Some questions on incarnation

[Dondi]

ABBA,ABBA....runs and gives Him a big hug.

So you and the Big Man are like this (crossed fingers)?

It is also written that you are sons and daughters of the most high god...so what do you do....go about groveling like a servant, making appointments and petitions?

Groveling servant? No, but the title 'son' carries with it a certain amount of responsibility, particularly when one is an heir. Learning to become an heir takes time and there are growing pains.

That sounds absurd any way you look at it.
But I am not accountable for the actions of my siblings.

You're not your brother's keeper, eh? You're not going to make many friends that way.

 

[wil]

So you and the Big Man are like this (crossed fingers)?

You're not your brother's keeper, eh? You're not going to make many friends that way.

Namaste Dondi,

I is, I feel that way (crossed fingers) but am striving to not use the anthropomorphic references that we get caught up in...

And I'm also realizing that no one is born to live upto any of my expectations. I can not change anyone, only change my perception.

 

[shawn]

So you and the Big Man are like this (crossed fingers)?

That's right We are tight.


Groveling servant? No, but the title 'son' carries with it a certain amount of responsibility, particularly when one is an heir. Learning to become an heir takes time and there are growing pains.

Very true, but that doesn't mean you need to estrange yourself and think such lowly thoughts in the mean-time.



You're not your brother's keeper, eh? You're not going to make many friends that way.

wow, did you ever take a weird turn on that last one .
Just because I am not accountable does not mean I don't care.
And just look at the flack I get for chiming up about my ideas from my brothers....sheesh.

 

[Thomas]

Namaste Thomas,

There must be a vast difference between Catholicism in the US and elsewhere.

If what follows is anying to go by, yes.

Over here this is what I hear constantly from Catholics that they go thru an intermediary for everything.

Well that's not Catholic Doctrine. The reverse is actually the case. Catholicism is about Divine Union, an intimate relation with the Father and the deification of the soul ... can't get less intermediary than that.

The only one to interpret the bible is the Priest,

Er, no ... that's the usual propaganda of ignorance.

the parts of the bible that are read are determined in the catechism not by reading the bible,

That's a new one on me. Still a crock, though.

that if they ask any questions they are chastised for not believing or not having enough faith.

Oh dear ... this sounds like the same old stuff I get from people who've never spoken to a Catholic in their lives.

Now this is from when I was a kid and lived next to a Catholic School, and from when I was in High School and had friends who went to Catholic School, and from adults who have left the church for these very reasons, and now as a Boy Scout leader we have about half our troop Catholic, and I just listen to the adults and boys...it isn't any different today.

Actually, sounds like the voice of the disgruntled filtered through your own prejudice, telling you want you want to hear ... nowhere near the truth at all. Perhaps the good guys have learnt not to bother with you?

Everything must go thru the hierarchy...and even then Mary is where the prayers head, not to Jesus, or G!d.

Oh dear, that really is worn out Protestant propaganda, You sure these voices aren't in your head?

I know the liberalising of the seminaries in the US in the 60s post Vatican II laid the seeds for all manner of ills, moral and theological. Perhaps this is just another sampling of the kind of error that occurs, but from what I've read, the process seems to be correcting itself now.

Curiously, the Institute where I'm doing my degree runs a programme in the US, but I still would be astounded to find out things got quite so bad over there as your experience suggests.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

wow, did you ever take a weird turn on that last one .
Just because I am not accountable does not mean I don't care.
And just look at the flack I get for chiming up about my ideas from my brothers....sheesh.

Forgive me for being so forward. I was just curious with where you stood in terms of God. You having admitted being a Christian before, you evidently had a difficult experience resulting in the perception that Christians should grovel in complete unworthiness before God. Initially, perhaps that's true. But I don't think it is God's purpose for us to remain in that position. The holiness of God should be an instrument of change to propel us toward where we need to be in Christ. If we understand that higher calling in God, we can move forward toward the goal of becoming Christ-like. Not that we will ever be perfect, I doubt that standard could ever be reached. But why try? Because even in the trying we are becoming perfected. The whole purpose for the grace of God is so we learn from our mistakes, and not just grovel in them.

Some facets of Christianity seem to emphasize and focus on the sins, and as a result cause the Christian to feel somewhat unworthy. And thus there is tremendous pressure to try to be perfect (or give up altogether). So then the focus ends up being on there own imperfections and therefore there is the frustration of never being able to achieve the goal. And it further results in a perception of alienation toward God.

