There’s been a fuss over the Pope’s preacher (no, don’t ask, I don’t know why he needs one either, never seems short of a word or two himself) celebrating the Reformation. In the Catholic Herald, Ed West has pointed out the various devastating effects of the Reformation from the destruction of art to that of human beings; what, he wonders, have Catholics to celebrate about that? Far be it from me to invite critics to read what the preacher said, but as one used to doing so, I did, and I found it enlightening and edifying. So what is he saying?
Cantalamessa spoke of the ‘theological and spiritual virtues’ of the Reformation. No doubt it was myopic of him not to talk about art or to score points by a body count of who burnt whom, and concentrating on theology and spiritual values was clearly unfair, since most folk have no idea what they might be. But the fellow’s a religious person, and he was speaking to Bishops and others who might understand; and if we will stop a moment, he is speaking to us too.
‘We preach Jesus as Lord’, he said, quoting Paul to the Corinthians. That is at the heart of the Good News, and unlike recent Catholic converts here, the life-long Catholic Cantalamessa recognises that the Reformation stemmed from the desire to do that more effectively and unencumbered by the sorts of abuses which grow up over time in every church.
He recognises that we call preach salvation by Justification by faith, and that gnawing over the bone of ‘good works’ is yesterday’s argument; Protestants should be equally willing to drop the nonsense that Catholics preach a ‘good works’ salvation; they don’t, they never did, and the attempt to say they do is a smear unworthy of any follower of Christ. If we have faith, works follow, James saw it, Paul knew it, any Christian is with them on this one – from his or her own experience of living in Christ and Christ living in them. It is in that personal encounter that real spiritual unity begins:
We need to start again with the person of Jesus, humbly helping our contemporaries to experience a personal encounter with Him. “All things were created through him and for him”; Christ is the light of the world, the one who gives meaning and hope to every human life – and the majority of people around us live and die as if He had never existed! How can we be unconcerned, and each remain “in the comfort of our own panelled houses”? We should never allow a moral issue like that of sexuality divide us more than love for Jesus Christ unites us.
That last comment challenges me further than I can go, because I don’t see it simply as a moral issue, but as something which Paul preached on and which he saw divides us from Christ. But what am I to say to those whose encounter with Jesus had led them to think otherwise? I am to say what I believe, which is that this would be more convincing were it not a reflection of contemporary Western mores. Yes, every age brings something to our understanding of the Gospel message, but our age is more willing to add than it is to question its own assumptions.
We are entering a ‘Year of Mercy’ declared by the Pope. But we live in an era of God’s mercy, and does repentance precede or follow Grace? He reached out to me when I was far off. I receive him in my heart, by faith, with thanksgiving. By his mercy I have come far from the sectarian strife of my early life, as as I forgave those who hated me and sought forgiveness from them in turn, I confront the strangeness of God’s Mercy. It falls like the dew, it comes undeserved – and as I am forgiven, is it right that I should not forgive?
All Along the Watchtower 
I would think that ‘mercy’ follows the ‘grace’ of tears of repentance, shame and guilt which precedes mercy.
However, to think this era the same as the era of Paul and the Apostles, is to miss the fact that the Jews were expecting a Messiah and the Romans and Greeks had more gods and godesses than one could possibly keep track of . . . and thereby used one and then another depending on what that particular deity’s special ‘charism’ was. It was the deity of the caesars that united the Roman Empire and his laws and his permission to worship other deities after himself.
Today however seems more difficult as gods and godesses have all but disappeared or more aptly been ‘transformed’ into the fetishes and desires that attract our more base intstincts. That, together with idiologies, that replace religion is the modern world’s most attractive forms of religion which folks would perhaps die for or give their whole lives attending to its spread. And it is more difficult to find an individual anymore: one who is affected by remorse and guilt . . . after all, there are pshychiatrists and drugs for that condition and the better part of the Western World is involved with one or both of these.
What should unite us is explained away as myth and superstition whilst that should divide is that which unites certain ideological groups who are violently, at times, opposed to Christ. There are always a few people who can be reached and we should reach out to these ‘men and women of good will’ but it will take more than good luck in penetrating these idiological walls of most folks without God’s direct intervention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an interesting one. Does ‘mercy’ follow repentance? Christ died for all who will receive him, he reached out to us when were still enemies in rebellion. He asked for forgiveness for those who crucified him without saying ‘when they repent’. Grace follows repentance, but I think mercy must precede it – it is uncovenanted and free, not conditional, at least in my reading.
LikeLike
Not hard for me, my friend. I do not separate ‘mercy’ from ‘grace’ to repent and to desist from offending God. It seems to me that to do so would empty hell and that there is no use in trying to do good, abide by truth or avoid sins. After all, didn’t Christ pray for us before He died for us? Presumption such as this breeds indifference to a well lived Christian life.
I too pray for those who ‘know not what they do.’ But if we tell them what they are doing we are called ‘unmerciful.’ If they are not told . . . then they still may have the theoretical theological grace that Christ’s mercy offers: salvation by invincible ignorance. I prefer to attempt, at least, to know the Truth (which is Christ) and to live according to that Truth. After all, Christ did not spend His time ignoring sin before He was Crucified. In fact, He would not have died on the Holy Cross had He not pointe out the horrors of sin . . . even the sins of the religious elites of His day.
LikeLike
No one is ignoring sin, but I see no evidence that Christ’s mercy is prompted by repentance, it is prompted by his love for us. We can reject that, and those in hell are those who have chosen that course, but for as many as will receive him, there is no price set for his mercy – after all, if there were, it would surely not be mercy, but something we merited. We know what we deserve, that many will not get it is not down to anything any single one of us does, it is down to our acknowledging he is Lord – and what the operation of that does to us in terms of prompting repentance and amendment of life. Surely, otherwise, we could be said to merit salvation? We don’t, we merit hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is where justice cannot be separated from mercy; and both are pre-existent in God. Of course He loves us and always did. It did not stop us from ignoring Him and pursuing our own desires in life.
His mercy and grace is like an Ark that is always present in an ocean of sin that we bob along in. We can either swim to the Ark as instructed or ignore it and drown. He warned us and He made Himself present in history to deliver both His proof of the love He has for us and the requirement to do our level best to cooperate with His instructions. After all, He has taught us of both the dangers and the freedom from sin. His Ark is always present . . . sadly some refuse to see it, or hate the One Who sent it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree abut the consequences, but I don’t think mercy can be conditional – if it were, how could it be mercy? I know what I deserve – but his mercy to me prompted from me a host of things which might otherwise never have happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course that is so. But mercy is conditional in the sense of the person who refuses to see the Ark of their deliverance and doing all in their power to scale it’s hull. That does not mean that ‘special graces’ are not sometimes given to persons (St. Paul comes to mind) where a life preserver was tossed right on his noggin. But ordinarily, we each must exert some effort or make some realization on our own before we land upon the deck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have to be careful here not to sound as though we do something to merit the mercy. We don’t, we deserve hell-fire. His mercy is beyond us – as is the idea of becoming incarnate and being crucified for a bunch of sinners – everytime I get there my mind goes ‘wow!’
LikeLiked by 3 people
Of course, that is true as well. The Mercy of Salvation (Christ Himself) was sent to all. Some never heard of Him (we can help them) and others walk by Him without a second glance or don’t believe what He says (perhaps harder to convince). Others follow Him. And still others wish to stone Him. But the fact is, He came for all of us whether we would rather stay afloat ourselves in our sin, swim toward an imaginary island of wine and roses to only find that it is mirage or what have you. But within an arms reach, He is always there offering His outstretched arms to rescue us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and just how utterly amazing is that? Good news for us all – and all we need is to embrace it – and some doubt Original Sin – how?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They prefer to, perhaps? Sin is pretty aluring as are ideologies that promise every bread and circus one can imagine . . . and not always after death . . . but sometimes in the here and now. Freewill is two-edged sword.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is indeed 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye, even the prodigal son had to endeavor by his freewill to return home. His Father did not autimatically transport a fatted calf to him while he awaited a horse to be sent him for the journey.
I suppose, when I think of mercy as you have prompted us to do, I think that the mercy is prompted by His love as you rightly state. But the ‘usefulness’ of His mercy, offered to us individually, is our own responsibility and choice . . . though even the promptings to make that journey are given us by the Holy Spirit to accept or reject.
LikeLike
The first statement is utter rubbish, as is seen from the example of Paul. The act of grace and mercy was on the road to Damascus and there wasn’t the slightest hint of a single tear of repentance or of any shame or guilt from Paul before this meeting. He was single-mindedly opposed to the Gospel and fighting with all his might against it. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, the divine imperative came and immediately Paul was enlisted in the Lord’s Army and was saved. He was called an he was true to his calling.
Perhaps you don’t consider this as ‘mercy’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe you should read a bit further in the comments made to Geoffrey . . . as I acknowledge the incident as an act of extraordinary grace. These are not ordinary to most people but Christ obviously had a need for Paul in the mission of the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is true that many people have a ‘conversion’ moment that they remember quite vividly. It is an encounter with Christ, though it may seem to be an encounter with the Truth about oneself, and it does seem to convict one to the heart that there is a decision to be made: for Christ or against Christ. We meet the ones in our Christian churches thata had this experience and yet, we do not know the countless ones who were too frightened to to say yes or who found it easier to dismiss it as unlogical or simply a coincidence or what have you. I would guess the numbers are quite high for personal encounters though I am can’t put a number on it . . . but of the sort such as St. Paul there are some I can believe from the saints that are nearly as explicit. All of Christendom is glad for the way Paul reacted to His face to face encounter with Christ . . . for had he acted otherwise we would have had a Church much poorer in its teaching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, in Paul’s case it was much more than this. He didn’t simply understand that there was a decision to be made; there was nothing to decide when Jesus showed himself to him.
When Jesus called his first disciples in Mark’s account, he didn’t come to them and say, ‘would you like to follow me’? and they did not reply, ‘oh, there is a tough decision to be made – give us until next Thursday to think about it’. The divine imperative ‘Follow me’ came, and the response was instant.
Mark’s account differs from John’s account, where one brother tells another brother and persuades him to come along. John’s account has the feeling of an eyewitness account, while Mark seems to be writing theologically.
In all these cases, saying ‘no’ to the divine imperative seems to have been a moral impossibility for the people concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a moral impossibility but a moral unlikelihood. Freewill is never revoked from any soul God has created. There is still an implicit yes to the call or the command.
LikeLiked by 1 person
… well, your position here certainly goes against the Holy Writ. The Psalms clearly prophesy that exactly one of the disciples would be lost. If you wanted to be obtuse, I suppose you could argue that they each had a one in twelve chance of going AWOL, since the psalmist doesn’t name names. That would clearly mitigate against the clear and plain meaning.
Look – we all know that we have a God-given responsibility, we know that God listens to and answers prayer. For example, God declared his express intention of wiping the Israelites from the face of the earth in response to the golden calf – and he relented as a result of Moses prayer of intercession.
You seem to be obsessed with this ‘free will’ thingy. It leads to intellectual conundrums which are unhelpful and which you resolve in ways that are clearly unsatisfactory.
I’m quite happy simply to note that two apparently contradictory things don’t seem to add up – and accept that I’ll understand it better in the next life.
It does seem an impossibility (rather than simply an ‘unlikelihood’ to use your happy phrase) that God would have wiped the Israelites from the face of the earth in response to the golden calf; it does seem a moral impossibility (rather than simply an ‘unlikelihood’) that Moses would not have made a prayer of intercession.
It does seem to me that there are limits beyond which it is inadvisable to go, since you end up tying yourself up in knots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So your position is based upon the lack of freewill in the human person and that God never is swayed by prayer?
I would simply say from observation that I always have a choice and that it is even more of a spectrum of choice than a simple yes or know. There are some half-hearted yeses and nos to be had.
And for a story from Christ as to God’s mind being swayed by prayer you need look no further than the parable about the old woman who argued with the Judge until she got her way.
If a man has no choice (the freewill thingy) then he is a robot and there is no sin in being made to do something that is intended. No original sin, no actual sins for any of us . . . is pretty dream of salvation for everybody for none of us is capable of resistance nor are we capable of attraction . . . it is all simply the Will of God.
LikeLike
From your first sentence –
Nope. Re-read what I wrote. I didn’t state ‘lack of freewill’. I’ll respond to you if and only if you respond to what I write and if you don’t write lies and misrepresentation.
Furthermore, I made it very clear that God *is* swayed by prayer (the prayer of Moses).
Honestly: you accused Bosco of being a liar here, but either you cannot read, or else you excel at lies yourself. ‘Pot calling kettle black’ springs to mind.
LikeLike
Besides all your finger-wagging and tongue lashings you are not very clear yourself. The meaning you conveyed, in my reading (though obviously not what was intended), was that the persons of Paul or Moses or whomever MUST act according to the ‘divine imperative.’ I simply state that you have created the conundrum yourself . . . it does not confuse me nor does it tie me in knots to admit that they had choices to make and they chose rightly. Now, from the perspective of God (and God ONLY) there is certainty as all time and all our choices are everpresent to Him ALONE. So this does not rob Moses or Paul or whomever from freewill. Your statements tend to make the argument that it is a contradiction of sorts. I am simply restating that in the temporal world of men we always have a choice . . . Paul could have had a half-hearted response or chosen not to believe as Moses might have merely sat down and watched the Israelites get expunged from history by an act of God.
Honestly (as you said) nobody has called you a liar and I have not hurled insults at you. Maybe I can’t read and if I lie then there is no reason to converse with me. I am not standing by in anxious anticipation of your response Jock. If you do not respond and think I’m a liar I prefer that you do not. Maybe that is something we both can agree upon.
LikeLike
Well, you did start your post by stating that I took position ‘not x’ when I had stated clearly that I took position x. I find that a very strange discussion style – and experience has taught me that when I come across this style in real life (I don’t include internet discussions in ‘real life’) it has to be slapped down hard and fast.
We may well both be trying to say the same thing – and not exactly succeeding.
I think that your last attempt is unsatisfactory, because God really did intend to wipe the Israelites from the face of the earth and he really did relent as a result of Moses prayer of intercession.
The text in Exodus doesn’t really make much sense if God somehow knew beforehand that he could make whatever threats he liked against Israel because he had already determined that Moses would intercede anyway.
There really was an intercession; the intercession really did change the mind of God.
On the other hand, it was already foreordained that Jesus would come and, furthermore, that he would come from the line of Judah and not Levi (Moses was a Levite).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The discussion ‘style’ was meant to show that it is you who has posited a ‘not x’ when it suits and an ‘x’ when it does. Contradictories are always a stumbling block . . . so it begged a further explanation.
Trying to get into the ‘mind’ of God by saying that He really did mean this or that is a bridge too far. You nor I do not know the answer and I could certainly provide a list of other plausible explanations . . . but unlike you, I am not dogmatic about it for it is purely human speculation. So yes, perhaps we are saying the same things but I am trying to ferret out the nuances of your thinking and trying equally to expose mine.
I totally agree that God’s Plan for Salvation cannot be stopped and how He accomplishes such is known only to Him . . . we are privy only to the assured outcome. All that I know is that Christ told us in the parable about the scattering of the seeds on various types of soil that God has worked most effectively (through the heroes of our faith) with those souls who sprang from deep, good soil. Most of us are not so lucky . . . we fight for our survival and for every bit of growth that we might ascertain in this life: meaning we pain over decisions that better men do almost instinctively. I think it lies in the capacity of individual souls to love and love fully. Some have to work at it and others seem to work at capacity from the moment they sprout up as Children of God.
LikeLike
….. well, the discussion style did no such thing – a statement that I had said ‘not x’ when I had stated x only served to show your own deficiencies; it is not a valid method of asking for further explanation.
I differ with you on the reading of Scripture. I tend to take the view that if it presents a narrative in a clear way (we’re not talking about a poetry section here) then the lesson we’re intended to draw from it is the clear meaning. This one is quite clear; God was angry enough to wipe the Israelites from the face of the earth and would have done had not Moses intervened.
As soon as we come up with ‘if y had not happened then z would not have happened either’, then we have difficulties, because y did happen (Moses intervened) and z also happened (the Israelites were spared destruction, but had to wonder in the desert for 40 years).
You’re right that there is some speculation, but I would take the view that Scripture was a nasty joke if we couldn’t draw the plain meaning from a plain narrative. (Of course, incisive theologians may find other hidden meanings as well; they shouldn’t contradict the basic meaning that children would infer if you read the story to them).
Yes – the parable of the seeds being sown and responding in different ways to the Word is important. At this point, all I can say is that I know that I am representative of the seed sown on the good ground; I am one of those included in Paul’s ‘we’ when he writes ‘We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?’ It is a moral impossibility. Of course, this has to be understood in the context of the sinful nature which although it is dead, in the sense that the victory is assured, is still very much active; the ‘wretched man’ passage (Romans 7v14 – 25) is the one I read at my baptism – and it is still true today.
I don’t know how God deals with others, that is pure speculation. My pure speculation is the following: at some point, God reveals himself in such a way that the individual understands what it is all about (Paul on the road to Damascus). Some, when they see what it is all about, give a definitive ‘yes’ in response (for example, Paul). Others, when they understand what it really is all about, don’t want it. Perhaps they don’t like their current situation, but they certainly don’t relish the Christian life.
That gives us, as believers, a huge responsibility. God uses His people (that is us) to witness. If our witness is unattractive, then perhaps we have responsibility if people look at us and say, ‘if that’s your Christianity, you can keep it; I’ll have none of it’.
I also think that working at it and witnessing for Christ is much easier if you know that you have passed from death to life and you know that turning from God is a moral impossibility.
Another hypothetical conditional: I believe that Moses knew he was saved. If he was in any way worried about his own salvation, I don’t believe he would have spoken to God in the way he did. You have to be quite confident of your position before God if you’re going to oppose him and speak out on behalf of a bunch of head bangers (which is what the Israelites were) to ask him not to carry out the plan that he has in mind and to relent. That looks to me like a man absolutely sure of his own position and he is able to be an effective servant as a result.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we are largely in agreement though we seem to process the how’s and why’s in different ways. In itself, I doubt the details of such things will be of little help or hindrance to either of us on our deathbed’s or during our personal judgment. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The false religion Marys hinge their salvation on a false notion that Mary said yes to Gabriel. She was told she was having the baby.She wasn’t asked her permission, like the false church Marys like to believe.
LikeLike
Concur, and very well said. I note that your point on some recent converts has been borne out, still again. 🙂
LikeLike
If some big cheese in some religious organisation has some intelligent thoughts about the reformation, then I am very happy for him, but the good book does enjoin us not to be respecters of persons; I’m equally happy with the intelligent thoughts of somebody of no importance, who simply sits in the pew at the back of the church every Sunday.
As far as his thoughts go, he entirely misses the point when he talks about the ‘theological and spiritual values.’ Of course, there were heavy weight theologians around at the time, but the ‘reformation’ would have happened in some form anyway, even without them, for political reasons, as a reaction against the political control that the Church of Rome seemed to have.
For example – in Sweden, Gustav Vasa seems to have been mostly annoyed because of the enormous quantities of land that the Church of Rome possessed in Sweden. It’s pretty clear that he couldn’t be bothered reading any theology at all; he much preferred a good fight. The Swedish nobility siding with the Church of Rome mostly did so because they had already sworn fealty to Sigismund – and in those days that meant something. Their allegiance to Rome was not through any deeply held theological principle; it was simply that they had already sworn loyalty to Sigismund. The reformation in Sweden took place basically because the Finnish cavalry (pro-Catholic) turned up for the main battle 10 days too late.
The reformation did give us some very important innovations. For example, ‘fire and movement’ (the idea that you arm your forces reasonably lightly so that they have greater mobility) was a brilliant insight by Gustav II Adolf, which led to some great victories during the 30 year war.
In Scotland, the reformation was given a good push in the right direction because of the money that the Church of Rome was taking from the Scots; Scotland was a reasonably poor country at the time. There is a beautiful church in Verona that was built using the Scottish tithe – which shows you just how much money they were taking and what they were using it for. We were very fortunate and blessed that the Good Lord gave us John Knox, but it was the greedy political wing of Catholicism that laid the foundations for the reformation and gave people the appropriate frame of mind to listen to John Knox.
What of the reformation? Well, they did have some wonderful theological understanding, but the ‘reformers’ made one crucial error; they didn’t see the importance of separating church and state. Also (connected with this, because they still had the idea of a ‘Christian country’), they still held onto ideas such as infant baptism, which is a sure-fire way of perpetuating ‘the sorts of abuses which grow up over time in every church’. You see the pattern repeating time and time again. The parents may be sincere and may have a sincere desire to pass their faith onto their children. The children are baptised into the church, grow up in the church, they like the church even though they are ‘well catechised’ and the teaching is like water off a duck’s back, they like the Sunday school and the other children they meet there; the only problem is that they don’t take the spiritual side as seriously as one might like. But having been baptised into the church and having their social life within the church, they are part of the church. What is the logical conclusion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re preaching to the converted with regard to me. I understand why, needing the State to protect them against the Catholic counter-attack, the reformers stuck with the State in the first instance, but agree that it was a mistake to do so long term. As one whose ancestors were persecuted by Catholics and Anglicans, I forgive them both – but it doesn’t convince me you need a chap in a funny hat in a big palace to tell you what to do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You might not need a child molester in a fish hat to tell you what to do, but the false church Marys need the molester to tell them what to do. They love molesters.
LikeLike
The filthy of mind think everyone else is filthy – get help young fellow, you so clearly need it.
LikeLike
Cardinal Law is now a fixture in the Vatican. Maybe I should get help from him. Or, maybe Cardinal Mahoney can help me be a believer. Maybe Saint Marciel can hover over me and make me see the huevos, oooops, I mean the light.
LikeLike
If you really knew Jesus, you would not be so filthy-minded.
LikeLike
Tell the press to stop reporting about molester priests and I won have any ammo.
LikeLike
The filthy blame everyone but their own sinfulness.
LikeLike
Jock
What you are missing here is an understanding of who was “someone” or a “person” in the sixteenth century.
When people talk about the Church having lands or property in that era, they are talking about the only remotely meritocratic institution in the era.
The objection to the Church having property didn’t come from the peasantry, it came from the various royal houses and nobility.
In England, at least, a butcher’s son could become cardinal and aspire to the papacy, whereas the envious minor sons of the Norman brigands could aspire to nothing greater than a dose of the pox until Henry VIII decided earlier to trade in his wife for a younger model.
The whole reformation, throughout Europe, was nothing more than the seizure of assets by a piratical “elite” for their own interests and the creation of divers client “churches” to serve their needs.
The fact that it also created chimps who vaporise about “Dagon fish-hats” is only one of its more amusing consequences.
The great tragedy of the reformation has been that a great many truly great Christians have been cut off from the root of orthodox belief and have had to do a lot of spade work to find it again (however imperfectly) , endangering their own and others’ salvation in the process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Says you. You might care to follow what you church teaches, not what your narrow mind thinks it ought to teach. Can you point me to the passage in Nostra Aetate which says what you say, as it appears to be missing from the on line copy I consulted to check 🙂
LikeLike
Hey Geoffrey, I’m a life long Catholic and I was baptized as an infant. Just thought I’d throw it out there. I’m going to express a palette of thoughts here.
When looking at history, one must be careful not to fall into macro-generalizations. In many ways, the challenges brought out of the reformation and also the enlightenment that led to challenging Christian doctrine and protecting the secular modern state can be argued equally guilty. When examining the past, one must have a respect of historicism and understand that secular state’s operated under divine rule of kinds and challenge to the Church was de jure treason to the state. The Classical Liberalists knew this, which is why when reprising democracy in the 18th century attempted to also create a separation. However….. ….. regardless of how one’s bias determines their outlook of historical events. There are not many who would claim no atrocities were committed to any select group. The Church must ask forgiveness for less than Christian methods and ask for mercy.
On another note.
I’ve had the discussion with a Lutheran pastor friend about justification. I was sitting there and I said it appears both sides are just content with talking past each other. I mentioned, as you did, that if you have faith in God, you will naturally do good works. The two go hand and hand with each other.
Perhaps because of his faith’s focus on Sola Fide he just couldn’t agree with me. He was hesitant through the whole explanation, but at the same time he couldn’t tell me I was wrong.
The Pope has declared a Year of Mercy, he’s the pastor for the entire Church. A theme that it appears he believes the faithful needs to focus on again. It may seem strange for others to be inspired by Preacher in a ‘funny hate’ However, I’ve always found it strange having powerpoint presentations during a church service giving me a “sermon series.”
Regardless, a year of Mercy, the lesson of Mercy is a continual one, and yes, sometimes the faithful do need a reminder. Let us thank God for that reminder.
Again, I apologize for the palette of idea resembling more a stream of consciousness than a coherent argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m having trouble understanding why your pastor friend has trouble with that statement. It’s a bit of a dead controversy anyhow. The joint Lutheran/Catholic/ Methodist statement on Justification says this:
“15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]
16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life.
17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God’s saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way. […]
37.We confess together that good works – a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love – follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.”
Which is not much more than a restatement of Lutheran Doctrine going back to Luther, himself. If I understand correctly, it also follows what the Catholic church has said since at least Trent. The whole document is enlightening and available here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh familiar with the document, I’ve even told him about it. He’s LCMS, it was my understanding from him that they don’t agree with the above document. Perhaps, I misunderstood him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m familiar* sorry phone took over.
LikeLike
Could well be, it was the european equivalent of the ELCA. But it’s still very close to what Luther said.
LikeLike
Much of interest in here. It is good that Christian doctrine is challenged. Our theology was at its most vibrant when Christianity did not dominate the public square – the Cappadocian Fathers and Augustine and Ambrose were all the sharper for not being feather-bedded by never having their assumptions questioned. I think Luther forced the Catholic Church to review its theology, and it is such a shame it essentially tied its chariot to everything n European life that was reactionary and regressive – it did it no good – Pius IX was a disgrace, dreadful bigoted old peasant who was deeply suspicious of anyone who could think – especially Newman. I think we can now see one of the good effects of VII has been a revival if good Catholic theology.
Never understood a fella who couldn’t see that faith produces good works – does their own faith not do so?
LikeLike
I suppose they have enough faith to sit at home… ?
I’m glad you brought up Cardinal Newman, I think many need to be reminded of one who thought outside of the box to fight modernism but was seen has a heretic by heresy-hunters of his day.
I think folks are suspicious of the word reform. In a way, it also means accountability. For example, many assert the Church under the Tridentine liturgy was somehow impervious to corruption, I’m still stumped how exactly, but I suppose they forget the Machiavellian political intrigue of Pope Alexander VI (just 3 Popes prior to the reformation) and others.
Cardinal Newman understood the flaws of the Church, and many saw him as a heretic because of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very true – and what a great man he was!
LikeLiked by 2 people
He was a sick sad homo. You need to pull your nose out of the popes rear end..
LikeLike
He was a Godly man, you need to stop believing rubbish you read on line.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – when I read about these Godly men, I’m always suspicious.
How come the Godly men of Scripture are almost invariably a bunch of rotters (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all 12 of his sons were all seriously reprehensible, not to mention David the adulterer. Samson was a man of God) while reading the life history of these good and pious Catholic saints, we find that they are invariably sickeningly good.
I don’t know anything about Cardinal Newman, but there’s something that doesn’t quite add up here.
LikeLike
Jesus said all men are evil. I get my info about sweety boy from his own words.
LikeLike
To the filthy-minded, all is filth – let the filthy be filthy – and you are certainly that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every day above ground is a good day. Seek the Lord while he may be found.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet, we are told ‘let him who is filthy be filthy still’ – heed those words
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t even know what that means. Its for after the rapture. Get born again….then we can talk.
LikeLike
When you meet the real Jesus and cease being filthy, you will know what it means, until then you remain a cesspit.
LikeLike
Say good brother Jock…..good brother Newman was a died in the wool raging leaping flaming homo of the tenth dergree. Well, what catholic priest isn’t a raging homo?
LikeLike
I think you need to wash your brain with a good dose of carbolic acid. It might help.
You seem to be obsessed with this. You aren’t hiding something, are you? Are you sure you don’t want to join the Catholic priesthood?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I came out of the closet my brother. I admitted to a homosexual relationship…….with a horse.
LikeLike
The Reformation. This is the last blog to bring that sore spot up. Ive been in los angeles for the last 10 days. No computer. Just radio. Ive been listening to this station called Immaculat Heart Ridio….930 on the AM dial in so cal and you can find it on the internet. Its a Catholic Answers . com owned station. It says the prot religion are all lost and wrong. And that only the Marys have the fullness of the faith or what ever. Then, every 3 hours or so, they repeat this Hail Mary thing for a full half hour. They think they will be heard for their much speaking……….I guess this is part of their fullness. When they are full of bowing befor graven images, they get full of repeating prayer, then they get up and call men Father. I guess that is their fullness………full of blasphemy.
LikeLike
Maybe more people find it preferable to what you’re full of?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What an odd man you are. I spend my time in prayer and studying scripture and preaching the word on the street. I commend it to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Youre stillstudying scripture? Only took me a few weeks to get it all down.Have you ever lived by faith? For your food and shelter? No money in your pocket?
LikeLike
I have kived by fauth all my life. If you think a week is enough time to spend with Scripture, it explains everything.
LikeLike
The Reformation. Good brother Luther got a face full of the fullness of the C of M and didn’t like what he saw. It was bound to happen. People are bound to get sick of wickedness.
LikeLike
Pingback: Luther’s misunderstanding | From guestwriters