Queen of Heaven?

[PeterDona]

Catholics are not the only ones who teach "the narrow way" ... the narrow way is through Jesus.

Each of us have a personal relationship with the Lord ... we walk on a path with Him .... He meets each one of us where we are on that path and walks with us ..... helping us along the way.

God's ultimate act of grace is the salvation He provides through Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8). This means that our salvation is not earned or deserved; it is a free gift from God

Having been evangelical for 23 years before I converted to catholicism, I have a desire to respond to this. But realizing that you may not be at the point where all this is relevant, it will be a sketched answer only. You state in your sidebar that you are "christian", which on this forum would be an almost neutral term.

floating in the air? or not?

- "the narrow way is through Jesus" - what does that mean? At the far end, everyone is saved in the end, since no restrictions are mentioned. It is simply "through Jesus". So are all saved?
- "Each of us have a personal relationship with Jesus" - how does that personal relationship work?
- "God's ultimate act of grace is the salvation he provides" - right, so a quite static view of grace. Grace is a one-time down payment, and if we are "through Jesus" or however you consider it to be, then we are saved irrevocably.
- And a final question. "faith". But faith in what? Faith that I have faith? Faith that I have faith that I have faith? What is the object of that saving faith?

All these things are so loose that they can almost apply to anyone, but also so loose to be very floating in the air, having no concrete object any longer. Being a convert to catholicism, one of the things I really enjoy is, how concrete the catholic faith is. And while I know that one adapts to the environment, there has always been this feeling that the gospel was a bit "floating in the air". Now as a catholic, it is no longer like that, and I do feel it has allowed me to "come to my senses". Now I do realize that we are all what we are by the grace of God, so I will only say, this is how it is for me, and I will not make an N=1 generalisation that it is the same for everybody, but just say that this is an element that has fallen in place after my conversion.

I speak as a person who has been a christian for many years, so this may not be relevant for you, as one younger in the faith. Let me hear your thoughts.

 

[chevyontheriver]

According to official Catholic doctrine, in order for a person to be saved, it's quite a tedious task. It involves steps such as actual grace, faith, good works, baptism, participation in the sacraments, penance, indulgences, and keeping the commandments.

Actual grace is a free gift from God and thus not at all a ‘step’ at all. Faith isn’t a work and thus also not a ‘step’ either. And because grace and faith are the beginning of salvation no good works done before faith matter at all. Baptism, well even the majority of Protestants consider that a necessary step. And if you died then and there you would have been saved. So the rest are A

As to the rest …. How many of the commandments do you not need to keep? Maybe I need to become Protestant so I can be a little more free to violate a few commandments.

Indulgencences? An optional benefit for me and for others who are saved. By the way, we can’t even buy them. That was only a thing for a brief time in Germany a long time ago and the selling of them was never actually allowed. Most Catholics don’t even know about indulgences.

Sacraments? Of course. We do get to be baptized. We do get to confess our sins. We do get to receive our Lord in the Eucharist. We do get to be confirmed. Some of us get to be married. Some of us get to be ordained. And some of us get to be healed in body or soul. It’s all opportunity. For example, instead of thinking we (you guys actually) can sin with abandon because we are forever saved OR we (you guys again) agonize over committing the unforgivable sin we (Catholics now, and the Orthodox) can go to confession and hear the words of absolution. Such is a great mercy and grace we have the opportunity to receive. If we never sinned we wouldn’t need such a thing. But we have it for when we do sin. God wants us back and provides us with abundant means of coming back.

 

[PeterDona]

I had a friend who stated that he never wanted anything to do with the sacraments. I guess and hope he didnt know what he was talking about

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I had a friend who stated that he never wanted anything to do with the sacraments. I guess and hope he didnt know what he was talking about

Me too.

Martin Luther wrote that if one does on desire the Eucharist the first thing that they should do is pinch themselves to see if they were still in this world.

 

[eleos1954]

So, it it is an agreement with the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not compromise... Either both are compromising or neither are, and they are in full agreement?

catholics don't compromise their doctrine .... protestants do ... they are not in full agreement

 

[eleos1954]

It's laughter.

is this a ragequit?

is this a ragequit?

