Obstacles on the Road to Rome

[mlchance]

The Iambic Pen:

Plus, I still have trouble accepting transubstantiation. I know what John 6 says, but I guess I still have a very scientific mind. It’s hard for me to believe in something for which there is no physical proof.

Just in case this hasn’t been pointed: Given your “very scientific mind,” you’ll soon be abandoning belief in God entirely, correct? After all, there is no physical proof.



The Word Made Flesh transforms bread
Into flesh by His own word
Wine becomes the blood of Christ!
And tho’ our senses fail,
Faith alone suffices,
And strengthens the pure in heart
Pange lingua, gloriosum.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sherlock]

revbrothomas:

I have heard the rational of “Oh, well if Mary takes your petitions to Christ they are more likely to be looked upon with favor.” Are you kidding me? This Rational implies that , in the Eyes of Christ, Mary is some how better than everyone else! Is this an accurate understanding? I mean does the Roman Catholic Church teach that when I stand before Chirst I am less loved than Mary? or the Saints? or the Pope? or any one else?

Seeking Answers
With the Love of Christ,
Br. Thomas

A few Scriptures might help you understand. One that comes quickly to mind is that “a righteous man’s prayers avail much” (sorry, I’m forgetting the exact words ). That implies, does it not, that a righteous man’s prayers avail more than someone else’s who is not as righteous?

Also, look at the Davidic Kingdom, a prefigurement of the New Testament Kingdom. King Solomon bows down before the Queen Mother, Bathsheba, and he tells her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you”.

I wouldn’t sweat this stuff. I can tell you (and I’m sure others here will as well) that sometimes the understanding comes later. Put your trust in Jesus and His Church, and you won’t be led astray.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

The Iambic Pen:

Yes, the Marian doctrines are a bit troubling to me as well. I am beginning to accept the idea that asking those in Heaven (including Mary) to pray for me is acceptable, but I still struggle with the idea that somehow Mary can persuade God to grant a prayer on my behalf that He would not have answered had I asked Him directly. At any rate, my understanding is that praying to Mary is not required for salvation, though it is certainly beneficial to those who do it.

God Bless!

It helps me if I look at it the same way as asking someone else to pray for me. (I know you’ve probably already heard this, but I thought it wouldn’t hurt to post it.) For example, in your first post in this thread, you said:

So, I ask that all of you would pray for me, that God would show me the truth.

Do you think we are persuading God to grant a prayer on your behalf that He would not grant if you had asked Him directly? If so, there should be no problem with believing that Mary’s intercession is similarly (or even more) powerful (no problem, that is, if you believe in the communion of saints). If not, and you still ask us to pray, there must be some benefit to our prayers for you beyond just persuading God to answer. In that case, praying to Mary would also benefit the one who asked for her intercession.
Personally, I don’t really know for sure if asking others to intercede for us results in us being granted prayers that would have not been granted otherwise. I’m sure someone else here knows, though. One way that it helps me to look at it is that here on earth, I often get distracted by other things, and I often don’t even know what to pray for. If I ask for the intercession of the saints, God will reveal to them what they need to know to effectively pray for my situation. In that case, they might have a better idea than I do about what to pray for, and their prayers might result in a betterment of the situation that I might not have even known to pray for. I hope that makes some sense to you. If it doesn’t, don’t fault yourself for lack of understanding, because I’m a little sick and am therefore having trouble conveying ideas clearly today.

 

[VociMike]

revbrothomas:
I greet you as my fellow traveller on this road!
Yes, the Marian doctrines are a bit troubling to me as well. I am beginning to accept the idea that asking those in Heaven (including Mary) to pray for me is acceptable, but I still struggle with the idea that somehow Mary can persuade God to grant a prayer on my behalf that He would not have answered had I asked Him directly.

