"Our earthly liturgies must be celebrations full of beauty and power: Feasts of the Father who created us—that is why the gifts of the earth play such a great part: the bread, the wine, oil and light, incense, sacred music, and splendid colors. Feasts of the Son who redeemed us—that is why we rejoice in our liberation, breathe deeply in listening to the Word, and are strengthened in eating the Eucharistic Gifts. Feasts of the Holy Spirit who lives in us—that is why there is a wealth of consolation, knowledge, courage, strength, and blessing that flows from these sacred assemblies." unknown source possibly YOUCAT Mal.1.11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith theLord of hosts.

Monday, October 15, 2012

faith alone or with love?

A good article on the subject explaining and comparing and contrasting Protestant and Catholic views: http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009/01/justification-divided-over-charity.html

another article on this subject:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/#comment-37686

 also from comment  330     http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/#comment-38720
One mistake Protestants make quite frequently is treating “justification by faith only” as semantically equivalent to “justification not by works.” Then, since St. Paul teaches in his epistle to the Galatians that justification is by faith, and not by works of the Law, and since Canon 9 of the sixth session of Trent teaches that “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, … let him be anathema” these Protestants conclude and pronounce that Trent anathematized the gospel. But justification by faith and not by works, is not equivalent to the Protestant notion of sola fide, in which the faith that is said to justify is not informed by the virtue of agape. So yes, justification by faith is central to the gospel, but that does not mean that the faith in view, by which we are justified is the Protestant conception of faith, according to which faith is not made living by agape, but agape only follows as a fruit or evidence of justifying faith. From a Catholic point of view, it is the Protestant teaching that has departed from the gospel taught by the Apostles.

 In another post here there are some interesting thoughts on the subject: http://www.creedcodecult.com/doing-being-and-the-function-of-faith/  Here is the basic article --go to the post to see the discussion:
This is going to sound very strange, but what if I told you that Catholics believe in Justification by faith alone while (Reformed) Protestants are actually the ones who believe in Justification by works? A statement that outrageous surely requires an explanation, so that’s what I want to provide. This post won’t be so much about exegesis as it is about simply helping people to understand where each side is coming from.
In the Protestant view, for man to enter Heaven he needs to have kept God’s Law perfectly. This means Salvation for the Protestant is purely based upon human “works,” the catch is that since sin has tainted all we do, it’s impossible for man to keep God’s Law perfectly. This is why Protestants say we need Jesus to keep God’s Law perfectly for us, and impute this “work” to us as if we did all this “work” ourselves. Hence why Protestants say our only hope to stand before God and be seen as “righteous” (i.e. a perfect keeper of the Law) is to trust in “Christ’s finished work” alone. So what does any of this have to do with faith alone? Protestants say the way we ‘receive’ this “work” that Christ did is through ‘the empty hand of faith,’ which reaches out and lays hold of and applies that work to our account.
In the Catholic view, for man to enter Heaven requires that he be in communion with God before he passes from this life. For Catholics, Salvation is not so much about ‘doing’ as it is about ‘being’. Communion with God is principally characterized by being “in a state of grace,” that means us possessing the divine gifts of faith, hope, and charity, as well as the Indwelling of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in our souls. In this view, faith implies the possession of all these other divine gifts for the Catholic. And the means by which a person first acquires all these is through “the washing of regeneration,” also known as Baptism.
Though this is a brief description of each side, I believe each summary to be true to the Reformed and Catholic positions. The views really are quite different, and hopefully it is clear the issue isn’t simply a matter of “faith versus works,” which never really was the issue. Given this overview, I hope it provides the casual reader with a ‘lens’ by which they can properly study and properly dialogue when it comes to the essence of Catholic-Protestant disagreements.
Knowing where each side is coming from can help prevent a lot of misunderstanding and wasted time. For example, a Catholic should be able to see why Baptism doesn’t save in the Protestant view, because it makes little sense to say Baptism is what passes on to us the “work” Christ did for us. On the flip side, a Protestant should be able to see the role that Baptism plays in the Catholic view, not as one of many “works” that must be done to get a perfect score on our Law keeping test, but as a door by which we enter into God’s family.
These two ‘world views’ should be kept in mind especially when reading Paul, because it will help explain why Protestants and Catholics have their own ‘favorite verses’ they like to quote. When a Protestant quotes a Pauline text which says we are saved by faith not by works, this is understood very differently when a Catholic reads it. The Protestant sees Paul as teaching that the “works” do in fact save us, but that we need Christ to keep it for us, and apply that “work” to us by faith. The Catholic sees Paul as teaching that one does not enter into communion through the Mosaic Law, but rather he enters (and stays) in communion with God by possessing the divine (not human) gifts, stated simply as ‘having faith’.

