What do Catholics Believe About Justification? (w/ Jimmy Akin) 

As a Catholic, I started to read the Bible and found a lot of things that don't sound Catholic. Such as "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.". What! And, "For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God". What! Or, "But as many as received Him, to them gave He authority to become the sons of God" Whaat!

The first step in salvation is not repent! It is LOOK! The Bible says "Looking unto Jesus"...! This comes first. We must See Jesus! This is so important. For a great illustration, look up the salvation story of Charles Spurgeon.

@@jeromepopiel388 if U only stated to read the Bible, then U were most likely never a Catholic. Blessed are all men whosoever repent and believe, for the Kingdom of God is theirs". Wasn't that in your missile, catechism or the Bible u didn't read?

@@Gericho49 please show me where it says "repent and believe" in the Baltimore Catechism? That is all we had in the 60s.

@@jeromepopiel388 Did you ever participate in Lent in any way? We literally dedicate a whole liturgical season of reminding ourselves that we need to repent and believe in the Gospel. Like come on man

How about receiving all the merits of Christ, all His righteousness, and even His glory, via union in Christ...apart from earning or charity or any kind of cooperation on our part, except for faith in Christ which is itself a gift from God since Christ PRODUCES saving faith?

@@soulosxpiotov7280 How do we have faith in Christ?

@@phoult37 God draws us to Him (John 6:44), and is indeed God's work - this is the work of God, that you believe (John 6:29). God grants repentance (the ability to change one's mind) (2 Tim 2:24-26), and that saving faith that results in justification & eternal life is authored by the Author and Finisher of one's faith, Jesus Christ (Heb 12). When one calls on the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13), saying "Lord, forgive me a sinner" and NOT "Okay Lord, I did this and I did this and I did this and I REALLY REALLY REALLY TRIED to cooperate to someone SOMEHOW obtain merit to obtain justification & charity and eternal life - okay God... YOU OWE ME! (per Luke 18, Romans 4) - but instead comes humbly to the Lord asking for forgiveness of sins - this is saving faith, a faith that is RECEIVED (2 Peter 1:1). A faith produced by Christ.

@@soulosxpiotov7280 So saving Faith means saying specific words? I ask because you claim salvation has nothing to do with the individual's actions, but then go on to state what the person must do...which seems like a contradiction to me.

@@phoult37 People are saved with a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5). "That if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" (Romans10) is the aorist subjunctive mood - it isn't continuous action but an action as the result of a previous action, regardless of time (past, or even future) - Calling on the name of the Lord is an outcome of what was already happening in the heart, that is, Jesus having that person trust in Him. Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but Christ produces that faith to begin with. There is a distinction between faith, which is trust, which the Lord produces, and personal action (weekly 'feeding of the Eucharist', building orphanages, giving glasses of water, not committing adultery, doing good works a little here and a little there, personal cooperation to somehow 'obtain Christ's merits to hopefully build up enough at the end of one's life so as to receive final justification' - these kinds of personal self works and the work of God that works on the heart of someone in trespasses and sins who is TOTALLY incapable of coming to faith apart from God's work - are two separate things. By the way, righteousness is still needed nonetheless, and goodness - but perfect righteousness and goodness. If you obey the Law of Moses, the mosaic law PERFECTLY, YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, then you would be justified (Romans 2:13). This would get you as far as paradise, as was the case with Abraham (Luke 16). However - to have eternal life, which is to know the Father and fellowship with the Father - you must be THE DOING THE GOOD (Romans 2:10) - you, essentially, would have to be As Good As GOD. And further, we fall short of His glory! (Romans 3:23). So we must obey the mosaic law PERFECTLY, be as good as God, and not fall short of His glory. IT IS FOR THIS REASON why we need (1) Christ's righteousness and also (2) His Glory (Phil 3:9, 2 Thess 2:14). This is impossible for lost sinners and therefore only obtained by union in Christ, and thus only obtained by FAITH PLUS NOTHING. Trying to obtain a little bit of merit, a little here and a little there, is totally futile. It's either Christ and His righteousness and His glory - or it's nothing. But you cannot approach God with "okay God, I'm giving you something, But You Must Pay Me Back!" NOPE - you can only approach God with an open empty hand, with NO works of your own with NO self-justification. God is not in the business of owing anyone anything. I really hope you grasp what I'm saying, and that He will lead you to a true saving faith in His Son. No other hope. .

