Welcome Back

Nice to hear from you!!

Let's first look at the II Mach. 12:46 verse. To be sure, this is not common ground between Prod and Cath (nor between first century followers of Judaism and modern Catholics, as this was not considered a part of the TANAK, or Hebrew Scriptures), however let's look at it anyway.
I would suggest the the reference itself (as is often the case with Scripture Prods would hold dear) is that it does not say that what Judas M did was right, it simply records what he did. He was concerned for his dead soldiers who were found with foreign gods under their cloaks. Fearing that they would not be accepted by God in the afterlife, he collected money for an expiatory sacrifice to be made in Jerusalem (vs 43). He then prayed for the atonement of the dead. Although the text describes Judas as being noble and pious in his thoughts, it does not necessarily mean his actions were correct. He could very well have been misguided.

As for your Matthew 5:7, argument, I do not think that is the reference you meant.

The Greeks!!

This post is for my hijo, A***. Miss ya buddy!

Iggy,

Can you please give me the full explanation of purgatory? Where and when did the doctrine begin? How does it fit with scripture? How does it fit in with prayers for the souls of the dead? I must admit, I do not know exactly what Catholics believe in this case, and can therefore not discuss it until I have some fact.
My quick comment would be that as a gospel believing Christian, I am unsure how such a doctrine can fit in with the rest of what the Bible teaches.

Strange New World

Sorry it has been a while.

I am sitting in the Phoenix airport, on my way back from Chihuahua, Mexico. I have spent the past week teaching, driving, hiking in canyons, battling poisonous spiders and scorpions(not kidding), but I have now reached civilization.

Iggy, that is an awesome question.

When I first arrived at the school that shall remain nameless, I knew very little about the Catholic faith. All I knew was that when I was dating a Catholic girl for a while as a teenager, and the picture of Pope John Paul II hanging in the dining room kinda freaked me out.

Truthfully, when I first arrived, I thought everything that I was not familiar with was silly. I basically went to everything I had to and begrudgingly sat through it. However, as time went by, I began to appreciate SOME of what I experienced. For instance, although some of the Mass was uncomfortable for me (for obvious reasons), what it is, in fact, is a long prayer. When I began to accept this, I was able to partake in the majority of it with out to many interruptions. (sorry to all you "the pope is the anti-Christ" protestants out there, but I am convinced that I am worshipping the same Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as my Catholic brother and sisters).
However, what I still find difficult to grasp is the seeming inability for my Catholic brothers and sisters to just talk to their Creator. Everything seems to be mapped out and unless one is told what to say, there is silence. I understand why there may be a need for liturgy, but if Nietzsche is wrong, and God is in fact very much alive, let us talk to him one on one. Stop relying on saints of the past and tell him what is on your heart. He went through a hell of a lot to make it possible (I am not swearing here but using it in its proper sense.
That is all for now. I know it is quick and kind of sporadic, but it is a little noisy in the airport, and I am having a difficult time typing up on my friends laptop.

Sola Something

Two quick responses to your last post.
First, if you are saying that faith is only one way to take advantage of God's gift of salvation, I think we have a strong disagreement. In Romans 4, Paul makes a very strong argument about righteousness (a word we've over-used to mean "morally right", which fact is a forensic courtroom term to pronounce one"in right standing" with the law). In the chapter he argues that Abraham was "in right standing with God" because of his faith, NOT because of anything he may have done otherwise. Dare I say (I won't go all Latin on you ) Faith only.
One might argue that although Abraham is being talked about as being "in right standing with God" because of Faith, doesn't mean that we are to use the same means. However, that is the entire point of Paulo's argument. If we (Gentiles, not law followers; or Jews, law followers) want to be in the same position with God as Abraham was, we need to take him at his word, in faith. Abraham did this concerning the promises God made to him; first about a son, and further about a new land, multitude of descendants, and a promised land. We, Paul argues, are to do this with the promise of salvation.
Second, I seem to be missing something that you will need to explain to me (this is not sarcasm). I am not sure where this list of three unattainable virtues came from but (can you tell me) it would seem to me (speaking again from a biblical standpoint, which I do not apologize for) I would have to argue that faith and hope seem to be two virtues that humans can definitely attain, and not much else(see "Hall of Faith" list in Hebrews 11); never perfectly but, I think easier than prudence, etc.
With the above in mind, I would argue for the complete inability of humanity to accomplish any virtue properly. Thus, arguing that some are attainable and others are not seems a little strange. Just because we find one easier than another does not mean it's attainable. If we break one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking the entire law.

