Other Catholics

[hyperdulia again]

What do you make of certain Protestant groups (primarily those that spring from non-anabaptist origins in the sixteenth century), who are not especially anti-Catholic, but are not regarded by the Roman See as being "in communion" with it? I ask this, because I've undertaken a serious study of the Reformers and find myself more often than not agreeing with Luther's view of the sacraments and Calvin's (Augustine's?) view of predestination. As a result of this, I've thought it advisable to end my tenuous connection to Rome. This does not mean I think the Church headed by the Pope is apostate, satanic, or anything else like that, I think it is a fundamental and important part of the Universal Church, I just don't agree with some of its assertions about itself, and SOME of its theological conclusions, like:

1. The immaculate conception of Our Lady.
2. Her Assumption.
3. The Bible and Tradition being co-equal.
4. Papal/ecclesial infallibility.
5. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability) of an ordained priesthood.
6. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability thereof) of auricular confession.
7. The necessity of good works for salvation.

I guess that's it, it is all I can think of at the moment anyway.

[hyperdulia again]

And I'm not sure about the deuterocanonical books of the Bible. I have not yet been able to form an opinion.

[hyperdulia again]

“Strange as it may seem, it is still true, that those who fail to understand other churches than their own are not the people who care intensely about theology, but the theological dilettantes, eclectics, and historians of all sorts; while those very men who have found themselves forced to confront a clear, thoroughgoing, logical sic et non find themselves allied to each other inspite of all contradictions, by an underlying fellowship and understanding, even in the cause which they handle so differently and approach from such painfully different angles. But the cause, it may be, is nothing less than Jesus Christ and the unity of the Church.”
—Karl Barth


"Only in Christ are all things in communion. He is the point of convergence of all hearts and beings and therefore the bridge and the shortest way from each to each."
—Hans Urs von Balthasar

"The doctrine of justification by faith is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine."
—N.T. Wright

"I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are very wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: 'Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden."
—Augustine of Hippo

[Lil Red]

hyper, you continually have my prayers.

[hyperdulia again]

Why thank you.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Hyper, the last time you posted here you talked of converting to Judaism. In the past you've also mentioned leaving the Catholic Church multiple times, and then returning.

It's great to have a passion for learning about other faiths and other churches, but it seems to me as if your desire for knowledge is causing you to be a little giddy and unstable in your spiritual life. I've noticed the same tendency in myself, when I read so much theology from so many sources that everything seemed to be formed of brilliant fragments rather than making a cohesive whole. And through it all my mind went racing...racing...

So I forbade myself to study anything other than the Our Father for three months. I devoted myself to that prayer, to meditating on it and going deeper into what it says. The Lord's Prayer became my compass, my ballast, my reference point. I think you need a similar thing.

One of the wonderful things about Catholicism is how it is all woven together like a wonderful intricate tapestry. How you can't amputate the hand without hurting the heart. If you remove those teachings that you listed from the Catholic faith, and then asked yourself whether you could still believe in the Real Presence - the source and summit of Christian life - the reply would have to be, "No." For how can it exist independently of an ordained priesthood, or with a priesthood that was considered 'advisable' rather than necessary? It just can't. And the same is true of all the things that you list. Tug at one, and the faith unravels.

That said, I have no prejudice against Protestants. I will pray for you.

[hyperdulia again]

I find Catholicism burdensome, this I've never made a secret of, but my spiritual life was not the point of the first post on this thread.

[Mateo el Feo]

It's always nice to see a post by hyper. Good to see you.

A couple personal reflections:

Two saints who dealt with the effects of the Reformation are St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis de Sales. I suppose there are more, but their words and example show individuals who are passionate about the Faith, who both explain/defend the Church's teachings, and work charitably to stamp out scandalous behavior of some of the clergy. Not surprisingly, clerical scandals (then and now) seem to be the time-tested method for those who wish to leave the Church and start making up new doctrines. Long story short: their writings/biographies may be a good place to start.

