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?
I wrote: "Then, there's the question of interpreting St. Faustina's vision (as translated into English from Polish). Did she claim to actually see the Father, or to have seen a "great light" in which the Father was concealed? I think the latter interpretation is at least as reasonable as the former."
Would you prefer that I use some language other than English?
It is astonishing to me that you can run that interpretation overr the Apocalypse and not acknowledge that she said she saw “light” and that it is only an inference that she said she saw the Father. I think this is the third time that I’ve said this, but when I read the quote I saw no claim to have seen the Father.
That is why I drew the distinction between vision and physical sight.
Indeed, I'm not sure any creature - whether physical or spiritual - could receive more than a spiritual vision of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. And I'm sure something is lost in translating the vision to words. How could physical sensory perception apply other than to Jesus Christ?
We cannot even physically discern a brother or sister in Christ:
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
My bad, I should have pinged you to 6623.
Don’t you remember the analogy of the elephant and the six blind men? Here it is:
888888888888888888888888888888
John Godfrey Saxe’s ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -”Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“’Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
MORAL.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
********************************************
In my search for the answer to the mystery of my life, I ran across that poem.
I am trying to remember, today, that I can see only with my own eyes. I do not want to be guilty of claiming to know what others see, when that is clearly impossible.
She says CLEARLY that she saw God the Father in the midst of the light..BTW Christ is no longer on the cross, He is risen, seated at the right hand of the Father.. NO ONE in scripture had a vision of Christ on the cross after the resurrection. He is risen, He is risen indeed !!! yea God..
1 John4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
We are to test things like this against the scriptures...
This is the hardest thing to convey: It was the, what, thrill, the fascinans part of the Mysterium tremendum et fascinans that affectively drove my conversion. The intellectual aspect was the increasingly evident bankruptcy of the Episcopal Church, its rejection of the gift and duties of unity. holiness, apostolicity, and catholicity, that enabled the renunciation of my orders.
There are too many sides to this to convey. One thing was this: I found that the biggest hindrance to my being a good pastor was ...me. Not just my sinfulness, pride, sloth, wrath, etc. but just me in general. I wanted more and more to hand this sticks out like a sore thumb self not only, so to speak, in principle but in existential fact, to get myself out of the way in serving God by serving His beloved.
Further study, more prayer, more yearning, more sorrow at what a crappy pastor I was, what a crappy servant ... all this mean more and more wanting to hand the whole mess over to God.
When Nancy and I got hitched, of course we had a communion service with our wedding. We chose this for the offertory (NB: offertory is NOT the "Collection". It's bringing forward the bread and wine for the sacrifice.):
Take my life, and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
Take my moments and my days; let them flow in ceaseless praise.
Take my hands, and let them move at the impulse of Thy love.
Take my feet, and let them be swift and beautiful for Thee.
Take my voice, and let me sing always, only, for my King.
Take my lips, and let them be filled with messages from Thee.
Take my silver and my gold; not a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect, and use every power as Thou shalt choose.
Take my will, and make it Thine; it shall be no longer mine.
Take my heart, it is Thine own; it shall be Thy royal throne.
Take my love, my Lord, I pour at Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself, and I will be ever, only, all for Thee. I am not able to want this for more than about a second a day. But that's my best second of the whole day.
And the more I wanted that, the more intense that second grew, the more I saw that my home was in the Catholic Church.
I know there are a LOT of paranoid Catholics. Jansenism alone has a lot to answer for. And of course parents of whatever denomination have used religion to control their children with the weapon of guilt, which probably explains why the religious among my sibs are all in "moral" religions, not in those which proclaim the redeeming Love of God in Christ.
Okay. Now I have to read 170 pages of J2P2's prose. He's good but it's like eating straight Marzipan.
The penance of being a Dominican, this also is a hard sell, is a joyful thing, a happy penance. If it weren't happy it would be bogus. If OI were still in the pastor bidnis and somebody told me his prayer life made him sad, I'd do some looking around but would probably end up saying, "That is just WRONG!" So now, the joyful penance of a TON of Marzipan!
Nonsense! Your interpretation is far from "CLEAR".
