Narnia can be a bridge between Catholic and Protestant?

[fgiusepp]

Narnia can be a bridge between Chatolic and Protestant ?????

this is a new point of view that I like to share with you.

Reading the letter that CS Lewis send to Italy to Don Calabria , you can know many more about what Jack think about NARNIA like bridge for religions.

What do you think about ??????

[inkspot]

I don't know this letter to Don Calabria of which you speak. I do know Lewis was great friends with JRR Tolkien, a Catholic. I think they each regarded the other as brothers in Christ ...

[EveningStar]

I wondered how this got here because I remember this discussion happening elsewhere exactly like this. Either way you'll be glad to know you're not the only ones that think this is important.

If the Bishop of Rome is truly Pope, then God has given him charge of watching out for all who call upon the blood of Christ to cleanse their sins. And that means he should pray for and care for me, and I believe he does and I pray for and care for him as my brother in Christ and a fine, caring person. That is acknowledged both ways as valid since Vatican II.

If the Bishop of Rome is not truly Pope, I still pray for him as my brother in Christ. Nothing changes.

My banner says "Amor Vincit Omnia." It means in Latin, "Love Conquers All".

When the forces of division are rife, remember this:

They called me an outcast, a villain, a lout
They drew a circle to keep me out
But love and I had the wit to win,
We drew a circle to take them in.

-- (I think) Emily Dickinson

[fgiusepp]

dear Chakal and friends
I agree about Love , about letters you can see

letters: CS Lewis and Don Giovanni Calabria
By Translated and edited by Martin Moynihan.

In 1947 an Italian Priest was engaged in the task of "gathering together boys and youths, either orphans or destitute of any means of support, [to give them] skills which will enable them to maintain themselves when grown up". This man, Don Calabria, read a translation of C.S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letters" and was moved to write to Lewis - in Latin, as his English was poor, and he knew that Lewis was a Classical scholar. So began an extraordinary correspondence of freindship, with both writing in Latin, until Father Calabria's death in 1954.

This book brings together the extant letters in translation (mostly those written by Lewis), with the Latin text kept on the left hand side. It is altogether marvelous to see another facet of C.S. Lewis, and for myself personally, wonderful to read again, with the English as prompt, on Christianity, by such an author, the lovely Latin language which I learned as a schoolboy.

__________________
http://www.narnia.it

[Aslan the Wise one]

I think it could be some how.? But Lewis did not like Catholics for some resion but that does not mine Catholics can't love him.

[Wills_dream_Gf]

I'm a Catholic and I love C.S. Lewis' writings...Why was he against my religion? I don't really understand this thread :confused: prolly because I don't know much about him...only his writing is all I know. I'll research this topic soon!

[Aslan the Wise one]

I do not know why he did not like the Catholic faith I just read it in a BIO of him I will look for were it siad it in the BIo then I will post back.

[Saruman]

Hmm...if C. S. Lewis didn't love Catholics, I don't think he would ever have maintained a long-standing friendship with J. R. R. Tolkien, who not only was a Catholic and a born-again Christian (yes, there is a difference), but he was the responsible party for leading C. S. Lewis to the Lord. As to what Lewis thought of the religion itself, that is a different matter entirely.

I am curious: is this "Don Calabria" a Catholic priest (he was called "Father Calabria"), or is he in fact the late Prince Fulco Ruffo di Calabria?

Whether Roman Catholic or not, Lewis' writings were meant for all who are part of the Body of Christ, because they have willingly submitted their hearts and lives to the Lord Jesus Christ and have, in turn, received His full pardon for sins past, present and future, and have received His awe-inspiring love (God is so good!).

I believe it is a mistake for anyone to draw a line that will distinguish "Catholics" from "Protestants" and vice-versa, as this goes against the will of God. It is not my being a Roman Catholic or a Protestant that will "gain" my entry into heaven, but it is my walk with Jesus Christ, who is the Bridge, the one and only true Path to God.

If it was ever Lewis' intent to create a "bridge," then kudos to him! Those of us who hail from different denominations ought to compare the thoughts, views and ideas of the different sects of Christianity in light of the Word of God. Those who dismiss the Word of God as just that, the Word of God, then have forsaken the teachings and commandments of the Old and New Testaments, of God and of His Christ, altogether.

[Inklet]

I don't think Lewis disliked Catholics so much as he was leery of them. Individually, he could become great friends with a Catholic, but you must remember that he was an Ulsterman, and some residual wariness might have lingered.

Aslan the Wise One, if the biography you're talking about is by Hooper, I have my doubts about his conclusions. In that book, Hooper claims that Shift the Ape represented the Pope. This makes no sense unless Lewis equated the Pope with the Antichrist, and that seems so far away from all we know about Lewis's life and attitudes that I must be suspicious of anything else Hooper speculates about.

The CoN and Mere Christianity seem to me more of a bridge between non-believers and Christians as a group, rather than between two sub-groups of Christianity.

What I think we are seeing recently with the flourishing of interest in C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and "The Passion of the Christ" is that all Christians are rallying around the elements of our culture that we can use to unite us in the face of relentless assaults upon our faith.

So, if the question is: "Did Lewis mean to build a bridge between Protestants and Catholics?" I would say no. But perhaps the Holy Spirit means to build a bridge out of him?

[inkspot]

Very well said, Inklet. I think Lewis regarded Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, just as Protestants do, today. I know in Mere Christianity, he references that one of his clergy editors was a Roman Catholic priest, and he clearly assumed that Catholics fell under the Christian banner along with Protestants throughout that book as far as I can tell. I think Lewis himself, if he thought of bridging a gap at all, thought of being a bridge between thinking people who believe in Christ, and thinking people who don't believe in Christ. Materialism was coming into its own during Lewis' life time, and educated people were becoming prone to say that unless something could be proven by science, it wasn't real. His fantasy works show that what lives in the imagination may someday be real in a life beyond this one, and his apologetics show that God's existence can be proven -- if not be science, by logic.

[EveningStar]

The answer lies with the epic struggle between Charles I of England and Oliver Cromwell.

Charles I married a Catholic wife and had Catholic leanings himself though he was still head of the Anglican Church. He tried to have worship practices in the Anglican Church be more Catholic in form.

When he was deposed by Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil Wars, Cromwell, a Puritan, considered the Catholics potentially treasonous enemies. He once had several hundred people in a village in Ireland put to death because they did not voluntarily surrender their city. He also instituted freedom of religion EXCEPT Catholicism.

This led to centuries of lingering bitterness. But that's what happens when people confuse the Cross and the Sword.

In all fairness to both sides, it was more of a 17th century thing than a religious thing. People settled differences of opinion with the sword back then, and religion was treated no differently than anything else in that regard.

[TimmyofOz]

Lewis has always been enjoyed by Catholics and Protestants, but the improved relationships I have always seen as the result of outside forces than insider writings and conferences. Threats of secularism and the Pro-life movement have brought the two sides of Christianity together. :)

[Inklet]

People settled differences of opinion with the sword back then

Ah, if it was only just back then!

[Queen Swanwhite]

I think it could be some how.? But Lewis did not like Catholics for some resion but that does not mine Catholics can't love him.

How did you get the idea that Lewis didn't like Catholics? I know that in Northern Ireland there is a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants (i should know), but Lewis could have been against Catholics...

[Basilides]

Lewis was taught by his father to "never trust a Papist", and writes how ironic that a "papist" (Tolkien) should lead him to Christ and become his best friend.

It was a prejudice God helped Lewis overcome.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

How did you get the idea that Lewis didn't like Catholics? I know that in Northern Ireland there is a lot of fighting between Catholics and Protestants (i should know), but he could have done.It's a prejudice that he struggled a lifetime to overcome. Joe Pearce's biography of Lewis, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, documents this very well. He learned to have charity toward them and even had longstanding relationships with prominent Catholics (e.g. Tolkien, Fr. Calabria), but until the end of his life he struggled with his Ulter background cropping up at the worst moments.

[EveningStar]

Such prejudice used to be rampant here in the southeastern USA where I live. I remember one of the blackest incidents involved a pledge made by members of the Catholic organization "Knights of Columbus" taken out of context in which they pledge to defend the Church from its enemies to the death. Word went out in the protestant community that they were going to kill us if necessary....

YEESH.

There were a number of misconceptions going about, so ludicrious and ugly that I will not dignify them with a post here.

