Posted on 04/29/2013 4:18:02 AM PDT by markomalley
The Confessional is not a ‘dry cleaners’ where our sins are automatically washed away and Jesus is not waiting there to ‘beat us up’, but to forgive us with the tenderness of a father for our sins. Moreover, being ashamed of our sins is not only natural, it’s a virtue that helps prepare us for God's forgiveness. This was the central message of Pope Francis’ homily Monday morning during Mass celebrated with staff from the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) and religious present in Casa Santa Marta. Emer McCarthy reports:
Commenting on the First Letter of St. John, which states " God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all," Francis Pope pointed out that "we all have darkness in our lives," moments "where everything, even our consciousness, is in the dark”, but this - he pointed out - does not mean we walk in darkness:
"Walking in darkness means being overly pleased with ourselves, believing that we do not need salvation. That is darkness! When we continue on this road of darkness, it is not easy to turn back. Therefore, John continues, because this way of thinking made him reflect: 'If we say we are without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us'. Look to your sins, to our sins, we are all sinners, all of us ... This is the starting point. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful, He is so just He forgives us our sins, cleansing us from all unrighteousness…The Lord who is so good, so faithful, so just that He forgives. "
"When the Lord forgives us, He does justice" - continued the Pope - first to himself, "because He came to save and forgive", welcoming us with the tenderness of a Father for his children: "The Lord is tender towards those who fear, to those who come to Him "and with tenderness," He always understand us”. He wants to gift us the peace that only He gives. " "This is what happens in the Sacrament of Reconciliation" even though "many times we think that going to confession is like going to the dry cleaner" to clean the dirt from our clothes:
"But Jesus in the confessional is not a dry cleaner: it is an encounter with Jesus, but with this Jesus who waits for us, who waits for us just as we are. “But, Lord, look ... this is how I am”, we are often ashamed to tell the truth: 'I did this, I thought this'. But shame is a true Christian virtue, and even human ... the ability to be ashamed: I do not know if there is a similar saying in Italian, but in our country to those who are never ashamed are called “sin vergüenza’: this means ‘the unashamed ', because they are people who do not have the ability to be ashamed and to be ashamed is a virtue of the humble, of the man and the woman who are humble. "
Pope Francis continued: “ we must have trust, because when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, "Jesus Christ the righteous." And He "supports us before the Father" and defends us in front of our weaknesses. But you need to stand in front of the Lord "with our truth of sinners", "with confidence, even with joy, without masquerading... We must never masquerade before God." And shame is a virtue: "blessed shame." "This is the virtue that Jesus asks of us: humility and meekness".
"Humility and meekness are like the frame of a Christian life. A Christian must always be so, humble and meek. And Jesus waits for us to forgive us. We can ask Him a question: Is going to confession like to a torture session? No! It is going to praise God, because I, a sinner , have been saved by Him. And is He waiting for me to beat me? No, with tenderness to forgive me. And if tomorrow I do the same? Go again, and go and go and go .... He always waits for us. This tenderness of the Lord, this humility, this meekness .... "
This confidence, concluded Pope Francis "gives us room to breathe." "The Lord give us this grace, the courage to always go to Him with the truth, because the truth is light and not the darkness of half-truths or lies before God. It give us this grace! So be it. "
The pity is that those two paragraphs were evidently all you read of Ott's work. I happen to have a copy of Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. In it he preceded his discussion of Grace with the following definitions:
"Habitual grace is a constant supernatural quality of the soul which sanctifies man intrinsically and makes him just and pleasing to God (sanctifying grace or justifying grace). Actual grace or assisting grace or helping grace is a temporary supernatural intervention by God by which the powers of the soul are stirred up to perform a salutary act which is directed to the attaining or preservation or increase of sanctifying grace."
If you accept Ott as an expert (why else would you cite him?) perhaps you would comment on his comments on the Reformation's treatment of the subject:
"While Pelagius denied the supernatural endowment of man, Luther, who strained the doctrine of St. Augustine beyond its proper limits, made grace an essential constituent part of human nature. By its loss human nature was entirely corrupted, as its essential constituent parts were taken away and concupiscence, in which, according to Luther, original sin consists, has ever since ruled man. In Luther's view, therefore: fallen man is, of his own proper power, incapable of achieving knowledge of religious truth, or of performing morally good actions; Man's will is no longer free, and of itself can do nothing but sin ; Grace is not capable of saving or intrinsically renewing and sanctifying human nature, since this is fully and entirely vitiated; What justification effects is merely an external covering of man's sinful state but man himself remains changed intrinsically. Man's will is purely passive and does not cooperate with grace, grace alone performing the work of justification." C£ Luther, In Genesis., c. 19.
Peace be with you
Other than the well-practiced effort to drag it off further into the bushes, with specious definitions of the imagined differences between "actual" and "sanctifying" grace --- which could hardly be obtained from the writings of Paul, though it can be well enough justifiably imagined they are imposed upon his words, nothing, for it was plainly enough stated, even if in otherwise overall duplicitous and misleading presentation.
The use of the word "person" is an accident of the limitations of English. The actual term is hypostasis, and God is the hypostatic union of three hypostases; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Peace be with you
I didn’t say I accepted Ott as an expert. I only quoted that one paragraph to show the two terms you pushed to discuss. Since you continue to refuse to clarify your statements or be more precise as to how my interpretation of your jargon is wrong, I don’t see the point of going off on another tangent where you will have further opportunities to insult my knowledge and understanding. For someone who claims to take the moral high ground and scolds others for failing to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit, you sure do have a strange way of showing yours. Does saying “peace be with you” absolve you of offensive words?
