Posted on 06/02/2007 1:15:18 PM PDT by xzins
do you have a point...other than the poor me’s?
Probably not. This is an especially ugly thread.
Um, let me see now. This is getting to be an awful lot like work here ...
Okay, you asked who had less of a calling to be a priest, child molesters or this guy. I still don't know if this guy was ordained or not. My GUESS is that if an RC said "HE wasn't a priest" he wasn't talking about "calling" but whether or not the guy actually was ordained.
But my "meta-comment" is that not only are we used to the idea of really very bad men who are priests, but we have an fairly firm set of theological principles which assume the possibility -- starting with Augustine and the Donatist controversy about whether the worthiness, or moral probity or whatever, of the priest affects the efficacy of the Sacraments. (Answer: No.)
So I wonder where the question came from.
And what the question reminds me of is a marital spat where one (or both) of the spouses not only fight the current fight hard but bring up previous fights. All that does is testify to the emotional state of the contenders. It sho' don't move the conversation along in a useful way.SO I doubted that there was a theological principle at issue here in the question about the calling of the priest.
In any event, the poor guy was extremely poorly served by his novice master and community. As I said in another (brilliant, thoughtful, stimulating, compassionate, AND wise) post, you can preach the love of God (and, in this connection, how it ought to pretty much swallow up most status-battles) all day long to some people and they don't hear it. "this kind can only be [taken care of] by prayer and fasting" as far as I can tell. After all there was a time when I knew more about everything than everyone else -- but then I had my fourteenth birthday ...
And of course, then I got married, and now I revel in my complete ignorance.
Did I more or less address, if not answer, your question?
There is a theological issue.
A “true calling.” Granted that the status of the officiant doesn’t affect any sacrament received, that doesn’t deal with the issue of the person’s calling in the first place.
The uncalled should be the unchosen. When one is found to be uncalled, they shouldn’t be continued down the path to ordination. And when they are already “ordained” by human hands, but then found to be “uncalled,” then they should be defrocked.
They will only lead to all kinds of spiritual, moral, and social woe.
Discerning vocation, on the other hand, is difficult and it requires great integrity AND great wisdom. As I keep on saying, this guy was let down summink awful by the people involved in his formation.
MD- That’s right, not in so many words. What you did say implied that anyone who did not see the proof that Purgatory is, as you say, “imaginary”, only fails to see it because they don’t want to see it. Presumably a desire NOT to see the truth is an evil desire, so it follows that those who fail to agree with your proof do so because of an evil desire.
Q.E.D.
Did you somehow miss the part where I said we all have sin and are evil? Read what you want into my words if you wish but there is no eviler than evil already. The doctrine is evil though as it leads to something other than Christ. Are you in favor on people who are seeking God as most catholics are to be sold something that leads them not to Christ and the gift of God, salvation by faith?
But, wait a minute! You’re debating purgatory! You just said there was no point in debating purgatory. And here you do it again:
What more is there to say other than it is refuted by the very Word of God Himself?
If there is nothing more to say, why do you way more?
Not worth commenting on. Want to play games or have serious discussion on this? I do not promise to write only words you agree with, but we are both adults, right? Or not? Hmmmmmm
For the rest:
Of course I accept the doctrine at least partially on the basis of RCC teaching and of course it wasn’t always taught. I don’t know of anyone who maintains that on the evening of Pentecost the Twelve sat down and worked out all the details of Catholic Theology. This is what development means, a process happening over an interval of time.
Twisting in the wind here hmmmm? Let me spell it out so you cannot pretend to miss what I am saying. The Roman Catholic Church did NOT always teach there was a purgatory!!! Was purgatory suspended for a while during the early years of the RCC after 300AD? Or did God install something new? Or did some greedy men start to sell salvation to make a profit?
I note you think men worked out all the details of Catholic Theology, I agree. I prefer the theology God worked out for His people in faith.
The Trinity wasn’t always taught nor the hypostatic union nor the canon of Scripture. My guess is that the Bible supports purgatory about as much as it supports Sola scriptura — which is to say, if you bring it to it, you’ll find it there, and if you don’t you won’t.
