M
mercygate
Guest
I have been rightly taken to task off list for my posts 33 and 34 on this thread. I thank my fellow forum member for the correction and apologize to John Mazar.
- Status
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, mercygate,
quote: mercygate
You do realize that there are many Christians out here
who are unconvinced by the attempt to justify the
assertion, through reference to Catholic “explanations”
of same.
It is a matter of* faith*, mercygate. If you accept
infallibility, fine. Once that is accepted, “the Church
says” [and she cant’ be wrong, because she’s
infallible] becomes a circular argument.
Purgatory may or may not exist.
Christ died, once, for all. Our sins are “covered” in
the sense that repentence “makes us right” with
Jesus.
If there’s a purgatory, fine. But God alone knows
that, and any speculation on same, is just that,
speculation.
I’ll “speculate” for a moment:
What if, at death, Christ let’s each of us see,
in a nano-second, the effects on others, of our
actions or inaction?
Really let’s us see and* experience* the pain,
caused to another, by our hurtful words, our irresponsibility,
the moments we failed to care for another who
*needed *care? Our pride, our arrogance, and the
pain that caused others?
What if that were the “cleansing”? What if that
nano-second caused us to realize, fully, what He has done
for each of us? Taken the burden of our sin on
Himself.
No beloved relative, “pining” in "purgatory.
Love, mercy, forgiveness…and heaven…all in a nano-second.
The harrowing caused, by seeing the effects of our
sins on others, would be a gift from Christ, in a
spiritual sense.
No question of Christ’s work not being sufficient,
in this “speculation.”
If one accepts infallibility, one can then accept the definition
of purgatory.
It is a matter of faith, to accept one scenario over another.
reen12
quote: mercygate
That is an example of an assertion, IMHO.
You do realize that there are many Christians out here
who are unconvinced by the attempt to justify the
assertion, through reference to Catholic “explanations”
of same.
It is a matter of* faith*, mercygate. If you accept
infallibility, fine. Once that is accepted, “the Church
says” [and she cant’ be wrong, because she’s
infallible] becomes a circular argument.
Purgatory may or may not exist.
Christ died, once, for all. Our sins are “covered” in
the sense that repentence “makes us right” with
Jesus.
If there’s a purgatory, fine. But God alone knows
that, and any speculation on same, is just that,
speculation.
I’ll “speculate” for a moment:
What if, at death, Christ let’s each of us see,
in a nano-second, the effects on others, of our
actions or inaction?
Really let’s us see and* experience* the pain,
caused to another, by our hurtful words, our irresponsibility,
the moments we failed to care for another who
*needed *care? Our pride, our arrogance, and the
pain that caused others?
What if that were the “cleansing”? What if that
nano-second caused us to realize, fully, what He has done
for each of us? Taken the burden of our sin on
Himself.
No beloved relative, “pining” in "purgatory.
Love, mercy, forgiveness…and heaven…all in a nano-second.
The harrowing caused, by seeing the effects of our
sins on others, would be a gift from Christ, in a
spiritual sense.
No question of Christ’s work not being sufficient,
in this “speculation.”
If one accepts infallibility, one can then accept the definition
of purgatory.
It is a matter of faith, to accept one scenario over another.
reen12
M
mercygate
Guest
Your scenario does not essentially contradict the position of the Church, which has never magisterially defined the circumstances of Purgatory despite the picturesque descriptions that have come down to us.
Purgatory is really the antechamber of Heaven, which exists in eternity. So even the nanosecond you propose may be “too much time.”
We are joined to the holy souls in Purgatory in the Communion of Saints. We are joined to Christ in his Body. Thus those judged worthy of Heaven (souls in Purgatory are saved, not getting a second chance) are “filling up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.” Our prayers for them are an act of charity and fully in accord with the salvific will of God.
R
reen12
Guest
quote: mercygate
quote: mercygate
quote: mercygate
logically, have to be stated:
The RCC holds that… or,
It is our belief that…
Given that these forums are an RC setting, I suppose
the “holds that” and “our belief is” can be dispensed
with. But the point on “logical necessity”, from
my previous post, holds, I think.
There’s a poster, on the forums, from a non-Christian faith.
