"Separated Bretheren"

[Swiss_Guy]

If sinners can’t enter heaven then nobody is going in since we are all sinners

Seriously, however, surely you know the difference between Catholic and Protestant understandings on salvation.

In short: I get into Heaven based on Christ’s righteousness (Phil. 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21), which is imputed to me. God forgave all my sins on Calvary (Colossians 2:13-14), I was declared righteous upon faith in Christ.

I will go into much more detail with many more verses if you desire, but C’s and P’s will never agree on salvation. I think you’re just as wrong as you do me

Ever heard of the JDDJ? Between Lutherans and Catholics? I know of all the controversy and stuff, but it seems that Lutherans (in the world fderation) seem to agree with C’s. The only difference is imputation vs. infusation (is that corrrect terminology?), which leads elsewhere.

So C’s and P’s pretty much do agree on salvation, just not the traditional conservative P’s .

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I seem to have left the impression that I don’t believe in freewill. My fault. I believe in free will - at least as far as ‘predeterminism’ is concerned. This is not to rule out enormous influences from genes, environment, etc.

What I was suggesting is that some scriptural passages which suggest that there is little of any free will and even refer to the 'elect'. Jesus, after all, said even the hairs on our heads are numbered! If God manages such details, it is understandable that many believe that the omniscience of God requires the absence of freewill. Etc. I don't agree with this position myself.

 My real point was that we need to be humble when we debate these issues. I often have asked God - rhetorically, of course - "Lord, if you want us all to believe this way or that way, join this church or that church, why weren't you a bit clearer in the Bible?" 

 Traditional Catholics don't worry much about that because they sincerely believe that the magisterium, led by the Pope, is safeguarded from error by the Holy Spirit. I confess that over the years I have had an increasing problem with that. History suggests that there has been contradictions in teachings. I am old enough to remember, for example, when parochial schools definitely taught that there is a limbo for unbaptized babies. Now that becomes optional. I recall, too, how it was an enormous sin to even enter a Protestant church - and certainly not to participate in worship with Protestants. With Vatican II this was turned around. Traditional Catholics will have explanations for all this, of course, and Protestant fundamentalists are of the same mindset. Both groups are positive that they have the full truth and everyone else is at least wrong, and maybe worse.

 I read just today a review of a new book on the Popes entitled "Absolute Monarchs". I look forward to reading it. Apparently it is a fairly objective study of the Papacy through the centuries, warts and all. 

 God bless everybody. Most people I know, whatever their religious faith, have coped with many crises in their lives, and still do. They have been survivors through it all, and I honor them, regardless of their religion. God has endowed most human beings with plenty of pluck, considerable resilence, and an spiritual instinct that can serve serve them well when they need courage and fortitude.

  Keep smiling.

 

[SGWessells]

Rogare writes: “To you also I recommend John Piper’s The God Who Justifies. It is a tremendously deep exegesis of Romans 9 that answers all of your objections. Your exegesis of Romans 9 is quite poor.”

Thanks for the tip. Before I accept your evaluation, however, I would like to see some evidence of how poor my exegesis is. Surely if it’s that bad, it should be easy to demonstrate why.

 

[SGWessells]

Rogare writes: "Please tell me how that makes a mockery of justice.

Sorry, I should have said it makes a mockery of mercy.

 

[SGWessells]

Rogare wrote: " According to Matthew 6:8, God already knows what we need before we ask Him. His mind is already made up. What’s the point in praying then? The point is that God ordains not only the ends, but the means to those ends as well. Paul prays for the conversion of Jews the same reason that you pray for help, guidance, etc. God already knows what’s coming, but he wants us to pray in reliance on Him."

Sorry, this won’t wash. If God takes our prayers into account when choosing who will be saved, then what has become of his sole determination of salvation based on his sovereign will alone? You have to deny the basic tenet of “reformed soteriology” to make your objection relevant; that is, to give Paul’s prayers, or anyone else’s, any influence on God’s decision. But if Paul’s prayers could not have any such influence, which would have to be the case if God’s sovereign will alone determined who would be saved, then neither Paul’s prayers, nor anyone else’s, are the secondary causes you speak of. Surely, if Paul was the good Calvinist you think he is, he would have known this. The fact that he continued to pray for the conversion of the Jews shows that in his mind (therefore in God’s as author of scripture) the matter was not yet settled.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this concept. It sounds like an oxymoron. How is it possible to be a brother “in Christ” and yet be “separated?” If they are separated from the Body of Christ, how can they be brothers and sisters “in Christ?”

