Evelyn Waugh Would Have to Re-Write Brideshead

Published on by D. G. Hart

Phil Lawler wonders about the pastoral implications of Pope Francis’ pastoral advice in Amoris Laetitia. Consider the plight of “regular” Roman Catholics:

In any Catholic community there will always be some devout believers who, following the Lord’s advice, “Strive to enter by the narrow door.” They will pray often and ardently, try to attend daily Mass, practice their own private devotions, and seek out spiritual direction from priests who demand a lot of them. For these people—let’s call them “high-octane” Catholics—Gresham’s Law will not apply. They are the equivalent of the folks who demand payment in doubloons.

But most Catholics, in most times and places, are not of the high-octane variety. Most “regular” parishioners will do what the Church demands of them, but will not seek out extra rigors. They will attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis, raise their children in the faith, follow the precepts of the Church as they understand them, contribute to the parish. Faithful if not zealous, they will form the backbone of the Catholic community. Nourished by the sacraments and encouraged by their pastors, they will grow in faith; some will eventually become high-octane Catholics.

Now notice how these “regular” Catholics—who sincerely intend to meet their obligations, without taking on extra burdens—are likely to choose between two hypothetical parishes:

In Parish A, Sunday Mass lasts 90 minutes or more; the liturgy is “high” and solemn; the Gregorian chant is unfamiliar. In Parish B, Mass is out in 40 minutes; the hymns sound like (and sometimes are) snappy show tunes.

In Parish A, religious-education classes are demanding, and students who do not master the basic catechism lessons do not advance. In Parish B, teachers assume that “they’re good kids” and don’t worry about details.

In Parish A, when a young couple comes to discuss marriage, and the pastor notices that they list the same home address on their registration forms, he tells them that they must live separately. In Parish B the pastor “doesn’t notice” the matching addresses, and plans for the wedding can move forward.

In Parish A, priests often preach on controversial topics, driving home the Church’s least popular messages, reminding the parishioners of their sins. In Parish B, the homily is always a gentle reminder that we should be kind to one another, and not too rough on ourselves.

Needless to say, high-octane Catholics will flock to Parish A. Regular Catholics will gravitate toward Parish B. Human nature being what it is, most people will choose the less demanding of two options.

Now notice what happens to priests in these parishes when they meet a couple that has been re-married:

In his apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis sets up the model of a pastor who will meet with these couples, help them to review and assess their lives, to repent their past failings, to bring their lives closer to the Christian ideal, and to do everything that they can in their current circumstances to grow in holiness. Exactly how this process will unfold is unclear, because, as the Pope explains, it is impossible to anticipate all the unique circumstances of any individual case. But clearly the Pope is describing a rigorous process, rather than a quick solution.

But what sort of priest would insist on that rigor in his dealings with a remarried couple? The pastor of Parish A, probably. But that pastor would very likely tell the couple that if they wish to receive the sacraments they must live as brother and sister. And the couple, for that matter, if they were active parishioners in Parish A, would probably have reached that conclusion for themselves already. So Amoris Laetitiae would bring no change in their case.

In Parish B, on the other hand, the pastor—having long ago established the pattern of requiring only the minimum—would be far more likely to tell the couple that they should not worry about details, that they should feel free to receive the Eucharist. In all likelihood he would already have conveyed that message, and they would already be in the Communion line every Sunday. Again, the apostolic exhortation would cause no significant change.

But consider what might happen in the marginal cases, where change is most visible. What will happen to divorced/remarried couples who, after years away from the faith, are inspired by the Pope’s message to return to the fold? If they happen to meet with a priest who expects them to go through a long and difficult process, aren’t they likely to seek a second opinion, and maybe a third, until inevitably, they find a pastor who will welcome them back immediately, with no requirements and no strings attached? Hasn’t that pattern already been clearly established by the young couples who want their wedding scheduled without a demanding marriage-prep program, or want their children confirmed without a rigorous CCD requirement?

This is not exactly the church that was opposed to any trace of modernity for at least 150 years.

