Has the 'Non-Catholic Religions' forum lost its purpose?

[Guyonthestreet]

That does not constitute a religious background, Guy. It constitutes a religious present!

Fair point

I don’t have a religious background.

I do have an experience where I was launched 60 feet in the air and smashed into a tree the other side of a trail I was checking.

I lay there not being able to feel a thing, and I was certain I was dead, dying or paralysed.

For some reason, out of somewhere within me, I cried out God help me.

When taken back to base and checked over I had nothing more than a sore jaw

I’ve believed in God ever since.

 

[SSTeacher]

Fair point

I don’t have a religious background.

I do have an experience where I was launched 60 feet in the air and smashed into a tree the other side of a trail I was checking.

I lay there not being able to feel a thing, and I was certain I was dead, dying or paralysed.

For some reason, out of somewhere within me, I cried out God help me.

When taken back to base and checked over I had nothing more than a sore jaw

I’ve believed in God ever since.

Guyonthestreet,

That’s quite an amazing story.

Would you care to state how far you’ve gotten with your concept of God? For example, what attributes have you so far ascribed to God as you’ve struggled to discover the true meaning within your experience?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Although these issues are important to Catholics and the Church, they do not define either one. It’s not that they are unimportant to Catholics. But what we believe is more important.

For example: Every year, our parish operates a severe weather shelter over the winter. We consider it important. We would not claim that it makes our parish Catholic. On the other hand, we would say that our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and Transubstantiation are among the things that do.

I know from experience that liberal Anglicans point to that social action as one of their defining characteristics.

Some of the issue labels are loaded, too. Whereas some may argue that the male priesthood is a sign of “institutional inequality” in the Catholic Church, for us, them would be fightin’ words.

Blessings,

Gerry

I’m not sure where you got the idea that my remarks were about “defining” a church. I am absolutely amazed at your statement that you believe that the RCC is more concerned with what “what we believe” than what you do. A new book is just out dealing precisely with that issue: Robin Meyers “Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus.” Not new stuff by any means, but it does speak to the issue of why our churches are losing so many these days.

Again, I’m confused as to how you read my statement to mean that this is defining.

You seem suspicious of social justice action.

I would agree that my church certainly does feel that our most important function is mission. We seek to do as Jesus instructed us and we use him as an example of what it means to be of Christ.

But it is interesting to hear that at some feel that the RCC is more defined by what it believes than how it acts in the world.

I have no desire to “fight” about anything. Reasonable discourse is always preferred.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

guanophore;5490889]Speaking for myself, and my experience reading your posts, I would very much welcome your participation anywhere you wanted to post. I think your perspective would be particularly insightful on the Catholic Living Forum. All areas are open to everyone.

I don’t think I’ve ever been there. I’ll take a look

I don’t think some people pay any more attention to where they are than what they are saying. The topics and areas are not to restrict members, but to help people find an area where others of similar interests will be likely to respond. People SHOULD post where they will, and not be concerned about the title of the area. If it is a topic of interest, go for it! If a topic ends up in the wrong area, once in a while the mods will move it to a more appropriate one so that people can find it easier.

You make a good point. Trouble is when the moderators move it, I can’t find it again! lol…perhaps there is a process I don’t understand.

The Apologetics has social justice area, but if you wanted to capture the non-catholics, it would be better over here. I was surprise to learn that a lot of folks don’t venture off the ND, as if they did not think it was allowed or appropriate.

I have ventured off and was on a thread a few weeks ago on same-sex or something, I don’t remember. I was the only one speaking on one side, but others were very remarkably pleasant and we got along fine even though we disagreed. So I think it’s possible. I just have felt somewhat reticent, thinking that these other forums belonged to Catholics who wished to argue/agree among themselves.

 

[emeraldcoast]

gurney, you did not go back and read Spirit’s post, did you? I find your response uncharitable, and probably a very good example of exactly what we are discussing here. Instead of valuing all the many reasons Spirit is here, you have singled out one point, and responded disparagingly. Spirit never said “the only posts that are worthwhile”. That is your imposition of small mindedness into the post. Spirit said that one particular post was especially appreciated. I think you missed the entire point!

