Are we too self-absorbed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Notice I did not refer to church with a capital “C”. It may take a while for the un-evangelized to enter the doors of our churches. We keep saying “you have to come to church, you have to come to Mass…” Fine, but what is needed for the celebration of the Eucharist to have real meaning is for people to be in a relationship with Christ. Are we looking to get up the numbers of people coming to Mass or to up the numbers of people having a relationship with Christ through the Church (with a capital C). When the latter happens, the former will naturally follow.

Yes, sometimes people will wander into churches and be captivated by the Mass, or the preaching of a particular priest, or the beauty of a service, but most often they come to Mass after having the desire to grow in their budding relationship with Christ. This is based on years of experience with RCIA. Many come to us without having a relationship with Christ. They come because they are marrying a Catholic, or they have a friend who has been speaking to them about Jesus and they want to know more. We begin with their relationship with Christ. If they don’t come to Mass every week at first (thought we would like that), then that is fine (for now). But eventually most come to see the importance of coming to Mass and will become active participants at Sunday liturgy. But we can’t always begin there.
I think we may be talking about two different things. I would agree if your talking about evangelizing a non believer then we need to begin with a relationship with Jesus. But your op seemed to be referring to lapsed Catholics. A protestant will claim to have a relationship with Christ and many will say they only need Christ and not a church or a religion re: that video on youtube awhile ago and also you see that claim made many times on this forum. Look at many protestant denominations and the result of that…women ordination, acceptance of homosexual marriage, contraception, divorce. I refer to no studies just my opinion but I believe many who leave the Catholic Church or become lapsed do so because they do not accept a doctrine or dogma. Many look at the teachings of the Catholic Church as political ideology (liberal, conservative) instead of as the teachings of Jesus. That is why I think in evangelizing we should be focusing on salvation through Jesus who founded the Catholic Church and the Truth of the Church’s teachings. That is what I am referring to when I say Jesus and His Church are One and the Same.
 
I can’t legislate love. Faith without love is dead. I have to stimulate love. To do this, I can’t be at odds with the person whose faith I’m trying to strengthen.

Are we too self-absorbed for our own good and the good of the Church?
Not only that but we have to first experience love of God. Many of us associate that experience with a certain form of prayer or ritual or even lifestyle. That can lead to self-absorbtion. In contrast to that he says

(272)
When we live out a spirituality of drawing nearer to others and seeking their welfare, our hearts are opened wide to the Lord’s greatest and most beautiful gifts. Whenever we encounter another person in love, we learn something new about God.

He certainly seems to be challenging us introverts, us wannabe contemplatives. In paragraph 81 he starts to talk about selfishness and spiritual sloth:

This is frequently due to the fact that people feel an overbearing need to guard their personal freedom, as though the task of evangelization was a dangerous poison rather than a joyful response to God’s love which summons us to mission and makes us fulfilled and productive. Some resist giving themselves over completely to mission and thus end up in a state of paralysis and acedia.

We all have a danger of leaning toward self absorbtion and that means the Church as a whole. We all need to be continually evangelized by Scripture, personal prayer and getting involved in the lives of other people, especially the poor and vulnerable. We will “get mud on our shoes” and “smell of the sheep” and be spiritually refreshed and renewed and continually grow deeper in the knowledge and love of Jesus, not on our own terms but on his. We do not need to be concerned with self preservation.
 
I had occasion to share this on another forum, but it fits here rather well also, under Brother Jay’s topic. I quote paragraphs from EWTN’s article from Msgr. Guardini that pertain to self absorption during liturgy.

II. Fellowship of the Liturgy.
The individual has to renounce his own ideas and his own way. He is obliged to subscribe to the ideas and to follow the lead of the liturgy. To it he must surrender his independence; pray with others, and not alone; obey, instead of freely disposing of himself; and stand in the ranks, instead of moving about at his own will and pleasure.

It is, furthermore, the task of the individual to apprehend clearly the ideal world of the liturgy. He must shake off the narrow trammels of his own thought, and make his own a far more comprehensive world of ideas: he must go beyond his little personal aims and adopt the educative purpose of the great fellowship of the liturgy.

