Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
Pope Francis has said in his Chrism Mass homily that self-help courses can turn Catholics into “Pelagians” who “minimise the power of grace”.
The Pope said at a Mass in St Peter’s Basilica attended by about 1,600 priests that “it is not in soul-searching or constant introspection that we encounter the Lord”.
He said: “Self-help courses can be useful in life, but to live by going from one course to another, from one method to another, leads us to become Pelagians and to minimise the power of grace, which comes alive and flourishes to the extent that we, in faith, go out and give ourselves and the Gospel to others.” The Pelagian heresy, popular in the fifth century, holds that people are capable of choosing good without the grace of God.
In his homily, Pope Francis urged priests to “go out” and to live “in the midst of their flock”. He said that, like the “anointed ones”, Isaiah, David and Christ, priests are anounted so that they, in turn, can anount the faithful.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Perhaps you did not catch the import of the title of this thread...even Francis can tell that Catholics can become Pelagians. I was simply noting that the tendency for them to do this has expressed itself already. That is, we can see in his organization what he fears is coming.
One big problem is there are conflicting descriptions of that "reality" spoken of.
It's not such a nice and tidy bundle as advertised.
When people here opposing works-based plans of salvation are themselves condemned as not knowing what is what, who can blame them for allegedly getting it wrong? Who made it complicated?
When looking at discussions of the information, there seems to be always dispute over definition of terms, application, etc. People like Augustine and John Cassian can be seen to argue different aspects of the same theological considerations, with those aspects logically at odds with one another at times.
According to the established traditional view among scholars, Cassian is the most prominent of the representatives of the monastic movement in southern Gaul who, in about 425 gave expression to the soteriological view that much later was called Semipelagianism.[9] This emphasized the role of free will in that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual, without the need for divine grace. His thought has been described as a "middle way" between Pelagianism, which taught that the will alone was sufficient to live a sinless life, and the view of Augustine of Hippo, which emphasizes original sin and the absolute need for grace.For instance, Owen Chadwick stated that Cassian held that man can come to God without the intervention of divine grace first;[4] and B.B. Warfield called Cassian the leader of the monastics in southern Gaul who asserted that men begin their turning to God and that God assists that beginning.[10]
The ideas expressed by Cassian to which critics have pointed as examples of his alleged Semipelagianism are found in his Conferences, in book 3, the Conference of Abbot Paphnutius; book 5, the Conference of Abbot Serapion; and most especially in book 13, the Third Conference of Abbot Chaeremon.
The view that Cassian propounded Semipelagianism has been disputed. Lauren Pristas, writes: "For Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace. It is fully divine. Salvation, however, is salvation of a rational creature who has sinned through free choice. Therefore, salvation necessarily includes both free human consent in grace and the gradual rehabilitation in grace of the faculty of free choice. Thus Cassian insists salvation is also fully human. His thought, however, is not Semi-Pelagian, nor do readers who submit to the whole corpus emerge Semi-Pelagians."[11] And Augustine Casiday states that "for Cassian ... although sparks of goodwill may exist (which are not directly caused by God), they are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention can ensure our spiritual progress".[12]
The Latin Church condemned Semipelagianism in the local Council of Orange in 529, but recognizes Cassian himself as a saint.[6] It did not endorse Augustine entirely[13] and, while later Catholic theologians accepted Augustine's authority, they interpreted his views in the light of writers such as Cassian.[14]
So go ahead, do the Roman Catholic thing if you must, pretending that no one can understand, but members of that club (regardless of the fact the information is open to all).
I'm not so convinced the complaint frequently expressed by FRomans here is all that justified, for over a span of many years, I've seen things argued by them one way...then another. It's like sitting on a water-bed... sit on one side, up goes the other. Then when that bulge becomes rhetorically embarrasing, then go sit on the lump. Then pretend there are no lumps or bulges wherever one sits...
The above quotations sure has Lauren Pristas appearing to have things both ways, while she hold forth some disagreement with others over Cassain, but I do enjoy (and will quote again) Augustine Casiday stating that "for Cassian ... although sparks of goodwill may exist (which are not directly caused by God), they are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention can ensure our spiritual progress".[12]
Sounds downright Calvinistic. Or should I say, many today whom identify more with Calvinists than Roman Catholicism in general, today much lean towards incorporating the type of outlook as is in bold above. So I must ask you...if there is confusion over theological issues, who created such confusions in the first place?
It's no wonder other approaches towards description were implemented. If you look carefully, Calvinism and it's decendants, does go back towards Augustine (in some regards) and before him Cassius, but go further towards discrediting man being able to earn his own way along the road of grace towards greater understanding and submission to the Holy Spirit than seemingly does Roman Catholicism today...stipulating that the only things within a person which can even respond to Him and grow towards being more fully in accord with Him, is what He Himself both awakens and instills within a soul, in the first place. Yet this does not preclude some cooperation from man entirely, with it being more a matter of what one yield themselves to.
