Ask-A-Catholic

[CSloan]

Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy.  Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).

Sorry if I disappointed you in rebuking false doctrine on your catholic thread, but I thought I would allow you the space of speaking your own.

By the way, James is another moderator on this forum.

[ravenlorre]

Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy.  Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).

Sorry if I disappointed you in rebuking false doctrine on your catholic thread, but I thought I would allow you the space of speaking your own.

By the way, James is another moderator on this forum.

It seems as if you want something from me csloan; what is it that I can do for you?

blessings

[CSloan]

Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy.  Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).

Sorry if I disappointed you in rebuking false doctrine on your catholic thread, but I thought I would allow you the space of speaking your own.

By the way, James is another moderator on this forum.

It seems as if you want something from me csloan; what is it that I can do for you?

blessings

I'm surprised you've come to that conclusion, since honestly I have been trying to do my best to avoid you on the forums. But since you ask, I would have you repent of your idolatry and surrender your life to Jesus alone.

You asked.

[HRoberson]

For the sake of interrupting all the fun,

Here's a quote I found in an old copy of Luther's Little Catchism, edited by a fella named Stump:

The Various Churches
While the Church, in the strict sense of the word, is the "communion of saints" and therefore one, yet outwardly it has become divided, in the course of time, into many different churches, denominiations, and sects. It contains Four Great Branches: The Greek Catholic Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Evangelical Lutheran Church; and The Reformed Churches, comprising a great number of denominations and sects. The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Churches are called Protestant."(italics in the original)

There is an accompanying diagram that indicates the beginning of the RCC as after, or perhaps as a result of, the Reformation. Under Reformed Churches, the diagram includes The German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist/Dunkards, Disciples/Adventists, and all other sects.

There is a footnote that reads like this:

Since a particular Church is no older than her distinctive congession, the Lutheran Church is more than thirty years older than the Roman Catholic Church; for the Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530, while the Cannon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are the Confession of the Roman Catholic Church, were not completed until 1563. The ecumenical creeds are accepted by both Churches, and therefore prove nothing as regards their relative age.

I find this interesting since churches of Christ have often claimed to have been started on Pentacost, and trace their heritage by some reason to the beginning of the Church. Additionally, the diagram lists the Disciples in the same minor branch with Adventists, of the Reformed Churches.

[ravenlorre]

I'm surprised you've come to that conclusion, since honestly I have been trying to do my best to avoid you on the forums. But since you ask, I would have you repent of your idolatry and surrender your life to Jesus alone.

You asked.

I appreciate your concern.  Jesus' sacrifice is the answer to all of our sins and the narrow gate to our salvation - I look forward to worshiping with you in Heaven someday, and maybe sharing a small laugh over our past conversations.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

For the sake of interrupting all the fun,

Here's a quote I found in an old copy of Luther's Little Catchism, edited by a fella named Stump:

The Various Churches
While the Church, in the strict sense of the word, is the "communion of saints" and therefore one, yet outwardly it has become divided, in the course of time, into many different churches, denominiations, and sects. It contains Four Great Branches: The Greek Catholic Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Evangelical Lutheran Church; and The Reformed Churches, comprising a great number of denominations and sects. The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Churches are called Protestant."(italics in the original)

There is an accompanying diagram that indicates the beginning of the RCC as after, or perhaps as a result of, the Reformation. Under Reformed Churches, the diagram includes The German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist/Dunkards, Disciples/Adventists, and all other sects.

There is a footnote that reads like this:

Since a particular Church is no older than her distinctive congession, the Lutheran Church is more than thirty years older than the Roman Catholic Church; for the Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530, while the Cannon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are the Confession of the Roman Catholic Church, were not completed until 1563. The ecumenical creeds are accepted by both Churches, and therefore prove nothing as regards their relative age.

I find this interesting since churches of Christ have often claimed to have been started on Pentacost, and trace their heritage by some reason to the beginning of the Church. Additionally, the diagram lists the Disciples in the same minor branch with Adventists, of the Reformed Churches.

How can anyone take a document that claims the Roman Catholic Church occurred as a result of the Reformation, as truth on any level - haha; did we discover America as a result of landing on the Moon?

blessings

[HRoberson]

For the sake of interrupting all the fun,

Here's a quote I found in an old copy of Luther's Little Catchism, edited by a fella named Stump:

The Various Churches
While the Church, in the strict sense of the word, is the "communion of saints" and therefore one, yet outwardly it has become divided, in the course of time, into many different churches, denominiations, and sects. It contains Four Great Branches: The Greek Catholic Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Evangelical Lutheran Church; and The Reformed Churches, comprising a great number of denominations and sects. The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Churches are called Protestant."(italics in the original)

There is an accompanying diagram that indicates the beginning of the RCC as after, or perhaps as a result of, the Reformation. Under Reformed Churches, the diagram includes The German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist/Dunkards, Disciples/Adventists, and all other sects.

