Justification

Status
Not open for further replies.

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The OP raises the question of what justification means. It's pretty clear that the Catholic tradition uses it in a broader sense than the Reformers did, that it almost includes both the Protestant justification and sanctification. That's one reason that justification by faith seems absurd to Catholics (combined with the fact that Catholics often use faith in a narrower sense than I think Luther did).

There have been interconfessional discussions between Lutherans and Catholics that have helped understand this.

Being clear about definitions removes some of the disagreements. But I don't think it removes them all. Catholic theology (at least seen through Protestant eyes) maintains that one can lose justification by mortal sin. That idea is consistent with the fact that justification is a single thing that includes our own progress in the Christian life. However for Protestants, justification isn't lost by sin. It's not that God doesn't care about sin. He does. But he remains our Father even when we're disobedient. He deals with us as disobedient children, not as people who have ceased to be his. By separating justification and sanctification, we can more easily talk about the fact that sin has consequences, but that God's commitment to us remains constant.

As I'm sure you know, Protestants differ on whether someone can lose justification. Some think not. But in my opinion if it's possible, it's not through sin, but through something like apostasy -- abandoning faith completely.

-------------------

This issue is complicated for me in that I think traditional Protestant exegesis of Paul has some issues. I think what Paul means by faith shades into faithfulness, and I think "works of the Law" refer specific to Jewish cultic practices. Hence I think he's saying that our status as Christ's people (justification) comes from the fact that we're his followers (faith) and not any checklists, whether cultic actions like circumcision or modern equivalents.

Yet I still think that our status as Christ's people does in fact persist even in the face of serious sin, as long as we continue to be Jesus' followers. I'm not sure that Paul, properly exegeted, actually deals with this question. But I think Jesus does. Hence I tend to base justification by faith more on Jesus' teachings than Paul's. I think this is distinctly atypical. Incidentally, I also understand many of Jesus' warnings about judgement as being aimed at followers, not atheists. So sin among his followers will have consequences, though his teaching on this subject is sufficient couched in parables and hyperbole that I'm skeptical of attempts to produce specific descriptions of just how that works. (1 Cor 3:12 may actually be the most literal treatment of this topic in the NT.)
What you've written is right as far as I can tell. Catholic usage for "justification" is different from some Protestant uses of the same word and that can make communication difficult unless it is recognised and agreed definitions are used or if not agreed definitions then alternative words that make the desired distinctions without introducing the confusing non-overlapping portions of the perceived meanings for the word. And the word "faith" is also used in distinct ways by Catholic and Protestant theologies. Catholic usage is more along the lines of "assent and belief" rather than "trust and commitment" but the word "faith" is confusing at times no matter who uses it. James in his letter uses "pistis" (and its cognates) to describe both Christian faith and the faith of demons. Clearly demons have no trust in God and commitment to God yet they do have belief (faith) and possibly assent without willing obedience.

I am inclined to think that ancient Latin (and hence Catholic) usage for "justification" may have leaned more towards the legal and court room perspective than was healthy and may have contributed to the Protestant adoption of a strongly legal meaning for the word. I think that the Greek word may also have led to the Latin choice of meanings for justification. Both Greek and Latin church fathers did not have a deep sympathy for nor a good understanding of the vocabulary of the Hebrew/Aramaic testament and that too may have led to the emphasis on legality in the range of meanings for the word. The idea behind "justification" in the old testament appears to be much more inclined towards active righteousness in living and it stemmed from assent and belief as well as trust exercised towards God. That is how James understands Abraham's obedient act that led to God speaking of him as being "made righteous by faith". Without the action, argues James, the "pistis" (belief) would have been no more capable of justifying Abraham than is the belief that demons have capable of making them righteous before God. But Abraham did act and so he was "justified" with God because he acted as well as believed. Hence James argues that belief (faith) without works (action arising from belief) is dead.

A good deal of the heat and smoke generated in the centuries following Martin Luther's excommunication in 1521 has been from the opposing sides using the same words but with different meanings. Of course national self interest and tribal allegiance led to serious conflict with religion as the spark that ignites and the fan that feeds oxygen to the conflagration.
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Protestants also used the court-room meaning of justification, though perhaps in a different direction. They tended to distinguish between a verdict of not guilty and one's actual innocence. I think they may have made too much of this, but that was part of the concept that true righteousness before God could only come from moral perfection. I don't believe that's what righteousness means in Scripture. Someone is righteous when they live as God's people, which has moral implications, but doesn't demand perfection. Instead it demands repentance. If you understand righteousness this way, then justification by faith isn't a legal fiction. It's a recognition that faith, in its fuller definition, is the mark of someone who is righteous in the Biblical sense. This is consistent with Jesus' teaching. It never demands moral perfection, but does demand repentance and forgiveness.