It goes without saying, therefore, that he is obliged to take part in exercises which do not respond to the particular needs of which he is conscious; that he must ask for things which do not directly concern him; espouse and plead before God causes which do not affect him personally, and which merely arise out of the needs of the community at large; he must at times–and this is inevitable in so richly developed a system of symbols, prayer and action–take part in proceedings of which he does not entirely, if at all, understand the significance.
All this is particularly difficult for modern people, who find it so hard to renounce their independence.

The requirements of the liturgy can be summed up in one word, humility. Humility by renunciation; that is to say, by the abdication of self-rule and self-sufficiency. And humility by positive action; that is to say, by the acceptance of the spiritual principles which the liturgy offers and which far transcend the little world of individual spiritual existence.

From the man of individualistic disposition, then, a sacrifice for the good of the community is required; from the man of social disposition, submission to the austere restraint which characterizes liturgical fellowship. While the former must accustom himself to frequenting the company of his fellows, and must acknowledge that he is only a man among men, the latter must learn to subscribe to the noble, restrained forms which etiquette requires in the House and at the Court of the Divine Majesty.
 
Something that appears problematic to me is that people are using the language and translation issues mentioned by the OP as an excuse to say, “The pope’s words do not apply to me and my idea of the perfect Church or society.” Those on both the left and the right seem to be doing this.

And yes, I know I tend to be too self-absorbed, something I must always struggle to keep in check
Yes, I see this quite a bit. Both here in CAF and other places. First, we are so self absorbed that we immediately and only think that the Pope must, of course, be talking about the US (and only the US) in whatever remarks he makes. And then we find a way to wiggle out of whatever lesson may be inferred from what he said. 😦

I’m trying very hard to see his words as having both application across the globe and for me personally, individually. The issues of how his words might be impactful to the US government or the USCCB are for the government officals and the bishops to figure out.

As Cat says, I have enough trouble keeping up with my daily responsibilities - and certainly could do more to develop my inner life - without worrying about all that other stuff.
 
Yes, I see this quite a bit. Both here in CAF and other places. First, we are so self absorbed that we immediately and only think that the Pope must, of course, be talking about the US (and only the US) in whatever remarks he makes. And then we find a way to wiggle out of whatever lesson may be inferred from what he said. 😦

I’m trying very hard to see his words as having both application across the globe and for me personally, individually. The issues of how his words might be impactful to the US government or the USCCB are for the government officals and the bishops to figure out.

As Cat says, I have enough trouble keeping up with my daily responsibilities - and certainly could do more to develop my inner life - without worrying about all that other stuff.
Yes, so many of us are viewing and interpreting the Holy Father’s words through the lens of our own self-interest, no doubt. His immediate predecessor was so precise and thorough in everything he said, that relatively few people ever took the time to even read his words! This pope seems tailor-made for our (my) shorter attention span, employing a less formal and more concise style that better lends itself to sound-bites - and the kind of speculative, biased interpretation we are seeing.

The wisest among us are not pointing fingers at others saying, “The Pope is talking about you! You need to change!” Rather, we would each look in the mirror at our own lives and values, to see where we might be falling short, too comfortable in our own self-satisfaction. A little more of this is a kind of self-absorption - examining my own life to see where Francis is exhorting me to change for the better - would not be a bad thing.
 
Are we too self-absorbed for our own good and the good of the Church?
The laity aren’t in a context to preach the Gospel as such. America, Canada, France or the UK are not gigantic Churches. The Gospel is not being explicitly challenged in social issues like abortion or homosexuality. Often it is not even intentionally being challenged at all: people sincerely think that practices like abortion or homosexuality are legitimate and follow from secular principles (which actually endangers those principles) and have no religious agenda at all. Bringing up the Gospel would seem random and out of place - unnecessary. The promoters and defenders of these practices are not proposing them simply as being signs or symbols of contempt of God or means for contradicting the Gospel. They propose them on the basis of things like rights (freedom of choice or right to self-determination).

Vatican II and the Catechism both make it clear that the laity are to imbue the principles of the Gospel into the general culture but not by proselytizing. Raising Christ as the reason on CNN no one should have an abortion or perform a homosexual act will get you traction, possibly, with Christians; it has no merit for anyone else. I could argue that because of the Incarnation all women should refrain from procuring an abortion and all people whatsoever should refrain from doing anything to support abortion either in general or in individual cases. That is true but, again, presupposes an understanding of the Incarnation or an acceptance of it. In my opinion, priests and religious need to stress this to the faithful and other Christians especially; the laity generally, however, in their secular context, need to imbue the principles involved in secular terms that are or can be commonly acknowledged. It is less scandalous to see two Catholics arguing about the proper formulation for a definition of human dignity in law or practice; it would be completely scandalous to see two Catholics arguing over a proper theological formulation for the Incarnation in the context of defending human life or ending abortion - e.g., live on CNN where the topic is abortion! It’s for the Magisterium to define such things.