The hundreds of separate bodies such as you mention to not appear in the New Testament, which has a definite hierarchy, starting with Jesus’ calling of the 12 and extending to his dispatch of the 70. Paul was very exercised by those who challenge his authority as apostle and instructed Timothy how to behave as a “bishop.” The very purpose of the canon of the New Testament is to limit the disparity of what was taught,which is to say, it is the book of THE Church. I say this leaving aside the matter of authority of the bishop of Rome.
"There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Boniface VIII.
A caricature? Since you are now reading minds, a little self-examination ought to be no problem, at all. Check your sign-on to a monstrous lie.
Begging your pardon, I must object to the inclusion and use of the words "all" and "no" in the above statement.
To put it another way...it is in my opinion, overstating the case, thus not all that helpful overall.
Otherwise, you can be precise enough at times and places, more generally, by which I mean since you've been contributing here. I thank you for that.
You might consider that others must be factored in. The Greeks gave Pelagius a welcome, and have never been comfortable with Augustine, yet to call them pelagian is totally simplistic. IAC. no western synod every went totally with Augustine of the matter of grace, because his theology was shaped by his own path to acceptance of the Gospel.
Whoa, talk about eisegesis. May wish to read the Book instead of the Party commentaries. Is this why Paul had to spank Peter, (?the first "bishop" of Rome) publicly? Sounds like someone nominated the wrong guy. The believers in Christ, alone, will stick to Paul's teaching about the Gospel (14 of the 27 letters/books) and leave Rome to play by itself.
Do not try to minimize the amount of idolatry encouraged by the RCC. Marian devotion ought always to be under attack, because no such thing is taught by the Scriptures. Yet, Rome continues to push this kind of demonic veneration even with statues:
"A mysterious 'presence' of the transcendent Prototype seems as it were to be transferred to the sacred image...The devout contemplation of such an image thus appears as a real and concrete path of PURIFICATION of the soul of the believer...because the image itself, blessed by the priest...can in a certain sense, by analogy with the sacraments, ACTUALLY be a channel of divine grace." JPII.
Really? Channeling grace? Does this stuff not sound suspciously like idolatry? If not, someone's eyes are blinded. Wake up folks.
I’ve read the Book, and why do you assume you don’t read through a lens? You follow your own tradition of interpretation. Luther et al. looked the Bible with the eye of a philologist, and assuming the literal word would tell them more than was there. But it was not as though that had the first drafts of the Evangelists in front of them, and they, not being thorough historians or travelers , misunderstood much of the Biblical world. Like reading Homer and knowing little of the late Bronze age.
WHAT "other factors"???
You provide some comments including "yet to call them pelagian is totally simplistic" when I was pointing towards the confusion over what does or does not constitute semi-pelagianism, as example of how difficult it can be to pin things down. By which I mean, your response comes across as retrograde & superficial (retrograde for the semi-pelagian direction is already going AWAY from more basic Pelagianism) or else just some form of obsfucation.
You can drag my own comments off into the bushes if you like, but excuse me when I don't much assist in that effort, or instead try to drag 'em back out...
If the trouble with Augustine (according to you) is because his theology is viewed as being "shaped by his own path to acceptance of the Gospel", as you put it, what then of Paul?
He was taught by no man, not learning the Gospel at the feet of other Apostles. But then again, Augustine doesn't comport well with Paul at every juncture, either. Nor does RCC teachings in some aspects, for that matter. Try Romans 7. To which I would wish to add as comparison to verse 17
Like I said, it is more what we yield ourselves to... what we go along with. It needn't be overly burdensome (He can make the difficult work easier for us, when the going gets tough)
One notable difference the RCC seems to have settled upon, is there is more emphasis on response and works, all along, even from the very beginning of one's "response" or acceptance, except when there isn't, later on down the line in one's Christian walk, when it's finally realized our own efforts don't amount to much, and guys like Ratzinger can be quoted as saying "it's all by grace" at certain juncture. I posted a quote from that man before saying as much, but cannot recall for the moment the precise context. sorry about that...
I was otherwise pointing towards how much of a complex, confusing mess man makes of the Gospel. But you want me to look elsewhere, and factor in some other, that makes things even murkier???
How about us sticking to how the "response" that is said to be required, can often turn into that same [needed] response to Him, to be confused with just following along and doing whatever one is told, no questions asked, fully allowing at times, the identity of the church itself to be confused with the Lord Himself..for that is the way Catholicism (and many others, it should be added) seem to prefer it, when they can get away with it!
A simple antidote I've offered on this forum before; We are not Him and He is not us.
