Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[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?

[Quix]

And how and where do you draw the line on those . . . who it sounds like have a significant degree of malice and aforethought . . .

how and where do you draw the line between those

vs

those with say a genetic extra umph from DNA thrill seeking genes and/or conditioning that has left them feeling more alive when there’s some excitement or drama going on—even if they have to create it?

—without any malice or aforethought about inflicting pain.

[HarleyD]

As a Baptist I've always held to "once saved always saved" and equated it in terms Reformed would call "preservation of the saints". I hadn't thought about the free will argument because the indwelling Holy Spirit is with us forever.

For a very long time I believed in OSAS. PotS was, in fact, one of the most difficult doctrine for me to grasp in Reformed Theology. However, if one thinks how God leads us home, I think there isn't the tension that exists in OSAS. Whereas once-saved-always-saved sound combative, almost insistent that we're saved; preservations of the saints is indicative that we simply rest in the palm of His hand to guide us to the promise land.

[HarleyD]

What do you have that you have not received?

[rbmillerjr]

Gifts can be opened and not used.

The gift was still presented.

[Judith Anne]

Okay. I’m going to just sleep on that, so to speak. Just speaking as a nurse, you understand, I don’t see much percentage in exciting anyone with a flat affect. So I’ll give your posts some thought before responding further.

Thanks for the sidebar discussion. I appreciate your self-control. Heh!

[Judith Anne]

Again, I’ll have to give that one some thought.

That is an amazing question, though.

[Running On Empty]

I would say: Whatever the cause, there is still the effect.

For that reason, I do believe that something missing and needing attention is the training of the will.

All of us, whether in a more fortunate state of mind and/or emotions as well as those in less fortunate states of mind, can benefit from learning to function better through the training of the will.

Not only is that sort of reining-in of impulsive behavior a Biblical calling (Bible verses too numerous to quote here and besides, a lot of people tend to skip over volumes of Bible verses sent in a given post); but it also would be a step forward in functioning practically in the grind of daily living that all of us experience.

In short, I guess I’m saying that where there is a will, there is a way.

Genetically, I can’t change the color of my eyes, or my Celtic roots, or that I am short when my siblings are tall. But I can will to change behavior that is damaging to important relationships.

Shouldn’t it be true that if we are professed Christians and have given our lives and fortune over to the good graces of the Lord with trust and confidence, that we should hope and even expect that He would help us with deficiencies of character that damages lives—our own and others?

(Of course, I know this does not address the sad situation of insanity, but I’m referring more to “personality disorders”—which seem to me is now the current way of categorizing difficult people.)

[HarleyD]

There is NOTHING in that Catechism that states our Lord Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. If you could find a reference then I'd be happy to read some more of your Catechisms. But you keep posting the same thing over and over. It just says that Christ "died for the sins of the world". This is not the same as atoning for our sins.

Here is what the Catholic website, NewAdvent, has to say about the doctrine of Atonement:

The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.

...

It cannot be questioned that this theory [sic: "making peace through the blood of His cross"] also contains a true principle. For it is founded on the express words of Scripture, and is supported by many of the greatest of the early Fathers and later theologians. But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it. It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ's precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom.

(d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development.

It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth.

the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".

Atonement at New Advent

It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the doctrine of Atonement has not changed when New Advent gives a complete history of how the doctrine has changed. They admit that the early church fathers had a different view of the Atonement than the present Catholic Church. Those ignorant savage early church fathers couldn't see past their heathenistic practices I suppose-at least that's the implications.

I would suggest you are not reading your Catechism correctly.

[HarleyD]

Does God work on your heart to bring you to repentance? Is salvation a gift given by God?

[Quix]

WAIT WAIT WAIT.

I think there’s a big DIFFERENCE, distinction between folks with

flat affect

vs

folks who are STUFFING THEIR FEELINGS

Most of the folks in most of our group work had long stuffed their feelings. They expressed them usually in passive/aggressive ways and/or in occasional outbursts but otherwise stuffed them and did not express them at all overtly or did not express them constructively overtly.

Somehow, I think I misinterpreted your original question.

Sorry.

[Quix]

imho,

plenty truth to your points.

Thanks.

Not sure I have anything to add at this point.

FEEL like some important things are being left out . . . but I have no inclination to try and ferret them out tonight.

Thx.

[Running On Empty]

Here’s a PS

I am a convert to the Catholic Church. My roots are Protestant. My mother was Presbyterian. Whne she died, she left behind a tiny little leather-bound book—small enough to put in a pocket or purse. That little book left a profound influence on me. I suppose it’s possible to get it and read it on-line—I don’t know that for sure.

It was written by Henry Drummond and its title is “The Greatest Thing in the World”

I know little about Drummond except that he was born in Scotland, that he had, at one time at least, some affiliation with the Presbyterian church, that he associated in some context with Dwight Moody and that this work I refer to is one that he is well-known for.

No one can read that booklet without coming to the understanding of what it means to embrace our Redemption in Jesus Christ and to embrace His message and counsels to us and integrate them into every fiber of our being and living.

[HarleyD]

If you read the Catechism you would know that it is a manifestation of the Word of God in exactly the same manner and Apostolic Tradition...

Sorry but this is not correct. The Catechism no longer reflect what the early church fathers taught. There have been changes to many doctrines including the doctrine of Atonement. Please see post 6508.

And, yes, I did read the Catechism. It's wrong.

[blue-duncan]

“I understand that. However, I’m waiting to see some scriptural evidence that we are born again first, and then receive faith and believing as a gift.”

Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” John 3:3. Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew out of a parable teaching that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the kingdom of God, and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being “born again.” Christians believed that the living God Himself had entered into history, had encountered man in his innermost being, and had recreated him. This concept was a unique feature of Christianity. By repeating the initial word, Jesus gave special significance to His statement in John :: “Amen, amen, I say to you; unless one is begotten from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus is here demanding from Nicodemus a thoroughgoing change of life, a “turning around,” as the precondition of seeing the kingdom of God—the very thing that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel, found it difficult to do. Jesus’ point throughout is that there is no exercise of faith in himself as the supernatural Savior, no repentance, and no true discipleship apart from this new birth.

The concept is of God renovating the heart; the core of a person’s being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. The ordinary context of new birth is one of effectual calling—that is, confrontation with the gospel and illumination as to its truth and significance as a message from God to oneself. Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit and is always the decisive element in effectual calling. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10).

This passage is a continuation of Eph. 1:19-20 with 21-23 being a parenthesis. “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.....and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;...”

Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Augustine called it “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God. There is the same emphasis on a new beginning: “Blessed be the God, . . who . begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Pet.1:3; cf. 1 Pet.1:23. Elsewhere John teaches that belief in the Incarnation and Atonement, with faith and love, holiness and righteousness, is the fruit and proof that one is born of God (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4). There is no conversion without new birth.

[Petronski]

But you keep posting the same thing over and over. It just says that Christ "died for the sins of the world". This is not the same as atoning for our sins.

LOL

[Judith Anne]

Got it, thank you for the clarification. Actually, I think the military environment more or less demands that any “feelings” be subordinated to whatever the assignment is; it’s just structured that way for the good of all. So that would make sense.

[Quix]

It’s probably been 35+ years since I read that book. Wouldn’t hurt to read it again.

It is a treasure.

[Quix]

True, true.

However, with Camp Pendleton so close, we had a LOT of Marines in the program who were having horrendous marriage problems. Spouse abuse was highest in the country, IIRC, around that base.

And we typically only had from Thurs evening through Sunday to break through to about 40 people and teach them how to communicate their emotions better etc. etc. etc.

We had groups during the week down on the wharf in San Diego across from the Star of India . . . but only a small minority of our workshop folks returned to such ongoing groups.

[Judith Anne]

Here’s a source for it:

http://self-improvement-ebooks.com/books/tgtitw.php

[stfassisi]

“”So, was this great sin against Christ the will of God? Of course it was.””

No sin is the will of God!If God willed sin to happen than God would be the creator of Sin and the Crucifixion would mean that man followed the will of God by sinning.Thus,if man’s sin is God’s will it would be an act of love because following God’s will is love thus making sin an act of LOVE, sin is NOT love,it’s an imperfection against God’s will. Again, God can not will evil(sin) or evil would be in his essence- that is perfection and love.

Since we know that... “God is light, and there is no darkness in Him” (I John i, 5) and... “I will show thee all good” (Exod. xxxiii, 19).
“There came to me all good things along with it” (Wisd. vii, 11).

Try thinking of it this way and you we understand that God IS LOVE and perfection...

Adam and Eve’s sin ,the crucifixion,Moses in the desert,sin that will occur tomorrow etc.. is all one NOW to God who does NOT CHANGE(James 1:17) and saw all of our free choices to sin as ONE event that God’s love instantaneously conquers evil in the one NOW,thus,God is NEVER the cause of sin and man has a free will to sin,thus man creates his own sin that Christ suffered for out of love and extreme humility for us on the Cross in an extreme act of Love

James 1:17-”Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is NO CHANGE, nor shadow of alteration.” James 1:17

God is not the cause of sin,EVER,Forest K

From Aquinas....

That God is Cause of Sin to no Man

THOUGH there are some sinners whom God does not convert to Himself, but leaves them in their sins according to their deserts, still He does not induce them to sin.

1. Men sin by deviating from God their last end. But as every agent acts to its own proper and befitting end, it is impossible for God’s action to avert any from their ultimate end in God.

2. Good cannot be the cause of evil, nor God the cause of sin.

3. All the wisdom and goodness of man is derived from the wisdom and goodness of God, being a likeness thereof. But it is repugnant to the wisdom and goodness of man to make any one to sin: therefore much more to divine wisdom and goodness.

4. A fault always arises from some defect of the proximate agent, not from any defect of the prime agent. Thus the fault of limping comes from some defect of the shin-bone, not from the locomotor power, from which power however is whatever perfection of movement appears in the limping. But the proximate agent of human sin is the will. The sinful defect then is from the will of man, not from God, who is the prime agent, of whom however is whatever point of perfect action appears in the act of sin.*

Hence it is said: Say not, He himself hath led me astray: for he hath no use for sinful men: He hath commanded none to do impiously, and he hath not given to any man license to sin (Ecclus xv, 12, 21): Let none, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God: for God tempteth no man to evil (James i, 13).

Still there are passages of Scripture, from which it might seem that God is to some men the cause of sin. Thus it is said: I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh and his servants (Exod. x, 1): Blind the heart of this people, and make its ears dull, and close its eyes, lest perchance it see with its eyes, and be converted, and I heal it: Thou hast made us wander from thy ways: Thou hast hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee (Isai. vi, 10: lxiii, 17): God delivered them over to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not seemly (Rom. i, 28). All these passages are to be understood as meaning that God does not bestow on some the help for avoiding sin which He bestows on others. This help is not merely the infusion of grace, but also an exterior guardianship, whereby the occasions of sin are providentially removed from a man’s path. God also aids man against sin by the natural light of reason, and other natural goods that He bestows on man.* When then He withdraws these aids from some, as their conduct deserves that he should, according to the exigency of His justice, He is said to harden them, or to blind them.