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want to be divisive. I want to see them as brothers and sisters. I just can’t seem to grasp how it “works.” I want to be able to articulate how it is possible. I also want to be able to better articulate why they should consider “coming home” to Catholicism if they are already “in the Body.”

Thanks.

Ill try again, as I need to do something . They can be “in Christ” because they are Christian at heart, but “seperated” because they don’t share visible communion with him in being part of the Church (his Body). The catechism says that (us) Protestants have an “imperfect” communion with the Church, so they should come home to be in full communion with his Body. This is how I see it.

Thanks again for giving me something to do.

 

[steve_b]

My real point was that we need to be humble when we debate these issues. I often have asked God - rhetorically, of course - “Lord, if you want us all to believe this way or that way, join this church or that church,* why weren’t you a bit clearer in the Bible?”*

If it was bible alone, then what did everyone do for the 1st 400 years when there WAS no bible?

No official canon of scripture existed before the council of Rome in 386.
R:

Traditional Catholics don’t worry much about that because they sincerely believe that the magisterium, led by the Pope, is safeguarded from error by the Holy Spirit. I confess that over the years I have had an increasing problem with that. History suggests that there has been contradictions in teachings. I am old enough to remember, for example, when parochial schools definitely taught that there is a limbo for unbaptized babies. Now that becomes optional.

Here’s the explanation of Limbo and unbaptized infants

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

An excerpt from this link
“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

iow,

• baptism is still a requirement. Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. [Jn 3:5]
• In the face of such a strong requirement FOR baptism from Jesus, may be saved therefore, ≠ will be saved for unbaptized infants. So we hope in the love and mercy of God for them

R:

I recall, too, how it was an enormous sin to even enter a Protestant church - and certainly not to participate in worship with Protestants. With Vatican II this was turned around. Traditional Catholics will have explanations for all this, of course, and Protestant fundamentalists are of the same mindset. Both groups are positive that they have the full truth and everyone else is at least wrong, and maybe worse.

Do you have the section(s) from Vat II docs that you’re refering to?

 

[Steadfast_love]

I am fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding the papacy (its existence, infallibility, primacy, etc.), apostolic succession, the Eucharist (transubstantiation, propitiatory sacrifice), Mary (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption), confession, baptismal regeneration, indulgences, purgatory, infused righteousness, works, prayer to saints, etc. **I reject each of these teachings as I’m sure any Protestant would (at least all that I know). ** Now, honestly, would this qualify me as a heretic?

By your own admission you are Protestant. Protestantism doesn’t qualify you as a heretic (a kind of sinner), it only qualifies you as a Seperated Bretheren (a Christian with un-Catholic theology). To qualify as a sinner, you’ve got to do the sin. To be a heretic you’ve got to commit herecy. Not just the words and acting the part but really rejecting God’s grace from the bottom of your heart.

Unlike many *sola fide *Christians, Catholics believe that people can be saved apart from faith. For example, infants are saved by grace when they are baptised. Our belief is that they do not have a saving faith or orthodox theology. They are saved by the grace of God, the grace commuted by the sacrement of baptism.

Likewise, we Catholics believe that our Seperated Bretheren can be saved apart from believing orthodox theology by the grace of God.

It’s true that you may appear to have many things in common with actual heretics but the Church aspires to judge not by apperences but to judge rightly.

 

[Roy5]

steve b

No, I’m not enough of a student of Vatican II to cite any document.

What I do know (and remember) is that almost overnight the policy of the Catholic Church. changed from having nothing to do with Protestants to joining in ecumenical services in churches of various denominations. Priests suddenly joined what had been all-Protestant local ministerial groups. etc. This was presented as a change brought about by Vatican II. Am I wrong?
Though this ecumenical fervor has cooled some in recent years, now Catholics are free to attend baptisms, confirmations, funerals, etc., at Protestant churches - and do. This had been disallowed back before Vatican II and caused ruptures and hard feelings in many families. I know because I grew up in a mixed Catholic/Protestant family and recall the tensions over religion as a child. These tensions have about disappeared today except among a few zealous Catholic traditionalists and evangelical Protestants. Mainline Protestants seem totally open to ecumenical and even interfaith cooperation, certainly in this area. Most Catholics share this attitude, also. Personally, I like it.

 

[steve_b]

steve b

No, I’m not enough of a student of Vatican II to cite any document.

What I do know (and remember) is that almost overnight the policy of the Catholic Church. changed from having nothing to do with Protestants to joining in ecumenical services in churches of various denominations. Priests suddenly joined what had been all-Protestant local ministerial groups. etc. This was presented as a change brought about by Vatican II. Am I wrong?

