- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
I think it takes time to lead people out of ignorance and darkness and into the light of “forgiveness and love”. And coming into that light is to become just, and that’s what constitutes our salvation. And this sort of highlights the difference between the Old and New Covenants.
In any case, God doesn’t want our obedience to be blind-He wants us to turn to Him in trust and what Pope Benedict referred to as “free obedience”-an obedience which comes as we finally become* free* to obey, an obedience based on our knowledge and love of God.
S
SteveGC
Guest
Yes obedience can be blind. When it is for its own sake, it is blind. Christianity (which is not merely about the NT, as the author erroneously muses) is certainly not about blind obedience - even the necessary, humble obedience commanded of us by God toward our ecclesiastical superiors is not a blind obedience. Moreover, voluntary obedience is indeed about a well-formed conscience and ascent of the will based thereon. How “well-formed” it is, is largely dependent on the human element of The Church, which the author suggests has eroded over the centuries into a solely theocratic institution bent on strengthening its position of power and influence over the faithful…primarily through the use of fear.
While he provides some interesting insight into the historical perspective of God in antiquity, I think he severely miscalculates and over-simplifies the nature of the Church based on a handful of regrettable eras of corruption in Rome.
His conclusion?
To his credit, he does allude to truths about corruption that has existed (and perhaps still does) in fragmented capsules of time throughout Church history. But to draw the conclusion he does based on these segments reveals a bias, or ignorance, or likely both.
While he provides some interesting insight into the historical perspective of God in antiquity, I think he severely miscalculates and over-simplifies the nature of the Church based on a handful of regrettable eras of corruption in Rome.
His conclusion?
Over 2000 years of Christian life encapsulated into an op-ed postulating that Catholics on the whole are unaware of a covenant with their Heavenly Father, but rather blindly follow intimidating humans who have little interest in being shepherds, in preference of being dictators.
To his credit, he does allude to truths about corruption that has existed (and perhaps still does) in fragmented capsules of time throughout Church history. But to draw the conclusion he does based on these segments reveals a bias, or ignorance, or likely both.
M
Monica4316
Guest
I don’t understand…
obedience is good because it helps to form the conscience correctly, and helps to fight pride. Obedience is pleasing to God. There’s really quite a bit of harm in having a badly formed conscience: either lax or scrupulous.
Conscience is not the final word on morality… Church teaching is. Our conscience needs to be formed according to Church teaching. I asked my priest and that’s what he said.
obedience is good because it helps to form the conscience correctly, and helps to fight pride. Obedience is pleasing to God. There’s really quite a bit of harm in having a badly formed conscience: either lax or scrupulous.
Conscience is not the final word on morality… Church teaching is. Our conscience needs to be formed according to Church teaching. I asked my priest and that’s what he said.
V
valentino
Guest
my definition of blind obedience is a person who attends a particular church for some reason or another(close to home,likes the people,the preacher is a friendly guy,services aren’t too long,like the music,my wife has friends there)and just accepts what the preacher says.Doesn’t take the time to check out something that may be false.
T
tlimon
Guest
Dear Cho Pilo,
I am an American and formerly an atheist. Coming from a cultural perspective, Americanism exalts the individual above others often in the name of liberty and freedom. My atheism was further fueled by the backdrop of my Americanism. Atheism was where I was most free; I had emancipated myself from the slavery of God. I was autonomous and, like a good American, I was free. The irony, however, was that I was most enslaved in my self-perceived state of freedom.
I was in total obedience to my conscience, which is to say to the electrochemical plantation overseer named “Materialism.” And, too, in the state of my Americanism, I was at war with everyone else in society. I was an atomized individual who was autonomous from other individuals and in America we are subliminally educated to compete – often at the expense of others. There is no coincidence that America has become one of the great aggressors in the world’s history. More telling is that America’s main antagonists in the 20th century were against ideologies that rejected the idea of a God, especially a theistic God in the vein of Catholicism, and these ideologies were the bloodiest humanity has ever known.
