The church is to complicated?

[DavidFilmer]

What I see you advocating David is essentially the following.

Believing in Christ is unnecessary

…for salvation. I have said that a person who is experiencing a crisis of faith, where they disbelieve even in God (which, of course, includes Christ) commits no sin if the disbelief is involuntary. A crisis of faith does not jeopardize our Baptismal Grace or our salvation. I have made it clear that obstinate disbelief can be mortally sinful.

Conforming ones life to be a follower of Christ is not necessary

I’m not exactly sure what that means. In what way, specifically, are we required to “conform our lives” as a condition of salvation? Can you cite that? I have stated that deliberate neglect of reasonable acts of charity could be mortally sinful. ANY mortal sin (in which we do NOT conform ourselves as a follower of Christ, in the most extreme sense) removes us from a state of Grace (and nothing else can do this). Sacramental confession is the ordinary way by which our Baptismal Grace is restored. This is Catholicism 101.

Having faith in Christ is not necessary

Ibid #1.

All that one need do is follow a couple rules.

Correction: One (maybe two) Sacraments and five rules. That is what the Church (not me) has established as a minimum for being a “faithful Catholic.” It’s in the Catechism (2041-3). It’s there for a reason.

Then in one of the threads we are discussing you seem to further advocate that everyone is saved regardless of their faith or choices in life.

In what thread did I say that? That’s outright heresy. I have maintained that Baptism (and nothing else) places us in a state of Grace. And, since not everyone is Baptized, clearly not everyone is saved (let’s not drag invincible ignorance into the discussion, please. Anyway, it further supports my position). Furthermore, I have always maintained that mortal sin (a choice) and nothing else removes us from a state of Grace. If you would care to cite anything I have said to the contrary, or show where what I have just said is not clearly Catholic doctrine, please do so.

So frankly I see you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Saying sometimes that everyone is saved regardless, other times that one must stay in a state of grace, and yet other times that one need not have faith or belief in anything.

I think my mouth would have to have three sides for that. That would be a neat trick.

Id love a concise clarification.

Well, there you have it. We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else. We can knowingly and voluntarily forfeit that Grace through mortal sin, and by nothing else. We can restore our Baptismal Grace through Sacramental Confession, and by nothing else.

Concise enough?

 

[DavidFilmer]

My point is, that misrepresents the example you used between Jesus and the rich man.

No, I think I got it right. The man asked Jesus, “what must I do to have eternal life?” ** I believe this is the only** time anyone directly asked Jesus this question. And Jesus replied, “if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” The man could have then walked away satisfied.

But that answer didn’t satisfy the man, because he WANTED to do more than the minimum. So Jesus told him, “if you want to be perfect [to go beyond the minimum], do this.”

Many Catholics WANT to do more than the minimum. This is so prevalent that many people, including the OP’s friend, think these things are somehow required. Some Catholics go so far as to do exactly what Jesus told the young man - they forfeit all of their possessions and devote their life entirely to Jesus. We call these people monks and nuns (or sisters/friars, etc; I’ve never been clear on the distinction).

But most Catholics are somewhere in the middle. We do more than the minimum, but not as much as becoming monks and nuns.

It is possible to attain complete spiritual perfection while on earth. (some people have quibbled with me on that, but three Doctors of the Church teach otherwise - Sts. Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Therese of Liseux).

But not all of us are called to perfection. We do more than the minimum, but not as much as we could. And that’s OK.

Not to mention, we don’t want to put all salvation understanding on one quick story and analogy

I agree completely. That’s why I cited the Catechism, which teaches these doctrines:

• We are completely and unconditionally saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else. CCC 1263]
• We can knowingly and voluntarily forfeit that Grace through mortal sin, and by nothing else. CCC 1854-1864]
• We can restore that Grace through Sacramental Confession, and by nothing else. CCC 1446]

That’s the entire Catholic economy of salvation, stated in three short sentences, backed 100% by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church really is quite simple.

 

[Jon_S_1]

…for salvation. I have said that a person who is experiencing a crisis of faith, where they disbelieve even in God (which, of course, includes Christ) commits no sin if the disbelief is involuntary. A crisis of faith does not jeopardize our Baptismal Grace or our salvation. I have made it clear that obstinate disbelief can be mortally sinful.