It’s time for me to quit playing with the TarBaby...
I think the real issue here isn't the showing of an understanding, it is the not sharing an understanding.
I am disappointed that you continue to insist that is is not and cannot be God that works in us to perform the Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy resulting from Salvation and that Catholic teaching is contrary to its actuality. I did not insist that you agree with Catholic teaching, only that you accurately present it in you dissent. I encourage you to reflect on Philippians 2:12-13.
I agree and, after repeated requests, you have not shared your understanding of the jargon you quoted. You still have not explained how my interpretation of your jargon was wrong. I have shared my understanding - both my own as well as the one you keep using jargon to explain. It is this jargon that needs further explanation.
I am disappointed that you continue to insist that is is not and cannot be God that works in us to perform the Spiritual and Corporeal Works of Mercy resulting from Salvation and that Catholic teaching is contrary to its actuality. I did not insist that you agree with Catholic teaching, only that you accurately present it in you dissent. I encourage you to reflect on Philippians 2:12-13.
You are disappointed? Show me where I have denied God works in us both producing the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. This is not where we disagree. That you continue to repeat the same phrase, but castigate me for trying to express my understanding of what it truly means, is my disappointment.
So, let me ask one more time. You said:
Works do, however, have an efficacious effect on Grace which is an input to Salvation. As the Holy Spirit is the manifestation op the love between the Father and the Son, Grace is the manifestation of the love between God and man. Agape is the sharing of that Grace / love, with each other. Passing on the Grace we receive, through corporeal and spiritual works of mercy, is the only way we can cooperate with and retain the Grace God gives us freely.
Now, explain to me - and anyone else who is scratching their heads wondering the same thing - how that is not saying "our works enable us to retain the grace necessary for salvation". Explain how this somehow doesn't mean the works we do contribute to our salvation. Explain how you can rectify the clear Scripture passages that state we are saved by faith APART from our works with doctrine that makes our works necessary in order to "keep" or retain the grace we must have in order to be saved. Can you do that? If not, then admit it and we are done for now.
I agree, albeit it straw man in this case.
Peace be with you
Key operative word here being "resulting", which if put the way you just have, could be a teaching of pretty much any Reform-minded theologian.
"...and that Catholic teaching is contrary to its actuality."
Show me where she is disagreeing with good works being a result of salvation, or retract the statement.
Also; According to your own presentation in reply #154, how you state it in that to which I'm replying (#267), it DOES disagree with RCC teaching, being you said in #154 that "works...effect...grace...[and] grace...an input to salvation" along with you then further stating; (and here I will again use ellipses, for it all has been quoted back to you numerous times already) Passing on the grace...through...works...is the only way...we can...retain....grace..."
I do not blame you for the creation of such slippery language, but I do blame you for continuing in it, and repeating it, then trying to wiggle out of it. I further blame you, and have some ought against you for falsely accusing my friend for "continuing to insist" that it "is not and cannot be God that works in us to perform [good]...works", for that my FRomish FRiend, is what FRoman's here are fighting against -- that "works" flow as a result, and that the only actual "good" works, are God working within us, for that is reformist teaching also.
That [blame] is tempered by seeing you now seem to adopt Reformer's approach, ie., [good] works RESULTING from Salvation, leaving our salvation not inextricably bound up in ongoing, partial reliance upon our own [good] works to "retain" that grace which itself is a necessary "input" to salvation (according to you).
Nowhere in the scriptures do we see such twisting, turning pretzel logic, as was evidenced in reply #154. But THAT is RCC doctrine? Or would it be better said "but that IS RCC doctrine" as a positive statement. This latter is the real and actual case & circumstance, for otherwise one of your co-religionists wouldn't have stated "faith and works" X 3(!).
Perhaps it is the Romanists who do not understand Reform theology, instead of the other way around.
I much prefer this sort of pretzel logic.
Bonus track Don't take me alive
I saw it before it happened, for @154, when it first surfaced, wrote a reply in effort to step-by-step trace how [a man's] works were being blended with "grace", with that grace being said at the same time "only" retained by those "works", with such retained grace being said "an input to salvation", but then accidently deleted it, after other duty took me away from the 'puter. Upon return, I closed a tab instead of opening it, with the results being, I found it difficult to rewrite.
Have written several other replies since, as I've been following this all along, but didn't hit the final "send".
Frustrating is too kind of a word. I find it infuriating. The passive-aggressive game well blended with it, is the part that rankles. Disagreement is one thing, game-playing is another. But our FRomish FRiends excell at the indulging themselves (though not *all* of them) in the latter, while engaging in the former.
Because as members of the Body of Christ we are to love one another and encourage each other to continue to grow in Christ.
I’m still not understanding how that translates to inviting someone who is not a member of a given church to that church. I think it’s odd to expect it.
Have you heard of the Great Commission?
That’s a different topic - you said “weird desire for public shame.” — the sacrament of confession is not “public shame”
it's not only Greek orthodox but all other Orthodox, 300 million of them, plus the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian. Chip in the Lutheran and they are not "a small group"
And Church belief is that we believe in a merciful God who would save such a child. We just don't know in scripture, so will not comment, but we believe God to be merciful and loving, especially to innocent children
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.