Here are some
tidbits from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the job the infallible church has done in 2000 years of infallible biblical interpretation:“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.”source
"...the Holy Fathers, we say, are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith...This unanimity is not destroyed by the silence of some of the foremost Fathers, and is sufficiently guaranteed by the consentient voice of the principal patristic writers living at any critical period, or by the agreement of commentators living at various times; but the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."
So there you have it: in 2000 years the infallible church took care of a few scripture passages. Great job.
The infallible church also looks to the unanimous consent of the fathers for some help in figuring out the Bible. Let’s try this for some ‘certainty’. We’ll start with the Fathers’ comments on Matthew 16:18- “The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18.” After reading this link, the line above from the Catholic Encyclopedia really has an interesting ring to it: "...the unanimity is destroyed if some of the Fathers openly deny the correctness of the interpretation given by the others, or if they explain the passage in such a way as to render impossible the explanation given by others."
Addendum:
“Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and ‘there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised…” [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.60, first column (as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 223].
“The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the Church is small…It has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts is under twenty, though there are of course many other indirectly determined”[Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p.59, second column ((as cited by David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001), 224]. King mentions this commentary lists Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, and 2 Maccabees 12:43 as infallibly defined, but gives no evidence to prove the assertion.
“The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John, iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxvi, 26 sq. is to be understood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i); the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts, Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. and John, xxi, 15 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are indirectly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors” [Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Entry: Biblical Exegesis].
"...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of Biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress. A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skillfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack" [PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, On The Study Of Holy Scripture (Encylical Of Pope Leo XIII, November 18, 1893].
Posts
25 comments:
I think I heard Madrid or some apologist say that the RCC interprets scripture via its doctrines, eg. it interprets [infallibly?] John 6 via transubstantiation.
BTW, With regards to the low number of interpreted passages, this webpage [http://www.olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml] says:
"Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision."
What use is an Infallible Interpreter when so much of the RCC Bible has not been infallibly interpreted?
Hi James!
Something to think about… in spite of the fewness of infallibly defined interpretations, there are some who still say “No” to even these few. I’m thinking in particular of John Calvin and his interpretation of John 3:5.
If we give our “Yes” or “No” to a particular interpretation, our critics complain. And if we leave
the interpretation open, our critics complain.
“ ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’ […] Yet wisdom is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:32, 35).
In Christ,
Pete
"If we give our “Yes” or “No” to a particular interpretation, our critics complain."
"We"? Has the Magisterium solicited your approval of a particular interpretation of Scripture?
So would it be correct to say there is not a consensus on how many and which specific verses have been infallibly interpreted?
I realize there are some, and there is agreement on some...but it appears there may be differences of opinion on some of them as well. If it is only "estimated" to be a certain number, this seems to imply there is not a concrete agreed upon number.
Quite ironic. Rome screams we need a infallible interpreter, and yet, there is disagreement on which passages are in fact infallibly interpreted, and the powers that be do not infallibly define what passages are infallibly interpreted.
Sounds like much private interpretation has to fill the void.
"If we give our “Yes” or “No” to a particular interpretation, our critics complain. And if we leave
the interpretation open, our critics complain"
1. Almost any religion can use this statement against almost any other religion(s).
2. I wouldn't complain one bit if the Pope goes right out and say "Yes" to Genesis teaching creation. I will cheer on the Pope if he bashes evolution, atheism, islam (like he did in 2005), buddhism etc. The Traditionalist Popes (Sungenis, Matatics, Dimonds) seem willing to do such.
I do however cheer the Popes who said "Yes" to the notion that Evangelicals have a saving presence in their lord's supper and that Protestants are no longer heretics but are true Christians.
Question for my own personal education/interest only:
If I became Pope one day, and goes thru "extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer" (as mentioned in the link I posted in comment #1), will I become the first Pope to absolutely *know* the meaning of Genesis with regards to evolution/creation or do some Popes of the past already know?
"Rome screams we need a infallible interpreter, and yet, there is disagreement on which passages are in fact infallibly interpreted, and the powers that be do not infallibly define what passages are infallibly interpreted."