By defining righteousness as moral perfection, it guaranteed that we could never be righteous, in which case the verdict has to be a legal fiction, based on imputing Christ's perfection to us. The problem is that Paul always says justification is by faith, but never says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Rather, our faith is accepted as (imputed as) righteousness. (I'm using the usual understanding that it's our faith. As I'm sure you know, some exegetes think Paul is saying that our justification is based on Christ's faithfulness.)
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Protestants also used the court-room meaning of justification, though perhaps in a different direction. They tended to distinguish between a verdict of not guilty and one's actual innocence. I think they may have made too much of this, but that was part of the concept that true righteousness before God could only come from moral perfection. I don't believe that's what righteousness means in Scripture. Someone is righteous when they live as God's people, which has moral implications, but doesn't demand perfection. Instead it demands repentance. If you understand righteousness this way, then justification by faith isn't a legal fiction. It's a recognition that faith, in its fuller definition, is the mark of someone who is righteous in the Biblical sense. This is consistent with Jesus' teaching. It never demands moral perfection, but does demand repentance and forgiveness.

By defining righteousness as moral perfection, it guaranteed that we could never be righteous, in which case the verdict has to be a legal fiction, based on imputing Christ's perfection to us. The problem is that Paul always says justification is by faith, but never says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Rather, our faith is accepted as (imputed as) righteousness. (I'm using the usual understanding that it's our faith. As I'm sure you know, some exegetes think Paul is saying that our justification is based on Christ's faithfulness.)

Yes, you've got the idea well summarised. That is how Job can be a 'perfect' man without impugning the gospel message about Jesus and how Enoch could please God despite 'original sin'.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The John Wesley material is interesting. Thank you for providing it.
You are welcome. John Wesley is important because his thoughts form the starting point for many modern denominations in America, the Methodists, the Church of God, and through them groups like the Pentecostals, the Salvation Army and even some of the newer movements like Calvary Chapel.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Great post, Josiah. Catholics and even some evangelicals do not trust in Christ alone for their Justification regardless of the verses that insist that it is not on our merits.


While definitions are an issue, and while the RCC is all over the map on this topic and there is now more than one Protestant understanding, this much is undeniable: Luther (and later Calvin) gave a very clear teaching. See posts 2 and 3. And the RC Denomination at its own Council of Trent denounced it as apostate heresy, the RC Denomination excommunicated Luther specifically over his teaching on this, and the RC Denomination chose to split itself (almost in half) over specifically what Luther (and Calvin) taught on this. So it is undeniable that unless the RC was incredibly ignorant and/or stupid, it STRONGLY, PASSIONATELY disagreed with the Lutheran/Calvinist view on justification (see posts 2 and 3)... and since it declares that it has the SAME view today that it had in 33 AD and in 1521 AD, therefore it is STILL passionately, strongly opposed to the "first wave" Protestant view. It's NOT just "we define things differently" it's the RCC holding that the Lutheran and Reformed view is "apostate heresy."



A blessed Holy Week to all....


- Josiah




.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...
-------------------

This issue is complicated for me in that I think traditional Protestant exegesis of Paul has some issues. I think what Paul means by faith shades into faithfulness, and I think "works of the Law" refer specific to Jewish cultic practices. Hence I think he's saying that our status as Christ's people (justification) comes from the fact that we're his followers (faith) and not any checklists, whether cultic actions like circumcision or modern equivalents.

Yet I still think that our status as Christ's people does in fact persist even in the face of serious sin, as long as we continue to be Jesus' followers. I'm not sure that Paul, properly exegeted, actually deals with this question. But I think Jesus does. Hence I tend to base justification by faith more on Jesus' teachings than Paul's. I think this is distinctly atypical. Incidentally, I also understand many of Jesus' warnings about judgement as being aimed at followers, not atheists. So sin among his followers will have consequences, though his teaching on this subject is sufficient couched in parables and hyperbole that I'm skeptical of attempts to produce specific descriptions of just how that works. (1 Cor 3:12 may actually be the most literal treatment of this topic in the NT.)

I wanted to come back to the comments you made in your previous post. Specifically I want to return to the idea of status. This too is an area of difference that can lead to confusion. A Catholic perspective is not status driven and mortal sin is not about loss of status - it is about loss of life. One might think of sin as a mental illness, a kind of insanity, that drives people to self harm and self harm is what sins amount to. God is not harmed by sins and he does not lose his love for his people when they sin. That is a theme addressed by the prophets. God loves his people more than a mother loves her child. So sins harm us rather than remove status and faith driven good works heal us like rest and medicine and healthy exercise heal bodily wounds.

