Christianity's First Dark Age

[mesl4]

to walk away from the real presence for reasons such as this :doh2:

Do you really believe that the True God required all the rituals and practices of the old covenant, and essentially a free-for-all in the new?

And there is the power of binding a loosing…

And there is that bit in Matthew about the gate being narrow…

I would not walk away from the real presence because of these things, but these things, it makes me question if this Church is in apostasy or legit. It makes me question to believe in the real presence or Mary dogmas, or confession to priest required for forgivenss, etc. If there were nothing to lose I’d go ahead with it to be on the safe side. The thing that worries me is that if it’s wrong, I could go to hell for not trusting in Jesus’ words, for not trusting him to complete the good work he started in me, for not trusting him to forgive me when I confess to him and repent, to not trust him to do it all. I’m saying he’s not enough! What if I convert and it’s wrong, and I ask him to have mercy because all I wanted was to do his will and I was deceived, but he says “Too late.”? What if I don’t convert and beg for mercy for the same reasons and he says “I tried to tell you, too late.”? I’m so trapped here.

 

[PapaSquash]

I think I understand then.

But how is your fear of breaking this particular unbreakable “required for salvation” rule,(that Catholicism is specifically the one version of Christian belief that slams the door on you) different from any other “rule?”

Somebody made up that one too. Of all the Christian belief systems I have ever seen Catholicism is, to me, by far the most coherent. AND it has the history.

Nothing that is forbidden by the church is something that, in honoring God, I really want to do. And nothing that is required by the Church in any way dishonors him. It is challenging and difficult to attempt yes, but, reading the Gospel, isn’t it clear that following Jesus is necessarily so?

 

[mesl4]

But how is your fear of breaking this particular unbreakable “required for salvation” rule,(that Catholicism is specifically the one version of Christian belief that slams the door on you) different from any other “rule?”

I’m not sure I understand your question, but if you’re asking why Catholicism rejects God’s grace/mercy/merit, and Protesant denominations don’t, it’s because no Protestant denominations require me to do anything for salvation, (other than have a passion for Jesus that can be manifested in many different ways). The Protestant belief agrees with the Bible more. For us, if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t HAVE to be done or believed. It can be beneficial for shaping us, but doesn’t have to be done to save us from hell. For Catholics, it seems like the work is still on us, rather than accepting Christ’s gift as our salvation.

Like say I was arrested and someone comes along and pays my bail in full and I am set free. They tell me not to do it again, but if I do, go to them and they’ll pay my bail again. It wouldn’t make sense for me to continue to pay the bail myself because it’s already been paid. If I realy trust and believe that person paid for me, I wouldn’t keep paying. Now, if I feel like I’d like to make some charitable donations to “pay it forward” so to speak/do the same to others, I can, but it is not required of me. My bail has already been paid so there are no more requirements of me. Catholics are like the person that is freed yet keeps paying their own bail because they don’t believe they’re free.

With the above example, it doesn’t seem like I’d actually go to hell (ie. back to jail) for “continuing to pay my bail.” Unless the bailer said, the only way I’ll stop your bail payments is if you start paying it instead, but you’ll never be able to cover the bail so you’ll end up going back to jail. That’s the fear w/converting.

 

[mesl4]

So, for starters, do you really think all of those 6 points you gave were required for salvation? I thought I addressed them already. Were there others?

Like I said before, they are required because disobeying the church is a mortal sin and so sends you to hell.

 

[JRKH]

Like I said before, they are required because disobeying the church is a mortal sin and so sends you to hell.

For my own edification would you point quote the Church document that says this?
Thank you.

Peace
James

 

[mesl4]

For my own edification would you point quote the Church document that says this?
Thank you.

Peace
James

I don’t know of any. This is what I was told by Catholics on CAF. Like if you don’t go to Mass but keep the day holy by worshiping at home some days, it is a mortal sin according to the Catechism (since only illness or care of infants excuses you). That is a Church teaching, not a Bible teaching so disobeying would put you in mortal sin which deprives you of God’s grace/heaven right?