I’m so glad you feel that way! That’s my goal

@@GospelSimplicity When Mr. Akin mentioned that Catholics and Protestants often talk past one another, it struck me that that might be why I thought one of your guests wasn't expressing the theology of the Eucharist in a way that "sounded right" to me. I can't remember his name, and I have to return to that video to listen to the whole thing, because that's right about when I joined the Livestream. I couldn't keep up with the chat to type up my thoughts fully, and ended up being really sloppy, which I apologize for. It would've been better if I had just "shut up and listened." Anyway, after reflecting on it, I wondered if the guest had used language that's more familiar to Protestants in order to facilitate communication. I'm not a theology major, and I wasn't immersed in theology growing up, but there's definitely vocabulary I picked up from childhood which is very different from what my Protestant friends were learning. It saddens me now that we decided to remain friends by just not talking about religion except in the most general terms. I very much appreciate that you facilitate these discussions. I listen to your interviews with non-Catholics to help me learn. Thank you!

I would agree that directly insulting each other would in fact be an attack. Where the problem lies is that some people have the viewpoint that so much as disagreeing is in itself an attack. True, people do talk past each other, but is every single person truly desires to know what Scripture says?

Glad it was helpful!

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

@@richlopez5896yeah, Cyprian was wrong here. Peter doesn’t have any authority of his own. He never sat down on a chair and did what St. Cyprian claims he did. Peter calls himself a fellow elder. He’s just another one of the elders. He wasn’t the first pope. He didn’t establish the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, Christ telling him to feed my sheep, lambs, etc., is Christ rehabilitating Peter after Peter denied Christ three times. Matthew chapter 16 and so on is in the context of church discipline. Has nothing to do with the papacy. Also, the rest of the apostles were given the keys as well, and it ultimately rests with Christ. Roman Catholicism is built on centuries of tradition and military and political actions. There is no biblical precedence for Rome’s dogmas.

It is called the Catholic Church. Rome only refers to the Roman Rite of it. All of the apostles served as the first bishops and would later appoint others to serve as bishop. The entire New Testament was composed by members of the Catholic Church. It was the Council of Rome that set the canon of scripture which gave us the Bible. The word "Bible" was coined by Pope Siricius. The New Testament contains the names of 3 Popes. St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Clement I.@@KnightFel

​@richlopez5896 it's called quote mining, actually.. where is the quote from a different Father saying something different?

Intrusive blasphemous thoughts are also very hard to deal with.

So true 😂

Yes! Two authentic gentlemen. Love Austin’s simplicity,’🙏

I thought the same thing 😂

Haha so true!

Thank you for that comment. That was very helpful and insightful. You are very thoughtful. I hope that you have a wonderful and blessed day

Amen brother, I think the same thing!

He is definitely inspirational that way.

Hi, there Seems you are from India, especially from Andhra Pradesh? Correct me if I am wrong Reason why I am messaging you is that Can I find any Indian catholic apologetic group? Any where in social media.? Actually I am into apologetics so need some fraternity to have discussion and thought sharing Thank you

@@TheMarymicheal Hi, Arun. That's true. 🙂 I think there's an FB group titled, Catholic Faith Telugu. Also there's a guy called Srujan Segev who's into apologetics.

@@sisirkattempudi7155 wow, that's so ironic, I am in that group, and he is in contact with me. Good to know from you. But problem is that it's not that I want a fb account page , But a few membered group where I can have regular conversation

We really love it! There are different kinds. Some are more informal with contemporary music. We’re at a cathedral which is definitely more high church with hymns. I would definitely recommend visiting one and see how you like it.