Gods word is full from end to end on the final authority in His Word over the all other things including mens and devils doctrines. And once again, the Word of God fails to mention any thing like purgatory, yet the importance the catholic church puts on it while God just ignores it...odd! Hmmmmmm?? Oh well you get to choose. Choose well your eternity is riding on it!
I have studied the doctrine of purgatory as the RCC teaches it.
and
... what is this imaginary purgatory place going do? Remove something else that separates you from God?
So you’re saying that right now nothing separates you from enjoying an uninterrupted and perfect communion with God. You don’t sin any more, you are thoroughly infused with God’s wisdom, righteousness and imperviousness to evil, you don’t have any unanswered questions at all about what God wants in a particular situation, you know every detail of God’s plan for the rest of your life just as God knows it, your communion with Him is perfect, and so on.
I never said any of the false words you put in my mouth, shame on you! I do say there is no sin separating me from God as there was before I was saved. That I have a relationship with Him because I belong to His Son Who paid for all my sins and that I am the righteousness of God through Christ...that with boldness I confidently enter into the very presence of God in His throne room by the blood of Christ and that I am now a son, friend, royal priest, ambassador of Christ, reckoned as righteous, complete in Christ........I could honestly go and on repeating what the Word of God states about those who are His. How about you? Do you believe the Word of God and what it says about all our sin being paid for and what we are in Christ? And yep I still sin [tho less and less as He has His way with me] but all my sin is paid for. You do understand that from Gods Word, don't you? Believers no longer belong to themselves they belong to Christ and it is His righteousness that makes us righteous. Does Christ need to be more righteous? No He is fully righteous and therefore it is finished, as He stated on the cross.
I am not persuaded. And if not, your communion with God is not yet perfect, so by your reasoning (unless you left something out) the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient. Or just perhaps you don’t quite understand the RC teaching on Purgatory.
Are you really saying the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient? Oh I understand the RC teaching on purgatory only too well. It is eternally killing people who are seeking God. What could be more evil? There are many who will never seek God but many maybe most catholics are seeking God. There are catholics that are just born into the catholic religion and some of them have no heart for God, they will never really seek Him. But what about the millions of others who have settled for that which will not save them and they were seeking God and got religion of men? How will God respond to those that have led so many astray?
Look, I’m just working with what you write.n Personally I don’t get much of a kick out of theological smack downs.
Sorry you get offended. This is too important to play pc with you. I have met to many catholics that are still separated from God and they have some future hope of paying their own way or others paying their way into the presence of God for ever more. It is a lie and I will not be silent about it...no one would be if they truly cared for these people and could get over their religious pride of defending their love of acceptable religion over God Himself. I understand you may believe I have other motives. But any assaults are worth the rewards it may produce.
MD- That’s right, not in so many words. What you did say implied that anyone who did not see the proof that Purgatory is, as you say, “imaginary”, only fails to see it because they don’t want to see it. Presumably a desire NOT to see the truth is an evil desire, so it follows that those who fail to agree with your proof do so because of an evil desire.
Q.E.D.
Did you somehow miss the part where I said we all have sin and are evil? Read what you want into my words if you wish but there is no eviler than evil already. The doctrine is evil though as it leads to something other than Christ. Are you in favor on people who are seeking God as most catholics are to be sold something that leads them not to Christ and the gift of God, salvation by faith?
But, wait a minute! You’re debating purgatory! You just said there was no point in debating purgatory. And here you do it again:
What more is there to say other than it is refuted by the very Word of God Himself?
If there is nothing more to say, why do you way more?
Not worth commenting on. Want to play games or have serious discussion on this? I do not promise to write only words you agree with, but we are both adults, right? Or not? Hmmmmmm
For the rest:
Of course I accept the doctrine at least partially on the basis of RCC teaching and of course it wasn’t always taught. I don’t know of anyone who maintains that on the evening of Pentecost the Twelve sat down and worked out all the details of Catholic Theology. This is what development means, a process happening over an interval of time.
Twisting in the wind here hmmmm? Let me spell it out so you cannot pretend to miss what I am saying. The Roman Catholic Church did NOT always teach there was a purgatory!!! Was purgatory suspended for a while during the early years of the RCC after 300AD? Or did God install something new? Or did some greedy men start to sell salvation to make a profit?
