 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 03:45 pm |
|
1425 "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ." But the apostle John also says: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And the Lord himself taught us to pray: "Forgive us our trespasses," linking our forgiveness of one another's offenses to the forgiveness of our sins that God will grant us.
I’d like to talk about the first part of Paragraph 1425 of the Catechism: “One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ."
What are we being told in this sentence?
Grace and peace,
Gene
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 678 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
What that means to me is (how Protestant of me!) is that sin caused so much sorrow and pain for Christ which I should have endured - what a gift! - that now I must put sin very, very far away. I would NEVER want to willingly put Him through that and yet my sin did just that. Sin is simply not an option. It is utterly excluded, as much as I am able to exclude it.
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! You know me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." Psalm 139
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 05:59 pm |
|
Hi Jill,
I was thinking more along the lines of our justification. Scripture and the Catechism tell us that we have "put on Christ," and I think the quote about sin being excluded is referring to the fact that we have "put on Christ," not to our personal walk in holiness with the Lord.
Protestant theology talks about our justification being a judicial act. Christ has taken our sin upon Him on the Cross and given us His righteousness in return. But they stop there. Luther referred to this as being like "snow-covered dung." We are covered in Christ's righteousness but we can not be righteousness internally. The Church teaches that the righteousness of Christ has been "infused" into us, while the Protestants only say that it has been "imputed" to us.
What I am trying to get at in this discussion is if both are true. The righteousness of our Lord has been infused into our souls through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but His righteousness has also been imputed to us. I think this is what the CCC quote is getting at. Or I could be wrong.
Christ is in us but we are also "in Christ."
A local priest said that when we receive absolution and return to a state of grace, everything that Jesus is, we are. I think he meant that in a state of grace, we are righteous in Christ. I asked another priest who is known to be an excellent teacher and is an episcopal vicar in our diocese and he basically agreed with the statement that we ARE righteous in Christ but that we don't refer to it that way as Catholics.
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 08:18 am |
|
God's peace. Having a changed heart--a "heart of flesh," instead of a "heart of stone," as Ezekiel put it--makes no sense if all we have is imputed righteousness. Neither does our progressive sanctification, unless we are saying that Christ simply piles more and more snow on the dung-hill--which isn't really becoming progressively sanctified, just progressively covered over. By God's grace, we really do become holy! We become new creatures--not just whited sepulchres.
An important point that Scott Hahn stresses is that the forensic model of imputed righteousness, while scriptural and useful, is far from the whole picture. We are family in Christ. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Last edited on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 08:21 am by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 01:57 pm |
|
Hi Brother Carlo,
Peace back at ya!
What do you think Paragraph 1425 of the Catechism is getting at when it says that sin is excluded for those who have put on Christ?
Gene
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 02:52 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote: What do you think Paragraph 1425 of the Catechism is getting at when it says that sin is excluded for those who have put on Christ?
I think it means that when we "wear" Christ perfectly, sin cannot touch us.
Unfortunately, most of us are only willing to put on one sleeve, or otherwise choose not to let Christ fit us tightly.
Sort of like a smoke alarm with the battery removed. It lets us feel confident, without really doing any good at all. Or maybe we haven't checked the battery in a year or so, so we think it works, but really aren't sure. And we don't find out until our house burns down.
One day Jesus will ask us, and we'll tell him we "put on Christ". He'll answer that it was supposed to be a second skin, not a costume.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
1425 "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ." But the apostle John also says: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And the Lord himself taught us to pray: "Forgive us our trespasses," linking our forgiveness of one another's offenses to the forgiveness of our sins that God will grant us.
It seems to me that this paragraph is dealing with what happened to us at baptism, thus, the reference in the Scripture text to being “washed.” The next sentence mentions the magnitude of the “gift” given to us in the sacraments of initiation and then says that sin is excluded for those who have “put on Christ.”
