I believe the majority of Catholics, (including me), struggle with this. I know more about my faith now that I am older, I will be 80 in July this year. Is their a book that is specifically for this purpose? I have macral degeneration and avoid reading when I can, but for something as important as this, I will read evan if it takes a long time.

I agree with Fr. Barron. As Catholics we’re so used to being on the defensive that we forget to play offense, in this case, be witnesses to the Christ we claim to know. It’s true that we spend alot of time defending bad Catholics or teachings that people aren’t fond of, but if our primary concern was to live the Gospel, bearing witness to the faith and if we actually got to know and love God through Jesus Christ, then it would be easier for us to see why the Church teaches what it does.

Maria, try “Catholicism for Dummies.”  It’s among one of the things I read upon coming back to the Church to bring me back up to speed on the basics and fundamemtals. I would also encourage you to go to Confession if you haven’t gone in a while: the more you partake in the Sacramental life of the Church, the clearer things will become. Do not be afraid to honestly and humbly ask God questions, and do so persistently. If He is the essence of Being Itself, then He can take our questions. No harm at all in praying, “Lord, I don’t understand x, y, or z. Please help?”

There’s another video up on YouTube where Fr Thomas Rosica interviews Archbishop Rino Fisichella on the New Evangelization (who is President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation).

Fr Rosica asks him why Pope Benedict picked a Professor of Fundamental Theology for the task in the interview.

You can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbNandyXSl8

If the Second Vatican Council had preserved the peak evangelization of its greatest practitioner in my lifetime, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, new evangelization would not now be necessary.  The council seriously shunned necessary doctrine and discipline.  the wake of dissent was disastrous, especially when we consider that only 25 percent of Catholics noticeably still belief in the Real Presence, the flagship of our faith.  That seems unconscionable.

Are there many Hebrew-Christians today ?

Fr. Barron is dead-on right; arguing on details in ANY argument—in or outside the Church—is usually unproductive, since the context of those details is all important.  If one argues why Tom, a good guy, who loves Harry, another good guy, should therefore be allowed to be “married”, it will never work to try to show why THOSE two should not be prohibited; rather the meaning of marriage must be reconsidered in the light of what it means to be human in which case such individuals can be seen to be inherently unfit for the sacrament and the institution irrespective of their “goodness.”

I wish, though, that Fr. B. would have come BACK to the “details” after making his point in order to ensure that all reading/seeing this know that the Church’s positions on these issues are unalterable, non-negotiable, and that to be a practicing member of the Church means to accept those positions.  Either the Church is the Bride of Christ, guided by the Spirit to lead us to Him or it is not.  Obedience is the ultimate answer to uncertainty… or to go off on one’s own in one’s certainty of a differing opinion.  One is for Him or against Him and lukewarm is not tolerated.

Sadly, for some there is NO method of reasoning that will work and the Church even has a name for that condition: Invincible ignorance.  Pray for them and may God have mercy on their souls.

I work with RCIA and Tribunal questions at our parish.  Something that breaks my heart is telling people—including baptized Catholic—that their marriage is seriously flawed.  Can’t tell you how many times a 40- or 50-something says, “but no one told us” we shouldn’t marry on the beach with a justice of the peace ... I shouldn’t remarry after divorce ... my parish priest couldn’t annul my first marriage and perform my 2nd marriage ... I shouldn’t be receiving Eucharist.
I tremble for the bishops, priests and religious who led many astray toward the bright new dawn of the spirit of the age.  They will have to answer for a great deal that (still) goes wrong in our beloved Church.

I would tell him would the First Vatican Council infallibly declared: the Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter from biblical times. And can teach infallibly when he makes it ex cathedra.

I’d show her the list of popes and that would prove she must follow Christ’s Church. And I could show her that the popes declared a lot infallibly at the council of trent on the sacraments, purgatory, relics and the veneration of holy images.

every catholic who as aproblem with issues about the church get a copy of the catechism of te church . also too all of you catholic that don’t goto church please come back. we need you too remember your baptism. life is so much easier though those rough times;plus you’ll have all those sacrements the church offers .

GOD BLESS EVERYBODY

the church cannot change just too suite your purpose in life;GOD is the same in the past,today,and the same in the future.THE church can’t change ever because our LORD created the church for your benefit.

Hi thanks for a very thoughtful reply.  I appreciate it but it doesn’t really help me.  I know and pratice my Catholic faith daily.

If there is anyone fixated on the issues mentioned, it is the bishop and pope—who’s prioities are against recognizing homoesexuality and same sex marriagek against contraception (e.g the mandate and “religious freedom) and the role of women in the church (see the investigation of American nuns active in social justice).

Fortunately many parish priests are not given to parroting their bishops’ words and deeds.

It just seems to mee that by making these top prioirities of the Church the bishops and Pope are further spending down the little bit of moral uthority they have left.  The Pope and Bishops have been wrong on many things, and will continue to be wrong.  But they can’t admit their errors or even conceive that God won’t follow rules they set.

Augusta   writes ” But no one told us we should not marry on the beach with justice of the peace…...I should not remarry after divorce”. What does this mean ? The main task of the parish priest namely teaching has not been done.  Some feel below dignity or they fear to recognize Jesus as their saviour and his Church. This lapse during the last 40—50 years has brought about the confusion in the minds of many American catholics. As cardinal Dolan accepted this, we hope that the position is being corrected now.

Tommy, your heart is compassionate and you want people to feel loved and to do and have what they want.  God bless you for that.  However, we look to God for His Will and to those who have the vocation to spend their lives listening to Him and bringing His will to us—as Jesus said His apostles and their successors would do.  Although my heart wants to give what seems to me to be a good thing to someone, if it is not God’s will or the way He designed it, it utltimately will not be for that person’s good, no matter how much I or others think it will.  I—and you—are not God. Thank God!  My feelings are not the ultimate judge of what is right or wrong.  I have followed my feelings in the past and I and those I have loved have paid the consequences of my “good” intentions.  I am grateful for God’s mercy that He continued and continues to call me to His Truth.  At the age of 66, I have found peace and joy and great gratitude that God does lead us through the Bible, His Church, and His appointed successors.  I pray for your peace.  God bless your kind heart.

Pray to the Holy Spirit constantly and the light of truth will shine in your heart.  The Holy Spirit will guide your every thought, word and deed if you request His presence in your heart and soul.  You must be sincere in your prayer and obedient to the wisdom given you. The Holy Spirit will never lead you astray and will give you strength and courage to live and proclaim the Faith. Pray the rosary and the Divine Mercy chaplet, go to daily Mass and communion as often as possible and confess monthly. This keeps you close to God and attentive to His will. Our mission on earth is to live according to His Divine Will.  Come, Holy Spirit!

