God What Does He Want?

[MorphRC]

If I knew what he wanted me to do, or just us humans in general, I wouldnt be going through so much hell, with faith, trust and all that. Instead of walking round and hitting walls all the time!

[cmotherofpirl]

We are to know Him, Love Him, serve Him in this world, as to be happy with him in the next.
Baltimore Catechism, courtesy of the Catholic Church.

[MorphRC]

Im gonna go find that. "why does God need to worshipped" thread.

[cmotherofpirl]

God does not need worship, it is simply the proper response of a creature to its Creator.

[Carrie]

wow Jas. That was a great answer!

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2004, 11:10 AM']

*sigh* here we go again...


Hartford, you must understand that you are not the authority on how one is to interpret Most Holy Tradition, and the writings of the Magisterium. In truth, I agree, it is very simple.

Trent was very clear: There is no Salvation Outside the Church.

But you are not looking at who this was being addressed to. The whole Council was set in the context of Jews and others who acknowledged the logic and truth of the Church, but still remained stubborn in their ways and refused to convert.

I will pray that your heart be humbled before the Spotless Bride of Christ, and that you will humbly submit both mind and will to the teachings of the Shepherds of the Church.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
If you could just point me to where Trent actually says that, all would be fine; however, you can't becaiuse it does not exist. Trent said "If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

[XIX]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 10 2004, 01:55 PM'] If you could just point me to where Trent actually says that, all would be fine; however, you can't becaiuse it does not exist. Trent said "If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." [/quote]
Rather, since you are the on asserting that the Pope is wrong, you show me where in Canon Law it says that the Pope cay teach heresy.

Except...the idea of a heretic pope is a heresy in and of itself.

[cmotherofpirl]

Baptism is necessary for salvation in the normal course of events.
However, God is not bound by the sacraments, we are.

[Tony]

St. Therese always was big on simplicity.. Epesically when it came to prayerlife and such, its the Carmelite way

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Tony' date='Sep 10 2004, 03:58 PM'] St. Therese always was big on simplicity.. Epesically when it came to prayerlife and such, its the Carmelite way [/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]If you could just point me to where Trent actually says that, all would be fine; however, you can't becaiuse it does not exist. Trent said "If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." [/quote]

Of course Trent doesn't say it outright, just think about the context for a moment. Trent does, however, show us what was being intended in, twice, actually, once in Session 6, Chapter 4, then again in Session 7, Canon IV.

Let me use a household example:

I have two younger sisters, a mother and a father. We are sitting around the table eating dinner. One of my sisters wants dessert, but she has yet to eat her broccoli. She insists that she does not need to eat her broccoli in order to get her dessert. My mother tells her to eat the broccoli, she refuses. Finally, my father, who is tired of the squabbling, gets up and says, "Unless you finish your broccoli, you cannot have dessert!"

Being the Father, his word is binding on the family. However, a literal interpretation of his statement would lead one to conclude that absolutely no one within the family can have dessert at all unless they first eat broccoli, even if, on a given night, broccoli is not being served.

This however, is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually being said. My father was speaking specifically within a certain context on a specific matter: that is, if a child of his should assert that he/she will not eat their broccoli, when he/she knows the importance of doing so, then he/she will not get dessert.

In the same way, Trent was speaking to those people who acknowledged the Truth of the Church, but still refused baptism. It was certainly an unequivical statement, and always will be, but should only be taken in its proper context.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[MorphRC]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 02:11 AM'] God does not need worship, it is simply the proper response of a creature to its Creator. [/quote]
uh huh....

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 10 2004, 08:23 PM']
Of course Trent doesn't say it outright, just think about the context for a moment. Trent does, however, show us what was being intended in, twice, actually, once in Session 6, Chapter 4, then again in Session 7, Canon IV.

Let me use a household example:

I have two younger sisters, a mother and a father. We are sitting around the table eating dinner. One of my sisters wants dessert, but she has yet to eat her broccoli. She insists that she does not need to eat her broccoli in order to get her dessert. My mother tells her to eat the broccoli, she refuses. Finally, my father, who is tired of the squabbling, gets up and says, "Unless you finish your broccoli, you cannot have dessert!"

Being the Father, his word is binding on the family. However, a literal interpretation of his statement would lead one to conclude that absolutely no one within the family can have dessert at all unless they first eat broccoli, even if, on a given night, broccoli is not being served.

This however, is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually being said. My father was speaking specifically within a certain context on a specific matter: that is, if a child of his should assert that he/she will not eat their broccoli, when he/she knows the importance of doing so, then he/she will not get dessert.

