Sunday Meditation: The Sermon on the Plain Continues

Last week we heard the beginning of Jesus’s Sermon on the Plain.  We heard Luke’s version of the Beatitudes.  Just as in Matthew’s Gospel, Luke’s sermon continues beyond the Beatitudes.  On the Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time in Year C, we get the rest of the sermon.  As we hear, Jesus continues what some have called “the Great Reversal.” 

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

“To you who hear I say,

love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

To the person who strikes you on one cheek,

offer the other one as well,

and from the person who takes your cloak,

do not withhold even your tunic.

Give to everyone who asks of you,

and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

For if you love those who love you,

what credit is that to you?

Even sinners love those who love them.

And if you do good to those who do good to you,

what credit is that to you?

Even sinners do the same.

If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment,

what credit is that to you?

Even sinners lend to sinners,

and get back the same amount.

But rather, love your enemies and do good to them,

and lend expecting nothing back;

then your reward will be great

and you will be children of the Most High,

for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

 

“Stop judging and you will not be judged.

Stop condemning and you will not be condemned.

Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Give, and gifts will be given to you;

a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing,

will be poured into your lap.

For the measure with which you measure

will in return be measured out to you.”

~Lk 6:27-38

Dr. Brant Pitre explains how this is a radical love.

 

As a pastoral homily, I liked Fr. Patrick Briscoe’s connection with this radical love with the lives of the saints.

 

As I just posted the other day, I think the life of Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati would be the perfect saint that Fr. Patrick alludes to.  I think his witness really exemplifies this Gospel passage.

 

Sunday Meditation: “For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you.”

 

I love that quote and it always reminds me of the Shakespeare play where he uses it in the title, Measure for Measure.” 

For the hymn, let’s go with John Michael Talbot’s “The Greatest ‘Tis Love.”

 

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, Post #5

This is the fifth of a series of posts on Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.

You can find Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

Post #3 here.  

Post #4 here.  

 

Book 3: Christian Behavior

Summary for Chapters 7 thru 12:

Chapter 7:  Forgiveness

One the most difficult tenets of Christianity is that one must love our neighbor as ourselves, including the forgiveness of our enemies.  We are only forgiven of our sins on the basis that we forgive other’s sins.  This does not entail that one allows evil to stand unchecked.

Chapter 8: The Great Sin

The greatest sin in Christianity, and this differentiates Christianity from almost all other religions, is the sin of pride or self-conceit.  Pride, which is opposite the virtue of humility, is at the heart of all other sins.  Other sins may bring people together, but the sin of pride brings enmity between man and man and man and God.

Chapter 9: Charity

Charity, which means love in a Christian sense, does not mean emotion or sentimentality.  Charity is an act of the will, which makes it irrelevant whether you are fond of other or not.  Once you treat all people with charity you will find that it will lead to affection for all people.

Chapter 10:  Hope

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. This means that a continual looking forward to the eternal world is not (as some modern people think) a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the things a Christian is meant to do.  We are meant to hope for our final destination that can only be achieved after this life has ended.

Chapter 11: Faith

One sense of the notion of Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.  This rebellion of your moods against your real self is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.

Chapter 12: Faith

Faith in the second sense, the higher sense. arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God’s own.  All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, “You must do this. I can’t.”  Then you are living by Christian faith.

###

Manny’s Comments:

 

The chapter on forgiveness was fairly straight forward.  His explanation of the sin of pride and the need for humility seems to come right out of Thomas Aquinas.  Lewis has a great quote on pride that is worthy of memorizing: “For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.”

 

It is interesting Lewis connects hope with the disparity of the imperfect of the earthly world with the perfect of the heavenly world.  He doesn’t say this in these words but he seems to define hope as the desire to close the gap between the imperfect and the perfect.  That is an interesting way of thinking about it.

 

My thought on hope jumped to Dante’s Divine Comedy, where Dante the character is questioned by St. James on what is hope in Canto 25 of Paradiso.  Dante’s response is this:

 

'Hope,' I said, 'is the certain expectation

of future glory, springing

from heavenly grace and merit we have won.

 

'This light comes down to me from many stars,

but he who first instilled it in my heart

was that exalted singer of our exalted Lord.

 

'"Let them have hope in you," he declares

in his god-song, "those who know your name."

Among those who share my faith, who does not know it?

