Personal Salvation

[Apathy]

I believe that if infact God has presented himself on this Earth in the course of History, and spoke what was detailed in many scriptures… I would say philosophically speaking that personal salvation would be the best way to go about attaining sanctification.

My logic to this is that the institutions in place today have over the centuries shown that they are incapable of conquering the status of being a oligarch and that modesty is alien to their core beliefs. Example - Pope John XII

From my perspective… The institutions were placed for monetary and political gain. While their actions of spreading the teachings of Christ is one that should be commended… They often are not as humble when it comes to politics or power.

So, ultimately… one’s own reading of scriptures and intense study of faith and trying to conform best with what is interpreted in the texts should be a higher priority than being a student of someone who can preach modesty with a gold threaded robe.

All apology for any stigmas I may have uncovered and or sytaxial or gramatical mistakes… I am fifteen and often wonder about the constructs of theocratic institutions.

 

[Pentecost2005]

Apathy:

I would say philosophically speaking that personal salvation would be the best way to go about attaining sanctification.

You’ve got it backwards. Persevering in sanctifying grace is how we “attain” salvation. Actually, in that sense, salvation is a gift, and since we have already been redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, all we have to do now is make sure we don’t screw it up for ourselves. Easier said than done, perhaps, but that’s what it boils down to.

To pursue sanctity means to prepare ourselves for eternal life. The only thing we take with us that’s ultimately valuable is our capacity to know and love God. Once you’ve made it to heaven, that’s it. You’re done. And you don’t get into heaven until you are “perfectly sanctified.”

And if you have not achieved that by the end of your earthly pilgrimage, you go to purgatory first.

Yes, yes, I know… in your wisdom you have already dispensed with the whole concept of purgatory, because a word search of your electronic KJV yields no such word. Yes, we know.

 

[Darrel]

From my perspective… The institutions were placed for monetary and political gain. While their actions of spreading the teachings of Christ is one that should be commended… They often are not as humble when it comes to politics or power.

Christ established the institution through Peter. The Eucharist is the real presence of Christ (literal). Any errors made by men through the sum total of history wont change that fundamental truth.

Secular reason does not apply to Gods truth. When people attach secular reason we see things like complaining about no women priests in the Church, as if it where some corperation like Microsoft.

-D

 

[Apathy]

Darrel:

Christ established the institution through Peter. The Eucharist is the real presence of Christ (literal). Any errors made by men through the sum total of history wont change that fundamental truth.

Secular reason does not apply to Gods truth.

Christ established the Church through Peter, so it is ultimately infallable and must be heralded in high regard. If the people in power were to become corrupted it is just nature of things.

So the big question… When is the Church corrupted and when is it divine?

Secular reason does not apply to Gods truth…
However, if the process of reason and thought were bestowed to us through the power of God would it not be congruent?

 

[Darrel]

Apathy:

So the big question… When is the Church corrupted and when is it divine?

The Church is always divine, even in its darkest most error filled hour. The promises to Peter will apply and God can not lie.

Apathy:

Secular reason does not apply to Gods truth…

However, if the process of reason and thought were bestowed to us through the power of God would it not be congruent?

Not with sin in the hearts of men. We will only be congruent when we are in heaven. If this were not true there would not be a need for scathing letters from St. Paul to the Churches he admonished, after the Holy Spirit descended as tongues of fire in the very beginning of the Church.

-D

 

[vitalsigns]

Jesus hand-picked 12 apostles, none of whom were perfect, but through them the message of Christ was delivered throughout the world.

Jesus in his wisdom established the church. I do not doubt that he is right that we need the church. Through the church we have the sacraments. Sacrements are effective independent of the disposition of the ordained, so long as he has the proper intent and form.

What is church? It’s not perfection. It’s not heaven. Adults entering the Catholic church are asked “What do you ask of the Catholic church?” and the answer is “Faith.” Please do not look at one church member and say, “That’s church.” Look instead at the whole picture, 2K years of history, across all continents. Yes, there are lots of problems, but find me something earthly that’s perfect. Tell me how “every man for himself” is anything close to being a model of Christianity. Tell me that Judas was not an instrument of God. And if he had gone to “church,” the other apostles would’ve communicated to him God’s love and forgiveness and mercy … if only he’d given God a chance.

