Soli Deo gloria, Solus Christus, Sola gratia


Why is all the focus always only on sola fide and sola scriptura?

I almost never see topics in here on these others: Soli Deo gloria, Solus Christus, Sola gratia


What would you like to discuss about them?


Maybe when the non-Catholic crowd puts down their latest Chick comic? (then removes tongue from cheek)


Well the 5 solas of the reformation were 5 slogans against the Catholic church. I just find it odd that Catholics only feel the need to take on 2 of the 5.

I’m just curious that’s all.


Our Parish bulletin includes a note from the Music Minister, and it is always prefaced by Soli deo gloria!


Those two garner the larger focus of most Protestant sects. In a scholarly discussion of the errancy of the Reformation, all five would most certianly be valid to analyze.


Probably because these are the least problematic, if problematic at all, to Catholic doctrine. Sola fide and sola scriptura, on the other hand, are completely antithetical.

I think people take on topics that they find the easiest, and it’s much easier to see the difference and make arguments between the first two solas than the last three.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam! :thumbsup:



:grouphug: ISTM that all five can be reconciled with Catholic teaching :idea: :coffeeread:


:thumbsup: Yes, but those pesky Protestants find that an unappealing solution. Plus, they would have to learn about Apostolic Tradition and what Magisterium really means.

Why, it could make their very heads hurt! :eek:

(hereby ends the tongue-in-cheek humor)


When Trent anathematized, “sola fide” it did so under a specific definition, so it certainly is possible if one defines it differently that one could get it in (making sure to include all the theological virtues). The problem is that it wouldn’t be, “sola fide” as the Reformers taught it.

I’ve never thought of trying to fit sola scriptura in, though, and it perplexes me how one could do so. Scripture is tremendously important to the Church and to the Fathers, though, so it might be interesting to see if someone could do so. On the other hand, sola dei verbum seems to be a good phrase to me. :slight_smile:



From a Bible standpoint, I’ve never really understood the extreme emphasis on sola fide when Paul says the greatest of these is love. 1 Cor 13:13

***Sola caritas



My dog loves faithfully and unconditionally. It doesn’t make him a Christian dog, however.


The crucifix shaped tag on his collar does, though. :wink:



Only if he put it there himself, Rob. Otherwise he is just wears the trappings. :smiley:


Because they are not near so troublesom:

Sola Deo Gloria: Only for the Glory of God…I dont see how there is a problem with this being a Catholic teaching.

Sola Christus: Only by the Sacrifice of CHRIST can we receive eternal life

Sola Gratia: Grace Alone…could be better phrased, but the Church teaches we are saved by the grace of God and justified by our Faith and Works together


You think your dog has a rational soul? You think your dog loves like humans love? Wow.

Your dog loves you because you feed it kibble.
I love God because He feeds me Himself.


Your answer tells me you entirely missed the point. It is not love alone that defines a Christian.

And in actuality, my dog had a loving demeanor long before I fed him his first Kibble. I point this out because while you love God for feeding you Himself, that puts you squarely on the first right step of Christianity.

What of your works? And I don’t mean charitable works? You yourself are a living work. Do you exemplify Christian principles in everything you do? (Careful, that is a leading question.)

In answer to my own preceding question, I can say with certainty that I do not exemplify it in everything I do. How then do you see restoring the state of grace with God for “bad behavior” (that is, sin)?

All of these questions and many others help define you as a Christian, and not only as a Christian, but can mark your denominational leanings as well. Sort of like a southern drawl marks you as from the south/southereastern US. And the truly practiced ear can even tell you what county.


Well, while any of the 5 solas could be defined in such a way that Catholics can embrace them, ALL 5 of them were coined specifically to say the Catholic Church was wrong. So what I’m hearing here is that people focus on Faith and scripture because they are easier for the Catholic to get mad about without knowing the full definitions associated with them. (I don’t mean this in a rude way.)

Soli Deo Gloria, for example, For God’s glory alone dosn’t sound sinister at all. Someone even said it’s published in their parish bulletin. But the Reformers didn’t mean it just in it’s title, they meant something else.
(bold mine)

[]There were many battles during the Reformation where this principle was the central issue. The Reformers took on the Catholic church with regard to her glorification of idols and images. They also opposed the glorification of the office of the Pope and the other church officers. Another dispute was the glorification of Mary who was elevated to be above Christ in many ways and parallel to Him in the rest. Soli Deo Gloria was the overarching principle of the Reformation and related to every battle of protest by the Reformers.

[]GLORY TO GOD ALONE. The battle cry of the Reformation. In many ways, every other doctrine and every other slogan falls under this majestic truth. It embodies the many books, the many personalities, and the many changes that came from one of the darkest, and brightest, moments of history.

Yes, it was dark. The church had become infested with man-centered theology, economic corruption, abuse and scandal. Want forgiveness? Donate some money. Want answers? Don’t ask God, ask your local priest. Want peace in your life? You’ll never have it - life is a constant chess match with a wrathful and judgmental God. Many were frustrated.

Those sound like pretty big issues with the Catholic Church to me.:eek:

P.S. Just for clarification, I’m Protestant but not a Reformer… I fall under the Remonstrant Category


Until you see the result in Protestantism who used those not to help correct wherever the Church hierarchy might have gone astray (and indeed, in some ways there was validity … just that people like Martin Luther wanted results now and not after a full inquiry into all the ramifications.

So All glory to God and Glory to God alone became euphamistic slogans to justify European colonialism, England and Germany (Gott mitt uns), as well as France, etc. used these notions to put on the cloak of righteousness to serve their secular ends. The ramifications of which we see daily in the Middle East and elsewhere today.

Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, after due consideration and study of consequences, the Church went quietly about reforming itself – through ecumenical councils, etc. – to adopt some of the reforms.

Luther, Calvin, Wesley did not make a church, they tore one down and shaped it in their image, rather than work within the Church to heal the secular ills that had crept into the body of Christ’s church. The height of human arrogance and folly, all were vain men and proud. Satan is thoroughly pleased with them all, I’m sure. Division of a unified church was never Christ’s plan, and if not Christ’s, then not God’s. So ergo, who then would benefit? Ah yes, Lucifer himself.

Some have asked why the vileness and bitterness of many Protestants to the Catholic Church. Is that not the nature of Satan? Jesus taught love and forgiveness, and we Catholics surely don’t see much of that from many of our wayward brothers and sisters in Christ.


but my question is more, why isn’t this stuff ever discussed here on this forum and the other two get all the attention?

As for lack of love and forgiveness, it goes both ways.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit