Anglo-Catholic Justification Question

[jinc1019]

In the example you provide, their repentance isn't what saves them: they are repenting of their sins, but in this case they are coming back to what the Roman Catholic Church proclaims as necessary belief for a saving faith, so in that case it is their saving faith and a willingness to repent of sins. How is it any different than replacing Marian dogma with the divinity of Christ?

If I reject the divinity of Christ and say he was just a man, I am sinning. If I repent of that and truly mean it, I have accepted Christ and am saved.

To come back to Anglicanism, Anglo-Catholics reject the teaching magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church. "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary unto salvation" is something you cannot avoid if you maintain a high view of Anglicanism.

Many Anglo-Catholics have adopted Roman Catholic practices, and even, for instance, adopting RC views for things such as the assumption of Mary (versus more patristic arguments), but Anglo-Catholics wouldn't profess those views to be de fide in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does, nor would an Anglican suggest that the Church has the authority to add to the faith in the way the Roman Catholic Church does. Holy Scripture has primacy in the Anglican tradition, and is the source of all authority as God's Word. We reject the equivalency of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as separate sources of authority (which is what the RCC claims).

Even I were to accept everything you say here, you don't address being required to observe holy days of obligation. That's something one must do in order to maintain their state of grace. If they don't do it, regardless of how much faith they have, then that person is damned unless he or she goes to confession and does penance.

I won't argue your other points since I'm not supposed to be arguing these sorts of things, which I've probably already done too much of

I enjoy and appreciate your comments, by the way. I'm definitely open to reevaluating.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

They're defining the failure to observe days of obligation as sin. What is de fide is that you must confess and repent of your sins to be saved. That is no different than any other Christian that rejects notions of eternal security. The Roman Catholics claim authority to define sin through the teaching magisterium under the binding and loosing authority granted by Christ.

Again, the question would be how is this any different than an Anglican who sins (going back to my first example of what happens if I commit adultery) and does not repent? Am I still saved or does my refusal to repent of my sins suggest I am lacking in a saving faith?

The only difference between the Roman Catholics and Anglicans is that we restrict the authority of the Church to Holy Scripture, whereas the Roman Catholics say they are permitted to add through the teaching magisterium.

 

[jinc1019]

Honestly, I think you're splitting hairs. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the very fact the RCC chooses what is and what is not sin based entirely on its own infallible decrees by definition makes them by definition a church that requires works, because whatever they SAY you must do, you must do, or else you're in hell. By your definition, there is no such thing as works. Everything is just "evidence of faith."

By your own definition, what would be a work they could theoretically require to violate the principle?

And further, I don't agree with your assessment about penance. A person who has true faith would of course repent from sin, but the Catholic definition of "repent" is "do this work"; otherwise, they don't consider you to have actually repented. Now, you're probably just going to say that they have a different understanding of repentence, and back we are again at the central point: under your theological notions, as you have presented him here, there is no such thing as "works," so long as the church says it's "faith." They could tell me in order to be saved, I have to jump up and down 500 times. 499 times wouldn't cut it, and if I said that's a work, you could just say "no, that's just their definition of faith."

 

[jinc1019]

Let's just get at the heart of the matter: Which actions would you say must be done for a person to truly have a justifying faith? Baptism? What else?

 

[jinc1019]

At the risk of throwing way too much out there, I think this sums up exactly what I think on this. At the sixth session at the Council of Trent, it is plainly stated a person can lose justification despite maintaining their faith:

CHAPTER XV.
That, by every mortal sin, grace is lost, but not faith.

In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ.
​

R.C. Sproul discusses this in detail in the following video, which I highly recommend, but if you'd rather skip to relevant section, the point I'm suggesting begins around 11:20.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

The Roman Catholic Church tells you what you must believe... de fide. What is of the faith. What you must do proceeds from that. None of what the Roman Catholic Church tells you has anything to do with Anglicanism, though.

Baptism is required for salvation... It says so right in the Bible. Yet Baptism can hardly be called a work of man. It is a work of God.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Reading the definition of the Council of Trent it's essentially saying, if I read it correctly, you lose your salvation if you maintain the faith but sin unrepentently. It is an attack on eternal security. I don't see a problem with that, because ultimately the problem is that your unrepentent sin indicates that at some level you have rejected God.