The beauty with Christ is that He offers His own righteousness to the believer. Knowing that what ever imperfections were taken care of by Christ through the Cross, and thus salvation is secured through Christ, the believer is no longer under the pressure to be perfect for perfection's sake. Rather that his standing in God is secure in Christ. So instead of striving for salvation, salvation is already his, by that Intermediatary. We become children of God. Our salvation is confirmed. We are free to love, and not fear, because our focus is not to become perfect, but be perfect in love. Our motivations have changed. Our focus can shift toward others and not always on ourselves.

 

[Ahanu]

What is the divine economy?

Tertullian first uses the word trinity here: "Let us preserve the mystery of the divine economy which disposes the unity into trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three not in essense but in grade, not in substance but in form."

What is the divine economy? Is this where the types of Christ come from? For example, Joshua being a type of Christ. How does the divine economy fit within the doctrine of the trinity?

 

[Thomas]

Re: What is the divine economy?

Tertullian first uses the word trinity here: "Let us preserve the mystery of the divine economy which disposes the unity into trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three not in essense but in grade, not in substance but in form."

Yes. It's worth noting however, that he's not introducing a new theology, but a new expression of a teaching. This rather puts paid to the notion that the 'Trinity' was a later invention of the theologians.

What is the divine economy?

The Catechism gives a precise answer (CCC236):

The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

I spent years as a christian so I know very well how it works.

Christianity doesn't work in any particular way except the way people want it to work. The question is, what have you done to reform Christianity, knowing that there is no Christianity except what you make it out to be?

The point is that people mistakenly think that they must go through an intermediary, which is like talking to someone who is right beside you via another person.

Words that become popular can have a big impression on people. The word "intermediary" has probably been promoted so much in some Christian communities that many regard it as a direct revelation from God. Whether or not it is how Christianity is supposed to work is a different matter.

My understanding of what the notion of "intermediary" alludes to is the idea of a "spiritual birthright." Have a look at the opening passage of the Gospel of John and how the author depicts the relationships of us as potential "sons of God."

A father bestows certain privileges on his children not enjoyed by people outside his family. Jesus was a so-called "son of God," so he received special privileges as one of God's "sons." By becoming "sons of God," we inherit the same privileges that Jesus did. We are treated the same way by God as Jesus was treated.

Christians pray in Jesus' name to emphasise that they believe that by living the same way as Jesus did, they could inherit the same privileges as Jesus enjoyed in the royal household of God. We practically become princes in God's kingdom. I don't think it's right to say that Christians pray to Jesus. That makes our relationship with God seem hierarchical and I disagree with that.

We are potentially equals with Jesus. It's just that we are not automatically considered a part of God's family. We have to become equals with Jesus.

What's this got to do with the idea of an "intermediary"? I think it's a distorted, contorted and misplaced concept that doesn't properly demonstrate or explain what it really means to "pray in Jesus' name." It's not about introducing a barrier between us and God, but instead, about removing the barrier.

Heck, this was what Christianity was all about. It was about eliminating religious legalism by introducing the concept of a more personal and direct relationship with God. Jesus was never supposed to get in the way of God. It was always the other way round.

Jesus is like a guy who goes around looking for people to invite to a party. It's great if you can find your own way here, but people often need directions. He's not there to stop you from getting to the party. Perish the thought. Once you are there, nobody can tell you to leave and Jesus is a pretty nice guy.

Ultimately, Judaism and Islam have their own way of conceptualising the "there is no barrier to God" idea. All of the three main traditions claim that there is no barrier to God.

.... but there is always a catch. There are always conditions attached.

with Judaism it's the obligations of a Jew -- whatever that is, whether it's getting a bar mitzvah, following the 613 commandments, reading the Torah, eating kosher food . . . whatever

with Christianity it's being a disciple of Jesus

with Islam it's following Shariah Law and upholding the Five Pillars

conditions conditions conditions . . .

Leaving one religion and following another is really just a way of avoiding these conditions. It's just a question of whether you want to do it the easy or hard way.

Some may argue that the three main traditions are just ways of disguising the same thoughts and actions through over-complicated and unnecessary semantics, but most people choose not to go that far.

....as in Rome, do as the Romans do!

 

[iBrian]

Well that's not Catholic Doctrine. The reverse is actually the case. Catholicism is about Divine Union, an intimate relation with the Father and the deification of the soul ... can't get less intermediary than that.

