Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.
The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
What Is Heresy?
Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.
With this in mind, let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.
The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Catharism (11th Century)
Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.
The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
Jansenism (17th Century)
Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.
Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
You are correct on one point, I am not buying it. Your posts have no “context”. In using the “circumcision” statement, it is Baptism that now replaces it, and the word Baptism Comes from the Greek Baptizein “means to immerse.” The idea that Baptism was just a spiritual ritual, whatever that is, is false, and can’t be supported by the Biblical text are Liturgical Practice of the Early Church.
I think you and I have had a discussion about Baptism before, when Pope Benedict baptized the Magdi Allam, a Muslim convert to Catholicism. And given your anti-sacramental bias of Baptism, I would think even some of the Protestants from the Historic Confessions (Lutheran, Reformed, Traditional Anglican), would not have your bias against the use of Water in the Ritual of Baptism. The Scriptures and all the Early Church does not support your interpretation” as once again, you make the point that in my opinion, “Sola Scriptura” is really nothing more than “Sola Meo.”
The Sacred Scriptures clearly teach the doctrine that Baptism is the “normative means through which God gives humanity Grace, which saves us.” Numerous passages support this doctrinal point (e.g., see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). These passages all point to a being baptized into Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, and thus a communion with God.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 628, summarizes this point nicely:
“Baptism, the original and full sign of which is immersion, efficaciously signifies the descent into the tomb by the Christian who dies to sin with Christ in order to live a new life. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (c.f. Rom 6:4).”
The Church Fathers are clear in the view that Baptism is the means of new birth and the means through which Grace is communicated to each person: For example,
The Didache, written between 80-100 AD, states the following with respect to Baptism: “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” St. Hippolytus of Rome also pointed out that water is an essential part of the Baptismal Liturgy when he said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]).
Other Church Fathers are also clear on the role of Baptism for a Christian.
St. Ignatius of Antioch writes:
“Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” (Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).
St. Justin Martyr writes
“Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).
St. Clement of Alexandria writes:
“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).
St, Cyprian of Carthage writes:
“While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man” (To Donatus 3–4 [A.D. 246]).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).
St. Basil the Great writes:
“For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption” (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects 13:5 [A.D. 379]).
St. Ambrose of Milan writes:
“The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins” (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389]).
St. Augustine writes:
“It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).
“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (ibid., 2:27:43).
“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).
“This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).
The Anglican-Protestant Church History Scholar, J. N. D. Kelly summarizes the numerous statements by the Early Church Fathers with respect to Baptism as he writes:
“From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare” (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).
In summary, I don’t accept your views on Baptism as they IMO, contradict the Sacred Scriptures, when read in the context of Christ through Typology, the Liturgical practive of the Early Church and the consent of the Early Church Fathers. On a final note, your views seem to contradict the positions of Blue-Duncan, who dislosed that he was of the Reformed-Calvinist Tradition. I think it would be charitable for you to disclose which Protestant Tradition the Church you attend is affiliated with so it can allow me to have a better context to understand the Theological principles through which you view Baptism
Not a single one of these scriptures mentions Grace or has anything to do with Grace...
Baptize does not mean water...Baptize does not mean wash...Baptize means baptize...And like you said, it means immerse...
The Didache, written between 80-100 AD, states the following with respect to Baptism: “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water;
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
How can your church get it so wrong??? And how can someone who reads scripture get it so wrong...THE LIVING WATER IS JESUS CHRIST, NOT running water...
St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” (Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Sounds like Ignatius was trying to remember some scripture but he got it a little mixed up...
Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).
The washing of water??? With Ivory soap???
Where did Justin get this idea...Certainly not from Scripture...Maybe the washing of regeneration (and there's no water there either)...
The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins” (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389]).
I hunted and hunted for Luke 2:83 but alas, I couldn't find it...I don't quite remember Jesus sterilizing any water for baptism either...This must be where you guys get the Holy Water...
I would have gone with contempt but not loathing. In the good old days when people really knew how to insult, if you said you despised me it meant that I was beneath your notice, or almost beneath it. I, my opinions, or maybe my threats were just not worth your attention.
And naturally, since I'm never sure what century I'm in, I was reading it in that sense, and figuring the Greek for that as well.
But if it's more like "He endured the cross, Really, I mean REALLY hating the shame ..., He loathed it, it made his flesh crawl ..." then I can see more of where you're coming from.