Speaking only of myself, I would respond to finding "Catholicism burdensome" by recounting on my own experience. Being Catholic can be burdensome when I'm buried in sin. Otherwise, it's a walk in the park.

[jeffpugh]

Also, if you're up for some heavy reading, try looking up stuff from Trent. I've heard some people say that Catholics have never really given Trent her crusade... hmmm... it's sort of coming about now though. Lutherens have signed some document on Justification... before that, there was dissagreement on the Catholic standing. Just a heads up.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435103' date='Dec 16 2007, 11:51 PM']What do you make of certain Protestant groups (primarily those that spring from non-anabaptist origins in the sixteenth century), who are not especially anti-Catholic, but are not regarded by the Roman See as being "in communion" with it? I ask this, because I've undertaken a serious study of the Reformers and find myself more often than not agreeing with Luther's view of the sacraments and Calvin's (Augustine's?) view of predestination.[/quote]

I grew up Lutheran and was strongly torn between Calvinism and Catholicism before finally committing to Rome. There are some Lutheran sects and obviously some Calvinists who are vehemently anti-Catholic, but I was never one of them either and hardly knew anybody who was. Regarding "in communion," the Catechism says the Church is in communion with all Christians. To believe in Christ is a grace from God that cannot be received outside of sharing some partial communion with His Church. Of course, only Catholics can be in full communion.

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435103' date='Dec 16 2007, 11:51 PM']I just don't agree with some of its assertions about itself, and SOME of its theological conclusions, like:

1. The immaculate conception of Our Lady.
2. Her Assumption.
3. The Bible and Tradition being co-equal.
4. Papal/ecclesial infallibility.
5. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability) of an ordained priesthood.
6. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability thereof) of auricular confession.
7. The necessity of good works for salvation.

I guess that's it, it is all I can think of at the moment anyway.[/quote]

I take it these are some of the things you find burdensome. Probably what you're missing (and what a lot of people miss) is that all this theology and doctrine reveals something about God's Love for us. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption could just be things you read about in a book that a bunch of bishops have gotten together in a room and decided we should believe. Or they could reveal how God provides a perfect Mother for us, bringing us another step closer to the glory that Adam and Eve originally lost in the Fall.

I'm gonna re-word something that I just wrote over on one of Relevant's boards:

If you don't see that Catholicism is entirely centered around Christ, you haven't seen Catholicism. You have to look beneath the surface, obviously, because if you only look at doctrines and rubrics, you'll probably only see a religion (like most people). Sacraments, the Church, Scripture, Tradition, Marian devotion.... all this stuff is about meeting Christ and growing in a personal relationship with him. We can discuss or debate all the particular details, but in the end, if we miss how those particulars help us to better know and love Christ, then we've completely missed the point.

Edited December 17, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[prose]

This was to someone by Mother Teresa, but I thought it fit here:

"Your longing for God is so deep and yet He keeps Himself away from you, He must be forcing Himself to do so — because he loves you so much — the personal love Christ has for you is infinite — The Small difficulty you have re His Church is finite — Overcome the finite with the infinite."

[prose]

.... dp

Edited December 17, 2007 by prose

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1435333' date='Dec 17 2007, 04:53 PM']I grew up Lutheran and was strongly torn between Calvinism and Catholicism before finally committing to Rome. There are some Lutheran sects and obviously some Calvinists who are vehemently anti-Catholic, but I was never one of them either and hardly knew anybody who was. Regarding "in communion," the Catechism says the Church is in communion with all Christians. To believe in Christ is a grace from God that cannot be received outside of sharing some partial communion with His Church. Of course, only Catholics can be in full communion.
I take it these are some of the things you find burdensome. Probably what you're missing (and what a lot of people miss) is that all this theology and doctrine reveals something about God's Love for us. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption could just be things you read about in a book that a bunch of bishops have gotten together in a room and decided we should believe. Or they could reveal how God provides a perfect Mother for us, bringing us another step closer to the glory that Adam and Eve originally lost in the Fall.

