Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
Bookmark.
And similarly to folks not in communion with the See of Rome: We do share one Baptism and certain rock-bottom theological convictions and above all a confidence, given by grace that God saves through the merits of His son and by Grave through Faith. And we should praise God for that sharing and love another. BUT the differences are important and reconciliation will not be achieved by glossing over them. We can defer discussion of some of them or of some of their aspects while we "accentuate the positive", but we ought not to think they are not there.I think the reason for promulgating DI was in response to a lot of sort of, "Oh, what the hey," among Catholic thinkers. Catholic priests have actually told me they consider me a priest! I have not yet found a polite way to say,"If I AM a priest, then I am derelict in my duty. If the Anglican communion has the sacramental mojo to make me a priest, then I should get back to my station! If I thought I were a truly a priest, I would have been duty-bound to remain in the Episcopal Church." In the course of the right and proper "accentuating of the positive" I think BenXVI is saying let's not get swept away here. There's still a whole heap of stuff to be tunnelled through. I think it was needed, at least in parts of the US Catholic Church.
What I thought Papa Ben was saying was that the intention, the act of will, in becoming Lutheran or Calvinist or Anglican in the 16th century was of a different sort from the act of will involved in becoming or remaining ... when we have had 400+ years of division and when lots of good work and good piety (the hymns alone for crying out loud!) in these other bodies. It's now silly to call a Presbyterian a schismatic. It might in some incredibly formal and abstract sense be true, but it's silly.
We say, Sunday by Sunday, I believe (in) One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So we can't abandon ONEness as a "mark" of he Church.
We also see the See of Rome and those whom we take to be the successors of Peter and Paul, as being sort of unitary - a uniting "pole" around which the metal filings of individual Xtians should orient themselves.
And we have a notion of God's guidance of the Church "into all truth" (albeit little by little and in no particular hurry) which differs materially from the more individualized interpretation of that thought in other groups. And that "guidance" has led us to a few more non-neogtiables about the Sacraments, Mary, and such. AND we think that we are, not by our merits but entirely by God's faithfulness to His promise, by Grace, right in these important matters.
So we simply cannot reasonably turn around and say that other outfits are "just as good". We can't both be right about Mary or about the Eucharist, and these are important matters. A brother Dominican, a young scholar, disagrees with me and says we do "need" Mary, by which I take him to mean "right thinking about Mary" for a fulness of understanding (or fullER understanding, at least) of the Gospel, of "how God works with men".
But again, there is clearly good and beautiful thought coming out of the "Separated Brethren" (where "separated" is not, in itself, a put-down but just a description of the status quo).
If/When we say Protestants "cannot have churches", I think we mean primarily there is only ONE Church, and it is manifested in varying degrees of "fullness".
If that causes offense, all I can say is nothing is further from my desire. (Okay, Hillary winning in November is further from my desire ....) "Here I stand, etc."
what is your view on what would happen if a Catholic REGULARLY decided to just pray directly to God by himself for the forgiveness of his sins? From the Catholic POV as I see it, one answer might be that it counts the same because the faith is there. Another answer might be that it doesn't count because it violates how the Church interprets scripture, and therefore faith, as the Church sees it, would be lacking.
Get the kindling and the marshmallows!
On the spot analysis: This Catholic needs to fish or cut bait. (I know a woman who hasn't been to confession in maybe 10 years but is otherwise very devout. I think she has issues about "personal space".) IF she is truly not aware of any grave sin, this is okay, but not great. (And my acquaintance says she thinks she is free of any grave sin) If she is aware of a grace Sin and wants to think of herself as a Catholic, she is rapidly losing the rational faculty. Fish or cut bait -- or, better, look into yourself to determine why your are doing neither. In our daily Mass readings we are now doing the Epistle of Straw. And right away James says that being double minded interferes with receiving gifts from God.
As to the Scriptural witness of the sufficiency of the Grace of God, I would say it's like this: There is indeed a banquet spread before us. But still one has to "arise and eat," as the angel said to Elijah. Now some of us will pick you up and carry you to a couch near the table, will cut up your meat and put a morsel on a fork and help you lie it to your lips, but at some point you have to open your mouth and chew and swallow. Only the very sick and dying will tolerate being fed through an NG or alimentary tube for long.
