Why I Am A Catholic (updated)

[ICTHUS]

Hey, for those of you who saw my original post, heres my new one, with some stuff added. Feedback???

Why I Am A Catholic

As for the second question, "Why am I a Catholic?", I hope you’ll forgive my going into some detail, as this is not a topic which I can gloss over in a few sentences (or a page or two, for that matter)

Well, for one, when I was in my non-denominational church I was extremely dissatisfied with the lack of theological depth present therein. Also, I developed a curiosity (some would say, an unhealthy one) for discovering the roots of Patristic Christianity - how exactly was the Lords Supper celebrated by the early Christians? Was the Early Church liturgical in its worship, as Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and some Presbyterian churches are today? In other words, I desired to know what form the Christian faith took, after the 13 Apostles who had directly seen the Lord Jesus, had passed away. To whom did they entrust the message of the Gospel? What day-to-day instructions did the Churches of God observe? Interestingly enough, a recent archaeological discovery in the area of early Christianity is that of a document called the (Didace apostoloV) (Didache Apostolos) – or, the Teaching of the Apostles. Obviously, it was not important enough to the Holy Spirit for the document to be included in the Canon of Scripture, as the Bishops of the Church did not include it when they finalized the Canon of the Bible in the 5th century. However, the Didache, which most scholars believe to be authored by the Apostles themselves, provides important insights into how the early Church conducted itself. More, however, on the Didache in a moment. 

What struck me most, however, was the correspondance between the Church Fathers conceptions of the Eucharist (The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word “Eucharistian”, or “Thanksgiving”), and Jesus' own words in John 6:48-68.

Influential Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, and even the aforementioned Didache Apostolos, all spoke of “The Eucharist”, the “Body of the Lord”, the “Sacrament of the Altar” and “The Sacrifice” – and all of these terms seemed connected in some way with the service I commonly knew as Holy Communion – the Lords Supper.  And all of these seem to give a literal interpretation of the Lord’s own words in John 6, and what’s more, attached far more meaning to the concept of the ‘memorial’ that the Lord commands in Luke 22:19. On this last point, it’s worthwhile to elaborate at some length, because it’s crucial.

Our Lord uses the Greek phrase “Touto poiete eis tan emahn anamneisin” in Luke 22:19, and it is usually translated as “Do this in memory of Me”. However, the Greek word “anamnesin” used herein demands a deeper reading. You see, English has no real equivalent to convey its meaning – we fall short of its real meaning when we try to communicate it in one or two words. It conveys the meaning of a memorial, but not in the sense that we usually think of a memorial. Memorial, in the sense of the word anamnesis, means something like “to actually revisit and re-present the event signified”. In order to really do justice to this word, then, we would have to portray Christ saying something entirely too unwieldy, such as “Make ye My anamnesis”, or, to eliminate the Greek derivative altogether, “Do this as a re-presentation of the event signified by this action which I am performing.”

We then proceed, with this definition in mind, to the question “What event did the Last Supper signify?”  The ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ at the Last Supper, as is clearly indicated by the context, signified the imminent Passion, Crucifixion, and Death of Christ. If, therefore, Christ told his apostles to re-present the event signified by the action he was performing, he was actually telling His apostles to celebrate this supper, and every time they did so, they were actually present at His cross, witnessing the one sacrifice which He offered for all time and eternity, and receiving the benefits of that sacrifice, eating and drinking that which the Lord Jesus affirms is His own flesh and blood, given for the life of the world. (John 6:48-68) 

This may come as a shock to you that we believe this, but I assure you, this is the doctrine that the Church has taught for two millennia. (I can substantiate this with quotes from the Church Fathers to show the consistency of this teaching through the ages, if you like, but I will refrain from doing so at the moment for the sake of saving space.) The Lords Supper is much more than a superficial remembering of Jesus’ death on the cross. It is a revisitation of that same death – not a resacrificing of Him, as some of our Reformed brethren who misunderstand what we believe, think, but a participation in His one Sacrifice, which was offered once by Christ for the salvation of all men, and for all time. This is why we sometimes refer to our Divine Liturgy as the ‘Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” – because it is a real participation in the one Holy Sacrifice offered by Christ.

