Reflections on Snow
Well, last night we got dumped on here in Southern Ontario, which means an early morning shovelling the driveway, and a late morning to work. I like shovelling the driveway, though. Especially when I don't have to hurry. It gives me time to think, in the quiet winter morning, or evening, depending on when I get around to it. We have a fairly large driveway (holds about 10 cars) so it's a lot of time to think, or to pray, or to listen to God.
This morning was one such occasion. Because of my recent conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism, I have a lot of Protestant friends still, and we often get into discussions or sometimes even heated debates. Actually, my comments on the Covenant and the Eucharist prompted some among good friends of mine. So when I was out shovelling this morning, I had these people, and these discussions on my mind.
I also had next Sunday's talk related to The Passion of the Christ on my mind. This week's topic is "Sin and Satan", and how Jesus defeats Satan by the cross, and frees us from our sins. Stated simply like that, our Protestant brothers and sisters agree 100% with us Catholics. It's in the details of how this Grace is bestowed that we differ. It was these differences that I was ruminating on this morning as I shovelled snow.
I looked around at the world, covered under a deep blanket of snow. It reminded me of our sinfulness and God's salvation. The prophets described the cleansing of our sins as being made white like snow (Isaiah 1:18), and indeed, at first glance, the world did look white, pure, and peaceful. The trees, formerly black bark and leafless, now seemed to glow with a radiant splendour. But when I looked at the trees closely, I saw that the bottoms of the branches were still black and leafless. The snow hadn't actually changed the tree into something beautiful, but covered the tree with something beautiful.
When I was a Protestant, this is how I looked at salvation. When we come to Jesus, and "ask Him into our hearts" as the saying goes, Jesus bestows His righteousness on us, and we wear it over our sinfulness like a cloak. Then, at the judgement, God declares us righteous, because He sees not our sinfulness, but Jesus. No intrinsic change has been made in us. We are "justified by faith" and God "reckons it to us as righteousness." In this scenario, it is no more than a legal fiction. Then, my protestant pastors, teachers, and theologians would tell me, the work of "sanctification" begins, where we gradually become more and more like the cloak-that-is-Christ that we've put on. We become more and more holy--but, they stress, this process of becoming more holy is a separate event from our salvation, which is our justification.
To me, though, that seems like being a tree covered by snow. So the question becomes, I think, what happens to the deathbed Christian, the thief on the cross, for example, who is "covered" by Jesus' righteousness, but no inward change has taken place? What happens when his sinful humanity still under the snow meets God's consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29)? It's one thing to have our righteousness "imputed" to us as some sort of "legal fiction" loophole. But when that fiction meets reality, it must be exposed. In that sense, it seems to me that Protestants are more in need of a doctrine that they got rid of -- Purgatory -- than Catholics are!
In Psalm 51, which David composed after having his affair with Bath-Sheba and then killing her husband, he cries out to God in repentance for his grave sin. In verse 9, he says, "Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; / wash me, make me whiter than snow" (italics added). David isn't content with being even as pure as the driven snow, as the saying goes. He wants to go deeper, to go farther. "Why? Because snow is white, but it quickly turns black and filthy with any dirt," as St. Ambrose points out. And, at best, snow only covers us. It cannot change us (unless it gives us frostbite, and that's not a change for the good). David cries out for something deeper. He knows that he needs a change from the inside out, just like all of us.
Catholicism teaches that when we are saved, we are both justified and sanctified. The two, in the Bible, are interchangeable terms--two sides of the same coin. God declares us righteous based on Jesus' victory on the cross, but He also literally infuses us with Jesus' righteousness. It actually becomes our own! Granted, it is an ongoing process that never ends until we're dead (or after, in Purgatory), but Catholics, unlike many Protestants, do not believe that Salvation is a one-time event in our lives, but a lifestyle and a process. It has a definite beginning, which is baptism. It is at this point that we are born again, according to the Bible. It is here that, not only does the righteousness of Christ cover our sins, but actually, literally, washes them away!
Ezekiel prophesies about this in his 36th chapter: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put My Spirit within you and make you live by My statutes, careful to observe My decrees" (Ez 36:25-27). God tells His people that He will wash them with water, removing their sins and giving them His Spirit.