Tommy wrote: “If there is anyone fixated on the issues mentioned, it is the bishop and pope”

Tommy, the reason our bishops and the Pope are “fixated” on gay “marriage” and contraception, etc is because these things have been brought to the fore by society. Homosexuals have been ramping up their demands for ‘marriage’ and with many states legalizing same-sex marriage, it would be foolish for our Church leaders to be silent. They have been silent for too long on many of these intrinsic evils to the detriment of the faithful. They are speaking out and that is good. Our bishops are not the ones who started talking about gay marriage, they are responding to the increase in the demand for it, and rightly so.

Your other comment: “The Pope and Bishops have been wrong on many things, and will continue to be wrong.  But they can’t admit their errors or even conceive that God won’t follow rules they set.” also shows your ignorance of Church teaching. Read the Catechism. The Holy Spirit guides the Magesterium and assures that error will not be taught on matters of faith and morals. So the Church’s teaching on abortion, homosexual sex and marriage, contraception, etc. are not in error. And when you really think about it, and study the teachings and realize what these things have done to society, it is not difficult to see that the Church is right.

Thank God that the church will NEVER EVER recognize same sex marriage and they are against contraception, abortion and some other issues that some so called “catholics” think that the Pope and the Bishops are wrong.  These “catholics” are practizing their own religion and they are NOT in communion with the Catholic Church.  Watch EWTN Catholic Channel and they will learn with the various programs that they are in error!!.

SuperGal:  It would be well to quote The First Vatican Council statement about change that seems to have been ignored by VCII along with the warning of St. Pius V about changing the Tridentine Mass. “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor of Peter,that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”  It can easily be argued that VCII belies this. A 74 percent drop in belief in the the Real Presence after the council is the strongest witness for the prosecution.

superGal

Either God is faithful and truthful or He isn’t. If He is not, forget everything about any faith system including the God in Whom we believe! If He is faithful and truthdul, He lives up to His promise of a church [ours] that truth and faith will exist under His guidance and truthfulness until the end of time.
I live under God’s promise and that must include my Roman Catholic Faith. I pray for anyone of doubt that they come to understand the irrefutable logic of what I have just said!

Tommy, how can you claim with a straight face “If there is anyone fixated on the issues mentioned, it is the bishop and pope—who’s prioities are against recognizing homoesexuality and same sex marriagek against contraception”?

They are speaking out against these things because gay “marriage” etc., is currently being demanded by homosexuals, and many states already have made it legal for homosexuals to “marry”. Our Church leaders are right to be speaking up, the faithful need to hear it. Unfortunately, the bishops had been silent on matters of contraception for too long, and look where we are now.

Also, do you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, the Teaching Magesterium? The Church teaches that it cannot be in error when teaching on faith and morals-that God ensures that we will not be misled in these matters due to the fact that the Holy Spirit will not let the Church teach error.

I agree with Arthur that I wish Fr. Barron would have come back to the question of “What do you say?” I appreciate what he is saying about getting back to the fundamentals, but when you are faced with a friend or relative who is saying “I disagree with the Church about X” or, even worse, “I left the church because of X”, it really doesn’t help to start talking about corporal works and the Trinity. At best, they’re likely to take that as confirmation of their view by saying, “See, condemning X is against the love that it’s all about!”, at worst they’ll look at you like your head is on backwards. Yes, the problem is that there is a misunderstanding about the foundation of the Church’s teachings. But how do you engage with someone on that without it coming across as “You don’t know anything, just go read the catechism”? THAT’s the difficult part.

Tommy, please state where the Popes and Bishops have been wrong on “many things”. Some Bishops dissent from Church teaching and have been wrong in so far as they go against the Truths of the Church. Some Bishops have been wrong with regard to the abuse scandal- but that is not a matter of teaching on faith and morals. If an individual Bishop were to state that contraception was ok, he would be wrong.

But where has the Pope or Bishops stated a teaching on faith and morals that was in error?

Pray the rosary for the conversion of sinners, like the Virgin Mary in Fatima asked, she will guide them to see the truth.

I agree with Fr. Barron. One of the most fundamental issues with ” cafeteria Catholics” is their apparent inability, or unwillingingness, to OBEY. In today’s society, ” freedom ” and ” doing my own thing” ” I did it My way” is the highest priority. Everyone believes in his or her intelligence to be superior to the great minds that have, throughout the centuries, been thinking through all these issues. FAITH is sorely needed—- if there is enough Faith, there will be Obedience. The phrase, ” the obedience of Faith” cannot be more true. I also totally agree that the bishops and priests have not done their job adequately, to teach the fundamentals, and to answer truthfully and forcefully when asked these “hot button” questions by those Catholics. Incidentally, it’s the “low faith” Catholics who seem to have the problem, those who don’t frequent the Sacraments, bother to read, listen to Catholic Radio or attend conferences, bible study, etc. I hope I’m not being ” judgemental” , but I tend to see a connection between those who have difficulty with Church Teachings and their Faith.

My personal creed includes the statement:  “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.”  That statement reflects my basic Catholic belief in the authority Christ gave the Church before He left earth and ascended into heaven.  It recognizes that I may not understand everything the Church teaches, nevertheless I believe it all.  This leaves me with an obligation to study Catholic teaching in order to understand the reasoning behind it. But it never leaves me with the question of do I believe it or not.  This faith is not blind.  It begins with prayer.  And it’s rooted in Jesus Christ and His promise to the Church. I’ve been dealing with these issues for 70+ years and I haven’t found a better resource.  OK, you’re right…by now I’ve stopped looking…but I haven’t stopped studying!  Sometimes I think I’ve hardly begun!

RE: Posted by Mary on Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 9:24 PM (EDT):
“Pray the rosary for the conversion of sinners, like the Virgin Mary in Fatima asked, she will guide them to see the truth.”

So Mary is saying that Mary, the Blessed Mother, replaced the Holy Spirit in guiding everyone to see the truth?

She is saying no such thing. She is simply saying that the Blessed Mother always leads us to her Son who is The Truth. The Apparition of Our Lady at Fatima in 1917 has been approved by the Church. You do not have to follow it, but it is certainly legitimate. Adding words into people’s posts and jumping to conclusions, <sigh> again….....

Joanp62 - What role does the Holy Spirit have in leading people to Truth?

The Holy Spirit has a huge role. The HS guides the teaching magesterium of theChurch, and guides us individually if we are sincerely seeking the Truth of Christ and obedience to His Church.

