Obstacles on the Road to Rome

[Magnolia]

Iambic Pen,

I like your posts. You seem sincere in your search for Truth.

It may help to think of the Church in family terms. When I go to Mass you might think of it as a family obligation. I go to have supper with my family, all the angels and saints in heaven and my brothers and sisters here on earth. The Lord’s Supper. We come to be fed The true manna from heaven, The Bread of Life, The Lamb of God. This food sustains us on our journey to the promised land. Sacraments actually impart the grace they signify. Now this food is offered everyday but like in a family, our mother the Church asks that we come together at least once a week on Sunday. Everyday is best, but at least once a week we need to be together. When we come together as a family we share stories, thank our father for all He has done for us and ask for help for each other. On Holy days of obligation it is like your father saying to you, “This is the day of your mother’s immaculate conception, please come to the family meal to honor her”. Who of us would not have been at Calvary at the foot of the cross when Jesus died for our sins. We have that opportunity every day at Mass. Jesus asked his disciples “could you not pray with me for one hour?”
The Church is our mother, she loves us and knows what is best for us. And just like in a family, there are obligations - because they teach us how to grow up to be loving, respectful and thankful people.
So when I realize all God has done for me I want to go to Sunday Mass to join with my family to say thank you. To honor our Father who is in heaven. He wants us together at His table.
God’s family is like any family, there are some members who truly want to be there, some who do so because they feel they are made to, some who come once in a while, some hardly ever come, some haven’t been in years. And there are our seperated brothers and sisters in Christ who we want to join us at the altar of the Lord and be as one family united in Christ sharing the table of the Lord’s Supper, The Eucharist.

I hope you will join the Church, the body of Christ, the universal family of God.

I will keep you in my prayers,
M

 

[reen12]

Dear Sherlock,

quote: Sherlock

As for Catholicism having a “juridical mindset”, it depends. I don’t know how one avoids being juridical in stating and defining the bare-bone skeleton of belief. Of course grace and joy and the right relation with God are essential in the life of the Catholic, but if those things are based only on vague, subjective, “non-juridical” notions of individual experience, then they will only carry lasting weight with those for whom individual experience trumps all, and are fertile ground for any belief whatsoever as long as it “feels” good. In contrast to that kind of relativism, Catholic teaching does not separate reason and faith.

…but if those things are based only on vague, subjective, “non-juridical” notions of individual experience…

Your reply doesn’t “work” for lots of Christians who sing,
wholeheartedly, Blessed Assurance. [of course they
can sing that - they’re obeying the commands of Christ, which
include the 10 commandments, to the best of their
ability, aided by grace. Amazing Grace. Nothing “vague”
or “subjective” about it. The only thing “relative” about it,
is the belief that Christ is our “relative”, our Brother - and
our Savior, the Son of God.

quote: Sherlock

I suppose the Ten Commandments have a “juridical” flavor as well, despite coming from God. Shucks, didn’t God know that His people would rebel against that juridical mindset? I mean, it felt darn good to worship that golden calf–much more “spirit” oriented and with lots of revelry and spontaneous worship, far more spirit-driven than anything that stuffy old Moses handed down…why, I wonder if there were altar calls.

Cute, but, again, is doesn’t hold water, for* lots* of us,
Sherlock. Nope, those of us who live with Blessed
Assurance follow the commands of Christ, as best
we can - which include the decalogue, as well as
the command of Christ [echoing the decalogue]:

“Love the Lord, your God, with your whole heart, mind
and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.”

The blessed thing is, I don’t have to engage on these
topics, any longer.

quote: Sherlock

I don’t know how one avoids being juridical in stating and defining the bare-bone skeleton of belief.

Well, others can go on “defining”, and I’ll spend that same time,
resting in Christ and Blessed Assurance.

Best, :tiphat:

reen12

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

Well, others can go on “defining”, and I’ll spend that same time,resting in Christ and Blessed Assurance.

Hi reen!

Pardon my ignorance reen–I don’t post as much on these forums as I used to— but are you Christian once again? You seem to criticize the Church because it defines things. Definition does not equate to a juridical Church. The RCC leans more toward scholasticism while the Eastern Catholic Church leans toward mysticism. East and West together form a wonderful blend of reason and heart. Just some thoughts. God Bless you.

Mickey

 

[Mickey]

Mickey:
That makes sense, and I certainly don’t object to it. In fact, I can definitely see how having a witness would make a confession more genuine. However, Jesus Himself said, “if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.” It seems that he is giving the Apostles the ability to forgive sins, not just be witnesses to the confession. Of course, I realize that I’m arguing more for the Catholic position now. You see why I’m confused these days?

