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

[FollowChrist34]

I think that it isn’t just an issue of priests. Someone fresh out of seminary no doubt has the doctrine fresh in his mind and tends to go “by the book”. Someone in his 50s or 60s is simply more realistic, has more human experience, and realizes as my PP says “doctrine has never saved a soul, it is Jesus who saves”.

As I look back at my 17 years since reverting, I was far more legalistic and by the book at the beginning, until I realized that hiding behind law didn’t make me any less a sinner nor did anything for a real inner conversion.

Even in the medical field: when I visited my family doctor to work me up for type II diabetes, he had a med student/intern do the initial workup and suggested treatment plan and invariably it’s “we’re going to put you on this, test that, probe into there…” and basically turn me into a pin cushion and lab rat. Then my doctor walks in, looks at the numbers and says “no, you’re an avid cyclist, keep at it and let’s just work on diet at first and reassess in 6 months” and “you can still eat what you love but just remember to reduce portions and only have the really bad stuff as an occasional treat so you don’t go crazy”.

The young and the keen feel they can change the world. The old grizzled warriors realize they can’t change human nature and instead focus on mending and healing those suffering from the aftermath. Been there, done that!

I love seeing the younger orthodox priests. They have strong, contagious faith and are actually really inspiring. I can completely relate to them. There are also liberal priests (old and young) and laity that I can connect with, but perhaps to a lesser degree. When I came back into the Church as an adult I had to actually be confirmed. I didn’t have a sponsor as I was doing this completely on my own. I was so embarrassed to say that. The RCIA leader (Mr. Liberal) was so kind about it. I remember he said, well, you read Flannery O’Connor. (as if to imply that was sufficient) He did find me a sponsor - some poor girl fresh to Seattle from Ohio who just about had a heart attack when I told her I considered myself more of a Christian than a Catholic. She stuck it out with me. There are a lot of nice people in the Church, real Christians, liberal and orthodox.

 

[FollowChrist34]

My guess is secular trends of relativism and utilitarianism, and what has happened with Protestant churches - many hardly resemble the Christian faith. (Probably because they followed these secular trends.) These things have influenced the church, I am in no doubt about it.

I think that when engaged in a war - and we are at war with the secular world - the church must be strong and not compromise one bit, even when it comes to not succumbing to pressure of using more inclusive language and euphemisms. These things obfuscate the truth, do not convince anyone to repent, and confuse many who are not informed enough about the teachings.

I agree with you 1000%. This is EXACTLY what I think.

 

[Weejee]

Gotta admit, I prefer younger priests. They have more enthusiasm. But I’m sure a good ole priest can serve the Lord just as well.

I just don’t care for priests who are still stuck in the 1970’s. I have just left a diocese where they had a bishop who served for over FORTY-FIVE years, and he was so stuck in the seventies and so were all the churches. For someone who would prefer something else, there was no place. A lot of older priests tend to be stuck in their youth. I remember in my church in Brooklyn, the pastor was that way. It was 2002, and he had out a book display where no book had been written after 1979. Those sort of priests do IRK me and I prefer to leave them with their own fans.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Gotta admit, I prefer younger priests. They have more enthusiasm. But I’m sure a good ole priest can serve the Lord just as well.

I just don’t care for priests who are still stuck in the 1970’s. I have just left a diocese where they had a bishop who served for over FORTY-FIVE years, and he was so stuck in the seventies and so were all the churches. For someone who would prefer something else, there was no place. A lot of older priests tend to be stuck in their youth. I remember in my church in Brooklyn, the pastor was that way. It was 2002, and he had out a book display where no book had been written after 1979. Those sort of priests do IRK me and I prefer to leave them with their own fans.

Well I certainly don’t want to get accused of ageism; I mean I’ll defend my hard core conservative bishops to the death. I just don’t like it when ideology gets front and center. You know I am starting to think with all this conservative/progressive hoopla ripping up the Church, maybe the bishops can come up with some new creative détente guidelines. We could get religious leaders from maybe Northern Ireland to do a quick presentation on their experiences, effective coping mechanisms…

 

[pnewton]

Maybe I’m just splitting hairs here, but I find it seriously problematic that people talk about this as punishment. It is not. The situation is a consequence of people’s actions. And very often they have been freely made. This is reality and not punishment. I think that the language used in MSM has creeped into the way we talk and think about it.

