Posted on 05/26/2003 6:49:30 PM PDT by Coleus
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:39:25 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A Catholic religious education coordinator was denied an award from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Wednesday evening because she is a lesbian, prompting a protest at the dinner honoring the other 17 recipients.
About 200 members of St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church demonstrated Wednesday night in support of Kathy Itzin, the church's religious education coordinator. Itzin, a member of St. Joan's, was to be one of 18 archdiocesan workers honored for their work in teaching young people about the faith. She is in a relationship with a partner, and they have four children, ages 10 to 16.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
It would also help if you clarified your own position: you seem to enjoy taking shots at other people's beliefs, but you seem ashamed to profess your own thinking explicitly.
Upon WHAT do you base this assumption?
Upon the definition of the soul.
Shots? By posting Scripture that disagrees with your position is not exactly what most people would call 'shots', but merely contending for the Faith.
I am not ashamed of anything I believe.Just WHERE is this 'definition' found?
And the Bible says this.........
There certainly is. I hope you are clear on the distinction of de congruo vs. de condigno.
Did you consider my point about the mud used to give sight to the blind man? The mud worked de congruo because it was made congruent, or made to correspond, to the purpose which Christ ordained for it.
Christ healed him de condigno from His own worth (dignus) with reference, congruence or correspondence to some outside power.
Because Mary corresponded exactly to the grace which her Son freely gave her, she is a model of Christian living - especially in the face of suffering - for all believers.
If the prayer of righteous man availeth much, then the prayers offered by Mary on behalf of the faithful must also so avail.
You said:
your euphemistic use of the phrase "scriptural inference" doesn't hide the fact that your explination leads us from what might almost pass as scriptural
I don't think I'm being euphemistic at all - I'm trying to read Scripture correctly, and I think there is a real Scriptural difficulty regarding the manner in which Mary could have already been full of grace before the Savior was born.
Do I realize that there are other Scriptural inferences which can be drawn from this difficulty which are antithetical to mine? Of course.
Do I realize the way that Mary is spoken of in the Catholic Church can be extremely florid and couched in obscure theological terms? Of course.
I'm not asking you to swallow Catholicism hook, line and sinker: I'm just asking that you acknowledge that I take Scripture seriously and that neither my Church nor my own conscience advises me to just jettison the Scriptures in favor of a neat, rounded theological construct.
(2) Catholics do not "consult" those enjoying eternal life - they ask for their prayers.
there is a difference between saying "pray for me" and conjuring up the witch of Endor for a fortune-telling session.
Ofcourse, because the RCC has crafted a totally different definition of the word grace. Soothingdave described it to me in detail, I think it was him. Grace was merit that you earned based on works, like communion, rosary, works etc. You need a certain amount to be saved. It is also used up when you goof up. This is not the biblical definition of the word.
I'd need your definition to be sure, but I don't think they are "totally different".
Grace was merit that you earned based on works, like communion, rosary, works etc.
Hmmm. This is a bit muddled.
I will try to explain succinctly, citing my sources.
(1) Grace is not merit. It is, literally from Scripture, God's favor.
(2) Grace cannot be earned by actions - to quote from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 875: "No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered." You can't say: "Okay, God, I did this. I automatically get some grace (i.e. Your favor)." God bestows grace on whom He wills and as He wills it.
To quote the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent:
This Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said 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, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
The main distinction here between Catholic doctrine and Reformed doctrine is the assertion that God's grace is freely offered and can be either rejected or accepted. Both Luther (implicitly) and Calvin (explicitly) held that God's grace is irresistible.
You need a certain amount to be saved.
There are no "amounts" of grace. You are either in God's favor or you are not.
It is also used up when you goof up.
God's grace is never used up. But Catholics believe that when we knowingly and with malice aforethought sin against God, we reject His grace. His grace is there - but we have refused it and "returned to our vomit" so to speak.
When the person you spoke to perhaps described different kinds of grace, I think it is a more accurate representation of Catholic teaching to say that God's grace works on us in different ways because we are created beings. The three main ways are the way God's grace prepares us for justification (prevenient grace), the way God's grace justifies us (sanctifying grace) and the way God's grace sanctifies us (actual grace). I will cite the Decree of the Council of Trent again to substantiate that this is the official Catholic position.
On the matter of works-righteousness:
Canon 1: If any one says, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
On prevenient grace:
Canon 3: If any one says, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
On sanctifying grace:
from Chapter VII: Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
On actual grace:
Canon 22: If any one says, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.
You wrote:
This is not the biblical definition of the word.
I think it is. I think it is the only way to reconcile Paul's claim that salvation comes by grace through faith and not the works of the law, and yet that the faithful are to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.
We need God's grace to have faith. We need God's grace to be justified. We need God's grace to be sanctified.
This is total double speak! The first sentence is on the right track and the rest retracts it. It says you can not give it to yourself but it is still something you earn for something you do. Only it is God who gives it if He wants. It's still a work that gets it as I already said.
I think I've lost the thread of the argument somewhere. Forgive me.
Where exactly does it say that grace is something you earn for what you do?
You can't "earn" grace. God gives grace freely - you can reject it because of free will (this is a Catholic teaching which the Reformers opposed), but you can't receive grace unless God decides to give it to you.
It's too bad, then, that there are NO NT examples of ANYONE asking for help from the old OT prophets, Kings, Judges, etc.
