Catholic conservatism on the rise as priest refuses funeral for 'sinner'

[felra]

fix:

Yes, I think it not only originates from kumbaya theology that is so pervasive in the Church, but it comes from our secular culture that has hijacked the message of Christ and morphed it into a pagan, happy, clappy do as you please-you better not judge me philosophy.

Then, when one acts in an immoral way we are to look the other way, never mention it is immoral and label correction or justice as cold hearted and legalistic.

I agree. As our new Pope has pointed out, relativism (the denial of absolutes) is the root cause of the confusion and moral decay that is the signature of our day. (…and please, no post responses saying that they could not find “kumbaya theology” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other Church documents.)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

(…and please, no post responses saying that they could not find “kumbaya theology” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other Church documents.)

I looked under ‘ecclesia kumbaiae’ but couldn’t find it.

 

[buffalo]

Nohome:

True, funerals save nobody either, they are far more for the living than the dead. Denial of a Mass is punishment for the living family. Perhaps this will make them decide to never set foot in a Catholic Church again.

Nohome

In the first place why would anyone leave the Church because of an incident or decision they don’t agree with. It is a very shallow faith that would cause a reaction as this.

In any case I am not interested in decisions being made to appease the faithful. What I support are decisions that affirm the faith and truth.

Christian charity demands fratenal correction, not fraternal “everything” goes appeasement so they don’t get hurt or angry, which only dilutes the faith.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Speaking about Pelagius, what was the Church’s response to the Pelagian heresy? And to Pelagius himself?
Ani Ibi:

Speaking about Pelagius, what was the Church’s response to the Pelagian heresy? And to Pelagius himself?

fix:

I guess some may say the Church was to rough back then and needed some reeducation in charity…

Some may say? Who? What exactly happened back then?

 

[Marie]

felra:

I agree. As our new Pope has pointed out, relativism (the denial of absolutes) is the root cause of the confusion and moral decay that is the signature of our day. (…and please, no post responses saying that they could not find “kumbaya theology” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other Church documents.)

Actually there is a very popular book by the name of “When Kumbaya is Not Enough”…for youth ministers. Not Catholic but made me smile. Obviously it cuts across the board in modern culture and all religions.

Everyone wants affirmation…even of their sins it seems.

 

[Marie]

Ani Ibi:

I looked under ‘ecclesia kumbaiae’ but couldn’t find it.

But as I mentioned above…I did find a book…“When Kumbaya is Not Enough”

 

[fix]

Speaking about Pelagius, what was the Church’s response to the Pelagian heresy? And to Pelagius himself?

Some may say? Who? What exactly happened back then?

The short answer to a complex topic is that he was excommunicated because he rejected certain Church teachings. My attempt at humor was pointing out that some folks today would find that treatment “unChristian”.

See more:
Pelagius and Pelagianism

newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

 

[Ani_Ibi]

fix:

The short answer to a complex topic is that he was excommunicated because he rejected certain Church teachings.

Pelagianism is a complex topic because it evolved.

fix:

My attempt at humor was pointing out that some folks today would find that treatment “unChristian”.

Your attempt at humour was not lost on me. I was just pulling your leg to get some extra mileage out of a topic which is revealing in terms of actual Christian charity as it relates to Pelagius.

The penalty at that time was for Pelagius to be exiled. He could not be found in any Roman urban centre. In fact he retired in Judea in the company of two close friends. The actual dialogue between the Church and Pelagianism was extremely forwarding. for both ways of responding to life.

 

[Brad]

AlanFromWichita:

Fair enough but then why should we ever have a funeral Mass for any dead Catholic? Why have Masses for the dead at all, for that matter? If it’s too late to do anything for you after you’re dead, then I’d just as soon be dumped in a mass grave with a scoop of salt like they did Mozart. If they “earn” a Mass, then they don’t need one, it seems like to me.

It is not about “earning”. It is about those that are still living.