Oh dear, that really is worn out Protestant propaganda, You sure these voices aren't in your head?

He does have an interesting point, though, Thomas - whatever you feel Catholic Doctrine represents, it is materially represented by a series of intermediaries on earth, headed by the Pope, with a long train of staff who decide on a range of issues both within but also outside of Theology. And past material boundaries, the saints represent a specific intercessionary power. These intercessionary figures generally tend to be absent among the Protestants, who arose not least through challenging the intercessionary status the Roman Catholic Church held for itself. After all, can someone be a Roman Catholic without being directed by the RCC?

I know you enjoy the intellectual element of Catholicism, and I know it's not easy to feel you represent the faith when obviously other people will throw general criticisms of the RCC at you - but it would be nice to see any apparently flawed arguments taken apart for their flaws, rather than try and take apart the questioner.

The latter is an especially important point for everyone here - it feels the tone is becoming more strained of late in IO, but surely every member here has some basic understanding of civility, and of trying to avoid personal attacks?

 

[Saltmeister]

The latter is an especially important point for everyone here - it feels the tone is becoming more strained of late in IO, but surely every member here has some basic understanding of civility, and of trying to avoid personal attacks?

I don't know about this thread, but sometimes I feel, for myself and others, that what might be regarded as a "personal attack" is done more to tease out an opposition's deeper feelings and sentiments than actually to humiliate, embarrass and do emotional damage or to be combative. It's what I'd like to call "controlled provocation." It's also to keep a debate from getting boring.

I suppose maybe the danger is that it might get out of hand, but some people have faith in themselves that it won't happen.

Deep down, we're all nice people. We just like to muck around.

As Maxwell Smart keeps saying, "We've got it all under control!" I hope that satisfies the Admin, though maybe that's not how you want to run things here at IO/CR.

 

[shawn]

Hi Salty,

Christianity doesn't work in any particular way except the way people want it to work.

If you feel that way you will have to branch off and form your own denomination as each and every denomination has its "idea" which forms the basis for how they think the situation works.
They all are in a kind of "standoff" with each other as they feel they have it right and the others are in error.
You seem to think it is a different situation, so...maybe go and explore the christian community and its diverse denominations a bit and expand that narrow opinion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You say a bunch of opinion regarding how you feel that Jesus is not considered an intermediary which I am not going to quote verbatim..

Basic (really basic version) christian doctrine:
-God created man.
-man screwed up and fell from grace.
-Man now is in a condition of being separated from God.
-God, being a reasonable chap, has set up a method to reunite fallen man with himself via his Son (which is just Himself in another guise).
-This Son (Jesus) becomes the bridge (in any other words...intermediary) which serves as the means to dredge fallen humanity up to His level (prodigal son story)

This is the universal underpinnings of the majority of christianity of most every stripe, so I don't see how you would feel that "intermediary" is just my idea......this is taught in most seminaries as basic course material which one must memorize to pass. (I know this as I attended one which was non-denominational).

I like your analogy of Jesus being the guy inviting people to the party though....haven't heard that one for a long time.

Christians pray in Jesus' name

This whole idea is IMO ridiculous as God is not hard of hearing and knows full well what is on your mind even if you would never mention Jesus in your prayer.
Do you really think that your "petition" has a greater chance of success if you tack on the in Jesus' name bit?????.

 

[Saltmeister]

If you feel that way you will have to branch off and form your own denomination as each and every denomination has its "idea" which forms the basis for how they think the situation works.

I don't have to belong to any denomination. I can be an individual. I can make up my own ideas and form my own perspective. There is no need to belong to a community. It is simply better to be part of a community. It has practical value. But there are often problems with the rationalisation people use for forming a religious community. The trouble, historically, with many Christian churches is that the idea of "belonging" has often been about following what its leaders think are important. You are a slave of the ideas that have been established rather than being free to exercise your own personal potential.

They all are in a kind of "standoff" with each other as they feel they have it right and the others are in error.

It doesn't have to be that way, and the trouble with many churches is that they are dictatorial, authoritarian and not democratic. Churches need more democracy. Look at the Quakers. I admire what they have.

You seem to think it is a different situation, so...maybe go and explore the christian community and its diverse denominations a bit and expand that narrow opinion.

Narrow opinion? You think I haven't explored Christianity enough? I have browsed and searched cyberspace and read books. I have looked at different social and political models, different ways of organising churches, well sort of . . . I don't mean I've read about it. I've thought about it more. It doesn't all work the way you're describing. You're talking about your personal experiences, but your personal experience only encapsulates a subset of Christianity. Have you explored all of Christendom? Neither have I, but I base my ideas on multiple paradigms, rather than one single paradigm.