 a comment from this post: You said:
So, Protestants are saved by faith in the finished work of Christ, and Catholics are saved by faith in the…what? The passive worklessness of Christ? The incomplete work of Christ? The inactive, abstract love of Christ?
Remember, Catholics and Protestants are approaching the issue of salvation from two very different viewpoints, so you have to be careful when talking about the other side and how the other side is defining its terms.
This series of questions you asked seems to have missed the whole point of the article, which is that Catholics see ‘getting saved’ as restoring communion with God, while Protestants see ‘getting saved’ as being worthy to enter heaven based on perfect obedience to God’s law. You’re framing the question as if the Catholic side has to answer in terms of ‘work that needs to be imputed to us’, but that line of thinking makes no sense in the Catholic perspective.
In the Catholic view, what Christ did to save us, that we couldn’t do ourselves, was remove the obstacles that were preventing our communion with God from happening. In the Protestant view, what Christ did to save us, that we couldn’t do ourselves, was perfectly keep the law in our place. Faith in the Protestant view is the instrument that receives Christ’s “perfect score” and holds up the “perfect score” for God to see. Faith in the Catholic view is the ‘knowing’ of who God is, just like how to be in a healthy relationship you need to know the person who you’re in a relationship with.
Works and righteousness are not at all a part of your paradigm…how?
They are part of the Catholic paradigm, but not at all in the way Protestants think. The Catholic isn’t trying to work his way into Heaven; he isn’t trying to keep the law perfectly and have a reason to boast that he kept it; he isn’t deluding himself into thinking he’s ‘good enough’ when in fact he’s a sinner. The righteousness of the Mosaic Law, i.e. living faithfully under the Mosaic Law’s 613 individual commands, i.e. doing the works of the Mosaic Law, is not the path to restored communion with God. In fact, the Mosaic Law became a barrier to communion with God, a barrier that had to be torn down by Christ.
The Catholic doesn’t work to receive the Indwelling of the Trinity, he simply accepts the invitation. When Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness, the Protestant thinks this can only refer to either (a) faith being counted as perfect obedience to the law, or (b) faith receiving Christ’s perfect obedience to the law, but the Protestant misses out on (c) the Catholic view, wherein faith was Abraham’s joyful “Yes” response to God’s invitation to be in communion with him.
below is from comment 2 found on the following post here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/a-reply-from-a-romery-person/
 I completely agree that Protestants believe that agape necessarily follows genuine faith; perhaps I should have made that clearer in the body of my post. Catholic theology does not hold agape to be a constituent of faith; but it does hold agape to be that which makes faith to be living faith, and only living faith justifies. Hence in that respect Catholic theology holds agape to beconstitutive of justification. St. Augustine said, “Without love [agape] faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail.” (De Trin. XV 18, 32) Protestant theology, on the other hand, makes justification depend on faith alone, even though that faith (if it is genuine) will necessarily be followed by agape.
Regarding your five-line argument, first, Catholic theology does not treat these things in a voluntaristic way, as though it is based on whatever God happens to require or stipulate. Rather, there is an intrinsic relation between justification and agape. For example, in premise (2), it is not that God does not “require” meritorious acts prior to justification, but rather, without agape, it is impossible to merit anything at the supernatural order, because without agape one’s actions are ordered only toward a natural end.
The ambiguity in your argument lies in the word “involves” in premise (3). Agape is an infused virtue; from a will having this infused virtue, acts of agape flow. But virtues are not acts; virtues are dispositions. This is how it is possible for infants, at their baptism, to receive agape, without any act on their part. The virtue of agape is supernaturally infused. Once a person has agape, it is possible for that person to merit rewards at a supernatural level. So in that sense agape does ‘involve’ meritorious acts. But it is possible, without agape, with the aid of actual grace (first operative grace and then cooperative grace) to prepare oneself to receive sanctifying grace and agape. These preparations are not meritorious, because one does not yet have sanctifying grace (and a participation in the divine nature), and hence one’s actions are not ordered to a supernatural end. So our preparation for justification is not meritorious. At our baptism, we are justified by God, who infuses agape into our souls, and thereby makes us worthy of eternal life. So Catholic theology does not claim that any meritorious acts lead to our justification. That would be impossible, because it is impossible to merit anything at the supernatural level without already being justified (i.e. having sanctifying grace and agape), and so being ordered to a supernatural end.
You wrote:
He has done this, we are enabled to love the Lord with all our heart, and thus we have the gift of eternal life.
I cannot imagine a better summary of the Catholic position on receiving the gift of eternal life [so long as being "enabled" to love is not opposed to actual, inherent agage]! The pattern marked out in Deuteronomy 30:6 is also the pattern that St. Paul identifies in Romans 2:7 and 6:22 (which we have discussed before):
Who will render to every man according to his works. To them indeed who, according to patience in good works, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life….
But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.
The problem for your position is that these verses are not compatible with your claim that “our actions of agape love do not impact our salvation.” Neither is this claim of yours compatible with all of Deuteronomy 30:6, wherein life is predicated upon loving God with all of one’s heart and soul, not merely the potential to love God with all of one’s heart and soul.

from comment 248

As I explained in the article at the top of this page, Catholic teaching agrees with the claim that “in the Old Testament, it is faith that saves.” That’s not the point of disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic Church. The point of disagreement is whether the faith that saves is faith-informed-by-agape, or faith-not-informed-by-agape. According to Catholic doctrine, Abraham was saved by “living faith,” i.e. faith-informed-by-agape. The agape visible in his actions (e.g. his willingness to sacrifice his son) is not merely an outward sign of faith alone within him, but is the visible manifestation of living faith within him, that is, faith-informed-by-the-divine-gift-of-agape. It is this living faith within Abraham that God reckoned as righteousness, because that’s just what righteousness truly is, agape that in itself already fulfills the law, as explained in “Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig.”
In the peace of Christ,

comment 251

That causal connection between sanctification and salvation, which I agree is in view in both Rom 6.22 and in Rom 2, is also stated with great beauty and succinctness in 2 Thess 2.13: “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”