You are welcome to your own salvation, however you accept that may have arrived, be described or can be obtained, but I cannot and will not surrender a single item that I have myself recieved from the Lord more simply & directly.
I know the sound of His voice. Following, or responding perfectly (or even listening perfectly, always) I cannot claim. If that changes, I'll be sure to let ya'll know.
Again, Catholics do not “deify” Mary, which means “to worship as a god.” Veneration is not deification.
The word “idolatry” means “worship of idols” - which Catholics do not practice. In Catholic tradition, sacred images are meant to inspire reflection on the nature of the person or event depicted - not to be worshiped in themselves.
It’s a fairly simple concept that Catholics seem to have no trouble grasping.
Attempting to sanitize the amalgamation of Idolatry, Superstition, False Doctrine over the “Mother of God” won’t work here. We read the Scriptures. Your organization has wrongly elevated and venerated Mary to the point of demonic error.
Do you believe in the doctrine of the Incarnation? I mean as defined by the first four Church councils and which were also held by Luther and Calvin to be true. Or do you not think they read the Scriptures, too?
???
The term “mother of God,” or more precisely, “theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” was conferred on Mary to elevate Jesus as God and Man. The alternative view was—and is— Jesus as a super prophet, but not a divine being.
Recognizing that Jesus was God incarnate, the Man-Messiah, fully human/fully God, hypostatic union of the theanthropic person, has little to do with the Roman errors that detract from the real Gospel. Venerating Mary (to the point of idolatry), sacerdotalism, indulgences, purgatory, absolution, and all of the other baggage profferred by Rome simply attempts to obscure salvation by grace, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one boast. Sound familiar?
“Grossly oversimplified. But, yes, we do believe that James 2 and Matthew 25 are Scripture, and we do take them seriously, rather than trying to pretend they don’t apply to us.”
“Grossly oversimplified” for the religion that lives on equivocation, which denies a thing and then affirms it. But I also believe in James 2 and Matthew 25, and do not grossly separate them from the whole of the Bible. The scriptures cannot be broken, and therefore when James says:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
And when Paul says:
Rom 4:2-7 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
When they say these things, this is not an indication of a fight between two Apostles. Rather, when James speaks of justification, he does not speak on its causes, but on its effects, as a living faith is that faith which produces fruit, whereas dead faith leaves no mark of difference on the damned. James also states, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). So then, what does the law profit someone, when any sin whatsoever, no matter how obedient one is on some other matter, renders you guilty of the whole as if you were the worst reprobate? But we are wretched sinners, and there is nothing good in us that is from us. And so we spend more time in the utmost disobedience than we ever do in obedience. Salvation, then, must be by grace through faith, and not of ourselves, which is why Cornelius and his family in Acts are justified and baptized by the Holy Spirit prior to even water baptism, and why the Thief on the cross can die having no good works under his name, except the mercy of God who saves.
And what is grace, actually? Is it an inanimate object that you can receive by staring at a statue of Mary?
God’s grace is utterly sovereign, and is not moved by man.
Rom 9:11-16 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, PRIOR to there being any good and evil in the man. It is God who predestinates whom He will, and whom He predestinates He calls, and who He calls He justifies, and who He justifies He glorifies:
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
So the whole work of salvation belongs to God, and has nothing to do with man. So that even faith and works must bow to the sovereign will of God, for by grace are men brought to Christ, not by flesh and blood, but by divine revelation, by grace are men revealed that God is God, and by grace do men produce fruits.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
“Paul said that everyone who is baptized into Christ has put on Christ. Sounds like grace to me.”
Cornelius was baptized by the Holy Spirit, prior to water baptism:
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
It is the Baptism of the Spirit which is superior to that of water, which is only the symbol of a spiritual reality already existent.
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Your carnal works have no effect on the sovereignty of God and His Spirit. All salvation and worship springs from the Spiritual, for God is Spirit and desires worshippers who believe in Him in Spirit and in Truth.
“Really? You don’t believe that the being Mary bore is Eternally God (that’s what “Divine Motherhood” means, BTW)? Then you reject Christianity itself.”
Of course I believe it. I just don’t follow the Roman false-logic which demands that this makes her the Divine Goddess, whom is the mediatrix between man and Christ, and Christ the mediator between God and man.
“What also isn’t found in Scripture is this kind of Ockhamite “either/or” nominalism. “
There is:
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
It stands to follow, then, that the works of Mary and the acts of idolatrous veneration of her can add nothing to the work of God. In fact, to do so is to take away from God, and setup a rival deity. For who is it that we are commanded to pray to in the scripture? To God. Who is it are we to ask for mercy? From God. What can Mary offer in “mercy” when she is a person as we are, who is not even a deity who can hear the billions of Roman prayers across the world?
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.