Thank you Joanp62 for answering to Terah, I dont think I could have say it better than what you wrote, Thanks again, God Bless You!

Joanp62

You asked when a pope or bishop was wrong.  Here is Pope Nicholas’ letter to the Bulgars, a people in Europe who were moving towards Christianity.  The leader of the Bulgars, Khan Boris, asks Pope Nicholas if it is sinful for a man to relations with his wife if she is nursing his child.  This is his answer.

Chapter LXIV.

For how many days after a woman gives birth to a child a man should abstain from her, is stated not by our opinions but in the words of the Roman Pope and apostle of the English nation, Gregory of blessed memory, who, when he writes to Bishop Augustine, whom he had sent to Saxony, says among other things: A woman’s husband should not approach to lie with her until the infants, to whom she has given birth, have been weaned. But a depraved custom has arisen in the behavior of married people, that women despise nursing the children whom they have born and hand them over to be nursed by other women; and this seems to have happened solely because of incontinence, since those who refuse to restrain themselves, despise nursing those to whom they have given birth.[18]

      [18] Gregory I, Register XI.56 §8.

Notice that in his passage Pope Nicholas not only condemns the use of wet nurses, he quotes Pope Gregory to argue that a man should not sleep with his wife until the child has been weaned. 

I ask you, are Pope Nicholas and Pope Gregory correct?  It is wrong for a man to sleep with his wife if her child is not weaned?  This is not purely an academic question.  Many Catholics advocate ecological breastfeeding as a morally licit method of child spacing.  If Pope Nicholas and Pope Gregory are right, then ecological breastfeeding advocates are actually encouraging couples to sin.

So, are Pope Nicholas and Pope Gregory correct? 

Here’s the link to the letter in case you would like the citation. 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp

It is hard to lead a balanced and holy life. Sister Susan Marie of the Visitation Order speaks about the retreats they offer to help women achieve these virtues… in the spirit of St. Francis de Sales. http://visitationspirit.org/2012/07/new-video-the-purpose-of-a-retreat-with-the-visitation-sisters/

It is hard to lead a balanced and holy life. Sister Susan Marie of the Visitation Order speaks about the retreats they offer to help women achieve these virtues… in the spirit of St. Francis de Sales.
http://visitationspirit.org/2012/07/new-video-the-purpose-of-a-retreat-with-the-visitation-sisters/

Rebecca, I read your source, thank you.

This letter goes back to the 9th century I believe. The paragraph you cited speaks of what is called a discipline. Disciplines can and have changed. In this particular case, it is obvious that this was the prevailing thought of the day and there is no known scientific reason why intercourse should be delayed for that long after childbirth. Perhaps at that time, they thought it would hurt the woman?

Give me something serious. Something more profound. The Church will not likely ever say they were wrong about things like homosexual sex and contraception, since there is biblical, spiritual and biological facts backing up the teaching.

Thank you Trace89 for posting the website of the Sisters of the Visitation While watching Bishop F. Sheen in EWTN he mentioned if you want to be a Saint spend one hour with the Holy Sacrament everyday, he himself was spending 1 hour a day everyday in front of the Holy Sacrament. God Bless!

Mary: you wrote that Bishop Sheen suggested “if you want to be a Saint” then spend one hour with the Holy Sacrament everyday.

But our New Testament Epistles were addressed “to the saints” at this or that church.  Why?  What made those early Christians, saints?

Hi Terah James, I do not know much about what you are asking me, maybe Joanp62 can answer, or probably someone else.  I was just repeating what I heard in EWTN in the television one day what Bishop F. Sheen said, he is going for canonization, so his advice for me is very important, because the Sisters of the Visitation are not in the State where I live and in their video were talking about being in silence with God, so for me it is easier to visit the Holy Sacrament everyday where I live.

In www.EWTN.com they talk a lot about different subjects and also about the bible and they have programs where you can ask questions like the one with Father Mitch Pacwa,  maybe if you can watch EWTN in tv or in the website, they also have it in radio etc. you can find the answer to what you are asking me.  God Bless.

Mary, I have no idea why in some of his letters Paul calls his readers saints. I would be interested in the Catholic explanation for what Paul meant. In my Catholic Bible, in the beginning of his letters to the Romans and his first letter to the Corinthians it says “to those called to be saints.”

We know from our Canonized saints that they did not consider themselves to be saints and we know that we are continually growing in Christ and hopefully advancing in holiness our whole lives. Anyone who thinks they are a saint right now and needs no further growth is kidding themselves. Even St. Paul said that he was “working out his salvation in fear and trembling” and also worried that after leading so many to Christ that he himself would be found wanting. God Bless you.

Thank you Joanp62 for your answer, I guess this answer is for Terah James, I am not familiar with the bible.  In EWTN Dr. Scott Hahn explains the bible very well, maybe Terah may want to search for this answer in EWTN.
I just know that people that are good holy people are saints in progress :) God bless both of you!

Hi Mary, sorry that I addressed that answer to you. {smile} You appear to have a lot of faith. If I may be so forward - you mentioned that you were not familiar with the Bible. Have you started reading it at home? I would start with the Gospels then the rest of the New Testament. Genesis is very interesting and the Psalms are beautiful prayers. God Bless.

@Rebecca- the Pope is only infallible when it comes to faith and morals. That letter speaks of a discipline (which seems to be a cultural thing taking place in a small part of the world) which is not dogma. Actually, reading through it was fascinating. So instead of taking care of their children by feeding them they would hand them off so they could have sex. I don’t think he is condemning wet nurses, but the act of giving them the responsibility of taking care of your child so you could have sex. Following that discipline would have actually given women longer spaces between children as I am guessing that ecological breastfeeding was not extensively studied back then.  I’m just amazed at how little our human nature has changed.

@Joanp62 who writes:  [“I have no idea why in some of his letters Paul calls his readers saints. I would be interested in the Catholic explanation for what Paul meant. In my Catholic Bible, in the beginning of his letters to the Romans and his first letter to the Corinthians it says “to those called to be saints.”]
.
.
Paul refers to all who believe and trust in Jesus Christ are indeed “saints.”  Paul is writing to the church “@” in his letters.  His letters are for believers even though he knows not everyone in church is a believer.  The same is true today.  Not everyone attending church is a believer thus Paul wants to include “to those called to be saints” —those in church with belief potential.  Those saints who are Canonized by the church are simply more well known and serve as examples of Christian life for us.  Simply because one is not recognized by official church canonization does not mean such a person may not have done more for the cause of Christ than someone very well known in church history.

