Why did Christ have to die for us?

[BenBornAgain]

1. Christ did enter the underworld of the dead. “He descended into Hell…”
2. Yes. God IS obliged to give all who enter into Christ by faith, eternal life.
3. He did indeed ransom all who will ‘eat’ of this truth. If you have no faith in the propitiatory death of Christ you have no food and hence no LIFE. The Father and the Son are ONE.
   4)What is the difference???
4. Of course it didn’t exempt us from suffering…suffering is part of any life…It DID exempt us from the weight and penalty of our sins which is eternal damnation and separation from God. All suffering does not equal damnation.

1. CEC 633 “Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him”
   So Jesus did not live the eternal separation from the Father, state called Hell
2. God is obliged to do nothing.
3. I think my point was clear
4. There is no substantial difference between offering, sacrifice and propitiation. They all point to the dimension of the atonement for our sins brought about by the death of Jesus on the cross
5. If we are repentant and asking forgiveness for our sins, the eternal punishment for sin is remitted, not necessary the temporal punishment:

CEC 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

 

[BenBornAgain]

Anna

It’s obviously difficult to be concise in this matter, thank God the Catechism provides a beautiful and luminous explanation.

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. (Cf. Heb 10:10).First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit **in reparation for our disobedience **(Cf. Jn 10:17-18; 15:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Jn 4:10).
615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.Jesus atoned for our faults and made **satisfaction **for our sins to the Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedy states :“The word redemptio is the Latin Vulgate rendering of the Hebrew KPR and Greek lutron which, in the Old Testament, means generally a ransom-price. In the New Testament, it is the classic term designating the “great price” (I Cor 4, 20) which the Redeemer paid for our liberation… Satisfaction, or the payment of a debt in full, means, in the moral order, an acceptable reparation of honor offered to the person offended and, of course, implies a penal and painful work. It is the unmistakable teaching of Revelation that Christ offered to His heavenly Father His labors, sufferings, and death as an atonement for our sins”

Thus the offering of Jesus’ life is not a price paid to the devil to redeem sinners but the ransom have been paid to God. Hope this helps

 

[st_someone]

Hello BenBornAgain,
I added some responses in bold. I do think you have missed the entire import of who and what Christ is along with the fact of our smallness.

1. CEC 633 “Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him”
   So Jesus did not live the eternal separation from the Father, state called Hell

**I am sying he went down to hell and experience it as hell is…if he experienced no separation from the Father than he was NOT in hell…as that is the definition of hell.**2) God is obliged to do nothing. **God is obliged to be God and to be the TRUTH. If He said it, He meant it. He IS obliged to be TRUE…and as such the Father and the Son are one. If you have faith and believe into the Son you will have the Father…it’s the entire point of all scripture. **
3) I think my point was clear
Yes. It is most clearly in error and Pelagian.

1. There is no substantial difference between offering, sacrifice and propitiation. They all point to the dimension of the atonement for our sins brought about by the death of Jesus on the cross
   I’m sorry , I thought you stated in the original #4 that there WAS a difference.
2. If we are repentant and asking forgiveness for our sins, the eternal punishment for sin is remitted, not necessary the temporal punishment: I’m not denying anything about a temporal anything…i’m saying that there is no entrance into Heaven without Christ’s taking the weight of my sin away. Part of being truly repentant is to realize what your sin has cost. Our suffering is the result of following Christ not in any way the cause of our being saved. It’s the ‘result’ of our being saved.
   CEC 1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

 

[BenBornAgain]

Hello St someone
I see that you claim being Catholic.
Well then how could you could affirm in 1) that Jesus experience (eternal?) separation from his Father? That doctrine is not Catholic (cf the quote from the CCC) and makes no sense (because as you correctly stated the Father and Jesus are one and unique God,who cannot be separated)

1. God is not obliged to do anything. He can obligate Himself, in entering in a covenant, swearing to uphold the term of the convenant but He owes us nothing… All is grace
2. I would be greatly interested to understand how this statement ."When Scipture talks about ransom, it does not refer to the legal payment for sin (eternal damnation) but the personal price Christ underwent to open up the possibility of salvation for the whole world (I Jn 2:2, 1 Tim 2:6) " is, according to your words “It is most clearly in error and Pelagian”…
3. I stated originally :“Christ is called the “offering” Eph 5:2, the “sacrifice” (1 Co 5:7 ) and the “propitiation” Rm 3:25) for sins, not the one who paid the price of eternal damnation for all men’s sins” Where do you see that I make a difference between them (granted they are 3 DIFFERENT words…)
4. I guess I won’t add to the CCC on this point

 

[st_someone]

I do claim, as i see you do, to be Catholic.