Don’t be confused IP. It really is not a contradiction. The apostles were witnesses and representatives of Christ. And this is the same role of the priest. Your sins are forgiven in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

And I don’t dispute this. The issue is what recourse do Christians have if the one true Church falls away from the truth?

The Holy Spirit would not allow this.
The Iambic Pen:

And if I determine that Catholicism is true, I will accept it, regardless of what my family (who I love very, very much) thinks.

God Bless you IP!
I have a baptist friend who has studied Catholicism for two years now and accepts all the doctrines and teachings of the Church. He is convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Christ established here on earth. Yet it looks like he has come to the doorstep only to turn away. It seems that he will not complete his conversion. Why? Because his wife is very comfortable with her friends and the fellowship of the baptist church. Also, his mother and sister would be devastated if he became Catholic. This is very sad. But of course, with God all things are possible.

 

[Atreyu]

That is sad indeed, Mickey.

IP, I just wanted to add something; it is slightly off-topic so please forgive me

In the Protestant model you must be able to interpret Scripture, somehow! Scripture must be clear. Protestants claim that to rightly interpret a specific verse, you need to understand the entire context of the Bible. To interpret correctly, you must go to the Bible with an open, completely unbiased mindset. Do Protestants do this? My contention is no, they do not. There is evidence of this in the division of Protestantism, but I’m sure you’ve heard of that before. But there is other evidence as well.

About a month ago I went to a Protestant forum and conducted an experiment. I laid down a case for Matthew 16:18 that Peter is the rock. In response I received several petros/petra arguments, amongst others. In my case, I even quoted a Protestant scholar (Donald Carson) who makes a convincing case in favour of Peter being the rock of Matthew 16:16, and in particular he says, “Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” The evidence is simply overwhelmingly in favour of Peter being the rock. Now, I expected the arguments against me, but what I found was that every single person argued against me. They would not for a minute consider that they were wrong and I was right. This was the significant thing.

My contention is that Protestants have a natural and unavoidable bias when interpreting the Bible. Most of them (as I witnessed at that forum) will refuse anything which is even slightly in favour of the papacy, no matter how good the evidence is. But I think they do this with other matters as well. In particular, I believe that Protestants read sola sciptura and sola fide into the Bible. There is hardly any Biblical evidence for sola scriptura and a lot of evidence against. But Protestants have to interpret the Bible this way to be Protestant, and so they do. Also (and most importantly), I think that Protestants interpret the passages that allude to the sacraments to be symbolic only, because they have to! Without an apostolic priesthood, there isn’t really anyone who could administer the sacraments, hence they are interpreted symbolically only.

Also, the deuterocanonicals need to be rejected as 2 Maccabees contains a pretty clear reference to praying for the dead. Praying for the dead doesn’t really fit into Protestantism, so they reject the deuterocanonicals as not Scriptural (hence they can treat them the same way they treat Ignatius when speaking of the Eucharist: they simply say that they’re wrong).

To conclude, there are two points to my post:

1. 
   *]Protestants read certain doctrine into the Bible (rather than obtaining the doctrine from the Bible), as they need to for Protestantism to survive.
   *]Protestants base the canon on their doctrine, rather than obtaining their doctrine from the full canon.
   
   I think that both of these things are firmly condemned by Protestantism, yet they do them without even being aware that they do.
   
   I hope you understand what I’m saying here, I don’t think I’ve really been as clear as I could be!
   
   God Bless.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Mickey,

quote: Mickey

The RCC leans more toward scholasticism while the Eastern Catholic Church leans toward mysticism

And those who sing Blessed Assurance lean on Jesus,
and rest in Him.

Recall, Mickey, that I’ve spent 50 years steeped in the
Catholic tradition. What gets a grimace from me are those
who address my posts as if I haven’t the slightest idea
of “what the faith really is” or “what the Church really
teaches” or “if you only* understood*…”

It drove me to consider the faith of the original covenant,
in an attempt to find God, in Whom I could find peace of
mind and heart, and rest for my soul.

As I said to another poster:
quote: reen12

The blessed thing is, I don’t have to engage on these
topics, any longer…

I can rest in Jesus and watch, in wonder, at the attempts
to define and defend.

God love you, Mickey,

Maureen

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

I can rest in Jesus

May we all rest in Jesus!

Eternal blessings to you reen.

