Why would I disagree with Jesus???
Many Catholics insist on the efficacy of their belief as an agent in dealing with the non belief of the other 2/3 of the world and even their fellow Christians of different mind in the same way a some people often seem to think that the other person has the same set of premises, perceptions, values, and experiences they do. In other words, they appear to require that the world is made in their own image and likeness and conforms to their interpretation of the group paradigm they hold. Is that useful in other than a self verifying way?
but if you are right, and everyone else is wrong, where do you go to to have some common ground? Do you simply advance the history of your belief, which is highly suspect in the eyes of many, or do you go to something that isn’t clearly a matter of faith and thereby try to establish some form of communication?
I’m quite convinced that more conversions have been lost by third party religious references than many sticks can be shaken at. To someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, it matters not a whit that He is the Son of God. If it did, He wouldn’t have been crucified. But we crucify Him again and again by using Him as a weapon of intellectual assertion in so many cases.
Ant that is what I mean by mere religion and going beyond it. Is it not obvious that there are far fewer believers by actual conviction than by habit? And while the routine of devotion and worship can bring one to the doorstep of spirituality, it is a darn sight more work to live up to the lives of the Saints. Isn’t the news full of religious people who act in anything but a Christian way, giving ammunition to the anti-religious?
All your quotes are useful to those who are already in agreement. And they may have some value in piquing curiosity in someone who already has a mind to be interested. But if one insists that by themselves such quotes ought to have the power of converting heathens or even non Catholic Christians, it would be worth considering that there may be other factors involved.
So I’m not disagreeing by any means. That would be foolish. But all men and women are created in His image and likeness. So whether they attribute correctly in our eyes or not, they may yet be virtuous and enjoy to their capacity the benefits of those virtues. So why not start out from the premise of shared sonship as distinct from the usually innocent error of their ways. I mean, what chance would you have, Charlemagne, of being such a staunch believer if you were born in Iran, India, or China? Maybe you might be one of the few who receive such grace, but that is not the lot of most. Even after 2K years of effort, only 1/3 of the world is even Christian.
And I’d like to read what your application of Mark 16:16 is to that statistic. That’s quite a dynamic there if all those folks are ending up in hell along with everyone non Catholic from 2K years ago and from human history before that. What’s the point of making such simplistic assertions?
So the quotes you cite are very useful for the choir, and may be used as motivation, but even the Church lays down many circumstances where the kind of Baptism you seem to advocate here is not the sole way to salvation. And in Matthew’s lines here denial would seem to imply knowledge such as Peter’s. And look how he ended up! I just keep thinking about that admonition in sales that stems from a Biblical reference: “More sales are killed by the jawbone of an ***…”
Tonitz:
There is no question that there are many citizens of the earth that are not religious, in some form or other. But, as I pointed out to you in my earlier post, the numbers are not as you portray. On the other hand, being
churched is habitual, as you correctly pointed out. And, what is more, some of the habitually churched might not be the followers of Christ that He asked for.
However, the mere fact that even those wayward Christians are attending their Churches and participating in some wise, and raising their children to go into the door with the goat overhead and come out of the door with the sheep overhead, may be enough to keep them close enough to make convictions as they get older, wiser, or nearer death. I believe that, generally, those who find themselves to be unchurched also find themselves embarrassed by their laziness. There are many dynamics at work here. So, I guess, not everyone has to be a Padre Pio throughout their entire lives.
In the following paragraph you say,
“An[d] that is what I mean by mere religion and going beyond it. Is it not obvious that there are far fewer believers by actual conviction than by habit? And while the routine of devotion and worship can bring one to the doorstep of spirituality, it is a darn sight more work to live up to the lives of the Saints. Isn’t the news full of religious people who act in anything but a Christian way, giving ammunition to the anti-religious?”
I am not at all sure you are right about the number of believers “by actual conviction than by habit”. I have been a member or guest of quite a few Churches (Catholic, primarily) over the course of many years and I have always been impressed at the turnouts. Again, I think that there are a myriad of reasons why most are not Saint-like. Mundane life is too darn hard. It makes one tired-out. Further, it turns one’s eyes towards other things that seem to be of a higher priority. Some times, too late.
But, Christ left His Priests in the Catholic Church. And, they have the power to “bind or loose.” That gives me great hope that I just might be a part of His sheep, despite my infirmities.
God bless,
jd
Were Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and G.K. Chesterton victims of “mere religion” when they wrote their great tomes in defense of the faith? When C.S. Lewis credited Chesterton as partly responsible for his conversion, was he crediting Chesterton’s apologetics as “mere religion,” or was he thanking Chesterton for wakening Lewis up to the Christian faith that gave new meaning to his life?
