Behavior and Misconceptions

[Taestron]

I started this thread out of a discussion born from a Marian devotion thread found here.

Anyway quoting 1 Thessalonians 5:22, I suggested that if a certain behavior is good and acceptable by itself but is continually misunderstood by others than we might consider changing the behavior so that it can be less easily misunderstood.

To which JRKH replied

Two considerations here

1. Catechesis is obviously very important but it also requires the co-operation of our non-Catholic brethren. In these kinds of cases, Catechesis is an individual to individual endeavor. For a simplified example…A protestant minister teaches his congregation that "Catholics Worship Mary…suddenly a hundred people believe this error. A member of that congregation asks his Catholic friend abut this and is given a proper and correct explanation. Now - what should this person do…Should he not explain to his minister that he was in error about what the Catholic Church teaches? Should that minister then recant his error to his flock? What is the likelihood that this will happen?

In the meantime - how many of the flock have spoken to their friends and told THEM this error…and the beat goes on…

1. There may well be room for some changes that could minimize the chance of misunderstanding. I say this because of the many changes in how we interact with those in authority over us. Centuries ago it would not be uncommon to kneel before a king or the kings representative or even a member of the king’s family as a sign of honor - but certainly not worship (in a Latria sense). Thus kneeling before a statue of Mary would not automatically have made someone think “inappropriate worship”.

Today, no one kneels before a president or prime minister…At most one might give a bow, as is common in Japan. So - if I choose to stand in front of a statue of Mary and maybe give a quick bow of the head, do you think that our protestant friends would be less likely to call that inappropriate worship?

I agree with some of this because I know that our Lady does not wish to be - in any way - an obstacle, a barrier, or a point of contention between Christians.
But like I said earlier…We Catholics cannot do it alone…We need the help of every non-Catholic Christian who has read and discussed and recognize the true Church teaching to share this with their fellows so that the misunderstandings can be corrected…

And PRmerger replied

I do not believe that what you are saying is Biblical, Taestron.

I think that Jesus has said, in Matthew 10, that if people don’t accept what you say, what you do, how you proclaim the gospel, that you should shake the dust from your feet.

He never said to change how you do things if people misconstrue what Christians do.

I mean, really, Taestron, does that even sound like a reasoned practice? Homeschoolers are misconstrued as being anti-social, quasi-Amish, odd-balls. I don’t believe for a moment that they should stop what they’re doing because others misunderstand what they are doing.

I respectfully say that I can’t think of a single moral practice that would fit into your paradigm.

That catches everyone up on the conversation so far.

 

[Trishie]

Actually my first thought went to a cousin by blood who is a canonized saint of the Church.
She didn’t alter her behavior regardless of the cost to herself and her reputation, because what mattered was God’s will, and divine inspiration. She was even falsely excommunicated, and treated very badly, and in the end, God vindicated her, and she is a Saint of the Church. These reputation stains which appeared to damage her work for God, even held up the process of canonization for a period. She did not capitulate, regardless of others’ opinions and criticisms. Her focus was God’s will. St Mary MacKillop

However, Peter in the Acts of the apostles
Acts 15:19-20

\19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

 

[Taestron]

JRKH:

Today, no one kneels before a president or prime minister…At most one might give a bow, as is common in Japan. So - if I choose to stand in front of a statue of Mary and maybe give a quick bow of the head, do you think that our protestant friends would be less likely to call that inappropriate worship?

No I do not think any Protestant would be less likely to call it inappropriate. The ones that truly understand the doctrine wouldn’t call it inappropriate in the first place, and the ones that don’t aren’t hung up so much on the form of the honor as the honor itself. I beginning to think that Marian devotion might have been a bad example for me to use originally but it was when I thought about this topic.

You make an excellent point about needing help from Christians from of other traditions. This is part of the reason why I say that the I cannot be the one to encourage Catholics to change the way they honor Mary. But if there is something in the Nazarene Church that I know is a stumbling blocks for Catholics (I can’t think of any, by the way) then I would well be within my rights to suggest that we tweak the way we do things.

PRmerger:

I do not believe that what you are saying is Biblical, Taestron.

I think that Jesus has said, in Matthew 10, that if people don’t accept what you say, what you do, how you proclaim the gospel, that you should shake the dust from your feet.

He never said to change how you do things if people misconstrue what Christians do.

I mean, really, Taestron, does that even sound like a reasoned practice? Homeschoolers are misconstrued as being anti-social, quasi-Amish, odd-balls. I don’t believe for a moment that they should stop what they’re doing because others misunderstand what they are doing.

I respectfully say that I can’t think of a single moral practice that would fit into your paradigm.