I'm thinking that the text is saying "the shame was like a flea to Him -- a nuisance, but He could crush it between his fingers if He cared enough." And so I see the crucifix as a sign of grandeur: LOOKS weak; IS stronger than you can imagine.
So it follows that when you say we are kind of keeping Him in shame, we're saying,"What? What 'keeping'? We're showing Him doing His stuff!"
I’m not going to be able to defend my answer but nope. I believe all that stuff about the Holy Spirit and the Church and all. (I didn’t realize you were asking moi and I didn’t think it was important what I thought, personally. To me the issue, the fun part, is not playing debate team, but clarifying stuff.
First, you still have not disclosed what Church you belong too, it is hard to engage in any charitable and civil and honest discussion without knowing the theological perspective one is posting with.
The comment from St. Ambrose is [2, 83] refers to the 2nd book, paragraph 83, the notation used by Fr. William A Jurgens: The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 2. It does not refer to Luke 2:83, as there was not Luke 2:83 in St. Ambrose’s time, nor now.
And again, none of the CHurch Fathers interpreted any of the passages you cite, not your personal theology regarding Baptism, in the way that you do. Sorry, but it is what it is.
Good day
I would like to draw our Protestant friends' attention to this article that I recently posted for discussion: JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING [Open]
Therefore, those who believe the above have no further need of forgiveness because they in actuality never sin again. Do I have that right?
I'm into the big questions like - "Can a man with a mustache be a priest?" "I'd there an essential relationship between blow-dried hair and really big congregations" Whether all women over 65 should be forbidden to do soprano soli, even if they once were second string backup chorus for the Laramie opera company?" "If three guitars at a Mass make a venial sin, do 5 guitars and conga drums constitute a mortal sin?" "How many time may a homilist say "as well as" and mean nothing more than "and" before we are allowed to burn him at the stake?"
These are questions which, going forward into the future (oh, yeah "Is it possible to go backwards into the past -- and if it is, would it be more fun?" that's another), must be answered for ALL Christians of whatever denomination.
And are they asked? Are they discussed? Are they even considered? No!
I weep, WEEP for this generation.
Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem. No longer do you kill the prophets, Now you give them makeovers and slap 'em on Sunday morning TV to compete with Tim of Russert, that heresiarch, and with the cartoons!
Marcion's been dead a long time, but we still have electric pianos in church. Can NO one read the signs of the times?
First off, believing in -- giving an intellectual assent to -- Catholic/Orthodox anthropology does not make one sinless. Sanctification indeed leads to gradual victory over sin; however, that road would not be possible without the assistance of the sacraments of the Church, of which confession is a recurring need, and, of course, the Church would not be there but for the Sacrifice of the Cross.
It is interesting that from what we know of the lives of holy people, they often maintain the habit of frequent confession. That is because as sin is conquered, sensitivity to sin grows. One begins to notice instances of pride and envy, covetousness, weakness of faith and other sins of the mind, while a more carnal person would commit, and would have to confess sins of carnal nature.
xzins:
No, that would not be the view. In Catholic soteriology, and I would say the Orthodox view, to be full of God’s Grace is to be a saint. It is not that you no longer need forgiveness, it is that God’s grace has conformed/transformed you into the image he wants, which is to be objectively holy and a saint in God’s eyes. So if a person lives a life of faith, hope, and love, all through God’s Grace, then forgiveness is not an issue, as forgiveness if what God offers and gives when one sins and turns ones’ back against God. Because of his Love and Mercy, he forgives the penitent person and restores him/her back into communion with Himself. Grace, in the Catholic sense, transforms and builds on our nature and restores us.
I think annalex linked a detailed thread on Catholic soteriology/Justification. The Readers digest version of Catholic Justification as defined in the Glossary of the CCC is “The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ (c.f. Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man”
The CCC does not formally define “Sanctification” but does give a short definition of Sanctifying Grace in the CCC Glossary, which is “The grace that heals our human nature wonded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity. It is a habitual, supernatural gift which continues the work of sanctifying us—of making us “perfect”, holy and Christlike.
