Christian Forums

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:43:44

QuoteWhat was the brand name of the "Independent Fundamentalist Church?" I am curious as that is my background.

Independent Fundamental Churches of America

blessings

My background exactly.

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:40:05

Quote from: marc on Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:31:27
Does the Pope meet with Satan for his daily briefing in person, or is there a telepathic link?

Oh, they communicate by owl, of course.

blessings

I was impressed to see this thread still going...I just got back from a trip to France. We visited Lourdes while we were there and even did the baths! It was quite an experience. 

Quote

I was impressed to see this thread still going...I just got back from a trip to France. We visited Lourdes while we were there and even did the baths! It was quite an experience. 

Yeah, I am glad that people are still interested - it has really helped me sort out my own ideas about Catholicism and my faith.

I enjoyed reading about your trip to France on your blog - isn't the Catholic life sublime!  What a time you must of had - revisiting the church you got married in and Lourdes!  Wow.  I am glad I got to read about it, at least.

blessings

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Oct 21, 2007 - 03:54:47
[43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
[44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
[45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

I don't get it.  This seems to support the practice of prayer for the dead, but I don't see the purgatory connection.  I understand the 1Cor reference, though I don't interpret those verses that way.

So what is the timing on purgatory?  Does one go there immediately, or after resurrection?  In or out of the flesh?  I'm guessing out?

Also, do Catholics believe that the saved dead go to heaven immediately after death/purgatory, or that is there a "holding area" / paradise.  Or do you believe that there is no consciousness after death but before resurrection?

Thanks for your answers.   Your straightforward demeanor is refreshing.

I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this Ravenlorre...

The whole idea of purgatory gets lost with the divisiveness of its name to many Protestants in my estimation. This is true with a lot of Catholic/ Protestant dialogue. Let's face it, we define terms differently and certain labels invoke emotions.

With Purgatory, one has to look, in my view, to the nature of God. He is pure Justice and pure love ontologically, and therefore, He cannot lie. In this Christ made some pretty stark statements about Salvation and eschatology. He called for us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) and emphasized that that you will not be released until you paid your last penny, for example (Mt: 5:26).

There are many more Scriptures that begin to build a solid case for the need for a final purgation by virtue of our need to be perfect but none, in my opinion, strikes at my heart then Rev 21:27 where it is emphatically stated that nothing unclean can enter Heaven, period. Unfortunately, since Luther threw out the Septuagint in 1519, the most clear case for Purgatory was lost to most Protestants with (2Macc 12: 44-46) where the soldiers atoned for the dead to free them from sin. This is incidentally the premise for Protestantism to adopt the Palestinian/ Hebrew Bible of which I get into on another thread.

Keeping with the concept that God is pure Justice and love coupled with what Christ Himself taught on perfection, it makes sense that we need a final purification to be before Truth itself in God. In this, let's face it, who is perfect at death and how can a lie stand before Truth and not be exposed by it? In this, Catholics believe that Christ's death paid our price on the grounds of Justifying us before God, but Sanctification involves our own free ascent to do Gods will by cooperating with his grace. (See Eph: 2:20)

I probably didn't really answer your question well, but the whole idea of purgatory to me sends shrills up my spine at how loving a Just God can be that He gives us the opportunity for the cleansing that is necessary to be before Him in eternity. Purgatory, from the Catholic perspective, is perhaps Gods greatest act of mercy next to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not a punishment but a gift in love. Without it, to look upon the burning light of God would be more painful than to look into the mid-day sun without proper eye protection. His Truth would expose every fault and we would only run from Him in hiding like Adam of old if His mercy did not give us the opportunity shed the broken ego and selfish baggage inherited, learned and indulged from a lifetime in fallen world. God is great!!!

I hope this helps you understand a little that the idea of purgatory to a Catholic is not a negative but a proof of Gods love.

In Christ

Bill

Bill!!!

You are always welcome here!  Thanks for the contribution.

blessings

Quote from: billinjackson on Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 20:31:50

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Oct 21, 2007 - 03:54:47
[43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
[44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
[45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

I don't get it.  This seems to support the practice of prayer for the dead, but I don't see the purgatory connection.  I understand the 1Cor reference, though I don't interpret those verses that way.

