The devil was part of the Reformation

[AlanFromWichita]

Thal59:

AlanFromWichita:

The problem with your scriptural quotes is that the disciples of the Lord “testified” that they saw the man in question “Cast/Drive out demons in thy name.” The point is that this mystery man was not doing so of his own accord, but that he apparently had received such power and authority from God through the Holy Spirit.

In order to make the analogy apply to “Protestants” in general, one would have to show that they are empowered and authorized by God. Since they have broken away from the authorized faith, they cannot be authorized themselves as that would imply that God authorizes schism.

Thal59

In my experience, Protestants use the name of Jesus at least as or more frequently than Catholics.

If one has to show what you said in order for the verse to be valid, then Jesus might have just as well not given the teaching at all because you have just relegated the entire parable to be meaningless.

One thing I find annoying about a lot of Catholics is that when the Scripture doesn’t back them up, they tend to make up reasons why it doesn’t apply rather than examine themselves and become transformed – or when Christ said “be ye transformed” was he really saying you had to register with the Church authorities?

To use your own word, “apparently.” I suppose if any scripture doesn’t paint the picture we want painted, we’ll just say, “apparently it was talking about somebody else and doesn’t apply to us modern folk in the 21st century.”

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

Thal59:

He promised that His church would be guided by the Holy spirit who would “…recall to mind all that I have taught you, teach you all things, guide you into ALL truth, and be with you forever.”

Christ’s church MUST have the fullness of truth or it could not stand against the assaults of the devil. Protestants broke from this charism, and they are multiplied exceedingly.

Thal59

What he did NOT say however is that all that truth would come immediately or that we would understand even what we “knew” at any given time. Understanding of the Truth contines to unfold, and will continue to unfold until the end of time. While the Church “holds” the deposit of Truth, it is like a “trust fund” that is “paid out” as we are able to understand and assimilate it. The fact that the Church may not understand the fullness of truth yet does not in any way contradict what Jesus said or “make him a liar” as you simplistically put it.

As Alan very correctly said, we choose to accept a set of beliefs that cannot be proven on faith. The reasons why people come to the faith they profess are varied. Many unthinkingly just “buy in” because that is what their family or friends do. Others buy in because they examne the logic of different belief subsets and come to a conclusion that a particular one makes the most sense to them. Others buy in because it is all their culture has ever taught them. Still others come as a result of some type of personal experience of God. Of course the reverse can also be true that people choose AGAINST a set of beliefs because either those who claim to hold those beliefs have no credibility with them or their experience with the beliefs doesn’t match what the beliefs claim or the actions of the adherents don’t match the beliefs they claim to hold.

Ultimately, the choice that a certain set of beliefs is “correct” is not objectively rational since no set of beliefs based on faith can be proven. As such, for us to believe that because we have chosen to believe the Church that all people must objectively come to the same conclusion is just silly.

People will only come to accept a set of beliefs either through a direct experience of God, or through people who have credibility with them. That credibility will only come if people are both actually liviing the beliefs they profess and if living those beliefs is obviously bringing them peace. I would challenge anyone to show me a single person ever born who was “transformed” by being humiliated or having the truth “beat into them”.

If we truly want to bring people to God, we can only do it by living the life that Jesus called us to: Love, Humility, and Forgiveness. We have to check our pride at the door and constantly remember that we can be nothing more than “channels of his peace”, to quote the great St Francis. Or to quote John the Baptist, “I must decrease so He can increase.”

I guess I’ve gotten a little off topic here, and I apologize for that. I just sometimes get upset when I see people speaking for my Catholic faith (not directing this at you particularly thal59) by trying to use it as a “club” to beat people into submission rather than being the “good samaritans” to the neighbor who needs help with his or her cross. We’re all at different stages in our journey. We only got where we are because someone helped us along; we will only get where we’re going because someone else helps us (along with Jesus since none of us can do it on our own). It’s time we give the same consideration to the rest of our brothers and sisters out there.

