Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
“And for that, the local priest ought to be thanking God – because I would surely be a disruption since if I were a member, I would challenge every dogma, every doctrine, every sacrament, every tradition that serves as a wedge or even a veil between God and man.”
If he knows of you, I am sure he is giving thanks, A-G. Of course its likely if you started disrupting a Roman Catholic parish with your challenges, you’d be asked to leave and that would be as appropriate as it would be were I to claim to become a Roman Catholic and then attacked the various dogmas of that particular church. I am, therefore, curious as to your point.
” * Baptism is an efficacious grafting into the Body of Christ.
* The Church is visible, sho’ ‘nuff.
* However there a members of the Church in REALLY crappy standing (term of art, no?) and their connection to the Church is virtually imperceptible (like my typing skills).
* The distinction between ‘Christian’ and “member of the Church” is not a real distinction.
* Heretics (those who embrace error with a sufficient degree of knowledge that the CHurch teaches otherwise, a sufficient degree of knowledge of the Church’s grounds to claim authority, and a ditto of intent) are members of the Church in really awful standing.Heretics and those who cling to error with varying degrees of intent and culpability, harm themselves and other members of the body of Christ, and, especially, their misbelief hinders to the point of prevention theosis.
* To the extent that actions, internal or external, are directly attributable to demonic control, and to the extent that that control is the partially or wholly the result of some sin of the person being controlled, they are not culpable.
* But in the immediately preceding point and in those dealing with awareness and willfulness of misblelief cases are difficult to determine.
* In any event, Truth, and the desire and ability to embrace Him are the gift of God.”
1. sometimes
2 yes
3. yes
4. yes there is, at least historically
5. Depends on the heresy
6. no
7. The heretic’s problem, not that of The Church
8. Absolutely
So...?
lol,lol. I questioned everything in my church as I grew as a Christian ( still do) and I was never asked to leave. In fact, everybody in attendance can learn from questions, and it's the pastors job to present a scriptural answer. Again, you have a "church" that will tell you what to believe,and that's not a church but a cult.
“I questioned everything in my church as I grew as a Christian ( still do) and I was never asked to leave. In fact, everybody in attendance can learn from questions, and it’s the pastors job to present a scriptural answer.”
I’d call that a debating society, 1000 s, not a church, probably not even an ecclesial assembly.
“Again, you have a “church” that will tell you what to believe,and that’s not a church but a cult.”
Same cult that gave you the bible, as I seem never to tire of reminding you folks.
We all have gifts of the Spirit.
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. - I Corinthians 12:4-11
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. - Matthew 13:18-23
And there are "no dumb questions". Too many people are afraid to look stupid in front of their church friends. Well I don't care. And since it's after the study that we have questions, they can go home if they want to. Many's the night the pastor and I have stayed up all hours, the most enjoyable hours of my life.
ok, but see you later, my longhorns calleth
Most of your “spelling errors” are just that. But for some reason, that one struck me as sooooooo funny:>) I couldn’t stop laughing.
Hmmmm weeding the garden... Sowing, watering, and WEEDING..
Indeed, There BE weeds.. Arrrrgh..
There isn't any "So." I just thought I'd sketch out some lingo and run it up the flagpole and check for salutes.
* But in the immediately preceding point and in those dealing with awareness and willfulness of misbelief cases are difficult to determine.
7. The heretic’s problem, not that of The Church
AS we used to jokingly say at seminary,"Wow! WHAT a PAStor!". The is, if you find yourself with the "care of souls", at least here in the West, it's your problem, at least if they come to you for help or counsel.
The problem of the culpability of the possessed is not so interesting, though I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Where the interest lies (for me) is in the questions of membership. (I'll use numbers this time.)
The first is the question of reason generally, and it touches on what it means to be in the image of God, what choice and freedom are, and a bunch o' stuff. And, of course, it touches on what reason is. The modern view seems to be that reason is "the meat computer", while the older view is it is a faculty whereby we perceive truth. (The lower case 't' is important here.)
Then the other is the issue of closed communion. It's not really an analogy but my first response to your complaint was "We don't believe in premarital sex, either." It's not that you're not good enough or we're too good. It's that we take Communion - Koinonia -- "discerning the body" seriously and we take YOU seriously.
(At least this is how I understood it, when, a gazillion years ago I was a seminarian/chaplain at a hospital where some RCs said Mass daily and I asked if I could communicate and they said only under very special circumstances - like I was dying or somesuch. Really I didn't think THEY were jerks, I thought, "We have GOT to work harder to end our divisions."
As long as you thought/think the doctrines and such were wedges and veils, I can't see the Holy Spirit (or the local holy-dude) letting you join us. I guess what is a fence to some is a gate to others.
As to questioning, as long as you have a priest with time and brains, your questioning would be welcome, I'd guess. As to your leading the Rosary and such, that's what I'd say we mean by being a member but not a member in full communion.
You don't believe what we teach, you don't believe what we say we are, and you disagree with us about God's promise to His Church. These are not unimportant disagreements. What seems to me to be a gift of God, the charism of the Church as a whole, seems to others to be nothing but control and power and mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus and veils and wedges. What seems to me to be a bridge is to you a chasm. While that is true, it would be a cheap and unsatisfactory pretense to admit you to full sacramental communion.
And the Catholic Church is not God. Um, duh? But it IS the body of Christ, we think.
As to the "our way or the highway", well, I have a joke, but it will have to wait ...
Not proofing. in haste, scuse typos.
“If the Holy Spirit led me to join the Catholic Church, it would be for that purpose.”