There is a footnote that reads like this:

Since a particular Church is no older than her distinctive congession, the Lutheran Church is more than thirty years older than the Roman Catholic Church; for the Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530, while the Cannon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are the Confession of the Roman Catholic Church, were not completed until 1563. The ecumenical creeds are accepted by both Churches, and therefore prove nothing as regards their relative age.

I find this interesting since churches of Christ have often claimed to have been started on Pentacost, and trace their heritage by some reason to the beginning of the Church. Additionally, the diagram lists the Disciples in the same minor branch with Adventists, of the Reformed Churches.

How can anyone take a document that claims the Roman Catholic Church occurred as a result of the Reformation, as truth on any level - haha; did we discover America as a result of landing on the Moon?

blessings

Yeah. I thought Luther was a Catholic monk, which would tend to argue that the Catholic church existed first. But the author's point of departure is based on what he considers the dates of the respective 'confessions,' a legal argument of establishing a church. The author's point follows along the idea that the church existed, but that it was largely corrupted by the leaders of the RCC, and Luther, et. al., sought to correct the (impure) modifications that had crept into the church. The view would be that the separation became apparent at the Reformation, but it makes no difference that the greater sized, corrupted church carries the common name. What matters, is who is closer to the original intent. The assumption of course, is that the true church is that which remains as pure as possible, regardless of size.

Much like The Purple Billboard Society, started to popularize purple billboards. It matters not if the leaders decide that yellow billboards are acceptable, the minority that remains true to purple ideal are the true disciples, not the majority purple/yellow society.

[ravenlorre]

Yeah. I thought Luther was a Catholic monk, which would tend to argue that the Catholic church existed first. But the author's point of departure is based on what he considers the dates of the respective 'confessions,' a legal argument of establishing a church. The author's point follows along the idea that the church existed, but that it was largely corrupted by the leaders of the RCC, and Luther, et. al., sought to correct the (impure) modifications that had crept into the church. The view would be that the separation became apparent at the Reformation, but it makes no difference that the greater sized, corrupted church carries the common name. What matters, is who is closer to the original intent. The assumption of course, is that the true church is that which remains as pure as possible, regardless of size.

Much like The Purple Billboard Society, started to popularize purple billboards. It matters not if the leaders decide that yellow billboards are acceptable, the minority that remains true to purple ideal are the true disciples, not the majority purple/yellow society.

Well, the problem with the author's premise that confession defines new belief is that no church operates in this manner.  All Churches are reactionary institutions - they clarify belief in response to the heresy they encounter at the moment.  For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was defined or confessed in response to the popular heresies of the time period; just as the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ.  Both beliefs were held since the beginning of the Christian Church, but were only declared when heretics started challenging them.  Protestants had the advantage of 1500 years of Christian history to either agree with or reject - Catholics had to define doctrine as they went alone with only Tradition and the Bible to light their path.

Unlike many Catholics, I agree with the Luther that the Medieval Church contain a lot of corrupt people - right up to the top; but I also believe that God protected Tradition / doctrine / dogma from corruption.   I am a bit of a fan of Luther; yes he was obviously a tortured soul and extremely obsessive compulsive, but he was sincere and correct on several points.  He was also looking to reform the church, not break away from it - he was a theologian not a revolutionary.

I also agree with you that the size of the institution or the majority of believers involved has no bearing on the truth of a belief system; however this not only applies to the large, majority Catholic Church; it applies to the small, minority Protestant groups as well.  You cannot claim that the Catholic Church hides behind its' established hierarchy as justification for its' doctrine; without recognizing that Protestant leaders may have relied on their minority status and a persecution complex to justify their own doctrines.

blessings

[HRoberson]

Yeah. I thought Luther was a Catholic monk, which would tend to argue that the Catholic church existed first. But the author's point of departure is based on what he considers the dates of the respective 'confessions,' a legal argument of establishing a church. The author's point follows along the idea that the church existed, but that it was largely corrupted by the leaders of the RCC, and Luther, et. al., sought to correct the (impure) modifications that had crept into the church. The view would be that the separation became apparent at the Reformation, but it makes no difference that the greater sized, corrupted church carries the common name. What matters, is who is closer to the original intent. The assumption of course, is that the true church is that which remains as pure as possible, regardless of size.

