Obstacles on the Road to Rome

[neophyte]

The Iambic Pen:

…At any rate, I’m not one of those OSAS types, so I’m not going to try and defend their theology.

I apologise, my fault. Coming out of a OSAS environment, it’s easy to assume others believe it as well.
The Iambic Pen:

…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…

Yes, but what of self-deception? There’s no indication in scripture that those who said “Lord, Lord, didn’t we perform miracles in your name?” were insincere.

This is related to the question of those who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. The hyper-Calvinists would say that they burn; that particular theology seems to have a very poorly developed idea of culpability. Have you read the Catechism, paragraphs 1854-1864? (A rhetorical question)
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm
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?

If you die in a state of grace then you’re in. Having no unconfessed mortal sin on your soul, positively responding to God’s grace at work in our lives and making an act of the will to turn away from sin and toward God fills the bill.

As Sherlock says, the more grown up I get the more I realize how much of an infant I am. I’ll need a good scrubbing before I’m ready for the party.

I’ve heard it said that what gets you into hell is final impenitence. What you’ve desribed is not final impenitence.

 

[mark_a]

The Iambic Pen:

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.

We have to be just as sorry as anyone else to be forgiven for any type of sin, venial or mortal, whether confessed to a priest or not.

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.

Here’s something from the catechism about conscience, which addresses some of the issues you are concerned about…
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.htm

 

[reen12]

There can be confusion, in terms of OSAS
and blessed assurance. To say blessed
assurance, can be taken to mean, OSAS.

This “secure”, “insecure” issue is at the heart of
blessed assurance. [And don’t forget “sincere.”]

It is often spoken of, in terms of:

But we won’t know if we’re saved to the moment
we die. We can’t know the mind of God, in
terms of our salvation…

A recipe for anxiety, as opposed to the peace
offered by Christ, and His promise to lift
burdens, not create them, IMHO.

[See the thread For Lutherans for a fuller discussion
of same] at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67141&page=1&highlight=reen12

And when the promises of Christ Himself are
offered, the person may be accused of “boasting”
and told that they run the risk of self-deception.
[Never mind what Christ said !]

[see the Council of Trent, for the Church, at it’s best,
on this kind of thing, with reference to the Sacrament
of Penance]

Section ix Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics at:

ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Hmmmm. Mercy and forgiveness our way…
for, after all, we are the one, True church.
I will watch developments, in the RCC, with interest.

Best,
reen12*

 

[reen12]

Hi, Mickey,

quote: Mickey

But I still love ya reen!

Which is certainly the case, here, too, Mickey.:yup:

quote: Mickey

I think that saying the RCC has been saddled with his writings is rather harsh–but that’s just me.

I realize that you are in the Eastern tradition, and have
had the mystical tradition to avail yourself of.

If I sounded harsh, it was because the experience of
being under the indirect tutelage of St. Thomas was,
itself, harsh.

Please consider the following:

An eight year old is given the Baltimore Catechism,
a marvel of scholastic theology.

This child has no other reference, with which to
view Christ, but through this lens, and many of
the baby boom were treated to it’s contents.

I invite you, Mickey, to take the time to read through
this catechism, which was the standard fare, offered
to RC children, in the RC school system, thoughout
the 1950’s.

catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/

In large numbers, these kids, on reaching young adulthood,
hit the road - as far away, and as fast as their feet
could carry them, at the first possible moment.
They had had enough of this Christ*,* to disaffect
them for a lifetime.

As I said, in another post, in another thread,

• in a gathering of any size, with my contemporaries,
  I am known as the Catholic. [in the sense that I
  still have some contact with the faith.]

I understand that catechesis has changed, in
the last 35 years. The CCC is certainly presented
with clarity, but the doctrines of the Church, of
course, remain the same, and echoes of St. Thomas
can still be heard,* de temps en temps,* in it’s
pages.

Many of these doctrines I find to be in conflict with
the peace, promised by Christ.
But I have found the Good Shepherd, and
the comfort and safety of His presence.

---

The Church will last, until Christ comes again.

