Posted on 01/29/2007 6:45:51 AM PST by stfassisi
Before you go to bed, what distinguishes unbaptized disciples from the rest of humanity?
"It's either right or it's wrong."
No, the world is more complicated than that, I'm afraid.
Indulgences are no longer sold. They once were, and that was a bad, bad thing.
Now they're not. But there's still this complex skein of rules about something which, frankly, seems like a waste of time and effort. After all, you confess your sins and are absolved of them. I suppose back in the day when penances were sometimes crushing, an indulgence could have real meaning. But today?
Today it's just an appendage of a past practice, like the funny looking cardinals' hats. They don't have to wear those. But they do, because it's history. All organizations have their practices. There is nothing unholy per se about the idea of an indulgence, which is to say, shortening the time of penance by doing some other mitzvah, some other good deed.
Obviously there IS something very wrong with SELLING them, which is why the practice was stopped. The main problem with the practice THEN was that it, more than anything else, led to the division of the Church. The main problem with it NOW is that it is superfluous, and has a lingering bad odor to it.
That it's intricate and seeks to indulge this and that has a real "civil service salvation" feel to it which is, frankly, uninspiring.
Unfortunately, once organizations and traditions get moving in a direction, even straight talk and honesty doesn't move them easily. Look at all of the grief up this thread about one simple word: Gehenna, which has, and had in Jesus' time, a clear Jewish meaning, which is what he meant, and which resolved completely the Hell vs. Purgatory business.
The elephants are marching and the bulls are rumbling. There are some there who have the inkling, at the back of their minds, that actually I have told them the truth and illuminated something here, some, but even they are not going to ADMIT that, because it would involve a lot of, well, footing changes, course corrections, perhaps some humility in the face of some knowledge they didn't have and wish they did.
Instead the whole thing will rush on. Some on the Protestant right will ignore the definition and keep on saying I've provided no Scripture. Others, on the Catholic left, have already come at me saying that what I am saying is SCANDAL to the Church, etc.
So, even when people are just plain wrong, about a simple word, the whole weight and momentum of tradition and organizational committment just carries them forward like a great juggernaut. The price of changing course would be to admit some small degree of error or doubt, and that would weaken appearances before the other combattants, and so this thread will expire, some folks will have that tickle in their mind about Gehenna. Most will forget it tomorrow.
It's like that with the Enchiridion Indulgentarium too. Indulgences might have been a good idea once, if they were intended to focus people on prayers for one another, and prayers for the souls of the departed, and good works as acts of pious faith. But they became "simonized", so to speak, and became a REAL scandal (as opposed to me, who am no scandal, just an honest man speaking an uncomfortable truth). Now they're just superannuated, but to do away with them completely would be to grant a victory to the Lutheran side, and the institutional old bulls would rather maintain the book and the elaborate intricacy of "civil service penance"...even though it is barely much used...rather than put the thing to bed.
It's sad, but men are what they are, and traditions take on a force of their own, not just because of devils without, but because men themselves would rather be wrong than admit defeat.
"And that thief did nothing more than believe. He said, 'Remember me when you come into Your kingdom.'"
Au contraire: that rebel was hanging there for hours and hours and hours enduring some of the most hideous torture that the human mind has ever devised. Jesus was experiencing it too.
AND he respected Jesus' second commandment, telling his colleague in crime to shut up and leave the poor innocent Jesus alone.
AND he respected Jesus' first commandment, simply, by believing.
So, there was the expression of faith, and of compassion, both of which were redemptive.
The extent to which the man's long suffering on his own cross, to die of broken legs and suffocation, was the purgatorial balloon payment on his sins we won't know until we die and ask the question, if we care at that point.
"You err in thinking that she could usher in the kingdom."
I do?
I didn't know I thought that.
I think that Mary is the mother of God, and worthy of respect for that reason.