So, why am I not a Protestant? Because, firstly and foremostly, Protestantism denies the doctrine I just described above. Ever since John Calvin and those who started Presbyterianism formulated the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Protestant Christians have misunderstood what we mean when we say that we offer Christ’s one sacrifice. They take it to mean that we offer Him again and again, which is, in my thought, and in the language of Article Thirty-one of the Thirty-nine Articles, an idea plainly blasphemous and hurtful to His sacrifice. If the Catholic Church taught it, I would be the first to leave her fold. But she does not. Rather, we believe that Christ Himself acts through the person of His presbyter, standing before the Father Himself, making intercession through His own blood.

Furthermore, the Lord Himself affirms that we must eat His flesh, and drink His blood, otherwise we have no life in us (Jn 6:48-68). This is a teaching that the Church Fathers have re-iterated for twenty centuries, and which the Church teaches today.

Also, the Catholic Church views salvation as both a legal declaration, and a familial adoption into a covenant. There is a disturbing tendency within Protestantism to reduce our redemption to mere legal accquittal. While God does declare us righteous by faith in Christ, He also adopts us as His Sons and Daughters, making us partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Pet 1:3-5). Christians, in the view of Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, are saved not only from sin, but for sonship!

Furthermore, what He declares to be so on the basis of faith in Christ, he actually does. Luther used the analogy of a snow-covered dunghill to represent the redeemed Christians righteousness - God sees the 'snow' of Christs righteousness, and not the dung. As believers, we ought to find this analogy utterly repulsive. Can the unredeemed mans soul be compared to a dunghill? Perhaps, but is not dung an excellent fertilizer? Certainly, the dunghill may be covered in snow, but when spring comes, the snow melts and waters the dunghill, bacterium break it down, and it becomes soil. Beautiful wildflowers begin to grow on what was once a stinking, rotting mass of dung. All the while, it snows periodically, covering the mound in snow.

This analogy represents the Catholic model of justification, verses the Protestant model as proposed by Luther. In the former, the snow covers the dunghill, but the snow, which represents Christs righteousness imputed to a man by faith, melts into the hill, causing it to break down, become soil, and grow wildflowers, representing the fruits of faith. Whereas, in the Protestant model, the dunghill does nothing but sit there, and remain a pile of dung covered in snow.

Perhaps this is an inadequate analogy. The crux of the issue is, however, that in justification, God not only declares righteous, but because His word is omnipotent, His word proceeds forth and makes a person righteous. The Protestant model of justification, however, is sadly lacking because it seeks to divorce the omnipotence of Gods saving declaration, from the declaration itself, resulting in the utter divorce of two theological terms which you are no doubt familiar with - "Justification" - to declare just, and "sanctification" - to make holy (or just)

[phatcatholic]

well done!

the only thing u would have left to do is present any other doctrines that separate and legitimize catholicism over protestantism, and then end w/ a concluding paragraph that briefly summarizes and ties everything together.

what you have written so far is superb. keep up the good work!

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[ICTHUS]

I had problems in comparing Luthers analogy of the snow-covered dunghill, and translating it into something that a Catholic could accept, and would be consistent with the Church's teaching. Any ideas?

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Furthermore, what He declares to be so on the basis of faith in Christ, he actually does. Luther used the analogy of a snow-covered dunghill to represent the redeemed Christians righteousness - God sees the 'snow' of Christs righteousness, and not the dung. As believers, we ought to find this analogy utterly repulsive. Can the unredeemed mans soul be compared to a dunghill? Perhaps, but is not dung an excellent fertilizer? Certainly, the dunghill may be covered in snow, but when spring comes, the snow melts and waters the dunghill, bacterium break it down, and it becomes soil. Beautiful wildflowers begin to grow on what was once a stinking, rotting mass of dung. All the while, it snows periodically, covering the mound in snow.

