How or why?

[PRmerger]

How is it in Catholicism? I think there’s something in paragraphs 2009 and 2010 of the CCC that connects merit more strongly with salvific reward, and elsewhere, I think there’s something about these materials going into a “treasury of merit” over with the pope has control. Any comments on that? I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to explain either of those to the satisfaction of a reasonably knowledgeable Catholic, so I’d appreciate if you could show me how that’s done.

Here’s what the Catechism states, cooterhein:

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

**“Treasury of merit” is not mentioned at all. ** Nor is “control of the pope”.

[SIGN]With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. CCC 2007[/SIGN]

 

[elvisman]

The church was teaching faith and works. Remember the Judaizers telling the gentiles they had to be circumcised to be Christian? That faith alone in Christ was insufficient.

The Judaizers did not speak for the Church. They were teaching a renegade belief and that’s whyc the apostles say in ther letter in Acts 15:24:
*"Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind . . ." *

The Church was NOT teaching works apart from faith - but faith and works just as Paul did. Paul wrote against works of the LAW (Mosaic) - not acts of charity.**

With Paul’s own mouth he says “I did not consult any man,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles” Before he preached. I have given scripture references to support my position. Please see my last post.

We already KNOW that he got his mandate from God. We are going in circles here because you refuse to understand. His mandate, however was NOT different doctrine than that of the rest of the Church.

Paul made several trips to Jerusalem please read scripture for yourself to see the details.

One LAST time:
We are ONLY talking about his trip to the Council of Jerusalem.
If he wen’t there 75 more times, it wouldn’t matter. We are only discussing his bowing to the authority of the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[cooterhein]

**“Treasury of merit” is not mentioned at all. ** Nor is “control of the pope”.

I only meant to say 2009-2010 made a connection between works done in grace and eternal reward that involves eternal life (which seems like a salvific reward??? though it doesn’t put those two words together). I meant to say the treasury of merit is spoken of elsewhere, although that might not even be in the Catechism. I really don’t know where that turns up. If you do, that would be most helpful.

 

[jericho777]

But you keep missing Acts 13, where in v 3, he is ordained before going on his mission:

2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

And Gal 2:2:

2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Could it be your understanding is different because you want to (name removed by moderator)ut in the verse something you want to believe or confirm something you believe, for to see the true meaning of the verse, it would go against what have taught you?

“Works of the Law”…was this in Romans?..which would indicate Paul was talking about the law of Moses, if you stop picking and choosing verses, and read the whole chapter and consider the context, you would come to a different conclusion and would be in line with the Gospels.

In Acts 13 Paul in having hands laid on him to impart the Power of God to lead him on his journey. Paul states in Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, His ordination is solely from God and not of man. The laying on of hands is common practice in bible based churches imparting the Power of God to accomplish as specific task.

In Gal 2:2 Paul is telling them what the Lord had revealed to him to preach.

On the contrary when I read the bible I let the text dictate the meaning. I take no preconceived notion to the table. I just let the word of God speak.

The central issue in Acts 15:1 is works of the law (circumcision). The church was teaching circumcision Paul taught it was in Christ alone apart from the law.

 

[elvisman]

In Acts 13 Paul in having hands laid on him to impart the Power of God to lead him on his journey. Paul states in Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, His ordination is solely from God and not of man. The laying on of hands is common practice in bible based churches imparting the Power of God to accomplish as specific task.

**It’s common in the Original Bible Church as well - the Catholic Church, which wrote, compiled and declared the canon of Scripture.

In Gal 2:2 Paul is telling them what the Lord had revealed to him to preach.

On the contrary when I read the bible I let the text dictate the meaning. I take no preconceived notion to the table. I just let the word of God speak.

**What about all of the other Protestants who have different interpretations than you do? Did God speak to them? **

**What about the ones that differ from you on core issues such as Baptismal Regeneration?
Existence of Hell?
The Holy Trinity? **

Is God revealing the truth to them - or do they have it wrong?

The central issue in Acts 15:1 is works of the law (circumcision). The church was teaching circumcision Paul taught it was in Christ alone apart from the law.

WRONG.
**Read my post #163 where I explained to you - yet again - that you are not telling the truth.
The Church was NOT teaching this. Your insistence that it did and your false claims only serve to discredit your entire position.

Since you seem to want to continue to spread this lie about the Early Church - I will continue to expose you at every turn.

 

[jericho777]

The Judaizers did not speak for the Church. They were teaching a renegade belief and that’s whyc the apostles say in ther letter in Acts 15:24:
"Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind . . ."

The Church was NOT teaching works apart from faith - but faith and works just as Paul did. Paul wrote against works of the LAW (Mosaic) -* not* acts of charity.

We already KNOW that he got his mandate from God. We are going in circles here because you refuse to understand. His mandate, however was NOT different doctrine than that of the rest of the Church.