I'm gonna re-word something that I just wrote over on one of Relevant's boards:

If you don't see that Catholicism is entirely centered around Christ, you haven't seen Catholicism. You have to look beneath the surface, obviously, because if you only look at doctrines and rubrics, you'll probably only see a religion (like most people). Sacraments, the Church, Scripture, Tradition, Marian devotion.... all this stuff is about meeting Christ and growing in a personal relationship with him. We can discuss or debate all the particular details, but in the end, if we miss how those particulars help us to better know and love Christ, then we've completely missed the point.[/quote]Some people will gladly take communion (sharing) with Christ as they understand Him over communion with the Pope any day (not to mention considering their baptism and faith in Jesus Christ as things sufficient to make them members of the Catholic Church, with or without the Pope's acceptance of this fact) and readily recognize a sharing with all other Christians irrespective of their opinions on peripherals (ecclesiology, mariology, etc).

I do not find the Immaculate Conception and Assumption burdensome, I find them unwarranted assertions (Biblically and only scantly witnessed in the Fathers), that can at the very best be held as a private opinion, not declared a truth necessary for salvation. Note these are not denials of Mary as New Eve, Mother of God and the Church, etc.

I believe every constituent member of the Body of Christ is "centered entirely around Christ" this includes the Church headed by the Pope (I fear Roman Catholic will be offensive, but cannot in good conscience call your ancient church, "the Catholic Church" as opposed to a part thereof). I don't need to be convinced of the sincerity of Catholic faith, or that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church, if I needed to be convinced of these things I would not be raising my children Catholic (why? children need stability in their spiritual lives and the Catholic Church is a safe home for them). I simply, and really for the very first time in my life, find myself not believing many of its assertions about itself and its history.

[Socrates]

The problem is, when you reject the Church's teaching authority, whose authority do you turn to?
Your own? Whoever's teachings you find appealing or "tickle your ears"?

The problem is, everyone will have different teachings they do and don't like, and an everyman-for-himself theology soes not lead in unity but division and ultimately theological chaos (with everybody from new-agey liberal Episcopalians, to died-in-the-wool six-day-creationist fundies - and every conceivable variation in between.)

It would seem quite arrogant for you or I to consider ourself personally the ultimate arbitrator of theological truth.

And, as has been shown on here many times, the "sola scriptura" approach is not that of the Church, nor is it even Biblical.

Somehow, though, I suspect your real issue is not with the Assumption of Mary, etc., but with particular moral teachings of the Church. As someone pointed out, it is your sins that are burdensome, not the Catholic Faith. (And this is not singling you out, but applies to me or anyone else. In fact, my priest made a similar point in his homily last Sunday.)

[Deus te Amat]

[quote]6What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? [b]So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.[/b] Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead,[b] so also faith without works is dead[/b].[/quote]

From the book of James, Chapter 2, if you insist on following the route of Sola Scriptura.

[hyperdulia again]

Funny, but the Bible also says (when did I advocate Sola Scriptura? it was a novel and [b]disastrous [/b]doctrine):


"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

Faith justifies and grants right standing with God. Paul says that grace ceases being grace if it is dependent on good works on the part of man (Romans 11:6--I'm especially attached to the Douay rendering of this verse).
------------------------------------------------------------
As to the passage in James, the Christian life will not be absent good works, and if they are absent we are dealing with passive belief (dead faith) the kind Satan and the demons have, not the saving, sanctifying faith the Scriptures speak of. This faith will not be absent good works and holiness of life, but it and it alone can save a soul from Hell. The presence of some particular sin/failing is not stronger than Christ who lose none that the Father have given Him. My sins, your sins, Pat Robertson's sins are not stronger than the grace of God. Arguments that require works a prerequisite of salvation (vs evidence of salvation) and that place our justification in our works, as opposed to in the mercy and forbearance of the God that put on human flesh and died for our sins miss the point of Romans 11:6 and the whole New Testament (Covenant) of grace.