I feel the same way that it is problematic to use the word “consequence” because of its connotation to sin. Situations that arise from our actions may arise from our moral action, immoral actions or morally neutral actions. In this case, the consequences of actions may not be immoral, but might be morally neutral or morally good.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe you didn’t understand Emily’s post. She comes across to me as understanding quite well.

Tigg’s response address an underlying error for Catholics, namely a lack of understanding that the Catholic Church is the authoritative moral teacher. More to the point, in matters such as homosexual actions being objectively sinful, she is infallible. Performing an act that has been taught from the beginning of the Church as sinful, is the sin, not just disagreement. Whatever this synod comes up with to help people get to heave must account for reality, you know Truth, not just subjective opinion of what truth should be.

 

[ProVobis]

Whatever this synod comes up with to help people get to heave must account for reality, you know Truth, not just subjective opinion of what truth should be.

Well, if it’s of any consolation, death terminates all marriages so one doesn’t necessarily condemn himself to Hell by performing that act. (Of course, I’d welcome any responses from a moral theologian on that score.) However, scandal or bad example can’t be tolerated, according to the “rules” set by Christ. And full consent or knowledge of the sin isn’t required in these cases to keep one from receiving communion. A bishop may request or demand it.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

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.

No that’s incorrect. While Jesus was man, he was also Divine at the same time. He never ceased being Divine (i.e. God).

 

[Seraphim73]

No that’s incorrect. While Jesus was man, he was also Divine at the same time. He never ceased being Divine (i.e. God).

I’m not sure where people get the idea that Jesus was omniscient. Even your own catechism makes it clear He wasn’t. Scripture certainly does. I will say the more I think about it it’s kind of funny that we are here arguing about harsh language when apparently quite a few people don’t really believe in the Incarnation. If that sounds harsh I apologize. I certainly don’t intend it that way.

If you would like to join the discussion on this question come join us in apologetics.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=914120

 

[FollowChrist34]

No that’s incorrect. While Jesus was man, he was also Divine at the same time. He never ceased being Divine (i.e. God).

Agreed. My question is - is it blasphemy to assert that Jesus is only man? I would think so. Just wondering if anybody knows what the correct Catholic answer is.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Agreed. My question is - is it blasphemy to assert that Jesus is only man? I would think so. Just wondering if anybody knows what the correct Catholic answer is.

I think it’s not blasphemy unless intended as such. For the record, as you would expect, the Orthodox believe the same:

What Orthodox Christians Believe
GOD THE FATHER is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. The Scriptures reveal that the one God is Three Persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit–eternally sharing the one divine nature. From the Father the Son is begotten before all ages and all time (Psalm 2:7; 2 Corinthians 11:31). It is also from the Father that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (John 15:26). Through Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, we come to know the Father (Matthew 11:27). God the Father created all things through the Son, in the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1; 2; John 1:3; Job 33:4), and we are called to worship Him (John 4:23). The Father loves us and sent His Son to give us everlasting life (John 3:16).

JESUS CHRIST is the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally born of the Father. He became a man, and thus He is at once fully God and fully man. His coming to earth was foretold in the Old Testament by the Prophets. Because Jesus Christ is at the heart of Christianity, the Orthodox Church has given more attention to knowing Him than to anything or anyone else. In reciting the Nicene Creed, Orthodox Christians regularly affirm the historic faith concerning Jesus as they say, “I believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again from the dead, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose Kingdom shall have no end.”

THE HOLY SPIRIT is one of the Persons of the Trinity and is one in essence with the Father. Orthodox Christians repeatedly confess, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. . .” He is called the “Promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4), given by Christ as a gift to the Church, to empower the Church for service to God (Acts 1:8), to place God’s love in our hearts (Romans 5:5), and to impart spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7-13) and virtues (Galatians 5:22, 23) for Christian life and witness. Orthodox Christians believe the biblical promise that the Holy Spirit is given in chrismation (anointing) at baptism (Acts 2:38). We are to grow in our experience of the Holy Spirit for the rest of our lives.

