Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
You can find what you need here:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mass.htm
It was a sincere question. I am curious why you (apparently) think there is something intrinsically wrong with mysticism. Help me understand your objection to it.
-A8
-A8
I suspect avoidance of 20,001 sects [not leaving out the Roman folks], could be avoided a lot easier and more comfortably than I could avoid CAPS etc. Not sure how to explain that more than I have.
I'm well aware of the responses of some. Might even be a majority for all I know. It's not 100%.
But I have learned over the years that I've been made a certain way and that the way I'm made and live and communicate--resonates with a certain variety of folks. And that I do my Lord and Maker and them a disservice to try and mold myself into the man with the donkey load and the variety of exhortations he received.
Partly sorry . . . being a bit schizophrenic about it . . . I tend to like to please everyone . . . but on this score, I'm afraid, it works much better for me to be me.
Folks are welcome to ignore me and my colorful, brash posts.
Mysticism is a personal revelation, and there really is no way of knowing the source. It can be just vain imaginings or revelation from spirits not from God.(Acts 16:16) You chastised Quix in a previous post about each person interpreting scripture and getting 2000 sects. Well here is the same thing, and no benefit of even reading the scripture. With personal revelation there is the chance of great error as the HS is not the author. To rely on these revelations as doctrine is foolishness.
AU CONTRAIRE!
I believe Romanism is much MORE the anti-institutional organization in the sense that it takes what GOD has ordained, what God has instituted--in terms of the operations of groups of believers--and kills it--murders it--tortures it to death; stifles it; smothers it; bloodies it; proscribes it; trashes it; . . .
Romanism takes I Cor 14 and essentially attempts to squeeze the life out of all such by demanding sometimes very strict kowtowing to a rigid set of man made rules and interpretations not unlike those of the RELIGIOUS rulers of Jesus' earthly days . . . and then sets about administering human, organizational punishments accordingly--quite independent of what God is or isn't doing with the individuals concerned.
Thankfully, there are small pockets here and there within the Roman institution which allow God's Spirit to flow reasonably unchecked AS HE WILL. Else there'd likely be no anointing or true witness of God within the whole organization.
But, if a person is under the authority of the Church, then I think your concern would be allayed. The Church's mystics, think of St. John of the Cross, for example, or St. Teresa of Avila, have deeply enriched her theology and spirituality. Would you agree?
-A8
figure out who is 'anointed' or 'divinely inspired'
= = = =
NO! NO! NO! NOT A "figuring out."
Once upon a time, God walked in the garden with Adam . . . then with Adam and Eve . . .
Once upon a later time, Christ died that such fellowship, dialogue, intimacy would be RESTORED.
Holy Spirit came to further that restoration . . .
It's a matter of TUNING IN TO WHAT GOD IS SAYING to the individual at the time . . . practicing LISTENING to HIS Voice . . . as He commands. The more one practices hearing and obeying, the more one hears and the better one hears. Relatively simple, actually.
Apparently, John of the Cross said that intense spiritual and emotional suffering is necessary for intimacy with God.
Theresa said Jesus wanted her to be sick and suffering.
As a Christian believer, I find their remarks sheer vanity and an argument for a works based religion.
Qx: Orthodoxy is determined by God.
A8: No one disagrees with that, and so it is unhelpful because it does not tell us how to access what God is saying.
QxNew: I've touched on that more than a little. Haven't observed a lot of listening, hearing in the Roman camp on that score.
Qx: His WORD is orthodoxy whether Scripture or via Holy Spirit.
A8: Again, I think we all agree with that statement. The problem, however, as I have pointed out a number of times now, is this; whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative, and who has the Holy Spirit? There are 20,000+ sects that each claim to have the correct interpretation and the Holy Spirit. How do we determine which is right? It does not do any good to reply: Go to the Word and listen to the Spirit. That is exactly what we are trying to determine: which interpretation of the Word is correct and what the Spirit is saying?
QxN: The 20,001 sects [including the Roman one] as well as the millions of individuals are called to dialogue with God and to LISTEN TO, HEAR HIS VOICE. Those that don't miss out.
QxN: Sure, life is messy. Spirituality is messy. Lots of folks get things wrong in their kindergarten. But in my experience, individuals and even small groups getting things wrong END UP with a LOT LESS DESTRUCTIVENESS than when institutions get it wrong--especially the fossilized ancient large ones.
Qx: Laity are called, challenged, exhorted, led to hear God moment by moment; praying always . . . as are all humans . .
A8: Catholics agree.
Qx: and to walk in the personally delivered Biblical orthodoxy God communicates to each individual in their individual dialogue. ONE mediator between God and man--JESUS THE CHRIST. Period. THAT'S the BIBLICAL model of orthodoxy.
A8: Even Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans would disagree with your rejection of the role of Church leaders (deacons, presbyters, elders). They keep watch over our souls (Heb 13:17), and in that way are "mediators" of God's grace to us. That in no way contradicts the uniqueness of Christ's sole mediatory role as taught by Paul in 1 Tim 2:5.