He often uses phrases like:
It is our belief that… or
Our Sages tell us…
I see this approach as literally “attractive”…in that it
invites me to look further into what *else *is held - by
such a group - whose member presents belief in
such a humble and modest way [IMHO].
Any thought on this?
Best to you, mercygate,
reen12
You know, you’re right!
quote: mercygate
An excellent point, I think.
quote: mercygate
To save this from the realm of assertion, it would,
logically, have to be stated:
The RCC holds that… or,
It is our belief that…
Given that these forums are an RC setting, I suppose
the “holds that” and “our belief is” can be dispensed
with.
But the point on “logical necessity”, frommy previous post, holds, I think.
There’s a poster, on the forums, from a non-Christian faith.
He often uses phrases like:
It is our belief that… or
Our Sages tell us…
I see this approach as literally “attractive”…in that it
invites me to look further into what *else *is held - by
such a group - whose member presents belief in
such a humble and modest way [IMHO].
Any thought on this?
Best to you, mercygate,
reen12
M
mercygate
Guest
Regarding the “logic” of the antechamber of Heaven as a designation of Purgatory, here’s the walk-through.
Souls in Purgatory are “saved.” They will see God in the beatific vision. If they are saved, they cannot be in Hell. If they are destined for the beatific vision, though experiencing the last “processing” (for “nothing unclean shall enter” the Heavenly Jerusalem), then they are – in effect – already in Heaven in a manner of speaking.
I’m a convert. Took me 40 years to come to terms with the usual suspects of Catholic Dogma.
Souls in Purgatory are “saved.” They will see God in the beatific vision. If they are saved, they cannot be in Hell. If they are destined for the beatific vision, though experiencing the last “processing” (for “nothing unclean shall enter” the Heavenly Jerusalem), then they are – in effect – already in Heaven in a manner of speaking.
I’m a convert. Took me 40 years to come to terms with the usual suspects of Catholic Dogma.
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, mercygate,
quote: mercygate
Seriously, my husband is a convert, and since he
doesn’t carry the “baggage” with him that I do,
[style of early catechesis] he’s much more laid
back about “doctrines” than I am.
I keep maintaing that it is the converts, and those
who are returning to the faith, who will be the
leaven.
Best to you,
reen12
quote: mercygate
It’s taken me 59 years to recover from them!
Seriously, my husband is a convert, and since he
doesn’t carry the “baggage” with him that I do,
[style of early catechesis] he’s much more laid
back about “doctrines” than I am.
I keep maintaing that it is the converts, and those
who are returning to the faith, who will be the
leaven.
Best to you,
reen12
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
John
*I am remaining Catholic because I am more comfortable with the liturgical worship in the Catholic Church then the non liturgical worship in the Non Denominational and other Fundamentalist Churches. *
Sorry, John, that is like saying you are more comfortable being a golfer because you don’t like being a football, baseball or basketball player. You can only be a golfer because you play according to the rules of golf. You can only be a Catholic because you follow the rules of the Church. Do you follow the rules of the Church? No? Please don’t scanadlize us by calling yourself a Catholic.
*I am remaining Catholic because I am more comfortable with the liturgical worship in the Catholic Church then the non liturgical worship in the Non Denominational and other Fundamentalist Churches. *
Sorry, John, that is like saying you are more comfortable being a golfer because you don’t like being a football, baseball or basketball player. You can only be a golfer because you play according to the rules of golf. You can only be a Catholic because you follow the rules of the Church. Do you follow the rules of the Church? No? Please don’t scanadlize us by calling yourself a Catholic.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
John Mazar,
As a college graduate, I find it illogical to claim to be Catholic, yet reject what the Catholic Church states MUST be assented to with the assent of faith.
You’ve created your own religion and merely call it “Catholic.”
It’s much like making an oath (Latin “sacramentum”) to protect and defend the Constitution of the Unites States, but in the same breath claiming that the US Constitution can be lawfully “dispensed” from by any US citizen as they see fit, so long as they have been to college and claim the constitution to be illogical.
Logic is a wonderful characteristic. But integrity is much better.
As a college graduate, I find it illogical to claim to be Catholic, yet reject what the Catholic Church states MUST be assented to with the assent of faith.
You’ve created your own religion and merely call it “Catholic.”
