"My tears are not for him—for he knew, all his life, that his Redeemer lives, and he has now been gathered by the Lord in whom he trusted."
Joseph Bottum
Editor
First Things
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1283
From the standpoint of Catholic theology, how is the editor of First Things in a position to make that claim on behalf of Fr. Neuhaus? Is he assuming that a Catholic can ordinarily enjoy the assurance of salvation? Didn’t Trent anathematize that presumption?
STEVE said:
ReplyDeleteIs he assuming that a Catholic can ordinarily enjoy the assurance of salvation? Didn’t Trent anathematize that presumption?
-----------------
Trent Sixth Session First Decree Chapter IX said:
"For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God."
Thus St. Paul could say to the Philippians, "He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" at the same time he said of himself, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
An orthodox Catholic has the freedom to believe anybody he wants to be in heaven, kind sir. He does not, nor do clergy for that matter, have the authority to induct him into the litany of the saints in the public liturgy of the church.
ReplyDelete“Is he assuming that a Catholic can ordinarily enjoy the assurance of salvation?”
That is why God gave the church sacraments.
“Presumption”?
It would be presumptuous to believe that God is bound by his sacraments.
Do these comments help at all?
I'd probably give Bottum a courtesy pass on that one.
ReplyDeleteBut your post recalls to mind this post by Pastor Dan J. Phillips called Dealing Biblically with Apostasy, and although it's general in nature, he does reference Protestants who swim the Tiber, and in particular Dr. Francis Beckwith.
Excerpt: "If Beckwith had become a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Mormon, would any hesitate to call it apostasy? But he has now identified himself with an institution who is on-record as opposed to the Biblical Gospel. Is the Gospel no longer an essential issue, if we really like the person who forsakes it?
Suppose the revert were not Beckwith. Suppose it was some obscure nobody, or some disliked figure. Would we so hesitate to use the word in his or her case?
Is it not apostasy, when the person involved is someone we really like?"
Pastor Phillips then went on to share a letter that he wrote to a friend who became Catholic:
"I'll be blunt, as love would (I think) require: When I hear a Christian say he's considering becoming a Roman Catholic, I hear him saying that he is considering leaving Jesus Christ.
Nor does that arise from ignorance (though every Roman Catholic invariably charges anyone who voices critical thoughts of Rome with ignorance). There may be ignorant, saved Roman Catholics. Still, for someone to have tasted of the fruits of the genuine Gospel, and to turn his back to take on the shackles of such an anti-Christ sect (as Hebrews 6:1-4 describes that tasting and turning)... I can find little comfort to offer, or hold to myself.
So since I've barged on friendship this far, I shall barge yet further.
If you asked me, I'd say, _____, for your sake and your family's, do leave the Episcopalian church. But don't leave it for Rome; leave it for God. Find a church, a little obscure church with 47 people in it, or a large thriving one with 4700 people, but a church that preaches the pure and unvarnished Word of God, without fancy trappings and encrustations. If you want culture, go to the museum twice a month. Buy a CD. But go to church to hear Christ and His Word proclaimed, without fetters or trappings.
There you have my heart for you. If you're angered, I'll be sad, and you should go ahead and hammer away. But my love for you, what, ___ years strong and still going, requires I speak my heart plainly to you.
Again I say, if I can be of any use to you whatever, please don't hesitate to let me know."
------
So in recalling both Pastor Dan Phillips post and the acknowledgments and deserved accolades of Fr. Neuhaus's life, I am just the slightest bit conflicted.
On the one hand, I am just as charitable as anyone else in lavishing praise and paying tribute to Fr. Neuhaus and his life and legacy.
On the other hand, according to Reform Protestant orthodoxy, Neuhaus was an apostate.
TRUTH UNITES said:
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, according to Reform Protestant orthodoxy, Neuhaus was an apostate"
Yikes! Definitely a good thing for poor Father Richard that God is not bound by "Reform Protestant orthodoxy" either.
