Carl made a point in comments on his post The Family, that I think important, when he said.:
I suppose we can all participate in prayer that the Holy Spirit reigns. But then the question for Catholics is whether they obey the conclusions presented by the synod or follow personal conscience which I understand may be inappropriate for Catholics. As Protestant would appreciate comments helping me to me understand this apparent dilemma if indeed one exists. Who is the heretic-the one who accepts or the one dismissing possible distasteful policy of synod?
OK, granted I’m a Lutheran (and in fact, a conservative one, I don’t truck with much novelty). But I’m a member of the ELCA, which is about as liberal as Lutherans get. I’ll admit to shaking my head often in bewilderment and grief at what my bishops say.
But, you know, I don’t very often think they are simply heretics or trying to kill the family. I mostly think they are good men who have perhaps been misled, or perhaps I am (although that’s unlikely) 🙂
And in any case, I can always move to one of the more conservative Lutheran synods, and periodically consider it. One of the advantages of being a Protestant, I suppose.
But so often, my Roman brothers and sisters sound like conspiracy theorists in their treatment of their hierarchy, and yet most of those who claim all these evil things are being done by the hierarchy, are converts to that church, like me in Lutheranism, they saw something in Rome that appealed to their soul. That’s good, one should believe in their church.
For the most part I agree with Rome’s doctrines on the family, and I’m not going to have the arguments again here. We’ve done enough of that. In short, I think they may be wrong on pre-conception contraception, and I think they need to work on how they handle, administratively, divorce/annulment. Otherwise I think they pretty much have it right. I can only wish the ELCA was that good.
I know that in large measure this is driven because they care so very much about the church and its members but, the tone is very unhelpful. I think they would be wise to tone it down several notches and realize that, with very few possible exceptions nobody went into the priesthood/ministry with an overt goal to destroy the family or the Church.
Some, perhaps many, may well be misguided, I think so but, screaming at them is not going to accomplish anything. Sitting down prayerfully and considerately reasoning with them might. Because we all know that when people scream at us, we get angry in our turn, and we are not susceptible to reason or even the still small voice in us, when we are.
i know many of you are thinking that I’m sticking my oar in where it doesn’t belong. That’s not exactly true. Like me, you are Christians, and your Pope is the senior bishop for us all, and we all do (or at least should) pay attention to what he says. In a good many ways, he is still the “Patriarch of the West’ and speaks for (and to) us all.
I understand what is happening in your Church, to a point anyway, and in a sense, you have hoisted yourself on your own petard. It’s very difficult to be always right, on every single day ever since St. Peter first set foot in Rome. Your church hasn’t been, and neither has mine, or any other. The wider church was founded by Christ, but was built, and maintained by men, and men are sinful creatures, whether they are an atheist moocher or the Pope. Hopefully our churches are guided by the Holy Spirit but, that doesn’t come in the heat and tumult of battle, it comes as a still small voice, usually in the night.
So I would urge you to turn it down several decibels, you hurt yourselves (on both sides) by this unseemly conduct. the road you are travelling right now leads nowhere but still another schism, and that’s the one thing Christianity absolutely does not need, there have been far too many, already.
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thank you Neo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Your welcome. I find it disheartening when men, who have given their lives to God atr called, for whatever reason, ma,es, for saying what they believe. (Yes, I feel the same way in politics, as well.) The temptation is almost overwhelming sometimes, but almost always wrong.
LikeLike
njb4725 said:
Spoken with the voice of experience. It is interesting to watch the Catholic affair from the outside with its particular nuances. I guess we would both say it is part of a larger malaise/crisis that is affecting the Church – we are at war, after all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
We are at war Nicholas and the easiest way to describe the conflict within the Church is to put forth the confounding question that has arisen:
Why are we giving the opponents of defined Catholic Teaching encouragement and why are we discouraging those who abide by defined Catholic Teaching? It seems to us an oxymoron and self-defeating notion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
njb4725 said:
Quite – “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places”. It seems to me that you have a problem of two camps that seemingly oppose Traditionalists. Camp A, we’ll call them, are essentially orthodox people, who are looking for a less technical expression of faith as part of the “new evangelism” and ecumenical movement. We’ll call that “Spirit of the Law greater than Letter of the Law”. Then you have Camp B, which we’ll also label with the usual pejorative “liberals”: this camp really doesn’t know what it believes – except that it rejects orthodoxy – and is basically pulling everything apart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I doubt either side is homogenous but they there are the affirmers of Catholic Teaching and the deniers of Catholic Teaching squaring off on almost every issue these days.
