Posted on 07/15/2005 11:29:25 AM PDT by nypokerface
Oh man Asphalt you're dissing the "Mom" of all Catholics. You should have read the heat I got into when I called Mary, a sinner who called the fruit of her womb "the Lord of her Salvation" and not "Co-Redemptrix". I got howls when I declared that Mary went on to be a proper jewish wife having a bunch of siblings there-after. One guy jumped down my throat with the suggestion that Mary had had sex with Joseph(as his wife) AFTER Jesus had passed thru her birth canal... since this would have violated Mary's purity.
....never mind scripture which declares "The marriage bed is undefiled!"
I understand that it is important to correct any misunderstanding I might have about the Catholic Church, just as I would try to correct any misconceptions you might have about what the Bible teaches. Granted that there may be more room for interpretation when we are discussing the Bible than the catechism. For example, I do not believe that I can construct religious practices that are so monolithic that they would constitute one way of worshiping God on Sunday. The best I can hope to do is to show that the Bible is reasonably clear about how to have everlasting life and not be condemned to Hell.
Does the Catechism teach that it is a sin of presumption to believe that we will have everlasting life? If so then this is the only issue that in my opinion might separate our theological positions, and is also so substantial that it is an important distinction. Everything else is ancillary.
As for the Papacy it may be controversial as you suggest, but I consider that the Pope’s teachings on morality, humility, and Christ, and many more areas of Christianity are more akin to my beliefs than the teachings of liberal theologians who condone abortion, and gay marriage. Their teachings about Jesus are much more offensive to my firmly held beliefs than anything the Pope might say about praying to the saints, or his teachings on the position of Mary within the plan of salvation.
I also believe that the Holy Spirit can guide the Pope, as we all can be guided if we believe and surrender.
John 15: 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
I suspect that we all instinctively know the difference between sin and righteousness. For example, I submit that choosing to abort a child violates our instincts. I suggest that in order to assuage the guilt associated with such an act, one must construct a wall of separation between one’s instinct and the act. I is my hope and belief that we all desire to do good, but of ourselves we lack the power to accomplish our desires. I believe that with God’s grace we can do good works, but it is not of ourselves, so that we must not boast of our good works. All our works which are not the work of the Holy Spirit acting through us are like filthy rags as compared to the righteousness of God.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose
I do not say that we who believe and are guided by the Holy Spirit are on autopilot destined to do good works, on the contrary, we still have a human nature and good works though important to our Christian walk are difficult and sometimes impossible.
2 Corinthians 5: 6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
By this I do not imply that salvation is the result of man’s good works, but rather the work of Jesus on the cross. Certainly our good deeds will be rewarded.
Matthew 6:1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
Romans 4:2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.
Romans 4:3-5 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Last but not least, the verse most used by Evangelists who teach salvation by faith alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
I apologize for this hasty and disjointed message, but I was pressed for time and I did the best I could under the circumstances.
Yours in Christ,
Street_Lawyer
Good to hear from you again.
"I understand that it is important to correct any misunderstanding I might have about the Catholic Church, just as I would try to correct any misconceptions you might have about what the Bible teaches"
:-)
Perhaps there is a slight difference in the contrasting statement above. I am able to clear up misconceptions about the Catholic Church because I happen to be Catholic and am well versed in it (I teach classes to others). Interpretations about what the Bible teaches probably belongs in another category then your first statement. I would hope you can understand that we may have different interpretations of the same Scripture - and neither may be "misperceptions". If I do misunderstand a particular brand of Christianity and its teachings - then feel free to correct me. I am not an expert in the various denominations and where they stand on issues.
"Does the Catechism teach that it is a sin of presumption to believe that we will have everlasting life?"
Interesting, because I am doing a lot of Philosophy reading, and the question of certainty is a big issue. First of all, there is no such thing as absolute certainty of anything, except our own existence - Descartes. So I don't think we can KNOW at that level. Thus, "absolute certainty is out" - Chapters 1 Cor 10 and Heb 3-4 stress the possibility of faltering, even after Baptism. Also, even Christians who believe in "once saved, always saved" in reality confuse the believer, since it might be said about him that he never actually was saved (if he sinned greviously). Thus, how can they say they know they are saved? Next year, it might be determined that he never was saved to begin with.
Also, Paul states a number of times that those who commit specific sins will not enter into the Kingdom (presumably, without repentance).