We don’t know that this “pursuasion” is the case, any more than we know that by having a friend pray for you God will grant a prayer on your behalf. In my opinion nobody causes God to change His mind. What may look to us like God changing His mind is really, I believe, simply God bringing all of us (those on earth and those in heaven) into His great work of salvation. He is letting us share in His loving salvation of the world, but He will make sure the work gets done in any event.

 

[mark_a]

The Iambic Pen:

but I still struggle with the idea that somehow Mary can persuade God to grant a prayer on my behalf that He would not have answered had I asked Him directly.

The same way we can help when you asked us all to pray for you in your original post. Neat, huh?

If you are not familiar with John Martignoni, he does a great job of providing Biblical answers to all your questions. He even has a “Protestant” style. The link below is for free tapes.

biblechristiansociety.com/free_tapes.asp

Kind regards.

 

[neophyte]

The Iambic Pen:

neophyte:
Thanks for your beautiful description of the Eucharist and for your explanation of Confession. I think I understand it much better now.

The question of what one must do to spend eternity in Heaven is of prime importance, because what does it profit a man to “gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?” This is where Protestantism is appealing, because it tells people they can have an assurance of salvation. Even those who do not accept “once saved, always saved” believe that we can have an assurance of salvation at any specific time, even if we could possibly lose that assurance in the future through a rejection of Christianity. To explain it better, the idea is that I can know if I die right now, I’ll go to Heaven.

Now, what kind of assurance does Catholicism offer? If a person is striving to serve God, and is (so far as he or she is aware) free of unconfessed mortal sin, can this person know that if he or she were to die right now, he or she would go to Heaven? When a righteous Catholic is on his or her deathbed, should his or her attitude be confidence or hope?..

If I’ve said anything that helps, I’m grateful to God.

The bottom line for me is that whatever Protestantism says, those who say it don’t have the authority to make such proclamations, Jesus gave that authority to the Magesterium. So in the final analysis it really doesn’t matter what the Reformers said if they contradicted the teaching of the Church…

I came to a place where I realized that Protestantism really doesn’t provide the assurance it claims anyway. It claims that you can have an assurance of salvation, but it gives you no real way to know whether or not you’re one of the goats. If you believed and did all of the right things, really loved Jesus and it showed in every outward way and in the end rejected it all, Protestants don’t deny that it can happen, rather they explain it away by saying that you were never really saved to begin with. What kind of assurance is that?? I can really believe that I’m saved, I can confess with my mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord, totally convince myself that it’s true, and have all of the subjective feelings that the Westminster Confession says are the only thing I can really rely on to tell me of “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth” – and yet all the time be WRONG?? That’s sad: to be saved you must believe in Jesus, but you have no objective way of knowing if you really believe or not because there’s no authority other than your subjective feelings that the Spirit is working in you and that you correctly understand the non-authoritative translations of an inerrent ancient text written in a language you don’t really understand all that well, when you don’t really know whether or not the list of inerrant books is right because it’s not given in the text themselves but rather are given by a council of men who admit that they may have the list wrong!

And in exchange for this sham “assurance” it strips the flock of the real and substantial presence of our Lord in the Eucharist and the benefits of the fulfilled Ministerial Priesthood that was so richly typified under the Old Testament covenant. What a deal.

No, one may have the “assurance” that Luther spoke of if one wishes. I much prefer the fullness of the Church that Jesus really founded. I have access to the Sacraments, through which real grace strengthens me. I have the moral assurance of salvation, and through the office of the Ministerial Priesthood I don’t have to secretly wonder whether or not my sins are really forgiven. And I know that not only have I accepted Jesus into my heart, I’ve accepted him into my entire body, every capillary and fiber. Now THAT’s a deal!!

 

[reen12]

Dear Sherlock,

quote: Sherlock

You wrote: “I have a degree, with honors, in philosophy,
and received the Departmental Award in same, in
the year of my graduation.
I hope the above dispels any thought that I am
uninterested in rational thought, per se.”

