[soc.religion.christian] <None>

cms@dragon.uucp (08/06/90)

 Regarding prayer to the saints:  Given the choice between praying to God and
not praying to God, which would you choose to encourage?  Obviously a
rhetorical question.  Many Catholics choose to pray to God in a particular way
which seems to be onerous to many Protestants.  Given the choice between
encouraging a Catholic to pray to God through a saint and encouraging a
Catholic not to pray to God at all, which would you choose?  Many Protestants
do not recognize the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.  Now, the Bible
says that anyone who partakes of the body and blood of Christ unworthily,
profanes it to his loss, or as Paul puts it in I Corinthians 11:26, "For as
often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death
until he comes.  Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the
cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and
drinks judgment upon himself."  Some might conclude that it is therefore better
for the Protestants who don't acknowledge the real presence to decline
celebrating the Eucharist at all, since whenever such churches do so, they
profane the body and blood of the Lord and drink judgment on themselves.  

 This is a bit strong, however.  I encourage Protestants to celebrate the 
Eucharist; it's the central act of our redemption.  Even if their 
understanding of the Eucharist is imperfect, and the importance they attach to 
its celebration is less than what it ought to be, I still think it's important 
for them to celebrate the Eucharist.  In the same way, I would hope that the 
oft-stated Protestant belief in the power of prayer and a personal relationship 
with Jesus would encourage them to encourage Catholics to pray to God through 
a saint if this is what helps Catholics develop a personal relationship with 
Jesus.  Mary, for example, led me to Jesus and helped me to establish a 
personal relationship with my God and my Saviour.

 I have strong feelings about the efficacy of prayer and James's advice (letter
of James) that the prayers of the righteous are powerful before God is advice
well taken.  Nevertheless, I have a strong live-and-let-live attitude as well. 
If you derive spiritual benefit from prayer to the saints, then, by all means,
pray to the saints.  If you derive spiritual benefit from receiving what you
believe to be a mere representation of the body and blood of Christ, then, by
all means, participate in such a Eucharistic celebration.  If it bothers you
receiving from a minister who says, "This represents the body of Christ," then
don't go to that Church.  If it bothers you to pray to the saints, then don't
pray the saints.  I wouldn't encourage you to leave a church over the issue,
however, since prayer to the saints or even prayer to God in whatever format
isn't central to our redemption -- the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is. 
After all, many Episcopalians, myself included, often pray to the saints,
whereas other Episcopalians don't.  It's extremely important to pray and my
point is that the importance I attach to prayer exceeds my personal feelings
about the method.  The importance I attach to the Lord's Supper exceeds my
personal feelings about what other people think the Mass is and what consuming
the Eucharist is all about.

-- 
                                   Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
	        	 _///_ //  SPAWN OF A JEWISH       _///_ //
      _///_ //         <`)=  _<<     CARPENTER   _///_ //<`)=  _<<
    <`)=  _<<	 _///_ // \\\  \\   \\ _\\\_   <`)=  _<<    \\\  \\
       \\\  \\ <`)=  _<<             >IXOYE=('>   \\\  \\
                  \\\  \\_///_ //   //  ///   _///_ //    _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms       <`)=  _<<   _///_ // <`)=  _<<   <`)=  _<<
                          \\\  \\<`)=  _<<     \\\  \\     \\\  \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW!                \\\  \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia

math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (03/09/91)

In article <Mar.8.00.37.47.1991.24532@athos.rutgers.edu>, John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes:
 
> My reading of Acts 15 describing the Council of Jerusalem is quite of a 
> different import than that quoted above.  It is my understanding that this 
> section opened up Christianity to Gentiles and not only Jews.  However 
> they must still remain Kosher:
> 
> But we should write to them [gentiles] to abstain only from things 
> polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been 
> strangled and from blood.  (Acts 15:20)
> 
> This then repeated to the people at Antioch through Judas and Silas in 
> Acts 15:29.  It seems clear that the council did not fully agree with 
> Peter's more radical postion and took a bit of a compromise position.  
> Only the sexual and dietary parts of the law were required to be kept.  
> 
> It would appear that most of us are not following the Council's decision 
> and are in apostasy if we eat meat that is strangled or in which the blood 
> has not been drained.  But if we are of Jewish origin and became a follower of Jesus there does not seem to be any relaxation of the Jewish law.
 