Hello St someone
I see that you claim being Catholic.
Well then how could you could affirm in 1) that Jesus experience (eternal?) separation from his Father? That doctrine is not Catholic (cf the quote from the CCC) and makes no sense (because as you correctly stated the Father and Jesus are one and unique God,who cannot be separated)
I’m not claiming it. I’m going by the creed. It says "he descended into hell…"

1. God is not obliged to do anything. He can obligate Himself, in entering in a covenant, swearing to uphold the term of the convenant but He owes us nothing… All is grace…So God is obiged to be Graceful? It is Grace. And God is God. He is Truth and can not be otherwise or He is not God. It is not an obligation as in having any ‘other’ to be obliged to but in the Trinity He is ‘obliged’ to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He can not not be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can call it whatever you like but it is Immutably True.
2. I would be greatly interested to understand how this statement ."When Scipture talks about ransom, it does not refer to the legal payment for sin (eternal damnation) but the personal price Christ underwent to open up the possibility of salvation for the whole world (I Jn 2:2, 1 Tim 2:6) " is, according to your words “It is most clearly in error and Pelagian”…
   Yes, I’m saying that in reference to both 3 and 4. There is nothing, NOTHING, i can pay, other than my wholehearted faith into the death of Jesus Christ, for my salvation. That salvation will manifest itself in me absorbing and facing a lot of suffering, as being in Christ will inevitalby mean I am participating in HIM.
3. I stated originally :“Christ is called the “offering” Eph 5:2, the “sacrifice” (1 Co 5:7 ) and the “propitiation” Rm 3:25) for sins, not the one who paid the price of eternal damnation for all men’s sins” Where do you see that I make a difference between them (granted they are 3 DIFFERENT words…) :shrug
   Because you go on to say He did NOT pay the price for all men’s damnation.
   If all men would turn to Him in faith, then His ‘offering’ would indeed pay the price for it all.
4. I guess I won’t add to the CCC on this point

*** Christ is not our ‘representative’…How pitiable a way to look at the incarnation. He is in fact our very salvation. Not a representative but a very real propitation for YOURS and MY sins*.**

 

[BenBornAgain]

Interesting…
It seems to me that you would save a lot of time and energy trying to prove me wrong if you wold read what I wrote realizing that you are combating windmills.

For the rest, I don’t understand how you can call yourself Catholic and affirming such things…

Now, if you know better than the Catechism, I guess there is nothing I can do about it

God bless you

 

[st_someone]

Interesting…
It seems to me that you would save a lot of time and energy trying to prove me wrong if you wold read what I wrote realizing that you are combating windmills.

For the rest, I don’t understand how you can call yourself Catholic and affirming such things…

Now, if you know better than the Catechism, I guess there is nothing I can do about it

God bless you

Ben,
It’s incredibly important to see the difference in what we’re saying.
If you read your quote from the CCC it nowhere states that OUR suffering has any divine or redemptive quality to it. It is simply something that is necessary as a law of nature and sin.
The ONLY redemptive act IN ANY WAY is the death of Jesus Christ.
Many many Catholics miss this and it is indeed pelegianism.
We suffer because we caused it not because there is anything at all ‘divine’ or ‘redemptive’ in it. It is the very reason the Church differentiates temporal from spiritual suffering.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Everything real in the Universe is obtained by some kind of payment.

I disagree. Adam obtained life from God, as a Divine gift, not by payment. God was neither compelled to create Adam or the universe, nor did he give payment to another in order to give this Divine gift.

 

[st_someone]

I disagree. Adam obtained life from God, as a Divine gift, not by payment. God was neither compelled to create Adam or the universe, nor did he give payment to another in order to give this Divine gift.

Adam did have to pay by obedience to keep that life. by Adam not paying the price of obedience the entire human race has had to pay.
Yes, we all obtained our natural life as a gift from God…although for us it did cost our mother’s great pain.
Nowhere did or do i mention compulsion. I speak of payment or cost…not compulsion.

 

[Joshua27]

…And thus the problem with labels…

Messiah did not come to put us in perfect little boxes, and yet this is something we find ourselves struggling within today. Ben and ST are seemingly found within the same “box” * and yet they have different points of view about what Messiah’s death meant…and both have validity.

…end the end, I guess it only proves that we are but pieces; parts of the body of Messiah. And we’ll never be whole until He returns to bring us back together.

---

But here’s my explanation: Messiah is NOT just one “thing” but more than one thing, which is why he has so many names. *And as one’s name, so goes their purpose [what was, is, and shall be]. *

Messiah had multiple purposes for his life and his death.