However, the Catholic Church says that we can know with "moral certainty" that we will go to heaven if we obey the Will of God. The will of God is spelled out specifically in the Decalogue as interpreted by Christ (vs. the Mosaic Pharisaical interpretations of going only to the letter). The Will of God is also seen in specific actions in our daily lives. I think we can sum them up, to use Catholic words - as long as we are not spiritually dead (mortal sin), then we have moral certainty that we are going to heaven (do understand that we also believe in Purgatory, a purgation that is necessary before we enter into the presence of the Almighty, Holy God). This summarizes the Catholic faith, I believe.
Is this how you see it? If a person willfully commits a serious sin without repentance, that person is in danger of hell, despite any previous proclamation? If so, we agree. Perseverence is a virtue that the NT calls from Christians often.
"... As for the Papacy..."
The Papacy represents Christ's continued presence on earth in physical form. He is a vicar of Christ, not a successor. He (pope) provides a visible unity among our diverse peoples (catholic = universal). It is inevitable, also, that people will disagree with one teaching or another. The Pope in unity with the other bishops (successors of the Apostles) will then make determinations, guided by the Holy Spirit. The precedence of this is Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem. Note that the Apostles decisions went AGAINST Scripture! Circumcision was no longer considered necessary to enter into the People of God. This, in of itself, is interesting. Of course, Acts 15:29 tells that the Holy Spirit, also, thought it was good to make such a decision.
I try to read short readings from the Church Fathers. This one was today's...
A third time the girl repeated: You too were with that man yesterday, but a third time he denied it. Finally Jesus looked at him, reminding him of his previous assertion. Peter understood, repented of his sin, and began to weep. Mercifully, however, Jesus forgave him his sin, because he knew that Peter, being a man, was subject to human frailty.
Now, as I said before, the reason God's plan permitted Peter to sin was because he was to be entrusted with the whole people of God, and sinlessness added to his severity might have made him unforgiving toward his brothers and sisters. He fell into sin so that remembering his own fault and the Lord's forgiveness, he also might forgive others out of love for them. This was God's providential dispensation. He to whom the Church was to be entrusted, he, the pillar of the churches, the harbor of faith, was allowed to sin; Peter, the teacher of the world, was permitted to sin, so that having been forgiven himself he would be merciful to others.
St. John Chrysostom (from Tradition Day by Day, http://artsci.villanova.edu/dsteelman/tradition/days/0726.html)
You are correct, we all are guided by the Spirit - as a community! When Paul discusses how we are a Temple for the Holy Spirit, he uses a plural form of YOU. I think that our own culture's individualism has moved many away from Paul's teaching about the Body of Christ, the community of worshipers, was not a "me and Jesus" concept. The BODY of Christ, the Church, was always presumed to have the Spirit guiding it. But individually, we do not have that charism, the gift, of the Spirit to make dogmatic decisions that are binding on others.
"I is my hope and belief that we all desire to do good, but of ourselves we lack the power to accomplish our desires. I believe that with God’s grace we can do good works, but it is not of ourselves, so that we must not boast of our good works."
Agree. There is two sides of the coin on this issue. The Bible says we can do nothing without the Spirit/Jesus. Only God enables us to do good. By good, I think we mean things that are meritorious, of value, to God. However, with this is the fact that man also in some way cooperates with God's graces. I believe Phil 2:12-13 best explains the relationship between God and us. We are somehow co-workers with God - and as you mentioned before, we are being transformed into a Christ. It is He who works within us. But we also have to allow it. The parable of the Sower, for example, shows how God's grace falls on all, but only some bear fruit (good works) of value. God will judge us on how much we cooperate with this grace. It is not a work of our own, but we are not automatons, either. Grace does not overpower nature, as Aquinas said.
I think we agree pretty much on how God works in us to bear fruit, which at the same time determines whether we will be a goat or a sheep (Matt 25).
I also disagree with the idea of salvation by faith alone. Salvation, it is clear, also comes from obedience to the Will of God, not just in trusting in God's promise. We really are transformed, not just extrinsically. As you have said, it is not our work that allows us to obey (the Law did not give the power to obey it, only the Spirit can give us the power to obey the Law of Christ - summary of Romans, right?)
Sounds like we are on the same page in pretty much everything you said.
