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.
Beginning to think? The truth was long ago a casuality.
What we are witnessing is a "protestation" against authority, it has little or nothing to do with religion. It is the theological equivalent of Occupy Wall Street.
We are confronted daily by those who will only recognize their own authority in all religious matters. We are the targets because the impotence of their own direct dealings with the Church have not and will not change the Church. They camoflage their rebellion (oh so poorly) in a Sola Scriptura mantra but make no effort to hide their assertion that Scripture means exactly what they decide it does. Like petulant spoiled children it is all about them. That is precisely why I do not bother respond to them.
2 Cor.2:17 warns that there are "many which CORRUPT the Word of God." That was written in about 60 A.D. The TRUTH has been a fragile commodity for 2000 years. The question is: who was and is doing the corrupting? You have your opinions. And I have mine. So where does one go to find out? Well, if it's the Word of God that's being corrupted, then it only makes sense that God's Word would be the place to go to find the TRUTH. But that's just me.
So, you think I am a suicide bomber, for following and posting the source smvoice uses? Smvoice, if you think it is a hate site, then why do you read Dave Hunt? He who must not be named sells Hunt’s book, is that where you got it?
Am I supposed to think that’s a love site? Do you think Dave Hunt has a handle on the truth?
>>>>>2 Cor.2:17 warns that there are “many which CORRUPT the Word of God.” That was written in about 60 A.D.
You got that right. And all of you are as corrupt as your comic book heroes.
You just achieved circularity. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Circularity seems okay to me as long as it's consistent. It's just not persuasive.
And I guess it's only circular if Scripture is God's Word, but nothing else is.
You're saying that Paul thought there would be a new addition to the collection of Scriptures and that his letters would be part of them?
And you're saying further that Paul thought the "Word of God" was conterminous with the scriptures that had already been handed down and Scriptures yet to come?
Paul says, "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" We have no independent writing (as far as I know) to confirm that Jesus said that, but one could have existed and been lost.
So these seem to me to be the possibilities:
(1) Paul heard that in his vision/audition on the road to Damascus;
(2) Somebody told him (tradition) that Jesus said that;
(3) He read it in a writing which is not in Scripture (tradition again.)
In the latter two cases, Luke partially elevates the saying from being "mere" tradition to being authoritative Scripture by writing it down. -- and some time later the Holy Spirit is involved in getting "Acts" included in the NT canon.
And some line of thought like this may be involved in interpreting II Tim 3:16 to refer to the NT -- UNLESS we just figure that Paul could have had what we call the OT Scriptures in HIS mind, but God had the whole shebang in HIS -- which would be something known/believed by tradition, I guess.
I'm having trouble thinking of Paul saying to himself something like, "Hey! I'm writing part of the New Testament!" (Though I thank God he did!)
I didn’t quite follow the application of “hoist on his own petard” in this case. I am enjoying ill health and my mind is even slower and more irrelevant than usual. Sorry. I was just contributing my pedantry, which is vast, to this mishegoss.
Gotcha. I struggle against “brain fog “ every day, and sometimes ie works against me.
"..the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." - The Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no. 14.
Is this considered "hate speech" by Catholics toward non-Catholics? It clearly states that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved. Sounds like hate speech to me. So do I go to every website and put Catholic Salvation in the keywords, and declare that every website that comes up with this Trent declaration is a hate website? Am I supposed to research each and every corner to make sure that something is not mentioned here that is also mentioned there? That would be ludicrous. And only ludicrous people would suggest it.
If you spent as much time in the Bible as you appear to spend at "hate sites", looking for God-knows-what, you would find your life much more pleasant. And you may even find some TRUTH.
But I DO know that Paul received directly from Jesus Christ, to him, to us. What he wrote was from Christ, to him, to us. As Paul was well aware, and told us. Just like Moses. From God, to Moses, to Israel.
Ask yourself what the motivation of those who, as Lumen Gentium narrowly declares, know that the Church was "founded as necessary" yet choose to reject it and how the anti-Catholics choose this as a rallying point for their contempt. Do you suppose that, subliminally, they too recognize the necessity of the Church and are uncomfortable with a public statement of the consequences?
I am forced to draw the parallels of this aspect of Protestant doctrine with liberalism in general. Liberalism's main thrust, whether the subject is sex, drugs, work and income, crime, the dissolution of the family, etc., is to establish a life and society without consequence. In this respect, Protestantism, for all of its facades, is fundamentally liberal.
Yo, Dawg! (I don't get a lot of opportunities to say that) There were a number or testimonies by Apostles and close disciples of Jesus that were rejected by Canon. There is no doubt that much of them came directly from Jesus and was inspired. These, at the time of St. Paul, could easily have been included in the definition of Scripture given by the anti-Catholics on this thread. If we are to accept their postulate we must agree that, when St. Paul referred to Scripture, he had special knowledge of what Canon would be. I am not ready to agree to that, are you?
I>>>>> say it borders on hate speech by Catholics to non-Catholics
This is an open thread. Let’s look at the guidelines:
Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
ROTFLMAO
LOLOLOLO
Now, that takes the cake, really, someone would have to get up really early in the morning to get drunk enough by noon to say something like that if that had a history of comments and posts like those so common here and on any thread that even mentions something Catholic.
ROTFL.
There's no doubt in my mind any longer that there are people who frequent the RF who have no possible way of recognizing the Truth if it slaps them in the face. They've not just gone round the bend, they've gone round the bend worshiping themself as they go.
"You just have clowns for Christ."
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
I thank Jesus Christ for the grace and mercy that healed my blindness and let in the light of the Truth after the decades I, too, was lost in a jungle of my own understanding. Thank you Jesus Christ for leading me out of the desert Eve charted the course to and that men seek because they love the darkness of their own human mind rather than the light of Christ freely given all who honestly seek Him. Praise God for the mercy He shows poor lost sinners and dear Lord, guide some of these thy lost sheep to the Truth before it's too late and they are cast into the Hell.
Yes, While effectual prayer need not be dependent upon posture, the attitude of the heart is typically reflected in the posture of the body, but while we kneel in our western culture we refrain from being prostrate, which has nothing to do with cancer (if may keep one from it though).
I need to always have the humble heart i had when i first was born again, along with righteousness, and which are the most necessary aspects for prayer, as God looks towards him that is of a “poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word,” (Is. 66:2) and thus “the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Psalms 34:18)
And who thus have access with boldness directly to God into the holy of holies by the precious blood of the sinless Jesus. May God have mercy on me for not using it as i should, for not being in the spirit of worship and prayer as i should, due to my independence and double mindedness (cf. Mt. 6:22), and not always having my affection set in things above (even being intent on the news can grieve the Spirit), and to refuse to pray when one should is passive rebellion.
I am not sure if i follow you here, but i should have wrote, “such are compelled,” as some are able to disagree based upon objective analysis, which our side need more of as well.
When people are angry, I like to be irrelevant, if God has protected me from being caught up in the general wrath.
Loveable as you are, I cannot imagine that happens very often.
Let me ask you something, you seem to spend a lot of time at "hate" sites. Just how does one define "hate"? Not believing as someone else believes? Attempting to show deceit when someone doesn't want to see it? Revealing things that would put a harsh light on something if it were revealed? Just wondering if there is a working definition of "hate" and when the line is crossed.
Not so much now as before, but I did get a three-day suspension once. (It was part of my gang initiation.) This place keeps me humble.
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.