And on Earth peace to people of good will

[OneSheep]

“and on Earth peace to people of good will”

Of all the new translated parts of the mass, this line is the one that gives me the biggest stumble. Why would I change my prayer from “and peace to His (God’s) people on Earth” to only the people of “good will”? There are two issues here:

1. Would I not wish peace to people of “bad will”? If someone wills to do something bad, maybe a little peace from God would fix his/her eyes and their will would change.
2. A question is begged in the first place. Who are the people of “bad will”? This is a matter of perspective. It is reasonable to say that all people have “good will” within the limits of their own awareness or lack of awareness. The racist is not aware of the humanity of those he/she resents. The typical robber is not aware of the value of his victims, and probably not aware of his/her own value in God’s eyes. Is the issue one of will or blindness?

 

[pollycarp]

In my old Latin Mass missal the gloria says “peace to men of good will.”
That’s what works for me. :twocents:

 

[MrPip]

“and on Earth peace to people of good will”

Of all the new translated parts of the mass, this line is the one that gives me the biggest stumble. Why would I change my prayer from “and peace to His (God’s) people on Earth” to only the people of “good will”? There are two issues here:

1. Would I not wish peace to people of “bad will”? If someone wills to do something bad, maybe a little peace from God would fix his/her eyes and their will would change.
2. A question is begged in the first place. Who are the people of “bad will”? This is a matter of perspective. It is reasonable to say that all people have “good will” within the limits of their own awareness or lack of awareness. The racist is not aware of the humanity of those he/she resents. The typical robber is not aware of the value of his victims, and probably not aware of his/her own value in God’s eyes. Is the issue one of will or blindness?

Luke 2:14

From the RSV: “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

From Douay Rheims: “Glory to God in the highest;
and on earth peace to men of good will.”

I believe it’s a translation issue.

(Methinks you’ve read more into the change than is there .)

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[Gorgias]

“and on Earth peace to people of good will”

Of all the new translated parts of the mass, this line is the one that gives me the biggest stumble. Why would I change my prayer from “and peace to His (God’s) people on Earth” to only the people of “good will”?

Because this more accurately reflects the wording of the passage of Scripture that this statement comes from?

Luke 2:13-14 – "And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.’ ”

 

[Brendan]

If the angels sang it in praise of the birth of our Lord, how could it be incorrect?

If anything, it should be a reminder that if we desire peace in our lives, we need to seek out the favor of God.

For if God is not involved in our lives, if we are not living our lives in a way that is pleasing to God, can we really know peace?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“and on Earth peace to people of good will”

Of all the new translated parts of the mass, this line is the one that gives me the biggest stumble. Why would I change my prayer from “and peace to His (God’s) people on Earth” to only the people of “good will”? There are two issues here:

1. Would I not wish peace to people of “bad will”? If someone wills to do something bad, maybe a little peace from God would fix his/her eyes and their will would change.
2. A question is begged in the first place. Who are the people of “bad will”? This is a matter of perspective. It is reasonable to say that all people have “good will” within the limits of their own awareness or lack of awareness. The racist is not aware of the humanity of those he/she resents. The typical robber is not aware of the value of his victims, and probably not aware of his/her own value in God’s eyes. Is the issue one of will or blindness?

I look at the “good will” as the Good Will that the Father has given us, which include peace and other fruit of the spirit, gifts, promises, etc. I would think this Good Will is offered to every member of the Body of Christ. (Especially, in fact, the less ‘respectable’ ones – 1 Cor 12:22-25)

What do you think of that idea? What if “people of good will” were every member of the Body, though received by varying degrees and not necessarily based on which member they are acting as, or are, depending how you are pleased to word it.

Alan

 

[Darran]

A question is begged in the first place. Who are the people of “bad will”? This is a matter of perspective.

Yikes, becareful you don’t fall in to relativism here.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Yikes, becareful you don’t fall in to relativism here.

Right off, I don’t see where the OP is in danger or “relativism” here. Could you please expand on what you are cautioning against?