AlanFromWichita:

Oh, pulleeze. This tired reasoning is so overused. :banghead: Take one example of the woman washing Jesus’ feet. She was rightly accused by the Full Mental Assent pharisees. Christ held her up above them, forgave her sins, and then let her go without so much as telling her she did anything wrong or not to do it again. If having a Mass for that lady tells the world sin is no big deal, then Christ must have been a walking advertisement for satan because He routinely got guilty people off the hook and hung around with known sinners. The pharisees told Him that He was sending the wrong message by associating with them. Nothing has changed. Sigh.

You have trouble with the distinction. I’m sure this priest did all he could for this woman while she was living. I’m sure if she confessed her sin, he forgave her. Jesus likewise ministered to the living, not the dead. I’m sure this priest associated with the woman. It is not about forgiving or associating. It is not about Jesus actions or the priest’s actions. It is about the woman’s actions. She seperated herself from the Body. This is dreadful and this is serious. So the priest ministered to the living in the way he believe would most benefit their souls.

Are you living for this world or the next? Why such desparation to have a funeral mass if sin is no big deal? Which is more important, the funeral mass or eternal salvation?

AlanFromWichita:

That’s right. They might get the impression that mortal sin no longer automatically leads to eternal death, for some silly reason involving Christ dying on the cross and rising again. By showing kindness to a sinner, you risk giving the impression that there is Good News.

Unrepentant mortal sin does lead to eternal death. The priest must presume that is the case here. Do you know more than he? Do you have a new doctrine that says that mortal sin does not kill the soul?

AlanFromWichita:

I’ve decided that after blowing my horn all over the Internet about giving that priest and woman Masses, there’s nothing in it for me. I doubt their fates will be any different because I had some Mass said for them, so really there’s nothing in it for them either. I guess I was grandstanding – another pathetic show of my own seemingly unbounded pride. I apologize to those who may have been misled to think well of me because of my worldly show of piety. If the Church doesn’t take care of them, and I don’t even know them, than I am faithless and prideful anyway to think I’m going to go “clean up” what the Church left off. I feel kind of sick…

I don’t know how this relates to what I said at all or if it was intended to. Not sure what you mean. Obviously, saying masses does matter a great deal.

From now on I will no longer confirm or deny my plans to have Masses said for that priest and woman. I’m really not sure what having Masses said is supposed to do, anyway, so I guess from now on I’ll let my wife handle those kinds of things like she normally does.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

I agree. As our new Pope has pointed out, relativism (the denial of absolutes) is the root cause of the confusion and moral decay that is the signature of our day. (…and please, no post responses saying that they could not find “kumbaya theology” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other Church documents.)

It’s because President Bush never signed on to the Kyoto treaty, nor fully funded U.N. payments for subsidized abortion and euthenasia.

Relativism is no more evil than a hammer. It is a way of looking at things and can be used constructively or destructively. The complexity of the Church rules, the sum total of them supposedly defining the Two Great Commandments of Christ, are testimony that following Christ’s commands, at least on a theological basis, is extremely difficult and cannot even be grasped by your average wise and learned pharisee. That’s why God has revealed “these things” to little ones. A wise and learned person will say, “punish them for they have objectively sinned.” A little one will say, “hey that’s my friend. You bullies quit throwing stones at him.” Who is right? With which would Jesus side, or does He know how to side with everyone simultaneously (oooh nooo, pernmissiveness)?

Again, all I have to do to figure out the dynamics of the divisions in the Church is go back to sandbox 101 mentality. Anytime you have bickering and one kid trying to shove another one out of the sandbox because we won’t acknowledge him as Grand Arbiter Of Who Is Right And Wrong, and King of the Hill besides, you can pretty much bet that all the fancy vocabulary on either side is just window dressing trying to disguise childish one-upmanship and demonizing and self-aggrandization as a pious duty.

