Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
You can't explain it and yet Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the many other people who CAN explain predestination are wrong?!? Really?
The Bible says God doesn't repent. Are you saying this verse is wrong? I provided a harmonized version of scripture. I would appreciate you harmonizing these verses. You may use the church fathers.
My question was even simpler -- can we pray for the intercession of those who we have good reason to believe are saintly, -- not merely forgiven and perhaps are still suffering, but who, we personally believe, are in heaven?
For example, many pray for the intercession of the late Holy Father even though he has not been canonized.
This is incorrect even for a bumper sticker. Buit it is also irrelevant since Our Lady is not a mediator apart from Christ but an intercessor and co-redemptrix between those who choose to pray to her and Christ. Marian devotion is is no way bypassing Christ.
This is why it is also wrong: Christ is not the mediator between us and God, but quite simply, God. We are encouraged to pray to all Persons of the holy Trinity directly, and either Person receives the prayer without any need for Christ to mediate it.
There is no difference in how God appealed to Cain and to Jonah. He called both to do His will; Jonah hesitated and agreed; Cain did not agree. Similarly, Eve and Mary both listened, hesitated, then one agreed to do God's will and the other did not.
Gamecock (post 1917): Jonah's will was violated
The fish did not deliver Jonah to Nineveh contrary to what Gamecock seems to believe, as Nineveh was not on the sea.
I could not find letters to Melanchthon online, and the website I linked to gave most accurate source references. All it has is quotes, no context either favorable or hostile. When I need context and doctrine for Luther's beliefs, I do go to Protestants, and in fact you already gave us the context and I agreed with you. Now, is plain quoting Luther is something suspect on a Catholic website?
[About the 'Hail Mary' prayer:] We imagine our own death and ask her to be present at the time of our death just like she was present at the time of Christ's death. We fear that at that moment, like the Evil Thief, we would fail to turn to Christ, perhaps wracked with pain. We know that we want to be like the Good Thief, and we ask Mary to ask Christ to have mercy for our sins.
I suppose I still can't get passed the idea of "Why not just go to the source?" That's what the good thief did. I know we are not going to talk each other out of anything, but I think I understand better what you are talking about now, so thank you again. I was glad to see the petition/worship distinction.
I don't think there is any mandated form of prayer, generally, although as you know Catholics are big on memorized and poeticized prayers, such as the Rosary.
I've noticed that, and I've never argued that it is a bad thing. How does one argue against the Lord's Prayer? :)
To humbly ask for mercy is the foundation of faith. He also promised to pay back the debt, that is to repent. He [the unmerciful debtor] did all the essentials.
I thought paying the debt is what Christ did on the cross. (For Catholic salvation, do humans need to pay a debt?) Also, he did not actually pay back the debt, he only promised to, so how can this be true repentance?
This is my impression as well. We believe in divine foreknowledge of all things and in God knowing His elect at all times; we believe in the free will of men to accept or reject divine grace, and we believe that God wants all to be saved and extends His Grace to all. We reject predestination of the reprobate. We beleive that any contradiction in the nature of God that might arise in our minds as we try to reconcile the above beliefs is only a limitation of our mind unable to embrace the sovereignty and omnipotence of God.
We believe those things because that is the eternal Word of Christ that subsists in the entire Holy Tradition of the Church; those who read segments of the Word from the translations of parts of the inspired written revelation outside of the council of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church endanger the salvation of themselves and others who they attempt to teach.
That's pretty harsh. Protestantism doesn't ask any more of a person than the Bible does. Jesus says Himself "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light". (Matt. 11:30) We also do not promise salvation to anyone. It is not ours to give.
Of course there are differences among the Protestant sects, that is to be expected when there is freedom. I can understand why a Protestant theology would be unsatisfying to you, but we Protestants aren't exactly a blip on the map. There are uncounted hundreds of millions of us who are very satisfied, and free.
No one denied that man cannot come close to God's holiness. However, does that mean that you should not try to be good? Does that mean that since you cannot come close to God's holiness, you should head off in the opposite direction -- to sin? Is that what you mean?