 

'After he had imbued me with his song,

you poured your epistle down on me so that I,

overflowing, now rain your rain on others.' (Par 25:67-78)

 

To Dante, and this is right out of Medieval scholasticism, hope is the expectation of achieving future glory (beatitude) instilled in him by God through grace.  Hope is not something we do on ourselves, but something given to us.

 

How does this compare with Lewis?   I think Lewis is much more human centered than Dante or the Medieval scholastics.  On the other hand, Lewis does say that desires are innate and therefore must have their satisfaction somewhere, and that somewhere is heaven.  Hope I can’t help feeling is overly simplified here.  Hope is a virtue that is required.  Despair, the opposite of hope, is a mortal sin, and so hope is not just something that seeks satisfaction but something that is connected to salvation.  I’m not saying Lewis is denying any of this, but that he makes it too mundane.

###

Manny’s Comments:

 

It is interesting Lewis divides faith into two parts: one that can be summarized as belief and the other that can be summarized as trust.  It was very insightful for me.

 

The first definition of faith is the belief that the God exists and that the Christian doctrines are true.  Lewis goes on to conclude that faith in this sense is a virtue.  Here is a pertinent passage:

 

Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.

 

In this sense, a Christian must maintain a strength against the fluctuations of doubts.  I love the quote: “Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable.”  That is so true.  I occasionally suffer from such a doubt when in a particular mood, and when I was an atheist I had the same occasional intuition.  We are all prone to have moments of doubts and moments of faith as our daily activities cause us to have thoughts.  Lewis is not saying it is wrong to have such moments, or that we shouldn’t evaluate those moments, but he is saying that a person of faith will not find the moments of doubts compelling.

 

The other type of faith is to live in the trust of God.  We all at some point realize that we don’t have the power to control the plan of our lives.  There are times when a crises or multiple crises hit us that we should step back and “let go and let God” as the saying goes.  That’s not to say we shouldn’t organize our lives and strive for our wellbeing, but at some point things go awry and that is when we need to turn to the Lord.  Perhaps one should think of it as God letting it go awry to test your faith.  Lewis frames it this way: “All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, “You must do this. I can’t.”  Lewis in the chapter speaks of this faith when things come to a crises, but I think one should step back at various points of one’s life and ask God to let Him lead you, crises or not. 

 

Now that I’ve summarized Lewis’s two concepts of faith, I would like to see how that compares to the Biblical definition of faith.  The Letter to the Hebrews has two chapters on faith.  First from chapter eleven.

 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible. (Heb 11:1-3)

 

Indeed the rest of the chapter provides Biblical examples of faith.  Then in chapter twelve, there is more.

 

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.  (Heb 12:1-2)

 

Hebrews chapter 12 goes on to give advice on how one should live one’s life, “enduring trials,” being disciplined to bear “the fruit of righteousness,” strengthening feet and hands, and accepting God’s graces without bitterness.  Between the two chapters of Hebrews, I think we can see both sides of Lewis’s definition of faith.  I think Lewis has explained a difficult Biblical definition of faith simply and well. 

###

This section of Mere Christianity is focused on the theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity (sometimes named as “love” but I think that “charity” is the more accurate term in our contemporary English).  I found this video that fills out more of Lewis’s view of the theological virtues insightful.  It’s a philosophical set of lectures from Reflections on Morality, Philosophy, and History called “Faith, Hope, Charity, and Love in CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity: The Theological Virtues.”

 

Notable Quote: “Prayer is Already Love” by Madeleine Delbrêl

I have seen Madeleine Delbrêl’s name come up in the meditations in the Magnificat magazine before, but I was not aware who she was.  The Vatican declared her as Venerable, which means she might one day be a saint.  She is sometimes called the French Dorothy Day, and indeed there are quite a few parallels.  Delbrêl grew up in an agnostic home, and famously wrote an atheist manifesto at the age of seventeen and lived a Bohemian lifestyle.  When her also atheist boyfriend broke up with her to join the Dominican Order—that must have been some discussion—she started to re-evaluate her beliefs and ultimately had a religious experience and conversion.  I’m not going to get any more biographical but if you wish to learn more you can read from Catholic World Report, “Madeleine Delbrêl’s “writing reenchants everyday life….through Christ’s love” and from America, ”Who is MadeleineDelbrêl—the “French Dorothy Day” Pope Francis made venerable this weekend?”  