This analogy represents the Catholic model of justification, verses the Protestant model as proposed by Luther. In the former, the snow covers the dunghill, but the snow, which represents Christs righteousness imputed to a man by faith, melts into the hill, causing it to break down, become soil, and grow wildflowers, representing the fruits of faith. Whereas, in the Protestant model, the dunghill does nothing but sit there, and remain a pile of dung covered in snow. [/quote]

The problem I had with converting the dunghill analogy into something a Catholic could accept, is that the outer covering of snow must remain (Christ's righteousness, reckoned to us by obedient faith) while the inner core of the dunghill is transformed.

Can anyone think of a better analogy????

[Aloysius]

i don't see anything wrong with that analogy, though, the righteousness of Christ is still there within the soil.. you didn't get rid of it. it seems like a perfect anology to me

the outer core comes within us, we don't need to see the shell it's inside us as living water.

maybe i'm missing something

[ICTHUS]

The way I understand it, the outer covering always remains, because we are constantly being made righteous, and since that righteousness won't be perfect until we finally are glorified in heaven, we still need the imputed, forensic righteousness...

[Adeodatus]

I'd propose the Catholic analogy is as follows:

Christ removes the dung (sins) completely, scrubs the whole place clean and "whiter than snow" and "whiter than any fuller's bleach could bleach it", and then places the layer of snow (grace) on that place (soul).

TA-Da!!

PS Luther's analogy stinks anyway.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Christ removes the dung (sins) completely, scrubs the whole place clean and "whiter than snow" and "whiter than any fuller's bleach could bleach it", and then places the layer of snow (grace) on that place (soul).[/quote]

This analogy doesn't work, Adeodatus, for the 'snow' must fall, and the forensic righteousness be declared, before Gods infallible decree may proceed forth and [i]actually make a person just.[/i] To prove my point, I refer you to the debate between Scott Hahn and Robert Knudson of Westminster Theological Seminary.

This excerpt from [url="http://www.mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/justify.htm"]http://www.mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/justify.htm[/url]

How many people ever bought their way into a family? It can't be done and it hasn't been taught in the Catholic tradition. [b]Justification, then, understood in the Catholic way, involves both the imputation of legal righteousness as the Protestants believe, but also the infusion of Christ's life and grace as the divine son so that in Christ we become at justification living, breathing sons of God, not just legally but actually.[/b] That's what the grace of the Father does for His children. [b]In other words we hold with the Protestants that justification involves a legal decree, a divine word , that we are just, but unlike the Protestants and contrary to their position, we believe that that word of justification goes forth in power. In other words, God does what he declares. In the very act of declaring us just he makes us just because His Word is omnipotent, it's all-powerful. Isaiah 55:11: "So shall my Word go forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose."[/b] Were God to say, 'Scott Hahn's a woman,' I would say [in a trill], 'No, I'm not.' I would become a woman in the very act of His declaring me to be such. His Word is what brought the world into being, even if you don't like my falsettoþI don't either. [b][u]The point is that whatever God declares, He does by declaring it to be, because the Word of God is the living and active Christ himself.[/u] When we're declared just, god does what he declares. He fathers children in Christ, the eternal Son.[/b] The Catholic Church does not teach legalism. If individual Catholics you meet believe that through their own individual works-righteousness they can buy their way into heaven or merit everything on their own, you tell them to go back to their church, back to the Scripture, back to their councils, and change their minds. It isn't works-righteousness, it isn't striking a bargain or a deal with God at all. It's God having His way in us by filling us with His life, His love, His power. So God transforms children of the devil into children of God, not just by mere legal decree but by giving us Christ in his sonship. Therefore, according to the Roman Catholic Church, each and every deed I do that is pleasing to God is nothing other than the work of Christ active in me through the power of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine said as a result, "When God rewards my labors, He's merely crowning the works of His hands in my life." As Paul says, "We are not competent of ourselves; our competence is from God who has made us competent." It isn't me but the Holy Spirit in me enabling me to cooperate and operate. So we are justified and made holy by God's grace alone. The Catholic Church says, 'It's grace from beginning to end; there's no strict merit whatsoever. If there's any merit it's the merit of a child who grows up and receives from the parents the life of the family, and works and learns and does fidelity in the household. So it's like a father who gives and fills his children with all that he has and is. But Paul says, 'Not of works, lest any man should boast.' Paul's excluding good works performed apart from grace, apart from sonship, outside the family, by men and women who think of themselves as employees or servants. But that is not what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that we are saved by grace through faith, but nowhere ever does Paul say 'alone'. Luther consciously added the word to Romans 3. He in his translation of the Bible into German deliberately and knowingly added a word that was not there in the Greek. He thought that it should be and that it was in spirit, but he added it. Justification by faith alone, first defined after 1500 yearsfirst defined by Luther was done so and defended by adding a word to the Bible that was not there.