There are many of us here that commiserate about uncharitable people. What is wrong with that? Do you think we should approve of an appreciate rude behavior? I even miserate about my own lack of charity…

Yes, other people noticing and pointing out piles of doo-doo helps everyone. It is valuable to recognize and avoid the doo-doo.

I recommend that you go back to the referenced thread and read SpiritMeadows reasons for being here, and try again. :tsktsk:

guanophore,

Thank you!!

God Bless!

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I’m not sure where you got the idea that my remarks were about “defining” a church. I am absolutely amazed at your statement that you believe that the RCC is more concerned with what “what we believe” than what you do.

Well, there it is. For Catholics, what we believe matters most. Although Christians are called to be “good persons”, being a “good person” does not make one a Christian.

A new book is just out dealing precisely with that issue: Robin Meyers “Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus.” Not new stuff by any means, but it does speak to the issue of why our churches are losing so many these days.

Stop worshipping!? What has the man been smoking?

, I’m confused as to how you read my statement to mean that this is defining.

You seem suspicious of social justice action.

Not suspicious of social action, no. But I am more than suspicious of the motives of those who seek to turn the Church into a mere social service agency, like some kind of service club. The Church is not the March of Dimes in vestments, as fine as the work that the MoD (and other fine organizations) does might be. The first priority of the Church is saving souls in eternity. If people would change that, then they would lead the Church astray.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that my remarks were about “defining” a church. I am absolutely amazed at your statement that you believe that the RCC is more concerned with what “what we believe” than what you do.

Well, there it is. For Catholics, what we believe matters most. Although Christians are called to be “good persons”, being a “good person” does not make one a Christian.

I would agree that my church certainly does feel that our most important function is mission. We seek to do as Jesus instructed us and we use him as an example of what it means to be of Christ.

And that mission is bringing souls to Christ, is it? First and foremost?

But it is interesting to hear that at some feel that the RCC is more defined by what it believes than how it acts in the world.

I have no desire to “fight” about anything. Reasonable discourse is always preferred.

“Feelings” have nothing to do with it, nothing whatsoever. This isn’t a matter of psychobabble. The formula for reception into full communion with the Catholic Church has this rubric:

The Christian fully enters the Church by profession of faith and formal reception. For the profession of faith, the candidate says: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” The bishop or priest then formally receives the Christian into the Church by saying, “[Name], the Lord receives you into the Catholic Church. His loving kindness has led you here, so that in the unity of the Holy Spirit you may have full communion with us in the faith that you have professed in the presence of this his family.”

It is about faith believed and professed. I mentioned our severe weather shelter. You wouldn’t be received into the Catholic Church because you worked there.

This you won’t like at all, but here it is. There are some things concerning the faith and the Church that Catholics know are not up for discussion. To seek to discuss them is to pick a fight. There is no way to “reasonably” pick a fight.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SSTeacher]

This you won’t like at all, but here it is. There are some things concerning the faith and the Church that Catholics know are not up for discussion. To seek to discuss them is to pick a fight. There is no way to “reasonably” pick a fight.

Blessings,

Gerry

Hi Gerry,

The formal description of the purpose of the Non–Catholic Religions forum (for those who take the time to read it, anyway) is that it’s for “Comparing and contrasting beliefs.” There’s no warning for we unsuspecting Non–Catholics that there exists inside a host of ethereally–minded Catholics who have their own list of subjects that are not up for discussion and are impatiently waiting to take offense in order to fight us into believing what they believe until we’re all punched into submission whereupon we can gratefully receive their “Blessings.”

Just thought I’d point that out.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[SonofMonica]

I’ll give my two cents. I’m not so sure that the Non-Catholic Religions forum is intended to be “neutral” or “non-apologetic” in nature. I’ve never thought of it that way.

It seems like some in this thread look at it as a sort of save haven for protestants, so to speak, as if they were under attack elsewhere on the site. But, to me, this whole site is a Catholic apologetic website. As such, it seems like the Apologetics subforum is about explaining why Catholics believe what they believe without reference to other religions–simply, “why this?” Conversely, the Non-Catholic Religions subforum is about explaining what Catholics believe in contrast to other religions/protestantism, etc.–“Why this and not that?”