**One LAST **time:
We are ONLY talking about his trip to the Council of Jerusalem.
If he wen’t there 75 more times, it wouldn’t matter. We are only discussing his bowing to the authority of the Council of Jerusalem.

They were not directly sent from the church but they were teaching what the church was practicing. If what the Judaizers were teaching was not church doctrine then why did the council have to convene to say it was faith alone?

Paul’s mandate was from God alone.

If Paul’s doctrine was from God do you think the council could change Paul’s mind. Paul and Barnabas were more than a little ticked off at the thought of works plus faith. Peter even chimes in saying they are tempting God by adding works to faith. God foreordained for the whole situation to bring the church into harmony with what He had already taught Paul.

 

[cooterhein]

Actually this is how I approach it and by all means, I am not an expert on ecumenical issues or topics. First, I believe that religion/faith and/or God should not be forced fed to anyone. Second,when I meet Protestants who are truly interested, I tell them what the Catholic Church teaches and try to eliminate any misconceptions he or she or they may have about Catholicism. Third, I tell them that as Catholics we believe and teach conversion is a life time process,not a one time event. Conversion involves one who willingly submits his or her life and will to follow Jesus Christ. Fourth,salvation is a conversion of heart and from a life of sin to a life of righteousness. Finally,as Catholics and Protestants we must focus on our similarities and listen to our differences and respect them.

Thank you for sharing that! You mentioned that you are employed by the Catholic Church in some way, so I thought some of the initiation of ecumenical dialogue and/or shared (albeit limited) activities might involve you in a direct kind of way. It’s one thing to interact on a forum, but there’s more obstacles to overcome when you’re actually doing something in person. Thank you very much for telling me about how you approach them.

 

[elvisman]

They were not directly sent from the church but they were teaching what the church was practicing. If what the Judaizers were teaching was not church doctrine then why did the council have to convene to say it was faith alone?

Paul’s mandate was from God alone.

If Paul’s doctrine was from God do you think the council could change Paul’s mind. Paul and Barnabas were more than a little ticked off at the thought of works plus faith. Peter even chimes in saying they are tempting God by adding works to faith. God foreordained for the whole situation to bring the church into harmony with what He had already taught Paul.

**The bottom line - again - is that the Judaizers did not act on behalf of the Church. THAT’S what the test says.

You are imposing your own presupposition where they do not exist in Scripture.

For a Sola Scripturist, you sure don’t adhere to it very closely. Scripture alone, right?

 

[pablope]

In Acts 13 Paul in having hands laid on him to impart the Power of God to lead him on his journey. Paul states in Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, His ordination is solely from God and not of man. The laying on of hands is common practice in bible based churches imparting the Power of God to accomplish as specific task.

In Gal 2:2 Paul is telling them what the Lord had revealed to him to preach.

The central issue in Acts 15:1 is works of the law (circumcision). The church was teaching circumcision Paul taught it was in Christ alone apart from the law.

Jericho…you are arguing your protestant perspective on the laying of hands. First, keep in your thoughts that the Bible was written and compiled by Catholics, whether you like it or not, and it was intended for use by Catholics, and will be, or should be understood the way it was meant to be by the RCC.

Laying of hands…this is the method of ordination into the priesthood carried on to this day…i think carried on from Judaism…so Paul is laid hands on…not to empower him with God or the HS…for he is already empowered by the HS with his direct revelation…but to ordain him in the priesthood of Christ…as understood by the Apostles…hence, he has apostolic succession. And this is his humility and respect for authority.

Keep in your thought too, St Paul did not establish his own separate church, but established churches in union with the Peter and the Apostles. He reported back to them the progress he was making…in other words…here is accountability.

Do you see a separate Gospel of Paul or Church of Paul, that is apart from the RCC?

On the contrary when I read the bible I let the text dictate the meaning. I take no preconceived notion to the table. I just let the word of God speak.

Actually, I think you just contradicted yourself. You are saying or trying to argue your point of view on the laying of hands from your perspective, which unwittingly, is your tradition. You are not letting the text dictate the meaning, you are (name removed by moderator)utting what you want it to mean,or what you were told what it meant. And you are doing the same thing with Gal 2:2.

 

[PRmerger]

I only meant to say 2009-2010 made a connection between works done in grace and eternal reward that involves eternal life (which seems like a salvific reward??? though it doesn’t put those two words together).

Yes.

“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”

 

[cooterhein]

Yes.

“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”

I do appreciate brevity (even if I’m not always good at it), but what is it that you conclude from this? What sort of if/then statement do you make? What’s your starting point and your end point? Or does it fit somewhere in the middle of a larger sequence with a different starting point? (That’s what I would do, btw, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to).

 

[PRmerger]

I do appreciate brevity (even if I’m not always good at it),

but what is it that you conclude from this?