 

[reen12]

Many thanks, Mickey. My poor little heart has

found a nest, at last, in the heart of Jesus.

As you say:

May we all rest in Jesus!

Maureen

 

[Sherlock]

reen12:

Nope, those of us who live with Blessed
Assurance follow the commands of Christ, as best
we can - which include the decalogue, as well as
the command of Christ [echoing the decalogue]:

“Love the Lord, your God, with your whole heart, mind
and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.”
reen12

But what if you don’t follow the commandments of Christ? Are you still saved? I have friends of mine, a couple, who were deeply committed to Christ. They were “born again”, and believed that they were completely, totally, saved—once and for all. But it was merely based on emotion. As a result, if it didn’t “feel good” to go to services, they didn’t go. If it didn’t “feel good” to give to the poor, the money wasn’t spent. The husband eventually committed adultery and then was sent to prison for defrauding his insurance clients. His daughter became an atheist. So: are they still saved? They THOUGHT that they were—they believed it firmly. So, if they could be wrong, how can you be so sure?

At any rate, if you choose to respond, why don’t you start another thread (as if this topic hasn’t already been talked to death…) since this is off-topic.

And you really didn’t address the points I raised with the Ten Commandments. It’s safe to say that worshipping the golden calf “felt good” to those who were doing so—when Moses was coming down off the mountain, sounds of revelry could be heard. They were spirit-filled. Obviously, then, the question of how to follow the First Commandment has to logically involve Who is being worshipped, and what is proper worship to Him. Hmmm, sounds “juridical”! You have made a split between faith and reason, which is very sad.

 

[scylla]

Reading through these posts, I would say it really depends on God and you. For some people it is very quick, for some it takes even years to come to the Catholic faith.

It is kinda like one of those 3D hidden picture books, where you have to stare at it, with your eyes focused beyond the picture. Sometimes it comes quickly sometimes slowly. Sometimes you only see parts of it, before you see the whole thing.

It took me about 3-6 months to see what the Catholic Church really was and it started coming together. I admire your honesty in stepping back and keeping a cool eye on everything. God will work with you and give you what you need, when you need to receive it.

So feel free to question us, put us through the grinder if you need to and we will be happy to assist you.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Erich]

Matt16_18:

Why would the Apostle John, a bishop of the Catholic Church, think that your Protestant understanding of confession is correct? After all, Jesus gave John the power to forgive sin, the power to bind and loose in heaven and earth – why would John be dismissing that authority from Jesus as totally irrelevant?

And why would Jesus give John (and the rest of the Apostles) the power to forgive sin and the power to bind and loose, if He didn’t expect them to use it?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I thank you all for your continued responses to my questions! Sorry I don’t have time to respond individually like I did with my last post. I am definitely thinking about everything that has been said. I think the main thing is that I need to continue to pray and to study.

Right now I find myself unable to accept the Protestant idea of sola scriptura, because, after all, the Bible itself doesn’t tell us we should do this. I also don’t believe in the “once saved, always saved,” idea, because of all the passages about doing good and persevering to the end. So, I’m very much in agreement with Catholicism on these points.

One of the main issues now is determining if the Catholic Church of today is really the same church founded by Christ. Also, I’m trying to determine if “the gates of Hell shall not overcome it” passage really means the Church will never teach error. All of this is quite a process to have to go through!

In my more heretical moments (every Protestant has them now and then) I find myself wishing all of it really could come down to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself,” and that we could just discard all this religious debate. Still, I can’t ignore the rest of the Bible.

I don’t think God ever intended for us to be so confused…

God Bless!

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Iambic Pen:

In my more heretical moments (every Protestant has them now and then) I find myself wishing all of it really could come down to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself,” and that we could just discard all this religious debate. Still, I can’t ignore the rest of the Bible.

If that was the only way in to heaven, you might find that this is actually harder than first conceived…but even now if you were to do this, then you would also find that you fall right into every other guideline set by the Church anyway, lol. So yes, strive always to know God’s will, and also strive to love Him above all things, and love your neighbor as yourself - for these two go hand-in-hand.

God bless brother!

 

[Hildebrand]

EA_Man:

Here we see the tables turned. Now it is the Catholic that makes the claim that it is the Protestant whose heart is not truly contrite, or truly humble. How is Catholic Answers in any position to assess the contriteness of anyone’s heart? That smells like a double standard to me.