–V

 

[Apathy]

Darrel:

The Church is always divine, even in its darkest most error filled hour. The promises to Peter will apply and God can not lie.

Does it specify a date or time Peter will enact his pact with God?
I would like to see modesty return to the church.

 

[Darrel]

Apathy:

Does it specify a date or time Peter will enact his pact with God?
I would like to see modesty return to the church.

Are you Catholic? Your profile says evangelical. What specific changes in detail do you want to see?

-D

 

[awalt]

Your ideas seem reasonable, except that’s not what Jesus Christ said. This is not something that we have the right to debate with God, many here believe that He has made this abundantly clear through the Bible, through tradition passed down, and through the teaching of His Church. Prior to about AD 400 there was only one Church, so if the Bible explains the establishment of One True Church, this is it.

If this does not seem true to you, please read, investigate these more fundamental issues as opposed to trying to convince us that you can reason out your own plan for salvation. IMHO it seems to be a higher priority, because if you learn to believe what they say that you have answered your own question.

Good luck!

 

[deb1]

Apathy:

Does it specify a date or time Peter will enact his pact with God?
I would like to see modesty return to the church.

Can you expond on what you mean by modesty returning to the church?

I would like to say that for 15 you are very articulate.

 

[Apathy]

deb1:

Can you expond on what you mean by modesty returning to the church?

I would like to say that for 15 you are very articulate.

Modesty in regards to the overall ornateness of the church.
It seems as though the church has a right to be decadent with gold trims, lavish robes and all of the other saintly things.

If they must dress lavishly and above the average attire then I wouldn’t claim it to be a act of modesty.

It is almost a heirarchial statement.
I wear these clothes and perform a duty in X a fashion so therefore I am more of a human than you are.

I am overall distraught on the fact that heirarchies must exist for people to be close to god… It almost leads me to conclude the reason it is so is for the upper elites in the heirarchy could benefit at the expense of their pesantry.

If Jesus did exist, I feel that he would instill equality in society.
In the formation of a extravagent church which basks in prolific levels of power and authority… I find it not to be the case as them to be considered a equal.

Call me secular… But I have the premonition that Christ wouldn’t like people making cash out of his name and dictating to people there is only one way through payments and subordination of “lessers”.

 

[vitalsigns]

Yes, the hierarchy can lend itself to abuse of power. However, for us to come together in an organized coherent manner, we need some sort of organization, and the hierarchy is it. God is in charge, and those who knowingly abuse their power will be given their due.

One of the complaints in New Orleans post-Katrina was that “no one was in charge.” People need leadership if they are to move as a coherent unit.

As far as extravagance…see Matthew 26:6-13
We as a church try to give God his due. Per old testament, the temple was ornate, and the Levitical priestly vestments were ornate. Architecture, dress, and ceremonies are oriented towards turning our minds and hearts to the majesty of our God. The vestments are for the priestly office, not the man in it. Likewise a priest in shoddy dress while carrying out his liturgical duties suggests a lack of respect to our God.

Historically, the robes were typical Roman attire and being basically a drape, they were almost one-size-fits all and were suitable for handing down through the generations. They’ve evolved to being more ornate and perhaps exotic these days. Personally, I appreciate them and the vestments have considerable meaning to me.

Outside of the liturgy, I doubt that you’ll see priests in lavish clothing. But if they represent their office, they dress appropriately.

–v

 

[Scott_Waddell]

JPII addressed the the extravagance question in his encyclical: ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

Chapter Five
THE DIGNITY
OF THE EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION

1. Reading the account of the institution of the Eucharist in the Synoptic Gospels, we are struck by the simplicity and the “solemnity” with which Jesus, on the evening of the Last Supper, instituted this great sacrament. There is an episode which in some way serves as its prelude: the anointing at Bethany. A woman, whom John identifies as Mary the sister of Lazarus, pours a flask of costly ointment over Jesus’ head, which provokes from the disciples – and from Judas in particular (cf. Mt 26:8; Mk 14:4; Jn 12:4) – an indignant response, as if this act, in light of the needs of the poor, represented an intolerable “waste”. But Jesus’ own reaction is completely different. While in no way detracting from the duty of charity towards the needy, for whom the disciples must always show special care – “the poor you will always have with you” (Mt 26, 11; Mk 14:7; cf. Jn 12:8) – he looks towards his imminent death and burial, and sees this act of anointing as an anticipation of the honour which his body will continue to merit even after his death, indissolubly bound as it is to the mystery of his person.

