Other Catholics

[qfnol31]

Did you read the Babylonian Captivity of the Church by Luther (I can't remember the other name) or something else on his Sacramentology? I read that about two months ago and would be willing to discuss it with you.

However, you should know that I plan specialize in Patristic and Mediæval theology, and from that perspective I think that Luther is really biased and creates much of his theology from a poor perspective of history.

Another thing to consider when reading him, something I find relevant to your situation, his conversion to the religious life (his promise to take monastic vows) came during a thunderstorm on a horse. While perhaps genuine feelings at the time, Luther's vows were made in haste, against his father's judgment (though perhaps parent disapproval is common, I think his dad was on to something)and I believe he wasn't called to such a religious Vocation.


As for the Bible, we use the Greek text because that is what the Apostles used and what the Jews at the time used (until around the 70s so that they could separate themselves from the true worship of God found in the Church). Yes, I am willing to make a parallel between the actions of the early "perfidious" (deliberately faithless) Jews rejecting Christ and Luther's approach to Christianity.

The Bible says we are "justified by faith apart from works of the law," but what is faith? Is it something bestowed on us by God? Not quite. Such a view would negate the free-will that St. Augustine strongly defends. Maybe we would be better to believe that
[quote]in adults, the beginning of [...] Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, [i]to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.[/i][/quote]
The rest of the quote goes on to say that man is able to reject this faith. In other words, man is given the grace by God to choose His grace, but man also has the ability to reject that grace.

[quote name='hyperdulia again']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]
Would you want to say that the doctrine of Christ's divinity is also unwarranted Biblically or is there a different reason you reject those doctrines? I guess my question is, why do you reject the Immaculate Conception and Assumption? If it's because they're unnecessary for our faith, then I would like to point you in a couple of directions.

1) [i]Ineffabilis Deus[/i] You might as well see what the Pope has to say about the Immaculate Conception. Likewise, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm"]New Advent[/url] has a great article on this on their website.

2) [i]Daughter of Zion[/i] by Ratzinger/Pope Benedict. He has a wonderful chapter on the meaning of the Assumption in the context of Eschatology and our eternal life in Heaven. It's a difficult read at times (I believe it was written for Bishops), but it makes sense.

3) [i]Munificentissimus Deus[/i] Lastly, this is the Papal Decree on the Assumption.

Do you have a hard time with the idea of [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements or these two particular doctrines?

[God Conquers]

Is someone else posting on Hyper's account or something?

Catholicism: burdensome, certainly. true, just as certain.

I see little relief in the doctrine of other Christian sects. It is our great priviledge not to carry our burdens, but give them to One who can.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]6. The necessity (as opposed to the advisability thereof) of auricular confession.[/quote]

Hyperdulia,

I frequent many Protestant boards have asked why Jesus breathed on the Apostles and continued to give them the authority to forgive sins.

They pride themselves on knowing scripture but cannot come up with a feasible answer, they all together dance around the scripture verse or totally ignore it.

John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'.[b] When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."[/b]

the prophets of the Old Testament spoke in GOD's name. They spoke IN THE PERSON OF GOD. The priests of the New Covenant speak IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

GOD never changes. Hebrews 13:8

8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.


God did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.<< Matthew 5:17 >>

["Kyrie eleison"]

In the OT, the priests reconciled and made atonement, just as Jesus gave authority in the New testament.

Leviticus 6:7, "And the [b]priest[/b][b] shall make an atonement for him before the Lord;[/b] and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he has done in trespassing therein."

Leviticus 7:7, "Because the sin offering and the guilt offering are alike, both having the same ritual, the guilt offering likewise belongs to [b]the priest who makes atonement with it."[/b]

Leviticus 16:32,[b] "This atonement is to be made by the priest who has been anointed and ordained to the priesthood in succession to his father."[/b]

Edited December 20, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='God Conquers' post='1436245' date='Dec 19 2007, 11:36 PM']Is someone else posting on Hyper's account or something?

Catholicism: burdensome, certainly. true, just as certain.

I see little relief in the doctrine of other Christian sects. It is our great priviledge not to carry our burdens, but give them to One who can.[/quote]

Amen.

[Birgitta Noel]

Hyper, I could say I wish you didn't struggle so, but that would be to deny you in your search for Truth.

I have no advice to give, but only wanted to say that you will be in my prayers as you continue on your journey. God Bless You and the little ones.

[Paddington]

I often wonder if I convert to Catholicism, would I be morally obligated to accuse dissenters of hidden sins that keep them from assent. Would it just be part of the daily cross to need to irritate people in this way?
Is it because dissenting is a sin in itself? Or is it that the masturbator loses function in the part of his brain that believes in invoking saints and angels? Or both?
Anywho.....I hope that Catholicism doesn't require double standards in debating those who are without. Catholic-Man may lower the bar to include things that presuppose his correctness, but when Protty-Tim does something like it, he is a persecutor?

Slightly a tangent, but this thread got it out of me.