Alan

 

[Darran]

Right off, I don’t see where the OP is in danger or “relativism” here. Could you please expand on what you are cautioning against?

Alan

I don’t see what there is to misunderstand.

To the OP: the blessing then, would also fall on anyone who genuinely didn’t know any better. You have to remember though that evil isn’t exactly a minority, everyone is equiped with the reasoning and conscience that God gave them to avoid falling into sin. Although I don’t think I need to tell you that, you can tell me if I picked you up wrong.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t see what there is to misunderstand.

OK… standing by…

 

[fred_conty]

This might be a matter for the scholars since it envolves translation. But I still like “peace on earth, goodwill to men.” It seems to go better with “love your enemies.”

Just a thought.

 

[OneSheep]

Luke 2:14

From the RSV: “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

From Douay Rheims: “Glory to God in the highest;
and on earth peace to men of good will.”

I believe it’s a translation issue.

(Methinks you’ve read more into the change than is there .)

In Christ,
Jeff

Thanks, Jeff, maybe I have read too much into it. The fact is that I read “too much” into the former “and peace to His people on Earth”, making it all-inclusive. The all-inclusive is still my prayer, and will always be my prayer, but that doesn’t mean that I exclude anyone when I focus a prayer on a particular group. I can live with the change.

To the OP: the blessing then, would also fall on anyone who genuinely didn’t know any better. You have to remember though that evil isn’t exactly a minority, everyone is equiped with the reasoning and conscience that God gave them to avoid falling into sin. Although I don’t think I need to tell you that, you can tell me if I picked you up wrong.

Thanks for your response. Can you come up with a counter-example to this statement: “When people sin, they do so without knowing any better.”?

I wonder what your thoughts are on this: God gave us the capacity for equipping our conscience, but the content of that conscience can be misinformed. For example, a person growing up oppressed or violated by a particular race or ideology of people might understandably develop a conscience that says “those people are bad”, and see that “those people’s destruction is good as a means of eliminating a danger to the world.” You and I can observe the subsequent destructive behavior as hurtful, and would do well to condemn the behavior, but “good will” is still practiced by all the players. Don’t all of us have a blindness to overcome?

I look at the “good will” as the Good Will that the Father has given us, which include peace and other fruit of the spirit, gifts, promises, etc. I would think this Good Will is offered to every member of the Body of Christ. (Especially, in fact, the less ‘respectable’ ones – 1 Cor 12:22-25)

What do you think of that idea? What if “people of good will” were every member of the Body, though received by varying degrees and not necessarily based on which member they are acting as, or are, depending how you are pleased to word it.

Alan

I suppose for all my life I enjoyed the liberty of having the Gloria be more inclusive. Depends on the definition of the Body. If the Body includes all humans, which works for me, then I won’t stumble on it. If the Body includes only Christians, then why would I discontinue praying for peace to All people, like I had before, because isn’t everyone “His people on Earth”? Don’t we all belong?

This might be a matter for the scholars since it envolves translation. But I still like “peace on earth, goodwill to men.” It seems to go better with “love your enemies.”

Just a thought.

I agree completely.

 

[Darran]

Thanks for your response. Can you come up with a counter-example to this statement: “When people sin, they do so without knowing any better.”?

To say that would be self-contradictory. If someone can’t know any better then they can’t sin.

I wonder what your thoughts are on this: God gave us the capacity for equipping our conscience, but the content of that conscience can be misinformed. For example, a person growing up oppressed or violated by a particular race or ideology of people might understandably develop a conscience that says “those people are bad”, and see that “those people’s destruction is good as a means of eliminating a danger to the world.”

That would be more indoctrination than re-configuring conscience. Conscience itself can’t be changed, it’s more something outside us. It can be oppressed, but if it was possible to change then for some people it would be impossible for them to turn to God and repent, but that isn’t and can’t be true. It would also mean in a different sense that free will wouldn’t exist, and that it would entirely depend on your formation. That is the definition of relativism that I warned about.

To maybe give a better understanding of what conscience is, to quote from CS Lewis:

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.