Hi Joanp62, thank you for the suggestion, I already started to read the psalms, they are beautiful. God Bless!

CC: there are indeed many who have died as saints but were not well known. While we are alive, we are “still working out our salvation in fear and trembling” to quote St. Paul. We will not know for sure if we are saints until we die and are judged. Most of us will die imperfectly purified and will need more of the purifying fire of God’s love before we are perfected for Heaven. That is Purgatory. Someone who has died and was completely purified on earth, one who achieved spiritual union with God while alive, would go straight to Heaven.

But while we are still here, in the flesh, we need God’s help to grow in Love and to really and truly make God first in our lives. I’m still working on it, but I trust God will do His work in me as long as I do not reject his grace. Yet, if we are honest, how many of us are really, radically seeking first the Kingdom of God?

As you must know, in France Catholics are struggling against the left wing government who promotes gay marriage. Our President Francois Hollande overlooks our January 13th, huge demonstration (we were probably over one Million walking that day in the streets of Paris). French Orthodox and Protestant Churches as well as French Jews, even Moslems, agree with us but Catholics were alone to demonstrate and we are sustaining heavy French left wing medias fire. After gay marriage the French Socialist Party plans to go farther: marriage for 3 or more persons, gays adopting children, etc. All the Catholics of the world should pray God to prevent such laws to be passed and enforced, now in France, later everywhere. We don’t fight only for our country we defend God’s will and natural order.

“If there is anyone fixated on the issues mentioned, it is the bishop and pope—who’s prioities are against recognizing homoesexuality and same sex marriagek against contraception”

It seems to me that the media and critics of the church (both within and without) are the ones fixated on these issues and when our bishops and Pope speak out about such.

But they speak out about much more too…poverty, economic justice, peace, the conditions of immigrants, etc.

@Joanp62
.
“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
.
Many people interpret the word salvation in this verse to refer to eternal salvation from hell.  This is improper.  Some have interpreted Phil 2:12 to mean that Christians must bring about their own eternal salvation by obeying God.  Such an understanding is entirely foreign to the Bible.
.
Others have suggested that the key to understanding this verse is the word “out.”  Working out eternal salvation, they say, is different than working for it.  They interpret Paul to mean that we are to put our eternal salvation into practice.  This view removes the obvious theological difficulty of the previously mentioned view.  However, this view does not best fit the context.  It is the “grace” view which better fits the immediate context and Paul’s use of the words salvation and work out.
.
In the verse Paul calls the readers “my beloved,” an expression he reserves for believers.  See also 1:1 where Paul indicates that he is writing, “to the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi.”  Believers are already eternally saved and cannot lose that salvation.  In fact, in ACTS 16: 29-31, Peter supports this same theme and context when both he and Silas are questioned by the jailer.
.
Paul begins this verse with the words “as you have always obeyed.”  We expect him to go on to say something like, “keep on obeying.”  While he does not use exactly those words, that is implicit in what he does say.  Working out one’s salvation is another way of talking about on-going obedience. The following context bears out this conclusion.
.
While believers are not to fear hell, Jesus has guaranteed that those who believe in Him will not go there (John 3:16-18; 5:24), yet we are to fear the Lord.  This fear reflects both reverence for His awesome grandeur (e.g., Isa 6) and respect for His discipline (e.g., Heb 12:3-11).  Believers are thus to exercise on-going obedience with an attitude of reverential fear.  One might counter by saying “Suppose someone turns away from the Lord and never returns?”  The premise is clear that such a person never was a believer in Christ to begin with.  What someone espouses from their mouth does not always reflect what is in their heart.  People often come to church regularly and then you never see them again.  You thought they were members of the body when, in fact, they really never were in Christ.  Church membership or sporadic church attendance does not necessarily reflect personal belief in Christ and the gospel.
.
The word salvation (Gk. soteria) occurs only three times in Philippians.  In 1:19 Paul said, “For I know that this will turn out for my salvation through your prayers and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”  Paul wrote Philippians from jail (see Phil 1:12-14). Thus the term salvation in 1:19 might refer to Paul’s deliverance from prison. However, in vv 20-26 Paul hints that while he expected to be released (vv25-26), he might instead glorify Christ by his death (vv20-23).  Thus Paul may have used the word salvation metaphorically in v 19 to refer to a victorious triumph over the trials he faced by magnifying Christ through them whether he was released from prison or not.  (See Zane Hodges,The Gospel Under Siege, Second Edition, pp. 96-99.)  In any case the word salvation in v19 clearly has nothing to do with Paul’s eternal salvation.
.
In 1:28 Paul indicates that if the Christians at Philippi demonstrated a lack of fear of their adversaries (i.e., by continuing to boldly proclaim Christ and live for Him), this would be proof to the adversaries of their destruction (Gk. apoleia) and to the Christians at Philippi of their own salvation.  Salvation in 1:28, as in 1:19, has two possible meanings. First, it could refer to deliverance from temporal difficulties-the very difficulties God’s adversaries do not escape (they experience “destruction”). Second, it could refer to believers triumphantly glorifying Christ through temporal difficulties, whether they escaped them or not.  In both cases temporal, not eternal, deliverance is in view.  So when we turn to 2:12 it is reasonable to expect that the word salvation is used by Paul as it has been in the only other two uses in this letter. That is, we expect another reference to temporal (=here and now) deliverance. That is indeed the case.
.
The salvation of 2:12 either refers to deliverance from the difficulties God brings upon the disobedient or to deliverance through the trials that the faithful experience, though not necessarily by means of escaping the trials themselves.
.
The word translated work out (katergazomai) means to “achieve, accomplish, bring about, produce, [or] create” (BGD, p. 421). Paul was thus exhorting the Philippian believers to bring about or achieve their own salvation by obedience to God.  This makes perfect sense if temporal salvation is in view.  Compare 1 Cor 11:30; James 1:21; 2:14; 5:19-20.
.
The translation work out is potentially misleading since one meaning of work out is to exercise something we already have (e.g., “he works out three times a week”).  That is not what the Greek word means.  It only can legitimately be translated work out in the sense of accomplishing something (as in “he worked out a solution to the budget deficit”).  The idea that the word out is the key to understanding this verse is unsupported by the meaning of the Greek word in question or the context.
.
Phil 2:12 is not dealing with eternal salvation at all.  Rather, it is dealing either with temporal salvation from the calamities which come upon the disobedient or with temporal salvation through the trials which faithful believers face.
.
Therefore, get to work and keep on working.  Seek to utilize every opportunity to glorify Christ.  Remember, it always pays to obey God and it never pays to disobey Him.

