Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
I was referring to the time Milton wrote; Milton lived 1608-1674.
Yeah, but that'd be too easy. Anything worth having is worth working for, ...... umm ...... except salvation of course. LOL! :)
And in these latter days, that some of us hand our sinful selves to Him and that He accepts and amends them is that aspect of His mediation which touches us most nearly in time and in our hearts. But, I think we would say, we are "in" Christ (and He in us.) And so we share or participate in His mediatory work.
Yes, what "in" entails is a difficult subject. There are notions of "along for the ride", "equal partners", "used as a tool but with benefits", "loyal subordinate deserving of individual credit", and others.
Clearly, at least on the surface, we participate. When I witness my mouth moves, hopefully good words come out, and God's work happens. I participate. I give myself no credit whatsoever since it would never occur to me to ever witness to anyone but for everything that God has done for me and IS doing through me now. Theologically, but not experientially, I consider myself a blessed observer.
If that's what "sharing" means, then all is well. :) However, my impression is that "sharing" in Apostolic thought involves shared credit since there are separate and distinct free wills in operation and cooperating together. I.e., good thing "A" would not have happened but for the free wills of a human and God being on the same page and agreeing to work together. In that case, both would be deserving of merit, even if grossly unequally.
Now, how does Mary fit in to my supposition? I see that Mary is venerated in part for her deeds, her "Yes". I also see that she has the unique titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix. So, in light of sharing and HER free will, if she was free to say "No" to the angel, then she must be free to decline salvation (to not co-redeem) to an individual if she so chooses. This may very well NOT be what Catholicism teaches, and I am just trying to show the conclusions that can be drawn from what things look like. Millions of prayers and petitions are made to Mary every day. Presumably, she is free to decline them as God well does decline some (not to put them on the same level). To me, this would be an uncomfortable level of "sharing". :)
We are Baptized into Christ, and, at least for those of us who would claim some kind of "born again" experience, that incorporation has reached our consciousness, our hearts and wills, at least partially and fleetingly. So we, sometimes at least, will and assent to that incorporation.
Sure. We would say that happens at the moment of baptism by the Spirit, that is, belief, but the idea sounds the same.
[Re: Col. 1:24] ... what can figuratively be said to be "lacking" in the sufferings of Christ as far as each one of us is concerned, is OUR participation. This would be like saying, that only thing left to do with this morsel is eat it. All has been given, now all that's left is for us to receive it. (And even that is given, just as a good dancing partner can follow her partner's lead best when she stops trying to.)
I suppose that is plausible. We would say that after God has changed our hearts we freely come to Him. I can easily liken that to eating a morsel of food put in front of me (with instructions). :)
So it is not by my capacity or sanctity (since I have none of either but what I am given at each instant) that enables me to make up what is lacking or to unite my tears to Christ's Blood.
In principle I would fully agree with this. However, this leaves me confused about the idea of "wounded but not dead". My impression was that you all say that to leave room for some innate "capacity".
FK: "But I thought that much/most of Mary's "greatness" is attributed to her free will, no interference from God, ..."
HECK no! Theologically impossible even before we get to the all-sufficient sacrifice!
All I can say is that I have seen writings from the Fathers up to modern Catholics which exhort Mary to a high level of grandeur for her choice to say "Yes". For example, here is an excerpt from an article from last year: Pope: the Annunciation, Mary’s and the martyrs’ “Yes”
According to PB XVI, how was God ABLE to take human form? In part, because of Mary's (presumably free will) "Yes". None of this means that God didn't equip her and help her, etc. But, she was the final "decider" on whether Jesus would come into the world, it seems. If she could have said "No", then I think Catholics perceive that she has earned merit, independently of God. Just my opinion. You can imagine how this passage "sounds" to us. :)
FK: "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."
See I think we're allowed to use our heads (once and as long as we offer them to God, minute by minute.) A lady touches the hem of IHS garment (and that lady was probably NOT a sophisticated Calvinist theologian and no doubt her Christology was severely lacking) and is healed. Can we not reasonably think that His lips at her teats would be doing more than receiving?