Our High Priest

(As I mentioned a few posts ago) decendents of Aaron were the only representatives of the people of God who were worthy to enter into His sanctuary and offer the blood of a lamb (and also a [scape]goat) to the alter of God for payment of the people’s sins. A lamb’s blood paid the cost (for God’s “forgiving”), while the priest’s sinful hands were laid on a goat, which was then lead into the wilderness and pushed off a jagged ravine (for God’s “forgetting”). This process must continue, as this is the process of paying the sin wage.

Our Sacrificial Lamb

In becoming our lamb and dying, Messiah replaced the literal lamb required for sacrifice. Fortunately, because Messiah is also alive, he continues to be our high priest (our representative in heaven) who offers the sacrifice for whomever will choose to confess their sins. Yet note that “the process” of paying the sin wage has never ceased and must continue until the King returns to destroy sin and death.

Our King (Seed of David)

His bloodline places him in line to receive the earthly throne and to become the king of kings once he returns. Until then we must suffer through life as Messiah has shown us.

Our Suffering Servant

In his life, He served as our example on how to “suffer through life”. The very act of resisting the lure of sin in life is what’s defined as “Suffering”. We believe that he lived a sinless life; what a difficult thing to accomplish for any mere man…but he suffered through the trial of a life down here in satan’s kingdom, and he teaches us to do the same.

[Note: During the temptation of Messiah, satan offered all the kingdoms of the world to Him if He would only bown down to (worship) satan (the Father of Sin), which shows who actually - yet temporarily - owns everything down here.]

---

Those who receive the seal of God; who are identified as God’s children, are those who [Revelation 7:14] “[come] out of the great tribulation”. Lookup the term “tribulation” and you’ll learn that it means endurance, test or trial.

Sin is not Suffering…“Living without sin” is.

Sin is SO aluring and pleasurable, and it’s available to us anywhere; and at any time.

Think about it…How many sinful souls (in our world) actually experience suffering while lost in sin? Because their sinful actions reflect a choice to bown down to the Father of Sin, they are given the world.

By this definition, “Suffering (against sin) has redemptive value; is divine, and leads us along the narrow path of righteousness and marks us with the seal of the Father”.*

 

[BenBornAgain]

st someone
It is not the topic of the thread but for the sake of it, here we go:

CEC 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”, for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven

CEC 1521 Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

 

[st_someone]

st someone
It is not the topic of the thread but for the sake of it, here we go:

CEC 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”, for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven

CEC 1521 Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

Ben,
That is very thoughtful of you to post that.
I do appreciate it.

I will have to consider leaving the Catholic church as this is completely out of line with Scripture… It is a bunch of lawyers trying to impose their painfully shallow understanding of Christianity on a world full of sincere seekers. The difference between the CCC and the bible is the difference between a dead pinned butterfly in a glass case to a meadow of beautiful living butterflies…IMO
They’re both real butterflies but one has been killed to be studied and the other left to be alive inviting us to see it as it is in LIFE.

 

[BenBornAgain]

Ben,
That is very thoughtful of you to post that.
I do appreciate it.

I will have to consider leaving the Catholic church as this is completely out of line with Scripture… It is a bunch of lawyers trying to impose their painfully shallow understanding of Christianity on a world full of sincere seekers. The difference between the CCC and the bible is the difference between a dead pinned butterfly in a glass case to a meadow of beautiful living butterflies…IMO
They’re both real butterflies but one has been killed to be studied and the other left to be alive inviting us to see it as it is in LIFE.

Well at least you are consistent in your thinking. It is very important to be truthful in our search for truth.

Now,if I may, I would invite you not to condemn what you do not understand or do not agree with in the Catholic doctrine. If your purpose is to find the truth and to live the Gospel, then it is great to follow the advice of St Thomas Aquinas : “every truth by whomever uttered is by the Holy Spirit”…even if he is Catholic!

In Jesus

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have read this post several times; and I’m still not sure I understand what you are saying.

…You are saying Christ, in his humanity, could not have infinite knowledge; yet, from the beginning, he knew all things in the Word, past, present, and future.

How could Christ not have infinite knowledge, and still know all things past, present, and future? Would you clarify?

Thanks,
Anna

Time is a finite entity, part of the created world. “All things past, present, and future” in our finite universe is a whole lot of knowledge, but it is not infinite. So, it is not contradictory to say Christ did not possess unlimited human knowledge, but still knew all things past, present, and future.

Moreover, it’s important to distinguish the various ways in which Christ possessed human knowledge, according to Catholic theology.

