Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11
Woman denied Communion because she's a lesbian
Topic Started: Mar 1 2012, 08:38 AM (4,045 Views)
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
kenny
Mar 3 2012, 10:06 AM
What if Blacks, or left handed people, or red heads were denied communion?

The message is clear.
Gays are inferior.

That's insulting.

You know that none of that is true.

Everyone here knows that none of that is true.

What's the point?

Even if it were true, so what? Do gay bars follow Catholic rules? Why not? Are Catholics inferior?

You have a disease that has nothing to do with any kind of orientation kenny, get some treatment.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Mar 3 2012, 10:06 AM
What if Blacks, or left handed people, or red heads were denied communion?

The message is clear.
Gays are inferior.

That's insulting.
Given that negroids, sinisters and gingers have never been denied Communion for being so -- and people who are sexually attracted to people of their same sex have never been denied Communion for being so -- I am not sure what your point is.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 3 2012, 08:52 AM
Dewey
Mar 3 2012, 01:09 AM
I don't think the real issue in question is the volume with which she was denied communion by the priest.
Yes it is -- he made every effort to preserve her dignity and not draw attention to it, presumably so it could be handled pastorally afterward (which is what most priests I know do). She was intent on making a spectacle and deliberately profaning the sacrament -- when he did not afford her that, she went to the press.
I'd say that the actual point here is not whether the RCC has the right to establish whatever rules it wants for its members. They do. And it isn't whether the priest was discreet about his refusal to allow her access to the sacrament, or if he shouted it at her with a bullhorn. The issue at hand is whether the church is *right* in the rules it sets. I don't think that they are.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
So your position is that someone who is willingly sinning and fully intends to defiantly continue to do so should be eligible to receive communion.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 3 2012, 09:43 AM
True enough, but my predictable anticlericalism is equally matched by the persistent apologetics of others. In this case the good padre had a nagging headache that made him feel miserable. If it's any consolation I too feel miserable around churchmen and pious laity regardless of their sexual orientation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
This story seems bizarre. Grandstanding. The lesbian daughter seems self-absorbed.
Going to a funeral, I'm there to honor the dead person, to pray, to grieve.
This is the purpose of a funeral.
If I were lesbian, a funeral is hardly the place to state being a lesbian.
Sheesh. My dead mother wouldn't approve of me doing this there and then and how.
Gotta have some respect, ya know.
If this lady were sincere, empathetic, respecting, solely in the moment, she would've kept her mouth zipped for her mother's sake, and passed on the wafer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Dewey
Mar 3 2012, 11:41 AM

The issue at hand is whether the church is *right* in the rules it sets. I don't think that they are.

Is it *right* to have Commandments?
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
Oh, and if I were the priest, I would've given the gal the wafer.
I think I would've been mature enough to see the situation for what it was .. I would've realized the mother's life was what needed to be celebrated & honored, like there and then with the mass.
If I as a priest had any guilt, regret of it later, I would've prayed a "Forgive me Father, I have sinned ..." This could've come later, after the funeral mass was over. IOWs, I would've muttered a few Hail Mary's myself for the sake of the dead woman's soul.

But then again, I am a fallen Catholic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
blondie
Mar 3 2012, 12:26 PM
This story seems bizarre. Grandstanding. The lesbian daughter seems self-absorbed.
Going to a funeral, I'm there to honor the dead person, to pray, to grieve.
This is the purpose of a funeral.
If I were lesbian, a funeral is hardly the place to state being a lesbian.
Sheesh. My dead mother wouldn't approve of me doing this there and then and how.
Gotta have some respect, ya know.
If this lady were sincere, empathetic, respecting, solely in the moment, she would've kept her mouth zipped for her mother's sake, and passed on the wafer.
Very good post.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Mar 3 2012, 12:13 PM
So your position is that someone who is willingly sinning and fully intends to defiantly continue to do so should be eligible to receive communion.
I think the short answer to your question is "yes." To rule out those who fall into the criterion you've laid out would disqualify every single believer.

