The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did I say where he went ?

Correct. You did not. Why I left it as a question, and a hope, that no directional inference was made, which would be contrary thing to do according to CC.

Isn’t it interesting, by leaving the direction open, how fast one can predict that direction is the bad direction, based on the information one has on a person’s life.

What, I saw no prediction in your post, but would guess you would infer a good direction for Luther…I mean some Catholics would say he would have been given sainthood, had he remained C

Objectively speaking, all of us can make judgements on what we see based on what information we have.

As for the after life,

Outside of those we Catholics know are saints, it’s true, we Catholics leave the destiny of all others NOT declared as saints, to the mercy of God.

THAT said

We Catholics also have assurances. Namely the sacraments. And since we’re talking at this moment about end of life issues, I’ll just say for Catholics, there are fantastic assurances with the sacrament of "last rites" .

 

[mcq72]

I’m not following that example.

I am leary of salvation snd institution in same dialogue or sentence etc…

My take is that Luther realized any salvific hope resting on him being a monk in the CC, and on all his sacramental experiences and penances etc. in the church, doing religious even institutional things, was vain.

I compare this to Nicodemus, who likewise was “clergy” in God’s institition, doing all the right religious things as ordered by God, yet was blind to his own spiritual lack, thinking he was already saved, right with God, fine, His child, based upon being a Jew.

So, hence my analogy of being in a garage does not turn you into a car.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m not following that example.

I am leary of salvation snd institution in same dialogue or sentence etc…

My take is that Luther realized any salvific hope resting on him being a monk in the CC, and on all his sacramental experiences and penances etc. in the church, doing religious even institutional things, was vain.

Whatever was going through his mind, during all of his issues, Luther was fully informed during the entire process of being corrected…

AND

He made his choices fully informed.

mcq72:

I compare this to Nicodemus, who likewise was “clergy” in God’s institition, doing all the right religious things as ordered by God, yet was blind to his own spiritual lack, thinking he was already saved, right with God, fine, His child, based upon being a Jew.

Excerpt from Nicodemus | Catholic Answers

(all emphasis mine)

“ Some writers conjecture from his question; How can a man be born when he is old?”, that he was already advanced in years, but the words are too general to warrant such a conclusion. He appears in this interview as a learned and intelligent believer, but timid and not easily initiated into the mysteries of the new faith. He next appears (John, vii, 50, 51) in the Sanhedrim offering a word in defense of the accused Galilean; and we may infer from this passage that he embraced the truth as soon as it was fully made known to him. He is mentioned finally in John, xix, 39, where he is shown cooperating with Joseph of Arimathea in the embalming and burial of Jesus.

SO Yeah,

looks like It took him awhile to come to faith

mcq72:

So, hence my analogy of being in a garage does not turn you into a car.

Ahhhhh.

 

[Justin_Mary]

I compare this to Nicodemus, who likewise was “clergy” in God’s institition, doing all the right religious things as ordered by God, yet was blind to his own spiritual lack, thinking he was already saved, right with God, fine, His child, based upon being a Jew.

Ah… but the truth is not that the physical sacrifices performed at the temple were without merit, it is after all what God instructed to do.

Without eating the lamb, without marking their doors, the angel of the lord would have taken their firstborn just like those from the Egyptians.

Likewise, sacrifices at the temple of Jerusalem were in vain if not accompanied with true attrition.

For you do not desire sacrifice or I would give it; a burnt offering you would not accept.i My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite spirit; a contrite, humbled heart, O God, you will not scorn.

Taken on it’s own I can see how some would argue against the formal practice of the Church.

Treat Zion kindly according to your good will; build up the walls of Jerusalem.Then you will desire the sacrifices of the just, burnt offering and whole offerings; then they will offer up young bulls on your altar.

But in context we realize it is not sacrifice alone, but sacrifice with true contrition, humility, & charity.

 

[mcq72]

looks like It took him awhile to come to faith

Yes, but what hindered him was wrong reiance on his religious, institutional, activity…in short he thpught he was already born again, born of the Spirit, as a Jew…faith was nothing" new"… old as Adam.

