First Fridays & First Saturdays

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1270977' date='May 11 2007, 02:29 AM']Anyway, your analogy was pretty spot on there. from whence are you getting that baptism clears everything both eterally and temporily completely? I don't dispute it, it may be worded correctly like that somewhere, maybe the context would help me understand; but it is my understanding (if not based on theology, then based on common sense and observation) that a baptized person is still subject to the temporal effects of original sin and any actual sin (if he wasn't baptized as a babe)... case in point, all of the things listed as consequences of the fall still apply to baptized persons (death, sickness, labor pains, et cetera); and baptized persons do not to my knowledge completely stop being tempted and affected by the sins they committed prior to their baptism.[/quote]

You know, I've thought that same thing about the labor pains, sickness, etc. I've heard priests say that Baptism covers temporal punishment before (including, I believe, Father J. Michael Joncas - but I wouldn't hold him to my words). [url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/penance/indulgences.asp"]This article [/url]says it explicitely. A note on temptation: Christ was tempted. If I'm right about Baptism, the Baptised would still experience temptation. There will, instead of being bent toward evil, should be bent toward good. This would make the good easier to achieve and probably reduce temptation, but it wouldn't eliminate it.

[Aloysius]

Perhaps one might say that the soul is completely restored by Baptism to perfection; and as such there is no temporal punishment due to the soul or defect in the soul's nature, but it is still subject to temporal effects wrought by past sins. ie in and of itself, the soul has no damage by the temporal effects of its previous sin when it is restored by baptism; but it still operates in a world where those sins have affected the world and that is why one may still be affected by previous sins or addictions, the physical chemicals remain in the brain causing the addiction even if the soul is completely detached from all the temporal effects at the moment of baptism, for instance.

[N/A Gone]

I had a good talk with Brother Adam tonight and he helped me with some of this. I am not all the way there yet, but Im trying.

[The Joey-O]

I talked with my father-in-law. He's not an expert, but he's very pious and very interested in learning about doctrine, theology, etc. for a lay person. He was fairly certain that the devotion, while useful and can definitely be trusted (otherwise the church would have never given them the ok). One does not [i]need[/i] to do them or believe that these miracles are the way they say they are. He warned me against going around and criticizing them and told me to trust the wisdom of the church. Also, he encouraged me to bring my understanding to the point where I could except them.

[Aloysius]

The Church's acceptance of private revelation means nothing more and nothing less than: "everything said by this is worthy of belief". one must acknowledge, on the one hand, that it is worthy of beleif and does not contradict any truths of the Faith, but on the other hand they ought to know that they do not have to accept it as actually having happened. whether or not Our Lord actually appeared in this manner in this fashion and said these things and offered these promises, all the things said and all the promises are perfectly in line with true faith and piety and are worthy of being believed whether or not the actual apparition is believed to have occurred.

[The Joey-O]

OK then. I would like to probe the logic of it.

First off, if we do these devotions, and our salvation is then guarunteed, can we then go off and sin all we want, assured of our salvation no matter what? Or, a more likely scenario: If one do these devotions, have their eventual salvation assured, then through a series of circumstances lose hope in salvation and deny the teachings of the faith, would that person still have the promise of heaven?

If we say no to the question above, wouldn't we be saying that this is just a repeat of the baptismal promise? Isn't it at baptism that we accept the promise of eventual salvation so long as we remain faithful?

To go a different route: Is it possible that what is said is a promise of God's sovereign action to ensure that the flow of time will result in your salvation, preventing any future movements of your will against salvation?

[Aloysius]

The promise is, that if you continue with these devotions, it will so strengthen your faith that you will be given the grace of final perseverence.

It's a pious thing to believe about doing the practice; it's worthy of belief, but it's not an OSAS doctrine, it's not a theological fact or anything. It's a good thing for people to believe, but that doesn't mean that everyone who's ever done these devotions is guarenteed salvation. The Church is not saying that the promise is a true promise, just that it's a good and pious thing to believe if one wants to because the devotions (along with the indulgences the Church attaches to it) will keep the person on the right path, if the person continues at them faithfully, of course.

I think it entirely true that those who practice this devotion through their whole lives and do it always faithfully do go to heaven, that they do have the grace of final perseverence, because this devotion is a great act of strengthening one's faith once a month.

For those who do believe the promise totally, and this is also pious and beneficial to believe whether or not it's necessarily theologically true, that God may help them so that the moment of their death will not come at a time they have lapsed into some mortal sin (because they're still entirely capable of killing the avenues of grace in their souls by mortally sining). I think Our Lord does take their pious belief in these devotions into account, and may protect them from death if they are in a lapse of sin.