 

[jinc1019]

Very few people would disagree with the statement that a man who sins repeatedly has rejected God and won't be saved. A Calvinist doesn't believe an unrepentant sinner will be saved either.

The point I'm making is that the faith is not what justifies you in the RCC and in some quarters of Anglo-Catholicism. The key part from the Council of Trent's statement there is that it says even if faith is not lost, you can be damned by your acts or your lack of action ... no matter how much faith you have. That makes the work essential for salvation, which I believe is a clear denial of the Gospel as Paul presents it in in the epistles. The whole issue is whether the works God demands flow from a person's living faith or are actively contributing to that person's justification. A person who repeatedly sins and never asks for forgiveness has a "dead faith," which is not saving faith at all, as James teaches.

If I sin, according to the Roman Catholic Church, all the faith in the world will not save me apart from certain works. The work justifies (along with faith), and lots of people who have real faith, as the Council of Trent teaches, will not obtain salvation because they haven't done one thing or another. This means that sincere Christians who truly believe in Jesus and God and truly work (as a result of their faith) to be good Christians can die and go to hell no matter how strong their faith in Jesus is or how holy their lives are because of something as simple as not believing they must go to church on the "holy days of obligation" or disagreeing with the church's Marian doctrines. So, as I said before, the RCC essentially demands absolute faith in itself as much as it does Jesus, because if you reject any of the church's teachings because you believe its wrong, you end up in hell.

Where in scripture is that taught?

You keep suggesting the RCC's definition of "faith" requires obedience to their "de fide" requirements, but that's not true, as the Council of Trent shows. They clearly state a person can have "faith" and not be saved.

And this does have something to do with Anglicanism, because there are some Anglicans, including clergy, etc., who hold to the exact same view; they just differ on what those required actions are and how they determine which acts are required. That, I believe, is not the Gospel, and Paul exhorts all Christians to stay out of communion with those who reject the Gospel. That's my worry and concern. If Anglo-Catholics believed everything they do except for the RCC's view on justification, I wouldn't even think twice about it.

 

[jinc1019]

And I should probably add that throughout the history of Christianity, including in the earliest days of the church, churches, bishops, etc. broke away from communion with one another over much less than what I'm describing here. The date of Easter, for example.

 

[Paidiske]

I think the problem I'm having with the way you're constructing this, jinc, is that you won't find a perfect church anywhere. It doesn't matter where you go, there'll be people who are there because they're lonely rather than because of any faith, or who hold some really whacky non-orthodox beliefs, or whatever.

So I'm struggling with the idea that in order to join a church, you must be assured that that joining won't bring you into communion with those who reject the Gospel, because the only way I can see that being realised is in some sort of hermit-like isolation.

Some of us are called to be spiritual hermits, but few are. Most of us are meant to be part of a living community of faith, even though it is made of people, and therefore flawed.

I'm not even saying you have to or should become an Anglican, but just trying to point out what I think is a bit of a weakness in your approach.

 

[jinc1019]

I think the problem I'm having with the way you're constructing this, jinc, is that you won't find a perfect church anywhere. It doesn't matter where you go, there'll be people who are there because they're lonely rather than because of any faith, or who hold some really whacky non-orthodox beliefs, or whatever.

So I'm struggling with the idea that in order to join a church, you must be assured that that joining won't bring you into communion with those who reject the Gospel, because the only way I can see that being realised is in some sort of hermit-like isolation.

Some of us are called to be spiritual hermits, but few are. Most of us are meant to be part of a living community of faith, even though it is made of people, and therefore flawed.

I'm not even saying you have to or should become an Anglican, but just trying to point out what I think is a bit of a weakness in your approach.

There are no perfect churches, and as I said, I don't think what the laity think is the issue ... but if leaders in the church actually promote these views, I have a problem with that. I'm not concerned with lonely people in church. I don't care what the laity think. I care about what the presbyters teach.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Very few people would disagree with the statement that a man who sins repeatedly has rejected God and won't be saved. A Calvinist doesn't believe an unrepentant sinner will be saved either.