Do you really think that a Catholic apologetics website intended the Catholics not to apologize on the Non-Catholic Religions subforum? I don’t. That said, I understand how frustrating the baiting threads can be. However, I don’t agree that Catholic apologists must “butt out” as though this is your space.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Hi Gerry,

The formal description of the purpose of the Non–Catholic Religions forum (for those who take the time to read it, anyway) is that it’s for “Comparing and contrasting beliefs.” There’s no warning for we unsuspecting Non–Catholics that there exists inside a host of ethereally–minded Catholics who have their own list of subjects that are not up for discussion and are impatiently waiting to take offense in order to fight us into believing what they believe until we’re all punched into submission whereupon we can gratefully receive their “Blessings.”

Just thought I’d point that out.

Ecumenically,
Mick

There is nothing “ethereally-minded” about the proposition that the characteristics of a Sacrament, such as Matrimony or Holy Orders, cannot be changed by anyone, even the Magisterium of the Church. Now not infrequently, when the topics of women’s ordination or same sex marriage comes up, and a Catholic’s reply that to ordain women or marry 2 men or 2 women to each other is not in the Church’s power (that, by the way is indeed her position), what follows is a denial of that as being the case, and that it is really a matter of male dominance, or intolerance, or something else equally as odious.

I would hope no one would pounce on someone who asked why the Church did not, say, ordain women. But if they came back with unsavory alternatives for the Church’s position that she cannot, when they are told that, things may not likely go very smoothly.

I’ve observed over the last 5 years that when it comes to setting traps, lots of non-Catholics have come to this forum to set them in the manner I have just described. Why don’t you ordain women? Because we can’t change the characteristics of a sacrament. You’re just saying that; it’s because you oppress women … or some such.

And really this is a Catholic forum. When in someone else’s home, should one not, as a point of good manners, take caution with one’s tone? Catholics, remember, know the Church to be their Holy Mother. Is it nice to bad mouth someone’s mother, or impute nefarious motives to her?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SSTeacher]

I’ll give my two cents. I’m not so sure that the Non-Catholic Religions forum is intended to be “neutral” or “non-apologetic” in nature. I’ve never thought of it that way.

It seems like some in this thread look at it as a sort of save haven for protestants, so to speak, as if they were under attack elsewhere on the site. But, to me, this whole site is a Catholic apologetic website. As such, it seems like the Apologetics subforum is about explaining why Catholics believe what they believe without reference to other religions–simply, “why this?” Conversely, the Non-Catholic Religions subforum is about explaining what Catholics believe in contrast to other religions/protestantism, etc.–“Why this and not that?”

Do you really think that a Catholic apologetics website intended the Catholics not to apologize on the Non-Catholic Religions subforum? I don’t. That said, I understand how frustrating the baiting threads can be. However, I don’t agree that Catholic apologists must “butt out” as though this is your space.

Comment duly noted. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[SonofMonica]

Comment duly noted. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Appreciatively,
Mick

No prob, Mick! Glad to opine any time!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Gerry Hunter;5494493]Well, there it is. For Catholics, what we believe matters most. Although Christians are called to be “good persons”, being a “good person” does not make one a Christian.

Do you claim to speak for all Catholics on this?

Stop worshipping!? What has the man been smoking?

Robin Meyers is a 25+ year pastor at a UCC church in Nebraska. Since you haven’t read the book, it might be better not to comment on what you THINK it contains. But do as you wish.

Not suspicious of social action, no. But I am more than suspicious of the motives of those who seek to turn the Church into a mere social service agency, like some kind of service club. The Church is not the March of Dimes in vestments, as fine as the work that the MoD (and other fine organizations) does might be. The first priority of the Church is saving souls in eternity. If people would change that, then they would lead the Church astray.

My to say that a church believes in missioning to the world doesn’t eliminate it’s worship or testimony as believers. In fact some, SOME, might argue that the church evangelizes most effectively by living out its beliefs rather than simply stating them. Saving of souls for eternity is somewhat more recent Church pronouncement than you might think. It was not original to the first churches.