QxN: Sounds nice. I haven't observed it to work out that way. Sheep AND shepherds have great compulsions to INSTALL RATHER VIGOROUSLY AND FIRMLY flawed men in God-like positions to be treated with God-like respect and even adoration and defference. And from there, the pride and other evils following flood like a dam bursting. No thanks.
QxN: I'm happy to submit to proper spiritual authority AS PAUL SAID--AS THEY FOLLOW CHRIST. Otherwise--they can do their own thing and I'll ignore them and/or leave.
Qx: THROUGHOUT HISTORY--ESPECIALLY IN THE !MORE! INSTITUTIONAL OLD TESTAMENT . . . abuses of authority carried on long enough or serious enough . . . resulted in a jerking of the anointing and eventually of the authority. Usually the authority went with the anointing to some degree.
A8: But Christ has promised that this will never happen to His Church. He has and He will continue to lead her into all truth, to ensure that the gates of hell do not over her, and that He will be with her to the end of the age. Even when certain leaders abuse their authority and tarnish the Church, yet Christ will not leave her. Nor does the gift given in ordination leave. To deny that is to make the mistake of the Donatist heresy.
QxN: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Christ has NOT left HIS CHURCH UNIVERSAL. He has repeatedly or at least wholesale for long periods and great major blocks, the majority? of the Roman sect pulled HIS ANOINTING AND HIS AUTHORITY OUT OF AND AWAY FROM IT.
QxN: Probably for major portions of history there have been scattered remnants here and there who were essentially the only vibrant, Biblical, active demonstrations of Holy Spirit's/God's active involvement with man on earth. In some periods, such small groups were probably sparsely located, for sure.
Quix: AND, HE TOOK THEM OUT OR REMOVED THE ANOINTING from every remotely long line of them sooner or later
A8: And how do you know this? This is the sort of deism we see in Mormonism.
Quix: UTTER HOGWASH. Nothing to do with Mormonism.
A8: The deism that assumes Christ abandoned His Church, only to restore it at some later time, is found both in Mormonism and in claims such as yours that Christ "lifted" or "removed" His anointing from the Church.
QxN: Equating Christ abandoning or withdrawing the anointing from a Roman hierarchy of a given period and location . . . or wholesale . . . with Christ removing such from HIS CHURCH UNIVERSAL is a grossly eroneous assumption.
Qx: Just Biblical fact.
A8: The Bible never shows Christ lifting His anointing from the Church.
QxN: See above. Never said He did.
Qx: Show me ONE Biblical line of succession of authority that was NOT broken, removed by God Almighty in the Old Testament. I can't recall one.
A8: The line established by the incarnate Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit sent by Christ, will never be destroyed. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Qx: I was under the impression that logic rules required folks to avoid non-sequiters; arguments from silence and the like. Guess I was wrong.
Qx: I think that's mixing apples and cacti at some point. The irrevocable nature of gifts and callings does not necessarily have anything to do with whether the anointing or the authority remain with the 'gifted' one.
A8: It has everything to do with it. The gift given in sacramental ordination is a divine gift. Like baptism, it can never be repeated, because it can never be removed.
Qx: Re-baptism etc. gets into a whole 'nother order of issue not central to this thread.
A8: It is central to the Donatism that you are proposing. The very same reason why we cannot be re-baptised is the very same reason why ordination cannot be repeated; it is indelibile and irrevocable.
QxN: Hogwash. Not my construction on reality at all. I do not receive the Donatism label.
A8: Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.
Quix: I think eggregious indulgences would be one. Papal philandering outside of marriage could be construed as another. ... There were variouis pollitical land grabs at various points in history that were not at all Christ-like--or even remotely moral.
A8: None of those are Catholic dogma.
Quix: Ahhhhhhhhhhh, but Roman dogma was characteristically used to justify such at the time . . . in one form or another. The Roman hierarchy is still guilty as charged and the so called saintly dogma is still as tainted as the rest of the whole mess.
A8: Whether or not any Roman dogma was used to justify some error is irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic Church has ever "flipflopped" on a matter of *dogma*. It has never done so, and never will.
QxN: Sounds like historical revisionism, to me.
I suspect you have a rather low value for the opinions of experts as well, Quix.
= = =
You mean it flowing all over the pages in CAPS, colors and exclamation points might give you that impression? What a surprise! LOL.
Yup, Yup!
Given Jesus' response to the pharisees, I think I'm in good company.
The whole pontifical deification or elevation of Peter as head of the Roman edifice
is poorly supported by anything . . . including his being in Rome or whatever else archeology etc. may support.
The edifice built around Peter is UNBiblical in it's operation, it's motivation, it's structure, it's tone, it's attitude, it's laws, rules, pollicies, . . . a list of ways.