 

[Arandur]

I would not walk away from the real presence because of these things, but these things, it makes me question if this Church is in apostasy or legit. It makes me question to believe in the real presence or Mary dogmas, or confession to priest required for forgivenss, etc. If there were nothing to lose I’d go ahead with it to be on the safe side. The thing that worries me is that if it’s wrong, I could go to hell for not trusting in Jesus’ words, for not trusting him to complete the good work he started in me, for not trusting him to forgive me when I confess to him and repent, to not trust him to do it all. I’m saying he’s not enough! What if I convert and it’s wrong, and I ask him to have mercy because all I wanted was to do his will and I was deceived, but he says “Too late.”? What if I don’t convert and beg for mercy for the same reasons and he says “I tried to tell you, too late.”? I’m so trapped here.

Would it help if you knew that we believe all of the Sacraments to actually be performed by Christ? That is, Reconciliation is not us confessing merely to a mortal man and asking him for forgiveness, but rather it is Jesus that we confess to and receive absolution from. Priests have no power of their own; it all comes from acting in persona Christe, so it is Jesus our High Priest who actually performs the Sacraments. In this way, all of our trust is in Jesus.

Keep in mind that Jesus set up a Church, not a Bible. Don’t you think he would be a wise enough leader to make sure that Church is established the way he intends, with sufficient provision for people to trust and belong to it? Remember, he said that even the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat and thus the Jews must obey their authority and do as they say (but not as they do, since many of the Pharisees acted sinfully).

How much greater and more reliable would be the Church Jesus himself set up and empowered in a special way, for the first time, with the Holy Spirit? He built HIS Church, and he made it his Body with himself as cornerstone and head, and with the divine gift of the Holy Spirit, so that we would not have to rely on a merely human institution but instead had Himself as a guarantee in a Divine Institution.

Something that may be applicable that I just read from another thread:
“This is where some protestants make mistake, they always separate the Church from Christ, the Body from the Head. If the the Head is Holy so is the Body, We can’t keep on dividing the Body of Christ and claim to be a true member of that one body.”

If Jesus set up a Church (and not a Bible), why would you ignore what Jesus set up in favor of your own interpretation of something else that he did not?

 

[mesl4]

Would it help if you knew that we believe all of the Sacraments to actually be performed by Christ? That is, Reconciliation is not us confessing merely to a mortal man and asking him for forgiveness, but rather it is Jesus that we confess to and receive absolution from. Priests have no power of their own; it all comes from acting in persona Christe

, so it is Jesus our High Priest who actually performs the Sacraments. In this way, all of our trust is in Jesus.
This doesn’t really help because it just seems like you’re saying the priest is the equivalent of Jesus, or that Jesus can only work through a priest.

Keep in mind that Jesus set up a Church, not a Bible. Don’t you think he would be a wise enough leader to make sure that Church is established the way he intends, with sufficient provision for people to trust and belong to it? Remember, he said that even the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat and thus the Jews must obey their authority and do as they say (but not as they do, since many of the Pharisees acted sinfully).

 

[PapaSquash]

I’m not sure I understand your question, but if you’re asking why Catholicism rejects God’s grace/mercy/merit, and Protesant denominations don’t, it’s because no Protestant denominations require me to do anything for salvation, (other than have a passion for Jesus that can be manifested in many different ways). The Protestant belief agrees with the Bible more. For us, if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t HAVE to be done or believed. It can be beneficial for shaping us, but doesn’t have to be done to save us from hell. For Catholics, it seems like the work is still on us, rather than accepting Christ’s gift as our salvation.

Like say I was arrested and someone comes along and pays my bail in full and I am set free. They tell me not to do it again, but if I do, go to them and they’ll pay my bail again. It wouldn’t make sense for me to continue to pay the bail myself because it’s already been paid. If I realy trust and believe that person paid for me, I wouldn’t keep paying. Now, if I feel like I’d like to make some charitable donations to “pay it forward” so to speak/do the same to others, I can, but it is not required of me. My bail has already been paid so there are no more requirements of me. Catholics are like the person that is freed yet keeps paying their own bail because they don’t believe they’re free.

With the above example, it doesn’t seem like I’d actually go to hell (ie. back to jail) for “continuing to pay my bail.” Unless the bailer said, the only way I’ll stop your bail payments is if you start paying it instead, but you’ll never be able to cover the bail so you’ll end up going back to jail. That’s the fear w/converting.

OK. I see where you are coming from. Your fear is that adherence to Catholic doctrine will be seen by God as lack of faith in Jesus’ ability to save you despite your personal unworthiness of salvation. Catholicism has always made it clear to me that we do not reject God’s grace, mercy and merit. Grace always comes down, we can’t get anywhere near saved without it.