This passage is explicitly fulfilled when St. Paul discusses God's salvation with St. Titus, in the third chapter:
This phrase, "Born of water and Spirit," refers to baptism, and all the earliest Christians, right up until well into the Reformation, understood it so--and the Catholic Church still teaches this. My Protestant friends tell me (and I used to believe it myself) that the "water" meant either the Word of God or the amniotic sac that the baby is encased in in the womb. But these do not make much sense, especially in light of the passages quoted above. Moreover, one still has to explain why the earliest Christians, including the Apostles themselves, interpreted this to mean baptism, and have done so for nearly 2000 years.
According to St. Paul, Baptism takes the place of Jewish Circumcision (Colossians 2:11-15), and is our entry into the New Covenant that I talked about below. Through this sacrament, we are forgiven our sins, born again, and made heirs of the Kingdom. But we must continue in the faith that we were baptised into. This is why our salvation is a process. Initially, it's all about God's grace, and not our works. He gives us the grace of forgiveness of sins, and the grace to accept that forgiveness in faith, and the grace to act out that faith in our works. But, that grace comes with the responsibility to use it, to participate in our own salvation, as St. Paul writes, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12b). But God doesn't expect us to do that alone, as the next verse says, "For God is the one who, for His good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work" (v.13).
All that is to say, snow looks pretty, and adds some flavour to the bland death of winter, but it is no substitute for the inward change that Spring brings, when the trees burst forth with New Life. May we all, "like [trees] planted near streams of water," burst forth in the New Life that Christ has given to us, and "yield [our] fruit in season" (Psalm 1:3)!
For we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved! Alleluia!
God bless.
This post makes a nice segue between "Why did Jesus Die?" and "Sin and Satan" -- Due out next Monday!
This morning was one such occasion. Because of my recent conversion to Catholicism from Protestantism, I have a lot of Protestant friends still, and we often get into discussions or sometimes even heated debates. Actually, my comments on the Covenant and the Eucharist prompted some among good friends of mine. So when I was out shovelling this morning, I had these people, and these discussions on my mind.
I also had next Sunday's talk related to The Passion of the Christ on my mind. This week's topic is "Sin and Satan", and how Jesus defeats Satan by the cross, and frees us from our sins. Stated simply like that, our Protestant brothers and sisters agree 100% with us Catholics. It's in the details of how this Grace is bestowed that we differ. It was these differences that I was ruminating on this morning as I shovelled snow.
I looked around at the world, covered under a deep blanket of snow. It reminded me of our sinfulness and God's salvation. The prophets described the cleansing of our sins as being made white like snow (Isaiah 1:18), and indeed, at first glance, the world did look white, pure, and peaceful. The trees, formerly black bark and leafless, now seemed to glow with a radiant splendour. But when I looked at the trees closely, I saw that the bottoms of the branches were still black and leafless. The snow hadn't actually changed the tree into something beautiful, but covered the tree with something beautiful.
When I was a Protestant, this is how I looked at salvation. When we come to Jesus, and "ask Him into our hearts" as the saying goes, Jesus bestows His righteousness on us, and we wear it over our sinfulness like a cloak. Then, at the judgement, God declares us righteous, because He sees not our sinfulness, but Jesus. No intrinsic change has been made in us. We are "justified by faith" and God "reckons it to us as righteousness." In this scenario, it is no more than a legal fiction. Then, my protestant pastors, teachers, and theologians would tell me, the work of "sanctification" begins, where we gradually become more and more like the cloak-that-is-Christ that we've put on. We become more and more holy--but, they stress, this process of becoming more holy is a separate event from our salvation, which is our justification.
To me, though, that seems like being a tree covered by snow. So the question becomes, I think, what happens to the deathbed Christian, the thief on the cross, for example, who is "covered" by Jesus' righteousness, but no inward change has taken place? What happens when his sinful humanity still under the snow meets God's consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29)? It's one thing to have our righteousness "imputed" to us as some sort of "legal fiction" loophole. But when that fiction meets reality, it must be exposed. In that sense, it seems to me that Protestants are more in need of a doctrine that they got rid of -- Purgatory -- than Catholics are!
