Posted on 08/18/2011 7:18:16 AM PDT by marshmallow
That was mistaken. At the very best it was unclear.
But are they forewarned not to believe anything that sounds unusual, like the crossing of the Red Sea, and Jonah living in a whale???
???? If charges are going to be made, I think I'll wait for them to be made before I respond. Please try to be clear about what you are accusing us of.
I'm sorry. I don't understand who "they" is and I don't know what you mean when you type "they will, also, interrupt it for them."
no one with spiritual discernment would be going to an initiation of the RCC, anyway.
Again, I'm not sure I know what you mean. RCIA is the series of classes which MAY lead to the "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults". We give Bibles to the non-Catholics who come to this class and encourage them to read them. We do not have authority over them. We can't require that they think this or that.
So, sure, we present our idea of how the Catholic Church is in accordance with Scripture. But we can't make them believe anything.
But we DO give Bibles to people in the class. And the Church does encourage people to read the Bible. You have your opinion of what the Spirit confirms as the rightly discerned understanding, and we have ours.
I recall my own mother who mentioned to me that reading scripture was dangerous. My aunt had nearly driven herself crazy trying to reconcile the 2.
This falls under the category of private revelation and is not considered part of the Deposit of the Faith. The Catechism says:
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
This means that while they may actually be from God and relevant to our lives, we as Catholics are not required to believe in them as core Christianity.
This falls under the category of private revelation and is not considered part of the Deposit of the Faith. The Catechism says:
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
This means that while they may actually be from God and relevant to our lives, we as Catholics are not required to believe in them as core Christianity.
In any other setting the "reasonable man" would call that a lie.
This is correct - Catholics are not certain of their salvation.
Jesus (re) opened the gates to heaven from the cross.
Catholics are well aware that Jesus is saving them from the final damnation.
The issue is the certainty, not the destination.
I really wish we could nail down the details on this. At Virginia Episcopal Seminary one history prof said the Church had put the Bible on the index. But then others say that it was some translations of the Bible that were forbidden.
And then there's Free Republic! Some time back, maybe a year ago, I compiled a collection of references to translations and paraphrases produced by Dominicans and others in local vernaculars.
This data was rejected on the grounds that it was "revisionism." This led me to believe that, for some, any halfway plausible argument made in favor of the Catholic Church and against an anti-Catholic myth of some longevity just doesn't count, however well researched the new argument is.
As you can imagine, this knocked the ginger out of me on that topic.
But in any event, we DO give indulgences for even the least amount of Bible study and my RCIA group has for years given bibles, (sometimes RSV, sometimes the putrid NAB) for free to people who come to the class -- of whom some do NOT come into full communion.
On a less argumentative note, I would agree with your mother about the danger of reading Scripture by oneself. Paul is very clear (it's in the Bible) that not all are teachers. And as he makes that argument he lays down the organic nature and interrelatedness of the members of the Church. And if not all are teachers, but some are, then clearly some are students, pupils. And so if every member of a church thinks he has the divine qualification to teach, then he is thinking unscripturally
In last year's class there was a GORGEOUS young lady whose studies of Scripture had persuaded her to leave the Presbyterian Church and become a Catholic. Her Presbyterian church summoned her to a meeting of the elders or deacons or something for her to first give an account of herself and then to be disfellowshipped.
And yet people get on OUR case for excommunications (um, disfellowshipping?)and our emphasis on community, on the Church as a whole.
Similarly, the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a special hatred for us and whose early demonstrations were very clear that our Pope was the anti-Christ, have a far stronger central structure and far more control over what they 'laity' are allowed to read and to think than we do. But, strangely, they get a pass.
It is the remarkable and persistent injustice of this kind of thing that confirms me in my Catholic Faith.
Forgive me. Bad mood tonight.
Two things. First, It's not clear, at least not to me, what 'translated' means in this context.
Second, the "reasonable man" standard has been thrown out. The ONLY standard is spiritually discernment and, as far as I can tell, the only way to tell what that is is to read what "presently no screen name" says.
This would seem to be an extreme demonstration of my contention that Protestants reject Reason. The gulf between us is deep. It is Nominalism taken to the umpteenth limit and beyond. I don't see how it is not, au fond, gnosticism, but, of course, the conversation cannot be had since any disagreement is thrown in the "non-spiritual discernment" bucket.
Are Dominic and Terese of Lisieux not Catholic?
