Is anyone on the fence?

[mgoforth]

Right now, I am in division with the Bishop of Rome, and the sees of the East. If I became Catholic, I would still be in schism. If I joined the EO, I would still be in schism.

So same question as before…what if all the sees of the East except one or two came into communion with Rome? Does it have to be all or nothing? Or flip the question, what if one EO church reconciled, but the others did not?

On the whole, I can honestly confess the Augsburg Confession, as a true confession of the Catholic faith.

I guess I read a general mis-understanding of what traditional Roman Catholic’s believe in the Augsburg Confession. What I mean is, it continually says that good works do not earn salvation, but they are a result of faith. But it says it in a way that implies Catholics think we’re going to “earn” our way into Heaven…which is not Catholic teaching at all.

For example, I believe that grace from the Holy Spirit invited me to believe in Christ, but left the decision up to me. It took me a long time to respond, but once I finally said “yes”, He gave me more grace to start doing good works and learning more about my faith. Every time I do good works I’m re-affirming my “yes” to God…that’s it. We’re all just tools that God uses to accomplish good things, so for anyone to claim that they “earned” salvation would be silly. That’s the only Catholic teaching I’ve ever been taught.

So for the most part, the Augsburg Confession appears to be an argument against a straw man in my viewpoint. There’s several theses and anti-theses regarding confession, that again set up a false premise that the Catholic Church requires me to remember and confess every sin I’ve ever committed or I can’t receive absolution…not true at all. All I have to do is try my best and not intentionally hold back anything.

The whole document leaves me kind of scratching my head wondering if Luther was just very badly trained as a Catholic monk. It just seems like he had a poor understanding of many Catholic beliefs.

I do not believe in compromise.

Glad to hear it.

And as I said, the issue of the supremacy of the pope is
much bigger than the LCMS. If the East and Rome solved this, I would be in RCIA the next day, regardless of what the LCMS did. Why? Because I would see it as a clear movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

I’d again ask the same questions as I did above.

Forgive me for answering a question with a question; would I be a good Catholic if I rejected the pope’s claims regarding unversal jurisdiction? But you asked a single question in your OP, what holds you back. More than any other, it remains this single issue.

I’m sorry I misjudged your intentions. These responses really helped me understand your frame of mind. You would not be a good Catholic if you rejected it, but sadly you’d probably be in the majority of American Catholics, who only seem to acknowledge his authority so far as it doesn’t require them to change their lives in any way.

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9107855]
It may happen one day…with God all things are possible. An East-West reconciliation is far more likely than a Protestant-Catholic one, which I don’t believe will ever happen.

I have more confidence, regarding Anglicans and Lutherans.

Your answer is confusing to me. If the bread is His body and only His body, it’s transubstantiation…if it’s bread and His body at the same time, it’s consubstantiation. I can’t tell from your response which you mean, but I can’t even think of a third option that retains the real presence…seems that it would have to be one or the other. The only other choice is to say that it’s only bread and symbolic.

I understand that you want to believe only what Jesus taught, but what is your understanding of His teaching? Did He teach that the bread becomes His body completely, or that His body exists along-side the bread? For example: I read “this is My body” to mean that it’s no longer bread.

Mystery, in a word. The confusion is an honest one, as Catholics think of His presence in metaphysical terms, and we don’t. So, for us it is neither Transub nor consub. Is it mere bread? Clearly no!! The bread IS his body. How this happens is a mystery.

So the East/West schism is really the sticking point? What if there was a reconciliation between only some of the EO churches and Rome? Does it have to be 100%, across-the-board agreement before you’d consider Tradition valid? For you, is it that you know there is objective Truth in one of the two churches, but aren’t sure whether the EO or Catholics are correct?

Maybe so, maybe not. I know an objective truth exists in scripture, and the early councils and creeds. But you are right about the sticking point.

There’s no command that I know of, but there is example. I hesitate to get into interpretations of the book of Revelation…but how would you read this from Rev 5: 6-8? And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Well, the dream in 2 Macc, also. Keep in mind that Lutherans agree that the saints do pray for the Church Militant.

Also similar language repeated in Rev 8: 3-4 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.

See above

…continued

 

[JonNC]

=mgoforth;9107857]So same question as before…what if all the sees of the East except one or two came into communion with Rome? Does it have to be all or nothing? Or flip the question, what if one EO church reconciled, but the others did not?

Not necessarily an all or nothing.

I guess I read a general mis-understanding of what traditional Roman Catholic’s believe in the Augsburg Confession. What I mean is, it continually says that good works do not earn salvation, but they are a result of faith. But it says it in a way that implies Catholics think we’re going to “earn” our way into Heaven…which is not Catholic teaching at all.

Would you agree that it may have appeared that way in 1530 Germany? This is why dialogue today is so important.

For example, I believe that grace from the Holy Spirit invited me to believe in Christ, but left the decision up to me. It took me a long time to respond, but once I finally said “yes”, He gave me more grace to start doing good works and learning more about my faith. Every time I do good works I’m re-affirming my “yes” to God…that’s it. We’re all just tools that God uses to accomplish good things, so for anyone to claim that they “earned” salvation would be silly. That’s the only Catholic teaching I’ve ever been taught.

I don’t believe Catholicism teaches works-righteousness.

So for the most part, the Augsburg Confession appears to be an argument against a straw man in my viewpoint. There’s several theses and anti-theses regarding confession, that again set up a false premise that the Catholic Church requires me to remember and confess every sin I’ve ever committed or I can’t receive absolution…not true at all. All I have to do is try my best and not intentionally hold back anything.

The Confutation is makes interesting statement about confession, and the differences expressed in Augsburg.

The whole document leaves me kind of scratching my head wondering if Luther was just very badly trained as a Catholic monk. It just seems like he had a poor understanding of many Catholic beliefs.

I think he had a very good understanding of Caholic faith, and that’s why he nailed those theses up. He thought the Church was not teaching what it now claims it does.

I’m sorry I misjudged your intentions. These responses really helped me understand your frame of mind. You would not be a good Catholic if you rejected it, but sadly you’d probably be in the majority of American Catholics, who only seem to acknowledge his authority so far as it doesn’t require them to change their lives in any way.

Not a problem. My sincere hope is that the day is not far off that we can again be one as He called us to be.

Jon

 

[TheInquisitor]

Alright, here’s one of my on the fence questions. If human sacrifice was a bad thing in the Old Testament. How is it ok for Jesus to be a sacrifice?

 

[mgoforth]

Alright, here’s one of my on the fence questions. If human sacrifice was a bad thing in the Old Testament. How is it ok for Jesus to be a sacrifice?

Several reasons. First, He was a willing victim, unlike someone the OT speaks of who would have been murdered against their will.

Second, Jesus’ sacrifice showed that death of the physical body is only temporary, we should be more concerned about death of the soul from sin which is permanent.

Third, and probably the most difficult to understand, God didn’t command the Jews and Romans to crucify Christ. He took their evil actions and used them to fulfill THE crucial element in His plan, but what they did was still evil. I think it’s easy to read Jesus’ predictions of the Crucifixion as if He was causing it to happen. For example:

“You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion.” Matthew 26:2

But really all He’s saying is, “I’ve seen this happen from the divine vantage point outside of time”. Christ knew that He would be crucified even before Adam was created, but He didn’t cause it or even command it. It’s hard for us to imagine how God can see everything that’s going to happen and still allow for human free will, but I think that’s a very important point to understand when we speak of Jesus being sacrificed.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Several reasons. First, He was a willing victim, unlike someone the OT speaks of who would have been murdered against their will.

Second, Jesus’ sacrifice showed that death of the physical body is only temporary, we should be more concerned about death of the soul from sin which is permanent.