So what is the timing on purgatory?  Does one go there immediately, or after resurrection?  In or out of the flesh?  I'm guessing out?

Also, do Catholics believe that the saved dead go to heaven immediately after death/purgatory, or that is there a "holding area" / paradise.  Or do you believe that there is no consciousness after death but before resurrection?

Thanks for your answers.   Your straightforward demeanor is refreshing.

I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this Ravenlorre...

The whole idea of purgatory gets lost with the divisiveness of its name to many Protestants in my estimation. This is true with a lot of Catholic/ Protestant dialogue. Let's face it, we define terms differently and certain labels invoke emotions.

With Purgatory, one has to look, in my view, to the nature of God. He is pure Justice and pure love ontologically, and therefore, He cannot lie. In this Christ made some pretty stark statements about Salvation and eschatology. He called for us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) and emphasized that that you will not be released until you paid your last penny, for example (Mt: 5:26).

There are many more Scriptures that begin to build a solid case for the need for a final purgation by virtue of our need to be perfect but none, in my opinion, strikes at my heart then Rev 21:27 where it is emphatically stated that nothing unclean can enter Heaven, period. Unfortunately, since Luther threw out the Septuagint in 1519, the most clear case for Purgatory was lost to most Protestants with (2Macc 12: 44-46) where the soldiers atoned for the dead to free them from sin. This is incidentally the premise for Protestantism to adopt the Palestinian/ Hebrew Bible of which I get into on another thread.

Keeping with the concept that God is pure Justice and love coupled with what Christ Himself taught on perfection, it makes sense that we need a final purification to be before Truth itself in God. In this, let's face it, who is perfect at death and how can a lie stand before Truth and not be exposed by it? In this, Catholics believe that Christ's death paid our price on the grounds of Justifying us before God, but Sanctification involves our own free ascent to do Gods will by cooperating with his grace. (See Eph: 2:20)

I probably didn't really answer your question well, but the whole idea of purgatory to me sends shrills up my spine at how loving a Just God can be that He gives us the opportunity for the cleansing that is necessary to be before Him in eternity. Purgatory, from the Catholic perspective, is perhaps Gods greatest act of mercy next to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not a punishment but a gift in love. Without it, to look upon the burning light of God would be more painful than to look into the mid-day sun without proper eye protection. His Truth would expose every fault and we would only run from Him in hiding like Adam of old if His mercy did not give us the opportunity shed the broken ego and selfish baggage inherited, learned and indulged from a lifetime in fallen world. God is great!!!

I hope this helps you understand a little that the idea of purgatory to a Catholic is not a negative but a proof of Gods love.

In Christ

Bill

Very nice Bill....well done!!

Quote from: billinjackson on Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 20:31:50
I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this Ravenlorre...

The whole idea of purgatory gets lost with the divisiveness of its name to many Protestants in my estimation. This is true with a lot of Catholic/ Protestant dialogue. Let's face it, we define terms differently and certain labels invoke emotions.

  There's nothing in my past that evokes a negative association with the idea of purgatory.  I don't think most Protestants could tell you what purgatory is, much less argue about it.

My interest in it was piqued when I heard the early church referred to as "one big purgatorial society."  Can't remember where I read that...an encyclopedia?  A history?

QuoteWith Purgatory, one has to look, in my view, to the nature of God. He is pure Justice and pure love ontologically, and therefore, He cannot lie. In this Christ made some pretty stark statements about Salvation and eschatology. He called for us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) and emphasized that that you will not be released until you paid your last penny, for example (Mt: 5:26).

There are many more Scriptures that begin to build a solid case for the need for a final purgation by virtue of our need to be perfect but none, in my opinion, strikes at my heart then Rev 21:27 where it is emphatically stated that nothing unclean can enter Heaven, period. Unfortunately, since Luther threw out the Septuagint in 1519, the most clear case for Purgatory was lost to most Protestants with (2Macc 12: 44-46) where the soldiers atoned for the dead to free them from sin. This is incidentally the premise for Protestantism to adopt the Palestinian/ Hebrew Bible of which I get into on another thread.