 comment 255
You wrote:
But you seem to imply that agape is man derived, or at least in part attributable to man’s inner goodness in some way, and this is where I would disagree.
I disagree with that notion too. Agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is not something derived from man; it is a supernatural gift from God. When it is poured out into our hearts, it transforms our hearts. But it is not derived from us. So here, at least, I agree with you.
The agape that proceeds from man is solely God derived, and thus man cannot claim any “self-righteousness” nor any eternal benefit from his acts of agape.
Here again I agree with the “solely God derived” part. But we need to disambiguate the “self-righteousness” part. If we are speaking of the origin of this righteousness, then it does not come from us, but from God, as just explained. But if “self-righteousness” is meant to imply that the self is not made righteous by this gift of infused agape, then I do not agree. The infusion of agape truly makes us internally righteous, in the way I explain at the link in #248.
Regarding the possibility of obtaining any eternal benefit from our acts done in agape, Scripture is replete with the fact that we will be rewarded for what we do in agape, even something as small as giving a cup of cold water in His Name. The reward He gives is not trinkets or ribbons or medals. The reward He gives is the object of greatest love: a greater share in Himself. But He is eternal life. Thus our reward for deeds done in agape is eternal life, nothing less.
You seem to concur when you say, “faith-informed-by-the-divine-gift-of-agape”. Thus it is 100% God acting in and through us that leads to acts of agape.
God takes the initiative, yes. But, that does not make us into the equivalent of puppets or automatons, possessed and manipulated by God, the way (presumably) demon-possessed persons are manipulated by the demons that possess them. When the Trinity indwells us, and infuses us with agape, the movement toward God by which we live in love toward God and neighbor, comes from God, but it is, at the same time, truly we who act in and with that love. Otherwise, grace would destroy nature, if we were turned into mere puppets in God’s hands. God makes us righteous, and the truth of that statement entails that this righteousness is both God’s (because it comes from Him), and ours, because it was truly infused into us. That’s the good news of the gospel.
I think we both would agree that grace empowered works are included in our salvation. These works are not of ourselves. These are works of grace and of the Spirit. Do we need to walk in the Spirit? Is this necessary for eternal life? Do we have to have a faith that is working? Yes.
Paul discusses this in the book of Galatians where he specifically is talking about the works of the law that do not justify (Gal 5:3-5:
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.
But what does he conclude? The next verse (6) does not say , “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything but only faith alone.” This would have been the place to say it. But instead he says, “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything , but only faith working through love.”
Is it necessary for faith to be working and for it to be working through love? Yes. Then look how he concludes his letter on this subject:
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
Notice again he is talking about eternal life and what is necessary. Is it faith alone? Here in all places where we would expect to hear this (if it were true), where he is talking about the incorrectness of being justified by law he makes this conclusion.
Salvation is all about this eternal life. Paul states clearly in Galatians that it is not faith alone. It is faith , but a faith that works. …and includes sowing to the Spirit.
Catholics say it is not faith alone. But the works we are talking about, the merits, we talk about are the kind to which Paul is speaking in Galatians. These are the same that James speaks about in his letter. These are the same that I John describes in detail. They are not works of the flesh. As Paul clearly states in Romans 8 after speaking much on these things:
13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Again it is not faith alone. But faith that is putting to death the deeds of the body. It is a faith that is not living according to the flesh. There has to be this being “led by the Spirit of God” . Salvation–eternal life—requires this process.
The letters written to the churches in the book of Revelation also make it clear. He calls them to repentance when they leave their first love(2:4), when he finds their works not complete in the sight of God (3:2)…etc. It is to the victor that he gives the right to eternal life, who shall not be harmed by the second death, etc. He states it over and over.
As Jesus said in Matt. 7:1,
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Salvation is more than a profession of faith. It is not faith that is alone. Catholics see all of this coming from grace. So this “entanglement” of salvation and sanctification as you called it……well, the Bible seems clear on the subject of eternal life and this is the salvation I want. Salvation to eternal life. Salvation is more than some eternal declaration according to the Bible.

On the Council of Trent and “justification by faith alone,” you are continuing to interact on this subject as though Trent anathematized the exact position that *you and other Reformed Protestants* hold. However, in one of my earlier comments, I presented evidence that this is not the case, via links to The Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification, and to Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 statement that the Catholic Church can accept a proper understanding of “faith alone,” as long as that faith is informed by love for God and fellow human beings.
Again, if you believe that the faith which justifies is a faith that, by definition, leads to faith-informed works, then your position does not fall under Trent’s anathema. This is clear from both the Joint Declaration and from Benedict XVI’s statement.
Do you believe that the Pope would make doctrinal statements in his public addresses that *deliberately misrepresent* what the Catholic Church teaches on justification? If so, why do you believe that he would do so? Do you believe that the Vatican would allow a document on justification to be published on its website that does not accurately reflect what the Church teaches about justification? These are honest questions. I am genuinely curious to hear your view(s) on these matters.
From your most recent comments here, you continue to state that today’s Reformed Protestants fall under the anathemas of Trent, but there is evidence, from the Catholic Church, from the (now-former) Pope, and the Vatican website, that this is not the case. Yet you still seem to believe that it is the case. Why? Do you genuinely believe that you understand the Pope’s statements about what the Church holds to be true better than he himself understands them? Do you simply think that that the Joint Declaration is misrepresenting the Church’s position on justification?
from




By contrast, for St. Augustine (and the Catholic Church), being under grace does not mean that our justification (or condemnation) does not depend on our law-keeping. Rather, being under grace means having received grace from God into our hearts, and the infused virtues of faith, hope, and agape such that with this divine help we are enabled to keep the law, it being written on our hearts. This is what it means to walk in the newness of the Spirit. For St. Augustine, by the gift of infused grace and agape, the law is fulfilled in us, because agape fulfills the law. By grace we are enabled to love the law, and not be hearers only, but doers of the law. Grace does not take away our obligation to fulfill the law; it does not mean that Christ fulfills the law so that we do not have to do so. Rather, grace enables to us to keep the law, and so truly fulfill the law, not by extra nos imputation nor, like Pelagius, by ourselves without grace, but through grace by God working in us to will and to do what is pleasing in His sight, i.e. living in accordance with His royal law. The Reformed conception of grace is in this respect a weaker conception of grace, because such grace is unable to make us capable of fulfilling the law. But St. Augustine’s (and the Catholic Church’s) doctrine of grace is a more powerful or higher view of grace, because for St. Augustin grace is the power of God in us enabling us to keep the law and so be truly well-pleasing in His sight.

