Posted on 11/30/2005 5:58:13 AM PST by HarleyD
I see that we disagree more than I thought. The impetus toward consolidating nation-states has much deeper and older roots; the plague may have catalyzed its accomplishment to some degree but corruption in the Church also aided it.
The experimentation with self-government, while a necessary and well-intentioned detour, fell on an infertile soil of Protestantism, lacked a firm foundation of subsidiarity (the colonies were able to vote on their moral law and still do), and soon became a limiting blockage on Catholicism.
Here I have to object. Subsidiarity was at the heart of the colonies' quarrel with Britain. I am not convinced that there was anything intrinsically bad about the American experiment, though David Schindler's debate with George Weigel and Michael Novak on whether the American founders had a flawed understanding of the human person almost persuades me. Still, as a system of government, as long as people remained virtuous and selfless in public service, it was probably the best ever devised. The flaw was not in the system per se (Catholicism is compatible with a variety of systems, including kingship--and all human government is flawed to some degree, yet is authorized by God and capable of great justice--Rom. 13, Augustine, City of God) but in the fact that we did not stick with it, became fat and greedy etc.--in other words, fell into the very abuses that the founders saw clearly as the dangers. They knew full well that no system could by itself avoid these errors; only selfless, just, virtuous citizen-leaders could. And we failed the test.
Indeed, Catholicism contributed greatly to the flourishing of the American experiment. Ironically, the moment of greatest Catholic impact on American popular culture came in the mid-1900s when popular entertainment, though owned and produced by Jews featured most prominently Catholic singers and writers and actors. The decency code that the bishops hammered out with Hollywood produced a popular culture that for a brief moment was becoming quite Catholic. But there were countervailing forces, as there always are, and the courts weighed in and struck down the presence of Christianity in the public square and then came the great adolescent rebellion of the 1960s and so forth--it's more complicated than that, but I cite these developments as illustrations to show that the American experiment need not have turned out inimical to Catholic faith.
You are right, I should have mentioned that corruption in the Church was among the catalysts of nationalism.
There is much to be admired about the American experiment, and it is somewhat churlish to criticize it after we've lost its fruit. Nevertheless, subsidiarity demands that the moral law remains outside of the reach of the laity, certainly so in a democratic state with a broad franchise. The colonies either assumed, wrongly, that the democratic process would never invade culture and morals, or they thought nothing wrong of such invasion. Either mistake was easy to make with Anglican church-state amalgamation laced with Protestant disdain for hierarchy and poisoned by the French Enlightenment at the top. What they fought for was political autonomy, which is but one dimension of subsidiarity. They completely missed the centrifugal forces of Protestantism as it comes to culture and morality. Many (John Adams is a good example, with his "this government is only fit to govern people of good moral character", or words to this effect) understood that moral law is the cornerstone of their edifice, but all apparently thought that morality grows on trees. No Catholic thinker would have made such mistake.
I happen to think that the only organic system of government is feudal monarchy. I would admit that Catholicism is compatible with a democratic government limited to its area of competence. But a democratic government tends to outgrow its competence, at which point is becomes hostile to Chrisitanity in general, and especially to Catholicism. Our history shows that.
Could you point me to a good summary of Schindler, Weigel and Novak debate, -- I only got disconnected fragments of it?
Here is a bibliography. I don't have time to annotate it or designate a brief summary. In some ways it needs to be followed chronologically anyway. OF course, Schindler summarizes it in his book and if you read Neuhaus's review of the book (toward the end of the bibliography, you might have a good starting point).