I note you think men worked out all the details of Catholic Theology, I agree. I prefer the theology God worked out for His people in faith.
The Trinity wasn’t always taught nor the hypostatic union nor the canon of Scripture. My guess is that the Bible supports purgatory about as much as it supports Sola scriptura — which is to say, if you bring it to it, you’ll find it there, and if you don’t you won’t.
Gods word is full from end to end on the final authority in His Word over the all other things including mens and devils doctrines. And once again, the Word of God fails to mention any thing like purgatory, yet the importance the catholic church puts on it while God just ignores it...odd! Hmmmmmm?? Oh well you get to choose. Choose well your eternity is riding on it!
I have studied the doctrine of purgatory as the RCC teaches it.
and
... what is this imaginary purgatory place going do? Remove something else that separates you from God?
So you’re saying that right now nothing separates you from enjoying an uninterrupted and perfect communion with God. You don’t sin any more, you are thoroughly infused with God’s wisdom, righteousness and imperviousness to evil, you don’t have any unanswered questions at all about what God wants in a particular situation, you know every detail of God’s plan for the rest of your life just as God knows it, your communion with Him is perfect, and so on.
I never said any of the false words you put in my mouth, shame on you! I do say there is no sin separating me from God as there was before I was saved. That I have a relationship with Him because I belong to His Son Who paid for all my sins and that I am the righteousness of God through Christ...that with boldness I confidently enter into the very presence of God in His throne room by the blood of Christ and that I am now a son, friend, royal priest, ambassador of Christ, reckoned as righteous, complete in Christ........I could honestly go and on repeating what the Word of God states about those who are His. How about you? Do you believe the Word of God and what it says about all our sin being paid for and what we are in Christ? And yep I still sin [tho less and less as He has His way with me] but all my sin is paid for. You do understand that from Gods Word, don't you? Believers no longer belong to themselves they belong to Christ and it is His righteousness that makes us righteous. Does Christ need to be more righteous? No He is fully righteous and therefore it is finished, as He stated on the cross.
I am not persuaded. And if not, your communion with God is not yet perfect, so by your reasoning (unless you left something out) the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient. Or just perhaps you don’t quite understand the RC teaching on Purgatory.
Are you really saying the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient? Oh I understand the RC teaching on purgatory only too well. It is eternally killing people who are seeking God. What could be more evil? There are many who will never seek God but many maybe most catholics are seeking God. There are catholics that are just born into the catholic religion and some of them have no heart for God, they will never really seek Him. But what about the millions of others who have settled for that which will not save them and they were seeking God and got religion of men? How will God respond to those that have led so many astray?
Look, I’m just working with what you write.n Personally I don’t get much of a kick out of theological smack downs.
Sorry you get offended. This is too important to play pc with you. I have met to many catholics that are still separated from God and they have some future hope of paying their own way or others paying their way into the presence of God for ever more. It is a lie and I will not be silent about it...no one would be if they truly cared for these people and could get over their religious pride of defending their love of acceptable religion over God Himself. I understand you may believe I have other motives. But any assaults are worth the rewards it may produce.
Sorry for the double post..my mistake.
Wrong --- the only baptism found in the New Testament is one that takes place after one hears the gospel and believes. Can an infant do that? Infant baptism is a cultic practice that makes one think that he has been a Christian from infancy, without ever having to "believe" the gospel. They think that their faith can be passed down from parent to child by some sort of ritual watering. Scripture says "believe and be baptized" ---- not the other way around.
Yep, must be why until the Baptists came around in the 1520s, or really, in the English speaking world, the 1600s, as far as can be found EVERY generation of Christians since the Apostles themselves held that God's promises were to them and their children, and hence, they, like the Jews before them, gave the sign of those promises to their children in baptism.
Look up your history--if believer baptism without FAMILY (i.e.infant) baptism were Apostolic practice why was there ZERO controversy about it (and there was controversy about practically everything else) until the 1500s? Families/households were baptized in the New Testament, and the new covenant promised in Peter's Acts 2 sermon was for "you and your children." Just as circumcision never guaranteed belief--even though it was the sign of God's covenant--so too baptism, even of older people, cannot guarantee belief is present before it is done (or else I think the South would be 150% Christian, due to the number of baptisms, and rebaptisms...).
