# Council of Trent Help: Justification



## Romans922 (Dec 17, 2007)

This coming Sunday I am teaching a Sunday School class on RC view of Justification and then leading in to Luther/Calvin on Justification.

I am reading over the Council of Trent stuff and on justifcation chapter 8 it says the following:

"And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but 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." 


Can someone explain what is going on here, I am just utterly confused. 



Also, if anyone knows anything else from the Council of Trent that would clearly show the RC's view of justification (faith + works, etc.) that would be VERY VERY Helpful. thanks.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 17, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> This coming Sunday I am teaching a Sunday School class on RC view of Justification and then leading in to Luther/Calvin on Justification.
> 
> I am reading over the Council of Trent stuff and on justifcation chapter 8 it says the following:
> 
> ...





Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema. (see note 1)

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.


Rome teaches that God helps man to do good works and hence to fully satisfy the Law. Only then is a person qualified to enter heaven. The Council of Trent elaborates this idea in chapter 16:

"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, - as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, - and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God, - we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace..."


Andrew: the crux is infused vs imputed righteuosness


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2007)

> Rome teaches that God helps man to do good works and hence to fully satisfy the Law. Only then is a person qualified to enter heaven.



 Now where have we heard something like this before...oh yes, from the Federal Visionists.

Note: the Federal Vision movement is closer to Rome than to Geneva.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

Rome is basically saying that faith has something to do with justification but maintains its anathema of justification _sola fide_. Faith is considered a gift but the believer must maintain this faith as well as perform good works in order to be justified. And, of course, to the degree which one cleanses himself of all sin and becomes a perpetual do-gooder (with God's help), one is justified, hence purgatory for those who need to have the cleansing process completed after death.


----------



## A5pointer (Dec 17, 2007)

I have been told that Rome has moved away from the trent theology regarding works. Is that true?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Rome is basically saying that faith has something to do with justification but maintains its anathema of justification _sola fide_. Faith is considered a gift but the believer must maintain this faith as well as perform good works in order to be justified. And, of course, to the degree which one cleanses himself of all sin and becomes a perpetual do-gooder (with God's help), one is justified, hence purgatory for those who need to have the cleansing process completed after death.



They also have a different understanding of what faith _is_ - historic Protestant theology sees faith in essence as an act of _trust_, with _resting_ and _receiving_. Rome sees faith more as as act of _loving_, where God's being the object continually results in faith_fulness_, which itself really gets more to the heart of the Roman understanding of faith.

Andrew, I'm not exactly sure what's meant by the portion you underlined. One possible interpretation is that neither faith nor works merit the grace (substance) that is given to help believers along in obtaining justification, but that God chooses to undeservedly give us that helpful grace (often via the sacraments; even though He's not inherently obligated to give those sacraments so as to provide a means for that grace, and we certainly didn't merit Him choosing to do so) which in turn enables us to live a saving life of faith (read: love and faithfulness). But even though that understanding of grace, the sacraments, merit, etc. is consistent with Roman theology, whether or not it's what was particularly in mind with your underlined portion is merely a guess on my part. Fred?


----------



## Poimen (Dec 17, 2007)

A5pointer said:


> I have been told that Rome has moved away from the trent theology regarding works. Is that true?



It would be difficult, to say the least, to reconcile such a claim with recent promulgation of indulgences. 

ZENIT - New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist


----------



## mvdm (Dec 17, 2007)

R.C. Sproul's "Getting the Gospel Right" provides very helpful examination of the differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic views of justification, faith, etc. He wrote the book in the context of examining the Evangelical and Catholics Together {ECT} movement. He ably demonstrates {as others here have pointed out} that Catholic dogma is speaking a fundamentally different language than found in the 5 solas. He also shows how ECT was a capitulation on those solas by evangelicals.


----------



## sotzo (Dec 17, 2007)

Sometimes it is difficult to understand why God allowed there to be so much disagreement and confusion about salvation. I'm saying this in reverent fear of God...it is just that there is no "do over" when it comes to one day standing before him staring eternity in the face.

