What is a saint?

[JRKH]

But are Catholics really holy? Is anyone really holy? The Protestant view is that when we get saved, we become saints because God declares us holy. We still sin, but God’s declaration of holiness still applies to us. If Cathoilics believe that their own works or sins affect their holiness, then wouldn’t the holiness, or sainthood, disappear as soon as a sin was committed or a work left undone? I realize you say that sainthood does not cause one to acheive the final goal of heaven, but I’m wondering if a Catholic really acheives the goal of “saint” any other time than right after confession or communion. As PJM seems to indicate, one really only becomes a saint after death. Yet Paul DID refer to believers as saints. I’m just trying to see if you guys use “saint” and “holy” in the same way you use “salvation,” as something that people are only on their way toward without actually having it yet.

I had to stop and pose a question here since I have been thinking some on this and want to get it down before I forget.
Forgive me if this has already been addressed in a later post.

Our Dear Lord is recorded as saying that we must become, “Perfect (or perfected) as your heavenly Father is perfect”. (Mt 5:48)

Is this “Perfection” imputed at Baptism, or at the time of our “Belief” in Jesus Christ?
Can we be called Perfect if we still sin? If we fail to live the Life of Holiness that we are called to?
Can anything that is not perfect enter into the Kindom of heaven?

Or Rather -

Is the Perfection something we must strive for throughout our journey in Christ as St Paul alludes to in several places in his letters?
Is it something we must aspire to every day - not resting on our baptism - or even on our faith, but rather putting our faith and trust in God into action through prayer, and works of Charity - cultivating true humility and the complete reliance upon God’s loving grace that every true Christian Church teaches.

Isn’t Christ in fact calling us to such a perfection when he states:

Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Mt 5:48

And also

A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. Luke 6:40

Every Christian, regardless of their faith tradition needs to take these things seriously and recognize that Grace - Faith - Works - Prayer - Study - Repentance - and constant reliance on God’s Loving Grace as we STRIVE for perfection are EACH and ALL necessary for us to achieve that goal for which we are aiming as St Paul says.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Evangelical Protestants sometimes refer to each other as saints since they understand the word saint as identifying a particular person as one of God’s people. Is there anything wrong with this understanding as far as you are concerned?

Curiously,
Mick

To try and summerize some of the issues here:

1. As others have said, Catholics should have no problem with your statement above.
2. A probable “problem” would arise due to the way the term is used in the catholic vs non-catholic community.
   Catholics generally reserve the term for those persons who have been canonized as Saints. (That is saints with a Capital “S”) This does not preclude others as being saints.
3. Since the terms in Greek, Latin and English have been more or less seperated out and used in differing ways confusion can ensue. Ignoring the Greek, we simply look at the Latin “Sanctus” from which we derive the English “Holy” as well as the English “saint”
   While we might refer to each other as “holy” ones or leading a holy life, we tend to shy away from refering to each other as “saints” simply because of the fact that this conjures up the image of a canonized person.
4. The basic fact remains that we are ALL called to be saints. We are ALL called to Holiness for there are only saints in heaven. This does not rest simply in an act of Baptism or professtion, any more than it relies on “works” or anything of our own effort. It relies on our being properly disposed to accepting and acting upon the grace that God offers to each of us.

Well - My 2 cents anyway

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Please for give me for hopping into your conversation but I would like to place a couple of points forward.

My position on this is that there is some sin, and the Bible doesn’t particularly name it, but it cannot be forgiven, at all. I don’t believe that a person who has been truly saved is even capable of committing that sin, whatever it is. ALL other sins are forgivable.

Quite right - but you note that this statement says that they are “Forgivable” and not that they are already forgiven before we commit them.
Also, I note that you use the phrase - “…who has been truly saved…”, which is the “600 pound gorilla in the room”, so to speak. As a Catholic, I have no problem with saying that I am saved. So long as I remain steadfast on my journey and “work out my salvation with fear and trembling”, I shall reach the goal to which I am striving. The Problem that Catholics have with the OSAS mentality, and which your phrase is meant to cover, is the idea that we poor humans cannot know our future. We cannot know - today - if we will be able to remain steadfast. WE can hope and Pray that we might, but we cannot KNOW the future.

As long as you are referencing I John 5, you might as well look at verse 13, which says, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life.” John is telling the readers that they CAN KNOW, while they are still on earth, that they have spiritual life that will NEVER end. That’s why the word eternal is used. I’m not sure why you would think that eternal life can have an end.

And if you look at all that John says BEFORE this verse, in other words look at, “These things (he) writes…”, you’ll see that he is saying IF you do this and IF you don’t do that…Then he says you may know… So as long as we continue in Faith and steadfastness in living a holy life, we can be assured of salvation.
But it remains a struggle so long as we remain in this earthy vessel.

It’s just and fair because that’s God’s position. If you offend in one point, you are guilty of ALL. You seem to want to be able to commit some sins without giving them the seriousness that God puts on them. I treat ALL sins with the same seriousness, but I also realize that Christ’s sacrifice has been applied on my behalf.

Actually you and we are not that far apart.
Indeed ALL sin is serious and we should treat is as such. I think that the difference lies in the gravity of some sins versus others. The consequences of stealing a candy bar are far less than murder. It does not mean that the small sin does not seperate us from God, but just that there is a difference in gravity.

The incentive not to sin is my love for God who gave His Son to die in my place. God doesn’t have to threaten me over and over again with spiritual death to get me to obey Him. Is that the only reason you Catholics obey God, because you think He’s going to kill your souls if you don’t?

Wonderfully put.

That’s not how the verse reads in the original Greek. Jesus Christ is also refered to as “the Rock” and it is upon the Rock of Jesus that the church is built.

Actually the original would be Aramaic and not Greek.

Just my 2 cents

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

Our Dear Lord is recorded as saying that we must become, “Perfect (or perfected) as your heavenly Father is perfect”. (Mt 5:48)

Is this “Perfection” imputed at Baptism, or at the time of our “Belief” in Jesus Christ?
Can we be called Perfect if we still sin? If we fail to live the Life of Holiness that we are called to?
Can anything that is not perfect enter into the Kindom of heaven?

Or Rather -

Is the Perfection something we must strive for throughout our journey in Christ as St Paul alludes to in several places in his letters?
Is it something we must aspire to every day - not resting on our baptism - or even on our faith, but rather putting our faith and trust in God into action through prayer, and works of Charity - cultivating true humility and the complete reliance upon God’s loving grace that every true Christian Church teaches.

Isn’t Christ in fact calling us to such a perfection when he states:

Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Mt 5:48

And also

A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. Luke 6:40

Most have heard the excuse sometimes offered up that “nobody is perfect,” and I think that’s why the Christian life is a continual battle with sin. We can’t ever sit back and announce that we’ve achieved what we set out to do. The battle will continue on a daily basis for each of us for as long as we draw breath.

Every Christian, regardless of their faith tradition needs to take these things seriously and recognize that Grace - Faith - Works - Prayer - Study - Repentance - and constant reliance on God’s Loving Grace as we STRIVE for perfection are EACH and ALL necessary for us to achieve that goal for which we are aiming as St Paul says.

Well said. There’s no question about this. I’m in total agreement with you here.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

The Problem that Catholics have with the OSAS mentality, and which your phrase is meant to cover, is the idea that we poor humans cannot know our future. We cannot know - today - if we will be able to remain steadfast. WE can hope and Pray that we might, but we cannot KNOW the future.

I’m not sure that I agree with you. God is our future. If we give ourselves to God then He will save us. That’s the belief that the doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints implies and embraces.

Consider this familiar passage from Scripture:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”

The question for us, then, is whether the centurion knew – when he made his profession of faith – that Jesus would heal the paralyzed servant.

This is the sense in which we can know that we are saved. Catholics and Orthodox Christians frequently make clear that they regard such a stance as presumptuous but you’ll agree, won’t you, that there is nothing presumptuous about the centurion? He astonished Jesus by his profession of faith and was duly commended for it.

It takes no little amount of faith to believe that one is truly saved. That’s why Evangelicals are so hurt when Catholics accuse them of taking the easy path. Anybody can announce, “I don’t know.” How much faith does that declaration call for? Indeed, it might reasonably be argued that endorsing the “I don’t know therefore nobody can know” approach is actually the easy path since even agnostics have no trouble getting to that position and settling for it.

Reflectively,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

I’m not sure that I agree with you. God is our future. If we give ourselves to God then He will save us. That’s the belief that the doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints implies and embraces.

I think that in acuality we are in near agreement. It really begins to get into semantics on some of this.
You are most assuredly correct in saying that if we turn ourselves over to Christ, (and all that implies in action) He will save us. But of couse, having feedom of Choice we can always “take Back” that “Turning Over”. we can turn away from Christ and then … Not Good

Consider this familiar passage from Scripture:

The question for us, then, is whether the centurion knew – when he made his profession of faith – that Jesus would heal the paralyzed servant.

I would say tha the Centurian Believed that, If Christ So Willed it, He could heal the centurian’s servant.

This is the sense in which we can know that we are saved. Catholics and Orthodox Christians frequently make clear that they regard such a stance as presumptuous but you’ll agree, won’t you, that there is nothing presumptuous about the centurion? He astonished Jesus by his profession of faith and was duly commended for it.

As I stated earlier, I have no problem with the “I’m saved” statement in the present tense. It is in the future tense that there can be problems. Don’t you Agree?

It takes no little amount of faith to believe that one is truly saved. That’s why Evangelicals are so hurt when Catholics accuse them of taking the easy path. Anybody can announce, “I don’t know.” How much faith does that declaration call for? Indeed, it might reasonably be argued that endorsing the “I don’t know therefore nobody can know” approach is actually the easy path since even agnostics have no trouble getting to that position and settling for it.

Reflectively,
Mick

Yes it is unfortunate that we tend to insult one another.
Evangelicals are insulted by our views on OSAS and Catholics are insulted by the whole “works theology” error.
We’ll have to keep working on it won’t we?

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

I think that in acuality we are in near agreement. It really begins to get into semantics on some of this.

You’re right.

You are most assuredly correct in saying that if we turn ourselves over to Christ, (and all that implies in action) He will save us. But of couse, having feedom of Choice we can always “take Back” that “Turning Over”. we can turn away from Christ and then … Not Good

I agree.

I would say tha the Centurian Believed that, If Christ So Willed it, He could heal the centurian’s servant.

Since Jesus was able to see right into the hearts and minds of the people around Him and He commended the centurion I would go so far as to say that the centurion must have been so sure in his mind that Jesus could and would heal the servant that he “knew the future.”

As I stated earlier, I have no problem with the “I’m saved” statement in the present tense. It is in the future tense that there can be problems. Don’t you Agree?

I agree. I endorse only the idea of an “assurance of salvation” and do believe it is possible for me to turn away from God although I think it’s extremely unlikely that I would ever do so. So I’m at peace with God but do not want ever to fall into the trap of taking Him for granted.

Yes it is unfortunate that we tend to insult one another.
Evangelicals are insulted by our views on OSAS and Catholics are insulted by the whole “works theology” error.
We’ll have to keep working on it won’t we?

Peace
James

Yes, we will.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

I agree. I endorse only the idea of an “assurance of salvation” and do believe it is possible for me to turn away from God although I think it’s extremely unlikely that I would ever do so. So I’m at peace with God but do not want ever to fall into the trap of taking Him for granted.

The idea of assurance is understood, but how is it that one “turns away” from God? By disbelieving?

What is believing? Knowing that Jesus of Nazareth existed? Knowing that He is wholly divine and yet wholly human? Knowing that he will judge us?

Believing is easy, it does not require anything but convincing. Sometimes a simple reading of the Gospels will do that. Satan believes.

But as a Christian we are called to put on Christ. We are called to be like Him.

If one believes but does immoral or unethical things afterward (even in the simplest most mundane ways), then one has not after all put on Christ, or rather, perhaps one has taken him off again! Jesus explained how we are to live, it’s there in the Gospels.

How many of us have taken a pen home from work and refused to give a beggar even 50 cents on the same day? A daily examination of conscience will bring this out.

If we are followers of Christ we are expected to change our lives accordingly, and worship Christ as God in the way He taught us. Yes, there will be mishaps along the way, but we can turnabout and try again.

We are not assured of our salvation, we hope in the Lord. The Good News is a message of Hope.

 

[PJM]

=SSTeacher;4991988] Hello again, PJM,

I apologize for the truncation of three of your quotes above (so as to be commensurate with the maximum of 6000 characters per post restriction).

There are quite a number of Bible verses that endorse the doctrine of the *** Preservation of the Saints *** so I don’t follow how you can declare that the doctrine is anti–biblical. It would be helpful if you could briefly explain what you understand by the terms “biblical” and “anti–biblical.”

Appreciatively,
Mick

Hi Mick,

I’m not sure what your seeking so I may ramble a bit.

First I will answer your question on terminology, and then provide the necessary explanation.

**“Biblical” **means the position articulated and held is supported by biblical evidence.

“Unbiblical” means that ones position is not supported by the bible.

“Antibiblical” means that the position postulated actually opposes biblical teaching.

Now having shared this, we must accept that I enter the discussion solely from a Catholic Teaching perspective.

The RCC teaches and hold “that one need not be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be granted Salvation.”

We also hold that is some mysteriously God-Willed way, that all Salvation is connected to the RCC.** Why do we hold this position?**

First because God only founded one Church, because He is an “all Perfect” God we can know that this was not accident by Divine Design.

Jesus clearly gave Peter, the 1st. Pope of the Catholic Church, ‘the Key’s to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The bible is a Catholic Book, and Catholics wrote the entire New Testament. The Catholic bible was the only Bible in use for nearly 1,500 years. Therefore the RCC alone has the right and the God-given-duty to translate it, explain it, and to resolve any issues relative to it. This is a mandate, and its truthful translation is guareenteed by the Death of Christ and the ever-Present Holy Spirit.