Or: I work out. My muscles grow (or in my decrepitude, do not disappear quite so rapidly as they would otherwise.) I know that the growth of muscle is not my doing. I even know that the fact that I chose to get of my sorry behind and go to the gym is not my doing. Yet, I underwent an experience which most of us call "work" and "free choice" and that following that repeated experience, I found that my muscles were, well, not quite so pathetic as they had been.
Another way: YES, I think that, in essence, unquestionably God calls even such as YOU (no, really!) to grace, and HE grants the capacity and desire to respond to that call, and so we see the vile, wormish (and that's an undeserved insult to worms) character of ourselves when left to ourselves, and, like a little girl holding a broken doll up to her father, we hold ourselves up to God and say,"Papa fix?" And fixing is what He does, praise Him for His mercies endure forever!
Oh Darn, this is so many words and so little to the purpose. You present, as many do, sacramental confession as a burden. Last year I sponsored a convert, and before we let adults in they have to make a a confession. This was a 50 year old lady, so she as wondering if she could do it in sessions, with tea-breaks.
She was pretty anxious, and asked me if I would come and be with here while she waited for her appointment (This was not done in a "Telephone booth" but in Fr. Brian's comfortable office.) I said, "Of course I'll be there. Somebody has to help pull you off the ceiling afterwards."
So she went in and came out, and she was all dazed and happy and aid,"THAT is the, without a doubt, world's best weight-loss program!"
Does that SOUND like a burden? I guess it looks like "you HAVE to go to sacramental confession," but from MY POV it's, "Wow, every couple of weeks I GET to go to sacramental confession!"
So, to bring this blather to an unsatisfactory conclusion, The problem your hypothetical person has is that she needlessly deprives herself of a great gift which confirms our faith and seems to give graces to act more out of a certainty of God's love and good will than a sense of guilt and fear. She should know better, and if she has had good catechesis, then she is guilty of despising God's gifts, of treading pearls underfoot.
Just to review: I AM getting paid by the word, right?
Ping.
“you HAVE to go to sacramental confession,”
Says who?
Time after time we are told in Scripture to ask for forgiveness for our sins directly from Christ alone.
All this distraction by the RCC that we are to ask each other for forgiveness is misdirection.
If we have wronged someone, of course we ask for their forgiveness for our unChristian behaviour.
But as for forgiving our actual sins which would otherwise condemn us to hell, Christ alone is the only propitiation.
The confessional booth is just one more tether the RCC ties to its congregants in order for them to believe (wrongly) that the intercession of the magisterium is required for their salvation.
One God. One mediator. One payment for our sins, Christ on the cross.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..." -- Matthew 6:6-12"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Of course, the RCC gets around Christ's words by saying that members of their priestcraft are "another Christ" so everything is kosher.
lol. As if.
And yet “whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you hold bound are bound.”
So God did (and by Catholic thinking about apostolic succession still does) note whether or not one has confessed to others.
The correct spelling is "Sez". Do I have to explain EVerything? Sheesh!
Sez me and my Sig p239 in 357 Sig. Next question?
(Sorry that's my Sicilian Catholic coming out. ....)
A "precept of the Church" is that IF you are conscious of grave sin you should go to confession at least once a year and receive Holy Communion (which by our take on things means "taking care" of a grave sin by, guess what, going to confession and being truly contrite and all that) at least once a year, AND if it's only once a year that should be during the 50 days between Easter and Pentecost.
But please note the general direction of the end of my interminable post, to wit: it's like saying, "If you want to taste sweetness, we are going cruelly to require you to eat this marzipan." To those with disordered senses, that seems like a "work". To those of us who know how good marzipan is, it's a grace.
“To those with disordered senses, that seems like a “work”. To those of us who know how good marzipan is, it’s a grace.”
No, it sounds like a totally unnecessary step. We, by scripture, need no other go between but Christ. I don’t need a priest to tell me I’ve done wrong and to do “penance” for it. I have the discernment to figure that out on my own through prayer and study of scripture. I’ve seen way too many “good” Catholics use and abuse the system.
*** I don’t need a priest to tell me I’ve done wrong and to do “penance” for it. I have the discernment to figure that out on my own through prayer and study of scripture.***
The same discernment that has given the rise to hundreds of thousands of different Protestant theologies?
And no man ends up with all the answers. Christ doesn't expect us to be perfect.
Christ is perfect for us. That's the point the RCC misses.
AMEN!