That began to change in our family when my more radical Aunt who was a Unity/Universalist had a late-in-life marriage to a Catholic and converted. Oddly the family had less problems with her being a Universalist than a Catholic. Perhaps because now her Peter's Pence financed a great army of KCs that were going to wipe us out. :rolleyes:

Over the years, through her, the Catholic Church had a human face. It was no longer an "IT" but a group of PEOPLE.

Anything you're overly surrounded by has an influence on you. C.S. Lewis was surrounded by the Orange Order. I was surrounded by Southern Baptists. It was, ironically, when I went to Methodism that I gained my strongest appreciation for Catholicism. I became used to responsive readings, crucifers, acolytes, liturgists, infant baptism, confirmation, and yes, even having a Bishop, who is a kindly, quiet man that keeps things in the Nashville Conference running smoothly.

Suddenly it did not seem so weird. In fact it all added to the spirit of worship immensely.

The last straw was the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God. I have come to appreciate Catholic Marion doctrine and in my own Methodist way I venerate her as the Handmaiden of the Lord. I've even made my peace with sainthood and canonization, though we don't canonize. I know full well if I died I would continue to make intercessory prayer for my loved ones left behind. Nothing seems more natural.

There you have it.

[Specter]

J. R. R. Tolkien, who not only was a Catholic and a born-again Christian (yes, there is a difference)
I would like to commend everyone so far, on keeping things here on a very highly intellectual level, and maintaining this with respectful courtesy of beliefs. It is very excellent and well done. I feel I must, however, reinforce the fact that Tolkien was a staunch Roman Catholic. And yes, he was "born-again.." Here's the rub: when you say that there is a difference, the reality is that there is not. When Catholics are baptised, that is when they are "born again." Need I restate that all Catholics are in fact Christians?

Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God's kingdom. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#III)

I was also going to point out the book "C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church," and was happy to note that Prince of the West has seen that book and posted about it here. Lewis did find his way into the Anglican church which is a few steps away from Roman Catholicism.. it is very close.

[Saruman]

Specter, thank you for your thoughts. I am appreciative of your views and your particular beliefs, and I trust you also will appreciate mine. I do not believe one becomes born again through baptism by water. My points are strictly based upon the teachings of Scripture, and I wish to share them with you.

When I state there is a difference between one who chooses to be Roman Catholic and one who chooses to become a born-again Christian, it is because there is a significant difference. If one will call himself a Catholic, or a Protestant, or a Presbyterian, or an Anglican, or a Pentecostal, or a Baptist, this does not mean that they are truly followers of Christ and now can enter heaven because they are part of a religious institution and have gone through all the rituals and performances required. Indeed, if all Catholics are now born again through water baptism, what of those in the Catholic church who go and sin freely, and take no thought of their actions, nor any thought of God, or believe confession to a priest is all that is necessary? Being part of a particular institution, or to be baptised therein, does not guarantee one's entrance into heaven. It is only through Jesus Christ and a relationship with Him that one can become born-again, through a different sort of baptism than one by water (which is an outward symbol of one's profession of faith). This baptism of which I speak is of the Holy Spirit, that comes when one believes on the Lord Jesus Christ.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man comes to the Father but by Me" (Jn. 14:6).

If it were through water baptism that we could become "born-again," then Jesus should never have made the statement above, for He could have said simply that all it takes is for you to be baptised in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit by being submersed in water, and that's all there is to it. Then you can go about your normal life again and that will be the end of it, because you will be going to heaven no matter what.

Jesus said this to Nicodemus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5)

Jesus was not stating that one had to be baptized by water. Being born of water and of the Spirit is not to say one requires a physical water baptism, else the thief on the cross would have had no chance to enter into the kingdom of heaven and Jesus would have therefore become a liar in promising him that he would that day be with Him in paradise. He states that unless one is physically born, and then born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. This is another difference.

Or shall we nullify the words of Peter the Apostle, when he wrote: "The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (I Peter 3:21)?

Jesus made another clear distinction concerning baptism, when John and James' mother asked if her sons could sit at His right hand and at His left: "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father" (Mt. 20:22-23)

Jesus never baptised anyone by water. Nor did He stress any importance to it at all. It is a statement of faith, that one has made a commitment in their heart to follow Jesus Christ, that He be the Lord and Savior of their lives (then comes this rebirth). It is a decision made in the heart for Christ when one becomes born again, not a physical performance made in any particular institution.

Mark 1:8: "I indeed have baptized you with water: but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

This is why I believe there are Christians, and then there are Catholics, Protestants, etc.

[Specter]

But the Bible also supports Baptism with Water.

http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980301/SCRMNTL/BAPTISM.HTM

And if we are to continue using the Scripture.. we have to look at where we get the Bible.. who we trust as to how the Bible was assembled, and the history of it. Who's the authority? That sort of thing. Thanks for explaining what you believe, though.. I do appreciate it.. just please don't disclude Catholics from being Christian, as it is a particularly, dare I say, foolish, attitude to have, as accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is something that is very clear in Catholic teaching.

[underthefryingpan]

the biggest gulf between catholisicm and protestant religions is the authority issue. who is your pope?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It's actually a little broader than that - it's the authority of the Church. Many Westerners superimpose onto the institution of the Papacy a model of authority foreign to the institution.

[underthefryingpan]

that's what i meant by "authority issue".

[EveningStar]

In heaven there are no denominations. It is paradise in the presence of God. But I repeat myself....

[Saruman]

Thank you for the website link, Specter. I will be sure to check it out and read over the material and thoughts presented.

I wish to correct something, however, so my Catholic brethren on this forum will understand my position. I have never once intended or stated that if one is a Catholic he is not a Christian. I know of many Catholics (within my immediate family even) who are wonderful Christians, and it was a Catholic who introduced me to prayer. I thank the Lord for that day in my youth when I was able then to begin to learn of Him, and to know Him, and I pray I may continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Those Catholics who have chosen Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, to have a personal relationship with Him, are indeed Christians (just like Tolkien, as we can see from the testimony of C. S. Lewis). But there remain many Catholics who are simply Catholic, members of an organization, who do not have a personal relationship with Christ. It's not what church you attend, or what group you belong to, but it is what you have done in your heart with Christ.

I agree with Chakal. When we get to heaven, there will be those who are His, those who are Christians, followers of Jesus Christ.

I Cor. 1:12-17 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

[inkspot]

It's true ... you can be a member of any religion -- any Christian denomination or Cahtolic church -- and still not be in a relationship with Jesus Christ. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9). It is when you make this confession you are saved. Baptism is a sacrament, but I don't think it saves you. Cuz, you know, the thief on the cross didn't get baptized, but he was saved, at least Jesus promised to meet him in paradise that same day.

By the same token, you can be a member of any Protestant or Catholic church and be a Christian, if you are in relationship with Jesus Christ. This is my understanding of the Scriptures.

[EveningStar]

Inkspot, you are wonderful. The rest of you are too, but today, this moment, you are especially wonderful.

[Specter]

If this is my last post in this thread for a while, please understand.. I have a lot of work to do for our upcoming retreat (http://www.bangthebucket.com) as EV (Evangelization) Team leader. I also have another forum to build this week for my company. So please get back to me personally via e-mail or private message. Thank you for understanding.

What about this though, and sorry for building on an off-topic discussion:

I am going to keep fighting for the Catholics that you say do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It's something that, even if they don't have that personal relationship NOW, give it some time, and perhaps teach them to pray, teach them the Rosary, even (which when properly prayed is a meditation on the life of Jesus, thus building a personal relationship with Him).

But you want to know something amazing? I have met people in the past, that I didn't even know were Catholic; and believe me, these people weren't shining examples or anything. Anyway, after I found out that they were Catholic, I also learned about their faith life. You see, the Bible tells us to spread the good news, but it also tells us not to be a hypocrit and pray loudly for all to hear, because it's like boasting.

Sure, there are some Catholics that don't even believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, but that is for lack of education on their part. It's a failure to communicate. There's a huge youth movement now, thanks to JPII starting World Youth Days, that is teaching things that will boost knowledge of everything. If someone goes to Mass every day (it's possible, there are daily Masses), and that's all that they do for the day, then they have a personal relationship with Jesus. Why? Because it'll have an effect on the rest of their day, and it'll show. Even if it doesn't at first, it's like when you work out.. you gotta get rid of the extra stuff before you start to build the muscle.