 Eternal life is the gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. And union with Christ requires saying yes to Christ and no to self and to the world. Living faith is not mere internal trust; it includes agape, which is love for God above all other things. The one who claims to have living faith, but does not love God above all things, is deceived. Agape, by its very nature, includes denial of self, flesh and the world. So the person who does not deny himself, flesh and the world, does not have agape, and hence does not have living faith, and hence is not justified and does not have eternal life. The denial of self, flesh, and world is in this way an intrinsic part of the cost of attaining eternal life. This is why there is no justification without repentance, for those who have attained the age of reason. Your notion that eternal life is absolutely free would make repentance entirely optional.


 As Clark explains, in the Protestant conceptions of justification and faith, charity is “the fruit and evidence of justification,” not that by which faith is made to be living, and thus made to be justifying. But in the Catholic conceptions of justification and faith, charity (i.e. agape) is that by which faith is made to be living, and thus made to be justifying. Faith alone (i.e. not informed by agape) is dead faith, and not justifying faith. In the Protestant conception, by contrast, faith alone justifies, but justifying faith is always accompanied and followed by charity. This is the difference I’m talking about throughout the post at the top of this page.


I commented on the blog called the tension

I find it a bit frustrating. Piper assumes that faith apart from the works of the law means faith alone. No where is it stated that faith is alone or is it stated as “faith alone” except in James where it says “not by faith alone” . I do believe there is too much twisting when it comes to interpreting James. I notice Piper does not quote I Cor 7:19 “Circumcision is nothing , and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” [perhaps he mentions it in a prior sermon, not sure].
Freedom from the law is explained in Galatians, perhaps. Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envyings, drunkenness, carousings, and things like these of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Paul equates being led by the spirit as not under the law. He says similar things in Romans 8–verse 13–for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”
I wonder if Protestants and Catholics can agree, then, that we are saved by a living faith. It is a faith produced and lived in the Spirit, by the Spirit and thus as St. Augustine says, “Without love [agape] faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail.” (De Trin. XV 18, 32)

end quote

A discussion of faith informed by love is found in the comments here http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/clement-of-romes-epistle-to-the-corinthians/
"the expression “faith informed by love” I was referring to what in Catholic theology is meant by the Latin fides formata, which is contrasted with fides informis, the former being living faith, i.e. the faith that is made alive byagape, and the latter being the dead faith referred to in St. James. In heaven we will have agape but no faith, because we will see Him face to face. But in this present life, according to Catholic doctrine, we cannot have agapewithout having faith. So in Catholic doctrine, in this life we cannot be justified by agape alone. In this life, according to Catholic doctrine, we are justified by living faith, i.e. fides formata.
The Reformed and Catholic traditions disagree here, and my point wasn’t to debate or resolve that disagreement, not here. My point was only about St. Clement’s position on justification by faith. At the article I linked, I laid out the evidence from other parts of his epistle showing that the faith of which he speaks is living faith, not dead faith. So when in chapter 32 he says that we are justified “by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men,” he is referring to justification by living faith, not by dead faith. And so what he says here is fully compatible with a Catholic understanding of what it means to be justified by faith.
Likewise when he says that we are “not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart,” the holiness he is referring to is not the divinely infused holiness (i.e. sanctifying grace), but natural holiness, i.e. the sort of holiness a person might have through his own efforts, without grace. Consider, for example, the ‘virtuous pagan,’ who by his own efforts seeks to develop inwardly the natural virtues of prudence, justice, courage and temperance. We can see this described in the works of Plato, in which the virtuous person seeks to develop the [natural, i.e. not supernatural] virtue of justice (including toward that which is divine) and the virtue of piety. According to Aristotle, the only truly virtuous actions are those that come from a virtuous character. And Cicero holds a similar idea. But still, they are speaking of natural virtue, natural piety, natural justice — dispositions that man acquires not by grace but by his own practice and discipline. And the same is true of Hebrews who, like Saul, were blameless with respect to the letter of the law (Phil 3:6), but did not have living faith. St. Clement’s statement is an early patristic denial of what would later be known as Pelagianism. He is saying that no one has ever been justified by his own wisdom, his own understanding, his own godliness, or works done out of his own holiness. Anyone who is justified before God is justified by grace, through the divine gift of living faith. And that is what the Catholic Church still teaches. So in this way St. Clement’s doctrine is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine, including the teaching of the Council of Trent.
Thanks for your comment. In the comments of an earlier post “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide,” I discussed this in more detail. I completely agree that Protestants believe that agape necessarily follows genuine faith; perhaps I should have made that clearer in the body of my post. Catholic theology does not hold agape to be a constituent of faith; but it does hold agape to be that which makes faith to be living faith, and only living faith justifies. Hence in that respect Catholic theology holds agape to beconstitutive of justification. St. Augustine said, “Without love [agape] faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail.” (De Trin. XV 18, 32) Protestant theology, on the other hand, makes justification depend on faith alone, even though that faith (if it is genuine) will necessarily be followed by agape.
Regarding your five-line argument, first, Catholic theology does not treat these things in a voluntaristic way, as though it is based on whatever God happens to require or stipulate. Rather, there is an intrinsic relation between justification and agape. For example, in premise (2), it is not that God does not “require” meritorious acts prior to justification, but rather, without agape, it is impossible to merit anything at the supernatural order, because without agape one’s actions are ordered only toward a natural end.
The ambiguity in your argument lies in the word “involves” in premise (3). Agape is an infused virtue; from a will having this infused virtue, acts of agape flow. But virtues are not acts; virtues are dispositions. This is how it is possible for infants, at their baptism, to receive agape, without any act on their part. The virtue of agape is supernaturally infused. Once a person has agape, it is possible for that person to merit rewards at a supernatural level. So in that sense agape does ‘involve’ meritorious acts. But it is possible, without agape, with the aid of actual grace (first operative grace and then cooperative grace) to prepare oneself to receive sanctifying grace and agape. These preparations are not meritorious, because one does not yet have sanctifying grace (and a participation in the divine nature), and hence one’s actions are not ordered to a supernatural end. So our preparation for justification is not meritorious. At our baptism, we are justified by God, who infuses agape into our souls, and thereby makes us worthy of eternal life. So Catholic theology does not claim that any meritorious acts lead to our justification. That would be impossible, because it is impossible to merit anything at the supernatural level without already being justified (i.e. having sanctifying grace andagape), and so being ordered to a supernatural end.