Peace,

 

[Thal59]

Alan, your public profile says you are a Catholic, but your replies are Protestant in nature. Are you a recent convert from a Protestant denomination? Let me show you what I mean…

So you are saying you know ALL truth because you are Catholic?<<<

This is a nonsense remark. I never said or implied that I personally knew all truth. After making this remark, which is totally out of context with anything I said, you then go on a lengthy refutation of it. You then follow that with a weak analogy. This is the kind silly debate I have received only from Protestants i.e. claim that the Catholic made an obviously false statement, entirely out of context, and then refute it. Then of course, change the subject…

The problem with the Church, given she contains the fullness of truth, is she doesn’t seem to be able to get that truth to a place and format that the sheep can consume and digest.<<<

You are absolutley correct here. I, too, believe the church has failed where it comes to dispensing that fullness of truth. But possessing that fullness and dispensing it to the faithful are two entirely different subjects. But look at your second post…

In my experience, Protestants use the name of Jesus at least as or more frequently than Catholics.

If one has to show what you said in order for the verse to be valid, then Jesus might have just as well not given the teaching at all because you have just relegated the entire parable to be meaningless.<<<

Again, this reply has the odor of Protestant thinking in it. The issue of “using” the name of Jesus has no bearing whatsoever on my post. NONE. You then follow it up with the sentence in bold. I never made any such claim that the verse was invalid! This kind of inablity to understand simple English is a trademark of the Protestant mindset. This is why your conclusion to the words in bold are completely meaningless. Let me try again.

Was the man who was casting out demons doing so of his own inate ability or power? (I have to answer my own questions here.) NO.

Since the man was successful at casting out demons in the Lord’s name, we know that he has the spirit and is therefore authorized in some way by God to do so, even if he is not one of those disciples who physically follow Jesus daily. The verse is valid and the comments of the disciples gives “testimony” that the man is authorized in some way. Now, please don’t jump to the conclusion that I am inferring that every Protestant that comes along must somehow prove he has the spirit. I am simply pointing out that the man in the biblical verse does indeed have both the power and the authority to do what he does. Now go to my initial conclusion from my previous post…

+++In order to make the analogy apply to “Protestants” in general, one would have to show that they are empowered and authorized by God. Since they have broken away from the authorized faith, they cannot be authorized themselves as that would imply that God authorizes schism.+++

By using the biblical text, you are inferring that since the Protestants are for Jesus, we should not inhibit them in the same way that the disciples attempted to prevent the man in question from casting out demons in the Lord’s name. But there is a quantitative difference here. The man in the biblical verse is obviously **NOT **in schism with the Lord. Protestants are - as they have broken from his authorized church.

For the analogy to work for Protestants, one would have to conceed that they, like the man in the verse, are also empowered and authorized by God. But this is obviously not the case as that would then mean that God authorizes schism.

Thal59

 

[Paris_Blues]

AlanFromWichita:

So my question to you is, what does the “fullness” get you that the contrasting “partial” there is elsewhere get you? Is it that the Church is so rich in many devotions that practically anybody can find ones that are suited toward their journey? Is it the Real Presence that most influences you?

I can’t explain it because it’s a grace that has been given to me that I really can’t explain. But many Catholics may have a clue.

But I’ll do the best I can on it:

The Fullness of Truth lies within the CC. The CC was the Church in which Christ said He would built It, upon Peter (Matthew 16 or 18 or something): “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”. He didn’t say “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build churches” did He, no.

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:48-68)

The Eucharist IS NOT symbolic! It is TRULY the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord. How can some people not think so? If they can believe in Scripture the Wedding at Cana how our Lord turned water into wine, why can’t they accept the true fact that our Lord can turn a wafer into His TRUE Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? :ehh:

Does this kinda help?

I could go on and on but take a look at this link!

 

[ncjohn]

Thal59:

For the analogy to work for Protestants, one would have to conceed that they, like the man in the verse, are also empowered and authorized by God. But this is obviously not the case as that would then mean that God authorizes schism.

Thal59

This is the second time you’ve made this statement now, and with all due respect, you might want to give a little more thought to it as I don’t think it can be justified by any Catholic teaching.