It’s glory has been the passing along, through
the centuries, the Mass, as sacrifice. In that
glorious reality, the Holy Spirit has protected
her.

And we can all be grateful for that.

Best to you, Mickey,

Maureen

 

[reen12]

Dear Sherlock,

quote: Sherlock

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.”

You had written:
quote: Sherlock

No, it does not dispel that thought. I have very little respect for what is taught in colleges and universities these days…

My reply? 35 years ago.

And here you go again, Sherlock, with those assumptions.
quote: Sherlock

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…

In fact, I attended a small, quiet Catholic women’s
college, supported our troops in Vietnam, and, to
this day, am a political conservative.

It’s been a joy, exchanging posts with you, Sherlock.
The fact that I find myself unrecognizable, in your
comments in your posts, has provided a smile or two.
But then, I’m used to that. The Jesus of the gospels
is also unrecognizable, by the time St. Thomas got
finished with Him.

All the best to you, Sherlock, and may you spend
many happy years, full of the love of Christ, and
in His grace.

Maureen

 

[E.E.N.S]

You two, quit it already!

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

Please consider the following:

An eight year old is given the Baltimore Catechism,
a marvel of scholastic theology.

This child has no other reference, with which to
view Christ, but through this lens, and many of
the baby boom were treated to it’s contents.

I invite you, Mickey, to take the time to read through
this catechism, which was the standard fare, offered
to RC children, in the RC school system, thoughout
the 1950’s.

I am familiar with the Baltimore Catechism. I was Roman Catholic for the first 40 years of my life. I have been able to assimilate the scholastic and the mysticism. I am aware that some people have been wounded, and they take it out on the Church. This is unfortunate.

reen12:

Many of these doctrines I find to be in conflict with
the peace, promised by Christ.
But I have found the Good Shepherd, and
the comfort and safety of His presence.

I believe that none of these doctrines are in conflict with the peace offered by Christ- they are completely complementary. But of course if you have been wounded as a child, you will look at things with a skewed eye. This is understandable and it breaks my heart. I always pray for you reen. You are extremely intelligent and are familiar with many Traditions( Eastern, Western, Jewish, etc.)

I know that you are in peace now, and I am happy for you.

 

[reen12]

quote: E.E.N.S.

E.E.N.S.

You two, quit it already!

O.K.

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

Iambic Pen:

The typical Protestant view is that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of God …

But do Protestants really believe this? If a foreign country had a system of justice where the death penalty was give for every crime, from jaywalking to murder, most Protestants would decry this as injustice. How can a Protestant think that their innermost sense of justice is superior to God’s sense of justice? Do Protestants really think that God sees the sin of a kid sassing his parent as the equal of a parent raping his child? If God sees all sin as equally wrong, why does not every offence against the Law in the OT merit the death penalty, instead of only the grievous sins meriting the death penalty?

And how do Protestants explain away the fact that scripture makes the distinction between mortal sin and sin that is not mortal.There is sin which is mortal …. there is sin which is not mortal.
1John 5:16-17 RSV

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? … What I’m asking about is “right at this very moment” assurance.

The assurance a Christian can have, “right at this very moment”, is the full assurance of hope until the end.… God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Heb 6:10-12 RSV

 

[Sherlock]

Reen,

Your responses in quotes; mine follow sans quotes. But first, you make the point of highlighting (as a way of deflecting, I suppose, my statement that I was basing my estimation of you and your argument on your posts and not your academic resume) my phrase “these days”. I guess you took those words to mean “this week” or “this year” or some other short period of time, when I was, in fact, referring to the philosophical shift to modernism and the flowering of relativism. Sorry, I guess I should not have attempted such a difficult concept, and I should have spelled out the time frame precisely in case someone thought I meant only the last 48–or 72-- hours…

“It’s been a joy, exchanging posts with you, Sherlock.
The fact that I find myself unrecognizable, in your
comments in your posts, has provided a smile or two.
But then, I’m used to that. The Jesus of the gospels
is also unrecognizable, by the time St. Thomas got
finished with Him.”