It’s much like making an oath (Latin “sacramentum”) to protect and defend the Constitution of the Unites States, but in the same breath claiming that the US Constitution can be lawfully “dispensed” from by any US citizen as they see fit, so long as they have been to college and claim the constitution to be illogical.
Logic is a wonderful characteristic. But integrity is much better.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
John Mazar:
You see, analysis based on false information produces false results. Your notion that purgatory is a “second chance” at salvation is just plain false. Purgatory is a place of final purification (from the attachment to sin) before a saved person enters the presence of God.
Only those who are already saved by the cross of Christ and are heaven-bound enter purgatory. Those who reject Christ in this life do not get any second chance after death. They are condemned to hell. This is Catholic doctrine and always has been so.
Please get the facts
Be well,
Paul
Well, John, you are proof that education and wisdom are not the same thing. I have a pretty good education myself (B.A. and M.A. in psychology and a J.D. in law). So I think pretty analytically but I don’t agree at all with your positions - including the one on purgatory.
You see, analysis based on false information produces false results. Your notion that purgatory is a “second chance” at salvation is just plain false. Purgatory is a place of final purification (from the attachment to sin) before a saved person enters the presence of God.
Only those who are already saved by the cross of Christ and are heaven-bound enter purgatory. Those who reject Christ in this life do not get any second chance after death. They are condemned to hell. This is Catholic doctrine and always has been so.
Please get the facts
Be well,
Paul
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
reen,
For example, let’s hypothesically say we are among those in the 1st century who personally know this guy named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. He died and rose from the dead three days later, just like he said he would. Hmmm… this guy is pretty convincing, no?
Now, let’s say this guy Jesus teaches us something he claims to be true. Do we take it on faith? Yes. Is the very fact that he claimed it to be true sufficient authority to believe? I’d say so. Is this circular reasoning? No. It’s simply putting faith in the authority that above all else, proved trustworthy.
So, this guy Jesus says “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” What do you do? You teach this to your friends and family. You try to get others to understand the authority with which Jesus gave to those he knew personally. You know that you aren’t going to live forever, so you pass on the authority given to you by Jesus to other men you have chosen.
Where’s the circle? It seems like a straight line to me, called apostolic succession.
I don’t see that argument as circular. It is of faith, however.
For example, let’s hypothesically say we are among those in the 1st century who personally know this guy named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. He died and rose from the dead three days later, just like he said he would. Hmmm… this guy is pretty convincing, no?
Now, let’s say this guy Jesus teaches us something he claims to be true. Do we take it on faith? Yes. Is the very fact that he claimed it to be true sufficient authority to believe? I’d say so. Is this circular reasoning? No. It’s simply putting faith in the authority that above all else, proved trustworthy.
So, this guy Jesus says “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” What do you do? You teach this to your friends and family. You try to get others to understand the authority with which Jesus gave to those he knew personally. You know that you aren’t going to live forever, so you pass on the authority given to you by Jesus to other men you have chosen.
Where’s the circle? It seems like a straight line to me, called apostolic succession.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
reen,
Your speculation in post 42 sounds very familiar. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
Here’s what I wrote in 2003, on a Protestant theology forum:
Your speculation in post 42 sounds very familiar. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
Here’s what I wrote in 2003, on a Protestant theology forum:
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, Dave,
quote: itsjustdave
Apostolic Succession. An assertion, to those
outside the RCC. It is a matter of faith.
But, I have to admit, that was a great line! :tiphat:
Then she claims infalliblity, saying, in effect,
the Scriptures say what we [successors to
the Apostles] say they say, producing the
classic form of circular reasoning, to any
challenge proffered.
Christ has stayed with the Church. The problem
is, it’s in pieces.
The Church was protected by the Holy Spirit,
in presenting the world the N.T.
It was protected in bringing forward in time,
the glory of the Mass, as sacrifice.
The “dissenters” saved the clear meaning
of blessed assurance, and the emphasis
on scriptural imagery over systematic theology.
Christ will come again. And He will sort it out,
bringing the unity that He prayed for.
Good to hear from you, Dave.
I mean, if I’m going to disagree with something,
then at least let, what I’m disagreeing with, be
clearly and accurately rendered.*
quote: itsjustdave
The Apostles died, Dave. The Church calls itWhere’s the circle? It seems like a straight line to me, called apostolic succession.