Baptism is about God's promises to us...NOT about each individual's (weak, ineffective) promise to follow Christ. I've attended believer baptisms before--they were ALL about the pledge of the individual (with the focus on the "ME")--and the promises of God, and His glory, were never mentioned.
If baptism is limited only to those old enough to understand, I ask, do you baptise retarded people who can barely speak the name Jesus, let alone understand the atonement?
What about your kids, do you regard them as little pagans, who must only be evangelized--never discipled, if they are raised in a Christian home?
I for one will stand with the historic Church--practically all before the 1520s, and probably over 90% today of followers of Jesus, who include their children in the promises of God in baptism. Believer baptism in and of itself is not wrong of course, it is RE-baptism which I was speaking against, as it it declares every Christian except a tiny minority wrong--and does so without the command of scripture.
Scripture it is true, never explicitly shows infant baptism (and nor does it show womens' baptism or communion either...do you deny women baptism and communion?), but it does not prohibit it either, and is in complete concord with the old covenant practice of circumcision. Adult converts to Judaism were to be circumcised--as were their infant sons. It was a sign that they and their household were following the Lord, and, that His promises were applied to them. In the same way the promises of God in baptism are for you AND your children, even though they too must eventually decide to continue to follow the Lord on their own.
If you choose to withhold baptism of your children, fine, but please don't try to insult me, by telling me or my children that our baptism is not valid--by the practice of demanding rebaptism.
How many Jews said the same thing throughout their history. How many circumcised Jews perished before and after Christ because they trusted in their circumcision???
Look up your history--if believer baptism without FAMILY (i.e.infant) baptism were Apostolic practice why was there ZERO controversy about it (and there was controversy about practically everything else) until the 1500s?
That is when people began to have access to the scriptures and take them seriously. The tendency within sinful human nature to think that a religio-physical act can confer eternal life is one of man's weaknesses that keeps him from understanding the word of God.
When Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, whole towns of people were marched out to rivers and baptized by prelates thinking that they could baptize people into Christianity. But all this did was fill churches with baptized pagans.
Families/households were baptized in the New Testament
Where does it say infants anywhere were baptized??? Remember what Jesus said when he was upset that parents were dragging their children and carrying their infants over to him? He said "Forbid not the little children to come to me". He didn't say "forbid not the parents from bringing their children over here to me". If they were old enough to come on their own without their parents, and they wanted to come, then He said "let them come", but not their parents.
and the new covenant promised in Peter's Acts 2 sermon was for "you and your children."
Right --- when their children are old enough to hear and understand the promise.
Just as circumcision never guaranteed belief--even though it was the sign of God's covenant--so too baptism, even of older people, cannot guarantee belief is present before it is done (or else I think the South would be 150% Christian, due to the number of baptisms, and rebaptisms...).
True --- but baptism is still supposed to take place after belief according to scripture. Baptism is a seal --- but if you seal an envelope without putting something in there first, you have an empty envelope. Where in scripture does it say that you can believe for your son or daughter or anyone else? It leads to a false sense of eternal security. Unless one is "born again", he is not a child of God no matter how many words and how much water is poured over him or her. It is an act of obedience by the one who professes to be "born again" of the Word of God.
Baptism is about God's promises to us...NOT about each individual's (weak, ineffective) promise to follow Christ.No. It is not. Eternal life is the promise to all who believe and are baptized and are then sealed by the Holy Spirit.
I've attended believer baptisms before--they were ALL about the pledge of the individual (with the focus on the "ME")--and the promises of God, and His glory, were never mentioned.
So what. Eternal life is all about "ME" as well. That is how God chose it to be. The only person whose future you can effectually control is your own. You control what you believe and whether or not to act on that belief.
If baptism is limited only to those old enough to understand, I ask, do you baptise retarded people who can barely speak the name Jesus, let alone understand the atonement?