@@NR-xn9ji Just a reminder. The Anglican church was developed by Catholic missionaries. It is not an original church. The Catholic Church is the only one founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you truly want to receive the fullness of truth you must take yourself to a Catholic Church and ask to participate in inquiry classes so you'll know. Warning! The Holy Spirit will be opening your heart and mind throughout your journey. May God bless your discernment.

Came out of Methodism last year after 20 years. Enjoying the most joy and closeness to Jesus than I thought possible!!!!

@@PatrickSteil Patrick, Welcome home.

@@joecastillo8798 Thanks Joe! I feel closer to Jesus than I ever have! The Deposit of Faith as protected, taught and defended by the Catholic Church is a true miracle!!!

That would be a fun dinner!

I'll be having dinner with Jimmy at the Catholic Answers Conference in San Diego September. Im attending to hear all the CA speakers and guest speakers, Mrs is there to line dance with Jimmy which he is famous for leading.

Pints with Aquinas is as close as we get.

Akins is a disinformation shill. I have proof.

Brant Pitre is arguably the best living theologian

I’ve tried to get him on. He’s very difficult to book!

@@GospelSimplicity Keep trying.

Yes, he is amazing!!!! And also, very loving, kind and gentle! The best part is he knows the ancient Jewish culture and how they thought and did things on a daily basis, like work, play , family life and What certain beliefs were all about. The ancient Jews were very superstitious about many things and how they believed on. Certain matters directly tells us how many parts of scripture are to be interpreted. Unfortunately, our precious protestant brothers and sisters in Christ have not learned certain ancient Jewish cultural histories, and, therefore, i believe, this is why there is such a large disconnect between us regarding correct interpretation of scripture. For example, the ancient Jews had superstitions about putting their heads under the water in, specifically, a "moving" body of water. They would have never have done that. They thought that the leviathan (a sort of serpent demon) would/could get them. Simple logic and reason also plays out in this situation...the situation of baptism. The first baptisms which were done by Saint John the Baptist, were done in the Jordan River....a "RIVER". The water is flowing/moving, and cold, and dangerous to get into up to a certain point, especially with currents pushing and swirlingthe water around makingit difficult to stand in. John was on the banks of the Jordan and when the people stepped into the water, the water was barely up to their knees. They knelt down and John bent over and scooped up water with his hands and "poured" the water over the heads of the people. There is great symbolism here in the "pouring " of saving waters. During the passover, the Last Supper , Jesus took the third cup of blessing and said, "This is my Blood which will be "poured" out for many." The third cup, the cup which we bless, is the cup of salvation. This sacrificial passover meal took place at precisely the same time that lambs all over the city were being slaughtered for everyone's passover meals. This was done by hanging the lamb upside down and slitting it throat so that the blood could drain out. The actual act of doing this, in English, is called the "pouring out". The meat would be roasted to eat. In the minds of the jews, this was so much more than a simply "reenactment". They considered this celebration as an actual "participation" in the very first original passover night. What many protestants miss, is that on that fateful night, after they slaughtered the lamb and spread the blood on the door posts, they had to cook and eat the lamb. They had to partake in the communion of God by eating the lamb. This covenant with God, meant to bring his people closer to Him, to be together with Him , to live in Him, to "commune" with Him and in Him, through this communion of sacrificial flesh, required actually eating of the flesh of the lamb. Only after eating of the flesh of the lamb was the covenant sealed and the angel of death would "pass over" your house. If you slaughtered the lamb, spread the blood, and did those outward signs of the covenant, but did not eat of the flesh of the lamb, the next morning, your first born would be dead. You had to eat the lamb. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. The perfect, unblemished Lamb of the New Covenant. We must eat of the Lamb. This is not canabolisn. This is why Jesus allows this miracle of His Body and blood to come and be present within the bread and wine. The substance retains all of the attributes of bread and wine, but hold within the very substance the real presence of Jesus Christ. During the Mass, (which by the way, the format of the proceedings of what is celebrated during the Mass is identical to the explanations of what took place in the Mass during the first century and we know this from the writings of the Church Fathers, and that they believed in the real presence. ), WE DO NOT "RE-CRUCIFY" Jesus. We are actually, through a mighty miracle, participating in the first , one and only, crucifixion of our Lord Jesus. During every Mass, we are at the foot of the cross. This is true WORSHIP! True worship involves sacrifice. Protestants have a big stage, not an alter, A preacher, Not a priest, and big band music. Upon the death of Jesus, a spear was thrust into His side, penatrating His heart. Blood and water together, POURED OUT. In closing, the pouring out of water goes hand in hand with the sacrifice of Jesus, so no, Jesus was not emersed and neither was the first Christians. So, after some time passed, water emersion was practiced and was acceptable , however this was done in a pond or lake or small oasis of sorts and the Church Fathers clearly write that if a body of water was not available given one's location, then pouring water from a well , say, from a cup or bowl, over the person's head was proper. These are the type of things Brant Pitre studied and he is an expert on ancient Jewish culture and history. Scott Hahn and John Bergsma and Patrick Madrid among others, also are very knowledgeable in this area. God bless.