I see two big problems with the statement. The first is that you apparently have come to a conclusion that God doesn’t work through anyone but Catholics. I’m not sure what basis you have for making that statement since there are many Catholic teachings saying differently.

The second problem springs from the first since you seem to think that God choosing to work through someone who isn’t Catholic would be authorizing schism. The gospels clearly show through the Good Samaritan story that it is often those outside who actually live the virtues we are all called to. By any measure that can only happen by God working through them and does not in any way constitute “authorizing schism”.

God calls each of us, regardless of our state in life or our denomination, and it is up to each of us to respond to the best of our ability and understanding. There are Catholics who do so and Catholics who don’t, just as there are Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists who do and those who don’t. I fear that thinking that God doesn’t “empower” every child of His to act puts one on very shaky ground with regard to Catholic teaching.

Peace,

 

[Paris_Blues]

AlanFromWichita:

So you are saying you know ALL truth because you are Catholic?

WHAT!?!?! You’re Protestant???

How can any one person know ALL truth? If they can’t, then really what difference does it make whether some bishop in Rome knows the part you don’t know or whether it’s a TV preacher from Los Angeles?

Do YOU know if you have ALL Truth?

Even if Catholicism is Wal-Mart of truth and Presbyterians just run the Dollar General store on the corner, either store is capable of delivering nourishment to the table?

Nonsense

So you’re saying it doesn’t really matter what religion you are as long as you believe in Jesus Christ! That’s very dangerous

Do you refuse to learn anything from your boss of coworkers or other people unless they are Catholic in any other aspect of life than the “faith” one? If not, why not? What is wrong from learning lessons from ALL of God’s creatures?

I would refuse any tiny bits of info that would skeptical that are against the teachings of the CC.

You want to know what’s wrong? Let’s look at it this way:

Let’s say Catholics and Protestants go down to Antarctica to spread the Gospel, etc. to a bunch of people who never heard of Christianity. First, the Catholics approach them and tell them about Jesus, etc. and they accept Christ and they celebrate Mass and now, they have the TRUE Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and they have the Fullness of Truth with them. As the Catholics go back to their plane to fly elsewhere, some non-Catholics will come along and tell them about Christ. Then they celebrate their worship. “Hey! Where’s the Eucharist!??” one kid asked. “Isn’t this suppose to be the TRUE Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?” asked a lady. “Oh, it’s only symbolic!” replies the pastor. “WHAT?!?!!?!?!!? WE WANT THE TRUE PRESENCE!!!” screams the people.

What kind of lesson is THAT?:ehh:

The “truth” shouts out from even the rocks. Do you not think God can raise more of us from stones?

I’m starting to become very skeptical by your comments.

I will give this much toward the Church. I have found in my own spiritual journey that I have received many teachings from outsiders, and some are right and some turn out to be wrong, according to the Church. I have received many teachings from insiders, and some have turned out to be wrong.

So are you saying that you don’t 100% agree with the Church’s Teachings?unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_shock.gif

The problem with the Church, given she contains the fullness of truth, is she doesn’t seem to be able to get that truth to a place and format that the sheep can consume and digest. I’m not talking about the Sacraments here, but the teachings and the mysticism that she has hidden in the cloisters that very few people know about. She does, indeed, have a very rich set of teachings and in fact does have the mysticism (and even enthusiasm in places) that “other” denominations and even Eastern religions have – and I think it’s better because it’s OURS. For those reasons, I have been impressed at the depth of the Church, but woefully disappointed at her inability to feed the sheep what they need.

Huh???

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thal59:

Alan, your public profile says you are a Catholic, but your replies are Protestant in nature. Are you a recent convert from a Protestant denomination? Let me show you what I mean…

Cradle Catholic. Lapsed a few years from about 1977-1982 or so starting in college, and during that time I was ministered to and helped by Protestants and even a certain “non-denom” who convinced me to believe in Christ. It only made sense to come home first to see how my new attitudes worked in The Church, and so far I’ve had a couple times of questioning staying here I get over them quickly.

