Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
“Now if you think that we think that Mary on her own toot was worthy to bear Christ, well, we don’t. We just don’t.”
But you can’t back up the “co-mediator” and “queen of Heaven” claim from Scripture. Had God ever intended for Mary to be those things He would have said so in some form or fashion.
Blessed to be sure for her role but not elevated in the fashion she is now. The only one high and lifted up is Christ.
However, the POINT of the rant was not to show the sola scriptura bona fides of the notion but to clarify how we could think it at all. While my capacity is almost as prodigious as my modesty even I can't do everything at once.
I keep forgetting that a priest pronouncing absolution can be seen (and in fact IS seen) by some as somehow NOT God forgiving through the ministry entrusted by Him to his Church. I do not see a conceptual contradiction between a priest pronouncing forgiveness and God forgiving.
To me it depends on how the pronouncing goes. :) At least one good FR Catholic has told me that the priest says something akin to "I forgive you your sins", or "I absolve you of your sins". To me, that is a world apart from saying something like "God will forgive you your sins". The Bible says:
1 John 1:9 : If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
So, if the penitent confesses sincerely to God, then the latter answer is simply an affirmation of scripture. All is well. However, if the priest himself claims the power to forgive then I see that as a violation of scripture since God claims that authority as His own, the fairly debatable interpretation of John 20:23 notwithstanding.
Not only do I get this from my church tradition but from being a deputy. The Sheriff is on the hook for anything the deputies do.
Yes, but I see a difference between vicarious liability and authority to act. I would imagine the Sheriff "shouldn't" normally ever be on the hook for anything if the deputies stay within their authority to act. So, IF my understanding of the claimed power of a priest is correct, then statistically, priests from time to time forgive in error. I would not, therefore, hold God accountable because I would say that the priest acted outside of his authority.
FK: "Just curious, how do you see the issue of our forgiving others, when the other is unrepentant and does not ask for forgiveness?"
Is this question addressed to me?
I was asking Dr. E., and I pinged you and welcome your comments too. :)
Forgiveness has a giving and a receiving side to it. Remember how obnoxious it is when somebody "forgives" you for something you didn't do. That would be a case of a bad offering of forgiveness, yes?
Yes, if the "forgiver" knew that the "forgivee" was innocent. If not, such as in the case of someone "taking the rap", then no foul on the forgiver.
I insist, that purgation is therapeutic not punitive, and that is partially why in Dante's Purgatorio everyone is happy to be there. They're getting better and stronger and they're full of hope.
Wow. That is definitely different from what my idea was of purgatory. My understanding was that purgatory was a place no one would ever WANT to go to, BUT FOR that it beat the alternative of hell. :) In fact, wasn't the whole point of indulgences that time in purgatory of loved ones could be shortened in exchange for a contribution? IOW, if it was therapeutic then why pay to get someone out? :)
The forgiveness is there. To take it to ourselves, we may have to let go of something else. I THINK I would say that God will teach us and enable us to do that, while I think you would say that God would just take our resentments from us.
I think I would say that both things you just said are right. :) By God taking away our resentments, He teaches us and enables us to forgive. With no resentment there is nothing to block forgiveness.
It can be done by something called GRACE,Dear Brother. As far as I know, protestants and catholics are in agreement on this?
Is it POSSIBLE? Sure, anything is possible with God. But does it really happen? I could only guess VERY RARELY at best. If we use the Catechism as a guide to the definition of grave sin, then I would bet a lot that if someone asked PB XVI if he had committed grave sin at least once in the last 10 years that he would say "YES". Of course that is just a guess on my part. Would you bet that he would say "No"?
To put it bluntly,it is our lack of love for God and our OWN SELF desire that causes us to sin. We need to be honest with ourselves and see it this way.
Absolutely true, and fully supported by scripture. For example:
Isa 53:6 : We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
-----------------------
Frequent confession helps me a great deal with venial sin, I highly recommend it to keep oneself humble. This is something I constantly need to be reminded of.
