Justification: What are the misunderstandings between Catholics and Protestants?

HosannaHM said:

Hey Landon, I think Nomnom quoted that from the Council of Trent. Have there been any changes for Rome regarding the topic sense then?

Click to expand...

The main change, is that Rome is no longer trying to prevent Christian's from leaving Catholicism and entering into Protestantism. This "salvation by faith or works" was never really a Catholic thing to begin with... It was Protestants paving their own way, and the Council of Trent was more of a reaction to this new division.

Landon Caeli said:

I don't think it was in Vat. II either.

Click to expand...

Maybe NomNomPizza can provide documentation for his quote. I think I nailed it as from the council of Trent, session six, canon nine. But he is using a different translation than I have, and I wish he would clarify his exact source. Mine is H. J. Schroeder, 'Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent', 1941. B. Herder Book Co. St. Louis.

I should note that session 6 of the council of Trent needs to be read as a whole, not as individual canons out of context.

chevyontheriver said:

Maybe NomNomPizza can provide documentation for his quote. I think I nailed it as from the council of Trent, session six, canon nine. But he is using a different translation than I have, and I wish he would clarify his exact source. Mine is H. J. Schroeder, 'Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent', 1941. B. Herder Book Co. St. Louis.

I should note that session 6 of the council of Trent needs to be read as a whole, not as individual canons out of context.

Click to expand...

Counsel's are conducted for the times they pertain to. During that time, there was a division in the Church that needed to be addressed... I don't think the CC ever cared about the distinction between Faith and works until it became used as a tool for division.

...So yeah, it was temporarily an issue, and was definitely addressed during the Counsel of Trent. But I think we've moved on since then.

Protestant Christianity was born... The Church tried to prevent it, but it could not.

The anathemas of Trent have not actually been revoked, but neither has the once considered to be infallible Cantate Domino Papal Bull. However.... due to the Church's current use of the "invincible ignorance" doctrine, it would appear that the Cantate Domino Papal Bull and the Trent anathemas no longer apply to native born non-Catholic Christians. Obviously Ultra Traditional Catholics will strongly disagree with said statement and perhaps a small minority of Traditional Catholics as well.

HosannaHM said:

Hello everyone!

I listened to someone recently (of the Catholic persuasion) explaining
what was wrong with the protestant explanation of justification by faith alone.
He mixed up regeneration with sanctification,

Click to expand...

The righteousness of justification (one-time event = salvation) is not distinguished from the righteousness of sanctification (life-long process after one-time event of salvation) and is the cause of much disagreement.

and it was very confusing to say the least. He came to the conclusion that Protestants contradict themselves on the topic, but his presentation was misrepresenting Protestantism! As a Protestant, I don't want to misrepresent Catholics. Straw-manning each other won't do any good.

I want to keep this conversation as friendly as possible. Here are a couple questions to get started:

1. Do all Catholic priests agree with the anathema (regarding salvation by faith alone) statement put out by the Vatican in their catechism?

2. Most Protestants see works as evidence of an active faith. Basically, if you are in Christ you will have good works (Ephesians 2:10) Do all Catholics believe their works add to their salvation.

Feel free to answer or add any thoughts pertaining to the subject matter. Go!

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

Counsel's are conducted for the times they pertain to. During that time, there was a division in the Church that needed to be addressed...

Click to expand...

Sort of, yes. A council needs to be read in it's historical context. It answers particular historical issues that may no longer be our issues. The councils are true for all time but in context.

I don't think the CC ever cared about the distinction between Faith and works until it became used as a tool for division.

Click to expand...

There is more than 'faith alone', which was Luther's thing. Trent resisted the reduction of Luther.

...So yeah, it was temporarily an issue, and was definitely addressed during the Counsel of Trent. But I think we've moved on since then.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's a permanent issue because what they concluded is true even if necessarily incomplete. Which is why the polemics of the past largely miss the point. We fight about old issues, incomplete understandings, and we still fail to find common ground.

Protestant Christianity was born... The Church tried to prevent it, but it could not.

Click to expand...

All we have to do now is figure out how to attend to Jn 17. But I'm a pessimist on that.

Soyeong said:

The issue is that we can obey God's law for purposes other than trying to earn our salvation, especially because God's law was never commanded as a means of doing that, so verses that speak against that should not be mistaken as speaking against our salvation requiring obedience to God's law for some other reason, such as faith. In Matthew 23:23, faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so only those who have faith will be justified and will obey it by the same faith, which is why Paul could say in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified

Click to expand...

In context--Romans 2:1-3:8, after demonstrating the unrighteousness of the Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32), Paul is now demonstrating the unrighteousness of the Jews, in order to conclude all mankind under sin (Romans 3:9-10, Romans 11:32), so that righteousness is only from God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21).

