Posted on 11/29/2005 7:02:26 AM PST by HarleyD
A sacrament is a visible sign of God's grace, His action, which is naturally spiritual and invisible. God works for the sake of man's limitations - we can't see His blessings visibly. If you believe that Baptism is a sacrament in this sense, I don't understand why Confession would not be, considering that God is again gracing the penitent with His presence through the visible sign of the absolution given by the priest.
I'd advise not going to wikipedia in the future...
The Roman Catholic Church never OFFICIALLY sold indulgences. This was what it was, an ABUSE of the doctrine of indulgences. Men are human and are prone to abuse things. I thought you were aware of that, being a Calvinist.
I find your marginalizing this issue troubling but not out of character with a great many Christians today.
You are not privy to all the conversations that I have with my Orthodox brothers. Trust me, I just FINISHED a conversation in where we did disagree on a few issues. The trick in such matters is to point out "errors" in a loving manner. This is not done by condemning the other to hell or in constantly misrepresenting the other side - which, unfortunately, you have been prone to do. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics believe that they are right. We realize we are very close brothers, but we also hold to our specific theology. In such matters, then, one must tread gently and with love. You can't expect to rush in like a bull, telling the other they are heretics, and expect them to comply. There is no reason why the Orthodox need us or vice versus. If there is a unity, it will be mutually conducive to both sides.
Correct me if I am wrong, my Orthodox brothers.
Regards
I'd have to ask myself.
Wikipedia is wrong, as I have stated, and now, your alter ego agrees with me...
Wikipedia is almost a direct quote from newadvent.org. If they are wrong then the Catholic dictionary is wrong.
Clearly, this is not the same HarleyD I know.
I think the EO interpretation is more true to scripture than the RC. That being said I think the Protestants interpretation is more true than the EO.
Even in the Medieval period, they merely "shortened" one's stay in Purgatory.
I stand corrected.
This is sad, because I realize that you are not an unintelligent person. I pray that you are not attempting to maliciously mislead people of good faith.
Dittos.
LOL!!! At least we must admit their sincere delusions. :O)
" There is no reason why the Orthodox need us or vice versus. If there is a unity, it will be mutually conducive to both sides."
Spot on, save of course to remind all that unity is the command of Christ. By the way, HD, I was part of those discussions jo is talking about! :)
Sheesh! I come back from a mini-vacation and it's just as though I never left! ;-D
I, too, wonder about HD's sincerity sometimes. It's passing strange: the same person who is adept enough (in what he doubtless considers Catholic "arcania") that he can dig up all kinds of theological quotes from various Ecumenical Councils, and remonstrate with BOTH Catholics and Orthodox about the underpinnings of their Sacraments, is the SAME guy who evidently thinks that indulgences can spring a soul out of hell, or (in another recent thread)thinks we "worship" Mary! An odd inconsistency lurks about here!
For all of his delving into graduate-level Catholic theology, not too much seems to have sunk-in. Either he is a poster child for Invincible Ignorance, or he'll find out some day that he has too much of a background to qualify.
Thanks
I didn't know that the Orthodox had a dogma that said "there is no purgatory". I would imagine that one is free to believe it or not, as an Orthodox man. As a Catholic, of course, we "must".
Orthodoxy has never viewed grace in quite the same way
That is my understanding, also. While we also believe that God "rains" His grace on all, both good and evil (for how else can we say that 'God desires all men to be saved'), Catholics believe that our response to grace brings more grace.
In the end, Orthodoxy believes, we will not be judged by our good or evil deeds, or by how much merit we or anyone else have stored up, but rather by how much like Christ we have become.
Perhaps this is from the old Roman idea of law and legal justice. We say the same thing as the Orthodox, esp. after Vatican 2. I think Thomism and earlier Roman Catholicism focuses to a degree on merit and God placing us on the scales, so to speak. I think it says the same thing, as in the end, God will judge us with some standard - how much am I like Christ. To determine this, He will look at our deeds of love - accordingly mentioned in Mat 25:31-45 (sheeps and the goats parable). Do I love like Christ? Have I given my "life" up to gain it?