Geez, I'm going on tangent after tangent.. eventually I'd probably explain doctrine after doctrine. Anyway... the most personal relationship that can be had with Jesus, is when He is received into you through the Holy Eucharist, which is Him. And that is something that few Churches can boast. We Catholics, take Jesus at His word in John 6. Why? Because before every parable, He said that it was going to be a parable. Because if He truly is God, then why would He ask us to do something that, in their culture, meant to curse someone (chew the flesh); this is when Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" (John 6:53).. Why would it be such a big deal to receive with an unclean heart, in an unworthy manner, as Paul writes (1 Cor. 11:27-29)? Also, reading the letters of Justin Martyr, from around 100-165 A.D., he tells what early Christians did when they gathered, and explains the Eucharist, exactly as we Catholics believe it to be, to this day. (Crossing the Tiber by Stephen K. Ray, pp. 221-222). Also because it was foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament, as were many things that were fulfilled by the New. Remember, God commanded His people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its' blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God. This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real "Lamb of God," who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20), who protects us from eternal death. God's Olt Testament people ate the Passover lamb. Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. There are also Eucharistic Miracles, where the bread becomes living flesh, and it's open to any scientist in the world for study, and every single time, they have confirmed that it truly is human tissue and the is real blood. It's amazing that this sometimes happens, but also kind of sad, because it usually happens before a crowd of people that don't truly believe until they see it for themselves, and sure enough, it has happened. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred "once for all." It cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not "die again" during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the alter. That's why the Mass is not "another" sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

I think I've gone on long enough, though. I hope that my passion for this doesn't turn anyone off or away, and serves to help educate an uneducated world. Please do not just toss this aside, or whatever...

[Queen Swanwhite]

You see, the Bible tells us to spread the good news, but it also tells us not to be a hypocrit and pray loudly for all to hear, because it's like boasting.

In the bible it says that it is only boasting if you pray so that people can go "OH, look at them! They are very spiritual! OH!!" The bible says that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with praying aloud to God. It's just like a normal conversation.

I am not Catholic, and I don't agree that praying aloud is boasting. It is a misinterpretation of the Bible. It only says it is boasting if you pray aloud so people can praise you and say that they are very mighty and spitiual( in touch with God.)

I hope I caused no offence.

[EveningStar]

Of course Catholics are Christian. But there is a problem here, and I think it can be a serious one. Any group that for whatever reason keeps mainly to itself leaves LITTLE BUT RUMORS out there for everyone else. Usually nasty ones. Often, sadly, fatal ones.

That's why the Jews had it so bad. They did not eat with outsiders, intermarry, or discuss their private affairs outside the Jewish community. And look what they became in the eyes of the world: Jesus killers, well poisoners, one world government plotters, throwers of wars (think Versailles Treaty) and lovers of wealth. Some legacy for the sons of Abraham, hmm?

It is NOT enough to only be familiar with your own religious tradition (after all it's the ONE TRUE WAY, right?) if this world is to have meaningful dialogue among the faiths. Rumors and lies thrive in the dark shadows of uncertainty.

I am a United Methodist, but I do not consider it the One True Way. I consider Jesus the One True Way. I love my Catholic and Episcopalian and Orthodox friends dearly and fully believe I will meet them someday on the other side. One in Christ, one in Each Other, and one in Ministry to the Entire World. Dona nobis pacem, Domini!

[Specter]

In the bible it says that it is only boasting if you pray so that people can go "OH, look at them! They are very spiritual! OH!!" The bible says that is wrong. There is nothing wrong with praying aloud to God. It's just like a normal conversation.

I am not Catholic, and I don't agree that praying aloud is boasting. It is a misinterpretation of the Bible. It only says it is boasting if you pray aloud so people can praise you and say that they are very mighty and spitiual( in touch with God.)

I hope I caused no offence.
See, that's what I meant.. You and I are on the same page. Catholics don't believe that praying aloud is boasting, I meant what you put to words. Praying aloud so that others can say "look at them!" is what I meant. Thank you for posting this. haha.. see, you and I agree here. Praying aloud is fine, but doing it to show off is not.

Of course Catholics are Christian. But there is a problem here, and I think it is a serious one. Any group that for whatever reason mainly associates among itself and does not make constant efforts to be transparent with outsiders leaves LITTLE BUT RUMORS out there for everyone else. Usually nasty ones. Often, sadly, fatal ones.
Eucheminism is important. St. Thomas the Apostle (Roman Catholic) Church gives cards to Temple Emmanuel (A Jewish Temple) for Hannakuh, and they give Christmas cards to St. Thomas. It's not that we're trying to be exclusive by any means.. it's because of two things. And this is a two way street:

1) Lies that pastors/members/etc spread about Catholics (i.e. Worship of Mary, Idol worship, etc)

2) Understanding everything the Church believes/teaches (and the reasons why) takes a LOT of education, research and understanding.

[Queen Swanwhite]

I am a United Methodist, but I do not consider it the One True Way. I consider Jesus the One True Way. I love my Catholic and Episcopalian and Orthodox friends dearly and fully believe I will meet them someday on the other side. One in Christ, one in Each Other, and one in Ministry to the Entire World. Dona nobis Pacem, Domini, Amen!

I never said I didn't like Catholics, Orthodox etc. All I said is that I don't agree with some of their teachings, as I'm sure, you don't agree with some religion's teachings.

[EveningStar]

The content of the prayer had something to do with it too, hmm? "Thank you that I am better than that guy over there!" That's like thanking God publically for humility and the wisdom to embrace it. :rolleyes:

[Queen Swanwhite]

See, that's what I meant.. You and I are on the same page. Catholics don't believe that praying aloud is boasting, I meant what you put to words. Praying aloud so that others can say "look at them!" is what I meant. Thank you for posting this. haha.. see, you and I agree here. Praying aloud is fine, but doing it to show off is not.

oh, OK. I'm sorry! I wasn't sure if I got myself out straight. Well, that's OK. I agree with you then on that one! :) ;) :D

[Queen Swanwhite]

The content of the prayer had something to do with it too, hmm? "Thank you that I am better than that guy over there!" That's like thanking God publically for humility and the wisdom to embrace it. :rolleyes:

I don't think you're getting the point. I said that praying aloud was only boasting if you pray aloud for people to hear you and get attention. :rolleyes: If you are going against the bible(Which praying aloud for attention is) you are hadly thanking God, are you? Hmmmm? :cool:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

What you seem to be describing, my Queen, is what Jesus talked about in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican - where the Pharisee was praying out of his pride ("I thank you that I am not like that sinner over there"), and as a class the Pharisees did their good deeds such as praying and fasting as a show for others. They were focusing on those around them, not the Lord. The publican was focusing on God and asking for forgiveness. Is this what you're getting at?

[Queen Swanwhite]

That's exactly it! Thanks! :D

[inkspot]

Inkspot, you are wonderful. The rest of you are too, but today, this moment, you are especially wonderful.
LOL, thanks Chakal! you're not too bad(ger) yourself...

Paul, i know you may not see this for a little while, but maybe PoTW or another Catholic can answer ... are you saying receiving communion saves you, because it puts Christ's very essence in you? If so, then it would be the receiving of the sacrament which cleansed you, but in fact 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 says:
he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
It sounds like, far from ingesting Christ cleansing you, if you ingest Him without being cleansed beforehand, you are profaning His body. I cannot see how receiving communion, if you are not in a relationship with Jesus, would put you in relationship with Him, in light of this verse.

No anti-Catholicism intended, a I believe Catholicism is indeed Christianity. I am only curious if I understood Paul's post.

[Specter]

That is a tough question... one that a good priest would be better to answer than myself. I would ask a very orthodox Catholic priest, or contact a good theologian, like Scott Hahn. He used to be a protestant minister.

http://scotthahn.com/
http://scotthahn.com/contactus.phtml

Dr. Scott Hahn was born in 1957, has been married to Kimberly since 1979, and has six children. An exceptionally popular speaker and teacher, Dr. Hahn has delivered numerous talks nationally and internationally on a wide variety of topics talks related to Scripture and the Catholic faith. Over 500 of these talks have been produced on audio and videotapes by St. Joseph Communications. These tapes have been effective in helping thousands of Protestants and fallen away Catholics to (re)embrace the Catholic faith.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Inkspot, that portion of Scripture is the basis for the Catholic teaching about not approaching Communion while conscious of having seriously sinned (or as our theologians would put it, "not in a state of grace"). Years ago it was taken so seriously (and accompanied by poor teaching) that people would never dare to approach the Communion rail, lest they inadvertantly profane Christ's Body. This was so widespread that the Church had to make a canon law that Catholics had to take Communion at least once a year (I know, I know, bad theology, but that's the way it was.) Even now, if I were to commit a severe sin, I should go to confession before approaching the altar.

