|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Almost thou persuadest me (to the Roman Catholic Church)
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
<crosspost, referring to Gwai's post one further up concerning analogies>
That's fine, Gwai. If somebody else wants to make an analogy like that, then I would work with their analogy. I would say things like: "The style of drinking beer, and the seriousness with which it is done, is an essential part of our beer drinking experience. When we seriously stylish beer drinkers get together for our connoisseur taste test with a flown-in barrel of finest Belgian ale directly from Trappist cellars, we don't want someone shotgunning a six pack of cheap Budweiser cans to attend. Yes, they are also drinking beer, we appreciate that. Well done. But our beer meetings are not simply about getting drunk, rather they are about the culinary experience and culture of drinking this fine beverage together."
But this is not their analogy, but mine, so how about working with my terms?
I may have to drop this one, at least here, to avoid discussing closed communion, but I'll try. (For the record, it may be relevant that my understanding of the eucharist is pretty Catholic with the--rather important I accept--exception that I don't believe God is less present at non-Catholic communion.)
What if the master brewer gave them their beer, and they truly believe it's Guinness (or Belgian ale, clearly if we ever meet we should share a beer!)? So they're wrong and it's not, but if they got it from the master brewer it is right. And they have crappy taste perhaps--no insult intended *grin*--and prefer their bud that they believe is TrueBeer. Perhaps God will lead them to better taste in beer--I know that I came from so far below the candle that I didn't know what an altar was to a non-druid. (Or perhaps it's not about better but about where one truly finds the living God, but I will say better here because I don't know what I believe, and you do believe 'better' is the right word.) The one thing I am sure about is that no one is powerful enough to profane the living God. They can disrespect God and horrify us, but that's entirely different. So I would say invite them into the ProperBar and try to teach them better. How better to get through to them than if they are in the church.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I would perhaps compare them to the people who were healing, but were not directly Jesus' disciples. The disciples were bothered and asked Jesus to stop them. He said that if they did it in his name, it was of him.
Sure. And I'm not saying that only RCs are doing Christ's work. That would be absurd. In fact, any good that is done anywhere by anyone is doing Christ's work. But even in a narrower sense of consciously doing Christ's work, clearly many Orthodox and Protestants are doing spades of that. But this does not mean that therefore they are just fine as they are. They remain at odds with God in being in impaired communion with His Church, the RCC. They should correct this, and I do consider this as their Christian duty.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It's that think that if God requires me to believe it, the Holy Spirit would have made bloody sure it ended up in the bible. I think tradition can teach us a lot about how to worship and can do many other things, but in the end I think that if it's not in the bible then God doesn't mind as much if we're wrong.
But that just is "sola scriptura", if perhaps by stealth. Unless it is in the bible, it doesn't really count for you. I can only repeat that I see things differently. If it is not taught by the apostles and their successors, then it doesn't really count for me. Scripture happens to be a prominent and substantial means by which they do teach. But that does not exclude other means.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Either way, I don't think Christ always insists on correct understanding yet, and I don't think he excludes us from his Church just because we are human and ineffably wrong, sometimes even on the very important things, like whether he was coming back from the dead.
I think it's pretty effable that humans are wrong, I assume that you mean "wrong about the ineffable"? Anyhow, you are picking a bad example. There is a kind of hierarchy even among the dogmas, and some stuff just cannot be denied without a complete collapse of the Christian faith. Or as St Paul has it: "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." (1 Cor 15:12-20)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.
I know you're only calling things as you see them, Invictus_88, but I wish you wouldn't blithely assert that your Church is the Church. It comes across to me as really arrogant and dismissive.
Pretty much what Galamiel said.
See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.
It is fine and normal, even fashionable, for people to reject (even blithely) the Church, but to stand up for Her is without fail judged "dismissive" and "arrogant".
Maybe my phrasing is arrogant, that may be a flaw of mine, but the bones of my assertion are no more arrogant than the status quo is (in its myriad forms of Lutheranism, Mormonism, Anglicanism etc etc etc).
I don't normally call them out on it because I'm normally not feeling up to explaining myself, but sometimes the lack of a voice is too glaring and my restraint (better judgement?) breaks.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Quickly: It was a bad usage of "ineffably" I meant unmistakably or completely and utterly. And I agree that we now have much more ability to understand that Christ returned. I was referring to the disciples before Christ died. They were completely confused on the topic, and yet he didn't reject him. They weren't the Church since the Church didn't exist, but they were certainly the closest thing there as to the Church.
