Several questions regarding the events at Fatima, Portugal in 1917...

[ORD_NASILA]

*Dear Ord Nasila,
I believe it does and please bear with me while I attempt at trying to explain.

They way I see it Jesus does tell us to repent. He also tells us that “No man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and follow in my footsteps.” Mt 10:38 and “If anyone wishes to be a follower of mine, he must leave self behind; he must take up his cross and come with me.” Mt 16:24.
I believe repent means to turn around. Meaning to turn our back on sin. In order to do this I believe it will involve a lot of work and since Jesus set an example for us not only on how to change our life of sin but also how to make atonement for the sins of the world, our sins, then we need to walk in His footsteps and do the same. I believe Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient, we just need to be willing partakers of it.
When we do penance for sins I believe it has a two fold benefit. First, it can help us focus on God and second, by it helping us focus on God, we then begin to think more about God and His Will and it can help us discipline our sinful nature to conform to His Will. And yes I do believe it primarily involves works. (If in works you are referring to acts of love, mercy, charity, forgiveness, ect…) We need to be actively changing our actions from being sinful in their nature and start making our actions conform to how God wants our actions to be. I believe Jesus also gave us an example of how to not only pray for ourselves but for others as well.

I do hope and pray this makes some sense. If it does not I can ask some one I know to explain this better.

God bless,*

Thank you simple soul for your well thought out answer to my post. However, whilst I totally agree that we should do “good works”, but while those good works are by way of being our normal Christian duty (although it more of blessing really, for it is written that, “It is better to give than to recieve.” ?] ), my understanding of “Penance” is that it is a punishment handed out by the Church as a pre-condition for recieving forgiveness for confessed sins. I not think that Penance can be classified as good works in generally accepted meaning of that term. I do agree that to, “Repent” means to turn away from your sinful ways into “newness of life”, but 1 John 1:9, that often quoted verse tells us, " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The Apostle John does not say that we must confess our sins then do a penance handed out by the Church in order to recieve that forgiveness. The redemptive act has already been done by our Blessed Lord Jesus, so what can we do that would stand in place of that act? Our Lord’s sacrifice redeemed us from slavery ( to sin) and has in effect, saved our souls (providing that we accept His sacrifice that is). Nobody can save their own soul (" Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" [Mk.8:37] ). So then, doing Penance may help a person to recover from having willfully made themselves an enemy of God, but it is not Scriptual except under The Law. Please accept this as my humble opinion only. I do not wish to be disrespectful of Catholic beliefs. Regard, O.N.

 

[Shin]

Do you remember how Ninevah repented?

 

[LilyM]

Thank you simple soul for your well thought out answer to my post. However, whilst I totally agree that we should do “good works”, but while those good works are by way of being our normal Christian duty (although it more of blessing really, for it is written that, “It is better to give than to recieve.” ?] ), my understanding of “Penance” is that it is a punishment handed out by the Church as a pre-condition for recieving forgiveness for confessed sins. I not think that Penance can be classified as good works in generally accepted meaning of that term. I do agree that to, “Repent” means to turn away from your sinful ways into “newness of life”, but 1 John 1:9, that often quoted verse tells us, " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The Apostle John does not say that we must confess our sins then do a penance handed out by the Church in order to recieve that forgiveness. The redemptive act has already been done by our Blessed Lord Jesus, so what can we do that would stand in place of that act? Our Lord’s sacrifice redeemed us from slavery ( to sin) and has in effect, saved our souls (providing that we accept His sacrifice that is). Nobody can save their own soul (" Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" [Mk.8:37] ). So then, doing Penance may help a person to recover from having willfully made themselves an enemy of God, but it is not Scriptual except under The Law. Please accept this as my humble opinion only. I do not wish to be disrespectful of Catholic beliefs. Regard, O.N.

Not at all. Doing the penance is NOT a prerequisite for forgiveness - one is absolved before the penance is done (or not done), and one can be absolved by a priest without him imposing any penance at all.

However - forgiveness IS dependent on a firm purpose to amend one’s life. It includes things like restitution (making efforts to repair the damage one’s sins have done).

