"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than faith in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."
Bryan in comment 152 here states http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/
Yes, faith is more than trust, because trust has no necessary connection to divine revelation or articles of faith, whereas faith is that by which we yield our entire assent to whatever has been divinely revealed, because God has revealed it. One could “trust in divine mercy” while rejecting what God has revealed. That wouldn’t be true faith, because one could trust God in that way even if there were no divine revelation at all. Divine faith, by contrast, is assent to what is supernaturally revealed. See “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church.”
In the Joint declaration [catholic/lutheran} found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation. [See Sources for section 4.6].
from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/trent-and-the-gospel-a-reply-to-tim-challies/
The first difference is in the conception of faith itself. For Tim, faith is merely confidence in divine mercy. But according to the Catholic Church, faith is not only “a personal adherence of man to God,” but also, at the same time and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (CCC 150) For this reason, one point of Canon 12 is to condemn the notion that justifying faith does not include assenting to the whole truth that God has revealed (e.g. assenting to the Creed), but is only trust in His mercy. The second difference between Tim’s conception of what justifying faith is, and what the Catholic Church teaches concerning justifying faith is that for Tim, justifying faith is not informed by agape, whereas according to the Catholic Church, faith that is not informed by agape is dead faith, and is therefore not justifying faith. .......................................................................................................................................................................................The Catholic Church clearly does not teach what Tim believes, i.e. that we are justified by faith [as mere confidence in divine mercy, without assent in the whole revelation of God, and without agape] alone. Even the phrase faith “in Christ alone” presupposes a trust conception of faith, and does not necessarily include the “free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed,” e.g. does not include affirming the Creed. Otherwise “in Christ alone” would entail a denial of the Trinity. So even with phrases like “in Christ alone,” the disagreement is not a simple yes or no (affirmation or denial), but is rather a difference in paradigm, because the respective concepts of what justifying faith is are different. Even Tim’s claim that the Catholic Church teaches a gospel that “adds to the work of Christ” presupposes a different paradigm regarding the nature of Christ’s work. In the Catholic paradigm Christ’s work includes us, and includes our participation in it. We cannot add to it in the sense of doing something not included in it; that would be a work done apart from grace, and that sort of notion would be Pelagianism. But we can ‘add’ to it in the sense of doing something in it, through it. Christ is not the only agent of His salvation; by His work He makes us co-workers with Him, such that in Him and through Him who lives within us, we are given the gift of participating in and cooperating with His salvific work. That’s not a false gospel; that’s just the gospel. Only when one looks at it through a zero-sum, non-participatory paradigm lens does it appear to be going beyond Christ, and thus appear Pelagian. But in the Catholic participatory paradigm, real union with Christ just is the gospel.
I thought it might be of some use to point out St. Thomas’s teaching on hope. The way I read it, Thomas includes something of your concept of resting and trusting in his doctrine of hope which, in turn, he relates to faith:
“The hope of which we speak now, attains God by leaning on His help in order to obtain the hoped for good.”
“Now the object of hope is, in one way, eternal happiness, and in another way, the Divine assistance, as explained above (2; 6, ad 3): and both of these are proposed to us by faith, whereby we come to know that we are able to obtain eternal life, and that for this purpose the Divine assistance is ready for us, according to Hebrews 11:6: “He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.” Therefore it is evident that faith precedes hope.”
from comment 266
as David said in #265, I think the problem is related to the virtue of hope. I responded to a similar objection/question (to the one you are raising) in comment #13 above, where I claimed that in some cases St. Paul uses the term ‘faith’ as a synecdoche for the triad of theological virtues, because he is talking about living faith. But in other cases, he is speaking of faith proper, as when he distinguishes between faith and love. I also said the following (in #13):
So in Catholic theology faith, *in itself*, is not an act of trust. Trust involves all three theological virtues, and is one form or expression of the conjunction of these three virtues. We can see that by thinking about what is going on when a person says (sincerely) a sinner’s prayer. He’s not just assenting to revealed truths. He’s asking God to forgive him for sinning against God (that shows love for God), and entrusting his life to God (again, love), and expecting God to save him from hell and give him eternal life with Him. That shows hope and charity.