Roy,

I merely asked, because Vat II produced many documents. The documents are easy to access online. Here they are

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
R:

Though this ecumenical fervor has cooled some in recent years, now Catholics are free to attend baptisms, confirmations, funerals, etc., at Protestant churches - and do. This had been disallowed back before Vatican II and caused ruptures and hard feelings in many families. I know because I grew up in a mixed Catholic/Protestant family and recall the tensions over religion as a child. These tensions have about disappeared today except among a few zealous Catholic traditionalists and evangelical Protestants. Mainline Protestants seem totally open to ecumenical and even interfaith cooperation, certainly in this area. Most Catholics share this attitude, also. Personally, I like it.

Here’s the guidlines from Vat II for Catholics

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

note: Protestants are refered to in this document as [Protestants or ecclesial communities]

Maybe these links will be a service to you in your discussions here, and with your family as well.

btw, in the spirit of ecumenism, but avoiding being unclear, Protestant services don’t substitute for a Catholic missing mass on Sunday. A Catholic still must attend mass every Sunday as well as the other holy days of obligation… A Catholic cannot participate in Protestant communion.

 

[Roy5]

I don’t pretend or plan to be an expert on Vatican II. Actually, I sense that efforts are being made in some quarters to interpret Vatican II in the most conservative way possible, and I worry about that. In my view the church hasn’t made enough reforms, and the push in some circles to go back to - say - more masses in Latin, etc., worries me. So many millions have left or all but ignore Catholicism because they see it as rooted too deeply and limited to much in traditions unrelated to the world today.

In my view, for example, citing the ancient and medieval church as models for today is dangerous. I have read many Church Fathers and they were brilliant men for their times. But with modern knowledge obtained by telescopes, microscopes and other advances made much of what they wrote is irrelevant and even sounds primitive as well as false in our era.

 Actually, I tend to find that most Catholics agree with me. There seems to be a definite split in the church between a vocal minority who idolize tradition and a majority who want the church to make rational and reasonable changes to better serve in our modern society. In our area, where Catholicism is very strong, there is cnsiderable support, as one example, for the marriage of priests. For traditionalists to say that that can never happen is alienating. Wasn't Peter a married man? I believe there is plenty of evidence that priests did not always have to be unmarried. Better married, certainly, than the sort of scandal that has so tarnished the church.

 I liken the split among Catholics more-or-less to that among Protestants. Mainline Protestants generally favor careful change. Evangelical Protestants tend to be dogmatic in their opinions, certain that they alone are absolutely right. Probably most Protestants. and most Catholics also, don't get all that exercised about these issues. They find strength and comfort in their faith and are far less concerned as to whether the priest has on this or that vestment, whether they must adhere to this or that doctrine. 

 Was Mary the only person ever born immaculately? What does that even mean? Lots of people I know simply dismiss the notion that innocent babies are born with original sin. Would God be so unjust? Was it inherited from the sin of Adam and Eve, regarded by millions of devout Christians as a fable with a moral message, but certainly not historical? Or, does the sin come from marital sexual relations of Mary's father and mother (not mentioned, incidentally, in the Bible) that produced her as an infant? That would be ridiculous.

 God bless everybody. Most people are confronted by tough battles along the road of life and I'm not interested in burdening them further with undeserved guilt, threats if they don't believe as I do, and dogmae that they find difficult to accept. Let's agree to disagree, think and let think, and love one another. Jesus would like that.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t pretend or plan to be an expert on Vatican II. Actually, I sense that efforts are being made in some quarters to interpret Vatican II in the most conservative way possible, and I worry about that. In my view the church hasn’t made enough reforms, and the push in some circles to go back to - say - more masses in Latin, etc., worries me.

Before throwing Latin under the bus, Latin was the universal language pre Vat II. No matter where you went in the world the mass was said in Latin. Everyone knew the responses regardless of their native language. Today mass is said in the vernacular. So all over the world the mass is said in languages not every person can understand if traveling outside their own country. Just something to think about. Even though I prefer mass in English
R:

So many millions have left or all but ignore Catholicism because they see it as rooted too deeply and limited to much in traditions unrelated to the world today.

Most people who leave do so because of sins below the belt. Divorce and remarry, gay marriages, artificial contraception, shacking up together, yada yada … mortal sins abound

like they can leave the CC and all of a sudden these sins aren’t mortal anymore? sheesh!!
R:

In my view, for example, citing the ancient and medieval church as models for today is dangerous. I have read many Church Fathers and they were brilliant men for their times. But with modern knowledge obtained by telescopes, microscopes and other advances made much of what they wrote is irrelevant and even sounds primitive as well as false in our era.