It is a Divine Mystery as complex as the “Blessed Trinity” that one can attain heaven outside of the Catholic Church. We understand the Nature of God as “all-everything-Good.” God is all Loving, Kind, Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate. BUT God is and has to be by Gods very Nature, “all Fair and All Just.”

It is this last characteristic of God’s Divinity, God’s Fairness and Justice that a great many non-catholic Christian’s omit, forget, or ignore. And the natural consequences of this sin of Omission, is errant philosophy and theology. Which encumbers their access to heaven. Please note that I did not say prohibits. Why it does not, is the mystery that I alluded too earlier.

So the position of what is necessary in order to attain heaven, is the main point of our discussion. What I put forth as normative is biblical and Catholic teaching. Any position postulated that is in opposition to the Catholic position, is in my opinion, “Antibiblical.”

The reason for this is often an errant understanding of the bible, and or improper catechesis. So that Mick, is why I made the statement that I did.

Please understand my friend that this is done with the desire for utmost charity. But it seems to me, not sharing the truth is itself a lack of charity.

Love and prayers my friend!

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;4993745:

I agree. I endorse only the idea of an “assurance of salvation” and do believe it is possible for me to turn away from God although I think it’s extremely unlikely that I would ever do so. So I’m at peace with God but do not want ever to fall into the trap of taking Him for granted.

The idea of assurance is understood, but how is it that one “turns away” from God? By disbelieving?

In my case I would envision a gradual turning away. I can’t see myself getting up one morning and deciding to explore a completely different worldview just because it seems like a good idea (still, if ever I were to do that I guess it would show how Americanized I’ve become).

I’d speculate that a slow “turning away” would be the trap into which most people might fall – a gradual and almost imperceptible process. It would undoubtedly start with the person concerned making less of an effort to pray. Once that happened, I’d have thought a general inner spiritual malaise would be inevitable (possibly accompanied by an outer religiosity and insatiable interest in the doctrines and behaviors of others).

What is believing? Knowing that Jesus of Nazareth existed? Knowing that He is wholly divine and yet wholly human? Knowing that he will judge us?

The belief(s) would be Christ–centered, certainly.

Believing is easy, it does not require anything but convincing. Sometimes a simple reading of the Gospels will do that. Satan believes.

Interesting. Believing hasn’t ever been easy for me – even if by “believing” you mean mere intellectual assent to a few tenets. Saint James does indeed point out that, “even the demons believe that there is one God and shudder,” but, to be fair, the demons know there is one God because they have seen and felt the full force of God’s power and might. They don’t believe in God in the same way that we humans believe in God. Speaking for myself, I have to look through a glass, darkly, and place some of my trust in teachers whom I believe will teach me what is in accord with sound doctrine.

I’ve never ever actually met anyone who has come to believe as a result of reading the Gospels. I’d like to, though. Within Protestant Christendom I’ve heard of people to whom this has happened and seem to recall reading about a few. But I’ve never encountered somebody who can honestly declare that reading the Gospels convinced him or her of the truth claims of Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism. I’d be very interested to discover which version of the Bible he or she read and what in particular it was that seemed so convincing.

But as a Christian we are called to put on Christ. We are called to be like Him.

Absolutely.

If one believes but does immoral or unethical things afterward (even in the simplest most mundane ways), then one has not after all put on Christ, or rather, perhaps one has taken him off again! Jesus explained how we are to live, it’s there in the Gospels.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God wrote Saint Paul to the Romans. Some paragraphs later, he even lamented his own condition:

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

And his answer is: Thanks be to God – through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Saint Paul thus declares his daily struggle and how his belief sustains him.

How many of us have taken a pen home from work and refused to give a beggar even 50 cents on the same day? A daily examination of conscience will bring this out.

Indeed.

If we are followers of Christ we are expected to change our lives accordingly, and worship Christ as God in the way He taught us. Yes, there will be mishaps along the way, but we can turnabout and try again.

I agree.

We are not assured of our salvation, we hope in the Lord. The Good News is a message of Hope.

Well, James declared this:
:

I have no problem with the “I’m saved” statement in the present tense. It is in the future tense that there can be problems.

Peace
James

Do you agree with James?

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

Since Jesus was able to see right into the hearts and minds of the people around Him and He commended the centurion I would go so far as to say that the centurion must have been so sure in his mind that Jesus could and would heal the servant that he “knew the future.”

Interesting semantics my friend.
Indeed Christ could know who’s faith was real and deep. Something that those around Jesus could not do.
There is no doubt that the Centurian had more than a simple “belief” but rather a surety that IF Jesus so ordained it his servant would be healed. What the Centurian could not know, especially being a Roman, was whether Jesus would ordain it. It was His Faith and Hope, tied to an Action, and a confident declaration that did the trick.