So you are saying you know ALL truth because you are Catholic?<<<

This is a nonsense remark. I never said or implied that I personally knew all truth. After making this remark, which is totally out of context with anything I said, you then go on a lengthy refutation of it. You then follow that with a weak analogy. This is the kind silly debate I have received only from Protestants i.e. claim that the Catholic made an obviously false statement, entirely out of context, and then refute it. Then of course, change the subject…

I’ll take that as a “no.”

My point in asking is, if you only need to find a certain number of books, why can’t you go to a library branch office instead of all the way downtown? Maybe not everyone is called to be in the “fullness” group. Other groups may have a “smaller” God as we might see it (note: many Protestants insult each other with the charge of “your God is too small”) or a partial information or only some blessings, but let’s not deny they are there on the pro-life lines and at the soup kitchens with us.

Is there a rule that says that every sheep who strays from Christ’s Church becomes my personal responsibility to convert and “bring home?” I hope not because to presume I could is to presume I have a greater plan or will than the Spirit.

The problem with the Church, given she contains the fullness of truth, is she doesn’t seem to be able to get that truth to a place and format that the sheep can consume and digest.<<<

You are absolutley correct here. I, too, believe the church has failed where it comes to dispensing that fullness of truth. But possessing that fullness and dispensing it to the faithful are two entirely different subjects. But look at your second post…

Cool.

Let me try again.

Was the man who was casting out demons doing so of his own inate ability or power? (I have to answer my own questions here.) NO.

By using the biblical text, you are inferring that since the Protestants are for Jesus, we should not inhibit them in the same way that the disciples attempted to prevent the man in question from casting out demons in the Lord’s name. But there is a quantitative difference here. The man in the biblical verse is obviously **NOT **in schism with the Lord. Protestants are - as they have broken from his authorized church.

OK, I guess your explanation is right but I don’t exactly understand it.

Do you personally know a Protestant who was a Fully Understood Catholic, and then broke out of that and went Protestant? Are you saying that every Protestant has like Adam’s original sin + Luther’s sin automatically?

What about children under the age of consent? Do you think children of age 12 maybe who are baptized into a Protestant faith have committed the equivalent of the entire sin of the Reformation? You hold that girl personally responsible for her beliefs to that degree? Or is it “quantitative” in that she bears a seed of that Protestantism.

Why, then, does the Catholic Church recognize Protestant baptisms – if by being Protestant we are in “schizm” with the Church how can a baptism be valid – and on whose authority?

For the analogy to work for Protestants, one would have to conceed that they, like the man in the verse, are also empowered and authorized by God. But this is obviously not the case as that would then mean that God authorizes schism.

I guess I’ll just have to let you have your own “obvious” logic on that one.

I will think for myself that if a man drives out demons in the name of Christ, then because his parents’ religion has a certain name he is automatically excluded from the imagery of this parable. I don’t think the Holy Spirit is limited by denominational boundaries, but I don’t know the theology on that.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Paris Blues:

WHAT!?!?! You’re Protestant???

No, but I do love some Protestants.

Do YOU know if you have ALL Truth?

I have all the Truth I need at any given time. That is my faith, and upon Confirmation I agreed as such. With the Holy Spirit, I trust that I will be led to situations where I am learn what I need before the next “test” of that knowledge. There are many schools, but there is just one Teacher. I may learn “Truth” or in cases “untruth” from different places, but I trust that the Lord will not give me anything for which He has not prepared me.

Nonsense

So you’re saying it doesn’t really matter what religion you are as long as you believe in Jesus Christ! That’s very dangerous

It’s very dangerous, and unpopular. There were times one could be killed over it.

It’s about our tone of coercion when dealing with Protestants. Not because we are afraid of telling “our” truth which we believe to be “the” truth, but because there are ways that are effective and are not. St. Paul became like those he was around, weak, strong, whatever, to win them. Show them some respect for their religion they’ve invested their life in and you have never personally experienced, and they’re more likely to hear about ours. Let’s not chop down the wheat for the weeds; let them grow together and let God sort out the Truth by its very power.