Like what?
R:

Actually, I tend to find that most Catholics agree with me. There seems to be a definite split in the church between a vocal minority who idolize tradition and a majority who want the church to make rational and reasonable changes to better serve in our modern society.

You’re not making your case. Our society couldn’t be more screwed up.
R:

In our area, where Catholicism is very strong, there is cnsiderable support, as one example, for the marriage of priests. For traditionalists to say that that can never happen is alienating. Wasn’t Peter a married man? I believe there is plenty of evidence that priests did not always have to be unmarried. Better married, certainly, than the sort of scandal that has so tarnished the church.

Eastern Catholics have married priests. It’s not like we don’t know what it would be like for married priests.

Yes Peter had a mother in law. But we know absolutely zero about his wife. Is she alive, is she dead? Why mention he has a mother in law and say absolutely nothing about his wife. ZERO.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705lw.asp
R:

I liken the split among Catholics more-or-less to that among Protestants. Mainline Protestants generally favor careful change. Evangelical Protestants tend to be dogmatic in their opinions, certain that they alone are absolutely right. Probably most Protestants. and most Catholics also, don’t get all that exercised about these issues. They find strength and comfort in their faith and are far less concerned as to whether the priest has on this or that vestment, whether they must adhere to this or that doctrine.

Sounds like relativism
R:

Was Mary the only person ever born immaculately? What does that even mean? Lots of people I know simply dismiss the notion that innocent babies are born with original sin. Would God be so unjust?

Born is the operative word. Jesus was born without sin. Babies are born innocent of personal sin. But they are not free of the consequences of original sin of Adam. Jesus and Mary were born free of Adam’s sin.

Here’s what the CCC has to say about original sin
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=original+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
R:

Was it inherited from the sin of Adam and Eve, regarded by millions of devout Christians as a fable with a moral message, but certainly not historical?

I suggest you don’t stand too close to them. Such stupidity might be catching.
R:

Or, does the sin come from marital sexual relations of Mary’s father and mother (not mentioned, incidentally, in the Bible) that produced her as an infant? That would be ridiculous.

Yes it’s rediculous

 

[SGWessells]

Roy% wrote: “There seems to be a definite split in the church between a vocal minority who idolize tradition and a majority who want the church to make rational and reasonable changes to better serve in our modern society.”

We must avoid what C.S>Lewis called “chronological snobbery”: the misguided and arrogant notion that the later an idea is, the more likely it is to be true. Yes, science has made great strides, but philosophy has sunken into relativist senility and morality barely keeps up with Pagan Corinth (notorious for its licentiousness). Remember that in fifty or a hundred years (or even sooner, like next week) “the times”, that idol to which the past is to be sacrificed, will no longer be contemporary, and all our favorite fads and unquestioned truths will be scorned by the avant-garde and cast in the rubbish heap of history (where most of them, IMHBDAO, belong). In fact, the notion that the Church should adapt to the times and run after every fashion of the moment, however trivial and silly, is itself no longer new, and by Roy5’s own philosophy, should be discarded. Good riddance, I say.

By the way, no traditionalist says priestly celibacy is infallible or unchangeable. After all, it is a reformable discipline that was only made law in the 11th century. That being said, I think there are good points in its favor. Just because the laity (with its 50% divorce rate) is hastening to leap onto the marriage bandwagon doesn’t mean the priesthood has to blindly follow. As Paul said, he who is single can serve the Lord unreservedly, but he who is married has to divide his loyalties and serve his wife and children also. And for every man who finds celibacy a daunting obstacle to the priesthood, there is another who finds the sacrifice an ennobling and enriching challenge.

 

[Roy5]

Nobody is arguing that the church should adopt every change that has come our way, many of them unhealthy and unwise changes in contemporary society.

But I'm troubled when I see many in the church looking to the ancient past for guidance. For example, I've read the Church Fathers - many of them - and they had wisdom and knowledge for their time, but much of what they wrote sounds primitive, superstition and simply false today.

 Like disease caused by our sin or by the devil. Really, now, without awareness of germs as we have today, the opinions of Church Fathers are unhelpful and misleading.

 Or, the three-tier concept of the universe - heaven above, hell  within the earth. These Church Fathers didn't have a clue as to the million stars or maybe even a million solar systems out there in space. Their views on the universe were way off. I recall that one or more expressed opinions about hell being a roaring fire in the bowels of the earth and the earth being flat. After all, if the earth weren't flat how could Satan have taken Christ to the top of a mountain and shown him all the kingdoms of the world? Etc.

