‍A Catholic Response to the “Five Solas” of Protestantism

‍Depending on how they’re defined, we can actually agree with most of them

  Gary Hoge  ·  October 1, 2026

‍The Protestant Reformation is often summarized by the “five solas”: sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), soli Deo gloria (to the glory of God alone), and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

‍An online friend once gave me his definitions of these five Protestant distinctives, and I gave him my response. What struck me was how much Catholics can agree with—provided we define the terms carefully.

‍The real Catholic-Protestant disagreements often lie not in the truths these slogans affirm, but in what Protestants sometimes understand them to exclude.

‍“Faith alone”

‍Sola Fide (“Faith Alone”): This principle emphasizes that salvation is attained solely through faith in Jesus Christ, independent of human efforts or works. It underscores the belief that faith is the exclusive means by which one receives God's grace and justification.

‍Catholics often push back on the phrase “justification by faith alone” because the only place the phrase “faith alone” occurs in Scripture is James 2:24, which says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” We Catholics are often accused of holding “unbiblical” doctrines, and that can be a little galling when the person making the accusation insists on a slogan that, taken at face value, seems to say exactly the opposite of what Scripture says.

‍Having said that, we recognize that theological slogans can carry more nuance than their wording suggests. In this case, the slogan can be given a meaning that Catholics can affirm. If by “faith alone” we mean that we cannot earn our initial justification by good works, and that justification is an entirely gratuitous gift of God received through faith in Christ, then we agree. The Council of Trent declared that “none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.”^¹

‍Catholics and Protestants also agree that saving faith is more than mere intellectual acknowledgment of facts about God. As James points out, even the demons believe—and shudder (James 2:19). Saving faith involves genuine trust in God and cannot remain barren. As James says, “just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

‍Here, however, an important difference remains. Protestants commonly regard charity and good works as the necessary fruits of justifying faith: faith alone justifies, but genuine faith will necessarily produce love and good works. Catholics hold that the faith which justifies is itself a living faith that includes hope and is animated by charity. Good works do not earn the grace by which we are initially justified; rather, our ability to love God and do anything pleasing to him is itself the result of his grace working in us.

‍So there is more agreement here than our objection to the phrase “faith alone” might suggest. The disagreement isn't over whether we can earn our initial justification by works—we can't. It's over the nature of the faith that justifies and its relationship to charity and good works. As Paul puts it, what matters in Christ is “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).

‍That is why Pope Benedict XVI could say:

‍Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.^²

‍That qualification is the key. Catholics can affirm “faith alone” if it expresses the gratuity of justification and does not separate justifying faith from charity. What we cannot affirm is a conception of justifying faith that excludes charity from the faith by which we are justified.

‍“Grace alone”

‍Sola Gratia (“Grace Alone”): This principle asserts that salvation is granted solely by God's grace, without any merit on the part of the individual. It highlights the notion that salvation is a divine gift, bestowed by God's sovereign grace.

‍As stated here, this is an easy one. We agree.

‍The Council of Trent declared:

‍If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.³

‍We contribute nothing to our redemption but the sins that made it necessary. Salvation begins with God and is made possible entirely by his grace. Even our ability to respond to God is itself the result of grace working in us.

‍But here again, the slogan can conceal an important disagreement.

‍Some Protestants—particularly in the Reformed tradition—understand sola gratia to entail that God's effectual saving grace unfailingly brings the elect to faith. Because fallen human beings are incapable of turning to God on their own, God first regenerates the elect and thereby brings them to faith. Their conversion ultimately depends upon God's effectual action, rather than upon a grace-enabled human cooperation that the person remains free to give or withhold.

‍Catholics agree with the first part but not the second. We agree that fallen human beings cannot initiate their own salvation, come to faith, or perform any saving act apart from God's preceding grace. But we also believe that God's grace enables rather than eliminates a genuinely free human response. God takes the initiative, gives us the ability to respond, and continues to sustain us by his grace, but we can cooperate with that grace or resist it.

