"Catholics have not repented": Sydney Anglican Dean

  • Thread starter Thread starter GodsPrincess
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hisalone said:
Yes
Click to expand...
So when you said that “few” reach perfection, you were just being sarcastic? You don’t surely believe that anyone in this life can possibly be free from what Catholics would call “venial sins”?

John Wesley said sins “properly so called” were “willful transgressions of a known law of God.” That is the kind of sin I and the Catholics are talking about.

Edwin
 
Hisalone said:
And acknowledge our shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Where in this process is the “moment of Grace” that Christ provided to the penitent in each case where He forgave sins? He spoke the words “Your sins are forgiven” to each sinner. Is Christ not the perfect example, or is there a better one?

After doing this, Christ gave the Apostles power over sin and they continued His perfect example. I cannot conceive of a better way of confessing sin and receiving absolution than the very method Christ used.
 
Contarini said:
So when you said that “few” reach perfection, you were just being sarcastic? You don’t surely believe that anyone in this life can possibly be free from what Catholics would call “venial sins”?

John Wesley said sins “properly so called” were “willful transgressions of a known law of God.” That is the kind of sin I and the Catholics are talking about.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Its interesting that you bring up John Wesely. He believed in what he called the second blessing. The second blessing was a grace so profound that that one was regenerated so as not to sin.
I beleive this also.
 
Hisalone said:
Lets see was it the good nuns, or was it CCD classes or was it all the TAN books I read or was it the all night first friday/first saturday prayer meetings I used to attend. I just cant remember 😉

Christs work was sufficent in and of itself. When we cover ourselves with the blood of Jesus God sees no sin we are perfect in His eyes. There is nothing else we can do or that is required of us.

So what happens when one dies and there may be an unconfessed sin? When we come face to face with God who is pure light that sin is exposed and we can do nothing but to acknowledge it and be remorsefull.
Click to expand...
I guess the good nuns didn’t take you far enough down the road. These are all easy questions and have answers that bespeak nothing but consolation and mercy.

The main difference between a Catholic and a Protestant view of atonement is that in the Catholic view, we are MADE righteous by the Sacrifice of Christ (because “nothing unrighteous” can enter the Heavenly City), while in a wide spectrum of Protestant interpretations we are merely “deemed” righteous though remaining as Luther’s oft-cited “snow-covered dunghill.”

The Bishop complains about the “implication” that Christ’s Sacrifice is insufficient. I find that to be incredibly naive. It is only by the Blood of Christ that anyone is redeemed. Only by His Blood is anybody cleansed of his sin. If the Bishop is “implying” that Purgatoroy “implies” the insufficiency of Christ advertises an extremely irresponsible notion of the subject.
 
joeybaggz said:
Must be private messages because I only see the same old names show up, fling their “poo” and then disappear. I have never seen one of these non Catholic “critics” post something like, “I went and read your suggested text and I can see where you are coming from. I can’t say that I agree with everything, but your position makes more sense now.”
Click to expand...
Contarini has on many occassions.
 
po18guy said:
Where in this process is the “moment of Grace” that Christ provided to the penitent in each case where He forgave sins? He spoke the words “Your sins are forgiven” to each sinner. Is Christ not the perfect example, or is there a better one?

After doing this, Christ gave the Apostles power over sin and they continued His perfect example. I cannot conceive of a better way of confessing sin and receiving absolution than the very method Christ used.
Click to expand...
God gave Cain the power over sin.

But back on topic. If this is what you chose then it is good. My point is that we can have that relationship with God where He will show us a sin we acknowledge that it is, ask Him to remove it and know that it is done becase He has said it is done.
 
elts1956 said:
Only if we repent and if we repent, that means we have sinned.
Click to expand...
Detail: Job “repented” despite the fact that throughout the Book that bears his name, it is stated that “he did not sin.”

Repentance has more to do with our “seeing” God for Who He Is than specifically with our sin. You can see this in Peter’s collapse at the first great draft of fish. “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man.” Was he sinful? probably. But what is clear is that Peter’s acknowledgement of his own sinfulness comes as a result of seeing that Christ is more than your average rabbi.
 
Hisalone said:
God gave Cain the power over sin.

But back on topic. If this is what you chose then it is good. My point is that we can have that relationship with God where He will show us a sin we acknowledge that it is, ask Him to remove it and know that it is done becase He has said it is done.
Click to expand...
I mention it since Christ is the final covenant, is “God with us” and is our perfect example in every case. It is incumbent upon us to emulate His example to the best of our abilities.

Christ’s peace.
 
Hisalone said:
Its interesting that you bring up John Wesely. He believed in what he called the second blessing. The second blessing was a grace so profound that that one was regenerated so as not to sin.
I beleive this also.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Wesley used the phrase “second blessing” (though I should ask my wife, who is more of an expert on Wesley than I am). I think it was a 19th-century phrase. Wesley more often used phrases such as “Christian perfection” or “being made perfect in love.” He defined this “perfection” as a state in which one’s habitual dispositions (what he called “tempers”) were governed by love of God and neighbor.

I thought perhaps you were at least somewhat of a Wesleyan (from the fact that you said perfection was rare rather than impossible), which is why I’m pointing out that Wesley made a distinction that corresponds to that between mortal and venial sin.

