I am sorry, I did not commit to memory your system of acronyms and really would not want to go back and find the decoder that you once provided. What is IR? If you were to say that good works MUST be concomitant with faith, you are saying what the Catholic Church teaches, namely that works are necessary for salvation. How you say it, that works merely may accompany faith, you are off the biblical grounds of Eph. 2:5-10, Romans 2:7-10, Matthew 25:31-46.
IR=Imputed Righteousness. By a kind of faith which , if able, produces works corresponding to the will of its Object.
Rome comes close to the sola fide position in holding souls as being initially justified apart from any merit, or in baptism by desire, and affirms God's unconditional justifying grace but then has them meriting eternal life through her sacramentals.
The sacraments are not works at all, bacause it is God Who does all the saving work. "Sola Fide" could mean something Catholic as follows: True or mature faith in Jesus Christ would embrace the entirety of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and that necessarily would involve developing the virtues of good works as a corollary. So we can, at a risk of becoming sloppy of language, say that we are saved by mature faith alone.
Would is the key word.
However, I don't think anyone who takes the Holy Scripture seriously should contemplate a language merely to please the Protestants. The scripture plainly says that we are not saved by faith alone, so we are not.
Sola fide hold not by a faith that is alone, as such results in obedience to its Object. The CCC is more broad in its wording:
1260b "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
This may be interpreted to be a means to an end, but which woulds at least allow for becoming Protestant, but i think the sedevacantist understanding is right on this one. As for conciliatory language:
CCC 838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.
They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood... LUMEN GENTIUM
Conflicting interpretations exist in Rome regards this, and many other things.
early fathers seemed to teach sola fide, as seen here
I scanned your link and saw phrases like "In him and by their faith in him they were saved", which are clearly scriptural. I do not see anything that says that we are justified by faith ALONE. Again, this is what both the scripture and the consensus patrum teach:
We are saved by grace alone;
Grace is not of works;
We are saved though faith;
We are required to do good works of self-denial, love and charity;
We are not saved by works done for temporal reward (wage or social recognition) or in obedience of formal laws
St. Clement does say "we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men", but that passage is immersed in several chapters that urge good works: "let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength". So clearly, to St. Clement, faith includes good works rather than is separated from them.
And Sola fide literature does likewise, while holding that God-given faith is the actual instrument which procures justification, and being such a faith, it is thus coupled with works in expression. But straw men burn easier.
if baptism by desire is allowed, which Rome does, then it testifies to one being saved without works
This is a non-sequitur on two levels. First, like I mentioned before, sacraments are not works to begin with. To be sure, to hold a baby and dunk him in water, etc is work, but the real saving work of baptism is done by the Holy Ghost: mothers wash their babies every day and that operation does not save them. Second, that is is possible in some scenario to be saved without works (nailed to a cross like St. Dismas, paraplegic, etc.) does not disprove the general proposition that works are ordinarily required for salvation.
It is completely relevant as to the issue as to whether one must show works of faith obtain justification. If a paraplegic who never heard about Jesus can be saved in his last minutes by hearing and believing what Peter preached in Acts 10:36-43, then one can be saved through faith, though if he lived this faith would be shown in baptism, etc.
i have, even recently and in (my usual) extended manner corrected a leader who taught one is saved as long as they believe God's promise of salvation, even if they live contrary to it
Ah, good. Thank you.
I am glad if yoy are thankful, as it is not a RC church. And yet his (Baptist) church shows more works of love to the lost in both temporal and spiritual realms, in relation to their size, than any i know of, and manifests a high moral character as they focus on what faith is to do in obedience. But which does not excuse their doctrinal aberration and confusion.
The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins [quote from Catholic lit.]
That is because the Mass IS the Cross.