BRETTS SAID:
ReplyDelete“An orthodox Catholic has the freedom to believe anybody he wants to be in heaven, kind sir. “
Does that include Nero? Judas? Muhammad? Julian the Apostate?
I appreciate your candid admission that Catholic faith is founded on make-believe and wishful thinking.
“That is why God gave the church sacraments.”
So, because Adolf Hitler was reared as a Catholic, receiving the sacrament of baptism, as well as attending Mass (in his younger days), he enjoyed the assurance of salvation. Is that your contention?
By contrast, I suppose a pious Amish farmer would not enjoy the assurance of salvation. Is that your contention?
I believe God's mercy is far more generous than we could ever imagine, but I do believe Neuhaus was wrong-headed in converting to Catholicism, and his "First Things" and ECT efforts caused great harm and confusion.
ReplyDeleteWhy are so many protestants viewing Neuhaus in such a positive light? Just like many positive responses to Beckwith's apostasy, this too, is disheartening.
ReplyDeleteHas ecumenism won the day? Do we now have a protestant doctrine of invincible ignorance? Does Rome's gospel now save depending on "who" one is?
John B., my old friend, what do you think? How should we view today's Roman Catholic Church, its gospel and those who hold to it?
Mark
Hi Mark. Nobody is saved because of their RC beliefs but I think that RC's may genuinely turn to Christ in spite of those beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIf Joseph Bottum observed the signs of predestination in Fr. Neuhaus' life, then he can have a fair deal of confidence that his ultimate home is heaven.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev35.php
Start about 2/3 of the way down the page.
Bretts: "Yikes! Definitely a good thing for poor Father Richard that God is not bound by "Reform Protestant orthodoxy" either."
ReplyDelete(Smiles Broadly) Then let us also rejoice that it's a good thing for non-Catholic Christians that God is not bound by the Magisterium's pronouncement of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus either.
Ben Douglass said...
ReplyDelete"If Joseph Bottum observed the signs of predestination in Fr. Neuhaus' life, then he can have a fair deal of confidence that his ultimate home is heaven."
Hi Ben,
How does that differ from the Protestant position which Trent condemned?
JohnMark asks: "Has ecumenism won the day?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I wouldn't declare victory yet for ecumenicism (in the form of soft universalism), but I would say that it's gaining traction.
Let us compare public statements by widely revered and respected figures in both Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism.
First, Cardinal Avery Dulles has written here:
"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted."
Now contrast Cardinal Dulles' essay with these words by Rev. Billy Graham here when he's interviewed by Rev. Schuller.
--------------
What do you think of this apparent "ecumenical" agreement between Cardinal Dulles and Reverend Graham?
Does anyone have the aforementioned citation from Trent handy?
ReplyDeleteSteve do you think a former Protestant who became Catholic e.g Neuhaus,Dulles, also the historian Christopher Dawson can still be a genuine believer despite such serious error.
ReplyDeleteI saw the following on another blogsite and thought it worth sharing:
ReplyDelete"“When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers through my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of ‘justification by faith alone,’ although I will thank God that that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misundertood doctrine was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways…these and all other gifts I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.”
Richard Neuhaus
LONELYBOY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve do you think a former Protestant who became Catholic e.g Neuhaus,Dulles, also the historian Christopher Dawson can still be a genuine believer despite such serious error.”
I think that’s possible. I operate with the general axiom that to whom much is given, much is required. The higher up the food chain you move, the less excuse you have. In other words, the greater your intellectual aptitude and educational opportunities, the less excuse you have for getting this wrong, or leading others into error. There’s a higher responsibility for those in positions of spiritual leadership (Heb 13:17).
In one respect, Neuhaus had less excuse than Dulles. Neuhaus came out of a confessional Lutheran background. By converting to Catholicism, he went from better to worse.
By contrast, Dulles wasn’t an apostate, for his religious background was already an apostate form of Christianity: “Although Puritanical in demeanor, John Foster Dulles [the father of Avery Dulles] was hardly a devout, orthodox Calvinist. The son of a liberal Presbyterian seminary professor, he was a theological modernist. The elder Dulles dismissed "fundamentalism" as intellectually untenable. He famously served as legal counsel to liberal pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick in his 1923 Presbyterian heresy trial.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/971uglkk.asp
Mind you, this doesn’t let Avery entirely off the hook. He certainly had many opportunities thereafter to acquaint himself with sounder versions of Protestant theology.
I generally reserve judgment on a person’s eternal fate unless he occupies the extremes of the theological spectrum.
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteHow does that differ from the Protestant position which Trent condemned?
I'm sure Bottum would acknowledge that his judgment regarding Fr. Neuhaus' soul is fallible and subject to correction if wrong. Actually, I don't think there's much difference between the degree of confidence which a Catholic and a Protestant are allowed to hold regarding the salvation of someone else's soul. Where Protestantism goes astray on this issue is in asserting that one can have absolute confidence in the salvation of one's own soul.
In other words, I can make a fairly confident assessment on someone else's soul, which I do not have any direct access to, while I cannot do so for my own soul, which I happen to actually HAVE direct access to?
ReplyDeleteHow does that follow?
I see,Steve so can one deny the doctrine of sola fide and still be a genuine believer?
ReplyDeleteTruth unites, with that statement it seems to me that Neuhaus believe in sola fide which is not the official doctrine of his holy mother church.
ReplyDeletePeter: “In other words, I can make a fairly confident assessment on someone else's soul”
ReplyDeleteI would say (according to Catholic theology) I CAN make a “confident assesment” of my soul or another soul receiving the beatific vision after death. If I really believe is sovereignty though; I could commit the sin of presumption by demanding with “absolute assurance” that God must save me when I die. Best to continue to pray for mercy on my soul and that of my loved ones.
I like the way the CCC refers to St. Joan of Arc’s statement to demonstrate the proper relationship between my assurance and God’s glory:
“If I am not [in God's grace], may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.”
Catholic theology teaches that God gave the church sacraments as an objective reality of His salvation in this world.
Bretts said:
ReplyDelete---
I would say (according to Catholic theology) I CAN make a “confident assesment” of my soul or another soul receiving the beatific vision after death.
---
Except that everything else you say contradicts this point.
You said:
---
If I really believe is sovereignty though; I could commit the sin of presumption by demanding with “absolute assurance” that God must save me when I die.
---
It doesn't follow that belief in sovereignty = presumption. And even if it just makes it possible (i.e., your use of the word "could"), that doesn't mean we should jettison sovereignty. It would be like saying, "Driving a car could mean I'll speed." Yes, it could mean that; but it doesn't have to mean it, and it doesn't mean you're not culpable if you do so.
In other words, there's no problem at all believing in the sovereignty of God without thinking He must save you.
On the other hand, if you believe in the sovereignty of God and read the Bible (rather than Joan of Arc) you can see what God has said would indicate you are saved....
You said:
---
I like the way the CCC refers to St. Joan of Arc’s statement to demonstrate the proper relationship between my assurance and God’s glory:
“If I am not [in God's grace], may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.”
---
In other words: "I don't know if I am in God's grace or not. Gee, I hope I am." How is this assurance?
You said:
---
Catholic theology teaches that God gave the church sacraments as an objective reality of His salvation in this world.
---
If true, then Joan of Arc shouldn't have needed to say, "If I am in God's grace, then keep me there; if not, put me there." She would have known. As would you.
So the Catholic sacraments aren't all that objective for you after all.
Not to mention your position is likewise unbiblical. But when it's inconsistent, what else would you expect?
Peter:"and read the Bible (rather than Joan of Arc)"
ReplyDeleteThanks, I do actually read the bible; but always good advice :)
I've always encountered the virtues of faith,(hope), and love in the bible. I've never understood authentic christian hope to be the same thing as absolute assurance. I do believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate who died on a cross, so I think I'll stick to hope in Christ for my salvation.
BRETTS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Catholic theology teaches that God gave the church sacraments as an objective reality of His salvation in this world."