Brother in Christ
"You should have read the heat I got into when I called Mary, a sinner who called the fruit of her womb "the Lord of her Salvation" and not "Co-Redemptrix". I got howls when I declared that Mary went on to be a proper jewish wife having a bunch of siblings there-after. One guy jumped down my throat with the suggestion that Mary had had sex with Joseph(as his wife) AFTER Jesus had passed thru her birth canal... since this would have violated Mary's purity."
All unfortunate speculation on some Protestants' part. Consider that much of the information regarding Mary, such as being a virgin and having no other blood children, comes from the same people who wrote Scriptures, defended the Scriptures, and passed them down to the modern world.
Why would someone disbelieve things stated about Mary by these first Christians, yet buy into a Resurrection of a man? Or that God suffered for our sins? If you believe that the Bible is from God, then the traditions, whether oral or written, are to be considered true and from God, as well.
You can't have it both ways. You either believe the First Christians - both their Bible and their traditions, or you don't believe any of it.
Regards
"She was full of grace. That is all. She is not superhuman, whe was a servant of God, that's all"
So was Moses, and he was revered by the Jews, the People of God of the OT.
I think most would agree that Mary was important to God's plan of salvation. Without Mary, Jesus would not have been human - and according to Scriptures, He would not have saved us. I think that is reason enough to honor Mary (as Luke 1 says "all generations shall call me (Mary) blessed).
Regards
You are missing the point. I don't mean Christian by YOUR definition.
Christianity is the name for all denominations which worship Jesus Christ. Catholicism is one such denomination.
Which Catholics aren't Christian?
You can be both. Being Jewish means that you are a descendent of Abraham. My dad is Jewish by birth, but a Christian.
"I put the Bible as the final authority."
For answers, you should follow the Bible and go to “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” -- “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:14-15
Not the Bible. The Church. Please show me - from scripture - where scripture claims it is the final authority.
And don’t use 2 Timothy 3:14-17 - “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The Scripture that Timothy studied in his infancy was the Old Testament. Paul said nothing about the New Testament here, much of which was not yet written at the time.
It is a simple question. Where does scripture claims it is the final authority?
"I can find many of the early Church Fathers that contradict modern Protestantism."
Oh, yeah?
Some of the protestant writings support the Church Fathers!
Look at what Martin Luther said -
"Who, but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that 'my body' is the same as 'the sign of my body?' or, that 'is' is the same as 'it signifies?' What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men .... Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous."
Martin Luther, tom. vii. Edit. Wittemb. p. 391
So there.
As are you.
lol. I stand corrected.
Sure sounds like you give protestants the respect you demand of them.
FWIW, my best friend is catholic and I dated a catholic girl.
Would they? I know several Christian Jews.
"Hey bub, it was our religion first. Christ created it and we carried the ball from there with his blessing. We wrote the Bible, canonized it, and guarded it. You're just some Johnny Come Lately who cribbed our Book and decided to reinvent the wheel. Badly, might I add."
___________________________________
Bravo. Quod erat demonstratum.
I will apologize for quoting scriptures that you have seen and studied thousands of times, but like you rely upon the Catechism to explain your position, I have the Bible as my reference.
You said: Catholic Church says that we can know with "moral certainty" that we will go to heaven if we obey the Will of God.
The statement is couched in broad enough language that I would not disagree, but the devil is in the details. I know you are not saying that we have to live sinless lives. I believe if we love God we will want to keep his commandments, so I suspect I agree with your statement although I might have phrased it differently.
Ephesians 2 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful natur and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
I would be very interested in your perception of the meaning of the above with reference to salvation. Is this what you mean by obeying the Will of God? By “Decalogue” I assume you are you referring to the Ten Commandments. We agree that it is the will of God that we obey them, but I assume we can also agree that no one is capable of living a sinless life, and even though a loyal and saintly married man does not commit adultery in a physical sense, I believe you are well acquainted with the verse that teaches that if he looks at a woman in lust he has committed adultery. Does he commit a mortal sin?
I think we also agree that we live under a new dispensation after Christ. That was implicit in the statement you made about how Christ interpreted the Ten Commandments.
You said: As long as we are not spiritually dead (mortal sin), then we have moral certainty that we are going to heaven. I have no disagreement with you in principle. We may not agree on the means to achieve a state of sanctifying grace. For example, I do not confess my sins in the same way or for the same reasons as you do. Perhaps it is my misperception of the well worn verse that you are no doubt are tired of explaining: ie: “Peter you are rock, and upon his rock I will build my church. etc” I’m not going to go there. It is an argument that I can’t prove to your satisfaction, even if I pull out a Greek translation because I am almost certain, that as a fine teacher that you obviously are, you know that the two words used in that passage for the word we read as “rock” are not the same. It is my understanding that the Rock the bodies of believers are standing on is Christ.