Re sola scriptura, that's a pretty broad definition. I think I'd be considered heretical to any sola scriptura believer I know because I believe God has reveal herself outside of scripture, and that God still does. So in theory God might tell me something directly right now. I just believe God knows such messages are often less clear. Most of us do not get the clarity of revelation that Paul/Saul got.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In the end, they are all personal accounts originating arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.
Ought to have added errors from film, tv etc. The list is much more diverse than I originally framed, my original was too theological. Some errors come in more culturally, and I think that is important to emphasise.
[code]
[ 22. May 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I was referring to the disciples before Christ died. They were completely confused on the topic, and yet he didn't reject him. They weren't the Church since the Church didn't exist, but they were certainly the closest thing there as to the Church.
I just don't think that this is a fair comparison. You could compare what was happening to the disciples prior to the Crucifixion / Resurrection / Ascension / Pentecost finale to Sunday school. A crass and hyper-charged Sunday school, for sure, but still a learning process for those with little clue of the true faith. We do not throw kids out of Sunday school because they are confused about the faith. They are there precisely to learn about the faith. But kids graduate from Sunday school, and the disciples graduated from their limited understanding of the faith as well (once more, propelled by much more explosive forces, but still). A some point, some lessons must be learned. And yes, I'm a big fan of "lifelong learning". But that does not mean regressing to the state of a toddler time and again. It means that there is always room for addition, correction and refinement in what one knows. And one simply does not get thrown out of the Church over some error. That's not true, even if the error is grievous. One can get thrown out over insisting on that error against all advice. It is precisely the rejection of learning that can get one into trouble.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think I'd be considered heretical to any sola scriptura believer I know because I believe God has reveal herself outside of scripture, and that God still does. So in theory God might tell me something directly right now. I just believe God knows such messages are often less clear. Most of us do not get the clarity of revelation that Paul/Saul got.
Well, we would need to carefully sort through some terms there (just what sort of thing does God tell us about these days...). But we are not necessarily at odds about that. Yet how God interacts with me is not the measure of how God interacts with His Church throughout history. Furthermore, the RC hierarchy does not operate on "individual revelation," their teaching authority does not derive from "listening to God" in the sense of having lots of mystical experiences. They are more like judges in a common law system, where however a very large chunk of initial law has been decreed by a king. They do build up the system further with their individual interpretations in specific cases, but they are not at all free to just make things up on the spot according to their individual insight.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88
Maybe my phrasing is arrogant, that may be a flaw of mine, but the bones of my assertion are no more arrogant than the status quo is (in its myriad forms of Lutheranism, Mormonism, Anglicanism etc etc etc).
I don't know why there is such an obsession with conforming to "-isms" anyway. I thought we were supposed to be disciples of Jesus Christ, not cogs in ideological machines.
The testimony of Scripture makes clear that God is concerned with what a person actually is, and the New Covenant is written on the heart and not on the "stone tablets" of some human institution.
Yes, of course truth is important, but we wrestle with that and enquire about that with the minds God has given us. This function of the mind seems to have been rubbished by certain advocates of institutional Christianity on this site, so don't start telling me that conformity to the RCC or to the Orthodox Churches is all about faithfulness to truth.
I am deeply concerned about the question of what is actually objectively true, and therefore I cannot just take a non-rational leap of faith into hoping - but never knowing - that some supposedly authoritative pronouncement might be true (à la postmodernism). That is why I cannot just follow a Pied Piper into conformity to some religious machine, to which I must sacrifice my critical faculty. That is a travesty of faithfulness to the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding (Isaiah 11:2), and who therefore does not play mind games with us by expecting us to believe concepts with zero evidence.
[ 22. May 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
F.A.L.S.E
D.I.C.H.O.T.O.M.Y
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.
I appreciate the Catholic church (my father was raised in it), and I pray for its ongoing existence until Christ's return. Not because I accept its claims about itself, but because it is the largest and most influential Christian church and is the way the vast majority of the world comes in contact with Christ's teachings.
Nonetheless, those of us who through prayer and study can not accept the extra-Biblical teachings that the RCC binds its members to, will never be able to join that group in good conscience without feeling that we are violating what Jesus actually asked of us. I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.