Is everyone who goes to Mass heavenbound?
Steve: “Is everyone who goes to Mass heavenbound?"
ReplyDeleteIf I was guessing (not my call), I’d say that’s probably not likely; but we can always hope in Christ’s mercy.
I bring up the sacraments because that is what Christ gave absolute assurance in. “He was known to them in the breaking of the bread” - Luke 24:35
Bretts said:
ReplyDelete---
I bring up the sacraments because that is what Christ gave absolute assurance in. “He was known to them in the breaking of the bread” - Luke 24:35
---
You do realize that has reference to verse 30, don't you? "When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them."
Or do you think everytime bread is mentioned in the Bible it means the Eucharist?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteSure, I realize all those verses are related.
"When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them."
Do you realize that’s what Catholic theology teaches happens at every Eucharist, not matter what personal gifts (or lack there of) the particular priest celebrating may posess?
BRETTS,
ReplyDeleteYou’re position is incoherent. On the hand you say that Christ gave absolute assurance in the sacraments. On the other hand you admit that not everyone who goes to Mass is heavenbound.
In that case, the sacraments cannot be an absolute source of assurance.
I’d add that you disregard the context of the Emmaus pericope. It was not in the bread alone that Christ was known to them. On this occasion, Christ was breaking the bread, he wasn’t the broken bread.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete---
On this occasion, Christ was breaking the bread, he wasn’t the broken bread.
---
See, Steve didn't have any trouble grasping what the passage said.
In any case, how do you, Bretts, ignore 1 John 5:13 in your search for assurance? "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."
Seems like John's letter is sufficient. And he never points to the Eucharist. In fact, can you show me anywhere in the entire epistle where John mentions anything about the Eucharist, let alone in conjunction with assurance?
Steve, sorry for being incoherent.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"the sacraments cannot be an absolute source of assurance."
So what are the sacraments an absolute source of?
You said:
"I’d add that you disregard the context of the Emmaus pericope"
I’m not sure what a pericope is; but I’m keeping Luke 24 in my bible :)
I never said that Christ comes to us in sacrament alone. Our hearts should be burning within when the scriptures are open and his word speaks.
You will have a hard time convincing me that Luke 24 shows that the crucified and risen Lord can not absolutely appear to his followers wherever and however he chooses to.
BRETTS SAID:
ReplyDelete"I never said that Christ comes to us in sacrament alone. Our hearts should be burning within when the scriptures are open and his word speaks."
In that case, the sacraments can't be an absolute source of assurance. To the contrary, they become a merely conditional source of assurance, contingent on the subjective state of the communicant.
And that's assuming we take all your Catholic presuppositions for granted. I'm answering you on your own grounds. I haven't even argued on my own grounds.
"You will have a hard time convincing me that Luke 24 shows that the crucified and risen Lord can not absolutely appear to his followers wherever and however he chooses to."
Irrelevant. You cited the passage to say something it doesn't say.
The issue for me is when evangelicals endorse things like Beckwith's conversion book and Neuhaus' life without question. These approaches have the possibility of opening the door to Rome.
ReplyDeleteMark
There are, of course, some other problems with Bretts' claim. According to Catholic theology, as I understand it, you can lose your state of grace through mortal sin. Hence, the sacraments can't confer the assurance of salvation.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I can make a fairly confident assessment on someone else's soul, which I do not have any direct access to, while I cannot do so for my own soul, which I happen to actually HAVE direct access to?
ReplyDeleteNo, one can make a fairly confident assessment of one's own soul. If Catholics could never be confident about the state of their souls, they could never receive Communion. However, one must always bear in mind that one's judgment of the state of one's soul is fallible and subject to correction. Protestants assert that one can have absolute assurance.
Sorry Steve,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't trying to win a arguement; just commenting on the original post:
"From the standpoint of Catholic theology, how is the editor of First Things in a position to make that claim on behalf of Fr. Neuhaus?"
I mistakenly thought Catholic theology was the grounds of the discussion.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteIf Catholics could never be confident about the state of their souls, they could never receive Communion.