The relationship of the Eucharist to salvation is a little more intricate. Saving ("salvific") grace is imparted by Baptism, which is taken in faith. Other sacraments such as Confirmation (the Scriptural "laying on of hands") strengthen this faith, but the Eucharist is the center of all. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." (Jn 6:53b-56) At the Last Supper Jesus instituted the New Covenant, and every time his followers approach him in faith, he comes to them again and "abides" in them. The grace that comes when the Eucharist is approached in faith and right understanding cleanses the recipient of sin, brings spiritual and bodily health, strengthens the will, fights concupiscence, and increases faith, hope, and charity. The Church takes Jesus at his word, for when he says, "this is my body", we believe exactly that - that what was bread becomes substantially Christ's body, and what was wine becomes his blood.

I really ought to get my daughters to answer this in more detail - they're the ones with the theology degrees.

[inkspot]

Protestants (to my knowledge) regard that scripture in the same way; an admonition not to receive communion if you are not in harmony with Christ. I was curious about Paul's idea that even someone not in relationship with Christ, who takes the sacrament, is thus saved by taking in the body of Christ. I had not heard this idea before. Of course, I know receiving communion is a sacrament and one way Christ pours Himself into us ... I did not realize it was regarded as a means of salvation in itself.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I was curious about Paul's idea that even someone not in relationship with Christ, who takes the sacrament, is thus saved by taking in the body of Christ.Did you get this idea from a passage of Scripture, or from a comment in a post, or somewhere else? I've never heard of such a thing.

[inkspot]

If someone goes to Mass every day (it's possible, there are daily Masses), and that's all that they do for the day, then they have a personal relationship with Jesus. Why? Because it'll have an effect on the rest of their day, and it'll show. Even if it doesn't at first, it's like when you work out.. you gotta get rid of the extra stuff before you start to build the muscle. ... Anyway... the most personal relationship that can be had with Jesus, is when He is received into you through the Holy Eucharist, which is Him. And that is something that few Churches can boast. We Catholics, take Jesus at His word in John 6.
LOL -- Back on page 3 of this thread -- I was talking about our Paul, Spectre, not the Apostle Paul. Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying.

[EveningStar]

In our United Methodist tradition, if someone has a quarrel with his brother, he should reconcile himself first before coming to the Lord's Table.

In the service itself, which is very like Catholic Eucharist, we have both the Great Thanksgiving and Confession to put ourselves in the right frame of mind.

Congregation: Father in Heaven, we confess that we have not loved you with our whole heart. We have failed to be an obedient church. We have not done your will. We have broken your law. We have not loved our neighbor and we have failed to hear the cry of the needy. Forgive us we pray and free us for joyful obedience through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Pastor: Hear the good news, that Christ died for you while you were yet sinners. In the name of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven.

Congregation (to pastor): In the name of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven.

All: Glory be to God, Amen.

[inkspot]

Yes, this is my understanding, too. What I didn't understand was Spectre (Paul) saying simply receicing the sacrament put you in a relationship with Christ if there was no relationship before.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I was talking about our Paul, Spectre, not the Apostle Paul. Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying.Criminently, Ink, when you talk about forum participants, at least allude to their screen names. Otherwise I get all confused.

He's right, providing that you understand that the statement implies the person has a proper understanding of what he's doing. In other words, your hypothetical case where someone who has "no relationship with Christ" wouldn't exist for a properly trained Catholic. If you stretch it to an absurd extreme and postulate somebody who has no idea at all what he's doing (maybe they just like the taste of the Communion wafer), then the dynamic changes a bit - but they're still ingesting the True Body of Jesus Christ. That will have an effect, even if it's a deliterious one.

Now, as with all other traditions, much could be said about "properly trained Catholics". I'll be the first to agree that lots (awful lots) could be done to better train Catholics in their faith. However, even with an out-to-lunch catechism directors, asleep-at-the-switch parents, and wishy-washy priests, children who are brought to Mass still hear the Scriptures and get some basic education in the Faith. I tend to sigh when I hear someone say something like, "I was raised Catholic but didn't become Christian until..." That indicates a terrible understanding of what it means to be Christian in general and Catholic in particular.

[inkspot]

Criminently, Ink, when you talk about forum participants, at least allude to their screen names. Otherwise I get all confused.
I know, sorry! That was my fault, considering the illustrious name in question.

Now I get from your post: a person would not take Catholic communion (could not in fact) without having been confirmed so they unerstand what it is they are doing, and the only reason they would even want to take communion would be that they understood it, so there is already a relationship -- even if it is tenous one or weak one -- which cannot help but be strengthened by taking in the body of Christ. I see, and I agree, this must be true.

But I know from experience in the Catholic sister-church, the American Episcopal Church, there is A LOT of Scripture read every Sunday, and yet when I married my husband, a confirmed life-long Episcopal, I knew way more Scripture by heart than he did just from Protestant Sundy School. It was was if the Scriptures somehow rolled off him. Although I know he loved God, it was not until he began attending a community church with me that he actually realized that Jesus desired to be in relationship with him, to be with him even after eucharist was over.

Maybe I am not explaining this well. he had from his Episcopal training an intellectual knowledge of what the Church was about, but he had never committed his life to Christ, to live for Christ and develop in prayer and Bible study a relationship with Christ. Perhaps this is why some Catholics say the thing you mention ...

[Of Mice and Narnia]

I understand exactly what you mean Inkspot. Having made my first communion at age 7 when my family was stationed in Stuttgart Germany, my confirmation in Rome when I was 9, my short tenure as an altar boy there after;I never in all my years of memorizing doctrine, going to confession, mass and communion ever sensed any connection to God at all. At age 21, the Holy Spirit broke through with the understanding that salvation was by grace through faith in Jesus, nothing more, nothing less. That was when the light came on. That was when the connection was made. In reality that is what eternal life is. Not some chronological period but being connected to God through Jesus. John 17:3.

Being a Christian was never meant to be a religion but a way of living patterned after the life of Jesus. To know him is to love him, to love him is to obey him, to obey him is to sense his presence in your every day life.

[Specter]

I understand exactly what you mean Inkspot. Having made my first communion at age 7 when my family was stationed in Stuttgart Germany, my confirmation in Rome when I was 9, my short tenure as an altar boy there after;I never in all my years of memorizing doctrine, going to confession, mass and communion ever sensed any connection to God at all. At age 21, the Holy Spirit broke through with the understanding that salvation was by grace through faith in Jesus, nothing more, nothing less. That was when the light came on. That was when the connection was made. In reality that is what eternal life is. Not some chronological period but being connected to God through Jesus. John 17:3.

Being a Christian was never meant to be a religion but a way of living patterned after the life of Jesus. To know him is to love him, to love him is to obey him, to obey him is to sense his presence in your every day life.
I see what you're saying... but think about this: God made us physical people, with senses, and has created more than just minds to fill, but also to physically receive Him.. body, blood, soul and divinity. I suggest seeking out more, because there is far more to it. Grace is the combination of faith and good works... Faith without works is dead. (James)

Gotta run, give me til about midnight on this post to add more.

[Parthian King]

Brief interjection: I am "Protestant" (in quotes because it's sort of a default; I'm not sure what I'm protesting), though raised Catholic. I won't go into all of the reasons why the shift, and why I choose to remain in my current tradition, but they are more than just mercenary and are well-thought out and prayed about.

That said, I agree with Specter concerning the need for "physicality" when it comes to experiencing the Lord--He prescribed it in the Last Supper. Protestants for years (centuries, actually) have defined themselves by what they are not when it comes to this issue (i.e., "we are not Catholic, so we don't believe X, Y, and Z") and that has led to anemia in the celebration of communion (i.e., a clear expression of what they do believe), at least in the broad theological sense. On the other hand, I, too have experienced "dead religion" as described by Mice'. But I have to say, it is not limited to Catholicism...

