How Are We Made Right With God?

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

I am sorry to take so long to answer your post. It is unfortunate that I can only publish posts sporadically due to having other concerns. There will be a two post answer to your last post. I will cover only two matters…interpretation and Justification.

But first I would like to clarify a couple of things concerning my experience with the Catholic Church.

My wife is a cultural Catholic. She was born into the religion. She has her own cultural understanding about her religion and would never consider the opinions of a priest. To her, a priest is just the guy that leads the Mass and other rituals and takes care of the Church property. And in my experience that is the common understanding of cultural Catholics. I tend to doubt that this is a result of Vatican II, since she picked up her understanding from the generation prior to hers who were not under the influence of Vatican II.

I was the one who asked the priests questions and discovered the dichotomy in the priests opinions concerning communion, among other things. Some believe in open communion and some in closed communion. My wife believes in open communion, which appears to be common among cultural Catholics. She thinks that as long as you are a Christian, it is alright to fully experience the Catholic Mass. What you believe about the Christian religion is between you and God.

I am familiar enough with the ritual that I could easily pass myself off as a cultural Catholic. But it appears to me that the Catholic Church does practice closed communion, according to the Catholic Catechism. Thus it’s their house, and when I am there I believe that I should abide by their rules. And that is according to my conscience. And that, in a practical sense, nullifies half of the Mass in my experience.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that cultural Catholics who consider themselves to be Catholic while living more according to culture than by the rules of the Catholic Church are allowed to partake of the Eucharist simply because they were born into the religion and went through the appropriate ritualistic phases, while I am not because of personal conscience. But then, in a practical sense, if the rule were strictly enforced to include the cultural Catholics who are in the majority, a lot of Catholic parishes would disappear and the Vatican would be hard put to afford the Vatican. It may seem harsh, but to me that implies that it’s all about the money. And to publish the Catholic Catechism that cultural Catholics would have no more interest in reading than the Bible, does not change that implication.

It appears to me that the Catholic Church has its divisions. There are the Traditionalists, the Conservatives (probably includes the Catholics on this forum), the cultural Catholics, and the liberals. And there may be other divisions that I am not familiar with.

There are many things doctrinally speaking that I do not yet comprehend about the Catholic understanding of reality. One concerns the Communion of the Saints. The difference in how this is understood in the Catholic and Protestant Traditions is more significant than the usual discussion concerning Mary because it is the basis for the discussion about Mary. This is being dealt with on a thread on this forum now and I am following it with interest. But it seems to have already gone off topic. Another concerns the difference between venial and mortal sins. This seems significant because of those who claim that going to confession is only necessary for mortal sins. Venial sins can be confessed to God apart from the Confessional, or at least can be confessed in the first part of the Mass where such a confession is a part of the ritual.

I freely admit that if I believed that the Catholic Church was an open communion, that is where I would attend on a regular basis. Protestant “worship services†emphasize the sermon. And simply put, I find that they talk too much and worship too little, except perhaps in a prayer meeting, and yet even then... The Catholic Mass has the advantage in that its version of the sermon, the homily, is usually 15 minutes long and the rest of the hour is Bible reading, prayer, hymns, and the Lord’s Table. Much more worshipful to me, IMHO.

JamesG

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

““There are a variety of reasons to discuss theology, and part of it is to learn more about God by interacting with other Christians. We have been tasked to go out into the world and spread the Gospel, and I don't recall a "live and let live" attitude among the disciples when they discovered errant teaching.â€â€

Religion is an interesting subject for discussion to be sure. And the understanding of reality within the Christian community is sufficiently diverse to be fodder for a great deal of discussion. But if all sides of the discussion are only there to proclaim their own understanding of reality to others, then the discussion becomes nothing more than a soap box for the closed minded, the dogmatic, to proclaim an understanding personally believed. And that is not true discussion in any practical sense. And those who are already closed minded concerning their doctrinal Standard can learn little, if anything, about God from those whose doctrinal Standard disagrees with their own.

Under such circumstances, learning more about God can not be one of the reasons for interdenominational discussion. Only those who are open minded without a denominational or personal bias could benefit from a true discussion concerning God. I am more open minded than most Christians. Some think a little too open minded. But I realize that I have some bias. For example, I have a higher regard for the Bible than for any Christian denomination, including the Catholic Church. Yet I regard myself to be non-denominational, rather than Protestant. It would be possible for me to learn something about God from you even though you are a Catholic and even though I am limited by the Standard of the Bible. That is because the Bible is claimed to be a Standard in some way by all denominations, even the Catholic Church. Catholics who convert from Protestantism tend to emphasize the Biblical basis for many of the Catholic teachings. You are a dogmatic follower of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which in itself is a Standard that is over the Bible. It stands to reason that you will learn more about God from your Catholic peers than from Protestants or a non-denominational person such as myself. And this is also true in the same way for Protestants who are dogmatic followers of the doctrinal Standard of their own denomination.

And you are quite right in your insight that the Biblical writers did not have a "live and let live" attitude about reality as they understood it. Peter and Paul agree that what they understood was not the result of interpretation. They claimed that their understanding of reality is a revelation from God through the Spirit of God. Today, what is believed in Christianity is the result of the practice of interpretation. And in the case of the Catholic Church, a long history of practicing interpretation, according to its own admission. After all, the Western Church as it existed in the 16th century is where the Protestants got the practice of interpretation from in the first place. Martin Luther did his best to interpret the writing of James out of existence because to him it appeared to contradict his concept of Justification by faith alone. Today, there exists what the Biblical writers understood to be the true reality, and there also exists the various understandings of reality produced by the practice of interpretation in Christianity. And unfortunately, today, the interpretive understandings of Christianity trump the understanding of the Biblical writers.

I was once one who believed dogmatically, that everyone is wrong but me and thee and sometimes I wonder about thee. But eventually I saw the wisdom of tolerance because of the situation among those who call themselves Christian in our times. If I was still intolerant, I would not be wasting my time on a forum. I would be out building up what I considered to be an expression of the true reality as I understand it. If the faith-money connection can obtain a following of sheep, there is no reason why I would not be able to do the same. A whole new denomination of Christianity is what such an expression would be. As if we need another Christian denomination.

I had a lot of respect for John Paul II. The Catholic Church is much more tolerant, of both non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians, since Vatican II. And John Paul II was an excellent representative of Vatican II; and much to the chagrin of my Protestant friends, I believe an excellent representative of Christianity as a whole. But that doesn’t mean that I am going to follow his interpretations as if they are the word of God. The only interpretations, if that’s what they are, that have any meaning to me are my own. And my understanding of reality changes as I grow in knowledge and experience. But it is my own understanding. It is the best that I can do in an era where it is sometimes difficult to determine what are biased interpretations of the Bible and what is the true understanding of the Biblical writers themselves. After all, what I believe is what “I†believe. Self-centered? No more than anyone else who believes what they believe. And if such are very dogmatic, then I am less self-centered than they simply due to my practice of tolerance, or live and let live.

One thing that I do not agree with is that the Bible is vague. There is nothing vague at all about what the Bible says. What makes the Bible appear to be vague is the constant practice of interpretation that muddles our understanding of many parts of the Bible. It took me a long time to realize that when new Christians see clearly what the Biblical writers are saying, that clear understanding will invariably be conformed to a different understanding when it contradicts the interpretations of the denomination that they are in. And I’m not just referring to the Catholic Church. I tend to listen more closely to what a new convert says about the Bible than to the experienced who are more apt to be biased according to a denominational interpretation.

And if we are interpreting the Catholic Catechism as well as the Bible, then who knows what the Catholic Church really believes. Maybe the Catholic Church doesn’t actually teach closed communion, which happens to be something we both agree upon, that it does. We didn’t agree about the quotes that I gave concerning the blood from the Catechism.

I find it ludicrous that God would inspire a writing that is intended to reveal the true nature of reality, and then would do so in such a way that no one can understand what is being revealed except through a human practice of interpretation. And that God would then create a Church that is authoritative over that writing so that the writing can be understood through that Church, which in turn is just as hard to understand and must be further interpreted, doesn’t make any more sense. If the Church is the authority, then why is there a need for the Bible? Such ideas make God out to be a bumbling idiot at best. It reminds me of the Science Fiction stories where it is discovered that God is senile and WE need to help HIM, or perhaps stay out of his sight.

And I find the idea that the Catholic Church can allow the creation account in Genesis to be interpreted as a literary device, while the Adam and Eve account that is within that account can not, to be just as ludicrous. But the creation account, being at the beginning of the Bible, is a good place to start if we want interpret the Bible. The liberals take the literary device thing to its logical conclusion when they claim that the accounts of Jesus Christ are nothing but a literary device and discount any real connection to the supernatural in the process. The claim of literary device is merely an excuse for interpreting a Bible portion to mean something other than it actually means. Sometimes even an excuse to interpret a Bible portion to conform to some aspect of philosophy that is currently popular, such as Humanism or Evolutionism. No offense intended, but that is how I see it.

The diversity produced in Christianity by human interpretations is hardly a solid foundation for any kind of conviction. So a particular denominational Standard, derived interpretively, out of necessity becomes the foundation for conviction. Should we be surprised when an apologist for a particular denominational Standard claims that those who disagree with their Standard believe in a “different Christ� And that even though the particular denominational Standard disagrees with what the Biblical writers said because of their practice of interpretation? It seems to me that a kingdom divided against itself can not stand. I heard that somewhere. Of course, if we believe that a particular denomination is the true expression of the Kingdom of God, then that has no meaning. That is, until we notice that historically even denominations divide. What better example than the very significant 16th century division of the Western Church, that was already divided from the Eastern Church, into what is today called the Roman Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

I started a thread on this forum concerning the Bible and interpretation. And this post is my present understanding on the matter.

JamesG

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

Concerning Justification, the Catholic Church and most Protestants agree that Justification is by human faith in Christ. Whether or not they also claim that the faith thus exercised is from God or from Christ is irrelevant because the faith is still faith exercised by humans. And I tend to believe that faith that looks like human faith and acts like human faith is human faith. That the faith exercised is exercised by humans is the basis for the controversy of Justification by faith alone vs. Justification by faith and works. And it is the basis for the more recent controversy in Evangelical Protestantism called the “Lordship controversy.†I do not agree with the basis, nor with the controversies.

There are several verses in the New Testament that refer to the relationship between Justification and faith. Some of these verses also refer to Jesus Christ implicitly or implied from context. Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 are examples of such verses.

These verses have in common the use of the Genitive phrase. When a Genitive phrase is used in relation to a person, it refers to possession. But modern grammar apologists use a rule to change that. They claim that a Genitive phrase can be translated as a subjective Genitive or an objective Genitive. This may be true when the phrase is not used in relation to a person. But when a Genitive phrase used in relation to a person is translated as an objective Genitive, it imitates a Dative phrase. This is not something that an educated Jew like Paul would use. He would use the Dative phrase to begin with so that there would be no doubt as to what he was saying. What is interesting is that the Genitive phrase that is related to a person is translated objectively really for convenience sake, because the alternative is outside of their own understanding.

I believe that the Biblical writers referred to two different faiths. Our human faith and the faith of Jesus Christ. And in at least one instance, Mark in 11:22 refers to the faith of God rather than our faith in God, as it is generally translated. That is a Genitive phrase used in that verse. The Greek word translated faith means conviction. That some would think that the God who knows most precisely the nature of reality would have no faith or conviction is strange indeed. Perhaps it is because most Christians do not equate the word faith with conviction. Conviction requires some knowledge and experience. The common way to understand faith is that neither is required. Only the existence of a fact to be believed in irregardless of its actual truth. And modern apologists for secularism gleefully agree with that understanding of faith because it is easier to disprove what is believed without what they can claim is any substantial basis.

James makes it clear that faith and works can’t be separated. Thus our faith related to Christ is expressed by definite works, such as being water baptized, and following Christ according to the Bible, and other such things that even the Protestants agree are an expression of the personal faith that they relate to Jesus Christ and Justification. The faith of Jesus Christ also is expressed by certain works such as following his Father implicitly, and dying and shedding his blood as a sacrifice that humanity in Adam might be redeemed.

I believe that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, not our own exercise of faith in relation to Christ. Our own faith in relation to Christ puts us into the position to be Justified by the faith of Christ. One believes into Christ in order to be in Christ, and then one is a part of the life of Christ. In that life is the faith of Christ that Justifies.

What I believe is NOT the same as the Evangelical Protestant position of forensic Justification wherein one is Justified by imputation through the exercise of human faith alone in Jesus Christ. Glorydaz appears to have a Calvinistic understanding of Justification that includes the matter of the faith of Christ. What I believe is also NOT the same as that, at least not according to how he has explained it thus far.

“As to blood, God didn't require blood, the Bible is clear on this.†Yet Hebrews chapters 9 & 10 clearly says otherwise, unless these chapters are interpreted to agree with your statement. Surely if redemption could have been accomplished in any other way than through the blood of Christ, God would have used that method. A God that doesn’t require blood and uses it anyway is a bloodthirsty God that I would not, indeed could not, follow for the simple reason that such a God would be a humanly fabricated tribal God. And displays of love would not be a requirement, that is true. But one aspect of the nature of God is love and the display would necessarily be according to his nature. And that is infinitely more substantial than a mere requirement.

How are we made righteous before God? By believing into Christ, not merely by believing in a Christ who, in a practical sense, is outside of us and who we are outside of. There are a multitude of people think that so long as they believe in Christ and in what he did 2000 years ago, they are saved or Justified. And there are those who believe that if they partake of the Eucharist on a regular basis, that they are saved or Justified. Neither is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Only those who have truly believed into Christ and thus are truly in Christ are made alive in the life of Christ. And only those who are truly in Christ are made righteous before God by the faith of Christ that is in the life of Christ. In Adam we are in the old creation and condemned to death. In Christ we are in the new creation and have become a part of the life of Christ.

““Does the bible tell us that the cup Jesus held in His hand was blood or not?â€â€

Jesus said “this is my bloodâ€. Since he was not yet crucified, the wine was not blood in the physical sense. The apostles of Christ would not have imbibed due to a Traditional aversion to drinking physical blood. And since the only way that Jesus could become the fulfillment of the Law was to keep it perfectly according to its original intention, Jesus would not have miraculously given them physical blood to drink because that would be against the Law. In John 6, Jesus was clear that eating his body and blood is a Spiritual matter, not a fleshly or physical matter. Protestants take this too far in one direction when they say that the Lord’s Table is simply a remembrance. Catholics take this too far in the other direction when they insist on the presence of physical blood. And the liberals eliminate this in a practical sense by making the matter a literary device. The Spiritual reality of the blood of Christ is totally missed. It is not literal in the sense of the physical. Nor is it merely a memory or a literary device. It is literal in the sense of the Spiritual. The physical is limited to time. The Spiritual is outside of time. Thus Jesus could say that the cup was his blood. What he was saying was totally literal in the Spiritual realm. Just as eating the body and blood of Christ is literal in the Spiritual realm.

Thus whoever celebrates the Lord’s Table, whether Catholic or Protestant, can connect to the event of redemption by the blood of Christ through the Spirit of God, no matter how the denomination might define it through interpretation. To just say “I stand on or take the blood†is insufficient. To believe that the blood of Christ is there simply because the priests says certain words is insufficient. The key is walking according to the Spirit. Jesus gave us a certain way to connect to the event of redemption…the Lord’s Table through our walking according to the Spirit of God. This transcends denominational interpretations. The Lord’s Table is much more important than most Protestants realize. That the Catholics returned to having the Lord’s Table available on a daily basis is a step in the direction of an understanding according to the Biblical writers.

As Paul made clear in 1Corinthians, the Lord’s Table and the Spiritual functions (generally called gifts) are something that is partaken of through the Spirit of God. The same Spirit who connects us to the Christ that is on the right hand of God, and the same Spirit through whom Christ is in us and we in him. According to Galatians 5:25, the life may be present because of a connection to the Spirit of God. But to the one who does not walk according to the Spirit, the practical experience and expression of that life is NOT present. We are redeemed by the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is not a physical presence nor is it absent or only a memory. To the one who walks according to the Spirit, the blood of Christ in the redemptive event is experiential as a Spiritual reality.

The blood of Christ was shed because of the faith of Christ. The shedding of blood was a work that expressed the faith of Christ. Justification is by faith and works, the faith and works of Jesus Christ. James chapter 2 has been misunderstood as a reference to our own human faith and works. James 2:1 is translated in the NIV, “My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism.†The NAB comes closer to the real meaning, “My brothers, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.†But literally this should be translated, “My brothers, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory in partiality.†It is a Genitive phrase that refers to the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ. And that first sentence is the basis for all that follows in James chapter 2.

I found it difficult to get past the bias of the interpreted understanding of most of Christianity in relation to James chapter 2. Thus it was difficult to see what James is actually saying, that it refers to Christ and only to us in relation to Christ. Not only is James 2:24 against the original Protestant concept of Justification by faith alone, but it is also against the Catholic concept because it is a revelation of Justification by the faith and works of Christ. And Paul agrees with James. In Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul is referring to the faith and works of Christ as expressed through us who are in Christ and as such are a part of the Body of Christ.

Paul claimed that he lived, yet not he, but Christ lived in him (Galatians 2:20). The Genitive phrase is key to understanding this verse. Living according to the faith of Christ should be expressed by the works of Christ that are out of the faith of Christ. And in that case, if it does NOT look like human faith and works and does NOT act like human faith and works, then probably it is NOT human faith and works. It is the faith and works of Christ. It is unfortunate that today such an expression is not as evident as are the human works of personal ministries that are totally out of human faith.

JamesG

 

[francisdesales]

.
Francisdesales

I am sorry to take so long to answer your post. It is unfortunate that I can only publish posts sporadically due to having other concerns. There will be a two post answer to your last post. I will cover only two matters…interpretation and Justification.

No problem, I appreciate your input...

But first I would like to clarify a couple of things concerning my experience with the Catholic Church.

My wife is a cultural Catholic. She was born into the religion. She has her own cultural understanding about her religion and would never consider the opinions of a priest. To her, a priest is just the guy that leads the Mass and other rituals and takes care of the Church property. And in my experience that is the common understanding of cultural Catholics. I tend to doubt that this is a result of Vatican II, since she picked up her understanding from the generation prior to hers who were not under the influence of Vatican II.

I tend to think that this attitude DID come from a misapplication of Vatican 2, since that is where some get the idea of private interpretations of Scriptures. The Catholic Church doesn't teach this approach to the Scriptures, certainly not before Vatican 2. This would be interesting to address in more depth, if you desire.

I was the one who asked the priests questions and discovered the dichotomy in the priests opinions concerning communion, among other things. Some believe in open communion and some in closed communion. My wife believes in open communion, which appears to be common among cultural Catholics. She thinks that as long as you are a Christian, it is alright to fully experience the Catholic Mass. What you believe about the Christian religion is between you and God.

James, this is a result of private interpretation. Even priests can forget that the Church's paradigm for theology stems from primarily the Magesterium in union with the Bishop of Rome. NOT the individual priest picking and choosing what revelation from God is to be followed, and what revelation from God is to be ignored because it doesn't suit our private interpration of the Catechism/Bible...

Yes what you believe is between you and God, but that is not what it means to be Catholic.

I am familiar enough with the ritual that I could easily pass myself off as a cultural Catholic. But it appears to me that the Catholic Church does practice closed communion, according to the Catholic Catechism. Thus it’s their house, and when I am there I believe that I should abide by their rules. And that is according to my conscience. And that, in a practical sense, nullifies half of the Mass in my experience.

Seems you have more respect than other Catholics who make themselves mini-popes... I think it is the secularisation of Catholicism that has entered into the views of many "cultural Catholics". The American ideals of democracy are NOT the same as the Church's ideals of leadership and revelation, and so, there is an issue there in trying to turn Catholicism into another "club" with Amercian values. The sense of rugged individualism prevelant in America is NOT a Biblical notion, whatsoever. This ideal actually leads to pride. Yes, I said it... When people judge in this manner what God has revealed, it is a sign of pride, not obedience that God commands of us.

Nevertheless, I find it interesting that cultural Catholics who consider themselves to be Catholic while living more according to culture than by the rules of the Catholic Church are allowed to partake of the Eucharist simply because they were born into the religion and went through the appropriate ritualistic phases, while I am not because of personal conscience. But then, in a practical sense, if the rule were strictly enforced to include the cultural Catholics who are in the majority, a lot of Catholic parishes would disappear and the Vatican would be hard put to afford the Vatican. It may seem harsh, but to me that implies that it’s all about the money. And to publish the Catholic Catechism that cultural Catholics would have no more interest in reading than the Bible, does not change that implication.

That is an interesting comment. How would the Church monitor "WHO" is "Catholic enough" for receiving communion??? Even on such matters as mortal sin, the Church has always had a hard time with this, go back to 1 Cor 11 and Paul's notion that one should examine oneself before receiving. Naturally, this command was the result of what you are discussing. Pastorally, it is a nightmare to even think about implementing... Clearly, the Church is not about to set "doctrinal quizes" when one comes to receive! But the more vocal people, the priests sholud correct. But even in abortion, we don't see this applied very well.... I am not sure on the answer. We would like to ensure that people validly receive, but this is something that only the individual can fully answer to God for.