I believe that since we are ALL part of the Body of Christ (Church Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant) and death cannot separate us from Christ or the Body, we CAN ask for the intercessionary prayers of the souls in Purgatory.
I have a Catholic relative who prays to her deceased father for intercession. (A good man, but obviously not Canonized.) Based on your whole post, I take it then, that I have no need to "correct" her as a Catholic. She also believes that her father is watching over her family and is thus aware of what is happening on earth. Is this correct?
Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't know anything of the exact Church teaching of purgatory. Who goes there? Why? What's it like, and for how long? What is the strongest scriptural support for this, or is this considered tradition?
You guys keep pushing this "according to Protestants, God is a slave to His plan so He cannot be omnipotent" thing. Of course we're not saying that. Look at it this way:
Forest: Hey Cronos, does God keep all of His promises?
Cronos: Well yes, of course.
Forest: Therefore God is a slave to His own promises, isn't He? He doesn't have the power to change His mind, does He? You don't think God is all powerful, etc. and blah blah blah..
You would correctly point out that God keeping His promises is no restriction on His power. It is not what God CAN do, it is what He WILL do. It is the same with His plan. God is not restricted, in power, in any way.
firstly, don't club Augustine with Luther, Calvin, and the many other people
secondly: yes, the latter ARE wrong
agian, the problem is that the umbrella term protestant covers so many conflicting points of view: would you say arminians, southern baptists, high anglicans, weslayans etc have the same dogma?
I know where Nineveh is in relation to the sea. That doesn't change my statement.
You believed there was a God. You searched. You found Catholicism, you liked it, and you accepted their teachings. You accepted that the Church interprets scripture. You were open to the truth, wherever you found it, wherever God led you. Your points of convergence ended in the Catholic Church. Based on God's leadership, you believe that you are right in your faith and that other faiths contain error.
I believed there was a God. I searched. I found a Bible-based faith, I liked it, and I accepted its teachings. I accepted that the Bible interprets itself. I was open to the truth, wherever I found it, wherever God led me. My points of convergence ended in a Bible-based faith. Based on God's leadership, I believe that my faith is right and that other faiths contain error.
Again, don't confuse infallibility with impeccability. Popes sin. But the doctrines that they teach, the Gospel, cannot be in error, because they are guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ will not allow His Church to teach error.
This is a brand new teaching for me, so thank you. In the normal course of life, I have heard it said a hundred times by lay Catholics, something to the effect that "the Pope is infallible and cannot sin". (I had to look up "impeccable" to put your use into context, and now I see what you mean.) Just to be sure, are you saying that whenever we talk about "papal infallibility" we are only talking about the truth of the message, and it has nothing to do with the man himself?
You seem to be trusting your own interpretations above and beyond what the Church has taught for 2000 years on particular subjects. Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today? See where private interpretation leads you? You place your trust in yourself. The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves.
I claim no authority on any of my beliefs because I say so. You believe the Spirit leads you to the truth through the Church, and I believe the Spirit leads me to the truth through the Bible. I do make interpretations, and they are in part based on what other men I trust have thought before me. My ultimate test is always whether the teaching is Biblical and in context. Yes, I do believe the Spirit knows the extent of my spiritual gift of intellect, uses it, and leads me to understanding.
Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today?
Well, IN THE ONLY SENSE THAT LONG-TERM ERROR IS POSSIBLE, how long have the Muslims been wrong?
The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves. We are wounded characters and cannot be relied upon to agree on doctrine. Doesn't thousands of denominations make this clear?
Jo, that is a flat out distortion and you know it. Protestants are not splintered into thousands of different directions. Do you really think this? The core principles are fairly simple and substantially universal. We claim no ownership of or responsibility for such other faiths as Mormonism or JWs. That isn't us.
The Apostles were given special protection to not teach error, not me. By their conveyance of the Holy Spirit upon their successors through the laying on of hands, they continued Apostolic Succession, the guarantee that Christ's doctrine would not be corrupted. The Church teaches what was handed down, not what they make up.
