"Faith", "works" and Medieval Catholic Theology
From another thread:
Yes, because I couldn’t possibly be actually pretty familiar with the Bible, now could I? And it couldn’t be possible that, as someone who’s studied the history of Christianity for many years, the facts of the debate about the roles of faith and works in salvation is a subject I know a bit about, now could it?Originally Posted by Lord Bohemond
No, I must have just done a quick Google search.
I’m actually pretty familiar with its context; both textually and historically.Unfortunately, you fail to see the context of the passage.
Where do you get that from? Here’s the context of that passage:This particular passage refers to treatment of the Jews.
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
(Matthew 24:3)
Jesus then goes on to present what Biblical scholars refer to as the “Matthean mini-Apocalypse”, detailing the imminent end times. In this speech he tells several parables – the Parable of the Virgins, the Parable of the Talents – and then he talks about the “sheep” and the “goats”. All of these parables are about what Israel has to do to avoid the coming cataclysm – (i) “be ready” and (ii) live righteously doing good works.
The “treatment of the Jews” is not mentioned, not implied and not even vaguely relevant. Jesus is specifically saying that salvation in the coming apocalyptic future “Kingdom of God” depends on present actions now – actions that, he says explicitly, include “good works”.
Did I say that anyone (especially Catholics) believe that you are only saved by “works”?This is a SIGN of whether or not you have really repented in your heart. After all, if you really repented, why would you abuse Jesus's peoples?
That aside, if you line up gospels in their most likely chronological order (Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and then John) you find nothing much about “faith” (in Jesus) in the earliest ones, just this emphasis on repentance through right actions (ie “works”). The stuff about “faith”(in Jesus) doesn’t appear until later.
That’s actually a nice summation of Catholic teaching on the subject. And it’s nothing like your erroneous caricature of the Catholic position. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:I disagree. Repentance is about the heart. Actions are a demonstration of the heart - they aren't a requirement in themselves. So a person who has truly repented will try to behave righteously. Someone who is only pretending will not.
Faith shown by works has ever been the doctrine of the Catholic Church and is explicitly taught by St. James, ii, 17: "Faith, if it have not works, is dead." …. it will be evident that faith does not exclude, but demands, good works, for charity or love of God is not real unless it induces us to keep the Commandments.
Perhaps you need to check your facts before posting on subjects where your grasp of things is so shaky. Speaking of which ...
Oh dear …Your ignorance of Christian history is interesting.
Crap. Clearly you’ve never cracked open a work of medieval theology in your life. Take a peek at, say, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. What do you see there? Here’s a taste:Medieval Catholicism was not based on study of the scripture.
As stated above (4,6), to faith those things in themselves belong, the sight of which we shall enjoy in eternal life, and by which we are brought to eternal life. Now two things are proposed to us to be seen in eternal life: viz. the secret of the Godhead, to see which is to possess happiness; and the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, "by Whom we have access" to the glory of the sons of God, according to Rm. 5:2. Hence it is written (John 17:3): "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the . . . true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent." Wherefore the first distinction in matters of faith is that some concern the majesty of the Godhead, while others pertain to the mystery of Christ's human nature, which is the "mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16).
(Summa Theologica, II, 2, i)
John 17:3?! Romans 5:2?!! 1Timothy 3:16?!!! Doesn’t this lunatic realise that “Medieval Catholicism was not based on study of the scripture”?!
Or perhaps you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
Medieval Catholic doctrine was based squarely on the concept of auctoritas – unless you could back something up with evidence from an ancient “authority”, it wasn’t valid. And the “authority” that trumped all the others, which was always cited first and foremost and which dominated every nook and corner of medieval Catholic theology was Scripture.
By the way, if you find those chapters and verses in your Bible useful for finding relevant verses, thank those supposedly Scripturally-ignorant medieval churchmen. They came up with that system to help them in their constant references to and analysis of the Bible.
More crap. Anyone who could read (and their numbers increased steadily as the Middle Ages proceeded) learned to read by reading Biblical texts. Editions of the gospels and the Psalms were the most popular books of the Bible amongst lay people (since few could afford the whole thing before the advent of printing – a full Bible took up a shelf full of expensive volumes and cost the equivalent of a large modern house). One of the impetuses for the invention of printing was the rising levels of lay literacy and a growing market for books, particularly for Bibles. There’s a reason the first book Gutenberg printed was an edition of the Bible: there was a huge market for it.Only the members of the clergy were permitted to read and study it.
Yes, I know that’s not what your Sunday School teacher told you, but she was actually wrong about a lot of things.
More crap. The Scriptues were widely available anyway, including in vernacular translations. They were keen to suppress Protestant editions of them because they included Prefaces that taught doctrines which were considered “heretical”.This system was far too fallible to abuse. If only a select few can see the scripture, they can interpret it any way they like and force their ideas on the general population. This is why they were so desperate to suppress early Protestant distributors of the the scriptures.
This atheist is interested in history. If a Catholic bigot was saying similarly silly, historically inaccurate things about Protestants I’d correct them with about the same degree of “emotion”.Interesting how atheists show so much emotion over something they supposedly don't believe in.
Try taking off your sectarian blinkers and learn some real history.
Reply With Quote