Galatians 3: 26-27 tells us:
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Being clothed with Christ would be the same as having “put on Christ,” wouldn’t you agree? So when we were baptized we put on Christ, we were clothed with Him, and in this sense, sin is excluded from us.
This cannot be talking about what happens to us internally because the very next sentence in the P1425 quotes the Scripture passages that talk about our sin and our trespasses. We are sinners who have put on Christ and the magnitude of this gift from God is that sin is excluded yet Scripture talks of our sin and our trespasses. (I am NOT trying to make the case for Luther’s statement of “snow-covered dung.”)
Of course, we are also given the Holy Spirit at baptism and it is through the Holy Spirit that we become righteous but I am not discussing our sanctification. And I also know that our justification is tied to our sanctification. (We can fall from grace.)
I am just trying to get at the meaning of this paragraph.
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 08:05 pm |
|
| God's peace, again. I think this is another case of "both/and." We do "put on Christ;" this is being "clothed" with Christ's righteousness, which can be viewed as righteousness imputed to us. But we also have the indwelling Holy Spirit and the new heart God promises us, so we have an internal or infused righteousness as well. Plus, as we work out our salvation, the "fit" of Christ grows better and better and the operation of the Holy Spirit more and more powerful, transforming us into the very likeness of Christ. Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~ Last edited on Tue Mar 27th, 2007 08:06 pm by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 678 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2007 08:16 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote:
I’d like to talk about the first part of Paragraph 1425 of the Catechism: “One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ."
What are we being told in this sentence?
Which phrase in this sentence are we most earnestly discussing? I focused on "sin is excluded," but maybe that's not the main question. There can be a few different ways to read this.
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! You know me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." Psalm 139
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 02:08 pm |
|
Brother Carlo,
You hit the nail right on the head! This is exactly what I am getting at.
The righteousness of Christ has been infused AND imputed at baptism.
Why do you think we don't hear enough about this part of salvation from Catholic pulpits?
My episcopal vicar told me that this teaching about being righteous in Christ is true but we Catholics don't talk about it that way. Why? Maybe a rediscovery of this teaching would bring a renewal to the hearts and lives of the faithful in the pews.
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 02:13 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote: The righteousness of Christ has been infused AND imputed at baptism.
Why do you think we don't hear enough about this part of salvation from Catholic pulpits?
This language is not part of Catholic thought. As many years as I've been studying all this stuff, I still don't understand terms like "righteousness" and "justification" and "infused" and "imputed". They are so foreign to my way of thought that I just can't grasp them.
Everything comes from Jesus. Without him, I am nothing. Not righteous, not justified, not anything. With Jesus and my response to his teaching, I am everthing. Jargon is irrelevant.
That's why you don't hear it from Catholic pulpits. These semantic dances were invented by Protestants to get around the fact that all that Jesus is comes to us through the Church. If I have the Church, I don't need semantic dances.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 02:17 pm |
|
Hi Jill,
I want to discuss how this paragraph is hinting at the teaching that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us. This is what it means to "put on Christ." As Brother Carlo has pointed out, there is a double meaning to this phrase. We have "put on Christ" in baptism but we are also to "put on Christ" in our daily lives through the working of the Holy Spirit IN us to make us righteous.
I spent 30-plus years in the Protestant world (having been raised Catholic) and returned home two years ago in 2005 on Holy Saturday. From about 1998 on, I attended and became a member of a Presbyterian church, and later started attending a Lutheran congregation (because I came to believe int he Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper and the Lutherans were the only Protestants who taught this).
One of the hallmarks of these Reformation churches is the teaching that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer but they deny that His righteousness is also infused into us, as we are taught by the Church.
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 02:36 pm |
|
Hi Rick,
You said: “This language is not part of Catholic thought. As many years as I've been studying all this stuff, I still don't understand terms like ‘righteousness’ and ‘justification’ and ‘infused’ and ‘imputed’. They are so foreign to my way of thought that I just can't grasp them.”