Do not underestimate that many of us outside of the RCC feel we are in fact disrespecting God by binding ourselves to these doctrines. Unity is only possible when non-essential beliefs are not given equal standing with the core creeds and elements of the historic faith. What you see as rebellion, we see as a necessary separation from something good that has been corrupted.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.
Now I'm curious! What prayers were those? Here is the RC Order of Mass, to refresh your memory.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Do some of you believe that if you're not part of the Roman church that something is missing? Roman Catholic envy or something?
There are several responses that lead me think that some have a yearning and feel somehow they are missing something.
For someone like me who lives in a place without European history, the distinctiveness of Rome seems odd, and would consider it merely another of the many denominations of Christianity. Do people other than Roman Catholics think, feel and believe that Rome has something that other denominations lack?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do some of you believe that if you're not part of the Roman church that something is missing? Roman Catholic envy or something?
...Do people other than Roman Catholics think, feel and believe that Rome has something that other denominations lack?
For me, the thing is that Rome makes claims not made by most other Christian groupings, notably that if you aren't in the RCC then you aren't really part of the worldwide body of Christ. I appreciate that this absolutely doesn't (any longer) mean the RCC considers those not in fellowship with itself to be doomed to eternity without God, but still, it rankles with me.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
But why does it "rankle" you? I just don't understand it. But then reformed ecclesiology is rather incoherent, if you ask me.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But why does it "rankle" you? I just don't understand it.
Hmm, why indeed... I guess it's just the assertion that my church (likewise all churches that aren't the RCC) is not a proper church. I know this assertion simply follows logically from the ecclesiology of the RCC so, yes, it is a coherent worldview in this regard, but it rankles.
Someone like me with a strong interest in ecclesiology might readily assert that the RCC's set-up and structure is fundamentally anti-Biblical, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the RCC is not really a church or that people in the RCC are not part of the body of Christ. Mind you, my basic view is that the body of Christ is all Christ's followers across the world, no more and no less. I don't really go for the 'church visible' idea.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
But then reformed ecclesiology is rather incoherent, if you ask me.
There seems to be a serious error in my Bible. I am really troubled by it. The offending verses are Ephesians 2:8-9 -
quote:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
This is clearly a grotesque mistranslation. Obviously it should read:
quote:
For by correct ecclesiology you have been saved through Christianised Feng Shui, and that not just of God; it is the result of optimally aligning yourself with the favoured gurus and their spells and incantations, and it is not of grace, lest anyone should think that you could get it done through the wrong organisation.
Yeah. Much better, dontcha think?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
BTW... what does the word 'incoherent' mean to someone who doesn't believe in logic? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.
Now I'm curious! What prayers were those? Here is the RC Order of Mass, to refresh your memory.
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.
It lasted about five minutes and in between singing "Pray for me" she was named giver of hope, bringer of peace, light to the afflicted, and many other phrases I would reserve only for one of the Trinity.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There seems to be a serious error in my Bible. I am really troubled by it. The offending verses are Ephesians 2:8-9 -
quote:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
I don't see how anything I have said gainsays that. Typical Protestant BS.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is clearly a grotesque mistranslation. Obviously it should read:
quote:
For by correct ecclesiology you have been saved through Christianised Feng Shui, and that not just of God; it is the result of optimally aligning yourself with the favoured gurus and their spells and incantations, and it is not of grace, lest anyone should think that you could get it done through the wrong organisation.
Yeah. Much better, dontcha think?
BTW... what does the word 'incoherent' mean to someone who doesn't believe in logic?
You don't understand sacraments or the Church, it would seem, but then I'm not surprised seeing as you've subjected faith to human reason. There are certainly ways we can test spiritual truths, but subjecting them to human reason is not it. Just as the natural world has its own test, likewise spiritual things have their own too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
There is no such thing as "human reason". It's just 'reason'. We didn't make it up, otherwise we would not be able to know anything. Reason itself comes from God (even though we can misuse it and draw wrong conclusions).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.
Now I'm curious! What prayers were those? Here is the RC Order of Mass, to refresh your memory.
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.
It lasted about five minutes and in between singing "Pray for me" she was named giver of hope, bringer of peace, light to the afflicted, and many other phrases I would reserve only for one of the Trinity.