[MC Just]

I am Catholic because the Holy Spirit demanded that I be two years ago when he touched me and changed my life.

[p0lar_bear]

ICTHUS,

I'm not sure Luther's analogy can be adequately altered to present a Catholic understanding. He used that analogy specifically to say that grace is purely extrinsic. The Catholic understanding, of course, includes an intrinsic view of grace.

The problem I see with the use in your essay is that the dung remains dung. The fact that it can be useful doesn't change what it is, just how someone might view it.

Sanctifying grace, however, does change us ontologically; it makes us a new creation in Christ.

Luther's analogy specifically denies that truth.

Your analogy would somehow have to show that the soul is transformed into something new.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Anchored']well, I started asking all these questions about lent, and what denmonations did it beside Catholics, and then I found out my grandmother did it every year...so I was like "ok, I'm gonna do it" and she just kinda did a double take and she was like "oh really?" and I was like "yes, yes I am." and she was like "alright, what are you going to give up?" and I was like "um...soda." and she just kinda looked at me strange and said "alright. we'll see." so..yeah. haha. [/quote] So, how are you coming with giving up Soda, Jacy?



I'm going to have another crack at answering your question: here goes!

------------------(Just ignore this part, it is the beginning of my blog entry)------

[b]Why I Am A Catholic[/b]

As for the second question, "Why am I a Catholic?", I hope you’ll forgive my going into some detail, as this is not a topic which I can gloss over in a few sentences (or a page or two, for that matter)

Well, for one, when I was in my non-denominational church I was extremely dissatisfied with the lack of theological depth present therein. Also, I developed a curiosity (some would say, an unhealthy one) for discovering the roots of Patristic Christianity - how exactly was the Lords Supper celebrated by the early Christians? Was the Early Church liturgical in its worship, as Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and some Presbyterian churches are today? In other words, I desired to know what form the Christian faith took, after the 13 Apostles who had directly seen the Lord Jesus, had passed away. To whom did they entrust the message of the Gospel? What day-to-day instructions did the Churches of God observe? Interestingly enough, a recent archaeological discovery in the area of early Christianity is that of a document called the ([font="symbol"]Didace apostoloV[/font]) (Didache Apostolos) – or, the Teaching of the Apostles. Obviously, it was not important enough to the Holy Spirit for the document to be included in the Canon of Scripture, as the Bishops of the Church did not include it when they finalized the Canon of the Bible in the 5th century. However, the Didache, which most scholars believe to be authored by the Apostles themselves, provides important insights into how the early Church conducted itself. More, however, on the Didache in a moment.

What struck me most, however, was the correspondance between the Church Fathers conceptions of the Eucharist (The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word “Eucharistian”, or “Thanksgiving”), and Jesus' own words in John 6:48-68.