If the relationship with Jesus is really a relationship I have to participate in it though. Just as I have to participate in any of the love relationships in my life. God is obviously eternally forgiving but I still have to have the relationship in order to ask for forgiveness or to even want it. As in any relationship it really doen’t matter what you think, it’s what you do that counts.

In this world, I get all sorts of things handed to me and all I can do is try to find God’s will for me in it. I really have to try to make my will to be aligned with God’s will. Church Doctrine and discipline help me with that. If I don’t say to God “have it your way,” he’s going to say to me “have it your way.” Either way God is going to let my will be done in the afterlife, as has been demonstrated by me. if I accept him and love him he will welcome me. If I reject him, he will leave me alone.

I’ll always be the “bad” partner in this deal, getting way more than I can possibly give, but I do have to give if it’s actual love. I can’t just take from God and say I love him. .

I liken it to needing to cross a vast ocean to get to heaven. There is a big ship here ready to take me across but the ocean is dry. I cannot walk acoss the sea bed, but the blood of Jesus can fill that ocean and I can sail home. My blood was never sufficient to float the boat; and Jesus’ flood can float the boat without mine, But I can add my few drops (quarts?) of blood in with His and, yes, every drop contributes to holding up the boat. I can’t save myself but I can participate.

 

[Arandur]

This doesn’t really help because it just seems like you’re saying the priest is the equivalent of Jesus, or that Jesus can only work through a priest.

 

[mfbukowski]

I would not walk away from the real presence because of these things, but these things, it makes me question if this Church is in apostasy or legit. It makes me question to believe in the real presence or Mary dogmas, or confession to priest required for forgivenss, etc. If there were nothing to lose I’d go ahead with it to be on the safe side. The thing that worries me is that if it’s wrong, I could go to hell for not trusting in Jesus’ words, for not trusting him to complete the good work he started in me, for not trusting him to forgive me when I confess to him and repent, to not trust him to do it all. I’m saying he’s not enough! What if I convert and it’s wrong, and I ask him to have mercy because all I wanted was to do his will and I was deceived, but he says “Too late.”? What if I don’t convert and beg for mercy for the same reasons and he says “I tried to tell you, too late.”? I’m so trapped here.

Any just God who requires specific beliefs would have to tell you in a way you could not doubt what those beliefs are, or He is not just.

That is why I believe in personal revelation. If God really wants you to do certain things, and he is just, and you will be judged for NOT doing those things, he better let you know exactly what those things are. I personally could not believe in a God who would make you guess what is right or put you in the quandry you describe. Don’t worry about it and go where the spirit leads and you will be fine.

 

[PapaSquash]

Any just God who requires specific beliefs would have to tell you in a way you could not doubt what those beliefs are, or He is not just.

That is why I believe in personal revelation. If God really wants you to do certain things, and he is just, and you will be judged for NOT doing those things, he better let you know exactly what those things are. I personally could not believe in a God who would make you guess what is right or put you in the quandry you describe. Don’t worry about it and go where the spirit leads and you will be fine.

My take on this is that God has done exactly this:

He started a Church, gave it’s temporal head the power of binding and loosing said that it was protected from error, and called it the “pillar and foundation of truth.”

This Church then promotes and clarifies doctrine. It publishes, it teaches, it works to maintain unity. I have no quandry; I need not guess. I do have to struggle with temptation and endure the suffering that is the natural consquence of this life. The church is only confusing if you want it to be.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t know of any. This is what I was told by Catholics on CAF. Like if you don’t go to Mass but keep the day holy by worshiping at home some days, it is a mortal sin according to the Catechism (since only illness or care of infants excuses you). That is a Church teaching, not a Bible teaching so disobeying would put you in mortal sin which deprives you of God’s grace/heaven right?

OK. So you ar working off of “here-say”.

To an extent you are right in that the Church has certain disciplines and has given different “weights” to these disciplines. By this I mean that while disobeying the Church is indeed a son, it does not necessarily follow that it is a mortal sin.
In the example above, that of Church attendance, there are a number of factors that can effect the issue. You mention illness or care of infants and these are probably the two most common issues, but there are a number of others. For instance i may not be able to get to mass because of my wifes illness (she has ALZ). I discussed this with my confessor and he abolved me from the need to attend if I must be at home. (So far we have been able to go - Praise God). Other things might be the physical ability to get to mass.
Say your car breaks down on the way to the last mass of the day.
Mortal Sin? Not a chance. Venial Sin? Perhaps.
Much depends on the intention of the person as to the severity of the sin - or even if it would be classed a sin by The Church.