Now imagine the real life (fictional couple) of Rex Mottram and Julia Marchmain:

Julia manages to match Sebastian’s dissolute lifestyle through her own acts of intransigence. She eventually plans to marry Rex Mottram, a Protestant Canadian, who has managed to gain a seat in the House of Commons. It is this relationship with Rex that marks Julia’s descent into chronic sin. Julia learns that Rex may be carrying on an affair with a mistress. She thinks that if they become engaged, this can put an end to the affair. When it doesn’t, she then begins to reason that if she is going to keep Rex from being unfaithful, she will have to offer sexual gratification to her fiancé before they are married. Julia justifies this in her own mind and presents the proposition to a priest: “Surely, Father, it can’t be wrong to commit a small sin myself in order to keep him from a much worse one?” The Jesuit responds in the negative and suggests that she make her confession. It is this moment, when Julia does not receive what she wants, that she turns against the faith: “‘No, thank you,’ she said, as though refusing the offer of something in a shop. ‘I don’t think I want to today,’ and walked angrily home. From that moment she shut her mind against her religion.”

During their engagement, Rex agrees to receive instruction so that he can convert to Catholicism. However, matters are exasperated when it is revealed that Rex was previously married and divorced in Canada. Rex does not understand how this can be an impediment to a prospective marriage to Julia and he sees no difference between his divorce and the granting of an annulment. When it is obvious that nothing can be done with only a few weeks before the wedding, Julia and Rex agree to marry in a Protestant ceremony, separating themselves from Catholic society and the Marchmain family. Julia’s intransigence reaches its peak as she voices a modern refusal to recognize objective sin: “I don’t believe these priests know everything. I don’t believe in hell for things like that. I don’t know that I believe in it for anything.”

So which priest would Rex and Julia seek? Parish A or Parish B? This writer thinks Parish B’s priest is closer to Pope Francis’ instruction in his apostolic exhortation:

If they were alive today, would Julia and Charles have had to part ways? Amoris Laetitia offers alternatives: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” Couldn’t Julia and Charles have spoken with Father MacKay in the internal forum for the sake of contributing to the “formation of a correct judgment”?

Even the idea of living as brother and sister seems to be impossible in this modern age. While Julia explains to Charles that she plans to “[j]ust go on – alone” this is not a sad revelation because she is finally able to receive God’s mercy and to return to a right relationship with Him. However Amoris Laetitia makes it seem that “going on alone” or abstaining from sexual intercourse is impossible in 2016. Pope Francis explains that “many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.’” In the age of Brideshead, one didn’t die if they abstained from sexual intimacy. Apparently, in this sex-obsessed age, it is impossible for one to live without it.

Some will say that no dogma has changed. And sure the dogma of mortal and venial sins have not changed. But if priests’ pastoral counsel, with a green light from the magisterium, is defective by not warning the flock from sin, if it tolerates sinful practices under the guise of being pastoral, something has changed.

Evelyn Waugh knew that the Church of England had changed (even when dogma hadn’t). Do Roman Catholic apologists think Waugh wouldn’t notice this?

148 thoughts on “Evelyn Waugh Would Have to Re-Write Brideshead”

  2. Browse the web. Everyone not ordained or liberal knows exactly what has happened. We have a Pope who is not heretical, OK!… well, at least not officially, magisterially, thank our Marian stars… but is certainly not Catholic in any recognizable sense, at least in North America pre 1961. Despite Fr. Dwight’s Prussian mustache or Rev. James Martin’s semi-effeminate reassurances to the contrary. See, Francis is a wise Latina, so viva la difference! Once again, diversity proves itself as much a curse as a blessing. The Latin Americans may be great singers, artists, cooks, and… key phrase… *magical realists*, but they suck as theologians. Read the document for yourself and see. St John of the Corss or Luis Palau the Holy Father is not.

    Like

  3. P.S. *Mortal* sin? Show me a modern Catholic theologian who still believes much less teaches that. Missing Mass or masturbation… those are mortal sins, right? Which means 99% of Catholics are burning in Hell as we combox.

    Like

  5. In what meaningful sense has the doctrine of mortal vs. venial sin gone unchanged if parish B doesn’t really do anything with mortal sin and treats it all as venial? Because that’s what this document allows for.