Much like The Purple Billboard Society, started to popularize purple billboards. It matters not if the leaders decide that yellow billboards are acceptable, the minority that remains true to purple ideal are the true disciples, not the majority purple/yellow society.

Well, the problem with the author's premise that confession defines new belief is that no church operates in this manner.  All Churches are reactionary institutions - they clarify belief in response to the heresy they encounter at the moment.  For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was defined or confessed in response to the popular heresies of the time period; just as the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ.  Both beliefs were held since the beginning of the Christian Church, but were only declared when heretics started challenging them.  Protestants had the advantage of 1500 years of Christian history to either agree with or reject - Catholics had to define doctrine as they went alone with only Tradition and the Bible to light their path.

Unlike many Catholics, I agree with the Luther that the Medieval Church contain a lot of corrupt people - right up to the top; but I also believe that God protected Tradition / doctrine / dogma from corruption.   I am a bit of a fan of Luther; yes he was obviously a tortured soul and extremely obsessive compulsive, but he was sincere and correct on several points.  He was also looking to reform the church, not break away from it - he was a theologian not a revolutionary.

I also agree with you that the size of the institution or the majority of believers involved has no bearing on the truth of a belief system; however this not only applies to the large, majority Catholic Church; it applies to the small, minority Protestant groups as well.  You cannot claim that the Catholic Church hides behind its' established hierarchy as justification for its' doctrine; without recognizing that Protestant leaders may have relied on their minority status and a persecution complex to justify their own doctrines.
blessings

The author didn't say confessions define new beliefs, just that they draw lines. His premise is that, since the Lutheran church drew its lines first, it's older. My assumption is that the author would simply say that the RCC was and continued to be a muddle of orginal orthodoxy and Romish adulterations.

[tjclaud]

I have looked at all the pages now.  I have not found an answer to my question, so I'll ask again.

What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the return of Christ?  Is is premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial? 

If no one knows, that's okay.  I'm curious, though, because I have never heard a Catholic discuss it.

[ravenlorre]

I have looked at all the pages now.  I have not found an answer to my question, so I'll ask again.

What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the return of Christ?  Is is premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial? 

If no one knows, that's okay.  I'm curious, though, because I have never heard a Catholic discuss it.

Sorry, must have missed it. 

The Catholic Church does not teach dispensationalism, which originated with Darby in the 19th century - so we do not believe in the "Left Behind" type scenario.

The Catholic Church has not defined it's teachings on the book of Revelation because it is so symbolic and therefore speculative.  One unofficial idea is that the tribulation already occurred during the reign of Nero and the 1000 years started with the reign of Constantine and continues until Christ returns. 

I am not really into speculating about the end-times - I think we are in them and Christ's return is eminent and that is about it.

A Catholic author named Richard Curry does a nice job of explaining Catholic ideas about the end times in his book called "Rapture".

I hope another Catholic will help me out on this issue and correct me if I have misrepresented anything.

blessings

[Jaime]

I am not a Catholic, but I found the following:

AMILLENNIALISM:

The amillennialist does not accept the literal interpretation of Revelation 20.  The thousand years is figurative, and shouldn't be taken literally.  The millennium is a spiritual representation of the church age, in which we are now living.  This view holds that Satan was bound at the first coming of Christ.  The good in the world comprises the kingdom of Christ, and the evil in the world is part of Satan's kingdom.  The kingdom of Christ is the church itself.  This view was first proposed by St. Augustine in the fourth century, and has been the favored position of the Roman Catholic church ever since.  It is also a view that is common among reform protestant denominations.  The amillennialist holds that Christ will reign through his church until His second coming, which will mark – not the millennial reign – but the beginning of eternity for believers.   

http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/millenial.php

[HRoberson]

Here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on Eschatology:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htm

Here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on Christology:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm

Neither mention much, if anything about Christ's return from a doctrinal perspective. Some of the references might, but the article does not mention the return as a separate, important event.

[ravenlorre]

I appreciate the help and the links - I admit, eschatology is not my area.

blessings

[HRoberson]

The Catholic Encyclopedia does mention eschatology and the return when dealing with specific texts. Here is the link to the Encyclopedia's discussion of 2 Thessalonians.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14629d.htm

[tjclaud]

Thanks for the answers.  I had wondered about it, because it seems that most early Christians held to the classic premillenial position (not the popular "Left Behind" type of today) until Augustine popularized amillenialism.  I did not know which way the Roman Catholic Church leaned in eschatology.

[DCR]

If Augustine affected the views of the Roman Catholic Church in this issue, then I have to wonder which way the Orthodox go on this (since Augustine is said to have had more influence on Western theology than he did on Eastern, I believe).