It would be refreshing to see these dealt with as JPII did the issue of women priests when he wrote: “We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” That is the way one would expect these questions to be answered.
For a good article on those who are in the ‘doctrine develops’ mindset, Fr. Longenecker gives us a nice quote from Newman to reflect upon: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/03/cardinal-kasper-vs-cardinal-newman.html?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=standingonmyhead_032615UTC010327_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=48313306&spUserID=Nzg4MDE5MTk1ODcS1&spJobID=643396113&spReportId=NjQzMzk2MTEzS0
LikeLike
njb4725 said:
Such statements are clearly helpful up to a point, but they don’t seem to stop people who want to believe hat from believing it. Such people need to be re-indoctrinated or expelled – ultimately – otherwise they cause dissent from within. As one subheading for Corinthians puts it – “Expel the immoral brother!”
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
True, that might protect us better but I suppose we have hope that if we remain a ‘teaching’ Church rather than a ‘condemning’ Church we will save more souls. That is part of the argument as well: which method saves more souls and protects the sheep from the wolves better? I like to ostracize and remove those shepherds who are hirelings and those sheep who are but wolves in sheep’s clothing. It seems to be the Biblical response to such but we have clearly taken a ‘kinder and gentler’ approach of late which has not yielded much good fruit to my knowledge.
LikeLike
njb4725 said:
Yes, and of course, people charge the leadership with hypocrisy and the much bandied “judge not, lest ye be judged”, which seems to have been stretched by all manner of people to avoid confrontation. I suppose my personal rule of thumb is to mark a distinction between people who insist that good is evil and evil good (cf. Isaiah), and those who fall into sin, but are struggling to overcome it. The first group has wrong belief which must be corrected by repentance, while the second group has correct belief, but needs help with practicality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
We are not only a ‘field hospital’ for those who have been wounded by sin in this fight with the world, but we are also the voice of one crying in the wilderness that is warning of the dangers and condemning certain behavior. In that way we are trying to be both pro-active in our battle with sin as well as reactive to the wounds one might encounter. To give up one for the other is utter foolishness. We are to be both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Lest I leave out the ‘active’ role, the Church also has a responsibility in the active mode to provide its adherents with the tools and helps to navigate the world and do battle with evil though prayer, practice, penance and the dispensing of sacramental grace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
Lord Acton’s advice has never been more relevant.
Also, although I rarely comment I do read this blog, it is a nice change of pace to read something germane to my own Protestant sensibilities. I suppose I’ve grown weary reading alarmist cries about the moral and spiritual direction of Rome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I’ll admit (and I suspect C. would agree) we’ve been a bit catholic-centric here lately, in time we will do more Protestant stuff, I think. Lord Acton was a very wise man. The debate is interesting and a good reminder of why the Reformation happened. i don’t know about your church but we’re adept at ignoring our bishops when necessary for the faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
For us, though, the age of priestcraft has passed. 🙂
As for the debate, it only serves to remind me that for many people love has been replaced by obedience. But of course that is not the attitude of Jesus, and it is certainly not a theology for sinners. And, God knows, we are all sinners.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Us too, of course, Luther was our last priest, but the issue are still there. It’s a problem for all the corporate churches. Love they get, in its blind unreasoning form but they seem to forget that Logos also translates as reason, that they’re weak on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
Agree.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Obedience follows from love and specifically from love of Christ – or am I misunderstanding the point you are making.
Romans 1:4-6
. . . Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
Romans 6:16
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
2 Corinthians 10:4-6
We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. We are ready to punish every disobedience when your obedience is complete.
1 Peter 1:22
Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
Perhaps, I can clarify my point. I think in some sense you are right. But obedience is not love. Obedience, of course, can make you righteous, but it does not make you loving. In fact, the righteous folk usually have very little love because they don’t think they need to be forgiven much. The Pharisees, for instance, were righteous, they were the guardians of the law of God in their time. But they didn’t think they needed very much forgiveness so they didn’t have very much love. And this was their unrighteousness. Forgiveness, not obedience, creates love. Indeed only forgiveness can bring about love. Remember what Jesus told Simon the Pharisee?
“Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “what is it Teacher?” “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7.38-47)
It is not her love that brings about her forgiveness, but it is her forgiveness that creates her love. By her love she demonstrates her forgiveness–“he who is forgiven little, loves little”.