‍That cooperation doesn't mean we are saving ourselves or contributing something to salvation independently of God. Our very ability to cooperate is itself a gift of grace. As Paul says, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to desire and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12–13).

‍So if sola gratia means that salvation is entirely a gift of God's grace, cannot be earned by our natural efforts, and cannot even begin without God first moving us by his grace, Catholics can say sola gratia too.

‍If, however, “grace alone” is taken to mean that God's saving action excludes any genuinely free, grace-enabled human cooperation, then Catholics disagree. The issue isn't whether salvation is by grace—it is—but whether God's grace saves us by enabling our cooperation or by making such cooperation unnecessary.

‍“Christ alone”

‍Solus Christus (“Christ Alone”): This principle maintains that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity, and that salvation is achieved exclusively through His atoning sacrifice. It rejects the concept of other mediators, such as saints or priests, having any role in the process of salvation.

‍We certainly agree with the first sentence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.”⁴ In fact, the Catechism affirms Christ's unique mediation no fewer than ten times.⁵

‍But does Christ's unique mediation mean that no one else can participate in his work as the one mediator?

‍The very passage that tells us there is “one mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy 2:5) begins by urging Christians to offer “petitions, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving” for others (1 Timothy 2:1). Evidently, Christ's unique mediation does not prevent Christians from interceding for one another.

‍That's because our intercession doesn't compete with his mediation. It depends upon it.

‍Christ alone bridges the gap between God and humanity. Yet because we are united to him, he allows us to participate in his work. Christians pray for one another, preach the Gospel to one another, baptize, minister, and become instruments through which God brings his grace to others. None of this detracts from Christ's unique mediation; all of it depends upon it.

‍The real disagreement, therefore, isn't whether Christ is the one mediator. Catholics agree that he is. The disagreement is whether Christ's unique mediation excludes subordinate participation in his work through such things as the intercession of the saints and the ministry of priests.

‍Catholics say it doesn't. As Jesus told his disciples, “you are in me, and I am in you” (John 14:20). Whatever Christians accomplish as members of his body is accomplished only because they participate in the life and work of Christ.

‍So if solus Christus means that Christ alone reconciles humanity to the Father and that every grace of salvation comes through him, we completely agree. If it means that Christ cannot allow members of his body to participate in his work, then we don't.

‍“To the glory of God alone”

‍Soli Deo Gloria (“To the Glory of God Alone”): This principle stresses that all aspects of life, including salvation, are to be conducted for the glory of God alone. It denies any human boasting or glorification in matters of faith and salvation, affirming that all credit and honor belong solely to God.

‍We agree with this, too.

‍Paul tells us, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Everything we have comes ultimately from God, including whatever holiness exists in us. There is therefore no room for boasting as though we had accomplished our salvation independently of him.

‍Even the Catholic practice of honoring the saints doesn't constitute an exception. Catholics don't regard the saints as independent sources of holiness or glory. Whatever is admirable in them is the work of God's grace.

‍As Mary herself said:

‍My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. . . . For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me. (Luke 1:46–49)

‍Calling Mary blessed doesn't diminish God's glory; according to Mary herself, it magnifies the Lord precisely because it acknowledges the great things he has done in her.

‍So if soli Deo gloria means that God is the ultimate source and end of everything good and that all the glory for our salvation ultimately belongs to him, Catholics can say soli Deo gloria without hesitation.

‍“Scripture alone”

‍Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”): This principle posits that the Bible alone serves as the supreme authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice. It repudiates the authority of ecclesiastical traditions and teachings that are not explicitly found in or aligned with Scripture.

‍This is where we encounter a fundamentally different kind of disagreement.

‍Not all Protestants would require every doctrine to be explicitly stated in Scripture; many allow doctrines to be established by necessary inference. But the underlying principle remains that Scripture is the Church's sole infallible rule of faith.

‍Catholics fully affirm the inspiration and authority of Scripture. We believe that no Christian doctrine can contradict Scripture. What we don’t believe is that Scripture was intended to function as the Church’s sole infallible rule of faith.

