Posted on 11/30/2005 6:41:45 PM PST by NYer
Refers to St. Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 136(137)
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.
The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).
On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father's meditation, addressed to more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square, concentrated on the suffering of the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile, expressed dramatically in Psalm 136(137).
The Pontiff referred to Augustine's commentary on this composition of the Jewish people, noting that this "Father of the Church introduces a surprising element of great timeliness."
Augustine "knows that also among the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire," Benedict XVI stated.
"They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption," explained the Pope, quoting Augustine.
This spark
"And he says that among the persecutors, among the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live," the Holy Father continued.
"With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ," he clarified.
Continuing with his quotes from Augustine, the Pope added that "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance."
The Bishop of Rome concluded by inviting those present to pray to the Lord "that he will awaken in all of us this desire, this openness to God, and that those who do not know God may also be touched by his love, so that all of us journey together toward the definitive City and that the light of this City might also shine in our time and in our world."
What good was Jesus' death on the Cross, if I can lose the very thing He purchased for me, and then regain it, and then lose it again? What good was His sacrifice, if the sacrifice of sheep did the same thing (covered our sin until we sinned again)?Not.
John 5:24
I hear God's word. I believe what God said and trust Christ as my savior. Has everlasting life means right now (not later), and moreover, it is everlasting (if I possibly could lose it, then God is a liar). Shall not doesn't even remotely resemble might not. Has passed has an entirely different meaning than shall pass.
My conviction respecting eternal security in heaven (without a stop in the way-station of purgatory) is based on fact and not subjective feelings or the philosophy of men.
I will concede that the science fiction potential of losing faith would entail that I could never be saved again. This is emphatically declared by the writer to the Hebrews (Heebs 6:1-6), in that if (as if, roll-eyes), salvation could be lost, they're done (stick a fork-in-'em) because that would require another sacrifice and thereby putting Christ to open shame. This incidentally is the issue that the Roman Catholics dance about with mental gymnastics and excruciating semantic contortions concerning their "re-presentation" of Christ's death at the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Good stuff! Earlier today I blamed a poorly written report on my cold medicine, but I think Scotch is a better cure.
I will have to look into him more.
Since my bride has informed me that I am giving up buying books for Advent (again), it will probably have to wait until after the new year.
"It is Pelikan with a k."
Its the Scotch. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :)
Canon law reveals that to be far from the truth however:
The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year (emphasis added) and the season of Lent. Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the episcopal conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. - #1250,1251There's nothing wrong with a devout Christian from fasting (or abstaining), provided that this is done with a devout heart (and one's salvation is not getting mixed up in the middle of it). What kind of sin does one commit by breaking Roman Catholic Church canon law?
Canon 1253 provides an exception to the rule: "The episcopal conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety."
In November 16, 1966, the U.S. bishops did just that. The bishops´ conference´s "Complementary Norms on Penance and Abstinence" released American Catholics from a strict obligation under pain of sin to abstain from meat on Fridays outside of Lent. On that date, the last Friday was observed whereby American Roman Catholics were required to abstain from eating meat. The change was due to a decree made by Pope Paul VI earlier the same year. However, the exclusion pertains only to Americans.
On the first day of the bishops' annual meeting, Detroit Cardinal Adam Maida found overwhelming support for his idea of returning to the traditional abstinence as penance for abortion and assisted suicide. It was not clear when meatless Fridays would return or what form any rules on abstinence might take. The bishops will study the idea; they could act as early as next November. - 12 Nov 97 (unanimous vote by 300 of the nation's Roman Catholic bishops Monday moved their 61 million followers one step closer to meatless Fridays)According to the Office for the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:
Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion. - #1422According the the Roman Catholic Church, interior penance takes on various forms (as described in #1434-1439). #1440 says that "sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. #1446 says: "The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God."
I can't go any further with this, because frankly it galls me (Gal 1:6-10) to no end. Is this just some sort of whimsical speculation? Most ALL citations for any Roman Catholic tenet are off-the-wall contortions, but there's absolutely nothing cited in to support #1446. Nevertheless, I digress (and even moreso, I must cease and desist as I discern my patience has reached its limits (and that directly contravenes God's Word: we should be sharp as serpents, but harmless as doves).
Please excuse this post for having the ludicrous character of somebody exclaiming, "THAT, is just too absurd to even respond to." Why even respond then (akin to saying, "That goes without saying). I've no intentions to hurt, malign or otherwise denigrate any of y'all. I hope that in some fashion I've been a useful tool for the Spirit of God. My prayer is that the Holy Spirit's whisperings in that regard will be louder than the nattering of Satan's minions in your ears; that is after all what we're all up against.
Excellent point.
"When God calls a sinner, He does not repent of it. God does not, as many friends do, love one day and hate another; or as princes, who make their subjects favorites and afterwards throw them into prison. This is the blessedness of a saint; his condition admits of no altercation. God's call is founded upon His decree, and His decree is immutable. Acts of grace cannot be reversed. God blots out His people's sins, but not their names." -- THOMAS WATSON
But, Kolo, one of the issues of the reformation was the inability of these teachings to be convincingly demonstrated in scripture....the guidance given us by the Apostles.
They might be deductions, wishes, etc., but there is no scriptural certainty to them.....as there is no scriptural certainty about the doctrine of a papacy.
I find his claim to be a Pharisee spurious to tell you the truth.
The two most objectionable teachings of the RCC, IMO, are Penance and Purgatory. They both deny the propitiatory work of Christ.
You wouldn't have posted that without having a need to tell somebody something, and I'm it, right? If not, then whatever (aaaaaaand I have no clue what you're talking about).
As my cat used to say: "Blert."
ROGER. Copy that. In response to your tag-line, I seek Truth. As a physics major kind of guy: that which is true can NOT be false (versa vicer).
Sorry, sorry, my bad. I felt that you were feeling Christ was feeling that he felt he was Pharisee. Which one of those feelings are wrong, and did you turn the water off before you left on your journey? The answer to that question is going to be most important.
You know what? where do you get the idea that Christ felt he was Pharisee? OH, Wait! IT MUST've been in the John 3 chapter. O.k., my bad.
LOLOLOL!!
When I argue with my Calvinist brothers in Christ, we don't argue tradition. The two (usually many of them) of us beat each other over the head concerning meaning, not tradition. Those of Catholic persuasion are not brothers/sisters, but neighbors. Big difference.
We have in common that Truth is of core importance to us - that is why I am a Calvinist. (Big smile)
Or meaning is found in traditions and within traditions is found differing meanings. Perhaps, however, we could say the ground of meaning is different among different traditions. In fact, it seems, within the Calvanian tradition, there is a contemporary controversy over the original meaning of the tradition. Yet the ground of meaning seems to remain the same only the consequent of that ground is in question. In summary, even if the ground of meaning is constant there can still be differences in the consequence of those grounds and when the grounds is sufficiently dissimiliar there seems to be no point at which the differing traditions can communicate as a common tradition.
Well Jokus, it seems you've just damned every sincere Jew and given salvation to every sincere Hindu and Muslim. Congratulations.
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.