 

Now for her magnificent quote on prayer.

 

Praying is establishing normal relations between God and ourselves.  It is converting, returning our spirit, our heart, our will towards God who is constantly our Father and Creator.  Prayer is already love.  It asks for love; it receives love.  But because we are sinners it will always be at times heavy-going, painful, and disconcerting.  From one angle it is already love.  From another it is a kind of necessary but voluntary virtue.

          ~Venerable Madeleine Delbrêl

 

I have taken the quote from Magnificat’s October 2024 issue.  “Prayer is already love,” that knocks my socks off!  “It asks for love; it receives love.”  When I’m deeply praying, I am feeling that.  I know that’s true. 

 

One definitely needs to seek her books out.

 

Sunday Meditation: The Joy of Love

On the sixth Sunday of Easter the Gospel continues with Jesus’s great discourse, and here He gets to the heart of Christianity.  Keep in mind that the second reading is from the First Letter of St. John, where the evangelist makes the astounding declaration that God is Love. 

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

"As the Father loves me, so I also love you.

Remain in my love.

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

just as I have kept my Father's commandments

and remain in his love.

 

"I have told you this so that my joy may be in you

and your joy might be complete.

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.

No one has greater love than this,

to lay down one's life for one's friends.

You are my friends if you do what I command you.

I no longer call you slaves,

because a slave does not know what his master is doing.

I have called you friends,

because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.

It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you

and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain,

so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.

This I command you: love one another."

~Jn 15:9-17

If God is love, then what kind of love is God?  In Greek philosophy there were five kinds of love: Eros, or romantic love; Philia, or love between friends; Storge love between family members; Philautia, or self-love; and Xenia or hospitality.  Jesus uses none of these terms.

What Jesus uses is Agape, and here is a definition from Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

Agape (/ɑːˈɡɑːpeɪ, ˈɑːɡəˌpeɪ, ˈæɡə-/;[1] from Ancient Greek ἀγάπη (agápē)) is "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for [human beings] and of [human beings] for God".[2] This is in contrast to philia, brotherly love, or philautia, self-love, as it embraces a profound sacrificial love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance.

What it comes down to is charity to the point of sacrifice.  That is what Jesus calls us to do.  I’m going to offer two homilies.  First from Fr. Joshua Kibler, C.O. at the Pittsburgh Oratory.

 

Here also is an excellent homily from Bishop Barron.

 

 

That is spot on.  I have grown tired of all the people point out errors of dogma or of flawed morals and have no love.  They are nothing more than “noisy gongs” and “clanging cymbals” (1 Cor 13:1). 

Sunday Meditation: "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you

and your joy might be complete.”

 

Today’s John Michael Talbot song appropriate for the reading, I Found My Beloved.

 

If you didn’t catch the closing lyrics, here they are:

So I have abandoned

All I ever sought to be

And in dying

My spirit has been released

Sunday Meditation: To Hate Your Parents?

Let me only quote the part of today’s Gospel reading that gets everyone’s attention?

 

Great crowds were traveling with Jesus,

and he turned and addressed them,

“If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother,

wife and children, brothers and sisters,

and even his own life,

he cannot be my disciple.

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me

cannot be my disciple.

        Lk 14:25-26

 

Now that is some passage.  Does Christ, who wants us to love all, actually mean that we are to hate the very people closest to us?  One can shrug this off as hyperbole, and it is on its surface, but there is actually something deeper when one understands the Hebrew culture Christ is coming from.

From Aleteia’s article on this passage:

 

In the Bible, the expression “to hate” means “to love less.” For example, in the Old Testament, Leah says the Lord has heard that she was loved less by her husband Jacob (Gen 29:33). The word used in the Hebrew original is precisely the word “hate” (senu’a).

 

The very same word is used by Jesus to indicate that those who want to follow Him must choose loving Jesus as their first and foremost love. Such love does not by any means exclude loving one’s family or oneself. However, the love of Christ is the greater love. 

 

So now let’s jump to the end of the Gospel passage, where Jesus continues:

 

 

“In the same way,

anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions

cannot be my disciple.”

Lk 14:33

 

So, now fully understanding the analogy above, meditate on Christ’s conclusion.