Apostolic Succession. An assertion, to those
outside the RCC. It is a matter of faith.
But, I have to admit, that was a great line! :tiphat:
Then she claims infalliblity, saying, in effect,
the Scriptures say what we [successors to
the Apostles] say they say, producing the
classic form of circular reasoning, to any
challenge proffered.
Christ has stayed with the Church. The problem
is, it’s in pieces.
The Church was protected by the Holy Spirit,
in presenting the world the N.T.
It was protected in bringing forward in time,
the glory of the Mass, as sacrifice.
The “dissenters” saved the clear meaning
of blessed assurance, and the emphasis
on scriptural imagery over systematic theology.
Christ will come again. And He will sort it out,
bringing the unity that He prayed for.
Good to hear from you, Dave.
I mean, if I’m going to disagree with something,
then at least let, what I’m disagreeing with, be
clearly and accurately rendered.
*
R
reen12
Guest
PS:
quote: itsjustdave
Maureen
quote: itsjustdave
And both, together, are better, still.
Maureen
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Reen,
If one uses the same principles historians use to ponder the evidence left by our ancestors, then even one without faith ought to reasonably conclude that the Catholic Church (and that of Orthodoxy) have a direct historical succession from the apostles. The evidence of history speaks for itself. Now they may not like that conclusion, but the conclusion itself is compelling, given the evidence before us.
Reason, based upon that evidence, tells me that Lutheranism started with Luther, and Calvinism started with Calvin, and that the Baptists started with a man named John Smyth, etc. And when the learned scholar and famous son of Oxford, Ven. John Henry Newman sought to disprove Catholic claims through his learned analysis of the evidence of history, but instead convinced himself that Catholic claims were true, then it appears that my conclusions with regard to the historical evidence are not altogether unreasonable.
I seems clear then, from the evidence of history (not necessarily faith), that a disciple of the Apostle John, a holy man named Ignatius (AD 50-110) called his Church ‘catholic’, and asserted the Church in Rome is the one that “presides.” I’ve read Ignatius’ letters. He’s Catholic simply because he teaches Catholicism. That conclusion doesn’t require faith to believe, but it does require good sense.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, and even Protestants call it apostolic succession.
From Ven. John Henry Newman, written when he was still Protestant:
This claim was no different than that found in 1st century documents, such as that of AD 80, written by Clement of Rome a contemporary of the apostles:
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, Dave,
quote: itsjustdave
What required additional good sense, was the realization
that those successors had lost touch, in large part,
with the Original Event, and message - with the glorious
exeption of the Mass, as sacrifice.
That realization was called The Reformation.
The fact that the Mass, as sacrifice, was jettionsed,
as the reforming went on, is also a fact.
And who will Christ hold responsible, for* this* state
of affairs? These blessed successors, I think.
The answer? Communion, on Sundays, and blessed
assurance, the rest of the week.
And if the successors say: You can’t do that !
Oh?
IMHO, these successors have forfeited the right
to mandate much of anything, in terms of faith
propositions - which conclusion is arrived at,
by an exercise of that, rightly touted, good sense.
[To say that I will pay diligent attention, to what these
successors say, in terms of the requisites for moral behavior,
is a given, for me. The Church’s stance against abortion,
and the treasuring of life, will redound to it’s glory - again,
as the centuries roll by.]
But, in terms of the theology of what the good news is,
in it’s fulness?
IMO, the successors traded the fulness of the good news,
for a systematic theology [which was in full place, by the 16th century, - which theology both obscured, and distorted, the fulness of the good news, as well as the description of what
Christ had accomplished, found in the Pauline letters.]
The flock is scattered. Part of the *reality, *of what
Christ accomplished, is in the rightful custody of the “dissenters”, who treasure that reality. The greatest truth -
the Mass - is with the RCC and Orthodoxy, IMO.
The only way this mess can be righted, is for Christ
to come again, in majectic instancy, as Francis
Thompson put it.
The Church will survive, until then, but it will take the
Shepherd Himself, to restore the flock to unity.
Best,
Maureen
quote: itsjustdave
You’re right on this, Dave.