 In the Catholic paradigm, the opportunity to participate in our salvation is a gracious gift of God. By this gift we have the opportunity in this life to give ourselves in sacrificial love to Christ in actions that have eternal consequences. Because of this gift, we have the unfathomable privilege of participating in Christ’s work of bringing salvation to all the world, and participating in our own salvation. (Philippians 2:12) God could have created us all already in the beatified state in heaven. But He did not do that, because He gives us a greater dignity by letting us participate in His divine work of salvation, both in the lives of others and in our own life. By giving us this additional gift of allowing us to participate in a divine activity, He is more greatly glorified.

 and this quote from the same article:
The Catholic understanding is that to be “dead in sins” is to be without the life of God, i.e without sanctifying grace. That is what it means to be unregenerate. Since the fall of Adam, all human beings are born into the world without the life of God, i.e. without sanctifying grace and without agape. We call this privation of the life of God, “original sin.” Without sanctifying grace we still have a functioning intellect and a will. But we cannot love God with supernatural love (i.e. agape) because agape is present in us only if we have sanctifying grace, i.e. a participation in the divine life. So, without sanctifying grace we can know God as Creator simply by the things He has made, and we can have natural virtues. But we cannot know God as Father, and have faith, hope, and agape. Without agape, we cannot have friendship with God as Father. So without sanctifying grace, we cannot enter into heaven. According to Catholic doctrine, the unregenerate man cannot do things ordered to a supernatural end (i.e. heaven) because he is not a participant in the divine nature. Since he only has human nature, which is natural, he can only achieve a natural end. But heaven is a supernatural end. Hence, without sanctifying grace he cannot attain to a supernatural end.
According to the Catholic position, for those in the unregenerate condition, God must act first without us, in giving us grace, before we can freely move toward Him. (Otherwise we’d be semi-Pelagian, if we believed that we, without His grace, acted first toward Him as our supernatural end.) But our privation of the life of God does not require that we must be “regenerated” before we freely move toward Him. Catholic doctrine makes a distinction here between two forms of grace. One form, called ‘actual grace,’ is the grace by which God moves our hearts and minds. The other form, called ‘sanctifying grace,’ is that participation in the divine nature by which we are sanctified in our very soul and made sons of God. In Catholic theology regeneration means receiving sanctifying grace. A person who is moved by actual grace, but has not yet received sanctifying grace, is not yet regenerated. And in Catholic theology sanctifying grace comes through the sacrament of baptism, though it can (while still coming through the sacrament of baptism) precede the reception of that sacrament. But, in Catholic theology actual grace comes to us before regeneration, and actual grace first acts as operative grace (in which God moves us without us), and then by our participation actual grace acts as cooperative grace (God moving us with us), leading us to faith and baptism by which we receive sanctifying grace, and are thereby justified.
Lutheran and Reformed theology generally do not make the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace. They tend to maintain that a person cannot do anything until he is alive. And therefore regeneration is required in order for a person to cooperate. Hence, what Catholic theology refers to as ‘actual grace’ drops out of Reformed and Lutheran theology as something that precedes regeneration. Since Catholic theology understands ‘dead in sins’ as meaning the absence of divine life, but not the loss of intellect and will, therefore, Catholic theology does not need to maintain that regeneration must precede cooperation, because a person without sanctifying grace (i.e. without the life of God) may still by his intellect and will cooperate with actual grace.
JDK then quotes Canon 5:
Canon 5: “If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed. . . let him be anathema.”
This canon has to do with what happened to man at the Fall. In Lutheran theology man’s very nature was damaged, and his intellect and will were radically corrupted. In Catholic theology, at the Fall man lost sanctifying grace, lost agape, lost the four preternatural gifts, and suffered the four wounds of nature. Among those wounds of nature were ignorance in the intellect, and malice in the will. Each of man’s powers was wounded, though not destroyed, but man’s nature was not destroyed. We were human before the Fall, and we remain human after the Fall. (I have discussed this in more detail here.) But this canon need not separate Catholics and Protestants. Both Protestants and Catholics can agree that man after the Fall is incapable of turning to God, unless God first acts in us without us. We all agree that semi-Pelagianism is a heresy, so the objection to semi-Pelagianism need not be a point of contention between us.
JDK then refers to Article XI of the Thirty-Nine Articles:
Article XI: Of the Justification of Man
“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort.”
Regarding this article, the Anglican position presents us with an either/or: Either we are “accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” or we are accounted righteous only “for our own works or deservings.” But the Catholic position sees this as a false dichotomy. Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were in friendship with God. They walked with God in the cool of the day. And their friendship with God shows that they had agape, and thus that they had sanctifying grace. Had they obeyed God faithfully, then because they were participants in the divine nature, their acts of obedience to God would have merited on the supernatural level, and hence merited a supernatural end. That is how they would have merited heaven. In the Catholic position, Christ by His Passion has merited sanctifying grace for us, so that by receiving that grace through the sacraments He established, we are, in this respect, restored to the state of Adam and Eve. Unlike Adam and Eve, however, we lack what is called the gift of integrity, and so our lower appetites suffer from inordinate dispositions. We also lack the prenatural gift of immortality, and so our bodies are not perfectly subject to our souls; this is why we now suffer physical death. But by the merits of Christ we have received sanctifying grace through the sacraments (and thus been made participants in the divine nature). Hence now, like Adam and Eve, our acts motivated by agape are meritorious toward a supernatural end, because by our participation in the divine nature, our acts are proportionate to the supernatural end which is heaven.
Does this mean we must work our way to heaven? Not exactly. For example, baptized babies who die in infancy do no work, but yet through their baptism they are made partakers of the divine nature, and possess the infused supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and agape. Because they have agape, they die in a state of friendship with God, and hence enter into heaven. The problematic word in the phrase “must we work our way to heaven?” is ‘must.’ In the Catholic paradigm, the opportunity to participate in our salvation is a gracious gift of God. By this gift we have the opportunity in this life to give ourselves in sacrificial love to Christ in actions that have eternal consequences. Because of this gift, we have the unfathomable privilege of participating in Christ’s work of bringing salvation to all the world, and participating in our own salvation. (Philippians 2:12) God could have created us all already in the beatified state in heaven. But He did not do that, because He gives us a greater dignity by letting us participate in His divine work of salvation, both in the lives of others and in our own life. By giving us this additional gift of allowing us to participate in a divine activity, He is more greatly glorified.


