“I have no problem with religious acts, as long as they
are a result of being saved and forgiven, not as a way to be saved and forgiven.”
Why does anyone accept this reasoning as anything close to what the Bible
plainly teaches? “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you.” Did not Ananias and Sapphira die when they
lied? “True religion that the Father accepts is this: to look after orphans and
widows…” Do you recall the sheep and the goats? What’s this nonsense about
having to be already forgiven in order to do anything? King Saul lost the
kingdom because he did a “religious act.”
Let’s tell the truth: This is crazy. This is a
theological conclusion so derived from party spirit that the text doesn’t even
make sense anymore. If you can be damned by an act, surely you can be saved by
one.
How did words and deeds working together become, “We save
ourselves”? I keep looking for that in the Catechism. It must be in there.
After all, the Reformers said it; it must be true.
That prideful Mother Theresa! She obviously walked around
thinking she was something! It might be time to rethink this other theological
trajectory, before somebody gets hurt. Oh, wait.
If you want to say “Apart from me, you can do nothing,”
fine, we agree. That has never been the issue. But if you think we Catholics
just sit around and cower, hoping God will love us, I’m going to laugh in your
face. I hope it’s medicinal. Too bad you don’t have the Sacrament of Penance;
that’s even more medicinal.
Comments