Well, there it is. For Catholics, what we believe matters most. Although Christians are called to be “good persons”, being a “good person” does not make one a Christian.

Certainly not, but it’s a good start. Believing a set of precepts need not make one a Christian either. Don’t forget you folks are the one’s who claim that works are required.

And that mission is bringing souls to Christ, is it? First and foremost?

People tend to listen better when their bellies are full and they have a roof over their heads.

It is about faith believed and professed. I mentioned our severe weather shelter. You wouldn’t be received into the Catholic Church because you worked there.

I am all too aware of that. I recall quite distinctly being received into the RCC via the rights of baptism and confirmation.

This you won’t like at all, but here it is. There are some things concerning the faith and the Church that Catholics know are not up for discussion. To seek to discuss them is to pick a fight. There is no way to “reasonably” pick a fight.

Please let us know so we can avoid mentioning any unmentionables to you. We are under the impression that human beings can discuss any issue without being ugly.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Do you claim to speak for all Catholics on this?

That’s a meaningless question, since we are not dealing with a matter of opinion, but with the teachings of the Church. The truth of, say, the contents of the Catechism, has nothing to do with votes of assembled Catholics, or consensus, or some such.

And Christ Himself performed miracles, including feeding and healing, so people would - not be better off physically, though they certainly were, but that they would BELIEVE.

Robin Meyers is a 25+ year pastor at a UCC church in Nebraska. Since you haven’t read the book, it might be better not to comment on what you THINK it contains. But do as you wish.

Am I to take it that he purposefully placed a misleading title on his book? And his experience and credentials do not particularly recommend him as a teacher of the Catholic faith.

One more thing. The Church has identified separating “Jesus” and “Christ” as a Chrystological heresy. I know it’s fashionable in some circles to do that - the local Anglican bishop in these parts is notorious for it - but still the title comes off as rather unsavoury.

My to say that a church believes in missioning to the world doesn’t eliminate it’s worship or testimony as believers. In fact some, SOME, might argue that the church evangelizes most effectively by living out its beliefs rather than simply stating them. Saving of souls for eternity is somewhat more recent Church pronouncement than you might think. It was not original to the first churches.

There’s no question that “faith without works is dead.” And saving souls is “recent” only if the Book of Acts is recent.

Certainly not, but it’s a good start. Believing a set of precepts need not make one a Christian either. Don’t forget you folks are the one’s who claim that works are required.

I said nothing of precepts, so that’s a red herring. And what we claim is that “faith without works is dead.”

People tend to listen better when their bellies are full and they have a roof over their heads.

And the Church teaches that feeding the hungry is a Cardinal Act of Mercy.

I am all too aware of that. I recall quite distinctly being received into the RCC via the rights of baptism and confirmation.

Please let us know so we can avoid mentioning any unmentionables to you. We are under the impression that human beings can discuss any issue without being ugly.

I am left to wonder, then, how you can doubt that the Catholic Church places emphasis on what is believed? And in another post I’ve addressed the other item.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Gerry Hunter;5494894]That’s a meaningless question, since we are not dealing with a matter of opinion, but with the teachings of the Church. The truth of, say, the contents of the Catechism, has nothing to do with votes of assembled Catholics, or consensus, or some such.

And Christ Himself performed miracles, including feeding and healing, so people would - not be better off physically, though they certainly were, but that they would BELIEVE.

I don’t think it’s meaningless at all. You said the RCC is first about what one believes. I’ve never seen that stated in any document. In fact, I think the RCC places great emphasis on what it does in its missions. I again, have no idea wherein you get the impression that this is something about a consensus of votes. I merely asked whether this is your opinion about what is foremost to the church or whether you were speaking of fact, something tangible that you can point to in writing.

I would never wish to claim that Christ only healed for the purpose of belief. John’s Gospel, the latest, does seem to focus on public displays for the purpose of convincing others to believe, but the Synoptics have a much different take. Here Jesus continually admonishes those he cures to “tell no one.” He praises their great faith, but it’s unclear what that faith is–it seems to me it is faith that he can actually heal.