Presumably it was the Litany of Loreto
The "pray for us" bits (us not me) indicate that it is Mary's prayers as our fellow Christian that we seek because we acknowledge her unique relationship to the Blessed Trinity and we recall the words of St James that the prayers of a righteous person 'avail etch much' my most recent blog Mary and Christian Meditation might help to make clear to you the Christocentric nature of Marian devotion.
quote:
Strictly speaking the only proper object of contemplation is God. Only He is infinite Love and infinitely loving. Only He can raise up our hearts and minds into the unity which transcends all else and fulfils entirely our purpose for being. If we contemplate Mary in meditation we do so only and precisely because she draws us ever more closely into that unity with God in which she herself is immersed. It is impossible to consider her in contemplation without also considering the source from which she derives all her qualities.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is no such thing as "human reason". It's just 'reason'. We didn't make it up, otherwise we would not be able to know anything. Reason itself comes from God (even though we can misuse it and draw wrong conclusions).
So then, your reasoning could be wrong that faith is subject to reason, that faith is just another rational science?
[ 22. May 2014, 20:49: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Faith is a response to reason. I have faith that the chair I am sitting on will not collapse under me. Is that rational? Of course it is.
The other notion of faith (believing without or in spite of evidence) is nonsense and heresy.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Faith is not a response to reason. I don't know where you get that from, EE. Faith is foremost a gift of God. God moves us to have faith, it's not something we can reason ourselves into. I would not believe if God had not first moved me to believe.
[ 22. May 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Faith is a response to reason and evidence. If you don't accept that, then you obviously don't believe the account of Jesus' encounter with Thomas. Jesus presented evidence to doubting Thomas.
Or why did Jesus bother expounding the Scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus? Or why did Luke begin his gospel in the way that he did:
quote:
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Now why would Luke refer to "eyewitnesses", eh? Luke was presenting evidence so that believers would have assurance of the things in which they had been instructed.
Faith is therefore based on evidence and reason. I accept what the Bible says, not what you say.
By the way... on the question of "head versus heart", I take the view that there is no competition between head and heart within a zero sum game - too much head diminishes the heart. That is another absurd idea that you have dreamt up from somewhere, but it is an insult to God as the creator, who made us a unity, in which head and heart enhance each other. The more I understand the more my spirituality is of the heart.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Seeking Sister - as a Christian do you never try to bring peace to others ? do you never try to lighten the burdens of the afflicted ? do you never try to give people hope ?
Perhaps you don't,but if you do,don't you think that in the Communion of the Saints it's reasonable to expect and hope that the Mother of Christ would do the same ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Faith is not unreasonable, yet to say that faith is subject to it is. Faith is above reason. Attempting to reconcile the two, therefore, is ultimately futile. This is what you don't quite seem to understand. Faith is not a rational science. The very evidence to refer to, that the scriptures themselves are reliable, is accepted on faith.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Perhaps it might help this (admittedly rather futile) discussion if you could give me an example of faith being above reason.
What exactly are you expecting me to believe without any recourse to reason and evidence?
Personally I can't really think of anything I would need to believe in my Christian life by suspending the critical faculty of my mind. Certainly there are aspects of spirituality that bypass (but do not undermine) the mind (such as the gift of tongues), but these practices are rooted firmly in a context of biblical evidence (and I accept the Bible to be true on the basis of other evidence). This evidence is confirmed by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, who works in concert with the mind, given that He is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, as the Bible makes clear.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.
I'm sorry, but this is just LOL. You go to your first RC mass, and you just happen to pick a - really rather exceptional! - time and place where they run the one thing (veneration of Mary) that is most likely to get Protestant knickers into a twist?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.
It lasted about five minutes and in between singing "Pray for me" she was named giver of hope, bringer of peace, light to the afflicted, and many other phrases I would reserve only for one of the Trinity.
Presumably it was the Litany of Loreto
None of the phrases she mentions are part of the Litany of Loreto*. They're also not part of any Marian prayers with which I am familiar.
*Where the phrase is "pray for us" not "pray for me" and where the Marian invocations follow invocations to the Most Holy Trinity at the beginning.
[ 23. May 2014, 00:15: Message edited by: Pancho ]
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Faith is a response to reason and evidence.