‍No passage of Scripture actually states that it is the Church's sole infallible rule of faith, or that it would become so after the close of the apostolic age. Protestants attempt to derive that principle from passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17, Acts 17:11, and 1 Corinthians 4:6, but none of those passages actually makes that claim. On the contrary, the New Testament presents apostolic teaching as authoritative whether transmitted in writing or orally:

‍I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)

‍So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

‍And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Timothy 2:2)

‍Notice the pattern. Paul teaches the faith to Timothy; Timothy is to preserve what he received and entrust it to reliable people who will, in turn, be qualified to teach others. Paul thus envisions apostolic teaching being transmitted beyond its original recipients. And he explicitly commands Christians to hold fast to what they received from him both “by word of mouth” and “by letter.” That’s apostolic Tradition.

‍The New Testament writings were addressed to communities and individuals who were already Christian. Those Christians had already heard the Gospel preached, received apostolic instruction, been baptized, celebrated the Eucharist, and lived as members of the Church. The New Testament writings became part of that apostolic deposit; they supplemented rather than replaced the apostolic teaching those Christians had already received.

‍There is also a practical difficulty with sola Scriptura. Christians who sincerely accept Scripture as their sole infallible authority have nevertheless reached incompatible conclusions about baptism, the Eucharist, predestination, perseverance, church government, divorce and remarriage, charismatic gifts, and many other subjects. The problem isn't simply that individual Christians disagree; entire Protestant communions have reached mutually incompatible doctrinal conclusions while appealing to the same Scripture as their sole infallible rule of faith.

‍Catholics disagree about the meaning of Scripture, too, but Catholicism recognizes a living teaching authority—the Magisterium—capable of definitively resolving disputes over faith and morals. Not every disagreement requires such a judgment, and Catholics are free to disagree on many questions. But when the Magisterium does definitively settle a matter, Catholics can know where the boundaries of orthodoxy lie—what remains open to legitimate disagreement and what does not. Protestant churches can and do establish their own confessional boundaries, but under sola Scriptura those judgments are themselves fallible and remain subject to further evaluation on the basis of Scripture.

‍This raises an important question: if Christ intended Scripture to function as the Church's sole infallible rule of faith, how are disputes over its meaning supposed to be definitively resolved?

‍The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches both hold to Scripture and apostolic Tradition rather than Scripture alone. This helps explain why, despite nearly a millennium of separation, they retain substantial agreement on many doctrines and practices inherited from the ancient Church: baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the sacramental Eucharist, confession to ordained ministers, episcopal church government, prayers for the dead, and the invocation of saints, among others. Both understand these teachings as elements of the apostolic faith handed down within the Church rather than as doctrines reconstructed from Scripture alone.

‍So the real disagreement isn’t over whether Scripture is authoritative. Catholics affirm that it is inspired, inerrant, and uniquely the written Word of God. The disagreement is over whether Scripture was intended to function as the Church’s sole infallible rule of faith, apart from the apostolic Tradition in which it was written, received, preserved, and interpreted. Catholics believe Scripture itself points us to both: the written Word of God and the apostolic teaching handed down within the Church.

‍Conclusion

‍So the “five solas” may make Catholicism and Protestantism sound farther apart than they actually are. Sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria express truths Catholics affirm. Even sola fide can express an important truth, provided it isn't understood in a way that separates justifying faith from charity.

‍Sola Scriptura is different. Here the disagreement isn't merely about what a slogan means. It concerns the rule of faith itself: whether Christ left his Church Scripture as its sole infallible rule of faith, or Scripture within the apostolic Tradition handed down in the Church.

‍__________

^‍1 Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, chapter VIII.

^‍2 Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, Nov. 19, 2008.

^‍3 Council of Trent, Canon 1 on Justification.

^‍4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), no. 480.

^‍5 See Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 480, 618, 846, 956, 970 (twice), 1544, 1546, 2593, and 2674.