[jeffpugh]

How is Proddy-Tim being called a persecutor? Maybe if he's using lies, but other than that, I don't see what you mean.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1438910' date='Dec 27 2007, 10:39 PM']I often wonder if I convert to Catholicism, would I be morally obligated to accuse dissenters of hidden sins that keep them from assent. Would it just be part of the daily cross to need to irritate people in this way?[/quote]

We are not morally obligated to accuse anyone, believer or unbeliever, of hidden sins. Sin is a part of everybody's life; that much is a given. To speculate on the nature and effects of that sin would be presumptuous, on a par with the arrogance of those televangelists who claim that if only Mrs Cancer Sufferer weren't so sinful she wouldn't be so sick.

There are many reasons why people don't accept Catholicism. Our role is not to psychoanalyze or spiritually castigate them, but simply to show them what Catholicism is. That knowledge does require self-awareness, yes, but you can't obtain it on behalf of another person - they have to find it with God alone. We can't convert people. We can only show them what it is to be converted.

If you haven't kept your own lighthouse burning then you can't blame mariners in darkness for colliding with hidden rocks.

[quote]Is it because dissenting is a sin in itself? Or is it that the masturbator loses function in the part of his brain that believes in invoking saints and angels? Or both?[/quote]

In the words of Gerard Manley Hopkins, "I am what I do, and for this I came." If you want God - or at least [i]want[/i] to want Him - you can't expect to have Him if you deliberately maintain your sinful ways. Belief and action are too closely bound together for that. As the psalmist writes, "Who shall climb the mountain of the Lord? Who shall stand in the holy place? The man with clean hands and a pure heart, who desires not worthless things."

In the wonderful denouement to C.S. Lewis's [i]The Last Battle[/i], the dwarves are so pickled in their own sin and misery that they can't recognise paradise when they see it. To them everything looks foul and rotten. Their chosen lifestyles have warped them to such an extent that their ability to recognise and respond to divine beauty is tarnished. I have noticed this in myself - when I have done something wrong, I go slack in my spiritual life with the easiest of excuses. I don't have time to pray now. Does it matter if I spend all this money? I know I shouldn't, but I need a treat now and then. God won't mind...

And with this, my appreciation for the Faith diminishes. I'm looking at it through blinded eyes. How could it not diminish?

Edited December 27, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1438910' date='Dec 27 2007, 05:39 PM']I often wonder if I convert to Catholicism, would I be morally obligated to accuse dissenters of hidden sins that keep them from assent. Would it just be part of the daily cross to need to irritate people in this way?
Is it because dissenting is a sin in itself? Or is it that the masturbator loses function in the part of his brain that believes in invoking saints and angels? Or both?[/quote]A couple comments:

Sin is not damaging to the brain; it's damaging the soul. Sinners sever their line with God when they give in to sin. This idea that is repeated throughout Holy Scriptures. For example, [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john9.htm#v31"]John 9:31 (link)[/url] says, "We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to him."

As far as "irritating" people with correction, I would say fraternal correction should be charitable (i.e. done out of authentic love for the other person), and any correction should be phrased/given in a way that has some hope of success. I've read some non-Biblical sources (e.g. writings of the saints) that go into detail on the topic. As for passages in the Holy Bible, there are things like [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy2.htm#v24"]2 Tim 2:24-26 (link)[/url]: "A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil's snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will."

[quote name='Paddington' post='1438910' date='Dec 27 2007, 05:39 PM']Anywho.....I hope that Catholicism doesn't require double standards in debating those who are without. Catholic-Man may lower the bar to include things that presuppose his correctness, but when Protty-Tim does something like it, he is a persecutor?[/quote]Given that both Protestants and Catholics have got the same starting point, I think all Christians have to listen to the guidance given in Holy Scripture. We've got to navigate between the mistake of admonishing a sinner in a way that pushes the sinner away (with our lack of charity), and the mistake of failing to admonish any sin, because of a lack of fortitude.

Hope that makes sense.

PS: Following on C.A.'s post, I realize that "hidden sins" may be referring to something not addressed in my post. If by "hidden", we're talking about a sin that is merely our own conjecture without any proof, then obviously one should be careful not to falsely accuse. If by "hidden" we're talking about something told to us in confidence, then we should avoid making gossip of it, but this doesn't really have an impact on whether we privately admonish the sinner.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Hyper is right to state that the Roman Church is one of the Catholic Church, the various Eastern Churches also make up the Catholic Communion.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

What exactly is your "issue" with these? Ur perspective may be helpful in understanding where you disagree.

1. The immaculate conception of Our Lady.

2. Her Assumption.

3. The Bible and Tradition being co-equal. - (In my opinion, this one is a given. No protty church in the world functions without Tradition, Catholics (and Orthodox) just happen to recognize the reality.)

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. - (again, I think a given. James is pretty clear on this. Of course Luther disregarded the Book of James and excluded it from his Bible.)

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1435387' date='Dec 17 2007, 07:00 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).

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.[/quote]

Dude, crack is whack!