I agree. I endorse only the idea of an “assurance of salvation” and do believe it is possible for me to turn away from God although I think it’s extremely unlikely that I would ever do so. So I’m at peace with God but do not want ever to fall into the trap of taking Him for granted.

I like your choice of term here - Assurance. I have used it myself on many occasions. It is a clearer and more accurate term in my opinion.
I too doubt that I will ever fall away again. I did once, (the gradual slippery slope) and certainly hope I never let that happen again - yet it IS a daily struggle to keep focused.

Yes, we will.

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Mick,

I’m not sure what your seeking so I may ramble a bit.

I’m trying to understand how you are arriving at your conclusions. I’m unclear as to your presuppositions and assumptions.

First I will answer your question on terminology, and then provide the necessary explanation.

**“Biblical” **means the position articulated and held is supported by biblical evidence.

“Unbiblical” means that ones position is not supported by the bible.

“Antibiblical” means that the position postulated actually opposes biblical teaching.

I’m still in the dark as to how you get to your conclusions. Let me ask you this question. Is Capital Punishment i.e. the Death Penalty,

a) biblical?
b) unbiblical?
c) anti–biblical?

Pick one of these three and tell me the reason why you reject the other two and I’ll perhaps begin to understand your thinking.

Now having shared this, we must accept that I enter the discussion solely from a Catholic Teaching perspective.

Now I’m confused. You’re suddenly jumping from the Bible to Catholic Teaching with no segue. I’m content that you do so but if you always intended for Catholic Teaching to be the final arbiter why is it necessary for the Bible even to be mentioned? Do you see what I’m driving at, now?

The RCC teaches and hold “that one need not be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be granted Salvation.”

Well, that seems logical. Neither Moses nor Elijah was a Catholic, after all.

We also hold that is some mysteriously God-Willed way, that all Salvation is connected to the RCC.** Why do we hold this position?**

First because God only founded one Church, because He is an “all Perfect” God we can know that this was not accident by Divine Design.

Jesus clearly gave Peter, the 1st. Pope of the Catholic Church, ‘the Key’s to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

I understand your presupposition.

The bible is a Catholic Book, and Catholics wrote the entire New Testament. The Catholic bible was the only Bible in use for nearly 1,500 years. Therefore the RCC alone has the right and the God-given-duty to translate it, explain it, and to resolve any issues relative to it. This is a mandate, and its truthful translation is guareenteed by the Death of Christ and the ever-Present Holy Spirit.

Well, I can’t agree that this is objectively true because of the existence of the Orthodox Church but I follow your thinking.

It is a Divine Mystery as complex as the “Blessed Trinity” that one can attain heaven outside of the Catholic Church. We understand the Nature of God as “all-everything-Good.” God is all Loving, Kind, Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate. BUT God is and has to be by Gods very Nature, “all Fair and All Just.”

I understand the presupposition.

It is this last characteristic of God’s Divinity, God’s Fairness and Justice that a great many non-catholic Christian’s omit, forget, or ignore. And the natural consequences of this sin of Omission, is errant philosophy and theology. Which encumbers their access to heaven. Please note that I did not say prohibits. Why it does not, is the mystery that I alluded too earlier.

I understand the presupposition.

So the position of what is necessary in order to attain heaven, is the main point of our discussion. What I put forth as normative is biblical and Catholic teaching. Any position postulated that is in opposition to the Catholic position, is in my opinion, “Antibiblical.”

Now, here you are confusing me again. You introduced these thoughts by making it clear that you’d stated your position on the Bible and then you declared that, “we must accept that I enter the discussion solely from a Catholic Teaching perspective.” Fair enough. But now you’ve suddenly returned to the Bible again by aligning the word “biblical” with “Catholic teaching.” You’re turning me into a crazy mixed–up kid.:whacky:

The reason for this is often an errant understanding of the bible, and or improper catechesis. So that Mick, is why I made the statement that I did.

Well, how can you be certain that your understanding of the Bible isn’t errant or that you haven’t been subject to improper catechesis?

Please understand my friend that this is done with the desire for utmost charity. But it seems to me, not sharing the truth is itself a lack of charity.

Love and prayers my friend!

Thanks for these kind words.

Appreciatively.
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;4993745:

Since Jesus was able to see right into the hearts and minds of the people around Him and He commended the centurion I would go so far as to say that the centurion must have been so sure in his mind that Jesus could and would heal the servant that he “knew the future.”

Interesting semantics my friend.

I’m glad you’re engaged.:bounce:

Indeed Christ could know who’s faith was real and deep. Something that those around Jesus could not do.
There is no doubt that the Centurian had more than a simple “belief” but rather a surety that IF Jesus so ordained it his servant would be healed. What the Centurian could not know, especially being a Roman, was whether Jesus would ordain it. It was His Faith and Hope, tied to an Action, and a confident declaration that did the trick.