Influential Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, and even the aforementioned Didache Apostolos, all spoke of “The Eucharist”, the “Body of the Lord”, the “Sacrament of the Altar” and “The Sacrifice” – and all of these terms seemed connected in some way with the service I commonly knew as Holy Communion – the Lords Supper. And all of these seem to give a literal interpretation of the Lord’s own words in John 6, and what’s more, attached far more meaning to the concept of the ‘memorial’ that the Lord commands in Luke 22:19. On this last point, it’s worthwhile to elaborate at some length, because it’s crucial.

Our Lord uses the Greek phrase “Touto poiete eis tan emahn anamneisin” in Luke 22:19, and it is usually translated as “Do this in memory of Me”. However, the Greek word “anamnesin” used herein demands a deeper reading. You see, English has no real equivalent to convey its meaning – we fall short of its real meaning when we try to communicate it in one or two words. It conveys the meaning of a memorial, but not in the sense that we usually think of a memorial. Memorial, in the sense of the word anamnesis, means something like “to actually revisit and re-present the event signified”. In order to really do justice to this word, then, we would have to portray Christ saying something entirely too unwieldy, such as “Make ye My anamnesis”, or, to eliminate the Greek derivative altogether, “Do this as a re-presentation of the event signified by this action which I am performing.”

We then proceed, with this definition in mind, to the question “What event did the Last Supper signify?” The ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ at the Last Supper, as is clearly indicated by the context, signified the imminent Passion, Crucifixion, and Death of Christ. If, therefore, Christ told his apostles to re-present the event signified by the action he was performing, he was actually telling His apostles to celebrate this supper, and every time they did so, they were actually present at His cross, witnessing the one sacrifice which He offered for all time and eternity, and receiving the benefits of that sacrifice, eating and drinking that which the Lord Jesus affirms is His own flesh and blood, given for the life of the world. (John 6:48-68)

This may come as a shock to you that we believe this, but I assure you, this is the doctrine that the Church has taught for two millennia. (I can substantiate this with quotes from the Church Fathers to show the consistency of this teaching through the ages, if you like, but I will refrain from doing so at the moment for the sake of saving space.) The Lords Supper is much more than a superficial remembering of Jesus’ death on the cross. It is a revisitation of that same death – not a resacrificing of Him, as some of our Reformed brethren who misunderstand what we believe, think, but a participation in His one Sacrifice, which was offered once by Christ for the salvation of all men, and for all time. This is why we sometimes refer to our Divine Liturgy as the ‘Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” – because it is a real participation in the one Holy Sacrifice offered by Christ.

So, why am I not a Protestant? Because, firstly and foremostly, Protestantism denies the doctrine I just described above. Ever since John Calvin and those who started Presbyterianism formulated the Westminster Confession of Faith, and in the case of the English Reformation, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Protestant Christians have misunderstood what we mean when we say that we offer Christ’s one sacrifice. They take it to mean that we offer Him again and again, which is, in my thought, and in the language of Article Thirty-one of the Thirty-nine Articles, an idea plainly blasphemous and hurtful to His sacrifice. If the Catholic Church taught it, I would be the first to leave her fold. But she does not. Rather, we believe that Christ Himself acts through the person of His presbyter, standing before the Father Himself, making intercession through His own blood.

Furthermore, the Lord Himself affirms that we must eat His flesh, and drink His blood, otherwise we have no life in us (Jn 6:48-68). This is a teaching that the Church Fathers have re-iterated for twenty centuries, and which the Church teaches today.

Also, the Catholic Church views salvation as both a legal declaration, and a familial adoption into a covenant. There is a disturbing tendency within Protestantism to reduce our redemption to mere legal accquittal. While this is a correct understanding of justification, and we concur that God does declare us righteous by faith in Christ, on the basis of our Saviour perfection, He also adopts us as His Sons and Daughters, making us partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Pet 1:3-5). Christians, in the view of Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, are saved not only from sin, but for sonship!