  The Church also needs to change its mind on celibate priests and give them the choice. Today millions see the Catholic Church as a sanctuary for pedaphiles who were protected by the hierarchy which, they think, was more interested in maintaining the good name of the church rather than show concern for victims of such priests. Just this morning I read an article on sexual abuse among the Irish and German clergy. The article indicated that many Catholics have left the church in both countries in disgust when it was revealed that the hierarchy hid the facts and would even send scandalous priests to other parishes.

  The change also has to come re artificial birth control. Many of our ancestors had 10-15 children. They were likely to lose some who would die during childhood. They had no social security except their grown children. And there were not the modern means of birth control. How many parents can provide for a large family today, when college costs per annum usually run between $25,000 and $50,000, Birth control exercised by married couples can be, in many cases, the responsible way to go. Besides, the church-approved method is not only Russian roulette, but it also has the same goal - limit the number of children. 

  Okay, now as to 'separated brethren'. I believe Christians should acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters and not emphasize the 'separated' part. Provide room for different opinions on many of these issues, whether theological or such traditional practices as celibate clergy. No one but God has the answers to many of the mysteries of life, and my confidence is in the Lord rather than any church.   

  God bless everybody - no exceptions!

 

[JReducation]

Roy5 has raises some interesting points. I cannot address them all in one post. I’ll pick a few that jumped out at me.

Fathers of the Church
These men are called Fathers for a very important reason. Before the bible was in its current format, it was they who received the faith from the Apostles and transmitted it from generation to generation. They are the true Patriarchs of the Church, just as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others were the Patriarchs of Israel.

If we look at Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, many of their beliefs about the natural world were very primitive. However, we don’t subscribe to them and keep them alive in Judeo Christian history because of their knowledge about the physical world. We keep them alive, because they transmitted revealed truth that is irrefutable. Their language sounds primitive to us, because we no longer use that lexicon. Nonetheless, the message is unchanging. The same is true of the Christian Patriarchs. Their lexicon sounds primitive to us. Their understanding of the natural world was very primitive. However, their understanding of Truth and the truth that they preserved and handed down is unchanging. It is the same truth that was handed down by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and finally fulfilled by Jesus Christ, then transmitted again by the Apostles. The Fathers are the link between the Apostles and us. Their lexicon may be quaint, even archaic, but truth is never quaint or archaic. Truth is eternal.

Immaculate Conception
The immaculate conception has nothing to do with sex. It’s all about Jesus’ human nature and his power to redeem. The second person of the Trinity, the pre-existent Logos, takes on human nature. He takes it on from a human parent, his mother, Mary. In this hypostatic union, the human and the divine co-exist without co-mingling, while at the same time inseparable. It is unreasonable for the God-Man to be tainted by a humanity that is in a State of Original Sin. Since Original Sin is transmitted from parent to child as part of the human condition, it becomes necessary to stop the cycle, before the conception of the God-Man.

The crucifixion happened on a fixed day and time in a fixed city in the Middle East. However, the redemptive work of the cross is not limited to that time and space, because it is the work of God. Therefore, since the beginning of time, the Book of Genesis tells us that there will be emnity between the woman and the serpent, between his seed and her seed. We know that the serpent is an allegorical image for Satan, the Father of Lies. We know that his seed is sin. We know that the enemy of sin is Christ himself. So, who is the woman? If Christ is the seed, the only woman who gave birth to him was Mary. We are being told that there will be emnity between Mary and Satan. What is the biggest punishment that God can impose on Satan? . . . to preserve a soul from his snare.

How does God achieve this? Since nothing is impossible for God, Mary is redeemed by the sacrifice of Calvary, before she is conceived. She is redeemed when Man falls and God sentences Man and Satan for their actions. He proclaims that there will be a woman who will be out of Satan’s reach. The only way for this to happen is for this woman to be conceived without the inherited sin. This is not impossible for God. Christ’s redemptive sacrifice reaches back to the beginning of time and redeems Mary. God, in his eternal wisdom, redeems Mary from Original Sin before she is conceived, so that his Son receives human nature without contamination.

Mary is conceived immaculately, without Original Sin, in order to give her son an immaculate human nature. Her immaculate conception speaks about her son’s human nature, about God’s power to save and about God’s desire to save.