…the point is that they are more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility

You and I can observe the subsequent destructive behavior as hurtful, and would do well to condemn the behavior, but “good will” is still practiced by all the players. Don’t all of us have a blindness to overcome?

To be honest that particular example isn’t a very good one, you seem to presuppose relativism in the question from the start, I don’t know if that’s intentional or not. To answer your first examples in your first post though, racists and robbers both know what they are doing is wrong, always. Everyone always does, with the exception of people who have genuinely no possible way of controlling of what they do. They always understand in some way, deep down. God doesn’t make mistakes, we do.

 

[Darran]

This might be a matter for the scholars since it envolves translation. But I still like “peace on earth, goodwill to men.” It seems to go better with “love your enemies.”

Just a thought.

The two are quite different though. Brendan and Gorgias hit the nail on the head.

 

[OneSheep]

To be honest that particular example isn’t a very good one, you seem to presuppose relativism in the question from the start, I don’t know if that’s intentional or not. To answer your first examples in your first post though, racists and robbers both know what they are doing is wrong, always. Everyone always does, with the exception of people who have genuinely no possible way of controlling of what they do. They always understand in some way, deep down. God doesn’t make mistakes, we do.

Relativism, to a some degree, is a simple reality. What one group, for example the Roma, see as “right” (i.e. theft of non-Roma stuff) is absolutely against the morals of another. This is a matter of cultural experience. There is no doubt, however, that there are mores that develop universally in the human, as a result of our own natural empathy. I don’t believe these are “injected”; they are developed and are tweaked by individual experience. I am not saying that the Roma are “right” in their theft, any more than a person is “right” when they are ignorant of the humanity of the unborn and seek an abortion for convenience’s sake. There is a morality of empathy, enlightenment and love, which all come from God, and excludes such acts.

Using Jesus’ famous “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” as a starting point, all hurtful behavior can be seen to have ignorance as a core, vital factor, then motivated by our own God-given impulses. The crowd that hung Jesus sought to rid themselves of an evil blasphemer. Racists seek to rid the world of “those people”. The racists wanting to eliminate the evil is part of our good nature, the ignorance of the humanity of the “others” is a blindness developed through resentment. Robbers (to generalize) have their own active morality in the moment “they have the stuff that I want” and often (if not always) “they deserve to get robbed because they did not protect themselves.” The “good” they seek is their own material wealth, and they are not cognizant of the humanity of their victims, the victim is just some other dude of no significance. Indeed, if the robber sees himself as a person of no significance, or has been hardened to the point where he ignores his own pain, he won’t be able to empathize with the pain of others. The robber is not likely to steal from his own loved ones, but it happens. In those cases, we are usually talking about stealing to buy drugs, and that is when desperation becomes part of the equation.

Now, if when reading the last paragraph one got the sickening feeling accompanying the thought “a bunch of excuses”, try reading it again in light of forgiveness, and keep in mind that I am not eliminating punishment as a deterrent. People don’t know what they are doing when they hurt others, because, as with those who hung Jesus, they are blind to the humanity of their victims. Think of a time when you hurt a person. Can you honestly say that you were fully cognizant of the goodness of the person you hurt? Or were you blinded by resentment, or just ignorant of their feelings? Find the reason, rather than jump to the condemnation. If you were blinded by resentment, then the “sin” was a failure to forgive. But don’t leave it at that. Why did I fail to forgive? Is it because forgiveness is not habitual? Is it because I simply did not think of it? When we can learn to truly understand ourselves and see the blindness in our own past behaviors, we can also see the blindness in others. Then the Kingdom becomes a lot to do with eliminating such blindness by encouraging forgiveness, with understanding of behaviors playing a key role.

And yes, I think “free will” is limited by our own ignorance.