Now our sins don’t just do damage to ourselves or our earthly victims, but we offend Christ. And, the Church being Christ’s own body, our sin damages and offends it as well, of course.

The penance a priest imposes is by way of makng restitution for this damage, among other purposes. A sincere penitent will resolve to make whatever restitution the priest, as representative of the Church, requests. Provided they are able, of course.

Just as the Zacchaeus resolved to do penance - by not just repaying the money he had defrauded with a little interest (which would restore the damage done his victims) but repay fourfold, as a gesture of restitution for the offense he had given God over and above his victims.

 

[Victorious]

The redemptive act has already been done by our Blessed Lord Jesus, so what can we do that would stand in place of that act?

I think Colossians 1:24 gives you problems:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His Body, that is, the Church…

 

[simple_soul]

Thank you simple soul for your well thought out answer to my post. However, whilst I totally agree that we should do “good works”, but while those good works are by way of being our normal Christian duty (although it more of blessing really, for it is written that, “It is better to give than to recieve.” ?] ),

So I guess I would have to ask why are good works a blessing?

my understanding of “Penance” is that it is a punishment handed out by the Church as a pre-condition for recieving forgiveness for confessed sins. I not think that Penance can be classified as good works in generally accepted meaning of that term. I do agree that to, “Repent” means to turn away from your sinful ways into “newness of life”, but 1 John 1:9, that often quoted verse tells us, " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The Apostle John does not say that we must confess our sins then do a penance handed out by the Church in order to recieve that forgiveness.

So what prevents us from falling back into sin?

The redemptive act has already been done by our Blessed Lord Jesus, so what can we do that would stand in place of that act? Our Lord’s sacrifice redeemed us from slavery ( to sin) and has in effect, saved our souls (providing that we accept His sacrifice that is). Nobody can save their own soul (" Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" [Mk.8:37] ).

*I do not believe that anything we do can ever stand in the place of our Blessed Lord Jesus’ act, but I do believe we are taught by Him to join Him in it. But because we are not Him we fail at it miserably. So yes, in order to save our souls we have to accept His sacrifice. *

So then, doing Penance may help a person to recover from having willfully made themselves an enemy of God, but it is not Scriptual except under The Law. Please accept this as my humble opinion only. I do not wish to be disrespectful of Catholic beliefs. Regard, O.N.

No disrespect taken. I do have to make a note here. I am not very well versed on all catholic teachings. So I am trying to explain to you things that I hardly understand myself. Because of this I Hope I have not direspected the Catholic Church’s teachings or you in any way.

 

[JReducation]

Hi everyone,

A dear friend invited me to this thread to help out on the subject of penance. I believe that Victorious has posted the most relevant citation of the New Testament. If you look at what Paul writes, at first glance it sounds like heresy. One can ask, how can anything be lacking in the cross? The truth of the matter is that nothing is lacking in Christ’s sacrifice. What is lacking is on our part.

Christ has graciously and freely given us the possibility for redemption. Thus we say that he is Savior and has redeemed us and it is true. But that being said, it does not mean that Christ takes away our responsibility. What Christ does is to open the possibility of salvation to us, which had been closed by Original Sin. That being done, it is up to us to work out our salvation. There are several places in the letters that this is mentioned. Working out our salvation means that we have to atone for our sins. We have to take responsibility for what we do and make it right. Christ has earned for us the necessary grace to do this. It’s up to us to use that grace or let it go to waste. In other words, just because we have been redeemed by Christ does not meant that we don’t have to do anything to get to heaven. Yes we do. We have to live holy lives. This means turning away from sin.

This is the true meaning of the word penance. It is a turning away from sin. For some of us it’s going to require more effort than for others. For some of us the sins are going to be greater than they are for others. Christ has earned salvation for us. But he has not changed who we are. Only we can do that. Christ’s saving work does not interfere with human freedom. If we choose to live sinful lives, that choice is not undone by the cross. The best example is the two thieves on either side of Jesus. Both were redeemed by the cross, yet only one was promised eternal salvation, the one who turned away from his sin. To the other, Christ was silent.

