E
Eden
Guest
Mark- that’s funny! But I was asking Reen. Sorry to exclude you in this one. 
I See So Many Dissention Threads Here, Why Do You Insist? Know The Truth!!!!!
- Status
R
reggie
Guest
reen12,
you are confused by what the Church is and does for the believer.
Genesis315 has given you just the breakdown of the focus of the mass and may I say, done it very well.
But, allow me to try to clarify what the mission of the church is and why there is such emphasis on membership and attending mass.
Yes, Jesus is our salvation and redeemer. There is no other name upon which salvation rests and the church always, always acknowledges that. But, we must not then ignore all of the other words of Jesus. We must accept even those with which we disagree. Jesus said He would build a church and so He did. You may not accept the Catholic church as that of Jesus, but that does not mean that it is not His church.
The church does not and never has taught or held that she is the salvation of people. What the church says of itself is this:
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, whoever believes in Him, even though he dies, will live forever. This is true, yet, it is not the whole truth. We as followers of Jesus, saved by Him and who are now brothers and sisters of God, through Christ are called to believe and to act. We must co-operate with Jesus in out own salvation. Jesus was expected to do the will of God and never did He do otherwise. Why then would we be able to not do God’s will?
Jesus understood that we are in this world and would be tempted and would sin because of this. In His grace and love, He established a church to evangelize the world and to administer His sacraments. It is through the church that we learn of Jesus, learn how to love Jesus and learn of God’s will for us. It is through the church that we receive the sacraments and through them the grace to live God’s will.
The church does not hold itself up as the salvation of men. It says, here you will find Jesus in the sacraments, come and be refreshed, sanctified and strenthened for your journey through the valley of death until you find eternal rest with God. Membership and regular mass attendence is a little like filling your car with gas and changing the oil, important maintenance without which you may find yourself dead on the side of the road.
you are confused by what the Church is and does for the believer.
Genesis315 has given you just the breakdown of the focus of the mass and may I say, done it very well.
But, allow me to try to clarify what the mission of the church is and why there is such emphasis on membership and attending mass.
Yes, Jesus is our salvation and redeemer. There is no other name upon which salvation rests and the church always, always acknowledges that. But, we must not then ignore all of the other words of Jesus. We must accept even those with which we disagree. Jesus said He would build a church and so He did. You may not accept the Catholic church as that of Jesus, but that does not mean that it is not His church.
The church does not and never has taught or held that she is the salvation of people. What the church says of itself is this:
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, whoever believes in Him, even though he dies, will live forever. This is true, yet, it is not the whole truth. We as followers of Jesus, saved by Him and who are now brothers and sisters of God, through Christ are called to believe and to act. We must co-operate with Jesus in out own salvation. Jesus was expected to do the will of God and never did He do otherwise. Why then would we be able to not do God’s will?
Jesus understood that we are in this world and would be tempted and would sin because of this. In His grace and love, He established a church to evangelize the world and to administer His sacraments. It is through the church that we learn of Jesus, learn how to love Jesus and learn of God’s will for us. It is through the church that we receive the sacraments and through them the grace to live God’s will.
The church does not hold itself up as the salvation of men. It says, here you will find Jesus in the sacraments, come and be refreshed, sanctified and strenthened for your journey through the valley of death until you find eternal rest with God. Membership and regular mass attendence is a little like filling your car with gas and changing the oil, important maintenance without which you may find yourself dead on the side of the road.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Eden said:
<putting on Devil’s Advocate mask, chucking in spanner>
Isn’t the Japanese Empire about a generation older than the Church ?
As for numbers: the Roman Empire in the year 30 AD was vast - and quite well populated. And the religion of the City was much older than faith in Christ: which is why the Apologists had difficulty in making themselves heard: their religion was new-fangled, and their founder had come from an obscure backwater of the Empire - and, worse still, been crucified, by due process of law
IOW, Christianity had absolutely no prestige, and was tiny to start with.
Hinduism is thousands of years older - and is still very much alive. ##
E
Eden
Guest
Thank you reen12. I realize that the reason we are not connecting on this idea is that you see the word “Church” differently. To a Catholic, there is Jesus and there is his bride- the Church. As the Church is Jesus’ Church on Earth, the disclaimer “Jesus’ Church” is unnecessary and understood to a Catholic. The word “Church” with a capital “C” does not refer to the physical structure in which one prays. The history and structure of the Church is our inheritance from Jesus himself. So, when we say “the Church”, the presence of Jesus is understood. The Church is our resevoir here on Earth of Jesus’ instructions and teachings. I understand why the idea of church means just church to non-Catholics since no one else can make that claim. So, by extension, I understand your confusion.Dear Eden,
That’s not my point.