Keeping with the concept that God is pure Justice and love coupled with what Christ Himself taught on perfection, it makes sense that we need a final purification to be before Truth itself in God. In this, let's face it, who is perfect at death and how can a lie stand before Truth and not be exposed by it? In this, Catholics believe that Christ's death paid our price on the grounds of Justifying us before God, but Sanctification involves our own free ascent to do Gods will by cooperating with his grace. (See Eph: 2:20)

I probably didn't really answer your question well, but the whole idea of purgatory to me sends shrills up my spine at how loving a Just God can be that He gives us the opportunity for the cleansing that is necessary to be before Him in eternity. Purgatory, from the Catholic perspective, is perhaps Gods greatest act of mercy next to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not a punishment but a gift in love. Without it, to look upon the burning light of God would be more painful than to look into the mid-day sun without proper eye protection. His Truth would expose every fault and we would only run from Him in hiding like Adam of old if His mercy did not give us the opportunity shed the broken ego and selfish baggage inherited, learned and indulged from a lifetime in fallen world. God is great!!!

I hope this helps you understand a little that the idea of purgatory to a Catholic is not a negative but a proof of Gods love.

Thanks for indulging my Sola Scriptura roots, I do finally understand the Maccabees reference, as well.  I don't know that I'm persuaded, but it's a good starting point for a study.

I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual.  Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.

Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.

Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.

Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?

The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.

I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Thu Nov 29, 2007 - 01:19:47
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual.  Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.

Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.

Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.

Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?

The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.

I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.

blessings

Well said, I agree completely!

I'd also add that sometimes, when we're not feeling the love in our hearts, but desire to, just going through the mechanics can help those feelings come. It's that whole "fake it till you make it" idea. You know how if you're feeling grouchy, but decide to be kind to people anyway and put on a smile, you'll often end up feeling better anyway! Deciding to go through the motions even when you don't feel like it is an Act of Faith, and is rewarded with grace, and often the special added bonus of feelings to match.

Catholic Christianity is, like Christ Himself, Incarnational. Spirit and Matter are joined together, and this is a good thing, just as God becoming man (spirit joining with and becoming matter) was a good thing. To think that we should avoid "ritual" or external type mechanics because they people somehow think they are opposed to the spiritual is a gnostic idea. The Christian idea is that spirit and matter join together, and all we do is incarnational. Our love, a non physical thing, is incarnated in good works. Grace is incarnated in the sacraments. I really think this is what many well meaning protestants are missing, as they often focus on the whole "faith vs works" false dichotomy, when they should realize that works are the incarnation of faith.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Dec 05, 2007 - 11:27:02

Quote from: ravenlorre on Thu Nov 29, 2007 - 01:19:47
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual.  Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.

Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.

Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.

Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?

The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.

I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.

blessings

Well said, I agree completely!

I'd also add that sometimes, when we're not feeling the love in our hearts, but desire to, just going through the mechanics can help those feelings come. It's that whole "fake it till you make it" idea. You know how if you're feeling grouchy, but decide to be kind to people anyway and put on a smile, you'll often end up feeling better anyway! Deciding to go through the motions even when you don't feel like it is an Act of Faith, and is rewarded with grace, and often the special added bonus of feelings to match.

Catholic Christianity is, like Christ Himself, Incarnational. Spirit and Matter are joined together, and this is a good thing, just as God becoming man (spirit joining with and becoming matter) was a good thing. To think that we should avoid "ritual" or external type mechanics because they people somehow think they are opposed to the spiritual is a gnostic idea. The Christian idea is that spirit and matter join together, and all we do is incarnational. Our love, a non physical thing, is incarnated in good works. Grace is incarnated in the sacraments. I really think this is what many well meaning protestants are missing, as they often focus on the whole "faith vs works" false dichotomy, when they should realize that works are the incarnation of faith.

Absolutely brilliant...

I would just like to add that many of my favorite authors are former protestants, such as Scott Hahn. Scott Hahn's line of books on Doubleday are fantastic.

I have a few questions that I was always curious about.