What is your paradigm?

You say a bunch of opinion regarding how you feel that Jesus is not considered an intermediary which I am not going to quote verbatim..

It is just a perspective, but one I feel strongly about because I think of it as an alternative to what is popular. I'm in rebellion against popular and established ideas not because they are necessarily wrong, but because I want to encourage people to see things differently. I don't want people to be narrow-minded in their thinking. I want them to diverge, so I present something different.

More importantly I am describing how I see it, because this is my life. It is my journey. I want to encourage people to be more individualistic in their approach to Christianity, to see things their own way rather than just accepting and following others. Christianity will be better off if you have the freedom to be who you want to be while still being a person who honours God.

I am not just saying this. Jesus wasn't a conformist and neither was Paul after his redemption from legalism. Jesus and Paul not being conformists means that I don't have to be conformist. They were individuals, and so, therefore, am I.

Basic (really basic version) christian doctrine:
-God created man.
-man screwed up and fell from grace.
-Man now is in a condition of being separated from God.
-God, being a reasonable chap, has set up a method to reunite fallen man with himself via his Son (which is just Himself in another guise).
-This Son (Jesus) becomes the bridge (in any other words...intermediary) which serves as the means to dredge fallen humanity up to His level (prodigal son story)

This is the universal underpinnings of the majority of christianity of most every stripe, so I don't see how you would feel that "intermediary" is just my idea......this is taught in most seminaries as basic course material which one must memorize to pass. (I know this as I attended one which was non-denominational).

I disagree that this is all that Christianity is about. A guy dying for people's sins? Is that the only way of seeing it? Are you kidding me? This way of thinking of Christianity is popular but it doesn't mean it's right nor the only way of seeing it. Even if it's a correct way of thinking of Christianity it doesn't mean it's the most meaningful, valuable and memorable way of thinking of it in a given social or political situation.

This way of telling the story has become cliche. I wish people would be more creative and imaginative and stop talking about a man dying for people's sins, because it is not all about that. Sorry, but I am just offended by people downsizing Christianity from the size of a man to the size of a fist, and I am trying to depict my displeasure in the most humorous way possible.

How about a liberal-minded Jewish rabbi challenging the more legalistic factions of the day? How about a guy with some socialist yearnings preaching against riches, wealth, power, legalism and fundamentalism? How about a guy preaching about social justice and frugal living? But it wasn't just Jesus. It was Paul as well.

Does that not sound better? When I read the New Testament, that sounds more like it. If you think about it, it would have been pretty pointless to say and do all that stuff if Jesus' only purpose was to die on a cross like a lamb sacrifice. If that was the case, we wouldn't need the written tradition of the New Testament. Who would need to learn about Judaism? Judaism would be irrelevant. The Old Testament would be irrelevant.

What you have just described is what I call institutional and fundamentalist Christianity. Popular and established ideas are enforced. People are required to "believe" and chant slogans based on what is popular. It is all about conformity and pleasing people by pretending that you are one of them, that you are part of a group mentality. To me, that is a very phony and pretentious.

Who wants to be a "copy cat?" Who wants to be one of the sheeple?

I like your analogy of Jesus being the guy inviting people to the party though....haven't heard that one for a long time.

Yes, it's unconventional. But it doesn't mean it's wrong and unorthodox. I am just different to the rest of the crowd. I am my own man. I am an individualist and anarchist. I don't believe in a group mentality based on collective conformity. You see, the trouble with a lot of Christian churches is that that don't spend enough time studying the mechanics and psychology of politics and ideology. They don't analyse the social implications of their teachings. If they did, they'd realise how often they're wasting time manipulating people rather than doing something constructive socially and politically. To me, that is what Christianity is really about. I think in socio-political terms.

It was not about a guy thinking of himself as a lamb being sacrificed on an altar. That might work for you if that's what you're interested in, but to reduce Christianity to just that is to under-appreciate what Christianity means.

Do you know what Jesus said when John the Baptist asked him if he was messiah? Jesus said to look at what he was doing. The blind could see, the sick were healed, and . . . etc., etc.

You see, Jesus wanted people to have faith in something practical and spiritual. He didn't want people to be blind followers of ideology. John the Baptist was losing faith because of what he thought, based on established tradition, Jesus was supposed to be. What I am saying here is that people need to discard established ideas when they are no longer practical or relevant, and I believe Jesus believed in that philosophy.