An analogy that would be better suited might be:
It’s like talking about “marriage” [Church] a good
deal of the time, while marginalizing the
“Bridegroom” [Jesus]. cf. post #15
Just my take,
reen12
“God’s Freelance
I am trying to think of a way to illustrate this difference in a way that you may understand. Perhaps, a secular reference may work. Think of what you think when I say “stars and stripes”. To an American there are unspoken ideas behind “stars and stripes” that are understood- the flag and by extension courage, freedom, democracy, the founding fathers, etc. A non-American would take the words “stars and stripes” literally while we understand a much deeper, unspoken meaning.
By the way, I would change around your analogy as the Church itself does not = marriage. You have Jesus. You have Jesus’ bride the Church. The Church is not in a marriage alone nor is Jesus in a union yet “marginalized”.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Eden said:
Yes. The Orthodox Church has an unbroken history for 2000 years.
Taking the most obvious examples… there are the Patriarchates of Jerusalem (Saint James was its first bishop) and Alexandria (founded by Saint Mark) and Antioch (founded by Saint Peter). These bishops have an unbroken connection with the Apostles who founded them 2000 years ago.
Many other Orthodox Churches have the same connection with the Apostles.
The Churches of Cyprus and Crete have their foundation from the Apostle Paul and Saint Barnabas. The churches of Thessalonica, and Athens and Sparta are all still there today and have an apostolic foundation. Many of today’s Greek churches were founded by the Apostles
The Church of Smyrna which is mentioned as one of the Seven Churches in the Book of Revelation is still there, even though it has undergone severe persecution from the Turks. In 1922, 100,000 Orthodox Christians were martyred in Smyrna but the Church there still lives today.
E
Eden
Guest
Hi Fr. Ambrose! Happy Pascha! (Did I spell that correctly?) I understand the Orthodox and Roman Catholic common history. I’m asking reen12 about her church. She says she is “God’s freelance” but I don’t know what that means.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Dear Eden,
Thanks for your greetings. Yes Easter was yesterday for us (in New Zealand) I suppose in the States it is still Sunday.
I am glad that you understand Orthodox and Roman Catholic history, but the author of that article was all at sea, poor man.
E
Eden
Guest
Fr. Ambrose
Yes, it’s still “yesterday” here. I’ve learned a lot about the Orthodox from your posts - so I’m more knowledgeable then I was when I joined this forum. Thanks for the education.
Yes, it’s still “yesterday” here. I’ve learned a lot about the Orthodox from your posts - so I’m more knowledgeable then I was when I joined this forum. Thanks for the education.
M
Matthew_P
Guest
Dear Eden,
The correct greeting for Orthodox Christians is; Christ is Risen! and the response is Indeed He is Risen! There is a ton of theology in that venerable and ancient tradition.
I think that the notion of being “God’s freelance” means a departure from the Orthodox faith. All sorts of strange things can happen when we rely on our own understandings and depart from the Patristic tradition. I remember watching EWTN during Chistmas of last year which boasts of a large audience. The Latin monks brought out a birthday cake and told the audience to do someting specail for Jesus like baking a cake and singing happy birthday to you to Christ. That’s right they had been teaching people to sing to the 2nd person of the most Holy Trinity just like one would to a family member or friend. This of course made me come to the realization that freelancing tradition usually results in reductions and appeals to those of that sort of a mindset. Now when the Latin monks had been singing happy birthday to Jesus Christ one would assume that they had been addressing very young children, suffice it to say they had been addressing adults. As such the reflections and understandings of those Latin monks had been conveyed quite clearly. I sat there scratching my head and understood that the freelance mentality that has been mentioned is limited.
In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin
The correct greeting for Orthodox Christians is; Christ is Risen! and the response is Indeed He is Risen! There is a ton of theology in that venerable and ancient tradition.