He’s great!

Turn directly to Jesus!

@Casey Mckee Casey, If you have not been that spiritual, you will benefit by the one-to-one assistance you'll receive when you simply knock the door of a Catholic Parish. But first go inside the church, sit at the very first pew facing the altar and pray sincerely with your heart. You will receive the grace you need to begin undoing the things that are cluttering your conscience. May God bless your journey.

🥲🥲❤️

Check out the Catholic Answers RU-vid channel, Jimmy is a regular guest and is incredibly knowledgable and interesting to listen to. Peace be with you :)

God bless you 🙏🏾☦️☦️

You're right. God always hears our prayers. I don't know if my videos can be of any help to you. I'm publishing a weekly RU-vid video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you.

St. Catherine of Siena was permitted by God to see the beauty of a soul in the state of grace. Blessed Raymond, her confessor, asked her to describe to him, as far as she was able, the beauty of the soul she had seen. She answered. “I cannot find anything in this world that can give you the smallest idea of what I have seen. Oh, if you could but see the beauty of a soul in the state of grace, you would sacrifice your life a thousand times for its salvation. I asked the angel who was with me what had made that soul so beautiful, and he answered me, “It is the image and likeness of God in that soul, and the Divine Grace which made it so beautiful.”

Thanks!

Agreed

It is in his beard

@@masto2898 Yep that's an auxiliary neural network down there.

@@masto2898 LOL. Love it 😂 Beards = wisdom. My Dad would agree haha. Yes he has a beard.

@@masto2898 i was thinking the same thing lol

Hi Patrick - what is a TLM Catholic?

@@robwassler5774 "TLM" = traditional Latin Mass. It means you prefer to attend the Mass as it was offered before the liturgical reforms of the Roman Rite in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

@@robwassler5774 Old School worship of the Roman Rite. Traditional Latin Mass. I'm Byzantine Catholic which is one of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. We have our own style of worship. Still 100% Catholic. “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Thanks! Glad to hear that

Glad you enjoyed it!

Hope you like it!

Wow, thank you so much for the encouraging feedback! I really appreciate that

I have in the past. I'm hoping to get back to it, but in the past they didn't receive many views, which makes the work/reward dynamic a little tricky

Remember the unbelievable, denigrating, trauma experienced by our Savior Jesus Christ. He won! Just offer your own suffering in union with our Lord's and God will give you the grace to "resurrect" to the life He wants you to have. May God bless your discernment.

Read James 1:1 and Matthew 5 for wisdom on suffering as a Christian.

@@o.o.2255 Oh wow, thanks. I never thought of reading the Bible, what a concept! BTW, I graduated from seminary, lived for over a year as a postulant in a religious community in Italy, then taught sacred scripture back in the states. Your “read the Bible” comment is both condescending and cold comfort. “I have heard many things like these; you are miserable comforters, all of you!” - Job 16:2

@@cryptoffilth8711 I meant no condescension. Then, I pray for encouragement if heart your and peace of Holy Spirit that surpasses all understanding. I don’t know you but please understand my intent was pure and out of Love. I shouldn't have responded. No offense intended.

It was!