This whole idea is IMO ridiculous as God is not hard of hearing and knows full well what is on your mind even if you would never mention Jesus in your prayer.
Do you really think that your "petition" has a greater chance of success if you tack on the in Jesus' name bit?????.

I'm not sure if you really understood what I was saying. I said praying in Jesus' name had to do with being a "son of God."

Christians call God their "Father," but what's the point of calling God "Father" if He's not actually your "Father?" Jesus is called "God's only Son" which means that we are not God's children automatically.

We become God's children by adoption. But you can't just march into God's household and say "I want to be your son." Why should God honour your request? What are your virtues and merits as a person? On the other hand, what is different in how God responds to a prayer from say, Jesus to one from you?

A father loves a son based on their uniqueness. A son is special for who he is to his father. Likewise, we must be like Jesus for God to love us as His own children. A father favours his own son more than he favours the children of others. Likewise, God loves Jesus more than He loves anyone else. God would show more love to Jesus than He does to you. God loves Jesus more than He loves you. Jesus is special to God.

By praying in Jesus' name you inherit the privileges that Jesus had. It is a matter of inheritance. You become one of God's sons and God treats you just as favourably as He treats Jesus. You become Jesus' brother.

Praying in Jesus' name is actually the same as Jesus praying to God. You are practically in the same place as Jesus. You are one of Jesus' equals. You, in a sense, become Jesus. You are God's son.

It's a different way of seeing things. I am just being imaginative and creative. Is that illegal in Christianity?

The trouble with institutional and fundamentalist Christianity is that people just accept what they are taught. They don't try a new way of telling the story. They don't think outside the box. People are just machines and robots. It's like The Terminator. They're on a mission. They don't have pity or emotion. They just act. They don't try something new. Churches like that are stagnant.

I want to see and meet real people, not machines and robots. Be alive, please. Get a life! Where's the vitality? Where's the animation? Is it all just a routine?

 

[Saltmeister]

Basic (really basic version) christian doctrine:
-God created man.
-man screwed up and fell from grace.
-Man now is in a condition of being separated from God.
-God, being a reasonable chap, has set up a method to reunite fallen man with himself via his Son (which is just Himself in another guise).
-This Son (Jesus) becomes the bridge (in any other words...intermediary) which serves as the means to dredge fallen humanity up to His level (prodigal son story)

This is the universal underpinnings of the majority of christianity of most every stripe, so I don't see how you would feel that "intermediary" is just my idea......this is taught in most seminaries as basic course material which one must memorize to pass. (I know this as I attended one which was non-denominational).

As an additional comment, I would like to say this. If this was taught at a non-denominational seminary, then I have to say, it is an example of bad religious education. I can't regard that as having much educational value if it didn't explore Jesus' legacy in other ways, like being a liberal-minded teacher (maybe not rabbi, I remember this was disputed once here) opposing legalism and fundamentalism and preaching about healthy social relations and frugal living.

I think it's a very biased form of religious education that only seeks to instill, in people's minds, what the teachers of that particular school want people to think and believe, rather than encouraging them to think for themselves.

Was this a university? I doubt it. In university they get people to think and do research. This sounds more like secondary education! You are unlikely to become a doctor from attending this school. If anyone did, I refuse to respect the title!

I think you'd be better off studying religion at university level where they really get you to think and research, not that I have studied religion at university level, but I am troubled if this is regarded as a credible conceptualisation of Christianity. To me it's biased.

The trouble with people going around saying they have "the truth" of Christianity is that many of them don't have a university education on the subject. This has detrimental effects on how Christianity is taught and depicted around the world. The reason why there are so many dubious and socially/politically non-constructive ideas is because churches are often led by people who aren't practically or pragmatically minded. They would if they had an adequate education.

Pragmatists are often the best religious leaders. We need more of them.

If you want to preach to me about Christianity, get a PhD. Get smart.

Then maybe . . . I will listen to you.

 

[shawn]

Wouldn't dream of preaching christianity to you as I am not a christian.
I also am not seeking to argue with you and must say that a lot of what you touched on in your previous posts is things that I have thought as well.
As for my paradigm.....I have been going on about it for over 900 posts and am too bushed after a full day of work to answer that.