Brother in Christ
"An odd inconsistency lurks about here!"
HD is OK, M. Think about it this way. The overwhelming majority of both Latin Rite and Eastern Christians couldn't name more than say three Fathers and probably couldn't quote accurately any of them. HD the Calvinist has dug into the Fathers in our discussions here and if nothing else has discovered a good deal about what The Church believes now and believed in its early days. He intereprets the Scriptures differently than we do basing much of his thought on how the Reformation Divines interpreted +Augustine. To expect him to understand with his mind what we know with our souls, something which is virtually genetic and definitional of our very beings is expecting more than is fair.
The constant tendency of all people is to read the Fathers looking for support for one's own deeply held beliefs. The Fathers said a lot things so its generally easy to find what one is looking for. The key to reading the Fathers is to do so prayerfully and with the purpose of understanding what they believe, not what we want them to believe. From that practice, the wheat separates from the chaff, gradually the consensus patrum becomes apparent and a path for our lives is laid out.
I think HD is simply reacting to something new.
Ping
I don't think it was Christ, more like his opposite number
What concerns me is when one reads overwhelming support for a particular doctrine, such as the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the monarchial position of the Bishop, and a person CONTINUES to deny that the Church believed this. When one ignores the vast majority of the Fathers, who are writing what their own communities believed, as well, while picking out that obscure monk who was universally refuted, as the basis of one's belief on a doctrine is simply dishonest. It is a refusal to see that one may be wrong, which is ironic, because most of these people DO believe that sin clouds man's judgment - but not their own...
I believe that there is a wide diversity of beliefs among the Church Fathers on various issues. There is plenty of lattitude, because dogma had not been formally defined. The Church Fathers are "feeling" out written definitions of the faith. But it speaks volumes when we see a nearly unanimous point of view on a subject. Denying this makes it clear where one stands - it is not with Christianity. To ignore such a widespread and unified belief is arrogance, pure and simple. When the Church speaks in such ways, it is infallible. Otherwise, how do we even believe that Christ rose from the dead?
Brother in Christ
You are spot-on in your observation here, jo kus!
A pattern has developed here on FR that mirrors a mindset that has been thriving among Protestants for over 100 years. The Fathers are exhaustively searched in efforts to refute Catholic and/or Orthodox teaching by showing that certain doctrines do not have traceability to the ancient Church. A reasonable tactic, provided that it works. It invariably doesn't, however, because the "dissent" that may be found is merely the exception that proves the rule.
Generally, the Fathers achieve 95% or better consensus on a given issue, often times a virtually unanimous consensus. But the search will commence for that one dissenter or two questioners of a particular belief, and when such are found, a triumphant producing of the quote is immediately thrust in front of all. Unfortunately, people undertaking such searches miss the very utility of the Fathers: to show a consensus on key doctrinal matters that springs from the apostolic era.
One might suppose that, having to wade through so much material to find the occasional questioner or rogue opinion, it would dawn on the quote searchers that the Catholic/Orthodox slant on Christian theology just "might" have some merit, and the relatively miniscule levels of ancient dissent are clearly aberrations and signposts to error. Evidently, based on repeated instances of the use of the Fathers in this vein just here on FR, one supposing this would be wrong. Seeing the same pattern from the same people, over and over again, one might begin to question whether bad faith is at work here. The business-end of the Parable of the Sower in Matt. 13:10-15 is fulfilled in such an outlook as demonstrated by the quote searchers.
We take too much on ourselves when judging interior motives with respect to eternal destinies. That's God's job alone. But it is our duty to judge the outward effects of seeming bad faith wherever we find them. Peter himself did not scruple in this area in Acts 5, St. Paul NEVER did, and neither should we.
I haven't been on this website for very long compared to a host of others, but some things are quite clear. A core of the "usual suspects" either posts deliberately inflammatory threads like this one, or hijacks threads that stem from a (usually) Catholic doctrinal foundation and turns them into vehicles to attack the apostolic faith. The fact that thorough refutations are quick and copious, and pointed again and again at the same 10-15 people, provides lots of circumstantial evidence that a long-term strategy of wearing down defenses of Catholic and/or Orthodox beliefs is at play. When nothing sinks in at all, and the same old canards are hurled again and again, with the same old digging for a few contrary ancient opinions among the Fathers, one HAS to start questioning levels of sincerity.