 

[Darran]

Relativism, to a some degree, is a simple reality. What one group, for example the Roma, see as “right” (i.e. theft of non-Roma stuff) is absolutely against the morals of another. This is a matter of cultural experience. There is no doubt, however, that there are mores that develop universally in the human, as a result of our own natural empathy. I don’t believe these are “injected”; they are developed and are tweaked by individual experience. I am not saying that the Roma are “right” in their theft, any more than a person is “right” when they are ignorant of the humanity of the unborn and seek an abortion for convenience’s sake. There is a morality of empathy, enlightenment and love, which all come from God, and excludes such acts.

Using Jesus’ famous “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” as a starting point, all hurtful behavior can be seen to have ignorance as a core, vital factor, then motivated by our own God-given impulses. The crowd that hung Jesus sought to rid themselves of an evil blasphemer. Racists seek to rid the world of “those people”. The racists wanting to eliminate the evil is part of our good nature, the ignorance of the humanity of the “others” is a blindness developed through resentment. Robbers (to generalize) have their own active morality in the moment “they have the stuff that I want” and often (if not always) “they deserve to get robbed because they did not protect themselves.” The “good” they seek is their own material wealth, and they are not cognizant of the humanity of their victims, the victim is just some other dude of no significance. Indeed, if the robber sees himself as a person of no significance, or has been hardened to the point where he ignores his own pain, he won’t be able to empathize with the pain of others. The robber is not likely to steal from his own loved ones, but it happens. In those cases, we are usually talking about stealing to buy drugs, and that is when desperation becomes part of the equation.

Now, if when reading the last paragraph one got the sickening feeling accompanying the thought “a bunch of excuses”, try reading it again in light of forgiveness, and keep in mind that I am not eliminating punishment as a deterrent. People don’t know what they are doing when they hurt others, because, as with those who hung Jesus, they are blind to the humanity of their victims. Think of a time when you hurt a person. Can you honestly say that you were fully cognizant of the goodness of the person you hurt? Or were you blinded by resentment, or just ignorant of their feelings? Find the reason, rather than jump to the condemnation. If you were blinded by resentment, then the “sin” was a failure to forgive. But don’t leave it at that. Why did I fail to forgive? Is it because forgiveness is not habitual? Is it because I simply did not think of it? When we can learn to truly understand ourselves and see the blindness in our own past behaviors, we can also see the blindness in others. Then the Kingdom becomes a lot to do with eliminating such blindness by encouraging forgiveness, with understanding of behaviors playing a key role.

And yes, I think “free will” is limited by our own ignorance.

I think you ought to attent a few court cases and/or delve deeper into the philosophy behind the laws of morality. Morals don’t change from person to person, but bias does (due to our fallen nature). Relativism isn’t ever true. If it were, it would mean that truth doesn’t apply to everything which would conflict with objective morality (to say that truth contradicts or changes). It seems you might be confusing various spycological elements with conscience. Is there a certain real-life nation or people behind your examples?

Sin is always sin, and sin always acts against our conscience. Ignorance may mitigate sin to a certain varying extent (that is impossible for us to judge, as per the precept) but there is more outright, fully willed evil in the world than I think you understand. The angel’s first sin was so perfectly-willed that it was the only one needed to be thrown out of Heaven forever. Man is also more than capable of this, and very easily. It’s by our own will that we get rid of as much ignorance as we possibly can, a person can also be guilty of not wanting to get rid of it.

In the case of Jesus’ words, you cannot take them in defence of an argument towards general humanity. It is very, very possible that the people present were whole or in part, possessed. Something which several mystics have mentioned.

To sum:
You’re right in thinking that ignorance can reduce culpability, but that is impossible for us to calculate and calculate correctly. That is left to God alone. To say that nobody who sins understands, is to say that no sin exists, which is not true. You have to understand these.

 

[LilyM]

But even those who ‘know not what they do’ (ie lack full understanding and knowledge) still sin, and sin grievously - otherwise there would be no need for the Father to forgive them.

Adam and Eve sinned, and mortally. Of course they weren’t aware of the full ramifications of what they were doing, not nearly. But in knowing that God had forbidden them to eat the fruit, and that they would die if they ate, they knew enough to ne condemned, without understanding original sin and all the rest.