    Like

  7. DG quote: In any Catholic community there will always be some devout believers who, following the Lord’s advice, “Strive to enter by the narrow door.”

    advice?

    maybe if there were more “remembrance of Me.” just as Jesus commands in the Lord’s supper, – His word would be more sought out for true remembering and divine nature participation – O taste and see that the Lord is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him! Psalm 34:8..- and more understanding that He is our only narrow gate ;that the strict requirement is His perfect righteousness alone, and entrance is granted by faith- that conversion and regeneration changes everything -ie a changed heart given -to understand it cannot be based on one’s own terms instead of God’s terms, or on the basis of good works, or thinking one will enter because God is love, or thinking one can buy into heaven, but is a way of submission to Jesus, self-denial, living for Him by the Spirit of life.

    Ie understanding there are only two gates – not a narrower, narrow, sorta-narrow, fake-narrow gate and then a wide gate nor that His word in this is His ‘advice’ but a matter of life and death
    .
    “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9

    Liked by 1 person

  8. From what I’ve heard some catholics tell me, priests in some “type A” parishes rail against the parishioners, almost weekly, about the evils of using any kind of birth control. While this is probably Old Skool according to many catholics nowadays, I wonder what Papa Frank’s opinion is on the matter.

    Like

  9. Robert,

    “In what meaningful sense has the doctrine of mortal vs. venial sin gone unchanged if parish B doesn’t really do anything with mortal sin and treats it all as venial? Because that’s what this document allows for.”

    Well, Robert, I can understand your concern, but the fact is, there does exist such things as venial and mortal sin. And this is a good place to turn our attention. In other words, that this difference is actually teased out and specified in some religion among all the religions of the world is an interesting thing to note.

    Sin, apparently, is a genus and has two species. Perhaps this is based on the amount of privation of good in the individual when we use our free will to do things we know by our reason( through natural law and supernatural faith) are contrary to our “being”( ‘rational’ animals) and beneath our dignity as created in God’s image( rational spirits who can actively participate in the divine life).
    Sins that are venial or mortal, that are commited, or goods that should have been done but were left undone are all our real failings and we will be judged accordingly.
    This is recognized in the Catholic faith and has always been recognized here.

    The amount of variable between the truth of this and how it is received into the ears of the hearers does matter because sin matters, but it doesn’t irradicate those differences.
    No Catholic parish has stopped using the terminology and knowing the difference.
    But this isn’t mathematics.

    Is it possible that a divorced and remarried woman,(even though her first marriage is sacramentaly valid)is receiving communion somewhere?
    It is possible, I guess, but the fact that there even exists a way to be corrected, let alone that the person can go to confession to confess that they were ignorant, but are sorry, should say a lot about the truth of the faith.

    If you’re worried about someone not realizing that such and such is a mortal sin, don’t.
    For a sin to be mortal it has to meet three requirements. One is it has to he done with full consent of the will.

    On a side not, for those interested, the BBC is airing an interview of Evelyn Waugh recorded in 1960.
    I really enjoyed it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qtln

    Like

  10. “if parish B doesn’t really do anything with mortal sin and treats it all as venial?”

    Did Parish B get rid of hearing all confessions? Because that’s what that would entail.

    Like

  12. Darryl,

    I’m contending Parish B doesn’t exist. If you’re holding confessions, you’re affirming mortal sin exists and isn’t to be treated as venial sin.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Parish B was described as ““if parish B doesn’t really do anything with mortal sin and treats it all as venial?”’

    You really don’t think this describes what Daryl has in mind?

    In my case, one big reason I was attracted to Catholicism myself had to do with its being a solid rock in a tumultuous sea of relativism. In particular, it was Rome’s teachings on the meaning of sex and marriage that appealed to me, precisely because I was convicted of the disorder in my own pre-conversion life. Rome offered a deep and comprehensive way to understand sex and sexuality, one that was uncompromising, Biblically sound, and because of that, merciful. Chastity was the hard teaching that I did not want to accept, but I had enough intellectual honesty back then to know that it was not an option, not for Christians who were serious about faith. The Bible, and the continuous witness of the historic Christian church, was uncontestable on this point. The world does not want to hear this, and neither did I. But the Catholic Church — particularly in the person of Pope John Paul II — proclaimed this truth.