So are you saying that you don’t 100% agree with the Church’s Teachings?unity.enya.com/images/smiles/smiles_shock.gif

What is there to agree about? I have no idea what most Church teachings are. There are entire libraries.

Am I going to say that in my own personal opinion, I judge those all to be accurate? No. Will I defend the Church’s right to hold them accurate? Yes.

My point is not so much about the accuracy of the teachings, but that the mysticism – the science of love – permeates all human beings regardless of religion. IMO to insist that intellectual cloning must be 100% before we can sit down at the same table together is putting the cart before the horse. Let’s learn how to deal with faith differences constructively and maturely, and without threats. Then a person can truly see the love and come to the light based on freedom and not coercion.

Alan

 

[SolaChristo]

Cradle Catholic. Lapsed a few years from about 1977-1982 or so starting in college, and during that time I was ministered to and helped by Protestants and even a certain “non-denom” who convinced me to believe in Christ. It only made sense to come home first to see how my new attitudes worked in The Church, and so far I’ve had a couple times of questioning staying here I get over them quickly.

Alan your view is very refreshing to me.
May God continue to bless you.

 

[reen12]

quote:Thal59

To say… “Neither “interpretation” is the ‘fulness of truth’ …” is to call Christ a liar.

I…don’t…*think…*so…

And neither do 3/4 billion other Christians.

---

But then, each is entitled to his/her “take” - on matters
theological. :tiphat: What is truth to one - is heresy to
another. “Conscience” is a lovely reality…]

As I say:

quote: reen12

… - if the Church lasts 20,000 years - then she is still in her infancy, and…who knows? Maybe she will recover from the notion of “infallibility” - at the prompting of the Holy Spirit

.

Regards,

reen12

 

[Little_Mary]

reen12:

Catholicism is, as well, an “interpretation.”

The entire Reformation *centered *about the fidelity
of this interpretation of Scripture.

In my estimation, the Catholics got it right on the Eucharist,
and Luther got it right on…Scripture - particularly the
letters of St. Paul.

Neither “interpretation” is the ‘fulness of truth’ and - if the
Church lasts 20,000 years - then she is still in her infancy,
and…who knows? Maybe she will recover from the notion
of “infallibility” - at the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

reen12

I suppose everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion on matters theological. You are no exception. But it doesn’t make you right.

Maybe, someday, you will listen to the Holy Spirit as He prompts you to return home to the Catholic church! :tiphat:

 

[x4us]

** It only made sense to come home first to see how my new attitudes worked in The Church, and so far I’ve had a couple times of questioning staying here I get over them quickly.**

Dear Christ Alone, What kinds of things made you “get over quickly” the idea of staying in the Catholic Church? Your sister in Christ, Kate

 

[AlanFromWichita]

x4us:

** It only made sense to come home first to see how my new attitudes worked in The Church, and so far I’ve had a couple times of questioning staying here I get over them quickly.**

Dear Christ Alone, What kinds of things made you “get over quickly” the idea of staying in the Catholic Church? Your sister in Christ, Kate

The poster was quoting me I believe, on that issue.

What I meant was now I quickly get over the idea of leaving the Church when I get frustrated at her problems. I have considered taking my kids out of Catholic school, and even did take three of them out for one year. I no longer have ideas about actually leaving the Church, though, and nurture them for very long.

When I find out the Church teaches this or that and it makes no sense, I now find that if I push hard enough, it does make sense at some level and most Catholics just have a “simplified” view of the pertinent teaching. For example, the heresy that anyone not officially belonging to the Catholic Church is going to hell is very simple, and easy to remember. The fact that there are volumes of explanations and caveats written throughout the years as the Church gets a “fuller” understanding, means it ain’t all that simple. It’s like advertising; once an idea (meme) gets stuck in a brain it stays there pretty firm.

Also, I have listened enough preachers, Catholic and non-Catholic, that I come to have a sense where my “nonsense” detector goes off every so often. Just because there are problems with the Church doesn’t mean another one is better – or better for me. It tells me that either I don’t understand something, or that I do and part of my mission just might be to help bring that understanding to others.

