Other Catholics

[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"

[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