The more detailed discussion in the CCC on Grace and Justification is linked for interested Protestant posters.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art2.htm
The Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised Edition (1998) has a very nice and detailed definition of Sanctification which is “The Whole process of the personal supernatural transformation by which we become intimates of the indwelling Trinity. Sanctification is thus nothing other than the perfection of the life of charity (love). The chief means of sanctification is the infusion of habitual grace which enables us to turn to God in faith, hope and love. The life of grace is continually enhanced in us through our membership in the Mystical Body of Christ and through our sharing in the sacramental garce that is at the very heart of the Church’s life. First, through Baptism when we are claimed by Christ, then preeminently through the Eucharist when we recieve the food of our sanctification, through the sacrament of Penance (i.e. Confession/Reconciliation) as we receive the forgiveness of our sins and the strength to respond to our high calling-—in these ways, the work of sanctification is underway throughout our lives. We become holy as God is holy so that we can be fit company for Him for all eternity.
So, I think when the dicussion on CCC 460, which was that long thread about “partaking the Divine Nature” (c.f. 2 Peter 1:4) that went on for a long time here, is now seen along with the Catholic Doctrine of Grace and Justification, which is described above, one sees how Catholic Doctrine sees the Incarnation as more than just the fact that “The eternal Word became flesh” and thus the underlying Theology of the Incarnation is linked with Christ’s life, teachings and the Theology of his Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension.
Thus, the theology of the the person of Christ (Incarnation, life/teachings, paschal mystery) impact all other aspects of Catholic Theology in areas relating to a)Soteriology, b) Sacraments, c) ecclesiologyy, d) moral theology, etc.
If one is honest about it, whether you agree with Catholic doctrine on every point or not, Catholic theology is both comprehensive yet very cohesive, and thus all fits together in a logical manner.
Regards and thanks for the post
And as Petronski stated, to be perfect in this life is very unlikely. In Catholic Doctrine, the only one who totally cooperated with God’s Grace from the first time God called her is Mary.
So Mary represents the beauty of what God’s Grace does to human nature. She was Holy because God’s Grace perfected her human nature. I think the Eastern Orthodox refer to Mary as the Most Holy Theotokos, which would be consistent with the Catholic position that Mary by and through God’s Grace has already reached the perfectio whereby she exists without spot or wrinckle; the rest of us, on the other hand, still strive to conquer sin and grow in holiness. So, in Mary, the Church is already Holy.
The life of Grace in the Sacraments is what God uses to transform us into saints, i.e. make us Holy, just as he did with Mary and the Saints that are in Heaven with God.
Regards
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
If after they have received the knowledge of the truth, they enter again into sin, then there is no hope for them outside of a judicial righteousness. In other words, even the allowance by God of an act of penitence with forgiveness following is the institution of an act that is judicial in nature.
Ultimately, we confess that we are NOT righteous. We confess that all our righteousness can only come from the bestowing of righteousness (imputation) by God Himself. This is true whether it’s a direct declaration of imputation or the declaration of a sign-act that accompanies the declaration.
There is nothing about confessional that logically leads to righteousness. The injured party is still an injured party. Someone someplace in authority must decree that they will overlook that obvious injustice.
So you are older than Daniel Webster, eh???
And naturally, since I'm never sure what century I'm in, I was reading it in that sense, and figuring the Greek for that as well
I don't normally waste my time on the 'GREEK'...Likely that Greek word has multiple meanings so it depends on which translator you like to go with...
The translators of the King James Bible chose comtempt...And they no doubt looked at the context of Jesus' struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane
Luk 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
I'm very comfortable with the idea that Jesus had comtempt, loathing and I could say 'hate' for having to be subjected to the sin of the world...But then He knew He must do it to save us...
LOOKS weak; IS stronger than you can imagine.
I don't think it looks weak at all...Nor was it weak...
So it follows that when you say we are kind of keeping Him in shame, we're saying,"What? What 'keeping'? We're showing Him doing His stuff!"
Remembering what He did is one thing...Keeping Him there in the midst of that shame and NOT letting Him get off that cursed Cross is quite another...
It makes absolutely no difference what church I belong to...I don't follow church teaching, I follow the scriptures...
I'm not a Calvinist...If I was to put a title on myself, it would likely be somewhere close to an Independant Baptist, the denomination of John the (what?) and Jesus Christ...
And again, none of the CHurch Fathers interpreted any of the passages you cite, not your personal theology regarding Baptism, in the way that you do. Sorry, but it is what it is.
I don't put much stock in the writings of your church fathers...There's questions as to whether some of them even existed...There's questions as to how many of the writings have been forged...There's proof that Catholic writings have been forged and invented out of thin air...I really don't care what your church fathers thought...I will stick with Jesus...
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Pope Peter I, etc.
I hear they are hiring down at Comic Central...You looking for work???
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.