Weigel, George, “Is America Bourgeois?” Crisis, 4 (October 1986), 5-10
Schindler, David L., “Is America Bourgeois?” Communio, 14 (Fall 1987), 262-290
Schindler, David L., “Is America Bourgeois?” Communio, 14 (Fall 1987), 262-290
Schindler, David L., “Catholicity and the State of Contemporary Theology: THe Need for an Ontologic of Holiness,” Communio, 14 (Winter, 1987), 426-50
Weigel, George, “Is America Bourgeois? A Response to David Schindler,” Communio, 15 (Spring, 1988), 77-91
Schindler, David L., “Once Again: George Weigel, Catholicism, and American Culture,” Communio, 15 (1988), 92-120
Schindler, David L., “The Church’s ‘Worldly’ Mission: Neoconservatism and American Culture,” Communio, 18 (1991), 365-97
Lowery, Mark, “The Schindler-Weigel Debate: An Appraisal,” Communio, 18 (1991), 425-38
Weigel, George, “Response to Mark Lowery,” Communio, 18 (1991), 439-49
Schindler, David L., “Response to Mark Lowery,” Communio, 18 (1991), 450-72
Novak, Michael, “Schindler’s Conversion: The Catholic Right accepts Pluralism,” Communio, 19 (Spring, 1992), 145-163
Schindler, David L., “Christology and the Church’s ‘Worldly’ Mission: Response to Michael Novak,” Communio, 19 (Spring 1992), 164-78
Schindler, David L., “The Church’s ‘Worldly’ Mission: Neoconservatism and American Culture,” Communio, 18 (Fall, 1991), 365-97 latent ambiguities regarding first principles in our understanding of the human person will inevitably work themselves out historically
Schmitz, Kenneth L., “Catholicism in America,” Communio, 19 (1992), 474-77
Schindler, David L., “Norris Clarke on Person, Being, and St. Thomas,” Communio, 20 (Fall, 1993), 580-92, response by W. Norris Clarke, pp. 593-98, cf. the original article by W. Norris Clarke, “Person, Being, and St. Thomas,” Communio, 19 (Winter, 1992), 601-18
responses to Clarke and Schindler by Stephen Long and George Blair, with responses to the responses by Clarke and Schindler in Communio, 21, no. 1 (Spring 1994), 151-190
Schindler, David L., “At the Heart of the World, From the Center of the Church,” Pro Ecclesia, 5, no. 3 (Summer 1996), 314-333
Schindler, David L., Heart of the World, Center of the Church: Communio Ecclesiology, Liberalism, and Liberation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)
response: Richard John Neuhaus, “The Liberalism of John Paul II,” First Things, no. 73 (May 1997), 16-21, and “Schindler’s Complaint” in “The Public Square” section of the same journal, no. 74 (June-July 1997), pp.72-74.
Schindler, David L., “Reorienting the Church on the Eve of the Millennium: John Paul II’s ‘New Evangelization’,” Communio, 24.4 (Winter, 1997), 728-779 critique of John Courtenay Murray and liberalism
cf.: Novak, Michael, “Thomas Aquinas, the First Whig,” Crisis (October 1990), 31-38
Schindler, David L., “Time in Eternity, Eternity in Time: On the Contemplative-Active Life,” Communio, 18, no. 1 (Spring 1991), 53-68 notes in datbs42
On the “metaphysics of the person”:
Ratzinger, Joseph, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” Communio, 17 (Fall, 1990), 439-54
Zizioulas, John D., “Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: A Theological Exploration of Personhood,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 28 (1975), 401-48
Kereszty, Roch, “Historical Research, Theological Inquiry, and the Reality of Jesus: Reflections on the Method of J. P. Meier,” Communio, 19 (Winter 1992), 576-600
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991, pp. 1-40
Sokolowsi, Robert, “What Is Phenomenology? An Introduction for the Uninitiated,” Crisis (April 1994), 26-29
Schmitz, Kenneth L. “Modernity Meets Tradition: The Philosophical Originality of Karol Wojtyla,” Crisis (April 1994), 30-36
Schmitz, Kenneth L., At the Center of the Human Drama: The Philosophical Anthropology of Karol Wojtyla/Pope John Paul II (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1993)
Three related articles by Karol Wojtyla, “The Person: Subject and Community,” parts I-III, in Crisis (April 1994), 37-48, (May 1994), 39-43, and (June 1994), 39-45 are excerpted from the new book by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Person and Community: Selected Essays, trans. by Theresa Sandok, O.S.M. (New York: Peter Lang, 1993)
Additional resources:
Interview with David Schindler in Catholic World Report (October 1994), 42-49 [with letters of response in the December issue, pp. 58-61] in which he sets out his indictment of the Neuhaus-Weigel-Novak approach, arguing are Liberal in the 19th-century sense even as welfare-state liberals are also Liberal in the 19th-century sense