No, not a double standard. This is basic psychology here. It was not assessing the contriteness of anyone’s heart, but recognizes that by talking to someone about problems, what you are experiencing is, on its own, therapeutic. People pay big bucks to go to psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and many other people so they can listen to their problems and give them helpful advice on overcoming their them. Confession is the ability to tell your faults with another person (humbling), an opportunity to get your sins “off your chest” by speaking them to a priest and being given assurance of God’s forgiveness. All of that is superior to saying “I confess directly to God”. I would like to see how a person would ended up if all they did was tell all of their problems to God and nobody else. Everything they ever had issues with… they kept it between themselves and God? All I could say is it is not healthy.

After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

The apostles were given the authority to forgive sins. Why not take advantage of it?

 

[scylla]

God isn’t the author of confusion. It is everyone’s opinions, ideas about what is their own truth, finding fault with everything, many reasons for confusion.

Pray and have patience, it sometimes takes a while to work out.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

In my more heretical moments (every Protestant has them now and then) I find myself wishing all of it really could come down to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself,” …

Ultimately, it does come down to that. Christ founded his church so that we could come into the transforming union – i.e. so that we could become perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. A Buddhist is both capable of loving God, and loving his neighbor, who can deny that? But the Buddhist is not capable of doing this perfectly, because a Buddhist is cut off from the sacraments of Christ’s church. This is why we will never see Buddhists produce a Mother Teresa (or why Protestants can never produce a Mother Teresa either for that matter). The greatest saints in the world are all products of the Catholic Church, not because Catholics are inherently better than any other person on earth, but because Catholics have access to all the graces that God wants to bestow on humanity.

The real reason to become Catholic is to be able to partake of a valid and licit Eucharist – the greatest gift that has ever been given to man. Without the Eucharist, it is quite impossible to love God or to love our neighbor perfectly.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Sherlock,

I think you may be conflating OSAS with blessed
assurance.

And, for heaven’ sake, will you give consideration to
leaving the golden calf “incident”, [in terms of debate],
and come rest with us blessed assurance sheep,
who huddle near the Shepherd, for warmth and comfort,
in this “vale of tears.”

Us sheep don’t know beans about OSAS.

Another “theological construct”, created by those
who spent too much time, reading St. Paul, and not enough
time, reading the gospels - in the humble opinion of
the blessed assurance flock.]

We trust the Shepherd to keep us safe, and lead us Home,
bleating all the way.

No question of “am I in a state of grace”, with
“certainty.” [theological construct, aka “reason”],
rather the* scriptural *imagery of the Good Shepherd.

quote: Sherlock

You have made a split between faith and reason, which is very sad.

And, by the way, the disjunction is not between
faith and reason, it’s between the exaltation
of reason [theological “systems” = a golden calf ?]
over that of the biblical imagery, which God Himself
used, to communicate with His flock.

[No wonder many of the critical personages in the
Hebrew Scriptures were shepherds.]

If us blessed assurance sheep can’t pay undue
attention to the theological “reasonings” and
“what about” speculations-going on about us-
it’s because the noise of the bleating- of us
sheep, crowded around the Shepherd - make it
hard to hear.

Kindest regards,

reen12

 

[EA_Man]

Hildebrand:

No, not a double standard. This is basic psychology here. It was not assessing the contriteness of anyone’s heart, but recognizes that by talking to someone about problems, what you are experiencing is, on its own, therapeutic. People pay big bucks to go to psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and many other people so they can listen to their problems and give them helpful advice on overcoming their them. Confession is the ability to tell your faults with another person (humbling), an opportunity to get your sins “off your chest” by speaking them to a priest and being given assurance of God’s forgiveness. All of that is superior to saying “I confess directly to God”. I would like to see how a person would ended up if all they did was tell all of their problems to God and nobody else. Everything they ever had issues with… they kept it between themselves and God? All I could say is it is not healthy.

If there’s only one mediator between God and man, why do you insist on having more mediators?

Your response only attempts to make the case that going directly God is insufficient. It also reduces the sacramentology that you attempt to defend to psychotherapy, and on the cheap I might add.

Furthermore, how do you have ‘assurance’ of forgiveness after confession, if you don’t have ‘assurance’ of salvation?

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

Matt16_18:

The real reason to become Catholic is to be able to partake of a valid and licit Eucharist – the greatest gift that has ever been given to man. Without the Eucharist, it is quite impossible to love God or to love our neighbor perfectly.

Interesting.

So does receiving the Eucharist result in perfectly loving God and my neighbor or is there something else required as well?

If I receive the Eucharist, am I assured of salvation?

If I receive the Eucharist and I perfectly love God and my neighbor, am I assured of salvation?

Peace