First, on what basis does the catholic church find the apocryphal books canonical. I'm familiar with the Council of Carthage and the Protestant Canon, and even the means of canonization (authorship by apostles or close associates, alignment with previous revelations, and written within the first century.) It would seem that most of the books in the apocrypha do not meet these three piece of criteria. Furthermore, they do not align with the views expressed by Paul or the author apostles to the best of my knowledge. So my first question is what are the grounds for including these books in the canon?

Secondly, what is the orthodox view of salvation in the RCC. I always hear that is works, whereas the protestant view is obviously by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ who justified us on the cross. However, when I read some catholic literature it seems that there is a relationship with Christ, but it just not explicity highlighted. So it would seem that these are "relative terms." Meaning they both have faith at the root, but differing definitions, what are your thoughts on this?

Thirdly (and finally) where does this idea of the divinity of Mary come from? I have read the Bible several times (not including the apocrypha as of yet) and I know the narratives and so forth. However, after studying the Bible a little more in-depth (in college, in my spare time, and so on) I would argue that the apostles did not hold this view. Paul's view was very much centered on Christ and His resurrection, and so forth. This idea of the divinity of the mother Mary did not come until a later time from Church Fathers (I speculate)? Where did the idea of this divinity come from, and if it is not from the apostles views why should it be considered Orthodox?

Thanks for your responses!

Quote from: Arreat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 - 22:53:19
I have a few questions that I was always curious about.

First, on what basis does the catholic church find the apocryphal books canonical. I'm familiar with the Council of Carthage and the Protestant Canon, and even the means of canonization (authorship by apostles or close associates, alignment with previous revelations, and written within the first century.) It would seem that most of the books in the apocrypha do not meet these three piece of criteria. Furthermore, they do not align with the views expressed by Paul or the author apostles to the best of my knowledge. So my first question is what are the grounds for including these books in the canon?

Secondly, what is the orthodox view of salvation in the RCC. I always hear that is works, whereas the protestant view is obviously by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ who justified us on the cross. However, when I read some catholic literature it seems that there is a relationship with Christ, but it just not explicity highlighted. So it would seem that these are "relative terms." Meaning they both have faith at the root, but differing definitions, what are your thoughts on this?

Thirdly (and finally) where does this idea of the divinity of Mary come from? I have read the Bible several times (not including the apocrypha as of yet) and I know the narratives and so forth. However, after studying the Bible a little more in-depth (in college, in my spare time, and so on) I would argue that the apostles did not hold this view. Paul's view was very much centered on Christ and His resurrection, and so forth. This idea of the divinity of the mother Mary did not come until a later time from Church Fathers (I speculate)? Where did the idea of this divinity come from, and if it is not from the apostles views why should it be considered Orthodox?

Thanks for your responses!

Wow. I can't type a whole book. But here is the short of it:

1) The Septuigent - the Greek version of the Old Testament - completed around 200 BC, contained the Deuterocanonicals and is the Old Testament we use. And, by the way, it is the Old Testament the Apostles use. Scholars know this by comparing the language in Old Testament quotes contained withing the NT. So, the books were in there before Christ was born and before the Church came to be. The only reason Trent "officialy" defined the canon in the 16th century was in response to Luther removing the books from his Bible.

For more info, read this article:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm

2) We believe we are saved by Grace Alone. That is Catholic Dogma. The faith that saves is a working faith, as Paul says in Galatians 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love...."

For more info, go here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/salvation.asp

3) This is easy. We do not worship Mary. She is a human being, not a deity. We worship God alone: To worship a created being is blasphemy.

Read the info here for a better understanding of Marian teachings:
http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

Interesting... I will certainly have to read into this more. I appreciate the links.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Wed Dec 05, 2007 - 11:27:02

Quote from: ravenlorre on Thu Nov 29, 2007 - 01:19:47
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual.  Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.

Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.

Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.

Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?

The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.

I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.

blessings

Well said, I agree completely!

