Posted on 10/22/2011 1:21:35 PM PDT by NYer
Catholics get a bad rap for thinking we somehow “merit” or “earn” our own sanctification (and salvation) through “works” that we do. But that’s a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Our sanctification (our being made holy) happens only by the Grace of God. But it does require a response on our part. We must cooperate with it. This submission to and cooperation with God’s Grace, Catholics call a “work” and it takes various forms.
Some identify this response to God’s grace as a kind of “saving” or “justifying” faith (a faith that produces or is accompanied by works of conversion, hope and charity) as opposed to a “work” – something we do. Such a position is reconcilable with Catholic teaching once we understand each side’s terminology. On the other hand, I think it’s confusing to refer to this cooperation with and submission to God’s Grace as simply “faith alone” – which is one reason Catholics don’t refer to it that way (and probably one reason the Bible says we are “not” saved by “faith alone” – James 2:24).
Anyway, here Fr. Barron speaks a little bit about some of these sanctifying practices of the Church and what we mean by “Purgatory” (an extension of that sanctification) in the super-natural sense.
What the Church means by purgatory? - Watch You Tube Video
This exclusive preview clip was from CATHOLICISM, Episode X: “WORLD WITHOUT END: THE LAST THINGS”.
Explore the Church’s conviction that life here and now is preparation for an extraordinary world that is yet to come – a supernatural destiny. Father Barron presents the Catholic vision of death, judgment, heaven, hell and purgatory as he journeys to Florence, Ireland and Rome.
The vision of the Church sees beyond this world and invites us to consider a world without end. Father Barron shows how this vision is supported by the mystery and truth of the Resurrection of Jesus.
View exclusive preview clips from all episodes of the CATHOLICISM series coming out in Fall 2011.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
It stands to reason then that those who are not “of His flock” ie believers, do not even hear His voice.
>>Be you as stony as a Biblical execution, how can you not read these words of Jesus and repent of your and your good boddys' nonScriptural and unChristian posts?<<
Perhaps if you understood ALL of scripture you would realize that those who are not of Jesus flock don’t even “hear” (as in understand) what He says. So indeed Jesus words are only for those who believe and are part of His flock.
Basically, what you are saying is: Gift and Response
That’s the “waltz”.... and the Gift and the Response become interchangeable in this communio of Love.
Just a simple question; did you leave the Catholic Church or were you asked to leave?
So, we're back to Deflection 101? When all else fails attack the messenger and change the subject.
Jesus Himself says that we're chosen and secure, no on again, off again salvation. You know, that same Jesus whose words Catholics claim take precedent over all other Scripture in some sort of hierarchy of Scripture.
I'll believe His words over yours.
Any day.....
John 10:22-30 22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
and even better, Christ's own words --> Matt 24:13 "13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." --> shall be saved...
Sanctification is continuous -- We have been saved Eph2:8, We are BEING SAVED: 2 Cor 4:16 and we will be saved: 1 Cor 15:51.
So, do you believe that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to save all? Do you believe that Christ died only for some?
First off, I do believe I said Pastors and leaders in the church. The entire chapter is talking about those who “teach”. Refer back to the “milk” and “meat” statements. The entire chapter is talking about those who are strong (meat fed) and weaker (milk fed) Christians. Those who are weak will not hold fast through the fire of trials and will be “burned up”
Here again he calls himself and the others who are “teachers” labourers. Those who are building the church. That would be those who are either teaching the “milk” or the “meat”.
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
Not once in that entire chapter does he talk about anyone other than those who are “labourers” or teachers in the church. He doesn’t switch when he says “every man”. He’s still talking about those leaders and teachers within the church. Even if you were to stretch that into somehow meaning “all men” it would still refer to “any man” who teaches either “milk” or “meat” of scripture. It would still be talking about whether those who were taught were strong in the faith and when “tried by the fire of temptation” remained strong or those who were taught only the “milk” of scripture and were weak and were lost through those temptations.
Two attempts at thought.
(1)The souls in purgatory ARE freed from sin. Honestly, read Dante. This whole conversation is made more difficult that need be because you guys get the ‘vibe’ wrong. Dante presents Purgatory as joyful!
(2) The other vibe, that a lot of Catholics get wrong too, is the persistent idea of a top down, legislative or executive Vatican and a set of faith and morals teachings laid out like the income tax code.
I was just checking the Catholic Encyclopedia on Semi-Pelagianism and was struck once again how it’s not like that at ALL! It’s way more fermenty and diverse! For most people most of the time,the rules and doctrines that matter are easily known. It’s when people start thinking about tricky questions and disagreeing that somebody appeals to “The Vatican”. Then, often reluctantly, a decision is made.