There really isn't the "certainty" within Roman Catholicism that its apologists claim. When this is pointed out they claim they have "freedom". When Protestants exercise this freedom the RCC apologists label it as confusion.
When this is pointed out they claim they have "freedom". When Protestants exercise this freedom the RCC apologists label it as confusion.
Yea, I know what you mean thru experience. Some of my RC friends believe the partim partim and others believe all doctrine is in some sense located in scripture. They interpret Trent differently. When I enquire about this, after they have stressed to me the fact that non-RC's believe conflicting doctrines....they stress the "freedom" they have in interpreting things differently on many issues.
Makes my head want to explode at times...
"We"? Has the Magisterium solicited your approval of a particular interpretation of Scripture?
Heh, heh.
The Traditionalist Popes (Sungenis, Matatics, Dimonds) seem willing to do such.
I wouldn’t lump Sungenis in with the others since he’s Catholic and they’re sedevacantists.
Rome screams we need an infallible interpreter
We’re not screaming it at you, but the Catholic Church is infallible and we’re inviting you to communion with us. Come on, it’s fun!
will I become the first Pope to absolutely *know* the meaning of Genesis with regards to evolution/creation or do some Popes of the past already know?
One thing I had to do in returning to the Church was be willing to embrace as Catholics those Catholics who either did or did not believe in evolution. I felt freedom in extending this freedom to others.
With love in Christ,
Pete
We’re not screaming it at you, but the Catholic Church is infallible and we’re inviting you to communion with us. Come on, it’s fun!
Well, yes, it is screaming in the sense that I cannot have a 5 minute conversation about faith/theology with a RC and this not come up. So yes, it is very much a screaming in this sense.
I do not consider Rome "fun". Like I said, it makes my head want to burst. Different interpretations on infallible proclamations, not to mention different opinions of what is considered infallible...truly makes my head swell.
If you think this is "fun" come on over to Wittenberg, where "eye has not seen". :)
In Him,
Joe H
Yo, Joe!
Oh yeah, I guess that wouldn’t be fun.
You’re Lutheran? Have you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification? If so, what did you think of it?
In Christ,
Pete
Hi Pete.
"You’re Lutheran?
Yes.
Have you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification? If so, what did you think of it?
I read most of it a long time ago, when I was part of the Reformed faith. From what I recall of it, from a big picture standpoint, from what I remember, it seemed like both sides were forcing agreement. That they agreed on the verbiage, but had different meanings to this verbiage, which to me, is no real agreement.
Perhaps I am wrong here, like I say, it has been a long time, and my mindset was different a few issues to what I hold to today (Reformed vs Lutheran)... But the Missouri Synod, to which I am part, rejects it.
Curious as to what you think of it?
In Him,
Joe
I love the way that Catholic soteriology is presented in the declaration, and in the subsequent annex.
I never read the Missouri Synod’s analysis of the declaration. Too long! :) What led you away from Reformed and towards Lutheranism?
In Christ,
Pete
I love the way that Catholic soteriology is presented in the declaration, and in the subsequent annex.
According to the LCMS analysis, Rome departed to some degree from her tradition, but not a "breakthrough".
Quoting the analysis: "11. The Second Vatican Council has exerted a massive influence on the Roman Catholic Church of today. While that council retracted none of the offensive doctrines put forth by the 16th-century Council of Trent (which responded to the Reformation), nonetheless the Roman Catholic Church’s witness today is much more complex than is sometimes thought.
12. For example, in describing “Assurance of Salvation,” JDDJ says: “Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise. . . . No a summary and study of the seminary responses 9 one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. . . . Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.” Here is a departure from traditional Roman Catholic theology in JDDJ, although it does not connect well with the rest of the document.
13. Although change has taken place in the Roman Catholic church since Vatican II, JDDJ shows how very little headway has been made toward a genuine resolution of the differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics on justification. This statement is not a “breakthrough.”
14. All Christians can rejoice with JDDJ’s affirmation that “justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. . . .” If only this sentiment had set the tone for a document that clearly spelled out this wonderful truth!"