That would depend on what we think makes the thing "active". Was Jesus' garment "active" just because it touched His skin? I would guess not since as He walked through crowds it is certain that many people touched His clothes without anything happening. Plus, we read nothing about some chair He built with Joseph having magical healing powers years later. From the story, I infer that the woman's faith is what made the garment "active" for her.
Now, the development of Mary's faith, as a Christian faith that we would recognize, is actually unclear to me. We are given little to work with in the Bible. One of the few examples we are given was when Jesus was 12 and teaching in the Temple courts. This was obviously at a "post-suckling" stage :), and she did not appear to demonstrate correct faith. So, I am unsure whether the "contact" you describe would have had supernatural effects. :)
George Allen, the politician, is from my part of VA and he rides in our 4th of July Parade (which wins the funkiest parade of all time award)
I LOVE George Allen. I was crushed when he got macacca'd out of his Senate seat. I would have supported him for president. I think that whole thing was totally unfair. That's cool that you got to meet him a couple of times. Any idea what he's doing now? I haven't heard anything.
So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom.
Well, I would of course agree that that's the way it should be ultimately. How then, do we describe Mary and the Saints (decent girl-band possibility)? I don't get any impression that Catholics have any envy towards them. Yet, I perceive that they are thought of as being "above" or elevated over the rest of us.
“It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim. Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
Oddly, for my quote of the theotokion, which I thank you for, I don't know how to format "half lines" as you did. :) In any event, MD wound up his last post with this:
MD: "So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom."
So as a continuation of my response to MD, I fully agree that AS CHILDREN OF GOD we are brothers, etc. Why shouldn't we just call Mary "our sister in Christ"? She is a child of God too. I mean, I know she is special and different BECAUSE ..... But ULTIMATELY, in this context, should she (and the Saints) be "above" the rest of us?
As far as observing how and what you pray goes, I haven't the slightest doubt that the vast majority of us Protestants (who do so observe) get an impression that you would find in error. :) Now, in no way do I suggest that this is your all's fault, since it would be ridiculous for you to tailor your worship around what us outsiders think. :) I AM saying that it looks to me that perception is at least as much of the problem as substance is. I really like these types of conversations so I can explore where my perceptions "might" be wrong. :)
Having read that, FK, understand that we Orthodox and Latins see her womb as the throne of the universal, beginningless, Creator of all Creation, the Pantokrator and that her outspread arms, as depicted in so many of our icons, enfold all of us as truly her children. We love our mother, FK and in the words of a marvelous prayer, we are wont to flee to her as “poor banished children of Eve.”
I clearly still struggle with this "perception". :) One reason is that if God is our Father, and Mary is our mother, then they would be "co-parents". The Bible uses the parent-child analogy over and over again, presumably because God wanted us to understand it this way considering our limited abilities. Throwing Mary in as the mother really confuses things for me. I know no one is claiming or suggesting that Mary is equal with God, however, I think that God wants ME to think of both of my parents as being equal in that capacity.
So that doesn't seem to hold up as well. God as "Father" is authoritative, all powerful compared to us, wise, experienced, what He says goes, blah, blah, blah. That "fits". However, when my father wasn't around when I was growing up, my mother stepped into the role. In fact, she kicked my butt more often than my father did. IOW, their AUTHORITY was the same over me as I experienced it. So, I have trouble seeing Mary as a mother figure since we all know that the analogy doesn't really fit as most of us experienced our mothers and fathers.
Thank you for the very kind words, ROE. While I do have my more acerbic moments :), I find that reasonable civility always leads to the best and most informative exchanges. I really AM interested in learning more about what and how my Latin and Orthodox brothers and sisters think, and I have been VERY blessed here on FR with great conversations with VERY knowledgeable folks. People around here REALLY know their stuff. :) It has been wonderful. Even if I still disagree on this or that, at least when I am talking with or even witnessing to others I can do a much better job of being fair with the Latin and Orthodox faiths. I feel led to have that be a duty for me, as we are all Christians.
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to Tyndale.