Nope, not for many of us. Nor is it based on feeling. Faith is a response to beauty. For me, particularly music and morning. Both excellent and fair. And in their context, beauty and truth. Beyond words and reason.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.
I'm sorry, but this is just LOL. You go to your first RC mass, and you just happen to pick a - really rather exceptional! - time and place where they run the one thing (veneration of Mary) that is most likely to get Protestant knickers into a twist?
Are you suggesting I did this on purpose just to have something to complain about? I was on vacation in a Catholic city (New Orleans) and the church was highly recommended.
And I do think it was Litany of Loreto, I've misremembered the words. Most Protestants indeed would worry about calling her "seat of our joy" "singular vessel of devotion" "health of the sick" "comforter of the afflicted" etc.
EWTN
My conscience genuinely struggled with it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you suggesting I did this on purpose just to have something to complain about?
Naw, I just though that was tragicomic. What are the chances?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But why does it "rankle" you? I just don't understand it.
Hmm, why indeed... I guess it's just the assertion that my church (likewise all churches that aren't the RCC) is not a proper church. I know this assertion simply follows logically from the ecclesiology of the RCC so, yes, it is a coherent worldview in this regard, but it rankles.
Continuing the logic, the only way your church could be "a proper church" on the RCC's terms is if either:
- your church is a continuation of the one church that Jesus founded on Peter; or
- Jesus intended the church he founded on Peter to split down into lots of groups that disagree with each other.
I can't see how either of those can be right.
Admittedly, I am biassed.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... "singular vessel of devotion" ...
Surely that's the *least* objectionable description of Mary? She is the only person who had Jesus, in his human form, physically inside her. I would have said it's a matter of fact that she is a singular vessel of devotion.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... "singular vessel of devotion" ...
Surely that's the *least* objectionable description of Mary? She is the only person who had Jesus, in his human form, physically inside her. I would have said it's a matter of fact that she is a singular vessel of devotion.
Your wording and this sort of idea leads to all of the wrong sorts of thoughts for all of the awfullest reasons. Mary, like pieces of the true cross, Turin shroud, and body parts of saints etc, is the wrong focus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
You can't be persuaded - you will or you won't. A bit like the faith itself - once you really have then, often unfortunately, you can't get rid of it.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Your wording and this sort of idea leads to all of the wrong sorts of thoughts for all of the awfullest reasons. Mary, like pieces of the true cross, Turin shroud, and body parts of saints etc, is the wrong focus.
Indeed - and I don't raise this topic just to slam Catholics. I think Protestants often go too far the other way and completely ignore her pivotal role in the story of our salvation. There's a happy medium between "She obeyed God, anyone would" that extreme evangelicals take and "She is the Queen of Heaven and source of all joy" that the RCC does.
It's to point out that the differences between the RCC and say the Anglican church are not simply ones of doctrine and practice. An Anglican may consider Mary to been Queen of Heaven etc. A Catholic on the other hand must .
The choice to convert to the RCC has to be based on willingness to accept 100% of church teaching on issues existing and to come. Anything else is just nitpicking. It's Mary today but it could be some technological advance in 50 years next.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What are the chances?
On this boat?
I'll go with 11dy7toahandful.
It's part of why it's appealing... watching the flounders flounder.
And I did once watch one, submerge itself in the shallow sands off the jetties near Panama City Beach Florida all those years ago.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There's a happy medium between "She obeyed God, anyone would" that extreme evangelicals take and "She is the Queen of Heaven and source of all joy" that the RCC does.
Do you even understand what "Queen of Heaven" refers to? The "queen" among the ancient Jewish kings was not the wife of the king, of which he usually had many, but his mother, of which he had but one. And this queen, as his mother, had a privileged role for intercession on behalf of the subjects. She was the one who could approach the king directly with personal requests, since he was her son and bound to honour mother and father. See 1 Kings 2:19-20. This is then how Mary is "Queen of Heaven", by being a privileged personal intercessor with the King, Jesus Christ, her Son. It does not mean that she rules heaven on par with God.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's to point out that the differences between the RCC and say the Anglican church are not simply ones of doctrine and practice. An Anglican may consider Mary to been Queen of Heaven etc. A Catholic on the other hand must.
"Must" in what sense? That Mary is Queen of Heaven is not a "de fide" teaching of the RCC, best I'm aware.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The choice to convert to the RCC has to be based on willingness to accept 100% of church teaching on issues existing and to come. Anything else is just nitpicking. It's Mary today but it could be some technological advance in 50 years next.