Am I to take it that he purposefully placed a misleading title on his book? And his experience and credentials do not particularly recommend him as a teacher of the Catholic faith.

You rather misstate his book I think. There is absolutely nothing wrong with worship. One hopes we all do it and often. But it is not what our churches should be foremost about I would argue. More we should be doing what Christ instructed us to do. He seemed quite clear about our responsibilites to each other.

Meyers is not offered as a “teacher of the RC faith.” that would be ludicrous. If you only read Catholic generated material then of course, you wouldn’t be interested, but of course I know of no directive that you can’t learn from other sources. It is wise I think, to gain perspective from others. It is of course your call for yourself.

One more thing. The Church has identified separating “Jesus” and “Christ” as a Chrystological heresy. I know it’s fashionable in some circles to do that - the local Anglican bishop in these parts is notorious for it - but still the title comes off as rather unsavoury.

I’m not clear what you mean here. Christ is both human and divine. It is most clear that th synoptics speak most of the Jesus, and John mostly about Christ. Since Christologies have been rather well examined by Catholic theologians, I’d be interested in your claims here that it is heresy to speak of them separately? It is perhaps humanly impossible to speak of them together it would seem. Do you have a link?

There’s no question that “faith without works is dead.” And saving souls is “recent” only if the Book of Acts is recent.

No doubt you believe that the bible is the word of God and don’t believe in any modern exegetical work? I can assure you that most scholars and many of the catholic variety would argue that personal salvation in the sense of after death and eternity were not original to the first churches in the realm. Saving souls had to do with transformation in this life to take on the mantle of Christ and go into the world preaching the kingdom on earth. Heavenly salvation was a later addition to explain why Jesus hadn’t returned as was expected in the gospels and in early Paul.

And the Church teaches that feeding the hungry is a Cardinal Act of Mercy.

What does that mean in praxis? A teaching is hollow if not followed through on. I know that the RCC does follow through and does operate food pantries and soup kitchens. Do you claim that you must evangelize first? or feed first?

 

[guanophore]

Fair point

I don’t have a religious background.

I do have an experience where I was launched 60 feet in the air and smashed into a tree the other side of a trail I was checking.

I lay there not being able to feel a thing, and I was certain I was dead, dying or paralysed.

For some reason, out of somewhere within me, I cried out God help me.

When taken back to base and checked over I had nothing more than a sore jaw

I’ve believed in God ever since.

Wow. That sounds very much like “there are no atheists in foxholes” to me. I guess you needed your body parts for whatever you are called to do.

 

[josie_L]

Fair point

I don’t have a religious background.

I do have an experience where I was launched 60 feet in the air and smashed into a tree the other side of a trail I was checking.

I lay there not being able to feel a thing, and I was certain I was dead, dying or paralysed.

For some reason, out of somewhere within me, I cried out God help me.

When taken back to base and checked over I had nothing more than a sore jaw

I’ve believed in God ever since.

I’m very curious but how did you get launched 60 feet in the air?

p.s. you know there are a few soldiers on this forum (and others) you should start a group here at CAF?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

You said the RCC is first about what one believes. I’ve never seen that stated in any document.

Perhaps these lines from the early part of the Compendium of the Catechism will reveal the emphasis to you:

+++
25. How does man respond to God who reveals himself? [142-143]

Sustained by divine grace, we respond to God with the obedience of faith, which means the full surrender of ourselves to God and the acceptance of his truth insofar as it is guaranteed by the One who is Truth itself.

1. Who are the principal witnesses of the obedience of faith in the Sacred Scriptures? [144-149]

There are many such witnesses, two in particular: One is Abraham who when put to the test “believed in God” (Romans 4:3) and always obeyed his call. For this reason he is called “the Father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11-18). The other is the Virgin Mary who, throughout her entire life, embodied in a perfect way the obedience of faith: “Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

1. What does it mean in practice for a person to believe in God? [150-152] [176-178]

It means to adhere to God himself, entrusting oneself to him and giving assent to all the truths which God has revealed because God is Truth. It means to believe in one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
+++

Notice the emphasis on what is believed. Notice that this emphasis asserts itself right at the point where the question of the response to revelation is addressed. Notice also how "“adhere to God” is said to “mean to believe,” and believe in an inexplicable mystery at that.