In Catholic hymns we sing about about sins and how God reacts to them by having God say "come as you are. That's how I want you. come as you are, why turn away. Each time you sin and feel discouraged why do you think I would love you the less?" It is a rhetorical question whose obvious answer is "I love you no matter how wounded you are". Sins then are part of our struggle to return to sanity and the gospel is God's treatment - a message of love for us despite our faults and encouragement to return to sanity rather than dwell in illusions caused by our sin-induced-insanity.

So mortal sins are not about loss of a "right standing" before God they are about loss of spiritual life through the self harm that such sins work in the soul. People who willfully and freely commit grave sins turn away from God and - like Eve and Adam - feel ashamed, too ashamed to come home to God. The story of the Prodigal is an illustration of this. The prodigal when he returns to his right mind says to himself "How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants" needless to say his father rejoices to have his son back and in his right mind. God too rejoices when sinners - even mortal sinners - return to their right mind and come home. I can't help but think that this is the fundamental message of repentance from mortal sins. God loves you, he will not turn you away, come home. That is how the Catholic Church sees mortal sins though I dare say some Catholics (including priests and bishops) lose sight of it at times.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
While definitions are an issue, and while the RCC is all over the map on this topic and there is now more than one Protestant understanding, this much is undeniable: Luther (and later Calvin) gave a very clear teaching. See posts 2 and 3. And the RC Denomination at its own Council of Trent denounced it as apostate heresy, the RC Denomination excommunicated Luther specifically over his teaching on this, and the RC Denomination chose to split itself (almost in half) over specifically what Luther (and Calvin) taught on this. So it is undeniable that unless the RC was incredibly ignorant and/or stupid, it STRONGLY, PASSIONATELY disagreed with the Lutheran/Calvinist view on justification (see posts 2 and 3)... and since it declares that it has the SAME view today that it had in 33 AD and in 1521 AD, therefore it is STILL passionately, strongly opposed to the "first wave" Protestant view. It's NOT just "we define things differently" it's the RCC holding that the Lutheran and Reformed view is "apostate heresy."

...and it's made worse by the RCC's practice of constantly changing its teachings in a way that aligns them more with Protestant thinking but which, at the same time, denies that there have been any doctrinal changes made.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...and it's made worse by the RCC's practice of constantly changing its teachings in a way that aligns them more with Protestant thinking but which, at the same time, denies that there have been any doctrinal changes made.


It seems virtually ALL possible perspectives on this are official RCC doctrine (leading to a LOT of confusion). There's only one thing we can be absolutely SURE about: The position of Luther and Calvin (see posts 2 and 3) is NOT the RCC view, it is essentially the antithesis of it, because it ("Jesus is the Savior") was officially and formally declared to be "apostate heresy" and the reason the RCC excommunicated Luther and split itself. So WHATEVER the RCC position(s) may or may not be at any current moment or specific place, it cannot be AT ALL the view of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide (see posts 2 and 3) because that's officially HERESY of the worse possible kind.


In common practice, in popular teaching, the RCC view is "God HELPS those who help THEMSELVES." "Jesus opened the gate to heaven but you gotta get yourself through it by what you yourself do." It is works righteousness, it is by your own works. In popular teaching, in my experience (and that of the Catholics in my family and among my friends) Jesus is not the Savior in that he actually doesn't save anyone from anything but rather He is the "Possibility-Maker" each saves self by sufficiently using the empowerment God and the RC Denomination offer in order to perform the good works that ultimately merit heaven (although probably not before we die - we need the extra time the RCC provides in Purgatory) in a synergistic, progressive, semi-Pelagian process. And YES, that view is pretty much the antithesis of what Luther and Calvin taught so the reaction of the RC Denomination at its own meeting at Trent makes perfect sense.


Now, as I mentioned earlier, I rejoice that it seems the Holy Spirit is not rendered impotent by this Catholic confusion and (IMO) false teaching. The Word remains (and is commonly read in church and is all over the Catholic liturgy and at times hymns). The Sacraments are valid. And the Holy Spirit can use those - and IMO does. So that many Catholics DO believe (yeah, the Gospel their denomination labeled "apostate heresy"). Occasionally, even their clergy proclaim (beautifully) the Gospel exactly a Luther and Calvin proclaimed it (especially at funerals) - yeah, the doctrine their denomination denounced as apostate heresy and excommunicated a priest for teaching and split itself over.... but it happens.... I've heard it myself with my own two ears. The Holy Spirit seems more powerful than the RC Denomination.... one MIGHT conclude that these Catholics believe in spite of their denomination but in any case, many do. Soli Deo Gloria.