No, it does not dispel that thought. I have very little respect for what is taught in colleges and universities these days—critical thinking is in short supply, and at times the universities seem to be the place where the last vestiges of common sense and logic are stripped from people.

Well, one thing my unimpressive scholastic degree

provided me with, was not to make assumptions.

I received that degree 35 years ago.

As to my credentials, I provided them to refute your

suggestion that:

…you come here to disparage the use of reason…

Again, not the use of reason, but the exaltation of

reason, which exaltation generates a systematic

theology that undermines blessed assurance,

found in the synoptic gospels and the theology of

St. Paul.

quote: Sherlock

Maybe some Catholic theology is over your head, or you simply aren’t interested in theology

You know, the contents of this quote might be

considered an *ad hominem argument. *

Having read theology for 40 years indicates some

“interest”. As to it “being over my head”, I defer

to my former professors.

As I said, in another post, trying to convey blessed

assurance, to those raised in other traditions, is

an almost insurmountable task, IMO.

---

About a year before he died, Thomas Aquinas

stopped writing the Summa Theologica. He

had had a mystical *experience *and after that,

he considered all that he had written “mere straw”

in relation to that experience.

You might say his priorities changed.

“Mere straw.”

Straw reminds me of manger. Manger reminds me

of sheep.

Best to you, Sherlock,

reen12

 

[reen12]

I’m adding part of a post I wrote, from another thread, in the interest of conveying my stance toward the “juridical” mindset:

quote: reen12

The difference between this, and RC theology, is that
the emphasis is on total trust in Christ and His
righteousness, for salvation…
no anxiety over my “state of grace”

This fear can remain, in the sense that there is a
sense of awe and “trembling” in terms of what
Christ has wrought for us *

But this is light years away from fretting over
my “state of grace”…which, to me, is one of the
most odious terms in the religious lexicon.

“State of grace” fosters an attitude of looking inward,
taking my eyes off Jesus, as Peter did, out
on the lake, IMHO.
The moment Peter took his eyes off Christ,
looking “inward”, he began to sink.

[In short, when doctrinal definitions replace
scriptural imagery, we end up with terms
like “state of grace.”]
*

It then becomes difficult to see Jesus,
as He presented Himself in the scriptures,
thru the thicket of definitions, provided
by systematic theology.

---

It is not a question of the sheep in the pasture
loving Jesus more.

It is a matter of intimacy in love,
not love itself.
It requires no mystical experience, a la Aquinas.
It does require recognizing what St. Thomas did:
that the doctrinal pursuit is “mere straw.”

The vegetation that the sheep feed on is
provided by a loving Father:

“He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.”

not “He maketh me to lie down in a library.”

Benedict XVI is apparently urging a greater
emphasis on scriptural imagery. [From an
article I read, earlier in the summer.]

---

Again, it is not a question of blessed assurance
sheep loving God more.
God loves us, that is the critical reality.

The greatest intimacy possible is the Eucharist.
That is the food that He gave us.

This reality is augmented by the imagery of:
“He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.”

He is also the Living Water.
“He leadeth me beside the still waters.”

This stillness is to be found, beside the Good Shepherd,
out there in the pasture.

Scriptual imagery conveys reality in the terms
that God chose.

---

Is this what the immense heart and mind
of Aquinas came to see? God as He is, not God
as He is apprehended through the thickets provided
by earnest theologians.

Theology is an interesting enterprise, and it can
engage attention, as a chess game can be a
diverting occupation.

Theology has a role, on occasion, but it is a
very limited role. It is when theology attempts
to assume pride of place, that terms like
“state of grace” make their appearance.

---

The life of the mind is a blessing, brought about
through the faculty of intellect, provided by God.
But the life of the mind finds its fulfillment in the
presence of Wisdom and the Logos.

Wasthat the experience that fulfilled Aquinas,
so that he would view his work as “mere straw”?