I Cor 14 is the pattern for the New Testament Church. Doesn't match up much with current and historical Romanism. Thankfully, some small Roman groups practice it currently.
And, I suspect, that from God's perspective, those small groups and the no name folks in them have a GREAT LOT MORE weight, authority, anointing from God's perspective than the Pope and all the Cardinals in Rome put together.
Sorry it impedes you.
I prefer to please everyone.
Can't fittingly manage it on this score.
Wonderful post. I hope to get back to it after class which starts in 5 min or so.
Blessings,
That's not my experience as a Catholic. I am deeply moved in my soul at every mass. I find it to be extremely enriching, edifying, and profoundly beautiful. I sit in the very front, and after I partake, I kneel in prayer and I keep hearing the priest say over and over, "the body of Christ", as each person receives the Eucharist. I hear Christ given to each person; I hear Christ giving Himself to each person; I hear the body of Christ all around me, every beautiful person of all races and ages, all joined together by that act on Calvary and in that act on Calvary, all united in our love for Christ and sharing in His act of self-giving. I have never experienced anything more spiritually edifying and upbuilding in my entire life. In the Eucharist, I experience the love of Christ, that love than which no love is greater, the love shown in His giving up of His very body and blood for my salvation. In the Eucharist I am made a fellow participant in the sufferings of Christ; as I receive His body and blood I am so brought into union with Him that I feel as though I am also encountering His sufferings, the sufferings for which and by which my sins are removed. In the Eucharist I am raised up with Christ to where He is; I am assured of the resurrection of my body and life everlasting joined mysteriously but truly to He who is Life Itself. In confession I am confronted with the gentleness and patience of Christ whose mercy is without limit. In Catholicism, particularly the mass and the sacraments, I encounter the living Christ, and am deeply and truly blessed and raised up in my faith and my love for God. The Catholicism you describe is not the Catholicism I have experienced.
-A8
And nothing has changed in the Catholic Church since that time, so why the concern over how Catholics are doing?
= = =
REALLY? Maybe we are in alternate universes . . . at least on different planets.
On two scores, I find that absurd to the max.
1. The Roman edifice HAS changed markedly from century to century though some dreadful things have remained the same.
2. To the degree that the Roman edifice has not kept up with the changes God was implementing in the ways He was dealing with man and the world and Christendom . . . shame on the Roman edifice and those leading it.
I 110% agree with your whole post and am again humbled and blessed by your wisdom and kind words.
LUB
Three years after Paul's conversion Peter is still in and around Jerusalem [Acts 9 through 11] A.D.40.
Peter is imprisoned by Agrippa I and delivered by an Angel of the Lord [Acts 12]. Herod Agrippa dies [Acts 12:17-23]. This would have been the fourth year of the reign of Claudius according to Josephus....A.D.45.
A.D. 54 finds Paul visiting Peter again in Jerusalem [Galatians 2] and Peter returned the visit to Antioch and sees Paul [Galatians 2:11-14. The dates, of course, determined by [Galatians 2:1].
From A.D. 54 to A.D. 60 Peter apparently made journeys through the old Assyrian Empire (as instructed by Matthew 10:5-6) taking his wife along with him [I Corinthians 9:5].
When Paul salutes the folks in Rome in his epistle to them [Romans 16] in about the year 60 A.D., he never mentions the name of Peter. This would be quite strange if Peter had been holding an office in the Church there for some 25 years. He does mention 27 other people affiliated with the Church at Rome though.
While Paul is under arrest in Rome from A.D. 60/63 he writes four letters: Ephesians; Philipians; Colossians; and Philemon.....not once mentioning the presence of Peter. Right before his death Paul writes to Timothy stating that only Luke is with him [II Timothy 4:11] asking him to go get Mark (Peter's companion) and bring the scroll and Parchments that he had left at Troas [II Timothy 4:11-13]. Not once is Peter mentioned in this epistle and since Paul is asking for the presence of Mark only we can assume that Peter is already dead.
Peter, as an Apostle to the circumcised (Israelites), had no business in Rome......cause there were not any Israelites living there. They were Gentiles.
So, we have to work toward unity (i.e. removing division), but in a way that retains the beauty of our individuality and uniqueness.
And I don't think we can achieve unity without agreeing about authority. The key to unity is the issue of authority. As long as we are divided on authority, we cannot be "perfected in unity" as Christ prays in John 17. St. Paul also says this in 1 Cor 1:10-13, when he rebukes the Corinthians for not being in agreement concerning Church leadership. Some were saying, "I follow Paul', and others, "I follow Apollo", and others, "I follow Cephas", I others, "I follow Christ". Paul sees this disagreement concerning Church leadership, and responds by saying "Is Christ divided?" So Paul sees disagreement about leadership as an unacceptable division in the body of Christ.
-A8
"Um, that makes it, by definition Presbyterian...."
_____________________________
I am a Baptist and I don't have any problem with that.
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.