ME: The terms righteousness, justification and imputed come from Scripture. And it is the Church that talks about “infused” righteousness vs. the Protestant emphasis on imputed-only righteousness.
But you are right, EVERYTHING comes from Jesus.
You said: “That's why you don't hear it from Catholic pulpits. These semantic dances were invented by Protestants to get around the fact that all that Jesus is comes to us through the Church. If I have the Church, I don't need semantic dances.”
ME: Rick, I hardly think that understanding the “everything” that comes from Jesus is a “semantic dance.” When I read the Scripture passage quoted in Paragraph 1425, I want to know what it means to be “washed,” “sanctified” and “justified.” It helps me in my walk with Jesus. AND I don’t think I’m the only one out these who wants to know these things. I think it is all a part of our faith formation. And we have to be prepared when we debate/discuss with our Protestant brethren.
Rick, it is part of my calling from the Lord to help bring back the Catholics who have migrated over to the Protestant side. In order to do this, I have to have the answers. And I don’t want to say anything that goes against Church teaching.
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 03:34 pm |
|
ecassidy wrote: ME: The terms righteousness, justification and imputed come from Scripture. And it is the Church that talks about “infused” righteousness vs. the Protestant emphasis on imputed-only righteousness.
I do understand that, and I didn't mean to make light of theological distinctions. What I am saying is that these are not things that a Catholic would typically think about.
I am not righteous. I don't consider myself righteous. And it doesn't matter to me whether the righteousness I present to God through Jesus is "imputed" or "infused". It is Jesus who stands with me and will present me to the Throne of the Most High God. Without Jesus, I wouldn't be there at all. That's what I mean by "semantic dances".
Catholic thinking, with it's "both/and" emphasis, is broader than a single definition. That's not to say Thomas Aquinas didn't ask and answer questions in his Summa Theologica, or that doctoral candidates in theology don't take up such issues.
Catholic thought patterns are different. When I am on my knees adoring the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, I don't particularly care whether my righteousness is imputed or infused. I am in the presence of my Savior! When I venerate his Blessed Mother, I do not think of how I am justified. I'm in love, and that's all that matters.
That's why Catholics stumble over such basic Protestant terminology as whether I am saved. Christ becomes a part of my very essence when I consume the victim of the eternal Sacrifice. For that moment, I am glorified! It is mysterious and indescribable. I can't wrap words around a miracle.
I know with the certainty of faith that if I do my best to live as Jesus wants me to live, if I place God first in my life, and if I love my neighbor as myself, I will spend eternity with the Word who is God, just as he spends that moment with me after I receive the Eucharist. Why should it matter to me if my "righteousness" is "imputed" or "infused"? I'll let the popes and the councils and the theologians worry about that.
ME: Rick, I hardly think that understanding the “everything” that comes from Jesus is a “semantic dance.” When I read the Scripture passage quoted in Paragraph 1425, I want to know what it means to be “washed,” “sanctified” and “justified.” It helps me in my walk with Jesus. AND I don’t think I’m the only one out these who wants to know these things. I think it is all a part of our faith formation. And we have to be prepared when we debate/discuss with our Protestant brethren.
I do understand that. Our Church is sorely lacking in training our faithful to be apologists, and unfortunately it makes those with weak faith vulnerable to Protestant semantics. But the Catholic understanding is much broader than these words, and that's one reason why we don't typically encounter these concepts.
By analogy, look at the law. Most people barely have enough understanding of the law to stay out of trouble. Lawyers and judges are there to explain and interpret when necessary. There's a lot of legal terminology I don't know or understand, and when someone asks me these things, I may very well come off sounding like an idiot.
Medicine is another example. My doctor is certified in Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and something else I can't remember at the moment. Between high school, college, medical school and residencies, she probably studied medicine for 20 years. I like her because she is immensely qualified, but talks to us in language we can understand but she also knows I'm reasonably intelligent and fairly knowledgeable about our diseases, so she doesn't "dumb down" the conversation to a kindergarten level. I understand that antibiotics don't help a virus, so she doesn't have to explain it to me, but we have no experience or knowledge on how hormones affect blood glucose levels, so on my wife's last visit, she described possibilities in great detail, because that's what my wife asked. She also told us there is no way to predict the effects, since the relationship between hormone levels and blood glucose levels are different in every woman.
