Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
True enough. Dispensationalism was introduced by John Nelson Darby in the 19th Century.
I'm not really into that newfangled stuff -- I far prefer historic Christianity (but don't feel bad, I'm not into Word-Faith theology either).
The argument is becoming bot desperate and comedic. There is no evidence that the article was in fact authored by Fr. Baker. And even if it were it has not passed Nihil Obstat meaning it is NOT the actual position of the Catholic Church. Further, the opinion of one of several HUNDRD THOUSAND Catholic priests who do not share his opinion is only meaningful to you because it seems to support your position.
It is, in my opinion, problematic to ask a question and then to ignore the answer.
Okay. So the Catholic Church has been around for a very long time. Has it been a sign of the end times throughout all of that long time? Or did it have to wait for some folks with a new jargon with terms like "flesh man" to come along.
I would think that if someone was really concerned about my being in peril because I was Catholic, that person would quit beating about the bush and would speak clearly. He would struggle to make himself credible. He would try to make sense.
I don't see that happening here.
No.
lol. Of course there is. The article was even put up by a Roman Catholic as a Roman Catholic Caucus thread! Lol.
Straws being grasped as we speak.
The world is a better place because the vast majority of Christians do not believe that Christ has given us a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" that indemnifies us against our own actions. Perhaps the ridicule of the Sacrament of Reconciliation with the requisite contrition is because Protestants believe that it superfluous.
LOL!
Christ has fully and completely atoned for any sin anyone has committed or will commit, big or small, confessed and absolved or not, cleansed in Purgatory or not. Is that clearer?
Any penitential action one can do does not add to the atonement worked by Christ. That includes simple inward sorrow for a sin, outward sorrow expressed to others in words, restitution of material harm done, physical self-punishment or self-humiliation, prayers, pilgrimages and Bible studies, sacramental confession, reception of absolution, purgatorial cleansing, -- none of that makes the sin in question any better atoned for than it was atoned at Golgotha near 2,000 years ago. What these acts of penance do is apply the atonement to your soul.
Now we can get to your question.
why in the normal course is someone required to confess a mortal sin and then be absolved by a priest in order to get into Heaven?
For the same reason a Christian would nevertheless do the penitential works enumerated above: sorrow for the sin and love for Christ. If you convinced yourself that since Christ has atoned for whatever you do, you can let your conscience atrophy, -- then you eliminated yourself from the Elect, not because Christ did not give you the atonement, but because you did not take it. Christ gave you Heaven and you chose Hell.
It is by what you do that you will be saved; not alone for what Christ did.
I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance (Luke 5:32)41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. (Matthew 25)
Why then should, ordinarily, the Catholic sacramental system be followed? First, it is not in negation of any other act of free conscience. You go to confession, receive absolution, but you also do all the rest of it as the conscience, the voice of Christ in you, dictates you. Second, the sacramental confession is the best way: it involves another man who is a skilled psychologist, it gives you an opportunity to focus and express your sorrow the best you can, outwardly, and with authority it assigns you a work that you otherwise might be tempted not to do. It is also the gift of knowing that the sin has been indeed forgiven by God. Or, in the event that it has not been absolved, it is the knowledge that your sorrow was incomplete, and the knowledge of what needs to be done further.
Example of absolution withheld: One confesses an adultery, then discloses that he lives with the adulterous liaison under the same roof. Does he make sense? No. He needs to sever the adulterous tie, and then ask for absolution. His sorrow is a step in the right direction, but it is not sufficient penance. To absolve him while he persists in sin is to encourage sin.
Sacramental confession gives you the crisp, black and white knowledge that you are on the right way to Heaven. This is what Christ intended to give us when He said:
I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (Mt. 16:19)if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Mt. 18:17-18)
Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained (John 20:21-23)
14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. (James 5)
17 If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new. 18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. 20 For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5)
It goes to the selective judgment exercised. Accepting the contrived views of a single wayward Catholic or faux Catholic as the position of the Catholic Church in order to feel better about one's self and life choices is the only thing that is obvious.
Do I get outraged? You know this how?
Who is this "you" that you mention? Define, be specific, show how I am a member of the class.
Sophistry is so ugly sometimes.
There are people who are Catholics who are in error. Some Catholics do not express themselves well. Some do not write expecting to have their naive enthusiasm picked over by tendentious and hostile Inquisitors. MOST realize that theology is often a matter of nuance and emphasis - a notion which escapes many Protestants. Most realize that human language is a weak tool for so great a task.
So when the sophists among my antagonists take the statements of one Catholic, parlay them into some extravagant nonsense and insist that they are representative of Catholic teaching, I find that maliciously dishonest, unintelligent, or evidence of impaired intellect.When they continue to insist that I believe what I do not believe or that my Church teaches what she does not teach, my opinion of their thinking and behavior is not improved.
Even though your question indicated a number of false premises, I hope this answer is satisfactory.
I was the one that originally posted the article and fully agree with its contents. Unfortunately, the article is no longer available in the archives of Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
Does that mean I agree with the apparent offense taken by some of our separated brethren because they don't understand and are offended by the Sacraments instituted by Christ? Of course not.
But do read the article, still available on FR, for yourselves.
Not only was Father Baker's essay posted as a Roman Catholic Caucus thread by a Roman Catholic FReeper, the teaching Baker referenced is straight from the RCC catechism. Look it up.
"Alter Christus."
As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. (John 20:21)This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me (Luke 22:19)
Now you're just changing the subject.
I don't confine myself to your false traditions of men (sola Scriptura or sola fide).
Amen, Alamo-girl.
Even sincere Christians can practice idolatry. As you once commented, we do it every day when we put something or someone either ahead of or on the same level as the Triune God. Even when we do not give all glory to God, but instead give only partial glory to God, conferring on things and people and actions what rightly belongs to him alone 100% - Solo Christo, Sola Gracia, Soli Deo Gloria.
And we all err every day of our lives. God willing, we err less and less as we come to know better our own fallen natures and the God who has saved us from them.
All who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God, King and Savior have been redeemed by His sacrifice on the cross. We are more fortunate than we can even imagine - all believers.
########
INDEED.
"Alter Christus."
You are quite right that the priest is an "Alter Christus"
Of course, I don't think you understand what that means.
Not accurate, Bro.
It’s been refuted and documented on here many times that Darby was a Johnny come very late on such matters.
It’s been documented back to the first centuries of the Christian Church era.
No. I’m not going to look up such links. I don’t keep a record of them. Guess I need to start. Sigh.
Why are you continuing to make this about me? I was not calling names only characterizing the contents of your posts in the context of the truth. Agreed, those actually familiar with the truth don't need me to point out the obvious so it won't happen again.
But does it appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you have a paragraph number from the CCC?
Thanks, Mark.
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.