Third, and probably the most difficult to understand, God didn’t command the Jews and Romans to crucify Christ. He took their evil actions and used them to fulfill THE crucial element in His plan, but what they did was still evil. I think it’s easy to read Jesus’ predictions of the Crucifixion as if He was causing it to happen. For example:

“You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion.” Matthew 26:2

But really all He’s saying is, “I’ve seen this happen from the divine vantage point outside of time”. Christ knew that He would be crucified even before Adam was created, but He didn’t cause it or even command it. It’s hard for us to imagine how God can see everything that’s going to happen and still allow for human free will, but I think that’s a very important point to understand when we speak of Jesus being sacrificed.

I was on the fence once when I was about 6 years old. I fell off into a puddle where pigs wallowed! EEEWWW!

 

[DaveScott]

Is Jesus God? Is Mary His mother? If you answer yes to both questions, then logically how is she not the Mother of God? If you have a problem with this title for Mary, I would suspect that you’re misunderstanding the meaning. Mother of God doesn’t imply that she created God or somehow comes before God. That’s obviously illogical. What it does mean is that Mary was the avenue through which God chose to enter our world in human form. If I called your mom Mother of Tim, I’m sure you wouldn’t have any serious problem with it…but you might think I was a weirdo.

I’ll put it this way. There are people of all faiths, or no faith, who collect memorabilia, historic artifacts, etc having to do with people or subjects that are personally meaningful to them. We have this tendency (a human tendency, not limited to Catholics) to think of physical objects that someone important to us owned or the place they lived as “special”. If Jesus is special in a way that no one in history has ever been, or will ever be, then why would we treat His home for 10 months (Mary) with anything other than respect and amazement? So referring to Mary as Mother of God doesn’t imply she is equal with God. It’s acknowledging a simple fact, and also showing great respect for the woman that God chose to be His earthly mother.

He obviously thought she was uniquely suited for the job of being His mother…not through her own merits, but because God filled her with all His graces. When we venerate Mary, I think we’re really praising the fact that God can perfect someone to that level and accepting that He would not choose to be born to just any sinful creature…but someone extra special that He had prepared.

Mary is the mother of the man Jesus, who is also God. The Eucharist is bread we have made, that also becomes the body of Jesus, yet also remains bread. I would say Mary is the mother of Jesus of whom God is also the Father of Jesus who then becomes (or always has been I guess is more correct) one of the Trinity of God. I took a class once from a PhD Seminary instructor - Father…wish I could remember his name - up in St. Paul. He said the challenge is to decide how to see Jesus - whether as a man first who is also God, or as God who then became man - in his eyes he definitely sees him as man first. I have thought and prayed about this for the last 7 years, and I think finally see his point. I think Jesus own words and actions help me to do so. That line of thinking also helps me better accept Mary for who the Church says she is.

God often took imperfect simple people and made them great - great in their works for Him. The Church in deciding Mary is withouth sin, ‘must be’ in order to give birth to Jesus the man who is also God is almost a little arrogant to me - thinking we know the mind of God and how ‘he must’ have behaved in creation - that there’s no way he would let Jesus be born of a woman unless she was without any sin. Why? Who are we to say that’s the only way God could, or would behave?

In no way does this line of thinking detract from who Mary is to me, or what she became at God’s command, or her role presecribed by God in Heaven as described in Revelations or other places. In someways this seems to loosely correlate to the pomp and circumstance of the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and the behaviors of our local priests. I loved ‘The Shoes of the Fisherman’ with Anthony Quinn. The most P&C we ever see Jesus participate in is riding an *** in to adoration of the crowd - and we know at least one of the purposes was to demonstrate contrast and our own failings and why we need Jesus so much every day. Yet the Catholic priest hierarchy has developed pagentry they think we need (or they need?) and claim we are not respectful or loving of our God unless we ‘do all that stuff.’ Why?