If Rome has indeed moved closer to Luther and truly catholic thought, albeit in a small way, then that is a good thing...and more evidence that Rome is slowly embracing more of Luther over the past 100 years. Reminds me of Franz Posset comments in the "Real Luther" where he says:
"Even as recent as 1970, Cardinal Willebrands, President of the Vatican's Secretariat of Christian Unity, declared Luther the ecumencial teacher to be shared as our "Common Teacher" (original title of Thomas Aquainas), Gemeinsamer Lehrer - Doctor communis."
I never read the Missouri Synod’s analysis of the declaration. Too long!
It is not that long really. You should read it, if nothing else, you can see how many Lutherans see this work...and who knows, maybe you will fall in love with the gospel too. :)
What led you away from Reformed and towards Lutheranism?
Well, very complex answer as it was a slow process really. But I was raised Lutheran, but rejected infant baptism when I got "smart" at 19, was re-convinced of it via RC Sproul in college (along with predestination), joined a Reformed Church...after studying scripture more so in the direct light of church history, was convinced of bapt regeneration and the potential loss of salvation, and fell in love with Lutheran thought and how it more so treats scripture at face value and in light of history. Wow, really somewhat odd when one summarizes the last 20 years in a few sentences. Are lives are truly like vapor!
So were you always part of the Roman Church?
in Him,
Joe H
Hi Pete.
Certainly do not want to take this conversation off Mr Swan's original content but if I may ask indulgence and also add this in the analysis of JDDJ as well...
From a Lutheran perspective, the Declaration is not entirely without merit. Paragraph 31 expresses Lutheran-Roman Catholic consensus on the Law and the Gospel: ‘We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the Gospel ‘apart from works prescribed by the Law’ (Rom. 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the Law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation.. . .” This comes closest to an explicit profession of sola fide, which is found in the Declaration only in paragraph 26, prepared by the Lutherans.7 Paragraph 32 is also unmistakenly Lutheran. This is contradicted by the next paragraph (33), which is unmistakably Roman Catholic: the statement that “Christ is not a law response of concordia theological seminary 15 giver in the manner of Moses” allows the traditional Roman evasion that the ceremonial but not the moral law is excluded from justification. The scholastic view that the Gospel is the “New Law” is left in place. To this the Lutheran response has always been Rom. 7:7: “I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” St. Paul meant to exclude precisely the moral law from justification. In the view of six ELCA theologians (from Luther Seminary, St. Paul), the good Lutheran statements above were likely “a last-minute insertion by some
of the German Lutheran representatives who were worried about the tilt of the whole document toward individual internal transformation through grace rather than newly righted relationships through God’s Word of Law and Gospel.”8 They point out that since the necessary theological presuppositions are nowhere developed in the document, the good paragraphs 31–32 “connect with nothing.”
For example, in describing “Assurance of Salvation,” JDDJ says: “Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise. . . . No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. . . . Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.” Here is a departure from traditional Roman Catholic theology in JDDJ, although it does not connect well with the rest of the document.
Trent stated that “even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 9). And the final statement of the JDDJ made in connection with this—“the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation”—similarly follows from the fact that God wills all men to be saved; that “all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God’s help” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 12); and that none “are predestined unto evil by the divine power” (Trent, Session 6, Canon 17).
From what I know of Luther, his great failure was to choose his own opinion at the expense of Christian unity. I think he should have recanted his books in full and then come back around to pursue a legitimate exchange on specific points of doctrine in a spirit of humility and collegiality, being willing to submit to the decision and authority of the Church. I wish he would have taken up the posture that Augustine had when writing to Pope Boniface: “I have determined to address especially to your sanctity, not so much for your learning as for your examination and, if perchance anything should displease you, for your correction” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. 1, Ch. 1.3).
I see the course that Luther took as one of rebellion and individualism. I have these same tendencies in me, so I can sympathize. But our unity is essential to the Gospel message, “that the world may believe” (John 17:21). The Catholic Church teaches that the faith that saves is the love-filled faith that hopes in the promises of God and believes all that He has revealed for the sake of our salvation. I couldn’t break unity in good faith.
My short story is that I was raised in a nominally Catholic home (Mom is Catholic). I came to know Christ as an adult through the Reformed tradition. Calvin led me to Augustine, and Augustine led me to the Catholic Church. Thanks for asking!