But Our Lord certainly will not consider it a true promise or a true devotion of the person if they commit the sin of presumption, as if they could lapse into mortal sin and know for a fact that they would not die before going to confession. Such games cannot be played with salvation and Final Justice will always catch up with anyone who thinks it true.

You don't have to believe the promise is true, just that it's beneficial for people to believe that the promise is true because, whether or not it is true, that person will still benefit from it.

[N/A Gone]

Adam did an awesome job last night, but Im curious. Can someone explain indulgances without the monatary concept? The idea that i pray for 40 hours, God pays me 6.15 an hour in grace and then I can get a wells fargo bank transfer and put it in someone else's account.

Grace as an objective currency bothers me.

and how do we "buy" grace? it seems so weird to me

[Era Might]

Indulgences are basically no different from praying for someone else. Why does God consider our prayers at all? St. James says that the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects (James 5:16). Our Lord does not need our prayers, he can dispense his grace whenever he wants, but we cooperate in the distribution of his grace by praying for others. In the same way, our pious works or penances on behalf of another are taken into account by Our Lord. With indulgences, the Church simply uses the authority given her to establish formal acts of piety, such as reading Scripture or going on a pilgrimage. Our Lord gave her the keys to the Kingdom, and this is why she has such authority. These practices are something extra, beyond what is strictly necessary for salvation; they are aids to holiness. The Sacraments are the ordinary, essential, and supreme vehicles of grace in the Church.

[N/A Gone]

but say I fast. Then I would "ask the graces" to benefit someone else? But in fasting it is my soul that has been edified. Where is the Grace involved in giving to someone else? How did grace become a tangable currency?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1272796' date='May 13 2007, 11:51 PM']but say I fast. Then I would "ask the graces" to benefit someone else? But in fasting it is my soul that has been edified. Where is the Grace involved in giving to someone else? How did grace become a tangable currency?[/quote]

I don't like the language of currency. It's useful, but it has connotations that are harmful, especially in today's society. When you pray intercessorally, you put yourself between the person you pray for and God, asking for some sort of grace on the other's behalf. When we pray that God heals someone, we're asking for a type of grace. When we pray that someone gets a job, we're asking for a type of grace. When we pray that someone may become a believer, we are asking for a type of grace.

The difficulty with the currency analogy, is that it doesn't account for the dependency (unless God chooses to intervene in an even more gracious way) on the will of the intercessor and the will of the intercessee to be in line with God's will in a certain matter. For example, if I pray that my friend, Bill, quit smoking, I should be doing so in sincerity. If I'm insincere (because my mother is making me pray the prayer against my will) there is still grace dispensed, however, there is no merit given to myself for loving Bill (although there may be some merit given in obedience). If Bill chooses to reject the grace, some grace is still given (at the very least in the offer of the grace). (Very important note: this is not to say that God is restricted to our wills or prayers or whatever. Rather it is to say that God has revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition that we are to pray for one another and lift one another up and through that God will work in addition to the means by which He would otherwise work.) Currency language puts too definite an "amount" on something already incalculable. Add to that the varying nature of how much one's will is in line with God, and you end up not knowing an "amount" to fix on the grace given through prayer.

I don't think quantifying language should be used. However, I would say that a life of prayer and devotion is worth more than just keeping one from falling away. There are the temporal consequences to the soul for one's actions that need to be considered. When one takes up smoking (not just one every once in a while, but serious, addictive smoking) damage is done to more than just your longues. You begin to form your soul in a way that is inconsistent with your nature. You reduce virtue, increase depravity and diminish the expression of your very being.

Devotions are about bringing one's life into a joyous habit of dwelling in God. As with all good habits, it starts out difficult and awkward. Let's turn to another analogy: If you've ever tried learning how to play the piano, you begin by tapping a few notes to a rhythm, awkwardly, mechanically learning the seemingly strict, rigorous rules of music and piano playing. After some time, you can fairly mechanically pound out some chords. Eventually, after several years, you begin to become a master at the piano and a new freedom opens up. Your fingers dance accross the keys. You are able to improvise and compose. You have journeyed a long, arduous road of robotic-like mimicry and very structured discipline to arrive at a place of true creativity and expression. It is the same with prayer and devotion. It's awkward, difficult, even strange at first. But, I've heard that after years of practice, great joy and insight (not to mention miracles) can come from it. I hope this analogy helps you. It did a lot for me.