I'm sorry that this is all coming now, but it has been taking shape for years.

*wonders if anyone will engage the post or if my "sins" will be pointed at more*

Not that it matters much if they are pointed at; they exist, and thankfully I know that the Living Christ has forgiven them all, past, present and future, so I shall point at Him all the more when my own natural wickedness is pointed at.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435615' date='Dec 18 2007, 11:14 AM']Funny, but the Bible also says (when did I advocate Sola Scriptura? it was a novel and [b]disastrous [/b]doctrine):[/quote]
Your rejection of the Marian doctrines seemed to be because they were not explicitly declared in Scripture.

[quote]"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

Faith justifies and grants right standing with God. Paul says that grace ceases being grace if it is dependent on good works on the part of man (Romans 11:6--I'm especially attached to the Douay rendering of this verse).
------------------------------------------------------------
As to the passage in James, the Christian life will not be absent good works, and if they are absent we are dealing with passive belief (dead faith) the kind Satan and the demons have, not the saving, sanctifying faith the Scriptures speak of. This faith will not be absent good works and holiness of life, but it and it alone can save a soul from Hell. The presence of some particular sin/failing is not stronger than Christ who lose none that the Father have given Him. My sins, your sins, Pat Robertson's sins are not stronger than the grace of God. Arguments that require works a prerequisite of salvation (vs evidence of salvation) and that place our justification in our works, as opposed to in the mercy and forbearance of the God that put on human flesh and died for our sins miss the point of Romans 11:6 and the whole New Testament (Covenant) of grace.

I'm sorry that this is all coming now, but it has been taking shape for years.

*wonders if anyone will engage the post or if my "sins" will be pointed at more*

Not that it matters much if they are pointed at; they exist, and thankfully I know that the Living Christ has forgiven them all, past, present and future, so I shall point at Him all the more when my own natural wickedness is pointed at. [/quote]
"Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).

"One came up to him, saying, `Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?' And Jesus replied 'If you would enter life, keep the commandments'" (Matt. 19:16-17).

"He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him" (John 14:21).

"But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in good works seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury" (Rom. 2:2-8).

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:4-6).

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10).

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13).

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, `You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, `Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:14-24).

The protestant dichotomy between faith and works is a false one.
We are saved only by Christ's merits and His saving grace, but we must cooperate with His saving grace by doing good works and avoiding sin.

The "Once Saved, Always Saved" doctrine is not Biblical, as the preceding Scripture verses have shown, though it does have an appeal to our slothful tendencies.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Socrates

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435387' date='Dec 17 2007, 08:00 PM']Some people will gladly take communion (sharing) with Christ as they understand Him over communion with the Pope any day (not to mention considering their baptism and faith in Jesus Christ as things sufficient to make them members of the Catholic Church, with or without the Pope's acceptance of this fact) and readily recognize a sharing with all other Christians irrespective of their opinions on peripherals (ecclesiology, mariology, etc).[/quote]

That's fine, and the Pope (because it's Catholic teaching) accepts the fact that all who believe in Christ share communion with Christ and the Church.

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435387' date='Dec 17 2007, 08:00 PM']I do not find the Immaculate Conception and Assumption burdensome, I find them unwarranted assertions (Biblically and only scantly witnessed in the Fathers), that can at the very best be held as a private opinion, not declared a truth necessary for salvation. Note these are not denials of Mary as New Eve, Mother of God and the Church, etc.[/quote]

They wouldn't be witnessed by the Fathers because it took time for these truths to be revealed. It took 300 years to finally define the Trinity and about 800 before Mary was declared Mother of God.