In that context, his use of Romans 2:13, that "only doers of the law will be justified," is to demonstrate his point of no one being righteous because no one can "do" the law as required for righteousness, therefore, all who rely on the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10); i.e., the curse of the law on those who don't comply as required; i.e., everyone.
Therefore, justification is only by God through faith, apart from law/works (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:4-5).

while denying in Romans 4:4-5 that our justification is something that can be earned as a wage. Luther said that we are justified by faith alone, which is true insofar as there are no works that we can do to earn any part of our justification, but he also said that faith is never alone, which is true insofar as the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience, which is essentially what Paul was saying in Romans 3:28-31, where we are justified by faith apart from works of the insofar as there are no works that we can do to earn any part of our salvation, however,

Click to expand...

Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith therefore abolishes our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it insofar as the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience to God's law. Getting to obey God's law through faith is itself part of the content of God's gift of salvation, not something that we need that in order to become saved or because we have been saved.

Click to expand...

We don't have to have faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work (salvation) "to get to obey God's law,"for Orthodox Jews deny Jesus Christ (no salvation) and yet "get to obey God's law."

PloverWing said:

I've heard Catholics and Protestants use the vocabulary around salvation differently, which can be confusing when we try to talk to each other. Protestants tend to use the word "justification" to mean the beginning step of having our sins forgiven through the work of Christ, while (if I understand correctly) Catholic theologians more often use the word "justification" to mean the broader process of becoming Christlike, encompassing also what a Protestant would call "sanctification". To the extent that that's the case,
we're not disagreeing, just using words differently.

Click to expand...

Actually, that would be using words not in accordance with NT teaching, where
justification (dikaiosis, acquittal, declaration of "not guilty") is not
sanctification (hagiasmos, course of life of those who are separated to God; i.e., sanctified).

'Tis better to do it God's way as presented in the Scriptures.

Catholics and Protestants alike agree that, as Christians, we have forgiveness through the work of Christ, we receive saving grace from God, and we should, over time, come more and more to live in the way that Jesus taught.

If we ask the question "What is the absolute minimum that I can do and still escape Hell?", then we might hear different answers from Catholics and Protestants. But I don't think that's the healthiest question to be asking.

Click to expand...

.

BNR32FAN said:

I’m curious, what are your thoughts on faith without love? I many people say we are saved by faith alone but what about faith without love. Paul mentions this problem in 1 Corinthians 13.

Click to expand...

Please define "love."

Clare73 said:

The righteousness of justification (one-time event = salvation) is not distinguished from the righteousness of sanctification (life-long process after one-time event of salvation) and is the cause of much disagreement.

Click to expand...

Well I am not a Greek speaking person and I doubt you are either, but I'm not sure about the statement your making here.

So you are saying justification and sanctification are the same thing? Or part of the same thing?

I see the two doing very specific things.

Hello @HosannaHM, I agree with @Clare73, Roman Catholics mean by their use of the single term "justification" what we Protestants mean by our use of two different terms combined, "justification" and "sanctification". So sadly, a certain amount of confusion often exists in our discussions from the get-go.

The primary difference between us (Catholics/Protestants) boils down to two words that concern how we become righteous, imputation and infusion (just to be clear, both Catholics and Protestants believe that our sins are "imputed" or credited to the Lord Jesus' account for the purpose of atonement, but only Protestants believe that His righteousness, the righteousness of God .. e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is "imputed" or credited to our accounts.

Here are the Justification Canons from the 6th Session of The Council of Trent and the section concerning justification from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the two links below (in case anyone cares to read them).

For what it's worth, conservative RC's and conservative Protestants walk in lockstep together where 85-90% of the Christian faith is concerned. IOW, we agree about the Christian faith FAR more than we differ, which is something that we should 'always' keep in mind. That said, I do not believe that it's possible to truly harmonize certain parts of the faith that we disagree on, unless one side concedes, that is (and I don't see that happening anytime soon ).

--David

All Glory To God said:

Well I am not a Greek speaking person and I doubt you are either, but I'm not sure about the statement your making here.

So you are saying justification and sanctification are the same thing? Or part of the same thing?

I see the two doing very specific things.

Click to expand...

Neither. . .

"Righteousness" in the NT is used both of justification and sanctification, and sometimes for both at the same time, context being what determines which usage.

Because "righteousness" is used for both justification and sanctification in the NT, I suspect that's why the Catholic Church does not distinguish between them, which is confusing, because they are not the same.

St_Worm2 said:

Hello @HosannaHM, I agree with @Clare73, Roman Catholics mean by their use of the single term "justification" what we Protestants mean by our use of two different terms combined, "justification" and "sanctification". So sadly, a certain amount of confusion often exists in our discussions from the get-go.