    When I finally wanted God more than I wanted myself and my own will, I submitted. It was a miserable time, dying to myself in that way. There is nothing in our popular culture to support doing what I had undertaken; in fact, exactly the opposite. The thing I did not really understand until I became Catholic is that there is very little within the culture of ordinary American Catholicism to support it either.

    Now, if that’s not been your experience, count yourself lucky. It was my experience in a number of parishes and places. For example, my bride-to-be and I were committed to being faithful Catholics and observing Natural Family Planning. She found a teacher in Austin, Texas, where she was finishing her degree, and I looked for one in the Archdiocese of Miami, where I was then living. I had trouble finding one, and when I finally did locate a teaching couple, they told me that they had been forbidden from teaching NFP in a number of area parishes. The parishes simply did not want to deal with presenting an unpopular teaching.

    On two different occasions I got into an argument in the confessional with the priest on the other side of the screen over what’s a sin regarding sexual morality. In one case, the priest and I agreed to drop it, he said the absolution, and let me go. But it wasn’t even close to being an honest dispute. The priest flat-out rejected authoritative, binding Roman Catholic teaching. In the other case, a priest in the confessional at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC advised me to use contraception in my marriage. I challenged him, and he gave a sigh that said oh, one of those, absolved me, and sent me on my way.

    Those are some brief examples, fairly outrageous ones, from an orthodox Catholic point of view. Mostly, Catholic priests and parishes don’t even talk about this at all. Their silence says everything. What it says to Catholics like I once was, both as a single man and as a married man, struggling with chastity (= rightly ordering the gift of sexuality): You’re on your own, pal.

    Speaking only for myself here, that was enough. I knew the Egypt that had once been my dwelling place, and I preferred the desert to returning there. Still, the desert was a dry and difficult land, a place to wander all alone. In my case, I never felt all that inclined to judge fellow sinners who attempted to live by the Church’s teachings and failed. So did I! Thank God for the sacrament of confession, which was a great mercy to me. What made me really angry — really angry — was the way so many priests and lay leaders within the Church either explicitly or implicitly denied the Church’s teachings. It was one thing to deny Catholics like me the help we needed to live out the Church’s teaching. It was another to spit in our faces and call us fools for trying to do the right thing.

    Could it be that the ritual of confession is practiced by the priest because it is good for one’s mental health to unload one’s guilty feelings – it supports human flourishing after all (not like that wacky NFP stuff the latin chanters are always going on about)! It certainly sounds to me that the whole concept of moral versus venial has been washed away while the rite stays in place. I know, I know, it’s all good on paper, so nothing’s changed. Keep whistling past the graveyard.

    Like

  18. Cletus,

    So your argument is as long as parish B is holding confessions but telling people in the confessional that it’s okay to practice contraception, all is good? Are you kidding?

    Like

  19. Susan,

    No Catholic parish has stopped using the terminology and knowing the difference.

    Except, of course, the parish that Rod Dreher describes wherein he got into an argument with the priest over sexual ethics and was told to practice contraception.

    It is possible, I guess, but the fact that there even exists a way to be corrected, let alone that the person can go to confession to confess that they were ignorant, but are sorry, should say a lot about the truth of the faith.

    What’s the way to be corrected when the pope calls your situation irregular and the priest tells you that you can practice birth control and take the Eucharist?

    Like

  20. classicaled says: the fact is, there does exist such things as venial and mortal sin.

    Pretty sure you already know this Susan, but probably ought not be left unstated – there is not Biblical warrant for the mortal, venial sin distinction.

    A child of God, born of His Spirit, will never be excluded from His kingdom because God has arranged for it to be so–nothing can separate us from Him (Rom 8:35-39)– He has sealed us for the day of redemption.( Eph 4:30) God is the One Who establishes us in Christ and anointed us and also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. ( 2 Cor 1:21-22)

    There is an unpardonable sin, though, and an urgency to speak of that to all who don’t know – for continued unbelief and rejection of the only means of salvation – Jesus – is eternal death .
    But as many as received Jesus, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13

    I know the Lord was talking about human marriage when saying – “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:9), but how much more true for those the Father has given to Jesus – He gives us eternal life and we will never perish, and no one can snatch us out of His hand (John 10:27-29).