[Specter]

I understand exactly what you mean Inkspot. Having made my first communion at age 7 when my family was stationed in Stuttgart Germany, my confirmation in Rome when I was 9, my short tenure as an altar boy there after;I never in all my years of memorizing doctrine, going to confession, mass and communion ever sensed any connection to God at all.
Alright, here's what more I wish to say. You say that you never sensed any connection to God... that is emotion based though. Is it possible that the revelation of the Holy Spirit, to you, was just God offering you a glimpse of something more to look into, another facet of the truth of everything that you were going through, but just never opened your mind to encompass before said time?

I am 25 and still do not know all there is that I could know about my Catholic faith, but I do know that all Christians, anyone that reads the Bible at all, and takes stock in it, implicitly complies with the authority of the Church.

[inkspot]

Very thoughtful stuff, y'all, thank you. I agree with PK and Spectre/Paul, and this is one reason I mentioned I was thinking of investigating the Catholic church for myself: because communion is not celebrated regularly in my church. I don't know if it's the same in all "Purpose-Driven" Rick Warren type churches, but communion is relegated to one night a month (which we miss a lot cuz of our travel schedule), and hardly ever celebrated Sunday morning, period. I know Catholics have a very solemn eucharist every mass (as do Episcopalians, but I am worried about the liberal turn that church is taking), and I would like to make this part of my lifestyle as Christ commanded. This way, wherever we did travel, I could receive communion without woorrying about the style of service and what have you.

Okay, now I am rambling. I just wanted to say: I think it's great when someone like my husband or Mice discovers the fullness of a relationship with Christ outside the Orthodox/Catholic setting, but I also think Christ is offering Himself for that same relationship in the Catholic or Episcopal mass -- plus offering more to one who already knows and loves Him, His very body ...

[Of Mice and Narnia]

Specter, I tried to keep things simple about what I'm trying to say but I can see from this forum that "detail" is a must. I did use the word "sensed" in describing the emptiness I experienced in all my years in the Catholic church and I have seen that same emptiness is found all over. But that's the point. Jesus is not organized religion. He is a person that when he is received into a life as Savior and Lord as scripture declares (John 1:11), he comes to abide in that believer.

There is objective truth that is the revealed written revelation of God and there is subjective truth that we feel in our souls. Until I accepted the objective truth that salvation is not in a sacrament but in a sacrifice, Jesus, then the subjective truth was immediately felt in my soul. And for more than 35 years that sweet, abiding presence of Christ has remained. It is my responsiblity to keep my relationship to Jesus fresh, not an organization or program or some minister. "Walking in the light as he is in light" goes a long way in doing that. I'm sorry but I never had a personal relationship with the Son of God while I remained in the Roman Catholic church. Maybe others have but not me. And if one studies the word "church", it simply is a "called out assembly of believers in Jesus Christ", demoninational less. If you are trusting in Jesus death and resurrection alone for your salvation from sins penalty, you are my brother or sister. That is the common bond of all who believe. And the faith and works that was quoted, has only to do with living the of the believer, not the "how" he became a believer.

[Parthian King]

Thanks, Mice, that states some things I hold to very well. If I understand you, you (as in my case) were not attacking the Catholic Church, nor those genuine believers who are Catholic. You were relating your story.

[EveningStar]

Egad...duck everyone, I see a problem coming--confusing a tradition with its adherents. Marriage, for example, is a wonderful tradition. And of course all married people are its adherents, but many of them divorce and many more cheat. They play at the game it but they are not masters of it. They are Saturday golfers when they could be Tiger Woods and--like him--get much more out of it.

There is plenty of goodness to derive from Roman Catholicism. And since I'm not one, I'm not a pitch man for the Pope, I'm just making a fair statement. But that's RC the tradition I'm talking about. Not some of the specific examples that turned you off and drove you out. I'm sure every church has its share of deadwood. In fact, I'm careful where I light a match these days.

Many people join a group because it has a charismatic leader or its members are skillfully trained in welcoming visitors. Never make the mistake of judging a religion on how the members of 5th Street Fellowship make you feel when you walk in the front door. The Moonies, the Jonses, the Disciples of the Reformed Southern Order of the Used Dental Floss, all use the same techniques gleaned from Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people." They are masters at making you feel absolutely welcome and totally indispensable. Really, dude, where HAVE you been all my life?? This is not exploiting the power of Christ...or Buddha...or Allah. This is exploiting the frailty of human nature as observed by a master salesman and public speaker.

Mainstream denominations, who have trusted in their installed base (to use a programmer's term) are, like IBM, poor salespeople. They just trust each new generation to come in and buy their wares. By not treating evangelism seriously, we let God down. We don't sell many units because we don't realize there are quick thinking, fast talking, back slapping, flesh pressing cheek kissing folks out there to pick up the slack. "Here's my card. Call me ANYtime...."

I'm glad for anyone that finds the love of Christ anywhere. But don't blame Catholicism. Blame the Catholics--and only the particular ones that were responsible.

[Specter]

Thanks Mice, I understand where you're coming from better now. I respectfully recommend that you, now that you know Christ personally, as a former Catholic, consider at some point, checking out a great orthodox Catholic Church, or spend some time in a perpetual adoration chapel. I trust that, based on your history of your faith, you may not have learned of such a thing.

Allow me to explain for those that do not know what adoration is. Since we Catholics believe that Jesus is fully the Eucharist, that the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that it is in fact God, we have something special there. We put a host into a monstrance, which is usually made of a gold or other such material and made to appear like a Sun. In an adoration chapel, we can pray in the very presence of Jesus. This isn't idol worship because that is a blasphemy.. and it's not idol worship, when the very thing we are worshipping is, in fact, Jesus.

Also, take a closer look at what the Rosary is for.. (that is, forming an even closer bond with Jesus Christ).
see: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html

There is a lot of beauty to be found in the sacraments, sacraments that are not apart from a relationship with Christ, but instituted by Him and for Him. They are a physical symbol of a supernatural thing that is taking place.

Thank you again, for sharing your story.. My only goal here is to perhaps light up and help to deepen your own faith in Christ.

(also, making the Church an institution was important to do very early on.. we're talking Bible history here.. because Jesus wanted us to be unified.)
But don't blame Catholicism. Blame the Catholics--and only the particular ones that were responsible.
And there were and are many within the Church that are responsible for a lot of crap...but that is because we are human. The Church is in place that is below the Word and Tradition, but has the authority over Sacred Tradition. I have a LOT of material about this, as we went over Tradition and tradition at Bible Study last night. The topic was Scripture vs. Tradition: It's not either/or, rather both/and.

[Parthian King]

I missed something here. The only Catholic I blame for me not obeying the truth I heard while I was a Catholic (i.e., Catholicism) was me. Maybe I really am missing it here, but I thought the issue had to do with some folks that came to grips with the nominal nature of their confession while under one ecclesiastical umbrella (coulda been anything), finding true faith in Christ, and in the process choosing refuge under a different umbrella. I never caught an attack on any tradition from anyone, just an attempt to clarify what they thought faith, Church, and relationship with Christ really consisted of.

[Specter]

I think that's probably my fault for differentiating and tossing in the element of Tradition. I agree, this is a good discussion on what faith, Church and the relationship with Christ really consists of. To better understand what Church consists of, however, Tradition is something that naturally is a part of that understanding.

[underthefryingpan]

hellooo mice and men,
in the book of matthew christ tells the guy on the rooftop at night (was it nicodemus?) very clearly we must be born again of the spirit AND WATER.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It was Nicodemus, there's no indication that it was on a rooftop (though it could have been), and the point isn't necessarily conclusive (that was in John 3). Some have interpreted "born of water" as meaning "natural birth" (i.e. amniotic fluid, as in a woman in childbirth "breaking her water".) I think that's a stretch, but some people overlay that interpretation. The Catholic Church does use this verse as support for it's stand on water baptism, but there are stronger supports.

[Parthian King]

The phrase "water and the Spirit" is commonly known in Greek linguisitics as a hendiadys, the conjuction of two words to more fully express the same idea. To say "born of water, that is, the Spirit" is probably the best reading. But debate will surely continue. Many other traitions also use it to support baptism in water, and the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Jewish writers (especially John) are highly allusive, mixing themes in a single context or phrase.