“A Civilization of Love: The Pope’s Call to the West,” a statement signed by individuals associated with The Chesterton Review, Catholic Worker, Caelum et Terra, New Oxford Review, Canadian Catholic Review, Desert Call/Forefront, Inside the Vatican, Nazareth, Communio, printed in each of these journals, e.g., in Caelum et Terra (Fall 1994), p. 2, with an accompanying editorial by David Nichols showing how Neuhaus selectively quoted (and, according to Nichols), distorted Centesimus Annus (see Origins [May 16, 1991], 1-24) in order to make it seem to endorse democratic capitalism; cf. Schindler and Stratford Caldecott, “A Civilization of Love: The Pope’s Call to the West” in Communio, 21 (Fall 1994), 497-503
Schindler, David L., “Christological Aesthetics and Evangelium Vitae: Toward a Definition of Liberalism,” Communio 22, no. 2 (1995), 193-224
Caldecott, Stratford, “Beyond Left and Right: A Politics of Life,” in the “Notes and Comments” section of Communio 22, no. 2 (1995), 381-388
I'm not so high on feudal monarchy as you seem to be. It was a good system but not necessarily superior to the American experiment if the American experiment had not been abandoned. And I don't see any way of implementing a feudal monarchy, so at best it might provide insights into virtues of loyalty and subsidiarity to apply to a genuine democratic capitalist republic of virtue. I don't think even Chesterton would hold out for a feudal monarchy, would he? Distributism has much to be said for it, but again, whether it's anything but an academic exercise at this point, I don't know.
However, it would be true that in the event of a collapse into chaos and anarchy, something like feudal monarchy might emerge from the rubble. On the other hand, with the weapons available today, a collapse might not leave much at all.
The one question you had for me was: While I can understand a person's faith faltering under the above circumstances, I fail to understand leaving the Eucharist behind.
From a childs perspective growing up in the church I believed there was no other religion to even consider. I didn't speak against the other denominations for I was too young to draw an opinion one way or the other. I just knew it wasn't for me. I believed that this must be the way they were brought up, much like how I viewed myself being brought up Catholic and so having a sense of belonging, acceptance. I believed everyone who was good was going to Heaven anyhow. So live and let live.Today I know that is not the case, according to the Word
Concerning doctrine I wouldn't have known the meaning of the word let alone attempting to understand why we did what we did. The fathers and catechism teachers said this is the way we do it, this is the way to God, and so never questioned it, even far into my adulthood. But I was still sinning; What was going here? I have no power to stop. I have to say I never was comfortable with the confessional. I knew I had to go, because I couldnt partake in the sacraments if I do not. But something about it made me more scared than anything. What do you say to someone hiding behind a perforated screen? Are you really going to give this stuff to God for me? If you already know you’re doing wrong why not learn what power there is to overcome sins hold. It’s not of our own will and determination I assure you. “I’ll never do that again”, everyone must have said this line a few times to themselves and then go back and do it again.
The Scripture says: “They believe in God, but deny the Power there of”, the power to lead a sanctified and holy life with integrity which can only come from God and not of ourselves. We will always be classified by God as sinners, all of us no matter what office or title we hold in this world due to the original Fall. It is only by Resurrection Power afforded us by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His shed Blood at Calvary that we Come Alive in Him and Him in us. We thereby “Walk in the Spirit” being free from sins hold. Resurrection Power flowing daily, breaking us before Him daily, freeing us from the penalty of sin. This is the Only Sacrifice the Father sees, the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. No other ingredient need be added. It is Finished He said. His Finished Work, One Sacrifice for all, for all time.