All State Churchs are tyrannical, hence the need for separation of church and state.
I am sure the process was very tedious, but they were producing far more than one a day. Once the print was set (the difficult part), it was just a matter of running off the pages.
Moreover, the product produced was considered more precious than gold (Ps.19:10)
No, the D-R was produced to counter the spread of those Bibles.
Had those Bible not been printed and found the response that they did, there would have been no motivation for the RCC to produce an English translation.
There never has been any desire for the RCC to see the common people with Bibles.
Eph.2:8-9 is not "the Bible," it is part of the Bible.
It is what the Bible teaches since it states very clearly that works are not necessary for salvation
NOT of works, lest anyman should boast.(Eph.2:9).
That passage concerns works of the law, and Paul is right: circumcision is not necessary for salvation; the uncircumcised gentiles of Ephesus are just as saved through Christ as the circumcised Jews.
Both Jew and Gentile are saved by the same faith WITHOUT works.
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) [6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: [7] That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. [11] Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; [12] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: [13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [14] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; [15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
False
Had those Bible not been printed and found the response that they did, there would have been no motivation for the RCC to produce an English translation.
False
There never has been any desire for the RCC to see the common people with Bibles.
False
Final score: nil
***This nations freedoms are built on those self-evident Biblical truths.***
The truths? Jesus says to look after your fellow man in all ways, to give up your wealth to the poor and that all men are your own personal responsibility.
Therefore your national model would look more like Sweden than the Wild West of the United States; nobody would be rich and there would be nothing like capital punishment.
***Look it up.
The fact is that as fast as the Bibles were printed they were sold.***
Are you paying attention? We were discussing the Wyclif issue which was hand copied. We were also discussing the relatively few numbers that were available and that the vast majority of people were illiterate.
Actually this throw away line is important and plays tag with the next few paragraphs. One the one hand, we agree that everything is gift. But there is an experience, as you say, of participating, of working. If you knew how my stomach used to hurt before I preached and how drained I felt afterwards ... . I had worked, but there was never any thought but that it was God working in me. (And there's that pesky "in" again.) I don't know about you, but when I somehow seem to be involved with a "good deed" I mostly feel a kind of astonished relief. "Wow, I didn't mess it up!"
All I can say is that I have seen writings from the Fathers up to modern Catholics which exhort Mary to a high level of grandeur for her choice to say "Yes"I could be WAY off base here. But I STILL assert that her "Yes," her choice, was a gift. If I praise her, and I do, it is because she is a great locus of a mighty act of God, because through Her, as well as through other stuff, God "does" some of His loving of me.(That's what I was trying to say in the John Elway riff. He'd be a fool and we'd be fools to think that his muscles and reflexes and everything else that makes a good quarterback were something he earned. In what way did he "choose" to love football? And yet there is some "willing" or something very like "willing" in the drills and practice and exercise and study, etc. Anyway Elway is the locus of great football-related graces, and we admire him for that.)
We have to come to an understanding about the "She (or any of the redeemed) could have chosen otherwise" problem. I'm not sure how to proceed except that it occurs to me that I COULD choose to hit myself on the head with my 16oz Estwing hammer.
It is as though all our scheme of thinking, "First you do a good thing, then you 'deserve' or 'merit' a reward or compensation, and then you get the reward," is really an inadequate metaphor for what happens in "real life".
We share the "angels twisting our arms out of their sockets" experience. The angel was doing the work, but even then we had to decide not to resist, from climbing up on the cot or table to not slugging her (with our good arm) when she twisted so much that tears started in our eyes ....
Is all our "Cooperation" with grace a totally worthless illusion? I'm having an irreverent flash of the heroine in a bodice-ripper who, when embraced, swept away by the ripper of the bodice in question, says, "Yes, yes!" ecstatically (or so we are led to believe, I've never actually READ a bodice-ripper. I'm not even sure what a "bodice" is (Can I get one for the boss-lady at Victoria's Secret?!) I mention this not only for giggles but because at least to the writers of bodice-rippers some act of will in the rippee seems to be a necessary or crowning part of the whole experience.