Just GOD, their Rock and their Salvation.
Nothing was inferred, stated or suggested of any other method.
This is the same claim that the LDS make: Joseph Smith had MUCH greater insight and learning from 'god' and his extra writings fill in the blanks left by others.
The last time i checked, I didn't see anyone checking IDs at the communion rail.
An excommunicate should be known on sight to a competent pastor. For example, my local pastor refused communion to a man known to be openly living in sin with a woman after he divorced the mother of his children.
He didn't need to check an ID because he knows his flock.
Me too, trying to work and carry on an interesting conversation over FR is tough.
Somehow we have a big disagreement over the scripturality of Marianism. You suggest that through "inference" we can move from a small handfull of verses to the many writings of popes and DeMontforts out there. I disagree and suggest that with the same kind of "inference" we could have picked the donkey He rode in on or John the Baptist or the bronze snake that Moses made to save the people and invent all the same kinds of things about it. It's been done before and it is a human failing. I mention the bronze snake for a specific reason because there is an example of an object that was given for a positive reason that later became an idol. This is what we have in the RCC with Mary.
No, it isn't.
Well, not precisely. Nothing written by a private individual like DeMontfort is binding on any Catholic and only a small percentage of papal pronouncements are. In point of fact, the Pope convened a panel of theologians some years ago to put every authoritative pronouncement by every Pope and every Council and Synod into a single volume in order to make theologians lives' easier. It is called the Enchirdion Symbolorum (which translates to Dogma Manual). It's about 600 pages long but, if you take account of the enormous amount of repetition involved, it's about 150-200 pages of teaching - much shorter, say, than Calvin's Institutes. Pretty much everything in it is repeated over again in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But I'd like to get back to one point: the Catholic Church does not teach that grace is earned. If Scripture is absolutely clear on two points, it is these: (1) That salvation is a free gift of God's grace which we cannot ever deserve or earn and (2) God will reward or punish us on the Day of Judgment according to our deeds.
Catholic teaching on grace and justification reconciles the implied contradiction without doing violence to either truth.
"binding": DeMontforts writings and not "official" RC doctrine yet there are popes who make pilgramages to his grave. In other words an individual RC is perfectly free and quite encourged to believe every word written by DeMontfort through "inference". The more Marian RC's are encouraged so the less Marian ones have the "non binding" out. It has been stated that all RC's are one and non RC's are shattered and yet through this type of doctrinal inference the RC is able to build his own eclectic set of beliefs.
But I'd like to get back to one point: the Catholic Church does not teach that grace is earned. If Scripture is absolutely clear on two points, it is these: (1) That salvation is a free gift of God's grace which we cannot ever deserve or earn and (2) God will reward or punish us on the Day of Judgment according to our deeds.
Ok then let me ask this. What is the relationship between communion and grace? So far you are defining a whole different grace than the previous person I spoke to. I'm wondering how to go back a thousand posts and do a search on biblewonk and grace. Then I could show you what I learned. It sure sounds like a case of two different RC's on a different sheet of music, not that that is so bad, you will get very different views of predestination from my tiny church of about 40 families.
And thanks for not taking offense to every little thing I say. This mode of communication is extremely good at starting fights and that is not my intention.
I would remind you that DeMontfort was a person, not just a set of documents. St. Louis stood up to a lot of jaded skeptics and atheists who had far more power than he and he lived a life of great personal virtue and sacrifice at atime when decadence and neglect of spiritual values were fashionable. Although I agree with those who feel that his Mariology was extreme and excessive, I don't think he ever forgot who his Lord and Savior was.
In other words an individual RC is perfectly free and quite encourged to believe every word written by DeMontfort through "inference".
Catholics are, in point of fact, encouraged to have as balanced a view of doctrine as possible.
The more Marian RC's are encouraged so the less Marian ones have the "non binding" out.
A proper regard for Mary is encouraged. I say my Rosary. I attend Mass on the Feasts of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I ask Mary to pray for me and my family every day. I don't think any Catholic can truly call themselves Catholic if they do not acknowledge the Lord's mother and her role in the history of salvation.
But no Catholic is encouraged to forget her subaltern status either. To forget that she is, in her own words, "the handmaid of the Lord" is unCatholic.
It has been stated that all RC's are one and non RC's are shattered
Catholics are one primarily through their shared participation in the Eucharist and their assent to a body of doctrine most authoritatively represented in the Catechism. In any matter outside the dogmatic boundaries of the Church's teaching, a variety of thinking is permitted. We do not split congregations over nonauthoritative points of doctrine.
and yet through this type of doctrinal inference the RC is able to build his own eclectic set of beliefs.
This is true to a certain extent. One example: Church teaching is clear that God created the world and that there was a first man and a first woman who sinned against Him. I personally believe in a literal six day creation and I disbelieve in evolution - perhaps the only person born and raised in New York City who holds this view. Other Catholics believe in "theistic evolution" and an allegorical interpretation of the creation account. But as long as we both believe that the world did not come from some random physical process and as long as we both believe that there really was a first man and woman who sinned, we are both within the acceptable range of teaching. Is my view "eclectic"? Perhaps. But it is orthodox.
Ok then let me ask this. What is the relationship between communion and grace?
Do you mean "communion" in the sense of "the communion of the saints" that we were discussing earlier, or do you mean "communion" in the sense of "partaking in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper)"?
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.