We’re almost on the same sheet of music – almost, but not quite. Perhaps I can coax you into agreeing that there was no IF about it – that the centurion knew what Jesus would do because Jesus had just said what was going to happen. Look at the passage again:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”

Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

And once Jesus had given His undertaking that the servant would be healed then there could be no IF. Obviously, somebody with little or no faith would have replied to Jesus by saying something like, “Yes, you need to come quickly" – and perhaps have added sotto voce to the bystanders, “I sure hope this talk about healing isn’t just talk.”

Let me adduce another familiar passage of Scripture to show how a man of lesser faith with a similar problem responded to Jesus and how Jesus did not praise the man’s attitude:

When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him. “What are you arguing with them about?” he asked. A man in the crowd answered, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.” “O unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.” So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?” “From childhood,” he answered. “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” “’If you can’?" said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes.” Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

Do you see the huge difference? Hesychios has suggested that believing is easy. Well, it wasn’t for this man, was it? He needed help – as I think most of us do. I daresay that there are very few amongst us with the strength of belief displayed by the centurion.

Peace,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

We’re almost on the same sheet of music – almost, but not quite. Perhaps I can coax you into agreeing that there was no IF about it – that the centurion knew what Jesus would do because Jesus had just said what was going to happen. Look at the passage again:

Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

And once Jesus had given His undertaking that the servant would be healed then there could be no IF. Obviously, somebody with little or no faith would have replied to Jesus by saying something like, “Yes, you need to come quickly" – and perhaps have added sotto voce to the bystanders, “I sure hope this talk about healing isn’t just talk.”

I don’t think that it is so much that we are not quite on the same page as maybe on a different part of the page. By that I mean we are considering two different parts of the same sequence of events.
In my mind, I am considering the Centurian when he decides to go to Jesus to ask for His help. Certainly the Centurian could not know at that point if Jesus would actually agree to his request but he had great faith and hope that Jesus would. That being the case the Centurian did not need to have Jesus actually come, but only needed His “order” for the healing to occur.
Do you see what I mean?

Do you see the huge difference? Hesychios has suggested that believing is easy. Well, it wasn’t for this man, was it? He needed help – as I think most of us do. I daresay that there are very few amongst us with the strength of belief displayed by the centurion.

Peace,
Mick

I absolutely agree with this last statement. Especially in light of what Jesus said about what we could do with just a tiny bit of faith.
Personally I haven’t seen any mountains flying around.
This is why I am always trying to improve on my journey.

Just as an aside, I’d like to recommend a book to you that I think you would enjoy immensely. It is called “The Fulfillment of All Desire” by Ralph Martin. It is subtitled a journey to God based on the wisdom of the Saints. It is a wonderful compilation of wisdom from 7 Doctors of the Church in the mystical tradition including John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, and Theresa of LiseauxYou can see a bit of the book here Click on the Book cover to see inside.

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

I don’t think that it is so much that we are not quite on the same page as maybe on a different part of the page. By that I mean we are considering two different parts of the same sequence of events.
In my mind, I am considering the Centurian when he decides to go to Jesus to ask for His help. Certainly the Centurian could not know at that point if Jesus would actually agree to his request but he had great faith and hope that Jesus would. That being the case the Centurian did not need to have Jesus actually come, but only needed His “order” for the healing to occur.
Do you see what I mean?

Peace
James

Yes, I do see what you mean.

Understandingly,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Just as an aside, I’d like to recommend a book to you that I think you would enjoy immensely. It is called “The Fulfillment of All Desire” by Ralph Martin. It is subtitled a journey to God based on the wisdom of the Saints. It is a wonderful compilation of wisdom from 7 Doctors of the Church in the mystical tradition including John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, and Theresa of LiseauxYou can see a bit of the book here Click on the Book cover to see inside.

Peace
James

Thank you very much, James.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

…Interesting. Believing hasn’t ever been easy for me – even if by “believing” you mean mere intellectual assent to a few tenets. Saint James does indeed point out that, “even the demons believe that there is one God and shudder,” but, to be fair, the demons know there is one God because they have seen and felt the full force of God’s power and might. They don’t believe in God in the same way that we humans believe in God. Speaking for myself, I have to look through a glass, darkly, and place some of my trust in teachers whom I believe will teach me what is in accord with sound doctrine.

Perhaps I should have been more concise. It really hasn’t been that easy for me either.

I meant that believing is easier, comparatively speaking, than living a life in Christ. One can trust in the words of a respected teacher, for instance, and believe that water boils at 212 degrees. One doesn’t challenge the teacher and say “Prove it!”.

