And similarly to folks not in communion with the See of Rome: We do share one Baptism and certain rock-bottom theological convictions and above all a confidence, given by grace that God saves through the merits of His son and by Grave through Faith. And we should praise God for that sharing and love another. BUT the differences are important and reconciliation will not be achieved by glossing over them. We can defer discussion of some of them or of some of their aspects while we "accentuate the positive", but we ought not to think they are not there.I think the reason for promulgating DI was in response to a lot of sort of, "Oh, what the hey," among Catholic thinkers. Catholic priests have actually told me they consider me a priest! I have not yet found a polite way to say,"If I AM a priest, then I am derelict in my duty. If the Anglican communion has the sacramental mojo to make me a priest, then I should get back to my station! If I thought I were a truly a priest, I would have been duty-bound to remain in the Episcopal Church." In the course of the right and proper "accentuating of the positive" I think BenXVI is saying let's not get swept away here. There's still a whole heap of stuff to be tunnelled through. I think it was needed, at least in parts of the US Catholic Church.
What I thought Papa Ben was saying was that the intention, the act of will, in becoming Lutheran or Calvinist or Anglican in the 16th century was of a different sort from the act of will involved in becoming or remaining ... when we have had 400+ years of division and when lots of good work and good piety (the hymns alone for crying out loud!) in these other bodies. It's now silly to call a Presbyterian a schismatic. It might in some incredibly formal and abstract sense be true, but it's silly.
We say, Sunday by Sunday, I believe (in) One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So we can't abandon ONEness as a "mark" of he Church.
We also see the See of Rome and those whom we take to be the successors of Peter and Paul, as being sort of unitary - a uniting "pole" around which the metal filings of individual Xtians should orient themselves.
And we have a notion of God's guidance of the Church "into all truth" (albeit little by little and in no particular hurry) which differs materially from the more individualized interpretation of that thought in other groups. And that "guidance" has led us to a few more non-neogtiables about the Sacraments, Mary, and such. AND we think that we are, not by our merits but entirely by God's faithfulness to His promise, by Grace, right in these important matters.
So we simply cannot reasonably turn around and say that other outfits are "just as good". We can't both be right about Mary or about the Eucharist, and these are important matters. A brother Dominican, a young scholar, disagrees with me and says we do "need" Mary, by which I take him to mean "right thinking about Mary" for a fulness of understanding (or fullER understanding, at least) of the Gospel, of "how God works with men".
But again, there is clearly good and beautiful thought coming out of the "Separated Brethren" (where "separated" is not, in itself, a put-down but just a description of the status quo).
If/When we say Protestants "cannot have churches", I think we mean primarily there is only ONE Church, and it is manifested in varying degrees of "fullness".
If that causes offense, all I can say is nothing is further from my desire. (Okay, Hillary winning in November is further from my desire ....) "Here I stand, etc."
what is your view on what would happen if a Catholic REGULARLY decided to just pray directly to God by himself for the forgiveness of his sins? From the Catholic POV as I see it, one answer might be that it counts the same because the faith is there. Another answer might be that it doesn't count because it violates how the Church interprets scripture, and therefore faith, as the Church sees it, would be lacking.
Get the kindling and the marshmallows!
On the spot analysis: This Catholic needs to fish or cut bait. (I know a woman who hasn't been to confession in maybe 10 years but is otherwise very devout. I think she has issues about "personal space".) IF she is truly not aware of any grave sin, this is okay, but not great. (And my acquaintance says she thinks she is free of any grave sin) If she is aware of a grace Sin and wants to think of herself as a Catholic, she is rapidly losing the rational faculty. Fish or cut bait -- or, better, look into yourself to determine why your are doing neither. In our daily Mass readings we are now doing the Epistle of Straw. And right away James says that being double minded interferes with receiving gifts from God.
As to the Scriptural witness of the sufficiency of the Grace of God, I would say it's like this: There is indeed a banquet spread before us. But still one has to "arise and eat," as the angel said to Elijah. Now some of us will pick you up and carry you to a couch near the table, will cut up your meat and put a morsel on a fork and help you lie it to your lips, but at some point you have to open your mouth and chew and swallow. Only the very sick and dying will tolerate being fed through an NG or alimentary tube for long.
Or: I work out. My muscles grow (or in my decrepitude, do not disappear quite so rapidly as they would otherwise.) I know that the growth of muscle is not my doing. I even know that the fact that I chose to get of my sorry behind and go to the gym is not my doing. Yet, I underwent an experience which most of us call "work" and "free choice" and that following that repeated experience, I found that my muscles were, well, not quite so pathetic as they had been.