I think you have hit on something here. I honestly think Mad Dawg is an exceptional Roman Catholic. He is so because he sees past the rote dominating of the laity by the clergy that so many of us endured until God led us out into the light. I, and you and others here, have said numerous times that the Catholic Church does contain some saved Christians, but I really do think that they are that in spite of, not because of, the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I think back on how many arguments we have gone through on this forum where we say something like, "We are saved by grace not by works.", and a Catholic will say, "We believe that, too!". But as we continued the discussion, the Catholic further explains that he doesn't really think it means that works don't contribute to his salvation and the "faith without works is dead" verse gets thrown in our faces. So within the same thread it goes back and forth so much that it becomes hard to pin down exactly what the Catholics believe.
I have stopped wasting my time arguing about minor disagreements with the Catholic lobby. It is clear that nothing I or anyone else can say - even with Scripture as back up - can budge them from this idea that only what they are told is true and we're the devil trying to deceive them. Yet, the Church has not defined all things nor have they ever created a comprehensive Bible commentary that interprets the Bible from a strict Catholic viewpoint. I know I have related this story before, but I'll tell it again for the point. I was having breakfast with a priest and a few family members. We got on the subject of favorite Bible verses. I said mine was Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.". The priest then says, "That sounds Protestant to me." No lie! It was translated the same way in his Bible version but he heard something that sounded like heresy to him. The thing is, when I read John 10:27-30 for the first time, I knew immediately that it was the truth and that what I had been told all my life was not true. Jesus said I can know I was saved and he would never cast me out, pluck me out or lose me. It said "eternal security", and I understood grace - for the first time. I was one of his sheep and he was calling me.
The point is, those of us who have left the Catholic Church did so with our eyes wide open. They were opened by the Holy Spirit and did not come about because of a lack of clear Church teaching.
I’m sorry, but your post makes no sense.
On one hand you’re saying that they are not certain of their salvation and on the other hand they are sure they’re saved from damnation.
Salvation IS being saved from damnation.
If you know your destination, how can you not be certain of it?
It still sounds gnostic to me.
No doubt about that. He sure doesn't fit the mold that virtually every other Catholic I've ever met or talked to does.
And I'll tell you, that not ONCE in all my years as a Catholic did anyone in the Catholic church tell me or even suggest to me to read the Bible.
Matter of fact, after discussing a case where some woman died because of not taking her medicine after some faith healer told her she was healed, a KOCer pointed his finger in my face and said *See?!?! That's where following the Bible will get you.* I can still remember where I was standing and who was in the room with me, he was so hostile.
(This was in the late 70's of the 20th century.)
Well, it IS weird. It’s like there are two Churches. I have a friend, very learned and principled, a strict non-Christian. When I ask why she tells tales of child and spousal abuse among the soi-disant Baptists of her rural Arkansas upbringing.
When I was asked to be part of our Parish’s 24 hour + 9 adoration, I asked my pastor, now Prior Provincial, how one does this adoration stuff. His first words were, “Bring a Bible and read it! It doesn’t get any better than the Word in the presence of the Word!”
Maybe a lot of Dominicans are just as weird as I am. When I did my talk last December on “Veritas” a lot of my chapter reaaly seemed to appreciate the Biblical aspects os the talk.
It’s all interesting, and kind of sad.
But Rome holding that her members presently are in grace is part of the problem, as she treats (most of) her members as needing no conversion, in recognition of their sprinkling as babies based upon proxy faith, or due to their own assent to a gospel with is not the Scriptural gospel of grace, but which does not abase man as damned and destitute, and is apart from the preaching that effects the conviction that effects this, and bring one to cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the sinless Son that He sent to save them by His blood, on His expense and credit. And so follow Him.
On the other side are those who suppose the “not by works” part means a faith that is inert is salvific as long as they believe the promise to give eternal life to those who believe, but which ignores what Biblical faith really is.
“I wish I was sanctified and justified. Sounds Great!! Justify me me right away.”
You seem to ignore the references. If the Corinthians could be, what not thee?
“Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 10 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 11 “ (1 Corinthians 6:10-11)
Seems it was both...During the Dark Ages and before, the lay people and priests didn't have access to the Catholic bible from what I have researched on the subject...
When the Douay-Rheims came out more people had access to it but there were restrictions that prevented Catholics reading in the vernacular...
Seems a guy with your apparent knowledge of all things Catholic would have more knowledge about this issue...
I am now developing a “two church” theory (sort of kidding) as the only way to reconcile what so many on FR say about the Catholic Church with my experience of her.
Less than a month ago I was talking about life in Christ involving continuous conversion. I was commended by the friar who heard my remarks.
So, again, my experience is just very different from the church Protestsnts describe.
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.