But, she was the final "decider" on whether Jesus would come into the world, it seems.
Yeah. I think we can't think about this correctly within the human or phenomenological frame of reference. I WILL re-read the relevant parts of Aquinas and see if anything penetrates the cranial cavity. I want to say something like Mary's "Fiat" was the final (in that little exchange) act of grace, like God holding one of those mini blow torches over the creme brulee.
IS there a human will? Is the will in any way important. Does Divine grace make us automata, or lap-dogs, and if so, in what way? Or is will essential to being human. What does it mean to be "Free" is we cannot or do not choose?
Can God "direct" our wills — can we imagine or say this without imagining, since it seems unimaginable — without compromising our freedom?
You've already read ad nauseam all my metaphors and analogies in my effort to find a way to thread this needle between being mere automata and being so free that we really do things and earn merit sua sponte. Yes, there's the Biblical metaphor of being clay in God's hands. But won't we insist that that is a metaphor which incompletely conveys the truth? In GOD's eyes, we are LIKE clay, but are we really no different from clay?
Plus, we read nothing about some chair He built with Joseph having magical healing powers years later.I've read the markt research, and the sales of Preparation H in Nazareth of Galilee PLUMMETED between around 10 AD to around 50 AD. Just sayin'.
I think the woman's faith "catalyzed" the healing. And I suspect that Mary was all the more faithful.
Yet, I perceive that they are thought of as being "above" or elevated over the rest of us.
Honor students. We're ALL students.
Why shouldn't we just call Mary "our sister in Christ"?
Well, we Dominicans are always yapping about "NSPD" (noster sanctus pater Dominicus -- our holy father Dominic) so SOME of it is the lingo of love and appreciation. But in Mary's case, since we are "in" Jesus and since Jesus "gave" her to our "father" John the evangelist, there is more oomph in the direction of calling her" Mother".
As to perceptions by Protestants, First I think many individual RCs are probably superstitious, and more are sloppy in their speech. People of whatever persuasion often refer to images using "personal" language,"Look at this little statue I got." "Oh, she's lovely! Where did you get her?" This always gives me the heebie-jeebies, but at least some of the people who do it are perfectly sound theologically, and some have no theology and aren't Catholic. But this leaves a bad impression.
I know no one is claiming or suggesting that Mary is equal with God,
when the 'orrible brat child was old enough and we were talking about our relationship with God, I said, "Of course, I'm your father. But in another way, I'm your brother, because God is father to both of us." She laughed. She gets it now though.
To bring it back to merit and grace and freedom and will and all that: I am an irascible guy, to my shame. My impulse when somebody cuts me off in traffic or whatever is to show him my middle finger puppet and make various suggestions about the canine ancestry on his mother's side and so forth.
This is not good. Jesus died for that guy, and he may be having a really bad day or life or whatever. So sometime back I decided that whenever I got myself together after confronting death in the form of another motorist, I would pray for the miserable SOB poor unfortunate child of God.
Over time the impulse to show him the puppet has lessened in strength and frequency. The choice to "hold him in the light" becomes easier and less forced. This is not a 'linear function'. I have my good days and bad days.
But speaking 'after the flesh' I made a choice, I make it often, and it is becoming easier to make, and a leetle, teeny, tiny "work of mercy" is becoming almost a habit. I am less likely to take a header into the cesspool of rage. At the same time, I am becoming more aware of how anger and hatred and envy and competitiveness and a veritable swamp of nastiness are going on all the time in me and my thoughts are drowned out by the clamor of noxious peepers.
Simultaneously I see a little good choice leading to a little sort of kind of reward AND I see a bit more clearly how very true it is to say that I am depraved. "On the ground" or "in real time" I see both utter and persistent grace meeting bottomless and foul neediness AND I see a little "good deed" "meriting" a little "reward."
I give up> Who can understand this stuff?
***That is why Bibles are necessary, so people are not damned to hell by the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Clear enough now?***
Your statement is clear; its value approaches zero. The Church teaches the message of Christ; the Bible and the Catechism are its textbooks.