As far as penitential acts, when I teach theology I always call these ascetical practices, rather than penitential acts, because they make more sense in that language. If man is to be holy as Christ made it possible for us to be, then man must detach from everything that is not God and everything that interferes between him and God. This requires discipline. This is not an easy thing to do. This discipline is called asceticism. It means that we have to make certain sacrifices, spend time in prayer, change certain things about ourselves, right the wrongs that we have done whenever possible, train ourselves to stay away from sin and everything that can lead us to sin. I believe that St. Paul says it very well when he speaks about running the race. He too had been saved by Christ. Yet, he speaks about his life as a race. In other words, he had to work hard at becoming the Paul that we all know and venerate. Christ knocked him off his horse and knocked some sense into him in the process. But it was up to Paul to change. This was hard work, just as hard as the work that a runner puts into a race. This work is what we call penance or asceticism.

When you go to confession and the priest tells you to say three Our Fathers for your penance, that’s the beginning of the work toward change. All conversion begins with prayer. Alone we can do nothing. But no one ever assumes that three Our Fathers are going to do it. Three Our Fathers are the beginning. We begin with prayer for the grace to change, then we do what we have to do. That’s the work of which we speak and of which James speaks in his letter when he says, “Show me your faith and I’ll show you my works.” He’s talking about show you me that you believe that salvation has been given to you and I’ll show you what I have done and still do to take advantage of what has been offered to me by Christ and that which has been purchased at a great price, the blood of Christ. Christ makes salvation possible. Now, like James and Paul, we have to do the work to achieve what has been freely given to us, not because we deserve it, but because God loves us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[simple_soul]

Hi everyone,

A dear friend invited me to this thread to help out on the subject of penance. I believe that Victorious has posted the most relevant citation of the New Testament. If you look at what Paul writes, at first glance it sounds like heresy. One can ask, how can anything be lacking in the cross? The truth of the matter is that nothing is lacking in Christ’s sacrifice. What is lacking is on our part.

Christ has graciously and freely given us the possibility for redemption. Thus we say that he is Savior and has redeemed us and it is true. But that being said, it does not mean that Christ takes away our responsibility. What Christ does is to open the possibility of salvation to us, which had been closed by Original Sin. That being done, it is up to us to work out our salvation. There are several places in the letters that this is mentioned. Working out our salvation means that we have to atone for our sins. We have to take responsibility for what we do and make it right. Christ has earned for us the necessary grace to do this. It’s up to us to use that grace or let it go to waste. In other words, just because we have been redeemed by Christ does not meant that we don’t have to do anything to get to heaven. Yes we do. We have to live holy lives. This means turning away from sin.

This is the true meaning of the word penance. It is a turning away from sin. For some of us it’s going to require more effort than for others. For some of us the sins are going to be greater than they are for others. Christ has earned salvation for us. But he has not changed who we are. Only we can do that. Christ’s saving work does not interfere with human freedom. If we choose to live sinful lives, that choice is not undone by the cross. The best example is the two thieves on either side of Jesus. Both were redeemed by the cross, yet only one was promised eternal salvation, the one who turned away from his sin. To the other, Christ was silent.

As far as penitential acts, when I teach theology I always call these ascetical practices, rather than penitential acts, because they make more sense in that language. If man is to be holy as Christ made it possible for us to be, then man must detach from everything that is not God and everything that interferes between him and God. This requires discipline. This is not an easy thing to do. This discipline is called asceticism. It means that we have to make certain sacrifices, spend time in prayer, change certain things about ourselves, right the wrongs that we have done whenever possible, train ourselves to stay away from sin and everything that can lead us to sin. I believe that St. Paul says it very well when he speaks about running the race. He too had been saved by Christ. Yet, he speaks about his life as a race. In other words, he had to work hard at becoming the Paul that we all know and venerate. Christ knocked him off his horse and knocked some sense into him in the process. But it was up to Paul to change. This was hard work, just as hard as the work that a runner puts into a race. This work is what we call penance or asceticism.