I disagree with your assessment. The people of Matthew 10 weren’t rejecting the methods of the disciples but their message. I am by no means advocating changing the message of the gospel or violating your conscious. But are we not called to speak the truth winsomely (a word I hear Catholic apologists use frequently:thumbsup. This might very well necessitate a change in the way we present the truth.

But I am surprised you say this is unbiblical. When was the last time you read 1 Corinthians 8-9? To paraphrase this extended passage: Paul grants the Corinthians the freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but he warns that if the freedom leads a weaker Christian to sin, then there is no excuse to exercise that freedom. He then provides the example of his right as an Apostle to ask for provisions while he preached the gospel, but in order to be more effective, he forgoes that right. This is the famous: become all things to all men that I might save some. So there you go, two biblical moral practices that fit my paradigm

 

[Taestron]

Actually my first thought went to a cousin by blood who is a canonized saint of the Church.
She didn’t alter her behavior regardless of the cost to herself and her reputation, because what mattered was God’s will, and divine inspiration. She was even falsely excommunicated, and treated very badly, and in the end, God vindicated her, and she is a Saint of the Church. These reputation stains which appeared to damage her work for God, even held up the process of canonization for a period. She did not capitulate, regardless of others’ opinions and criticisms. Her focus was God’s will. St Mary MacKillop

However, Peter in the Acts of the apostles
Acts 15:19-20

\19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:28

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

Hi Trishie, you snuck in while I was replying. Thanks for the incredible story. It is good for me to be reminded that sometimes it is God’s will that we do not alter our behavior because of others. So I guess I will have to take it situation by situation to see which God is calling.

 

[Trishie]

I think so. It would be great if it were simple, but it isn’t always.
The bottom line for our choices are always to be love, because we have the two great commands that sum up the commandments as we know, and balancing these can be confusing at times
( "Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’** 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40)

At the same time we have Matthew 25 verses 31-46, in which Jesus makes clear that He judges us on our practical acts of kindness to others, and that He regards these kindnesses as done to Him.
Therefore we do face the dilemmas that you are reflecting upon…how to interpret how love is to operate in a particular situation, because love, of God above all, and of others as self, is the basic criteria for our decisions.**

 

[White_Peony]

When it comes to doctrine, it should not be changed. When it comes to something that isn’t doctrine, and could look moraly wrong, then yes, it should be changed.

For example, let’s say a bunch of guys were going on a mission trip somewhere. A girl wanted to come along to help out. Ok, that isn’t bad. But it could look bad. It could look very sketchy. If people think there is more going on with one girl going on a trip with a bunch of guys, it could ruin the entire mission trip. So, the girl shouldn’t go along.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH

This is my thought precisely.
A person from another faith tradition seeing someone kneeling or bowing before a statue - or even just sitting and staring lovingly at it - and not knowing why, can have one of two reactions…They can ask the question, “What are you doing?” or they can declare, “Stop what you are doing!” The first stems from a loving curiosity and invites conversation and promotes unity. The second stems from a presumptive judgement and destroys conversation and hinders unity.

I beginning to think that Marian devotion might have been a bad example for me to use originally but it was when I thought about this topic.

Well - Marion devotion is a biggie for many non-Catholics as they look into the Church…But I understand how a broader idea can be missed in these threads because of the example used.

You make an excellent point about needing help from Christians from of other traditions. This is part of the reason why I say that the I cannot be the one to encourage Catholics to change the way they honor Mary.

True - but you certainly can suggest - by explaining what is seen and what it communicates to you (and your fellows) - what might be problem areas.

But if there is something in the Nazarene Church that I know is a stumbling blocks for Catholics (I can’t think of any, by the way) then I would well be within my rights to suggest that we tweak the way we do things.

Your thought in ( ) above is maybe the main reason why most Catholics would see no reason to change. We are at peace with our understandings of the Church and it’s practices and so we can’t “think of any” to change…

But I am surprised you say this is unbiblical. When was the last time you read 1 Corinthians 8-9? To paraphrase this extended passage: Paul grants the Corinthians the freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but he warns that if the freedom leads a weaker Christian to sin, then there is no excuse to exercise that freedom. He then provides the example of his right as an Apostle to ask for provisions while he preached the gospel, but in order to be more effective, he forgoes that right. This is the famous: become all things to all men that I might save some. So there you go, two biblical moral practices that fit my paradigm

You make a goo point here. St Paul is great in so many ways.
He also says that “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up". (1 Cor 10:23)
This and the passage that follows speaks further to this idea of not giving offense to others so that some might be saved. While at the same time the passage preserves Paul’s prerogative to act as he feels compelled by the Spirit to act.
Yes there are weaker Christians and we should be both considerate of and concerned for their welfare but that concern should lead us, not to stopping certain good practices, but to working with and strengthening our weaker brethren so that they understand and grow ever more strong and firm in their sanctity.
The “weaker” Christian should not be left in his “weak” condition and the “stronger” Christian should not “weaken” themselves by trying to much to conform themselves to the weak. The stronger Christian needs to work from their strength to help the weak.

