Ask a Catholic

[Fiosh]

I'd like to share a little experience I had with Latin.

My sister sent me a CD that had been recorded from another source. There was no label; nothing telling what was on it. After listening to a few songs, a man's voice began to speak in Latin. I know VERY LITTLE Latin and picked up just enough to know he was praying. Then he began to sing the "Lord's Prayer" a capella . Again I only recognized the first few words.

But there was something so compelling about his voice. He didn't even have what you'd consider a reallly good singing voice. It was more the way that he sang it. It drew my spirit in and lifted it to God. I prayed along while I listened even though I didn't know exactly which words he was saying at any specific moment.

There was something pure and holy about this man.

I asked my sister who it was but she didn't know. A friend had given her the CD. She asked the friend and later told me that it was Pope John Paul II.

Sometimes worship goes beyond the words.

Peace,

Fiosh

[Pax]

Latin is beautiful. The Lord's Prayer in Latin brings me to tears. Even though my mind can't understand the words, I believe that's my spirit which knows these were words spoken by our Lord. Christ didn't speak them in Latin, but He spoke their meaning.

I am happy that you get something beautiful from it. I studied Latin for 5 yrs and do love it also. But in God's House, where the unsaved come, it does nothing to enlighten them. It's like, "Come to my house and visit, but I don't want you to enter into my conversations with my Dad, or hear what He has to say to us, because you aren't really a part of us!" It seems in this day and age, where evangelization of the world is so urgent, that we could easily dispense with these religious trappings, and be a Church with the zeal to harvest the nations! Jesus is coming, folks, and He wants us to get the message out---plainly! ---with the same simplicity that He brought!

I would agree with you , and this is probably one of the main reasons Vatican II allowed each country to say mass in vernacular. However, saying mass in Latin still represents a common unfied language within the Church and is very traditional.

Yes, unified within the confines of Catholicism, but not for people outside it who desperately need the truth of Jesus Christ preached plainly. It is only for the "beauty" of it that it is retained...this is religion. God really despises religiosity, and that is my point.

I would venture to say that those Catholic churches that preach the Gospel plainly and eschew that religious spirit, do well in evangelizing their neighbours.

I understand what you are saying, floatingaxe. And, to some extent you are correct. If someone walked in off the street smack into the middle of a Latin Mass, they may very well be confused. Then again, they may be drawn in by the beauty of it.

Sometimes we do things to evangelize. In fact, often we do things to evangelize.

But, sometimes we do things purely to worship God with all our heart and soul.

When a Catholic attends Mass it is not for the sole purpose of hearing the word preached---although that is a major part of it. A Catholic also attends Mass to pray and sing praise to his God.

Blessings,

Fiosh

And don't forget the Eucharist. The center of the mass is the consecration of the Eucharist and then receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Fiosh]

Hi Bread,

I'm not sure I completely follow you. Since it's already been established that your mind works in weird and wonderful ways, I don't feel too bad.

I'll try to respond as best I understand your implications.

Hi fiosh,

Let me go through these one by one:

Baptism in voto is baptism of desire, which refers to one who had intended to be baptized, but died before receiving the sacrament.

I believed that the doctrine of there being no salvation outside of the church was tempered by the baptism

in voto

, in that sincere non Catholics who through no fault of their own did not know of the church or that it was the true Church of Christ, could through responding to the calling of the Holy Spirit be baptised by desire. The catechism, for example, says:

"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience

[Floatingaxe]

And don't forget the Eucharist. The center of the mass is the consecration of the Eucharist and then receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

This statement is out of place with regards to Latin mass. The unsaved person who finds himself in a Catholic church where mass is celebrated in Latin, has no opportunity to understand the Gospel plainly...and he certainly will not be allowed to celebrate communion, will he?

[Fiosh]

Grace to you,

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (Mark 16:16; John 3:5)

So basically those who have left behind the Catholic Church have left behind Salvation.

Do we enter through the Sacraments of the Church or the Doorway to the Universal Church which is Christ?

Both. The Sacraments are simply an outpouring of the grace of Christ --and flow from Him. We do not separate the Sacraments from Christ as you do, in your thinking. Nor do we see them as a "substitute" for the redeeming power of Jesus Christ, but rather as an instrument thru which that grace is dispersed.

When Jesus cured the blind man by making mud with dirt and spittle, and placing it on his eyes......what cured him? Jesus or the mud?

Why did Jesus use the mud when He could just as easily have said, "Your sight is restored", and it certainly would have been restored.

I don't know why. But I do know that Jesus understands our human-ness. He knows that our souls need a little boost to be lifted from our material bodies; our eyes need to be drawn heavenward.

Jesus often used "instruments" to display His power and dispense His grace.

He still does.

We call them Sacraments.

We don't believe something different than you do. We believe more.

What is the more? What has the Catholic Church added to Grace which in turn has brought us to Faith?

Matthithjah, you have such a beautiful way of twisting words that it is hardly noticeable at times.

I never said the RCC "adds to grace" which has "brought us to Faith".

I simply said "we believe more".

Pax often uses the phrase "the fullness of faith". We believe what you believe---One God in three Persons; salvation thru the cross and resurrection; inspiration thru the Holy Spirit...

But we ALSO believe that Jesus left us much more than a book. We believe He left us a Church and the Sacraments, for example.