I’ll try citing some different references to help clarify…

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, there are three ways in which Christ is said to possess human knowledge:

1. Immediate vision of God (scientia beata)
2. Infused knowledge (scientia infusa)
3. Acquired or experimental knowledge (scientia acquisita, scientia experimentalis)
   We might come to know things by other means (e.g., somebody told me) before we “acquire” such knowledge through our own experience or “experimentally.” So we can say that Christ “learned” through experience that which he already knew by other means.

Angels are said to have “infused knowledge” (finite knowledge given directly from God), which is similar to the kind of knowledge Adam is said to have possessed, since he was created already an adult by God. It is possible Christ possessed “infused knowledge.”

Beatific Knowledge called “immediate vision of God” is rather unique to Incarnate Christ. However, it is akin to the Beatific Knowledge of the saints glorified in heaven who now see God “face to face.”

Christ’s human soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of His existence.

Pope Pius XII affirmed:
“… that knowledge which is called vision, He possesses in such fullness that in breadth and clarity it far exceeds the Beatific Vision of all the saints in Heaven … He enjoyed [such knowledge of vision] from the time when He was received into the womb of the mother of God” (Mystici Corporis (1943), Ott, pg 163).
Dr. Ott states,
According to St. Thomas [Aquinas], [the immediate vision of God] includes…all that knowledge that pertains to the individual who is blessed… [and when applied to Christ,] to the extent that such knowledge was necessary or useful for His vocation as Redeemer… St. Thomas concluded that Christ’s soul already on earth knew in the Divine Essence, all real things of the past, the present and the future, including, of course, the thoughts of mankind. (pg 165)
Only the last kind of knowledge–that is “experimental” or “acquired” knowledge–can be said to have “grown” or “increased” over time for the Incarnate Jesus.

Again citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. Ott states, “***the knowledge which Christ acquired through his experimental knowledge was already contained in his [knowledge of vision] and his [infused knowledge], it was new, not in its content, but only in the mode by which Christ attained it. ***Cf. S. Th. III, 2, 2.” (pg. 168).

Consequently, Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Ott, pg. 165).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 417-475 succintly describe the above doctrine, referencing many of the sources I cited.

The Catechism states, “[the Son of God’s] true human knowledge…could not in itself be unlimited,” and “at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son…by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God”, and “Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Adam did have to pay by obedience to keep that life.

Rubbish. Every new breath is a new gift from God. There is no payment for a gift. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a gift. The reason we were created is to seek God, to know, and to love God. That is our “purpose” not our payment. We cannot payback God for the gifts He has given to us.

 

[st_someone]

Rubbish. Every new breath is a new gift from God. There is no payment for a gift. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a gift. The reason we were created is to seek God, to know, and to love God. That is our “purpose” not our payment. We cannot payback God for the gifts He has given to us.

The rubbish is in your kneejerk reacting. No one said a thing about paying God for his gifts of life…but to remain in His grace means to abide in Him and that is obedience.
Are you saying that to seek God, Know God and Love God do not take any effort or cost?
Think again. This entire forum is about ppl struggling to do just that.
If there were no effort to be made on Adam’s part then he could never be held responsible for the fall.
The point is about cost. What you’re talking about, breath from God, is a natural thing and our natural life is a gift, as I’ve already stated. You can not confuse Spiritual with natural for in the world of spirit, it needs to be affirmed and responded to by each of us by our own effort. That is cost.
You do not differentiate the process of having been given a healthy body with having to maintain it’s health. They are two different things.

 

[mardukm]

Since this is in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum, I’m surprised our Eastern Orthodox brethren have not come on to give their (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ll let the EO speak for themselves. All I will say is that it is slightly different from the way the Latin and Oriental Traditions express it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Ben,
That is very thoughtful of you to post that.
I do appreciate it.

I will have to consider leaving the Catholic church as this is completely out of line with Scripture… It is a bunch of lawyers trying to impose their painfully shallow understanding of Christianity on a world full of sincere seekers. The difference between the CCC and the bible is the difference between a dead pinned butterfly in a glass case to a meadow of beautiful living butterflies…IMO
They’re both real butterflies but one has been killed to be studied and the other left to be alive inviting us to see it as it is in LIFE.

This leaving the Church appears to have happened in your decision to interpret Scripture apart from Sacred Tradition and the Church’s authority, hence:

Sin is not Suffering…“Living without sin” is.

Sin is SO aluring and pleasurable, and it’s available to us anywhere; and at any time.

Think about it…How many sinful souls (in our world) actually experience suffering while lost in sin? Because their sinful actions reflect a choice to bown down to the Father of Sin, they are given the world.