Your new spin on the Good News is tantamount to a third grade science student insisting that the general theory of relativity is actually e=m*c (the concept of raising numbers to powers not having had been taught to them yet).
Simply put—we are compelled to understand that we can’t grasp all the mysteries of God and His works in us, through us and for us.
When we understand all, we will be in heaven.
***The Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ in greater quantity and more frequently (a minimum of once per calendar day) than any Protestant church that I have ever observed.
And that has nothing to do with the fact that they historically have attempted to keep Bibles out of the hands of the average person.
Moreover, the ‘Gospel’ that your ‘church’ proclaims is a false one. ***
Well at least you have the grace to admit preaching deficiencies in the general Protestant churches, I’ll give you that.
The Church’s efforts were to keep Scripture as pure and untainted as possible; the earliest English versions were Catholic and appeared nearly 500 years before Tyndale. Wyclif and Tyndale produced tainted and impure Bibles and therefore introduced or supported heresies that were suppressed hundreds of years before.
The Church preaches what Jesus taught and authorized us to preach. It is not for the proud, the stiff necked and the hubris ridden to create new spins as the opportunity arises.
***We were talking about England, and Wycliff. ***
5 million people, 4.99 million illiterates and a couple of hundred copies created over 25 years. What was the effect on literacy? Almost nil.
***Because they still had control over the production of books.
They didn’t realize that it was going to get out of control. ***
Your knowledge of history apparently equals your knowledge of the Church. The Church did not control the production of books. The thousands of monks who hand copied Bibles during the dark years contributed to the maintenance of knowledge and civilization. Your second statement is laughable at first and sophomoric to the end.
***And who is this ‘we’ and who is it that determines ‘accuracy’?
If you don’t like a version, you don’t have to buy it.***
God’s Word is now determined by the highest bidder or popular choice? No wonder you guys have tens of thousands of denominations all believing something different. The We is God’s Church and that is the institution that is authorized and the only one authorized to determine accuracy. The Canon of the Bible was determined by the Church.
***I think freedom entails the right to print lies so that truth can be printed as well.***
If you guys would concentrate more on the truth than on lies, you might be better off, spiritually speaking. We have the truth; you reject it. It’s not too late, you know.
***What I don’t think freedom means is having someone else determine for me what I should or should not read. ***
The true reason for popular support of the Reformation. Everyone wants to be their own Pope. You reject the Church and create your own.
That's brilliant.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
I had considered words to the effect of casting pearls before swine and then advancing to the wider issue of hogs eating anything before them without discrimination or even appreciation up to and including human ordure, and enjoying them equally well, but then I considered the target audience and trimmed my words to fit.
Yes, I fully agree. That is certainly how it has worked for me, and I still have a long way to go. :) I confess things now that were just blow offs several years ago.
But "I'm planning on doing it again in about three hours," that makes an invalid sacrament.
Yes, that is what I would have expected. How does it work with public sins? I'm thinking of politicians, who, say, actively campaign for greater abortion rights or whatever. The priest would know that. Can he come in and confess OTHER things and be absolved, even if the priest knows he is still actively sinning without repentance? IOW, is a "partial" confession kosher if the other sins are known and obvious? I could understand a pass being given if a sin goes unconfessed because the person is not yet mature enough to understand it.
Of course the good jokes depend on penance being thought of as "punishment".
What is the correct way to think of penance as practiced in the Latin Church? I just realized I don't know how to answer that. :)
I think the POINT of the Inferno is not likely to be appreciated by a 9th grader. Sin is its own punishment. Every one in Dante's Hell just does more clearly what they did that got them there.
No doubt, I barely remember it. :) I think I will put the whole thing on my reading list.
[ And that has nothing to do with the fact that they historically have attempted to keep Bibles out of the hands of the average person. Moreover, the ‘Gospel’ that your ‘church’ proclaims is a false one. *** ]
Well at least you have the grace to admit preaching deficiencies in the general Protestant churches, I’ll give you that.