It can all become very complicated very quickly…

Peace
James

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

When it comes to doctrine, it should not be changed. When it comes to something that isn’t doctrine, and could look morally wrong, then yes, it should be changed.

For example, let’s say a bunch of guys were going on a mission trip somewhere. A girl wanted to come along to help out. Ok, that isn’t bad. But it could look bad. It could look very sketchy. If people think there is more going on with one girl going on a trip with a bunch of guys, it could ruin the entire mission trip. So, the girl shouldn’t go along.

I like your example but I disagree with the bolded statement.
The reason is that - “could look morally wrong” - is too broad a statement. Who determines what, “could look morally wrong” and therefore needs changed??

More importantly, if something is a matter of “practice” and not doctrine, we can simply explain to the person that, if they are uncomfortable with this or that practice as a part of private devotion, then they need not do it at all.
Many common things that are taught as OK by the Church but are not required:
Praying to saints? Promoted but not required
Rosary? Promoted but not required
Lighting prayer candles? - Not required
Kneeling or bowing or genuflecting before a statue? - Not required
Wearing a Scapular? - Not required
Participation in indulgences? - Not required

Many more things could be added to this list.

So - if these things are not required, why should they be a stumbling block to someone entering the Church?

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

But if there is something in the Nazarene Church that I know is a stumbling blocks for Catholics (I can’t think of any, by the way) then I would well be within my rights to suggest that we tweak the way we do things.

Why not simply explain to the objector what it is you’re doing and why you do it?

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree with your assessment. The people of Matthew 10 weren’t rejecting the methods of the disciples but their message.

Right. And people who don’t like how Catholics venerate the saints are rejecting our message: praying to saints is a good and righteous act!

I am by no means advocating changing the message of the gospel or violating your conscious. But are we not called to speak the truth winsomely (a word I hear Catholic apologists use frequently:thumbsup. This might very well necessitate a change in the way we present the truth.

As it applies to our previous conversation, how is it that you would propose, hypothetically, that Catholics change the way we present this truth: praying to the saints is a good and righteous act.

 

[Taestron]

I like your example but I disagree with the bolded statement.
The reason is that - “could look morally wrong” - is too broad a statement. Who determines what, “could look morally wrong” and therefore needs changed??

snip

So - if these things are not required, why should they be a stumbling block to someone entering the Church?

Peace
James

As to who determines what could look morally wrong, perhaps there should be some sort of hierarchy. The more beneficial the action, the more concern it should take before change is enacted. So the meat issue in 1 Corinthians does not have too much benefit so little concern is needed, but praying the Rosary has more benefit so it should take a proportional amount of concern to change behavior.

I’m all for telling people that they need not do any non-required action unless they are comfortable. However, the problem is not the official teaching of the Church but the encouragement by our actions to do the same. Say, I am a new convert from the Nazarene Church where we do not have any sort of service to the Saints. You invite me over to your house, and I warn you that I am still uncomfortable with “this whole saints thing.” Would you perform some of the non-required actions in front of me before I was fully catechized?

Why not simply explain to the objector what it is you’re doing and why you do it?

If that helps the objector, then there is no reason to do anything else. However, the situations where this is not enough are not farfetched. For example, even though I am a curious, theologically-minded person, I still not sure I grasp the distinction between dulia and latria (even though I have a better handle since our discussion). I went to Pascha at a Russian Orthodox Church a few years back, and I’m not sure I could today perform some of the veneration I saw without it being latria in my mind. I know there are others in the same boat as me but are not as cautious. If my actions encourage them to follow my example even though they are not of the proper mind (and I know this) then shame on me.

Right. And people who don’t like how Catholics venerate the saints are rejecting our message: praying to saints is a good and righteous act!

As it applies to our previous conversation, how is it that you would propose, hypothetically, that Catholics change the way we present this truth: praying to the saints is a good and righteous act.

If by “how” you mean “that”, then by all means ignore those people (for the purpose of this conversation). If they actually do not approve of your methods, then caution is warranted. All I am saying that it is possible that you might consider changing the method of your good and righteous act (was that enough qualifications). Remember a good and righteous act ceases to become a good and righteous act if it causes a weaker Christian to stumble.