The only interpretation that matters is the Catholic interpretation since the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.

“Believers are already eternally saved and cannot lose that salvation.”

and
““Suppose someone turns away from the Lord and never returns?”  The premise is clear that such a person never was a believer in Christ to begin with. “

Those are Protestant beliefs, and foreign to Catholic teaching. Be careful.

@Joanp62:  [“the Catholic Church “wrote” the New Testament.”].  Really?  The RCC “wrote” the NT?  The folly of your statement will stand as your testimonial for others to consider when evaluating the legitimacy of your future comments.  This is typical of Joanp62 whose first line of defense always fails to address the actual discussion.  “Because I said so”—is a weak and illegitimate defense.  However, if one accepts your statement as true, why do you as a Catholic ignore so many key teaching points of Paul’s letters?

CC: spoken like a true Protestant. Those very first Christians, those Jews and Gentiles who followed Christ and The Way as it was called back then were the first Catholics. It doesn’t matter that they weren’t called Catholics, they believed and taught what we believe today. Paul was a Jew, but after he met Christ on the road to Damascus, he was no longer just a Jew, he was a Christian. And those first Christians were Catholic. No other denomination of Christianity existed at that time.

Then, a few centuries later, the Catholic Church compiled the books together into the NT.

The very first Christians were from Antioch.  The very first “Catholics” were the Eastern Catholics.  I know someone from Syria, who is Catholic. But she’s not the Latin rite Catholic.  Her church is, however, in union with Rome.  The church in Rome did not begin until very late.

It was not Peter that began the church in Rome, but rather, it was disciples of Paul which is why it was Paul that wrote the Letter to the Romans, not Peter.  Jesus was a Jew.  Peter was a Jew.  Paul was a Jew.  After the church in Antioch began, they were known as Christians.

“catholic” with a small c means ‘universal’.  Catholic with a Capital C indicates the denomination: Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, etc.  The very first “church” was in Jerusalem.  Rome came much later.

Joanp62 - try getting impartial sources for your history, because your post is spoken like a die-hard Roman Catholic, but sadly, it does not read like it comes from a truth-seeking Christian.

Once again, Terah, you do not read my posts fully. I never used the word ROMAN Catholic. I never said the first Christians were Roman Catholics, but they were Catholic.  I stated that they believed and taught what the Catholic Church believes and teaches today, so they were Catholic- I know what catholic means. Within the Catholic Church you have various Rites. I am in the Roman Rite. There is the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, and other Rites with the Catholic Church that we call Eastern Rite Churches.

Terah and CC- you are Protestants in your beliefs. If you really are Catholic as you claim to be, then I would suggest you start believing in the Churches teachings, since this is the Church founded by Our Lord and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Oh, and “the Church in Rome did not begin until very late” is baloney. There was a Church in Rome while Peter and Paul were alive. We even have a letter Paul wrote to the Romans in the New Testament. Of course the Catholic Church did not start in Rome. It began in Jerusalem and and spread out from there. But they were Catholic just the same.

Joanp62 - and once again, you did not read my post fully either.  I pointed out it was Paul that wrote the Letter to the Romans, and it’s obvious Paul was alive when he wrote that letter to them; Peter was not in Rome, as Paul did not go where other apostles had already begun churches.

When you suggest to Casting Crowns and I that we start believing what the church teaches, precisely what do you think we should believe?  I ask because Rome & the Eastern Catholic churches differ about several things.
Are you suggesting we believe what Rome teaches, or should we believe what the Eastern Catholic churches teach?  Should we believe what came out of the Jerusalem Council, the Nicene Council, the Council of Trent, The 1st and 2nd Vatican Councils?  Many of each, disagree.

So in what ways are CC and I “Protestant” in our beliefs?  Speaking for myself, I adher to what St. Paul wrote in his 13 New Testament letters (read in CONTEXT and read in their FULLNESS).  What I believe is very simple:
1) I believe the Nicene Creed
2) I believe in every doctrine & teaching outlined in Paul’s letters, the four Gospels and all the other New Testament letters, further I believe the entirety of Scripture, Old and New Testament, is the inspired Word of God.

So, Joan, would St. Paul be Protestant if he were still alive today, in your opinion?  How about St. Peter?  Would St. Peter be Protestant, in your opinion, based on what he wrote in 1 and 2 Peter?  Peter pointed out that Paul’s teachings were “Scripture”.

By reading some posts I realized that not everybody is Roman Catholic.  I guess Joanp62 is right, thank you for pointing this out!, I always thought I was talking to Roman Catholics, no wonder some people did not understand what I said and there had to be some explanation. PRAY THE ROSARY, EVERYDAY LIKE THE VIRGIN OF FATIMA ASKED!!!

Mary, sure some non-Catholic Christians post here. Some who are sincere, some who just want to demean Catholicism and Catholics. Then you have those who are Catholic, but do not realize how influenced they are by Protestantism.

Oh, and Terah, thank you. You called me a die-hard Catholic and that I am. Because I know that the Catholic Church (never said just the Roman Rite) is the Church founded by Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I am seeking the Truth, and I have found it in Jesus and His Church.

If, as a Catholic, you do not know that the Truth is found here, then that is a shame. Ask Our Lord to show you His Truth.

Many answers for Casting Crowns can be found in Irenaeus: the vast majority of the NT canon in the second century. He wrote of the Catholic, universal, Church. Terah might also want to note that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the lead diocese and had dealings with the papacy. He considered it first among equals as an authority. This diocese was founded by the apostles Peter and Paul and he named the succession.
Casting Crowns needs to specify which of Paul’s teachings the Catholic Church does not follow and avoid generalising.
Terah might also want to discriminate between the first Christians (followers of Jesus Christ) and the first people to be described with the word ‘Christian’. To follow the Antiochan argument to the end sounds suspiciously like certain anti-Church questian claims which do not hold up to all the historical evidence, not to mention the Tradition of the Church.

Terah, don’t know why I didn’t see your post earlier.
You are confusing things unnecessarily. The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that are in union with the Pope do not differ in their teachings. They may have some discipline and cultural differences, but tell me what core teachings are different?

As a Catholic of the Latin (Roman) rite, I would follow the disciplines of that rite, but there should be no difference in teachings from the Eastern Rite and Latin Rite. Some specific examples from you would be great.

Now you claim that the Church councils disagree with each other. What exactly are you talking about? The councils addressed different subjects and issues, but please again, give me examples of where one council directly changed a core teaching from another council?