Of course I am not saying that the righteous folk are not righteous, for they are. But they are not very loving, because not much has been forgiven them, and they do not think they need much forgiveness anyway. And that is their unrighteousness, as much as it was Job’s. On the other hand, sinners are really sinners, but, because much has been forgiven them, they have greater love. And that is their righteousness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Servus Fidelis said:
I believe you mistake what righteousness was in OT speak. The pharisees were not righteous. They demanded many things that were not demanded by God but they were hypocrites as they did not do those same things that they required others to do.
Secondly, the love came before the forgiveness, if you read the passages aright. The forgiveness was given precisely because she loved greatly.
Obedience as we understand it since Paul is obedience to God, to Truth, to Love, to Faith, and to those that God has put over us, for love of God. For God is love and God is truth and God through Christ has become our Faith. And our leaders would not be our leaders unless God allowed them to be. The caveat there is that if the leaders do not act for the Common Good you have a justifiable complaint and a right to disobey if it contradicts the moral and spiritual law contained in the Faith. Obedience to Faith and vows made to God to be obedient to rightful leaders and superiors is not disconnected to our Love of Christ and the obedience we owe Him.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
The sin of the Pharisees is hypocrisy, but not because they didn’t follow the Law. Rather Jesus calls them hypocrites, because they did not understand, as Rabbi Hillel said, “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”
***
I think that is a misreading, and a dangerous one at that. God’s forgiveness is unconditional. There is no condition of any kind that would merit man’s forgiveness. What can we do to earn God’s forgiveness? How can God’s forgiveness be conditional, that is, conditioned by man? if it is, then we are all doomed, I’m afraid. Isaiah’s words are a good reminder of what our best efforts are–filthy rags. No, Jesus did not forgive the woman, but he declared that she *is* forgiven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
It is a dangerous misreading NML.If all are forgiven and no one has to do anything then we all go to Heaven and there is no Hell. In fact, after Christ died on the Cross there is no reason for planet Earth to go on; we could simply have the New Heavens and New Earth.
One must believe first and foremost. Secondly, when we sin or do anything wrong we must ask for forgiveness to be forgiven; to have a desire for forgiveness. What is it that drives a man to ask for forgiveness: there are two reasons. The first is imperfect; it is fear of the consequences; primarily it is love of self. The second is ‘filial fear’ or dreading to offend the one that you love’ which is perfect contrition and sorrow. If you have not perfect contrition you are falling short of the Love of God. If you believe, and truly believe that Christ is God, you will have filler fear and love of God. It is a precondition that we develop from the time we come to believe and our love of God begins to increase.
I think that what you’re trying to say is that Christ died for the sinner before the sinners came to love Him and that is true. For God loves every soul that He ever created and would have gone through His passion for any one of these souls. It does not follow that they will be forgiven from their sins, though the debt for sin is paid, until and unless the person, desires this forgiveness. And as I say, it is love that moves us to desire and to feel sorrow for sin.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
Well, I think God’s grace is completely irresistible over the long run–I think this is the best way to understand Pauline theology. That is, the condition of alienation from God that we fallible creatures sometimes choose for ourselves will at some point generate an irresistible avenue of grace. Ultimately God will reconcile the entire human race to himself, and not, necessarily, through God causally determining every event that happens, every action, every choice, and so forth. God just need let us experience complete or substantially lengthy separation from him, and by implication love, for God is love. Eventually this separation from God, and all that that entails, will create in us an irresistible means of grace. Even Hitler? Yes, even Hitler will be or was reconciled to God–what happened in the bunker? I mean, was Hitler any worse than Saul of Tarsus? Perhaps, only God knows that, but I suspect the only meaningful difference is in the extent of Hitler’s genocide, not in his hatred. But this takes far afield I’m afraid.
I agree that forgiveness could not come to us if we were not asking for it and accepting it. But was the woman not asking for it? I think she comes to Jesus precisely because she was forgiven. Of course I have no idea what brought her to Jesus exactly. I imagine it’s a combination of many different factors ranging from the more spiritual to the merely psychological. Human motives are always unclear. But God’s forgiveness meets us right in the middle of this vagueness. It does not require that our motives become clear-cut before forgiveness can be offered. I suppose all I know is that there is no condition for forgiveness.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yes, Christ has created the Living Waters where we can drink of His Grace and Forgiveness and you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
That is the situation. Your view of irresistible grace is one that says that, in time, hell will not exist. That is something the Church for the last 2000 years has not accepted. If that is your belief that is fine . . . we all belong to different faith communities. But to deny hell and the words of Christ concerning it seems to be a tenet that is based on wishful thinking on our part.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
I should add that not many people agree with me on this, even within my own church. But I learned sometime back not to impose creaturely moral obligations on God. He tends to not like that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
We don’t impose obligations on God, we impose them on ourselves for Love of God. God does not ever violate our free will. We will either come to Him and repent and be saved or we will not due to our choices.