That is heretical. Reenactment illustrates but does not do what the Jesus did on the cross, in which "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit," (1 Peter 3:18) being once offered to bear the sins of many (Heb. 9:28) for once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:26) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. " (Hebrews 10:10)
The Lord's supper commemorates that by remembering His unselfish shedding of blood and death by way of the symbols, and which the church partakes in it by being as He was in purchasing the church with his own blood, (Acts 20:28) by unselfishly loving each other in holy love. And failure to do so was the sin shown in 1Cor. 11:20-34.. And can while God has regard to man;s intercession, and forgiveness requires confessing with a heart that forsakes the sin, and restitution is to be made for wrongs where possible, forgiveness is obtained by the atonement of Christ, (1Jn. 1:9) which not only purifies, but saves from the wrath to come. (Jn. 3:38; Rm. 5:9; 1Thes. 1:10; 5:9) The Lord's supper is not set forth as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins.
On the rest of your "extended" quote, I generally would agree that a nuanced position on justification can be found among Catholics and Lutherans (as well as Anglicans and Methodists), but any such position would not leave any content worth calling "faith alone". It may be "faith manifested by good works", or "faith which leads to good works" or something like that, but never "faith alone".
As often stated, alone does not mean a faith that is alone, that will not produce obedience, nor does it mean conversion does not have preparatory works by God's grace, but that to him that worketh not BUT believeth on Him that justifieth the unGodly, unto whom God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT works, refers to faith alone being the actual instrumental means of essential justification by imputed righteousness, though since a faith that does not evidence itself (if able) is dead, works make it complete in its evidential sense, and confirm that one has salvation. And those who deeply realize they have nothing to offer God whereby they may morally merit eternal life eternal life with Him, but that their works instead damn them, and who thus look to Jesus to save them, like as the snake-smitten helpless to heal Israelites did toward the serpent in the wilderness, (Num. 21:6-9; Jn. 3:14,15) are the one who most manifestly shew their faith by their works, (cf. James 2:18) versus those who have confidence in their own moral worthiness and or the power of their church.
seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it (1260). Yes, among the ignorant, some Protestants count. Note however, that in the West, unlike in the Muslim world, innocent ignorance of the truths of Catholicism is a virtual impossibility. I think, a greater case can be made for those who are Protestant as a result of cultural upbringing and lack of intense searching for the truth, like someone who is born in a uniformly Protestant country such as Sweden and never had a reason to question Lutheranism.
And Sola fide literature does likewise [ ] straw men burn easier
As it should have become clear, I do not have a big quarrel with how you understand Sola Fide. I know however that a good number of Protestants do not understand Sola Fide to have anything to do with a salvific and necessary nature of good works. So that is no straw man to correct at least them, and they abound on this forum. Your problem is less doctrinal and more rhetorical, as what you believe cannot really be called Sola Fide.
If a paraplegic who never heard about Jesus can be saved [ ] then one can be saved through faith
Did you mean to add alone as in by faith alone? Assuming you did, the answer is yes, one can be saved by faith without works if he is a paraplegic, nailed to something, is a baby, etc. Not when he has a full ability to do works of charity, study, and penance but is just too busy chanting the faith alone mantra and pasting Ive been saved at 1st Baptist sticker to his bumper.
his (Baptist) church shows more works of lovehis (Baptist) church shows more works of love
It is often the case, but just as often these works are canceled out by horrid theological errors, mariophobia and anti-Catholicism, common to all Protestants.
Annalex: That is because the Mass IS the Cross.
Daniel: That is heretical. Reenactment illustrates but does not do what the Jesus did on the cross
The Mass does not re-enact anything. The actual, one for all times sacrifice on the altar of the Cross 2000 years ago is what Mass actually in essence IS.
The Lord's supper commemorates that by remembering
The Lords Supper was one particular Mass said before rather than after the Cross. The memorial snacks that Protestants amuse themselves by are just what you describe, but they only resemble a Divine Liturgy; they have little significance beyond, like you said, symbolic re-enactment.
The Lord's supper is not set forth as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins.
That is true in reference to the Holy Mass as well, as only those whose sins have been absolved can productively partake.
As often stated, alone does not mean a faith that is alone
So dont say confusing things like we are justified by faith alone because clearly, and by your own understanding, we arent.