You ask how you and CC are Protestant in your beliefs. Well, you state that you only follow St. Paul only, instead of following Jesus and the Church He founded- the Catholic Church. You hold Protestant beliefs with regard to Mary. Others on here, including Mark Shea I believe, have either thought you were Protestant based on your posts or accused you of being more Protestant than Catholic. That is not good. Protestantism does NOT have the fullness of the Faith. ONLY the Catholic Church and her various Rites do!

Would St. Peter and Paul be Protestant today you ask?? St. Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church. If you do not believe that- then that is another Protestant way of thinking. St. Paul was Christian/Catholic and if he were still on earth today, he would be. But he is alive in Heaven with God, and religion is not really necessary once you have achieved the Crown of Salvation.

Joanp62 - You asked, “what core teachings are different?” between the Latin rite and the Eastern rite?  It is primarily about church structure.
Core teachings should be the same, but if core teachings are key, then what core teachings would be different for Catholics and non-Catholic Christians?

All the non-Catholic Christians I know believe the same thing about CORE teachings - which would be in the Nicene Creed.  We do not say, “Peter was the first pope” in the Nicene Creed.  We do not say, “Mary was Co-Redemptrix” in the Nicene Creed.  We say we believe in the Communion of Saints in the Apostles Creed, and everyone I know that’s Christian believes in that too.

The question is: can we communicate with the saints in Heaven?  Catholics say yes.  Non-Catholic Christians say no. St. Paul would be horrified, to know anyone communicates with people in Heaven, except for God.

By the way, I do NOT follow St. Paul, to the exclusion of Jesus and anyone else in the New Testament.  Please do not misunderstand me.  In fact, I wish ALL the New Testament epistles were studied, in their fullness and in context, such as Peter’s, James, Jude, John’s, Hebrews (whomever wrote it, makes no difference) as it’s the Holy Spirit that is the Author of the entirety of the New Testament.  We need to focus on what has eternal value.  Those are the core beliefs, as you mentioned.

Why would St. Paul be horrified that we communicate with people in Heaven? Didn’t he himself state that we are “surrounded by a cloud of witnesses”? The Church interprets this to mean the saints in heaven. The Saints are not “asleep” but alive, more alive than we are.
You believe in everything the Nicene creed says, but that is not all of it. The Creed does not say that the Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived and without sin her whole life. Yet, in 1854 the Pope infallibly declared it a Dogma, something that ALL Catholics must assent to. Also, prior to this being made dogma, it was something that ALL Catholics believed. There was no need for the Church to proclaim it definitively until there were those who were confused about it-so to clear up confusion- the Church made the Immaculate Conception official.

You are the one who claimed that the Eastern and Latin Rite Churches differ in their beliefs and teachings. So you tell me what are the differences in their teachings? I do not claim that they differ.

You continue to stress that the NT letters must be studied. You don’t think that the Catholic Church has already done that? When the Church compiled what books should belong in the NT, you don’t think they carefully studied which books belong? As I said before, it was Catholic Christians (because there weren’t any other Christians at the time) who wrote and compiled the New Testament. The Catholic Church says that she herself is the sole interpreter of Scripture. I am a Catholic Christian, I believe that this is the Church founded by Jesus and that it is guided by the Holy Spirit on matters concerning the faith and moral teaching. So- I will defer to the Church for the correct interpretation of the New Testament.

BTW- no response from you to Hegesippus? He countered your claim about the first Church being in Antioch which is not historical nor does it jive with Church Tradition.  These are all things that as a Catholic you must believe. It is Scripture AND Tradition for Catholics. But you have disagreed with that. Why do you continue to stubbornly hold on to what YOU want it to be instead of humbly submitting to the wisdom of Christ’s Church? The Catholic church will not become more Protestant because YOU want it so. Why you stay in a church that believes and teaches things that you will not agree to is beyond me.

Ok, my comment was flagged as spam so now I have to try to recreate my post.

Terah, why would St. Paul be horrified that we pray to Saints in heaven? Why do you separate St. Paul from the Catholic Church? St. Paul was a Jewish convert to Christianity (called The Way at the time) and was Catholic even if the name wasn’t used yet. He himself says that we “are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”. The Catholic Church interprets this to mean the Saints in heaven who are not asleep but alive.

The Catholic Church claims that she is the proper interpreter of scripture because it was Catholic Christians who wrote the NT. It was Catholic Christians who decided what books would go into the NT. You act like you don’t think the Catholic Church knows much about the NT letters, since you always mention that they should be studied as if they weren’t. Don’t you think that the Catholics who canonized which books would be a part of scripture would have studied them closely? What hubris to think that the Church doesn’t know these letters! And since the Church is the author of these letters (Peter, Paul, James, et.al were all Catholic in their beliefs)I will trust her interpretation of them.

The NT writers were all apart of the very early Church. This early Church exists today and has grown and developed (as all things do) into the Catholic Church, which was called so even in the early 2nd century. Have you read any of the early Church Fathers? You will see just how Catholic the newborn church was.

One other thing. You stated that the Eastern and Latin Rite churches differed in their teachings, not me. So again I ask you, what teachings, not disciplines or customs, are different?

Joanp62 take a look to Terah posts in “Personnel files released in Los Angeles” .... I am not sure is she is Catholic even though she says she is “catholic”

Here it is:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/court-documents-disclose-disturbing-actions-by-l.a.-church-leaders-in-the-1/

I am just seeing this post, and I very much liked Fr. Barron’s response.  As someone who still has questions and doubts about certain teachings but who also regularly practices the Sacraments and prayer, I can attest to the importance of getting involved on a daily, personal level with a Church community.  This may sound strange, but when I started certain practices on a more regular basis, especially prayer and Sacramental practices, I started to realize that my particular opinion or human belief about certain issues (homosexuality, for example) is of very little importance.  Just as Fr. Barron said, my practice, my Church life, even the idea of obedience (which, trust me, used to be anathema to me) became the most important things.  And those doubts and questions (which still come up from time to time) became secondary.  IT was a slow process.  What does NOT work: the attitude that anyone who isn’t entirely obedient at all times should find a different Church.  That doesn’t work.

Hi Mary, Terah said she converted to Catholicism years ago and I believe her. She just doesn’t have much regard for it though.

Tell me, Terah, what makes you assume that the NT epistles have NOT been studied? What is YOUR interpretation of them and do you think that the Catholic Church has not interpreted them correctly? Why do you not trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the Church in all truth? Do you think God would not keep the Church from error when teaching the faithful on matters of faith and morals, so that we are not left blind, trying to find the way on our own? You know from the Gospel of John that Jesus prayed that we would all be one. One in our faith and beliefs. Do you think Jesus is pleased that the Church has split up into so many different denominations and factions and that so many refuse to listen to His appointed leader of His Church here on earth?