The account continues, in the Synoptic Gospels, with Jesus’ charge to the disciples to prepare carefully the “large upper room” needed for the Passover meal (cf. Mk 14:15; Lk 22:12) and with the narration of the institution of the Eucharist. Reflecting at least in part the Jewish rites of the Passover meal leading up to the singing of the Hallel (cf. Mt 26:30; Mk 14:26), the story presents with sobriety and solemnity, even in the variants of the different traditions, the words spoken by Christ over the bread and wine, which he made into concrete expressions of the handing over of his body and the shedding of his blood. All these details are recorded by the Evangelists in the light of a praxis of the “breaking of the bread” already well-established in the early Church. But certainly from the time of Jesus on, the event of Holy Thursday has shown visible traces of a liturgical “sensibility” shaped by Old Testament tradition and open to being reshaped in Christian celebrations in a way consonant with the new content of Easter.

1. Like the woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany, the Church has feared no “extravagance”, devoting the best of her resources to expressing her wonder and adoration before the unsurpassable gift of the Eucharist. No less than the first disciples charged with preparing the “large upper room”, she has felt the need, down the centuries and in her encounters with different cultures, to celebrate the Eucharist in a setting worthy of so great a mystery. In the wake of Jesus’ own words and actions, and building upon the ritual heritage of Judaism, the Christian liturgy was born.

Scott

 

[deb1]

Apathy:

Modesty in regards to the overall ornateness of the church.
It seems as though the church has a right to be decadent with gold trims, lavish robes and all of the other saintly things.

If they must dress lavishly and above the average attire then I wouldn’t claim it to be a act of modesty.

It is almost a heirarchial statement.
I wear these clothes and perform a duty in X a fashion so therefore I am more of a human than you are.

I am overall distraught on the fact that heirarchies must exist for people to be close to god… It almost leads me to conclude the reason it is so is for the upper elites in the heirarchy could benefit at the expense of their pesantry.

If Jesus did exist, I feel that he would instill equality in society.
In the formation of a extravagent church which basks in prolific levels of power and authority… I find it not to be the case as them to be considered a equal.

Call me secular… But I have the premonition that Christ wouldn’t like people making cash out of his name and dictating to people there is only one way through payments and subordination of “lessers”.

In the old testament God, himself, ordered the Jewish people to build him a very ornate temple.In 1 Kings chapter 6, Solomon covered part of the inside of the temple with carved cedar wood. The inner room was covered with pure gold. He also built two fifteen feet high creatures from olive wood. These statues he covered with pure gold. Infact the description of this temple is much more ornate and grand then anything that you see in a Catholic church. I think that God does have a love of beauty, both natural-as in sunsets and snow covered fields-and man made-like beautiful statues.

As far as charitable works. When I was a fundamentalists our pastor stressed that bearing good fruit meant witnessing to people. In his eyes if you weren’t on fire to bring people to Christ then you were not a Christian. Most of the social good was done with the idea of bringing the recipents to God.

Now that I am in the Catholic church I am hearing a whole different message of bearing good fruit. There is more of an emphasis on social good. Helping the poor, supporting prolife, etc.

I am not saying that Protestants don’t do social good or that Catholics don’t evangilize just that their emphasis is different. But the point is that simply because one congregation attends a beautiful church and another attends a sparsely decorated church, it is unfair to guess which congregation is more worried with the poor or more inclined toward godliness.

 

[mpav]

With respect to ornateness in the Church, why should we not use the best when worshipping? It is proper to show revernce this way. Remember when Judas castigated Mary Magdalene for “wasting” precious oils anointing the feet of the Lord. Jesus rebuked him “The poor you will always have with you. You will not always have me.”