Taylor Marshall, a Catholic apologist says on the issue:
Corresponding to this Augustinian tradition, the Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, declared with Paul that none of the works of the law could justify a man:

Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.

This canon from the Council of Trent demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not distinguish between “works” and “works of the law” when stating that a man is not justified by “works of the law.” Instead, the Catholic Church condemns anyone who attempts to justify himself “by his own works,” regardless of whether the works belong to the moral precepts or to the ceremonial precepts of the law. Hence, one cannot be justified even if he perfectly fulfilled the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments, since these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of God’s essence. The ceremonial precepts (“do not eat swine’s flesh”) cannot transform us into the righteousness of Christ. Moreover, not even obedience to the moral precepts (“thou shalt not kill”) can fill us with the Holy Spirit. The Council of Trent elaborates:

We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Grace remains primary in Catholic teaching. Neither faith nor works merit our justification. Justification is received by faith and perfected by works of charity, but it is not earned by works alone. Yes, prevenient grace is needed even for our initial faith in Christ. No man can be justified simply by observing the m
oral law found in the Ten Commandments. This is the authentic Catholic teaching of the Catholic Church. “And without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6). There is a synergy between faith and works, as James teaches (Jas 2:24). It is not faith alone. It is not works alone. It is faith first and works following—each flowing from the wellspring of grace springing from the wounded side of the crucified Christ.

 from some questions and answers found in the comment section here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/a-reply-from-a-romery-person/comment-page-2/
I have a question concerning the statement made in the article:
As I have argued elsewhere, the Bible does not definitively teach that we are justified by faith-without-agape; Catholics understand justification by faith to refer to justification by faith-informed-by-agape.
end of quote.
Therefore the faith that justifies has to be a living faith or a faith-informed by agape. You also state:
But, in Catholic theology actual grace comes to us before regeneration, and actual grace first acts as operative grace (in which God moves us without us), and then by our participation actual grace acts as cooperative grace (God moving us with us), leading us to faith and baptism by which we receive sanctifying grace, and are thereby justified.
Here is my question. At baptism one receives the theological virtues of faith, love , and hope. Therefore at baptism one is given a living faith or a faith informed by agape. Is , then, the faith that comes before one is baptized and before one is regenerated (usually) a dead faith ? In other words, when operative and cooperative grace “lead us to faith and baptism” is this initial faith before we are baptized a dead faith? Is it a dead faith because we do not yet have the theological virtue of love until we receive baptism?
Secondly, if justification and living faith both come at baptism, and there is not a sequence of living faith followed by initial justification how can we say that faith justifies? How can we say that initial justification comes by faith informed by agape if they both occur at the same moment in baptism?
and
Great questions there! I’d like to take a stab at answering some of them in an orthodox manner, and then I’ll let Bryan pick up the pieces =)
In other words, when operative and cooperative grace “lead us to faith and baptism” is this initial faith before we are baptized a dead faith? Is it a dead faith because we do not yet have the theological virtue of love until we receive baptism?
In session 6, chapter 4 the Council of Trent stated that “This translation [i.e. from a original sin in Adam to the state of grace] cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration [i.e. baptism] or its desire…”
In the case of someone who has experienced conversion and desires baptism, he or she may attain the state of grace prior to the physical performance of the sacrament. So, the short answer to your question is *not necessarily*. It’s possible that the person is living a life of faith-conjoined-to-agape, but it’s also possible that the person does not possess faith-conjoined-to-agape. Now, in the physical sacrament of baptism comes the assurance of sanctifying grace and the infusion of the supernatural virtues faith, hope, and charity. St. Paul’s statements of “justified by faith” can be understood as “justified by faith-conjoined-to-agape”. Whether those justified persons have living faith prior to baptism or only afterward, we simply cannot always tell.
Secondly, if justification and living faith both come at baptism, and there is not a sequence of living faith followed by initial justification how can we say that faith justifies?
We say “faith justifies” in the sense that “faith-conjoined-to-agape justifies” which is a truth taught by the Church. Your question assumes that God cannot grant faith-conjoined-by-agape prior to baptism, which contradicts the quote above from the Council of Trent. A person has faith-conjoined-to-agape if and only if he is in a state of grace, and if he is in that state prior to physical baptism, and dies in that state, he is indeed justified (e.g. the good thief on the cross).
and

Yes, this helps—I did forget about the “desire” part in the Council of Trent. This is helpful.
I also realize that when an adult comes for baptism as it states in the CCC in 168:
In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” “Eternal life.”
and I now remember this!:
1249 Catechumens “are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity.”48 “With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own.”
All of which makes sense in the light of what you (John) have stated. Furthermore , I am guessing, that if a person receives faith informed by love at Baptism this instantaneously produces justification . In other words, it follows so closely at Baptism . I think I was getting caught up in the order of things.