On this particular thread, I think we need to learn about judging, so my comments are directed in that way. We as Catholics hate to hear Catholic-bashing, and my idea is that Catholics tend to return the favor in non-Catholic bashing, and when they are together like here they reinforce each other until it seems like we’re fighting the enemy. These people are not enemies. They are flesh-and-blood just like the rest of us and they bleed just like the rest of us. How can we expect them to honor our religion when we ridicule and belittle theirs?

To me, Catholics have a great platform for this because they do have the full history traceable to Peter, and they have the largest membership, and I think it’s VERY important that the Church teachings are guarded top-down instead of voted bottom-up like in some denominations or non-denoms. The thing that hurts is I see sooo much good the Church is able to do and she doesn’t do it because she has blinded herself to peripheral concerns outside the worldly ones that consume the priests at the diocese level. Mysticism is preserved only in the orders where they actually pay respect to prayer life.

One diocese priest told me a couple years ago that the biggest problem he has is that the diocese priests are asked to be in charge of so many worldly things that they themselves started “cheating” on their prayer life. When you have a priest (these are his words not mine) in charge of a parish and does not have a good prayer life, then you haven’t much anything at all.

Once I was listening to an audio recording of a seminar where, believe it or not, men were being trained to seduce women. Anyway, one thing the guy said was that inevitably when a man listens to a woman rather than try to impress her with his intellect, THEN she thinks he is smart. Theories aside, it’s the listener who wins. To me, it’s all about listening to each other. Wherever two or more are gathered in God’s name, there He is, and I don’t think it has to be two Catholics. When I listen to someone’s pain, their beliefs, their stories, I believe the Holy Spirit works through me to feed back anywhere from plain silence to affirming body language to just a kind empathy, “wow, it sounds like you feel trapped in this situation.” This is how we heal and evangelize; love and listen. Don’t say, “my religion’s better than yours” until you’ve become close enough friends you can truly see how they are thirsting for a particular aspect of Catholicism.

Maybe I strayed from your question, but in general I still find that the Catholic Church does have the full spectrum. It has both dogmatic components like Western Churches, it has all the mysticism of East and then some – if you just know how to tap into it we’re in good shape. Therefore I find that there is no better platform, so pretty much I’m either going to stay Catholic or I’ll be out on my own one-man-band.

Alan

 

[bekalc]

My feeling is that I know God’s presence is in Protestant circles I’ve experienced it. Most of the Protestants are not responsible for the Church splits. They had nothing to do with them… So why blame them? I don’t think the Lord does, and He hasn’t forgotten them.

I’m converting to Catholicism because I think Catholicism has the means to unite Christianity in the end. The only means…But I don’t think speaking that way to Protestants is going to unite behind them. We need to speak the truth, but the truth must be said in love.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bekalc:

My feeling is that I know God’s presence is in Protestant circles I’ve experienced it. Most of the Protestants are not responsible for the Church splits. They had nothing to do with them… So why blame them? I don’t think the Lord does, and He hasn’t forgotten them.

I’m converting to Catholicism because I think Catholicism has the means to unite Christianity in the end. The only means…But I don’t think speaking that way to Protestants is going to unite behind them. We need to speak the truth, but the truth must be said in love.

Your post is beautiful to me. I’ll back off now, since I’ve made my case as well as I’m likely to and I know others share my sensitivity toward holding modern cradle Protestants personally responsible.

Earlier today I was watching some wonderful videotapes about St. Therese of Lisieux and Mary, Mother of God that I just got in the mail yesterday (I had lost them in our house fire and State Farm reimbursed me to replace them). After watching them it makes it easier to like the Church and what all she has to offer. There just isn’t any substitute for having connections to all the true saints (both ordained and those who are not IMO) in the Church.

Alan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AlanFromWichita:

Catholics: My God can beat up your God.

Non-Catholics: My God can beat up your God.

Suggested variation for either: My God IS your God, duhhh.

I’ve heard a comedy routine that does a great job of showing how silly people are when they get into this spewing match, except he said more approximately, “my God carries a bigger stick than your God.”