Thanks!

I would love it too, brother! But your description about the “Western” view of salvation seems strange to a Catholic mindset to be honest, because it tends to be exactly how Protestantism views it. What you are saying of “the West” is essentially the core Protestant view and not strictly the Catholic one, because sanctification is crucial terminology in our integral understandings about justification. The juridical expression of salvation - of course - is part of Catholic theology (actually, which theology would not care to express in those terms if the Sacred Scriptures are sure enough to be using them?), but it’s clear enough that the “forensic justification” is not even the way Catholic soteriology express. Not knowing fairly enough about Catholicism is a very common misunderstanding among those of our American brothers (I am Brazilian) who convert from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy. When Protestants, they have a set of caricatures about what the Catholic Church teaches; when Eastern Orthodox, they have a different set of misunderstandings, but still embrace a caricatural depiction of “Roman Catholicism”. Let me try to explain a bit what the Catholic Church actually teaches about justification. It is not hard to reach it. Protestant theology (at least the classical) teaches us that justification is an imputative, forensic statement, which never alters the corrupted essence of fallen man, that is, it does not bring about a genuine or 'per se' inner soul modification. It provokes only the imputation of the pledge of divine justice upon the sinner such as providing man with an "outward garment" that gives him an appearance of righteousness. For Catholic theology, on the other hand, it means the passage from a state of sin to a state of grace, which, being an external action (which is divine), necessarily provokes an interior modification (in man), having, therefore, two distinct aspects: one “negative”, which is the remissive efficacy of sins, and another “positive”, which is sanctification. As it should be noted that the Scriptures allude to “the righteous made perfect” (Heb 12, 23), it is very hard to sustain a strictly external justification or something like a declaratory imputation rather than recognizing salvation as experienced internally, in the core of man’s eternal soul. God alone is holy: he is the only source of good there is (Rev 15, 4), but it does NOT prevent God to call man to be holy, just as God Himself is holy (Lv 19, 2), by cooperation in grace and obedience to the divine prescriptions. The earthly Church, in the plurality of its ministries, should aim at building the Body of Christ for the purpose of perfecting the faithful and making them holy, not just saved, that is, making them arrive to the _“knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ”_ (Eph 4: 13). Christian morality for this very reason does not rise to the compass of Jewish commutative justice, but to the one of perfection - and this is the true essence that explains the Beatitudes portrayed in the Sermon on the Mount or the parable of the rich young man, in which Our Lord has shown us to demand more than saving ourselves by strictly keeping the commandments/ believing. In this sense, the non-perfect righteous men (as in the initial or strictly juridical justification) cannot, despite being justified (delivered from condemnation), enter the Heavenly Kingdom while they are not in a genuine state of sanctification, because only those who manifest themselves in celestial purity, like little children, can enter it (Mt 18, 3; Lc 18, 17). For Catholics, as it is clear in the Scriptures, impurities are objectively hindering access to the Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21, 27). In order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, all men must present themselves _“perfect”,_ as the _“heavenly Father is perfect”_ (Mt 5, 48). The underlying reason had been proclaimed in Leviticus: _“Be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy”_ (Lv 19, 2). So the perfection of the just/righteous is the meaning attributed to what the Catholic Church calls “sanctification” - it is man following Christ by faith to imitate Him and, finally, transform his interior life through 'imitatio Christi' into the very divine life - so that not himself, but Christ lives mystically in him (Gal 2, 20). Nothing can be done without God’s grace. And that’s a core figure of the Church Triumphant in the ecclesial dimension of the Body of Christ, a thing that one couldn’t surely live as a Catholic without knowing or at least perceiving it by intuition. The result is what we call in theology the “partaking in the divine life” or, in a more direct word, “deification”. So by that one can clearly see a huge difference between (even Western) Catholics and Protestants in their soteriological assumptions.