Relativism, to a some degree, is a simple reality. What one group, for example the Roma, see as “right” (i.e. theft of non-Roma stuff) is absolutely against the morals of another. This is a matter of cultural experience. There is no doubt, however, that there are mores that develop universally in the human, as a result of our own natural empathy. I don’t believe these are “injected”; they are developed and are tweaked by individual experience. I am not saying that the Roma are “right” in their theft, any more than a person is “right” when they are ignorant of the humanity of the unborn and seek an abortion for convenience’s sake. There is a morality of empathy, enlightenment and love, which all come from God, and excludes such acts.

Using Jesus’ famous “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” as a starting point, all hurtful behavior can be seen to have ignorance as a core, vital factor, then motivated by our own God-given impulses. The crowd that hung Jesus sought to rid themselves of an evil blasphemer. Racists seek to rid the world of “those people”. The racists wanting to eliminate the evil is part of our good nature, the ignorance of the humanity of the “others” is a blindness developed through resentment. Robbers (to generalize) have their own active morality in the moment “they have the stuff that I want” and often (if not always) “they deserve to get robbed because they did not protect themselves.” The “good” they seek is their own material wealth, and they are not cognizant of the humanity of their victims, the victim is just some other dude of no significance. Indeed, if the robber sees himself as a person of no significance, or has been hardened to the point where he ignores his own pain, he won’t be able to empathize with the pain of others. The robber is not likely to steal from his own loved ones, but it happens. In those cases, we are usually talking about stealing to buy drugs, and that is when desperation becomes part of the equation.

Now, if when reading the last paragraph one got the sickening feeling accompanying the thought “a bunch of excuses”, try reading it again in light of forgiveness, and keep in mind that I am not eliminating punishment as a deterrent. People don’t know what they are doing when they hurt others, because, as with those who hung Jesus, they are blind to the humanity of their victims. Think of a time when you hurt a person. Can you honestly say that you were fully cognizant of the goodness of the person you hurt? Or were you blinded by resentment, or just ignorant of their feelings? Find the reason, rather than jump to the condemnation. If you were blinded by resentment, then the “sin” was a failure to forgive. But don’t leave it at that. Why did I fail to forgive? Is it because forgiveness is not habitual? Is it because I simply did not think of it? When we can learn to truly understand ourselves and see the blindness in our own past behaviors, we can also see the blindness in others. Then the Kingdom becomes a lot to do with eliminating such blindness by encouraging forgiveness, with understanding of behaviors playing a key role.

And yes, I think “free will” is limited by our own ignorance.

 

[OneSheep]

But even those who ‘know not what they do’ (ie lack full understanding and knowledge) still sin, and sin grievously - otherwise there would be no need for the Father to forgive them.

Adam and Eve sinned, and mortally. Of course they weren’t aware of the full ramifications of what they were doing, not nearly. But in knowing that God had forbidden them to eat the fruit, and that they would die if they ate, they knew enough to ne condemned, without understanding original sin and all the rest.

Very good point. It could be read that “Since Jesus calls for God’s forgiveness, then God must not have forgiven (yet).” In my own prayer life, God forgives all the time, every time, before I have even asked. Do we realize such forgiveness? Probably not. We project that God condemns and that God only forgives when we are repentant (conditional forgiveness). It makes sense, but is it God? However, in a psychological sense, if I don’t forgive all those who trespass against me, including trespasses against my own moral code, then I will continue to condemn self and others, and the wholeness that comes from forgiveness will not take place. I will continue to project a condemning God.

Did God condemn Adam and Eve? Well, I suppose the writers of the story projected so. Again, to me, God knew that they were going to disobey and forgave them before it happened. The price of giving your creation (man) autonomy is that it may, and will, disobey.

In my view, we humans can certainly project that God resents disobedience, and functionally such projection aids in the development of our own moral and cooperative behavior, which is essential in maintaining group harmony.

Have we all forgiven Adam and Eve? Maybe I should start a new thread on that.

 

[OneSheep]

wanting

to get rid of it.

In the case of Jesus’ words, you cannot take them in defence of an argument towards general humanity. It is very, very possible that the people present were whole or in part, possessed. Something which several mystics have mentioned.