In the same way, Trent was speaking to those people who acknowledged the Truth of the Church, but still refused baptism. It was certainly an unequivical statement, and always will be, but should only be taken in its proper context.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Again, that is a very thoughtful and creative example/metaphor; however, the situation is not the same. The Father puts certain people certain places for certain reasons, since He is all knowing. Your father in the example could NOT do the same thing, that is, not serve brocolli and then punish his daughter for not eating it because she did nothign wrong, but everyone who is born is born into iniquity, as King David writes in the Psalms. For Original Sin alone God condemns man, and rightfully so. Therefore, knowing that this is the case (that one can be condemned for merely Original Sin), God puts each person in a place that he would deserve. If a person never receives Baptism, it is logical to conclude that he would have rejected it if he had the opportunity to receive it. Or, if one has an explicit desire for Baptism, he would not have made it to the end of life in a state of grace; therefore, he wouldn't have gone to Heaven even if he would have been baptized. That is what the footnotes say in my Bible, at least... (which is a very reasonable and logical explanation of the situation, knowing that Baptism is necessary)

[Guest JeffCR07]

I gladly and openly acknowledge the that metaphors are flawed as a description of the objective truth of the situation. They are very good at what they are intended to do, which is to highlight the flaws of a specific viewpoint. Your above response did not really take into account the point that I was trying to make, which is that much of Trent was focused specifically towards a certain group of people, namely, those who acknowledged the truth of the Church, but still, in their Pride, argued that they didn't need Baptism.

However, you have yet to really provide an adequate reply to my fundamental question, which deals with the issue of interpreting Holy Tradition. I maintain that Holy Tradition can - and should - only be interpreted with any degree of authority by the living Magisterium of the Church. You, however, seem to be saying that an individual interpretation of Holy Tradition - or a commentary in your Bible - is just as valid, or, following from your argument, even more valid.

Such a stance does not hold true to the calling of a member of the Church's laity.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 11 2004, 03:20 PM'] I gladly and openly acknowledge the that metaphors are flawed as a description of the objective truth of the situation. They are very good at what they are intended to do, which is to highlight the flaws of a specific viewpoint. Your above response did not really take into account the point that I was trying to make, which is that much of Trent was focused specifically towards a certain group of people, namely, those who acknowledged the truth of the Church, but still, in their Pride, argued that they didn't need Baptism.

However, you have yet to really provide an adequate reply to my fundamental question, which deals with the issue of interpreting Holy Tradition. I maintain that Holy Tradition can - and should - only be interpreted with any degree of authority by the living Magisterium of the Church. You, however, seem to be saying that an individual interpretation of Holy Tradition - or a commentary in your Bible - is just as valid, or, following from your argument, even more valid.

Such a stance does not hold true to the calling of a member of the Church's laity.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
I agree that the Magisterium is the interpreter of Sacred Tradition, but if it interprets it contrary to what the Traditon says, then you must reject the "interpretation" and cleave to the Tradition. For example, if the Pope says that Vat I means he is always infallible, that is an error, and you must accept Vat I, not the fallible interpretation thereof, or to make it liek this case, it would be like the Pope saying he is never inflalible, which is just as wrong, more so, even.

However, since this came up in a different discussion, I'd lik to know "the neo-conservatives" (since you're the expert according to what's pinned ) opinion of this: since only the Magisterium can interpret Her documents, especially Tradition, if She does not define a word in Canon Law, can laymen make their own interpretation of what is and is not concluded under that? The specific example is Code of Canon Law regarding the Sacraments. It says that one can attend a non-Catholic service and receive the Sacraments, in whose bodies these are valid, if one is encumbered by a "physical OR MORAL impossibility." Then, we have a letter from the hierarchy saying SSPX Masses fulfill Sunday obligation (and that once can even give them a small amount of money for the collection!!). So, considering that, someone cannot come along and define "moral impossibility." It seems to me that it depends who the person is. For me personally, hand Communion is a moral impossibility. For someone else, excessive EMs may be. For another person, facing the people, or the vernacular, or the Canon ("eucharistic prayer") read aloud are enough (these all would suffice for me...) So who are we to define something that the Church has not done Herself, especially when the Cardinal responsible for these issues put out a letter stating that the SSPX fulfills the obligation and they can even be given a small amount of money for the collection? (I go to an indult Mass, not SSPX, but this is a question of principle, since maybe in a very small circumstance I would have to chose between Novus Ordo and SSPX. Right now there is no doubt for me: SSPX)