All of that being said, If I, as a professed catholic, “Choose” to stay home from Mass without good cause, then Yes I am committing a mortal sin. Why? because by being a professed Catholic I agree to abide by the teachings of the Church which are from Christ Himself. Therefore, by not attending mass I am not “Disobeying the Church”, I am disobeying Christ.
Now I realize that you do not equate Christ with The Church.
You equate Christ with “The Bible”.
And so you follow the precepts as laid out in The Bible.
Yet you deny the Authority that He gave to His Church as testified to, not only by Christ Himself when He tells us to “Tell it to the Church”, but also by Paul, who declared “The Church” to be the bulwark and foundation of Truth.
To get around this, the non-catholic Christian must redefine what Church means and so we have this idea of some ethereal gathering of persons with no authority other than their own interpretation of scripture.
Christ created no such “Church”. The Apostles built no such “Church”. And for the first 1500 years no one ever thought of the Church as an individual and scripture.

Peace
James

 

[Arandur]

Any just God who requires specific beliefs would have to tell you in a way you could not doubt what those beliefs are, or He is not just.

That is why I believe in personal revelation. If God really wants you to do certain things, and he is just, and you will be judged for NOT doing those things, he better let you know exactly what those things are. I personally could not believe in a God who would make you guess what is right or put you in the quandry you describe. Don’t worry about it and go where the spirit leads and you will be fine.

So do you believe that God has personally and very clearly told you explicitly each of the things you must do or believe in order to be saved? By what mechanism?

Since all the various conflicting denominations and belief systems are essentially the result of personal interpretation (what people think God is saying to them), I think it’s pretty obvious that your formula is NOT what God intended. It has produced contradiction and sectarianism, not unity and clarity. God does not speak different “truths” to different people, or lead them into different factions, but people trusting in their own understanding have arrived at just such a sad situation of division.

As someone else has posted recently, “” If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself." ~
Saint Augustine" Personal interpretations (of Scripture or what you believe to be “personal revelation”) is ultimately little more than the sin and blindness of Pride.

I agree with PapaSquash, and I’ve tried to express a similar view on many different threads–God gave us the Church so that we could know what was true and not have such uncertainty or frailty of personal understanding. To suggest that God is not just unless He provides us with personal, undoubtable clarity of understanding is nonsensical in light of the observable human situation as well as the history of how God has worked.

This is especially puzzling to me coming from a Mormon like you, Mski; how do you reconcile that belief of yours with the Great Apostasy? How do you reconcile it with the idea that a “Prophet” is necessary, or even that the OT Prophets were sent occasionally to bring God’s message and try to bring clarity to the people (who obviously did not have undoubtable clarity through personal revelation)? Why would any of that be needed, indeed why would every human not belong to one big happy church if God provided clear, undoubtable personal revelation to everyone?

 

[Arandur]

To get around this, the non-catholic Christian must redefine what Church means and so we have this idea of some ethereal gathering of persons with no authority other than their own interpretation of scripture.
Christ created no such “Church”. The Apostles built no such “Church”. And for the first 1500 years no one ever thought of the Church as an individual and scripture.

Peace
James

An interesting thought just occurred to me. It seems to me that if the working concept of “church” requires reliance on the Bible, then wouldn’t that mean that the church is dependent on and cannot exist without:

1. Each individual having access to a published Bible;
2. That Bible presenting an accurately-translated, clearly readable text;
3. Accurate supporting documents exist to put that Bible in proper context and make linkages–OR each individual being sufficiently educated to know these things;
4. Each Christian being literate or able to hear the Bible read to them by a reliable source.

Interestingly, the 1500s development that make Protestantism catch on was the printing press and slowly increasing literacy. These conditions did not exist prior, which begs the question of how, if the church was meant to be solely based on individual interpretation of the Bible, Christ expected it to exist at all in the earlier centuries.

Such a model for the church doesn’t sound like the kind of church Christ was aiming for, intending for all people as it was, and especially the illiterate poor of the age.

