The Doctrine of Justification: The True Gospel

The RCC is quite a wordy bunch so they do not have a one line statement about justification. I've linked the page in the catechism that deals with grace, justification and merit. It is quite long but I've highlighted a few statements that I think summarizes their view most effectively and is most relevant to this discussion.

Any discussion on Catholics and Justification should also include the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification co-authored by Ratzinger and Lutherans and officially accepted by the RCC in 1999. I think the bolded portion is most significant because of the RCC's historical position on sola gratia, but the rest of the document is also quite important.

 

Thanks, Johnv and Gold Dragon for answering my request.

The two statements on justification af first glance sound very much Biblical with two major exceptions. To Catholics, justification is directly tied to baptism.

From the catechism

This statement appears to be at odds with much of what has gone before.

The second exception is when it states that justification conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just....

In my view, justification confers on us the righteousness of Christ. We can never be just enough to satisfy God's justice. God doesn't make us inwardly just. He simply declares us just based on the merits of the Christ and his righteousness.

Sanctification is another matter, but that's not what we're dealing with here.

 

Yes. This is a commonly debated difference and is one of the main reasons that protestants say that Catholics believe in a works based salvation, because grace hinges on the "work" of Baptism.

I would say that the Catholic perspective on this isn't all that different from how many protestants view the "sinner's prayer". It is something we do to accept his free gift of grace.

 

I'm not sure I see the difference between God declaring us just and making us inwardly just. Would you care to clarify?

I think that we can, through justification.

But maybe I'm not understanding what you mean here.

 

I think the Catholic view of justification is in part what non-Catholics call sanctification. As far as I know, they do not have the view that one is declared righteous upon faith in Christ, and they reject the doctrine of imputation of righteousness upon faith. These are cornerstones of doctrine for non-Catholic faith.

Furthermore, justification, acc. to the Council of Trent, is a man becoming righteous, not merely declared righteous.

A good book on the differences is Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Both non-Catholics and Roman Catholics endorsed the book as a balanced discussion that gave accurate and fair treatment of the Roman Catholic teachings.

Chapter 12 on Justification is in the section under "Differences." It is a complex chapter that covers many areas of Catholic and non-Catholic teaching on justification, showing the differences.

It's interesting to me that 6 pages passed here before the topic was really addressed. As soon as someone started the topic, non-Catholics jumped in to proclaim Catholic bashing. It is not Catholic bashing to discuss this topic. There are differences.

 

Yes, there are differences, but these have been exaggerated as part-and parcel of the 16th century Reformation and Counter-Reformation polemics causing both sides to, to a degree, talk past each other.* A cursory read of both the canons of the Council of Trent and the Lutheran Book of Concord will demonstrate that. It's taken the Joint Declaration to undo much of that mutual misunderstanding.

*[ETA - thus Lutherans condemned what they thought Catholics believed, not what they actually believed, and vice versa. We see much the same syndrome on these boards...]

 

Actually, the Council of Trent declared us all anathema for believing in salvation by grace.

 

I'm not sure that it anathematizes anyone for believing in salvation by grace since that is what Catholics believe - they'd scarcely go round anathematizing themselves, now would they?

 

First of all, Catholics do not believe in salvation by grace.

Second, yes, it does call those who believe in salvation by grace anathema:

 

Funny, I didn't see any mention of grace in that Tridentine quote you gave. And I think you'll find that Catholic do believe in salvation and justification by grace: see here

 

Doesn't surprise me.

 

Er...because the word isn't there.

 

Neither is the word "Trinity" found in the Bible. Do you deny the Trinity, as well?

 

Nope. But we are not talking about the Bible here (and you should know by now that I don't think that every jot and tittle of doctrine is to be found solely in the Bible); we are talking about a Tridentine Canon. And I've demonstrated in my link to the Catechism above that it's most unlikely that a Catholic Church Council would deny salvation by grace. So, putting that together, we've got:

1. The Canon you quote doesn't state that salvation by grace is anathema; and

2. Catholics believe in salvation by grace

My conclusion: I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

 

I see some weaving. This was the original issue in regards to Matt Black pointing out a problem with one of your claims:

The justification you provided:

Council of Trent way back in the 1500's
"If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema" (Session 6, Can. 12).​

Matt Black rightly pointed out that this quote does not have the word "grace" -- which means that your claim is not amply supported by the evidence you gave.

 

No, I don't believe that. As a Christian, I believe 2 Tim 3. The idea that there are extra-Biblical sources of doctrine is a Catholic idea, not a Christian one.

Yes, I can see how "LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" would have confused you.

And I believe you're an anti-Christian troll who's just here to mock our beliefs and stir up trouble.

 

n/t Done feeding the trolls.

 

Ah. Now which bit of II Tim 3 would that be: the bit where Paul talks about Scripture (vv.15-16) or the bit where he talks about non-Scriptural doctrinal sources (v14)?

No, no confusion at all. I'm just saying I'm struggling to see the word 'grace' there attached to the anathema. Maybe you left a bit out. Oh wait - I've looked up the wording and you didn't - 'grace' isn't there in the original either. So it's a straw man.

No, I'm a Christian who is prepared to call someone on it when they are patently talking nonsense, injecting a word into a statement that just isn't there. If you have to resort to base crude insults that merely demonstrates how far you are from any credible argument. You're so far out you're not even wrong; like the Irish saying, "I wouldn't start from here."