It appears to me that the Catholic Church has its divisions. There are the Traditionalists, the Conservatives (probably includes the Catholics on this forum), the cultural Catholics, and the liberals. And there may be other divisions that I am not familiar with.

They generally are not on matters of dogmatic differences, but on discipline or application of morality, which can be a bit fuzzy. Traditionalists prefer the Latin Mass. Big deal for them. For me, I don't care, God certainly understands either.

There are many things doctrinally speaking that I do not yet comprehend about the Catholic understanding of reality. One concerns the Communion of the Saints. The difference in how this is understood in the Catholic and Protestant Traditions is more significant than the usual discussion concerning Mary because it is the basis for the discussion about Mary. This is being dealt with on a thread on this forum now and I am following it with interest. But it seems to have already gone off topic. Another concerns the difference between venial and mortal sins. This seems significant because of those who claim that going to confession is only necessary for mortal sins. Venial sins can be confessed to God apart from the Confessional, or at least can be confessed in the first part of the Mass where such a confession is a part of the ritual.

James, I will help you in any way that I can to help you understand better what we are SUPPOSED to believe. You can draw your own conclusions freely from there. Just let me know what you would like cleared up.

The Catholic Mass has the advantage in that its version of the sermon, the homily, is usually 15 minutes long and the rest of the hour is Bible reading, prayer, hymns, and the Lord’s Table. Much more worshipful to me, IMHO.

JamesG

Agreed. We are doing what the Lord commanded us to do- the Eucharist - in the words of Christ "Do this in remembrance of me". We participate in that memorial, offering ourselves as a spiritual sacrifice in union with the rest of the Body of Christ to the Father in heaven.

Joe

 

[jasoncran]

joe i hope you dont have bad knees.

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

Whether the attitude of the cultural Catholics came from Vatican II, I can only address from my own experience. My wife is fifty-three years old. I am fifty-eight. I don’t know how old you are, so I do not know whether you can relate to this experience or not. My wife acquired her religious understanding from her parents and grandparents. Kind of runs in the family. It is as if cultural Catholicism is a Tradition handed down through the generations. In fact, it seems that I remember reading that Vatican II recognized the problem and said something about it. But I am not sure. If true, it would further imply that the problem existed prior to Vatican II. If the cultural Catholics preexisted Vatican II, then I don’t think that we can blame a misinterpretation of Vatican II for this problem. I would be interested in knowing how Vatican II addressed the matter. And if Vatican II addressed the matter, then probably the Catholic Catechism addressed the matter also. If you see anything let me know.

I agree that the problem of dichotomy among the Priests is the result of private interpretation. But I don’t think that the Priests are forgetting the authority of the Magisterium. They just have different ideas of what the Magisterium is teaching. They truly believe that they are following the Magisterium. It’s like the Protestant tendency to interpret the Bible. The Bible is the authority. But what the Bible says, they see in different ways. It’s not so much a picking and choosing. It’s more a matter of different understandings of what the authority is saying. The Catholic Church believes in the practice of interpretation. So we shouldn’t find it so surprising that Priests would practice interpretation as well. If there are books that the laity can read concerning interpretation of the Bible and the, if I remember correctly, four levels of interpretation; then no doubt the Priests learned the same thing. And whenever interpretation is practiced by more than one person, there will be more than one idea in relation to what is being interpreted. How we understood differently those passages out of the Catechism about blood, is an example. Obviously, one or both of us interpreted those passages. We can each point to the other person, but as anyone with children knows full well, that does not solve anything.

That secularization has entered into the views of cultural Catholics is undoubtedly true. And that it perhaps has entered into Catholicism, at least in America, through them is quite possible. And undoubtedly, rugged individualism is a unique trait of Americans, even though not all Americans are ruggedly individualistic. But it is a trait that has developed through the rugged history of American development. Yet I don’t think that rugged individualism is a source of interpretation because the practice of interpretation existed long before America as a nation or the American trait of rugged individualism developed. But I agree that it certainly doesn’t help the expression of the Body of Christ or the Kingdom of God when it is stressed. Both Catholics and Protestants tend to emphasize that individuality is not lost when one becomes a part of the corporate expression related to Jesus Christ, however each understands such an expression. I think that what has been lost among the cultural Catholics is the balance between individuality and corporateness. And this through an emphasis on individuality while still retaining a sense of religious corporateness through attending the Mass. The balance is missing. And this may be because the Catholic Church does tend to emphasize the Mass as the epitome of the corporate expression of the Church. Thus cultural Catholicism has become a cultural expression that includes a particular religion and a particular understanding as to how that religion relates to their cultural expression.

I am not sure that we can bring obedience into this matter for one simple reason. As far as the cultural Catholics are concerned, they are being obedient to God and to the Church as they understand both. That we might disagree is irrelevant to them, just as any disagreement that they may have with how we understand things would be irrelevant to us. And I’m not sure that it is pride that is involved either. I think that there may be something more basic…misunderstanding. And to try to correct a misunderstanding that has a long Tradition is next to impossible. It’s like a bad habit. The first step in overcoming a bad habit is to realize that it is a bad habit. And that is the greatest hurdle.

““That is an interesting comment. How would the Church monitor "WHO" is "Catholic enough" for receiving communion???â€â€

I’m with you on that one. Implementing a system to monitor people would appear to be too Totalitarian for American tastes. But in smaller cities, the Priests would, or should, know their parishioners. Yet even there the same situation still prevails. Not being a Catholic, I have not given the problem the consideration that it is due. But upon some further consideration, I think that perhaps my monetary remark is not quite as relevant as I originally thought.

Nevertheless, I would have to say that one answer would be to change the restriction so that all who claim to be Christian could partake of the Eucharist. This is open communion. The difference as to who would attend Mass probably would change very little. And since the Catholic Church now considers non-Catholic Christians as “separated brethrenâ€, perhaps in time the realization will come that all Christians are one as far as the body and blood of Christ are concerned. It is not related to doctrinal oneness, but to Spiritual oneness. The doctrinal oneness is related to growth, as in Ephesians 4. And it should be an important goal, as in 1Corinthians 1. As you mentioned through 1Corinthians 11, who should attend should be left to the individual and God because no human can read hearts, unless what is in the heart is expressed outwardly, like coming to Mass drunk. Of course, what I am implying is that perhaps the Catholic Church is presuming too much when they practice closed communication.

The older I get, the more I believe that our interpretive differences matter little to God. What concerns God most is how we relate to God. That does seem to be the emphasis of the recognized Spiritual ones among all Christian denominations, including the Catholic Mystics and Saints. We could all claim that everyone else believes in a “different Christ†for one doctrinal reason or another. But when one comes down to it, who really does that help? Nevertheless, open communion would be helpful to someone like myself who has a positive preference toward attending the Mass. A self-centered suggestion no doubt.

““Agreed. We are doing what the Lord commanded us to do- the Eucharist - in the words of Christ "Do this in remembrance of me". We participate in that memorial, offering ourselves as a spiritual sacrifice in union with the rest of the Body of Christ to the Father in heaven.â€â€

I was hoping that you had not been influenced by a common Catholic emphasis, but I suppose that would be too much to ask. Don’t forget that I consider the Lord’s Table as more than just a memorial, an understanding that is closer to the Catholic position than the Protestant position. In fact, that you would emphasize the memorial makes you sound more Protestant than Catholic.

There is one interesting phenomena that I noticed in relation to the Catholic Mass, something that is I believe an inadvertent and unfortunate result of emphasizing the Eucharist. That is the tendency of so many showing up just to participate in the last half of the Mass or the Eucharist. As if the first half is not important or not as important. I have read Catholic writers who are trying to combat that tendency, as did Vatican II, by showing that Christ is present in all of the Mass, and that while the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the high point, that does not mean that it is more important than the presence of Christ as the Word.

I have been interested in the Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office for many years. Something, as I have discovered, most laity do not know anything about, especially cultural Catholics. I bought a used Interim Breviary, by accident some would think, and that initiated my interest. I eventually bought the four volume set and have used it frequently in my prayers and as devotional reading. No doubt that is to the chagrin of Protestants. But then I also read writings that are within the Mystical aspect of Catholic Tradition. But my point here is that there is a problem related to the Divine Office that is also ultimately related to the emphasis on the Eucharist. And there is a reference to a difference between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and the Divine Office as a sacramental, wherein the Sacrament is more important than the sacramental.

Vatican II tried to encourage the laity to get involved in the Divine Office. As near as I can tell, to little avail. When I checked last in the LA area, it was practiced in two parishes. In the morning in one place and in the evening in the other. Both too far away for me to get to. At the time, I found it interesting that there was more interest in the Rosary, a devotion that originally came out of the Divine Office, than for the Divine Office itself. While it is true that John Paul II was very interested in the Rosary, I can not believe that he intended it to be a replacement for the Divine Office. If my understanding is correct, even as Pope, John Paul II would have been obligated to participate in the Divine Office. Yet, I have no recollection of any pictures of him participating in the Divine Office, while there are many pictures of him pray-meditating the Rosary.

How the Divine Office can be considered the official prayer of the Church and an extension of the Mass, and yet not be important enough to be so in a practical sense, is beyond my limited ability to understand such things.

JamesG

 

[francisdesales]

Religion is an interesting subject for discussion to be sure. And the understanding of reality within the Christian community is sufficiently diverse to be fodder for a great deal of discussion. But if all sides of the discussion are only there to proclaim their own understanding of reality to others, then the discussion becomes nothing more than a soap box for the closed minded, the dogmatic, to proclaim an understanding personally believed.

That is true, any discussion can degrade into such one-sided conversations. I enjoy discussing theology because I do learn more about my own faith when I am forced to confront a reasonable question. I am confident that the Church teaches truth, but I don't know everything about it, so such sharing enables me to learn more about my own faith. Whether it helps others is up to them to decide.

Only those who are open minded without a denominational or personal bias could benefit from a true discussion concerning God... You are a dogmatic follower of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which in itself is a Standard that is over the Bible. It stands to reason that you will learn more about God from your Catholic peers than from Protestants or a non-denominational person such as myself. And this is also true in the same way for Protestants who are dogmatic followers of the doctrinal Standard of their own denomination.

A lot to digest there. I can learn a lot from Protestants who search for the Biblical basis for various Catholic doctrines. All of our doctrines come from the Bible, either implied or explicitly from interpretation of Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. The vast majority of my time on such discussion is spent with Protestants, not Catholics. I learn more by being challenged from such Christians, although I also learn from reading scholarly books by Catholic theologians. Perhaps I am more of an exception, most people learn more by reading or hearing those who know more in their own faith community.

And you are quite right in your insight that the Biblical writers did not have a "live and let live" attitude about reality as they understood it. Peter and Paul agree that what they understood was not the result of interpretation. They claimed that their understanding of reality is a revelation from God through the Spirit of God. Today, what is believed in Christianity is the result of the practice of interpretation. And in the case of the Catholic Church, a long history of practicing interpretation, according to its own admission.

Of course. We are interpreting the Bible, as well as the Apostolic Tradition, which is even more difficult. Trying to figure out the "mind of the Church" on matters is not something easily discerned. One must be much more open to Liturgy and the daily life and faith of Christians. Regarding how doctrines and beliefs develop, under the Spirit's guidance. As soon as we open the Bible, or ascertain the worship practices of fellow Christians, we are interpreting, that cannot be denied.

After all, the Western Church as it existed in the 16th century is where the Protestants got the practice of interpretation from in the first place. ..Today, there exists what the Biblical writers understood to be the true reality, and there also exists the various understandings of reality produced by the practice of interpretation in Christianity. And unfortunately, today, the interpretive understandings of Christianity trump the understanding of the Biblical writers.

This is why studying and taking into account historical development of belief is very important in discerning the Spirit moving within the Church in drawing out God's revelation for today's Christians. I find that many Christians, to include Catholics, lack this historical sense, and only view matters in today's viewpoints. Valid doctrinal development must include what led us to today, our historical traditions. These are valid since we believe that the Spirit always leads the Church, and that doctrines are not "invented" in a vacuum.

I was once one who believed dogmatically, that everyone is wrong but me and thee and sometimes I wonder about thee. But eventually I saw the wisdom of tolerance because of the situation among those who call themselves Christian in our times.

Agreed. The more I read about my faith, the more tolerant I am of others and appreciative of what I have in my own faith. I have come to believe that all people have access to God in some manner. Even if some of their doctrines are incorrect, that doesn't keep people from loving God and coming to some knowledge of Him.

I had a lot of respect for John Paul II... But that doesn’t mean that I am going to follow his interpretations as if they are the word of God. The only interpretations, if that’s what they are, that have any meaning to me are my own.

I suppose it is a matter of whether one believes that Christ established a Church and meant for it to exist as a beacon for men to come to salvation and the knowledge of truth... If we see the Church as another human institution, then you are correct. We would pick and choose what seems correct to our own personal values on who God is, whether they are formulations from Catholicism, Buddhism, or Animism... Catholicism teaches that all religions have some truths, but that God only reveals Himself "fully" through the Christ, as taught by the Apostolic Church.

One thing that I do not agree with is that the Bible is vague.

It is vague in the sense that people can appropriate and interpret whatever preconceived notions that they have into verses. Even the first Christians did this with the OLD Testament. "Born of a virgin". You think that clearly points to Jesus Christ??? The Prophet Isaiah clearly had something else in mind when he wrote that. Christians later appropriated that verse and interpreted it to refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. I accept that, being Christian. However, I also understand that this is a vague prophesy that does not HAVE to refer to the Christ. I take it as such on the authority of the Church.

There is nothing vague at all about what the Bible says. What makes the Bible appear to be vague is the constant practice of interpretation that muddles our understanding of many parts of the Bible.

Which makes the Bible vague and unclear in many places. Clearly, James, the Bible was not meant to be a systematic book on theology. It is a compilation of often unrelated letters and narratives (NT) with an apocalyptic ending. Much is left unsaid or vague, we must admit, since people disagree on its contents. Often, this is not because of "human disagreement", but that the book itself leaves things unclear. This is not meant to be an attack on the Scriptures, it is merely a recognition of fact - and part of that fact is that God did not INTEND on making the Bible "self-interpretative". He left us a LIVING Church to "bind and loose" Christians, not a book of ancient history.

And if we are interpreting the Catholic Catechism as well as the Bible, then who knows what the Catholic Church really believes. Maybe the Catholic Church doesn’t actually teach closed communion, which happens to be something we both agree upon, that it does. We didn’t agree about the quotes that I gave concerning the blood from the Catechism.

It teaches that the Eucharist is the reality of our unity. You don't have to just consult the Catechism, you'll find that explanation in the Missal and in Papal Encyclicals. You'll find it in Church history. It would be extremely difficult to conclude that the Catholic Church actually did not teach "closed communion", unless you had already MADE the conclusion that it does/should. I find this a big part of why "we" tend not to agree on many matters - people bring their preconceived notions TO the Bible and then find their proof-texts. My recent discussion on "imputed forensic justification" and "total depravity" are evidence of people who have NOT read the entire Bible with an open mind, as their is precious little (NOTHING, more like it) that actually cites that Christ or anyone "covers" me with their own righteousness. YET, we are told how the Catholic Church "gone off the rails" over such teachings nowhere found in Scriptures...

I find it ludicrous that God would inspire a writing that is intended to reveal the true nature of reality, and then would do so in such a way that no one can understand what is being revealed except through a human practice of interpretation.

He didn't intend on the bible to be the sole means by which we can know Him. That is the Protestant mistake, sola scriptura. The Church, a living organism, teaches us and explains to us God's revelation, which INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO Sacred Scriptures.

And that God would then create a Church that is authoritative over that writing so that the writing can be understood through that Church, which in turn is just as hard to understand and must be further interpreted, doesn’t make any more sense.

The Church is authoritative in interpreting the writing. The Bible itself has no force unless people believe it is from God itself. The Church is who tells us that it indeed is from God. The separate and individual letters do not tell us that they are from God. With the exception of perhaps Revelation, no other NT writing claims to be from God. It is the Church that vouches for their authorship and inspiration.

If the Church is the authority, then why is there a need for the Bible? Such ideas make God out to be a bumbling idiot at best. It reminds me of the Science Fiction stories where it is discovered that God is senile and WE need to help HIM, or perhaps stay out of his sight.

Why is there a need for an either/or? What is wrong with the Bible being a pre-eminent tool and instrument that helps us to proclaim the Word of God and salvation that flows from Jesus Christ to His People through this instrument, among other things, such as sacraments?

And I find the idea that the Catholic Church can allow the creation account in Genesis to be interpreted as a literary device, while the Adam and Eve account that is within that account can not, to be just as ludicrous.

I don't find it ludicrous. I find it ludicrous that we must ignore basic observed science to cater to an INTERPRETATION that is NOT demanded by the Scriptures themselves. The Bible is full of various styles of writing. The various literary genres represent the many ways that humans express themselves, humans in love - which is the means by which God expresses Himself - through human language. Man expresses love through poetry, narrative, exaggeration, myth, fables, tales, and parables. It is the intent of the author that is important, not the intent of the reader to fit the words into a "seive of historical-only" interpretation. I don't find it necessary to ignore observation of nature just so that I can maintain my beloved interpretations.

And trust me, I once thought that Genesis 1-3 was STRICTLY historical. But with an open mind and a knowledge of science, I am able, with the Church, to realize that God is not tricking us and that these writings DO NOT HAVE to be taken as historically accurate. Even the layout suggests a non-historical genre (two different creation stories overlap...)

But the creation account, being at the beginning of the Bible, is a good place to start if we want interpret the Bible. The liberals take the literary device thing to its logical conclusion when they claim that the accounts of Jesus Christ are nothing but a literary device and discount any real connection to the supernatural in the process.

The "liberals" go too far. Each writing is different. Just because Genesis 1-11 may be of a different genre does NOT mean that the Gospels are of the same genre. People are confused, thinking the Bible is one vast book written by one person. In a sense, it is, but in the human sense, it is not. It would be foolish to look at the Song of Songs and take it as the same way as the Gospels. Each writing must be examined, utilizing the rules of literature. Yes, they have one overarching Author (by faith, we believe that), but it is HUMANS who wrote the various books that were LATER compiled.

Knowledge of literary devices should help one to see that Genesis can be a different style than the Gospels, and one can totally see that the later is historical narratives while the former is not.

The claim of literary device is merely an excuse for interpreting a Bible portion to mean something other than it actually means. Sometimes even an excuse to interpret a Bible portion to conform to some aspect of philosophy that is currently popular, such as Humanism or Evolutionism. No offense intended, but that is how I see it.

No, it's not. You are suddenly being close-minded. What is being questioned is your own prized interpretations, not the Word of God. As I have said, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. But interpretation must take into account the world around us, and the Earth is well over 6000 years old. To ignore that is plain fantasy, not God's Word.

It seems to me that a kingdom divided against itself can not stand. I heard that somewhere. Of course, if we believe that a particular denomination is the true expression of the Kingdom of God, then that has no meaning. That is, until we notice that historically even denominations divide. What better example than the very significant 16th century division of the Western Church, that was already divided from the Eastern Church, into what is today called the Roman Catholic Church and the various Protestant Churches.

Sadly, the Church has many schisms within it. But the Church remains, by the power of the Spirit of God. Is the Church "divided against itself"? Or is it simply "divided"? And to what degrees? Are our values and beliefs completely different on all fronts? I think we share more in common then you are suggesting.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Concerning Justification, the Catholic Church and most Protestants agree that Justification is by human faith in Christ. Whether or not they also claim that the faith thus exercised is from God or from Christ is irrelevant because the faith is still faith exercised by humans.

It is not irrelevant, because if one claims that CHRIST'S faith saves us and we are covered with HIS righteousness, there is no purpose of sanctification and the link between religion and ethics have been severed. We see this when we explore the terrible individual lives of the "classical reformers", bitter, arrogant men who were far removed from the obedient and humble followers of Christ. Faith must be a human faith, but it is not generated from us, it is a gift from God. God moves within us the will to desire to believe. It is our faith, a human faith, that will be judged, our response to God.

There are several verses in the New Testament that refer to the relationship between Justification and faith. Some of these verses also refer to Jesus Christ implicitly or implied from context. Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 are examples of such verses.

None of them speak about another person's faith covering our own. What is made clear is that Christ's work enables OUR OWN FAITH to be of meaning to God. Having faith in Christ means that we believe that He continues to intercede for our sake - and that intercession is indeed effective in the eyes of the Father. Works of the law in of themselves do not save.

I believe that the Biblical writers referred to two different faiths. Our human faith and the faith of Jesus Christ. And in at least one instance, Mark in 11:22 refers to the faith of God rather than our faith in God, as it is generally translated.