In Psalm 51, which David composed after having his affair with Bath-Sheba and then killing her husband, he cries out to God in repentance for his grave sin. In verse 9, he says, "Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; / wash me, make me whiter than snow" (italics added). David isn't content with being even as pure as the driven snow, as the saying goes. He wants to go deeper, to go farther. "Why? Because snow is white, but it quickly turns black and filthy with any dirt," as St. Ambrose points out. And, at best, snow only covers us. It cannot change us (unless it gives us frostbite, and that's not a change for the good). David cries out for something deeper. He knows that he needs a change from the inside out, just like all of us.
Catholicism teaches that when we are saved, we are both justified and sanctified. The two, in the Bible, are interchangeable terms--two sides of the same coin. God declares us righteous based on Jesus' victory on the cross, but He also literally infuses us with Jesus' righteousness. It actually becomes our own! Granted, it is an ongoing process that never ends until we're dead (or after, in Purgatory), but Catholics, unlike many Protestants, do not believe that Salvation is a one-time event in our lives, but a lifestyle and a process. It has a definite beginning, which is baptism. It is at this point that we are born again, according to the Bible. It is here that, not only does the righteousness of Christ cover our sins, but actually, literally, washes them away!
Ezekiel prophesies about this in his 36th chapter: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put My Spirit within you and make you live by My statutes, careful to observe My decrees" (Ez 36:25-27). God tells His people that He will wash them with water, removing their sins and giving them His Spirit.
This passage is explicitly fulfilled when St. Paul discusses God's salvation with St. Titus, in the third chapter:
"But when the kindness and generous loveThis "Bath of Rebirth" is what Jesus was talking about in John 3, when He was talking to Nicodemus: "Jesus...said to him, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the Kingdom of God without being born from above.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit'" (John 3:3-5, my italics again).
of God our Saviour appeared,
not because of any righteous deeds we had done
but because of His mercy,
He saved us through the bath of rebirth
and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
whom He richly poured out on us
through Jesus Christ our Saviour,
so that we might be justified by His grace
and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
This saying is trustworthy" (Titus 3:4-8a italics added).
This phrase, "Born of water and Spirit," refers to baptism, and all the earliest Christians, right up until well into the Reformation, understood it so--and the Catholic Church still teaches this. My Protestant friends tell me (and I used to believe it myself) that the "water" meant either the Word of God or the amniotic sac that the baby is encased in in the womb. But these do not make much sense, especially in light of the passages quoted above. Moreover, one still has to explain why the earliest Christians, including the Apostles themselves, interpreted this to mean baptism, and have done so for nearly 2000 years.
According to St. Paul, Baptism takes the place of Jewish Circumcision (Colossians 2:11-15), and is our entry into the New Covenant that I talked about below. Through this sacrament, we are forgiven our sins, born again, and made heirs of the Kingdom. But we must continue in the faith that we were baptised into. This is why our salvation is a process. Initially, it's all about God's grace, and not our works. He gives us the grace of forgiveness of sins, and the grace to accept that forgiveness in faith, and the grace to act out that faith in our works. But, that grace comes with the responsibility to use it, to participate in our own salvation, as St. Paul writes, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12b). But God doesn't expect us to do that alone, as the next verse says, "For God is the one who, for His good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work" (v.13).
All that is to say, snow looks pretty, and adds some flavour to the bland death of winter, but it is no substitute for the inward change that Spring brings, when the trees burst forth with New Life. May we all, "like [trees] planted near streams of water," burst forth in the New Life that Christ has given to us, and "yield [our] fruit in season" (Psalm 1:3)!
For we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved! Alleluia!
God bless.
This post makes a nice segue between "Why did Jesus Die?" and "Sin and Satan" -- Due out next Monday!
Labels: Baptism, Grace, Justification, Personal Reflections
posted by Gregory at 11:04 a.m.
15 Comments:
Ah, first comment, blank canvas.. I did like this post, it's easier to relate to than one that is just full of verses.. I feel lost in all the chapters and quotations and brackets.. But I liked how you opened this one. And the fact that I didn't have to cancel my weekend plans to read it.
Success once again.
~Dave~
lol, thanks Dave
Hey Greg,
Segue... pronounced seg-way... I have no idea what a seque is.
