The Gospel According to Catholic's

[robrecht]

I'm curious about your reaction this chart, Robrecht. Is it erroneous?

Attachment 70814

It seems overly mechanistic and two-dimensional to outline such deep mysteries in a flow chart. I might very well disagree on several points but would first need to have a rather involved conversation with the author to make sure I understoodd his or her intended meaning correctly. Is this by Jim McCarthy?

[RBerman]

It seems overly mechanistic and two-dimensional to outline such deep mysteries in a flow chart. I might very well disagree on several points but would first need to have a rather involved conversation with the author to make sure I understoodd his or her intended meaning correctly. Is this by Jim McCarthy?

I have no idea. I saw it out on teh internetz. Is the chart incorrect that the RCC teaches that good works and the sacraments and indulgences are all means of acquiring grace to offset the temporal penalties of sin which would otherwise prolong your purgatorial experience?

[robrecht]

I have no idea. I saw it out on teh internetz. Is the chart incorrect that the RCC teaches that good works and the sacraments and indulgences are all means of acquiring grace to offset the temporal penalties of sin which would otherwise prolong your purgatorial experience?

The celebration of the sacraments or genuine repentance are indeed an expression of faith working through love of others, of God and even of oneself as we strive toward more perfect communion with God, the Body of Christ, and all creation. Catholics have tended toward humility in estimating their personal progress toward the perfection of divinization. I think this partly explains the hope for God's patience that manifests itself in the belief in purgatory. Indulgences are merely a kind of instruction that may help some to make small prayerful or charitable steps toward perfection. We punish ourselves and others every day by our failure to love more perfectly. Some of the specifics of which you speak are not central to the 'catholic' gospel life, but they can be appreciated as concrete examples of faith working through love.

[Scrawly]

I just had a huge laugh to myself! The originator of this thread, imo, set out to attack the RCC, and has been strangely absent from discussion once it became rational and accademic. But that is not what caused me great amusement! What caused me great amusement is that as a RCC advocate I've found myself pushing forward Calvin's opinion against a supposed Calvinist, who, imo, inadvertently proposes RCC ideas against Calvin

Yeah, I'm chronically ill and it takes a lot of strength I don't have to participate in rigorous debate. I create threads and participate to the point I can, but when it becomes too technical and involved I take a back seat and just follow the discussion as my health permits. Isn't that absolutely hilarious?

[RBerman]

The celebration of the sacraments or genuine repentance are indeed an expression of faith working through love of others, of God and even of oneself as we strive toward more perfect communion with God, the Body of Christ, and all creation. Catholics have tended toward humility in estimating their personal progress toward the perfection of divinization. I think this partly explains the hope for God's patience that manifests itself in the belief in purgatory. Indulgences are merely a kind of instruction that may help some to make small prayerful or charitable steps toward perfection. We punish ourselves and others every day by our failure to love more perfectly. Some of the specifics of which you speak are not central to the 'catholic' gospel life, but they can be appreciated as concrete examples of faith working through love.

It sounds like you agree in essence with the chart and with my previous post about what "faith working through love" actually looks like, however winsomely you present those same concepts. Just to clarify: Do you believe in purgatory?

[apostoli]

Yeah, I'm chronically ill and it takes a lot of strength I don't have to participate in rigorous debate. I create threads and participate to the point I can, but when it becomes too technical and involved I take a back seat and just follow the discussion as my health permits. Isn't that absolutely hilarious?

Can relate! I've had major health issues and various complications, but life goes on! If you have health issues and can't fully particiate in a forum like this, just say so. Most people here will have symphathy. But don't go trashing another persons faith for the sake of your own ego, could be a person's faith is all thats getting them through a day. Isn't that absolutely hilarious!!!

[robrecht]

It sounds like you agree in essence with the chart ...

Read again what I wrote! It seems to me mechanistic and shallow (two dimensional) and not well suited to the mysteries and mysterious reality about which it purports to speak. In additional to those fundamental criticisms, I also said I might very well disagree on several (more specific) points but would first need to have a rather involved conversation with the author to make sure I understoodd his or her intended meaning correctly.

... however winsomely you present those same concepts.

Winsome? Do you mean that you find now these concepts "engaging - attractive - fetching - charming - winning"?

Just to clarify: Do you believe in purgatory?

I believe the idea is true in a very strong and nonpejorative mythological sense, ie, but it concerns realities that we only see as if thourgh a glass, darkly so I put it in a mythological category of belief and doctrine that may not lend itself to shallow or hypercritical interrogation by those who do not appreciate the mythological in the same way. It communicates true Christian intuitions about broader realities than can be represented on a two-dimensional flow-chart.

[RBerman]

Read again what I wrote! It seems to me mechanistic and shallow (two dimensional) and not well suited to the mysteries and mysterious reality about which it purports to speak. In additional to those fundamental criticisms, I also said I might very well disagree on several (more specific) points but would first need to have a rather involved conversation with the author to make sure I understoodd his or her intended meaning correctly.

OK.

Winsome? Do you mean that you find now these concepts "engaging - attractive - fetching - charming - winning"?

No, I find the Roman system of works-righteousness to be hellish. But I can see that you are attempting to soft-sell as simply "faith working through love" it so it will seem attractive.

I believe the idea is true in a very strong and nonpejorative mythological sense, ie, but it concerns realities that we only see as if thourgh a glass, darkly so I put it in a mythological category of belief and doctrine that may not lend itself to shallow or hypercritical interrogation by those who do not appreciate the mythological in the same way. It communicates true Christian intuitions about broader realities than can be represented on a two-dimensional flow-chart.

You are waffling, sir.

[robrecht]

No, I find the Roman system of works-righteousness to be hellish. But I can see that you are attempting to soft-sell as simply "faith working through love" it so it will seem attractive.

This comment seems to be bordering on personal attack.

You are waffling, sir.

Not at all. You asked what I believe and I told you. You may denigrate that as waffling, but it is clearly not. Do you have examples where I expressed a belief that I later partly retracted? Or do you also have a nonstandard definition of 'waffling'?

[RBerman]

This comment seems to be bordering on personal attack.

I'm talking about "the Roman system of works-righteousness." It's not an attack to say that you try to present your views in an appealing way. Everybody ought to do that. I just happen to think that the views themselves are hellish, in the literal sense that those who hold them are in danger of hell.

Not at all. You asked what I believe and I told you. You may denigrate that as waffling, but it is clearly not. Do you have examples where I expressed a belief that I later partly retracted? Or do you also have a nonstandard definition of 'waffling'?

Waffling includes being vague, as in, "I believe in purgatory in a mythological sort of way." I believe in Santa in a mythological sort of way.

[robrecht]

I'm talking about "the Roman system of works-righteousness." It's not an attack to say that you try to present your views in an appealing way. Everybody ought to do that. I just happen to think that the views themselves are hellish, in the literal sense that those who hold them are in danger of hell.

But I am not trying to soft sell my faith in a manner that will seem attractive. That to me sounds rather dishonest.

Waffling includes being vague, as in, "I believe in purgatory in a mythological sort of way." I believe in Santa in a mythological sort of way.

That I believe, like Saint Paul, that there are indeed divine mysteries that we only know as through a glass darkly should in know way imply that Paul's or my faith is in any way akin to belief in Santa Claus.

[RBerman]

But I am not trying to soft sell my faith in a manner that will seem attractive. That to me sounds rather dishonest.

Well, your faith is attractive from your point of view; that's why you hold it. You wouldn't believe it if you thought it was hellish, right? So it's only natural that you present it in an attractive way.

That I believe, like Saint Paul, that there are indeed divine mysteries that we only know as through a glass darkly should in know way imply that Paul's or my faith is in any way akin to belief in Santa Claus.

"Through a glass darkly" means that we don't understand things perfectly. But I'm trying to get you to articulate your imperfect understanding of purgatory. You're already veering from RCC dogma; I've never heard the leaders of your church use the word "mythological" when the topic of purgatory comes up. Not a criticism, mind you. You shouldn't hold to the doctrine of purgatory, or any other doctrine not defensible from Scripture.

[robrecht]

Well, your faith is attractive from your point of view; that's why you hold it. You wouldn't believe it if you thought it was hellish, right? So it's only natural that you present it in an attractive way.

But, again, I am not trying to soft sell my faith in a manner that will seem attractive. That to me sounds rather dishonest. I am not trying to soft sell anything.

"Through a glass darkly" means that we don't understand things perfectly. But I'm trying to get you to articulate your imperfect understanding of purgatory. You're already veering from RCC dogma; I've never heard the leaders of your church use the word "mythological" when the topic of purgatory comes up. Not a criticism, mind you. You shouldn't hold to the doctrine of purgatory, or any other doctrine not defensible from Scripture.

I have articulated my imperfect understanding of purgatory, but in no more detail than I feel capable of at the moment. Indeed, it does not seem that you have a great deal of experience listening to or reading some of the theological leaders of my church. My teaching has received both private and public scrutiny by leading ecclesiastical and theological authorities of my church. I certainly will not deny that there were some serious and minor concerns on the part of some but not by the majority. The realities of my family life do not allow me to currently exercise my teaching mission professionally, but there is no impediment from my doing so.

[RBerman]

But, again, I am not trying to soft sell my faith in a manner that will seem attractive. That to me sounds rather dishonest. I am not trying to soft sell anything.

As I said before, I had no thought that you were being dishonest. But I also don't believe that "faith working through love" is the most accurate description of the RCC approach to justification. It's a Biblical buzzword that has been freighted with unBiblical concepts about the nature of God's forgiveness.

I have articulated my imperfect understanding of purgatory, but in no more detail than I feel capable of at the moment. Indeed, it does not seem that you have a great deal of experience listening to or reading some of the theological leaders of my church. My teaching has received both private and public scrutiny by leading ecclesiastical and theological authorities of my church. I certainly will not deny that there were some serious and minor concerns on the part of some but not by the majority. The realities of my family life do not allow me to currently exercise my teaching mission professionally, but there is no impediment from my doing so.

Can you point me to magisterial documentation concerning the mythological nature of purgatory? Something by a pope or cardinal or council?

[robrecht]

As I said before, I had no thought that you were being dishonest. But I also don't believe that "faith working through love" is the most accurate description of the RCC approach to justification. It's a Biblical buzzword that has been freighted with unBiblical concepts about the nature of God's forgiveness.

I'm glad that you now say that you do not feel that I am being dishonest about my faith by soft selling it. Nor am I using biblical buzzwords to misrepresent my faith. Catholics believe very strongly in the infinite nature of God's forgiveness.

Can you point me to magisterial documentation concerning the mythological nature of purgatory? Something by a pope or cardinal or council?

Not at the moment. Not my primary specialty. If I ever have time to dig up some of my notes, I could do so easily, 'though with a broader but still valid understanding of the Roman Catholic magisterial office than is sometimes intended by those who are not well informed on the matter. I would need to dig into some of the writings of cardinals and theological experts at the 2nd Vatican Council. I would also appeal to other catholic theologians, whose offical canonical mission to teach theology is conferred by Rome and who are in good standing.