The primary difference between us (Catholics/Protestants) boils down to two words that concern how we become righteous, imputation and infusion (just to be clear, both Catholics and Protestants believe that our sins are "imputed" or credited to the Lord Jesus' account for the purpose of atonement, but

Click to expand...

only Protestants believe that His righteousness, the righteousness of God .. e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:21 in "imputed" or credited to our accounts.

Click to expand...

Really? That's helpful to know.

Here are the Justification Canons from the 6th Session of The Council of Trent and the section concerning justification from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the two links below (in case anyone cares to read them).

The Council of Trent - Sixth Session, Canons
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification
​

For what it's worth, conservative RC's and conservative Protestants walk in lockstep together where 85-90% of the Christian faith is concerned. IOW, we agree about the Christian faith FAR more than we differ, which is something that we should 'always' keep in mind. That said, I do not believe that it's possible to truly harmonize certain parts of the faith that we disagree on, unless one side concedes, that is (and I don't see that happening anytime soon ).

--David

Click to expand...

Looks like in the Catechism at #1991, righteousness is from God, not works, yes?

HosannaHM said:

I will look into getting a copy of the catechism. I found some of it online, and I read the parts on grace and merit. It is well written, but vague on what I believe to be the greatest point of contention: Am I justified by the work of Christ alone? Or are my works necessary in addition to His in order for salvation to occur?

Click to expand...

It's a question that even the Bible isn't clear on. What we do know is that it is more complicated than 'faith without works' because the Bible tells us exactly that in James.

I would not say any works are needed in addition to the works of Christ. For all of our works are only possible in Christ. Our inclinations to Christ are inclinations from Christ. Our willing to believe only comes from grace. Without grace we cannot move in the direction of Christ in the first place. So it's not at all like we earn our salvation. Canon 1 of session 6 of the council of Trent is clear on that. You might want to look at the whole of Session 6. But beware. Some who have actually read the whole of session 6 have ceased to be Protestant. Those who focus on only a canon or two not so much.

HosannaHM said:

Another thing: Maybe the anathema statement of Trent is the only place it's found. I don't know, I will keep researching. But here's the issue: Why hasn't the statement been walked back? I don't think there is any record of it being amended.

Click to expand...

It has not been 'walked back' because the council of Trent still stands. We can find nuance in what the council said but we cannot repudiate it. Far better to try to understand the whole of it in historical context. That is what Hubert Jedin did in his 'A History of the Council of Trent'. It's not a common book but it is still among the best books on that council. Lots of background missing in the polemical voices.

If we are ever going to actually get on the same path again, and I doubt we ever will, it will be by understanding Trent better and not in repudiating it.

chevyontheriver said:

It's a question that even the Bible isn't clear on. What we do know is that it is more complicated than 'faith without works' because the Bible tells us exactly that in James.

I would not say any works are needed in addition to the works of Christ. For all of our works are only possible in Christ. Our inclinations to Christ are inclinations from Christ. Our willing to believe only comes from grace. Without grace we cannot move in the direction of Christ in the first place. So it's not at all like we earn our salvation. Canon 1 of session 6 of the council of Trent is clear on that. You might want to look at the whole of Session 6. But beware. Some who have actually read the whole of session 6 have ceased to be Protestant. Those who focus on only a canon or two not so much.

Click to expand...

Paul couldn't be clearer.

James was not an apostle, did not sit under Jesus' teaching for more than three years, nor did he receive it from the third heaven as did Paul (2 Corinthians 12:1-5), who was an apostle.

Nothing is unclear, James is reconciled to Paul in the Reformation, and maybe before that for all I know.

Clare73 said:

Looks like in the Catechism at #1991, righteousness is from God, not works, yes?

Click to expand...

Hello again Clare, this is a big topic, one that is difficult to truly understand w/o taking a deep look at what is being said by both sides (in part because of the care that each side takes in presenting their arguments).

I believe I have paper (or perhaps some notes) that does a pretty adequate job of distilling down and then comparing the essence of the opposing views, so let me see if I can find that (because I don't want to offend the sensibilities and/or the actual teachings of either side and start a debate that changes the focus of HosannaHM's thread). So, I'll get back to you later.

In the meantime however, please check out the article from Dr. R.C. Sproul below (there's a video attached to it as well, and I believe the text of both the video and article are the same .. so you can read, listen and/or watch it) as I believe that it will get to the heart of the matter for you (at least as a place to start anyway). Granted, it was written by a Protestant, so the teaching will be weighted from that POV, but I believe that once the terms that Dr. Sproul uses are understood properly, Romans Catholics will agree with everything that he says (or almost everything anyway ). Here's the link (@HosannaHM, I believe you will find what Dr. Sproul has to say interesting as well as he takes a look at what is taught and attempts to clear up misunderstandings):
Talk to you again soon.

God bless you!

--David