On other business, as a Protestant friend, I resemble certain of those remarks you made, and don't resemble other ones. May I just point out that just because all Protestants don't believe something, doesn't mean specific churches or individuals don't believe it. That's about all I have to say to this post. I've heard it all, and you've heard all my arguments before, so no use rehashing it on my part. "Avoiding foolish controversies", I call it. God's blessings upon you Greg. You're an awesome guy!
P.S. - Thanks so much for your leadership in the dramatical area of the drop-in, it went awesome tonight, and it was a ton of fun!
P.P.S. - If you see this in the next few days, I'm just wondering, you are done being the official volunteer at the drop-in now, right? Just so I can find someone for Friday nights. I do like to be sure. See ya later!
Hey Andrew. Easy things first:
1: Drama was awesome! I'm so glad we pulled it off so successfully! Thanks for your appreciation.
2: Yeah, I'm done as your official volunteer. I can come next Friday if you need me, though.
3: Segue is a connection between two topics.
Finally, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to point out when it comes to all Protestants and some Protestants. You weren't very clear. When you say that some of my comments you resemble, and others you don't, I'm also not sure where you stand.
I never said that all protestants believe X, merely that when I was a Protestant, I believed X, because that's what my pastors, teachers and theologian professors taught me. Protestantism is so widely varied from one denomination to the next that it's impossible to really hammer out a universal Protestant theology that can be applied across the board. In my mind, that's a problem.
I also disagree with calling the topic of sin and justification a "foolish controversy" since it's kinda core to any Christian belief, whether or not we're all in agreement.
Also, it's one thing to say that we've had this conversation before, but others might not have, and it might be beneficial to them (like those in St. Andrew's Youth--for whom this blog is directed, though all are most welcome to read and participate).
So, I would ask that you elaborate, if you want, on your comment. But our friendship is too important to me to bait you into a fruitless argument.
You, too, are an awesome guy! God bless.
Hey Greg,
I do know what a segue is... I was just pointing out that you spelled it with a q.
I do have someone lined up for this Friday as a volunteer, but you know you're welcome to come anytime.
And to elaborate, I wasn't calling the topic "foolish controversy" so much as what I would be doing if I dragged a heated debate onto the blog, it's too easy to hurt someone with something written, I can't gauge their reaction and see if I got my point across or just said something hurtful. That's why I prefer the personal debates.
Anyway, God bless, and I'll talk to you later.
Oh! Completely missed the "q".
I understand your objections to written debates...but on the other hand, I find it can be a lot easier to think through what you're going to say, and be able to research the topic more when you reply, when it is written down and not merely on the spot debate.
And, since you and I are close friends, if something unintentionally hurtful does get said, we can always sort it out in person and then post adequate explanations later.
but anyway....
With your permission, I am truly sorry!
I am a protestant (a heretic and schismatic). You said, “When I was a Protestant, this is how I looked at salvation. When we come to Jesus, and "ask Him into our hearts" as the saying goes, Jesus bestows His righteousness on us, and we wear it over our sinfulness like a cloak. Then, at the judgment, God declares us righteous, because He sees not our sinfulness, but Jesus. No intrinsic change has been made in us. We are "justified by faith" and God "reckons it to us as righteousness." In addition, “Then, my protestant pastors, teachers, and theologians would tell me, the work of "sanctification" begins, where we gradually become more and more like the cloak-that-is-Christ that we've put on. We become more and more holy--but, they stress, this process of becoming more holy is a separate event from our salvation, which is our justification.”
I have never viewed salvation in this ‘light’. The view that Jesus somehow ‘covers’ our sins and that is accorded to righteousness, like snow covering a dirty sewer is an entirely new concept to me. The only quote I know of in this regard is in 1 Peter, “Love covers a multitude of sins.” Love towards each other.
My understanding of the forgiveness of sins is reflective of my travels around the world. If one travels north, one eventually reaches the North Pole. After reaching the North Pole, if one continues in the same direction, one is traveling south… The Psalmist tells us in Psalm 103:10-13 that our sins are removed from us, “as far as the East is from the West.” If one travels east, one can circle the globe a thousand times and thousand times and never travel west. St. John tells us in 1 Jn. 1:9, “If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.” Imagine, ‘every wrongdoing’! The New King James uses the phrase, “all unrighteousness”. We were born dirty, no amount of ‘covering’ will obscure the dirt, as no amount of snow will make the tree, no longer a tree. “But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath…” Isaiah 1:18 says, “they may become white as snow…” not covered as with snow.