There is an overlap of general values or beliefs when it comes to opposition to abortion; namely, abhorrence at murder or the arbitrary ending of an innocent human life. There is a common belief in the right to life. These values and beliefs are shared across the board and already enshrined in national and international law. Belief in the Incarnation of the Son of God is not generally or commonly shared and even more “misunderstood” than anything you mentioned, JR.

Homosexuality.

I can’t understand how the pope at one time says we need to be less self-obsessed as a Church and then bring up homosexuality as an instance. Homosexuality is at its most disconcerting exactly because it becomes a manifestation of being dangerously (from the perspective of societal well being) self-obsessed. I see a lot of narcissism among homosexuals - even members of my family - that they acquire over time and it makes it exceedingly difficult to have a calm, reasonable conversation with them: and it’s not just homosexuals, but even heterosexual defenders of homosexual practices can become almost hysterical when the issue comes up. In more personal contexts it is easier to bring up God and Christ - in a one-to-one dialogue. This is not so easy in a general context.
 
Love this from Francis, calls us out of self absorption:
vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html
I. A joy ever new, a joy which is shared
  1. The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience. Whenever our interior life becomes caught up in its own interests and concerns, there is no longer room for others, no place for the poor. God’s voice is no longer heard, the quiet joy of his love is no longer felt, and the desire to do good fades. This is a very real danger for believers too. Many fall prey to it, and end up resentful, angry and listless. That is no way to live a dignified and fulfilled life; it is not God’s will for us, nor is it the life in the Spirit which has its source in the heart of the risen Christ.
 
The laity aren’t in a context to preach the Gospel as such. America, Canada, France or the UK are not gigantic Churches. The Gospel is not being explicitly challenged in social issues like abortion or homosexuality. Often it is not even intentionally being challenged at all: people sincerely think that practices like abortion or homosexuality are legitimate and follow from secular principles (which actually endangers those principles) and have no religious agenda at all. Bringing up the Gospel would seem random and out of place - unnecessary. The promoters and defenders of these practices are not proposing them simply as being signs or symbols of contempt of God or means for contradicting the Gospel. They propose them on the basis of things like rights (freedom of choice or right to self-determination).

Vatican II and the Catechism both make it clear that the laity are to imbue the principles of the Gospel into the general culture but not by proselytizing. Raising Christ as the reason on CNN no one should have an abortion or perform a homosexual act will get you traction, possibly, with Christians; it has no merit for anyone else. I could argue that because of the Incarnation all women should refrain from procuring an abortion and all people whatsoever should refrain from doing anything to support abortion either in general or in individual cases. That is true but, again, presupposes an understanding of the Incarnation or an acceptance of it. In my opinion, priests and religious need to stress this to the faithful and other Christians especially; the laity generally, however, in their secular context, need to imbue the principles involved in secular terms that are or can be commonly acknowledged. It is less scandalous to see two Catholics arguing about the proper formulation for a definition of human dignity in law or practice; it would be completely scandalous to see two Catholics arguing over a proper theological formulation for the Incarnation in the context of defending human life or ending abortion - e.g., live on CNN where the topic is abortion! It’s for the Magisterium to define such things.

There is an overlap of general values or beliefs when it comes to opposition to abortion; namely, abhorrence at murder or the arbitrary ending of an innocent human life. There is a common belief in the right to life. These values and beliefs are shared across the board and already enshrined in national and international law. Belief in the Incarnation of the Son of God is not generally or commonly shared and even more “misunderstood” than anything you mentioned, JR.
Have you read Evangelium Vitae? If not, read it first and then we’ll talk. It give you the talking points that you need so you can speak on CNN or in a law firm as Christian, without sounding like a preacher. Once you read it, I will teach you how to use it, just as I teach my novices and our secular brothers.
Homosexuality.
I can’t understand how the pope at one time says we need to be less self-obsessed as a Church and then bring up homosexuality as an instance. Homosexuality is at its most disconcerting exactly because it becomes a manifestation of being dangerously (from the perspective of societal well being) self-obsessed. I see a lot of narcissism among homosexuals - even members of my family - that they acquire over time and it makes it exceedingly difficult to have a calm, reasonable conversation with them: and it’s not just homosexuals, but even heterosexual defenders of homosexual practices can become almost hysterical when the issue comes up. In more personal contexts it is easier to bring up God and Christ - in a one-to-one dialogue. This is not so easy in a general context.
First of all, the Church is not opposed to homosecuality or to homosexuals, lesbians or transgender people. The Church does not take positions against people anymore than God does. The Church is opposed to actions that are contrary to revelation.