When you go to confession and the priest tells you to say three Our Fathers for your penance, that’s the beginning of the work toward change. All conversion begins with prayer. Alone we can do nothing. But no one ever assumes that three Our Fathers are going to do it. Three Our Fathers are the beginning. We begin with prayer for the grace to change, then we do what we have to do. That’s the work of which we speak and of which James speaks in his letter when he says, “Show me your faith and I’ll show you my works.” He’s talking about show you me that you believe that salvation has been given to you and I’ll show you what I have done and still do to take advantage of what has been offered to me by Christ and that which has been purchased at a great price, the blood of Christ. Christ makes salvation possible. Now, like James and Paul, we have to do the work to achieve what has been freely given to us, not because we deserve it, but because God loves us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

*Dear Br. JR,

You always explain things so well.

Thank you so much for taking the time to help us understand more clearly.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Like believing in the promises of Christ and not implying that Jesus lied to us.

Jesus didnt lie. He said there would be False Prophets in Sheeps Clothing and to examine their FRUITS and identify them thus , something you appear unwilling to do.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I still don’t know why you would expect an ex cathedra in this situation? Actions aren’t fodder for such a statement. Would you expect the Pope to infallibly declare that he ate breakfast? or said a Mass? or prayed for a particular intention?

Do you know what else isn’t fodder for an ex cathedra statement – private revelations. Fatima truly is non-binding on the conscience of Catholics. My question is why would you believe this non-binding revelation (seeing how you disbelieve the Consecration since it didn’t come stamped with an ex cathedra statement)?

My point is that THIS isnt ex cathedra. Examine your own arguments. You expect blind obedience to your point of view as if it were.

 

[Robert_Burns]

You are the one claiming they haven’t done so. The Vatican hasn’t remained silent on this issue – they have stated that the Consecration has been fulfilled. This isn’t even a theological dispute where one could weigh the arguments – it is the Pope said he did something, you say he didn’t. This becomes a ‘he said, he said’, and my question remains – how are you more credible than the Pope?

That is were you are wrong. I havent made any such claim. I merely expressed the opinion that I am not convinced beyond all doubt that it has been done to Our Lady’s Satisfaction. In return I have seen people start pontificating about the Power of the POPE or accusing me of calling our Lord a liar etc. I have not argued that the POPE doesnt have the power to consecrate or that he doesnt have the Power to make an Ex Cathedra Definition or any of that. That seems to be Sir Knights and your argument. That if anyone dissents from your perspective they are calling the Pope a liar or Our Lord. Even if the POPE believes he did Consecrate Russia in the manner He Believes was adequate it remains to be seen that Our Lady was satisfied. The crux of the argument lies with whether or not the POPE was guided by the Holy Ghost when he made that statement. I remain unconvinced that he was. If you understand the Catholic Faith - then you know that Popes can err as humans but not when guided by the Holy Ghost. Did Jesus leave the Chair of St Peter umblemished and free from error? Of course he did. But even St Peter himself was abandoning Rome when he encountered Our Lord headed in the direction of Rome. Yes the Pope is guided by the Holy Ghost in matters of Faith and Morals. But the Consecration of Russia has not beeen defined Ex Cathedra De Fide IMO.
The argument remains not whether or not the Pope could make his statement BINDING it is whether or not he HAS made it binding. I submit he hasnt.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Jesus didnt lie. He said there would be False Prophets in Sheeps Clothing and to examine their FRUITS and identify them thus , something you appear unwilling to do.

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not overcome His Church. That means that the Church leaders would not be able to lead the faithful into error in matters of faith and morals. If the consecration was not done but the Church leaders said that it was, then the Church would be guilty of misguiding the faithful – making Jesus out to be a liar.