Alan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ani Ibi:

OK. I am open to suggestions. If leaving the Church or requiring people to leave the Church is not appropriate discipline, then

1. do you disagree that discipline may, at times, be necessary?
2. if you agree that discipline may, at times, be necessary, then what form should discipline take

a) so that those disciplined may receive clear instruction on how to amend their ways? and

b) so that those watching may receive clear instruction on how to avoid falling into the trap that those under discipline have chosen for themselves?

Reply so far:​

Maybe it’s worth saying that even excommunication cannot destroy all communion with the Church - that’s why returning excommunicates are not re-baptised: they were still Christians in some way. If it destroyed all communion with the Church, they would have to be treated as though they had never been Christians at all. ##

1. do you disagree that discipline may, at times, be necessary?

No - if anything, I think there should be more of it - applied consistently, without the slightest respect of persons. Not just to those whose opinions one finds abhorrent. I don’t think the lack of discipline for the bishops after the recent scandals is good at all - whether they are orthodox or not, should not let them off being disciplined if they do wrong. Disciplining the laity and priests is the easy way out - I want us laity to be protected from episcopal wrong-doing, and to have adequate redress against episcopal wrong-doing; including papal wrong-doing.​

I’m entirely in favour of “godly discipline” - what I find repulsive and wholly unChristian, is partiality in its application; for that makes it into a weapon wielded by whichever set of Catholics is able to bully the other. And that is not how we should behave. It is in no sense a means for one lot of Catholics to marginalise or bully or unchurch another lot - which means that if it is viewed as no more than a means for “conservatives” to “purge” the Church of “liberals”, it is being abused. (FWIW, ISTM that talk of “purging” is best kept for the practice of totalitarian tyrannies - the Church of Christ Crucified is not meant to to resemble Soviet Communism.)

Biassed discipline would be, not discipline, but hypocritical, therefore, scandalous - just as it is if “conservatives” are on the receiving end . Such factionalism is severely rebuked by St. Paul. Abuse of discipline is as truly an abuse as is abuse in the Liturgy - even though discipline (which is not the same as punishment, BTW) is not as important as the Liturgy. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Marie:

Right Fix. kumbya never helped anyone.

​

They either want to follow Christ or they don’t.

Which should be done only on His terms - and on no others.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes. The Church needs to maintain the consistency of her teachings. Those religious and lay people who are in charge of teaching and doing other Church business should absolutely conform the best they know how. If these people speak from their positions of authority in the Church, against Church teachings, then the Church has not only a right but a solemn obligation to stop it.

For those lay people who speak publicly against Church teachings, she has only to maintain the truth as promulgated by her teachers. These people are giving the Church jurisdiction over them in the way they are inviting the spiritual equivalent of slander, and although it may not be well advised, I certainly would not find fault with the Church speaking publicly against a false public claim, even if by one of her own members.

For those lay people who are bona fide mortal sinners, no. It isn’t up to the Church to punish someone for their sins. Surely when Christ gave her the authority to hold things bound, He didn’t expect her to do so at the expense of all His other teachings. Gosh, we even like to say when we excommunicate somebody that it is not about punishment or discipline, but about protecting the sinner from harm from receiving unworthily.

Discipline makes disciples out of us. One way to do that is with threats and bribes; another way to show our light that is so beautiful everyone wants a piece of it. Christ mocked those who used stones, condescention and condemnation in the heart, negative gossip, and other persuasion and punishment against sinners. Therefore I think, to repeat a cliche, want to try using honey instead of vinegar to make disciples.

Therefore, discipline should ideally be as infinitely loving and forgiving of sinners, anyone who humbles himself, and the persecuted, just as Christ showed us.

Tell them the truth. If they have ears they will hear. You raise a good question about how to amend their ways. We are experts at asserting they must change their ways, but what resources do we offer to help them, and how accessible are they? Look at how many people struggle with smoking. Having bad attitudes or lifestyle can be just as difficult to change. I think the Church has a beautiful apophatic tradition of mysticism and conversion, and I think she needs to get these tools a little more out of the cloisters and out where the laity can start learning “how to” go about improving their spiritual life.