I'd also add that sometimes, when we're not feeling the love in our hearts, but desire to, just going through the mechanics can help those feelings come. It's that whole "fake it till you make it" idea. You know how if you're feeling grouchy, but decide to be kind to people anyway and put on a smile, you'll often end up feeling better anyway! Deciding to go through the motions even when you don't feel like it is an Act of Faith, and is rewarded with grace, and often the special added bonus of feelings to match.

Catholic Christianity is, like Christ Himself, Incarnational. Spirit and Matter are joined together, and this is a good thing, just as God becoming man (spirit joining with and becoming matter) was a good thing. To think that we should avoid "ritual" or external type mechanics because they people somehow think they are opposed to the spiritual is a gnostic idea. The Christian idea is that spirit and matter join together, and all we do is incarnational. Our love, a non physical thing, is incarnated in good works. Grace is incarnated in the sacraments. I really think this is what many well meaning protestants are missing, as they often focus on the whole "faith vs works" false dichotomy, when they should realize that works are the incarnation of faith.

I apologize for stumbling in my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ during the past few months.  To clarify, I am fully committed to my marriage and my relationship to Christ.  My wife is struggling, but she is an an honest women and someone who is doing the best she knows how  - please pray for us.

I am looking forward to continuing to contribute to this thread and believe it or not - Charles Sloan has been the most helpful is in my current struggle - thank you Charles!

Ravenlorre

Quote from: ravenlorre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 22:51:33

I apologize for stumbling in my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ during the past few months.  To clarify, I am fully committed to my marriage and my relationship to Christ.  My wife is struggling, but she is an honest and women who is doing the best she knows how  - please pray for us.

I am looking forward to continuing to contribute to this thread and believe it or not - Charles Sloan has been the most helpful is in my current struggle - thank you Charles!

Ravenlorre

You owe no one an apology my friend. I am glad your marriage if on the rocks or struggling, is still a marriage. God can and does work wonders with what we often believed was irreparable, glory be to his name. I know this to be true only because I have experienced it myself. I am also glad that you have recognized your relationship with Christ was lacking, since that is the way he draws us. I pray you will continue to draw nearer to the Son of God.

I am grateful that I could be of service in anyway, but praise belongs to God.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 23:11:52

Quote from: ravenlorre on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 22:51:33

I apologize for stumbling in my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ during the past few months.  To clarify, I am fully committed to my marriage and my relationship to Christ.  My wife is struggling, but she is an honest and women who is doing the best she knows how  - please pray for us.

I am looking forward to continuing to contribute to this thread and believe it or not - Charles Sloan has been the most helpful is in my current struggle - thank you Charles!

Ravenlorre

You owe no one an apology my friend. I am glad your marriage if on the rocks or struggling, is still a marriage. God can and does work wonders with what we often believed was irreparable, glory be to his name. I know this to be true only because I have experienced it myself. I am also glad that you have recognized your relationship with Christ was lacking, since that is the way he draws us. I pray you will continue to draw nearer to the Son of God.

I am grateful that I could be of service in anyway, but praise belongs to God.

Well said, Charles (I am sure everyone posting here will agree that their relationship with Christ could be improved),

Now, back to the issues:

Recently, to my dismay, I found a Chick tract, in my pew during a Mass - undoubtedly placed by a well intentioned, yet ignorant Protestant in order to save my soul.  Unfortunately - as most Chick tracks communicate, the verses used were completely (and blantly) displayed out of context for the purpose of leading under-educated Catholics away from the Church that Jesus set upon Peter, the Rock.  How unfortunate!

So my question is - does the end justify the means!!!!!

Simply; is it okay to misrepresent the Christian Church / message; in order to lead Mormons / Jehovah's Witnesses / Catholics (many Protestants like to dismiss the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded their Church, and even claim that Catholics are not Christian), in order to lead members to the true understanding (Protestant) of a saving relationship with Christ, and therefore salvation?

Blessings,

Ravenlorre

What are you saying... that protestants are sneaking in and out of your parish between mass to put tracks in the pew... that would be kind of a trick, since Mass is observed on the hour all day on Sunday's. 

Wouldn't someone spot them?  Running about in and out of pews, leaving tracks and catch on to what they are up to?