That could spin off into many other topics covered elswhere (like music) and there are many haters who will bash this post because it is contrary. But I feel I only get stronger in my faith when someone takes questions, thoughts and opinions like this on and lovingly shows me my errors where I make them. Any takers here? I guess I would agree, I am on the fence about somethings, but never love of the Lord (as imperfectly as I do love Him).

Peace.

 

[DaveScott]

I think I can help you without even delving into all the details from that thread.

"Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20: 20-28

Is it possible for you to see the Pope not as a tyrant or dictator, but as servant of the Universal Church? He knowingly takes on himself enormous responsibility to correctly teach the Faith, with the most severe consequences if he does a bad job.

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 2 Peter 2: 1-3

Multiply that warning by tens or hundreds of millions, since a bad teaching by the Pope could endanger the souls of any faithful Catholic, and I’d say that someone would have to be crazy, not very well acquainted with Scripture, or a very holy man indeed to agree to take on that position.

…or someone who wants the power - wouldn’t be the first time in Church history, I’m just sayin’…

I want to believe you are correct that there are only those two choices, but would be naive to accept your conclusion - sorry…peace

 

[mgoforth]

…or someone who wants the power - wouldn’t be the first time in Church history, I’m just sayin’…

I want to believe you are correct that there are only those two choices, but would be naive to accept your conclusion - sorry…peace

I guess I intended “power-hungry” to fit within the “crazy” category. There have definitely been some Popes who only wanted earthly power. As my priest told me once though, “Fortunately those popes were only interested in money and power, so they didn’t have the time or inclination to alter the Church’s teachings”. I think that makes sense. A truly corrupt Pope would be easy to recognize because of the lack of encyclicals, bulls, etc.

 

[mgoforth]

God often took imperfect simple people and made them great - great in their works for Him. The Church in deciding Mary is withouth sin, ‘must be’ in order to give birth to Jesus the man who is also God is almost a little arrogant to me - thinking we know the mind of God and how ‘he must’ have behaved in creation - that there’s no way he would let Jesus be born of a woman unless she was without any sin. Why? Who are we to say that’s the only way God could, or would behave?

The Church didn’t just arbitrarily decide it though. It’s in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Luke 1:28 says, “And the angel said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Notice he called her “full of grace”…she didn’t have just a little bit of grace or even a majority with some sinfulness too. No, she was full of God’s grace, as in protected from all sins. Sacred Tradition has taught that since the earliest preaching of the Apostles as well.

In no way does this line of thinking detract from who Mary is to me, or what she became at God’s command, or her role presecribed by God in Heaven as described in Revelations or other places.

That’s good that it doesn’t detract, but it’s still not an accurate line of thinking.

In someways this seems to loosely correlate to the pomp and circumstance of the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and the behaviors of our local priests. I loved ‘The Shoes of the Fisherman’ with Anthony Quinn. The most P&C we ever see Jesus participate in is riding an *** in to adoration of the crowd - and we know at least one of the purposes was to demonstrate contrast and our own failings and why we need Jesus so much every day. Yet the Catholic priest hierarchy has developed pagentry they think we need (or they need?) and claim we are not respectful or loving of our God unless we ‘do all that stuff.’ Why?

Again, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. God commanded His priests to wear elaborate vestments in Exodus 28. We use the Old Testament as our framework for understanding the New Testament of Christ, and many of the Jewish Traditions carry over to Christianity and find a new meaning. As you said, the point is not to glorify the priest…it’s to glorify God. You don’t really think the priest is saying to himself, “Yeah, look at me. I’m hot stuff in my fancy robes” as he processes into the church do you?

Jesus came to serve, not to be served. That’s why He chose to be born as a poor carpenter’s son rather than a prince or a high priest. He humbled Himself, so that we would choose to exalt Him. Wearing special garments is one way priests, bishops and deacons have always exalted Him. In fact, I think everyone should wear nicer clothes at Mass than they do at other times, to honor Jesus. I can’t wrap my brain around why someone would wear a suit to work to impress their boss or co-workers, but they wear jeans and flip-flops to Mass…although I know plenty of Catholics don’t agree with me on that.