Even retarded people understand "life" and don't deliberately jump in front trucks or jump off buildings. God puts the desire for eternal life in each of us --- it is up to those who say they believe in it to show others, especially their children, how to also receive it, and to respect them enough to give them all they need to make an informed decision. No one, not Calvinists or Catholics or anyone, can dunk or sprinkle or baptize another into eternal life.
What about your kids, do you regard them as little pagans, who must only be evangelized--never discipled, if they are raised in a Christian home?
Your children are your first mission field ---
I for one will stand with the historic Church--practically all before the 1520s, and probably over 90% today of followers of Jesus, who include their children in the promises of God in baptism.
And that explains why the church is in such trouble. Those who think that they are Christians from birth are trusting in the wrong birth. They miss the second birth --- being "born again" and thus eternal life. The first birth does not make one a Christian or assure eternal life. It is the second birth that does that, not the first.
Believer baptism in and of itself is not wrong of course, it is RE-baptism which I was speaking against, as it it declares every Christian except a tiny minority wrong--and does so without the command of scripture.
Infant baptism is a nice ritual but it is ineffectual. Scripture is clear. It says "believe and be baptized". Baptism should take place after the second birth --- after "being born again".
Scripture it is true, never explicitly shows infant baptism (and nor does it show womens' baptism or communion either...do you deny women baptism and communion?)
That is a nonsensical question.
but it does not prohibit it either, and is in complete concord with the old covenant practice of circumcision.
How many Jews missed their chance at eternal life because thay trusted that their circumcision guaranteed that for them. How many missed the Word of God when He stood before them and told them to believe in Him if they wanted eternal life, and chose not to, because they trusted in their circumcision instead???? Take a lesson.
Adult converts to Judaism were to be circumcised--as were their infant sons. It was a sign that they and their household were following the Lord, and, that His promises were applied to them. In the same way the promises of God in baptism are for you AND your children, even though they too must eventually decide to continue to follow the Lord on their own.
So then what good was the infant baptism then??? It is the reasoned decision that they make when they are old enough, right??? But if they are taught that that decision was made for them by their parents at their physical birth that made them a Christian, then they never come to that place of decision-making and avoid it all their lives.
If you choose to withhold baptism of your children, fine,
And if you choose to withhold the truth of scripture from your children --- that is not fine
but please don't try to insult me, by telling me or my children that our baptism is not valid--by the practice of demanding rebaptism.
So pointing out where infant baptism is ineffectual and unscriptural is an insult to you??? Paedo-baptism is an insult to the scriptures. You do your children no favor by making them think that some religio-ritual no matter how widely practiced secured their place in the kingdom of God. It rather gives them a false sense of security, and you as well.
Believing and acting upon the Words in that Book make one a Christian --- not following the Traditions of men, or churches, no matter how widely practiced.
Did you somehow miss the part where I said we all have sin and are evil?
You said that AFTER I questioned your saying that anyone who disagreed with you did so essentially because he didn't want to know the truth. The last question in this paragraph is
Are you in favor on [sic] people who are seeking God as most catholics are to be sold something that leads them not to Christ and the gift of God, salvation by faith?
And my answer is that the Catholic Church does not teach what you say it teaches and no, I am not in favor of teaching either what you teach OR what you say the Catholic Church teaches.
Not worth commenting on."
That's twice in this exchange that you have said there is no point or no worth in debating or commenting and then debated or commented. If by "no point" you mean "some point" and "not worth" you mean "worth", this is going to be a difficult discussion. I am assuming you are adult enough to say what you actually mean. You are questioning my maturity on the grounds that I take your writing seriously. Do you want me NOT to take you seriously? I don't get it.
Twisting in the wind here hmmmm?
WHAT is twisting in the wind? What does this mean?
Let me spell it out so you cannot pretend to miss what I am saying.Are you accusing me of pretending not to understand what you say? What exactly, if anything, are you saying about me? Personal remarks are not helpful.
The Roman Catholic Church did NOT always teach there was a purgatory!!!
You won't take agreement for an answer? I agreed with you that the Church did not always teach that there was a purgatory.