What required additional good sense, was the realization
that those successors had lost touch, in large part,
with the Original Event, and message - with the glorious
exeption of the Mass, as sacrifice.
That realization was called The Reformation.
The fact that the Mass, as sacrifice, was jettionsed,
as the reforming went on, is also a fact.
And who will Christ hold responsible, for* this* state
of affairs? These blessed successors, I think.
The answer? Communion, on Sundays, and blessed
assurance, the rest of the week.
And if the successors say: You can’t do that !
Oh?
IMHO, these successors have forfeited the right
to mandate much of anything, in terms of faith
propositions - which conclusion is arrived at,
by an exercise of that, rightly touted, good sense.
[To say that I will pay diligent attention, to what these
successors say, in terms of the requisites for moral behavior,
is a given, for me. The Church’s stance against abortion,
and the treasuring of life, will redound to it’s glory - again,
as the centuries roll by.]
But, in terms of the theology of what the good news is,
in it’s fulness?
IMO, the successors traded the fulness of the good news,
for a systematic theology [which was in full place, by the 16th century, - which theology both obscured, and distorted, the fulness of the good news, as well as the description of what
Christ had accomplished, found in the Pauline letters.]
The flock is scattered. Part of the *reality, *of what
Christ accomplished, is in the rightful custody of the “dissenters”, who treasure that reality. The greatest truth -
the Mass - is with the RCC and Orthodoxy, IMO.
The only way this mess can be righted, is for Christ
to come again, in majectic instancy, as Francis
Thompson put it.
The Church will survive, until then, but it will take the
Shepherd Himself, to restore the flock to unity.
Best,
Maureen
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Reen,
Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan stated in his book Protestantism that there were two groups of reformers which had emerged in the 15th century. One group were those “who held fast to their belief in the church as divinely established and sought only its reform.” The other group, however, “came to believe that the church, in its understanding of itself and the authority it held over the lives of men, was in error.”
Dunstan admits, "thoughtful men throughout Europe had become deeply distressed by the conditions which had developed [within the Church]. Attempts were made to change this state of affairs by the holding of Church councils (Pisa, 1409; Constance, 1410; Basle, 1431); but these were of little avail."
Consequently, in my view the reformation started well before Protestantism. Yet Protestants went the way of Korah’s rebellion, out of impatience, thereby throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I don’t agree with the second group mentioned by Dunstan. If the church was indeed established by Christ, then the authority signified by the “keys of the kingdom” given to St. Peter was indeed divinely instituted authority. Only God can change or abolish divinely established authority. No action by a corrupt pope, bishop, priest, or layperson could abolished divinely established authority. The successor of Peter remained the authoritative representative of Christ’s church on earth, regardless of how terrible the person who held that office.
IMHO, these successors have forfeited the right
to mandate much of anything
Yes. I belive Korah felt the same way about Moses.
Yet, it is not a mere human authority that can take the keys of the kingdom from the steward of the household of God (see Is 22:22), but that authority rest solely with God Himself. Your human impatience is much like that of the Protestants who would shake an angry fist at the captain of the Ark of Salvation, as if you knew precisely where he should steer that ark, wishing to wrestle the controls from him (as if that helped at all in past attempts), even though that imperfect captain was appointed to that post by God Himself and is in fact guided by Him as he always was, and as he always will be, for those that have faith in Him. The crew have a duty to simply submit to the captain appointed by God, and avoid compounding the problem by committing the sin of Korah’s rebellion, just as St. Jude forewarned.
We need more reformers like St. Francis and less reformers like Korah.
I agree that many within the Church hierarchy, even popes, lost their sensus fidei. But from my view, the true Reformation was internal, and the true Reformers were such saints as Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Sienna, and Ignatius of Loyola, who continue to hold as had been in all ages that the Bishop of Rome presides. They implemented the reformation without rejecting Heb 13:17 (like Luther), which was in essence the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16, Jude 11).
Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan stated in his book Protestantism that there were two groups of reformers which had emerged in the 15th century. One group were those “who held fast to their belief in the church as divinely established and sought only its reform.” The other group, however, “came to believe that the church, in its understanding of itself and the authority it held over the lives of men, was in error.”