Anyway, I hope that’s somewhat helpful.

 

[DaveScott]

I appreciate your response and referrences - thank you! I guess ‘full of grace’ meaning it protected her from all sin is an assumption too. Was she special, was she different than all other women, was she the chosen one for that purpose - certainly. I don’t see how you get from point A to point B though without an assumption to ‘its’ meaning. I wish I knew Hebrew or Aramic - always have to rely on someone else’s translation and they often disagree. ‘Full of Grace’ could mean a large amount, or that she could not hold anymore, or… I wonder if we really do know what the author meant.

But I also don’t need to get that granular, though I see the value in it many times. For me Mary is the mother of the Lord, whether that be the man, or the ‘also God’ part. It does help me to accept all he did, including his dispair at times (my God, why have you forsaken me) to remember he was also a man, and per the previous, perhaps a man first, for how could a part of the Trinity, knowing all, still exhibit despair if it wasn’t for the weakness of also being human.

I appreciate your point - to paraphrase - you say that all pomp and ceremony is designed to be part of everything we do to honor the Lord. I’m sure there is that intent in much of what is done, but I have seen enough personal examples to know that is not always true and that personal preference (just heard an example from our new priest this AM) is a HUGE part of that same leadership. At one point you reference how Jesus humbled himself and then state the above. I would submit that to honor the Lord, we try to emulate him. So on one hand it’s good to do as the Lord does, but on the other we need to use pomp and ceremony to honor him? I’m struggling with that one passing the smell test, at least for me, though I do see the points you made and the logic behind them - if it’s the true motivation for all that’s done.

I did not try to delve into, but I think you were adressing the Infalibillity principle in what you wrote. I agree in that I am not aware (in my limited knowledge) of any of the corrupt popes decreeing on that principle an overtly false teaching, thank goodness! However they put into practice the most grevious sacramental destroying practices at times, such as selling indulgences.

Thanks for all your gentle counterpoints - more to consider and pray about! Peace

 

[kirkrangel]

Suppose I said that there is no way that Mary could be the Mother of God? How would you reply?

-Tim-

Hi Tim,
I saw your reply about Mary, and I just had to send you a message. I am a new convert to the Church, and have spent countless hours praying, studying Scripture, and Apologetics.
My Reply to your believe that Mary is no way the mother of God would be
Do you believe that Jesus is God? or do you believe in the Trinity? If you do.
How is it that That the person that gave birth to Jesus not his mother? If someone told you that your mother is not really your mother what would you say?

A mother (or mum/mom) is a woman who has raised a child, given birth to a child

Luke 1:44 “Why am I so favored that the mother of my Lord shall come to me?”
Elizabeth speaking to Mary

John 20:28 “Mary is the mother of the child Jesus who is our Lord and our God”

God Bless
Kirk

 

[LegoGE1947]

The Church didn’t just arbitrarily decide it though. It’s in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Luke 1:28 says, “And the angel said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Notice he called her “full of grace”…she didn’t have just a little bit of grace or even a majority with some sinfulness too. No, she was full of God’s grace, as in protected from all sins. Sacred Tradition has taught that since the earliest preaching of the Apostles as well.

That’s good that it doesn’t detract, but it’s still not an accurate line of thinking.

Again, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. God commanded His priests to wear elaborate vestments in Exodus 28. We use the Old Testament as our framework for understanding the New Testament of Christ, and many of the Jewish Traditions carry over to Christianity and find a new meaning. As you said, the point is not to glorify the priest…it’s to glorify God. You don’t really think the priest is saying to himself, “Yeah, look at me. I’m hot stuff in my fancy robes” as he processes into the church do you?

Jesus came to serve, not to be served. That’s why He chose to be born as a poor carpenter’s son rather than a prince or a high priest. He humbled Himself, so that we would choose to exalt Him. Wearing special garments is one way priests, bishops and deacons have always exalted Him. In fact, I think everyone should wear nicer clothes at Mass than they do at other times, to honor Jesus. I can’t wrap my brain around why someone would wear a suit to work to impress their boss or co-workers, but they wear jeans and flip-flops to Mass…although I know plenty of Catholics don’t agree with me on that.