The point I'm making is that the faith is not what justifies you in the RCC and in some quarters of Anglo-Catholicism. The key part from the Council of Trent's statement there is that it says even if faith is not lost, you can be damned by your acts or your lack of action ... no matter how much faith you have. That makes the work essential for salvation, which I believe is a clear denial of the Gospel as Paul presents it in in the epistles. The whole issue is whether the works God demands flow from a person's living faith or are actively contributing to that person's justification. A person who repeatedly sins and never asks for forgiveness has a "dead faith," which is not saving faith at all, as James teaches.

Everyone accepts "believe and be baptised" to be saved. The Roman Church defines what must be believed as "what is in Holy Scripture and what the Church, in her authority equal to Holy Scripture, teaches." Anglicans say what must be believed (what is necessary for Salvation) is contained in Holy Scripture and interpreted through the lens of the fathers of the Church and through the Anglican formularies.

If I sin, according to the Roman Catholic Church, all the faith in the world will not save me apart from certain works. The work justifies (along with faith), and lots of people who have real faith, as the Council of Trent teaches, will not obtain salvation because they haven't done one thing or another. This means that sincere Christians who truly believe in Jesus and God and truly work (as a result of their faith) to be good Christians can die and go to hell no matter how strong their faith in Jesus is or how holy their lives are because of something as simple as not believing they must go to church on the "holy days of obligation" or disagreeing with the church's Marian doctrines. So, as I said before, the RCC essentially demands absolute faith in itself as much as it does Jesus, because if you reject any of the church's teachings because you believe its wrong, you end up in hell.

Where in scripture is that taught?

A sincere Christian who truly believes in Christ Jesus will repent of their sins. The point I have been trying to make is that your faith is ultimately defective if you refuse to repent of your sins. I could point you to a raft of verses that say repent. Probably the clearest verses on this applicable to the particular question you have are Acts of the Apostles 2. 37-38. St Peter has just preached his sermon at pentecost and those who hear him are cut to the heart and ask "what must we do [to be saved]?" Peter responds: "repent and be baptised." Here he is incorporating repentance with Christ's statement "believe and be baptised" from St Mark 16. 16.

You keep suggesting the RCC's definition of "faith" requires obedience to their "de fide" requirements, but that's not true, as the Council of Trent shows. They clearly state a person can have "faith" and not be saved.

Salvation to the Roman Catholic Church requires submission to everything. Saving faith requires total belief. You can't just say "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins, but reject the Trinity." Through the authority Rome claims they also add several other things which must also be believed to be saved, which no one else accepts.

And this does have something to do with Anglicanism, because there are some Anglicans, including clergy, etc., who hold to the exact same view; they just differ on what those required actions are and how they determine which acts are required. That, I believe, is not the Gospel, and Paul exhorts all Christians to stay out of communion with those who reject the Gospel. That's my worry and concern. If Anglo-Catholics believed everything they do except for the RCC's view on justification, I wouldn't even think twice about it.

No, this does not have anything to do with Anglicanism. You are confusing the teaching of pious beliefs with de fide beliefs. The 39 Articles of Religion very specifically prohibit the teaching of anything not provable by Holy Scripture as being required for salvation (Articles VI and XX).

I am not an expert in Roman Catholicism, but I wonder if you might benefit from popping over to the OBOB board and just getting some clarification on their views of justification, because I'm not entirely sure (and it could be me who is in error) that your interpretation of Trent is correct.

Either way, no Anglo-Catholicism (along with every other form of Anglicanism) rejects the doctrines you are attributing to it. They are counter to the Articles.

 

[jinc1019]

A sincere Christian who truly believes in Christ Jesus will repent of their sins. The point I have been trying to make is that your faith is ultimately defective if you refuse to repent of your sins. I could point you to a raft of verses that say repent. Probably the clearest verses on this applicable to the particular question you have are Acts of the Apostles 2. 37-38. St Peter has just preached his sermon at pentecost and those who hear him are cut to the heart and ask "what must we do [to be saved]?" Peter responds: "repent and be baptised." Here he is incorporating repentance with Christ's statement "believe and be baptised" from St Mark 16. 16.