I think that the notion of being “God’s freelance” means a departure from the Orthodox faith. All sorts of strange things can happen when we rely on our own understandings and depart from the Patristic tradition. I remember watching EWTN during Chistmas of last year which boasts of a large audience. The Latin monks brought out a birthday cake and told the audience to do someting specail for Jesus like baking a cake and singing happy birthday to you to Christ. That’s right they had been teaching people to sing to the 2nd person of the most Holy Trinity just like one would to a family member or friend. This of course made me come to the realization that freelancing tradition usually results in reductions and appeals to those of that sort of a mindset. Now when the Latin monks had been singing happy birthday to Jesus Christ one would assume that they had been addressing very young children, suffice it to say they had been addressing adults. As such the reflections and understandings of those Latin monks had been conveyed quite clearly. I sat there scratching my head and understood that the freelance mentality that has been mentioned is limited.
In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin
E
Eden
Guest
Thank you for the correction, Matthew. Then I say to you “Chris Is Risen!” I took out my comment reen12. You’re right, that was unfair.
R
reen12
Guest
Hello, Eden,
I offer you an apology, because you may not have
read the multiple posts I’ve written, nor the threads
that I have started.
Suffice it to say that I was trained in both
philosophy and RC theology, and can “go
to the mat” with the best of them when it
comes to defending RC positions.
For a variety of reasons, I find myself out in
no man’s land in terms of faith. [Too long a
story to go into here.] Hence, the term
God’s Freelance, or more risibly, God’s
Lone Ranger, fighting “no-sense” where I
see it.
Mine is, I like to hope, not so much a critical
stance, as it is an observational one. An
existential one.
Of *course *the name Jesus is prayed all the
time in Catholicism. I’d have to be on the
planet Mungo not to see that.
Why is it that when I run into evangelicals
or some Lutherans they cling to Jesus and
say little about “church.”?
The Church’s *theology *is one thing. It’s
practice seems to be another…to me.
I don’t find Jesus in Roman Catholicism,
despite the elegance [in the technical sense]
of it’s theology. There is nothing in this
world to compare with the sophistication
of RC theology. Nothing, in my estimation.
But, in the tangle of systematic theology,
the emphasis on “ecclesia”… to me, Jesus
has been lost in the shuffle.
You may not agree with that. That may not
be your experience. But it is mine.
It is an existential experience-not a theological
one. I’ve seen more real joy in the faces and
voices of evangelicals than I’ve ever seen in
the almost 60 years I’ve spent among the
faithful.
It is a thing of the heart with me, not of the
mind…
Kindest regards,
reen12
"God’s Freelance "
I offer you an apology, because you may not have
read the multiple posts I’ve written, nor the threads
that I have started.
Suffice it to say that I was trained in both
philosophy and RC theology, and can “go
to the mat” with the best of them when it
comes to defending RC positions.
For a variety of reasons, I find myself out in
no man’s land in terms of faith. [Too long a
story to go into here.] Hence, the term
God’s Freelance, or more risibly, God’s
Lone Ranger, fighting “no-sense” where I
see it.
Mine is, I like to hope, not so much a critical
stance, as it is an observational one. An
existential one.
Of *course *the name Jesus is prayed all the
time in Catholicism. I’d have to be on the
planet Mungo not to see that.
Why is it that when I run into evangelicals
or some Lutherans they cling to Jesus and
say little about “church.”?
The Church’s *theology *is one thing. It’s
practice seems to be another…to me.
I don’t find Jesus in Roman Catholicism,
despite the elegance [in the technical sense]
of it’s theology. There is nothing in this
world to compare with the sophistication
of RC theology. Nothing, in my estimation.
But, in the tangle of systematic theology,
the emphasis on “ecclesia”… to me, Jesus
has been lost in the shuffle.
You may not agree with that. That may not
be your experience. But it is mine.
It is an existential experience-not a theological
one. I’ve seen more real joy in the faces and
voices of evangelicals than I’ve ever seen in
the almost 60 years I’ve spent among the
faithful.
It is a thing of the heart with me, not of the
mind…
Kindest regards,
reen12
"God’s Freelance
"
E
Eden
Guest
Thank you for taking the time to explain what you mean by “God’s freelance”. I missed your other posts, it appears. When you say that you were trained in RC theology, do you mean you studied RC theology or you were raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools or both? Your explanation leaves your it open to different interpretations.Hello, Eden,
Suffice it to say that I was trained in both
philosophy and RC theology, and can “go
to the mat” with the best of them when it
comes to defending RC positions.
Why is it that when I run into evangelicals
or some Lutherans they cling to Jesus and
say little about “church.”?
"God’s Freelance
As far as Evangelicals and Lutherans clinging to Jesus and saying little about “church”, did you read my post several posts back about the meaning “Church” to a Catholic and how it fundamentally is referring to Christ himself? To an Evangelical or Lutheran, “church” (with a small c) is not imbued with a larger meaning. Did I make the distinction clear? If not, I’ll try to explain it differently.