To tell you the truth, I think when you do into a Catholic church's for mass or track passing, they can spot a protestant a mile away... they know who are catholics and who are not. 

Quote from: kensington on Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 03:32:02
What are you saying... that protestants are sneaking in and out of your parish between mass to put tracks in the pew... that would be kind of a trick, since Mass is observed on the hour all day on Sunday's. 

Wouldn't someone spot them?  Running abo'ut in and out of pews, leaving tracks and catch on to what they are up to?

To tell you the truth, I think when you do into a Catholic church's for mass or track passing, they can spot a protestant a mile away... they know who are catholics and who are not. 

Let me be clear,

My parish offers the Mass twice a day - everyday.  How are we supposed to "spot" tract placing Protestants - lol.

All I am saying is; I found a Chick Tract called "Last Rites" in my pew when I was worshiping during Lent.  All the verses cited were used out of context and appeared to place Catholics in the most unintelligent light possible - it was as if Catholic scholars had never bothered to open the Bible for 2000 years.

The fact is Jack Chick preys on the uninformed pew sitting Catholic and pretends that he points th way to the truth, despite his track record of anti-intellectual, end-justifies-the-means, transparent hermenuetic garbage that he continues to spew forth in infantile cartoon format. 

So may question stands - does the end justify the mean?

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 04:41:02

Quote from: kensington on Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 03:32:02
What are you saying... that protestants are sneaking in and out of your parish between mass to put tracks in the pew... that would be kind of a trick, since Mass is observed on the hour all day on Sunday's. 

Wouldn't someone spot them?  Running abo'ut in and out of pews, leaving tracks and catch on to what they are up to?

To tell you the truth, I think when you do into a Catholic church's for mass or track passing, they can spot a protestant a mile away... they know who are catholics and who are not. 

Let me be clear,

My parish offers the Mass twice a day - everyday.  How are we supposed to "spot" tract placing Protestants - lol.

All I am saying is; I found a Chick Tract called "Last Rites" in my pew when I was worshiping during Lent.  All the verses cited were used out of context and appeared to place Catholics in the most unintelligent light possible - it was as if Catholic scholars had never bothered to open the Bible for 2000 years.

The fact is, Jack Chick preys on the uninformed pew sitting Catholic, while pretending he points the way to the truth, despite his track record of the anti-intellectual, end-justifies-the-means, transparent hermenuetic garbage that he continues to spew forth in infantile cartoon format. 

Anyone who has studied Church history or the Bible can see through Jack from a mile away.......

So may question stands - does the end justify the mean?

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 04:41:02
All I am saying is; I found a Chick Tract called "Last Rites" in my pew when I was worshiping during Lent.  All the verses cited were used out of context and appeared to place Catholics in the most unintelligent light possible - it was as if Catholic scholars had never bothered to open the Bible for 2000 years.

The fact is Jack Chick preys on the uninformed pew sitting Catholic and pretends that he points th way to the truth, despite his track record of anti-intellectual, end-justifies-the-means, transparent hermenuetic garbage that he continues to spew forth in infantile cartoon format. 

So may question stands - does the end justify the mean?

I don't think it is right to to this to ANY church.....regardless.  If the only way a person has to feel more holy about their own faith is by putting someone else's down....they have some serious problems.  It's great to 'discuss' differences because it opens the door to learning and knowledge.....but this isn't the same as invading someone else's sacred choice of worship.

I'm not a Catholic....but in reading around on this site....I've learned a whole lot in my understanding of where they are coming from.  Some things that sounded 'silly' to me in the way I originally heard it ...now make sense to me as to why Catholics believe and worship in the way they do.  We should all grow from one another....not feel the need to convert one another.

So 'manna' to the Catholics from this Charismatic. 

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 01:40:14So my question is - does the end justify the means!!!!!

Simply; is it okay to misrepresent the Christian Church / message; in order to lead Mormons / Jehovah's Witnesses / Catholics (many Protestants like to dismiss the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded their Church, and even claim that Catholics are not Christian), in order to lead members to the true understanding (Protestant) of a saving relationship with Christ, and therefore salvation?