I don't disagree with anything you have said here ... at all. But the problem is, I believe, you don't understand what the RCC teaches, although you defend it. The RCC does NOT teach every sincere, faith-filled Christian will be saved. They believe you must have faith, yes, but you also, in addition to that faith, must do/not do certain things. Those things are NOT considered evidence of or an outworking of that person's faith. Those things are separate. Repenting is not enough. Believing in Jesus is not enough. You must also, in addition to those thing, do penance, etc. You seem to think the RCC view is simply that anyone who does have faith will do all of those things, but Trent categorically rejects that:

"In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost ..."

A person with true faith can be in a state where they are NOT justified, while such a position is impossible in Protestantism. If a person is not in a state where God would consider them justified, it's because that person does NOT have faith.

Salvation to the Roman Catholic Church requires submission to everything. Saving faith requires total belief. You can't just say "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins, but reject the Trinity." Through the authority Rome claims they also add several other things which must also be believed to be saved, which no one else accepts.

No, this does not have anything to do with Anglicanism. You are confusing the teaching of pious beliefs with de fide beliefs. The 39 Articles of Religion very specifically prohibit the teaching of anything not provable by Holy Scripture as being required for salvation (Articles VI and XX).

Yes, and the 39 Articles also clearly state that justification is by "faith only," and yet, Anglo-Catholics argue that's not true.

I am not an expert in Roman Catholicism, but I wonder if you might benefit from popping over to the OBOB board and just getting some clarification on their views of justification, because I'm not entirely sure (and it could be me who is in error) that your interpretation of Trent is correct.

That's an excellent and fair suggestion, but I actually have a very good understanding of the RCC. I have spent TONS of time researching it; I was born and raised in the Catholic church; I attended a Catholic (Dominican) college for two years, where I was required to take theology courses; and virtually every member of my family is Catholic, some of whom are devout Catholics. I have also read (and own) countless Catholic apologetics, the Ignatius study bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, history books on the church, etc.

Either way, no Anglo-Catholicism (along with every other form of Anglicanism) rejects the doctrines you are attributing to it. They are counter to the Articles.

If this statement is true, then I would have no problem with being in communion with Anglo-Catholics, but when they defend the RCC, I get very concerned. I will definitely consider all of this more, however.

 

[jinc1019]

Everyone accepts "believe and be baptised" to be saved. The Roman Church defines what must be believed as "what is in Holy Scripture and what the Church, in her authority equal to Holy Scripture, teaches." Anglicans say what must be believed (what is necessary for Salvation) is contained in Holy Scripture and interpreted through the lens of the fathers of the Church and through the Anglican formularies.



A sincere Christian who truly believes in Christ Jesus will repent of their sins. The point I have been trying to make is that your faith is ultimately defective if you refuse to repent of your sins. I could point you to a raft of verses that say repent. Probably the clearest verses on this applicable to the particular question you have are Acts of the Apostles 2. 37-38. St Peter has just preached his sermon at pentecost and those who hear him are cut to the heart and ask "what must we do [to be saved]?" Peter responds: "repent and be baptised." Here he is incorporating repentance with Christ's statement "believe and be baptised" from St Mark 16. 16.


Salvation to the Roman Catholic Church requires submission to everything. Saving faith requires total belief. You can't just say "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins, but reject the Trinity." Through the authority Rome claims they also add several other things which must also be believed to be saved, which no one else accepts.



No, this does not have anything to do with Anglicanism. You are confusing the teaching of pious beliefs with de fide beliefs. The 39 Articles of Religion very specifically prohibit the teaching of anything not provable by Holy Scripture as being required for salvation (Articles VI and XX).

I am not an expert in Roman Catholicism, but I wonder if you might benefit from popping over to the OBOB board and just getting some clarification on their views of justification, because I'm not entirely sure (and it could be me who is in error) that your interpretation of Trent is correct.

Either way, no Anglo-Catholicism (along with every other form of Anglicanism) rejects the doctrines you are attributing to it. They are counter to the Articles.

By the way, thank you for the responses. They have actually given me more hope that Anglo-Catholics may not be as far away from the Justification by Faith alone position as I thought.