But the concept of ‘Deificatio’ is CENTRAL to Catholic spirituality, even to Roman/Latin/Western Catholics. It is even very strange to see how come Eastern Orthodox pop-apologetics are barely understanding Catholic theology and hugely caricaturing it and how come (specially) former Protestants are so drawn by those caricatures. The EXACT same word in Greek (“Theosis”) and Latin (“Deificatio”) mean what we know as “deification”, the transformation of the human nature by supernatural grace not into a different nature ontologically speaking, but making us share - through participation - in the very divine nature (2 Peter 1, 3-4). There is of course different emphasis in Greek or Latin ways to express deification: for example, the Greek Fathers emphasize the mystery of foretasting the very inner life of the Most Holy Trinity through prayer and fasting, experiencing what they call the “transfiguring light” of God’s presence; the Latin Fathers tend to emphasize the radical interior transformation when we configure ourselves, in the core process of sanctification, to the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity due to supernatural grace, in the filial adoption from the Father and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is very simple to say only the Catholic Church found this perfect synthesis of Latin and Greek patrologies (and even the Syriac Fathers) without any sort of “provincialism”. But it is incorrect to say those visions are exclusive from one and other, of course. So both views are necessarily a way of perfection and are integral to the Christian experience, focusing in 1) the radical transformation of oneself, 2) supernatural grace and 3) partaking in the divine/ intra-Trinitarian life.

At last, in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, the part referential to “Theosis” even quotes St Thomas Aquinas in what maybe sounds like a very ‘Eastern way’ to put things (that is specifically an Athanasian expression: to make we “become God”, an acclamation that St Thomas Aquinas not only did not ‘correct’ but quoted in his work - as it is quoted in the CCC). And of course we are talking about participation in the intra-Trinitarian life, not about assuming a different ontological nature, a caricature so bad that shouldn’t even need to be explained: _”460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature" [78]: "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."[79] "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[80] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” [81]_ . [78] 2 Pt 1:4 [79] St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939. [80] St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B. [81] St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4. _________ I would recommend you to go for books that can discuss the way the Catholic Church, in its 2000 years of history, always understood “Theosis” or “Deificatio” in clarity and precision. I picked books focusing is the Latin tradition, due to the fact that usual misinformation tend to indirectly imply a sort of Eastern Orthodoxy unfair “appropriation” of it which is entirely NOT true. So I picked some splendid books about this: _“Called to Be the Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification”_ , by Carl Olson and Fr Devid Meconi, SJ (foreworded by Dr Scott Hahn), published by Ignatius Press _“With All the Fullness of God: Deification in Christian Tradition”_ , by Jared Ortiz (editor), published by Fortress Academic _“Deification in the Latin Patristic Tradition (Studies In Early Christianity)”_ , by Jared Ortiz (editor), published by The Catholic University of America Press _“Kenosis in Theosis: An Exploration of Balthasar’s Theology of Deification”_ , by Sigurd Lefsrud, published by Pickwick Publications. I hope it helped, brother, to see that those EO apologists are not being much accurate in representing Catholic theology to their public. So to say (Western) Catholic theology of justification is “juridical” can’t make justice to what the Catholic Church teaches. One can always read all the chapters of the Session 6 of the Ecumenical Council of Trent and then the Canons on Justification to make more sense on what the Catholic Church truly teaches. God bless!

Glad it was helpful!

@Mikkie Cash Mikkie, Anathema is a formal ban, denunciation or imprecation towards a person, belief or a practice which goes against Catholic Christian doctrine, where the decision is solemnly pronounced by an ecclesiastical authority and is accompanied by excommunication. ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication

Catholic justification is sanctification is regeneration

@@michaelharrington6698 Eh, I think that's a bit of an oversimplification.

@@merecatholicity Sola Fide relies on forensic justification which means righteousness must be alien to the believer. Orthodox soteriology does not draw a line betten regeneration/sanctification and justfication - to be justified is to be made righteous - to commit a mortal sin is to lose your state of salvific righteousness - to be righteous and without sin is to be saved.

@@michaelharrington6698 I understand that. My point is, the term "justification" is a more narrow term than "salvation" even if its scope is more broad than Protestants would make it.

Glad you enjoyed that!

Hahah, I like this one

I don’t know, my appetite for controversy isn’t too strong right now