Now, as to the healing: Also from the Compendium:

+++
314. What is the significance of Jesus’ compassion for the sick? [1503-1505]

The compassion of Jesus toward the sick and his many healings of the infirm were a clear sign that with him had come the Kingdom of God and therefore victory over sin, over suffering, and over death. By his own passion and death he gave new meaning to our suffering which, when united with his own, can become a means of purification and of salvation for us and for others.
+++

I’m not clear what you mean here. Christ is both human and divine. …

Yes, and the Church will not have those natures separated. Many liberal protestant academics have written of the Jesus of history versus the Christ of faith. From the time of the Fathers, the Church would have none of that. It’s in their writings.

No doubt you believe that the bible is the word of God and don’t believe in any modern exegetical work? …

The place of Holy Scripture is also set out in the Compendium:

+++
19. How is Sacred Scripture to be read? [109-119] [137]

Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria: 1) it must be read with attention to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture; 2) it must be read within the living Tradition of the Church; 3) it must be read with attention to the analogy of faith, that is, the inner harmony which exists among the truths of the faith themselves.
+++

Why would I believe in what the Church does not recommend to me, when it comes to Holy Scripture?

A few articles earlier, the Compendium refers to Holy Scripture as a part of the “proclamation of salvation.” Since she views Scripture itself as a proclamation of salvation, she can hardly see salvation as something that came to be of later concern. And a review of the document will show many, many references to “eternal salvation” of the soul, clearly indicating the sense the word “salvation” is used in the document.

Do you claim that you must evangelize first? or feed first?

Here’s what the Compendium says about faith:

+++
28. What are the characteristics of faith? [153-165] [179-180] [183-184]

Faith is the supernatural virtue which is necessary for salvation. It is a free gift of God and is accessible to all who humbly seek it. The act of faith is a human act, that is, an act of the intellect of a person - prompted by the will moved by God - who freely assents to divine truth. Faith is also certain because it is founded on the Word of God; it works “through charity” (Galatians 5:6); and it continually grows through listening to the Word of God and through prayer. It is, even now, a foretaste of the joys of heaven.
+++

To put feeding first is to overlook the essence of faith. But to fail to feed is to thwart a work of faith. And of course, common sense comes into play. I can’t see trying to evangelize a starving man until I have fed him. But even on feeding him, my work as a Christian is not done. So what you DO first is a pragmatic question. But even where feeding happens first, evangelization is the first priority. Faith, necessary for salvation, is “an act of the intellect of a person …”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Mannyfit75]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The question is exactly as the thread title suggests. Below I have what the intended purpose of it is, per Catholic Answers description of the forum.

Is this what is really going on? When I first came here about 3 years ago, there was a lot of active discussion; a true comparison/contrast of beliefs. Now it seems like it is an opportunity for Catholics to bait Protestants into debates. I guess that is sort of expected to a degree, but can’t talking about “how wonderful Catholicism is” or “why today’s Mass readings apply to Protestants” be done in the Apologetics forum? Instead, people are posting threads degrading others or trying to get a rise out of them. Maybe the intentions are good, but I think this particular forum may have drifted from its intended course.

Can some semblance of honest and heartfelt dialogue be regained? I myself think it is possible to dialogue with others without cheapening or watering down your faith.

Is the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ forum a place for discussion, or just a place for Catholics to share their faith with Non-Catholics? I want to hear from everyone, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Agnostic, et al.

In Christ,
Andrew

Protestants in this forum have corrupted it by imposing their doctrines upon us with their own MAN-MADE Doctrines…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Perhaps these lines from the early part of the Compendium of the Catechism will reveal the emphasis to you:

+++
25. How does man respond to God who reveals himself? [142-143]

Sustained by divine grace, we respond to God with the obedience of faith, which means the full surrender of ourselves to God and the acceptance of his truth insofar as it is guaranteed by the One who is Truth itself.