I think you are confusing the faithfulness of God with God's "faith". The definition of "faith" rules out that God would have "faith", since faith is believing in something unseen, and clearly, God sees all. God is faithful, in that His promises will not be annulled, if we remain faithful, as well.

Perhaps it is because most Christians do not equate the word faith with conviction. Conviction requires some knowledge and experience. The common way to understand faith is that neither is required. Only the existence of a fact to be believed in irregardless of its actual truth. And modern apologists for secularism gleefully agree with that understanding of faith because it is easier to disprove what is believed without what they can claim is any substantial basis.

Faith and conviction are not mutually exclusive. Faith is trusting that God would do what He promised, EVEN IF it APPEARS that it is not likely. Abraham had faith in God regarding the promise of a child, despite his own age and Sara's. Conviction must also exist. What is missing is "knowledge" of the unseen, that God has already done it and planned it. This faith is a "knowledge" that God will do it, but it relies on trust, rather than on seeing.

James makes it clear that faith and works can’t be separated. Thus our faith related to Christ is expressed by definite works, such as being water baptized, and following Christ according to the Bible, and other such things that even the Protestants agree are an expression of the personal faith that they relate to Jesus Christ and Justification. The faith of Jesus Christ also is expressed by certain works such as following his Father implicitly, and dying and shedding his blood as a sacrifice that humanity in Adam might be redeemed.

I suppose one can speculate what Jesus actually knew, but it appeared from the Gospels that He KNEW that the Father would raise Him, and as the Son of God, already was a witness to it, in eternity.

I believe that we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, not our own exercise of faith in relation to Christ.

Then everyone is justified and we don't need to express anything. Wonderful - proof of the "vagueness" of the bible when taken by itself. This interpretation means I don't have to do anything...

Our own faith in relation to Christ puts us into the position to be Justified by the faith of Christ. One believes into Christ in order to be in Christ, and then one is a part of the life of Christ. In that life is the faith of Christ that Justifies.

It appears that this contradicts the above. You are justified by faith of Jesus, not our own exercice of faith, and THEN, our own faith puts us into a position to be justified by the faith of Christ.

clearly, that is contradictory.

“As to blood, God didn't require blood, the Bible is clear on this.†Yet Hebrews chapters 9 & 10 clearly says otherwise, unless these chapters are interpreted to agree with your statement. Surely if redemption could have been accomplished in any other way than through the blood of Christ, God would have used that method.

Surely, you do not understand the difference between "necessary" and "fitting". Nothing is "necessary" to salvation in God's plans. There is absolutely nothing holding God ransom where He must kill His beloved Son. That is ludicrous and a false interpretation of Scriptures. God is a God of Love. Thus, Catholics begin theology from God. The Trinity. Understanding Who God is helps us to understand the more secondary notions of theology, such as soteriology. If God is Love, and humans understand that in love, there is no "necessity", then we can come to understand that blood was NOT necessary, but FITTING. A God of Love would "naturally" desire to show that Love through such an exorbiant and extravagant expression. God the Father utilized this expression of Love from the Son - the Blood being the means by which He forgives our sins. Necessary??? Not at all.

Redemption could have been accomplished in any way. What would you suggest "forces" God to use blood????

I once thought that way, but further Scripture reading, Catechism reading, and reflection led me to think otherwise.

How are we made righteous before God? By believing into Christ, not merely by believing in a Christ who, in a practical sense, is outside of us and who we are outside of.

Believing "into" Christ? I fail to see your distinction in believing in a Christ who abides in us.

There are a multitude of people think that so long as they believe in Christ and in what he did 2000 years ago, they are saved or Justified. And there are those who believe that if they partake of the Eucharist on a regular basis, that they are saved or Justified.

And some people believe that if they kill sheep daily, they are justified... Just because people believe something doesn't make it so. We are taught, by the Bible and the Church, that God desires a repentant heart, an inner conversion. Not the blood of sheep or daily reception of the Eucharist. Doing mere rituals, OT and now, is not what justifies us. It is our conversion to God that justifies us in His eyes.

““Does the bible tell us that the cup Jesus held in His hand was blood or not?â€â€

Jesus said “this is my bloodâ€. Since he was not yet crucified, the wine was not blood in the physical sense. The apostles of Christ would not have imbibed due to a Traditional aversion to drinking physical blood.

The elements in the cup did not have the physical properties of blood. Nor do they today. Put the eucharistic wine under the microscope, and it is wine. But God said it is His blood, His life. "Drink of it, so that I may abide in you and you in me". "Drink my blood so that you may have eternal life".

In John 6, Jesus was clear that eating his body and blood is a Spiritual matter, not a fleshly or physical matter.

Clearly, the Greek following verse 50 does not allow a "mere spiritual" interpretation. He corrects that notion over and over again.

Protestants take this too far in one direction when they say that the Lord’s Table is simply a remembrance. Catholics take this too far in the other direction when they insist on the presence of physical blood.

We insist on following the Words of Christ. Taking in a metaphor gives no life. Taking in a reality provides life. The elements are a reality, Jesus Christ's life Itself. Now, the point is for spiritual nourishment, not for the physical. But the elements are, by faith, a reality. Metaphors do not bring life.

And the liberals eliminate this in a practical sense by making the matter a literary device. The Spiritual reality of the blood of Christ is totally missed. It is not literal in the sense of the physical. Nor is it merely a memory or a literary device. It is literal in the sense of the Spiritual. The physical is limited to time. The Spiritual is outside of time. Thus Jesus could say that the cup was his blood. What he was saying was totally literal in the Spiritual realm. Just as eating the body and blood of Christ is literal in the Spiritual realm.

It is literal in the spiritual realm. But there is no need to separate the two realms. The spiritual is a real thing, not just a bunch of ideas floating around. Spiritual realities are more "real" than physical ones, they are just not visible. Angels are spiritual realities, not metaphors or figments of imagination. That the blood is a spiritual reality does not condone it to the metaphorical state, an idea of the mind...

Thus whoever celebrates the Lord’s Table, whether Catholic or Protestant, can connect to the event of redemption by the blood of Christ through the Spirit of God, no matter how the denomination might define it through interpretation.

The Eucharist is a reality of our unity, the sign of our community's one faith, one baptism, and one Lord. The Eucharist is not just about connecting to an event. It is about participating in that event TODAY, much the same way that Jews participated in the Exodus at the Passover meal...

To just say “I stand on or take the blood†is insufficient. To believe that the blood of Christ is there simply because the priests says certain words is insufficient. The key is walking according to the Spirit.

True. But it is God alone who can judge the inner hearts of men as they come to receive.

As Paul made clear in 1Corinthians, the Lord’s Table and the Spiritual functions (generally called gifts) are something that is partaken of through the Spirit of God. The same Spirit who connects us to the Christ that is on the right hand of God, and the same Spirit through whom Christ is in us and we in him. According to Galatians 5:25, the life may be present because of a connection to the Spirit of God. But to the one who does not walk according to the Spirit, the practical experience and expression of that life is NOT present. We are redeemed by the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is not a physical presence nor is it absent or only a memory. To the one who walks according to the Spirit, the blood of Christ in the redemptive event is experiential as a Spiritual reality.

Good points, but I continue to suggest that we are dealing with a spiritual presence, a reality, in the eucharistic elements, not mere metaphor. And because they appear as bread does not mean their spiritual reality is bread. Christ said it was His Body, and by eating it, we would be spiritually joined.

The blood of Christ was shed because of the faith of Christ.

The Love of Christ, more correctly...

The shedding of blood was a work that expressed the faith of Christ.

The faith of Christ sounds odd to me, knowing that Christ was God and God is eternal and already has experienced the resurrection in eternity "before" it played out on earth. God sees all in one moment, one NOW, for there is no future or past for an eternal God, just a present. Thus, if Jesus is of the same essence as the Father, in what way can we say that Jesus had "faith - belief in something not visible or apparent"? There is no hope or faith when one sees already, as Jesus apparently did, if you read John's Gospel...

James chapter 2 has been misunderstood as a reference to our own human faith and works.

I don't see how one could interpret James 2 any other way than the faith of various human men and women, taking action based upon their faith/trust in what God would do, even though it was not immediately apparent to the man/woman... That is what faith is.

“My brothers, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.†But literally this should be translated, “My brothers, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory in partiality.â€

Literally translated

It is a Genitive phrase that refers to the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ. And that first sentence is the basis for all that follows in James chapter 2.

If you read the next verse, it speaks about contrasting human action that lacked a legitimate response to God, an inner conviction and obedience to the Will of the Father, to Christ's response.

I found it difficult to get past the bias of the interpreted understanding of most of Christianity in relation to James chapter 2. Thus it was difficult to see what James is actually saying, that it refers to Christ and only to us in relation to Christ. Not only is James 2:24 against the original Protestant concept of Justification by faith alone, but it is also against the Catholic concept because it is a revelation of Justification by the faith and works of Christ.

[/quote]

I don't see James as refering to the works of Christ at all... it is speaking about showing OUR faith BY OUR works... One is justified by OUR works, not by Christ's works, in James 2...

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? James 2:24-25

Obviously, James has Rahab's actions in mind, not Christ's. The connection is the similarity in response to God.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Whether the attitude of the cultural Catholics came from Vatican II, I can only address from my own experience. .. It is as if cultural Catholicism is a Tradition handed down through the generations. In fact, it seems that I remember reading that Vatican II recognized the problem and said something about it.

That makes sense to me, now that you explain it this way. I would like to point out that "cultural Catholicism", passed down from nominal Catholic to nominal Catholic, is not the correct Catholic mentality, and such represents a false understanding of Catholicism. Yes, Vatican 2 recognized this secularization and misinterpretation of the Vatican 2 documents caused some additional problems. Papal encyclicals do address the problems of secularization post-Vatican 2. I think the so-called "spirit of Vatican" gave some a "legal precedent" for what they already were doing.

I agree that the problem of dichotomy among the Priests is the result of private interpretation. But I don’t think that the Priests are forgetting the authority of the Magisterium. They just have different ideas of what the Magisterium is teaching.

On some subjects, that is conceivable. In others, it is not. Abortion, for example. Clearly taught as inherently evil. And some priests teach otherwise.

They truly believe that they are following the Magisterium.

On some matters, the Church has definitively ruled and clearly made the teachings known to priests. I think some Catholic priests are more concerned with being seen in good human graces, rather than God's good graces.

If there are books that the laity can read concerning interpretation of the Bible and the, if I remember correctly, four levels of interpretation; then no doubt the Priests learned the same thing.

Don't presume that priests have a "greater learning" than the laity. Generally, they do, because of their training, but no one should automatically take their word for infallible pronouncements.