The priest's purpose in the pulpit is to relate the gospel message to our lives, not to explain detailed theological concepts. The priest is like a guest speaker who is holding up dinner for a hungry audience. We are anxious to welcome our Savior and share a meal with him. We're not there to be educated; we're there to be nourished. Alex Jones says a Catholic sermon is over before he would have even caught his breath. Personally, I would prefer longer, more detailed homilies; I would be in the minority.
Protestants have no meal other than an occasional, symbolic memorial. We have filet mignon. They sometimes have hamburger and pretend it's a steak. For us the homily is the opening appetizer. For them it's the main course.
So Protestants do study terminology in much greater detail than Catholics as part of their worship services. They have to. It's all they have.
For us, it's just the opening act.
Rick, it is part of my calling from the Lord to help bring back the Catholics who have migrated over to the Protestant side. In order to do this, I have to have the answers. And I don’t want to say anything that goes against Church teaching.
I also understand that. But the original question I responded to is why we don't hear about this part of salvation from a Catholc pulpit. I didn't say it wasn't important; just that the understanding of these concepts is not that important to the average Catholic who places his or her entire trust in Jesus. That's why we don't hear it from the pulpit (which we actually call the ambo).
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28th, 2007 05:19 pm |
|
Rick,
You said: “What I am saying is that these are not things that a Catholic would typically think about.”
ME: Considering the state of affairs in the American Church today, maybe they should start thinking about these things.
The second reading for 3/18/07, the Fourth Sunday in Lent was 2 Corinthians 5:17-21: “Whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”
What do you think the typical Catholic thought about that last verse when they heard it? “For our sake He made Him to be sin Who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
Here are some questions that could have gone through some minds: “Do you mean that Jesus actually became sin when He was on the Cross? I thought that since He is God He is sinless. How could this happen? And how does Jesus becoming sin for me make me the righteousness of God in Him? Does that mean I actually have to be righteous like Jesus? Hey, wait a minute, I thought I’m a sinner and will be a sinner until I die?”
Without the homilist explaining exactly what this means, a lot of the faithful in the pews will have a lot of unanswered questions. Obviously, the Church wants us to know what this means and how it affects us because they put the passage in the readings.
You said: “I am not righteous. I don't consider myself righteous. And it doesn't matter to me whether the righteousness I present to God through Jesus is "imputed" or "infused". It is Jesus who stands with me and will present me to the Throne of the Most High God. Without Jesus, I wouldn't be there at all. That's what I mean by "semantic dances".”
ME: Rick, you know what these things mean because you’ve studied them. And Marcus Grodi knows what they mean. And Scott Hahn knows what they mean. And I know what they mean. And probably a lot of the posters on this site know what they mean. Don’t you think the faithful in the pew should know, too? I do. I bet you it will help them in their walk with God.
Drop the terms infused and imputed and just talk about Jesus being our righteousness and holiness because we have been baptized into His Body, and that when we are in a state of grace, we are IN CHRIST, and God sees us in Him, but that we are to become like Jesus in our daily walk with Him, and it is the Holy Spirit in us that helps us become like Jesus, and our worthy reception of the Eucharist helps us become like Him, and adoring Him in the Eucharist helps us become like Him, and our Blessed Mother helps us become like Him. (OK, I'm preaching, sorry.)
You said: “Catholic thinking, with it's "both/and" emphasis, is broader than a single definition. That's not to say Thomas Aquinas didn't ask and answer questions in his Summa Theologica, or that doctoral candidates in theology don't take up such issues.”
ME: Aquinas is cool, hey?