In Christ,
Pete
"From what I know of Luther, his great failure was to choose his own opinion at the expense of Christian unity....I see the course that Luther took as one of rebellion and individualism. I have these same tendencies in me, so I can sympathize.
Obviously I disagree in your assessment of Luther, otherwise I would not be Lutheran and be Roman or Orthodox. I am eternally grateful that we have a form of Christianity that does not “merit eternal life” or pay for the forgiveness of sins through indulgences, etc..etc.. and see that God raised and used Luther to realign His Catholic Church to His Word.
But our unity is essential to the Gospel message, “that the world may believe” (John 17:21). The Catholic Church teaches that the faith that saves is the love-filled faith that hopes in the promises of God and believes all that He has revealed for the sake of our salvation. I couldn’t break unity in good faith.
I have no issue with faith being “love-filled faith that hopes in the promises....” Saving faith is not dead. “For we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works..” But these good works through love do not cause or merit salvation, as Paul clearly states and as Rome denies.
My short story is that I was raised in a nominally Catholic home (Mom is Catholic). I came to know Christ as an adult through the Reformed tradition. Calvin led me to Augustine, and Augustine led me to the Catholic Church. Thanks for asking!
Well, thanks for sharing. Perhaps you jumped to far from the Reformed tradition to the Roman Church...only really needed to jump as far as the Catholic Reformation. :)
But we have gotten really off track of James original post...
Wondering how you go about determining which scripture passages are in fact infallibly defined by Rome? and how you know your interpretation of the infallible Councils, proclamations, etc...are correct.
in Him,
Joe H
Paul also states in Romans 6 that the presentation of our members as slaves to righteousness leads to sanctification, and that the end of sanctification is eternal life. And the righteous inherit the kingdom and are granted entrance “into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46) because they fed, clothed, and visited the King in the least of the brethren. Though all flows from faith by grace. This is the Augustinian heritage that was affirmed at Trent. “[L]ife eternal itself…, it is certain, is given as due to good works” (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 13.41).
“If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: ‘Then He shall reward every man according to his works’ (Matthew 16:27): how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: ‘To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt’ (Romans 4:4); and again: ‘There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace’; with these words immediately subjoined: ‘And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace’ (Romans 11:5-6)? This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God. […] It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward—grace is for grace” (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 8:19-20).
In terms of infallible interpretations, I think that any interpretation forbidden by anathema in a canon of the Council of Trent is forbidden infallibly. That’s as far as my knowledge of infallible interpretations goes. :) But the more important question for me as a Catholic is whether any of my interpretations contradicts what I believe as a Catholic. If this or that interpretation of mine contradicts the teachings of the Church, then I am wrong. For me, the concern is not to know whether this or that interpretation is infallible, but to have a willingness to submit to the teaching authority of God’s appointed pastors.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
Hi Pete.
Yea, we both agree and disgree on various teachings of Augustine. I certainly am no Augustine scholar, but will read the quotes you provide in more context. I have somewhat briefly yesterday, and he emphasized grace to such a high degree and yet still appears to teach that man merits eternal life in some form as well. Perhaps he had a improper use of words, perhaps he had a real improper view, perhaps we have different meanings to the verbiage he uses. Not sure, and to be frank, though obviously I would like his view to match mine, in my humble opinion, scripture contrasts grace and merit to the degree that we do not obtain eternal life by our merits. "If it is of grace, then it is not of merit."
Under the Roman paradigm, as I understand it, I would have no peace, only dispair. If I have to wait until I am really inherently righteous to be justified, then shoot me now, I am undone.
But more to the topic at hand (we can always continue the Augustine/Merit discusion separately)...
In terms of infallible interpretations, I think that any interpretation forbidden by anathema in a canon of the Council of Trent is forbidden infallibly.
What about other infallible proclamations (other councils, popes, etc), is this only limited to Trent? How many scriptural passages do you see as infallibly interpreted?
But the more important question for me as a Catholic is whether any of my interpretations contradicts what I believe as a Catholic. If this or that interpretation of mine contradicts the teachings of the Church, then I am wrong.
Yes, but how do you know your interpretion of scripture, tradition, infallible proclamations, etc...matches correctly the true teaching of Rome? I get asked how I know my interpretion of scripture is correct by my RC friends..so I am wondering how you as a Roman come to this confidence as well.