A blessed Holy Week to all.....


Josiah
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I wanted to come back to the comments you made in your previous post. Specifically I want to return to the idea of status. This too is an area of difference that can lead to confusion. A Catholic perspective is not status driven and mortal sin is not about loss of status - it is about loss of life.

I'm reacting to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM. It suggests that mortal sin loses "charity" and requires something very much like becoming a Christian again. (1856) Until that is done, one is outside the Kingdom (1861). I understand that the Catholic concept of justification doesn't distinguish between a persistent state of being one of God's people, and one's current spiritual health, but this looks like a state change to me, and not just a current loss of health.

Perhaps the lack of any real equivalent of the Protestant justification leads to misunderstanding. All that can be said is that we lose health, but not the reassurance that even so we've still part of God's people. Luther got that reassurance from Baptism; no matter what happened he was still claimed by God in Baptism. Perhaps that could be used as a Catholic equivalent of justification. But if so, CCC 1861 could use some qualification.
 
Last edited:

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In retrospect it may look as if the issues were largely a matter of semantics and some who were living at the time saw the issues as "disputing over trifles" with the core truth being that there is "but one Christ in whom Christians all believe". Nevertheless people fought in wars and engaged in persecutions against others and received persecution from others over these trifles. And brother Josiah's posts remind us of just how current and apparently important these "trifles" can be to people today.

A Catholic definition of Justification is:
JUSTIFICATION: The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” ( Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (1987-1989).
The numbers 1987-1989 refer to these paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
I. Justification
1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism: (⇒ Rom 3:22; cf. ⇒ Rom 6:3-4.)
But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.(⇒ Rom 6:8-11.)​
1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: (Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 12; ⇒ Jn 15:1 4.)
(God) gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature.... For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.(St. Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 1, 24: PG 26, 585 and 588.)​
1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."(⇒ Mt 4:17.) Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.(Council of Trent (1547): DS 1528.)

From what I'm reading (maybe a bit simplistically) the Catholic church would see "sanctification" as an extension of "justification", rather than a separate act/idea in itself (referencing '1989')?

Also, I would agree with Justification being the "gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” . The ideas that some have of using colloquialisms like "just as if I'd never sinned" only confuses things. Definitions on their own are understandable.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
From what I'm reading (maybe a bit simplistically) the Catholic church would see "sanctification" as an extension of "justification", rather than a separate act/idea in itself (referencing '1989')?


Perhaps [MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] would respond to post #3 and explain why in the Roman Catholic Church this is "apostate heresy", worthy of the excommunication of Martin Luther (it IS the reason he was excommunicated) and the issue over which the RCC chose to split itself? Since the RCC at Trent officially and formally and in the boldest way possible condemned this Lutheran position on justification, to that denomination it must be dramatically WRONG and the Catholic position must be dramatically DIFFERENT. It cannot simply be a matter of "semantics" or "definitions" ... nor simply a matter of "we mean MORE (or LESS) than that" .... nor simply a different way of saying essentially the same thing. It must be a clear, radical case of "apostate heresy." What, specifically, in the Lutheran position (see post #3) IS such condemnable apostate heresy? And remember: the RCC insists that its position today is in every possible way IDENTICAL to what it was in 1521 and at Trent. And of course, the Lutheran position is verbatim identical to what it was in 1580. So nothing is different now, on either "side." Not one dot in either position has changed.... at all.


What, specifically, in the Lutheran position (see post #3) IS such a clear, bold, condemnable case of apostate heresy? in the RCC? Perhaps if MC (or someone) would clearly answer that, that would advance things. Otherwise, we're just skirting around the elephant in the room.



A blessed Holy Week to all...



- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'm reacting to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM. It suggests that mortal sin loses "charity" and requires something very much like becoming a Christian again. (1856) Until that is done, one is outside the Kingdom (1861). I understand that the Catholic concept of justification doesn't distinguish between a persistent state of being one of God's people, and one's current spiritual health, but this looks like a state change to me, and not just a current loss of health.

Perhaps the lack of any real equivalent of the Protestant justification leads to misunderstanding. All that can be said is that we lose health, but not the reassurance that even so we've still part of God's people. Luther got that reassurance from Baptism; no matter what happened he was still claimed by God in Baptism. Perhaps that could be used as a Catholic equivalent of justification. But if so, CCC 1861 could use some qualification.