All in all, you have made it a bit clearer in my mind, thanks
see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2012/08/faith-before-baptism-how-differ-from.html


I would like to expand upon Mike’s point that the difference between the “assent” of faith and the “virtue” of faith is one of degree – which it is. Faith can exist without being virtuous. That is, its essence as faith is not destroyed by a privation of charity. The essence of faith is assent to all that God has spoken exactly because it is God who has spoken – “Who can neither deceive nor be deceived”. Now such an assent needs always be asissted by an act of God’s grace, and as such, it is a gift. However, like many gifts we receive from God, it remains a gift whether or not it is animated by charity – think of charsims of the Holy Spirit such as healing or the working of miracles, which though truly gifts derived from God’s grace (perhaps even irrevocable); when used without love become like “clanging symbols” to St Paul’s terminology. Likewise, a man may truly be gifted with “faith” and believe all of the teachings of the Catholic faith exactly because he sees it is God who has ultimately revealed them; yet, he may entirely resist God’s grace in the daily course of life and so fail to “trust” or PUT his faith in God, in the sense of giving himself into God’s care. Love, charity, agape, are different ways of describing the act of self-giving. Thus, what is lacking in such a man is a faith animated by charity – not faith per se. He has a lifeless faith rather than a living faith – but faith nonetheless. As St. James would say, his faith is dead – though not non-existent; much like the human soul without God’s indwelling grace remains truly a human soul – even though both Christ and the apostles refer to such a soul as “dead” and in need of rebirth.
Now faith’s proper aspect is to be animated by charity – to be living. The assent of faith to truths proposed by God exactly because God is the one making propositions, should naturally lead a person to seek to appropriate the lived implications of the truths proposed: the very first of which is to seek reconcilliation with God. The episode concerning St. Peter’s preaching to the crowd in the first chapters of Acts immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit, narrates just this response. When the people, feeing compunction at his words, ask “what shall we do?”, St Peter responds, “do penance and be baptised”. Baptism, in the catholic understanding, infuses the life of God Himself within the soul. God, Who is love, takes up residence so that the soul is filled with supernatural charity – or agape. This charity, in turn, fulfills and elevates the gift of faith by which an intellectual assent of the mind and will to truths proposed by God was achieved (and which first led the soul to seek baptism), by translating such intellectual assent into a filail, trusting, self-giving of the entire person (mind, will, body, hopes, dreams, possessions – everything) into the hands of God. It is the gift of Divine indwelling love – agape – received at baptism, which elevates faith from a gift into the form of a virtue.
It is in this respect that catholics say the virtue of faith is received at baptism. It is with respect to thevirtue of faith that St. Paul repeatedly uses the phrase “obedience of faith” in the book of Romans. It is in respect to the virtue of faith (faith animated by love) that St. Paul says that Abraham was saved through faith. Abraham not only believed God with an intellectual assent (though he did this too); rather he believed God in the virtuous sense of entrusting his entire life to God’s care as the history of Abraham’s encounters with God shows. It is in respect to the virtue of faith (faith working through love) that a catholic can carefully and specifically affirm that we are saved by “faith” alone. We often hear it said that a person who fails to trust God in their day to day affairs “lacks faith”. For purposes of theological clarity, we should say that their “faith is lacking”; there is a privation of what “ought” to be – their faith is lacking the charity which should animate the self-giving trust that concerns the virtueof faith. Such lack does not entail that the gift of faith, in so far as a grace assisted assent of the intellect and will to propositional truths is concrned, has been eradicated. In this way, one can see that “faith” admits of degrees (as Mike has said) since it may be considered as a gift, or it may be considered as a gift utilized in a virtuous way: it may be considered as stagnant or active; as noun or verb. These differences of degree correspond rather significantly to naunced controversies between catholics and protestants in the area of soteriology – especially justification.