There is a chasm between the spirit mind and the carnal mind. The carnal mind can be trained with punishment and reward, as can a dog or a cat. The spirit mind, though, takes a little bit different approach. That’s why I have emailed the Holy Father requesting the Church teaches more mystical theology to compliment her kataphatic teachings on dogmatic theology. She is the world’s standard for her familiarity with the Spritual Journey, with the likes of St. John of the Cross. Most Catholics know little about it, though, other than anecdotal. Mysticism is not just fairy tales. It is really the theory underlying what it takes to transform people’s hearts toward divine Union.

Those watching need to be taught they they are to be guided by the truth, not by watching what other sinners do. Whether other sinners are punished for their sins should have absolutely no relevance on whether we are expected to avoid sin.

The idea that we must punish a sinner for the image of the Church or to protect the Truth is precisely one major lie that Christ continuously combated, and still does to this day. This “obligation” to apply worldly punishment to wrongdoers based on surface observations (since after all we can never determine mortal sin culpability with absolute objectivity) is a human invention that has existed since before Jesus walked the earth, and is one of the fundamental lies that He came here to combat and die for. He took the punishment for our sins upon himself.

One thing I wonder, though. If a person does not receive a reward in heaven if they have already received an earthly reward such as doing their good deeds in public, then if you sin in public and are given an earthly reward, then does that cancel your debt to God and prevent heavenly retaliation? If that were the case, then can we quite literally “beat the sin” out of sinners?

Alan

That’s a much more adequate answer than any I could manage to give ​

“Infinitely loving” is not the most obvious description of the “ecclesiastical Stalinism” which “purges” “dissidents”. That is to have the mind of the world: for the Church to be no different in her treatment of her members from a purely human society, is a form of worldliness. Making human societies the model for her treatment of those in her is simply living down to the standards of those societies. The Church has trouble living by God’s grace - living by the standards of the world is much easier. It’s far “safer” ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

fix:

A few remarks. From the above quote Fr. Pavone did not say anything about capital punishment that would contradict the CCC. I assume from the quote he was intending that Catholics must accept what the CCC teaches on this topic.

So why was it mentioned ?​

As for Pelagianism that is a false charge. There is an obligation for the Church to protect the faith and the faithful.

There is - but there are bad ways of doing so. And if one has an ecclesiology which is in any degree Pelagian, it is likely to affect one’s pastoral practice, and one’s attitude to other Catholics.​

Pelagianism is a very serious danger, because it is so inviting - it is co-natural to man, to think he can save himself: but that means deforming the Biblical understanding of grace. Unless “conservatives” are free of all temptation there is not the slightest reason why they should be exempt from it ##

If many may be lead astray by false teachings and false prophets than those folks have excluded themselves by their actions.

Not if they are still in the Church, they haven’t. A great number of accusations against Catholics are untrue - so they need to be protected from those whose orthodoxy is co-extensive with their understanding of Christianity. (Matters might be helped if ther were not this fantasy of the Church as a monolith) People talk of “modernism” - the “Integrists” are not mentioned. But Integrism is as deadly as is distorting any of the Church’s doctrines; it harms the Church by poisoning the atmosphere, so that faith, hope, and charity cannot grow, but wither. Dictatorships need none of these - the Church dies without them.​

Doctrine is not everything - it is not even of primary importance. “Was the Immaculate Conception crucified for you ? Was Papal supremacy raised from the dead?” But Christ was. An act of charity is no less real for ignorance of the terminology on the part of the person who lives by charity. If the CC were merely a conveyor belt for doctrines, it would not be a Church. Doctrines are ten a penny , just as they were 2000 years ago - it is Jesus Christ Who is decisively different. Take away Christ, and the Church is merely “a stinking and infected sepulchre” - if He is Present, it becomes nothing of the kind. ##

They are welcome at anytime, but they have no right to lead others off the road to salvation.