    So please, don’t let any man speak any longer as if it were so that we could be separated. He’ll be asking those who are confusing others about that.

    Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:24-25)

    Like

  21. Cletus and Susan,

    Not to be rude, buy your responses on this thread make it hard for us to believe that converting to your particular flavor of RCism is not a surrender of your mind. Parish B doesn’t exist? As if.

    Like

  22. Robert,

    “So your argument is as long as parish B is holding confessions but telling people in the confessional that it’s okay to practice contraception, all is good?”

    Nope. That’s you jumping to conclusions. I was responding to your own hypothetical. Now you’re shifting.

    If Parish B exists – the one that “treats it all [mortal sin] as venial” – you should be able to name it.

    Darryl/sdb, I just realized parish B was described in your original post. Robert then defined it above, which wasn’t in the original article. I don’t deny parish B in Lawler’s article, or the one Dreher describes his experiences with, exists. I deny parish B as Robert describes it exists.

    Like

  23. Ali:
    Pretty sure you already know this Susan, but probably ought not be left unstated – there is not Biblical warrant for the mortal, venial sin distinction.>>>>>

    Ali, I appreciate the fact that you take Scripture seriously. I am sure you believe with all your heart what you say.

    If you will, let me suggest a couple of Scriptural lines of reasoning.

    1. Mortal sins kill the soul as well as destroy the body. Such a distinction is made by the Apostle John in his First Epistle.
    1 John 5 [RSVCE]
    . 16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God[b] 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. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

    John 5 [ESV]
    16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God[a] will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

    2. Under the Old Testament legal system, there were sins punishable by the death penalty. Not all sins were punishable by death, but some were. So even in the OT there was a distinction made by God between mortal and venial sins – sins that would lead to death vs. sins that did not lead to death.

    So, where did the idea that there is no distinction between mortal and venial sin come from? It is not Biblical. Otherwise why would God in the giving of the Law and the Apostle John both make a distinction?

    Like

  24. Ali,

    On one hand,
    “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.”
    “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.”
    “He who does not love abides in death.”
    “The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”
    “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”
    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
    “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
    “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person–such a person is an idolater–has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”
    “I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts. I have kept my feet from every evil path so that I might obey your word. I have not departed from your laws, for you yourself have taught me.”
    “if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.”
    “Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time”
    “Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
    “In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.”

    On the other,
    “All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.”
    “Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins.”
    “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins”
    “for though the righteous fall seven times”
    “For we all stumble in many ways.”
    “though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.”
    “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”
    “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

    Like

  25. Amen Cletus. It would be great if you would put all that truth together in a summation statement. Would be intersted to hear that. I believe we agree the sum of His word is truth.

    Mrs W., quickly, the only thing necessary to say is – if one has trusted in Christ as Lord and Savior and has been born again, born of His Spirit – that one has passed from death to life, forever, has eternal life, has been granted saving faith – therefor there is now no condemnation and nothing can separate that one from God ever and forever. Period.
    PASS OUT THAT TRUTH ….having mercy on some who are doubting it (Jude 1:22); and for others save them, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. (Jude1:23)

    “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24

    Any further discussion about your verse references would be in light of the above truths –God never contradicts Himself – and scholarly debate on it is recorded many places I’m sure and some here likely could refer you there.

    Like

  26. Ali,

    My point was that those passages need to be reconciled – as you say, “God never contradicts Himself”. Believers sin in one sense, but not in another – one type of sin is compatible with faith and agape, the other is opposed to it. That’s what the mortal/venial sin distinction captures.

    Like

  28. Clete,

    I deny parish B as Robert describes it exists.

    So you are denying that Rod Dreher was a part of a parish that held confessions with the priest but that the priest therein counseled him to practice birth control?

    Like

  30. Ali:
    “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24

    Any further discussion about your verse references would be in light of the above truths –God never contradicts Himself – and scholarly debate on it is recorded many places I’m sure and some here likely could refer you there.>>>>

    They are not my verse references. They are the Word of God. I didn’t put them in the Bible.