You said: “Catholic thought patterns are different. When I am on my knees adoring the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, I don't particularly care whether my righteousness is imputed or infused. I am in the presence of my Savior! When I venerate his Blessed Mother, I do not think of how I am justified. I'm in love, and that's all that matters.”
ME: But when you are meditating on the passion of Christ in the Rosary, or when you are meditating on a Scripture passage, say, the one from 2 Corinthians 5, I’ll bet you do. OK, I don’t KNOW if you do, but I do think about it. I know its a mystery but God has revealed these things to us in Scripture, and the Church exhorts the faithful to read and meditate on Scripture, so these questions are going to come up.
You said: “Our Church is sorely lacking in training our faithful to be apologists, and unfortunately it makes those with weak faith vulnerable to Protestant semantics. But the Catholic understanding is much broader than these words, and that's one reason why we don't typically encounter these concepts…The priest's purpose in the pulpit is to relate the gospel message to our lives, not to explain detailed theological concepts.
ME: Actually, I strongly remember hearing that the USCCB wants homilists to do both, to evangelize AND catechize. How they can do that with 10 minute homilies is beyond me.
You said: “The priest is like a guest speaker who is holding up dinner for a hungry audience. We are anxious to welcome our Savior and share a meal with him. We're not there to be educated; we're there to be nourished.”
ME: I like to think that we’re there for both!
You said: “That's why we don't hear it from the pulpit (which we actually call the ambo).”
ME: How many Catholics actually know its called an ambo, and not a lectern or a pulpit? :-)
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
Truthseeker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Costa Mesa, California USA |
| Posts: | 347 |
| First Name: | Laura | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | lapsed and returned CATHOLIC!!!!!! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30th, 2007 11:25 pm |
|
Hi all-
Maybe we put on Christ and that transforms us (gradually) into the holy saints we are meant to be. Maybe, when we are in mortal sin, we have taken Christ off, to put on our own "flesh".
And you know. I just have a very hard time with the thought that my Heavenly Father, who loves me above all things, that He sent hIs Son to DIE TO SAVE MY SOUL!!!!! thinks of me as a dung heap.
It's like my precious daughter, who has been behaving so badly (as you know) and the mother of her friend called her and her friend (during a day away without permission) and told them both that they were both "blank" ups. I'm sorry! Even while SEARCHING for her, terrified for her safety, and fully acknowledging her bad choices, I never considered her something so terrible! Why? Because I love her AND I understand her weakness. Doesn't our GOD?
I know the bible talks about being a dung heap, but isn't that when we don't have Christ on? If we've put on Christ, how can we be dung heaps? Christ is certainly not one. Oh, I love HIm so much! If I am in Him and He is in me, am I not treasured by the Father as Christ is?
Love, Laura
Last edited on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 11:27 pm by Truthseeker
____________________
Lord, please make my will your Will!
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 11:11 am |
|
God's peace. The real "dung hills" are the fallen angels, who have absolutely no good in them and nothing to redeem--they are utterly depraved. You cannot speak of man this way. Even the most depraved of men still bears the image of God. However badly defaced it may be, this image is ineradicable! A famous Puritan once wrote that "God made man a little lower than the angels; sin has made him little better than the devils." While this was said to dramatize two valid points--the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the horror of its effects--it goes too far. Even the worst of men is a lot better than a devil. Hitler loved roses; devils love nothing--not even themselves.
St Thomas Aquinas taught us, "Grace builds upon nature." God's grace--with our active cooperation-- makes us new creatures by gradually putting to death what is carnal and sinful and developing that which is spiritual and Christ-like, transforming us into Christ's likeness. This transformation has both outward and inward (imputed and infused) aspects. I think that the big difference between Catholic and Protestant thought on this process is the starting point: do you begin with an totally depraved being (Calvinism), which by its nature can contribute nothing to the process from within, or do you begin with a mortally wounded creature with a dead spirit which can be quickened spiritually by an infusion of God's grace, healed over time through the sacraments and the renewing of the mind, and step by step brought to holiness, walking in the good works to which it has been ordained (Eph. 2:10)? Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Last edited on Sat Mar 31st, 2007 11:12 am by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:15 pm |
|
I really don't like the "dung hill" analogy. Even a dung hill is part of God's creation.