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

It’s because President Bush never signed on to the Kyoto treaty, nor fully funded U.N. payments for subsidized abortion and euthenasia.

Relativism is no more evil than a hammer. It is a way of looking at things and can be used constructively or destructively. The complexity of the Church rules, the sum total of them supposedly defining the Two Great Commandments of Christ, are testimony that following Christ’s commands, at least on a theological basis, is extremely difficult and cannot even be grasped by your average wise and learned pharisee. That’s why God has revealed “these things” to little ones. A wise and learned person will say, “punish them for they have objectively sinned.” A little one will say, “hey that’s my friend. You bullies quit throwing stones at him.” Who is right? With which would Jesus side, or does He know how to side with everyone simultaneously (oooh nooo, pernmissiveness)?

Again, all I have to do to figure out the dynamics of the divisions in the Church is go back to sandbox 101 mentality. Anytime you have bickering and one kid trying to shove another one out of the sandbox because we won’t acknowledge him as Grand Arbiter Of Who Is Right And Wrong, and King of the Hill besides, you can pretty much bet that all the fancy vocabulary on either side is just window dressing trying to disguise childish one-upmanship and demonizing and self-aggrandization as a pious duty.

Alan

“I’d rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, if I could, I surely would, …” …that old sixties song. My point being, it matters who is driving who. The philosophical and belief construct of relativism drives people to abandon the revealed truth of God. I know of no hammer than can claim the same. As far as your cynical take that the developed theology of the Church in matters of faith and morality (the “complexity of Church rules”) to address the complexity of today’s world, what would have the Church do different to be a relevent (clear and convincing) moral voice in this world? For the believer, it all comes down to a childlike trust and obedience in the Church founded by the Son of our heavenly Father, and guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“I’d rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, if I could, I surely would, …” …that old sixties song. My point being, it matters who is driving who.

I only remember:
If I had a hammer I’d hammer in the morning.
I’d hammer in the evening all over this land.
I’d hammer out

I didn’t listen to much music until college, really, in 1977.

Yes, there is another saying that if you are a hammer then the whole world looks like a nail. If you are programmed to do the one particular work of mercy to admonish the sinner as much as possible, then you see everybody as if it’s your job to be their chief accuser. There already is one who accuses, and Christ beat him.

felra:

The philosophical and belief construct of relativism drives people to abandon the revealed truth of God.

Please excuse me but honestly that sounds like confusion to me. I cannot understand how you think “relativism” drives people to abandon the revealed truth of God. It does so no more than absolutism or any other “ism.”

Christ spent His ministry speaking against those who wished to dutifully execute the law to punish sinners or to at least speak ill of them and condemn the sinners in their hearts.

How relative can one get when the rules clearly state that a known prostitute should be stoned, and Christ thwarts justice? Bah, humbug, says I. Relativism is just a few syllables we like to throw around when we are confused about what is really relative or absolute.

“Splain” me this. How is “thou shalt not kill” an absolute command? There are volumes written about this, and quite a bit of material in the CCC.

felra:

As far as your cynical take that the developed theology of the Church in matters of faith and morality (the “complexity of Church rules”) to address the complexity of today’s world, what would have the Church do different to be a relevent (clear and convincing) moral voice in this world?

Cynical? Do you know of a single human being who actually knows and understands Church rules? If you can’t name anybody who actually understands it, then I ask you to endorse my adjective of “complexity” for it. Either that or I need to know your definition of complexity.

What I would have the Church do, is to get her heart and mind together. Bring her teachings on mysticism out from under the bushel basket that hides her light and use it to complete the theological education we’re now giving children. This way she would realize that the choices between mercy and justice from a human point of view are really much easier than we make them out to be.

When I went to Catholic grade school, they taught us jack zip about Catholicism. My kids are learning much Church teachings and dogma, but not much in the way of mysticism.