That the Scriptures tell us that work is required if one wants to “come after” Christ. Carrying a cross is work, eh?

The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom. CCC 2022

 

[fbl9]

Thank you, man! You’re asking some really good questions. I’m happy to respond.

I don’t believe Luther was ever protected from error by the Holy Spirit, but I also believe SS is the right way to go about doing things and I do follow it. I also think it helps to understand it in its relationship to the other Solas rather than a standalone doctrine. I do believe Luther was able to be guided by the Holy Spirit to the same extent that all Christians are, but again, I don’t believe he was protected from error. That certainly doesn’t mean he was incapable of getting some things right, though.

The materials listed are gold, silver, wood, hay, stubble, something along the lines of “precious stones”…I don’t think they correspond to material things, but to the body of work that individual Christians do throughout their lives. In some Bibles, I’m sure there’s a cross-reference to the passage where Jesus says to store up treasure in heaven and not on earth. It seems that the quality of each Christian’s body of work on earth corresponds to a couple of things: various materials used by analogy, and the nature of the non-salvific rewards that Christians receive in heaven. Some commentaries might draw a comparison to the parable of the rich fool, as well. I think there’s some application from that parable that makes a similar point about how the things done on earth are of eternal consequence, and the lives we live as Christians now will have something to do with how it is in eternity. Not that the eternal destination is different, of course- but the kind of reward that will be there waiting for us depends on what happens now.

How is it in Catholicism? I think there’s something in paragraphs 2009 and 2010 of the CCC that connects merit more strongly with salvific reward, and elsewhere, I think there’s something about these materials going into a “treasury of merit” over with the pope has control. Any comments on that? I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to explain either of those to the satisfaction of a reasonably knowledgeable Catholic, so I’d appreciate if you could show me how that’s done.

I understand that there are other sola’s taught.I a am not saying it is a stand alone doctrine but this sola is responsible for differing faith communities.SDA, Church of Chirst, etc. and others some which do not even hold to the five solas.For example you and a Lutherun hold a different teaching for the doctrine of sola scripture.Yes you follow sola scripture but do you beleive it is wrought of the Holy Spirit’s guidence?
The writing of St.Paul to the Corithians does do not speak of lay persons but of preachers/teachers.Read verses 5-16 it is clear St.Paul is not speaking of individuals on the whole.
PRmerger answered the rest.

 

[fbl9]

If the truth is subject to error can it still be the truth?

Engine rebuilding 101
Cooterhien came to me saying his motor was in need of rebuilding.Itell him which parts to replace and which ones can be reused.I tell him to tighten the main caps to 80ftlbs, the rod caps i tell to tighten not as much as the main caps. I tell cooterhien to tighten the head bolts to 65ftlbs but tighten them in a sequence but do not give him the proper sequence.When he is all done he fires it up and it runs smoothly.But because he tightened the head bolts in an incorect sequence he has warped the heads and it leaks anti-freeze.

Others use the instructions i gave cooterhien to rebuild thier motors.I give these people the correct sequence for tightening the head bolts.But still do not give the correct torque for the rod bolts. Some tightened their rod bolts too much and others not enough. Becuase they have tightened the bolts to tight the engine seizes up over time. Those that didn’t make their bolts tight enough find when they apply the engine it fragments.

Did i give cootherhien truthful instructions? Did i give the others truthful instructions?

 

[cooterhein]

I understand that there are other sola’s taught.I a am not saying it is a stand alone doctrine but this sola is responsible for differing faith communities.SDA, Church of Chirst, etc. and others some which do not even hold to the five solas.

I’m going to say Protestant doctrines can’t be held responsible for differing faith communities because it assumes a natural starting point of “perfect unity.” I actually think a variety of faith communities in different parts of the world is the natural course of events, and the extent to which this is avoided depends on herculean efforts by those who wish to unite everyone under one world leader. In order to keep the natural course of things from happening, you (or anyone else) has to try really, really hard to stop it from happening.

Most non-Catholics just stopped trying to prevent it from happening. Christianity as a whole is headed toward less centralized governance, and at this point, we have no reservations about helping the process along while doing what we normally do.

For example you and a Lutherun hold a different teaching for the doctrine of sola scripture.Yes you follow sola scripture but do you beleive it is wrought of the Holy Spirit’s guidence?

I think I’m on the same page with Lutherans across the board when it comes to SS, but I can double-check.

The writing of St.Paul to the Corithians does do not speak of lay persons but of preachers/teachers.Read verses 5-16 it is clear St.Paul is not speaking of individuals on the whole.

Which chapter is that? I might want to take a look at that.

I hope you don’t mind if I run a hypothetical by you real quick, too. Suppose there is some preaching and/or teaching in my future- probably not in the role of a senior pastor, but in actuality, you can treat this hypothetical as something that’s fairly probable.