Furthermore, the Bible specifically warns against the private interpretation of prophecies. Something which you are attempting to do and failing to be obedient to our Church leaders as we are also commanded to be.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That is were you are wrong. I havent made any such claim. I merely expressed the opinion that I am not convinced beyond all doubt that it has been done to Our Lady’s Satisfaction. In return I have seen people start pontificating about the Power of the POPE or accusing me of calling our Lord a liar etc. I have not argued that the POPE doesnt have the power to consecrate or that he doesnt have the Power to make an Ex Cathedra Definition or any of that. That seems to be Sir Knights and your argument. That if anyone dissents from your perspective they are calling the Pope a liar or Our Lord. Even if the POPE believes he did Consecrate Russia in the manner He Believes was adequate it remains to be seen that Our Lady was satisfied. The crux of the argument lies with whether or not the POPE was guided by the Holy Ghost when he made that statement. I remain unconvinced that he was. If you understand the Catholic Faith - then you know that Popes can err as humans but not when guided by the Holy Ghost. Did Jesus leave the Chair of St Peter umblemished and free from error? Of course he did. But even St Peter himself was abandoning Rome when he encountered Our Lord headed in the direction of Rome. Yes the Pope is guided by the Holy Ghost in matters of Faith and Morals. But the Consecration of Russia has not beeen defined Ex Cathedra De Fide IMO.
The argument remains not whether or not the Pope could make his statement BINDING it is whether or not he HAS made it binding. I submit he hasnt.

First off, the Pope is not required to “submit”. He has the authority of the Son of God in all matters and is guided by the Holy Spirit of God in all matters.

It would be like me leaving you in charge on my company telling you that I have complete trust in you and you have full authority over my company. Furthermore, I will leave you a special advisor who will be in constant contact with me to help guide you in all things. Under those conditions, would you submit to someone claiming to be bringing you a message from me?

Secondly, while the Pope has not defined the matter Ex Cathedra De Fide, neither was it declared Ex Cathedra De Fide that the vision is worthy of belief either. Why accept one declaration and reject the other?

 

[Robert_Burns]

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not overcome His Church. That means that the Church leaders would not be able to lead the faithful into error in matters of faith and morals. If the consecration was not done but the Church leaders said that it was, then the Church would be guilty of misguiding the faithful – making Jesus out to be a liar.

Furthermore, the Bible specifically warns against the private interpretation of prophecies. Something which you are attempting to do and failing to be obedient to our Church leaders as we are also commanded to be.

First , do you believe the Gates of Hell have Prevailed? I certainly dont. Second , whether or not the consecration is done or not isnt a Matter of FAITH. It isnt a Sin to not have Marian Devotion. I defy you to show me one examination of conscience that says it is. Certainly , we as Catholics have Marian Devotion in order to advance in the Faith and to Advance in Spirituality - but you have made Fatima akin to the Sacraments. Therein you err.

When you say the “Bible Specifically Warns” you are privately interpreting it. If you care to back that statement up with apologetics by Saints , Threologians, Popes , Councils or accepted Apologists then perhaps I’ll listen to what you seem to think Scripture is saying

 

[Robert_Burns]

First off, the Pope is not required to “submit”. He has the authority of the Son of God in all matters and is guided by the Holy Spirit of God in all matters.

It would be like me leaving you in charge on my company telling you that I have complete trust in you and you have full authority over my company. Furthermore, I will leave you a special advisor who will be in constant contact with me to help guide you in all things. Under those conditions, would you submit to someone claiming to be bringing you a message from me?

Secondly, while the Pope has not defined the matter Ex Cathedra De Fide, neither was it declared Ex Cathedra De Fide that the vision is worthy of belief either. Why accept one declaration and reject the other?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Explanation of papal infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

, in Heaven there are scales. And it would not be just if we did not do some part of it, along with Christ.

Pardon me if I make critic comment here Shin. I always taught that the idea of scales in Heaven, where good was weighed against bad, was Satanic. That is, the idea that you can somehow build up the “good” side of scales in order to outweigh the “bad” side in Final Judgement. I ask in sincerety, is that not correct. This is only minor point so please don’t go to any great length to answer it Shin. Regard, O.N.

 

[JMJ_coder]

My point is that THIS isnt ex cathedra. Examine your own arguments. You expect blind obedience to your point of view as if it were.

No, my point is this: We assume that Fatima is legitimate as our starting point (why do you believe this, since it too isn’t an ex cathedra teaching?). The Pope says that the Consecration has been properly fulfilled, you deny or doubt that. You haven’t presented any credible evidence so all we have is your word. So it is your word against the Pope’s. Thus my question is, how are you more credible than the Pope. Why should I take your word over the Popes? That is what I am asking you to answer and convince me on.