Luckily, the priest who just took over at the Catholic high school some of my kids still go to believes in Lectio Divina and has led CYO groups in it. This is good, because the CCC says prayer “should” move into contemplative forms, to realize true union with God.

felra:

For the believer, it all comes down to a childlike trust and obedience in the Church founded by the Son of our heavenly Father, and guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

When my children were little, I taught them that they are not each others’ bosses, but siblings. That means it is not their job to punish each other when they think the other has done wrong. Vengeance is mine, says I the dad.

Now that they are older I tell them that there will likely be a day when I am gone and they are still there. Therefore as they get into high school and beyond I think it’s much more important that they be unified with each other than with me anymore. They will have to take over and they need to get along without me there to referee them in person.

When they try to referee each other, there is nothing but disaster. That’s all it is when one Catholic says another Catholic isn’t Catholic enough to deserve the family name.

Someone said Catholicism is “clublike.” I now understand what he meant. In a club, you choose who is in and out based on how much you like them and how much they agree with you. In a family, you don’t get to choose – you are at the mercy of God to give you your family. You need to learn how to get along without one trying to punish the other. It just doesn’t work.

Another quiz about relativism. Which is the greater brother, the one who pontificates the best or the one who serves? Didn’t Paul specifically say he could recite all Scripture and still have not love? Knowing Catholic teachings intellectually and using it as a measuring stick to judge and condemn other Catholics in your heart might be just what he was talking about.

Alan

 

[fix]

## So why was it mentioned ? ##

I cannot read his mind, but in context he was implying Catholics are obligated to accept all that the Church teaches. A simple concept.

There is - but there are bad ways of doing so. And if one has an ecclesiology which is in any degree Pelagian, it is likely to affect one’s pastoral practice, and one’s attitude to other Catholics.​

I agree with this sentence, but I have no idea how it relates to the discussion.

Pelagianism is a very serious danger, because it is so inviting - it is co-natural to man, to think he can save himself: but that means deforming the Biblical understanding of grace. Unless “conservatives” are free of all temptation there is not the slightest reason why they should be exempt from it ##

You seem to imply the “conservatives” are tending toward Pelagianism because they accept the authority of the Church to discipline. It would seem “conservatives” are the exact opposite of Peligianists. “Conservatives” accept Church doctrine and hopefully practice cheerful obedience.

Not if they are still in the Church, they haven’t. A great number of accusations against Catholics are untrue - so they need to be protected from those whose orthodoxy is co-extensive with their understanding of Christianity. (Matters might be helped if ther were not this fantasy of the Church as a monolith) People talk of “modernism” - the “Integrists” are not mentioned. But Integrism is as deadly as is distorting any of the Church’s doctrines; it harms the Church by poisoning the atmosphere, so that faith, hope, and charity cannot grow, but wither. Dictatorships need none of these - the Church dies without them.​

Again, you seem to imply many things toward those that accept orthodoxy. I can’t see how you arrive at your conclusions.

Doctrine is not everything - it is not even of primary importance. “Was the Immaculate Conception crucified for you ? Was Papal supremacy raised from the dead?” But Christ was. An act of charity is no less real for ignorance of the terminology on the part of the person who lives by charity. If the CC were merely a conveyor belt for doctrines, it would not be a Church. Doctrines are ten a penny , just as they were 2000 years ago - it is Jesus Christ Who is decisively different. Take away Christ, and the Church is merely “a stinking and infected sepulchre” - if He is Present, it becomes nothing of the kind. ##

Why do you place Church teachings at odds with Christ? They are not at odds. They are of one source.

 

[felra]

AlanFromWichita:

Please excuse me but honestly that sounds like confusion to me. I cannot understand how you think “relativism” drives people to abandon the revealed truth of God. It does so no more than absolutism or any other “ism.”

Relativism is just a few syllables we like to throw around when we are confused about what is really relative or absolute.

