Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome

The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3

Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.

Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.

Robert Schuller and Rick Warren In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6 The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.

For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin: “Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8

In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.

But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation:

And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point – when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation.10

The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.

As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13

There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.

Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.

The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.

The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.

So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history?

The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17 So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.

The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation:

“Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.”18

But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.

Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible.

If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution: “Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.

Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21 If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous:

But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22

This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?

The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God.

But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else.

Those who feel empty because of the “pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2Peter 1:3).

Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.

But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?

I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Armstong, “The Future lies in the Past” in Christianity Today, February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong’s article here: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay Mark Galli, “Ancient-Future People” in Christianity Today February 2008, 7. Armstrong, 24. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982). Ibid. 25. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 98. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller’s self-esteem reformation: Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986) On pages 227, 228 Hybels testifies of Schuller’s influence. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 page 16. [Accessed 8/27/2005] The five are spiritual darkness, lack of servant leaders, poverty, disease, and ignorance. Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity—Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006). My claim is that sola scriptura no longer serves as the formal principle of their theology in practice. This is seen whenever important religious claims (such as the need for a reformation) are not accompanied by rigorous, systematic, Biblical exegesis on the topic at hand. I say that because by implication, Scripture alone means that beliefs and practices are normative if—and only if—they can be shown to be Biblical. Binding and loosing have to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Warren’s practice belies his statement of faith.

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm I critique Dallas Willard’s theology as taught in his popular book The Spirit of the Disciplines in CIC Issue 91: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Understanding How God Changes Lives, (HarperCollins: New York, 1991). 18. Ibid. emphasis his. Ibid. 95. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 158. Ibid. 162. Ibid. 161.

FK: "Yes, for who can forgive sins but God alone."

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.

FK: "IOW, according to the Bible and the Catechism I don't see how anyone can go for this kind of time without what the Church calls grave sin."

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. :)

I gotta lave the corpse and pass sharp knives over its face and haul it off to Mass, but before I do, while I don't have the formula for absolution by heart, I can give an outline of a confession with comments. For me usually it's in the pastors office after or every 2 or 3 weeks talk about this and that including the sins I am aware of and "working on". Just as an example there might be a conversation about how forgetting that God is here and He loves me and he can handle whatever's up can lead me to get panicky because ~~McCain is getting the nomination instead of Thompson~~ things aren't going as I think they should.

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'm getting that from your POV the condition of lots of "denominations" is a good thing. I'm guessing that this is part and parcel of the "invisible Church" line of thought.

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.

I just hope there are not large numbers who wind up confessing to no one, for that fear.

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.

The original text with which I was saying we have no disagreement is

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
Then what’s with the confessional box and penance? Both apparently thought up by man, not God.

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.

YOU are a mediator and co-redeemer (IMHO) and on my good days so am I. Here's how. (Just some examples) You forgive your wife, your kids, maybe your parents when she or they wrong you without insisting on being made whole.

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.

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.