To sum:
You’re right in thinking that ignorance can reduce culpability, but that is impossible for us to calculate and calculate correctly. That is left to God alone. To say that nobody who sins understands, is to say that no sin exists, which is not true. You have to understand these.

Okay, I’ll say it. “People who ‘sin’ do not know what they are doing.” I repeat myself to say “People who do hurtful things to others do not know what they are doing.” Please, can you come up with a counterexample? Please don’t take this as a competition though, on who is “dominant” in this discussion. It is a matter of arm-chair inquiry. You may have a really plausible example, something that I did not consider.

A priest once told me “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” This is a key aspect of forgiveness. It is a matter of letting go of the urge to punish and to really work toward understanding why people do what they do. Can you let go of the “culpability” factor for a moment and get into the “why” factor?

To me, much of the discussion of this should be applied more personally. “Why do I behave?” Do I behave to escape the wrath or non-acceptance from God, or do I behave out of love and empathy, or a little of both? If I behave morally to escape the wrath of God (a stage we must all experience), I am stuck in the mode where I am seeing some others, and self, as being out of favor (deserving punishment) with God, and in such case my empathy toward self and others is compromised.

The answer is to forgive everyone, including ourselves, for our hurtful behaviors. Have you done this? Have you discovered the ignorance in every one of your trespasses on others? Sorry for the invasive questions, I just don’t like to assume.

Oh, and one last comment: If a person is wanting to remain ignorant, this calls for further inquiry. Finding the next question is key. “Why does the person want to remain ignorant?” This is an avenue for deeper understanding. If I just condemn it, I close the door. But there we go with one possible answer. I may not want to look further into why a person chooses to remain ignorant because I am in the punishment mode, just as I am possibly in the punishment mode if I merely condemn someone for “wanting to remain ignorant”.

 

[Darran]

Let me just correct a few things here for you. Not to be annoying or over-analysing (I apologise if I do pick you up wrong) but so that you might have a better idea.

Very good point. It could be read that “Since Jesus calls for God’s forgiveness, then God must not have forgiven (yet).” In my own prayer life, God forgives all the time, every time, before I have even asked. Do we realize such forgiveness? Probably not. We project that God condemns and that God only forgives when we are repentant (conditional forgiveness). It makes sense, but is it God?

Forgiveness is always conditional. God wont forgive anyone who isn’t sorry, precisely because he is Just. Injustice isn’t just punishing someone too much, it is also punishing too little or none at all. God is capable of forgiving someone before they repent on occasion, but it is precisely because He is omnipotent and knows that you will repent of it, but also that can’t be relied on.

I would still recommend you take your sins to the confessional though if you aren’t already, mortal sins particularly.

However, in a psychological sense, if I don’t forgive all those who trespass against me, including trespasses against my own moral code, then I will continue to condemn self and others, and the wholeness that comes from forgiveness will not take place. I will continue to project a condemning God.

Forgiving someone is more of a spiritual thing than psycological. God doesn’t want us to forgive others so that we don’t condemn anyone, (Luke 17:3) condemnation of sin is extremely important. He wants us to be like Him and not to be hypocritical in asking for mercy when we don’t allow it to others. Even when other people sin against us it’s God who is chiefly offended - He isn’t ruled under the same laws that He gives us.

Did God condemn Adam and Eve? Well, I suppose the writers of the story projected so. Again, to me, God knew that they were going to disobey and forgave them before it happened. The price of giving your creation (man) autonomy is that it may, and will, disobey.

Adam and Eve were perfect humans, like the angels were perfect. When they sinned it was more direct and intentional than sins that we are far more often capable of, (think of a dive from Mt Everest as opposed to a fall from a curb) because they did not have a fallen nature. It was from them that every other man inherited that.

As for their forgiveness, it isn’t something we can really know. I wonder if it also constitutes judging, but I don’t know.

Have we all forgiven Adam and Eve? Maybe I should start a new thread on that.

That is actually a very good question.