**INCARNATION refers to Jesus Christ coming “in the flesh.” The eternal Son of God the Father assumed to Himself a complete human nature from the Virgin Mary. He was (and is) one divine Person, fully possessing from God the Father the entirety of the divine nature, and in His coming in the flesh fully possessing a human nature from Mary. By His Incarnation, the Son forever possesses two natures in His one Person. The Son of God, limitless in His divine nature, voluntarily and willingly accepted limitation in His humanity, in which He experienced hunger, thirst, fatigue–and ultimately, death. The Incarnation is indispensable to Christianity–there is no Christianity without it. The Scriptures record, “Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3). By His Incarnation, the Son of God redeemed human nature, a redemption made accessible to all who are joined to Him in His glorified humanity. **

 

[Lorelael]

I don’t post on here alot because I’m terrified of vocalizing my thoughts. Some people come across rather cruel even if they don’t intend to, and get rather technical.
As someone who is currently going through the RCIA process and getting ready to join the church, I think the way our Fr. explained some of the apologetics such as divorce and remarriage, living together, etc in a very loving manner. He stated we are all saints in training striving for holiness. We stumble and fall, but if we keep our eyes on the Lord we will get on the right path.
It took me a long time to come into the Catholic faith. The main reason is because I married a man who was previously married. (His previous wife was unfaithful) I understood the concept of the annulment and why it was necessary, however, in his past experiences, the harsh and often cruel manner it was presented, prevented us from ever considering coming home to the Catholic church. Even though I understand the concept, I truly feel it as a punishment on myself, since we were not Catholic at the time, and my husband divorced for proper reasons. Our current priest really explained it as a healing process that will strengthen out marriage of 20 years. He emphasized that church is not expressly for the holy, but it is essential for those in need of mercy.
So to sum up what I feel about a language change. Yes, I think the language needs to be slightly modified to emphasis mercy, without changing the doctrine itself. The process really needs to start at the pastoral care level where priests can help welcome and guide lost sheep back into the flock.

 

[Seraphim73]

I think it’s not blasphemy unless intended as such. For the record, as you would expect, the Orthodox believe the same:

INCARNATION refers to Jesus Christ coming “in the flesh.” The eternal Son of God the Father assumed to Himself a complete human nature from the Virgin Mary. He was (and is) one divine Person, fully possessing from God the Father the entirety of the divine nature, and in His coming in the flesh fully possessing a human nature from Mary. By His Incarnation, the Son forever possesses two natures in His one Person. The Son of God, limitless in His divine nature, voluntarily and willingly accepted limitation in His humanity, in which He experienced hunger, thirst, fatigue–and ultimately, death. The Incarnation is indispensable to Christianity–there is no Christianity without it. The Scriptures record, “Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3). By His Incarnation, the Son of God redeemed human nature, a redemption made accessible to all who are joined to Him in His glorified humanity.

I’m not sure who is saying Jesus is “just a man” but He most certainly was a man in the full sense of the word. And if you are taking this quote to be the Catholic position then we agree entirely. Jesus “voluntarily and willingly accepted limitation in His humanity” That is precisely what I am saying. He was limited in His humanity and therefore not omniscient. I mean I don’t understand how you can say Christ was limited in that He had to grow, got hungry, got tired, could be tempted and could suffer and even die but then go on to say He didn’t have human ignorance. It doesn’t make any sense. It seems to me like the position that He was omniscient makes His Passion and death completely superfluous. Nothing more than cosmic theater.

 

[Weejee]

I
S The process really needs to start at the pastoral care level where priests can help welcome and guide lost sheep back into the flock.

Yes Ma’am. That’s what it all comes down to: THE LOCAL CHURCH. PARISHES. How we are treated there. I was reading the singles page here, and single people are mostly ignored by the church. They get little ministry, unless they are teens! Local churches aren’t friendly to newcomers either. And one way to disciple (teach) people, is to have small groups that meet at people’s houses, but that does not go on in very many churches either.