The Church’s efforts were to keep Scripture as pure and untainted as possible; the earliest English versions were Catholic and appeared nearly 500 years before Tyndale. Wyclif and Tyndale produced tainted and impure Bibles and therefore introduced or supported heresies that were suppressed hundreds of years before.
There was no English translations of the Bible before Wycliff.
Wycliff was the 1st English translation of the entire Bible, not just small sections.
The Church preaches what Jesus taught and authorized us to preach. It is not for the proud, the stiff necked and the hubris ridden to create new spins as the opportunity arises.
The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel of faith plus works and combines it with pagen traditions of Mary worship, rosary beads, thinking a piece of bread is God, Popery etc,
[ ***We were talking about England, and Wycliff. *** ]
5 million people, 4.99 million illiterates and a couple of hundred copies created over 25 years. What was the effect on literacy? Almost nil.
Actually, the thousands of Bibles that were created did a great deal to end illitarcy.
The more Bibles printed, the less illiterates, since people desired to learn to read the Bible.
No thanks to the Roman Catholic Church who attempted to keep them in darkness and blindness.
[ ***Because they still had control over the production of books. They didn’t realize that it was going to get out of control. *** ]
Your knowledge of history apparently equals your knowledge of the Church. The Church did not control the production of books. The thousands of monks who hand copied Bibles during the dark years contributed to the maintenance of knowledge and civilization. Your second statement is laughable at first and sophomoric to the end.
The Roman Catholic Church had a control of Books just like it had a control of everything involved with the Government, since it was a branch of the Government.
[ ***And who is this ‘we’ and who is it that determines ‘accuracy’? If you don’t like a version, you don’t have to buy it.*** ]
God’s Word is now determined by the highest bidder or popular choice? No wonder you guys have tens of thousands of denominations all believing something different. The We is God’s Church and that is the institution that is authorized and the only one authorized to determine accuracy. The Canon of the Bible was determined by the Church.
Freedom of speech is determined by the freedom to publish without restraints from any tyrannical organization.
As for divisions, you should check out your own Roman Catholic organization that has all kind of divisions within it, those who disagree theolgically among themselves, priests who hold Marxist views, reject the Deity of Christ, etc.
The Roman Catholic Church did not have anything to do with the Canon.
Its Old Testament Canon is corrupt, having non-Canonical books in it and the New Testament was recognized by the real church before any corrupt religious organization got involved.
The Church Councils only acknowledged what the New Testament Canon was, it never created it.
[ ***I think freedom entails the right to print lies so that truth can be printed as well.*** ]
If you guys would concentrate more on the truth than on lies, you might be better off, spiritually speaking. We have the truth; you reject it. It’s not too late, you know.
Freedom of speech means allowing those things that are untrue to be published, so that which is true can be as well.
Spiritually speaking, the Roman Catholic Church is as far away from the truth as heaven is from hell.
The true reason for popular support of the Reformation. Everyone wants to be their own Pope. You reject the Church and create your own.
What Christians believe is that the Pope is nothing more than a lying anti-Christ deceiving millions with the help of his father the devil (Jn.8:44)
There is still time for you to reject the RCC lies and receive the free gift of eternal salvation through faith in the Blood of Christ.(Rom.3:25).
If you don't, you will end up at the great White Throne Judgement with the rest of the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, nuns who put their faith in an apostate, wicked organization instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Your statement is clear; its value approaches zero. The Church teaches the message of Christ; the Bible and the Catechism are its textbooks.
Well, I am glad you understand the message.
When you stand before the Lord Jesus Christ at the Great White Throne Judgement, you can explain why you rejected the truth of God's words and chose to believe the lie that the RCC teaches.
Your new spin on the Good News is tantamount to a third grade science student insisting that the general theory of relativity is actually e=m*c (the concept of raising numbers to powers not having had been taught to them yet).
The Good News is that Christ died for sinners and salvation is a free gift by faith alone in His work on the Cross and Resurrection from the dead (1Cor.15).
Any other 'gospel' is a false one (Gal.1) and condemns men to hell, as does your RCC one.
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.