Specter, I was not derailed by your comments in the slightest.

[Specter]

Specter, I was not derailed by your comments in the slightest.
Thanks.. excellent.

One thing to remember, is that John the Baptist was baptising with water, and that Jesus Himself gets baptised. This could very well have been as an example to us, as far as what to do.

[inkspot]

I thought the issue had to do with some folks that came to grips with the nominal nature of their confession while under one ecclesiastical umbrella (coulda been anything), finding true faith in Christ, and in the process choosing refuge under a different umbrella. I never caught an attack on any tradition from anyone, just an attempt to clarify what they thought faith, Church, and relationship with Christ really consisted of.
This is exactly what I was talking about, it was no attack on any particular church or any particular adherents of any church.

Specter, the idea of adoration is another powerful draw of the Catholic church for me. My sister is Epsicopalian, and they also have the body of Christ in a monstrance for contemplative prayer and adoration in the Presence. I think this is a very sweet idea.

I think perhaps Chakal was right, though ... people outside the Catholic church (especially raised in Protestant tradition or coming to faith through one of the new sort of "unchurch" churches) don't know such things exist, or find them slightly spooky. If they understood what was actually offered to them -- to be in the very Presence of Christ in the sacrament -- they would doubtless find it compelling.

[Mar]

I don't know this letter to Don Calabria of which you speak. I do know Lewis was great friends with JRR Tolkien, a Catholic. I think they each regarded the other as brothers in Christ ...
o hes catholic? i always thought he was christan, well catholic is christan..but you know what i mean!

im catholic yayyy!

[inkspot]

Yes, Tolkien was Catholic. So you've got him in your court, good deal!

[Of Mice and Narnia]

Parthian King is correct. In relating my experience of Christ finding me in no way is meant to cast disregard for my Catholic brothers. Though I am personally convinced that among Catholics there are true believers just as there are among Protestants, no Catholic in my family ever declared, revealed, or displayed the joy that I know comes from trusting Jesus as Savior and Lord. And I suggest that we define our conversation even further by saying Roman Catholic for the word catholic simply means universal.

And of a truth, there has always been a universal church of believers in and out of denominationalism.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

This question was asked elsewhere (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=213553&postcount=55), but since it was well off the topic of that thread, I decided to jump the conversation over here to continue it.

Member Reepicheep fan asked the following quite reasonable question:
Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory, It doesnt make sense to me, since Christ already said that he took all our sins away when He died on the cross, and when we accept Him into our hearts. Now I am not dissing Catholics or the beliefs I am simply curious, if somebody could explain this to me...I would be greatly appreciative!This will take a bit of explaining, so have some patience. Since the earliest days of Christianity, the question of salvation has been central: What is salvation? Why is it necessary? What role does Jesus' work play, and how does that work?

One of the early Church fathers, St. Augustine, tackled this issue with holiness and great wisdom. He lived in North Africa in the 300's, so he's part of the common heritage of all orthodox Christians. He eloquently explained the problem in terms of Grace. Grace is the unmerited gift of God, granted solely through His favor and through no effort of ours. St. Augustine and others explained the Creation account in terms of grace: man was created on the sixth day, like all the other animals, but God Himself "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen 2:7) - something God had done for no other creature. Man was given an inexpressable gift: the very image of God Himself, and the privilege of being adopted into God's family, the Holy Trinity*. Man was given natural life by virtue of his creation as an animal being; he was given supernatural life by virtue of grace. It is this Grace which allows us to see the Face of God. No creature who does not have grace can come into God's presence.

But, as we know, man fell. Adam and Eve broke the covenant, and just like He'd promised ("of the tree ... you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Gen 2:17), they died in the way that mattered most: they were separated from God because they lost the Grace He had given them. (In Scriptural terms, "death" means "separation") It took a while for the consequences to catch up with their physical bodies, but they were walking dead men from the point they lost the Grace. As individuals they were in a dis-graced condition, and because they had no grace, they could pass along no grace to their offspring. The entire human race was dis-graced.

(I'm sorry if this seems like a simplistic review, but it's important for a couple of reasons. First is that I can't guarantee that everyone reading these posts knows all this, so I have to lay the groundwork. Second, I've found that even many Christians don't have a good understanding of this. Too often they see sin as something positive that is inflicted as the result of choices and actions - rather like catching an infectious disease. People who have this view sometimes accuse God of unfairness - after all, if Adam & Eve were the ones who sinned, why were their children punished? The classical Christian view has been to look at sin as the loss of grace - something more like a vitamin deficiency than an infectious disease. Adam & Eve's children suffered because there was no grace to pass along to them. This will prove important later.)

As a side note, the term for this dis-graced condition was "original sin". That's unfortunate wording, especially to modern ears, since to us the term "sin" implies doing something disobedient (what theologians call "actual sin"). It's clear that a newborn baby cannot be guilty of actual sin, since it cannot do anything either good or bad. It is, however, dis-graced - what theologians would call "in a state of original sin".

So along comes Jesus to die for us and rise from the dead. Not only does His blood wash away the stain of actual sin, but it restores that Grace which was lost when our parents sinned. This part is very important: just washing away the consequence of actual sin (i.e. our own willful disobedience) is only one part of Jesus' redemptive work. His blood, and our participation in His death through Baptism, restores the lost Grace, and re-adopts us into the family of God. (The Scripture references here are too numerous, but I could provide them if interested.) Without the restoration of grace, we might be clean of actual sin (for a while), but we could still not see the face of God, no more than a giraffe could, because we lacked the Grace.



So, once a person has this Grace, there are two vital and related questions: 1) what happens if a person who has Grace sins, and 2) once a person has this Grace, can he ever lose it again?

First question: it's clear that even those saved and "graced" can sin (Rom 7 , 1 John 2). God tells us in St. James that something can be done about that: "the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." (Jas 5:15,16) But wait - confess sins to each other? Pray for each other? Isn't Christ's sacrifice sufficient to cover all our sins? Why all this talk of praying and confessing? Well, of course it's Christ's sacrifice that covers sins, but in His wisdom He's chosen to have the Grace of that work flow to us through each other. This shows up again in 1 John 5: 16,17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." See? Part of the solution God has provided for dealing with sins committed by those who have obtained the Grace of salvation involves continually reclaiming the forgiveness of Christ by confessing and returning to the foot of the Cross. With me so far?

But how 'bout that second question? Once a person has Grace, can it be lost? Take another look at that 1 John 5 passage, particularly the part that says, "There is sin which is mortal..." What does that mean? Isn't sin sin? Why is St. John differentiating between some sins and others, implying that some can be forgiven by the prayers of others but others cannot**?

Theologians looked at this and saw the striking parallel between 1 John 5:16 ("...a sin which is mortal [i.e. causes death]) and Gen 2:17 (...the day you eat of it you will die.") From this they concluded that there was, indeed, sin that could be committed by Christians that could cast out this Grace in the same manner that the Grace was originally cast out by by our forefathers. Even those baptized could become (again) dis-graced, and if someone were to die in this state, they would not see God's face because they lacked the Grace. They had walked away from the Grace and back to death. (They could come back to grace if they chose, but those details are for another post.)

But St. John is also clear that not all sins fall into this category. There are sins which are not severe enough to cast out Grace, but are nonetheless sins against God's holiness and justice. If someone were to die with these sins on his soul, he would be able to see God's Face, because he still had Grace, but he would come with the stain of some sins. This is explained metaphorically several ways: like stains on clean cloth, like dirt on the body, like non-lethal wounds, etc. Lewis preferred the metaphor of dirt.

This is where we come to the concept of Purgatory. What about a man who dies with some of these sins? Wouldn't he like to be "cleaned up" a bit before coming before God? Lewis thought he would, if only for decency's sake. In one of his essays (I forget which) he even speculates that someone who was told that he would be accepted by God and his fellow saints even in a stained and dishevelled condition would prefer to be cleaned up, even if the cleaning was painful. This "cleaning" would be the application of Christ's grace to these sins, which might be difficult (even as it can be in this life) but would be worth it. This "cleaning up" or purging process is what some people have referred to (again, metaphorically) as a "place of purgation" or "Purgatory". To be clear, [i]Purgatory is part of heaven (in fact, philosopher Peter Kreeft refers to it as "heaven's bathroom"). There aren't three places you can go upon death, there are only two. If you die dis-graced, you cannot see God, but even if you die Graced, you may prefer to be tidied up before coming into His presence. (Or, alternatively, the coming into His presence may burn away the yet-impure parts of you in the fire of His love - I once wrote a story to that effect.)