You spout FUD there. The actual requirements on a convert are more nuanced than that, and that's not just nitpicking. There are requirements of faith, and of religious assent, and those are qualitatively different forms of "acceptance". And the RCC will make binding statements about technology only where it directly touches the moral sphere. Whether you agree with her judgements or not, that is a proper thing for the Church to do. It is a failing if other churches do not address the moral dilemmas that arise from new technology.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
InboB - I'm not debating theology here. The definition of "Queen" is irrelevant. I do not believe I am called upon as a Christian to praise Mary as Queen of Heaven, whether she is or not. She may very well be but is my salvation in any way related to my acknowledgement of that? If not, then must I be bound to it?
That's the difference between Protestants and Catholics. The rest as I said is just nitpicking. I like Mary quite a bit actually, more than my evangelical family would want to know I'm sure, but I am not going to attend any church that tells me what I have to think about anyone who is not God.
So the OP needs to consider that carefully. The entire role of the church in guiding the faith of the believer is different in the RCC from the Protestant church.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And this queen, as his mother, had a privileged role for intercession
[tangent]
One day at church, an old Italian lady was deep in prayer before a statue of the Blessed Mother. Suddenly a bright light shone down and a voice called, "Concetta, come to me!" The old lady continued her prayer. The voice again beckoned, "Concetta, come to me!" Finally the old lady looked up and hissed, "Sta 'zitto! I'm talking to your ma!"
[/tangent]
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Seat of Wisdom,Mirror of Justice,Cause of our joy,Singular Vessel of Devotion,Mystical Rose,Tower of David,Tower of Ivory,House of Gold,Gate of Heaven,Morning Star,Health of the Sick,Refuge of Sinners etc.etc from the Litany of Loreto are poetic phrases addressed to the Virgin Mary.Only a person devoid of poetic inspiration
would find these phrases offensive.
They are,however,part of a private devotion,encouraged,yes,by the Church - as a private devotion.
They are not part of the Roman Rite of Mass,nor are they part of the 'Deposit of Faith'
The words are inscribed around the walls of the basilica of the Holy House of Loreto,the origins of which are best not to be mentioned to Seeking Sister.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
How thin the lines are between meditating on the life and faith of someone, believing praying directly to them, and worshipping them directly.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
No Catholic is obliged to pray to the Virgin Mary .
The 'obligation' is to love God and to love our neighbour as our selves.
Our 'neighbours' include the Saints in Heaven and most definitely the Virgin Mary whom Jesus loved.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
No Catholic is obliged to pray to the Virgin Mary .
The 'obligation' is to love God and to love our neighbour as our selves.
Our 'neighbours' include the Saints in Heaven and most definitely the Virgin Mary whom Jesus loved.
That's a stretch for any conventional definition of neighbour. But presumably by the same reasoning, Jesus loves my dead friend Fred, so I could pray to him as well. Or perhaps there is no "net neutrality" and certain people have faster and more direct links to God? -- I don't mean to be flip with this, but it starts to get pretty weird with some of these exotic additions. Preferable as a starting point are the prayer instructions Jesus provided with the Lord's Prayer/Our Father.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
InboB - I'm not debating theology here. The definition of "Queen" is irrelevant. I do not believe I am called upon as a Christian to praise Mary as Queen of Heaven, whether she is or not. She may very well be but is my salvation in any way related to my acknowledgement of that? If not, then must I be bound to it?
What "Queen of Heaven" actually means is highly relevant to your earlier contention "The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God." And you made a theological statement there, so you can't just wave aside theology now. Furthermore, I ask you again in what sense you think that I as a RC have to praise Mary as Queen of Heaven. Not that I have a particular problem with doing that, but it's hardly on my lips daily.
Finally, there is no unequivocal answer to the question whether understanding Mary rightly as Queen of Heaven, and hence perhaps praying for her intercession, is necessary for your salvation. It might be that this is not needed at all. It might be that it is just this which gets you across the line. It simply is one of many available means that can aid you in your earthly pilgrimage. The means that the RCC concerns as essential for the life of faith are called "sacraments". Praying to Mary is not a sacrament. That does not mean that it should rejected as a means for holiness and salvation. To use a slogan of a UK supermarket: Every little helps! (And what the Mother of God can achieve through her Son may not be so little, after all...)