And in the case of God and Love and Forgiveness: God loved the world first, then when we sinned against Him, He repaired the sin and offered His forgiveness. His love came first – then His forgiveness. It is the same path for us in our receiving of His Grace.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Neo. I don’t know if my opinion is welcome around here anymore, but I feel I need to comment on this one. Carl has some very interesting insights. However, the Church doesn’t find a conflict between conscience and following the rules of the road. But in order for ones’ conscience to do the work it is for, it must be an informed conscience. When one becomes a Catholic, one is expected to live by the Church’s rules regarding marriage or refrain from Communion. We don’t ask folks to leave because they divorce, but if they re-marry without an annulment, they cannot receive the Eucharist. The Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be given to more than two persons at the same time. If a person is married it is till death do they part. This has always been the case for us Catholics. It isn’t something that is because of the Synod as Carl supposes. There won’t be any change in the basics of marriage when the Synod returns, nor can there be any anyway. What can be done is the Pope will be given recommendations about exactly what he asked for: a way to assist pastorally these couples who need their irregular marriages mended in whatever way they can be. There are cases of persons who think they cannot return to the Sacraments at all, when in fact, if properly investigated they get the truth and return to the Sacraments. But all this takes time and work by those whose understanding of the in and outs of marriage make them capable of giving the assistance these couples need and deserve as members of the Body of Christ, His Church. He died for them too and they should be helped. When I read what parts of what Carl wrote that you highlighted, I saw that he didn’t quite see how a Catholic is expected follow his conscience, that is it must be formed by the Church, a well-formed conscience. With that in mind, then there is no dichotomy or conflict between what the Church requires of married couples and their particular conscience. They should be in agreement. He also doesn’t understand what a Synod is about. It is formed to make recommendations and advises the Pope. They do not form or determine doctrine. They only advise. They aren’t making binding disciplines for any one. Nor can they change existing disciplines, dogmas or doctrines or decrees or anything else. So when he says there would appear to be a conflict between what a Synod would ask of a couple and what their conscience might tell them to do, in truth, that cannot actually happen. As he says “whether they obey the conclusions presented by the synod or follow personal conscience” They will not be asked to obey anything the Synod presents to the Pope. This is a misunderstanding of things Catholic, so I thought I’d clarify it. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
I’m happy to see you back, Ginny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
You’re very welcome here, Ginny. C. was just commenting to me that we hadn’t heard from you for a while, you were missed. To the rest, thank you for the very good explanation. 🙂
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
GINNYFREE ” I don’t know if my opinion is welcome around here anymore”
NEVER feel this way. There would be no discussion without alternative and disagreeing views. That’s what the blog is about. Personally I appreciate your pointing things our for me to consider. I do not agree with much RCC doctrine but your clarifications, well, I find valuable. In my case even among Presbyterians my heretical views(alleged) are not welcomed one bit and that’s for sure !
LikeLiked by 1 person
dbmw said:
Good comment ginnyfree, and you’re most welcome here anytime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Yay, Ginny is back. You have to have thick skin and an abundance of fortitude, temperance and prudence at AATW. It is good for the soul to hang on in here. 🙂
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Glad to have you back! If you leave again, I’ll come whup ya.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
NEO ” and your Pope is the senior bishop for us all…?
HUH ? Not for us P’s. Not for 500 years.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yes Carl, he is the senior bishop in the west. you and I don’t owe him obedience as the Catholics do but we owe him the same respect we’d show a senior churchman of any of our denominations.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
You are absolutely right. I do wish there was some reciprocity, however. Yes, I respect and appreciate when speaks out against injustice and inhumanity around the world. No P has such ability to influence things for the better world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
That’s was my point, mostly. And Rome is much better about reciprocity than it used to be, as well.
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
United Methodist Neo. That’s the tradition I speak from btw. We like Wesley😀
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Actually most of us RCC’s have a lot of respect for Billy Graham and his son Franklin. Billy Graham’s words resounded around the world almost as much as the Pope’s during his day. He was a force for good.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
“When you deny the Christ, you recrucify the Christ” – Billy Graham.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed, it is what the RCC has told the sinner. Each sin is another wound that Christ had to bear on His Cross.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Amen to that Carl! Thanks for sharing. Gofbless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
To All: Thank you for your kind welcome back. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Good to see you here again ginny 🙂
LikeLike