But I do have a question I would like to ask. Have I been misinformed about the current practice of the Sacrament of Confession? Is it true that the Church has changed its age-old position, in that it is not always as necessary to make a confession to a Priest as it one was? I’m being careful not to make my question to narrow, because I do not know the details, yet it would seem to me that if I were to accept the correct interpretation of that famous “ Rock” verse, I’d have to ask how it is now possible to receive absolution and participate in the Sacrament of Communion, without making a good confession? I have no doubt that you have an answer. I suspect for starters I am oversimplifying the issue.
On the issue of purgatory that you brought up, obviously since I am not conversant with the Books of Macabees, (sp?) I believe that were the doctrine is found, I cannot argue agaisnt its merits. I also believe that I once read that Plato speaking of future judgment of the dead, holds out the hope of final deliverance for all, but maintains that of those who are judges some must first proceed to a subterranean place of judgment where they shall sustain the punishment they have deserved, while others with more favorable judgments are elevated at once into a certain celestial place. I’m thinking that perhaps Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul will not suffer in purgatory, if he is canonized. It’s an interesting subject, but all the verses that I have studied, both in the Old and New Testaments have convinced me that Christ’s death was sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, and I have faith in Him that He has paid for mine and my sins are forgiven and since he paid the penalty of sin, I will not have to do so. I am worthy of death on my own account, but I happen to firmly believe that we are covered by the blood of Christ and therefore there is now no condemnation to those who believe, who live according to his word.
Romans 8: 1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 5:15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
You asked: Is this how you see it? If a person willfully commits a serious sin without repentance, that person is in danger of hell, despite any previous proclamation? If so, we agree. Perseverence is a virtue that the NT calls from Christians often. Yes my brother we do agree on this completely. Faith is not a declaration as you might have expected. The is a misperception among learned Catholic scholars that all we who proclaim to be “saved” have to do is confess with our mouths. There is more to it than that.
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Do not neglect to tell my brothers and sisters who you may have an opportunity to talk to or correspond with that faith is “believing in our heart”. Words are cheap, it is the doing by which we will know them. You will know them by their deeds.
2 Peter 2:21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
You said: Apostles decisions went AGAINST Scripture. I have no problem with this statement. But this is not an argument that we can go against what the Apostles wrote in the New Testament.
As for being the temple of the Holy Spirit is your point that each of us are not the “temple” but the “Catholic Church is”? I ask this because you pointed out that when Paul said do you not know that you are the temple of the Holy Spirit, he used the plural from of “you”? Consider this in the Greek?
1 Corinthians 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
And then he said:
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
Sounds pretty personal?
You said: I also disagree with the idea of salvation by faith alone. Salvation, it is clear, also comes from obedience to the Will of God, not just in trusting in God's promise. We really are transformed, not just extrinsically. As you have said, it is not our work that allows us to obey (the Law did not give the power to obey it, only the Spirit can give us the power to obey the Law of Christ - summary of Romans, right?)
And I say: Salvation by faith is a misnomer, an over simplification. Just as I have oversimplified, through my ignorance, your theology, so it is possible for you to have a misperception of conservative theology. You and I are closer in agreement than I am with my liberal Christian brothers and sisters. I love the Book of James. I have quoted it earlier and often, and if you read, know you will have a fuller understanding of what I mean when I say that salvation is by faith and not by works.
James 1
1James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:
Greetings.
2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.
12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Let me say that works are the evidence of faith. We are to some extent arguing semantics. If someone says that Mother Theresa will have eternal life because she has been a good person, I might agree, but not that her works are credited to her towards salvation, but as the evidence of it.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
Let me leave you with this final thought. We disagree on some important theological assumptions, but we are still brothers under the authority of the same Father in heaven, and we share a common faith in Christ our savior. Therefore I am mindful of this final admonition:
11Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it.
Please speak to your class about me and tell them that I share their love for God and his Son, Jesus Christ and I pray that their faith will be sustained in times of sadness and loss, that they will keep the faith of our fathers and the Apostles as the dictates of their conscience requires. Tell them that my disagreement with them on theology should not separate us from the love of Christ and our love for each other.