I’m not exactly sure what that means. In what way, specifically, are we required to “conform our lives” as a condition of salvation? Can you cite that? I have stated that deliberate neglect of reasonable acts of charity could be mortally sinful. ANY mortal sin (in which we do NOT conform ourselves as a follower of Christ, in the most extreme sense) removes us from a state of Grace (and nothing else can do this). Sacramental confession is the ordinary way by which our Baptismal Grace is restored. This is Catholicism 101.
Ibid #1.

Correction: One (maybe two) Sacraments and five rules. That is what the Church (not me) has established as a minimum for being a “faithful Catholic.” It’s in the Catechism (2041-3). It’s there for a reason.

In what thread did I say that? That’s outright heresy. I have maintained that Baptism (and nothing else) places us in a state of Grace. And, since not everyone is Baptized, clearly not everyone is saved (let’s not drag invincible ignorance into the discussion, please. Anyway, it further supports my position). Furthermore, I have always maintained that mortal sin (a choice) and nothing else removes us from a state of Grace. If you would care to cite anything I have said to the contrary, or show where what I have just said is not clearly Catholic doctrine, please do so.

I think my mouth would have to have three sides for that. That would be a neat trick.

Well, there you have it. We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else. We can knowingly and voluntarily forfeit that Grace through mortal sin, and by nothing else. We can restore our Baptismal Grace through Sacramental Confession, and by nothing else.

Concise enough?

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree with you mostly.

What I mean about conforming our lives to Christ is to have a living faith and strive to follow his teachings as directed by the church. The whole sheep and goats in Matt 27 or the faith by deeds in James 2.

The problem I see with overly simplifying it to 5 points is that the 5 points entail a lot. But at the end of the day if someone is doing the 5 points you list then they are maintaining their faith and humbling themselves before God which is key.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I agree with you mostly.

I thought you probably would.

What I mean about conforming our lives to Christ is to have a living faith and strive to follow his teachings as directed by the church. The whole sheep and goats in Matt 27

But some sheep are more blemished than others. They’re still sheep, but they have a lot of flaws. Only by mortal sin do we become goats. We can be very flawed sheep and still be included in the flock.

or the faith by deeds in James 2.

We haven’t really brought that up in this thread, and I’m reluctant to uncork that bottle. I’ve cited this passage many times to OSAS protestants, especially the verse “faith without works is dead,” and I sum it up by saying “and you ain’t getting eternal life with a dead faith.” But in Catholic theology, my little sermon is overly simplistic. The Church does not teach that charitable works are necessary as a condition of salvation, although neglect of such acts which may reasonably expected of us could constitute mortal sin, given sufficient knowledge and intent. So works are not necessary for salvation, but refusal of reasonable works could condemn us. It’s a subtle but significant difference.

The problem I see with overly simplifying it to 5 points is that the 5 points entail a lot.

It’s not really THAT much. Two of the precepts (Confession and Eucharist) are expected only once a year. Fasting and abstinence (at least in the US) is expected only six or seven days of the year (Ash Wednesday and Fridays in Lent - if there are others, I don’t remember offhand). The most demanding precepts are Mass attendance on Sundays and days of obligation (four or five extra days in the US), and refraining from servile labor on Sunday (I cannot tell you how many times I’ve blown that one - in fact, I think I will open a thread to discuss this).

But at the end of the day if someone is doing the 5 points you list then they are maintaining their faith and humbling themselves before God which is key.

Right. It’s not my list, it is the Church’s list (2041-3). And, even though someone may feel they have lost all faith, observing the basic precepts of the Church is, in itself, a small act of faith. And God can work with that.

 

[DavidFilmer]

…and refraining from servile labor on Sunday (I cannot tell you how many times I’ve blown that one - in fact, I think I will open a thread to discuss this).

I did open this thread here. I would appreciate the participation of those who have responded in this thread.

 

[steve_b]

No, I think I got it right. The man asked Jesus, “what must I do to have eternal life?” I believe this is the only time anyone directly asked Jesus this question**.** And Jesus replied, “if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” The man could have then walked away satisfied.

But that answer didn’t satisfy the man, because he WANTED to do more than the minimum. So Jesus told him, "if you want to be perfect [to go beyond

the minimum], do this."