Best to all,

reen12

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

About a year before he died, Thomas Aquinas
stopped writing the Summa Theologica. He
had had a mystical *experience *and after that,
he considered all that he had written “mere straw”
in relation to that experience.

It must be pointed out that Thomas Aquinas did not say that his writings were “mere straw”. He said, when speaking to Reginald:
“Brother, I can write no more. I have seen things which make everything I have written seem as mere straw.” To Thomas, his Summa Theologica seemed as mere straw in contrast to his mystical experience. This does not render his writings to be inconsequential.

The following is an excerpt from an article by Timothy T. O’Donnell:

Pope John Paul II, throughout his Pontificate, has held up St. Thomas Aquinas repeatedly as the great example for theologians and educators and as a guide for the formation of priests and for Christian youth. Unfortunately, many of these talks are not well known. Obviously, this attitude of gratitude and humility must spring from the bedrock of an integral Catholic faith. The obedience of faith demands a complete submission of the mind and will to God who reveals Himself through His Church. This faith introduces man to Revelation.

Here God initiates this encounter and reveals Himself to man. In so doing, He reveals the depth of His infinite love for each individual man, yes, even for theologians. Man’s response in faith must be a grateful acceptance and a humble opening up to the divine initiative and a confident abandonment to the antecedent power of God’s love. It is through faith that man is enlightened and attracted by God. St. Thomas** states that as long as man is in the state of being a wayfarer, he is capable of reaching a certain understanding of the supernatural mysteries through the use of his reason but only to the extent to which the latter rests upon faith. **We live in an age where it has become necessary to restate the obvious. The entire theological enterprise depends upon the possession of divine Catholic faith. This faith is the very key to understanding, as St. Augustine said, “By believing, you become capable of understanding. If you do not believe you will never succeed in understanding. Let faith, therefore, purify you so that you may be granted the privilege of reaching full understanding.” It almost appears that there is a denial today that the faith is related to the truth. Many teach and act as if the faith is not true.

 

[Mickey]

"… the believer and the philosopher consider creatures differently. The philosopher considers what belongs to their proper natures, while the believer considers only what is true of creatures insofar as they are related to God, for example, that they are created by God and are subject to him, and the like."

St Thomas Aquinas

 

[Mickey]

For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines…

**St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures: Lecture 4 no. 2) **

 

[reen12]

Hi, Mickey,

quote: Mickey

It must be pointed out that Thomas Aquinas did not say that his writings were “mere straw”. He said, when speaking to Reginald:
“Brother, I can write no more. I have seen things which make everything I have written seem as mere straw.” To Thomas, his Summa Theologica seemed as mere straw in contrast to his mystical experience. This does not render his writings to be inconsequential.

I wrote: [emphasis mine]
quote: reen12

About a year before he died, Thomas Aquinas

stopped writing the Summa Theologica. He

had had a mystical *experience *and after that,

he considered all that he had written “mere straw”

in relation to that experience.

quote: Mickey

This does not render his writings to be inconsequential

Unfortunately, his writings were considered of such
consequence, that RC theology has been saddled
with same for 8 centuries.

As I said above, Benedict XVI is urging a greater
emphasis on scripture [scriptural imagery].

The RCC has gone from Paul’s “All I know is Christ,
and Him crucified” to the incredible titration and
distortion, contained in the term “state of grace.”

This unlovely state of affairs can only be remedied,
by same being recognized.

This remedial process may have begun, under
the current Pope’s tutelage.

I shall watch for this to occur, from my comfy
spot in the tall grass…aka green pastures.
On the other hand, I may doze off, leaning
against the Shepherd.
In any case, wake me when it’s over, will you?

[For the *literally minded, “dozing” and “waking”
are used, courtesy of “poetic license”. Yesss,
I’m aware of “be alert, against the Master’s return” and
how can I “run the race” if I’m dozing? etc.]

Us wounded sheep aren’t up to all that excitement.