If through nothing but osmosis, quote searchers, after a long while of rooting around among the Fathers, develop a certain encyclopedic knowledge of early Church doctrine. That these same folks can, after all this, STILL accuse us of Mary-worship, or inventing confession via poor translations of the original Greek NT text, or (as in this thread) that indulgences can spring a soul from hell, or a host of other absurdities, is truly mind-boggling if one presupposes good faith. It can't JUST stem from honest disagreement, since the same quotes and scenarios are invoked a multiplicity of times, even after being repeatedly, soundly and clearly shown to be irrelevant, misunderstood or a rare digression from consensus.
Under such circumstances, one wonders to what extent the concept of invincible ignorance truly applies. I pray that it does, but it's a sad situation regardless. Without a doubt, the human mind manifests a lack of the clarity and agility displayed in the angelic mind!
Some of these are legitimate complaints. The argument that penance is rooted in a mistranslation of the Greek has validity only insofar as "penance" has 2000 years of theological baggage that the Greek root undoubtedly did not. Claiming indulgences spring a soul from hell is just sloppiness, but understandable. Many Protestants sometimes unconsciously equate Purgatory with hell. It's probably rooted in the old polemics.
As regards Mary, however, I think it would help if you saw things from Protestant eyes. I have no doubts that you and the other Catholics do not see yourselves as worshipping Mary - that would violate the core of monotheism that you hold as dearly as any Protestant. (Heck - the Protestant understanding of the Trinity is derived from Catholics.) To a Protestant, however, we see the adoration vs. veneration as distinctions without a difference. Praying "Hail Mary, Full of Grace" along with Gloria Patri and the Our Father seems jarringly like you are praying to her. To a Protestant, your argument that you are only soliciting her intercessory prayers seems like a rationalization. I'm not saying it is - that's between you and God. It looks a lot like one to a Protestant outsider, however.
I understand your points as you made them. My observation doesn't necessarily deal with the circumstances you describe, where an honest question or disagreement stems from mere misunderstanding or a different worldview. I find it very difficult to believe pure "good faith" is at work when the same posters can demonstrate *excellent* grasp of the Fathers in simply being able to find obscurities within their writings, but utterly fail to see the Sensus Catholicus of the total compendium, or utterly fail to grasp even the most basic doctrines after scores of capable explanations of them by multiple posters. One might think, if "good faith" is at work here, that simple osmosis might carve out some of the erroneous presuppositions that might have originally prompted postings by such folks. But such hope isn't always borne-out in the real world of experience. Pretty irksome.
I would only argue that the sensus catholicus was more a search for definition where the theological beliefs were refined as new issues arose and were dealt with. I'm not familiar with the term, but it seems clear to me that any Christian theological consensus took a while in coming. There always was, furthermore, a fair amount of diversity in that consensus.
I'd like to think that many Protestants are what we would call "invincibly ignorant" of our position. Often times, they'd be surprised that it is not as far away as they'd think. And as far as the Fathers, that is how the Cardinal Newman eventually became Catholic. He read the Fathers looking to prove Catholicism wrong. But one must have an open mind to the truth, wherever it leads. I think some people are open only to things that support their own views, disregarding the rest. This is not a search for the truth.
We take too much on ourselves when judging interior motives with respect to eternal destinies. That's God's job alone. But it is our duty to judge the outward effects of seeming bad faith wherever we find them. Peter himself did not scruple in this area in Acts 5, St. Paul NEVER did, and neither should we.
Sometimes I wonder, but I try not to "call people out" in most cases. However, sometimes, it is just too obvious! I'd prefer if we'd compare our theology and walk away with a better understanding of each other, but that doesn't seem to work in reality. I think what is key for all of us to remember is that GOD is the one who effects conversions. We merely provide seeds, so to speak. HE provides everything else. So we must try to place the "burden" on Him - as long as we feel we have done our "job" effectively, there comes a point where you just say "OK, Lord, I have done what I could" and leave it at that.