And I think God sent her to France in the mid-1800s to solidify the faithful in the face of the secular outbreak, and sanctified the shrine to her at Lourdes by making of his mother's shrine the modern Pool of Bethsaida.
Other than that, I don't have any more theology about Mary.
And in fact, that itself isn't theology. It's more observation of empirical facts and reaction to them.
I wonder how much the patent was worth back then?
Indeed, so why not buy candles and prayer cards and pay for mass remembrances to support the Church?
"So the Sadduccees weren't Jews? Some pharisees believed, some didn't."
Ummmm...what?
I'm sure this is in reference to something I said up-thread, but it's been a long one and I don't know which thing you're referring to.
Evian or Perrier?
Heck have bingo for all I care.
Romans 10:13 - Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
That's the important, and scriptural, part of your post.
Bingo!
I win!
I'm also exhausted.
Good night all. Bjorn has promised to take me to task for my "scandal" sometime soon, so tune in and, if he has any authority within the hierarchy of the Church, you might get to see an auto da fe!
More likely, though, you'll just see a couple of Catholics beating each other up over "respect" issues. It's a Latin thing. If you watch the Sopranos, you'll understand.
Good night.
"That's the important, and scriptural, part of your post."
I am sorry, no, Romans is NOT the important part of my post.
The IMPORTANT part of my post is that the thief demonstrated both of Jesus' Two Commandments: faith and love.
The Romans tie is interesting, but no, Romans is not as important as Jesus. Nothing in the Bible is as important as what Jesus said and did. Jesus was God. Jesus is the epicenter. Everything else has to be interpreted in terms of him.
If there's an apparent conflict between Paul and Jesus, then Paul has to be read in light of Jesus, not the reverse.
If there's a conflict between the Old Testament and Jesus, and Jesus himself brings up several, then Jesus overrides the Old Testament, because he was God.
Scripture Alone I can deal with, so long as Jesus is placed first in Scripture.
Now I am really going to go home.
Good night.
an auto da fe we can live with, but no felo-de-ses, please
I've no need to learn the teachings of the church of my youth through straw-man arguments. That is the sort of thing I was talking about.
Even if one doesn't agree with what one finds there, one can at least learn what other folks actually think and believe.
I read the caucus threads to see what other folk actually think & believe, not that I've been ignorant to the point where anything I've read has been new or a surprise to me. Some caucus members use the threads as an opportunity to do some Protestant bashing & trust me, I've heard it all before.
Their actual beliefs, thoughts and practices may well turn out to be very different from what their detractors suggest of them.
I was married in a Roman Catholic church, to a man raised in the Roman Catholic faith. I've been to Mass many times & while at Mass, I have never heard the anti-Protestant rhetoric that is commonly part of the caucus threads.
A wise person would see, then, that the detractors are not to be believed.
What detractors? On the caucus threads, there are none...
I think she is mentioned in Luke, as a person of means.
Three things:
1) God can grant any dispensation He wishes;
2) This dispensation to the thief was granted before the institution of the New Covenant (Christ had not yet died for his sins).
3) Jesus was God's own hand-selected passover sacrifice offered in accordance with and fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant. In the OT sense, the thief's faith in that sacrifice was in full compliance with the Law.
For one or both reasons listed above, this case has no bearing on anyone else in conjunction with the requirements of the New Covenant. They remain in full force for the rest of us.
Amazing works,
I dread the sound
Of torture for my debt.
I once was blessed but now I'm damned
'Till I indulgence get.
When I've been there 10,000 years
Punished day and nigh'
I hope by then I've earned my place
In Heaven by and by.
Nice try! But I'm not the one on the defensive. You've just said that God the Holy Spirit is less authoritative than God the Son. If God is One, they both must be in perfect harmony and equally authoritative.
What you're really saying is that you don't believe that Paul's writing are inspired because they clearly contradict your doctrine. Rather than adjust your doctrine, you'd rather call the Holy Spirit a liar, or deny His inspiration of Paul's letters.
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.