By this definition, “Suffering (against sin) has redemptive value; is divine, and leads us along the narrow path of righteousness and marks us with the seal of the Father”.

There is suffering against sin, but there is suffering in sin. The Spirit in us knows this.

Living the temporal life apart from the Grace the sacraments effectively offer when in communion with the Church, one experiences sin as pleasurable and the loss of the Spirit (lost through mortal sin) is not noticed. The early Christians knew this Spirit and offered their lives instead of offending God by denying Him, thus risking losing Him through this Spirit forever. This Spirit is the same one sent by Jesus after His death, another reason why He died for us, to send the Paraclete.

You have some correct points, only to lose the lot with the denial of the pillar and ground of the truth, in exchange for what is ostensibly ignorance of what the Church actually says. Being in union with God through love for Him to the exclusion of all else, including one’s own ego, allows one to see the truth of the Church through the Spirit. Without this giving up all for Him, we indicate that we don’t want Him with all our heart. The Church is here to remind us of this spiritual fact often lost on those who lose the Spirit of God due to sin of pride, the beginning of all sin. The Church is here to reconcile us back to God, we can’t do this ourselves.

 

[st_someone]

This leaving the Church appears to have happened in your decision to interpret Scripture apart from Sacred Tradition and the Church’s authority, hence:

There is suffering against sin, but there is suffering in sin. The Spirit in us knows this.

Living the temporal life apart from the Grace the sacraments effectively offer when in communion with the Church, one experiences sin as pleasurable and the loss of the Spirit (lost through mortal sin) is not noticed. The early Christians knew this Spirit and offered their lives instead of offending God by denying Him, thus risking losing Him through this Spirit forever. This Spirit is the same one sent by Jesus after His death, another reason why He died for us, to send the Paraclete.

You have some correct points, only to lose the lot with the denial of the pillar and ground of the truth, in exchange for what is ostensibly ignorance of what the Church actually says. Being in union with God through love for Him to the exclusion of all else, including one’s own ego, allows one to see the truth of the Church through the Spirit. Without this giving up all for Him, we indicate that we don’t want Him with all our heart. The Church is here to remind us of this spiritual fact often lost on those who lose the Spirit of God due to sin of pride, the beginning of all sin. The Church is here to reconcile us back to God, we can’t do this ourselves.

Well Earnest,
So handy of you to condemn me according to your righteous presumptions.
I have not been living the temporal life cut off from the sacraments. I did not leave the church yet. Could it be that the very same sacraments ARE showing me the truth?
Maybe the CCC is, in fact, not the only interpretation as we are all in a different place in our walk and the Spirit is feeding us all to our own capacity?
I am most open to being in error.
Is it ‘ostensibly ignorance of what the Church says’? or do I understand what the Church says and vehemently disagree? If it’s ignorance PLEASE enlighten me. i am open.
I have always detested the CCC for it’s lack of spirit and life. An analogy is it’s a book that tries to make 2 dimensional sense of a 3D reality and what happens is most Catholics cling to the 2D account and never get to know the actual 3D…this is most definately the case, as shown in this very thread.
I am in union with God to the best of my ability at the expense of my own ego and you’re presuming the Church is always in union with God as you have made the leap of my not agreeing with a teaching/scriptural interpretation as not agreeing with God. That is a very Catholic mindset.
I’m not going to go over all the abombinations of the Church over the last 2000 years but let’s leave it to say that I am NOT a blind sheep Catholic who relinquishes my God-given brains in favor of a comfy sanctimonious pew.
Your view of the Church is wonderful IMO…but it’s not what’s happening. The Church, through the CCC, is telling me how to interpret a huge part of Scripture in a very small way.
It’s not something i take lightly. I pray it is my puny ego that’s at fault and not the Church’s bland/scholastic interpretation of the Word of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No one said a thing about paying God for his gifts of life.

You said, “Everything real in the Universe is obtained by some kind of payment.” I disagree. It’s a poor generalization. God’s gifts are real and require no payment, otherwise they would not be gratuitous. In fact, much of what you’ve expressed on this thread has little congruence with the apostolic deposit of faith. This would be less astonishing except you claim to be Catholic. It appears I’m not the only one astonished at the rather heterdox statements you’ve made.

What I think the main concern is that someone less catechized in the Catholic faith may read your comments and assume that it is OK for a Catholic to dissent with Catholic doctrine. It’s not a kneejerk reaction to defend the faith against heterdoxy. We seek to ensure that those reading this thread are clear that your comments are your novel interpretations of God’s Word, incongruent with Catholic doctrine.

I recommend you take more time to study what has been handed on to us by the Catholic Church over thousands of years as expressed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.