I know I am a sinner… “God proved His Love for me” I believe I have been justified by his blood, and through my admission of guilt, and more importantly His faithfulness, have been cleansed…not covered.
I am sanctified (set apart) to do His Good Will, “confident of this, that the One who began a good work in you will continue to complete it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1-6). Through faithfully following Him, I will be conformed to the image of Christ. This is an ongoing work, just as battling concupiscence is an ongoing work. Dedicated to “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” and “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” (2 Cor. 10:5 & Ro. 12:2) That is my Duty and Worship to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I am truly sorry that your prior experience did not teach these things, and glad that your conversion has taught the absolute pristine beauty of being forgiven - not covered.
May God’s Grace Abound In You,
Hey Slave!...or should I call you Dave, as Loren does? Either way...
Why are you sorry? I bid you gracious welcome! Post away!
I am glad your understanding of the grace and forgiveness of God is so thoroughly biblical (and correct). But I would say that this idea we have is not actually the classical Protestant view on the subject. Luther taught plainly (in his commentary on Romans among other places) that Justification was a legal declaration of righteousness based on Jesus' righteousness covering over our sinfulness--regardless of our objective righteousness.
But, as said, this is neither the Biblical nor the Catholic view. Rather, through Christ's Grace, He makes us new creatures, and rather than simply imputing His righteousness to us, He actually infuses us with His righteousness, making it our own!
You might enjoy the 5-part series on this blog entitled "Who We Are Instead".
Either 'slave' or Dave works...
I said I am sorry because you have obviously spent a great deal of your life searching for 'Truth' and a Biblical understanding of rightousness, which were not taught by your 'church'. That's one of the problems with us 'schismatics', if we have a schism within a schism - we get further away from Truth.
I'd like to check out the series, and will as time permits...
Grace and Peace!
You enjoy flaunting your Protsestations as a badge of honour, don't you?
I'll stick with "Slave", not to be derogatory (you did,after all, choose the pseudonym), but because there is another guy by the name of Dave that comments here. In fact, he and I co-host a blog at Three Nails.
Now I feel obliged to defend my former Pentecostal Church (which, if you are American, would be the equivalent of an Assemblies of God church). It is a wonderful place, with sincere believers, and a great sense of the presence of the Spirit. I would recommend it to anyone.
My difficulties started with a tiny little doctrine regarding Speaking in Tongues, and when I realised there was a hole in the system, I examined it closely. As I said in my testimony on this blog, I searched for a denomination that did agree with me, so that I could sign up.
But as I searched, I realised two things.
1: none of the denominations that I had any experiece of met my interpretation of Scripture on each issue, and if I left one because of one seemingly insignificant doctrine (though, that doctrine is admittedly the lynch-pin of Pentecostal distinctiveness), how could I throw myself into any other denomination that I couldn't serve whole-heartedly?
2. I realised that I was asking the wrong questions. I wanted a Church that agreed with me. I was the focus (though, ostensibly, the Holy Spirit was guiding my search and Jesus was the focus). So I began investigating Scripture, history, and authority issues. Until I was studying at a Protestant (and rather anti-Catholic, at times) Bible College, Catholicism was this dark, creepy kind of Christianity, that really did seem like everything most Protestants thought about it were true. I was actually taught in lectures how ridiculous its doctrines were. But certain things stuck out, and I could agree with certain "ridiculous" notions because I saw them plainly taught in Scripture (and I knew that the "ridiculous" parts were probably bias on the part of the professors).
I finally realised that here was an authority that meant what it said, and made convincing claims in defence of its beliefs. Here also was a Church that had endured problems and trials both within and without. Most importantly, here is a Church that is full and complete in areas where I see hollowness or "immaturity" in the church that I left.
I studied it as best as I could for three years, and finally embraced her as my Mother, in leading me closer to God my Father, in Jesus Christ, my Brother.