If you seriously believe that anything falling short of the perfect law of love is a sin in the strict sense and that all such sins are equal, then obviously that’s the basic disagreement between us and the question of “dying with unconfessed sin” becomes moot. But if you are willing to grant that a "willful transgression of a known law of God’ is a “sin” in a strict and proper sense, while the other manifold ways in which we fall short are “sins” in a much looser sense, then perhaps we can make progress on the other question.

Edwin
 
GraceDK said:
Then why dont you explain “purgatory” in a short and clear way instead of joining the choir of voices that have already stated the obvious?
Click to expand...
Sure, Purgatory( a place of purging or cleansing) is necessary for anyone who, when leaving this earth after dying is in any way attached to sin.

Nothing unclean shall enter heaven it says in revelation, and that means we must be perfect.

I do not know of hardly anyone who is perfect when they die, do you?
 
RobHom said:
Maybe that the Anglican church is about to implode? It would seem that at a minimum their church is in upheaval and unraveling. Much strife is apparent, as well as much dissension.
Click to expand...
##** It does seem that way**** - provided one ignores the not inconsiderable similarities between its problems, ****& Rome’s, **& ignores anything that might lighten the gloominess of the picture. There may be a moral difference between the wealth of links at reformation.org & **other sites that give a one-sided picture of Catholicism, & the one-sided selection of links by a Catholic that concentrates on what is wrong in Anglicanism - but if there is a moral difference, I can’t see it. **
**Appeances are deceptive - the CC looked pretty solid in 1960. A few years later it was in turmoil. And serve it right - it shouldn’t have been so arrogant. Pride & presumption & contempt for others are not virtues, but very great sins. ****If we look down on other Christians, & crow over their weaknesses instead of helping them, we are going to fall very heavily indeed; & it will be no more than we deserve. **
As to the original post that began this…it would seem that the fellow in Sydney…was merely making noises to get his moment in the news. Nothing new, nothing new at all.
Click to expand...

So why have a thread on it ? There are no threads headed “The Pope is a Catholic” - the religion goes with the position. Why have a thread devoted to an Anglican Evangelical who says what a considerable number of Anglican Evangelicals say ? Protestants tend not to eye to eye with Catholics - that’s not news, or it shouldn’t be.​

SOS/SSDD:eek:
Click to expand...

**If the OP is trying to make Catholics & Catholicism hateful & loathsome, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. We have dreadful problems of our own, so we are in no **position to go ******kicking the Anglicans in the teeth because of theirs. **​

**The CC is no position to sling muck at any other Church - that any member of it does, proves that Dean’s point. A Church that is truly penitent does not accuse others, nor does it seek to justify itself. A Christian church does not crow & exult over the faults of another church; it mourns over them with that church because it knows that it is not by nature any better, & that but for God’s grace it would be a thousand times more damnable. **
 
chris_molter said:
Not all Catholic doctrines and practices can be defended by resorting to protestant evangelical language and concepts. At some point, our separated brethren will have to do some reading of their own (as many of us who came from protestantism did) if they’re truly interested in understanding the Church and her teachings rather than just scoring points for the home team.
GraceDK;3756090:
Then why dont you explain “purgatory” in a short and clear way instead of joining the choir of voices that have already stated the obvious?
justinthemartyr;3761476:
Sure, Purgatory( a place of purging or cleansing) is necessary for anyone who, when leaving this earth after dying is in any way attached to sin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think Grace was directing this post to Chris Molter, but somehow your
40.png
justinthemartyr:
handle appeared in her quote.

Still waiting, Chris :whistle:
Click to expand...
 
Contarini said:
I don’t think Wesley used the phrase “second blessing” (though I should ask my wife, who is more of an expert on Wesley than I am). I think it was a 19th-century phrase. Wesley more often used phrases such as “Christian perfection” or “being made perfect in love.” He defined this “perfection” as a state in which one’s habitual dispositions (what he called “tempers”) were governed by love of God and neighbor.

I thought perhaps you were at least somewhat of a Wesleyan (from the fact that you said perfection was rare rather than impossible), which is why I’m pointing out that Wesley made a distinction that corresponds to that between mortal and venial sin.

If you seriously believe that anything falling short of the perfect law of love is a sin in the strict sense and that all such sins are equal, then obviously that’s the basic disagreement between us and the question of “dying with unconfessed sin” becomes moot. But if you are willing to grant that a "willful transgression of a known law of God’ is a “sin” in a strict and proper sense, while the other manifold ways in which we fall short are “sins” in a much looser sense, then perhaps we can make progress on the other question.

Edwin
Click to expand...
How do you define mortal sin?
Can you give an example?
 
Hisalone said:
How do you define mortal sin?
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...
I think Wesley’s definition is a good one (though he’d probably be shocked to hear me say that): a willful transgression of a known law of God. Another way of putting it is that a mortal sin is a deliberate action that is incompatible with love of God and neighbor.

Obviously we can argue over just what actions go into this category. But that’s the basic way it’s defined. A mortal sin cuts you off from God’s love, because you have chosen to act in a way incompatible with that love and the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in the heart of someone who is making such a choice. A venial sin doesn’t do this.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top