Dunstan admits, "thoughtful men throughout Europe had become deeply distressed by the conditions which had developed [within the Church]. Attempts were made to change this state of affairs by the holding of Church councils (Pisa, 1409; Constance, 1410; Basle, 1431); but these were of little avail."
Consequently, in my view the reformation started well before Protestantism. Yet Protestants went the way of Korah’s rebellion, out of impatience, thereby throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I don’t agree with the second group mentioned by Dunstan. If the church was indeed established by Christ, then the authority signified by the “keys of the kingdom” given to St. Peter was indeed divinely instituted authority. Only God can change or abolish divinely established authority. No action by a corrupt pope, bishop, priest, or layperson could abolished divinely established authority. The successor of Peter remained the authoritative representative of Christ’s church on earth, regardless of how terrible the person who held that office.
IMHO, these successors have forfeited the right
to mandate much of anything
Yes. I belive Korah felt the same way about Moses.
Yet, it is not a mere human authority that can take the keys of the kingdom from the steward of the household of God (see Is 22:22), but that authority rest solely with God Himself. Your human impatience is much like that of the Protestants who would shake an angry fist at the captain of the Ark of Salvation, as if you knew precisely where he should steer that ark, wishing to wrestle the controls from him (as if that helped at all in past attempts), even though that imperfect captain was appointed to that post by God Himself and is in fact guided by Him as he always was, and as he always will be, for those that have faith in Him. The crew have a duty to simply submit to the captain appointed by God, and avoid compounding the problem by committing the sin of Korah’s rebellion, just as St. Jude forewarned.
We need more reformers like St. Francis and less reformers like Korah.
If you means scattered throughout the catholic world, universally, then of course it is. Yet it is full of both wheat and tares, just as it has been from the very start. It seems your disappointment is in God’s will to allow tares to make the Church appear as though it has fallen away. Yet, God always planned it that way. He places lampstands by his Church and only he can remove them. In Catholic (and Orthodox) theology, the true particular Church is present wherever the true Eucharist is celebrated. Yet the true universal Church is that which holds fast to the chair of Peter.
C
catsrus
Guest
As a convert, I must ask how you are using “leaven” here.
Surely you do not mean the ‘leaven that spoils the whole loaf’???
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Reen,
In looking over my notes from Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan’s book, *Protestantism, *I’m astonished by this statement with regard to the “newness” of the Protestant mindset…
Jer 6:16 "Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'
In looking over my notes from Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan’s book, *Protestantism, *I’m astonished by this statement with regard to the “newness” of the Protestant mindset…
This stubborn insistence brought to my mind what the Lord Himself insisted upon:
Jer 6:16 "Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, catsrus,
quote: catsrus
My husband is a convert. What I was referring to was,
the way in which leaven makes the dough rise…in the very best
sense…into a loaf of bread.
see: Matt.13:33
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew13.htm
My point, stated more clearly, I hope, is that it seems to be
the converts, and those who have returned to the
faith, who are making great efforts to state the
faith, clearly.
I have seen many converts on EWTN, and think they’re
doing fine work.
BTW, my husband does *not *share my ecclecticism.
He defends the faith to me!
Best regards, catsrus,
reen12
PS: Oh, I see what you mean! I read a footnote in the
NAB, that said leaven was not normally used in a
positive sense, in the NT.
When Jesus used it in Matt 13:33, He was speaking
of how just a little yeast would raise a big loaf, in
the sense of the Kingdom of God.
That was the sense in which I was using it
quote: catsrus
Oh, good grief… no!
My husband is a convert.
What I was referring to was,the way in which leaven makes the dough rise…in the very best
sense…into a loaf of bread.
see: Matt.13:33
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew13.htm
My point, stated more clearly, I hope, is that it seems to be
the converts, and those who have returned to the
faith, who are making great efforts to state the
faith, clearly.
I have seen many converts on EWTN, and think they’re
doing fine work.
BTW, my husband does *not *share my ecclecticism.
He defends the faith to me!
Best regards, catsrus,
reen12
PS: Oh, I see what you mean! I read a footnote in the
NAB, that said leaven was not normally used in a
positive sense, in the NT.
When Jesus used it in Matt 13:33, He was speaking
of how just a little yeast would raise a big loaf, in
the sense of the Kingdom of God.
That was the sense in which I was using it
- Status