also

2.) The council of Trent elsewhere (I do not have the quote handy) explicitly states that “faith” is a supernatural gift which can remain in the soul even for a person who no longer possesses agape – i.e is no longer in a state of grace. Thus, it would seem that the gift of “faith” is not intrinsically tied to the sort of agape, or indwelling grace, which is received at baptism since such a gift can remain when such grace is subsequently absent. Here is St. Thomas’s explanation as to how this can be so:
Article 2. Whether lifeless faith is a gift of God?
Objection 1. It would seem that lifeless faith is not a gift of God. For it is written (Deuteronomy 32:4) that “the works of God are perfect.” Now lifeless faith is something imperfect. Therefore it is not the work of God.
On the contrary, A gloss on 1 Corinthians 13:2 says that “the faith which lacks charity is a gift of God.” Now this is lifeless faith. Therefore lifeless faith is a gift of God.
I answer that, Lifelessness is a privation. Now it must be noted that privation is sometimes essential to the species, whereas sometimes it is not, but supervenes in a thing already possessed of its proper species: thus privation of the due equilibrium of the humors is essential to the species of sickness, while darkness is not essential to a diaphanous body, but supervenes in it. Since, therefore, when we assign the cause of a thing, we intend to assign the cause of that thing as existing in its proper species, it follows that what is not the cause of privation, cannot be assigned as the cause of the thing to which that privation belongs as being essential to its species. For we cannot assign as the cause of a sickness, something which is not the cause of a disturbance in the humors: though we can assign as cause of a diaphanous body, something which is not the cause of the darkness, which is not essential to the diaphanous body.
Now the lifelessness of faith is not essential to the species of faith, since faith is said to be lifeless through lack of an extrinsic form, as stated above (Question 4, Article 4). Consequently the cause of lifeless faith is that which is the cause of faith strictly so called: and this is God, as stated above (Article 1). It follows, therefore, that lifeless faith is a gift of God.
Reply to Objection 1. Lifeless faith, though it is not simply perfect with the perfection of a virtue, is, nevertheless, perfect with a perfection that suffices for the essential notion of faith.
 provided answers in this thread:
In addition to the possibility that an “act of faith” can occur prior to baptism, it is also possible that, by grace, through extraordinary means, the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love can be infused into a person before that person receives _formal_ baptism. This is equivalent to what the catechism speaks of when it speaks of “baptism of desire”.
However, it is important to understand that if these virtues have been extraordinarily infused before the moment of formal baptism, then what also must exist in such a case is a desire (explicit or implicit) for baptism.
Why? Because it is impossible to have the supernatural virtue of charity while at the same time rejecting the Church and God’s plan for incorporation into the Church through baptism. In other words, having supernatural faith and love for God implies both a love for His Church, and a hope to be visibly incorporated into that same Church according to God’s plan.
see also


Regarding the Mt. 7 passage, the persons in question had faith, but not agape. Hence they were never regenerate. As St. Paul said, “if I had all faith so as to remove mountains, and if I knew all mysteries, and was possessed of all wisdom, but had not charity, I am nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:2)
from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/st-augustine-on-faith-without-love/
comment 78:

What puzzles me is Trent’s statement that faith can remain in the apostate. But you say Christ was talking about living faith in John 3, so for a while at least, the person must have had living faith and then their faith died. Could you please comment on how it could be that faith can both remain and undergo the change from life to death?
Living faith becomes dead faith when a person drives agape from his heart by mortal sin. Faith can remain, in such a case, because the person has not necessarily apostatized or fallen into heresy. That is, heresy and apostasy are not the only mortal sins. In such a case he has neither rejected some article of the faith, or rejected all the articles of faith. He still assents to all the articles of faith. And yet, having driven agape from his soul through mortal sin, he no longer loves God as Father above all other things, or his neighbors for God’s sake. So his faith is thus dead, and neither justifies nor saves him.
Is the difference between living/dead faith external or internal to faith itself?
The difference between a living body and a dead body is internal to the body itself. But ‘internality’ here does mean a different set of parts. It is not as though a living body has an extra organ that dead bodies all lack. What makes a body living is not an additional bodily part. Rather, what makes a body to be alive is a principle (i.e. the soul) that animates the whole body. Likewise, what makes faith alive is not an additional article of faith. Thus what makes faith living is not internal to faith in the sense of a difference in the composition or intellectual content of faith. But the agape that makes faith living is internal to faith in that it animates the whole body of faith, making it that for which we live, and by which we do all that we do.
Also, I wanted to follow up on your comment that children under the age of reason can have living faith. Children can believe as far as they understand, but they don’t seem to be able to understand all the bible says must be believed in order to be saved. Is it your position that the truths that need to be believed in order to be saved grow as the child’s understanding grows? Is there some minimum amount of truths the child must hold to in order to say they have living faith?
The supernatural virtue of faith is not the same as the articles of faith. The supernatural virtue of faith is a divinely infused disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, because of the authority of God who reveals it. The articles of faith are those propositions divinely revealed and taught by the Church, through which we believe God and believe in Him whom we cannot see. An infant receives the supernatural virtue of faith at baptism, but does not at that time assent to the articles of faith, because the infant has not yet attained the age of reason such that he can understand and assent to the articles of faith. The faith by which we are justified is the supernatural virtue of faith (made alive by the supernatural virtue of agape). This supernatural virtue of faith is not the same as the act by which we affirm the articles of faith. The act by which we affirm the articles of faith when we’ve reached the age of reason is an act of the will that flows from and strengthens the divinely infused disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, because of the authority of God who reveals it. But the act is not the virtue, and the virtue is not the articles.
Your two questions (at the end of the paragraph just quoted) seem to presume that the act by which we affirm the articles just is the faith by which we are justified. And this would mean that children cannot be justified until they at least reach the age of reason, whereas the Catholic Church teaches differently. But your two questions hardly make sense in the Catholic paradigm, because in the Catholic paradigm, the actvirtue of faith, and it is the supernatural virtue of faith that we receive as a divine gift at baptism, and that (because accompanied by the supernatural virtue of agape) justifies us. So in the Catholic paradigm, the [baptized] child is already justified before he believes even one article of faith. And so long as the child (even into adulthood) retains the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, because of the authority of God who reveals it, he retains the supernatural virtue of faith, no matter what the number of articles of faith he believes. Of course if he is presented with them all, then if he follows the supernatural virtue of faith, he will believe them all. If he at some point chooses to deny what he knows God has revealed, falling thereby either into heresy or apostasy, he thereby loses the supernatural virtue of faith, and necessarily therefore loses justification. If he knowingly denies even one article of the faith, and thereby falls into heresy, while continuing to believe all the other articles of the faith, he thereby loses the supernatural virtue of faith, and loses justification. (See St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church.”) So at no point in our lives (infancy to natural death) is our justification fundamentally based on the number of articles believed, but rather always on the presence of the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, because of the authority of God who revealed it, so long as that disposition is made living and active by the supernatural virtue of agape.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)