My apologies for the length, but I had to lay some groundwork before I could even have the basis for answering the question. Does that make sense?

-----------------
*to be clear: man is adopted in, but never becomes divine. He retains his human nature, but shares in the divine life. Man is glorified, not deified.

**keep in mind that we're talking about Christians here: those who have repented, accepted the new life in Christ, been baptized into His body, and have received saving Grace. For those still dis-graced, there can be no talk of "gradations" of sin - they are separated from God not only by their actual sins but their lack of Grace.

[Rhyanidd]

POTW you make a lot of sense....and I know can at least understand it, however I still dont think that I can believe in purgatory, maybe I am thinking from some early, strange, false, pre-conceived notion that Purgatory takes away from Jesus' divineness.....but anyway that still makes sense and I can truly respect it now! Thank you so much!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Glad to be of some assistance. Sadly, there have been a lot of crazy superstitions built up around Purgatory over the years, which of late the Catholic Church has been trying to dispel as just that: superstitions. There's a lot we aren't told, but we do know this from Scripture:

Perfection is not to be found in this world. We must wait for the next to be perfected
We will all face God
Nothing unholy can stand in God's presence
Our works will be judged, and what is not of God will be burned away (1 Cor 3:13)
What remains will be holy, righteous, and without stain or blemish.

Perhaps the burning will only take a microsecond, perhaps it will take a century. Perhaps by then I'll be outside time, and so durations won't make any difference. Maybe that burning talk is just metaphor. We just don't know. For my part, I want as much of that "burning away" to be done here on earth as I can. My works do not "earn" me heaven, but I want my words and actions to glorify my Father as much as possible.

[Rhyanidd]

Yes I understand that.....

[Trufflehunters Twin]

In reply:
Thanks Mice, I understand where you're coming from better now. I respectfully recommend that you, now that you know Christ personally, as a former Catholic, consider at some point, checking out a great orthodox Catholic Church, or spend some time in a perpetual adoration chapel. I trust that, based on your history of your faith, you may not have learned of such a thing.

Allow me to explain for those that do not know what adoration is. Since we Catholics believe that Jesus is fully the Eucharist, that the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that it is in fact God, we have something special there. We put a host into a monstrance, which is usually made of a gold or other such material and made to appear like a Sun. In an adoration chapel, we can pray in the very presence of Jesus. This isn't idol worship because that is a blasphemy.. and it's not idol worship, when the very thing we are worshipping is, in fact, Jesus.

Of Mice and Narnia needs not to experience "adoration" and I shall explain why. John 14:15 reads simply " If you love me, keep my commandments." As we know this is Jesus speaking. So the question should be, What is His commandments. For this answer we need to look at Mark 12:28-31. "And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first(translated here as 'the most important') commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel;The Lord our God is one Lord:and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Matthew 22:40 states also on this subject; Jesus says "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets". If you will permit me to translate. This means that by living this type of love daily in your own life you need not worry the next step you take is sin or not because you will always do what is right. Now granted, we are human and destined to fail, thus the saving grace of the Lamb by the shedding of his blood, so lets go back to John 14:16,17. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Finally, John 14:21 says," He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and manifest myself to him. With honor, truth and respect to you Specter this is why I believe Of Mice and Narnia need not to experience the external "adoration", because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt he has an internal adoration for Jesus and Jesus has the same adoration for him. This manifestation of Christ through him helped me find my way back home...for I am the prodigal son. I shall pray that you, through following the commandments of Christ (which I do believe you want to do) will truly understand what peace and joy it brings to have Jesus inside you always, so you need not search for him elsewhere.

If you get the chance, check out my thread "Son of Of mice and Narnia"

Love you brother

[inkspot]

While you are right, Twin, we have Christ within us, why should this make it wrong or be contrary to the practice of worshipping in the presence of the consecrated host? There is no denying, many people feel the Presence more real and intensely in adoration before the monstrance than in everyday life -- feeding the family, washing the car, posting on Narnia Fans ... and why not? In the chapel, you may focus wholly on communing with the Savior, and there are no distractions. What on earth could be wrong with this?

I believe Christ is with me, in me, always, but I would never discourage anyone from worshipping and adoring Him in any place and fashion -- why would you?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Though the question of modes and forms of worship is beyond the scope of this thread, and probably the entire forum, I'd like to contribute something that I learned from a very gifted, Godly, and theologically astute minister (who was not Catholic.) She pointed out that there are two simultaneous truths for the believer at all times: God is both wholly other, transcendent, and lifted up, but He is also within each believer (immanent), thanks to the indwelling Holy Spirit. If I understand Trufflehunter Twin's post, this latter sense is what he is referring to. However, this minister pointed out, based on Scripture and Christian tradition, when we come before God in worship, we worship God in His transcendence. We lift our eyes and hearts to Him in praise and glorification. This praise draws us out of ourselves and into His presence, where we praise Him and He ministers to us. The immanent presence of God, though important for comfort and guidance, is not the focus of our worship.

Why, you might ask, should it make a difference? Isn't God God? Does it matter where we focus when we worship? The context of the statement was the battle against New Age religions and New Age influences on Christianity. These spiritual traditions encourage an introspective, almost ingrown, spiritual orientation that tends toward self-focus, self-centeredness, and ultimately self-definition. The danger when we allow our worship to focus within ourselves - even toward the presence of God there - it can all too often turn into an entirely self-defined reality, cut off from the teachings and guidance of God.

It seems to me that this is one reason why true, Scripture-based worship contains such a strong element of lifting up. Lifting up hands, lifting up voices in prayer and song, lifting up the consecrated Host, lifting up of God's Holy Word in strong preaching - these all direct our focus to the transcendent God. Not that the immanent presence of God is unimportant! The Holy Spirit guides us and strengthens us as we walk in joyful obedience. But the focus of our worship should be above - which is why such things as Adoration are so helpful. Kneeling before the Host, we lift our eyes to the Holy one and are drawn out of ourselves. This minister had many sad stories of people who turned their spiritual eyes inward to worship and ended up so introspective and self-focused that their worship, attitudes, and spiritual growth ended up being determined by things like their emotional state and their health.

I realize this is a very subtle topic for an online forum, but I found that point very helpful and thought I'd pass it along.

[EveningStar]

POTW, wow! Nice one!

If God were time, and we were watches with God's time ticking away in us (i.e. made in his image), and we become too self absorbed, then we gradually drift away from the True Time as we cease comparing ourselves to The Standard. As we lose seconds, minutes, and eventually days, we become a sick parody of the original temporal balance of the universe, reading Saturday when it's really Sunday, reading nighttime when it's really day.

[inkspot]

Very nice, PoTW and Chakal! Huh -- my post looks like a bum beside your two. You are erudite laddies, and no mistake. I agree with both of you ... and I encourage Twin to try the Adoration thing: maybe he would discover something new in his spiritual walk, too.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Thanks, Ink! Magister, you have a true gift for coming up with an apt, terse metaphor for distilling something down to it's essence. God bless you both!

[Trufflehunters Twin]

You hurt me inkspot. With all due respect please inform me where you read in my earlier post that adoration is wrong. I simply stated, in my opinion, Of Mice and Narnia did not need to experience this aspect of the Catholic faith. Prince and Chakal, I thouroughly enjoy reading both of your posts especially the stories, but Christianity isn't as complicated as sometimes you make it out to be. Obeying is the difficult part, not the instructions.

Love you all, no matter the opinions. Thanks

[EveningStar]

Know what I see? A bunch of well meaning people coming at the same truth from different directions. Matter of factly, ladies and gents, from the back Mount Rushmore is just another hill. Try to see both sides.

Jews feel closer to God when they wear a hat in Temple, even on a very hot day. Catholics feel closer to God when they take their hat off in Church, even on a very cold day. It's not where the hat is, it's what possesses you to put it there.

