Among first synod discussions: changing harsh language, trying 'graduality'

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seraphim73 said:
He did and it’s a good thing you got the message. The question is how do we deliver that message today.
Click to expand...
Same way we did yesterday and the day before and the day before and the day before and the day before and the day before…you get the idea. Back to the Apostles.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Jesus did those things with no sin. But as I said if you have the discernment to recognize when being harsh will drive others away from God and are purified enough yourself to not judge people or fall into pride, vanity and self righteousness then go ahead. Most of us aren’t at that point.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Same way we did yesterday and the day before and the day before and the day before and the day before and the day before…you get the idea. Back to the Apostles.
Click to expand...
You imply with this that there is a way to present the Gospel that has never changed. The Apostles adapted to the circumstances, even in the Bible. They Church has done a lot of adaptation since then. So much of the disciplinary changes through the years have been to better bring the Gospel to all.
 
Seraphim73 said:
I would also add it’s important to try and understand what God is trying to say to us. Some people look at verses where Jesus is harsh with people and think they should imitate that when admonishing people. But look at who Jesus was criticizing. If you are a hypocrite who lays burdens on others that you won’t help bear, or if you insist on the letter of the law without understanding the spirit, if you cast stones at others when you yourself are a sinner, or if you turn the Church into a den of thieves by gossip or backstabbing or anything like that then He was talking to you. We should be a little more humble and show a little more fear of God. And by you I don’t mean you as an individual but all of us.
Click to expand...
It’s equally important to avoid getting so puffed up with pride and self-righteousness that we just assume that anyone talking about sin is a Pharisee and that it’s our duty to put them in their place. Maybe a little humility and self-control would do us all wonders.
 
Seraphim73 said:
I’ll go two for one.

We can imitate Jesus all we want but we will still be sinners. If you can use those phrases and not sin, not be judgmental, not hypocritical, not self righteous, not vain, not a stumbling block to others, then go ahead. Don’t forget what St Paul said quoting Isaiah: “My name is blasphemed among the Nations because of you”, and also: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.”

So the point still remains. We ain’t Jesus. We don’t know what He knew, we don’t have the discernment Jesus has, we don’t have His purity, all of us are hypocrites because we are all sinners. The question shouldn’t be “what would Jesus say” but rather “what would Jesus have me say.” Those are two very different things.
Click to expand...
One does not have to be Jesus in order to follow his example. As far as I am aware, no one is judging another here or advicating for that. What we are talking about is informing the ignorant and standing for truth, which in and of itself, is an act of love and mercy.

Recommended reading: Ezekiel 3:18
 
pnewton said:
You imply with this that there is a way to present the Gospel that has never changed. The Apostles adapted to the circumstances, even in the Bible. They Church has done a lot of adaptation since then. So much of the disciplinary changes through the years have been to better bring the Gospel to all.
Click to expand...
True, but expounding basic Christian doctrine remains the same.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
It’s equally important to avoid getting so puffed up with pride and self-righteousness that we just assume that anyone talking about sin is a Pharisee and that it’s our duty to put them in their place. Maybe a little humility and self-control would do us all wonders.
Click to expand...
Yes it would.
 
Eternal_One said:
One does not have to be Jesus in order to follow his example. As far as I am aware, no one is judging another here or advicating for that. What we are talking about is informing the ignorant and standing for truth, which in and of itself, is an act of love and mercy.

Recommended reading: Ezekiel 3:18
Click to expand...
Of course no one advocates for judging. The point is the danger in that and other things such as being a stumbling block to another person.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Well Jesus didn’t know everything, He was a man after all. But that’s another discussion. You have to look at the entirety of the Scriptures and not take just a couple of verses. Jesus wasn’t always harsh. The point is most of us don’t have the discernment to know and all of us are sinful. Jesus did those things with no sin. But as I said if you have the discernment to recognize when being harsh will drive others away from God and are purified enough yourself to not judge people or fall into pride, vanity and self righteousness then go ahead. Most of us aren’t at that point.
Click to expand...
Your underlying assumption is still that the use of the “harsh” method requires a very high level of moral development in the person using it, while the “nice” method doesn’t, and thus that since we’re all sinners, we have to restrict ourselves to the “nice” method.