    Ali, God does not contradict Himself. So, if He says through the Apostle John that there are sins that lead to death [mortal] and sins that do not lead to death, then it seems a believer is supposed to understand what that means. If He said in the OT Law that there were some sins that carried the death penalty and some that did not, then wouldn’t that show that not all sins are the same?

    Your appeal to undefined “scholars” is interesting. So, would you say you accept Scripture plus “scholarly debate” as your rule of faith and practice?

    If you want to discuss John 5:24, then let’s discuss it. If a person stops listening to Jesus’ words, and stops believing in Him who sent Jesus, then does the promise of eternal life still apply?

    Shout at me all you want, but the truth is that one must endure. One must persevere in the faith. Do you believe the heretical doctrine of “once saved, always saved”? I am quite sure you do not.

    Search the words “endure” and “persevere” in your Bible. See that eternal life is conditioned on a faith that endures to the end. You know that, though, I am sure.

    It is all of grace from start to finish. If one cuts himself or herself off from God’s grace, then they cut themselves off from Christ. Notice that Hebrews 10 says that the righteous one shall live by faith. Those were the words that Luther championed.

    Remember, too, that Luther did not consider Hebrews to be inspired Scripture. Why was that? I think that Hebrews 10 holds one clue as to why. Notice that v. 38 continues the idea of the “just shall live by faith.” That righteous one has the ability to shrink back and be destroyed. Scripture is not unclear or ambiguous on this. There is a real possibility of turning back and being destroyed. This is a clear warning.

    We need endurance, which God gives to those who seek to do His will.

    We are not left without encouragement, though. See v. 39.

    Hebrews 10
    36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.
    37 For,

    “Yet a little while,
    and the coming one will come and will not delay;
    38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
    and if he shrinks back,
    my soul has no pleasure in him.”
    39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Mrs. W “once saved, always saved”

    Yes, that’s what ‘sealed’ and ‘ guaranteed’ means- true believers, granted saving faith, persevering to the end. A gift a of God that no one may boast.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Ali says:
    April 15, 2016 at 9:40 pm
    Mrs. W “once saved, always saved”

    Yes, that’s what ‘sealed’ and ‘ guaranteed’ means- true believers, granted saving faith, persevering to the end. A gift a of God that no one may boast.>>>>

    What do you do with the Scriptures that don’t fit your theology?

    Like

  34. Robert says:
    April 15, 2016 at 8:46 am
    Cletus and Susan,

    Not to be rude, buy your responses on this thread make it hard for us to believe that converting to your particular flavor of RCism is not a surrender of your mind. Parish B doesn’t exist? As if.>>>>>

    Well, Robert, I hate to ask because you have generally not been rude to me.

    Who are the “us” that you are talking about? Sounds like you have surrendered your mind to a group. I hope it is not Old Life. That would be tragic, IMO.

    Like

  35. Mrs. W – What do you do with the Scriptures that don’t fit your theology?

    It all fits together, to the glory and praise of God.
    btw, I think some of my brothers are just kidders about T4G, actually appreciating it and even wishing they had taken you, CVD,Susan with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiyI35bf-io …for all true ‘brothers’…
    it is well with our souls. Completely.

    Like

  36. Ali says:
    April 16, 2016 at 8:49 am
    Mrs. W – What do you do with the Scriptures that don’t fit your theology?

    It all fits together, to the glory and praise of God.
    btw, I think some of my brothers are just kidders about T4G, actually appreciating it and even wishing they had taken you, CVD,Susan with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiyI35bf-io …for all true ‘brothers’…
    it is well with our souls. Completely.>>>>

    James 4:9
    9 Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection.

    Like

  38. Ali:
    It all fits together, to the glory and praise of God.>>>>>

    Let me give you a more complete answer. If you ask me whether or not I am saved, here is my answer. Catholic Christians are Bible Christians.

    1. Yes, I am saved. [justified by grace through faith-Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8 2]. Yes, I am being saved. [being sanctified-1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12] 3. Yes, I have the hope that I will be saved. [future glory-Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15] I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling, just as all Christians are or should be [Phil. 2:12] I am trusting in the promises of Christ, as I expect you are.