I've been told by a priest, last month, in opposition to Canon Law, that a person should go to Confession before being Baptized. Told me I was teaching the Catholic Faith wrong, etc... Until I told him that no one can receive any sacrament unless they are first baptized, Canon Law paragraph 842... Priests are human, and can be wrong. There are many knowledgeable lay persons who read the Catechism and the Bible and take their faith seriously.

And whenever interpretation is practiced by more than one person, there will be more than one idea in relation to what is being interpreted. How we understood differently those passages out of the Catechism about blood, is an example. Obviously, one or both of us interpreted those passages. We can each point to the other person, but as anyone with children knows full well, that does not solve anything.

One should take into account the entirety of the Catechism on a subject to account for the nuances. Yes, the Blood was important, but it also speaks about Love and necessity and the fittingness of the sacrifice of Christ.

I don’t think that rugged individualism is a source of interpretation because the practice of interpretation existed long before America as a nation or the American trait of rugged individualism developed.

The issue is not interpretation, per sec, but interpretation AGAINST what the Church teaches...

I think that what has been lost among the cultural Catholics is the balance between individuality and corporateness. And this through an emphasis on individuality while still retaining a sense of religious corporateness through attending the Mass. The balance is missing.

Sure, I can agree with that. I also think the Church has hurt its own authority with the various problems. Authority is not something merely pronounced, it must also be accepted to be effective. When people see various problems in the Church's heirarchy, there is a problem with accepting authority. America has also had parallel issues with trusting our Government during this same period, 1960 and on. When trusted institutions are found having issues to damage their trust, their perceived authority wanes.

I am not sure that we can bring obedience into this matter for one simple reason. As far as the cultural Catholics are concerned, they are being obedient to God and to the Church as they understand both.

These are people who are poorly trained in what the Church teaches as truth. What is happening is either poor education or a lack of taking the Church seriously on issues that one disagrees on. What caused people to begin taking on a "personal interpretation" that differs from the Church's??? It is not merely because of interpretation for interpretation's sake. We are all urged to interpret Scriptures, but it is in the confines of what dogma and doctrines we have been taught.

That we might disagree is irrelevant to them, just as any disagreement that they may have with how we understand things would be irrelevant to us.

Such "cafeteria Catholics" are not the true representation of Catholicism. Just as being Jewish, in Scriptures, was more about just 'doing the rituals'.

““That is an interesting comment. How would the Church monitor "WHO" is "Catholic enough" for receiving communion???â€â€

But in smaller cities, the Priests would, or should, know their parishioners. Yet even there the same situation still prevails. Not being a Catholic, I have not given the problem the consideration that it is due. But upon some further consideration, I think that perhaps my monetary remark is not quite as relevant as I originally thought.

I know priests are given a bit of leeway on such things, but very few are about to withhold communion, simply because the priest does not know if the communicant has recently repented or not... Such things are between him and God. The priest is the administer of the sacrament, not judge and jury of each Catholic... Catholicism is quite progressive, despite some of the reputation of a few overzealous men.

Nevertheless, I would have to say that one answer would be to change the restriction so that all who claim to be Christian could partake of the Eucharist. This is open communion. The difference as to who would attend Mass probably would change very little. And since the Catholic Church now considers non-Catholic Christians as “separated brethrenâ€, perhaps in time the realization will come that all Christians are one as far as the body and blood of Christ are concerned.

How could someone receive communion if they don't even believe that they are receiving Christ? What is the point, to show some false sense of unity for the sake of feeling good about our supposed unity???

At Communion, the priest says, "The Body of Christ", the communicant who beleives says "Amen", YES IT IS...

How can a Christian come up there and say that if they don't believe it is Jesus Christ? And what sort of unity is displayed when Christians, those willfully remaining separated from full inititation, come up and receive, when they clearly have no intent on uniting with us???

Of course, what I am implying is that perhaps the Catholic Church is presuming too much when they practice closed communication.

Do you think that Paul would have approved of Judaizers and Gnostics participate in the Eucharist???

The older I get, the more I believe that our interpretive differences matter little to God. What concerns God most is how we relate to God. That does seem to be the emphasis of the recognized Spiritual ones among all Christian denominations, including the Catholic Mystics and Saints. We could all claim that everyone else believes in a “different Christ†for one doctrinal reason or another. But when one comes down to it, who really does that help? Nevertheless, open communion would be helpful to someone like myself who has a positive preference toward attending the Mass. A self-centered suggestion no doubt.

Perhaps this is God calling you to fully communion. There is something to be said about the Eucharist as an incentive for joining us at the Table, rather than passing it out to anyone who wants it...

““Agreed. We are doing what the Lord commanded us to do- the Eucharist - in the words of Christ "Do this in remembrance of me". We participate in that memorial, offering ourselves as a spiritual sacrifice in union with the rest of the Body of Christ to the Father in heaven.â€â€

I was hoping that you had not been influenced by a common Catholic emphasis, but I suppose that would be too much to ask. Don’t forget that I consider the Lord’s Table as more than just a memorial, an understanding that is closer to the Catholic position than the Protestant position. In fact, that you would emphasize the memorial makes you sound more Protestant than Catholic.

LOL! I never know where a person stands on this issue until they let it be known, since there are numerous interpretations stemming from Scriptures and one's personal traditions.

However, my point is that the Eucharist is a command from Christ, something to repeat and continue, for our personal benefit.

There is one interesting phenomena that I noticed in relation to the Catholic Mass, something that is I believe an inadvertent and unfortunate result of emphasizing the Eucharist. That is the tendency of so many showing up just to participate in the last half of the Mass or the Eucharist.

Argh.... That's probably more a result of apathetic Catholics who are similar to the Jews of the OT who thought doing the works of the Law made them just.... "If i take communion, I am just in God's eyes". The inner disposition is the focus, by the Church, the Catechism, by common teaching. But somehow, this reason pervades down into those looking to justify themselves without conversion...

As if the first half is not important or not as important. I have read Catholic writers who are trying to combat that tendency, as did Vatican II, by showing that Christ is present in all of the Mass, and that while the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the high point, that does not mean that it is more important than the presence of Christ as the Word.

The Eucharist is called the source and summit of the Christian life. That makes it more important than the Liturgy of the Word, but yes, Christ is present in all stages of the Mass.

I have been interested in the Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office for many years. Something, as I have discovered, most laity do not know anything about, especially cultural Catholics.

Sadly, there are spiritual Jews among us, and "cultural jews" as well... Religious adherents will always be divided as such. Some practice religion because of culture, the "thing to do to feel good about myself", or "I've always done it". Others have a true conversion experience, what we call a "reversion", for those who are cradle Catholics.

I bought a used Interim Breviary ... But my point here is that there is a problem related to the Divine Office that is also ultimately related to the emphasis on the Eucharist. And there is a reference to a difference between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and the Divine Office as a sacramental, wherein the Sacrament is more important than the sacramental.

First, congratulations on this practice of reading the Psalms as a daily devotion. I also pray some of the Divine Office, and I don't necessarily see the focus on the Eucharist, honestly, although it is mentioned. Remember, the Office, when done in public, is done as a Liturgical act, with the Eucharist as a "backdrop", if you will, always present. Recall our belief - that Christ is present in this form of bread and wine. HE IS THERE! We see Him. Christ enters into us most especially and intimately during the sacrament. Thus, the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, because it is CHRIST HIMSELF!

In a sense, the Divine Office is a sacrament, in that we experience Christ through this visible reading. But it is something devised by the Church (sacramental), while something devised by Christ (sacrament) is at a higher plane.

Part 2 coming...

Joe

 

[francisdesales]

Part 2

Vatican II tried to encourage the laity to get involved in the Divine Office. As near as I can tell, to little avail. When I checked last in the LA area, it was practiced in two parishes. In the morning in one place and in the evening in the other. Both too far away for me to get to. At the time, I found it interesting that there was more interest in the Rosary, a devotion that originally came out of the Divine Office, than for the Divine Office itself.

The rosary is easier for many. I prefer the private Divine Office (we don't have a public one here, and i probably couldn't get to it, anyways...) to the rosary. To each their own. They are both means of experiencing the risen Christ. I think the rosary has great meaning to many Catholics because of their affinity to Mary and her relationship to Christ. It is simpler to do and it is more meditative. That Vatican 2 is beginning to push the Divine Office is good, but it will take a longer period of time for this to filter down to the grass roots. People like myself telling others how great it is, and they try it, etc...

While it is true that John Paul II was very interested in the Rosary, I can not believe that he intended it to be a replacement for the Divine Office. If my understanding is correct, even as Pope, John Paul II would have been obligated to participate in the Divine Office. Yet, I have no recollection of any pictures of him participating in the Divine Office, while there are many pictures of him pray-meditating the Rosary.

You are correct. Being a priest requires one pray the Divine Office, and maybe that idea that it is something only for priests has kept many lay people from even bothering with it. Glad to see there is an interest in it among non-catholics. Do you also do the Office of the Readings, where you read a section from the Church Fathers?

How the Divine Office can be considered the official prayer of the Church and an extension of the Mass, and yet not be important enough to be so in a practical sense, is beyond my limited ability to understand such things.

Like you said, it is an extension of the Mass. The Mass is the most important prayer of the Church because of what happens there. The work of our salvation is re-presented to the Father. We are enabled to participate in that, being the same sacrifice as at Calvary, but in an unbloody manner. Our spiritual sacrifices can be united with Christ's. The spiritual food we receive vivifies our spiritual walk. We see a foreshadowing of the Wedding Banquet in heaven. So much happens at the Mass that happens nowhere else, it is difficult to compare the Divine Office with the Eucharistic celebration.

Perhaps you might want to consider reading more about the TRUE understanding of the Mass, from the Catholic perspective, to get a better understanding of why we see the Mass as the pinnacle of our experience with Jesus Christ.

Joe

 

[francisdesales]

As if the first half is not important or not as important. I have read Catholic writers who are trying to combat that tendency, as did Vatican II, by showing that Christ is present in all of the Mass, and that while the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the high point, that does not mean that it is more important than the presence of Christ as the Word.

To better answer that question, you may want to read CC paragraphs 1067 and on, which deals with the Liturgy. It is IN the liturgy, esp. the Eucharist, that our redemption is being accomplished. IN the Liturgy...!

Christ continues our redemption at the Liturgy. Full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus - the Head and its members. Because it is an action of Christ, the priest and of His Body, the Church's Liturgical action surpasses all other actions.

The Eucharist is not only a remembrance, but it actualizes, makes present the Pascal Mysteries.