A sin that is mortal kills, that is why it is called "mortal sin". Saint John refers to "a sin unto death" and he is not referring to anybody's death but the sinner's. Mortal sin kills the soul so yes, you are right to see repentance from mortal sin as analogous to re-conversion except that one who is already baptised will not be baptised again - as a new convert would be baptised - yet it is important in the highest degree to remember that one who is baptised is marked with the mark of Christ's new life and when such a person sins mortally nevertheless he remains (and always will remain) a child of God and God's love for him/her will be undiminished even while the person is dead because of their mortal sins. I'd put it this way; a sinner in mortal sin is like Lazarus in the tomb waiting to hear the voice of Jesus say "Lazarus come forth". No one argues that Lazarus did not hear this call and responded by coming forth from the tomb but in his dead state his ears heard nothing yet at Christ's command Lazarus heard and came forth. It is as much a miracle to be restored from mortal sin as it is to be called from spiritual death for the first time in conversion.

I used Lazarus' physical death and resurrection as an example because it cannot be doubted that Lazarus was a follower of Jesus and that he died (physically) and that he rose from the dead at Jesus' command. So what happened in the visible and physical world to Lazarus is analogous to the restoration of spiritual life in one who has "sinned unto death".
1 John 5:13 I write you, then, all these things, that you may know, that you have eternal life, all you, who believe in the name of the Son of God. 14 Through him we are fully confident that whatever we ask, according to his will, he will grant us. 15 If we know that he hears us whenever we ask, we know that we already have what we asked of him. 16 If you see your brother committing sin, a sin which does not lead to death, pray for him, and God will give life to your brother. I speak, of course, of the sin which does not lead to death. There is also a sin that leads to death; I do not speak of praying about this. 17 Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin leads to death. 18 We know, that those born of God do not sin, but the One who was born of God*, protects them, and the evil one does not touch them.
* a circumlocution for Jesus Christ.​
I am aware that there is a centuries long debate between 'Arminians' and 'Calvinists' about the meaning of the words we're discussing and how it is (or is not) possible for a 'regenerate' soul to 'lose salvation'. That debate can cause the issue to become fraught with difficulties arising from the two schools of Protestant thought. Catholic theology is not the same as either of these Protestant schools of thought and so it is important to avoid the confusion that would be caused by importing meanings from Arminianism or Calvinism into what a Catholic theology says.

Catholic teaching on Mortal sin may be summarised like this:
MORTAL SIN is A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present:
  • grave matter,
  • full knowledge of the evil of the act,
  • and full consent of the will (1855, 1857)
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity [the love of Christ] in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity [the love of Christ] to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery.... But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.(St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 88, 2, corp. art.)​

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."(RP 17 # 12.)​

In brief then mortal sin kills rather than changes one's status. Any change of status is a consequence of being dead. In only a few cases does mortal sin also involve physical death (of the sinner) but in all cases it causes a sinner to deliberately and knowingly turn away from God. It does not mean that God turns away from the sinner and one can hope that God may be merciful to such sinners and bring them back to life in Christ.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why was Martin Luther Excommunicated?

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] wrote his view of why Martin Luther was excommunicated. The following link is a link to an English translation of the document condemning Martin Luther's errors: Click Here. The key points are shown below:

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.​
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Perhaps [MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] would respond to post #3 and explain why in the Roman Catholic Church this is "apostate heresy", worthy of the excommunication of Martin Luther (it IS the reason he was excommunicated) and the issue over which the RCC chose to split itself? Since the RCC at Trent officially and formally and in the boldest way possible condemned this Lutheran position on justification, to that denomination it must be dramatically WRONG and the Catholic position must be dramatically DIFFERENT. It cannot simply be a matter of "semantics" or "definitions" ... nor simply a matter of "we mean MORE (or LESS) than that" .... nor simply a different way of saying essentially the same thing. It must be a clear, radical case of "apostate heresy." What, specifically, in the Lutheran position (see post #3) IS such condemnable apostate heresy? And remember: the RCC insists that its position today is in every possible way IDENTICAL to what it was in 1521 and at Trent. And of course, the Lutheran position is verbatim identical to what it was in 1580. So nothing is different now, on either "side." Not one dot in either position has changed.... at all.


What, specifically, in the Lutheran position (see post #3) IS such a clear, bold, condemnable case of apostate heresy? in the RCC? Perhaps if MC (or someone) would clearly answer that, that would advance things. Otherwise, we're just skirting around the elephant in the room.




.