I am glad that you find it a good experience spiritually. I say again that I really don't have anything against the idea, per se, of Apostolic confession. My beef is with some of the theological aspects and ramifications of the mechanics of it. But certainly the Bible says that we should confess our sins to one another. That doesn't exclude priests. :)
Consequently after the formulaic introduction, I will often say, "all that stuff," in place of the laundry list. And the pastor will give a kind of summation of our previous conversation about the "root" of the sin and ways to be on the lookout for it or to avoid it or whatnot. But brief. Then he'll say,"Tell God you're sorry," (or words to that effect. And I will generally tell God that when I quiet down and think and remember, I realize that He is constantly scattering pearls before me and I am, pig-like, frequently treading them into the mire, and that in doing so I not only fail to love Him and my neighbor but enact a kind of contempt for Him and my neighbor. (It may help to point out here that I kind of like pigs ....)
Then the priest will suggest a penance - a thing which is mischaracterized by many. It's not the price of a sin or its fine or whatever, not in practice. It's more like a pantomime of being willing to pay if I could but I can't AND a sort of therapy. Once I got "make sure that you're the one who makes the bed for a week." Sometimes it's, "Right now go to the chapel and pray for so-and-so (the person I was mad at.)" Sometimes it's more general.
And it bugs me that I can't remember the formula but it's along the lines of "God forgives the penitent and has given to His Church the authority to forgive sins, SO I absolve you ...". Then there's a "closer".
It was one such "closer": GO in peace, the Lord has put away all your sins," which was sort of the trigger or catalyst to my "born-again" experience.
OH, Here's one of the formulae in the Pepsicola Church: Our Lord IHS XP, who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your since: In the Name of the Father, [etc.] ....
So there's a kind of "both and" aspect to it.
As to forgiving in error, I would say there's an analogy to the unworthy reception of the Sacrament. A little tiny germ of contrition is all that's required, but if one is confessing adultery while at the same time planning to meet with his paramour later on that day - there is no absolution.
YOU simply MUST read the Divine Comedy. I strongly recommend Dorothy Sayers translation and READ the NOTES! (some of which were written by a kind of aunt/cousin by marriage of mine, Barbara Reynolds) When I first read it in 1968 I was immediately captivated by the Purgatorio.
I think the preaching about Purgatory and all its sufferings and whatnot was strongly perverted in the 15th-16th century and in the first half or so of the last century.
I told my pastor, I'm looking forward to Purgatory. He raised his eyebrows. I said, well at least there you KNOW you're getting better and that the sufferings are directed toward the ends of Heaven.
His response was that I could direct my sufferings now toward the ends of heaven -- no need to wait! - and that that would be just as purgative.
But in any event, the torments Dante describes are pretty tormenting, but the overall attitude is joy and hope. Everyone there is going to heaven!
So when I was in PT for a torn sub-acromial ligament (ow! keeping sheep has its hazards) I was delighted but not surprised that while we were all in pain and submitting to tortures from the therapists, we were all laughing and joking and happy, because we were all getting better!
***No, the Roman Catholic Church wanted control because they wanted to keep the People in ignorance and darkness. ***
The Church has always proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rejected all heresies. Hardly ignorance and darkness. The Mass readings are from the entire Bible - normally the OT, the Epistles, and the Gospels at every Mass. I get more Scripture at Mass than I have ever seen at a Pentecostal or Baptist service.
***First, there was always a great demand for them as seen by the popularity of the Wyclif translation.
Second, it was the printing press (the first book ever printed was a Bible) that forced the Roman Catholics to adjust its tactics since they couldn’t control the output anymore.***
How many Wyclif translations were ever hand written? Hint: not many.
Gutenberg printed his Bibles with full and complete backing of the Church. I know that real history is hard to accept when it contradicts one’s bigotry.