Χάρις

Okay, there seem to be a few things worth discussing here, and I am not sure that I am following which are simply written musings and which are meant to be answered.
When speaking about grace we seem to be mixing up what exactly we are talking about. Grace, as described in the New Testament, seems to be the reason why God gives(i.e. it is not because we have tried really hard and so he thinks we deserve a gift, it is not because he feels obliged, etc.) It is basically because he decided to(no reason but his love for humanity). Thus, to say he gave grace, is to not give the whole story, but only a piece. One would be compelled to ask, "In which way did he give grace?", or "What gift did he deliver wrapped in grace?"

In the case of salvation, the gift is not grace, it is salvation. Grace is the reason and source for God to send himself, manifest through the Son, to to be a sacrifice for mankind.
Therefore, grace need not be attained, it always is. It is the spring from which all good gifts of God come. It is salvation, made possible because of grace that need be attained, and this, by faith. Faith in what. Faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Faith (belief) that the price (atonement) has been taken care of, through Jesus, because of God's hand, inspired by his grace.

As for our part, perhaps we have made it too difficult (or maybe I'm about to make it too simple). We were lost in sin and did not give a rip. The Bible says we were enemies of God, He made the move to correct the sin problem(while we were enemies, thus grace). He came in the form of Jesus, paid the price for humanities sin, and called us to accept it in faith. If accepted, justification takes place(i.e. right standing with God). So it is like this.
I'm thirsty. I'm looking in all the wrong places for refreshment. Someone comes to me and says want a Coke™. I say "Maybe." The individual says, "The Coke™ is here on the table; it is cold and refreshing. If you are thirsty, go ahead and drink it"(sound familiar). The gift has been given. Everything to deal with the problem has been set up(Not be me. I was looking in all the wrong places.) However, I need to step forward and open the can to drink. Until I do, I will remain thirsty. Grace offered the can, my faith needs to drink it.
This is basically the message of Romans, chapter 5.

In da Puddin'

Man, our titles are really going downhill quickly.

As the story goes, Luther, while studying/ teaching at the University of Wittenburg, came across the phrase "the righteousness of God"(Romans 1:17), and it (as he said) "filled him with hate." It was after much struggling with the concept of God's righteousness versus our human depravity, that Luther came to interpret the text, and whole argument of Romans, as most evangelicals do today. Namely, that there is no matter of effort that can bring a humanity drowning in its own sin, to a place where it can stand in God's presence. The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths in his letter to the Romans to dissect the problem of man's sin, the human inability to match up, and God's resulting action.
What action? Placing His Son in the very place we should all be.

Let's take it back!

If we recall the covenant between Abraham and Yahweh, we may remember a strange ancient ceremony, in which Abraham and Yahweh (in the form of a pillar of fire) walk through cut up animals. The whole point of that ceremony was to say "May I become like one of these animals, if I do not keep my part of this covenant." What was the covenant? Basically, follow God and things will go well with you. Reject God and things will go badly. Well, we can assume correctly that God keeps his part of the agreement, and correctly that Abraham's descendants do not.

So, now what?

Well, rather than cut up all of humanity (which would kind of step on the whole reason for all of this; namely that God wants to have a relationship with His creation), a sacrificial system is put in place. Priests (representing Israel) place their hands on a ram (signifying the transfer of Israel's sin onto the animal) and the ram is than offered as a sacrifice. At this point every Israelite should have thought to themselves, "That should've been me. I've broken the covenant over and over, in my choices and in my thoughts." But more importantly they are going to throw one of their great parties. Why? Because they are now seen by God, as washed. The blood of the animal has made them clean before their God.
Had they really sinned? Absolutely! Did they have to pay the immediate price for rejecting God? (of course there were long lasting penalties for sin, but he didn't reach down and squish em' like ants every time they sinned) No way! But they were seen by God as clean.

Now let's jump ahead to the last great Old Testament prophet; St. John the Baptist. His response when he realizes that Jesus is the Messiah is more than just a nice title; it is an announcement. "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the WORLD." (John 1:29-36) Jesus has now taken on the role as the sacrificial lamb, and not just for the people of Israel, but for the world. Gospel(good news) indeed!

So, how does this work with the writings of St. Paul, and further how do Paul's writings work with that of St. James.

Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus makes it quite clear that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. "(Ephesians 2:8-10) This passage has a few nuggets we need to explore.