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I like Mary quite a bit actually, more than my evangelical family would want to know I'm sure, but I am not going to attend any church that tells me what I have to think about anyone who is not God.
But God is just some abstraction in the sky. He has always worked through people, before and after becoming one of us, and what these people thought, said and did is of great relevance to the faith. Indeed, for the most part the bible is about people. To reduce the Church to speaking of God alone is not allowing her to speak of God, for God is Emmanuel, He is with us.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So the OP needs to consider that carefully. The entire role of the church in guiding the faith of the believer is different in the RCC from the Protestant church.
Indeed. Deo gratias.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But presumably by the same reasoning, Jesus loves my dead friend Fred, so I could pray to him as well.
You can indeed ask your friend Fred to pray for you, and generally speaking that will bring you spiritual benefits.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Or perhaps there is no "net neutrality" and certain people have faster and more direct links to God?
Certainly. The saints in heaven, in particular, have been purified from their sins and stand in the direct and unfiltered presence of God. This makes their intercessions more effective. Now, there are lots and lots of people about whose presence in heaven we can only speculate. You may well believe that your grandmother is in heaven, and hence that she would be a particularly good intercessor for you. However, you do not know this with certainty. Perhaps your grandmother is in hell, and your prayers will be wasted. (No offence intended, this is merely a theoretical analysis which does not intend to say anything about your actual grandmother.) Perhaps your grandmother is in Purgatory, and instead you should be praying for her, to accelerate her release to heaven. But the Church has canonised certain saints, meaning that the faithful can be certain that they are in heaven, and hence are in a privileged position to intercede. That explains why praying to the (canonised) saints is so popular. Of all these canonised saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the foremost.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't mean to be flip with this, but it starts to get pretty weird with some of these exotic additions. Preferable as a starting point are the prayer instructions Jesus provided with the Lord's Prayer/Our Father.
Exotic additions? Maybe you are rather suffering from exotic subtractions... The Marian hymn / prayer "Under thy protection" for example is documented in writing from ca. 250 AD, and is hence likely much older still:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Thanks for making my points. God likes certain dead people better than others and listens to them more. Great.
In way of clarification, the antiquity of Mary worship does not comment on its exoticness, except to understand that in the context of 250 AD a multi-god culture might have liked it. There are several churches devoted to Mary specifically built on top of Roman godess temples/shrines.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But presumably by the same reasoning, Jesus loves my dead friend Fred, so I could pray to him as well.
Of course you should. Prayer to the saints in glory means asking them to pray for us before the throne of God. If Fred is a pray-er, why wouldn't you ask him to pray for you? I appreciate all the prayers all my friends make for me, and have made specific prayer requests of them from time to time. I believe we have a thread right here on this very ship where shipmates pray to other shipmates, asking them to pray to God for their needs.
quote:
Or perhaps there is no "net neutrality" and certain people have faster and more direct links to God?
Well, somebody standing in the direct presence of God, with no worldly cares to vex them or make them forget their prayers, probably will have less unfettered and uncluttered prayer than someone in this veil of tears. So, maybe "faster and more direct links" is a bit flippant in wording, but the basic idea is sound, yes.
quote:
-- I don't mean to be flip with this, but it starts to get pretty weird with some of these exotic additions. Preferable as a starting point are the prayer instructions Jesus provided with the Lord's Prayer/Our Father.
An excellent starting point. But that's not where it ends. We also have "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them and pray over him..." and "Always be alert and keep on praying for all the saints" and "Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, for the prayer of a righteous man has great power" and "keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints," and "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people," and "brethren, pray for us" and "strive together with me in your prayers on my behalf" and "finally, brothers, pray for us," and "at the same time, pray also for us" and many, many other verses.
We are called to pray for one another, and we are commanded to ask one another for each other's prayers. So it is not enough to say, "By golly, the Our Father is all we need to know about prayer." Scripture informs us quite firmly and emphatically that this is not the case.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
At some point, it doesn't sound trinitarian any more. For someone in a North America context with the RCs on one side and the holy rollers on the other, with the seeming joint efforts to channel divinity. As I posted elsewhere this week, saints are the retired sweaters hanging for the rafters: examples and merely part of the team with the rest of us.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
