The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[metmom]

Do you believe Matthew 16:19 makes God subservient to Peter?

No.

Was God obligated to adhere to whatever Peter bound or loosed?

No.

But that doesn't address the issue.

You tell me whether God is obligated to act on whatever Peter bound or loosed. We weren't talking about what I believe about it, but rather what the Catholic church teaches.

Go ahead. Tell me that God is not obligated to adhere to what Peter or the pope bind or loose.

[metmom]

You have not. You made the claim that Roman Catholics don't consider them [Ukrainian Greek Catholics] *real* Catholics. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim.

Cite conversations I've had with people?

When you figure out how to do that, let me know and I'll provide them.

Otherwise, daniel posted plenty in post 424.

[metmom]

Go back and read post 353 and try to brush up on your reading comprehension issues.

I wasn’t talking about the *official* party line which has nothing whatsoever with what goes on at the grassroots level of any Catholic church I’ve ever seen or been part of.

[Natural Law]

"Is somebody going to tell me what’s *right* and cite it?"

There are two profound problems with that challenge"

1) Unless you are willing to receive the truth it would be a pointless exercise and presumes no one has ever tried.

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

2) The demand to cite proof shows a lack of faith. Faith is the cooperation with Grace. Faith does not proceed from premise or from reason, it is the response to God's call. It is an act of the will, the acceptance of things not seen, not understood and not known.

"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" - John 20:29

You begin your journey of faith by choosing to believe that Jesus is Lord and God and declaring your love for Him.

Peace be with you.

[Titanites]

No.

Why not?

No.

Why not?

We weren't talking about what I believe about it, but rather what the Catholic church teaches.

Rather, we were talking about what you claimed the Catholic Church teaches.

Go ahead. Tell me that God is not obligated to adhere to what Peter or the pope bind or loose.

Catholics believe the Church is inseparable from God and is guided by the Holy Spirit. Any binding or loosing is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, to say that God is obligated to adhere to Peter or the Pope with the binding or loosing doesn't make sense since the binding or loosing is with the guidance of God, the Holy Spirit, acting through Peter or the Pope.

John 20:21-23 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on [them,] and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the [sins] of any, they are retained."

[daniel1212]

Seriously, if you would work on your run on sentences, it might make your posts more readable

Seriously, there are no run on sentences, unless you are complaining about the proclamations of your own church.

Let's suppose that person A holds the belief that you must have faith to be saved. And let's also suppose person B claims to have no faith. In your view, has person A condemned person B to hell?

Yes. Doctrinally he has classed that person as condemned, passing judgment on the faithless, based upon what he said in the light of the authority he judges by.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " (John 3:36)

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. " (Hebrews 11:7)

What you have failed to do is to make a distinction between condemning one in the declarative sense based upon Scripture, versus claiming executive power to do execute the sentence. Yet as many RCs hold that binding and loosing extends to that, so that would apply here

With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. " Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, " this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its de cision carries with it the decision of God." 2 The sen tence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

[Natural Law]

"Tell me that God is not obligated to adhere to what Peter or the pope bind or loose."

That is a false premise. Since God is omniscient and exists out side of time God already knew what Peter and all of his successors would bind and loose. Think of it as single predestination.

Peace be with you

[Titanites]

Go back and read post 353 and try to brush up on your reading comprehension issues.

Here is what you said:The reason they specify Roman or Ukrainian is not because neither considered the other legit. It is because they have different liturgies. They are both fully in communion and one is as legit as the other. Again, you have shown no evidence to demonstrate they weren't considered legit.

And in post 403 you made the claim:

The Roman Catholics don't consider Ukrainian Catholics quite good enough and the Ukrainian Catholics know it.

My reading comprehension is fine. What you said is not true and you've provided no evidence to back up your claim.

The Eastern Catholics are in full communion. In fact, we have Latin Catholics posting here on FR who routinely attend Eastern Catholic liturgies. I've done so many times myself, including at Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches, because the Church considers them to be not only good enough but in full communion.

[Titanites]

It's not problem you can't back up your claims.

Otherwise, daniel posted plenty in post 424.

Nothing he posted demonstrates that the Latin Catholics consider Ukrainian Greek Catholics as not fully Catholic.

[Titanites]

I'll repost this one since the other one had an html error.

Go back and read post 353 and try to brush up on your reading comprehension issues.

Here is what you said:

I lived in an area where there were a lot of Ukrainian Catholics and the Catholics in that area were careful to specify Roman or Ukrainian. Neither considered the other legit.

The reason they specify Roman or Ukrainian is not because neither considered the other legit. It is because they have different liturgies. They are both fully in communion and one is as legit as the other. Again, you have shown no evidence to demonstrate they weren't considered legit.

And in post 403 you made the claim:

The Roman Catholics don't consider Ukrainian Catholics quite good enough and the Ukrainian Catholics know it.

My reading comprehension is fine. What you said is not true and you've provided no evidence to back up your claim.

The Eastern Catholics are in full communion. In fact, we have Latin Catholics posting here on FR who routinely attend Eastern Catholic liturgies. I've done so many times myself, including at Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches, because the Church considers them to be not only good enough but in full communion.