1) Eastern Church vs Latin Rite - mandated celibacy.  IF it is of utmost importance for Rome to demand all priests (and deacons, should their wives die) be celibate, why would Eastern Churches differ so greatly on a PRACTICE that is of such great need?  Seems to me the East has it closer to the early church, and Rome has a death grip on a practice, because they refuse to back down because it would make former leaders look bad. That’s pride.

2) St. Paul abided by the teachings of the Old Testament, and the New Testament does not change the fact that there is a prohibition from communicating with anyone AFTER their earthly lives were over.  We can and do ask LIVING people to pray for us, and while we are surrounded by a “great cloud of witnesses”, we are not to single anyone of them out and try to dialog with them, asking them for favors or taking our prayers to the Father.  Jesus is our Advocate to the Father.  We pray to the Father through Jesus.  The Holy Spirit (inside of a believer) helps us pray.

Yes, Joan is correct, Mary, that I am a Catholic convert.  I converted prior to the church scandals coming to light, such as those in Boston and in Los Angeles (a current story on National Catholic Reg).  Joan is also correct that I continued to study God’s word, and it is frustrating to me that I can rarely have an adult conversation with fellow Catholics after Mass about the readings, because God’s word goes in one ear and comes out the other, by the time the donut holes are served.

Some people have told me, “You sound Protestant” because I love God’s word, and I like to talk about it.  These are very nice people.  Most are into Social Justice.  Some are into Marian apparitions, and can talk at length about it.  But God’s word is a Snoozer for them.

Last week, a guest priest came to a local parish and to describe the faces of Catholics at Mass, he called the look, “The Catholic Coma.”  Everyone laughed, including the pastor, and I think we all know that look.
It’s one of being Tuned Out.

I stay alert, like the verses about the virgins with their oil lanterns filled, waiting for the Bridegroom to come!  Oh, there I go again, using Scripture.  I’m sorry.  I forget sometimes.  I sound Protestant.  If I lived during the time the Bible was compiled as a canon of Scripture, I’d fit in better.

Terah, priestly celibacy is a DISCIPLINE. That means it can and has changed. Currently the Church allows Episcopalian and Anglican Priests who have converted to the Catholic Church and are married, to be ordained in the Catholic Church. I specifically asked for differences in important matters of faith and moral teachings. Celibate priests are not a teaching.

There is a difference between necromancy-forbidden in the Old Testament and still forbidden today-and praying to the Blessed Mother and Saints in Heaven. Necromancy would involve calling up and conjuring spirits. Look into what the Church says about praying to the Saints and why. This was a practice of the very early Church also. You give way too much credence to Protestant beliefs-much of which are heresy.

People say you sound Protestant because you would rather hold on to their errors instead of Catholic Truth.

I’m waiting to hear your answer on why you think the Catholic Church’s Teaching Authority over the centuries have not studied the NT epistles. I’m not talking about modern day average Catholics, many of whom are in a very sorry state today. They have been poorly catechized and make little effort to learn Church history or teaching. Some of that is the fault of parish priests and the bishops, some is their own. That does not make the teachings of the Catholic Church a problem. The problem is the teachings are not being spread and many are just dismissed, as you also do.

“Seems to me the East has it closer to the early church, and Rome has a death grip on a practice, because they refuse to back down because it would make former leaders look bad. That’s pride”.

This comment does NOT sound Roman Catholic, sounds bad catholic or NOT catholic at all.  Sorry Terah again your comments are not of a convert Catholic that wants to learn more about Catholicism but of a person that is saying that is a convert and keeps attacking the Catholic church with your comments, their teachings and die hard Catholics like you called Joanp62.

One thing I want to say about priestly celibacy. Jesus said “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.”

Celibate priests do just that. They leave the possibility of having a wife and children for the sake of Jesus and His Kingdom, to devote their entire selves completely to Jesus. All of us our called to give ourselves entirely, but as St. Paul says, those who are married have to divide themselves between the Lord and their wife. St. Paul also said that it is therefore a higher calling to remain celibate.

Joanp62—The issue of celibacy is a VERY important matter that does involve faith and morals.  Too many homosexual men are being ordained, not that any would molest children, but let’s face the fact that sexually conflicted priests and bishops are greatly responsible for our church scandals.  It has been this way since the days of St. Peter Damian, when he wrote about it in his “Book of Gomorrah”, complaining to the pope at that time.

If celibacy is a mere practice, as you correctly point out, why does the Latin rite make such an issue about the NEED for priests to remain unmarried?  Why the story about how the apostles abandoned their wives and children, forever?

Why in the 12th century, when priests were canonically & legally married and when mandated celibacy was enforced for everyone, were priests (and the pope at that time) required to abandon their wives and families, putting many of the women (wives and daughters of priests) into a life of prostitution, and taking many of the sons for the priesthood?

Bottom line, which church more closely follows Bible directives outlined to us on HOW GOD’S CHURCH IS TO BE STRUCTURED, in terms of ordained ministers: the Latin rite, the Eastern rite, or non-Catholic, Bible-based, conservative Christian churches that ordain heterosexual men both single and married, that have no qualms about accepting a wife or family, should the ordained man choose marriage?

The ONLY ordained man in our area that speaks up for traditional marriage (and Pro-Life) issues pastors a small, conservative Anglican church.  He often writes articles in a secular newspaper about those God-honoring topics.  For it, he takes flack from a populace that is ultra-liberal. 

He gets NO HELP at all from any Catholic priest or bishop in our area, as they do not even speak on traditional marriage from the altar or from the diocesan newspaper.

This Anglican priest was raised Roman Catholic.  He wanted to be a priest but was called to marriage.  So he became Anglican, where many of his denomination has gone apostate, though his bishop and his associates are all conservative, Bible-believing Christians.

How sad that THIS man could have been a Roman Catholic priest.  He is an excellent example of Christian living, as are his family: his wife, and their children.  His parishioners love him, he teaches elementary school to supplement his income, he is a husband and father of wonderful children, AND he involves himself in the community, by trying to teach an almost pagan populace about God-honoring living.

Every time he writes about traditional marriage or the sanctity of life in the newspapers, I call and congratulate him.  The only times our diocese or priests make the newspapers is for a fundraiser, or to announce yet another scandal.  There are just too many to mention- and these are recent, not from years ago.  Those are just the facts.  I’m not being anti-Catholic.  I am Catholic.  I am just a disgusted Catholic.