If Jesus had left that man with minimum understanding alone, and that was all that was required for heaven, the Jews already had the 10 commandments. Are THEY saved by keeping them? If so, why is Jesus in the world?, why the Gospel? Why the sacraments and the Church…etc? If your understanding is all that’s needed, then Jesus gave THIS guy a different message than He later gave His disciples in Jn 6:51-70. … and many other examples I could name

But Notice in both cases mentioned, the rich man here, and Jesus disciples in Jn 6:51-70, both wouldn’t accept what Jesus said and both left Him. But hey, if they keep the 10 commandments, they did the minimum, they go to heaven…right? That’s what you’re saying. Sola 10 commandments or at least the 5 Jesus mentioned

When Jesus said to His disciples about that rich man, AFTER the rich man left, it’s hard for a rich man to enter heaven, one could ask, Really? If Jesus meant that all the rich man had to do is keep a few commandments and he’s going to heaven, what’s so hard about that? He got the answer he was looking for… Or did he?

I would suggest, if that’s all that Jesus told the rich man, the rich man wouldn’t have asked Jesus, what am I lacking? I would suggest he came away with a whole different understanding than the minimum requirements to get to heaven. I’m saying, what Jesus told His apostles, **after **the rich man left, tells the story. That’s why the the rich man grieved after leaving Jesus. How could a man grieve after being told the minimum requirements to get to heaven of which he is already doing,… unless it’s NOT enough.
D:

It is possible to attain complete spiritual perfection while on earth. (some people have quibbled with me on that, but three Doctors of the Church teach otherwise - Sts. Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Therese of Liseux).

But not all of us are called to perfection. We do more than the minimum, but not as much as we could. And that’s OK.

I addressed this in a previous post with Peter’s teaching. Minimum theology is NOT on Peter’s radar. In fact, it’s contradicted by Peter #32

Peter lists 7 attributes we must add to our faith in ever increasing amounts. And note, Peter teaches why we need to make every effort to increase in those attributes without stopping.
D:

I agree completely. That’s why I cited the Catechism, which teaches these doctrines:

• We are completely and unconditionally saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else. CCC 1263]

If “and by nothing else” is correct, then the following is wrong

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

When you said previously #47

"You wrote

“We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism and by nothing else CCC 1263], (Our Baptismal Grace is renewed, if necessary, by Sacramental Confession CCC 1446]). We are not saved by our knowledge, or beliefs, our** faith,** our works, our reception of any other Sacrament (including Eucharist), rosaries, private prayer, study of the Bible or the Catechism, or by anything else. All of these things help us remain in a State of Grace, but none are necessary for salvation, and none of these things can restore our Baptismal Grace if it is lost through mortal sin.”

To which I wrote

What’s in red I’m stunned you would say that given the context of what has been boldened.

Maybe it’s the way you state things that’s causing the disagreements

 

[Rence]

What rules are so burdensome for her to stop her focus on God?
Maybe the ones that, um… require her focus on God?

If we are going to be fair, it’s not hard to understand that someone looking in from the outside would see a whole bunch of rules and laws that would make them uncomfortable – and that itself would make it seem like the focus isn’t on God but on rules and laws. There are enough Catholics who feel the same sometimes as evidenced by the fact that there are still Catholics co-habituating, fornicating, using birth control, not attending Mass, yadda yadda yadda. I think the best thing to do is ease new folks to the Church gently and with compassion. Being Catholic isn’t always a walk in the park. It sometimes takes a while for people to get acquainted the Church rules and laws and a make a free and conscious decision to either follow them or not.

 

[DavidFilmer]

[discussion about the rich young man]

As you yourself said, we should not try to superimpose our interpretation of Scripture to Catholic salvation theology based on this one account. We seem to keep returning to it. I would prefer to drop this line and stick to what the Church teaches.

I addressed this in a previous post with Peter’s teaching. Minimum theology is NOT on Peter’s radar. In fact, it’s contradicted by Peter #32

Peter lists 7 attributes we must add to our faith in ever increasing amounts. And note, Peter teaches why we need to make every effort to increase in those attributes without stopping.

The “minimum” might not have been on Peter’s radar, but it has long been on the Church’s radar. The Church established five ancient precepts as the absolute minimum for a person to be a faithful Catholic:

The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor CCC 2041], emphasis mine

(I said, “We are completely and unconditionally saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else. [CCC 1263]”)

If “and by nothing else” is correct, then the following is wrong

1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

Aren’t you getting a little nit-picky here? By my comment I obviously did not mean to suggest that the Church is unnecessary. After all, we can’t Baptize ourselves. I kinda thought that went without saying. I guess I was wrong.