My comment on this mentality:​

:banghead: :banghead: ##

The Protestant Reformation might have been the best thing for Catholicism. If Satan played a role in it, could he have done so by corrupting the Church to the point that a person with as much leadership potential felt he had to break off and start a new religion and a lot of people answered?

A lot of people question on whose authority we speak as Christians. We say, “on God’s authority,” which is fine for those who share the faith but meaningless to those who don’t share it, it’s just blather. At some point it comes down to the beliefs of each of us as an individual.
If nobody believes in the Catholic Church, then it will be clear it has no authority on this earth. A religion is given authority and power by those who believe in it. How could Luther have started anything if there weren’t many, many Catholics who were disappointed with their own Church and were hoping to find things better elsewhere. Maybe they didn’t find things better elsewhere, but I can’t blame them for trying. As I understand it, the Church was quite the mess at the time with many crimes at all levels – honestly who can defend an “absolute” call to a place that corrupt? We tend to downplay this, and then we see the Church even in our lifetime doing the same thing. She has covered and thus enabled many, many crimes against children and fought every attempt at the SECULAR world to bring it to justice! This is not how things should be, and I get pretty tired of hearing Catholics talk snooty over my non-Catholic friends.

I am glad that since the Reformation the Church has gotten itself together – under threat of competition now – to the extent she has, and I am glad for those who share in our beautiful faith which remains somehow uncorrupted (so we presume) through all of the centuries. When I was young, my Lutheran best friend’s mother used to try to pit us against each other, for example, “his ‘Our Father’ is longer than mine,” (of course until we “Protestantized” it in Church years later) and all this **** that made no difference to two little kids except to give them some idea that adults are weird and isolationist about their religions.

That’s why I am in favor of being fascinated by alternate views of religion rather than trying to crush alternate views. When one listens to others and their stories, the differences and similarities in the stories bring much to the table. After all, we keep saying there is an absolute underlying truth to everything but guess what? The Catholic Church is not the author of every true word ever spoken, and will not be the only ones to speak a true work in the future.

Personally I think that the Reformation may have saved the Church to prevent satan from prevailing against it. When you have a message or operating behavior that is unacceptable to a good chunk of the crowd, who knows that they might have destroyed the Church from within – if for nothing else just to stop the evil – and “thrown the baby out with the bathwater?” That is not to say the reformers were bathwater, but anyone who has had any kind of taste of a corrupt bureaucratic system, whether it be the Church at the parish or diocese level, a government or industry entity, knows how frustrating it is and how tempting to wish God (or at least somebody) would burn the whole thing down and start over. Reformation prevented that from having to take place. The Church may have preached wonderful things, but her practices of evil were apparently so widespread there wasn’t any reasonable way to separate the two. We should be thankful to Martin Luther, and pray for him, and yet we still have a Church with people who snip at each other on a regular basis, all the while chiding Protestants for having a different opinion. Hellloooo??? Is there intelligent life down here???

Alan

An excellent post - one other point: it seems to be taken for granted that Christ’s fidelity to His promises to His Church (howsoever defined) are a guarantee of no nasty shocks for her from Him. It doesn’t follow; the Reformation could very well have been one such sign of His mercy; the Church needed a good shake-up from Him, so she got it.​

Would that be a fair interpretation of your thoughts too ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thal59:

To say… “Neither “interpretation” is the ‘fulness of truth’ …” is to call Christ a liar. He promised that His church would be guided by the Holy spirit who would “…recall to mind all that I have taught you, teach you all things, guide you into ALL truth, and be with you forever.”

Christ’s church MUST have the fullness of truth or it could not stand against the assaults of the devil. Protestants broke from this charism, and they are multiplied exceedingly.

Thal59

That takes for granted that the Church is standing by her own native power. She can’t. She has no native power of her own. What makes her stand is God’s mercy - and absolutely nothing else.​

Of herself, the Church cannot stand - because the people who are the Church cannot stand.

So what the Church has, is irrelevant. To say that she stands because she has the fullness of truth, is to fall into the trap of ascribing good to the Church without remembering that God is the only source of good.