 

[JRKH]

An interesting thought just occurred to me. It seems to me that if the working concept of “church” requires reliance on the Bible, then wouldn’t that mean that the church is dependent on and cannot exist without:

1. Each individual having access to a published Bible;
2. That Bible presenting an accurately-translated, clearly readable text;
3. Accurate supporting documents exist to put that Bible in proper context and make linkages–OR each individual being sufficiently educated to know these things;
4. Each Christian being literate or able to hear the Bible read to them by a reliable source.

Nicely put, although I would say that the Catholic Church also ascribes to the idea of “reliance” on the Bible".
Also I would amend your first point to read “…access to The Bible” since there should only need to be one clearly translated Bible.

Interestingly, the 1500s development that make Protestantism catch on was the printing press and slowly increasing literacy. These conditions did not exist prior, which begs the question of how, if the church was meant to be solely based on individual interpretation of the Bible, Christ expected it to exist at all in the earlier centuries.

Or how the people were supposed to properly interpret the Bible before 400 AD since the canon had not even been established. The simple fact is the then, just as now, “the people” need a person to “preach”, that is interpret and explain the Bible. The essential thing lost is “Authority”.

Such a model for the church doesn’t sound like the kind of church Christ was aiming for, intending for all people as it was, and especially the illiterate poor of the age.

You are quite right. The simple fact is that the “Reformation” was, perhaps, a noble experiment in the area of, “individual guidance by The Holy Spirit” but after 500 years, it should be obvious that it is a failed experiment.
The Holy Spirit of God just cannot give differing interpretations. There needs to be a central authority to thrash out the differences of opinion through prayerful discussion, reading and research. Then when “The Church Authority” makes a determination on a matter, it is up to the faithful to accept it. Anything else is Pride - not humility.

Peace
James

 

[mfbukowski]

So do you believe that God has personally and very clearly told you explicitly each of the things you must do or believe in order to be saved? By what mechanism?

Since all the various conflicting denominations and belief systems are essentially the result of personal interpretation (what people think God is saying to them), I think it’s pretty obvious that your formula is NOT what God intended. It has produced contradiction and sectarianism, not unity and clarity. God does not speak different “truths” to different people, or lead them into different factions, but people trusting in their own understanding have arrived at just such a sad situation of division.

As someone else has posted recently, “” If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself." ~
Saint Augustine" Personal interpretations (of Scripture or what you believe to be “personal revelation”) is ultimately little more than the sin and blindness of Pride.

I agree with PapaSquash, and I’ve tried to express a similar view on many different threads–God gave us the Church so that we could know what was true and not have such uncertainty or frailty of personal understanding. To suggest that God is not just unless He provides us with personal, undoubtable clarity of understanding is nonsensical in light of the observable human situation as well as the history of how God has worked.

This is especially puzzling to me coming from a Mormon like you, Mski; how do you reconcile that belief of yours with the Great Apostasy? How do you reconcile it with the idea that a “Prophet” is necessary, or even that the OT Prophets were sent occasionally to bring God’s message and try to bring clarity to the people (who obviously did not have undoubtable clarity through personal revelation)? Why would any of that be needed, indeed why would every human not belong to one big happy church if God provided clear, undoubtable personal revelation to everyone?

Yes, he’s told me by revelation. I think he does provide personal revelation for each individual about that individual’s life. He leads us each to where we need to be, if we listen. But I think 99% do not listen. That is where the test comes it.

And maybe you should be a Catholic. It may be where you belong but that’s between you and God. But make sure you know what he wants for you, or you are missing the purpose of life.

 

[mfbukowski]

Interestingly, the 1500s development that make Protestantism catch on was the printing press and slowly increasing literacy. These conditions did not exist prior, which begs the question of how, if the church was meant to be solely based on individual interpretation of the Bible, Christ expected it to exist at all in the earlier centuries.

Now you’re sounding LDS. Our answer might be “he didn’t.”

But of course it’s based on more than individual interpretation of the bible. It’s based on that AND personal revelation. I wish we were both in good moods more often, I think we could have some good talks.

But I really am taking a vacation from this board for a while

 

[mesl4]

Now I realize that you do not equate Christ with The Church.

You equate Christ with “The Bible”.

 

[mesl4]

An interesting thought just occurred to me. It seems to me that if the working concept of “church” requires reliance on the Bible, then wouldn’t that mean that the church is dependent on and cannot exist without:

1. Each individual having access to a published Bible;