But neither of the two methods has to do with the person using them; they are just methods, or tools, or strategies for discussing sin. The “harsh” method carries the potential temptation of pride or looking down on the other person, while the “nice” method carries the potential temptation of falling into moral laxity, or encouraging others to do so. But, so what? Just like any other situation, we just do our best to resist these temptations because that’s all we can do anyway.
Seraphim73 said:
Yes of course. Don’t forget the man part though. Humans are not omniscient. If you would like to discuss it in apologetics or somewhere I’ll be happy to join you.

He did and it’s a good thing you got the message. The question is how do we deliver that message today.
Click to expand...
The answer is: we do exactly what Jesus did, following His example as closely as we can.

I would ask, by what authority do you think we have the right to deviate from the example Jesus gave? And, if we are going to deviate (ie, find a method that is different from what Jesus did that is more “appropriate to today”) by what authority do we decide what other method we should deviate to?
 
McCall1981 said:
Your underlying assumption is still that the use of the “harsh” method requires a very high level of moral development in the person using it, while the “nice” method doesn’t, and thus that since we’re all sinners, we have to restrict ourselves to the “nice” method.

But neither of the two methods has to do with the person using them; they are just methods, or tools, or strategies for discussing sin. The “harsh” method carries the potential temptation of pride or looking down on the other person, while the “nice” method carries the potential temptation of falling into moral laxity, or encouraging others to do so. But, so what? Just like any other situation, we just do our best to resist these temptations because that’s all we can do anyway.

The answer is: we do exactly what Jesus did, following His example as closely as we can.

I would ask, by what authority do you think we have the right to deviate from the example Jesus gave? And, if we are going to deviate (ie, find a method that is different from what Jesus did that is more “appropriate to today”) by what authority do we decide what other method we should deviate to?
Click to expand...
If you are harsh with someone and drive them away from God or judge them in your heart or allow yourself to become prideful you are not following Jesus’ example.
 
McCall1981 said:
It’s true that we ain’t Jesus and don’t know what He knew.

Why then do you think we are capable of making the choice to imitate part of what He did (the “nice” stuff) and choose not to imitate another part (the “harsh” stuff). Since we don’t know what He knew, it makes no sense to assert that we are capable of choosing what to imitate and what not to imitate.

Your assumption is" "Jesus knew everything, and this knowledge gave Him the authority to determine when to be “nice” and when to be “harsh”. We humans do not have that knowledge, so we do not have the authority to chose to be “harsh”, and must therefore default to only choosing to be “nice”.

But that conclusion doesn’t follow, because you can just as easily say: "We humans do not have Jesus’ knowledge, so we do not have the authority to choose to be “nice”, and must therefore default to only choosing to be “harsh”.

In other words, with our imperfect knowledge, and imperfect moral discernment, who are we to make that decision either way?

It is just as prideful for us to eliminate the “harsh” aspect of moral discussion as it is to eliminate the “nice” aspect, because Jesus chose to use both. Who are we to choose for ourselves by picking only one?
Click to expand...
I confess I don’t know. One never knows. But unless upon my deathbed, for me the ship of return may have sailed. Because though I am grateful for those Catholics who aren’t harsh, besides not being convicted of some matters of Catholic faith, the harsh crowd, be they a majority or very vocal minority, has turned me off. But I think what you say about Jesus comes down to the whole point. Jesus may have occasionally chose both. But none of us are Him. So FWIW coming from someone outside your church, unless you desire to be a stumbling block and drive people away from your church, I’d only like to suggest to consider choosing, deciding, and proceeding with caution what you imitate. And side with “nice”. Between the two. As the saying goes, honey can catch more flies than vinegar. The ship may have sailed too far for me. Only time will tell. But it may not be too late for others to board or reboard. Anyway just sincerely my heartfelt thoughts that which can be taken or not, and done with whatever anyone chooses. Peace and goodwill to all.
 