Best to you, Mickey,

Maureen

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

scylla:

Your real only obligation is going to Church on Sunday, believing the truth and living a Christian life. It is very simple, it just has structure to maintain the truth and not veer off.

I do understand the simplicity, and I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t follow these doctrines. It just seems like there are a lot of things that lead to a loss of the state of grace if they are not followed. I’ve heard it said that mortal sins are not sins anyone would casually commit, but then I’ve also heard people refer to relatively minor things as mortal sins. Not that I’m saying any sin is minor, in that all sins hurt our relationship with God. I just don’t see how entertaining lustful thoughts for more than a few seconds (to use an example that probably doesn’t qualify… ) amounts to a rejection of God (not that I in any way am attempting to justify having lustful thoughts).

The typical Protestant view is that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of God (though the earthly consequences vary), and that our sins do not “kick us out” of the “saved state.” (though a complete rejection of God may). The Catholic view seems to be that some sins can be quickly confessed quietly to God, and we can go on with our lives as if they never happened. By contrast, other sins, often varying only slightly from the aforementioned “venial” sins, will result in us spending eternity in Hell if we die without Confession (or at least intending to go to Confession). I guess the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a clearly defined barrier between venial sins and mortal sins can create some confusion, especially for those outside the Church. At any rate, please understand that I’m not trying to discover the boundary just so I can go and commit all the venial sins I please. All sin is wrong and is harmful to me and to the entire Church.

mlchance:

Just in case this hasn’t been pointed: Given your “very scientific mind,” you’ll soon be abandoning belief in God entirely, correct? After all, there is no physical proof.

Proof, no, but there is evidence. As the Bible itself says:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

By looking at the world around me, I can tell that it was created. The incredible detail of even the smallest creature shows the hand of a designer. Transubstantiation is a little harder to accept because there is no physical evidence. Now, I’m not saying it can’t be true. In fact, since every Christian before the Reformation seems to have believed in it, it probably is true. What is ultimately required is faith in the interpreting authority of the Catholic Church. Once I have this, the rest will fall into place.

I should mention also that my mind really isn’t all that scientific. My B.A. is in English Literature, after all. There is much beauty in the world that Science cannot explain. Perhaps the miracle of the Eucharist is one such beauty.

continued…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

…continued from previous post

Grace and Glory:
On the subject of prayer, I guess it has never really been clear to me exactly what prayer does. The Bible says that “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective,” so I know it does something. Plus, there are many, many places where we are commanded and urged to pray for each other. So, I will continue to pray, even if I don’t always understand it.

VociMike:
Thanks for your explanation!

mark a:
Thanks for the link!

neophyte:

The bottom line for me is that whatever Protestantism says, those who say it don’t have the authority to make such proclamations, Jesus gave that authority to the Magesterium. So in the final analysis it really doesn’t matter what the Reformers said if they contradicted the teaching of the Church…

And ultimately, of course, what matters is what is true. Protestantism may sound more appealing at times, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

I came to a place where I realized that Protestantism really doesn’t provide the assurance it claims anyway. It claims that you can have an assurance of salvation, but it gives you no real way to know whether or not you’re one of the goats. If you believed and did all of the right things, really loved Jesus and it showed in every outward way and in the end rejected it all, Protestants don’t deny that it can happen, rather they explain it away by saying that you were never really saved to begin with. What kind of assurance is that??

Well, those are the “once saved, always saved” people, in most cases. If someone completely falls away, the OSAS people either have to say the person’s sins don’t matter since they’ve already been saved, or they have to say they were never saved in the first place. Since it’s a bit uncomfortable to affirm the salvation of an unrepentant serial killer, the OSAS crowd has to say the person’s original confession of faith wasn’t genuine. At any rate, I’m not one of those OSAS types, so I’m not going to try and defend their theology.