Thankfully for all of us Christians, the sacrament is intended to be received by those who are utterly unworthy of the grace being bestowed through it. It is not a meal meant for the perfect. Every single believer in Christ - let me back up and say that again - every single believer in Christ comes to the Table in a state of willfully sinning and in some manner or another fully intends to defiantly continue to do so. Every single believer rationalizes and justifies his or her actions, cherry-picking which scriptural injunctions they will accept and abide by, and which ones they will fudge on or completely ignore.

The very idea that those who are administering the sacrament, and those who have been deemed "worthy" of participating in it, consider themselves to be in some way more worthy of coming to the Lord's Table than others is, in my opinion, terribly bent theology and misses the entire foundation of Jesus' teaching. I point again to Jesus' own actions in coming to table with the supposedly worst of the worst in the culture of his time, without any precondition that they have a change of heart before he sat down with them. This is as true regarding those he encountered along the way during his earthly ministry as it was on the night when he instituted the sacrament, inviting the clearly flawed disciples to participate in the meal. And I think it so bent as to be laughable theology to think that some human being presumes himself or herself to be a "guardian," protecting Jesus from being in some way sullied by an "unworthy" person slipping through the cracks and receiving the elements. Beyond the fact that Jesus showed that he was quite willing to be sullied to an infinite degree on behalf of humanity, I believe Jesus is a big boy - bigger than any of his presumed "protectors" - and he can handle himself when it comes to uniting with those whom he will, and won't.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Dewey
Mar 3 2012, 04:04 PM
Mikhailoh
Mar 3 2012, 12:13 PM
So your position is that someone who is willingly sinning and fully intends to defiantly continue to do so should be eligible to receive communion.
I think the short answer to your question is "yes." To rule out those who fall into the criterion you've laid out would disqualify every single believer.

... Every single believer in Christ - let me back up and say that again - every single believer in Christ comes to the Table in a state of willfully sinning and in some manner or another fully intends to defiantly continue to do so. Every single believer rationalizes and justifies his or her actions, cherry-picking which scriptural injunctions they will accept and abide by, and which ones they will fudge on or completely ignore.

Sorry, no, I don't buy it. We're talking about unrepentent sinners here. Yes we rationalize sins but it is not true that every single believer is threrefore unrepentant, since we rationalized our bad actions. Entirely untrue.

Quote:
 
The very idea that those who are administering the sacrament, and those who have been deemed "worthy" of participating in it, consider themselves to be in some way more worthy of coming to the Lord's Table than others is, in my opinion, terribly bent theology and misses the entire foundation of Jesus' teaching.


I wonder how many Catholic masses you've been to, because before Communion is given out the priest makes it very clear that all who participate are not worthy to receive Jesus.

To disagree with the Church's call is one thing but even I don't see any standing for any of this you're saying.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Copper
Mar 3 2012, 12:46 PM
Dewey
Mar 3 2012, 11:41 AM

The issue at hand is whether the church is *right* in the rules it sets. I don't think that they are.

Is it *right* to have Commandments?
Down there at the Moose Lodge, I think they refer to them as "The Ten Suggestions".
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
That's entirely your prerogative, Aqua. It's also entirely understandable; you and I view this situation from the two distinctly different places arising out of being steeped in Catholic and Protestant theologies, respectively.

Beyond that though, every person who rationalizes a thought or action considered sin by the church is simply making an excuse for thinking or doing something that they think they should have thought or done, and, by extension, should continue to think or do. There is neither real confession nor repentance in doing that.

I'm not talking about the kind of rationalization that says, "Well yeah, I did that, but there were extenuating circumstances that made me do it; but I agree it's wrong and hopefully the next time I'm faced with it, I'll act differently." That's simply rationalizing why you did something you accept was wrong. The rationalization I'm talking about here is like saying - even though it's usually just acted upon, and rarely put in such bald words - "Yeah, I know the Bible (or the church) says that doing X is wrong, but I don't think that's correct. I don't think that's really a sin, and there isn't anything wrong with my doing it, so I'm going to continue doing it."