I STILL think she saw the light and knew the Father was in there.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1John 4:1
Ya know Dawg, maybe you were a lousy pastor.. too many men that have not been called go into the ministry...BUT that does no mean Catholic Doctrine is correct..
And in the vision of Revelation 5 - He is seen as the slain Lamb arising from the midst of the throne.
I have meditated often on time, our mortal sense of it passing.
Somewhere along the way in my meditations, I prayed for a better understanding of Christ's sacrifice to my sense of time. I received a vision of the Cross appearing as a great Light and bubbles, innumerable tiny bubbles rising up out of the darkness disappearing into the Light.
We are those tiny bubbles. The vision was meaningful to me, though I do not expect it to be meaningful to anyone else.
What I gathered is that time is not a restriction on the Creator of it. He is always the slain Lamb, Alpha and Omega. Likewise, He is always the conquering Lion of Judah.
Because of Who He IS, He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Likewise, we are in his Book of Life from the foundation of the world.
God's Name is Alpha and Omega and I AM.
I did NOT say that, neither did she.
Ripping one small piece out of her vision ... presenting it out of context ... and then ridiculing the out-of-context piece may make for wonderful inflammatory rhetoric, but is is worse than worthless in anything that would purport to be intelligent discussion. Your post has negative value: it inhibits intelligent discussion. I give it a failing grade.
John 12:41. Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
Indeed but though the cross remains He is risen and no longer on it ...
“This is SUCH a bogus fight! I can;’t believe it. We have a made up English word which was MADE UP (I”m guessing, though Tyndale comes to mind) to provide a term for all the multitude of images used to describe what IHS accomplished in His life and death and rising.”
Tyndale would be innocent - as you noticed, atonement doesn’t appear in the New Testament. It is pulled over from the Old Testament as an analogy, perhaps - but it was not needed to explain the Gospel in the New. That is why it is silly to argue about using the word atonement...it is a useful idea, but not used in the NT. Use it if it helps you to understand a concept, but realize the word itself is absent.
At least in the translations I searched.
For Sola Scriptura, it is probably best to leave it with what scripture says.
First, we have the example of the Lord and the Apostles using scripture to give authority to their words. Even Jesus, although he also skipped using it and claimed full authority for Himself.
Second, we have the example of the Bereans, who searched the OT to see if what Paul was teaching was true. I believe there is a passage in the OT about not believing a miracle worker for the miracles, but comparing the miracle workers teaching against God’s previous revelation. I’ll try to find it again.
Third, we have what Paul told Timothy:
A) “how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” While referencing the OT, if the OT can make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, how much more the New! After all, “1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.”
B) “16 All Scripture is God-breathed” Sorry folks, but it isn’t the Catholic Church, or the African Councils in 400 AD that makes scripture authoritative - it is God. God’s breath, breathed into Adam to give him life: “7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” If you wish to live, seek God’s breath!
C) “and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” It wasn’t meant to be dropped in one’s lap and left, although many have benefited from even that. It was meant to be used by leaders and teachers, humans, obeying God, using scripture for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.
D) “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The end result. Not so we can cleverly beat each other over the noggin in intellectual debates, but so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. And yes, it says thoroughly equipped and every good work.
If you want to teach something external as non-binding, go ahead. But if it must be believed to be saved or to live a good life, then no.
And if it contradicts scripture, then no.
Of course, anyone taught by anyone else about the meaning of scripture cannot be prevented from going off the deep end. I’ll be honest - when I first read about the ULI in TULIP, I figured it was a joke. I had to go read Calvin myself before I believed that it wasn’t a hoax.
I can show why I believe my beliefs accord with scripture, but after that...every man will give an account of his life to God someday. Make sure what you believe is sincere and the result of study - of taking God seriously, and thus His Word seriously. I cannot answer for you, nor you for me. Let us teach each other, make each other search the scriptures and our own hearts, and then do as we believe God wants. Being sinful men, we’ll mess up a fair bit, most likely.
I completely agree with that. Can we say of any time or place that "God was present here, but He is no longer"? I say, "no". God is eternal; all times, all places, all things are present to Him. That is, IMO, on aspect of the meaning of His Name: I AM.
1John4:1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Such things actually happened "in" our mortal sense of time past.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
Hallowed be His Name.
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.