The heart of Catholicism is not a “No” but rather a “Yes.” The “yes” is to freedom. This freedom is from the restraints of our own mind. The great lie in the garden was that we could become like God by being gods ourselves. Instead of living in the way of God, we chose to accept our own limited understanding as the moral and intellectual standard of the universe. In the garden, we wanted what we already had, nay we wanted less than what we already had. Satan tempted Jesus in a similar way. Satan offered Jesus, as Son of God, what he already had – the whole world. The truth is Jesus had the world and then some. As members of the Church and the mystical body of Christ, we share in Christ’s reign.
To conclude, I think most people would agree that human frailty, well, fails us. Catholicism does not disable our minds but expands our minds beyond our limited understanding while allowing us to think for ourselves as well. Thus, contrary to the title of the article, “obedience” as the author coins the term does not disable our conscience but rather enables our conscience.
I could get into the particulars of the article but that would be rather arduous. I will say that I think the author is dead wrong. The piece sets up a false Old/New Testament dichotomy that echoes an old Gnostic demiurge mentality. God is love. God has always been love. In the beginning was the Word and Word was with God. The Father, the Son, and their love (Holy Spirit) created the world out of an act of love. But humanity fell; the choice had to be ours. In this fallen state, God was among us and his love was expressed like fine paint on a distorted canvas.
Okay, I am done for real. People are probably tiring of me! Let me know if there is more that I could contribute.
Best Regards,
Thomas
I am an American and formerly an atheist. Coming from a cultural perspective, Americanism exalts the individual above others often in the name of liberty and freedom. My atheism was further fueled by the backdrop of my Americanism. Atheism was where I was most free; I had emancipated myself from the slavery of God. I was autonomous and, like a good American, I was free. The irony, however, was that I was most enslaved in my self-perceived state of freedom.
I was in total obedience to my conscience, which is to say to the electrochemical plantation overseer named “Materialism.” And, too, in the state of my Americanism, I was at war with everyone else in society. I was an atomized individual who was autonomous from other individuals and in America we are subliminally educated to compete – often at the expense of others. There is no coincidence that America has become one of the great aggressors in the world’s history. More telling is that America’s main antagonists in the 20th century were against ideologies that rejected the idea of a God, especially a theistic God in the vein of Catholicism, and these ideologies were the bloodiest humanity has ever known.
The heart of Catholicism is not a “No” but rather a “Yes.” The “yes” is to freedom. This freedom is from the restraints of our own mind. The great lie in the garden was that we could become like God by being gods ourselves. Instead of living in the way of God, we chose to accept our own limited understanding as the moral and intellectual standard of the universe. In the garden, we wanted what we already had, nay we wanted less than what we already had. Satan tempted Jesus in a similar way. Satan offered Jesus, as Son of God, what he already had – the whole world. The truth is Jesus had the world and then some. As members of the Church and the mystical body of Christ, we share in Christ’s reign.
To conclude, I think most people would agree that human frailty, well, fails us. Catholicism does not disable our minds but expands our minds beyond our limited understanding while allowing us to think for ourselves as well. Thus, contrary to the title of the article, “obedience” as the author coins the term does not disable our conscience but rather enables our conscience.
I could get into the particulars of the article but that would be rather arduous. I will say that I think the author is dead wrong. The piece sets up a false Old/New Testament dichotomy that echoes an old Gnostic demiurge mentality. God is love. God has always been love. In the beginning was the Word and Word was with God. The Father, the Son, and their love (Holy Spirit) created the world out of an act of love. But humanity fell; the choice had to be ours. In this fallen state, God was among us and his love was expressed like fine paint on a distorted canvas.
Okay, I am done for real. People are probably tiring of me! Let me know if there is more that I could contribute.
Best Regards,
Thomas
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Of course we are not to be blind in our obedience. The problem with other people is they think that those who obey only do so because they are blind. And they do not obey because they are enlightened.
- Status