If Catholics would only return to the Bible they could see for themselves Rome's anti-Scriptural doctrines, if God so wills.
Why would Henry, an enemy of the Church, carry out its bidding on Tyndale?
Persecutions Begin in England A letter to King Henry VIII dated December 2, 1525, from the man who later became Archbishop of York, shows the attitude typical of Roman Catholic authorities of that day toward vernacular Bibles: "All our forefathers, governors of the Church of England, hath with all diligence forbade and eschewed publication of English Bibles, as appeareth in Constitutions Provincial of the Church of England" (Hoare, Our English Bible, 1901, p. 144). It must be recalled that the Church of England was a part of the Catholic church until the break in 1534, and Henry himself was never Protestant in doctrine. "Henry continued to defend the principal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, required all people in England and Wales to adhere to the Roman creed, and was quite willing to put to death men and women who opposed his will by embracing Protestant doctrine" (Houghton, Sketches from Church History, p. 113).
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm
Henry Breaks with Pope; Persecutions Continue
On March 26, 1534, the English Parliament renounced all dependence upon the “Court of Rome.” The long expected break with the pope was finally made, though King Henry VIII never turned from Catholic doctrine. After this, the persecutions continued and even increased, but they changed character somewhat. Before the watchword was heresy. Now it was treason. Before the trouble was mainly poured out upon Bible believing Christians and possessors of the English Scriptures. Now it was poured out upon anyone, whether Protestant or Catholic or whatever, who opposed Henry’s actions.
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm
No, you are not correct, the Roman Catholic authorities were intent on keeping vernacular Bibles out of the hands of the common people.
Some have downplayed the significance of this ugly history, claiming that Rome only forbade “unauthorized” vernacular versions, not all vernacular versions. This is one of those half truths which is used to hide the truth, for to state the case in such terms is to miss the truth of this history entirely. Note the following facts:
1. THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229) AND THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA (1234) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE MENTIONED. The Council of Toulouse used these words: “We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue” (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821, p. 213). The declarations of these formal Roman Catholic councils held power for centuries thereafter and were repeatedly cited as authoritative by subsequent popes and councils. In fact, these declarations have never been rescinded.
2. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DID NOT GIVE THE PEOPLE BIBLES. To argue that the Roman Catholic Church forbade only unauthorized vernacular versions is to argue a technicality which has no meaning in reality. Some odd exception which might have existed at some particular place in some point in history does not change this rule. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church did not labor to give people the Bible, and wherever Rome held power, the people did not have ready access to the Scriptures. THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Consider the very important ENGLISH tongue. The Roman Catholic Church did not produce a Bible in English until 1582, fully two centuries after Wycliffe made the first English Bible, and more than a half century after Tyndale made his masterpiece for the English-speaking world. Rome had done everything in its power to destroy the Wycliffe and Tyndale English Scriptures. Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and burned by Catholic authorities, and Tyndale was burned at the stake. Even after Rome finally did produce an English Bible (the Rheims-Douai), it was not widely published and made available to the people. The New Testament was reprinted by Catholics ONLY THREE TIMES and the Douai Old Testament, ONLY ONCE, between 1582 and 1750—A PERIOD OF 168 YEARS.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm
Christ is who Catholics recieve forgiveness from as well.
I don’t need a priest to tell me I’ve done wrong and to do “penance” for it.
Nor do Catholics. It is not the priest that tells someone he has done wrong. It is the penitent condemning himself as having done wrong.
I have the discernment to figure that out on my own through prayer and study of scripture.
As do Catholics. An examination of conscience is made, using scripture as a guide.
It would appear that you and Catholicism are in accord.
We begin to scratch the dishonesty of this post by noting that the councils noted, of Toulouse and Tarragona, were not ecumenical councils binding on the whole church, but only regional councils, called during times of upheaval due to heretics. They were not binding outside of southern France and northern Spain; they had no effect on the translations of the Bible into English.
I’ll post more fully on the pre-Wyclif translations of the Bible later...
If Catholics would only return to the Bible they could see for themselves Rome's anti-Scriptural doctrines, if God so wills.
Catholics never left the bible, so returning isn't an issue. Rome doesn't have any anti-scriptural doctrines. Apparently God wills a billion souls to adhere to the doctrines of the RCC. Why is it you oppose His will?
During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians. What these decrees (e.g., of the synod of Toulouse in 1129, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm
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.