A core of the "usual suspects" either posts deliberately inflammatory threads like this one, or hijacks threads that stem from a (usually) Catholic doctrinal foundation and turns them into vehicles to attack the apostolic faith
I have seriously considered writing Word documents of some of the most often used subjects - it would certainly save time to cut and paste. It seems the same things come up over and over. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura are two common ones. Haven't seen a Mary one for awhile (perhaps it is the season?)
That these same folks can, after all this, STILL accuse us of Mary-worship, or inventing confession via poor translations of the original Greek NT text, or (as in this thread) that indulgences can spring a soul from hell, or a host of other absurdities, is truly mind-boggling if one presupposes good faith.
I can't answer for them, but it makes you wonder. I think they just don't flat out believe what we are saying - or don't want to. Logic would refute the argument quickly, and we could move on to REAL differences. Unfortunately, religion is also an emotional subject. Logic sometimes takes a back seat, I have noticed...
Under such circumstances, one wonders to what extent the concept of invincible ignorance truly applies.
Yes...Me too.
Brother in Christ
If someone actually said that, they'd certainly be wrong, as that is not what the Church teaches (I doubt it ever did anywhere). Unfortunately, there are many poorly catechised Catholics - and most Protestants don't see the need to brush up on the Catechism!
Many Protestants sometimes unconsciously equate Purgatory with hell.
Probably. One wonders where they get this idea - their pastors? Or unintelligent former Catholics. If the former, they are not leading their flocks very well.
To a Protestant, however, we see the adoration vs. veneration as distinctions without a difference.
I completely understand and empathize with a Protestant who approaches me or another with this in mind. I personally believe part of the problem is that the Protestant "worship" is relegated to Scripture reading and singing. There is no sacrifice - which is nearly unique among all religions (Islam is another exception to this rule). Sacrifice reprsents the pinnacle of worship - it is a giving of something dear to us for the sake of God. I believe that most Protestants accept that Christ did everything - thus there is no need for sacrifice anymore.
On the other hand, Catholics have ALWAYS seen the Eucharist (the breaking of the Bread) as a participation in a Sacrifice, the greatest of Sacrifices. Because we are part of the Body, we, too, can bring our own personal sacrifices to God in time - as Christ's sacrifice is continuously offered to the Father. In effect, then, Catholics worship primarily as most religions do - through sacrifice to God. Certainly, our prayers and singing can also be worship, but this is usually within the context of the Liturgy - public worship.
Thus, a Catholic can pray with a saint, kneel before that saint, venerate him, and so forth, and NOT be called worship. Remember, it is the INNER workings that determine whether someone is worshipping or merely venerating. The actions CAN be identical in either case. The Scriptures themselves prove this - kneeling, praying with, honoring, etc. are not relegated ONLY to the act of worship. This, I believe, is the confusion. Does this make sense to you?
Regards
Luther, the inventor, disagrees.
'If your Papist makes much unnecessary fuss about the word (Sola, alone), say straight out to him, Doctor Martinus Luther will have it so, and says, Papists and donkeys are one and the same thing. . . thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough For we will not be the scholars and or the disciples of the Papists, but their masters and judges. We must once in a way act a little haughtily and noisily with these jack-asses.
This is my answer to your first question; and as to their unnecessary noise about the word Sola, I beg of you not to give these donkeys any other or future answer, but simply this much: D. Luther will have it so, and says he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery.
But as to you and our friends, I will give you my reason for using the word (Sola) . . . I knew very well that here, Rom. III., the word (Sola) is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true, these four letters, S O L A, are not in it, which letter the jack-asses look at as a cow looks at a new gate; but they do not see that, nevertheless, it expresses the meaning of the text; and if our German translation is to be clear and powerful, it ought to be put in"'13
13 Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and its Results. Taken Exclusively From the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works, By Henry O'Connor, pp. 23-26.
Luther need to invent sola fide to rationalize his brand of twisted theology.
"... Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."
Luther to Melanchthon August 1, 1521
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.