Your purpose would be to be disruptive? I sincerely doubt that the HS would lead you to disrupt a Latin Rite parish.
“And particularly, why do you suppose I conclude most of the posts with “To God be the glory?”
Because your spiritual forebears learned that from Greeks?
“We all have gifts of the Spirit.”
I don’t accept that at all. That’s universalism of one form or another.
“And mine is to encourage other believers”
Encourage them to do what? Believe as you do? Reject the teachings of The Church as you indicated you would in a Latin Rite Church? Would you encourage them to believe whatever innovative notion they might believe the HS puts in their head? Would you encourage Episcopalians to follow the guidance of a spirit of some sort, which they sincerely believe to be the Holy Spirit, which is “doing a new thing”?
What makes you think it’s not the norm today?
You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
I have no doubt you that there are certain things this country destroys and will not allow people to view either,yet they allow for all kinds of pornography and filthy commercials on tv in the name of freedom.
...And your only concern is that we protect this false freedom and not destroy pornography?
BTW,you made the assertion about breaking into houses to destroy things,not me.
Here is a link about the History of Book censorship from New Advent,lest you think the Church is trying to hide something.
Should say..
I have no doubt that there are certain things this country destroys and will not allow people to view either,yet they allow for all kinds of pornography and filthy commercials on tv in the name of freedom
And what things would those be? Certainly not Roman Catholic writings, because I can access NewAdvent on my computer just fine. And I'm sure I could find plenty more at the local library. But why did you bring this up? To avoid answering my question (again)? Here it is again in case you missed it:
My question dealt with how you justify destroying things under the auspices of the magisterium. Because God told them to? How do you know? Did God give them an explicit, "secret" command to destroy things held by others who claimed to have a "secret" knowledge? How ironic...
You ask:
...And your only concern is that we protect this false freedom and not destroy pornography?
The pornography issue, as I pointed out, is a red herring. We're discussing whether or not it's justifiable to destroy books because a self-appointed magisterium doesn't like what's in them. Again: If the words and ideas therein are bad, why shouldn't they be countered with words and ideas that are good, instead of destructive force?
I am a great sinner, and I am in no position to sit in personal judgement of anyone. All I am contending is that sin is not justifiable, whether it's done under the authority of an "infallible" Church, or by myself, among the worst of all sinners. We need to repent of our transgressions, not give hand-waving rationalizations for them.
BTW,you made the assertion about breaking into houses to destroy things,not me.
Then how, pray tell, do you intend to enforce it? From the same article you posted:
The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled "Thalia"; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible.
How can this be justified? This happened down through the centuries, and not just at the hands of Roman Catholics but Protestants as well. Lord have mercy on us.
“The heretic’s problem, not that of The Church
AS we used to jokingly say at seminary,”Wow! WHAT a PAStor!”. The is, if you find yourself with the “care of souls”, at least here in the West, it’s your problem, at least if they come to you for help or counsel.”
I disagree. The heretic’s heresy is not The Church’s problem any more than an illness is the “problem” of the physician. Both The Church, and by extension the priests and deacons and holy monastics, and hospitals (and their physicians) seek to cure the illness. The Church is of course a hospital for sick souls as the Fathers say. But the “sickness” is the patient’s problem. He’s the one who will live a limited life or even die if he isn’t cured, not the physician or the clergy. And like a physician, the clergy can only try to help. They can’t force anyone to take the medicine which will restore his or her life.
“The problem of the culpability of the possessed is not so interesting, though I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Depends on how possessed and really what you mean by possessed. In at least one way to look at it, “culpability” as such, has little or nothing to do with theosis. Its simply a matter of conformity to Christ. I am not saying I agree with that.
“Is the Church the “mystical body of Christ” or not?”
Yes, The Church is.
“Can we articulate some standard by which we say this baptized person is NOT a member of the Church and that one isa member in very bad standing?”
Sure. Unless one is baptized according to the sacrament of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...or according to the sacrament of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, one is not thereby a member of The Church. A member in bad standing is just that, a member in bad standing. As an example, before communion, Orthodox priests will often announce that communion is reserved for Orthodox Christians who are properly prepared by fasting and confession and who live their lives in accord with the dictates of The Church. There are Orthodox Christians who have married outside The Church, or who are “living in sin” with another person or who are known to have committed a grave sin who, while members of The Church, are not in good standing and thus cannot receive the Eucharist.
“In terms of membership in (a) Christ’s Body, or (b) the Church, what are the graces of Baptism?”
I don’t understand your question. Try again.
“Is that just such a legalistic Western Question that it makes you want to puke?”
“Do you think this: (a)All heresies interfere with or prevent theosis; (b) but only some heresies sort of ispo facto put the heretic out of the Church member, while others don’t?”
All heresies at a minimum interfere with theosis because all heresies teach falsehood about God and if we believe false things about God, we will be unable to thoroughly conform ourselves to him or otherwise leave ourselves open to demonic, soul destroying practices by cutting ourselves off from The Church, something we sadly witness everyday in this country. All heretics are enemies of God to a greater or lesser extent and therefore cut themselves off from Him to greater or lesser extents, with greater or lesser deleterious effects on theosis.
“Is Atheism a heresy? (This is a question about the definition of “heresy”. I’d say Atheism is NOT a heresy, Atheists are just flat OUT, while a heretic sort of exists in the context of Xty. For example, in my usage a heretic thinks IHS is a rutabaga, or a human only, while an Atheist thinks there isn’t any God of whom IHS is the incarnation.”
Atheism is not a heresy but rather the result of particular Western Christian heresies.
Only if you are heading into that “created grace” stuff.
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.