Contraception

The great lie of the devil is to make people believe that what is right is irresponsible and what is wrong is the responsible thing to do. The devil knows that in our heart of hearts, we all want to be responsible. The problem with contraception is that it’s an irresponsible act. The sexual act has two divine ends. It is the sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Just as Christ becomes one with his bride, this unity is reproduced again and again in the physical union between husband and wife. The second part of this is that Christ’s union with the Church is not sterile. Christ’s union with the Church is generative. It always opens the doors for divine life. Whether we take it or not, that’s our fault, not Christ’s fault.

Therefore, the union between a man and wife, ceases to be a living sign of the union between Christ and the Church when it closes the door to life. The love and intimacy between God and his people has always been open to life.

Contraception, is a means that man uses as an attempt to handcuff God. It is a human attempt to reap the pleasures of intimacy without the responsibility of life. It is truly the work of the devil, deceiving man into believing that the right is wrong and the wrong is right.

Natural Family Planning, besides having a very high rate of success when done correctly, does not interfere with God’s activity. In NFP, the husband and wife refrain from physical intimacy. They are not attempting to handcuff God so they can get on with the pursuit of pleasure, emotional and physical. On the contrary, like Christ and the Church, they are sacrificing themselves for their mutual good. Christ died on the cross for the Church. The Church sacrifices her life for her divine spouse. Just as Christ goes down among the dead, as we say in the Creed, “He descended into hell” and the Church felt abandoned, so too the spouses die to self out of love.

Jesus was reunited with the Church at the Resurrection, so too the spouses are reunited after the period of abstinence is over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

Roy5 has raises some interesting points. I cannot address them all in one post. I’ll pick a few that jumped out at me.

Fathers of the Church
These men are called Fathers for a very important reason. Before the bible was in its current format, it was they who received the faith from the Apostles and transmitted it from generation to generation. They are the true Patriarchs of the Church, just as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others were the Patriarchs of Israel.

Immaculate Conception
The immaculate conception has nothing to do with sex. It’s all about Jesus’ human nature and his power to redeem. The second person of the Trinity, the pre-existent Logos, takes on human nature. He takes it on from a human parent, his mother, Mary. In this hypostatic union, the human and the divine co-exist without co-mingling, while at the same time inseparable. It is unreasonable for the God-Man to be tainted by a humanity that is in a State of Original Sin. Since Original Sin is transmitted from parent to child as part of the human condition, it becomes necessary to stop the cycle, before the conception of the God-Man.

The crucifixion happened on a fixed day and time in a fixed city in the Middle East. However, the redemptive work of the cross is not limited to that time and space, because it is the work of God. Therefore, since the beginning of time, the Book of Genesis tells us that there will be emnity between the woman and the serpent, between his seed and her seed. We know that the serpent is an allegorical image for Satan, the Father of Lies. We know that his seed is sin. We know that the enemy of sin is Christ himself. So, who is the woman? If Christ is the seed, the only woman who gave birth to him was Mary. We are being told that there will be emnity between Mary and Satan. What is the biggest punishment that God can impose on Satan? . . . to preserve a soul from his snare.

How does God achieve this? Since nothing is impossible for God, Mary is redeemed by the sacrifice of Calvary, before she is conceived. She is redeemed when Man falls and God sentences Man and Satan for their actions. He proclaims that there will be a woman who will be out of Satan’s reach. The only way for this to happen is for this woman to be conceived without the inherited sin. This is not impossible for God. Christ’s redemptive sacrifice reaches back to the beginning of time and redeems Mary. God, in his eternal wisdom, redeems Mary from Original Sin before she is conceived, so that his Son receives human nature without contamination.

Mary is conceived immaculately, without Original Sin, in order to give her son an immaculate human nature. Her immaculate conception speaks about her son’s human nature, about God’s power to save and about God’s desire to save.

Contraception

The great lie of the devil is to make people believe that what is right is irresponsible and what is wrong is the responsible thing to do. The devil knows that in our heart of hearts, we all want to be responsible. The problem with contraception is that it’s an irresponsible act. The sexual act has two divine ends. It is the sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Just as Christ becomes one with his bride, this unity is reproduced again and again in the physical union between husband and wife. The second part of this is that Christ’s union with the Church is not sterile. Christ’s union with the Church is generative. It always opens the doors for divine life. Whether we take it or not, that’s our fault, not Christ’s fault.

Therefore, the union between a man and wife, ceases to be a living sign of the union between Christ and the Church when it closes the door to life. The love and intimacy between God and his people has always been open to life.

Contraception, is a means that man uses as an attempt to handcuff God. It is a human attempt to reap the pleasures of intimacy without the responsibility of life. It is truly the work of the devil, deceiving man into believing that the right is wrong and the wrong is right.