I thought that the Eucharist was the *means* of salvation? Wouldn't this mean one could not have any confidence of salvation until after partaking rather than prior?
Mark
On this occasion, Christ was breaking the bread, he wasn’t the broken bread.
ReplyDeleteThe "breaking of the bread" refers to the Eucharist in the Acts of the Apostles. It's not a stretch to interpret it as meaning the same thing here. Note especially the parallel between the breaking of the bread here and Luke's account of the Last Supper.
"He took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them" (Luke 24:30).
"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19).
"They knew him in the breaking of the bread" merits a very strong interpretation. They knew him by means of the breaking of the bread.
BRETTS SAID:
ReplyDelete"I wasn't trying to win a arguement."
And you've succeeded—in not winning the argument.
"I mistakenly thought Catholic theology was the grounds of the discussion."
It was...and is. I've said nothing to the contrary.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete"The 'breaking of the bread' refers to the Eucharist in the Acts of the Apostles. It's not a stretch to interpret it as meaning the same thing here."
My argument is neutral on that interpretation. It doesn't matter one way or the other.
"They knew him by means of the breaking of the bread."
You're leaving Jesus out of the account, as of the same effect would transpire absent Jesus breaking break in their presence.
I thought that the Eucharist was the *means* of salvation? Wouldn't this mean one could not have any confidence of salvation until after partaking rather than prior?
ReplyDeleteThe Eucharist is the preeminent means of increasing and preserving our state of grace. However, one must already be in a state of grace to receive. It is sacrilegious to receive in mortal sin. As such, one must have a moral certainty that one is in a state of grace before one can morally receive the Eucharist.
One achieves such certainty by examining one's conscience. Have I committed any grave sins with full knowledge and deliberate consent since my Baptism or most recent Confession? At that Confession, did I sincerely attempt to remember all my mortal sins, and did I confess all I remembered? Was I penitent? If one can answer yes to these questions with confidence, one can receive Communion.
This is a meager attempt to describe a sacrilegious Communion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pugiofidei.com/pelosi.htm
JohnMark: I thought that the Eucharist was the *means* of salvation? Wouldn't this mean one could not have any confidence of salvation until after partaking rather than prior?
ReplyDeleteI'll have to disagree with Ben Douglass' answer here. He gave the finer points on receiving communion according to catholic doctrine; but I don't think that's what you asked.
Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. The church offers the sacraments because that is the mission given by Christ.
"These approaches have the possibility of opening the door to Rome."
That door is always wide open. I'm living proof that they'll let anybody in :) (You don't even have to be all that smart or coherent)
Bretts,
ReplyDeleteAs a protestant I want the entrance door to Rome closed and nailed shut. Then, we can blow open the exit doors and bring everyone out.
Ben,
If one is already in a state of grace in the RC sense then where does the *necessity* of the Eucharist come in?
Mark
johnMark: As a protestant I want the entrance door to Rome closed and nailed shut.
ReplyDeletenice :)
JohnMark:
ReplyDelete"If one is already in a state of grace in the RC sense then where does the *necessity* of the Eucharist come in?"
That's kind of like saying, I've already kissed my wife and said "I do", Why should I be expected to make love to her over and over again?
Bretts,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Just tell me this. What does partaking of the Eucharist actually do according to RC doctrine?
Mark
JohnMark: "I disagree"
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure what you disagree with. My desciptions of catholic theology, or catholic doctrine period?
"What does partaking of the Eucharist actually do according to RC doctrine?"
Partaking of communion is not really the point of the Eucharist, but it is a great gift that none of us is worthy of. What we do , or what a sinful priest does is secondary to what Christ is doing in the liturgy. We receive the presence of Christ.
I think Father Neuhaus learned the importance of the sacraments not being "merely conditional" way back as a good young Lutheran brother.
If one is already in a state of grace in the RC sense then where does the *necessity* of the Eucharist come in?