For me, the concern is not to know whether this or that interpretation is infallible, but to have a willingness to submit to the teaching authority of God’s appointed pastors.
Knowing what is infallible is not a concern? I don't understand. How do you know what to follow then? Submission to authority demands that one knows what the teaching is. And what happens when these appointed pastors teach differently? For example, with Trent and the scripture/tradition/partim debate. I have RC friends that believe differently. Some believe either that all doctrine is contained in scripture, and some hold to that some doctrine is not found in scripture but only tradition....all based on Trent. So how does a RC determine what is correct?
in Him,
Joe H
Hi Pete.
Yea, we both agree and disgree on various teachings of Augustine. I certainly am no Augustine scholar, but will read the quotes you provide in more context. I have somewhat briefly yesterday, and he emphasized grace to such a high degree and yet still appears to teach that man merits eternal life in some form as well. Perhaps he had an improper use of words, perhaps he had a real improper view, perhaps we have different meanings to the verbiage he uses. Not sure, and to be frank, though obviously I would like his view to match mine, in my humble opinion, scripture contrasts grace and merit to the degree that we do not obtain eternal life by our merits. "If it is of grace, then it is not of merit."
Hi Joe!
Augustine sees our merits as being God’s mercy, gift, grace:
“ ‘[T]hee He crowneth with pity and mercy;’ and if thy own merits have gone before, God saith to thee, ‘Examine well thy merits, and thou shalt see that they are My gifts’ ” (Sermon 131, 8).
“Even as the Psalmist says to his soul, ‘Who crowneth thee with mercy and compassion.’ Well, now, is not a crown given as the reward of good deeds? It is, however, only because He works good works in good men, of whom it is said, ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure,’ that the Psalm has it, as just now quoted: ‘He crowneth thee with mercy and compassion,’ since it is through His mercy that we perform the good deeds to which the crown is awarded” (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 9.21).
“[A]ll is imputed to His Grace, not to our merits” (Second Exposition on Psalm 32, 9).
“[W]e confess that our good merits themselves are but the gifts of God” (Against Julian, Bk. 6, Ch. 12.39).
The Catechism picks up on this:
“The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness (cf. Council of Trent: ‘God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, Whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits’ [Session 6, Ch. 16]). ‘Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts’ (Augustine, Sermon 298, 4-5)” (CCC, 2009).
I’ll come back to your other questions later. Thank you for your patience.
Thanks for letting us talk here, James.
In Christ,
Pete
Hi Pete,
Thanks for the quotes from Augustine. Like I say, an Augustian scholar, I am not. Not enough time, too many books already on my shelf I am trying to read...to have time to study Augustine in particular (though, I did order, "Triumph of Grace" that apparently deals with Augustine).
To sum our discussion so far, separate from infallible interpretations, etc...
You think Luther was as an individualistic rebel, I do not. (Are you calling him "Common Teacher" like the good Cardinal labeled him yet :))
We both agree that saving faith is not opposed to love, but requires it.
We both agree Augustine strongly emphasis grace, and calls our good merits/works, like the gift of faith, gifts from God.
We both agree with Augustine on some issues,and disgree on others.
Not sure if you are looking for this end of the conversation to go anywhere specifically...but irregardless of what Augustine says, it seems abundantly clear to me that the scriptures teach that we are saved by faith without works/merit. However Augustine worded things really does not matter all that much to me, though I do find in interesting to be sure.
in Him,
Joe H
Hi Pete.
Due to our conversation, I am starting to read Chemnitz "Exam of Trent". From time to time, it is opened and referenced, and its wisdom observed in my house...but because of my distractability, I often will start another book.
Anyhow, figured I would post anything I find interesting or relevant to our discussion on justification/merit/good works...assuming you would like to continue.