    Here Hebrews 10 comes into play. I have no plans to shrink back. However, I have read about some of the tortures, humiliations, and martyrdom that Christians have faced even in recent times. I know that if I am called to suffer in that way for Christ, He will make His grace available to me. Will I shrink back?

    I think that all Christians need to face that question.

    Also, if I begin to live a careless life, – which I am not planning to do – can I presume that “once saved always saved” will get me through? See Ezekiel 33:18. I don’t see in Scripture that God gives us that kind of assurance.

    Hebrews 10
    36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.
    37 For,

    “Yet a little while,
    and the coming one will come and will not delay;
    38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
    and if he shrinks back,
    my soul has no pleasure in him.”
    39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

    Ezekiel 33:18
    18 When the righteous turn from their righteousness, and commit iniquity, they shall die for it.

    Phil 2:12
    Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

    Like

  39. Mrs W: Hebrews 10:38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

    Mrs W. live by faith and don’t shrink back from faith – ie from total trust in God, and start trusting in yourself .. for ..
    “Behold, as for the proud one, his soul is not right within him; but the righteous will live by his faith.” (Hab 2:4)

    Like

  40. Mermaid, “Yes, I am saved. [justified by grace through faith-Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8 2]. Yes, I am being saved. [being sanctified-1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12] 3. Yes, I have the hope that I will be saved. [future glory-Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15] I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling, just as all Christians are or should be [Phil. 2:12] I am trusting in the promises of Christ, as I expect you are.”

    How do you know?

    How do you know you have no mortal sins outstanding?

    When you become a Roman Catholic do you receive a version of HAL 9000 and so have comprehensive knowledge of mind, body, soul, and will?

    Wow.

    If it were that easy, Luther never would have become a Protestant.

    Like

  41. Ali says:
    April 17, 2016 at 12:28 am
    Mrs W: Hebrews 10:38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

    Mrs W. live by faith and don’t shrink back from faith – ie from total trust in God, and start trusting in yourself .. for ..
    “Behold, as for the proud one, his soul is not right within him; but the righteous will live by his faith.” (Hab 2:4)>>>>

    So, you are arguing Scripture against Scripture?

    Like

  42. Mrs. W. So, you are arguing Scripture against Scripture?

    against? Scripture interprets Scripture; never a conflict, though it may seem so sometimes to our limited human minds. All Scripture fits perfectly together. Reconciling some tradition to His word though… well that’s another matter.

    Anyway, speaking of ’ limited human minds’, there is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. (Prov 14:12, 16:25)……..
    so, did you read my last comment. The Lord says: “Behold, as for the proud (ie those who rely and trust in themselves), his soul is not right within him, but the righteous will live by his faith.” (Hab 2:4)

    Anyway 2, I see in a prior comment, you referenced James 4:9. Not sure why? but I do love that set of verses . See the bookends there?
    But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.” Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. James 4:6 -10

    Like

  43. ..and Mrs W, as I tell my daughter, you can believe anything you want, but it doesn’t change reality. If you want a god different from the True One as He reveals Himself in the Bible, then so be it, but that would be puzzling, though not very uncommon, if you think about the world. The true One is faithful to all of His promises- never reneges. He does not un-adopt His sons; He does not un-born His reborn ones, etc, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Ali, thank you for your time, and for a reminder of why I love being Catholic. If your religion makes you happy, then be happy.

    Like

  46. D. G. Hart says:
    April 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm
    Mermaid, “If your religion makes you happy, then be happy.”

    Now Protestants are a different religion? Good thing you converted.>>>

    Protestants think I am of a different religion from theirs – at least Ali does. What is wrong with hoping she is happy? Maybe I should have said joyful? I trust she is, and you as well.
    ————————————————————–

    From a homily on the Gospels by Saint Gregory the Great, pope
    Christ the good shepherd

    I am the good shepherd. I know my own — by which I mean, I love them — and my own know me. In plain words: those who love me are willing to follow me, for anyone who does not love the truth has not yet come to know it…

    So our Lord’s sheep will finally reach their grazing ground where all who follow him in simplicity of heart will feed on the green pastures of eternity. These pastures are the spiritual joys of heaven. There the elect look upon the face of God with unclouded vision and feast at the banquet of life for ever more.