As to Open Communion, paragraph 1400-1401 deals with this. I have read from other theologians that because Catholics can minister to dying Christians of proper disposition and belief, one could envision a future development where Catholics minister to Protestants in a more open manner as you suggest. However, because the Catholic Church does not recognize protestant Ordination whatsoever, it seems an impossibility of the other way around, where Catholics are allowed to receive "communion" at a Protestant "communion service".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

James,

If i might make a suggestion?

Let's trim this down to one or two subjects, the posts are becoming too long and jump all over. Select what you want to talk about, and when you are ready, we can move on to another subject. it is difficult to keep track of so many subjects simultaneously.

Joe

 

[Mysteryman]

Why is this page so loooooooong ?

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

You have the advantage of me in that you know a lot of my background. I know nothing of yours. I only have impressions. One is that you are a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination. Is that impression true?

JamesG

 

[francisdesales]

.
Francisdesales

You have the advantage of me in that you know a lot of my background. I know nothing of yours. I only have impressions. One is that you are a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant denomination. Is that impression true?

JamesG

What makes you think I was a former Protestant? Just curious, it doesn't matter...

I was born and raised Catholic. I gradually fell away from active practice, entirely severing it when I joined the military. For twenty years, I only went to Mass to appease the wife on occasion. I had a "reversion" experience that begun when some Assembly of God neighbors invited my wife and I to a marriage class (2 months, bible reading, etc..). "Hey, I don't need that stuff, our marriage is fine" didn't fly with her, so we went. The big questions in life entered onto my radar and began to question my current way of thinking. So I began a thorough study of Christianity. With a strong background and love of history, it didn't take me long to verify that my childhood religion was closer to the roots of Jesus Christ than the various assundry Protestant denominations, although I did try going to several services during that initial period. I began reading and reading and reading and knew in my mind that I had to become Catholic "again". However, it wasn't until a Cursillo weekend retreat where I became on fire for Christ in my heart (and not just in my mind). That was ten years ago. I continue to evangelize, here and in person, by talking about my faith intellectually, knowing by experience that this is only the first step in conversion of the heart.

I currently teach RCIA, Rites of Christian Initiation for Adults, which is the process by which adults become Catholic. I see many Protestants who want to become Catholic, so I am familiar with some of their issues and reasons for wanting to become Catholic, as well as their strong sense and love of the Scriptures. Since my classes are centered on Scriptures, I think they are surprised! Also, I am pretty active here, as well, mostly a Protestant site, so maybe that is why I may appear to have a Protestant background?

Regards

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

““What makes you think I was a former Protestant?â€â€

It isn’t because you are on a Protestant forum. That fact together with what you said about your involvement with RCIA gives me the impression that you feel that you have a ministry relating to Protestants. Personally, I don’t favor ministries. They are generally just a flesh thing. But they do have one redeeming characteristic. They do give one a sense of purpose. And the fact that there are so many ministries, Catholic and Protestant, gives me the impression that the religion is not sufficient for some people. But you seem to have a positive mission. I for one am glad you’re here. I have seen you get negative with some people, and maybe they deserve it, but with me you’ve always been even keel. And I appreciate that.

And it’s not necessarily because you favor using the Bible. That is in keeping with Vatican II. What gave me the impression that you might be a former Protestant is how you mentioned several times that you formerly believed something that might be taken as Protestant. That and the fact that you seem to have an understanding of Protestantism that is beyond most Catholics. Louis Bouyer wrote a book, in the 1950’s I believe, called The Spirit of Protestantism. It was quite interesting. It is not totally negative even though at the time he was conservative.

I do wish to answer this question from one of your former posts:

““Do you also do the Office of the Readings, where you read a section from the Church Fathers?â€â€

I do not use the Divine Office in the way that Catholics prescribe. The only thing that I practice in the sense of a certain time is my time of daily devotions, usually in the morning. This will seem very Protestant of me no doubt. But that includes prayer and reading and study of the Bible. Any other reading is extra to that. I do try to use the Divine Office in a daily sense keeping with the Catholic yearly cycle, but I do not do so in relation to the hours, which is its underlying purpose. Like you, if there was at least an evening prayer close to me, I would make time to attend. I do pray the prayers and read the Bible portions and Psalms prayerfully. Interestingly, there are not many of the prayers that I would disagree with and thus wouldn’t be able to pray. That implies to me that perhaps in the sense of worship, we are more alike than not. And that is interesting given the extent of our differences otherwise.

As for the Office of Readings, it is a part of the Divine Office. So yes, I am reading the Fathers as chosen by the Catholic Church, which I know is what you were hoping. But remember that from my perspective, the “Church Fathersâ€, etc., hold no more weight than what you yourself would write. To you a Protestant perspective. But from the perspective of most Protestants that I know, these historic writers hold no weight whatsoever and they have no interest in reading them. They would just a soon read a contemporary Protestant writer. Their loss IMHO.

What do you think of the Mystical aspect of the Catholic Tradition and the Catholic Mystical writers? Have you experienced anything that they describe?

JamesG

 

[francisdesales]

.

It isn’t because you are on a Protestant forum. That fact together with what you said about your involvement with RCIA gives me the impression that you feel that you have a ministry relating to Protestants. Personally, I don’t favor ministries. They are generally just a flesh thing. But they do have one redeeming characteristic. They do give one a sense of purpose. And the fact that there are so many ministries, Catholic and Protestant, gives me the impression that the religion is not sufficient for some people. But you seem to have a positive mission. I for one am glad you’re here. I have seen you get negative with some people, and maybe they deserve it, but with me you’ve always been even keel. And I appreciate that.

I think ministries are important because they are callings from God to build up the Body, the Church. God's Spirit has given us all distinctive gifts for the intent of building up others. I don't agree that it is necessarily to build up the flesh, but it certainly can be. "Pride puffs up, love builds up", sometimes we forget that...

Yes, I have been negative at times, in retrospect. I try to start off on a positive take, and sometimes, my interlocutor goes in a negative direction, and I find it hard to resist the urge to react in kind. Other times, I am like a 600 lb gorilla; I am right, but I don't express it lovingly, so the ministry is lacking when I react as such. It is not easy, but I think I have gotten better from 5 years ago. I am "even keeled" with you, and any other who acts respectfully and actually does not feel the need to tell me how I am not Christian, and am crazy for believing in "x"....

Francisdesales

““What makes you think I was a former Protestant?â€â€

And it’s not necessarily because you favor using the Bible. That is in keeping with Vatican II. What gave me the impression that you might be a former Protestant is how you mentioned several times that you formerly believed something that might be taken as Protestant. That and the fact that you seem to have an understanding of Protestantism that is beyond most Catholics. Louis Bouyer wrote a book, in the 1950’s I believe, called The Spirit of Protestantism. It was quite interesting. It is not totally negative even though at the time he was conservative.

I thoroughly enjoyed "The Spirit of Protestantism" and enjoyed his positive spin on some of the pillars of Protestantism. I agree with his analysis that they began as legitimate calls for reform that ended up going too far. Initially, they were positive and the Counter Reformation clearly took them in account at Trent when they defined things like justification...

I am not sure which beliefs I have that might be taken as Protestant, but I am more open to being flexible towards my separated brothers, trying to keep in mind what the Church has always taught, but did not always digest and disseminate as well, like "who is the Church"... Perhaps Mr. Bouyer's book has enabled me, in part with Lumen Gentium and other writings, not to look down entirely on Protestants...

I do wish to answer this question from one of your former posts:

““Do you also do the Office of the Readings, where you read a section from the Church Fathers?â€â€

I do not use the Divine Office in the way that Catholics prescribe. The only thing that I practice in the sense of a certain time is my time of daily devotions, usually in the morning. This will seem very Protestant of me no doubt. But that includes prayer and reading and study of the Bible. Any other reading is extra to that. I do try to use the Divine Office in a daily sense keeping with the Catholic yearly cycle, but I do not do so in relation to the hours, which is its underlying purpose. Like you, if there was at least an evening prayer close to me, I would make time to attend. I do pray the prayers and read the Bible portions and Psalms prayerfully. Interestingly, there are not many of the prayers that I would disagree with and thus wouldn’t be able to pray. That implies to me that perhaps in the sense of worship, we are more alike than not. And that is interesting given the extent of our differences otherwise.

As for the Office of Readings, it is a part of the Divine Office. So yes, I am reading the Fathers as chosen by the Catholic Church, which I know is what you were hoping. But remember that from my perspective, the “Church Fathersâ€, etc., hold no more weight than what you yourself would write.

I enjoy reading the Fathers because it provides an ongoing, living link between the faith of today and the faith of the first Christians. Not that they are infallible. They do carry a particular authority, this lived tradition, but each has made mistakes. Taken as a whole, though, the Fathers provide a fascinating view of Christianity that we should never lose sight of. Our own culture can tend to focus on particulars that have or had little bearing on early Christianity. Reading the Fathers helps us to refocus on what really is important and how they derived at an understanding of their faith.

To you a Protestant perspective. But from the perspective of most Protestants that I know, these historic writers hold no weight whatsoever and they have no interest in reading them. They would just a soon read a contemporary Protestant writer. Their loss IMHO.

yes, which is why I asked. Not because they are infallible, but because that sense of continuity that escapes the typical Protestant. Most are lacking in Church history and how theological thought develops over the years. When one sees the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth (STILL!), then we understand that proper development is the work of the Spirit, evidence of His continued work among us.

What do you think of the Mystical aspect of the Catholic Tradition and the Catholic Mystical writers? Have you experienced anything that they describe?

When you say "Mystical aspect", that is quite a broad field. Perhaps you could be more specific? Are you speaking of mystical interpretations of Scriptures, mystical or contemplative prayer life, works of purgation leading to illumination?

In a general sense, I think we all have, to some degree, it is just that Catholic Tradition defines and categorizes our walk in Christ, and so, many people experience some mystical aspect, at least the beginner's walk.

