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
If I understand you correctly, if a person dies with an unforgiven moral sin he will go to hell?
Only a Priest can forgive a mortal sin?
I was told that to intentionally skip mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. Is this true?
You said: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Doesn’t this verse turn on our understanding of “righteous”?
Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
Romans 3:20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
You said: They will be punished - but not eternally. We call this Purgatory. Actually the verse you cited about bridling one’s tongue does not seem to indicate that there is a punishment attached to this sin? In English common law and our own system of laws, there is no crime unless both the crime and punishment is prescribed by statute. Certainly there are punishments listed elsewhere in the Bible that fall short of going to Hell. But I get the impression that they relate to the effects of those sins on us in this world. We hardly need a Bible verse, or a Catechism to know that not following a Godly life will result in much pain and unnecessary suffering. I do stress I said a Godly life, which may well include many, many earthly pleasures that are not holy but may still be Godly. Even those who do not believe in God or follow His prescription for a peaceful life benefit the same as we who believe if they do the things that please God, even if they are not doing them for his pleasure but for some other reason. (It’s a much longer story can’t do this concept justice in such a few sentences, but I hope you get my drift?)
James 1:25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
The corollary to this verse would be whoso does not do so will not be blessed “in his deed”. I would suggest that the context here is not the hereafter but here and now?
Maybe when Jesus expanded the meaning of adultery, he was not using hyperbole? What if he was trying to say what I believe to be true. “Look, you can’t get into heaven by following the 10 commandments. Let me show you the degree of holiness necessary to make it in on your own without accepting my free gift of salvation, if you once look at a woman and the thought crosses your mind about her sexuality, you have committed adultery already. Now how many of you have that much control over your natural emotions? None of you, so if you want to get into Heaven you had better take advantage of my death on the cross which I go to willingly so that you will not suffer the consequences of your sin. You must be absolutely perfect if you want to get in on your own merit, and I do mean perfect as I am perfect.” Of course Jesus never said this in the way I just stated it, but you can find sufficient proof that it is so if you search the scriptures.
You said: 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!
Actually this one of the teaching that I did know about, and I do believe that confession cleanses the soul and conscience.
I don’t believe in one time confession of faith either. It seems to me that we agree on everything except the terms we use to express our beliefs. It sounds very much to me like we are saying the same thing, but using a different language to say them. For example I would not have thought to define salvation with two terms “objective” and “subjective”, rather I would have said that Christ did it all and all we have to do is accept his sacrifice.
I’m not totally convinced that the Spirit works in the community for if that were true then what need would there be for us who are led by the spirit to be good witnesses of God’s grace and love? I do not remember a verse that teaches that the Spirit of God roams the world as the devil does?
Can you give me one example of how one might place the Bible over and above the apostolic teachings? Are they not the same?
You said: In matters of faith and doctrine, we should rely on the Spirit working through the Apostles' successors, as the NT shows as a precedent. Can you show me where the Apostles say that we expect further revelation beyond the revelation given to us by Jesus? I am not aware of any such verses?
You said: We really believe that Christ was/is FULLY man and FULLY God.
I would be interested in your contrast between the Christ I believe in, who is God incarnate, and the Christ Catholics believe in?
You said it: the "world" is really our "enemy", not each other.
And for this reason, although you and I speak a different theological language, we speak the same spiritual language. I know you will appreciate the following:
Hillary Clinton said she is a Christian and the proof is that she goes to church. She recognizes that mainstream American are Christians and she wants them to trust her. But going to church makes one no more a Christian than going into Dodger Stadium makes one a professional ballplayer.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Romanns 16: 25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