Essay: Justification by Faith But Not Alone

On a particular conservative online board I belong to we have a Catholics group where a few non Catholics are in the group.  They are in the group because they have a pull toward Catholicism but have not converted yet.  One such person, Stina, asked about the differences in justification between Protestants and Catholics.  I gave a series of answers which I will post here on the blog.  Mind you, I am not a learned theologian, so I am only speaking here for me and not as any officially trained theologian for the Catholic Church.  I am only presenting this as I understand the Catholic position on justification.  So don’t take this as an official Catholic Church position, but from a layman who has had a passing non-professional interest.

This is Stina’s question:

Hey Catholics… my church just started a new member class so they are going over their statements of faith. I already know I have some issues there, but I’m doing a deep dive into Calvinism and Arminianism just to figure out what it is they say and where I fit… it’s a lot of needle threading and angels on pinheads. I’m not leaning in either direction.

 

I have some idea on the Catholic view of Ephesians 2:8-10, but can you guys maybe encapsulate your concept of Salvation by grace through faith? I don’t know if it would be better if you know the Protestant theologies or not, so let there be a free for all.

I’m only going to provide my series of responses, and since this was at a board, it’s somewhat disjointed.  I have cleaned up the syntax to make my thoughts clear for the blog post.

###

Response 1:

Stina this is one of the most complicated of questions. I don’t know if I can summarize succinctly but I will try. Two things you first should understand. (1) Protestants and Catholics define justification slightly differently. Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers does a nice job in explaining. Just google “Jimmy Akin Justification” and you’ll see a number of articles. But when you try to reach a level ground in definitions between the two, you find there is not too much difference. (2) Even with the leveling of definitions, Catholics do not believe in the “alone” part of justification. It’s not justification by faith alone.

That said I’ll try to summarize but this may be a bit scattered. St. Peter Damian, he was the Thomas Aquinas from 200 years before Aquinas, said, paraphrasing here, faith is the foundation of justification. Faith is primary on which you need for salvation. It’s from faith that everything else is built on.

Now if you go through the New Testament, you will find several different things delineated as needed for salvation. In some places you need to “repent.” In some places you need to be baptized. In some places you need to take up your cross and follow Jesus. In some places you need to “serve.” [See washing of the feet passage.] Christ says you need to do what he has done. Finally in sum you need to obey Christ’s commandments, which come down to acts of mercy. So doing works is obeying Christ. All the parables hinge on works but see especially Matt 25. The goats on the left all have faith but they are not saved. 

All of this is a result of grace. As Lois says above grace is infused in you, not just by Christ sacrificial death but by a continuous acceptance of the graces God offers every moment. I think Protestants look at grace as a one time thing but Catholics look at grace as a continuous offering from God and you accept as much as you can. Take an act that some Protestants might consider a work, say feeding the hungry in a soup kitchen. If you’re doing it because you feel it gets you to heaven, that’s works righteousness and it does not get you to heaven. We would agree with Protestants there. But if you’re doing it because the poor are in front of you and your compassion is leading you to do it, then are obeying Christ’s commandment to feed the hungry. You are obeying Christ and receiving graces from it. Such grace strengthens your faith, and so conforms your heart to Christ’s heart. That is ultimately salvation: when your heart becomes Christ’s heart. There is a symbiotic relationship between grace and faith.

Not sure I made it clear. I have to run but I’ll be back for a little more.

Response #2:

So let’s look at that passage in Ephesians:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So you can see how all the elements of the argument are there in the passage: faith, grace, works.  Notice how Protestants zero in on line 9: “not by works” but they don’t really have a good explanation for line 10: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works.”  It really ignores St. Paul’s passage in 1 Cor 13.  There he says it’s not faith alone but “faith, hope, and love.”  And by love it’s charitas, charity.  You need all three to shape your heart into Christ’s heart.  In fact, St. Paul even says “If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love (charity), I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.  And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.”  So all the faith in the world without charitas he has nothing, he will sound just like a clashing cymbal.  Sometimes when I hear Protestants argue faith alone it sounds like a clashing cymbal, especially when it leads to “once saved always saved” doctrine.  How ludicrous.  And notice how that dovetails perfectly with Matthew 25: the goats had no charitas and really their argument is just a clashing cymbal.