I think this little discourse on forms of worship misses the point. Each of you apparently agrees with what the other is saying, but not in how they are saying it. Remember what Paul said in the Kenotic Hymn...that he speaks not with eloquent words after the manner of men lest the Cross be emptied of its power. Therefore let not the different approaches you use in explaining how and why you worship tarnish the beauty of your obvious faithfulness.

[Specter]

Of Mice and Narnia needs not to experience "adoration" and I shall explain why.
But who wouldn't want to spend time in the very presence of the Lord here on earth? You can't experience the physical presence like this anywhere else in the world, other than at Mass.

All I'm saying is that this is one aspect of the Catholic faith that I would not discourage, but rather encourage. It is not idol-worship, after all. It's a place where you can sit in silence, adoring the Lord, etc.

If I can't convince you, perhaps reading about Eucharistic Miracles can..

There was a story I heard a while ago, about something being searched out around a church. Adoration was going on at the time, and cops were using dogs to sniff things out. The dogs went through the Adoration chapel, and bowed their heads to the Eucharist.

I'll try to find the source of that story.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'll look for it, too, Specter - I remember reading it. I also remember seeing an account of an outdoor Mass beside a lake. There were swans swimming about as swans do, but at the Consecration they formed a semicircle pointed toward the altar and bowed their heads in unison. There are pictures of that - I'll see if I can find it.

(Sadly, I don't think our brother is listening, but I think we're both used to that...)

[onlymystory]

i'm sorry to interrupt but i don't think i can catch the elusive specter otherwise. so, *bites both specter and POTW* you are both vampire victims. now back to your serious discussion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, that's the last thing I expected on this thread :D

Aren't we - y'know - protected from stuff like this here? I mean, we've discussed crucifixes and holy water and all - oh, never mind.

{goes off to file fangs}

[onlymystory]

we're 21st century vampires. we've overcome a lot of those old defenses.

[inkspot]

LOL, onlymystory! You cannot barge into a Catholic discussion and bite people!

Of Mice and Narnia needs not to experience "adoration" and I shall explain why.
Twin, sorry if I offended you. I understood from your post you were saying we needed not to experience adoration, as in "don't do that!" I understand now you were saying, "A person has salvation whether or not they adore Christ in the consecrated host." Please forgive the misunderstanding.

Chakal is right, perhaps the form of worship which suits each of us best is the one we should follow, but I also think sometimes "community church Christians" like me miss out on the beauty and holiness of communing with Christ in a hallowed way, such as in an adoration chapel with the exposed host. I think anyone who quiets their mind in the presence and adores Christ cannot help but be blessed, and I wondered why Twin would discourage anyone from doing so. I see now, Twin is saying, you don't have to do that, and of course, this is true, it is not a requirement. But it can be a godly experience.

[Trufflehunters Twin]

I am in awe at the level of intelligence of both Chakal and Prince of the West; among others but chiefly these. Chakal's short stories and PotW's commentaries (and sometime's gentle guidance in the developement of Chakal's stories) are the main reason I spend time here. It has not been my intent, when I post, to stir any debate of faith or believes in my fellow Narnians. My proficiency is not in debating so I shall leave it to keener minds than I. Between strengthening my small business and renewing my relationship daily with my family I am hard pressed to find any time at all to visit with such noble humans as yourselves. From now on when I engage in correspondence on this site it will be strictly for the enjoyment of discussing the fascinating and inspiring world that C.S Lewis created for all of us.

Hail to all Narnians...and thanks to Chakal and Prince of the West for their beauty of detail. I will always continue to read their posts!

Strength and Love to all

PS: Thanks Inkspot!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

we're 21st century vampires. we've overcome a lot of those old defenses.You mean to say I've been been using low tech sacramentals? Oh - well - where are the high tech ones?

Trufflehunter's Twin, thank you for the kind words. I hope you have time to browse around, and find time to read some of the threads wherein we discuss matters of faith. By and large, we manage to discuss even sharp differences, such as those between Christianity and Islam, with courtesy and respect. I appreciate your thoughts and your concern for all of us, wish you all the best, and hope to see you around.

[Of Mice and Narnia]

Must say it does my heart good to see the "adoration" of Christ in the life of Trufflehunters Twin. Greater joy is mine to see the humility that such adoration has brought to his soul as evidenced in his last post. Not only do Trufflehunters Twin and I enjoy the wonderful world of Narnia together and the great adventures that each day brings of being found alive in Jesus; our relationship goes much deeper than these. The natural blood that flows between father and son is now secondary to the blood of Jesus that has cleansed both father and son from the penalty of sin and given each of us new life in Christ.

[Inklet]

"What of those in the Catholic church who go and sin freely, and take no thought of their actions, nor any thought of God, or believe confession to a priest is all that is necessary?"

I know we're well past this point, and I'm not sure where I "cut and pasted" this quote except that it was from this thread.

It's the last part of this sentence that I'm thinking about tonight, the night before Ash Wednesday.

Many times I have heard that Catholics have it easy, because when they sin, they just have to confess to a priest.

First of all, anyone who goes to confession is aware that he has sinned, and is contrite, and is seeking forgiveness. No one who is not truly sorry for having sinned will seek out a priest to make his confession.

Second, the act of articulating one's sins to another human being is truly humbling. It's not a simple "forgive me, I have sinned." Telling another human being of your sins invites many questions: "Why did you do that?" "What was your motive there?" "How can you make it up to him?"

I identify myself as a Catholic, but I have not received Communion in almost twenty years. I need to go to confession, but I am afraid. Not of the priest, and not of God (the priest will never reveal what I've said, and I know that God will forgive me). I'm afraid to take the spiritual inventory necessary to make a good confession. I don't want to delve into the ugliness inside me. But I'm resolved to do it before this Lent is over.

But please, let no one say how easy it is to have one's sins absolved by a priest.

It's hard.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

"What of those in the Catholic church who go and sin freely, and take no thought of their actions, nor any thought of God, or believe confession to a priest is all that is necessary?"I heard this well addressed by a priest. He pointed out that anyone who does this (i.e. deliberately sins while saying "I can just confess it") is now not only guilty of the committed sin, but also of a much more serious one: presumption. He's now got to confess the sin itself, the presumption, and the deliberate rebellion that led him to both.

First of all, anyone who goes to confession is aware that he has sinned, and is contrite, and is seeking forgiveness. No one who is not truly sorry for having sinned will seek out a priest to make his confession.

Second, the act of articulating one's sins to another human being is truly humbling. It's not a simple "forgive me, I have sinned." Telling another human being of your sins invites many questions: "Why did you do that?" "What was your motive there?" "How can you make it up to him?"
...
But please, let no one say how easy it is to have one's sins absolved by a priest.All of what Inklet says here is true, but there's an imporant theological point to clarify: it is Christ Himself who actually executes all the Sacraments - every time. The human agent varies. Sometimes it's a priest (e.g. the Eucharist, Anointing of the sick), but it could be anyone at all (baptism), or in the case of matrimony it's the couple themselves. But Christ is always the executor of each sacrament.

Why involve a priest, then? Obedience, specifically to Jas 5:16 ("Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.") In the early Church, this was taken quite literally: members who sinned would have to stand up in front of everyone and confess, and penances (i.e. actions demanded as proof of repentance) were severe and longstanding. Over time, the practice changed to where the priest represented the entire people, and confession was done in private.

Inklet, I would strongly encourage you to make good on your resolve, and I will be praying that Christ give you the grace to do that. Your place at the table has stood empty for all these years, and we have missed you. Let not another day slip by without returning!

[inkspot]

I'm afraid to take the spiritual inventory necessary to make a good confession. I don't want to delve into the ugliness inside me. But I'm resolved to do it before this Lent is over.
Inklet, I think it's great you are resolved to take this step, and I know God will reward you. Please feel free to come on over to the Lent Begins Thread and let us know how it's going, okay? I am going to be praying for you.

Anyway, you are the only one who will be shocked by any "ugliness inside" -- Jesus already knows, and already provided for your forgiveness on the cross. You can do this, and He will be right beside you.

[Trufflehunters Twin]

Anyway, you are the only one who will be shocked by any "ugliness inside" -- Jesus already knows, and already provided for your forgiveness on the cross. You can do this, and He will be right beside you.

Well said inkspot!

[Queen Swanwhite]

Don't get me started on Catholics and Protestants, all I can say is that, if Catholics and Protestants can agree, I'll be hapyy....maybe Narnia will do the trick!