As for how this might look, that depends entirely on the situation. The only definite advice I can give you is catechesis first, which you already knew. If that doesn’t work (it’s usually very easy to tell if someone is still confused or non convinced), then you could consider not doing certain actions in front of them (kneeling while you pray to saints, kissing icons, whichever form of prayer with which they are uncomfortable). You could lead them into some of the less complex forms of these prayers. For example, I am a Protestant who is okay with praying to the saints, but I am still uncomfortable with hyper-dulia. Perhaps you could lead me in prayers which highlight the intercessory aspect of this and then slowly start to add other facets while the intercessory starts to fade into implication. Now this would only work in smaller groups. If a large group has a problem… I’m not sure what you could do except encourage them to come to you one on one. How does that sound?

 

[JRKH]

As to who determines what could look morally wrong, perhaps there should be some sort of hierarchy. The more beneficial the action, the more concern it should take before change is enacted. So the meat issue in 1 Corinthians does not have too much benefit so little concern is needed, but praying the Rosary has more benefit so it should take a proportional amount of concern to change behavior.

Hierarchy is fine…except there are many protestants who have a problem with that too…
I’ve even heard people accuse us of “worshiping the Pope” - replacing Christ with the pope and other such non-sense…
So we very quickly come to matters of “authority” - which in any case are really the core issue between the Catholic and Protestant world.

I’m all for telling people that they need not do any non-required action unless they are comfortable. However, the problem is not the official teaching of the Church but the encouragement by our actions to do the same. Say, I am a new convert from the Nazarene Church where we do not have any sort of service to the Saints. You invite me over to your house, and I warn you that I am still uncomfortable with “this whole saints thing.” Would you perform some of the non-required actions in front of me before I was fully catechized?

Gee - I don’t know…Why did I invite you over? Why did you feel the need to mention that you are uncomfortable with intercessory prayer? I might respond by saying, “that’s fine, do you mind if I make intercession to a saint?”…how would you respond?
So in a personal situation, where we are comfortable with each other, then certainly adjustments can be easily made…
Is this the only situation (one on one) where you would encourage making changes? What about this situation…
I’m sitting in the doctor’s waiting room and - since I have the time - I take out my rosary and (silently) begin praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet. While doing this I note a person across the room staring intently at me and my beads with a look of clear disapproval…
Should I stop praying?

Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
Why not simply explain to the objector what it is you’re doing and why you do it?

If that helps the objector, then there is no reason to do anything else. However, the situations where this is not enough are not farfetched. For example, even though I am a curious, theologically-minded person, I still not sure I grasp the distinction between dulia and latria (even though I have a better handle since our discussion). I went to Pascha at a Russian Orthodox Church a few years back, and I’m not sure I could today perform some of the veneration I saw without it being latria in my mind. I know there are others in the same boat as me but are not as cautious. If my actions encourage them to follow my example even though they are not of the proper mind (and I know this) then shame on me.

It seems to me that what Paul is teaching is that we are to act upon our own conscience in such matters until something specific occurs then we must act, or react, in the way that seems best…This is what is meant by everything being “lawful”…

As for how this might look, that depends entirely on the situation. The only definite advice I can give you is catechesis first, which you already knew. If that doesn’t work (it’s usually very easy to tell if someone is still confused or non convinced), then you could consider not doing certain actions in front of them (kneeling while you pray to saints, kissing icons, whichever form of prayer with which they are uncomfortable). You could lead them into some of the less complex forms of these prayers. For example, I am a Protestant who is okay with praying to the saints, but I am still uncomfortable with hyper-dulia. Perhaps you could lead me in prayers which highlight the intercessory aspect of this and then slowly start to add other facets while the intercessory starts to fade into implication. Now this would only work in smaller groups. If a large group has a problem… I’m not sure what you could do except encourage them to come to you one on one. How does that sound?
This sounds good - as long as what we are dealing with are people who, like yourself, are curious and willing to learn. If the people are “stiff-necked” and judgmental…well then I’m afraid there isn’t much one can do…

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

So I think you have been able to convince me, Taestron, that my opinion needs to be changed.

I think you are correct “that if a certain behavior is good and acceptable by itself but is continually misunderstood by others than we might consider changing the behavior so that it can be less easily misunderstood.”

In fact, I’d almost forgotten that I’d proposed the exact thing in a thread I started in 2008:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=265343

In that thread I take your position. I suggested that since Protestants already think that we worship Mary, it probably wasn’t a good practice to refer to statues of Mary as “her”. As if we believe she’s really alive.

I stated, "Lest our dear Protestant brethren hear our innocent comment and interpret it, mistakenly, as idol worship, we ought to be cautious about our language when talking about our Blessed Mother! "

So I stand corrected.