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435387' date='Dec 17 2007, 08:00 PM']I believe every constituent member of the Body of Christ is "centered entirely around Christ"[/quote]

I think we tend to be centered around ourselves more than Christ. We've been given the gifts of visible signs that transmit grace, especially the Eucharist, to help us center around Christ, but they can only do so much for us if we refuse to cooperate. Spiritually, many Protestants are more Christ-centered than many Catholics, but they still interpret Scripture as each of them believes it should be interpreted... and what could be more self-centered than that? I know you also reject Sola Scriptura, but your own will is in disagreement with the Church, which leads to the same questions of which authority we should submit to if we reject the successor of Peter.

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435387' date='Dec 17 2007, 08:00 PM']I simply, and really for the very first time in my life, find myself not believing many of its assertions about itself and its history.[/quote]

I have to credit your honesty since you at least respect the Church enough to leave rather than staying within while in open rebellion against Her. There are a lot of people like you (Anglo-Catholics in particular) who seem to fall in love with Tradition and a lot of "Catholic" things, but stop just short of being Roman Catholic. I find it interesting, and not surprising, really. Chirst made some bold claims for himself, so it stands to reason the Church does too. And I think every good Catholic should have to wrestle between their own will and the Church's, if they truly believe the Church's will is one with God's will. Some people believe they can decide what God's will is and go right along being Catholic on the outside as though you can legitimately have it both ways.

One thing I notice is that in teachings like those about Mary, you don't see God's Love in them. You see an "unwarranted assertation," as though the Church is lording its will over the faithful. Of course, especially as a non-Catholic, you don't need to believe everything the Church teaches to be saved. At least you are searching. I'd simply challenge you to take a fresh look at the Catholic teachings you disagree with, because there's nothing the Church teaches that doesn't open a door to God's heart and we can never regret seeking after it.

[jeffpugh]

Hyper, this isn't all because of what your boss was harrassing you about a while back, is it?

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]I simply, and really for the very first time in my life, find myself not believing many of its assertions about itself and its history.[/quote]


I was once in the same shoes as you. I am a revert. I became a born-again believer and felt the same about the teachings of Mary, as you do.


We follow the apostles that Jesus gave full authority to whom Jesus commissioned to preach and teach and to [b]OBEY [/b]everything he has TAUGHT them and promised to be with till the end of time and lead them into all truth. Matthew 28:20


We Catholics who have studied the word of GOD and the beginnings of the early church and whom Jesus gave authority to. Jesus teachings did not begin with Protestant sects after the reformation, which are the teachings that you have gravitated towards.

Jesus built his foundation on his APOSTLES and gave them AUTHORITY and PROMISED to be with THEM TILL THE END of TIME. Jesus promised his apostles that he would never leave them ORPHANS and Jesus would send us the COMFORTER the SPIRIT of TRUTH who will teach us and REMIND us of EVERYTHING that Jesus has TAUGHT THEM. It's all in John 14.

Jesus ensured this AUTHORITY through APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and it was passed through LAYING on of THE HANDS. Those sects after the reformation have lost APOSTOLC SUCCESSION; thus they do not have the PROMISES of Jesus to LEAD them INTO ALL TRUTH and these teachings are what you are following, what I believed and followed, also!


in Matthew 28

The Great Commission
[b]16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. [/b]17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
[b]18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20and teaching them to "obey everything I have commanded you." And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."[/b]


Either you believe in Jesus' words and the authority given to his apostles in Matthew 28:20, and that this authority would be with us till the end of this age, leading us into all truth, everyday in every century with no in Matthew 28:20 or you don't.

I believe in Jesus promises and by God's grace he brought me back to the FULLNESS of HIS TRUTH and I will NEVER LEAVE and with all my heart know why those who have gone before us gave their lives as MARTYRS' for the FAITH.

"God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," 1 Timothy 2:4. ...

Prayers are with you in this time of doubt of the promises of Jesus.

[quote]1. The immaculate conception of Our Lady.
2. Her Assumption.
3. The Bible and Tradition being co-equal.
4. Papal/ecclesial infallibility.
5. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability) of an ordained priesthood.
6. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability thereof) of auricular confession.
7. The necessity of good works for salvation.[/quote]

Edited December 19, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"