Anyway, I hope that’s somewhat helpful.

I have seen on TV some preachers (protestant) wearing t-shirts and jeans while they preach. The churches seem to be some kind of “come-as-you-are” organizations. Examples Ron Carpenter JR. Jeremy DeWert, etc.

 

[Eric_Prine]

I guess I intended “power-hungry” to fit within the “crazy” category. There have definitely been some Popes who only wanted earthly power. As my priest told me once though, “Fortunately those popes were only interested in money and power, so they didn’t have the time or inclination to alter the Church’s teachings”. I think that makes sense. A truly corrupt Pope would be easy to recognize because of the lack of encyclicals, bulls, etc.

One of the last things that were holding me back from joining the Church was how much corruption and bad things were done in history by popes, priests, etc. Growing up Protestant though, I constantly always heard about “Catholic evils” (though Protestants have no room to talk either). I had been a part of the “Restoration Movement” churches- they believe that we create and bring the church here only by how righteous we can personally live. Transubstantion didn’t even bother me- it was the idea that God would give Himself over like that in the hands of a ‘corrupt, Roman institution’, I had once thought to myself. In that moment I realized the irony of that statement though- that was the very same reason why many 1st Century people did not believe in Christ. If someone wants to reject the Catholic Church because of a bad pope, they would have to reject the idea of how God has chosen His relationship with His covenant people thoughout the whole Bible.

 

[Spyral]

Could you clarify those points for me?

What do you mean by “authority of the church”? Authority given by Jesus? Authority vs other churches?

Mary is pretty simple. We elevate her because Jesus did. Mothers are special to human beings and Jesus is a human being as well as God. Mary loves Jesus in a way that no other person can, as her own son. Likewise, He loves Mary in a way that He doesn’t love anyone else, the love of a child for His mother. She’s not equal to God, and the Catholic Church doesn’t view her as that. But she’s certainly the most pristine example of womanhood that has ever lived.

Also not sure what you mean by “relationship” with Jesus? You have to come to know Him if you want to enter Heaven, but the most direct relationship you can have with Him now is by receiving the Eucharist, His true body and blood. Which one are you referring to?

I find that there is a cyclical argument for the authority of the church. The marian thing seems also to have been modified after the fact perpetual virginity, assumption etc.

I don’t know how you come to ‘know’ someone, it’s difficult if you don’t accept transubstantiation 100%,

 

[mgoforth]

One of the last things that were holding me back from joining the Church was how much corruption and bad things were done in history by popes, priests, etc. Growing up Protestant though, I constantly always heard about “Catholic evils” (though Protestants have no room to talk either). I had been a part of the “Restoration Movement” churches- they believe that we create and bring the church here only by how righteous we can personally live. Transubstantion didn’t even bother me- it was the idea that God would give Himself over like that in the hands of a ‘corrupt, Roman institution’, I had once thought to myself. In that moment I realized the irony of that statement though- that was the very same reason why many 1st Century people did not believe in Christ. If someone wants to reject the Catholic Church because of a bad pope, they would have to reject the idea of how God has chosen His relationship with His covenant people thoughout the whole Bible.

Yes, Eric, excellent point! People at the time of Christ weren’t satisfied because He didn’t fulfill their preconceived (and incorrect) notions of what the Messiah would look like. I also see the same thing with ideas about the Church and “how it should really be done”.

 

[mgoforth]

I find that there is a cyclical argument for the authority of the church. The marian thing seems also to have been modified after the fact perpetual virginity, assumption etc.

I don’t know how you come to ‘know’ someone, it’s difficult if you don’t accept transubstantiation 100%,

I think the argument for authority of the Church is only cyclical if you don’t recognize that Jesus, the second person of God, founded it Himself. He is the beginning.