 

[JMJ_coder]

That is were you are wrong. I havent made any such claim. I merely expressed the opinion that I am not convinced beyond all doubt that it has been done to Our Lady’s Satisfaction. In return I have seen people start pontificating about the Power of the POPE or accusing me of calling our Lord a liar etc. I have not argued that the POPE doesnt have the power to consecrate or that he doesnt have the Power to make an Ex Cathedra Definition or any of that. That seems to be Sir Knights and your argument. That if anyone dissents from your perspective they are calling the Pope a liar or Our Lord. Even if the POPE believes he did Consecrate Russia in the manner He Believes was adequate it remains to be seen that Our Lady was satisfied. The crux of the argument lies with whether or not the POPE was guided by the Holy Ghost when he made that statement. I remain unconvinced that he was. If you understand the Catholic Faith - then you know that Popes can err as humans but not when guided by the Holy Ghost. Did Jesus leave the Chair of St Peter umblemished and free from error? Of course he did. But even St Peter himself was abandoning Rome when he encountered Our Lord headed in the direction of Rome. Yes the Pope is guided by the Holy Ghost in matters of Faith and Morals. But the Consecration of Russia has not beeen defined Ex Cathedra De Fide IMO.
The argument remains not whether or not the Pope could make his statement BINDING it is whether or not he HAS made it binding. I submit he hasnt.

I stand with the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. Christ stands behind the Pope, who is his Vicar and who has been given the Keys. Mary stands with Christ always.

I believe the Pope. The only argument you have presented in defense of your doubts is your word. Why should I believe you more than the Pope?

 

[Shin]

I stand with the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. Christ stands behind the Pope, who is his Vicar and who has been given the Keys. Mary stands with Christ always.

I believe the Pope. The only argument you have presented in defense of your doubts is your word. Why should I believe you more than the Pope?

This is a false conflict. It’s not one of personalities and personal authorities.

There was earlier in this thread a good deal of detail as to reasons why the consecration was either insufficient, partial, or not at all sufficient. There is even more detail for those who look. To reduce the argument to this sort of ‘us vs. them’ statement is juvenile and absurd.

 

[Shin]

Pardon me if I make critic comment here Shin. I always taught that the idea of scales in Heaven, where good was weighed against bad, was Satanic. That is, the idea that you can somehow build up the “good” side of scales in order to outweigh the “bad” side in Final Judgement. I ask in sincerety, is that not correct. This is only minor point so please don’t go to any great length to answer it Shin. Regard, O.N.

What you appear to be talking about is justification and merit, and the role it plays in salvation.

I was just listening to the first two parts of the Matt Slick (Protestant) vs. Sungenis (Catholic) apologetics debates and I thought he went into justification rather decently. That might be a good place to start.

The Catholic Encyclopedia online goes into it too. And there are plenty of apologetical tracts all over the place.

I will add these scriptural references:

I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.

Mt. 12:36

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

2 Cor. 5:10

Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 5:25-26

God truly judges all our works. While we cannot merit the grace of initial justification… it is through our continued good works that we remain in the state of justification – for if we did not do them, we would fall out of it. Moreover, it is quite true that God weighs everything we do. . the purity of intention… the goodness or sinfulness of the act. All these are weighed in Heaven… And *to a degree *they form a part of God’s determination as to whether to give us further graces or not – this is only Just.

Satanic? Scriptural.

But the idea that one is doing good to pay off the debt of Hell itself – that is impossible, I agree.

 

[ORD_NASILA]

Do you remember how Ninevah repented?

Sackcloth & Ashes wasn’t it? But, was that not out of fear of the possible consequences of their national sins, rather than genuine sorrow for having offended God. If a sinner these days were to encounter a messenger from God who it was obvious that they had been in a whale for at least three days, I’m sure that it produce similar result. But there again, things were different in the days under The Law. However, because of the many knowledgeable posters that have answered my questions to “simple soul”, I am satisfied that the subject of “penance” is not likely to be a stumbling block on road to Oecumenism. This has been the purpose of all of my sincere questions, i.e. to do my bit towards Oecumenism by identifying possible stumbling blocks alond the Road. Regard, O.N.