So, you are misunderstood, just as Jesus was. OK. And now I learn from you that St. Thomas Aquinas did damage to Jesus’ identity. Why, then, was he granted those wonderful graces and experiences that you referred to in an earlier post? During one of those experiences, an observer (Br. Reginald) heard a voice from the crucifix saying, “You have written well of Me, Thomas. What will you have as your reward?” To which St. Thomas replied, “Only Thyself, Lord”. If you dismiss the logic and the mystical experience of St. Thomas (a wonderful union, in my mind), then by what authority do you do so? Or, to put the problem more clearly, how does one dismiss St. Thomas Aquinas but keep St. Athanasius and the few others who, with the protection of the Holy Spirit given to the Church, kept your Good Shepherd from being reduced to being merely a man? By what authority do you not like Paul (as is suggested by your posts) , but presumably do like and accept other parts of Scripture that are more to your liking? In short, how is it possible to know that you are right and St. Thomas (or Padre Pio, St. Therese of Avila, St. John of the Cross, or the Little Flower…) is wrong? If one can be at the pinnacle of logical thought (as St. Thomas arguably is) yet, at the same time, be graced with incredible mystical experiences, doesn’t that illustrate that faith and reason go together, which is the teaching of the Catholic Church? Why do you insist on separating the two? I have asked this several times, and yet you have failed to give an answer that shows that the two are inherently at odds with one another.

That you are more inclined towards a mystical experience is perfectly fine with me, as I have said a number of times. My problem is with the juridical manner (a very Protestant “either/or”)in which those who don’t share your mindset, and who do value the mind as a tool for increasing love of God (as St. Thomas did) are judged by you to be less close to Jesus.

I have asked you to give me evidence of this. You haven’t done so. End of story…there’s simply no “there” there, is there?

 

[reen12]

Sherlock,

Have a nice day

reen12

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I’ve been gone for a bit, due to work and a temporary lack of internet (and, I must admit, a little Sid Meier’s Pirates). However, I am still definitely studying. During my offline time, I have listened to a few Journey Home shows I had already downloaded. They were very informative and helped restore the sense of excitement I had in my studies.

So, this past Sunday I went to the Protestant service again. One of my friends was going to go, and I figured I should go with him. Plus, I have to admit, I missed the singing… At any rate, I’m still planning to go to Mass next week. Anyway, at the service they had Communion (the Protestant service here has it every week), and my friend asked me what it was. So, later on, after the service, I tried to explain it to him. I explained the Last Supper, and “do this in remembrance of Me,” and all that, which my friend seemed to understand all right. Still, I couldn’t help but think of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, and how it means so much more to Catholics. So, I had a definite “what if the Catholics are right?” moment. I have a feeling I’ll probably have another conversation with my friend about this, in which I explain a good deal more…

Still, despite moments like this, I still struggle with a few issues. I guess it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in a sense, “creates” sins, by binding the conscience of the believer in matters that, so far as we know, Jesus Himself never spoke about. What I mean is, a certain activity or belief might be completely acceptable, but then the Church makes a firm declaration about it, and what was once innocent now becomes sin. I’m still studying, though, so I’m not being difficult on purpose…

Mickey:
Thanks for the article on mortal and venial sins! It explained things very well.

Sherlock:

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.

Okay, that’s what I was wondering. As far as Purgatory goes, I have no problem with this. I actually hope it’s real, because I truly want to be purified before I see God face to face.

I suspect I might need some washing up before I’m ready to sit down at the banquet table

You and me both.

But we certainly can trust the promises of Our Savior.

Yep!

Matt16_18:

Originally Posted by Iambic Pen
The typical Protestant view is that all sins are equally wrong in the eyes of God …

But do Protestants really believe this? If a foreign country had a system of justice where the death penalty was give for every crime, from jaywalking to murder, most Protestants would decry this as injustice. How can a Protestant think that their innermost sense of justice is superior to God’s sense of justice? Do Protestants really think that God sees the sin of a kid sassing his parent as the equal of a parent raping his child? If God sees all sin as equally wrong, why does not every offence against the Law in the OT merit the death penalty, instead of only the grievous sins meriting the death penalty?