The Council of Trent condemned, repudiated and anathmatized the Lutheran position on Justification (see post # 3) as "heresy". And it was given as the official reason that the RCC excommunicated him. THEREFORE, the official Catholic position on justification is radically different than the Lutheran one (see post # 3)

Perhaps MoreCoffee will tell us all exactly why the Lutheran position (post # 3) is "apostate heresy" and radically different than the RCC position on Justification. Note: Since the Lutheran position was anathematized, condemned and repudiated at Trent, it CANNOT simply be a matter of semantics or simply a matter of the RCC position being more or less than the Lutheran one, it must be shown that the Lutheran one is "apostate heresy." Perhaps MoreCoffee will convey exactly why the RCC views the Lutheran position (see post # 3) as "apostate heresy" to be condemned, repudiated and anathematized... and SO radically different from the Catholic position.


A blessed Easter to all...


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Council of Trent condemned, repudiated and anathmatized the Lutheran position on Justification as "heresy".
For those of us who don't have the report of the Council of Trent memorized, could you quote exactly what they said about condemning, repudiating and anathemetizing "the Lutheran position on Justification"?

Post 33 gives a pretty clear indication of what Rome disagreed with Luther on.
Just a few examples:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
It sounds like Luther claimed the sacriment granted actual grace, but Rome disagreed.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
Rome seems to believe that baptism made children sinless and luther claimed that baptized children still needed grace for salvation.


5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
Luther and Rome disagreed on what was required from a person to forgive his sin.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
This one was cool. Luther claimed that you needed faith to accept forgiveness, and Rome claimed that the Priest could forgive whether you believed it or not.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
For those of us who don't have the report of the Council of Trent memorized, could you quote exactly what they said about condemning, repudiating and anathemetizing "the Lutheran position on Justification"?

These may help you...


https://carm.org/council-trent-canons-justification

Here, Matt Slick (not a Lutheran) shares some of the declarations of the Council of Trent - and his response from Scripture. It should be noted that the Council of Trent was in reaction to Luther and the intention was to justify its much earlier excommunication of Luther and to repudiate Lutheranism - and above all, its "Chief Article" Pastor Slick focused on just some of the Canons, of course.

But I think what often helps is just to read/listen to Catholics (including the teachers and theologians in that denomination).... with all their stress on what WE must DO in justification, how justification is "progressive".... regard their definition of grace as "like gas in the tank of your car" and the enormous emphasis on "putting God's grace to work in your life." I think as we read the long list of the canons of Trent, we see this view. And I think it is obvious WHY they saw Lutheranism's view as so contradictory to its own.

There are some (in this post-modern, uber-relativistic age) who would have you believe that actually, these Catholic theologians at Trent were (how to put this nicely)... incredibly stupid. They had no idea what the Catholic position on justification is and even less on what the Lutheran position is.... and thus after years of intensive discussion in this infallible, formal Council... just wrote a lot of stupid stuff that we (now more informed) should ignore (although the Council was infallible). There are both a few Catholics and Lutherans trying to sell that today (since Vatican II). I think I have a FAR higher regard for the RCC Council and Catholic Scholarship than they do. While some of the wording of these Canons DO seem to miss-the-mark for BOTH views, the whole point of the Council was to condemn - in the strongest possible terms and in the boldest way possible) Lutheranism, and specifically, its "Chief Article" of Justification. While Catholicism of the day disagreed on several things Lutherans said, this was the "deal breaker" for it at the Council of Trent. So these - the best Catholic Scholars in the world at the time - after years of study and discussion and obviously good understandings of the Catholic and Lutheran positions on this - had one purpose: To repudiate, condemn, reject, anathematize the Lutheran position on Justification. See posts 3 and 8. They may not have been very articulate at the Council in substantiating this, but clearly it is what they very, very passionately believed and held. They were splitting their denomination and officially burning all bridges here - all about one topic: Justification. They MUST have.... and clearly DID.... believe the Catholic and Lutheran positions were VERY different, RADICALLY different. The Lutheran position is as it has always been (see post 3)... and the Catholic position is as it always has been.... so unless Trent was just (well) stupid (and a few Catholics want you to buy that), we still are in HUGE disagreement from the Catholic perspective.



A blessed Easter to all...


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


Lutherans and Catholics on Justification....


FIRST see posts 2, 3, 5 and 8....


In the context of justification (narrow), ask this question: WHO is the Savior?


IF you answer "Jesus" then Jesus is the Savior. Not you - not a bit, not at all, not now, not ever, not in any way or shape or form or manner. Salvation is entirely, wholly wrapped up in Jesus. It's entirely HIS work. His accomplishment. HIS doing. HIS heart. HIS love. HIS mercy. HIS gift. HIS blessing. His life, His death, His resurrection. His Cross, His blood, His sacrifice. His righteousness, His obedience, His holiness. Not you. Not yours. You may have some other important role in some other matter, but not this. The "job" of Savior belongs to Jesus. Not you.