Concerning the Last Supper one can certainly remember,with gratitude and in His memory as He instructed us to celebrate , as many times we wish of what He in fact was going to do and Finish for us. Never did He imply the symbols of bread and wine would “replace” His Sacrifice. If that were the case, and the symbols held that kind of power, He wouldn’t have had to endured The Cross at all. So there must be a shedding of blood for the remission of sin, and that He accomplished in totality
The book of Hebrews explains to the Jews as well as to us the difference between the old Levitical sacrificial system and the “New Covenant” Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice. The newly converted Christian Jews were “holding on” to the old way in effect adding to the New Covenant which kept them “under the Law” which could never take away sins. Basically undermining the power, Resurrection Power of the Perfect Sacrifice afforded us through the Finished Work of Christ at the Cross. Jesus bore the Judgment of God upon Himself because He was the “Only One” who could fulfill the Law in its entirety. And so the saying “if you live by the Law then you will die by the Law”. I would recommend revisiting Hebrews several times over and see deeply what is being said here.
I hope my explanation through my experiences answers your question. It occurred to me the focus of your question hinged on the symbol of the church and not necessarily the church itself. You believe the Eucharist holds the power of our salvation. I understand your bewilderment as to why someone would give up their salvation “by leaving the Eucharist” of which one can only find in a particular church. This is where I believe the church holds power over the people. God wants to empower us you,and I with His Spirit. We would then look directly to Him and know for certain it is in fact Him doing it. We would not fall into serving the creature instead of the Creator. Meaning we would not worship things created either by Him or by us. If we are, then we are worshipping things less than ourselves and definitly less than God
1 Peter 1:19 But with the Precious Blood of Christ (payment in full on behalf of sinners) as a Lamb without blemish and without spot (lambs offered as substitutes in Old Jewish economy, the Death of Christ was not an execution, but rather a Sacrifice, the Offering of Himself as a Perfect Sacrifice, for He was Perfect in every respect [Exodus 12:5]
1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world (refers to fact that God knew He would create man and man would Fall needing to be Redeemed by Christ going to the Cross, all done before the Universe was created. Means the Cross of Christ is the Foundation Doctrine of all Doctrine) but was manifest in these last times for you
1 Peter 1:21 Who by Him do believe in God (it is only by Christ and what He did for us at the Cross that we are able to “Believe in God”), Who raised Him up from the dead, and gave Him Glory; that your Faith and Hope might be in God (speaks of a heart Faith in God, who saves sinners in answer to our Faith in the Resurrected Lord Jesus Who died for us)
1 Peter 1:22 Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the Truth (the great system of Truth respecting the Redemption of the world which refers to the Cross) through the Spirit (everything is done through the Spirit) unto unfeigned love of the Brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of the corruptible seed (refers to fact that the Born-again experience is not at all by virtue of any descent from human parents) but of incorruptible (which is the Lord Jesus Christ) , by the Word of God, which lives and abides forever. (the story of the Bible is the story of man’s Redemption, which is the story of the Cross)
1 Peter 1:24 For all flesh is as grass (contrasting which is begotten of God with that which is begotten by man [Isa. 40:6-8]) and all the glory of man as the flower of grass (temporary glory). The grass withers, and the flower thereof falls away.
1 Peter 1:25 But the Word of the Lord endures forever. (by contrasting to that of man’s, which perishes quickly) And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.
The pursuit for the Knowledge of God should never stop. Fearing God is the beginning of Knowledge. We cannot live long enough in these mortal bodies to know everything about Him. He gives us a path and it is straight and narrow, right through the Cross, everything else is broadway
Thanks again for your reply. I pray a peace for you and your family in the Love of Jesus Christ the Righteous
And exactly the same applies to kings or oligarchs. They ought to be virtuous. Few have ever been so. But that doesn't mean that they cannot ever be.
There's nothing intrinsically incompatible between Catholicism and a democratic society. (We're using the term here, of course, meaning representative republic, I hope--I'm sure that's how Neuhaus was using it.) It would be better to use the term republic. But even a democracy could be the servant of society if its members were honest, just, virtuous. If they aren't, all bets are off.