When you said previously #47

Maybe it’s the way you state things that’s causing the disagreements

Maybe it is, but I stand by everything I have said, and I can cite it in Catholic theology. If we die in a state of Grace, we are saved. All of the other stuff works in cooperation with our Baptismal Grace and fortifies us against temptation and sin, but the only thing that is required, as a condition of salvation, is the Grace of Christian Baptism (restored, if necessary, by Sacramental Confession). Other things are important, but not necessary.

The only “rules” that are categorically imposed on most Catholics (there are exceptions) are the five precepts, which the Church Herself calls the “very necessary minimum” [CCC 2041]

This is the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

The “minimum” might not have been on Peter’s radar, but it has long been on the Church’s radar. The Church established five ancient precepts as the absolute minimum for a person to be a faithful Catholic:

Yet the Church doesn’t leave it there with the minimum.

**2041 **The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

It’s the minimum necessary for “growth” in prayer AND moral effort in loving God and neighbor. Is growth in that ever to stop? NO. Effort is required at all stages of growth. Since growth in the moral life and growth in love of God and neighbor is the goal, the only gurantee mentioned here is that this is the minimum. iow it’s the beginning.

That’s why I posted Peter’s teaching #32 the minimum isn’t the goal with Peter or the Church.
D:

If we die in a state of Grace, we are saved. All of the other stuff works in cooperation with our Baptismal Grace and fortifies us against temptation and sin, but the only thing that is required, as a condition of salvation, is the Grace of Christian Baptism (restored, if necessary, by Sacramental Confession). Other things are important, but not necessary.

Ya see, that’s what I mean. Why do you say that? Up to the point that I highlighted in red, I can agree with you. When you make statements like that in red, that turns agreement into disagreement right away.

The “other stuff” as you put it, (and we know what that “stuff” is) is not JUST important it IS NECESSARY
D:

The only “rules” that are categorically imposed on most Catholics (there are exceptions) are the five precepts, which the Church Herself calls the “very necessary minimum” [CCC 2041]

This is the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church.

Yet if one doesn’t do 837 they’re hosed.

as Peter said, (paraphrased), if one does the minimum they will fall. #32

And that’s the teaching of the Catholic Church

 

[Thorolfr]

Perhaps we should call this Filmerism…it’s certsinly not catholicism.

Perhaps you should read more of your catechism.

That’s what I find complicated about Catholicism! An 800 page rule book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a standard edition at Amazon is 846 pages long)

By way of comparison, Luther’s Small Catechism and his Large Catechism are only about 135 pages combined.

 

[steve_b]

That’s what I find complicated about Catholicism! An 800 page rule book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a standard edition at Amazon is 846 pages long)

my bible at home has 837 pages in the OT and 237 pages in the NT. BTW, The CCC quotes copiously from the bible.
T:

By way of comparison, Luther’s Small Catechism and his Large Catechism are only about 135 pages combined.

by comparison, do all bibles have the same number of pages? or even the same number of books?

 

[DavidFilmer]

That’s what I find complicated about Catholicism! An 800 page rule book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a standard edition at Amazon is 846 pages long)

By way of comparison, Luther’s Small Catechism and his Large Catechism are only about 135 pages combined.

The Catechism is not intended to be read cover-to-cover. It’s more like an encyclopedia (which can have many thousands of pages). If you have a question about something, you can look up the Church’s teaching on a wide range of topics.

It’s a reference book. The Church encourages Catholics to own and consult the Catechism, but it is in no way expected of any Catholic. You can be a perfectly good Catholic and not own a Catechism - and, indeed, before 1992, nobody owned the Catechism. Before 1992, the only practical Catechism in English was the old Baltimore Catechism, which was intended for school children (and had no official status beyond the Archdiocese of Baltimore),

The Church has short catechisms as well. The Short Catechism of Cardinal St. Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church) is also available on Amazon - it’s 36 pages (not as small as Luther’s 14-page small catechism, but still pretty short).

But is a catechism better because it’s shorter? Is an encyclopedia or dictionary better if it has fewer pages? I don’t think reference books work that way.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I said,

If we die in a state of Grace, we are saved. All of the other stuff works in cooperation with our Baptismal Grace and fortifies us against temptation and sin, but the only thing that is required, as a condition of salvation, is the Grace of Christian Baptism (restored, if necessary, by Sacramental Confession). Other things are important, but not necessary

I say that because it’s true and it’s Catholic doctrine. If we die in a state of Grace (meaning our Baptismal Grace has been preserved) we are saved. Are you saying that we must be in a state of Grace at death AND meet some other requirement in order to attain salvation? Are you saying that dying in a state of Grace is insufficient for salvation - that something else is required on top of that? Are you saying that we could die while in a state of Grace and yet go to hell because we failed to fulfill some *OTHER * obligation?