I believe that Napoleon existed, I believe that Julius Ceasar existed and I believe he conquered Gaul. I read his book and I believe most of what he wrote there.

I believe Jesus of Nazareth lived, and I believe He s Truly man yet Truly God. I believe it because my church taught me this, and I trust my church.

I believe that when the sign is out at the local lake saying the ice is too thin, it will be dangerous for me to walk on it. I have to trust these people. If the sign comes down I am taking a heck of a chance skating the ice, it is a leap of faith. But eventually I get comfortable with it.

If my brother declares “I will be perfectly safe going over Niagara in a barrel” I might believe him because he is my brother. I might even believe him after I watch him go over. But I will not truly know I believe him until I have the nerve to climb in the barrel and try it myself.

So your point in finding a trustworthy teacher is excellent. We are making eternal choices.

Believing is only half of it, if that much. And it will not save us. We still must live out this faith, and conform ourselves. That is a hard thing to do. This is why we are so prone to seek out teachings that we want to hear. Sometimes we really want to be saved, so a message or declaration from someone stating ‘I am saved’ is very appealing.

What we do know is God loves us, and wants us to turn to Him, freely.

Once we do, we are in for a big adjustment in how we live, and constant vigilance. We can use all the support we can get.

(This is really why the monastic lifestyle came into being. Many Christians, with deep convictions, felt that they could not live in the world and count on making it. They had to remove themselves, as painful as that may be.)

Now another point I don’t want to miss.

A lot of people think that just believing the right things is a key to salvation, as if we were handed a list and told to assent to these things that would be enough. Some people think that believing something that is not true will damn us.

Well, the truth is we are not that smart. We cannot know everything about God and probably never will, because we are just creatures. We cannot contain God in our minds, there’s just too much.

And we can’t go about making up things about God, dreaming them in visions or calculating them with human reason, even reasoning them out of disconnected passages of scripture. That’s what Gnostics did.

We must take the Received Teaching and be satisfied with it.

Well, James declared this:

I have no problem with the “I’m saved” statement in the present tense. It is in the future tense that there can be problems.

Actually no, I don’t agree.

One can never know. Not for the present, not tomorrow.

Whenever we say we are saved, we are in danger of assuming God’s Will, and we cannot put God in a box. There is also the danger of pride, which is as sure a downfall as any other sin.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[JRKH]

Perhaps I should have been more concise. It really hasn’t been that easy for me either.

I meant that believing is easier, comparatively speaking, than living a life in Christ. One can trust in the words of a respected teacher, for instance, and believe that water boils at 212 degrees. One doesn’t challenge the teacher and say “Prove it!”.

I believe that Napoleon existed, I believe that Julius Ceasar existed and I believe he conquered Gaul. I read his book and I believe most of what he wrote there.

I believe Jesus of Nazareth lived, and I believe He s Truly man yet Truly God. I believe it because my church taught me this, and I trust my church.

I believe that when the sign is out at the local lake saying the ice is too thin, it will be dangerous for me to walk on it. I have to trust these people. If the sign comes down I am taking a heck of a chance skating the ice, it is a leap of faith. But eventually I get comfortable with it.

If my brother declares “I will be perfectly safe going over Niagara in a barrel” I might believe him because he is my brother. I might even believe him after I watch him go over. But I will not truly know I believe him until I have the nerve to climb in the barrel and try it myself.

So your point in finding a trustworthy teacher is excellent. We are making eternal choices.

Believing is only half of it, if that much. And it will not save us. We still must live out this faith, and conform ourselves. That is a hard thing to do. This is why we are so prone to seek out teachings that we want to hear. Sometimes we really want to be saved, so a message or declaration from someone stating ‘I am saved’ is very appealing.

What we do know is God loves us, and wants us to turn to Him, freely.

Once we do, we are in for a big adjustment in how we live, and constant vigilance. We can use all the support we can get.

(This is really why the monastic lifestyle came into being. Many Christians, with deep convictions, felt that they could not live in the world and count on making it. They had to remove themselves, as painful as that may be.)

Now another point I don’t want to miss.

A lot of people think that just believing the right things is a key to salvation, as if we were handed a list and told to assent to these things that would be enough. Some people think that believing something that is not true will damn us.

Well, the truth is we are not that smart. We cannot know everything about God and probably never will, because we are just creatures. We cannot contain God in our minds, there’s just too much.

And we can’t go about making up things about God, dreaming them in visions or calculating them with human reason, even reasoning them out of disconnected passages of scripture. That’s what Gnostics did.

We must take the Received Teaching and be satisfied with it.

This is all excellently put!! Well Done.

Originally Posted by SSTeacher
Well, James declared this:

Quote:
I have no problem with the “I’m saved” statement in the present tense. It is in the future tense that there can be problems.