[David Ben-Ariel]

As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."

The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?

* links removed due to violations of forum rules *

[ravenlorre]

As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."

The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?

* links removed due to violations of forum rules *

How do you define idolatry?

[David Ben-Ariel]

 
* links removed due to violations of forum rules *

"We must warn with judicious boldness those who are inclined towards the errors of Rome; we must instruct the young in gospel truth, and tell them of the black doings of Popery in the olden times. We must aid in spreading the light more thoroughly through the land, for priests, like owls, hate daylight. Are we doing all we can for Jesus and the gospel? If not, our negligence plays into the hands of priestcraft. What are we doing to spread the Bible, which is the Pope's bane and poison? Are we casting abroad good, sound gospel writings?"

* links removed due to violations of forum rules *

And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God

-The National Covenant. [Scotland]

[David Ben-Ariel]

As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."

The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?

* links removed due to violations of forum rules *

How do you define idolatry?

In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.

[David Ben-Ariel]

1 John 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

This shows that the Gentile converts were still seduced by former superstitions, had a hard time breaking their addiction to idolatry, and John was telling them in a gentle but firm way to stay free from idols.

Revelation 9:20
But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk.

[ravenlorre]

So...you refuse to define idolatry and you refuse to ask a question about Catholicism.  Hmm... I am not sure what you want from me.  Quoting Jack Chick gets you nowhere - in case you are wondering.

blessings

[DCR]

So...you refuse to define idolatry...

Well, in his defense, he sorta did...

How do you define idolatry?

In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.

Now, whether or not you agree with his definition, is up to you! 

[normfromga]

As mentioned several times before, the Roman Catholic Church is official amillennial...

However, its role in creating the Futurist/Premillenialist scenario is quite fascinating.

For those interested in the development of the doctrine, be sure to Google the names of two Jesuits: Emmanuel Lacunza (1731-1801) and  Francisco Ribera (1537-1591).

[kensington]

So...you refuse to define idolatry and you refuse to ask a question about Catholicism.  Hmm... I am not sure what you want from me. 
blessings

Actually, he did .... In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.

[HRoberson]

As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."

The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?

FORSAKE HINDUISM

How do you define idolatry?

In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.

It seems to me that idolatry is worshipping something other than God. To use an aid in devotion, prayer, or worship does not equate to idolatry. It may be something else, but idolatry cannot exist unless we worship something other than God.

[broach972]

color=red]In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.[/color]

This is not idolatry.  Idolatry is the worship of a physical object as a god.  The use of "aids" do not constitute idolatry.  Now that we have that cleared up...

As far as bowing is concerned....I doubt that those that bow as a sign of respect or greeting in some cultures are worshipping those they are bowing to.  I cite the following:

Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn't worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.

If people would just use a little common sense when discussing these issues, then they would understand that Catholicism is not a religion of idolatry.

[mllevaleur]

Unlike many Catholics, I agree with the Luther that the Medieval Church contain a lot of corrupt people - right up to the top; but I also believe that God protected Tradition / doctrine / dogma from corruption.   I am a bit of a fan of Luther; yes he was obviously a tortured soul and extremely obsessive compulsive, but he was sincere and correct on several points.  He was also looking to reform the church, not break away from it - he was a theologian not a revolutionary.

Interesting...I certainly agree that Luther was sincere, and that there were some abuses that needed correcting, and that he started out with the best of intentions (although I think he suffered from scrupulosity which resulted in some of his heretical beliefs about justification/sanctification, etc). But, I do think he was a Revolutionary. I think he didn't intend to start out that way...but at one point I think he chose that path, from what I've read at least.

I mean, you know, there comes a point where demanding that the Church bow to your new interpretation is not exactly seen as wanting to stay true to Catholic teaching or stay within the Church, lol.

Do you ever read Dave Armstrong's site? He's a Catholic bible genius, and writes great articles! He has a very large section on Luther and Lutheranism (some articles defending him, some articles showing where he was in error, etc.) This one is called "Luther was Not a Revolutionary? Huh??", lol.

Anyway, that article popped into my head, just thought I'd share. 

[mllevaleur]

I have looked at all the pages now.  I have not found an answer to my question, so I'll ask again.

What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the return of Christ?  Is is premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial? 

If no one knows, that's okay.  I'm curious, though, because I have never heard a Catholic discuss it.

You probably don't hear a lot of Catholics talk about it, because we're not very into all that kind of stuff, lol.

There's a good article about what we believe here This is the first line:

Are you Pre, Mid, or Post? If you don't know how to answer that question, you're probably a Catholic.

Here's what Catholics believe:

What's the Catholic Position?