So let me clarify. If agape is internal to the Reformed concept of trust, then (from a Catholic point of view) the Reformed concept of trust can be understood as a synecdoche for the triad of theological virtues, even if the concept tends to emphasize hope more than love. In that case, we’re close, because in that case the disagreement (on what is justifying faith) is either merely semantic or merely a matter of emphasis, not a substantive difference. When we speak of trust in this way, we bring in the personal dimension — “I trust in you Christ as my Lord and Savior, who died on the cross for me, to save me from my sins, and bring me to eternal life.” Love may be implicit in this personal dimension of this conception of trust, even if theologically this trust is treated as not containing love. That’s because there may be an implicit connotation of friendship, and thus communion, within this response of personal trust in the One who loves me and gave Himself up for me. So in that case, the problem is just a failure to recognize that agape is intrinsic to the conception of trust in view, and its presence simply needs to be made explicit.
On the other hand, if agape is not internal to this concept of trust, but only follows the presence of trust, or accompanies it, but does not make trust to be justifying, then see the last paragraph incomment #322 in the “Imputations and Paradigms” thread. In that case, from the Catholic point of view the Reformed concept of trust is actually a combination of faith and hope, even though Reformed persons distinguish trust from hope.
As I see it, the thrust of your objection (drawing from DVD) is the following. In some places in Scripture, the term ‘faith’ seems to mean trust, not assent+love. But, here’s my response. If in these places St. Paul is using the term ‘faith’ as a synecdoche for the triad of theological virtues, then it is not surprising that in some places the role of hope is evident in faith of this sort. The triad wouldn’t be a triad if hope were not there. But the presence of hope [in the triad of virtues] does not mean the absence of agape. In my own opinion, the reason why the Reformed reaction to the claim thatagapeless trust is assent+hope is something like, “No, by ‘trust’ I mean something stronger than assent+hope,” is because Reformed persons generally don’t have a grasp of the robust character of the Catholic doctrine of hope. Hope, in Catholic theology, is more than wish, or probabilistic expectation. The Catechism states:
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
As I see it, there’s nothing in Reformed agapeless trust that is not in assent+hope. The more clearly you grasp how robust is the Catholic conception of the virtue of hope, the more the idea that agapeless trust is assent+hope becomes plausible.
Would it be accurate to say that Rome allows for faith to be assensus and notitia while not fiducia?
Sure. The fiducia aspect is what you get when you add the virtue of hope to assent.
see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.htmlfrom comment 334 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/
If Peter is exhorting Christians to supplement their faith with love, then wouldn’t that mean their faith is not necessarily conjoined to agape?
No, because agape as supernatural virtue is not identical to agape as expressed in actions, because habits are not actions. St. Peter is exhorting them to actions of agape, not exhorting them to acquire by their own effort a supernaturally infused virtue that isn’t already present within them. Through actions done in agape, they grow in agape as habit.
from a comment here http://www.creedcodecult.com/doing-being-and-the-function-of-faith/
Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (Pope Benedict XVI 11/19/08 audience)
with regard to this supernatural quality of faith in the Catholic Church, could you expand on what this actually is, experientally?
Supernatural faith is not an experience. It is a gift of grace, an act of the will, and also a supernatural virtue, by which we freely adhere to God and assent to the truths He has revealed, on account of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Or is there a third possibility that I haven’t thought of? Help me out here.
The dilemma you pose is between fideism on the one hand, and subjectivism on the other hand. The Catholic position is neither, because the motives of credibility, which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind,” (and thereby avoids fideism) are not inward, but are external (and thereby avoids subjectivism). This subjectivist notion that denied the public and objective role of the motives of credibility in faith was condemned by the First Vatican Council:
3. If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one’s internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema.
It was also condemned in Pope Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis; see especially paragraphs 14ff.
No comments:
Post a Comment