Even decision or acts which look like “bold, new initiatives” — like, say, the outreach to Anglicans — are responses to problems posed to the Holy See.
I think a lot of non-Catholics (We’ve GOT to come up with a term that ruffles no feathers and denotes Christians who are not Catholics or Orthodox) have the idea that everything can be derived from the Scriptures. And that leads to an approach which is somewhat like geometry, with its first principles and derived theorems. So they expect to find similar first principles and to derive Catholic faith and practice from those.
But in “real life” it’s not like that. It’s way less defined, less static and mathematical, more dynamic, fluid, even biological.
Oh well. I must pretend to work.
Yep. It’s all over and through John and Paul.
Do I know why I pray? Do I know where my good deeds (if any) come from?
Do I care?
Sufficient? That’s what you got out of that? Oh my.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Romans 8:28–33 “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.”
I would suggest that it was “sufficient” for all but accorded to only those who were “called”.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
You like Mat. 24:13 a lot I guess since you have posted it often...But I have never seen you post John 5:24...
And the reason no doubt that you never post both verses is because it's obvious you can't fit both verses into a comprehensible doctrine...So the one verse gets posted while the other verse is ignored...
That ought to tell you there is something wrong with your understanding of the scriptures when you can't reconcile all of the scripture...
Sanctification is not Salvation...
Is renewed - Is renovated, strengthened, invigorated. His powers of mind expanded; his courage became bolder; he had clearer views of truth; he had more faith in God. It goes along with the teaching of the “meat” of scripture. Every day as we grow in the knowledge we are renewed into a stronger understanding and faith. Compare that to being really tired and hungry. If we eat and rest we are renewed to new strength.
>>We are BEING SAVED<<
That is a total mischaracterization of that verse. It does NOT say “saved”. We are “renewed” as I showed in the paragraph above. The CC lies to maintain it’s control and to perpetuate a false sense of authority.
>>we will be saved<<
Oh please. Is that a teaching on that verse by the CC? If it is, it’s blatant deceit.
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
That is talking about the body for crying out loud. Read the following verses.
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
>>Matt 24:13 "13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." --> shall be saved...<<
What an absolutely tortured attempt at making scripture mean something it doesn’t.
Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
That verse is talking about not falling for false prophets. It is also talking about a time in the future but then you don’t believe that either.
2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Why is it just too difficult for some to read the Scriptures as they are, and learn? This constant straining and torturing of God’s Word to bend it into something it isn’t is amazing to behold, but disgusting to realize. Like making sausage out of Scripture. It is so mangled and added to and taken from that it results in an end product that CANNOT be identified. Maybe that’s why we use the word “baloney” so often...;)
2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Amen. That’s it.
We’re evil and lost and we twist Scripture. Okay.
Here’s how it looks to me:
I think your side (and to some extent ours) “misunderestimates” the differences between us in ‘culture’, for want of a better word.
Example: I think the episode of the Ethiopian Eunuch is all the evidence one needs that “Sola Scriptura” don’t cut the mustard. Obviously you know the story, and obviously you see something else there. And each of us thinks our interpretation, in gross or fine points, is obvious.
So when we encounter disagreement we are astonished. And then, it appears, angry and ready to condemn. We start with, “You’re ignoring the context,” and end with, “You’re (or your masters are) perverting Scripture for some nefarious end.)
But all that’s neither true, nor helpful, nor charitable.
But that seems to be the outcome. Not a very good witness for either side.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9 The intentional injection of a meaning to a verse to try to bolster a false teaching is “preaching another gospel”.
An obvious total misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura means. It does NOT mean that no one can help others understand what scripture is saying. It DOES mean that whatever that “teacher” says MUST conform to what scripture is saying and anything that is not in scripture is NOT to be taken as doctrine. Sola Scriptura is different then Solo Scriptura. One would be wise to understand the difference.
And a PERFECT demonstration of the point of my post! I simply could not ask for a better example!
The first sentence of the 6th Article of the Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.Talk to me some more about my "obvious total misunderstanding."
Churchill said; “Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language.” This same condition is amplified a 1000X with Protestants and Catholics.
Catholicism has a rich but very precise vocabulary that is not readily translatable to the English vernacular or even fully comprehensible in the context of modern American culture.
Far too often these "discussions" devolve into a fight over the ownership of the language and the definition of terms in which non-Catholics insist that Catholics abandon Catholic definitions and join them in condemning Catholicism based only on secular language. Even those with dubious claims of being ex-Catholics fail to recognize or acknowledge Catholic language.
For example, when we Catholics explain what we mean by veneration and the response is "No you don't" is there really any point of further discussion?
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.