Yes. And because of what I have learned on FR, if someone asked me what the Catholic position was I would have said essentially exactly that.
I wish I could find the quote, but I can't. But recently Benedict XVI said that we have to start thinking about Protestantism differently. It's one thing to make a schism. It's quite another, he was suggesting (I stress "suggesting") to be an 8th generation Protestant, or to have been brought up in a Protestant or pluralistic culture and to have made a commitment to Christ but not to an organization in communion with the See of Rome.
Would you characterize this quote as a turning away from his reaffirmation of Dominus Iesus last July? Naturally, many Protestants worldwide were very offended by that. Dismay and anger as Pope declares Protestants cannot have churches . I realize this was nothing new, but I never understood the need to reopen an already caused wound. I mean, as far as I knew, this Pope was virtually uninterested in talking with (as opposed to down to :) Protestants.
Even Baptists can be saved. I know that's hard to believe. But we have a Lord so incredibly more gracious and loving than human hearts would dare imagine that there are even one or two lawyers in heaven!
I am honored, sir! :) God is indeed VERY forgiving. I can't wait to swap lawyer jokes with Calvin. :)
When I as an Episcopal priest pronounced absolution to someone who was appropriately penitent and who, by grace, trusted in the love and forgiveness of God, MAYBE that person was forgiven. ( I would even say "probably".) But when an appropriately penitent and faithful RC receives absolution, he is sure enough absolved.
It is great that you served as a priest. And, I suppose it is predictable that I understand neither the "maybe" nor the "sure enough" as presented. :) Assuming that the requirement (?) for a human conduit for forgiveness of sins is found solely in John 20:23, in apparent contradiction to the great weight of scripture that Jesus forgave (paid for) all sins of all believers on the cross (IMO), 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.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
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?
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.