Yours in Christ, I am sincerely
Street_Lawyer
Brother,
Nice to hear from you again. I think we are very close in our beliefs, but in some cases, vocabulary and such make it seem that there are more differences then there might be. For example, you say that justification by faith term is an oversimplification - which I imagine you are correct. But when you explain it, using James, I fully agree with your insights (and by extension, it is the Catholic Church's position, since I hold to their interpretation)
"I know you are not saying that we have to live sinless lives."
You are correct. We sin daily. Daily... However, only mortal sins can keep us out of heaven. When we look at the definition of what a mortal sin is (knowledge of it, free will to do it, and grave matter), they are not what we think as those daily committed sins. The Bible tells us that major sins will cause problems regarding our eternal destiny:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10).
But we see in different places that other sins do not warrant eternal punishment, but some other punishment (which we call Purgatory).
"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain." (James 1:26). I believe the Lord says the same thing about unkind words coming out of our mouths - they will be punished - but not eternally. We call this Purgatory.
So there are different levels of sin, depending on our knowledge and motives
"We agree that it is the will of God that we obey them, but I assume we can also agree that no one is capable of living a sinless life, and even though a loyal and saintly married man does not commit adultery in a physical sense, I believe you are well acquainted with the verse that teaches that if he looks at a woman in lust he has committed adultery. Does he commit a mortal sin?"
Again, you are correct. We cannot totally obey God, as we are fallen men, subject to temptations. As I mentioned before, Christ expanded the meaning of the Decalogue in Matthew 5-7. Looking at a woman in lust has "committed adultery" in the sense that it is a sin. But it certainly is not on the same level as actually following through with the act. Perhaps Jesus was using hyperbole here to show that even our thoughts can be sinful? As to whether it is a mortal sin, this is a judgment call based on a person's action and knowledge. From reading the Saints on this question, they say - if you are in doubt, it probably wasn't a mortal sin. You will KNOW. Of course, a spiritual guide can help with such a situation.
"We may not agree on the means to achieve a state of sanctifying grace. For example, I do not confess my sins in the same way or for the same reasons as you do."
Perhaps you would be surprised if I told you that Catholics are not REQUIRED to go to Confession to a priest EXCEPT if he has committed a mortal sin! During the Mass, at the very beginning, we say a public confession to God and ask for his forgiveness. This removes lesser sins from our souls. Also, asking forgiveness of the Lord in private, in the right frame of mind, also removes sin. So it is a slight misperception to say that Catholics must go to Confession all the time. But a caveat: It is considered a manner of advancing the spiritual life by going to the priest to help us with our minor sins of pride or whatever. This is the same concept of going to the pastor on a regular basis to ask how to rid oneself of a sin that we commit occasionally.
"It is my understanding that the Rock the bodies of believers are standing on is Christ."
I think it is a matter of BOTH, rather than EITHER/OR. In one sense, Christ is the Rock, the capstone, the founder of the Church - as Hebrews, for example, states. But, looking at the construct of the sentence and the context of the text, it can also be said that Peter, too, is the rock - why would his name change at this point to mean "rock"? If you look at the Chrysostom quote earlier, you see one example on the fact that Peter was, somehow, a visible continuation of Christ. Ephesians 2 calls the apostles and prophets the foundation of the Church, as does Revelation. Catholics see Both, not either/or.
"Is it true that the Church has changed its age-old position, in that it is not always as necessary to make a confession to a Priest as it one was?"
I think that Catholic teaching on this issue has always been the same in that Confession is REQUIRED only for mortal sin - serious sin. In the past, Catholics with strict tendencies pushed it more often as a means of purifying, but that was not official teaching. Without going into details, we have just gotten away from the effects of Jansenism, a heresy that emphasized rules and strict regulations. Many Catholics in even the 1950's had these Jansenistic tendencies, despite it being officially condemned.
"I’d have to ask how it is now possible to receive absolution and participate in the Sacrament of Communion, without making a good confession?"
At the beginning of Mass, we ask forgiveness of minor sins, I forget the technical term for the prayer (it starts "I confess to God, Almighty, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. In my thoughts, in my words, what I have done and what I have failed to do...) Paul says ...