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word "rapture" to refer to this event.

[DCR]

Interesting...I certainly agree that Luther was sincere, and that there were some abuses that needed correcting, and that he started out with the best of intentions (although I think he suffered from scrupulosity which resulted in some of his heretical beliefs about justification/sanctification, etc).

I had to Google that word "scrupulosity" (as I was not familiar with the term), and this is what came up in a Wikipedia article:

Scrupulosity is obsessive concern with one's personal sins, including "sinful" acts or thoughts usually considered minor or trivial within their religious tradition. The term is derived from the Latin scrupulus, a sharp stone, implying a stabbing pain on the conscience.

In modern times, scrupulosity is often considered to be a religious expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or the unrelated obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. The scrupulous person lacks a balanced religious outlook, veering to the extreme. Often the person has a morbid feeling that they are rejected by God and doomed to damnation despite rigid adherence to rituals or rules of conduct. The over-scrupulous person may refuse to acknowledge the verdict of otherwise accepted religious authorities that he or she is being excessively concerned with moot religious points.

In Catholicism, scrupulosity in itself is not considered to be sinful; some well-known saints, including Ignatius Loyola, and Alphonsus Liguori. Some Catholic scholars have speculated that Martin Luther, whose ideas and writings helped give rise to the Protestant Reformation, suffered from scrupulosity and broke with the Catholic Church because he could not accept Catholic assurances of grace in the face of his feelings of sinfulness.

Protestants are likely to disagree that scrupulosity was the basis for Luther's actions, but some agree that he suffered from scrupulosity. Some Protestants also find traces of scrupulosity in the writings of the 17th century Puritan pastor and author John Bunyan.

In overcoming scrupulosity, medical treatment for OCD may be used alongside religious counseling, wherein a member of the clergy will counsel the subject to focus on positive, objective messages of religious faith rather than subjective feelings of sinfulness and objection; he or she may also advise the person to avoid typical scrupulous behaviors, which can include repeating past confessions or constant bathing.

Interesting.  

[mllevaleur]

Interesting indeed!

Yes, see Catholics believe that God's grace is ontic grace, it actually and in a very real way cleanses us and makes us pure and literally justifies and sanctifies us. Now...we often go, mess up again, and need more of God's grace, but Luther came up with the "snow covered dung hill" idea. That we're not actually ever cleaned, we're just covered by the grace of Christ, so that underneath we're still sinful and unpure, but that's ok because God covers us. We disagree with this Protestant/Lutheran notion of forensic or extrensic justification.

To Catholics, that seems kind of....dishonest of God. If He calls someone righteous, we reason, it must not just be an appearance of righteousness, it must be actual righteousness (because of His grace.) If the scriptures say no unclean thing can enter Heaven, we reason, God must actually make us purely and wholly clean, not just make us appear so or overlook our impurity and look at Christ instead, etc.

Since srupulous people tend to always feel "dirty" or sinful, and see sin in places where there is none, and go overboard with obsessing about it, it makes sense that Luther would, based on his feelings, think that we're never actually made righteous, but just covered with Christ's righteousness instead. It would be quite a load off, in his mind, not to have to worry about "getting clean" anymore.

Of course, we believe the problem was his scrupulosity, not the teachings.

[DCR]

Thanks for the insights.

[zoonance]

Yes indeed.  Your explanation gives great insight and even makes sense and I can see why there would be tension with some of the doctrines of grace presented in noncatholic pulpits.

[kensington]

And yet... you don't mention have a problem with St. Ignatious Scrupulosity? Would that be due to the fact that he remained Catholic and Luther did not?  Why is that?

Scrupulosity is not a new phenomenon. It has been frequently discussed by religious writers over the past 500 years. One of the most well-known persons who suffered with scruples was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. Ignatius was afflicted by doubts about whether he was truly cleansed of sin, beginning with his conversion in 1522 (Van Ornum). The harder Ignatius tried to confess all his sins, the more he doubted he had, and the more he became disgusted with himself. As Kolvenbach (1996) writes, Ignatius' struggles with scrupulosity "exemplifies how the healthy sense of sin...can degenerate into an unhealthy sense of guilt, a morbid preoccupation with sin, a pathology" (p. 8). Ignatius was eventually saved by relying completely on the direction of his confessor, and following the direction to not confess his sins anymore. Spiritual advisors have profited from guidelines in Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises in counseling persons suffering from scrupulosity. Ignatius emphasized journal writing, listing sins, substituting new habits for old one, and opening up one's imagination to envision a loving God (Ciarrocchi). He favored such ideas as "a happy medium" and "everything in moderation".