It's my contention that in any number of ways, every Christian engages in just such rationalization. I could offer up a long list of biblical injunctions that individuals, not to mention the church, have decided didn't really apply to us. I understand that you disagree - you think that there are Christians who do not engage in that sort of behavior and thought process. I can tell you that in my experience, I've not met a single one who met that standard. I believe - and it is consistent with Protestant theology regarding humanity - our "anthropology," as IT would say - that this is a universal condition to humanity. We are al intractably living in a broken state - a state of sin - and a part of being in that state is not only the utter impossibility of living up to God's ideal, but even the impossibility of completely *wanting* to do so. Even those of us who have been justified/reconciled with God retain this deficiency. In our broken state, even when we profess that we want to repent, we don't want completely to repent - we want to hold onto our particular favored sins and not repent of them, often to the point of trying to argue they aren't sins - and that attitude itself becomes part of what we confess and ask forgiveness for.

As far as what the priest says during the Mass, I'm familiar with the words spoken. In fact, I use almost much the same, and sometimes the exact same, words, when I administer the same sacrament. But to that point, I simply disagree with the concept of first claiming that we are all unworthy to come to the Table and participate in the Communion of God's people, and then turn around and say, in a way *completely* contrary to Christ's teaching and actions, "But even though none of us is worthy to participate, we're going to allow ourselves to participate and block you from doing so."

That's what I'm sorry about, and don't buy.

Either we actually believe that we're all unworthy, or we don't. In this sense, I think I believe the words of the priest more than he and the church do themselves. I am grateful to God for the mercy and grace offered me by God's - and it is God's, not the priests's or the minister's - inviting me in all my unworthiness to the Table. If I turn around and treat others with a lack of the same mercy (just as in Jesus' Parable of the Ungrateful Servant - see below), then I've missed the whole point and teaching of the person my mouth is calling "Lord."

***

The Parable of the Ungrateful Servant

[Jesus said,'] "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents [ an amount of money equivalent to about 150,000 years' wages ] was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt.

But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii [ roughly four months' wages ]; and seizing him by the throat, he said, 'Pay what you owe.' Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt.

When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.

So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart."

(Matthew 18:23-35 NRSV)
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
The rationalization I'm talking about here is like saying - even though it's usually just acted upon, and rarely put in such bald words - "Yeah, I know the Bible (or the church) says that doing X is wrong, but I don't think that's correct. I don't think that's really a sin, and there isn't anything wrong with my doing it, so I'm going to continue doing it."


It is wrong to say that every single sinner in the world makes this rationalization. It is just plain not so. It is not a universal condition of humanity but of people who ultimately hold no strong convictions. A very big line is crossed when one goes from "I acknowledge that this is sinful behavior" to saying "this is not sinful behavior" and it is not a line we all cross. 

Quote:
 
But to that point, I simply disagree with the concept of first claiming that we are all unworthy to come to the Table and participate in the Communion of God's people, and then turn around and say, in a way *completely* contrary to Christ's teaching and actions, "But even though none of us is worthy to participate, we're going to allow ourselves to participate and block you from doing so."


Eliminating the specific example of the thread, the point of this type of exclusion is that only folks who are serious about having a relationship with God should attend God's mass. If you're going to continue to sin, and as you say, don't even acknowledge that what you're doing is sinful, then what's the point? Why even pretend you're trying not to sin when in that case, clearly you aren't? Even desiring not to sin is an indication that you believe your actions are sinful. But if you just plain don't care, what's there to forgive? And again, you have yet to prove that this is a mentality shared by all. 
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'


You're talking about people who are saying, "I have no intention of ever paying you back."
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
It is wrong to say that every single sinner in the world makes this rationalization. It is just plain not so.


We simply differ on this. I understand your belief, but I believe differently. I believe that every single one of us holds onto some form of sin that we have no desire to give up - even if, in other aspects we want to repent and be in right relationship with God. And I believe that if we don't believe this about people - and most importantly, about ourselves - then we just haven't examined ourselves sufficiently deeply yet. I have never met a single person who has not exhibited this in some way or another. Even more fascinating, in conversations with the people we might consider the most saintly, they have been most adamant about the fact that this is true about themselves, and that they engage in some sort of rationalization of the fact. The more deeply we know ourselves, we come to realize that we are not truly, totally repentant about everything in our lives, no matter how much we may truly love God and want to be reconciled with God, and how repentant we may be of other parts of our lives.

Quote:
 
A very big line is crossed when one goes from "I acknowledge that this is sinful behavior" to saying "this is not sinful behavior" and it is not a line we all cross.


I believe that it is -in fact, I'll go one step further. I believe we all also cross the line of "I acknowledge that this is sinful behavior, but I don't really want to repent of it and have no plans to do so." I'm not saying this is right. And I'm saying that we're called to continue throughout our lives, to improve that attitude via the process of sanctification. But I do not believe we ever completely reach that goal. Further, in the meantime, we are still eligible to participate within the sacraments and the life of the church. It is a gathering of imperfect and yes, even somewhat unrepentant, continually striving to increase in the depth of their discipleship. Admittance is not restricted until we reach some mythical state of perfection, including perfect repentance. Jesus did not require it of those he came together with at table; neither then must we.

Quote:
 
Eliminating the specific example of the thread, the point of this type of exclusion is that only folks who are serious about having a relationship with God should attend God's mass. If you're going to continue to sin, and as you say, don't even acknowledge that what you're doing is sinful, then what's the point?


The point is that the Church is not a gathering of the perfect, but of the irreparably broken, who all happen to be on a commonly shared lifelong journey of gradually trying to be more Christlike - and who must all rely on God's grace during that entire journey. We are all unworthy, and imperfectly repentant at whatever point we are in our own personal journey. Deepening our faith, and increasing our sanctification, is the entire purpose of the sacraments. Therefore, it's silly to want to withhold them from someone for being supposedly "unworthy," when we aren't worthy of it ourselves.

Quote:
 
And again, you have yet to prove that this is a mentality shared by all.


We're discussing theological beliefs, not math. You might believe a theological point; you may even convince someone else that your belief is correct. But *proof,* at least in the modern usage of the term, is something that doesn't enter the picture.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Mar 3 2012, 10:56 PM
Quote:
 
'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'


You're talking about people who are saying, "I have no intention of ever paying you back."
Actually, I think the more relevant parallel is that of the first servant - who could never, and had no actual intention, of paying back the 10,000 talents despite his profession to do so - a point which was obvious to the lord, who forgave him nonetheless.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
If people are irreparably broken, then there is no point in even attempting sanctification, and there is no point in religion or in not sinning. God has to either just forgive us and grant us salvation or not forgive us and condemn us for all eternity. Christ is not the healer, since if he were he could certainly heal our brokenness if we but asked and worked to cooperate with him. There is no real point in Christ's passion, death and resurrection since we are basically in the same place as we were before the Incarnation. There is no point in going to communion since there is no real manifestation of grace in the sacraments in terms of actual healing. There is no point in even trying to love since any act of love is just selfishness.

Yep -- definitely a difference in anthropologies.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
If people are irreparably broken, then there is no point in even attempting sanctification, and there is no point in religion or in not sinning.


That would only make sense if the only way one is justified/reconciled/saved is by their actions, and by their eventually becoming perfect in and of themselves. It's our tradition that not only is this not the case, it's actually impossible; and that while we are to strive to become more Christlike over the course of our lives, in gratitude for the unearned grace God has bestowed upon us, we can never reach the goal of living a life perfectly consistent with God's will. Despite our ongoing imperfection, though, God chooses to graciously extend mercy to us and treat us as if we were, in fact, perfect and sinless. Of course, this is the old difference of "imputed" versus "imparted" righteousness, and yes, we come down on opposite sides of the issue.

Quote:
 
There is no real point in Christ's passion, death and resurrection since we are basically in the same place as we were before the Incarnation.


Anthropologically, we are indeed in exactly the same place as before the Incarnation. The only difference before and after is that through the atoning act achieved via the cross, we now have the ability to become reconciled with God, despite that ongoing, irreparably broken state.

Yes, we have very, very different anthropologies.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 4 2012, 06:18 PM
Quote:
 
If people are irreparably broken, then there is no point in even attempting sanctification, and there is no point in religion or in not sinning.


That would only make sense if the only way one is justified/reconciled/saved is by their actions, and by their eventually becoming perfect in and of themselves. It's our tradition that not only is this not the case, it's actually impossible; and that while we are to strive to become more Christlike over the course of our lives, in gratitude for the unearned grace God has bestowed upon us, we can never reach the goal of living a life perfectly consistent with God's will. Despite our ongoing imperfection, though, God chooses to graciously extend mercy to us and treat us as if we were, in fact, perfect and sinless. Of course, this is the old difference of "imputed" versus "imparted" righteousness, and yes, we come down on opposite sides of the issue.
You sort of elided the whole part about "if we but asked and worked to cooperate with him."

But this helps elucidate our respective theologies. I think you have seriously problematic view of "God's will" (which is entirely consistent from your presuppositions -- if we are all in a state of total depravity then that would be the best we could do, except for the contradiction that even the "strive to become more Christlike" and the "gratitude for the unearned grace God has bestowed" is likewise mired in selfishness since everything we do under total depravity is thereby tainted).

From the Catholic perspective "God's will" -- indeed his perfect will for each of us -- is simply that we strive to love, strive to become holy, strive to open our hearts to his grace, strive to overcome our egos, strive to be a force for hope and love, strive to serve -- in short: strive to conform our lives to Christ. He knows our brokenness, our struggle, the difficulty with which virtue is acquired and vice is overcome -- which is why he gave us the Church and the sacraments to help us positively and objectively live the life of grace. There is no lack of certainty in knowing and actually living in God's perfect will for us.

Your view seems to give no hope for ever being in God's will while we are on earth, the Catholic view gives everyone both hope and clear direction for how to be perfectly in God's will. All you have to do to be perfectly in God's will is to want to be perfectly in God's will and start doing what he has shown us how to do.
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
There is no real point in Christ's passion, death and resurrection since we are basically in the same place as we were before the Incarnation.

Anthropologically, we are indeed in exactly the same place as before the Incarnation. The only difference before and after is that through the atoning act achieved via the cross, we now have the ability to become reconciled with God, despite that ongoing, irreparably broken state.

Yes, we have very, very different anthropologies.
Anthropologically there is every difference from the Catholic view. In baptism we have died with Christ -- we have put off the old man and put on the new. We are not only redeemed, we are now in the process of sanctification. Everything is now different -- not only our relationship to God, but our relationship to each other, and even our relationship within our self. We can indeed have mastery over our will and intellect and be free from the slavery of sin, since it is Christ within and the Holy Spirit who gives us specific and positive graces to be virtuous and happy (Isaiah 11:2-3, Gal 5:22).

If this were not so, then the injunction to "be holy, as I am holy" (Lev 11, Lev 20, all the parallel NT passages) would not only meaningless but a cruel joke and a source of neurosis.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
OK.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 4 2012, 09:01 PM
OK.

Good. Now let's sign you up for the Rite of Christian Initiation. :wave:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Don't confuse a refusal to engage in a pointless debate for assent.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 4 2012, 09:37 PM
Don't confuse a refusal to engage in a pointless debate for assent.
Of course Dewey.
As Chesterton said, people generally quarrel because they cannot argue.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
"If you cease to strive to understand, you may know, without understanding."
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11