 

[Terri Dactyl]

If Mary is brought forth by Immaculate Conception, because it was necessary for her to be sinless, wouldn't her mother have to be immaculatly conceived as well? If not, then there was no need for Mary to be so, --sinlessness can come from a sinful being

I don't get it. How far back do we have to go?

 

[JSRG]

If Mary is brought forth by Immaculate Conception, because it was necessary for her to be sinless, wouldn't her mother have to be immaculatly conceived as well? If not, then there was no need for Mary to be so, --sinlessness can come from a sinful being

I don't get it. How far back do we have to go?

According to a Catholic apologist:

Was the Immaculate Conception Necessary?

If Mary's Immaculate Conception was necessary, doesn't that pose problems? Click here to learn why her being "full of grace" was not necessary, but fitting.

www.catholic.com

"When Catholics say Mary was immaculately conceived, they mean that at the moment of her conception Mary was filled with God’s sanctifying grace. While you and I have the stain of original sin washed away in baptism, Mary was given that grace at the very first moment of her existence.

But some people ask, “If Mary had to be immaculately conceived in order to give birth to Jesus, then wouldn’t Mary’s mother, St. Anne, have to have been immaculately conceived in order to give birth to her? Wouldn’t there be a chain of immaculately conceived women going all the way back to Eve?”

No, there wouldn’t, because Mary’s immaculate conception was fitting rather than necessary. Since God is omnipotent, he could have become man in any number of ways. God could have materialized as a fully grown man, or he could have been born of a sinner and remained sinless. But God chose a fitting way to be “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4) that would dignify her status as the unique Mother of God: he arranged for her to come into the world without sin.

In his earlier writings, the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther said of Mary, “in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin,” He also said, “God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” In his later writings Luther seemed to move away from this belief, but in 1540 he still believed that when Christ was conceived in Mary’s womb, “the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.”

Just as it is not necessary for a king to wear a crown or have an assembly accompany him to a village, both of these things are fitting for him, given his majestic status. The same is true for Mary, who could have been a sinner, but God chose to protect her from sin so that she would have the majesty befitting the woman who gave birth to the King of Kings."

 

[chevyontheriver]

If Mary is brought forth by Immaculate Conception, because it was necessary for her to be sinless, wouldn't her mother have to be immaculatly conceived as well? If not, then there was no need for Mary to be so, --sinlessness can come from a sinful being

I don't get it. How far back do we have to go?

Catholics don't argue that Mary HAD TO BE sinless. Only that it was FITTING that she be sinless. God can make sinless beings. He made Adam sinless. He made Eve sinless. It's easy enough for God to do. Nor did he need to have a sinless mother for the Incarnation to have happened. So this postulated infinite regression of Mary, and then her mother, and then her mother, and on and on misses what Catholics maintain about the sinlessness of Mary.

 

[lanceleo]

Now as a catholic, it is no longer like that, and I do feel it has allowed me to "come to my senses".

Can you expound on this?

 

[Terri Dactyl]

then why bother with making Mary sinless? It makes no sense. If He had to redeem us, then He had to be one of us.--He is 100% man and 100% God, but tempted as we are. I don't think God is tempted to sin, but the human side is.
Heb 4:15 douay version "
For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin."

 

[chevyontheriver]

then why bother with making Mary sinless? It makes no sense.

It isn’t out of necessity. If you got to pick your mother and could pick a sinless person for that job, would you? Or some garden variety dinner instead? How about a blackened hearted sinner? From the Bible we know Mary was full of grace. It does make sense.

If He had to redeem us, then He had to be one of us.--He is 100% man and 100% God, but tempted as we are. I don't think God is tempted to sin, but the human side is.

What you seem to be saying here is that Jesus Christ is not one person but an admixture of a bent human person prone to sin and a divine person with no sin. Please clarify.

Heb 4:15 douay version "
For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin."

That is the Jesus I know. Not so sure about that previous paragraph though.