I am diabetic. My doctor opposes me eating chocolate candy, even though I cheat at Easter and Christmas. But don’t share that outside of this forum. 😃 My doctor is not on a campaign to eliminate chocolate from the face of the earth.

The Church is the doctor and the homosexual is the patient. I’m using the Pope’s imagery of the Church as a field hospital. The Church warns people with same sex attraction of the dangers in same sex intercourse. She warns people with heterosexual attractions of the danger of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. The Church is not against gay or straight people. She is FOR purity. There is the difference. This is what the Holy Father is criticizing. He’s not alone. Most of the religious orders have been critical of the “ANTI” this or anti-that mindset. Since this pope is a religious, he’s bringing to the table.

We must preach purity for gays and straights, not anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-[insert topic]. A faith that is built on the things that you are to avoid, but never mentions the things that you are to embrace is a pessimistic religion. In runs the risk of becoming fundamentalist. This is the Holy Father’s warning on these issues.

Let us not become absorbed by the “Thou shalt not . . .” and forget “Blessed are the . . .” or “When you did it for one of these, you did it for me.”

Evangelization must be balanced. St. Polycarp wrote that when John the Apostle was on his deathbed, he told those around him, “Remain in His love.”

The last words of St. Maximilian Kolbe to the friars just hours before being arrested were, “Forget not love.”

We know that we are too preoccupied with the negative when we fail to teach the positive. God forgives sinners, so must we. God forgets sins once he forgives, how dare we not forget. God alone knows what’s in the hearts of men, who are we to judge those hearts?
 
In answer to your question I would say we are too self-absorbed. I think too often people want the Church to conform to their ideas of what the Church should be rather than conforming ourselves to Christ.

Brother Jay

How much of this question has been inspired by the preaching and teaching of Pope Francis? He has challenged some of my ideas of what it means to be Catholic and after reading Evangelii Gaudium, I have found myself doing things that I would have thought where insane a month ago, especially in regards toward the poor.
 
Recently, Pope Francis was quoted as having said that the Church tends to obsess. He has spoken on this at different times. He spoke about an obsession with abortion, homosexuality, and contraception. But he has also spoken about a Church that is too focused on herself, what Americans would call navel gazing. The pope would not use such a term, because it does not exist in Spanish. We have to remember that this is a man who thinks in Spanish and speaks in Italian. I did not make this up. He said this of himself.

When he said this about the Church being obsessed with herself, he was not referring to her well-being. He was referring to being overly preoccupied by procedures and structures. I have the benefit of having lived in Latin America for many years and of speaking the Latin languages rather well. I think I understand what he’s trying to say, which does not always translate well into English, especially for Americans.

We know why these concepts do not translate well into English. English is a Germanic language, not a Romance language or a Latin language (Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French and Rumanian). But we have to understand why even with the best linguist on board, it will not translate well into “American”. The reason is simple. Americans are by our own tradition, navel gazers. The USA is a very self-preoccupied and self-absorbed society. As I used to tell my students when I was a professor, Americans believe that we’re all that and a bag of chips too. We refuse to acknowledge that anyone can be better than we are at anything, bigger than we are in anything, more democratic than we are, more anything else than we are. I remember being taught this nonsense when I was in elementary school. I believed it until I became a missionary. Then I found many things outside of the USA that are far better than some things that we have here. I also found some things could not compare. In other words, I found that the world is really made of human beings just like us.

But to the American Catholic, the idea that he may have been wrong about how he views the Church is anathema. Here is the problem. The American Catholic does not understand that what he sees is not the problem. What he sees in the Church may be very good. The problem is how he does the seeing. There seem to be two mindsets.