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, Matthew P,
“I think that the notion of being “God’s freelance” means a departure from the Orthodox faith. All sorts of strange things can happen when we rely on our own understandings and depart from the Patristic tradition” quote, Matthew P
I am not relying on my own* understanding*. I’m trying to understand my experience.
X says Y. But X doesn’t seem to be evocative of Y.
Why* is* that?
OK, I’ll leave off God’s Freelance. It generates
unnecessary confusion.
reen12
“I think that the notion of being “God’s freelance” means a departure from the Orthodox faith. All sorts of strange things can happen when we rely on our own understandings and depart from the Patristic tradition” quote, Matthew P
I am not relying on my own* understanding*. I’m trying to understand my experience.
X says Y. But X doesn’t seem to be evocative of Y.
Why* is* that?
OK, I’ll leave off God’s Freelance. It generates
unnecessary confusion.
reen12
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, Eden,
Thank you for the patience that you are displaying
toward me.
I had 16 years of Catholic education, and then
7 months of convent life. [Actually, the first
morning I was in the convent, they put a mop
in my hand and requested that I sweep out
the dormitory. Right away, I knew I was in the
wrong spot! Sing ho! for the textbook, not
the mop. A character flaw, I *know. This poor
attitude has been corrected by 30 years of
housekeeping for my family.]
I digress…
Yes, I did understand your explanation of how the
Church:
“fundamentally is referring to Christ himself?”
quote, Eden
BTW, the last 4 years of Catholic education for
me were at a women’s Catholic college where
I took a degree in Philosophy and many courses
in theology…in the sixties.
The only way that I can explain where I’m at, now,
is to say that I have stepped out of the realm
of Apostolic churches entirely. The fresh air
out here is amazing.
I don’t ask you to accept my experience as
valid, theologically, but only to be aware of same.
Best,
reen12
Thank you for the patience that you are displaying
toward me.
I had 16 years of Catholic education, and then
7 months of convent life. [Actually, the first
morning I was in the convent, they put a mop
in my hand and requested that I sweep out
the dormitory. Right away, I knew I was in the
wrong spot!
Sing ho! for the textbook, notthe mop. A character flaw, I *know. This poor
attitude has been corrected by 30 years of
housekeeping for my family.]
I digress…
Yes, I did understand your explanation of how the
Church:
“fundamentally is referring to Christ himself?”
quote, Eden
BTW, the last 4 years of Catholic education for
me were at a women’s Catholic college where
I took a degree in Philosophy and many courses
in theology…in the sixties.
The only way that I can explain where I’m at, now,
is to say that I have stepped out of the realm
of Apostolic churches entirely. The fresh air
out here is amazing.
I don’t ask you to accept my experience as
valid, theologically, but only to be aware of same.
Best,
reen12
E
Eden
Guest
Your honesty with yourself about your doubts is commendable. I can see your philosopher’s mind working when you say you are “outside” the Church. I think that after you observe the Church from the outsider’s viewpoint, you’ll find yourself returning to the faith even more deeply.
Your story about the first day in the convent reminded me of St. Therese of Lisieux (my grandma’s favorite saint) who would routinely scrub the floor alongside the other nuns. One nun who was always next to her was oblivious to the soapy water that would splash back on St. Therese as they worked. Rather than say anything, St. Therese notes in her writings, that she offered it up. This is certainly not an attitude that would come naturally to me.
I understand what you mean about the “joy” of Evangelicals. But the active, outward displays of faith are not something that I understand. Faithful Catholics tend to have a serenity vs. outward ecstasy. I feel more comfortable around serenity.
Your story about the first day in the convent reminded me of St. Therese of Lisieux (my grandma’s favorite saint) who would routinely scrub the floor alongside the other nuns. One nun who was always next to her was oblivious to the soapy water that would splash back on St. Therese as they worked. Rather than say anything, St. Therese notes in her writings, that she offered it up. This is certainly not an attitude that would come naturally to me.
I understand what you mean about the “joy” of Evangelicals. But the active, outward displays of faith are not something that I understand. Faithful Catholics tend to have a serenity vs. outward ecstasy. I feel more comfortable around serenity.
R
reen12
Guest
Dear Eden,
Thank you for your most charitable response.
And why do I think you might be right?