(I did not mean to imply that I thought you were declaring anything on your own authority.) Does the Church really only teach what was handed down to them from predecessors, or does it install new teachings? I thought that Church history is filled with new teachings, even if they are based on what was handed down they are still new. There is nothing wrong with this, new issues in modern life present themselves and the Pope gives a teaching.
My point is that Popes are still men. You must have a private list of "favorite" Popes who did things you agree with. You must also have a list of least "favorite" Popes who did not. Whatever the Pope says is what the Church adopts and teaches. There's no vote as far as I know. Do you hold that Christ's doctrine has never been corrupted under any Pope, as you said?
When I hear a priest or bishop who teaches heterodoxy, or is lax in his morals, I pray for them. I pray for those who hear their incorrect teachings or witness their un-Christ-like life.
So as do I for mine own, amen. I think that is the perfect approach to take.
If we can ask for the prayers of someone in Purgatory, then why couldn't we ask for the prayers of anyone whom we "know" is not in Hell? According to the Church, two miracles must be the result of the intercessions of a particular person who has died physically. Thus, SOMEONE is praying to John Paul II or Mother Theresa or someone who has been Beatified - or they would never be seen as saints officially by the Church. I don't see anything wrong with praying for the intercessions of a person who lived a good Christian life but is not officially recognized by the Church. This is especially the case of people who were close to us. If they loved us in this life, they CERTAINLY will deeply desire for us to join them in heaven.
Regards
Perhaps. But before I continue, I would like to make a clarification. I've been reading some of the early Christians' writings on this subject, and it seems my most recent post might be taken to have strayed into Semi-Pelagianism. Specifically, my example regarding the joule necessary to move man to act. It could be taken that I meant that God gives each man equal graces - this is not true. That is precisely the error that Prosper, Augustine's disciple, taught vs. Cassian (who believed that God gives each man equal graces - and the men respond accordingly - this is a derivative of Semi-Pelagianism, according to Prosper). So I would like to clarify that first.
I think we can agree that God moves us to do every good deed. We cannot do anything alone. St. Augustine was clear on this by refering to John 15 and the vine "you can do NOTHING (not a little) without Me". Thus, our preparation to receive Christ, (antecedant grace) and the grace required to move us (consequent grace) are needed for us to do anything. And God somehow ordains the proper amount of grace to ensure that His will is done. This is predestination, which the Church teaches. Where we disagree, I beleive, is when you seem to imply that God also ordains man's evil actions, as well. God predestines the elect, not the reprobate.
The question I can't answer is why God doesn't rescue everyone.
Here is the mystery from before. Somehow, we interact with God's good graces and He foresees our interaction, which determines future graces...All we can say is that God has died for the sin of all men, but all men will not take advantage of this salvation. The Church blames the reprobate, not God.
Perhaps a reading of the "Indiculus" (Prosper of Aquitaine) would be helpful. This document is a summary of the doctrine of grace and was accepted as the standard exposition of the Church's doctrine of grace and gradually acquired great authority, due to the tacit approval of the universal Church.
To close, I would like to add the conclusions by Bishop Caesarius of Arles, who convened the Council of Orange (2) {c.529 AD). "Teaching of Tradition on predestination: According to the Catholic Faith, we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all the baptised, if they are willing to labour faithfully, can and ought to accomplish with Christ's help and cooperation what pertains to the salvation of their souls. Not only do we not believe that some are predestined to evil by the divine power, but if there are any who wish to believe such an enormity, we with great abhorrence anathematise them (hear that, Calvin?). We also believe and profess for our salvation that in every good work it is not we who begin and afterwards are helped by God's mercy, but He Himself who, without any previous merit on our part, first instils in us faith in Him and love for Him, so that we may faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism and, after baptism, we may with His help accomplish what is pleasing to Him. Therefore we must clearly believe that the wonderful faith of the thief whom the Lord called to His home in paradise (Lk 23:43), of Cornelius the centurion to whom an angel of the Lord was sent (Acts 10:3) and Zacchaeus who merited to receive the Lord Himself (Lk 19:6) did not come from nature but was a gift from the bounty of divine grace".
Regards
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.