It is given by God.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]We do not "achieve" grace. It is given by God. [/quote]

If you don't have works, then you do not have proper faith and may be doomed due to poor faith according to the Catholic Church correct? You have to have works to increase sustain and increase your justification as I have shown by Trent.

As opposed to, if you do not have works, it doesn't matter because it's not us but God that saves us. Works have nothing to do directly with the justification/faith that saves us, it's only the by product.

Edited April 5, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ICTHUS]

Dairygirl, I suggest you read James 2:14-26 once again.

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? [u]Can such faith [i]save him[/i][/u]? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[4] ? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were [b]working together[/b], and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[5] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

To create some false dichotmy between faith and works, in light of this verse, is utterly ridiculous, for at least two very compelling reasons.

1. In vv. 14, St. James is talking about the ability of a faith without works [i]to save a person[/i]. He unequivocally states [i]that such faith cannot save![/i]

The Protestant apologist John Roberson, aka mustbenothing, whom some of you have debated before, attempts to create a dichotomy between the teaching of St. Paul and St. James by saying that St. Paul is speaking of faith in an ontological or salvific sense, whilst St. James is speaking of faith in a demonstrative sense - but this conclusion is untenable based on the above - St. James is actually discussing the ability of a faith without works to [i]save a person[/i], not merely to demonstrate their faith to others.

2. In vv. 22, St. Paul uses the Greek word '[font="symbol"]sunhrgei[/font]' (sunergei) to denote that Abrahams works were present alongside his faith, and it completed it.

Strong's lexicon gives the word 'sunergei' the following definition.

Verb - the INFINITIVE form is SUNERGEO (Strong's number 4903)

1) to work together, help in work, be partner in labour

2) to put forth power together with and thereby to assist

(Me) Sunergei is a verb derived from the adjective 'Sunergos' which has the New Testament connotation of a 'fellow worker'. It is a compound of two Greek words - 'sun' ([font="symbol"]swn[/font]) meaning 'with', and 'ergos' ([font="symbol"]ergoV[/font]) meaning 'work'.

It's use in James 2:22 means that Abrahams works were actually doing something alongside his faith. Biblically, the Greek actually condones a synergistic view of Abrahams faith, with his works, making the Protestant position of Sola Fide utterly untenable.

[Brother Adam]

beautiful.

[ICTHUS]

Is that a compliment intended for me, Bro Adam? If so, thank you for your tribute to my not-so-great apologetics skills.

BTW, are you being received into full communion with the Church this Easter? Something tells me you were going through RCIA...

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

how on earth could "faith alone" save if "faith w/o works is dead?"

your whole premise doesn't even make sense to me.

does it not bother you that NO ONE before Luther believed in "sola fide"?

it would trouble me immensely.....

[the lumberjack]

phat,

are you talking about being justified by faith at the moment of salvation? in which case we DON'T NEED WORKS...James WASN'T speaking to a bunch of people in the RCIA...he was speaking to a bunch of people who already professed to be Christians, in which case we DO need works to show our walk of faith.

do you demand fruit from a seed as soon as you put it in the ground?

do you not water it?

and care for it?

and ensure that it is growing correctly, BEFORE you demand fruit from it?

love.

[Bruce S]

[quote]Protestant version: Martin Luther, [b]father of protestantism[/b], [/quote]

Luther is hardly the FATHER of Protestantism, he followed Wycliffe and Huss, they were both persecuted at the hands of the Catholic Church and the first at that time to try to unbundle Christianity from the grasp and control of the Catholic Church ... Luther was just the first one to survive long enought with secular help to promote his ideas and the Germans were brave enough to stand up for Christianity to get free from Roman domination.

[quote]Who in the World was John Wycliffe?    


Jerry Faught 
John Wycliffe (c.1324-1382) has been frequently referred to as the “Morning Star of the Reformation” or the major reformer of the Middle Ages. More than a century before Martin Luther’s essays rocked Europe by challenging many beliefs and practices of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, Wycliffe (whose name has also been spelled Wyclif or Wicklife) called for a spiritual renewal of the church through a return to the principles exemplified in Christ’s life and teachings.

Faced with a religious system that he believed had moved too far from the simple message of the gospel, Wycliffe spoke boldly against a number of traditional Catholic teachings. In fact, Wycliffe’s ideas were radically different from those of the church. Luther later acknowledged his great debt to Wycliffe in his own efforts to shift the church’s focus back to its biblical roots.

During his lifetime, Wycliffe was recognized as a great professor at Oxford and as one of England’s greatest theologians. Today, he is remembered and honored most for his role in translating the Bible. In the Middle Ages, the Bible was written and read in Latin, a language few people outside of church leadership understood. Wycliffe believed everyone should be able read God’s Word, so he worked to translate the Bible into the common language of the English people.

[url="http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D150062%2526M%253D50020,00.html"]http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_pa...3D50020,00.html[/url]

[/quote]

Wycliffe was the one that really got things started, later, some familiar with him went off to Europe proper and this is where Huss comes into history:

[quote] John Huss was a student of John Wycliff, who translated the Bible into English in 1382. Wycliff advocated the right of the common man to read the Bible in his own language. Both Wycliff and Huss believed scripture to supercede the dogmas and ordinances of the church and both declared the Papacy to be the AntiChrist foretold in scripture. John Huss was burned alive* at the stake in 1415 for his "heresy" and rebellion against Catholic authority.
   [/quote]

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/gesu.jpg[/img]

[quote]Photo of statuary in the Chiesa del Gesu, the Jesuit Church of Rome, built during the Catholic Counterreformation of the 16th century. The sculpture group I wish to draw your attention to is titled "Faith's Triumph over Heresy" by Pierre Le Gros, and is located at the altar built over the tomb of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. It depicts a woman (Mary?) casting two of the Protestant reformers, Martin Luther and John Huss out of heaven.[/quote]

NOW. Stop and think here, WHO is casting Luther and Huss out of heaven? Is that one Biblical? Grin. Jesus is the one in charge of judgeing, or did the Jesuits forget to read the book of Revelations in their zeal to demonize the Protestant reformers? Also look at the little angel in the corner, he is TEARING the Bible, ripping out pages, this is symbolic of the desire of the Catholic Church to eliminate the Bible from the common man.

[img]http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/angel.jpg[/img]

[quote]* The Vatican Information Service (VIS) reported that on Dec 17th, 1999, Pope John Paul II made the following apology regarding the burning at the stake of Hus, while speaking before an international symposium on Jan Hus held at the Vatican:

"Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people."
[/quote]

Seems the Catholic Church has a LOT of apologising to do for her "ALWAYS RIGHT" of the past, grin, JP II has been busy doing a lot of that I notice. For that, he is a great man, the FIRST POPE to actually acknowledge some of those errors that were made by the church that never makes errors...

They would have burned Luther too if they could have, the Germans princes protected him, otherwise he would have been dealt with just as Huss was.

Edited April 6, 2004 by Bruce S