I recall an argument I had with a Protestant over this, and her comeback to me was “then how much works do you have to do to be saved?”  (paraphrasing).  She thought that was a perfect comeback and that’s because she sees justification as solely “imputed” by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.  Catholics see justification as infused.  We are always before Christ on the cross receiving or rejecting grace.  Scott Hahn describes the differences in this way.  Protestants think of justification as a legal transaction, so that person I argued with makes perfect sense to her line of thinking since she wants to know the contractual details.  But Catholics, Hahn argues, think in terms of covenant, a marriage.  We try to serve our spouse as best we can but surely it’s not perfectly.  My love for my wife can’t be measured in how many times per week I do the dishes but because I want to do the dishes for her as much as I can.  My love for my wife is “infused” with faith in each other and the “works” we have done for each other.

More to come still. 

Stina Replied:

I’m not quite certain how justification is being defined. I’ve heard it used in a myriad of ways that I don’t know if I use it the same as others do.

 

I’m justified by grace through faith. But my faith is justified by works. So grace is what saves me, faith is my response to it, and works are evidence of that faith… while the works are also used by the spirit to sanctify me (because grace). It’s a cycle!

 

If I have no works, my relationship suffers. I become like a dead branch on a tree no longer bearing fruit, As if my faith is dead. Jesus says dead branches are cut off. Hebrews confirms it.

My Reply to Stina:

Simply Stina, justification is the basis on which you are judged for salvation. Protestants like to focus on that because it seems like a court room situation, and the evidence you are presenting to Christ is according to Protestants your faith. But Catholics don’t think of it as a court scene; Catholics think of it as like the prodigal son. He repents and works his way back to his father. Yes, faith compelled him but he had to do other things too. That’s why St. Peter Damian says it’s the foundation of justification but not the totality of salvation. I like to think of it as a resume. You can’t get a job as a mechanical engineer without a degree in mechanical engineering. The degree is a pre-requisite. But that’s not the sole criteria. Your grades are going to play a role in the hiring, your character, your obstacles, the type of school you went to. There are lots of things on that resume. Faith is a pre-requisite but not the sole criteria. You can’t get into heaven without faith but there are other factors too. Ultimately as I said it’s the state of your heart as conformed to Christ.

Another Reply to Stina:

From Stina above:

“If I have no works, my relationship suffers. I become like a dead branch on a tree no longer bearing fruit, As if my faith is dead. Jesus says dead branches are cut off. Hebrews confirms it.”

 

Yes, that’s what I mean by a symbiotic relationship. 

###

Response #3:

In all of this I haven’t even brought up how sin plays a part in salvation.  Protestants never seem to mention sin.  For them all of this is a one-time event, Christ’s crucifixion redeems all sins, past, present, and future.  I don’t quite get the logic but it seems like there is an automatic implied repentance as you live your life.  I find that ridiculous.  But some Protestants do require an internal private repentance.  That’s good, but that shows you it’s not faith alone.  So Protestants have kind of trapped themselves in this faith alone justification.  If you hold to faith alone, then to be philosophically consistent it leads to “once saved, always saved.”  Which is clearly not in the Gospels.  So they’re either violating sola scriptura or they are violating justification by faith alone.

So let’s look at how sin plays apart in this.  Let’s use that marriage analogy.  If I don’t do the dishes one night, it’s a venial sin.  No one is going to say I’m not a good husband because I left the dishes for my wife to do last night.  But it would be a little sin and some retrospection would be in order.  But if my wife were seriously ill and there were out of pocket costs and I said I didn’t want to pay them, well that’s a pretty lousy husband.  That would be a mortal sin.  That would require a huge repentance if you wanted to keep your marriage intact.  Just because you made a one time marriage vow doesn’t excuse that level of reprehension.  Same thing with our relationship with Christ.  We fail on little and big things, venial and mortal sins.  Sin is a part of justification, and is rooted in the lack of obedience I mentioned up above.  We have to follow Christ’s commandments.  We are not excused from moral law, and it plays into salvation.

Which brings us to the sacraments, as WC mentions.  The sacraments are a direct engagement with God’s grace.  Not only does He offer grace to us on a continuous basis He offers it directly in the sacraments.  Certainly the sacrament of reconciliation is a direct means to resolve our sins and therefore be put in a proper “state of grace.”  See the language there.  Grace is being offered continuously but through sin one rejects that grace, and we need to be that prodigal son and return to our Father’s state of grace.  And the other sacraments bring us either closer to God (conforming our hearts) or satisfy the other aspects of justification, such as baptism and repentance.  All the aspects of the Catholic life brings us into justification with Christ. 

