Actually, I've checked several sources and all agree with me: AUGUSTINE said “Love and do what you will.” THAT was the quote I was referencing. If Alphonse Ligouri later misquoted it or attempted to improve upon it, I don't know. But, unlikely as it may be, AUGUSTINE agrees with me on this point.

Noted, then. Is there a “God” in the quote, however? If not, couldn't one find or generate an alternate definition of this now-vague, relative “love”? My “careful” was mainly a caution not to take the quote out of context, even if it is Biblical.

One of my problems with many Christians is that they assume the worst. Sure, sin abounds . . . but grace abounds more. I firmly believe in the Incarnation: God created the world good - and Christ shares fully in our humanity. Therefore, until evidence proves the contrary to be true, I assume the best.

Such seems a good way to live life publicly. I think that Jesus Himself struck an excellent balance when He treated many people with dignity and respect, especially those who were open to hearing His truths. Yet He also knew the corruption in the hearts of men and women, calling them “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 16:4) and often having choice words especially for the legalistic, mechanistic religious frauds who'd added their own beliefs to Scripture and incorrectly equated the two.

Does Grace flow equally to everyone, or must people accepts its Truth and Love before its effects can begin regeneration in the human heart? What does Scripture say?

With passages such as the many found in Romans, do we recognize that “all have sinned” and thus their rottenness really shouldn't take us by surprise? Thus, we can be oddly pessimistic about human nature and yet optimistic simultaneously?

Clearly, Protestantism is a mess, with most of its representatives currently given over to two extremes: either stuck in irrelevant, pre-1950’s-style operations (e.g. small rural churches, mostly in the American South) or pathetically chasing after Forced Relevance and Cultural Coping (e.g. “megachurches” and places where solid teaching about Law or Gospel, or both, is watered down in favor of being “non-offensive.)

Meanwhile, the Church proper — that is, Christ’s true followers who are aware of condemnation under Law along with the Good News — is only distributed widely among factions on both sides of the Reformation. No one denomination can claim, “We’re all real Christ-followers in here!” I’m quite confident that in a Western society increasingly steeped in hedonism and moral anarchy, the Church and Protestant denominations can be “good neighbors” when it comes to commonly opposed moral issues. Thank God for that!

But in some very crucial doctrinal issues regarding How Must One Be Redeemed (along with some differences over extra books in the Bible and a few little things regarding Mary), seemingly insurmountable differences exist between Reformation denominations and the Church — the latter, as you described it:

A church whose teachings have not changed for the past 2000 years.

By these unchanged teachings, I’m afraid I am personally declared “anathema” by at least three counts, according to the 16th-century Council of Trent:

If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification [. . .] let him be anathema (Trent, session 6, canon 9).

If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and love that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and is inherent in them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God—let him be anathema (Trent, session 6, canon 11).

If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema (Trent, session 6, canon 24).

As is the case in evangelical-dom, I’m sure variations of theology exist within the Catholic church, from disagreements over peripheral issues to vast deviations from the faith essentials — Lewis’s “mere Christianity.” But I believe I understand Catholicism correctly in that these declarations are equivalent to steadfast doctrine. According to the Council, Biblical Grace and redemption by faith in Christ alone (Sola fide) are replaced by (I may botch this up): Sola fide — et eccelesia.

If the Church has since revoked the Trent declarations and I missed it, then I’d love to learn more about the Catholic church! :-)

But as it is, I fear my aversion is based neither on unfamiliarity with traditions nor any prejudices, but a close-enough knowledge of the Church’s doctrines.


A qualification for 'Sola Scriptura'

Also worthy of a little more here, is your further definition of the Church:

A church that teaches the truth, even when the truth hurts. A church that recognizes the usefullness of resources other than just the Bible to evangelize.

Like Paul on Areopagus in Acts 17? Indeed, the apostle to the Gentiles appealed to the culture of his day and even quoted the Greeks’ “pagan” poets, to speak of the true God’s attributes to the philosophers — something the Bible-as-good-luck-charm crowd at this little church might not grasp too readily.

I’m unfamiliar with specific Catholic perspectives on the Christian Subculture (Christian-only radio, TV, books and etc.). But among many more-substantive non-Catholic churches, especially of the Reformed persuasion, the members are not so sequestered from the real world’s thought patterns, and so arrogant to claim we should just be able to read the Bible and learn its meaning for ourselves.

(The opposite extreme is trusting one’s leaders to do most of the reading and interpretation — something the Church’s Vatican II Council members evidently rebuffed in the early ‘60s, by encouraging laypersons to read and apply the Bible personally.)

C.S. Lewis struck a wonderful balance between the two extremes (between personal study and trusting the teaching of others) in Mere Christianity, when he spoke of the RAF officer (I believe it was an officer) who said he didn’t need to learn Biblical doctrine or reasoning.

“I’ve experienced God myself, while out in the desert,” the man told Lewis (paraphrased), basing his perceptions of the Almighty on his own “experiences” rather than revelation.

Lewis respectfully countered that yes, “feeling” God is great, akin to seeing the grandeur of an ocean. Yet being blessed by all the beauty and wonder and crashing waves won’t help, Lewis observed, if you’re trying to get to America, if you need to go somewhere. For that you need a map — based on accounts of other explorers who’ve gone on the same journeys before, and have also written of what they know.

The Scriptural “map” is inspired. The extra-canonical accounts of others are not so inspired, but many of them are still fully compatible with Scripture!

I would have enjoyed discussing this with members of the little church, whose members are fragmenting even as I type this. But they’re more of the “non-confrontational” type, as in “don’t confront, just destroy.” Of course, that is most unusual, if they truly believed their cause was so just and righteous. Books about Biblical worldview fusion with faith and reasoning and science and culture are certainly based in Scripture and contain much information a single person could never find just by reading the Book and thinking real hard about it.

How, for example, could a “typical” reader trace the etymology of the Hebrew behemoth and realize this term describes a brachiosaur-type creature?! Supplemental sources will help — if they are Biblically sound!