It's just harder to accomplish a virtuous demos than virtuous representives in a republic and that makes a representative republic superior to a true demo-cracy. But Neuhaus wasn't referring to strict democracy anyway.
Granted, the American experiment in republican virtue did not last. But I would caution you very strongly against assuming that the record of kings or oligarchies or noble republics (the old Polish commonwealth of the 1600s, for example) is any better--more kings have been non-virtuous than virtuous, and that includes Catholic kings. And the record of oligarchies is, well, worse. Perhaps the noble constitutional republic would be best but it's been tried extremely rarely in history and the American republic was the closest to it in many ways. I'd beware of nostalgia for feudal kingship.
The quote from Neuhaus, as far as I can see, accords fully with JPII on culture being prior to the state and the state being the servant of culture. I really don't see the problem. It's not naive, assuming that he's giving a prescription of how things ought to be. He's not saying that this in fact is the way things are, is he? You've pulled this out of context.
New thread: The Liberalism of John Paul II (FR thread, and my response)
It is unfortunate that Catholicism of the pre-Vatican times was often mired in guilt. Part of this problem, I believe, stems from two issues in my extensive readings. First, the heresy of Jansenism was still roaming through the Church. Jansenism was the idea that strict adherence to rules and regulations was critical for our salvation. It was very nearly a "works" salvation. It led many a nun to emphasize rules over love of Christ.
Secondly, Catholic theologians from the mid-1800's to even into today have changed the focus of moral theology from what it used to be. Our Tradition, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and so forth, had always taught that moral theology was to concentrate on the Virtues. First, Temperance, Justice, Prudence, and Fortitude; followed by Faith, Hope and Love. Naturally, all would lead to love. The purpose of moral theology, then, ends in love. Our reason for doing what we do should be based on love. However, moral theologians, perhaps with Jansenism in mind, began to move towards a focus on the Decalogue. The reason we do things, then, becomes following the Ten Commandments. It is not hard, then, brother, to see why the Catholic Church became mired in guilt, rules-following, and everything that goes along with that.
I, too, had endured some of what you speak of as a child. We grew up as product of our society. I believe, though, that God's Providence is behind everything, and that there was a particular reason for everything - although sometimes we don't understand it. I think that before an institution is willing to change, it must first hit a lower point and realize "we need to reform". I don't doubt that Vatican 2 was God's effort to move the Church into a better direction then it was heading. And frankly, things take awhile to become implemented after Councils, to weed out the old ways and faulty traditions that had no purpose in today's time (perhaps they were useful in different times, but no longer).
As to the Eucharist, it appears you have a misunderstanding of the teachings. We don't believe we re-sacrifice Christ. That clearly is Protestant teaching, as Catholics don't and never have taught that. Unfortunately, catechism was and continues to remain a weak point in the Catholic Church. Most don't know their faith because THEY choose not to learn it. Most think the Church should provide classes and so forth. But even if there are classes, they don't come. And most certainly will not avail themselves to reading a book or accessing Catholic Web Sites that teach the faith. From my experience before returning to the Church, I didn't place God on a very high list on my priorities. As we both mention, I think the Church of the recent past focused on rules, rather than on love. This is changing. But for us, well. WE didn't put much effort into learning our faith at the time of our falling aways (in my opinion). The teachings were there, but I didn't care. I didn't see the connection between God's Blessings and my life. Religion wasn't a high priority. And I believe many Christians endure this temptation.