Genesis 1.24-25:
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.
With the creatures came the dung hills, used to fertilize the earth. Animals who eat seed-bearing fruits excrete the seeds pre-fertilized in their dung, helping the plants to "be fruitful and multiply". How dare Luther claim that any part of God's creation is unworthy, when we have God's very Word that it is good!
Even if I am to be compared to a dung hill, that does not make me any less worthy! Where would the ancient lands in Europe, Asia, and Africa be today without dung hills to restore fertillity to the soil? They may not be the most pleasant part of God's creation, but as St. Paul said, we are many parts, and we honor the less pleasant parts by giving them greater attention and keeping them covered.
Even a dung hill is an essential part of God's creation! It is not something to be ashamed of, and it is not something that requires anything less than an honorable place in God's plan of creation.
I "put on Christ" in the same way Christ "put on humanity". Through Christ I become Divine in the Body and the Blood.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 01:46 pm |
|
Hi Rick,
Thanks for your Ode to a Dung Hill!
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 01:47 pm |
|
Hi Laura,
You said: “If I am in Him and He is in me, am I not treasured by the Father as Christ is?”
ME: You have stated so clearly and truthfully what I have been trying to state in many words. Thanks.
If only the majority of average Catholics who have not yet experienced conversion could understand the Gospel in this way, who knows what would happen to our Church!!!
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
ecassidy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 62 |
| First Name: | Gene | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic to evangelical Protestant to evangelical Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 04:29 pm |
|
Hi Br. Carlo,
You said: “God's grace--with our active cooperation-- makes us new creatures by gradually putting to death what is carnal and sinful and developing that which is spiritual and Christ-like, transforming us into Christ's likeness. This transformation has both outward and inward (imputed and infused) aspects.”
ME: What I am trying to figure out is a way to get this across to our Protestant brothers and sisters, especially those who are lapsed Catholics, from Scripture. Something like what Campus Crusade for Christ did decades ago with their Four Spiritual Laws booklet. I think the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ is all over the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters. We are baptized into His body. We become united with Him and He lives in us through the Holy Spirit given at baptism. As Truthseeker put it, we are in Him and He is in us.
Most evangelicals do not see this concept in Scripture. There is a corporate aspect to salvation as well as the personal. They only see the personal, the “me and Jesus” thing. They don’t see the “us and Jesus” aspect.
Peace,
Gene
|
|
|
Steve seeking understanding
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Steve | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2007 02:03 am |
|
Dear Gene,
Often, it is difficult for us evangelicals to even see this aspect of Christian living. For example, many evangelicals do not have any regard for the liturgical calendar whatsoever. With a liturgical calendar you have the knowledge that throughout the world other Christians are focusing on these same verses and meditating on similar themes. This serves to unite brothers and sisters one to another – not just in a particular church or community but throughout the world and in a certain sense, through time as well. I also believe that a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist – generally serves to limit the experience to mere reflection and makes true participation in Christ’s death and resurrection a more remote possibility. Similarly, if preaching becomes the primary focus, then the Gospel is experienced much more in terms of information (because delivered as a lesson), than as something that we enter into and participate in. Participation implies an important role - cooperation!
[Aside: To me, this demonstrates that the issue of being ‘in Christ’ is closely associated to the faith/works debate. Do faith and works belong to two strictly separate categories or are they mutually constitutive? I think that if evangelicals see that their lives really are hidden in Christ NOW that many of the difficulties that they/we bring into the faith/works debate could be alleviated.]
All of these practices in varying degrees de-emphasize the corporate aspects of the Church and therefore Christian life and spirituality.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly with respect to your statement that Paul frequently makes refere | | |