One, the source of man's salvation is God's grace, and the way we attain it is by faith, or belief in it. Second, it is a gift. One does not work for a gift. By definition a gift is simply given. Thus, thirdly, salvation is NOT attained by works. And finally, (and here is where we find Paul actually agreeing with what we will see St. James saying in his letter) we were created (I think we could argue, recreated) to do good works, which God had planned for us to do.
Thus, Protestants would argue that placing works prior to salvation, places the cart before the horse; works do not gain us salvation, they are a result of it. So, when St. James says, "that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone"(James 2:24), he is not saying that one needs works to be justified, but rather that if one says s/he is a person of faith, but has no works, that they cannot be believed.
It is about portraying one's faith. "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18b) Having the correct doctrine (see vs. 19) is not enough. If one has put their faith in Christ, there should be obvious signs. After all, those who have been "saved through faith...were created in Christ Jesus to do good works." If, therefore, no works are present, one must conclude that that person has not been saved by this grace.

Warning: theological minefield approaching

Here's one that may never be resolved, but to be honest I have never heard the Protestant version of this outside of a history book.
All throughout my checkered Catholic education (ask the MacMan for more background on this issue), the principle information I got about Protestantism is this little thing of justification by faith alone. Now, the way it was presented to me was that Lutherans believed that human nature was so corrupt that any human act is useless, but by the grace of Christ, everyone is redeemed by "accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour". It was as if Jesus put a clean tablecloth to cover an ugly creature in order to make it presentable. This is always compared to the Catholic teaching of justification by faith and good works.

Now that my development in Catholic study has matured somewhat since then, I'm assuming that this way of describing justification by faith alone might be a bit...hmm, let's say, simplistic? I'm curious to hear the real belief on this.

Pax.
Iggy

Equine autopsy

Agreed: the whole Marian devotion thing will never be fully resolved, and that's no surprise. I suppose it's a by-product of sola scriptura vs. Bible & Tradition.

By the way, for all you devoted followers of this blog, the title of my last entry translates into "How great a fear will there be when the Judge will come to settle all things strictly." It's a passage from the Dies Irae; at least Mozart fans would be familiar with this.

It's my turn to offer up a Catholic issue with Protestant teaching. I'll serve that up very soon.

Geez, this is fun.

Pax.
Iggy

Kill the Horse

I'll need a translator for your latin title on that last one. I'm just a simple Protestant with no education in such things.
;-)
Well, I think we've killed this horse. I guess my final word is that Catholic/Christian doctrine should not be a matter of what feels right to us, but what has been declared as truth. It might make us feel better to have someone on the inside, but does that mean we have someone. Or should we simply accept the gospel at face value, which in its essence says the problem has been dealt with in the "God-man" Jesus Christ. Once we start bringing in others who help the process, it really begins to look (to me) like "another gospel" and we know how Paul felt about that.

You're up!

Quantus tremor est futurus quando Judex est venturus cuncta stricte discussurus

I guess the reason why Catholics find the idea of intermediary intercessors appealing is because we make a bigger deal of Christ as Judge more than Protestants do. We, in fact, believe in two of them: the Particular Judgement (happens at the moment of death) and the General Judgement (at the end of the world). I guess it's a by-product of justification by faith alone vs. justification by faith and good works. We're afraid to mess up; we're afraid of being like the servant who buried the talent his lord had given him instead of using it and producing something. In the Tridentine Rite, there are a lot more references to the Last Judgement than there are today. It shows up in the gospel reading for the First Sunday of Advent (1st Sunday of the old liturgical year) and in the Last Sunday after Pentecost (last Sunday of the liturgical year). It's also mentioned at the ceremony of the Paschal Candle at the Easter Vigil. Finally, during All Souls' Day, funerals, and any Mass of the Dead, the sequence Dies Irae is sung or recited; the entire sequence is a vivid picture of the Last Judgement.

I guess Catholics feel that we are constantly under the gun. Jesus is benevolent, and he has provided salvation for us all and made it available. At the same time, if we choose to reject this gift, we feel that the same Jesus will not hesitate to allow us to reap the consequences of our actions. We recognize a potentially PO'd Christ: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting flame." Jesus is all loving, but we also see him as all just. He's like the strict but fair teacher; do you work, and you'll be ok, but mess up, and you have to be accountable.

So Catholics have this dichotomy in our view of Jesus. On the one hand, he's the Good Shepherd who will heal the sick and hang out with the outcast. On the other hand, this is the same Jesus who beat the snot out of the sellers in the Temple and cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit.

That's why we have devotions to the Virgin and the saints; there's no anger with them. They can't grant us anything per se, but they can't throw us into hell either.

Jesus is the Pontifex, the Bridge-Builder, who made the connection to salvation for us; he alone was able to do that. At the same time, we Catholics are never sure that our "wedding garment" is proper. Are all our accounts settled? Will Christ be pleased with us, or will he be upset at one of our deliberate faults? There's a mix of love and of nervousness as we try to cross this bridge. What we see the Virgin and the saints for are two reason: one, to give us an example of how to cross that bridge, and two, to hold our hands while doing it.

Pax.
Iggy