QUOTE(Matthitjah @ Oct 2 2006, 07:43 AM)

Grace to you,

Please explain how a Catholic arrives at Salvation.

Peace,

Dave

Only through the grace of God, just like anyone else.

Maybe you could expound upon how the Catholic obtains this Grace? Is this Grace only available to the Catholic, if so, why?

No. God gives His grace to all baptized believers. But if you deny the Sacraments, instituted by Jesus Christ, you are missing out on the fullness of that grace.

Explain the role of the Sacraments too if you do not mind.

I don't mind at all. On Pentecost, the Church of Christ burst forth from that upper room and into the world by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the Church that is commissioned to "proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes". I Cor 11:26

As once Christ lived and acted in human form, He now lives and acts thru His Church. As once He used mud and spittle; loaves and fishes; bread and wine, etc to convey His blessing....He now acts thru the sacraments. Just as present---just as real, as when He walked the earth.

Baptism is the "gateway to life in the Spirit". Thru Baptism we are freed from sin and welcomed into the family of God. We are joined with Christ and become a temple of the Holy Spirit. Thru Baptism, we receive sactifying grace which enables us to respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in faith.

In Confirmation we receive a special strength of the Holy Spirit to witness for Christ.

Holy Eucharist is the "source and summit" of Christian life. In the Eucharistic celebration, we are already united with the heavenly saints and angels praising God thru Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised to be"with you always, until the end of the age". He is truly present with us in the Eucharist, just as He said.

Penance (or Reconciliation) and Anointing of the Sick (James 5: 14-15)continue the work of Christ, healing body and soul thru His Church. Penance restores us to God's grace and relationship with Him.

The Sacraments build up the Body of Christ. They nourish and strengthen our faith. They are the power of God at work in the new and ever-lasting covenant.

Peace,

Fiosh

[Fiosh]

And don't forget the Eucharist. The center of the mass is the consecration of the Eucharist and then receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

This statement is out of place with regards to Latin mass. The unsaved person who finds himself in a Catholic church where mass is celebrated in Latin, has no opportunity to understand the Gospel plainly...and he certainly will not be allowed to celebrate communion, will he?

You will rarely find a Mass that is TOTALLY in Latin. Usually only the "parts" of the liturgy---the standard prayers--- will be Latin. The readings, Gospel and sermon will be in the vernacular.

And you are correct, anyone who is in a state of serious sin and/or does not "discern the Lord's body"---whether Catholic or not---should not receive the Holy Eucharist.

1Cr 11:23

[Floatingaxe]

I know! Which is why that statement of Pax's was out of synch.

Blessings, Fiosh!

[Fiosh]

I know! Which is why that statement of Pax's was out of synch.

Blessings, Fiosh!

Fair enough.

[Fiosh]

That would be a major difference between you and me. I know that my doctrines are correct and will not change. That is not arrogance. It is my faith in Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will lead His Church to all truth.

If you know your doctrines are correct and will not change, then you are not likely to ever second guess yourself or look at the doctrines objectively, as I had asked a few posts back.

I would add that the difference is between you and me is that I know the Bible and my God will not change. Man-made doctrines will change. Eating meat on Fridays is a good example.

I understand the current Pope is also wondering about going back to completely Latin masses and no more folk music or modern music, only the old-time hymns.

Artslady, Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. We are not going to second guess Jesus Christ. Eating meat on Friday is not a foundational dcotrine of faith, but rather a tradition. These can and have changed. Another example of this would be alter girls. There weren't alter girls until rather recently, not sure on the date. I can tell you that such doctrines of the Eucharist, Priesthood (men only), reconciliation, Purgaory, other Sacraments, these will never change, and haven't for 2,000 years.

Purgatory happened sometime within 2000 yrs as it is not biblical in the least. It is a convenient little doctrine dreamed up my man/pope.

Hebrews 9:27

And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

Says nothing about a waiting room, or a holding cell.

I Cor 3

11for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.

12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,

13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.

14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.

15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

[Fiosh]

This morning I was listening to Dr. Tony Evans, on the radio, preach on I Cor 7. It brought to mind a comment that someone made on this thread a while back. It was something to the effect that if Mary and Joseph did not consumate their marriage it would be sin.

5

Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

6

This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

I looked closely at I Cor 7: 1-7. And, it does indeed say that a man and woman can "deprive each other", but only by "mutual consent"; but should then "return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. "

The Bible tells us that Joseph was a "holy man". It also tells us that Mary was "full of grace". Was Paul a better man than Joseph in terms of self-control? Was Mary less blest by God in her ability to sacrifice human desire for holiness?

If you look at what Paul says in context, there are several critical issues you must consider:

1. Paul is speaking to the Corinthians who were noted for their widespread immorality. Paul is responding to their questions concerning the practice of asceticism---a practice that they were distorting. Paul explains that celibacy is a special gift and not for everyone. He points out to them that they are overestimating their own ability to abide by that principle and are falling into immorality because of it.

2. Paul clearly states "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"

and

5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

6

This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

7

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God,

It is obvious that Paul is implying that if a man or woman have the gift of celibacy, it is a permissible to refrain from coming together.

3. Paul wishes that everyone could be as he is, and not engage in relations. But he recognizes that, in reality, this is not the case.

***********************

It is not a sin for a husband and wife to refrain from relations by mutual consent for the glory of God.

It is a good thing.

Peace,

Fiosh