On the left you have a mindset that is especially negative. It tends to view the Church as being out of touch with reality. The reason that this is so, is because this person is looking for dust. In other words, he’s looking at how old things are. If it’s old, be it doctrine or ritual, then it must be replaced with something new, which is total nonsense as we know. But it’s very difficult to convince this person that he has to change his glasses and the angle at which he looks at the Church.

On the right, you have the exact same phenomenon, but with a twist. This is the Catholic who is obsessed with the word liberal. This gives him hives, as if he had touched Poison Ivy. He too needs a change of lenses and a new angle from which to contemplate the Church. He’s looking for anything that is younger than he is and rejecting it. He’s not even interested in whether it works or not. For that matter, he’s not interested in whether certain customs and traditions work either. He just wants to maintain them.

Both of these extremes belong to the group that he pope has identified as those who are looking inward, obsessed, overly self-preoccupied. You can figure it out. I don’t need a label to make this clear.

The question is how do those on the left and right get themselves out of this mode? The idea is not to jettison the old for the sake of the new, nor is it to hang on to the old and reject the new. The idea is to look at old and new and see how what works well together. For example, can we take a dogma, which is old and cannot be changed as we all know; but can we explain it and communicate it in a way that modern man understands it and sees how it’s important to his daily life, rather than simply give him a definition of the Immaculate Conception. The definition is nice, but unless you’re already a devout Catholic, it does not tell you anything about your sense of isolation, you fears, your pain or the meaning of life.

Are we too self-absorbed for our own good and the good of the Church?
I think it’s important to remember that at some point, there will be no more Mass, no Eucharist, no Tradition at all. When Jesus comes again, these things will come to pass forever. No more sin to correct, no abortion or gay marriage or what have you. What will we do then? How will we sacrifice and offer ourselves up in charity?

Surely our focus will be on the dead. The new ‘Mass’ will surely revolve around this kind of charity -the only charity we’ll have left. The only “tradition”.

We’ll be asking ourselves -what can I do for the souls of the dead today? As we grow more and more towards God in that life, we will never be self-absorbed. We will be like Him, creative and influential -and if we’re to view our life now as a precursor to that life, maybe this is where our focus should be.

…this is what’s been on my mind the last few days anyways. 🤷
 
The solution to the problem in my view is to stress the mysteries of life… The unknowns. The supernatural -not as folklore, but as an inevitable reality.

What really is the game plan for us all in the end.

…I pray that God will lead us to the next phase of understanding.
 
Brother Jay

How much of this question has been inspired by the preaching and teaching of Pope Francis?
You caught me. 😃

He has asked religious to step up to the plate and help the Church move away from her navel. Depending on the ministry of the individual religious, some are going to be more actively involved in this than others.

In my case, preaching through the means of social communication is one of my apostolates, because my health does not allow me to be up and around four hours a day as are my brothers.

You guys are stuck we me until I get too sick to do this or die, whichever comes first (one year or 12,000 miles).
He has challenged some of my ideas of what it means to be Catholic and after reading Evangelii Gaudium, I have found myself doing things that I would have thought where insane a month ago, especially in regards toward the poor.
That’s what it means to do. If you want to know how to do it, I can offer some role models to look at.

Francis of Assisi
Elizabeth of Hungary
Vincent de Paul
Louise de Marillac
Elizabeth Ann Seton
Dorothy Day
Teresa of Calcutta
I think it’s important to remember that at some point, there will be no more Mass, no Eucharist, no Tradition at all. When Jesus comes again, these things will come to pass forever. No more sin to correct, no abortion or gay marriage or what have you. What will we do then? How will we sacrifice and offer ourselves up in charity?

Surely our focus will be on the dead. The new ‘Mass’ will surely revolve around this kind of charity -the only charity we’ll have left. The only “tradition”.

We’ll be asking ourselves -what can I do for the souls of the dead today? As we grow more and more towards God in that life, we will never be self-absorbed. We will be like Him, creative and influential -and if we’re to view our life now as a precursor to that life, maybe this is where our focus should be.

…this is what’s been on my mind the last few days anyways. 🤷
The solution to the problem in my view is to stress the mysteries of life… The unknowns. The supernatural -not as folklore, but as an inevitable reality.

What really is the game plan for us all in the end.
…I pray that God will lead us to the next phase of understanding.
I’m a little confused. After Jesus’ coming, there will be no dead to worry about. Are you suggesting that Jesus will come and there will still be dead people?