So a guy decides he wants to do something along those lines. (This is me, in the third person). He goes to seminary. He learns his way around the Bible, around lexical aids, around ancient languages and commentaries, etc. He’s encouraged to seek the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit every step of the way and tries to do so consistently. This takes a good 7 or 8 years- maybe more, in this economy. Are you saying he’s unable to actually be guided by the Holy Spirit until he’s ordained? Because in my experience, people generally get ordained after they’ve shown that they are depending on God and being led by Him through this whole process. If they’re not, we aren’t going to assume that prayer and laying on of hands will make any difference.

Do you?

Is it different in Catholicism? And…this actually leads to a bunch of different questions. Do some people just bypass formal training and get the appropriate ritual done, expecting God to immediately respond by giving them supernatural abilities through the laying on of hands? When young Catholic guys decide to start going to school for this stuff, do some of them get a leg up by having a pre-emptive laying on of hands so God will be on their side as they go through training? Is that acceptable? Realistically, do you think it would work?

Additionally, while there are many excellent Catholic speakers, teachers, etc., there are a billion Catholics in the world and not enough people formally trained to do what needs to be done. Every once in awhile, you’ll see a Catholic priest who- despite the valid and licit whatever-it-is- makes contributions to his parish that are slightly less useful than tips from Dr. Phil, demonstrates interpretive skills that are sub-par, and feels free to depart from Catholic tradition to the extent that you sometimes see people talk about on here. I’m not talking about anything unrealistic, although it doesn’t represent every Catholic priest- just the ones who do a poor job and then get written up on CAF. What do you make of those guys? What happened to these pastors and teachers? Do you assume that they had the mojo and lost it, or do you view ordination as something less than mystical or miraculous? Or maybe something else entirely?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m going to say Protestant doctrines can’t be held responsible for differing faith communities because it assumes a natural starting point of “perfect unity.” I actually think a variety of faith communities in different parts of the world is the natural course of events, and the extent to which this is avoided depends on herculean efforts by those who wish to unite everyone under one world leader. In order to keep the natural course of things from happening, you (or anyone else) has to try really, really hard to stop it from happening.

The natural course of all things in the universe is to move toward entropy.

Entropy is defined as a deterioration of a system. It is a measure of disorder or randomness.

What you describe above is not a positive thing, cooterhein.

This limns the chaos and confusion that is just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

Catholicism is the antidote to this, thanks be to God!

 

[PRmerger]

Additionally, while there are many excellent Catholic speakers, teachers, etc., there are a billion Catholics in the world and not enough people formally trained to do what needs to be done. Every once in awhile, you’ll see a Catholic priest who- despite the valid and licit whatever-it-is- makes contributions to his parish that are slightly less useful than tips from Dr. Phil, demonstrates interpretive skills that are sub-par, and feels free to depart from Catholic tradition to the extent that you sometimes see people talk about on here. I’m not talking about anything unrealistic, although it doesn’t represent every Catholic priest- just the ones who do a poor job and then get written up on CAF. What do you make of those guys? What happened to these pastors and teachers? Do you assume that they had the mojo and lost it, or do you view ordination as something less than mystical or miraculous? Or maybe something else entirely?

The example you pose could well be applied to any baptized Christian. It parallels rather nicely with the sacrament of Holy Orders. Both involve a mystical, profound change in the universe. IOW, what existed 3 seconds prior to (ordination, baptism) exists no more. The universe is changed forever at the moment of the configuration of these sacraments. This indelible mark cannot be erased–ever–from the soul of those so gifted.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa says (paraphrasing): if we could look into what happens into the soul of the newly baptized (and, I add, the ordained), nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

Thus, one could very well ask the same question of any baptized Christian who strays. Did they lose their mojo?

Or, did they, by virtue of their free will, refuse to cooperate with the supernatural grace that dwells within them?

 

[PRmerger]

So a guy decides he wants to do something along those lines. (This is me, in the third person). He goes to seminary. He learns his way around the Bible, around lexical aids, around ancient languages and commentaries, etc. He’s encouraged to seek the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit every step of the way and tries to do so consistently.

This is curious. In this paradigm, why would anyone even bother to go to seminary? Why not “seek the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit every step of the way” and bypass the seminary? Isn’t the Holy Spirit’s guidance…er… enough?

 

[cooterhein]

This is curious. In this paradigm, why would anyone even bother to go to seminary? Why not “seek the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit every step of the way” and bypass the seminary? Isn’t the Holy Spirit’s guidance…er… enough?

Where’d you get that idea?

 

[PRmerger]

Where’d you get that idea?

I don’t understand the necessity of seminary, (in your paradigm), if the Holy Spirit is providing the guidance.

You have the Bible. You have the Holy Spirit. Why go to seminary?