Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, I am zealous for the Word of God, and thank you for the compliment.
You have us confused with the pope
Thank you so much, Dr. Eckleburg, for such a great link! I can't wait to study it. :)
zn-You have us confused with the pope.
Ouch!
You did quote my "The usual Protestant interpretation says that the Holy Ghost is given all Christians directly. This is without warrant. We have the Holy Ghost inasmuch as the Church of the Apostles informed us", but you took it to mean that "promise of receiving the Holy Spirit does not apply to individual Catholics", and it does not follow. Perhaps I said it insufficiently clearly, since others misunderstood me as well, but I have nothing to retract. There is no scriptural evidence of the Holy Ghost received by individual Christians other than the Apostles and perhaps some other friends of Jesus directly. All who receive the Holy Ghost today receive it not directly but through the Church.
.Acts 2
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Catholicism distinguishes between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation are the sacraments of the Church: baptism, confirmation, confession and the Eucharist. One who properly received these sacraments is assured of salvation till such time that he sins again, at which point another confession becomes necessary. We derive the necessity of these from several statements of Christ or the apostles that tell us that we cannot be saved unless we have been baptised and unless we eat the flesh of Christ; stay away from sin, confess our sins, and for the priests to forgive our sins.
But at the same time we read of salvation of those who came in contact with Christ directly, like the Good Thief, and did not undergo a formal baptism. We also speculate that the righteous of the pre-Christian era were saved by Christ in His healing work on the Holy Saturday. So we say that these were extraordinary means of salvation, that Christ himself grants in his infinite mercy, bypassing His own sacraments.
The rest is really a mystery, and we are even asked not to speculate too much, because it is sinful and against scripture to judge the state of one's soul, or doubt Christ's justice and mercy. We believe that Christ judges all the baptised, Catholic and non-Catholic, based on the holiness of their lives. While there is no assurance of salvation outside of the Apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Church, a Christian life well lived in the love an in imitation of Christ leads to salvation. Non-Catholics should worry if they let their anti-Catholic sentiment get in the way of their own sanctification. If a Protestant spends his time hurting Christ's Church, he is thereby hurting his prospect of salvation. If however, he is culturally unable to come home to the Catholic or Orthodox Church due to the upbringing, yet his specific Protestant spirituality, such as meditation over the scripture and the works of Christ and the Apostles, leads him to a holy life, then he, we think, has "run the race" well.
A non-baptized person, the Church teaches, can reach salvation also, as long as he leads holy life based on what he knows. As St. Paul says, there is a basic moral law written in everyone's heart. One does not need to know Christ in order not to steal or not to murder or not to commit adultery. So if a pagan does not know Christ, never rejects Him, but holds on to what his religious instinct tells him about right and wrong, Christ will save him, or so we hope.
The problem is, of course, that when one is away from the sacraments of the Church, he is away of the protections of the Church that would have lead him in the right direction. So as a practical matter, many Protestants use their doctrines, especially the doctrine of assurance of salvation based on one-time declaration of faith, as an excuse from the daily yoke of Christ. Many Jews or Muslims expressly reject Christ. In other words, the more distant one is to the daily life of the Church, the more occasions are there for him to sin and be lost.
Does this mean that some do not [commit actual sin following baptism]?
Yes, -- for example those who die before age of reason, or unable to use reason due to a mental illness.
Catholicism teaches that faith in Christ is the foundation of our salvation indeed, and that all the work, liturgical or charitable, that we do is the outcome, -- the fruit, -- of that faith. The many passages, including those that you cite, point to that. However, there are equally many passages that point to the fact that the faith needs to be tested, nurtured and firmed up by works. When Christ was asked directly what is necessary for one to be saved, His response was to follow His commandments, do works of charity, then drop everything and follow Him. Another time Christ said that unless we were charitable to the least of us, He would count a lack of charitable work as a rejection of Himself. Christ also warned against mere proclamations of faith, for example in the parable of the two sons, and against taking rest in the presumption of salvation in the parable of the unprofitable servant. Clearly such devotion is only possible if it is fueled by faith. So we do not conradict the Protestants when they say that we are saved by faith, but we insist that this faith must be sustained and formed by good works -- liturgical and charitable
You mention the Good Thief. But note that he went, even though in a very short time period through all the essential steps of ordinary salvation: he suffered (which gave him baptism of blood, an admissible alternative to baptism of water), he repented of his sin, he did good work by protecting the innocently accused Christ, he professed faith, he communed with Christ, and he asked to be saved.
But we cannot judge the sincerity of the profession. Just because the theology that surrounds the profession is all wrong, I am sure that most "altar calls" produce sincere professions. I think that the faith of many Protestants is endagered not when they profess, but when they presume that the salvific work of Christ has been all done in them following that.
What is theologoumena?
We cannot be of one faith if there is a shadow of a doubt that dual procession is somehow detrimental to the Monarchy of the Father and, even to the Divine Economy.
Of course. That is precisely what needs to be clarified, that the dual procession is of the root-branch-fruit order, not of any other kind.
I don't see where denying the omniscience is even seen. I can see the logic in the allegation that the doctrine of free will denies omnipotence of God. But that logic is faulty because, in fact, it is the Calvinist notion that man cannot work outside of the will of God that denies God the power to create man who can do just that. In their worldview, the crown of the Creation, the jewel of the Sixth Day really isn't such big of a deal.
Catholics don't worship each other. Only God. Who told you that?
Regards
If "theological hypothesis" can be understood as mere theological opinion then I suppose it's probably the same thing, although I am not sure how it is treated canonically in the modern Roman Catholic Church.
Somehow, a hypothesis seems a step above an opinion, but I may be splitting hairs. It's just that it sounds more "scientific."
Faith is not an opinion, and I am not sure where such constructs fit in. They are either right or wrong and that is determined by the Church as a whole (Ecumenical Council).
But, apparently, the Fathers have had various opinions on a variety of issues -- some being perfectly orthodox, while other proved to be heresies. Others, yet, were rejected by the Church in whole or in part (i.e. Augustinian "original sin") without affecting the particular Father's standing in the Church (Blessed Augustine is a saint in the Orthodox Church as well).
As I said earlier, there is a certain amount of flexibility within the orthodox doctrine, inside whose boundaries these opinions remain just that -- unproven opinions, which are allowed, but are never to be confused as Church teaching.
Here is an Orthodox take on this, with Biblical references and all. I am sure you will think tat it could have been written by a Latin bishop just the same. It clearly shows that we must be willing to accept God's offer. My take on it is much simpler: the Protestant notion of "robot believers" makes the concept of man's sin, fall, repentance and redemption totally meaningless.
Consider just one of these, say, repentance. In Greek the word is metanoia which means literally changing your mind [for the better]. If we have no free will, repentance becomes impossible.
Without free will, we cannot sin. Without sin, our Fall is cruel and unjust punishment. Without sin of our own, how can we be redeemed for something we never had?
If evil and sin is something God created, then why did He become Incarnate to die for our sins? Why bother, when the beginning and the end of this movie is already known -- good guys live, and bad guys perish no matter what.
And if you accept that, is your salvation secured?
Or must you do something else?
and THAT is a hard thing for man to do.
No. It is impossible.
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (Mat 19:25-26 KJV)
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.