I can really believe that I’m saved, I can confess with my mouth and believe in my heart that Jesus is Lord, totally convince myself that it’s true, and have all of the subjective feelings that the Westminster Confession says are the only thing I can really rely on to tell me of “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth” – and yet all the time be WRONG??

Well, according to most Protestants, no, you can’t be wrong. I believe that the idea of false assurance applies to one who is not sincere in their confession. If you know your confession was sincere, then you are saved. Now, this is Protestant thinking, which I’m prepared to admit may be wrong.

Here’s my question from earlier, and I’ll repeat it, because I really want to know the answer. If a person is striving to serve God, and is (so far as he or she is aware) free of unconfessed mortal sin, can this person know that if he or she were to die right now, he or she would go to Heaven? When a righteous Catholic is on his or her deathbed, should his or her attitude be confidence or hope?

Note that I’m not asking if Catholics know they will go to Heaven someday. Obviously, we are all capable of grave sin in the future. What I’m asking about is “right at this very moment” assurance.

God Bless!

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

Unfortunately, his writings were considered of such
consequence, that RC theology has been saddled
with same for 8 centuries.

Personally, I am not real familiar with St Thomas Aquinas. As an Eastern Catholic, I lean more toward mysticism than scholasticism. However, I do see benefits in his work. I think that saying the RCC has been saddled with his writings is rather harsh–but that’s just me.

reen12:

The RCC has gone from Paul’s “All I know is Christ,
and Him crucified” to the incredible titration and
distortion, contained in the term “state of grace.”

I disagree with this–but again–my experience is different than yours.

But I still love ya reen!

 

[VociMike]

Confidence or hope? I’m not sure what the difference is. I looked up “hope” and here’s what I found:

hope: To look forward to with confidence or expectation. To expect and desire.

Hmmm.

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

The typical Protestant view is that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of God (though the earthly consequences vary), and that our sins do not “kick us out” of the “saved state.” (though a complete rejection of God may). The Catholic view seems to be that some sins can be quickly confessed quietly to God, and we can go on with our lives as if they never happened. By contrast, other sins, often varying only slightly from the aforementioned “venial” sins, will result in us spending eternity in Hell if we die without Confession (or at least intending to go to Confession). I guess the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a clearly defined barrier between venial sins and mortal sins can create some confusion, especially for those outside the Church.

Hello IP!

This is a good article on venial and mortal sin:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

 

[Will]

scylla:
I do understand the simplicity, and I’m not saying Christians shouldn’t follow these doctrines. It just seems like there are a lot of things that lead to a loss of the state of grace if they are not followed. I’ve heard it said that mortal sins are not sins anyone would casually commit, but then I’ve also heard people refer to relatively minor things as mortal sins.
…

Well think of it this way.
A] Not going to church on a particular Sunday is a venial sin.
B] Not going to church on a particular Sunday is a mortal sin.
What’s the differance you ask ?

Understanding.
Assuming a person is Catholic.
For it to be Case A. The person would not have heard the Church teaches it is a Mortal Sin, or not be catacized (SP?) enough to really believe that Christ wants them to go every Sunday if at all possible for their own good. Which is all Christ wants, is for us to do that which is really good for us, bringing us too the Father.

For it to be case B. The Person would have to already have fully accepted that the Church is showing us what Christ wants us to do for our good and the good of all the Body of Christ. And since they have a truly Christ Centered attitude. To deliberatly not do something you know Christ wants you to do. That is a mortal sin.

Do you get the differance?

So yes for some just looking at a woman lustfully is a mortal sin, for others not.

 

[Sherlock]

Reen,

Your words in quotes; my responses follow.

“Well, one thing my unimpressive scholastic degree
provided me with, was not to make assumptions.”

Funny, I didn’t need to go to college to figure that one out.

“I received that degree 35 years ago.”