 

[Thomas]

He does have an interesting point, though, Thomas - whatever you feel Catholic Doctrine represents, it is materially represented by a series of intermediaries on earth, headed by the Pope, with a long train of staff who decide on a range of issues both within but also outside of Theology.

No, not really.

Nowhere does the Catholic Church regard its hierarchy as intermediary, that's a common and ill-informed assumption.

And past material boundaries, the saints represent a specific intercessionary power. These intercessionary figures generally tend to be absent among the Protestants, who arose not least through challenging the intercessionary status the Roman Catholic Church held for itself. After all, can someone be a Roman Catholic without being directed by the RCC?

Intercessor is different from intermediary. I hope and pray there are intercessors, as a communion would be nothing but a void and pretty callous place without them.

The Protestant rejection of intercession was based on the idea of predestination; that some are destined to be saved, and some destined to be damned, before they were even born. A corruption of the received teaching, and something that the RCC has always rejected.

I know you enjoy the intellectual element of Catholicism, and I know it's not easy to feel you represent the faith when obviously other people will throw general criticisms of the RCC at you - but it would be nice to see any apparently flawed arguments taken apart for their flaws, rather than try and take apart the questioner.

From my pov, it would be easier if the discussion was kept to the argument, and not sidetracked into cheap shots when one hasn't got an answer to the question.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Wouldn't dream of preaching christianity to you as I am not a christian.

I was aware of that. The "You" pronoun doesn't always refer to the previous poster. A lot of the time I'm actually speaking generally, hypothetically and in third person. The "you" can refer to anyone, just like in normal speech.

I just got into a rant in the last two posts. It might just happen with this one as well . . . Again.

I had a few other things to say a few hours back . . . but I've forgotten what I was going to say. I hope that's a good thing.

 

[Dream]

What I am referring to is people who consider Jesus (the man) to be God.
Such people no longer pray to God, they pray to Jesus whom they consider to be the go-between.
On one hand it is semantics and it doesn't really matter, but on the other hand it is a point of discernment which I thought should be noted.
*packs up soap box and leaves park*

I follow your meaning. It is something that non-trinitarian people debate sometimes, but I was able to rule it as something that did not definitively make someone an idolator.

In the hope of a better world, we find an unnamed hidden principle that judges and directs our actions. Through many mistakes I learn from this principle that when I help you, I help me and this is a mystery. Underlying the seemingly disconnected, we find a unifying principle everywhere and especially within us and among us. Even without proof, anyone can sense it. That is what we, all humanity, have been discovering, which we cannot easily describe to our offspring. We keep stumbling across it, until it becomes a part of our beliefs. I do not think it matters whether you call it trinity or not. That is just a word.

 

[shawn]

The Protestant rejection of intercession was based on the idea of predestination; that some are destined to be saved, and some destined to be damned, before they were even born. A corruption of the received teaching, and something that the RCC has always rejected.

This is Calvinism and is indeed a corrupted doctrine.
Predestination has no logic whatsoever.
But that is only what a small percentage of the protestants who broke away from the bankrupted "universal church" actually believed.

 

[Dream]

There were a variety. The world was a very difference place though. Nowadays every commoner can aspire to attend school, read & write, or become a doctor. We mostly are all on similar footing, and we all trust ourselves to do our own thinking. Back then, we doubted ourselves. And every little thing, scrap of clothing, piece of parchment a person needed was harder to get, handmade. Every book was hand copied, practically gold. Back then, separate thinking must have appeared obscene and dangerous. Its just difficult to really understand how character would manifest through people under those conditions.

I think if I were to go back and live at that time now, my calmest and gentlest modern suggestions would appear to be dangerous and evil deviations from that society's protective womb. To me the people would appear wealthy vicious and arrogant or working-class humiliated shells. In general the outlook on life was one of ignorance and maybe poverty. That is why at a graduation ceremony the solemnity and pomp are important and not a bunch of traditional hoo-doo. I have always hated pomp and equated it with arrogance, but dressing nicely is a way of showing respect for others. Pomp is a way of remembering how we have crossed from ignorance into light. Everything looks different in the light, so it is hard to judge the people then for seeing things differently than we do now.

 

[Dondi]

Intercessor is different from intermediary. I hope and pray there are intercessors, as a communion would be nothing but a void and pretty callous place without them.

The Protestant rejection of intercession was based on the idea of predestination; that some are destined to be saved, and some destined to be damned, before they were even born. A corruption of the received teaching, and something that the RCC has always rejected.

I don't see the correlation. Please explain.