By “after the fact” do you mean after what’s written in the Bible? If so, remember that the Bible actually came from the oral Tradition of the Church, not the other way around. Not everything in the original stories handed down from the Apostles was written down either. There’s evidence from 1st and 2nd century quotes that these ideas about Mary have been around from the very beginning.

The first step, if you want to know Christ, is to ask Him for help. He knows how hard it is to believe some of these things. There were plenty of people who saw Him perform miracles first-hand and still didn’t believe His message. We can’t do it all on our own. After you ask for help, then start reading and learning about Jesus. Read the Gospels. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Then repeat the cycle, once you’ve learned, ask Jesus to show you more and give you more faith, and so on…

 

[TheInquisitor]

Several reasons. First, He was a willing victim, unlike someone the OT speaks of who would have been murdered against their will.

Second, Jesus’ sacrifice showed that death of the physical body is only temporary, we should be more concerned about death of the soul from sin which is permanent.

Third, and probably the most difficult to understand, God didn’t command the Jews and Romans to crucify Christ. He took their evil actions and used them to fulfill THE crucial element in His plan, but what they did was still evil. I think it’s easy to read Jesus’ predictions of the Crucifixion as if He was causing it to happen. For example:

“You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion.” Matthew 26:2

But really all He’s saying is, “I’ve seen this happen from the divine vantage point outside of time”. Christ knew that He would be crucified even before Adam was created, but He didn’t cause it or even command it. It’s hard for us to imagine how God can see everything that’s going to happen and still allow for human free will, but I think that’s a very important point to understand when we speak of Jesus being sacrificed.

Hey, I am back with the human sacrifice thing .

I see what you said here, but there’s one thing. Christ said specifically that he laid his life down of his own accord, he was not martyred. Thomas Aquinas even strictly says that’s not the case in Summa Theologica.

 

[Spyral]

I think the argument for authority of the Church is only cyclical if you don’t recognize that Jesus, the second person of God, founded it Himself. He is the beginning.

By “after the fact” do you mean after what’s written in the Bible? If so, remember that the Bible actually came from the oral Tradition of the Church, not the other way around. Not everything in the original stories handed down from the Apostles was written down either. There’s evidence from 1st and 2nd century quotes that these ideas about Mary have been around from the very beginning.

The first step, if you want to know Christ, is to ask Him for help. He knows how hard it is to believe some of these things. There were plenty of people who saw Him perform miracles first-hand and still didn’t believe His message. We can’t do it all on our own. After you ask for help, then start reading and learning about Jesus. Read the Gospels. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Then repeat the cycle, once you’ve learned, ask Jesus to show you more and give you more faith, and so on…

I’ve read the Catechism, bible etc. Essentially all we have to go on is the traditions which were subject to human biases and interpretations.

 

[mgoforth]

Hey, I am back with the human sacrifice thing .

I see what you said here, but there’s one thing. Christ said specifically that he laid his life down of his own accord, he was not martyred. Thomas Aquinas even strictly says that’s not the case in Summa Theologica.

You’d have to point me to that part in Summa Theologica. He references Christ’s sacrifice as a martyrdom in Question 124 Article 1: “Wherefore just as in the case of baptized children the merit of Christ is conducive to the acquisition of glory through the baptismal grace, so in those who were slain for Christ’s sake the merit of Christ’s martyrdom is conducive to the acquisition of the martyr’s palm.”

That’s not to say it wasn’t of His own accord, as you say. He was a willing victim…but so were many of the martyrs of the Church. You don’t have to be dragged kicking and screaming to be considered a martyr. Consider this excerpt from an article on St. Cyprian: “The day following he was examined for the last time and sentenced to die by the sword. His only answer was “Thanks be to God!” The execution was carried out at once in an open place near the city. A vast multitude followed Cyprian on his last journey. He removed his garments without assistance, knelt down, and prayed. After he blindfolded himself, he was beheaded by the sword.”