We’ll never be able to help the poor unless the efforts come from THE LOCAL CHURCH. That is what really and truly needs to be reformed. LOCAL pastoral practises.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m not sure who is saying Jesus is “just a man” but He most certainly was a man in the full sense of the word. And if you are taking this quote to be the Catholic position then we agree entirely. Jesus “voluntarily and willingly accepted limitation in His humanity” That is precisely what I am saying. He was limited in His humanity and therefore not omniscient. I mean I don’t understand how you can say Christ was limited in that He had to grow, got hungry, got tired, could be tempted and could suffer and even die but then go on to say He didn’t have human ignorance. It doesn’t make any sense. It seems to me like the position that He was omniscient makes His Passion and death completely superfluous. Nothing more than cosmic theater.

He has two natures, human and divine. This is Catholic doctrine below - CCC; above was Orthodox summary. He did live and suffer as a man in everything but sin. He possessed a divine nature throughout and was omniscient.

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN
464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:
“What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed”, sings the Roman Liturgy.95 And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"96
IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?
470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98
The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99
Christ’s soul and his human knowledge
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100
**472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109
Christ’s human will **475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111
Christ’s true body
476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ’s body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113
477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ’s body express the divine person of God’s Son. He has made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when portrayed in a holy image, for the believer “who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted”.115

 

[Seraphim73]

He has two natures, human and divine. This is Catholic doctrine below - CCC; above was Orthodox summary. He did live and suffer as a man in everything but sin. He possessed a divine nature throughout and was omniscient.

Don’t forget the Hypostatic Union. Everyone is talking about His human nature and His divine nature. Don’t forget that He is one person. It seems pretty plain to me from Scripture and from the very quote you posted from the CCC that the person was not omniscient because Jesus was circumscribed in His humanity. Look at what the catechism says again.

By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

If He didn’t know something He wasn’t omniscient. Omniscience is all knowing. And yes of course He is omniscient in His divine nature and not in His human but you can’t separate the two. We are talking hypostases and not nature.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Don’t forget the Hypostatic Union. Everyone is talking about His human nature and His divine nature. Don’t forget that He is one person. It seems pretty plain to me from Scripture and from the very quote you posted from the CCC that the person was not omniscient because Jesus was circumscribed in His humanity. Look at what the catechism says again.

If He didn’t know something He wasn’t omniscient. Omniscience is all knowing. And yes of course He is omniscient in His divine nature and not in His human but you can’t separate the two. We are talking hypostases and not nature.

But he elsewhere states he is not sent to reveal correct?

 

[DlandFan06]

I hardly ever hear anyone referred to as “living in sin,” anymore, or even as just “shacking up.” The new term is “cohabiting,” which sounds more neutral but means the same thing.

As for “contraceptive mentality,” I don’t have any good suggestions. The term really denotes nearly the entire secularist mindset, which has led to the sexual revolution and a host of social ills. If there is a better term that doesn’t sugar coat the reality, fine.

And “intrinsically disordered,” is a useful term. There are a lot of desires that are intrinsically disordered, besides same sex attraction. There is a disordered attraction to adultery, to fornication, to greed, to envy, to every possible bad action under the sun. If we can’t call our disordered attractions disordered, how can we avoid them?

I don’t know how this is harsh language, y’know?

 

[Seraphim73]

But he elsewhere states he is not sent to reveal correct?

And as the catechism says He does not know what He is not sent to reveal. I just looked at the Greek to make sure and in Matthew 24:36 clearly says that the “Father alone” (Πατήρ μου μόνος) knows the day and hour. How else do you explain Jesus saying this? And I don’t think it’s proper to say that here He is speaking as a human and in other places He is speaking as God. That separates the natures and as Chalcedon makes clear we can’t do that.

 

[FollowChrist34]

And as the catechism says He does not know what He is not sent to reveal. I just looked at the Greek to make sure and in Matthew 24:36 clearly says that the “Father alone” (Πατήρ μου μόνος) knows the day and hour. How else do you explain Jesus saying this? And I don’t think it’s proper to say that here He is speaking as a human and in other places He is speaking as God. That separates the natures and as Chalcedon makes clear we can’t do that.

I don’t see what is troubling about this:

WHAT he does not know IN THIS AREA, ELSEWHERE HE DECLARES HE WAS NOT SENT TO REVEAL.

I have heard about the tizzy that some people have about this issue - I don’t share in it. I know that Jesus says that no one knows the time when the Father will come; but he ALSO states he is not sent to reveal this information.

Believe me, there are tons of contradictions in Scripture if that is what you are getting at.