Pope Benedict's terminology for this is Et Et here:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogs...reat-et-
et.html
Catholicism, somewhat simplistically, has always been considered the religion of the great "et et" ["both-and"]: not of great forms of exclusivism but of synthesis. The exact meaning of "Catholic" is "synthesis".
This "both/and" thing is so hard to get used to after all those years of Protestant teaching. According to the description of heresy in this post, I've been a heretic! lol I thought I was doing things right. I LIKE that the Catholic Church says "both/and". It makes the Bible into a multi-faceted gem, rather than a flat piece of glass. You've taught me much, Dave.
I can't think of any topic that demonstrates this better than discussing Sola Fide with a hyper Calvinist. I've actually read stuff one who went so far as to say that James was simply wrong, and not worthy to be called an Apostle (If you think I'm kidding, go visit bibletruthonline.com... at your own risk.).
It's the many "solas" that feed this mindset. To some people, "Soli gloria Deo" rules out any other motivation for God other than his own glrification and satisfaction. Sola fide rules out St. James. sola scriptura has these people so focused on either /or that they falsely claim we believe "Sola Ecclesia" simply becasue they can't begin to imagine a universe where God could have more than ne means of interacting with His children. And of course, for some brands of Protestants the fact that we recognize their Christianity, and the can't recognize any but their own is the ultimate in dichotomy. You might think some of these anti-catholic blog sites present a united front--until you sit back and watch them interact with one another. These sort remind me of the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings: Place a single Catholic in their midst and they'll toss aside 5oo years of rancor for the moment until the Papist is quelled, but take away their hatred of the Church and their hatred of one another consumes them. Have you ever seen a KJV fanatic attack a James White wannabe? It's brutal.
By the way, have you noticed that any blog or website that has the words "bible truth" in its URL or name is highly unlikely to contain much? Wierd.
As I on my blog about this subject, ONE TRUE CHURCH, in a still "unsent" reply to my friend's statement, (but which Marcus and Rob Evans handled exquisitely on the program last night to my emailed query) my friend, basially said: "No denomination has all the Truth, though one might have started out with it, our human-ness has caused many "un-truth" adjustments."
After reading that to my husband yesterday a.m. he said, "Well, that proves to me that she must know what the "TRUTH" is." And yes, I'm sure she thinks she does. But I want to write her back and say, I agree, no "Denomination" does have all the Truth, however, the CC isn't a denomination. It's the Pre-denominational Church of CHRIST! He didn't build churches, but A CHURCH.
For 26 years, we'd wandered in the Evangelical fray, belonging to only 3 fellowships in that time, because I was always seeking "community" and stability. I hated the way so many just 'church hopped' and always seeking the 'perfect church' which made them "happy" and fit "their theology" and would leave when things occurred that didn't sit well.....a new worship leader, or a change in this or that. Oh my, it was so "ME" centered!! I think that's why I be so 'on fire' for a few years and then fall back into major sin and complacency in my walk...hungry for so much more, but not ever thinking it was back in the "stodgy" "tradiitional" "archaic" old Catholic Church! LOL the Joke was on me! Now, after 3 years, I can't get enough of Jesus and His Church! The safety! The gift of apostolic authority! The priesthood and the Sacraments! I can only join with St. Augustine..."TOO LATE HAVE I LOVED THEE!" But with much gratitude, at least I finally said "yes" to the TRUTH and found Him, the Truth, the Way and the Life, in His CHURCH.
Great post, Dave! Thank you! And hope to chat with you soon on the forums or Live Chat. : )
Wow, Susie! That was you who emailed the show? Kewl. I'll have to listen to the audio version to catch it. I wish they would archive a video version.
Excellent, Susie. Your enthusiasm is very infectious! Nice to have a woman for a change on my blog, too. LOL I look forward to chatting. "C'mon down"!
Historically, one can date this approach [private judgment] from Martin Luther's "stand" at the Diet of Worms in 1521, when he appealed to Scripture alone and claimed that the Church and Councils "can and do err." That was a big turning point.
That's simply not going to hold historically. Not that it's a big deal from your perspective, but anyone familiar with Medieval and Reformation studies recognizes the so-called proto-Protestants, John Wycliffe and Jan Huss being prominent examples. Of course, more examples would have been produced had more people had a Bible and education to study it, but this wouldn't happen until the printing press and economic advances in society. Also, just as importantly, the "protesters" needed geographic space to not be killed by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC was able to kill and suppress "heretics" until Northern European princes allowed otherwise.
Of course, there are precursors to anything, but 1521 was when these changes took hold, and were incorporated into ongoing belief-systems, which is why it was a turning point. IOW, "Both/and". 
“. . . Catholics say that our works demonstrate our response to our salvation.”
On face value, that is the same position, or at least very close to what classical Protestantism says, and the way we understand James 2:14-26. Good works demonstrate our faith. They are the results and fruits of true faith and true salvation.
But that is not what Canon 24 of the Council of Trent said.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
Sproul comments on this:
“If there is a point to quibble with Rome about in canon 24, this is it. Rome speaks of works being considered (presumably by the Reformers) as being “merely the fruits and signs of justification”. The Reformers did consider works to be fruits and signs of justification, but they did not consider this a small or insignificant thing, as might be suggested by the word merely.” (Faith Alone, p. 157)
Sproul comments with his contemporary view of the already "developed" doctrine and not with the doctrine to which the Coucil speaks against. Which were the original challenges brought up by the reformers.
In which if that is the case that indeed protestants hold them selves to that rational. Then I would suggest that protestants, in this case, have separated them selves from the reformers and have come closer to the understanding of the Church.
Hi Ken, perhaps since both Lutherans and Catholics have now cut through the semantics and get to the heart of the issue, that is why they were able to reach an accord on justification.
Giovani,
Sproul spends a whole page on the same canon 24 of quotes from Calvin (P. 156); but it is too much to type out. So, since he was contemporary with Trent and interacted with it; Sproul's comments are not a modern contemporary understanding.
Paul,
Thanks for that point -- only some Lutherans did that (the most liberal bodies of Lutherans, right?)
Everytime I have tried to read all that stuff, I get a headache and tired of trying to understand it.
Did the Lutherans move more toward RCC or did the RCC change? Conservative Evangelical Protestants view it as a betrayal of the gospel and the Reformation; as was ECT.
Hi Ken, I get headaches too trying to understand things like that and I am an attorney who reads things for a living. As I understand it, neither changed their positions. They both recognized that each other positions were actually not different, but because of semantics and terminology used, it only made them look like their positions were different. As far as whether they are liberal or not, I do not know.
I brought up the point because I would suggest that on many issues (not all), I think that Catholics and Protestants can agree on if they cut through verbiage and get to the heart of doctrines. There is far more that makes us brothers in Christ than what separates us.
Thanks Paul.
I appreciate your comment about headaches with all the reading you have to do as an attorney and that the Justification accord with RCC and Lutherans also seemed too complicated.
The Biblical gospel is much clearer than all the verbiage and semantics, true.
Dave's above post on "getting to heaven" based on works seems to go against what he said here.
Judgment, condemnation will be based on your works, (and all are condemned; finished, hopeless) -- unless you have the righteousness of Christ covering you; (and that righteousness is counted to you by faith alone apart from works) and all good works of a true believer are the confirmation of real faith; works that are "wrought in God" (John 3:18-21).
"If anyone's name was not found in the book of life, they were thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15
He who believes in Me, has passed out of judgment, passed out of death into life." John 5:24 paraphrase -- getting tired.
Commenting by HaloScan