Of course you’re not coming straight out and saying that. You’re no dummy, that’s for sure. You and I both know that’s outright heresy. I believe you are a faithful and knowledgeable Son of the Church, so there’s no way you would come right out and say any such a thing.

But, when I say,

the only thing that is required, as a condition of salvation, is the Grace of Christian Baptism … and nothing else is necessary

and you essentially say, “no it’s not” that’s really what you are saying. If you really draw your comments to their logical and inevitable conclusion, you are saying that we need (as a condition of salvation) MORE than the Grace of Baptism at the time of our death Think about it.

 

[steve_b]

If you really draw your comments to their logical and inevitable conclusion, you are saying that we need (as a condition of salvation) MORE than the Grace of Baptism at the time of our death Think about it.

If one dies immediately after baptism, then they go straight to heaven.

Now what did Jesus say? Baptize only and that’s it? Nothing else?

"baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, AND teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; "

 

[steve_b]

The Catechism is not intended to be read cover-to-cover. It’s more like an encyclopedia (which can have many thousands of pages). If you have a question about something, you can look up the Church’s teaching on a wide range of topics.

It’s a reference book. The Church encourages Catholics to own and consult the Catechism, but it is in no way expected of any Catholic. You can be a perfectly good Catholic and not own a Catechism - and, indeed, before 1992, nobody owned the Catechism. Before 1992, the only practical Catechism in English was the old Baltimore Catechism, which was intended for school children (and had no official status beyond the Archdiocese of Baltimore),

Coulda fooled me. At the time, back in the 50’s it was the standard instructional tool used by all Catholic schools to teach the faith. I was required to know and memorize and recite that catechism from cover to cover. And to this day, I can still give back some of those responses when asked, and I’ve never been to Baltimore.

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss something that had huge benefit

therealpresence.org/archives/Education/Education_004.htm

 

[DavidFilmer]

Coulda fooled me. At the time, back in the 50’s it was the standard instructional tool used by all Catholic schools to teach the faith.

I attended Catholic School (Blessed Sacrament in Savannah, GA) for Second to Fifth Grade (after which we moved to Ohio). My brother (Fr. Eric Filmer) and I were placed in this Catholic school, even though we were protestants, because of race riots going on in public schools in Savannah. At Jenkins High School, which was on the same property as Juliet Lowe Elementary School, two school buses were overturned and set on fire. The National Guard was deployed along Derene Ave (a main east-west thoroughfare) to keep the peace.

I was required to know and memorize and recite that catechism from cover to cover. And to this day, I can still give back some of those responses when asked, and I’ve never been to Baltimore.

As was I. I have also never been to Baltimore. But I was expected to know the Baltimore Catechism, even though it had no official status in the Diocese of Savannah, GA. But it was the closest thing we had, in the English language, to any sort of catechism before 1992.

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss something that had huge benefit

I did not dismiss it in any way. I simply pointed out that it was the ONLY practical English-language Catechism prior to 1992. And it was not meant to be a full Catechism in the same manner as the 1992 Catechism. It was a Catechism designed for school children, such as you and I.

 

[Darryl_B]

That’s what I find complicated about Catholicism! An 800 page rule book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a standard edition at Amazon is 846 pages long)

By way of comparison, Luther’s Small Catechism and his Large Catechism are only about 135 pages combined.

My friend, look at it this way, if you have had the fortune to have found yourself a spouse, looking back, did you spend 135 days before marriage (5 months) or did you spend 846 days before marriage (2 years 4 months)?

My point is that if you can spend that much time in one pursuit of value, how much more …

 

[Ignatius]

keblash;12555453:

I’ve She has also supplamented this statment by using a bible reference to where Jesus said he came to do away with all the rules and that religion is supposed to be easy.

I think she’s mistaken. Can you ask her to show you exactly where Jesus said “I came to do away with all the rules”? I would also be interested in where Jesus said “religion is supposed to be easy”. Ask her to write down the Book, Chapter and Verse for each one.

I do know that He said, “You must pick up your Cross and follow me” and “whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16: 24-25) Does that sound easy?

Note, I have given the Book, Chapter and Verses, The book is the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 16 and verses 24 and 25.

So, I’m waiting for the answer. What Book, Chapter and Verse did Jesus say he came to do away with all the rules and that religion is supposed to be easy