Natural Family Planning, besides having a very high rate of success when done correctly, does not interfere with God’s activity. In NFP, the husband and wife refrain from physical intimacy. They are not attempting to handcuff God so they can get on with the pursuit of pleasure, emotional and physical. On the contrary, like Christ and the Church, they are sacrificing themselves for their mutual good. Christ died on the cross for the Church. The Church sacrifices her life for her divine spouse. Just as Christ goes down among the dead, as we say in the Creed, “He descended into hell” and the Church felt abandoned, so too the spouses die to self out of love.

Jesus was reunited with the Church at the Resurrection, so too the spouses are reunited after the period of abstinence is over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Great post brother. Today, people has lost sight of what is True and what is lies. We don’t know a Truth from a lie unless God reveals it to us. And the Truth has been revealed yet, many of us just can’t accept. I think that many of us are more interested in showing how smart we are than to report only what God has revealed.

I think of the Apostles and how they told their stories about how God had saved them from chains, how Jesus appeared to them. They didn’t add or subtract anything or tried to analyze anything. Today, the mind set is to guess and analyze the Word of God. How prophane this is.

 

[SGWessells]

Roy5 wrote: " Today millions see the Catholic Church as a sanctuary for pedaphiles who were protected by the hierarchy which, they think, was more interested in maintaining the good name of the church rather than show concern for victims of such priests."

That’s because they see only secularist anti-Catholic propaganda, and don’t bother to find out the facts.

First, the number of such cases is greatly exaggerated. Surveys repeatedly show that less than 4% of the clergy can even be suspected of such behavior, let alone proven guilty, yet columnists like Maureen Dowd can refer to sexual assaults by priests as “sickeningly commonplace,” thus slandering the 95% of priests whose conduct is beyond reproach.

Second, the overwhelming majority of Priestly sexual abuse incidents are not cases of pedophilia. Pedophiles assault prepubescent children, and the percentage of priests who do so is not greater than in the general population. Therefore, priestly celibacy does not contribute to “pedophilia.”
Nor is the incidence of sexual assault on older teenage boys, which constitute the vast majority of cases, greater than in the general population.
While priests preying on the young people in their care and under their sway is an abomination, it does not happen any more frequently than it would if those priests were laymen. So lust, not celibacy, is to blame. And we all know where that comes from.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Nobody is arguing that the church should adopt every change that has come our way, many of them unhealthy and unwise changes in contemporary society.

And then you come up with a list of changes. Hmm.

But I'm troubled when I see many in the church looking to the ancient past for guidance. For example, I've read the Church Fathers - many of them - and they had wisdom and knowledge for their time, but much of what they wrote sounds primitive, superstition and simply false today.

 Like disease caused by our sin or by the devil. Really, now, without awareness of germs as we have today, the opinions of Church Fathers are unhelpful and misleading.

Why is it that, in your mind, disease must be caused EITHER by the devil OR by germs? Where did germs come from? Do you really think that an all-loving God would create cancer?

 Or, the three-tier concept of the universe - heaven above, hell  within the earth. These Church Fathers didn't have a clue as to the million stars or maybe even a million solar systems out there in space. Their views on the universe were way off.

In view of the multiverse theories being explored by physicists, it seems that the Church Fathers were on to something. Moreover the Bible espouses the same views and I don’t see you rallying against everyone else who accepts it as inspired scripture.

I recall that one or more expressed opinions about hell being a roaring fire in the bowels of the earth and the earth being flat. After all, if the earth weren’t flat how could Satan have taken Christ to the top of a mountain and shown him all the kingdoms of the world? Etc.

More 3-dimensional thinking.

  The Church also needs to change its mind on celibate priests and give them the choice. Today millions see the Catholic Church as a sanctuary for pedaphiles who were protected by the hierarchy which, they think, was more interested in maintaining the good name of the church rather than show concern for victims of such priests.

Who are you to speak for millions anyway?

Just this morning I read an article on sexual abuse among the Irish and German clergy. The article indicated that many Catholics have left the church in both countries in disgust when it was revealed that the hierarchy hid the facts and would even send scandalous priests to other parishes.

Now you must equally advocate shutting down the UN and the public schools or admit you have an anti-Catholic agenda.

  The change also has to come re artificial birth control.

Agenda.

Many of our ancestors had 10-15 children. They were likely to lose some who would die during childhood. They had no social security except their grown children. And there were not the modern means of birth control.

And they built a great country. Lots of them actually.