ReplyDeleteMark,
It is morally impossible for someone to be saved who, having access to the preeminent means of sanctification, would neglect to participate in it. In that sense, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. Of course God will give the graces necessary for salvation to a Catholic who has been deprived of the Eucharist through circumstances beyond his control, such as persecution from Anglicans or Shintoists.
What does partaking of the Eucharist actually do according to RC doctrine?
You can read the Catechism of the Council of Trent's answer to that question about 3/5 of the way down this page:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm
Steve wrote, "According to Catholic theology, as I understand it, you can lose your state of grace through mortal sin. Hence, the sacraments can't confer the assurance of salvation."
ReplyDeleteHow is that argument any better than a Catholic arguing, "According to Calvinist theology, as I understand it, you can demonstrate your lack of being in a state of grace through failure to persevere in the faith. Hence, present perseverance can't confer the assurance of salvation"?
Thanks.
REFLECTING SAID:
ReplyDelete"How is that argument any better than a Catholic arguing, 'According to Calvinist theology, as I understand it, you can demonstrate your lack of being in a state of grace through failure to persevere in the faith. Hence, present perseverance can't confer the assurance of salvation?"
i) In this post, I wasn't arguing for the superiority of the Reformed alternative. Whether that's better, worse, or on a par with Catholicism, is irrelevant to my post.
ii) The purpose of my post was to point out that Catholic have a way of fudging when a friend or loved one dies. Instead of saying "We can't know that he died in a state of grace," they speak with assurance about his state of grace—contrary to Catholic dogma.
iii) Your question also assumes that the subjective experience of the elect is indistinguishable from the subjective experience of the reprobate. But the reprobate, being unregenerate, don't have the same subjective experience.
Steve:“Catholics have a way of fudging when a friend or loved one dies.”
ReplyDeleteI suppose one man’s fudging is another man’s hope. I for one am much more at peace with biblical hope, (rather than a false sense of absolute assurance of the path I may travel); since mine or any other man’s salvation is found in Christ alone.
I think the certainty that his friends and loved ones speak of Fr. Neuhaus comes from the assurance that he did know Jesus. That probably will not stop them from offering prayers for him at his funeral mass today, if that eases your concern for the state of his soul any.
BRETTS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I suppose one man’s fudging is another man’s hope. I for one am much more at peace with biblical hope, (rather than a false sense of absolute assurance of the path I may travel); since mine or any other man’s salvation is found in Christ alone.”
So you, as a Catholic, don’t think that Mary has anything to do with it (e.g. the intercession of Mary).
“I think the certainty that his friends and loved ones speak of Fr. Neuhaus comes from the assurance that he did know Jesus. That probably will not stop them from offering prayers for him at his funeral mass today, if that eases your concern for the state of his soul any.”
The issue is Catholic dogma. Given Catholic dogma, are they entitled to that assurance?
“I think Father Neuhaus learned the importance of the sacraments not being ‘merely conditional’ way back as a good young Lutheran brother.”
You have a problem keeping track of your own argument. This is what you said: “I never said that Christ comes to us in sacrament alone. Our hearts should be burning within when the scriptures are open and his word speaks.”
“Our hearts…” So do you think the efficacy of the sacrament is contingent on the receptive state of the communicant?
In Catholic theology, as I understand it, the validity of a sacrament (and, hence, efficacy), depends on the intent of both the officiant and the recipient. You must receive it with the right intention.
STEVE: "So you, as a Catholic, don’t think that Mary has anything to do with it (e.g. the intercession of Mary)."
ReplyDeleteAmen! to that one. But I will gladly welcome prayers on my behalf from any other soul that has a relationship with the Lord.
Our Lady of Victory, Pray for us!
LonelyBoy,
ReplyDelete"Truth unites, with that statement it seems to me that Neuhaus believe in sola fide which is not the official doctrine of his holy mother church."
Do you think that statement differs substantially from the sentiment endorsed and cited by the CCC from Therese of Lisieux:
"After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself."
Perhaps you think the above is not as concrete or strongly worded as Neuhas' statement.