Was purgatory suspended for a while during the early years of the RCC after 300AD?Oh, wait. You're one of these people who thinks that the Church was started in 300 AD. I do not think that. I think it was started around the time of the resurrection of our Lord. The relationship of the RCC to the catholic Church is that the Roman Rite is part of all those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is the entire body of all those churches (for example Maronite, Eastern Rite, and so forth) that I am interested in. That body did not develop all its doctrine at the moment of its inception. I AGREE with you that purgatory was not a doctrine that was developed at the beginning of the Church. I don't know how to say that any more clearly.
Or did God install something new?
"Install"? Since the catholic Church does not articulate ALL the truth (and has never claimed to) it necessarily follows that there are things which are true whether or not the Church articulated them. We do not claim that Mary was Immaculately conceived AFTER the articulation of that doctrine. Neither do we claim that Purgatory itself started the day we started teaching about it.
Or did some greedy men start to sell salvation to make a profit?
As far as I know even the worst abuses of indulgences did not claim to sell salvation but to help deliver souls from purgatory. The doctrine is that the souls in Purgatory are already saved, so salvation could not be sold as such (except to really ignorant Catholics, I suppose).
I note you think men worked out all the details of Catholic Theology, I agree.
I think that I did not say that and that it does not follow from what I did say. Because I believe in what the Bible says, I trust in our Lord's promise of the Holy Spirit to his Church to lead her into all truth.
You say that I am putting words in your mouth. I will quote you:If being born again by receiving Christ removes the barrier of sin that separates us from God, so that we are no longer separated from God, what is this imaginary purgatory place going do? Remove something else that separates you from God?Now you say "the barrier of sin that separates us from God. I did not see clearly that you think there is some other barrier that separates us from God. Is it right that you think there is some other barrier that separates us from God? If not, my question about your sharing all those various things I mentioned still stands. But if so, then what is it that separates you from God?
You have come in and said a lot of harsh things about people disagreeing with you because they don't like the truth and so forth, but I can't get straight what it is you ARE saying!
As to the rest of the paragraph, the statements of what you believe, I generally agree. I think maybe you think of Purgatory as punishment and separation. I look on it as a gift and a mercy. That may be part of the disagreement and misunderstanding.
You say
Are you really saying the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient?
But what I actually wrote was"
And if not, your communion with God is not yet perfect, so by your reasoning (unless you left something out) the sacrifice of Christ was insufficient.
I was asking about what YOU think, not saying what I think.
And again I think you misunderstand me. You seem to be one of those who thinks that the way to persuade people to your point of view is to say over and over again that you're right and to articulate the point of view repeatedly, but without defending or even explaining it, and to say that if people don't agree with you it is because they have evil desires. And then you say that the reason you do this is because it is very important.
Too important to be polite, I can understand, even if I disagree with it. Too important to make sense though, that I don't get. So important that you say what you don't mean (not worth commenting ...), I don't get that either.
I have yet to see you say anything to indicate that your claims of understanding the doctrine are credible. You opposed purgatory and salvation, while the doctrine clearly indicates that people in Purgatory are saved. (Read Dante if you want to [a] read a beautiful poem; [b] understand what we DO teach about purgatory.) So I don't think you know what we teach, since that is a very important aspect of the teaching.
And since you don't seem to know what we teach, your repeated claims of its being lies and pernicious and greedy and spiritually lethal and proud and so forth just do not persuade me at all.
I'm not playing games here. You articulate your point of view, from my first response, #196, I have tried mostly to get clarification. You started with a generalization, "what catholics fail to realize ...". I responded with a suggestion that you didn't mean exactly what you said, that there might be some catholics who do realize ...", and a suggestion that some Protestants might think a little about birth and how coming to knowledge sometimes happens. If you make sweeping statements, I don't think it's word games to call you on them. If you say something is not worth debating and then debate it, what am I to think? If you say something is not worth commenting on and then comment on it, what am I to think?
How is that not works righteousness? Seriously. Not playing games.
Believing God's word has to precede actions and actions have to grow out believing God's word. Romans 4 reads that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness ...". He believed God first, and then afterwards did those things that God asked of him, including circumcision.
Thnx. I think from my filthy papist POV I would say good actions are gifts just as faith is.
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.