Furthermore, what He declares to be so on the basis of faith in Christ, [i]he actually does[/i]. Luther used the analogy of a snow-covered dunghill to represent the redeemed Christians righteousness - God sees the 'snow' of Christs righteousness, and not the dung - the snow representing a forensically imputed, extrinsic righteousness. As believers, we ought to find this analogy utterly repulsive. Can the unredeemed mans soul be compared to a dunghill? Perhaps, but it is not an entirely adequate analogy. As I said earlier, Gods Word, in this case, His declaration of justice, is omnipotent, and in actuality accomplishes what God declares. This is evidenced by the following passage of Scripture.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (NIV)

[color=Blue]As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
[b]It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire [/b]
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. [/color]

Evidently, therefore, Luthers analogy is inadequate. Protestantism seeks to divorce justification, and the result thereof - sanctification, but this is a false dichotomy - justification, by its very nature, entails and brings about sanctification, and as such they are inexorably connected.

Hence, I would propose the following analogy in response to that of Luther: God covers the dunghill in snow, on the basis of which he no longer sees it as a dunghill. However, His sending snow on the dunghill entails that the dung underneath the snow must be destroyed, and replaced with pure, pristine snow, because it is a 'special kind of snow'

This is a grossly inadequate analogy. (Luthers analogy is incompatible with adaptation for a Catholic analogy) The crux of the issue is, however, that in justification, God not only declares righteous, but because His word is omnipotent, His word proceeds forth and makes a person righteous. The Protestant model of justification, however, is sadly lacking because it seeks to divorce the omnipotence of Gods saving declaration, from the declaration itself, resulting in the utter divorce of two theological terms which you are no doubt familiar with - "Justification" - to declare just, and "sanctification" - to make holy (or just).

In addition to this tendency to reduce salvation to a merely legal declaration of righteousness, there is another, far more profound soteriological reason why I am a Catholic: - Catholicism has a profound understanding that our salvation is a [i]family relationship[/i]. The Fatherhood of God, and the profundity of [i]exactly what that means[/i], are major underlying themes in Catholic theology.

Furthermore, we believe that the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, are not separated from one another at death. Hebrews 12:1 describes a 'cloud of witnesses' that observe us running our race here on earth. In the context, the writer of Hebrews is talking about a stadium game in which a person runs for a prize, and the people explicitly named in this cloud would all have been dead at the time the Letter was written. From this verse, others, and the continuous teaching of the Church through the ages, we derive the idea that the Church in Heaven, the "Church Triumphant" 'root for us', the "Church Militant" who are still 'fighting the good fight' and running our race here on earth. We also believe that we can turn to these, our bretheren who have fallen asleep in Christ and have been glorified in Heaven, to pray for us to God. We don't use them as a substitute for God, only we recommend ourselves to them to pray for us, because we know that they are much closer to God than we are, having already been purified from the dross of their sinful bodies. We also believe that, due to her singularly special role in bringing Christ the Redeemer into the world and her status as the mother of the Ultimate Davidic King, Jesus Christ (recall that in the OT, the [b]mother[/b], not the wife, of a Davidic King, was the Queen, and very often served as an intercessor for the people, before the King - see 1 Kings 2:13-22 for an example of this intercession in Scripture), Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has a special place among these saints and in the Heavenly Court of her Divine Son, the Sovereign King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. (For claritys sake, I must emphasize that [b]never[/b] is the Virgin Mother, or any other saint (for, they are created beings) to be given the adoration, respect, honour, and glory due to God alone.)


(Me) Any more suggestions??

