The Church and the Word of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter fide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When I mean divided, I’m referring to the emphasis on national identity. I LOVE the Eastern Orthodox, but no matter how much I try I’ll never be Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ethiopian, Bulgarian, etc. It’s a definite barrier. I do love the East and support your position of “1st Among Equals”! 😁
 
I stand by my belief, expressed multiple times, even on this forum after Reverend Billy Graham went to his eternal reward that him not being a Roman Catholic made his ministry possible. I do not believe he would have been able to carry out his ministry within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
glencor63 said:
I stand by my belief, expressed multiple times, even on this forum after Reverend Billy Graham went to his eternal reward that his not being a Roman Catholic made his ministry possible. I do not believe he would have been able to carry out his ministry within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
And I maintain that his ministry was no excuse for him to stay away from the Church. That you cannot definitively say that it would not work. That if he was good outside the Church, he would be great. It would be uncharitable for me to say otherwise.
 
glencor63 said:
When I mean divided, I’m referring to the emphasis on national identity. I LOVE the Eastern Orthodox, but no matter how much I try I’ll never be Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ethiopian, Bulgarian, etc. It’s a definite barrier. I do love the East and support your position of “1st Among Equals”
Click to expand...
That’s fair: it’s nonsensical if you have to become a “Ukrainian” first to become Orthodox.
There is an American church (Orthodox Church in America), if you’re American/Canadian
 
Justin_Mary said:
1/3 left. Doesn’t this also mean 2/3 find their spiritual needs are met by the liturgy?
Click to expand...
What do you conclude from that? Recent polls say that of those practicing - sitting in the pews on Sundays - "65% of practicing Catholics said the Eucharist is “the true presence of Jesus Christ.”
So - over a third (35% of practicing Catholics) at Mass reject the belief necessary for the essence of the Mass as a true sacrifice, and as the Source of true Holy Communion. What “spiritual needs” are “being satisfied”? And is that even a good thing that their false beliefs are “being satisfied” for them?

And relevant to this thread, Are these 35% present for the Liturgy of the Word, ever? And if so, are the true teachings of the Church preached during the Liturgy of the Word? And is the Real Presence of Christ preached in their presence with firm conviction and power in the Spirit such that these 35% get the point?

The Liturgy of the Word IS sometimes presented with less unction, less power, less reverence, less urgency than His Holy Word deserves and is owed. Because of this sad fact, “the point” of the Liturgy of the Word IS sometimes not made on the Catholics in attendance. And they often come in and leave the same way - poorly formed in the Faith; poorly fortified by the living and active Word of God.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Heb 4:13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Perhaps by trying to understand the Eucharist, the Catholic Church has made it difficult to believe in the true presence. The East accuses the Latin Church of being too Scholastic. They don’t try to explain everything, but accept mysteries on faith. Does the East have a crisis of belief in the Eucharist? Curious.🤔
 
Last edited:
I don’t know much at all of Eastern theology - but in the West, theology is emphasized in order to enter fully God’s intention for us: To love Him with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and our neighbor as self. “Mind” is part of our vocation - thus theology: our effort to make as precise as possible and true to His revelation, our expression and description and explanation of the mysteries of God as He has allowed us to perceive.

I should add - the sterility and dryness of some theologians do not, I would agree, add to understanding but rather diminish it. My guess: That absence of awe before supernatural mystery is something that has come from human ambitions of men bound to academia.
 
Last edited:
fide said:
What do you conclude from that? Recent polls say that of those practicing - sitting in the pews on Sundays - "65% of practicing Catholics said the Eucharist is “the true presence of Jesus Christ.”
So - over a third (35% of practicing Catholics) at Mass reject the belief necessary for the essence of the Mass as a true sacrifice, and as the Source of true Holy Communion. What “spiritual needs” are “being satisfied”? And is that even a good thing that their false beliefs are “being satisfied” for them?
Click to expand...
I’m just glad we don’t need to be theologians to get into heaven.
 
That’s awesome. Not sure what you are trying to say. God uses Muslims to elect government leaders as well.

I believe God wants us all to be Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only church that presents the true, complete image of God in this world.

Most of us started somewhere else. Atheists, agnostics, pagans, & God brought us here. Some through protestant churches, the Muslim or Jewish religions, eastern spirituality.

But the destination is heaven. & the ordinary way to get there is through His Church. The Saints are the models that show us how to follow Jesus. It’s a narrow way, it’s not an easy way, but it is the way.

Most of us won’t reach that level of conformity to Christ in this life & will have to endure some form of purification in the next life. I believe we Catholics who fall short will endure less purgation than the people who are on the right path who have not lived sacramental lives.

I love how many people have found God through the word of God. But I truly believe a man like Billy Graham would have served the Kingdom of God on earth better as a Catholic & I think he would have been a great Catholic.
 
Fauken said:
It still is a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Not true. Mortal sin requires three things, one is that the the person understand what they are doing is wrong. There is no way for the Church to know if that is the case for the person who commits suicide.
 