Celibacy is important, but it is still a discipline that can be changed. You cannot use it as an example of differences in teaching between Latin and Eastern rite. Too many homosexuals were ordained to the priesthood. That has nothing to do with the celibacy requirement. These men were never called by God to be priests. Also, the majority of abuse victims were over 13. Homosexual men are well known in many cases to go after teenage boys. These cases were not pedophilia, not in the cases of teenagers.

I never said celibacy wasn’t important. I said I asked for examples of important matters on teaching of faith and morals. Celibacy is NOT a teaching on faith and morals no matter if you claim it is!

The bible alone is not a correct way to determine what True Christianity is, and it has been pointed out to you before. Here is another instance of you holding to Protestant beliefs which are heresy. The Catholic Church, Eastern and Latin rite is Biblical and is the Church of 2000 years ago. But you have to look at the history and tradition. As a Catholic you should know this and assent to this, but you willfully, pridefully will not.

Your Anglican priest wanted to be a priest, but was called to marriage you say. God either calls us to marriage, single celibacy, or priest and celibate. If God called this man to marriage, he had no business becoming a priest because he “wanted” to. What is sad is that this man, and you, want things YOUR way instead of being receptive to God’s Will.

You need to get off your high horse (I think I’ve told you that before) and stop looking with disgust down at the rest of us. The Catholic Church is holy, many of her members are not, including you. Many of our priests and bishops are in need of a good shaking and recathecizing, some are truly wolves in sheeps clothing. But that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ to bring us to holiness- and her teachings reflect that.

Take a good, hard look at yourself. You may see a log in your own eye.

Now here is a priest who knows how to give a good homily. Too bad it is so rare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_7n6qgtj2Q

But remember, it is our priests who bring us Jesus in the Eucharist. No Anglican or Protestant minister can do that.

Joanp62 - What is more important: bringing the Gospel to Sunday Mass, to change hearts towards repentance & knowledge of God, or distributing the Eucharist to people, many of whom cannot discern the Body of Christ?

Terah, they are BOTH important. With the Catholic Church it is BOTH/AND not one thing or another. We have some very weak, sinful priests and bishops. For reasons we cannot understand, God has permitted that in His Church throughout the centuries. We need to pray for these sorry excuses, but not forget that they have been chosen by God to bring us the Eucharist and Absolution for our sins as Christ acts through them.

There was a story back during St. Francis of Assisi’s time. There was a priest in town who was known to have a mistress. When the townspeople told St. Francis, he went to the priests house. The town followed him, expecting him to berate the priest. Instead, when the priest opened the door, St. Francis kissed his hands saying, these are the hands that bring me Jesus.
I believe the priest was brought to repentance by the actions of St. Francis.

@Joanp62:  [“We have some very weak, sinful priests and bishops. For reasons we cannot understand, God has permitted that in His Church throughout the centuries.”]. 
.
What you describe are character flaws inherent of men *prior* to conviction by the Holy Spirit.  The apostles are indicative of this.
Paul, however, identifies conviction well in 2 Corintians 5:17 when he writes:  “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
.
Your view suggests God makes mistakes.  Emotions and feelings are often deceiving in both men and women.  A conviction is different.  For clergy, this behavior suggests such men were never actually “called” by God at all.

Joanp62-
When *God calls* one of His children to a task, *He equips* them to do it, and it is always in His Will, consistent with His word.  That is why women are *never* called by God to the ordained priesthood. Paul’s Pastoral letters to Timothy & Titus specify that MEN be church leaders.  Married men, with children, in fact.  Paul reasoned, “For if a man cannot manage his own little family with dignity, how can he take care of the church of God?”

As the Anglican priest I know (married with children, pastor of a parish of about 75 conservative Christians, teacher at an elementary school, and frequent contributor of articles in a secular newspaper, speaking out for traditional marriage and the sanctity of life) he would have made an excellent Roman Catholic priest, & his wife & family would be exemplary, as role models for a Catholic parish—the ideal of what Paul wrote to Timothy & Titus.

I am not suggesting that God makes mistakes. You are not looking at reality. Many people are baptized and confirmed-they have the Holy Spirit, but they still sin. Most of us do to some degree or another. What St. Paul means, and if you look at the Catholic church’s interpretation, is that now, we ARE to put off the old self, and become a new person in Christ. This is something we are to work for with the help of God’s grace. Receiving the Holy Spirit (conviction as you call it), is not some magic formula that makes a person change overnight. You and Terah must not have been ‘convicted’ by the Spirit either because you both have shown that you are far from perfect, as am I also far from perfect. But having been Baptised and Confirmed, I should not be living my life in a consciously sinful way. I need to “put on Christ”, be transformed by Christ-as only He can do.

The Catholic Church does not claim that we are automatically changed into perfect people with no faults, weakness or sins. If you think that is my opinion, that what the Church teaches is the Truth, then
I suggest you try reading some of the documents of Vatican II among other things. Start with Lumen Gentium.

There are priests and bishops who maybe were never really called to be. If that is the case, God permitted them to be ordained whether He called them or not. God doesn’t make mistakes, God is in control- but the fact that we have homosexual men as priests, men who would not have been called to the priesthood, shows that God will permit these things for His own reasons.

Terah, I don’t know why you address the first part of your paragraph to me. I don’t call for women priests and have no problem with the male hierarchy of the Church.

As to your Anglican priest, that is your opinion. I addressed this in an earlier post.

@Joanp62:  [“God doesn’t make mistakes, God is in control- but the fact that we have homosexual men as priests, men who would not have been called to the priesthood, shows that God will permit these things for His own reasons.”].
.
Then we agree not all clergy are “Holy Men of God” and “in persona Christi.”  We need to distinguish between the man himself (and the fruit he bears) rather than merely his title or the office he holds. 
.
[“You and Terah must not have been ‘convicted’ by the Spirit either because you both have shown that you are far from perfect, as am I also far from perfect.”]
.
How good of you to judge what I “must not” be convicted of.

Joanp62—I am not perfect, although I have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, and am in the Body of Christ, my sins paid for in full, by Jesus’ death at Calvary, and His resurrection.  I still sin.  All my sins were “in advance”, 2000 years ago, at Calvary.

My point about women’s ordination was that God would NOT ever “call” a woman for the priesthood because it would NOT be His will.  God equips people to follow-through with what IS His will for their life.  It was not meant to you, but rather, to point out as an example that God only calls men that CAN be ordained.

I agree with your last paragraph 100%. But don’t you think that there are some men who have somehow managed to go thru seminary and get ordained to the priesthood who were never called by God to be a priest?