[boatbums]

That certainly seems to be the attitude of many here. I was thinking, though, about what you said regarding, "That's a pretty typical reaction. When someone can't refute the data or facts, to attack the integrity of the person presenting them.". Even IF former Catholics, who spoke about their experiences and what they knew about teachings they had received as Roman Catholics, WERE bitter about the deception they had been subjected to, would it change the relevance about what they said? I don't think it would. The emotional state of the person doesn't change the facts about what happened. So I agree that it is pure subterfuge to attack the character and integrity of the person speaking just because what they state is objectionable.

I would even go further and assert that the one denigrating a person with whom they disagree is who truly is demonstrating bitterness as well as anger. They are showing an inability to be confident in what they believe and so they must impugn the one they are in conflict with to settle their own doubts about their faith. I'm not a psychologist, but I recognize "projection" when I see it.

[boatbums]

Yes, why DON'T you put your "common sense hat" on. As I said before, Roman Catholics do NOT own the early Christian theologians, but they are our common ancestors in the faith. I am a Christin because I believe in Jesus Christ as my God and Savior and I follow His teachings as laid out in Holy Scripture. That is something that neither you nor any other person has the right to take from me and mocking derision is a sign of desperation NOT of confidence in the faith. Think about that.

Finally, regarding infant baptism, it is such a minor issue that I marvel that anyone has to make such a big production over it that they go so far as to deny fellowship to others who disagree with them or resort to labeling them "heretics" just because they think differently about a minor issue. And infant baptism IS a minor issue. I'll tell you why - babies or very young children do NOT have the capability to give their assent to belief in Jesus Christ so that makes the ordinance of baptism to be INEFFECTIVE for them. Scripture, when it speaks about baptism, NEVER mentions it outside of a person FIRST believing and then submitting to baptism. It was always done as an outward testimony of a heartfelt, inward change of heart - repentance. There is NO Scriptural reference about babies being baptized and, since the Gospels and epistles that make up the New Testament were written decades after the fact, no mention of a "tradition" of doing so.

I don't dispute that the concept DEVELOPED over time, but it was certainly NOT something the Apostles asserted had to be done. Should children be dedicated to the Lord and raise in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Of course, but it is NOT the same as baptism. A strong factor to prove this assertion is simply the changes even the Roman Catholic Church has made about what happens to babies that die without being baptized. Some theologians said they went to hell. Some, thinking that was too harsh for a loving God, said they went to a place the called "Limbo" - though such a place is nowhere found in Scripture. Now what does the Roman church teach? They don't say either way anymore. Just something to the effect that God is merciful. Well DUH! That's what we've been saying all along. Babies aren't baptized because they cannot believe and they are innocent of personal sin and, though they have a sin nature inherited from Adam, the mercy and grace of God covers such innocents and they WILL be with Him in heaven.

Baptism should be reserved for the TRUE purpose it was created for - to testify to others that we have made a choice to follow Christ and live in newness of life. It is not the act that saves us but the faith behind the act. being baptized has NO effect at all unless there is faith and that is why it is faith that saves us. God saves us by His grace THROUGH faith. No outward acts supplement that but God saves us when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Titanites]

Yes. Doctrinally he has classed that person as condemned

Person A may have a view what will condemn person B if his ways aren't changed, but person A has not condemned person B to hell, just as the Church has no power do damn anyone to hell. As was stated earlier, The Church, like all churches, has declared that certain practices and beliefs will result in damnation, but doesn't claim the ability to enforce it.

What you have failed to do is to make a distinction between condemning one in the declarative sense based upon Scripture, versus claiming executive power to do execute the sentence.

The distinction has already been made.

[Natural Law]

"As I said before, Roman Catholics do NOT own the early Christian theologians,"

This is not an issue of "ownership", it is an issue of demonstrable doctrinal continuity. The Early Church Fathers preached a form of Christianity and Liturgy that more closely resembles modern Catholicism than any other form of Christianity or denominational doctrine. That form of Christianity was embodied in the Traditions and Creeds that preceded and produced the Canon of Scripture. The Church does not spend time extracting snippets and quotes attempting to prove that they were like us, we have spent the last 2,000 years ensuring that we remain like them.

Peace be with you.

[metmom]

My reading comprehension is fine. What you said is not true and you've provided no evidence to back up your claim.

Interesting. You were in on the conversations I had with the people I lived with and worked with?

You can't tell me what others said to me isn't true because you weren't there to witness and hear the conversations. You can't pass judgment on their veracity. The only options you have is to tell me I'm lying, which you just did here, or to tell me that that is not what you experienced. But you have no basis for telling me what I experienced is not true.

Again, the evidence makes the RCC look bad, so the typical recourse is to attack the integrity of the person relating the information.

Right there it tells me I hit a nerve.

Another thing you seem to be incapable of understanding is the distinction between official church position and the thinking of the grassroots lay Catholics.

My comment was about the PEOPLE in the Catholic church, not the technical position of the *Church*.

The Roman Catholic laity does not consider Ukrainian Catholics entirely legit. They look down their noses at them and the Ukrainian Catholics are well aware of the spiritual snobbery of the Roman Catholics as being in the REAL TRUE Church.