It is not God’s gifts, whether truth or anything else, that we need, but God - alone. Otherwise we end up taking things less than God (such as doctrine) as all-important; and that is idolatry.

Worse, if possible, is this: Idolising God’s gifts not only falsifies them - it does so, crucially, by (so to speak) stealing them from God and so, making us think we are the source of them; which is another lie and idolatry. And that, leads to self-worship, whether by the Church or the individual, and makes the the grace of God into a lie. For we cannot live by grace, if we try to be self-sufficient - in trying that, we close ourselves off from God (so far as we can) and from others. If we shut off ourselves from God - how can we be open to Him to receive the grace we need ? So what grace we have sours, fossilises, and turns to dust. The result of that, is contempt of others (such as Protestants), and so, contempt of God.

That is what happens, when we denigrate other Christians ##

 

[reen12]

quote: Little Mary

I suppose everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion on matters theological. You are no exception. But it doesn’t make you right.

In my view, the only ones who appear to think themselves “exceptional” are the occassional member of the CC:
“We’ve got the fulness!”

The rest of us stand and look on…in wonder.

quote: Little Mary

Maybe, someday, you will listen to the Holy Spirit as He prompts you to return home to the Catholic church! :tiphat:

Uh…I don’t think that’s likely. I don’t think I’m exceptional
enuff.

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Well said, John. Thank you.

quote: ncjohn

The gospels clearly show through the Good Samaritan story that it is often those outside who actually live the virtues we are all called to. By any measure that can only happen by God working through them and does not in any way constitute “authorizing schism”.

Also recalls John the Baptist, saying:

“If God willed, He could raise up sons to Abraham
from these stones.”

Luke 3:8

usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke3.htm

The Spirit blows where He wills…

That may be an annoying reality - but a reality nonetheless.

If one is called to be a Catholic, that’s lovely.
Still, the Spirit will not be constrained - within the confines of any
one Church.

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thal59:

[long snip]

Was the man who was casting out demons doing so of his own inate ability or power? (I have to answer my own questions here.) NO.

Since the man was successful at casting out demons in the Lord’s name, we know that he has the spirit and is therefore authorized in some way by God to do so, even if he is not one of those disciples who physically follow Jesus daily. The verse is valid and the comments of the disciples gives “testimony” that the man is authorized in some way. Now, please don’t jump to the conclusion that I am inferring that every Protestant that comes along must somehow prove he has the spirit. I am simply pointing out that the man in the biblical verse does indeed have both the power and the authority to do what he does. Now go to my initial conclusion from my previous post…

+++In order to make the analogy apply to “Protestants” in general, one would have to show that they are empowered and authorized by God. Since they have broken away from the authorized faith, they cannot be authorized themselves as that would imply that God authorizes schism.+++

By using the biblical text, you are inferring that since the Protestants are for Jesus, we should not inhibit them in the same way that the disciples attempted to prevent the man in question from casting out demons in the Lord’s name. But there is a quantitative difference here. The man in the biblical verse is obviously **NOT **in schism with the Lord. Protestants are - as they have broken from his authorized church.

For the analogy to work for Protestants, one would have to conceed that they, like the man in the verse, are also empowered and authorized by God. But this is obviously not the case as that would then mean that God authorizes schism.

Thal59## OTOH - maybe the Spirit, which “blows where it Will”, simply “clothed itself” with the man, to do God’s work. This doesn’t imply anything so distinct or clear-cut as authorisation. The emphasis is not there, so much as on the generosity of God, Who is always at work, even when we cannot be.

And purely as a matter of experience, I’ve often found (when a Protestant) that they were “empowered” by God". God is alive and well elsewhere than in the CC - there is no reason for Catholics to be so anxious to prove the contrary (if that were possible; which it is not.)

Why should admitting that God is present among Protestants be damaging to Catholics or Catholicism ? To do so, does not upset a single Catholic doctrine - or any other Catholic thing. If anything, it is a case of joy that God is great enough not to be hindered by our petty rivalries; it is a sign of His power and mercy and grace. What more could we want ? ##