I imagine this is why in the final analysis it is either mercy or we are hopeless.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 17, 2007)

Going along with my questions above: how would a Catholic and Protestant describe 'infused righteousness' in a couple of sentances that would be easy to understand. I want give a handout for the class that defines terms and I am looking for a clear definition (without much bias/slander) of infused righteousness.
How could I make this better?

Is this adaquate?: 

*[FONT=&quot]Infused Righteousness in Justification (Roman Catholic View)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]**[FONT=&quot]This view holds that the righteousness of Christ is the basis for justification (just like the Protestant view), but that this righteousness is given to the believer who must cooperate with and assent to that gracious work of God, and only to the extent that Christ's righteousness “inheres” in the believer will God declare the person justified. 

[/FONT]*How could I make this better?


----------



## A5pointer (Dec 17, 2007)

I see it simpler. The issue is merit. As with Luther's dung hill, the question becomes whether an object has intrinsic merit or foreign merit only.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 18, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Going along with my questions above: how would a Catholic and Protestant describe 'infused righteousness' in a couple of sentances that would be easy to understand. I want give a handout for the class that defines terms and I am looking for a clear definition (without much bias/slander) of infused righteousness.
> How could I make this better?
> 
> Is this adaquate?:
> ...


*
Alien Righteousness*. It is completely outside of us. Not infused in us. We do not become righteouss in ourselves, only through Christ.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 18, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Going along with my questions above: how would a Catholic and Protestant describe 'infused righteousness' in a couple of sentances that would be easy to understand. I want give a handout for the class that defines terms and I am looking for a clear definition (without much bias/slander) of infused righteousness.
> ...



Not to be mean but did you read my question? I asked if the definition I provided for INFUSED RIGHTEOUSNESS was an adequate one to explain to a Sunday School class who might not have ever heard of these terms.


----------



## raekwon (Dec 18, 2007)

That's not a bad one-sentence definition, but you'll definitely want to flesh that out, depending on how well your class grasps theological terminology. Usually when I explain infused righteousness, I start off with the Reformed doctrines of justification (imputed, declared righteousness) and sanctification (progressive, actual* righteousness), explain those, and then explain how the Roman doctrine of infused righteousness is something of an amalgamation and confusion of the two.

* and I hate using the word "actual" here, because it can make it sound like I'm saying that the righteousness given to us in justification is somehow "fake" . . . but you know what I mean.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 18, 2007)

^^^ What he said.

But yeah, rather than going into all the nuances and implications of each view, I've found that people are usually able to best start getting a real idea of the two when I initially just try to get at the basic concept of an _external_, _declared_ or _judicial_ righteousness (imputed) versus an _internal_, _actual_ or _observable_ righteousness (infused).


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 18, 2007)

Not possible, it is a church history class, not a simply a theology class so I have to go into the nuances and implications of each view. If it was a theology class, I would just tell them what is right.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 18, 2007)

I like R.C. Sproul's *Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification*. Chapter 5 deals with "imputed righteousness" and chapter 6 treats the RC idea of "infused righteousness." R.C. also has a number of MP3 lectures for download that explain the issue very clearly at the lay level. You would need to look far and wide to find a more succinct and clear explanation of the differences between the Reformation and the RC view.

Spoul is often critiqued for failing to catch the seismic changes in RC theology, particularly post Vatican 2. However, if the consultation between the Lutherans and the RC church a few years back is any indication, most of the changes seem to have taken place by wishy-washy Protestants willing to surrender their birthright (and the Reformation solas) for the tepid cereal of paper agreements that mean next to nothing.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 19, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Not possible, it is a church history class, not a simply a theology class so I have to go into the nuances and implications of each view. If it was a theology class, I would just tell them what is right.



Sorry, I didn't mean only talk about one view...just that with each view, I've usually found it helpful to initially just get at that basic conceptual distinction I mentioned above, before trying to further flesh out all the various ways it relates to justification, sanctification, etc.


----------