I wouldn't say that lots of denominations is "good" since the ideal would be for all Christians to know and follow the ONE true truth, whatever that is. :) I just don't necessarily see it as a "bad" thing if different Christians have some different practices while holding to the same core beliefs.
For me to apologize to God quietly in my room about, say, checking out a porno site is one thing. Actually to say that to another human type being whom I can imagine reacting and everything as I speak ... well, that calls on more from me.
I can understand that. It certainly would intimidate me. I just hope there are not large numbers who wind up confessing to no one, for that fear.
Thanks for your other comments.
Well, I've found that the way to handle embarrassing sins is to confess them first, maybe with your eyes closed.I just say, "I'm really embarrassed about this one so I'm confessing it first," and let fly.
Seriously though, I hope to be at least so "converted" that I see clearly that the Love of God is important and the disapproval of some crotchety priest is not.
I've spoken about rock climbing, virtue, and faith before. I bet, it having been decades since I backed over the edge of a cliff, it would take all I had to do it again. I haven't been practicing the fine art of being terrified but not letting the terror rule.
I HAVE been practicing telling another human being what I've done that I think was wrong and that I'm ashamed of. All good gifts come from the Father of Lights (can you tell we've been reading James at Mass?) but in SOME sense it seems I need to somehow appropriate them. It's as good a way as any I can think of to remind myself that what matters is that God loves me, and what doesn't matter is that I'm a jerk.
But you've given me a good "intention", as we Papists say, and I will pray tomorrow at Mass for the gift of an increase of faith and courage for all those too ashamed to make use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
I've found more historically-accurate narratives inside Cracker Jack boxes.
Here’s an interesting fact: the Gutenberg Bible features the Latin Vulgate.
Not some rubbish from Wyclif or Tynsdale: The Catholic Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.
(Just sayin'.)
Often points of Biblical theology turn on the meaning of individual words, and our best guess as to the intention of the writer(s) of the text in question. Seeing what Hebrew word a Greek word translates may sometimes shed light on the meaning of a particular NT text.
1Ti 2:5-6 : 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.You write
I don't understand the relevance of the second sentence. I was at a service in a Baptist Church some time back and at the end one of the pastors or leaders or whatnot issued an altar call, saying that doing so was a tradition in his denomination. So here we have a guy saying that this is a traditional aspect of worship, which sure sounds like it was "thought up by man" and I certainly wouldn't say it was not motivated by the Holy Spirit.
Being "thought up by man" to me does not necessarily imply that it was not also "thought up by God".
And that's probably why we may not reach understanding on penance and confession. If I thought that they implied that there is more than one God or that having recourse to Fr. So-and-So or to our Lady constituted an impingement on the mediatory activity of Jesus, I wouldn't participate.
Up until probably the 17th or 18th century, in Europe anyway, the average person probably couldn't read more than minimally, and that only in the cities. Also, he mostly couldn't afford books until the development of cheap paper from wood pulp toward the end of the 18th century.
In 17th century England, all books had to be licensed by the civil authorities before they could be printed. The practice is condemned (and so memorialized, in a sense) by Milton in his Areopagitica. The civil authorities were not persuaded.
Actually, in Shakespeare's time, things were still rough by today's standards. Paper was made from linen rags and was expensive; it was a time- and labor-intensive process. And each individual folio (or quarto or whatever) had to be pressed separately for printing on a hand-operated press -- twice, once for each side. The paper was so expensive that if a mistake was noticed, it was corrected by hand and the page was still used. Books were assembled individually, by hand.
Well, who would I be mediating between? Myself and the person or God and the person? If the latter then the Bible prohibits that, and if the former then it is not the same as what it looks like Mary does. My understanding is that Mary's titles are absolutely unique to her and her alone.
All this work, offered to God in Jesus, and done by one who is "in Christ" and therefore a new Creation, one who himself has died and now you live, yet not you, but Christ lives in you .... ALL this, by the Grace of Christ is incorporated into his atoning work as an avalanche grows as it races down the mountain side.