"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor 11: 27-29)
So we continue that thought. One is not supposed to receive Communion with Christ if they are in a state of mortal sin (like someone who has aborted their child willingly and knew it was a sin)
"It’s an interesting subject, but all the verses that I have studied, both in the Old and New Testaments have convinced me that Christ’s death was sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, and I have faith in Him that He has paid for mine and my sins are forgiven and since he paid the penalty of sin, I will not have to do so."
In a sense, I agree. Catholic theology divides redemption into two points: Objective and subjective. Christ's action is considered objective. It was sufficient and is enough to save everyone. Nothing we can do can add to it. But we also believe in subjective redemption. That is the process of applying Christ's work to our own selves. You must admit that "all men" will not be saved. The seed falls on all ground, God's rain falls on all. But His graces will not enact a conversion of everyone. Men can be hard-hearted. Men have free will. They can turn away from Christ's offer.
"Romans 8: 1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..."
And who is in Christ Jesus? "And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." Acts 5:32 Those who obey the Law of Christ are in Christ. (John's writings esp. talk about abiding in Him if we obey Him). Again, I don't believe in a one-time profession. The Bible also speaks about a perserverence in obedience. Christ's Passion and Death opens the door, but we, with God's help, must enter the Way. To be told to perservere naturally implies that we can fail, that we can separate ourselves from Christ's love.
"You said: Apostles decisions went AGAINST Scripture. I have no problem with this statement. But this is not an argument that we can go against what the Apostles wrote in the New Testament."
True. This statement is meant more for those who place the Bible over and above the Apostolic teachings of the Church. Of course, there is no contradiction between the two, as both share the same source, God. Thus, we look to BOTH without placing one above the other.
"I ask this because you pointed out that when Paul said do you not know that you are the temple of the Holy Spirit, he used the plural from of “you”? Consider this in the Greek?"
I am thinking of another verse. The Spirit works in both the community and the individual. But common sense dictates that we are not to rely on individuals who claim to be under the power of the Spirit and are preacing different messages... In matters of faith and doctrine, we should rely on the Spirit working through the Apostles' successors, as the NT shows as a precedent.
"Let me say that works are the evidence of faith. We are to some extent arguing semantics. If someone says that Mother Theresa will have eternal life because she has been a good person, I might agree, but not that her works are credited to her towards salvation, but as the evidence of it."
True. I agree that semantics are mainly to blame for differences on this. Note that the Catholics and Lutherans and other Protestants have come to agreement on the meaning of salvation, for the most part.
"Let me leave you with this final thought. We disagree on some important theological assumptions, but we are still brothers under the authority of the same Father in heaven, and we share a common faith in Christ our savior."
True. Catholics are sacramental, which means we consider God's creation good and He continues to use creation to come to us and bless us invisibly through these visible means. Water visibly shows that we are being washed invisibly during Baptism. The Laying of Hands by the Bishop, a ritual from both the OT and NT, visibly show the Spirit being conveyed on the new priest. And so on. The other big issue that makes us Catholics is the incarnation. We really believe that Christ was/is FULLY man and FULLY God. Perhaps later, I will expound on the full implication of this. But understanding it really helps to understand WHY Catholics do X or Y.
"Please speak to your class about me and tell them that I share their love for God and his Son, Jesus Christ and I pray that their faith will be sustained in times of sadness and loss, that they will keep the faith of our fathers and the Apostles as the dictates of their conscience requires. Tell them that my disagreement with them on theology should not separate us from the love of Christ and our love for each other."
Certainly. I have the highest respect for my brothers who share in so much of the Catholic faith. It is important that we emphasize our commonality, considering that the "world" is really our "enemy", not each other. In the important matters, we are allies, and thus the move towards ecumenism.
Brother in Christ
Mark chapter 6:3...just read it....one doesn't need to strain himself or ones intellect by trying to tease the term "cousin" from the words brother and sister...or Matthew 12:46 where it refers to Mary and the Brothers of Jesus "wishing to speak to him!
THESE SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN BY THE FIRST CHRISTIANS YOU SO POINTEDLY REFERRED TO!
Mary had other kids! Unless all of Catholicism is prepared to call scripture false...are you prepared to stand before Jesus and say to him he had no siblings in the familial sense?
Technically of course, Jesus was placed in Mary's womb by the Holy spirit so that there is no "direct" biological link to his brothers and sisters. Yet Momma was the model of a good Jewish wife and raised other children with Joseph...does this mean this diminishes her role as Jesus mother...heaven forbid! The Bible states..."The marriage bed is undefiled" There is no sin in married sexual life!
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.