But back to the Eucharist, the Church believes that at the Mass, we are allowed to participate in the re-presentation of Christ's one time sacrifice. We, as the Body, offer our own petitions and sacrifices to the Father (since Christ CURRENTLY intercedes for us in heaven - not one time/done). Since Christ is the Victim AND the Priest, a Victim who has risen from the Dead, His sacrifice continues into eternity. Its value is eternal because the Priest continues to offer the Victim's internal disposition (which is the important part of the Sacrifice - not the material value of it). Thus, the Catholic Church completely agrees with the Letter to the Hebrews
As to "living by the Law" - this means obligating God to pay you back salvation for your good deeds. We cannot obligate God for anything, as all we have is a gift from Him, both natural and supernatural gifts. Thus, our faith, our works, our repentance. All inspired and embued within us by God. Those under the Law believe that they can "do" the external actions of the Law and make God "owe" them. This is entirely false and refuted by Paul in Romans and Galatians. HOWEVER, the Protestant mistake here is that then, NO works are needed at all - that works merely are indications of our faith. This is not the message of the Gospel. We MUST obey the Commandments - but as our priests and nuns got wrong - we do it out of love - not out of following rules and regulation. Thus, the Gospel does NOT forbid or do away with the Law at all. It merely says we must have a different internal disposition. We must do all in love. And when under love (rather than the Law), we don't need to be perfect. We just need to turn to God and try our best to give of ourselves.
It occurred to me the focus of your question hinged on the symbol of the church and not necessarily the church itself. You believe the Eucharist holds the power of our salvation.
Brother, don't you remember that the Church DOESN'T teach that the Eucharist is a symbol? It is a reality of the Risen Christ, in the form of Bread, just as God came to Moses in the form of a burning bush, or a pillar of fire, or a cloud over the Ark. God has the power to appear to man in any form. Certainly, the form Jesus takes has symbolic connotations. It is bread - which gives nourishment, providing us food for the journey. Spiritually, Christ is our nourishment. He enters into us, giving us sanctifying Grace, the Life of God, which enables us to BECOME virtuous, to LOVE! And thus, Christ is really present in the Eucharist, feeding us spiritually, enabling us to walk with Him into eternal life.
If you didn't know this, I ask you whose fault can we lay the blame on? The Church has AT LEAST taught that much... I didn't realize the profound fullness of all of this until I did the reading and prayfully considered Catholicism again as an older adult. My lateness is based on my laziness. I will not answer for your reason, but the Church has NOT taught anything else on the subject. From what I gather above, you were like me, fell away, and came into the fortunate company of some Protestant brothers and sisters. You saw the power of the Spirit in them, no doubt. Looking back to your days as a Catholic, in comparison, you probably thought that THEY had the "blessings" of God - they were active in their faith. Thus, when they taught you their ideas on the Eucharist, you naturally believed them. But I truly wonder how things would have went if you were aware of the true teachings of the Church on the Eucharist. The reason why the Church believes that the Eucharist holds "the power of salvation" is that it IS CHRIST HIMSELF! We see Christ VISIBLY in faith, not by imagination in our thoughts alone. We take Him into our bodies, literally. He sanctifies us, enabling us to become more virtuous. And thus, we are not placing our hopes in a piece of bread or the Church institution, but Jesus Christ Himself.
I truly appreciate the chance to speak with you. I have a certain affinity and curiosity with former Catholics, as I think we have traveled down the same road, although we have taken a different fork in the road now. May God continue to bless you, and that you do come to the knowledge of the Truth.
Brother in Christ
You pointed out weakness and strength which I believe exists in all denominations. One must weight everything on the Word of God regardless of denominations which in the end as well as the beginning, is the only Truth we have. A real sit down discussion is what I would love best to go through it all without the latency of posting. However I'm certain we will make the best of it. I too have an affinity, mind you not exactly from the same side doctrinally, but not so far apart where we cannot hold discussion. For that I feel fortunate to have your time.
Paul says the godly leader should hold "fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to confute the opposers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. Wherefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9--2:1).
Brother, don't you remember that the Church DOESN'T teach that the Eucharist is a symbol? It is a reality of the Risen Christ
I remember well the church's teaching on this, I was speaking from my present belief in asking( Did the Lord Himself teach us to "manifest Him" this way or just "remember Him" this way. That is the question.
The reason why the Church believes that the Eucharist holds "the power of salvation" is that it IS CHRIST HIMSELF! We see Christ VISIBLY in faith
Did Christ Himself say "I will forever in reality be in the form of bread for you so that you may see Me and consume Me and therefore know that I am in you. Or did He say:
The promise, fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost with the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and virtual beginning of the Church Age.
Most think the Church should provide classes and so forth. But even if there are classes, they don't come
The Body of Christ "believers" those who are "called out" which means Church are to edify one another and encourage one another. In doing so we are built up and naturally by the Spirit we want more. We have to have the Spirit to even want more of God and His divine Truths. You and I didn't care about this before, but we do now. We do this through the Spirit as stated here:
In Scripture here's where the question comes:
Acts 19:2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."
Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
John14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
And this teaching of how to pray I love the most:
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
When I am praying like this I may not know exactly what or who this may be for. It may be for you the Spirit through me is praying for. Only God Knows. Do you like that?
Thanks again for devoting the time, I enjoy it and reciprocate
May the eyes of your heart be enlightned so that you may know what is the hope of His calling
God Bless
One must weight everything on the Word of God regardless of denominations which in the end as well as the beginning, is the only Truth we have
I agree that the Word of God should be our point of reference.
Did the Lord Himself teach us to "manifest Him" this way or just "remember Him" this way. That is the question.
As you know, we should look to the entire Scriptures when determining such particular questions. I believe that John 6 gives a presursor of what Jesus means at the Last Supper when He says "this is My Body". He had earlier told the Disciples that they must eat His flesh (who took His words literally, judging by those who left Him that day). Thus, when they heard the Words of Christ at the Last Supper, they must have put the two incidents together later on, after the Resurrection. This is evident in the writings of the very first Christians, such as Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 105 AD, who was taught by John the Evangelist HIMSELF. Thus, we are getting an interpretation from what the Gospel means from the writer himself. That holds more water, to me, than someone telling me it is only a symbol 2000 years after the fact. It has been the interpretation of the Church for 2000 years, and I don't see a reason for someone as dim as myself to believe that I know better.
Yes, blessed our those who believe and don't see! We see the Eucharist as Christ in FAITH, not in the form of a Body He has taken up after His resurrection. If you read John 6 carefully, you will note that faith is a key theme. Only by faith, only be being drawn to the Father, can we believe that we must eat Christ's flesh. Only by faith do we realize that we see Christ "in the breaking of the Bread", like the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke's Gospel). Thus, we, too, are blessed for our faith.
As to not seeing Him, He also said He would be with us ALWAYS, in Matthew 28. We don't see Him in the form that the Disciples saw Him, walking the face of the earth, or even in His resurrected form. We see Him through the eyes of faith in the form of bread and wine, just as the first disciples recognized Him in the breaking of the Bread. It seems like a strange teaching, but it is verified by the first Christians who are writing in 100 AD and later, Ireneaus, Justin the Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and so forth, all the way up to today. Again, I find it difficult to go against 2000 years of interpretation of the Scripture and Liturgical Actions of the Church.
When I was coming back to Catholicism, for me, the Eucharist was the "surest" of our mysteries. This was believed universally, and it is clearly denoted in the Scriptures. It is a "hard" saying, but after reading the Church Fathers, they were adamant about it. Thus, I found the intellectual idea of it as feasible. And as I began to go to Eucharist Adoration and pray before the monstrance that held the Body of Christ in the form of bread, I began to experience His presence more than when I prayed in my room. I just "knew" He was there. Thus, it was not a large "leap of faith" for me. I figured that those closest to Christ, the Apostles, must have known what He was talking about, who then subsequently taught what we believe today.
The Body of Christ "believers" those who are "called out" which means Church are to edify one another and encourage one another. In doing so we are built up and naturally by the Spirit we want more. We have to have the Spirit to even want more of God and His divine Truths. You and I didn't care about this before, but we do now.
I agree. I have come to the firm conclusion that God works in Catholics AND Protestants to spread His Word. It was the Assembly of God couple down the street from us who God worked through to re-vivified my faith in Jesus Christ. After examination, I felt that I must become Catholic (again) - I have a strong sense of history, so I had a lot of respect for the Church's claims of being THE Church of Christ. Certainly, we see signs of Christ's Church outside the visible walls of the Roman Catholic Church. And perhaps people are more drawn to God OUTSIDE of those walls... But for me, I felt drawn to this historical Church, despite my experiences of my youth, despite the scandal of present times, despite all of those wolves in shepherd clothing. I was not going to let some "weeds" get in the way of the fullness of the Truth! However, I respect the person who finds Christ in a Protestant setting. When I see the Spirit working in a person such as yourself, I prefer to speak in the manner we are now - rather than putting on the full-court press of the "correctness" of Catholicism. I will defend it, of course, but I prefer challenge, rather than push. If God is working within you, and you are obviously responding to His loving grace, than I pray you continue in your journey towards Truth, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
The doors are always open, brother! We could use some brothers and sisters knowledgeable in the Word who are serious about Jesus Christ.
Brother in Christ
When God is the One doing it, there will be no other way. God works when Christ is projected, and the evidence of the Fruits of the Spirit then shine through.
Love, Joy ,Peace, Longsuffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance
Leaving behind the corruption of the flesh:
unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful
We deserve a break here because I know we're both driving, we just want to end up in the same place, home. It's all been good however, and all good things come from God
I am more mature in the Lord now after this conversation. Clearly I'm a better Christian for it in approaching those with different views. For I do not believe God intended us to stop growing, or to sow dissension instead of Love. That would be a sure way to stunt your growth, and says or does nothing for the Body of Christ.
That being said I want you know I'm not finished just yet.:) Nor do I believe you are finished either.:) I have some other questions for you at a later time, and my hope is to keep this channel open.
My frequency on this forum is in blocks. I work in the oil industry and have time on shift, if you can believe that, to frequent the forum daily. However, when I go home, my wife and family keep me busy. So if you send me any note and I don't get back to you right away, thats why. I will however be here for the next day or so, then the weather gets bad and I go in, cold front coming down.
My wife and I also do the work of the ministry, reaching out to those who need help and fielding calls from those in distress. This never stops with her and me being on this forum keeps me serving as well, or so I hope.
I do not miss an opportunity to spread the Gospel "for I am not ashamed of the Gospel". No one on this vessel is exempt from hearing about it, and neither are you.:) Praise God!
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you always, and that you know He is there, even in your valley He brings you Peace. Give Him Praise and Thanks
Your Brother in Christ
Thank you for your nice letter. I truly am happy for your new found faith - it is a great joy to see God work even outside the walls of Rome, so to speak!
I work in an electronics maintenance shop, sort of like a fireman, waiting for things to break and occasionally doing preventative maintenance. So I have time daily to come here and post.
I find it interesting how people return to the faith. I have read several books with conversion stories of people becoming Catholic, both converts and reverts (like myself). There seems to be a common thread in which the Lord "turned on the light" for each person in a different way. But in each case, that person's response to this grace began a more intense walk with Christ.
It is good to hear that your wife is also involved in ministry. I know of people where one spouse is not Christian, and it is very difficult and trying on the other spouse, esp. if there are children. Thank God that she is walking with you.
Most of my "evangelizing" is here and at RCIA, which I teach at my local parish. I am amazed and sometimes even frustrated on the level of education among some Catholics. I imagine part of it is what we spoke of previously, the adherence to rules for the sake of rules, and so forth. It is good to see it changing, but it is a slow process. I was speaking with one new candidate who knows a Catholic family "on the fence" because someone told their teenager that "if you masturbate, you are going to hell". Needless to say, this didn't strike the parents very well... It is sad, because the Church doesn't teach this. But when people who are uninformed about their faith hear such garbage, it throws their faith in turmoil. I imagine many Catholics left the Church because of such things...
I try not to let such "weeds" get in the way of my walk in Christ. Perhaps it is my knowledge of the faith that has insulated me against such junk. But looking back, it was an up and down road. But I think that is how God works, constantly testing us and our faith. Faith is more than just an affirmation, but an ongoing action. That's why we do what we do...
Brother in Christ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.