There is an old saying, "If you find the 'perfect church' leave it...if you stay you'll just mess it up." I do not view the Catholic Church as a 'dark - creepy kind of Christianity'. There are aspects of the Church I respect greatly. If it weren't for the Catholic Church, I don't know how we would have the Scriptures. I know God is in control, and will make sure that the Scriptures are preserved...He chose to use the Catholic Church to do it.
Yes, to some extent, I flaunt my protestations or protestantism...I see it as a 'request for apologetics' from individuals as well as 'denominational defenders'. From some of your comments, here and elsewhere, I think you have read my articles 'Setting the Record Straight' and 'Seeing Black and White in a World of Shades of Grey'...Those are my apologetics - I'm an upfront person. I am willing to listen, learn, and grow...but I will also 'defend'.
One of the 'core' arguments in an article at 'Three Nails' was the Catholic Church's STAND on Absolute Moral Values...That is where I stand.
I am an 'Unchained Slave'. I was a slave to creditors, Proverbs 22:7. I was a 'servant to two masters' Lk.16:13. God, through his grace and mercy helped me throw of the chains of debt...It, like all His gifts, I can never repay. My blogging 'experience' started with 'sharing' what I new about debt...so unchained slave - free to serve Him - is appropriate.
I thought your name was cool, though I didn't immediately grab a debt connection. I was thinking more of the Paulistic thought of free from sin, slave to righteousness. Either way, it works. Almost wish I had thought of it ;)
I'm Gregory, 'cause that's my name. And if you've read my testimony here on this blog, you'll see why that's important to me!
I actually have not read your articles yet. I quickly glanced over your "damned" posts but that was at 4:00 am and I didn't have time to peruse further! LOL
Anyway, I would direct you to the front page of this blog. I set up an open forum to discuss Catholic doctrine, based on a discussion and agreement with Loren over at POLD. Part 1 and 2 of the Who We Are Instead series is in the April archives, and concluded in May.
It's ironic that my most regular posters are from America, and are to old to actually be members of the Youth Group (not to mention, are Protestant ;) ).
Good to have you around!
There is a 'double' meaning there, as I was a slave to debt. I explain on that blog, I believe debt to be a sin, one that confounded me for years...So in the Paulistic sense...You are absolutely correct and I may use it...
quik note: the key words in the canons I quoted in POLD - were - baptized in, separated from, teach/believe 'other' doctrines...
However from your response...Its nice to know that all protestants aren't in my 'boat'...I obviously don't know the Catechism as well as I thought...
I do have a rather pointed question (about Catholic Church Doctrine) based on one of your comments in 'Substance or Symbolism' unrelated to Baptism...I defer to you to tell me where the best place to ask is, Here, Your Main Page, or back at POLD?
P.S. It was a Priest of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, that pronounced my 'sentence' as a heretic and schismatic, and under numerous sentences of latae sententiae excommunication.
From your comments...He might have been mistaken which means there may be hope for me yet.
Grace & Peace,
Gregory,
I'm using this thread to respond to questions about my 'Catholic Faith'.
First, you are correct, a Priest can not, according to the Canon Code of Law, impose a sentence of excommunication. I erred, I should have said a Priest 'told me about' or 'informed me of' - a little pompous on my part. "latae sententiae excommunication" is 'by ones own actions'. For example, according to Canon Code of Law, a person getting an abortion is under "latae sententiae excommunication". The sentence is automatically imposed by one's own actions and does not require anyone to 'impose' it. On the other hand, it does require an 'authority' from the Catholic Church to lift.
As for my own Catholicism - Technically I don't know if I 'was' a Catholic or not. I was 'Christened' (infant baptism) by a Catholic Priest in accordance with the wishes of my (now deceased) 'godparents'. I never received the Sacrament of Baptism after the age of 'accountability', was never 'Confirmed' and though I have 'celebrated' mass, I have never participated in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in, or by a Catholic Official [in the military Eucharist (or any other Sacrament - Catholic or otherwise) is not always 'presented' in a Church...I've seen 'Mass' and Church sevices held in fox holes...]
So I don't know if I was technically a Catholic or not. I just know, whether in the heat of the moment, or out of genuine concern for my eternal soul that a Catholic Priest told me of the excommunication as well as labelling me a heretic and schismatic...
That makes the whole thing about as clear as mud...
Post a Comment
<< Home