Gee, during the the height of the great New Thinking (tune in, turn on, drop out) that was transforming universities. If you think that you have added to your credibility by citing your degrees, you are mistaken, nor is that credibility restored by learning that you picked these up in 1970—were you a hippie? Just curious…But in any case, I’m basing my estimation of you and your position on your posts, not on your resume.

“As to my credentials, I provided them to refute your
suggestion that: …you come here to disparage the use of reason… Again, not the use of reason, but the exaltation of
reason, which exaltation generates a systematic
theology that undermines blessed assurance,
found in the synoptic gospels and the theology of
St. Paul.”

But WHO has exalted reason over holiness here on this thread? As I’ve pointed out to you a number of times now, no one here has even come close to suggesting that reason is to be exalted over all things. It’s a straw-man argument, if you know what that means. In case you don’t know, that means that you are attacking a proposal or position that is not actually being presented by others, but is instead a position of your own making.

“As I said, in another post, trying to convey blessed
assurance, to those raised in other traditions, is
an almost insurmountable task, IMO.”

Yes, and your task is needlessly complicated by insulting those who don’t follow your way… Look, you can bleat all you want and you’re free to do so. But know that your understanding of who the Good Shepherd is has been preserved by the very theologians that you denigrate (by suggesting that one can’t be both interested in pursuing theological questions and devout at the same time, a premise you have yet to prove). Bleating Arius almost had everyone else bleating that Jesus was not fully divine. It took a pope and a very few theologians, such as St. Athanasius, to keep the faith.

“About a year before he died, Thomas Aquinas
stopped writing the Summa Theologica. He
had had a mystical *experience *and after that,
he considered all that he had written “mere straw”
in relation to that experience.”

What does that prove? That a man who was very logical and who supported the marriage of faith and reason was blessed (rewarded?) with mystical experiences that were incredibly profound. But according to you, that can’t happen, right? I mean, he shouldn’t have been given that wonderful grace because he was too pre-occupied with thinking instead of bleating. Guess God thought differently than you, though, and saw no disconnect between faith and reason.

“Straw reminds me of manger. Manger reminds me
of sheep.”

I was raised on a farm, so I don’t need the associations spelled out for me, thank you very much. My farm experience provides me with another association as well…something to do with bulls.

 

[Sherlock]

The Iambic Pen:

…

Here’s my question from earlier, and I’ll repeat it, because I really want to know the answer. If a person is striving to serve God, and is (so far as he or she is aware) free of unconfessed mortal sin, can this person know that if he or she were to die right now, he or she would go to Heaven? When a righteous Catholic is on his or her deathbed, should his or her attitude be confidence or hope?

Note that I’m not asking if Catholics know they will go to Heaven someday. Obviously, we are all capable of grave sin in the future. What I’m asking about is “right at this very moment” assurance.

God Bless!

Iambic Pen,

Yes, we can have moral assurance that if we die in a state of grace (meaning, free of unconfessed, unrepented mortal sin), we will go to heaven. It might take a bit of Purgatory first if we are still attached to our sins and so on, but we will get to heaven. What we will not say is that we have ABSOLUTE assurance. Myself, if I were to die today I can say that I would get to heaven, however, because I am not in Mother Theresa’s league as far as charity and willingness to serve are concerned; am inclined to be sarcastic; have way, way too much pride; and am inclined to be a bit lazy with the gifts God has given me, I suspect I might need some washing up before I’m ready to sit down at the banquet table (which is how C.S. Lewis illustrated Purgatory). But we certainly can trust the promises of Our Savior.

What I have found as I have taken my faith more seriously is that the more I progress, so to speak, that very progress itself allows me to see myself more clearly, and thus I see more flaws. Now, I’m not saying that I don’t like or love myself, or that I’m constantly wringing my hands and dwelling on my faults (that’s simply being neurotic), but it’s just that I see a little more clearly that what I am called to be (“be perfect, as my heavenly Father is perfect”), is going to require more work and more grace. It’s a process—a very exciting process.