Quoting Chemnitz, book I, in his Justification section. After explaining in the first paragraph the importance of the doctrine of justification, and how its correct understanding brings "the most abundant consolation to pious consciences", concerning Rome, he states:
"However, the memory of the tortures of conscience under the papacy is not yet altogether dead, when the consciences were wrestling in temptation with sin and with the wrath of God, and were anxiously seeking some firm and sure consolation. Christ was passed over, who alone suffices us for all righteousness, and people were directed now to the sanctity of required works, now to making their own satisfactioni through works that are not required, now to works of supererogation, and again to the treasure of the merits of the religious orders, to various brotherhoods, to the pleading of the saints, to pilgrimages, to the sales of indulgences; and where all did they not lead and drive the poor consciences! Finally, when all these things had been done, they left them in the saddest doubt, setting before them, alas, the consolation of the fire of purgatory. Even Pighius, althought he is very unfavorable and harsh towards us, says, nevertheless, concerning the article of justification: "We cannot hide the fact that this very chief part of the Christian doctrine has been obscured rather than made clear by mean on our side by very thorny questions and definitions from the Scholastics." Such complaints on the part of many are found among the papalists themselves."
I thought this was a great summary of how under Rome's view, consolation and peace with God is hard to come by.
in Him,
Joe H
Hi Pete.
Here is another quote from Chemnitz, specifically on "Concerning the Rewards and Merits of Good Works".
"This teaching is set forth in our churches plainly and distinctly from the Word of God, namely, that the expiation of sins, or the propitiation for sins, must not be attributed to the merits of our works. For these things are part of the office which belongs to Christ the Mediator alone. Thus the remission of sins, reconciliation with God, adoption, salvation, and eternal life do not depend on our merits but are granted freely for the sake of the merit and obedience of the Son of God and are accepted by faith. Afterward, however, the good works in the reconciled, since they are acceptable through faith for the sake of the Mediator, have spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life; they have these rewards through the gratuitous divine promise; not that God owes this because of the perfection and worthiness of our works, but because He, out of fatherly mercy and liberality, for the sake of Christ, has promised that He would honor with rewards the obedience of His children in the life, even though it is only begun an is weak, imperfect, and unclean. These promises should arouse in the regenerate a zeal for doing good works. For from this we understand how pleasing to he heavenly Faither is that obedience of His children which they begin under the leading of the Holy Spirit in this life, while they are under this corruptible burend of the flesh, that He wants to adorn it out of grace and mercy for His Son's sake with spiritual and temporal rewards which it does not merit by its own worthiness. And in this sense also own own people do not shrink back from the word "merit", as it was used also by the fathers. For the rewards are promised by grace and mercy; nevertheless, they are not given to the idle or to those who do evil but to those who lavor in the vineyard of the Lord. And so the word "merit" is used in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Wuerttemberg Confession, and in other writings of our men. In this way and in this sense, we set forth the statements of Scripture in our chuches about the rewards of good works...."
in Him,
Joe H
Hi, Joe!
I think that the following canons from Trent involve an infallible interpretation of Scripture:
“If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says, ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. ‘ ”
“If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,’ are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema.”
“If any one saith, that priests, who are in mortal sin, have not the power of binding and of loosing; or, that not priests alone are the ministers of absolution, but that, to all and each of the faithful of Christ is it said: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven; and, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’; by virtue of which words every one is able to absolve from sins, to wit, from public sins by reproof only, provided he who is reproved yield thereto, and from secret sins by a voluntary confession; let him be anathema.”
“If any one saith, that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed apostle James; but is only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human figment; let him be anathema.”
“If any one saith, that the Presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this cause a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction; let him be anathema.”
“If any one saith, that by those words, ‘Do this for the commemoration of me’, Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.”
For Catholics, on the sufficiency of Scripture, all must concede that the canon itself is not revealed in Scripture but through the Tradition of the Church. Whether there are other dogmas of our faith not derived from Scripture is free for Catholics.
“Christ was passed over, who alone suffices us for all righteousness, and people were directed now to…”
Catholics view all acts of piety as directed towards deeper union with Christ and as drawing their saving benefit from Him.
I’m sorry that that’s all I have time for right now and that I wasn’t able to touch on everything. It was good to meet you, Joe.
In Christ,
Pete
Hi Pete.
It appears you may not have time to finish and continue the conversation, so I will refrain on commenting.
It was good to meet you as well.
May we both merit eternal life via His perfect life and righteousness, and not our own.
in Him, we stand and our found not guilty...
Joe H
Post a Comment