 

[Paidiske]

There are no perfect churches, and as I said, I don't think what the laity think is the issue ... but if leaders in the church actually promote these views, I have a problem with that. I'm not concerned with lonely people in church. I don't care what the laity think. I care about what the presbyters teach.

But my comments are just as true of presbyters, are there not? There are rogue leaders in every group. Just don't sit under them and trust God to sort them out (or at least, that's roughly my approach).

If this statement is true, then I would have no problem with being in communion with Anglo-Catholics, but when they defend the RCC, I get very concerned. I will definitely consider all of this more, however.

Consider that they might be defending the RCC not so much because they agree with it on this point (if they did, after all, would they not logically need to become Catholic?), but for other reasons as much to do with church history and culture and how one defines one's identity.

It's my observation that in many places, Anglo-Catholics feel themselves to be a bit of a persecuted minority in the Anglican church. In my opinion, this "siege mentality" leads them sometimes into taking positions which they would not, if they felt stable and secure. Looking to Rome to justify their position within Anglicanism is one example. It can be less about really agreeing with Rome completely, and more about having someone else on your side of arguments you feel you're losing in synod...

 

[CanadianAnglican]

That's an interesting point, Paidiske. A bit part of Anglo-Catholicism was originally promoting Catholic Anglicanism, which is to say not just Roman style but emphasizing Anglicanism's ties to the undivided Catholic Church. Most people still don't really know much about the Christian East, so it's only natural that they would turn to Rome for support in arguments of that nature, even perhaps sometimes confusing Roman innovations for practices of the undivided Church.

 

[jinc1019]

But my comments are just as true of presbyters, are there not? There are rogue leaders in every group. Just don't sit under them and trust God to sort them out (or at least, that's roughly my approach).

Yes, that's a fair point. There are rogue leaders in every group. But is that really what Anglo-Catholics are, a rogue group? I don't think so. I think they are now part of the fabric of the Communion and are treated like other groups. I don't see any attempt to remove them from the Communion or to demand they change some of their views before being ordained/made bishops, etc.

Consider that they might be defending the RCC not so much because they agree with it on this point (if they did, after all, would they not logically need to become Catholic?), but for other reasons as much to do with church history and culture and how one defines one's identity.

I'm sure there is some truth to what you're saying here, but I also think it's because a number of them agree. The reason they don't become RCC is in many cases because of papal supremacy, infallibility, and other points of disagreement. I don't think I've heard an Anglo-Catholic say, "I can't be in communion with Rome because of its view on justification and the Gospel." Maybe that is said all the time, but I've never heard it or read it.

It's my observation that in many places, Anglo-Catholics feel themselves to be a bit of a persecuted minority in the Anglican church. In my opinion, this "siege mentality" leads them sometimes into taking positions which they would not, if they felt stable and secure. Looking to Rome to justify their position within Anglicanism is one example. It can be less about really agreeing with Rome completely, and more about having someone else on your side of arguments you feel you're losing in synod...

This could also be true, although I don't think Anglo-Catholics have been mistreated much here in America in recent years (at all).

 

[jinc1019]

That's an interesting point, Paidiske. A bit part of Anglo-Catholicism was originally promoting Catholic Anglicanism, which is to say not just Roman style but emphasizing Anglicanism's ties to the undivided Catholic Church. Most people still don't really know much about the Christian East, so it's only natural that they would turn to Rome for support in arguments of that nature, even perhaps sometimes confusing Roman innovations for practices of the undivided Church.

Probably true, and from the Anglo-Catholic position, it's understandable.

 

[Paidiske]

Every person, before being ordained, must on oath give their assent to the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion. The exact formulation differs in different places, but in effect, what you are agreeing to do is be bound by that understanding in your public ministry.

I have a problem with anyone who does that with the full intention of then failing to keep that oath (and some do). That's what I meant above by hypocrisy. But to the extent that an Anglo-Catholic had an understanding of these issues which was incompatible with that doctrine, and the integrity to be bound by their word, then yes, they would be kept from ordination.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes, that's probably true, but as you and I both know, they are able to get around this by sincerely believing the 39 Articles and other things can be interpreted to fit their beliefs. This is what the Tractarians obviously did. I don't think any reasonable historian would argue the Tractarian views were in-line with what the 39 Articles' creators intended.