Actually the intent of the council was not to put the Gentiles under the
Law in any way, but to advise them not to give offense to the Jewish
christians, "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times
and is read in the synagagues on every Sabbath." Acts 15:21.  That this is 
advisory is made clear in the letter from the council, which concludes with
the words "You will do well to avoid these things."

This interpretation of the Council's actions is consistent with Paul's words
in Romans 14, particularly v. 15:  "If your brother is destressed because of
what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.  Do not by your eating destroy
your brother for whom Christ died."  But he makes it very clear in Galatians
that the Christian is not to put himself under the Law.

Jesus himself showed that there is no moral principle regarding 'clean' and
'unclean' food for Christians, when he said:

"Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him
'unclean'?  For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then
out of his body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')

"He went on: 'What comes out of a man is what makes him "unclean."  For 
from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality,
theft, murder, adultery, greed, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come
from inside and make a man 'unclean'."

--Mark 7:18:23.

I admit that the decision of the council seems confusing.  It had me confused
too, when I first read it.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran.

My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.

gdsimpson@amherst.bitnet (03/25/91)

       How do Protestants interpret Matthew 7:21 where Jesus says "Not everyone
who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who
does the will of my Father who is in heaven"?
       Doesn't this verse say that Jesus believed in good works as a means of
  salvation rather than faith alone, or there another way to read this?

       -Gilberto Simpson

  "The water will engulf us if we do not dare to tread"
         -De La Soul

[The simplest response would be simply to cite John 6:40: "For this is
the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in
him should have eternal life."  That is, doing the will of the Father
means in the first place to have faith in Christ.

Note that Protestants believe we need to obey God.  We see salvation
as a free gift of God.  Our response is in the first place committing
ourselves to God's mercy (which is one way of characterizing faith --
I'm wary of using that word with Catholics because they sometimes
think we mean simply intellectual assent).  From that follows
obedience and good works.  The good works are necessary, in the sense
that if they don't follow, you can be pretty sure that there was no
real commitment (except in unusual cases -- probably the thief on the
cross didn't have a chance to do any good works).  But the emphasis
shouldn't be on the works themselves.  They alone wouldn't save us.
They are significant only because they follow from a commitment to
God.  As far as I can tell, Catholics agree with this.  Is there a
real difference here?  --clh]

goguenm@chopin.udel.edu (Matthew L Goguen) (03/27/91)

In article <Mar.25.05.12.45.1991.7991@athos.rutgers.edu> gdsimpson@amherst.bitnet writes:
>
>       How do Protestants interpret Matthew 7:21 where Jesus says "Not everyone
>who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who
>does the will of my Father who is in heaven"?
>       Doesn't this verse say that Jesus believed in good works as a means of
>  salvation rather than faith alone, or there another way to read this?
>
>       -Gilberto Simpson
>
No, think about who God claims to be: All knowing, All powerful, All 
present. God can see through those who claim to believe but did not
follow after God but their own desires instead.

Many people say that good works is a requirement for salvation.
So did the Judiasiers back in Paul's day. Paul basically responded
that good works were a evidence not a proof. Christ also mentions
those who enter heaven and didn't know they were going there.
God, sees all not just what you and I a forced to see because of
our finite capibilitites. (I'm an Engineer not an English major, 
please forgive the bad spelling.)
		    A brother in Christ,
				 Matthew L. Goguen

Disclaimer: This is my understanding according to the teaching
and leading of the Holy Spirit. Being human I may misunderstand
Him.