IF you answer "ME!" then you are the Savior. Not Jesus. Not a bit, not at all. Not now, not ever. Not in any way, shape or form or manner. Salvation is all wrapped up in YOU. YOUR works. YOUR will. YOUR love. YOUR efforts. YOUR merits. YOUR obedience. YOUR righteousness. YOUR holiness. YOUR sacrifice. Not Jesus. Not Jesus'. Jesus may have some other important role in some other matter, just not this one. The Savior is you.


LUTHERANS (and most Protestants) answer "Jesus." Lutherans (and most Protestants) are "monergists" (see post #2). Which is why we hold (very passionately.... above all else.... as the "Chief Article"....) that Jesus is the Savior. And anything that blurs that is seen as destroying that.

CATHOLICS - if they've even considered the question at all - are often confused and bewildered (they have been taught MANY confusing things on this). But they are apt to say, "Neither! It's BOTH!" To quote verbatim my Catholic teachers, "Jesus makes salvation POSSIBLE but you save yourself by what you do." "Jesus opened the gate to heaven but you gotta get yourself through it." "God helps those who help themselves." Justification is seen as a life-long effort to "tap" the grace (empowering) of God to move self forward and closer to heaven (this effort typically needs more time than God gives so the RCC gives us time in Purgatory). It's synergistic. And often strongly Pelagian (yes, I know the RCC once boldly condemned both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism but it reigns there quite strongly). It's a cooperative, progressive, synergistic, mutual effort: God does His part, we do our part.... and (eventually) we might get the job done. Jesius is sorta the Savior and self is sorta the Savior. Thus all the Catholic emphasis on accessing and tapping into God's grace (which Catholic teachers present as divine HELP). Now, as I mentioned earlier, Catholics CAN be amazingly Lutheran on this point (especially at funerals) in spite of declaring the Lutheran position to be damnable heresy... but this "there's TWO Saviors - God and ME" synergistic view is far more common in popular Catholicism. I know - because I was there, I heard those Catholic lessons and sermons, I've spent HUNDREDS of hours talking with Catholic family and friends, and yes reading Catholics on the 'net.


Now, understand, we all pretty much agree on Sanctification - the divine call for CHRISTIANS (the justified) to grow, mature and becoming more Christ-like. Catholics like to shout about that a lot, but it's just a diversion because that's not the disagreement. Catholics and Lutherans have never disagreed on that (Protestants and Catholics generally agree on that). It's Justification where the RCC officially declared the Lutheran (and usually Protestant) position to be damnable, heretical anathema.




How I try to lead my Catholic brothers and sisters to the truth on this.....

It takes a lot of TIME (they've been SO confused by the RCC) but it's not hard..... They know the Word (they do read the Bible, it's read every Sunday, it's all over their liturgy and hymns)... the Sacraments are valid.... the Holy Spirit don't care about denominations. But they've been fed a MESS! And entangled, mixed-up, blended MESS. And it needs to be untangled. Just takes TIME.

I try to get them to see the distinction between COMING to life and LIVING life.... between what a few of them have come to know as "initial grace" and "subsequent grace." Justification is regeneration.... coming to spiritual life.... a changed relationship to and with God.... God's adoption.... the enfolding into the Church of Christ. I try to get them to see this as something ONLY God does and ONLY God can do. And it is the primary (or at least initial) consequence of Christ's work. "Who is the SAVIOR (in this sense) it is ONLY Christ." Protestants call this "Solus Christus". Yes, the RCC calls this a damnable heresy and anathema but a lot of Catholics eventually "get it" and AGREE. When it comes to justification (being born again, regeneration, becoming spiritually alive, becoming a child of God, being forgiven) that's what JESUS is about, that's what Christmas and Good Friday and Easter are all about. This cannot be blurred or confused or mixed up with anything else - or Jesus ceases to be the Savior. It takes TIME for all that to dawn on a Catholic - but if you keep at it, if you are persistent and patient - they tend to come around (and become Lutheran). NOW - AFTER that - you permit their rant, the thing they been told to say... but it doesn't STOP there! That's not the END of what God desires! To which say, "ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!" which is EXACTLY where Luther and the Catholic Church so strongly agreed! The JUST are to live by faith, we are to love as we FIRST WERE LOVED, we are to grow in the life we were first GIVEN, we are to become more like the One who Saved us - in love, morality and ministry/service. ABSOLUTELY!!! Lutherans and the RCC could not agree more passionately! But our works is not what causes our regeneration/justification/spiritual life.... it is what is to flow FROM it. Not only do Protestants not confuse Justification and Sanctification (as Catholics typically do), but we insist they be in the right order. They are INSEPARABLE but not IDENTICAL, inseparable but not to be entangled and confused. If you reverse the order, then Jesus isn't the Savior - you are. I've lead several Catholics to embrace the Gospel via this path. But SOME have been so very, very, very confused with all the Pelagianism and synergism and good works theology that they just are stuck.