Seraphim73 said:
If you are harsh with someone and drive them away from God or judge them in your heart or allow yourself to become prideful you are not following Jesus’ example.
Click to expand...
We each choose to reject or accept God - that’s straight from Jesus. No one can “drive” you away from God, even if they kill you. It’s a choice out of your free will. Likewise, even if I judge you in my heart - doesn’t make a difference. You’re still ok. I am in trouble. Telling people the truth about repentance of sin and a new life in Jesus Christ is all we can do. If we don’t do it, we haven’t fulfilled our obligations as Christians (and will answer to God for the failure).
 
Seraphim73 said:
If you are harsh with someone and drive them away from God or judge them in your heart or allow yourself to become prideful you are not following Jesus’ example.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

And if you are lax with someone and drive them away from God or affirm their sins in your heart or allow yourself to become lax, you are not following Jesus’ example either.

All we can do is to follow the example of Jesus (who used both “nice” and “harsh”) as closely as possible (which would mean using both “nice” and “harsh” depending on the situation, the person in question, etc).
 
I LIKE THIS ONE - Short and sweet
My friend Maria mentioned something about “graduality” yesterday.
Tomorrow I will teach my kids the meaning of graduality. Graduality: to gradually change the meaning of the Gospel and traditions of Holy Mother Church to get with modern times.
Click to expand...
My reply:
Click to expand...
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t really clear on where she’d heard this term. Imagine my surprise when I found out it’s from the Catholic Herald.
Click to expand...
Via Lucas Cambrensis:
Click to expand...
Graduality is, according to the Catholic Herald, “a way of thinking about morality that allows for human imperfection without compromising ideals”, recognising that individuals are unlikely to make the immediate jump from antipathy or agnosticism to acceptance of a moral truth.
Click to expand...
Why not? I did. It’s called “CONVERSION.” 👍 👍
Click to expand...
lisagraas.com/2014/10/09/why-not-graduality/
Click to expand...
 
Tigg said:
I LIKE THIS ONE - Short and sweet
Click to expand...
😉 It seems like we are all just tearing each other apart over this stuff. And we have absolutely no idea whether any of it is really on the table or not. I personally cannot see the Pope going for any of this “graduality” stuff. Yes, I could be wrong. And I have and continue to be in total fear about what will come out of this Synod, but I am starting to realize that an equally large Pandora’s Box has been opened on the progressive side as well. A lot of this just ain’t gonna happen. :rolleyes: I hope they take that ok. They are pretty whipped up about it, as much as we are.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
😉 It seems like we are all just tearing each other apart over this stuff. And we have absolutely no idea whether any of it is really on the table or not. I personally cannot see the Pope going for any of this “graduality” stuff. Yes, I could be wrong. And I have and continue to be in total fear about what will come out of this Synod, but I am starting to realize that an equally large Pandora’s Box has been opened on the progressive side as well. A lot of this just ain’t gonna happen. :rolleyes: I hope they take that ok. They are pretty whipped up about it, as much as we are.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with graduality per se. It has been around for a long time, and was endorsed by JPII, Benedict, etc. I think when we hear of it, most of us immediately start thinking of how it will be used and abused (and we are probably right), but the idea itself is fine (IMO).
 
McCall1981 said:
To be fair, there is nothing wrong with graduality per se. It has been around for a long time, and was endorsed by JPII, Benedict, etc. I think when we hear of it, most of us immediately start thinking of how it will be used and abused (and we are probably right), but the idea itself is fine (IMO).
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree - it’s part of Christianity already, an absolutely essential part. I am referring to the idea of now using this concept as means to justify any number of excesses and abuses. This is all so vague and flowery, it’s hard to really know what we’re talking about in terms of specifics. People are just filling in the gaps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top