1. Who are the principal witnesses of the obedience of faith in the Sacred Scriptures? [144-149]

There are many such witnesses, two in particular: One is Abraham who when put to the test “believed in God” (Romans 4:3) and always obeyed his call. For this reason he is called “the Father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11-18). The other is the Virgin Mary who, throughout her entire life, embodied in a perfect way the obedience of faith: “Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

1. What does it mean in practice for a person to believe in God? [150-152] [176-178]

It means to adhere to God himself, entrusting oneself to him and giving assent to all the truths which God has revealed because God is Truth. It means to believe in one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
+++

Notice the emphasis on what is believed. Notice that this emphasis asserts itself right at the point where the question of the response to revelation is addressed. Notice also how "“adhere to God” is said to “mean to believe,” and believe in an inexplicable mystery at that.

Now, as to the healing: Also from the Compendium:

+++
314. What is the significance of Jesus’ compassion for the sick? [1503-1505]

The compassion of Jesus toward the sick and his many healings of the infirm were a clear sign that with him had come the Kingdom of God and therefore victory over sin, over suffering, and over death. By his own passion and death he gave new meaning to our suffering which, when united with his own, can become a means of purification and of salvation for us and for others.
+++

Yes, and the Church will not have those natures separated. Many liberal protestant academics have written of the Jesus of history versus the Christ of faith. From the time of the Fathers, the Church would have none of that. It’s in their writings.

The place of Holy Scripture is also set out in the Compendium:

+++
19. How is Sacred Scripture to be read? [109-119] [137]

Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria: 1) it must be read with attention to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture; 2) it must be read within the living Tradition of the Church; 3) it must be read with attention to the analogy of faith, that is, the inner harmony which exists among the truths of the faith themselves.
+++

Why would I believe in what the Church does not recommend to me, when it comes to Holy Scripture?

A few articles earlier, the Compendium refers to Holy Scripture as a part of the “proclamation of salvation.” Since she views Scripture itself as a proclamation of salvation, she can hardly see salvation as something that came to be of later concern. And a review of the document will show many, many references to “eternal salvation” of the soul, clearly indicating the sense the word “salvation” is used in the document.

Here’s what the Compendium says about faith:

+++
28. What are the characteristics of faith? [153-165] [179-180] [183-184]

Faith is the supernatural virtue which is necessary for salvation. It is a free gift of God and is accessible to all who humbly seek it. The act of faith is a human act, that is, an act of the intellect of a person - prompted by the will moved by God - who freely assents to divine truth. Faith is also certain because it is founded on the Word of God; it works “through charity” (Galatians 5:6); and it continually grows through listening to the Word of God and through prayer. It is, even now, a foretaste of the joys of heaven.
+++

To put feeding first is to overlook the essence of faith. But to fail to feed is to thwart a work of faith. And of course, common sense comes into play. I can’t see trying to evangelize a starving man until I have fed him. But even on feeding him, my work as a Christian is not done. So what you DO first is a pragmatic question. But even where feeding happens first, evangelization is the first priority. Faith, necessary for salvation, is “an act of the intellect of a person …”

Blessings,

Gerry

I get where you are coming from Gary. Thanks. I recall a new Bishop tried to explain to the Sisters of a convent that they needed nothing but the bible and the CCC. They didn’t exactly take well to that. But I see how you are interpreting the CCC. Blessings to you.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I get where you are coming from Gary. Thanks. I recall a new Bishop tried to explain to the Sisters of a convent that they needed nothing but the bible and the CCC. They didn’t exactly take well to that. But I see how you are interpreting the CCC. Blessings to you.

Actually, since I read it with the Church, not in isolation, I see what the writers said. And it’s not arcane or obscure, but rather like a section of harmony in a symphonic composition. Try to read it any other way, and it becomes rather like noise, not music.

A pity the sisters “didn’t take to it well.” A Bishop is part of the Magisterium, and exercises the teaching authority of the Church. They do not. Hopefully, they didn’t turn to some renegade Catholic academic as a substitute.

Blessings,

Gerry