Let me just say this, firstly we have had this exact conversation before. Over the same subject and I plan on using the same verses that I used before. But before I do remember this has less to do with the Witnesses, Mormons, or Catholics more about your disagreements with someone voicing their disagreements in evangelistic efforts to lead people to Christ. Where as I can agree that this isn't the most effective method for reaching the lost by preaching against errors of others, it is still effective.

I personally prefer to leave denominationalism out of my presentation the Gospel, and labor to keep the message focused on the breaking of God's law and the meaning of the cross. But there is a place for speaking about someones personal convictions about the errors of others. And Jack has chosen his forum, his publishing company.

Now I will repeat what I have said before:

The ends do justify the means according to the Apostle Paul when Christ is preached.

Phl 1:15-18 "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=19820.msg409666#msg409666

There is only one way to deal with Jack Chick tracts...ignore them and throw them away.  Any educated individual with common sense, either Protestant or Catholic, can see his work for the garbage that it is.  He is a disgrace to the faith.

Quote from: broach972 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 09:59:31
There is only one way to deal with Jack Chick tracts...ignore them and throw them away.  Any educated individual with common sense, either Protestant or Catholic, can see his work for the garbage that it is.  He is a disgrace to the faith.

So do you consider all of Jack's tracts garbage, or just the ones you disagree with? For example what part of the tract 'Empty Tomb' or 'This Was Your Life' is garbage? I don't see how these could be considered garbage by anyone who is a Christian.

Possibly because of their comic-book style.  A Jack Chick tract leaves a bad taste in my mouth even when I can point out some truth in every page.  It's a style thing.

And some of them are just plain tripe.  So it will be with any un-inspired writer.  (Un-Bible-type-inspired, I mean.  Me included, undoubtedly, although of course I think every word I write is absolute gold.)

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 21:21:38
So do you consider all of Jack's tracts garbage, or just the ones you disagree with? For example what part of the tract 'Empty Tomb' or 'This Was Your Life' is garbage? I don't see how these could be considered garbage by anyone who is a Christian.

I found one lying on the floor of the men's room in a Walmart the other day.  I'm pretty sure it was garbage.

So neither of you can point out what is garbage in these two tracts, you will just sentence them as garbage because they are animated (which there are children Bibles animated, and I don't hear anyone calling them trash), because they give a bad taste (without explanation other than disliking their "style"), or because someone threw one on the ground at wal-mart. Now I'm sure people have found hundred dollar bills on the ground at wal-mart that were just as valuable as they were before they picked them up.

Seems to me people are just prejudiced against these for absolutely no good reason.

But I asked particularly what was trash in these two tracts: Empty Tomb and This Was Your Life. So if you can point out something other than your own personal prejudices or the locations you have seen them (like something actually in the tracts...), I would be interested to hear your comments.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 22:57:07
So neither of you can point out what is garbage in these two tracts, you will just sentence them as garbage because they are animated (which there are children Bibles animated, and I don't hear anyone calling them trash), because they give a bad taste (without explanation other than disliking their "style"), or because someone threw one on the ground at wal-mart. Now I'm sure people have found hundred dollar bills on the ground at wal-mart that were just as valuable as they were before they picked them up.

Seems to me people are just prejudiced against these for absolutely no good reason.

But I asked particularly what was trash in these two tracts: Empty Tomb and This Was Your Life. So if you can point out something other than your own personal prejudices or the locations you have seen them (like something actually in the tracts...), I would be interested to hear your comments.

The Tract is Titled  "Last Rites"

"I am the only one who can forgive sins!!!" [says God]

[supporting verse] See Mark 2:7 - 'Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?  Who can forgive sins but GOD ONLY."

LOL - as we all know, this statement was uttered by a pharisee who was disputing the divinity of Christ.

Later, Jesus told his disciples that they have the power and obligation to forgive sins.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


Jack Chick is willing to leave Biblical accuracy in the dust in favor of his anti-catholic rhetoric - sad

-R

Ravenlore,

Notice, I didn't ask about the tracts that disagree with your catholic theology. I asked about two tracts which you even quoted me specifying, but either failed to read or simply ignored. I think everyone knows that you are catholic by now, and we all might understand why you might dislike the tract 'Last Rites'. But if your rejection of Jack Chick is simply because you disagree with his views of catholics, then your reasoning is nothing more then your own personal prejudices and intolerance for opposing points of view.