 

[mcq72]

Ah… but the truth is not that the physical sacrifices performed at the temple were without merit, it is after all what God instructed to do.

That is like a blind man meriting a Mona Lisa.

Works of righteousness did not make Nicodemus born of the Spirit.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

looks like It took him awhile to come to faith

Yes, but what hindered him was wrong reiance on his religious, institutional, activity…in short he thpught he was already born again, born of the Spirit, as a Jew.…faith was nothing" new"… old as Adam.

On the contrary

He didn’t understanding what baptism was and does.

 

[mcq72]

Taken on it’s own I can see how some would argue against the formal practice of the Church.

Ok.And as you say, it is not that formal, God ordained practice is bad, or that contrition and humility are required (should be evident also)… just cant put cart before the horse…the horse being born of the Spirit by grace and faith first.

 

[mcq72]

He didn’t understanding what baptism was and does.

The baptism of John, which was most prevalent at time of discourse, was not regenerational.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

He didn’t understanding what baptism was and does.

The baptism of John, which was most prevalent at time of discourse, was not regenerational.

Yet
Jesus is who was teaching Nicodemus, about being born again…through baptism

AND

Nicodemus wasn’t there yet in his faith
HERE…

 

[mcq72]

Nicodemus wasn’t there yet in his faith

Agree, because he was not born from above, in the spirit yet. He was only born of the flesh, obviously.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Nicodemus wasn’t there yet in his faith

Agree, because he was not born from above, in the spirit yet. He was only born of the flesh, obviously.

Jesus was teaching him what baptism DOES to an individual.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus was teaching him what baptism DOES to an individual.

Disagree. Show me where baptism regeneration is prophesied in OT that Nicodemus should have known as a rabbi/ teacher of Israel.

Show me where John’s or apostles’ baptism was regenerational at this discourse time.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Ok.And as you say, it is not that formal, God ordained practice is bad, or that contrition and humility are required (should be evident also)… just cant put cart before the horse…the horse being born of the Spirit by grace and faith first.

I’m not understanding. Did I say something contrary?

My point, using your analogy, is you can’t throw away the cart. You can’t have one without the other. We are spiritual beings, but we are also physical beings.

True flesh means true flesh.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Disagree. Show me where baptism regeneration is prophesied in OT that Nicodemus should have known as a rabbi/ teacher of Israel.

Ezekiel

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus was teaching him what baptism DOES to an individual.

Disagree. Show me where baptism regeneration is prophesied in OT that Nicodemus should have known as a rabbi/ teacher of Israel.

Show me where John’s or apostles’ baptism was regenerational at this discourse time.

When I quoted from John,

The OT didn’t have baptism. THAT is a NT sacrament.The idea of being reborn is NOT an OT understanding. Jesus was NOT attempting to teach OT theology here when He said the following HERE

Otherwise Nocodemus would NOT have the response he did to Jesus, in the previous link.

As far as regeneration, open the link. "Born of Water and spirit " = Baptism.

 

[mcq72]

The OT didn’t have baptism

They did, but not for regeneration.

Also John’s baptism was still OT.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The OT didn’t have baptism

They did, but not for regeneration.

Also John’s baptism was still OT.

Really?

Who told you THAT?

Is the Annnunciation OT?

Is the birth of Our Lord OT?

Etc Etc etc…

I don’t see any of that in the OT

 

[mcq72]

As far as regeneration, open the link. " Born of Water and spirit " = Baptism

Baptism is not only undetstanding of water. …as we have discussed before on other threads.

At best Jesus may be referring to the Pharisees avoidance of Johns baptism, which was not regenerational. They did not believe like others, not because they didnt have baptism, but because they were carnal and not spiritual, not born of the Spirit. The Lord must quicken understanding, as happened with Peter at his great confession of Jesus being the Son of God.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As far as regeneration, open the link. " Born of Water and spirit " = Baptism

Baptism is not only undetstanding od water. …as we have discussed before on other threads.

Baptism by definition, is a rather large subject HERE 10 pages of links/paragraphs etc from the CCC