Ah yes, good points. I guess the more I study, the more I find myself holding a view different than the “typical Protestant view.” Simple logic says that certain sins are more damaging to the soul than others.

God Bless!

 

[djrakowski]

The Iambic Pen:

However, I am still definitely studying. During my offline time, I have listened to a few Journey Home shows I had already downloaded. They were very informative and helped restore the sense of excitement I had in my studies.

Did you catch this past Monday’s “Journey Home?” The guest was Peter Holmes, a former Lutheran minister from Australia. The entire program was a series of “a-ha!” moments for me, in which a lot of stuff I’ve been studying over the last ~9 months started to make sense.
The Iambic Pen:

Ah yes, good points. I guess the more I study, the more I find myself holding a view different than the “typical Protestant view.” Simple logic says that certain sins are more damaging to the soul than others.

Same here. I’m starting to understand the idea of categorizing certain sins as mortal and others as venial, even if I don’t understand why certain sins are called one and not the other.

I’m learning a lot from very high-level studies of early Christian history. I have one struggle, however, and this is it: how do I know that something is right simply because a lot of early Christians, or a few influential early Christians, believed it? Is it on the basis of these folks’ close contact with the events immediately following the death of the Lord?

Dan

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Iambic Pen:

Still, despite moments like this, I still struggle with a few issues. I guess it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in a sense, “creates” sins, by binding the conscience of the believer in matters that, so far as we know, Jesus Himself never spoke about. What I mean is, a certain activity or belief might be completely acceptable, but then the Church makes a firm declaration about it, and what was once innocent now becomes sin. I’m still studying, though, so I’m not being difficult on purpose…

Here’s an analogy (though all analogies fall short in some area), here let’s say that sin is poison [for the soul], the Church, in putting a label on that bottle of poison is letting us know that “Hey, this is harmful to the body, don’t injest it!” for our greater good [our salvation].

 

[Mickey]

djrakowski:

how do I know that something is right simply because a lot of early Christians, or a few influential early Christians, believed it? Is it on the basis of these folks’ close contact with the events immediately following the death of the Lord?

That’s part of it. Some of these early Church Fathers were actually disciples of the Apostles themselves! The deepest wells have the clearest water.

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in a sense, “creates” sins, by binding the conscience of the believer in matters that, so far as we know, Jesus Himself never spoke about. What I mean is, a certain activity or belief might be completely acceptable, but then the Church makes a firm declaration about it, and what was once innocent now becomes sin.

Could you possibly give some example of what you mean by this?

Blessings,
Mickey

 

[djrakowski]

Mickey:

That’s part of it. Some of these early Church Fathers were actually disciples of the Apostles themselves! The deepest wells have the clearest water.

That’s the premise I have in mind as I’m studying. Are there any writings, aside from those of the early Christian leaders themselves, that will give me a better perspective? I’m reading things now that give me no more than a bird’s-eye view (which isn’t to say that they have no value - quite the contrary, as they’ve opened me up to new topics I’ve never before considered).

 

[Mickey]

djrakowski:

Are there any writings, aside from those of the early Christian leaders themselves, that will give me a better perspective?

Can you be more specific?

 

[djrakowski]

Mickey:

Can you be more specific?

Well, I want to go back as far as I can in reading early Christian writers. I have lots of stuff that was written in the 19th and 20th centuries about specific apologetic topics, but I’d like to know about what happened in the church at the very beginning, or as close to it as I can get. So I guess I would be looking for stuff like Polycarp, etc?

Dan

 

[E.E.N.S]

djrakowski:

Well, I want to go back as far as I can in reading early Christian writers. I have lots of stuff that was written in the 19th and 20th centuries about specific apologetic topics, but I’d like to know about what happened in the church at the very beginning, or as close to it as I can get. So I guess I would be looking for stuff like Polycarp, etc?

Dan

I personally really like the three volume set entitled The Faith of the Early Church Fathers by Jergens.