[phatcatholic]

awesome testimony! here are my suggestions:

--grammatically speaking, you've left out the apostrophe when u using possessive nouns, used the wrong tense of a word in a couple places, and made some other errors. i suggest the following corrections (in bold):

[quote]While this is a correct understanding of justification, and we concur that God does declare us righteous by faith in Christ, on the basis of our [b]Saviour's[/b] perfection .... Luther used the analogy of a snow-covered dunghill to represent the redeemed [b]Christian's[/b] righteousness - God sees the 'snow' of [b]Christ's[/b] righteousness, and not the dung .... Can the unredeemed [b]man's[/b] soul be compared to a dunghill? .... As I said earlier, [b]God's[/b] Word, in this case, His declaration of justice, is omnipotent, and [b]it[/b] actuality accomplishes what God declares .... Evidently, therefore, [b]Luther's[/b] analogy is inadequate .... ([b]Luther's[/b] analogy is incompatible with adaptation for a Catholic analogy) .... The Protestant model of justification, however, is sadly lacking because it seeks to divorce the omnipotence of [b]God's[/b] saving declaration .... Furthermore, we believe that the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, [b]is[/b] not separated [b][[i]delete "from one another"[/i]][/b] at death .... Hebrews 12:1 describes a 'cloud of witnesses' that [b]observes[/b] us running .... the Church in Heaven, the "Church Triumphant" '[b]roots[/b] for us', the "Church Militant" .... (For [b]clarity's[/b] sake, I must emphasize[/quote]

--note that i just read ur addition on justification, so the same errors may exist elsewhere in ur testimony.
--regarding content, i think u need to elaborate much more on this statement:
[quote]In addition to this tendency to reduce salvation to a merely legal declaration of righteousness, there is another, far more profound soteriological reason why I am a Catholic: - Catholicism has a profound understanding that our salvation is a family relationship. The Fatherhood of God, and the profundity of exactly what that means, are major underlying themes in Catholic theology.[/quote]
this seems like an afterthought compared to the work u put into supporting your other claims, so i think more needs to be said here. how is there a family relationship? what does the "fatherhood of God" mean. prove that this understanding exists moreso in catholic theology then in protestant theology, and explain why u think that is. if u don't feel qualified to comment on this further, i would just take it out.

--finally, like i've said in earlier posts, u would want to add any other reasons why you are catholic, and then end w/ a concluding paragraph that sums all of that up.

good job bro........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Previously' date=' I']In addition to this tendency to reduce salvation to a merely legal declaration of righteousness, there is another, far more profound soteriological reason why I am a Catholic: - Catholicism has a profound understanding that our salvation is a family relationship. The Fatherhood of God, and the profundity of exactly what that means, are major underlying themes in Catholic theology.[/quote]

I would have to reread "Rome Sweet Home" and "The Lambs Supper" - I just basically wrote the first thing that came to mind - can you elaborate a little more for me on what this means to you?

[phatcatholic]

i'll be offline for the next three days. i'll get back w/ u when i get back. now, i'm off to the great unknown (aka a cabin in the woods )

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

you may wish to start here:

[b]Trinity and the Holy Family As a Model for Marriage[/b]
[b]--[url="http://www.mark-shea.com/icon.html"]The Family As the Icon of the Holy Trinity[/url]
--[url="http://www.geocities.com/johnaugus/grabowski.html"]Mutual Submission and Trinitarian Self-Giving[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FATHERGD.TXT"]The Fatherhood of God[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1112"]God's Fatherhood is Basis of the Family[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/JAN-FEB99/Families.html"]The Holy Family as the Model for Contemporary Catholic Families[/url]
--[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990101/STORIES/egypt.htm"]Flight Into Egypt[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/JOEROLE.TXT"]Joseph: Role Model for Today's Fathers[/url]
--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0021.html"]Mary and the Gift of Life: Motherhood Requires Opennes to the New Person[/url]
--[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980701/FRIDGE/EXPL_MARY.HTM"]Exploring Mary and Motherhood[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5610"]Holy Family Radiates Example of True Love[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2642"]Holy Family Teaches Us What Is Essential[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1470"]A Mother's Blessing[/url][/b]

when i get the chance, i will try to find some articles on how the family relates to salvation.

i hope this helps...........pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited March 16, 2004 by phatcatholic