But if you have some substantial reasoning for rejecting all of Mr. Chicks tracts, please point out what is inaccurate or offensive to the gospel in Empty Tomb and This Was Your Life.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 22:57:07
So neither of you can point out what is garbage in these two tracts, you will just sentence them as garbage because they are animated (which there are children Bibles animated, and I don't hear anyone calling them trash), because they give a bad taste (without explanation other than disliking their "style"), or because someone threw one on the ground at wal-mart. Now I'm sure people have found hundred dollar bills on the ground at wal-mart that were just as valuable as they were before they picked them up.

Seems to me people are just prejudiced against these for absolutely no good reason.

But I asked particularly what was trash in these two tracts: Empty Tomb and This Was Your Life. So if you can point out something other than your own personal prejudices or the locations you have seen them (like something actually in the tracts...), I would be interested to hear your comments.

In particular, I have nothing against Jack Chick tracts.  In fairness, I'm not Catholic, and I don't know who Jack Chick is, but I do know what tracts you're talking about by the names.

But I'm still pretty certain the one I found the other day was trash.  It was soggy and the ink was running, and it didn't appear to be water it was wet with.

QuoteNotice, I didn't ask about the tracts that disagree with your catholic theology.

Nice wording :)  No admission that Chick misuses the verse I quoted from "Last Rite" - only that it disagrees with 'my' catholic theology - clever.

QuoteI asked about two tracts which you even quoted me specifying, but either failed to read or simply ignored.

I didn't bother to read those tacts - it is not necessary.  Chick has proven his inaccuracy in the tract I referenced - why should I read further?  Do you suggest that I read every publication from Jack Chick before I comment on any of his literature?  If so, are you required to read 2000 years of Catholic Dogma before commenting on any one idea?  Also - do the parts of Catholic Dogma that happen to fall in line with your belief system excuse the parts that disagree?

Actually, I am rather shocked that you are not as outraged as I am by his reckless use of God's Word.

QuoteI think everyone knows that you are catholic by now, and we all might understand why you might dislike the tract 'Last Rites'. But if your rejection of Jack Chick is simply because you disagree with his views of catholics, then your reasoning is nothing more then your own personal prejudices and intolerance for opposing points of view.

I think I have been as clear about my reasoning for rejecting Jack Chick as I have been about proclaiming my church affiliation.  I produced an example of a misuse of scripture in a publication produced by Jack Chick - yes the publication happens to be anti-catholic, but that is not my reasoning for rejecting Chick's ministry.  I reject him because he appears to be willing to twist scripture in order to promote his views on Christianity - in short, the end justify the means.

QuoteBut if you have some substantial reasoning for rejecting all of Mr. Chicks tracts, please point out what is inaccurate or offensive to the gospel in Empty Tomb and This Was Your Life.

Again, I reject Jack Chick because he is reckless with his use of scripture - there is no need to muck through every single publication in order to find an example of the proper use of scripture because even if it is present, it hardly excuses his reckless use of scripture in "The Last Rite".

blessings 

New Question:  What do you think about Bishop Fulton Sheen?  I've always enjoyed watching him, and always wonder how prominent figures such as him are regarded among their own.

Quote from: marc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 22:06:05
New Question:  What do you think about Bishop Fulton Sheen?  I've always enjoyed watching him, and always wonder how prominent figures such as him are regarded among their own.

You know, I am actually not very familiar with Bishop Sheen.  I know that many people who were raised in the Catholic Church, pre-Vatican II really enjoy him.  I have appreciated the small amount of information I have heard from him.  Broach might be able to comment further.

blessings

I tried to find that.... Last Rites Tract....

Is this what you mean?

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_37.asp

I think this guy makes some very good points on the topic. 

Hey.... when I was a kid, I used to get "chick tracts" all the time in my trick or treat bag... I'd sit up all night reading them!