[metmom]

Even IF former Catholics, who spoke about their experiences and what they knew about teachings they had received as Roman Catholics, WERE bitter about the deception they had been subjected to, would it change the relevance about what they said? I don't think it would. The emotional state of the person doesn't change the facts about what happened. So I agree that it is pure subterfuge to attack the character and integrity of the person speaking just because what they state is objectionable.

That is true indeed.

But it's so much easier to dismiss a former Catholic's position if you can paint it as being the result of emotional failure. It's an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. It attempts to discredit the message and the messenger.

[daniel1212]

You are working hard to to utterly absolve Rome from condemning souls to Hell, but the fact is she does in the judgmental sense, judging them as damned (for those who die in mortal sin), as we also do by preaching the necessity of salvation and surety of damnation to those who deny Christ, even if we do not have the actual power to put them there.

So much more if Rome claims the power to bind men in their sins. The Supreme Court also does not have the power to enforce what it decrees, but if it judges a man guilty of a capital crime, then what it decides effects enforcement by the entity that has the power and that awaits its decree.

And again in the judgmental sense, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. “ (Hebrews 11:7)

“The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. “ (Luke 11:32)

[metmom]

So much more if Rome claims the power to bind men in their sins.

The priest who refuses to remit someone's sins does in effect, condemn them to hell. Just because they leave God to do the dirty work, if they really believe that the the Church has the power to bind a man's sins to him or remit them, then they are the ones who are making the executive decision. That makes them responsible.

[boatbums]

This is not an issue of "ownership", it is an issue of demonstrable doctrinal continuity. The Early Church Fathers preached a form of Christianity and Liturgy that more closely resembles modern Catholicism than any other form of Christianity or denominational doctrine. That form of Christianity was embodied in the Traditions and Creeds that preceded and produced the Canon of Scripture. The Church does not spend time extracting snippets and quotes attempting to prove that they were like us, we have spent the last 2,000 years ensuring that we remain like them.

If it is not an issue of "ownership", then why the outrage and guffaws whenever a non-Catholic Christian uses the words and thoughts of some of those ECFs? You must know that the Reformers moved as they did because the Church of Rome had turned away from the orthodox faith in many, demonstrable ways and when we here use the quotations from those ECFs to prove the changes that have occurred over the centuries, we are criticized and condemned for "taking them out of context" or misunderstanding or misstating them. Yet, over and over again - just as those Reformers did - we can prove the very contentions we make. I strongly disagree that the Roman Catholic Church has remained consistent with the orthodox Christian faith for the past 2000 years and that WAS the point the Reformers made.

Probably the biggest - and the most important one - was the doctrine of justification by faith without works - sola fide. The claim is usually made that nobody advocated for justification by faith alone before the Reformation, that no ECF ever taught that we are saved by faith apart from works. We know, however, from the very writings of those early theologians that they understood that very basic of Scriptural doctrines. Were there disagreements among some over the extent of justification versus sanctification? Yes, just as there have been disagreements over many of the interpretations of the other tenets of the Christian faith, but, rather than just rely upon these early believers to explain Scriptural doctrines, we should let Scripture interpret Scripture. Let Paul explain Luke and Mark and let Matthew and John explain Paul or Peter or James. What makes these ECFs any more qualified to explain Scriptural truths decades or centuries removed from the actual dates of the Biblical writings than the Apostles who were THERE and contemporaries of those other writers?

An interesting explanation is given at http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/seeds-of-reformation.html:

Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

"Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” (RRC, 49, 51-52)

James Swan quotes the following from another book Pelikan wrote, one that I haven't read:

"Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification."

Many other scholars have made comments similar to Pelikan's. One of the best brief overviews of this subject that I've seen is Nick Needham's chapter in JIP, 25-53. Needham makes many points relevant to this post, including the following:

"The language of justification occurs reasonably often in the fathers. What does the language mean? Although it does not always have the same precise connotation, it seems clear that there is a very prominent strand of usage in which it has a basically forensic meaning....The forensic framework of this justification language is further illustrated by another strand of patristic teaching that employs the concept of imputation - reckoning or crediting something to someone's account, a synthesis of legal and financial metaphors, where the books that are being kept are 'judgment books.'" (27-28, 32)

Additional ECF teachings are discussed at this link. I hope you will take a few minutes and read it. But with the issue of who is the true representative of the form of Christianity taught in Holy Scripture given to us by God, it should be those very Scriptures which stand as witness and not necessarily who did what within their own cultural and traditional communities. With the question of justification and righteousness being an infused or imputed righteousness, I believe the Scriptures DO settle that question most clearly.

I hope you have a good night.

[Natural Law]

"The priest who refuses to remit someone's sins does in effect, condemn them to hell."

The Church, the Priest and God Himself do not condemn anyone to hell. God only permits the the consequences of our sin. The priest must and does refuse absolution to a penitent when he thinks the penitent is not rightly disposed for the Sacrament. When a penitent is not contrite and does not resolve to not repeat the sin then the penitent has chosen to remain in sin.

Peace be with you.