Do you agree with James?

Grace and peace,
Mick

Actually no, I don’t agree.

One can never know. Not for the present, not tomorrow.

Whenever we say we are saved, we are in danger of assuming God’s Will, and we cannot put God in a box. There is also the danger of pride, which is as sure a downfall as any other sin.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

I would say that in a sense we are both right. Certainly any time we make a declaration on anything the caveat of “to the best of my knowledge” is there. I think that is one reason why we should be very hesitant about ever making the declaration that we are saved and that declaration carries with it caveats that cannot be avoided.
Right now, in the present moment AND to the best of my knowledge, relying not on my own worth but no God’s great mercy, I believe that I am saved - That should I die at this moment I would not go to hell (though I fully expect a long stint in Pergatory).
This is really more of a statement of confidence in Christ’s Promises than something based upon my own capability to either understand or to “Know”.
So I guess I should clarify that, when one makes a statement about being saved, they should understand that they - “believe” they are saved, or that they “Have confidence” they are saved - Not that they “know” they are saved (even though John does use the term “know” in the oft quoted verse 1 John 5:13.
As you have pointed out, Hesychios, there are different levels and depths of “knowing”.

 

[JRKH]

To touch upon the verse often quoted as proof that we can know that we are saved:

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

What I note about this is that, while some non-catholics are quick to site this verse, they are really only looking at the second half.
In order to “know” that one has eternal life, one needs to “know” what “These things I have written…” are. After all, this verse is the 13th verse of the 5th chapter.

When one goes back and looks at the text in those previous chapters and verses, one sees something that resembles much more what we are discussing here.
John tells us what we must and must not do, and the list is not short or easy.
So that IF we “do” or “avoid doing” the things that John writes about, THEN we may “Know” that we have eternal life.

This could be a subject for it’s own thread.

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=SSTeacher;4995652]I’m trying to understand how you are arriving at your conclusions. I’m unclear as to your presuppositions and assumptions.

presuppositions, are based on knowledge of the truth as taught and expressed through the teachings of the RCC.

I do not belief that I have posted anything close “to an assumption” on my part. I am sharing the teachings and beliefs of the RCC. On Matter and Faith and or Morals (only) the RCC is the seat of, and holder of all TRUTH. It is this that I try to articulate for you. Sometimes I suceed, and sometimes… OPPS!

I’m still in the dark as to how you get to your conclusions. Let me ask you this question. Is Capital Punishment i.e. the Death Penalty,

a) biblical?
b) unbiblical?
c) anti–biblical?

Pick one of these three and tell me the reason why you reject the other two and I’ll perhaps begin to understand your thinking.

You choose wisely my friend

From the 1994 Catecjesim of the RCC…
**2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
**

Clearly, one can see Divne Justice played out in the OT Bible, that resulted in death.

Their are issues of self-defence, that are in justice permitted.

Now I’m confused. You’re suddenly jumping from the Bible to Catholic Teaching with no segue. I’m content that you do so but if you always intended for Catholic Teaching to be the final arbiter why is it necessary for the Bible even to be mentioned? Do you see what I’m driving at, now?

The authority of the Bible, because it is a Catholic Book, flows from God, through His Catholic Church, so the level of authority is the same. Thus we feel free to interchange them at will.

Now, here you are confusing me again. You introduced these thoughts by making it clear that you’d stated your position on the Bible and then you declared that, “we must accept that I enter the discussion solely from a Catholic Teaching perspective.” Fair enough. But now you’ve suddenly returned to the Bible again by aligning the word “biblical” with “Catholic teaching.” You’re turning me into a crazy mixed–up kid.:whacky:

I’m sorry:crying:

I really am sorry. I hope the above comment helps your understanding?

The Bible flows from God through the interpetion of His Church, and the teachings of the Church come from either explicitly ot implicitly biblical.

Well, how can you be certain that your understanding of the Bible isn’t errant or that you haven’t been subject to improper catechesis?

You make a very valid point. That is what I endeaver to continually learn the Catholic Church teachings on all matters of faith and or Morals.

If in doubt about what the RCC teaches, I check the Haydock Catholic Comentary, Matthew henreys Commentary (not Catholic but quite often in line with out Theology) and I have a Spiritual Advisor who has advanced Theology degrees to ask if I’m still uncertain.

I’m seldom wrong, because I’m not prone to sharing my personal opinion, and endever to stick with what I know is Catholic Church Teaching.

Still. I could be wrong. If you think I am, please challance me, and I’ll try even harder to get you the evidence you need.

Thanks for these kind words.

Appreciatively.
Mick

I am really enjoynig our conversation, and look forward to hearing back from you,

Love and prayers, Pat