 

[JReducation]

To appreciate the Fathers of the Church, one has to appreciate philosophy and the Middle Eastern mind. Most of the Fathers were from the Middle East and they were very well versed in philosophy. When they speak of heaven, earth and hell, they are not speaking of it as a geologist, geographer, physicist, biologist, or astronomer would speak. They were not interested in explaining the physical universe. Their interest was in the universe as God sees it. The only language that works is the language of philosophy. This is still the case today.

If we drop the language of philosophy, we would be unable to speak about the Trinity. It’s never mentioned in the Scripture. It term “Trinity” is first used by the Fathers to explain the tetrad in the God-head. A divine tetrad is a philosophical concept, not a physical one. A divine tetrad does not fit into our world, if we limit our language and our understanding of reality only to that which is observable and measureable, as are galaxies, heleospheres, and celestial systems.

A wonderful example that I always use to explain how the Fathers of the Church deal with unobservable and immeasurable realities is mathematics. If one recalls one’s high school geometry, every proof rests on a series of a priori postulates that must be accepted on faith. Every theorem is sustained by an original postulate that cannot be proven or demonstrated, but we accept it. We use theorems to sustain proofs. But the proofs that we use to measure space, volume, mass and shape are valid only if we believe that the postulates that sustain them are valid, without proving them. Another example of philosophical thinking in our daily lives is counting. We can count, only because we conceive a universe of an infinite number of axes going in an infinite number of directions with a common origin and no ends. If we did not accept this a priori principle, then we would not have a number line, with fixed points that have one-to-one correspondence and inverses. Without such a number line, counting would stop when we could no longer perceive with our senses.

The Fathers did the same in their writing. They are not referring to earth, heaven and hell that is perceptible with the senses. They are referring to a reality that is as real as the origin and infiniteness of the number lien and as impossible to observe and measure. In reality, they were far from primitive. They were far more intelligent that modern man who can’t do basic math, never mind think and speak in allegories that represent infinite transcendent realities that empirical sciences cannot capture.

If we limit reality only to that which is observable and measurable by empirical science, we would be unable to deal with all of those things that happen and exist, but which we only know through reason and which we cannot prove, except through logic, not science. Science has never claimed to be the only discipline in the universe. The term “science” comes from the Greek term for knowledge. Knowledge is only one of many disciplines. Astronomy, for example is a science or a knowledge of the Astros. Is it the only knowledge? No. Does it provide the answer to every question that we can raise about the Astros? No. It does not intend to do so. It limits itself to that which can be seen and measured. There are other realities about the Astros, such as their reason for existence, which astronomy cannot explain and does not attempt to explain. It only tries to explain how they work.

To ask the Fathers to explain the universe in the same manner as an astronomer would explain it is unrealistic. The questions asked by the Fathers and the astronomer are different. Therefore, the discussion is going to be different. The astronomer asks questions that he can answer. The theologian asks questions that can only be answered through our understanding of God. That’s why empirical science and theology are not in contradiction. We put them in juxtaposition, because our current education system is so lacking, that we’re no longer taught the levels of rhetoric and the domains of discourse. When we see the Fathers say one thing about the physical universe and the biologist who studies evolution says another, we scream that one of them has to be wrong, because they are saying different things. The truth is that they are speaking about the same universe, but not in the same cognitive domain. Therefore, they are informing each other, not contradicting each other.

We need to go back to learning basic philosophy, rhetoric, mathematics, linguistics and anthropology in order to understand the propositions made by the theologian and the empirical scientist in their proper domains. Otherwise, we’re always going to find contradictions. You can no more speak about the physical universe in one domain only, anymore than you can speak of the human mind without speaking about physiology and psychology. They are two of many domains necessary to understand the one reality.

Let’ s not limit ourselves by trying to limit the Fathers and force them to speak modern physics when in fact they are Middle Eastern philosophers and theologians. Thus far, we have no one who can present revealed truth as well as they did. All we have are people who disagree with them, but those who disagree with them, have not presented a sustainable alternative. Everyone can say, “I disagree.” It takes a lot more to say, “I can prove them wrong by demonstrating the truth.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes, brother.

but philoshphy has been taking out of schools or bad philosophy has been tought in schools. so, people no longer think with a sound mind but they think wiht the mind of the world. there is desperation from the state to separate the old world and build a new world, without God of course. people don’t realize that this is happening but it is the reality. if they can separate the old from the new, they will succeed in their ideas.

But Church is here to remind them that this is just not possible. that is why so many attacks are coming at the Church in these days. I think our Lord can handle all the attacks.