Another way: YES, I think that, in essence, unquestionably God calls even such as YOU (no, really!) to grace, and HE grants the capacity and desire to respond to that call, and so we see the vile, wormish (and that's an undeserved insult to worms) character of ourselves when left to ourselves, and, like a little girl holding a broken doll up to her father, we hold ourselves up to God and say,"Papa fix?" And fixing is what He does, praise Him for His mercies endure forever!
Oh Darn, this is so many words and so little to the purpose. You present, as many do, sacramental confession as a burden. Last year I sponsored a convert, and before we let adults in they have to make a a confession. This was a 50 year old lady, so she as wondering if she could do it in sessions, with tea-breaks.
She was pretty anxious, and asked me if I would come and be with here while she waited for her appointment (This was not done in a "Telephone booth" but in Fr. Brian's comfortable office.) I said, "Of course I'll be there. Somebody has to help pull you off the ceiling afterwards."
So she went in and came out, and she was all dazed and happy and aid,"THAT is the, without a doubt, world's best weight-loss program!"
Does that SOUND like a burden? I guess it looks like "you HAVE to go to sacramental confession," but from MY POV it's, "Wow, every couple of weeks I GET to go to sacramental confession!"
So, to bring this blather to an unsatisfactory conclusion, The problem your hypothetical person has is that she needlessly deprives herself of a great gift which confirms our faith and seems to give graces to act more out of a certainty of God's love and good will than a sense of guilt and fear. She should know better, and if she has had good catechesis, then she is guilty of despising God's gifts, of treading pearls underfoot.
Just to review: I AM getting paid by the word, right?
Ping.
“you HAVE to go to sacramental confession,”
Says who?
I agree, and I wasn't really really offended by the DI. I just took it as an attitude from the other side. I.e., OK, so they are separatists. That is perfectly fine if they believe that their Christian ways are the only true Christian ways. No problem. Perhaps why so many Protestants got upset is that many don't understand that the "ways" part of Christianity is so much more important to Catholicism.
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.
OK, I think I see. So IOW, a schismatic is one who really accepted the Catholic faith first, and then turned. According to PB XVI then, people like Luther would go into this group, but modern day Protestants who have ever only known Protestantism would not, necessarily. If that is a fair "IOW", then I'm not sure it's fair. :) If Luther, et al., as a boy was led to Christianity, then there was only one practical "official" choice at that time.
Plus, it wouldn't seem fair to anyone then or now who was raised as a Catholic without the real opportunity to choose. Totally out of my control, I COULD have been raised in a practicing Catholic home. That would make me a schismatic today, and presumably in worse shape than I am in now, as it turned out. :)
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.
That is all very true and understandable.
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).
I think "Separated Brethren" is a fair and accurate term which both sides can agree to without being insulting to either. I think that DI unnecessarily hurt that idea.
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.
And I believe you without giving it a second thought. I cannot say that the Pope shares your view in this by his document (IMO). He above most very learned theologians SHOULD know that to deny a Christian his church is to publicly deny his very faith in Christ. That's PERSONAL. :) I understand that he probably didn't mean it to be that cutting, but he HAD to know how Protestants would react. I still don't understand the NEED to put us down publicly. (Was there a scare that Protestants were converting Catholics in large numbers or something?) Why not just reiterate what Catholicism stands FOR?
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.
In 10 YEARS! Come on. :) Here is what I found in the Catechism:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Now, have you EVER known of a person to go 10 years passing this test? :) I wouldn't even pretend to put myself on such a scale in terms of years, or even months, even weeks. And I'm a pretty decent guy! LOL! So, if even looking at a beautiful woman and just THINKING an unclean thought is adultery, then imagine what must count for bearing false witness. :) 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.
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.
On the one in ten chance you'll get this: the Reformed way is more like the Ferengi way. :)
So she [a convert wanting to join the faith] went in [to confession] and came out, and she was all dazed and happy and said, "THAT is the, without a doubt, world's best weight-loss program!" Does that SOUND like a burden?
That's a great saying and it sounds like she is getting the message. Confession is always good, AND I can understand there being burden coming from shame. I think there should be confession and there should be shame. The mature Christian can put it all into perspective, and in one sense that makes it easier. However, in another sense it seems fit to him to confess things that don't even occur to us, so there's sort of a balance there. Ultimately, Jesus says that His burden for us is light and that He wants us to confess. So, I guess there is our answer. :)
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.
THIS is the critical point to my whole prior post. By your above, does God NOT tend to give graces if one confesses directly to Him? Does one really despise God's gifts by communing directly with Him? These things seem unimaginable to me. How could we possibly be better off going through a human to confess to God than doing so directly? I know that the Catholic Church does not frown on praying to God directly, so why would it frown on seeking forgiveness directly?
Just to review: I AM getting paid by the word, right?
If only from your lips to God's ears. I'd be a millionaire. :)