    Beloved brothers, let us set out for these pastures where we shall keep joyful festival with so many of our fellow citizens. May the thought of their happiness urge us on! Let us stir up our hearts, rekindle our faith, and long eagerly for what heaven has in store for us. To love thus is to be already on our way. No matter what obstacles we encounter, we must not allow them to turn us aside from the joy of that heavenly feast. Anyone who is determined to reach his destination is not deterred by the roughness of the road that leads to it. Nor must we allow the charm of success to seduce us, or we shall be like a foolish traveler who is so distracted by the pleasant meadows through which he is passing that he forgets where he is going.

    Like

  47. mrswebfoot says: Ali, thank you for your time be happy

    no problem, anytime. btw, blessed may be a better word.
    Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD and whose trust is the LORD. Jer 17: 7

    Like

  48. Rules about marriage need context:

    “Are there new concrete possibilities that did not exist before the publication of the exhortation, or no?” asked the journalist.

    “I can say yes,” responded Francis. “Period.”

    The pontiff then suggested that people looking for more information consult the presentation given by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn at the Vatican April 8, the day the new exhortation, titled Amoris Laetitia (“The Joy of Love”), was released.

    In his presentation that day, Schönborn said the document had made some “organic development” of the church’s pastoral practice for divorced and remarried couples.

    “I recommend to all of you to read the presentation that Cardinal Schönborn made,” the pope said Saturday. “He is a great theologian.”

    “He knows well the doctrine of the church,” said Francis. “In that presentation, your question will have its response.”

    Amoris Laetitia was written by Francis in response to two Synods of Bishops at the Vatican on family life issues in 2014 and 2015.

    In the expansive document, the pope touches on many issues and says that Catholic bishops and priests can no longer make blanket moral determinations about so-called “irregular” situations such as divorce and remarriage.

    “It … can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace,” states the pontiff at one point in the document.

    “It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being,” the pope writes later.

    Like

  49. Rules on immigration are absolute:

    In a joint declaration signed during the visit, the leaders sharply proclaim: “We appeal to all followers of Christ to be mindful of the Lord’s words, on which we will one day be judged.”

    Quoting Jesus’ words in Matthew’s Gospel, they state: “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

    In the declaration, signed at a center housing some 2,500 refugees — where the walls had been whitewashed and the barbed wire removed for the high-level visit — Francis, Bartholomew and Ieronymos say they had traveled together to demonstrate “profound concern” for the migrants’ treatment.

    “The tragedy of forced migration and displacement affects millions, and is fundamentally a crisis of humanity, calling for a response of solidarity, compassion, generosity and an immediate practical commitment of resources,” they state.

    “From Lesbos, we appeal to the international community to respond with courage,” they continue. “We call upon all political leaders to employ every means to ensure that individuals and communities … enjoy the fundamental right to live in peace and security.”

    The three leaders’ joint trip to Europe’s outer periphery, while described by the Vatican as “strictly humanitarian and ecumenical,” appears as an almost unprecedented unified Christian push for politicians to do more in the face of the continuing refugee crisis.

    Mainline Protestantism anyone?

    Like

  50. Obviously, Father Dwight hasn’t read Brideshead:

    One Pastoral Method Does Not Fit All – While we uphold the simple definition of Christian marriage as between one man and one woman for life, the situation of a polygamous culture in Africa and a no fault divorce culture in America and a machismo culture in Argentina and a cohabiting culture in Europe means that while we uphold the ideal, matching our lives to that ideal is increasingly complex and it is impossible to set out one pastoral methodology which will apply to everyone.

    The Church is Welcoming Not Excluding – Pope Francis wants us to open the doors to those who are caught up in the Marriage Mess. This does not mean we sacrifice or compromise the ideal, but it does mean that we listen to the real life situations of real people. Jesus was in the dust with the woman caught in adultery and he condemned the self righteous scribes and Pharisees who stood apart with stones a-ready. The Pope calls us to be with Jesus in the dust not with the Pharisees in their lust.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.