I hope that helps.


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Actually, I have heard (but have not yet independently confirmed) that the Catholic vs Protestant view of salvation, on the Theological level, is even more fundamentally different than monergism vs. synergism. Protestants believe in a God that saves individuals, one at a time, and the collective individuals form the Church (the body of Christ and the bride of Christ). Thus Protestants can argue about whether Jesus died for all people and only some individuals have their sins forgiven, or did Jesus only die for some individuals to have all of their sins forgiven.

I have heard that this is hot the view of Catholic Theology which has Jesus dying for his Church (collectively) and saving his bride and a people collectively. Thus the 'contract' (if we can use that term) is between Jesus and the collective Bride of Christ. So all salvation occurs through and within the church because God does not directly save individuals, God saves his Church (collectively). So Jesus passed the Authority of "The Church" to the Apostles who handed it to the Early Church Fathers who have handed it down to us today.

It is a view that requires a different set of initial assumptions than I was trained up on. As a Protestant, it probably comes as no surprise that I am naturally uncomfortable with this view. However, it does explain a lot of RCC practices. They make more sense from this position. Luther (and Calvin) do advocate something antithetical to this worldview in the "priesthood of the believer" and the God who saves individuals ... one at a time. Can you see how this individual vs collective 'covenant' is more fundamental than monergism vs synergism.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Actually, I have heard (but have not yet independently confirmed) that the Catholic vs Protestant view of salvation, on the Theological level, is even more fundamentally different than monergism vs. synergism. Protestants believe in a God that saves individuals, one at a time, and the collective individuals form the Church (the body of Christ and the bride of Christ). Thus Protestants can argue about whether Jesus died for all people and only some individuals have their sins forgiven, or did Jesus only die for some individuals to have all of their sins forgiven.

I have heard that this is hot the view of Catholic Theology which has Jesus dying for his Church (collectively) and saving his bride and a people collectively. Thus the 'contract' (if we can use that term) is between Jesus and the collective Bride of Christ. So all salvation occurs through and within the church because God does not directly save individuals, God saves his Church (collectively). So Jesus passed the Authority of "The Church" to the Apostles who handed it to the Early Church Fathers who have handed it down to us today.

It is a view that requires a different set of initial assumptions than I was trained up on. As a Protestant, it probably comes as no surprise that I am naturally uncomfortable with this view. However, it does explain a lot of RCC practices. They make more sense from this position. Luther (and Calvin) do advocate something antithetical to this worldview in the "priesthood of the believer" and the God who saves individuals ... one at a time. Can you see how this individual vs collective 'covenant' is more fundamental than monergism vs synergism.

The view that you've expressed is at best a serious oversimplification and at worst a serious untruth about both Catholic and Protestant views because neither does the Catholic Church teach nor does she believe that all within the community are 'saved'. Though it must be said that some protestants do teach radical individualism and some Catholics may think of salvation in communal ways. It is interesting that some Anabaptist Christians believe in community salvation and even in community sinlessness. Of course nobody thinks of Anabaptists as Catholic Christians. Many would think of Anabaptists as 'Protestant'.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,208
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...
Luther (and Calvin) do advocate something antithetical to this worldview in the "priesthood of the believer" and the God who saves individuals ... one at a time. ...

I forgot to reply to the idea of the priesthood of believers. Not because the idea is of low priority or anything like that but because I was typing early in the morning and just forgot about it.

Catholic teaching places emphasis on the priestly role of all baptised Christians towards the world and urges all the baptised to evangelise the world. And Catholic teaching places emphasis on the ministerial priesthood of ordained elders (priests) and bishops (pastors of the diocese) towards the faithful within the Church. This is why all baptised Christians may baptise others if the situation calls for it and why all are encouraged to preach the gospel to every creature (human creature, though saint Francis of Assisi is said to have preached to the birds). It is also why only ordained elders and bishops may preside at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and at the various other sacraments of the Church with the exception of baptism and (I think but may be wrong) marriage. I'll check on the marriage comment, I am not feeling very confident about it right now and I am in something of a hurry because the Easter Vigil mass starts at 19:30 and it is already 17:20 here

I want to add a more positive note to my previous post's comments about community-salvation and individual-salvation. I am inclined to think that within the Catholic Church more emphasis is placed upon the community aspect of Christian life than may be the case in some Protestant denominations and it is also true that Catholic practices are community oriented more than they are individual oriented (with the exception of the rite of reconciliation).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom