10 Comments so far

1. Chad Winters on December 2, 2007 3:20 pm

   I may not be “theological” enough, but where I cannot agree with Rome is not in the gospel or justification (at least as they define now vs the 1600s) The main problem there seems to be semantics, they combine justification and sanctification which makes grace and works unclear. I prefer the protestant “splitter” vs “lumper” version as it makes clear what is happening when and avoids problems in eternal security.

   So in that case I assume the average catholic I meet is a brother in the body of christ with enough understanding of the Gospel to have saving faith.

   Where I can’t agree with Rome is all the Marianism, Canonization of Saints, Priests and other intermediaries between the believer and Christ. Men too often try to re-erect the curtain before the Holiest of Holies that was torn when Christ died.

   Also as history makes it clear that Popes are fallible, I would rather deal with the evangelical mess of many fallible people interepreting Scripture who can at least debate and sometimes work out a clearer answer, than be forced to accept the fallible interpretation of one person or group of persons without recourse.

   All men will be wrong at some point and at this point the Catholic Church has backed itself into a corner where it can never admit to error, and thus never fix prior errors.

   Its too bad, I would like to be closer to them.

   Oh and the Confessional to me wipes out the entire idea of open repentance and making right your transgressions. I should ask for forgiveness from God and from the person I wronged, not a secret confessional to a Priest in anonymity. That defeats the entire purpose and is clearly not what the Apostles or Scripture intended.

   And I can see Mary being mortified at being “Co-Mediatrix with Christ” and having her life as mother to James and other siblings of Christ wiped out, not to mention being a real wife to Joseph.

   But the Church would force me to read Matthew 1:24-25 as perpetual virginity:

   When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And(AG) he called his name Jesus.

   ————-
   This grieves me as I do think God wants a more unified church but how can it be done with this type of Magisterium on there side?

2. sthomsen on December 2, 2007 5:40 pm

   I read it.

   Over the years, the biblical concept of Christian Hope has played a pivotal role in my Christian life. So, I usually feel compelled to read anything I come across written on the subject, even if I expect to disagree with much of the substance of the piece.

   When I came across this piece, I was quite certain I would find little of substance with which to agree. However, as I read it, I became increasingly astonished at the amount of agreement I found. Of course, I disagreed with the usual suspects of RCC doctrines, but the Pope’s basic understanding of Christian hope - a confident expectation of God’s blessing - seemed spot on - and very un-catholic.

   Towards the end of the piece, he calls his listeners to have hope for the day of judgment, that it is not something a Christian need dread. He suggests that Christians need not dread purgatory either, that it may only be momentary, that it is a blessing, not a punishment that “transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves.”

   As a good Protestant, I reject the traditional catholic notion of purgatory, but I am quite sure I’ve heard something very close to this preached from at least two Evangelical pulpits, though the preachers never uttered the term.

   So, the piece left me a little perplexed. Is the Pope really a protestant? Will he be sacked when someone figures this out? It just seemed like a refreshing departure from much of Rome’s dark and superstitious teaching.

   In any case, I have already asked a roman catholic friend of mine to read it. I think it contains much to build on.

3. stevemoore on December 2, 2007 6:44 pm

   Chad,

   I agree with much of what you say, which is why I must ask if you read the Encyclical? You mention a lot of things the Pope doesn’t. ;^) I don’t wish to agree with Rome just for the sake of doing so, or because it may be trendy in Protestantism at this time. I agreed with the parts of this document which reflected my understanding of Biblical truth. What I was commenting on was that this seems to be an interesting departure from much of what I’ve read from Catholic literature and doctrine - and in a positive direction!

   Sam,

   I echo many if not all of your sentiments and experiences. What the Pope has articulated is far more protestant evangelical than what I’ve experienced in recent churches as well! Not only is the Pope’s basic understanding of hope and faith very un-catholic historically, I think he’s said it better than many evangelical protestants. He has removed the grounds to use fear of eternal consequences for the believer as a means of motivation (manipulation) to gain the obedience of men. Though this idea may seem to be historically more “catholic” (the fear of purgatory or inability to have confidence in ones eternal state) in origin has reared it’s head in protestant circles.

   Thanks for the comments.

   -steve

4. Chad Winters on December 3, 2007 1:14 am

   I did read, sorry I wasn’t more clear. I kind of dumped in everything I’ve been thinking about the RCC. (Let me make it clear I’m not an RCC basher. I think we may have thrown out too many good things during the Reformation. Some tradition is good and there has to be more to church than some songs and a sermon. I think evangelicals could do a better job at the spiritual side than we do)

   If I break it down, I thought the Soteriology part of the encyclical was very Biblical and while worded a little differently than I normally hear, was very orthodox.

   I nodded along until the last half or so of the encyclical when purgatory and praying to Mary came up. Ergo the rest of my comment above. It just wasn’t organized very well.

5. Steve Moore on December 3, 2007 8:00 am

   Doc,

   Thanks for clearing that up. You had me confused for a bit there. ;^)

   I think we agree about the issues of Hope and Faith with regard to the sotieriological aspects. My main point was that this was different than what I’ve heard through a good bit of protestantism and I think that the Pope got it right on these aspects and said it better than many of our protestant brethren. That was my motivation for making this post. Before this document I could _not_ have said that about the RCC view which is why I found this profound. (Either that or I just flat out misunderstood him).

   As for some of the bits and pieces- we agree. They didnt fit and I simply can’t agree with them as they are un-Biblical (sacrement of Baptism, Mariology).

   With regard to purgatory though, I felt this was a deviation with traditional RCC doctrine and a change towards a far more protestant understanding of what occurs between death and our ultimate glorification. Very close if not the same concept that I’ve heard in protestant circles: After death there is a moment whereby the final stages of our sanctification are complete and we are fully purified and made holy, once and for all. I find it hard to logically or Biblically argue with that articulation. Especially so when the Pope rightly argued that our post-earthly experience (after death) is not something the believer need to fear in any way. Very different than traditional RCC view of purgatory, and of fear. What will all the nuns in Catholic school be able to threaten the children with now? ;^)

   Thanks for your comments, again.

   -steve

6. Chad Winters on December 3, 2007 9:14 am

   True, he purgatory more palatable. I still don’t agree that people can do something to alter for other people after they die. And if you make it timeless or instantaneous….what are they prayers for the dead and the indulgences doing?

7. Chad Winters on December 3, 2007 9:14 am

   doh “he made purgatory” sorry

8. Steve Moore on December 3, 2007 9:19 am

   I would once again agree - I dont believe that we here can alter people’s condition once they are gone from this earth. I dont have an answer for you questions then obviously, as I also dont agree or understand that aspect of their teaching.

   -steve

9. Chad Winters on December 3, 2007 9:30 am

   You’re right though, if are differences are limited to those issues rather than soteriology/salvation, that is a huge step closer

10. JoanieD on January 4, 2008 8:43 pm

    Steve, I missed this when you first posted it but I just read the Pope’s entire encyclical and I was impressed by much of it too. My favorite sections are:

    Faith draws the future into the present, so that it is no longer simply a “not yet”. #7

    Hence “redemption” appears as the reestablishment of unity, in which we come together once more in a union that begins to take shape in the world community of believers. On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that modern Christianity, faced with the successes of science in progressively structuring the world, has to a large extent restricted its attention to the individual and his salvation. In so doing it has limited the horizon of its hope and has failed to recognize sufficiently the greatness of its task—even if it has continued to achieve great things in the formation of man and in care for the weak and the suffering. 25

    Life in its true sense is not something we have exclusively in or from ourselves: it is a relationship. And life in its totality is a relationship with him who is the source of life. If we are in relation with him who does not die, who is Life itself and Love itself, then we are in life. Then we “live”. 27

    He commits us to live for others, but only through communion with him does it become possible truly to be there for others, for the whole 28

    Christ died for all. To live for him means allowing oneself to be drawn into his being for others. 28

    When we pray properly we undergo a process of inner purification which opens us up to God and thus to our fellow human beings as well. 33

    We can open ourselves and the world and allow God to enter: we can open ourselves to truth, to love, to what is good 35

    It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love 27

    Let us say it once again: the capacity to suffer for the sake of the truth is the measure of humanity. 39

    is never too late to touch the heart of another, nor is it ever in vain. 48

    Joanie D.