There’s probably nothing like seeing Holy
Mother Church from the “outside” to draw
someone like me ‘home.’ I’ll just have to wait
and see.
I’ve certainly lived long enuff by now to know
that human nature doesn’t change…even
when a ‘denomination’ changes.
Someone pointed out to me in another
thread, I think, that a person all alight with
Jesus in the pew is not necessarily a dream
to deal with in personal life.
But, seriously, I am being more and more
drawn to the “faith alone” position.
As Thomas More tells his prospective son-in-law,
Will Roper, in the film A Man For All Seasons:
“I just hope that when your head stops turning,
you’re face will be front.”
God bless you for your courtesy, Eden,
Maureen
Thank you for your most charitable response.
And why do I think you might be right?
There’s probably nothing like seeing Holy
Mother Church from the “outside” to draw
someone like me ‘home.’ I’ll just have to wait
and see.
I’ve certainly lived long enuff by now to know
that human nature doesn’t change…even
when a ‘denomination’ changes.
Someone pointed out to me in another
thread, I think, that a person all alight with
Jesus in the pew is not necessarily a dream
to deal with in personal life.
But, seriously, I am being more and more
drawn to the “faith alone” position.
As Thomas More tells his prospective son-in-law,
Will Roper, in the film A Man For All Seasons:
“I just hope that when your head stops turning,
you’re face will be front.”
God bless you for your courtesy, Eden,
Maureen
S
steve_b
Guest
You’re buying into 3 Protestant defense mechanisms, that teach
- dividing from the one true Church was okay. When in fact it’s condemned by Paul, did you know that?
- It’s either Jesus OR the Church and Protestants take Jesus and Catholics take the Church. That’s a mischaracterization we hear often.
- The Church is not important for salvation
Heb 10:
25Let us not give up meeting together, as is the habit of some, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."
Now you need to ask yourself a few questions,
- meet where, do what, and how often?
- What does meeting together, and the Day, and received the knowledge of the truth, and deliberately continue to sin, and no sacrifice for sin is left, all have to do with each other?
- Why are these things tied to judgement and raging fire reserved for the enemies of God?
R
reen12
Guest
Dear steve b, and arcturus,
“Jesus doesn’t establish useless things. He establishes His Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, precisely to lead all who enter it, into salvation.” quote, steve b
I take your point.
You see, there are millions of Christians out there
in the world who hold that:
-the Church, by the sixteenth century, had
burdened people with ‘laws’ which* they* saw
as a return to the status quo of Mosaic Law
at the time of Paul…and which Paul stated
was useless in terms of salvation. Not the
same laws, but the same theology…works save.
You may not agree with this position, but it is
one fiercly held by some of our fellow Christians.
I surely disagree with arcturus characterizing
this as ‘confusion’…that would imply deliberate
activity on the part of churchmen, and I don’t
for one minute believe that.
The more I contemplate the RC/Protestant
positions, the more I think that it was
*misempahsis *on both sides that landed us
with the unraveling of the unity of the Christian faith.
reen12
“Jesus doesn’t establish useless things. He establishes His Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, precisely to lead all who enter it, into salvation.” quote, steve b
I take your point.
You see, there are millions of Christians out there
in the world who hold that:
-the Church, by the sixteenth century, had
burdened people with ‘laws’ which* they* saw
as a return to the status quo of Mosaic Law
at the time of Paul…and which Paul stated
was useless in terms of salvation. Not the
same laws, but the same theology…works save.
You may not agree with this position, but it is
one fiercly held by some of our fellow Christians.
I surely disagree with arcturus characterizing
this as ‘confusion’…that would imply deliberate
activity on the part of churchmen, and I don’t
for one minute believe that.
The more I contemplate the RC/Protestant
positions, the more I think that it was
*misempahsis *on both sides that landed us
with the unraveling of the unity of the Christian faith.
reen12
J
JP2ImissU
Guest
C
Christian4life
Guest
Yeah, Catholics should believe in what they believe in. Just like Baptists should believe in what they believe in.
And if you aren’t neither, then you can think for yourself. Which is far, far worse than being either.
I came to the conclusion that unity among Christians is impossible, barring a miracle, so we may as well just live with it for now and pray for things to change in the future.
I don’t think we will ever all become Catholic, though.
And if you aren’t neither, then you can think for yourself. Which is far, far worse than being either.
I came to the conclusion that unity among Christians is impossible, barring a miracle, so we may as well just live with it for now and pray for things to change in the future.
I don’t think we will ever all become Catholic, though.
- Status