I don't know what you mean by "incorporated into his atoning work". The Bible says there is but one Mediator. I don't see how that can be reasonably interpreted to include the group of all believers, and Mary above all others.
Nothing Mary "currently has" will be denied all the holy redeemed. They will all be sinless; they will all be crowned, they, with her, will all be drawn ever closer to the heart of God.
Jesus talks about the concept of some being "greater" or "lesser" in Heaven. I just assumed that if Catholicism is right, then Mary would be the greatest, thus having something I won't have. (You go on to mention that Mary is indeed "first" among the Redeemed.) Let me ask you this: when you get to Heaven will you continue to venerate Mary and the other Saints?
All that Mary has and is is gift and none over-rides the fundamental distinction between creator and creature, between redeemer and redeemed.
But I thought that much/most of Mary's "greatness" is attributed to her free will, no interference from God, "Yes". Without needing to go anywhere near any idea of Mary being divine, it would still seem that Mary is who she is, in great part, because of her.
The tear of a forgiving spouse is united (By His grace) with the blood which dripped from Christ in Gethsemane and shares (by His grace) its redemptive power.
I'm afraid this is a place I cannot go. :) I just can't imagine sharing in something only God can do.
Imagine if God were your son. Just imagine! What would your prayers be like then? What would your closeness, your experienced closeness to God be like then? Is it reasonable to suppose that the gift of such longing, such intimacy would not be followed with other gifts?
The Bible actually surprises me a little in how NOT like this the relationship between Jesus and Mary was described. That's why it is extra-hard for me to see it your way.
What can we reasonably expect to be the outcome of a normal and benign mother-Son relationship when the Son is the Son of God?
Since the Bible is silent on it, I'm not sure that we can or should expect anything in particular. Mary appears to behave as any honorable mother who truly loved her son would.
So I came to see my work as a kind of pantomime or shadow play of Christ's work: I entered the patient's world (his room) to be with him, to suffer with and for him. AND I came to see it also as work like Mary's, when I thought of the patient as Christ's being present to me. This just kind of "came to me", and comes to me now. It wasn't the result of some pious exercise, but just a "Oh! Mary too stood by and suffered!"
God bless you for your service and there's no doubt it is the work of God. I suppose that we could say that perseverance is a part of salvation and that we are "there" to witness God working through us. And, if we assume that Mary is saved, and I do, then she was also a part of this. But since it IS God doing all this, then I would see no need to elevate Mary, or you, or me just for having been a witness to God's work. We are elevated just in being His children.
I think the language is scandalous and perverse UNLESS one contemplates and "hopes all things" about the glorious graces of God in Christ Jesus. It simply cannot be tolerated that Mary or any other creature be understood to have or dispense or enact ANYTHING at all unless God is at the back of it (and in the middle and at the end as well).
OK, that is good to hear. I was actually expecting you to have a problem with it. :) But I couldn't say the same thing for EVERY FR Catholic. :) Problems always come up when free will is linked into the discussion.
In 17th century England, all books had to be licensed by the civil authorities before they could be printed. The practice is condemned (and so memorialized, in a sense) by Milton in his Areopagitica. The civil authorities were not persuaded.
And that was Roman Catholic Policy as well.
So religious tyranny and secular tyranny both attack freedom-what a shock!
Up until probably the 17th or 18th century, in Europe anyway, the average person probably couldn't read more than minimally, and that only in the cities. Also, he mostly couldn't afford books until the development of cheap paper from wood pulp toward the end of the 18th century.
Literacy levels always increased with the sales of Bibles.
People were willing to pay for them and with the printing press, the prices fell to reasonable levels, as the sale of the Tyndale and Geneva showed.
I've found more historically-accurate narratives inside Cracker Jack boxes.
And that is exactly why the Douay-Rheims was printed, to compete with the Geneva.
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.