I’m so confused. HELP ME!

Thanks
 
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
I’m a little confused. After Jesus’ coming, there will be no dead to worry about. Are you suggesting that Jesus will come and there will still be dead people?

I’m so confused. HELP ME!

Thanks
I hope you’re not being facetious. :). I’m talking about those in hell. I’m very serious about this, as I view life as an eternal experience and not two separate ones. I hope this makes sense. 😊
 
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I hope you’re not being facetious. :). I’m talking about those in hell.
They won’t be dead either. Not as they are now. They will have bodies, not glorified bodies, but bodies nonetheless. And those in heaven will not worry about those in hell. There will be no one else in between.
 
They won’t be dead either. Not as they are now. They will have bodies, not glorified bodies, but bodies nonetheless. And those in heaven will not worry about those in hell. There will be no one else in between.
Thanks for taking me seriously. 😊

No, I just don’t understand why there needs to be a separation between charity now and charity then. I don’t think I’ll be able to just forget them, and I’m not so sure we have that clear of an understanding on how things will turn out.

I’m not hoping to retire from charity ever. :o
 
Thanks for taking me seriously. 😊

No, I just don’t understand why there needs to be a separation between charity now and charity then. I don’t think I’ll be able to just forget them, and I’m not so sure we have that clear of an understanding on how things will turn out.

I’m not hoping to retire from charity ever. :o
In the eschaton there will be no need for charity as we understand it. There will simply be love. There will be no memory of the past, because time ceases to exist. Where there is no time, there is no past or future, only an eternal present. You may want to find some good writing on eschatology. They may help you understand this better, though they will do nothing to get you to heaven. That’s not the purpose of eschatology.
 
In the eschaton there will be no need for charity as we understand it. There will simply be love. There will be no memory of the past, because time ceases to exist. Where there is no time, there is no past or future, only an eternal present. You may want to find some good writing on eschatology. They may help you understand this better, though they will do nothing to get you to heaven. That’s not the purpose of eschatology.
I’ve read some eschatological writings in the past, and the details are somewhat vague, but the point I was trying to make in relation to this thread was that if all the popular catholic controversies of today such as female priests and liberal and conservative values are only temporal, then theyre not worth us becoming so absorbed in them to the point that they confuse our faith. So basically, I’m on your side here. I think. ;).

Peace,
TEPO
 
…but I can’t let go. 😊

If the Mass and the clerics and tradition of the Church are only temporal until the return of our Lord, and they’re not worth confusing our faith over then the same would equally be said for charity as well since charity is only temporal and those souls who fail will be forgotten forever.

Basically, we shouldn’t favor tradition over charity or the other way around then. It’s all equal. It’s all about balance.
 
I’ve read some eschatological writings in the past, and the details are somewhat vague, but the point I was trying to make in relation to this thread was that if all the popular catholic controversies of today such as female priests and liberal and conservative values are only temporal, then theyre not worth us becoming so absorbed in them to the point that they confuse our faith. So basically, I’m on your side here. I think. ;).

Peace,
TEPO
I hope we’re on the same page. :yup:
…but I can’t let go. 😊

If the Mass and the clerics and tradition of the Church are only temporal until the return of our Lord, and they’re not worth confusing our faith over then the same would equally be said for charity as well since charity is only temporal and those souls who fail will be forgotten forever.

Basically, we shouldn’t favor tradition over charity or the other way around then. It’s all equal. It’s all about balance.
WHOAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Stop the horses, I’m getting motion sickness. Just teasing you. 😃 I woke up with terrible pain. Laughing is better than Ibuprofen.

Ok . . . now that I got that off my chest, let’s not think that because something is limited to time and space, such as the things that you mentioned, that they have no eternal value.

The cross took place on a given day, in a given city at a given time of day. The Evangelists go through a lot of pain to make sure that we know that this is an historical fact. In this sense, it’s temporal, because it takes place within time and space. It has to, because the person being crucified is human.

However, that which is temporal can transcend time and space. When we speak about the Eucharist or the practice of heroic virtues, we’re speaking about things that begin in time and space, but transcend time and space. This is where metaphysics helps us to understand eschatology.

There will be no Eucharist in eternity, but the effects of the Eucharist will continue into eternity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top