Joe

 

[JamesG]

.
Fancisdesales

By Mystical aspect of the Catholic Tradition, I am speaking mainly of the line that includes such as John of the Cross and Francis de Sales. And further back such as John of Rysbroeck. It is often called the Spiritual Tradition today. I’m not sure where the line that is definitely Catholic begins in Western history. Perhaps in the 4th century with the Western Monastic Movement of Benedict. Many of the Mystics started religious orders. Such as the Cistercians that, if memory serves, goes back to Bernard of Clairvaux. And the Mystic line includes many women mystics such as the two Catherines of Genoa and Siena, as well as the close friend and mentor of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila. Protestantism has its own line, or lines to be more precise. Protestantism is diverse even in this matter. The two earliest Protestant mystics are Lutheran, Johann Arndt and Jacob Boehme. I think that the Pentecostals could be considered mystics. That line certainly has had an effect on Catholicism through the Charismatic Movement. If a particular group is liable to push Catholicism toward open communion, the Catholic Charismatics would be a distinct possibility. And the Eastern Orthodox has its own distinct line much of which is in the collection of writings called the Philokalia and seen a century ago in Seraphim of Sarov. You may be familiar with the “Jesus Prayerâ€. The prayer itself apart from the Eastern Orthodox hesychastic practice that accompanies it is sometimes encouraged in Catholicism, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinnerâ€. And the Biblical writers certainly describe what can only be construed as a mystical point of view. Even the Protestants who oppose mysticism practice it when they encourage the having of a relationship with Jesus Christ. But most Protestants that I know only have a doctrinal/physical practice that is soundly grounded in the natural realm and the human mind.

The mystical relates to the supernatural that is both seen and unseen by the Mystics. And it is very experiential. It can’t be understood apart from having some experience of it. Some experience it when they first give themselves to Jesus Christ. It was my first experience. But most tend to exchange that experience for a denominational experience, an experience that is generally more natural than supernatural. Some believe that it is a calling. I don’t believe that for the simple reason that the Bible is a mystical book. Thus I agree with the Catholic writer Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, that it is intended to be the experience of every believer. And what a difference that would make.

That is why apart from the Spirit of God the Bible is just a book of letters, as Paul says. And since interpretation is a practice of the human mind, Bible interpreters often miss the fact of the mystical nature of the Bible. They try to conform the Bible to human life instead of human life to the Bible. This is especially true in Protestantism. Probably the only thing that saves the Catholic and Orthodox Churches from doing more of the same is their Mystical aspect of their respective Traditions. And to me one of the most unfortunate trends in modern Catholicism is that Catholicism is being influenced by Protestantism to an inordinate degree. At least in America. And the Mystical aspect of Catholicism is suffering because of it.

I have experienced the Latin Mass. And it does seem that the Mass of today is much more Protestant and less mystical. Some have told me that the use of the common languages is the reason. But in my experience that has nothing to do with it. The more I read the Vatican II documents, the more I think that the changes incorporated into the “new†Mass have gotten out of hand. Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the use of common languages, three Bible readings instead of two, etc. I think it is some of the practices that make the Mass different. Changing the facing of the Priest toward the people instead of away from the people in the sense of leading the congregation in prayer to God has been a great mistake. And that is only one change in practice, that I see nowhere in the Vatican II documents that I have read. Admittedly, I have not had the time to study them closely.

Maybe I have a certain bent in my mind that is seen in some of the media that I enjoy. Such as “The Name of the Rose†with Sean Connery, and the Brother Caedfael series with Derek Jacoby. And a series that I wish they would put on DVD is the Father Dowling series with Tom Bosley and Tracy Nelson. I did manage to copy many episodes on VHS when it was on TV. It is a series based on a series of books by the Catholic writer Ralph McInerny who just passed away a short time ago. And the series is closer to the books than one would expect from Hollywood. While there is an emphasis in all of these stories on the natural realm, the supernatural realm is definitely in evidence. At least to me. And also to me, there is something mystical in that.

JamesG

 

[LaCrum]

Protestants take this too far in one direction when they say that the Lord’s Table is simply a remembrance.

James,

It’s been interesting to read your posts.

I just thought I’d jump in on this point and add to it more fully. I’ve been reading a book about the Blood Covenant and one portion in specific deals with the Covenant Meal.

The author talks about how in Western culture when we see the word “rememberâ€, we think of recalling and thinking about a past event, such as remembering our 6th birthday party. In that sense, when Jesus tells his disciples (which also broadly applies to the entire Church) to partake of the Covenant Meal in “remembranceâ€, this doesn’t really make sense to us any more than we could “remember†what our parent’s 6th birthday party was like.

So, it’s clear that scripture is not speaking of merely “recalling or thinking about a past eventâ€. The author then goes onto explains what “remembering†meant to the Hebrew culture . If one was to “remember†their wedding 10 years later, it would be active participation in reconstructing the event. They would go back to the synagogue where they were married, try and find the same rabbi who joined them, invite all their guests who had been there. Remembering then is more recreating a past event and more actively participating in it.

As Christians, that means not only when we take Communion we think about Jesus, but we actively recreate that moment at the table in the upper room, and become a part of the covenant meal, partaking and sharing in it the same way the disciples did. In that way, we also recall the blessings foretold in this Covenant are now ours. Jesus was not sharing just an intimate meal with his disciples; it was a meal to be shared with all future believers as well.

 

[francisdesales]

.
Fancisdesales

By Mystical aspect of the Catholic Tradition, I am speaking mainly of the line that includes such as John of the Cross and Francis de Sales. And further back such as John of Rysbroeck. It is often called the Spiritual Tradition today. I’m not sure where the line that is definitely Catholic begins in Western history. Perhaps in the 4th century with the Western Monastic Movement of Benedict. Many of the Mystics started religious orders. Such as the Cistercians that, if memory serves, goes back to Bernard of Clairvaux. And the Mystic line includes many women mystics such as the two Catherines of Genoa and Siena, as well as the close friend and mentor of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila. Protestantism has its own line, or lines to be more precise. Protestantism is diverse even in this matter. The two earliest Protestant mystics are Lutheran, Johann Arndt and Jacob Boehme. I think that the Pentecostals could be considered mystics. That line certainly has had an effect on Catholicism through the Charismatic Movement. If a particular group is liable to push Catholicism toward open communion, the Catholic Charismatics would be a distinct possibility. And the Eastern Orthodox has its own distinct line much of which is in the collection of writings called the Philokalia and seen a century ago in Seraphim of Sarov. You may be familiar with the “Jesus Prayerâ€. The prayer itself apart from the Eastern Orthodox hesychastic practice that accompanies it is sometimes encouraged in Catholicism, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinnerâ€. And the Biblical writers certainly describe what can only be construed as a mystical point of view. Even the Protestants who oppose mysticism practice it when they encourage the having of a relationship with Jesus Christ. But most Protestants that I know only have a doctrinal/physical practice that is soundly grounded in the natural realm and the human mind.

I am impressed. You seemed well-versed in the history of Mysticism. All are different means in achieving a connection with God in prayer. There are numerous means of doing so. I enjoyed St. Francis De Sales "Introduction to the Devout Life", since it follows the tradition that one can join with Christ even if they are not a priest or a monk. I personally do the "Jesus Prayer" whenever I look at my watch, as a means of recalling Christ into my daily life. My reading on mystical subjects varies, it depends on what moves me, but I enjoy anthologies better than an entire book dedicated to one author. I do have a number of the "Classics of Western Spiritaulity" books and liked Walter Hilton and Henry Suso esp. I have the Ruusbroec book but haven't gotten to it yet. I also liked Bonaventure and Bernard of Clairvaux. I haven't read Tersea of Avila but she is on my list! Recently, I was studying the Minor Prophtes of the OT, so that's where my reading lately was directed, Scripture. Now, I am reading the Catechism, specifically, Liturgy and the Sacraments. SO MUCH to read, and so little time to digest!

The mystical relates to the supernatural that is both seen and unseen by the Mystics. And it is very experiential. It can’t be understood apart from having some experience of it. Some experience it when they first give themselves to Jesus Christ. It was my first experience. But most tend to exchange that experience for a denominational experience, an experience that is generally more natural than supernatural. Some believe that it is a calling. I don’t believe that for the simple reason that the Bible is a mystical book. Thus I agree with the Catholic writer Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, that it is intended to be the experience of every believer. And what a difference that would make.

Garrigou-Lagrange, a wonderful neo-Scholastic, surprising that you have read him... Many take his writings to be "dry" without any spiritual life, but I have enjoyed his "The Three Ages of the Interior Life", well, at least the first volume, I don't feel I am at the second stage, the illuminative, so I haven't read the second volume yet. I guess it would be surprising to many that Scholastics could also be "spiritual" in their writings as well.

I do have several older Catholic books on Spirituality, such as "Spiritual Conferences" and "Guidance in Spiritual Direction", both written well before Vatican 2. I do like the authors you mention in your first paragraph, better, thought. Of course, the classics are always the best.

.

That is why apart from the Spirit of God the Bible is just a book of letters, as Paul says. And since interpretation is a practice of the human mind, Bible interpreters often miss the fact of the mystical nature of the Bible. They try to conform the Bible to human life instead of human life to the Bible. This is especially true in Protestantism. Probably the only thing that saves the Catholic and Orthodox Churches from doing more of the same is their Mystical aspect of their respective Traditions. And to me one of the most unfortunate trends in modern Catholicism is that Catholicism is being influenced by Protestantism to an inordinate degree. At least in America. And the Mystical aspect of Catholicism is suffering because of it.

I wonder about this line of thought in the 1970's to the 1990's that seems to sacrifice some of Catholicism for the sake of ecumenicism. I think the newest generation is swinging the pendulum back towards a better appreciation of those earlier writers. I think younger people are fed up with what they see in the secular world and greatly desire what the Church has to offer, esp. those raising children. I think we are in the midst of a Revival.

.

I have experienced the Latin Mass. And it does seem that the Mass of today is much more Protestant and less mystical.

Ever been to a Greek Orthodox Mass?!!

Wow. It certainly brings out the idea of Divine Worship, that's for sure. I think the Novus Ordo can be done with more reverence, but the people need instruction so as to recall what is happening, according to faith, at the Mass.. I think the end of this year, they are going to institute some changes to the Liturgy that better reflects the actual translations of Scriptures and the ancient texts, so some of the words said will change.

.

Some have told me that the use of the common languages is the reason. But in my experience that has nothing to do with it. The more I read the Vatican II documents, the more I think that the changes incorporated into the “new†Mass have gotten out of hand. Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the use of common languages, three Bible readings instead of two, etc. I think it is some of the practices that make the Mass different. Changing the facing of the Priest toward the people instead of away from the people in the sense of leading the congregation in prayer to God has been a great mistake. And that is only one change in practice, that I see nowhere in the Vatican II documents that I have read. Admittedly, I have not had the time to study them closely.

Funny, I agree with you whole-heartedly, James... The turning of the priest towards the people was a mistake, in my opinion. Language has little to do with it, I think it is the "showmanship" of some of the priest, rather than about being an offering to the Father.

I think the Church is taking action to ensure that people do not forget the mystical and spiritual aspects of Divine Worship. But such things take time. I agree that the "spirit of Vatican 2" high jacked the true spirit of the intent of the Council. But this is the history of Councils. The definitions of Nicea were further argued until Chalcedon, over a hundred years later...

Regards