Hope that all helps.  There’s a book called “Grace and Justification: An Evangelical’s Guide to Catholic Beliefs” by Stephan Wood.  I haven’t read it really, just flipped through it.  It’s kind of dry as a subject unless you’re really into the theology.  I have seen Wood interviewed and he makes perfect sense.  That’s why I bought the book.  Wood is a convert to Catholicism.  You might be interested.

Now I need to get back to work!  LOL.

My Response to WC:

From WC:

“There also seems to be confusion about “justification” versus “sanctification.” I admit, I don’t quite understand all the different thoughts on justification”

 

Yes. The Calvinist branch of Protestantism completely excludes sanctification. Sanctification is part of justification for Catholics. It’s technically what I said as conforming our hearts to Christ’s heart. Our obedience to Christ, especially through acts of mercy, is a process of sanctification. The Protestant movement of Arminianism rejected Calvinism and did a 180 degree on this is a return to Apostolic Christinaity. Look at their Wikipedia entry. It sounds like they returned to Catholicism on sanctification. But sanctification is a work, and that’s why evangelicals don’t accept it. But look at Methodists. They do. Protestants are all over the place.

###

This is a follow up to the above conversation on the question of justification. Marcus Grodi (from The Coming Home Network) has a wonderful article on this subject in an essay, “Salvation Is Nearer Than You Think.”

Marcus is a convert to Catholicism, a former Presbyterian minister, and the founder of The Coming Home Network, an apostolate focused on helping people, especially Protestant ministers, convert to the Catholic faith, and host of The Journey Home program on EWTN, a TV show where Marcus interviews converts to Catholicism.  In “Salvation Is Nearer Than You Think” Marcus creates a parable of a board game to illustrate how salvation works from a Catholic perspective.  It’s rather interesting and involved, so I would advise you to read it.  But from the parable he derives seven things that God will consider when you stand before him at judgement day.  I’m just going to list them. 

 

1. How we loved God.

2. How we loved.

3. How we indirectly loved.

4. How we grew in grace.

5. How we cared for what we were given.

6. How content we were.

7. How our lives inspired others.

Marcus takes you through the scriptures on how he came to these things.  Yes, they are scripturally based.  Somehow Protestants only seem “to see” the faith dependent passages in the New Testament, but there are a whole host of other passages that show salvation is dependent on more than faith.  He summarizes the overarching content of these things with this paragraph.

 

As to the relationship between works and righteousness, faith and love, the “instructions inside the lid of the box” state that “faith apart from works is dead” (Jam 2:26), or as a joint Lutheran-Catholic statement put it: “We confess together that good works — a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love — follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. . . . Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.”

Finally he comes to the same conclusion that I did above.

 

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church warns that Catholics safely home in the Church can still miss the mark: “Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved” (no. 837). Essentially and succinctly, as put by Thomas Howard:

 

There is only one agenda for all of us Christians, namely, our growing into conformity to Jesus Christ, that is to say, our being made perfect in Charity. We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and at that tribunal there is not one test for Protestants and another for Catholics. All of us have arrived there by grace, and all of us are “washed in the blood of the Lamb”, and all of us are to have been configured to Christ.

 

To a very significant extent, all sin is a failure to love; all divisions and schisms are a failure of charity; and all abuse and misuse of God’s Creation is a failure to love Him.

As I tried to describe above, sin, charity, and the sacraments lead the Christian either to conform his heart to that of Jesus’ heart or irrevocably away from it.  That, finally, is justification.

###

Now finally, to give you a third perspective, here is a Catholic theologian explaining it all in a theologian’s way.  This is the amazingly brilliant Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Joseph_White  here with the Thomistic Institute but he is now rector at the Angelicum, the Pontifical University in Rome, explaining in a YouTube video the relationship between grace and justification. 

 

How did I do as an amateur theologian?  I probably would not receive a passing grade from Fr. Thomas Joseph.  ;)

###

One more thing.  I’ve given you an uneducated layman’s perspective (me), an educated everyman’s perspective (Marcus), and a theologian’s perspective (Fr. Joseph Thomas).  Now a one line scriptural perspective.  From the Gospel of John:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.  (Jn 3:36)