Captain, Captain, the hull's been breached!
Did you mean to say KiKi, KIKo, the hulls's ben breached, news flash everywhere...the Archbishop Apuron's application to become an itinerant has been discovered!!!!! Alert! Alert! Alert! Looking at the video this is what he truly wants! Pius is his helping hand to get very close to Kiko!!!!!
Tim,Do you owe this person money? lol.....
Sounds personal, Tim. Search your soul.
And I am supposed to take spiritual advice from an anonymous coward with no integrity because.....?
Totally unrelated, but I read Fr Francis Walsh's response in the PDN Sunday edition, but I don't understand it fully. I don't recall learning about those things he mentioned. It seems very theological and maybe I'm just ignorant, but I preferred your explanation better because it was in terms I could easily discuss with my non Catholic acquaintances without any misunderstanding. Anyway, I was wondering if you knew where Fr. Walsh's source comes from so I may read up on it. I know you may not want to openly discuss his article or may not have time, but just a general area you can point me to will do. Thank you.
Fr. Walsh's writing is normally philosophically "thick" and not easy to get through. Even I had a particularly tough time getting through this one. I knew what he was referring to, but perhaps I was reading it like you, with the mind of other readers. I do not know what sources he used but he can be contacted at the Seminary. Tel 789-2400. You can ask for his email address or leave yours.
It’s too bad Fr. Walsh does not consider his “reading audience” when he prepares his submissions to the local newspaper. His writing style might be appropriate for academic settings ― though I doubt that the RMS priests and seminarians, who already struggle with Basic English language skills as demonstrated by their submissions to this blog, would be able to appreciate Fr. Walsh’s writing! But then again, that might be his intention: to prove to us that his thoughts are far above our own.
It would really help if this was translated into a language that MOST CATHOLIC People on GUAM can understand! This explanation must be great but I understood Tim's better!And this is one of the reason for the division...people on the high level of learning can't seem to connect to regular Joe's or Jane's that did not go to college but are hungry for God's words! Explain them in LAYMAN' S terms so all can GET it! Get it?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't understand Fr. Walsh's article in the PDN. I have 2 master's degrees but they didn't help me understand Fr. Walsh's explanations. I, too, had the same thought as some of the rest of you. I preferred Tim's explanation. A good instructor makes his lessons comprehensible. Thank you, Tim, for being a good instructor of all things Catholic.
Just read Fr. Walsh's article, and I think it's a deep and very intellectual response to the June 1st op/ed. I had to read it several times and even open another tab to research certain words, learned something in regards to the root of the differences between Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Mind you that I don't have a college degree, but this is what understood in layman's terms.Luther taught that we are saved by grace alone, a grace which is received by faith alone (same as Catholic Church), but because Luther was trained in the nominalism of William of Ockham, he did not believe in universal concepts. Therefore, man exists the same way that God exists. Because of his philisophical perspectives, Luther opposed the idea that man can save himself through his own good works. Luther's philosophical perspective contributed to his belief in justification by faith (you put your faith in Jesus Christ and by God's grace, you are credited with the qualities of Jesus). Justification by faith does not require the person to change inside, he might still be the same sinner that he was, but God now sees him in a new light because of his faith in Jesus; sanctification (to make holy; purify) is no longer necessary to receive justification; a change of life is not required. In this view, God is the only one who changes.I think the rest of the op/ed is pretty clear from here on:"Clearly, if this is the way salvation works, there is no need for purgatory. If salvation is not dependent on sanctification, then praying for the dead is a colossal waste of time. Thus the Reformers rejected the Second Book of Maccabees that commended praying for the dead as a holy and pious custom.But to do that, the Reformers also had to reject all the other books that were, like Second Maccabees, not among those in use by the Jews. This is the reason why Catholic Bibles have more books. The Reformers had to shorten the canon of Scripture in order to safeguard their understanding of justification by faith alone (understood in a nominalistic way).The Protestant Reformation, in our view, is a tragedy for many reasons, none the least of which is that there is another way to think out the implications of the positive material (sole gratia and sola fide) and formal (sola scriptura) principles of the reformation (principles that we Catholics embrace wholeheartedly, but without the nominalism). That other way would be to think of "being" as capable of having more than one meaning.God's act of being is not the same as Jack's. God is the creator; Jack is a creature. They are not on the same level. As creature, Jack depends 100 percent on God to do everything. Yet there is room for grace to transform Jack interiorly without the danger of works righteousness because 100 percent of whatever good Jack may do is dependent 100 percent on what God does by transforming grace. Without the grace of God we can do nothing.But with the grace of God, you can buy your way into heaven. This is the reason that Scripture (Luke 16:9) urges us to "make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings."Almsgiving to the poor is the one way to buy your way into heaven. If you have any doubt, check Matthew 25: 31-46. "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."Unfortunately, a little knowledge is still a dangerous thing. The continuing tragedy of our disunion is rooted in the fact that so many are still the prisoners of nominalism. They still cannot think outside of the box in which they were trained to think."Please feel free to correct if i'm wrong.
You are correct. As I said, Fr. Walsh's writing is philosophically thick. It takes study and yes there is much too learn. I am not a theologian or a philosopher, so I did not engage the the original challenge to the church's teaching on purgatory at that level. I engaged it at the level at which it was challenged: scripture. The writer's point was that purgatory is not in the bible therefore there must be no such thing as purgatory. Given that most fundamentalist protestants do not accept anything other than the bible I used the only thing she would accept as a basis for an argument: the bible. Thus I showed where purgatory was in the bible. However, I chose to stay away from the usual Catholic proof-texts such as Maccabees and 1 Cor. I chose to stay away from them because they haven't worked for 500 years. Fr. Walsh chose to target a more fundamental problem and that is the actual basis for protestantism. His approach actually would have worked well as a stand alone piece and I would encourage him to submit more such writings about the Catholic faith. The U Matuna would be a good place to start. It needs some upgrading. I'm not sure why the professors we have at the seminary do not write more for our own paper.
I think your response to Diana was an excellent one on all points.
For readers in Europe how do we find pdn article.