Last edited:
The point of the article was to highlight that Brazil has a huge Evangelical population. I was attempting to bring the discussion back to Fide’s original purpose.

*Last word. It’s moot at this point. I disagree about Reverend Billy Graham. His ministry would have died in the Catholic Church. The unbiblical restriction on married men being priests in the Latin Rite Catholic Church would have resulted in losing his beloved Ruth, a key partner in his ministry.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
Not true. Mortal sin requires three things, one is that the the person understand what they are doing is wrong. There is no way for the Church to know if that is the case for the person who commits suicide.
Click to expand...
Did you read the rest of my post?
Fauken said:
The reason why it allows suicide victims to receive a Catholic funeral is becausewe now know that the victims mental health may reduce their culpability. So they’re not considered manifest public sinners, which still prevents people from receiving Catholic burials today.
Click to expand...
 
Fauken said:
Did you read the rest of my post?
Click to expand...
I did. But the first sentence of your paragraph was a declarative sentence, and it was false information. Many people don’t go on to read the rest. I see this here, a lot.

None of us has the ability to accurately declare the actions of another as a mortal sin, unless that person has discussed their state of mind when committing the action. Even then, we don’t know how God judges their actions.

Suicide is such a sensitive issues for the survivors of it (loved ones, family, and even those who may have attempted it unsuccessfully) and hearing another person incorrectly declare it is a mortal sin doesn’t help their suffering in any way. We need to be careful with this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
glencor63 said:
The unbiblical restriction on married men being priests in the Latin Rite Catholic Church would have resulted in losing his beloved Ruth, a key partner in his ministry.
Click to expand...
Why do you think he would have to be a priest to fulfill his ministry in the Church. He wasn’t a priest as an Evangelical. Everything he did as an Evangelical he could have done as a Catholic, except preach on Sundays unless he was ordained a Deacon, which he could have done.
 
He began his ministry in 1947. The laity in the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church was not encouraged to evangelize. One of the fruits of Vatican II was to empower the laity to play an active role in the Church.

The first thing that would have happened to Billy Graham was instruction to discern the priesthood. If he were still very young, there is a very good chance he would have been sent to a minor seminary. He would not have met Ruth and she was his wife, partner, confidante, and soul mate. The Catholic Church today and the Catholic Church of 1947 are very different. There was no option for a diaconate. He would have had to involve the hierarchy and with that a huge church bureaucracy.

Jesus chose a Protestant minister to become one of the greatest Evangelists in Christian history. It’s no coincidence that Reverend Billy Graham was a married, Protestant minister.

*He may have been able to fulfill his dual vocations as a Eastern Rite Catholic. The problem is still a huge church bureaucracy. I was raised Protestant. There is a freedom to question and act outside the box that is alien to Catholic culture. The hierarchy does not like to be challenged. I can easily see Reverend Billy Graham upsetting the established order and his ministry being shut down.
 
Last edited:
glencor63 said:
Jesus chose a Protestant minister to become one of the greatest Evangelists in Christian history. It’s no coincidence that Reverend Billy Graham was a married, Protestant minister.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good conversation. In it we see two Evangelist. You see Billy Graham’s ministry as greater than Mother Teresa’s. I don’t.

Do you believe the Gospel Billy Graham preached is the same Gospel Mother Teresa preached? I don’t, but I admit I don’t know a lot about Billy Graham’s ministry.

But from my point of view, if the evangelizing doesn’t bring souls to the Catholic Church it is not as effective. Good, but not as good.
 
Last edited:
It’s not that his ministry was “greater” in the sense of being superior to Mother Theresa. They were different ministries and yielded different fruit. Millions, literally hundreds of millions heard the Gospel and professed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior because of Reverend Billy Graham.

Mother Theresa had an impact, but it’s narrow in scope. She was called to care for the poorest of the poor, the most marginalized and abandoned. That’s no small feat, especially in a nation as pagan and spiritually backwards as India. Rural Indians take a child’s birth defect and call it the reincarnation of a deity. Mother Theresa had to endure an India steeped in ignorance and superstition. She wasn’t called to evangelize with words.

In the same way, Reverend Billy Graham wasn’t called to be a civil rights activist. That was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s ministry. Reverend Billy Graham is often criticized for not being more involved in the Civil Rights movement, but he was wise to limit his ministry to spreading the Gospel. Jesus will change hearts.
 
“The Liturgy of the Word IS sometimes presented with less unction, less power, less reverence, less urgency than His Holy Word deserves and is owed. Because of this sad fact, “the point” of the Liturgy of the Word IS sometimes not made on the Catholics in attendance. And they often come in and leave the same way - poorly formed in the Faith; poorly fortified by the living and active Word of God”.

I, especially hate it when the homily is used as a time to raise funds or promote a cause. Leave that off, until after Mass or before. It makes me want to read the sermons of the Curé of Ars for sustenance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top