Cynical? Do you know of a single human being who actually knows and understands Church rules?

What I would have the Church do, is to get her heart and mind together. Bring her teachings on mysticism out from under the bushel basket that hides her light and use it to complete the theological education we’re now giving children.

Another quiz about relativism. Which is the greater brother, the one who pontificates the best or the one who serves? Didn’t Paul specifically say he could recite all Scripture and still have not love? Knowing Catholic teachings intellectually and using it as a measuring stick to judge and condemn other Catholics in your heart might be just what he was talking about.
Alan

To state my belief more concisely: moral relativism drives people to abandon the revealed truth of God. Relativism diametrically opposes that a person, through God’s grace, can arrive at a firm, unequivocal, unshakable knowledge of absolute truth. The best testimony to belief in absolute truth is the martyrs who died for the faith. Moral relativism is best captured by Pilate’s cynical question to Jesus, the fount and foundation of all truth, “What is truth?”. Moral relativism is the enemy of the faith.

Catholicism is an invitation to all to know, accept and live the fullness of truth. At the heart of the Church is the holy Trinity, not a set of rules and doctrines.

The solution to your complaints starts with each Catholic experiencing and living out this faith reality for the mutual building up of each other (whether through works or words); otherwise you risk becoming that noisy gong that St. Paul warns about. There should be no disconnect between learning Church teaching and encountering the person of Jesus Christ (true mysticism). For how can you love and encounter someone [more fully] whom you do not know? A fervent personal faith relationship engages both the head and the heart. To exalt one above or against the other is a false dichotomy.

St. Paul repeatedly exhorted believers, that through the body of His Church, Christ desires and calls each person to a greater knowledge and maturity in faith; while realizing that some are still babes and others more mature in their understanding and discernment. This may entail “warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom” and “speaking the truth in love”, in order that “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine”:

1 Cor. 3: 2 “I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready,”

Heb. 5: 12, 14: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not** solid food**. But** solid food** is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. “

1 Cor. 14:20 “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature.

Col. 1:28 “Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man** mature **in Christ.”

Eph. 4:11-15 “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

It’s because President Bush never signed on to the Kyoto treaty, nor fully funded U.N. payments for subsidized abortion and euthenasia.

Relativism is no more evil than a hammer. It is a way of looking at things and can be used constructively or destructively. The complexity of the Church rules, the sum total of them supposedly defining the Two Great Commandments of Christ, are testimony that following Christ’s commands, at least on a theological basis, is extremely difficult and cannot even be grasped by your average wise and learned pharisee. That’s why God has revealed “these things” to little ones. A wise and learned person will say, “punish them for they have objectively sinned.” A little one will say, “hey that’s my friend. You bullies quit throwing stones at him.” Who is right? With which would Jesus side, or does He know how to side with everyone simultaneously (oooh nooo, pernmissiveness)?

Again, all I have to do to figure out the dynamics of the divisions in the Church is go back to sandbox 101 mentality. Anytime you have bickering and one kid trying to shove another one out of the sandbox because we won’t acknowledge him as Grand Arbiter Of Who Is Right And Wrong, and King of the Hill besides, you can pretty much bet that all the fancy vocabulary on either side is just window dressing trying to disguise childish one-upmanship and demonizing and self-aggrandization as a pious duty.

Alan

When moral relativism becomes your mindset and replaces the absolutes of God, then it is a problem.

The grand arbiter of right and wrong is God. He left the earthly power to His Church. Man does not have the authority to change any of Christ’s teachings.

Therefore, if man submits to God, he must also submit to His true Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I cannot understand how you think “relativism” drives people to abandon the revealed truth of God. It does so no more than absolutism or any other "ism."

…How relative can one get when the rules clearly state that a known prostitute should be stoned, and Christ thwarts justice? Bah, humbug, says I. Relativism is just a few syllables we like to throw around when we are confused about what is really relative or absolute.

“Splain” me this. How is “thou shalt not kill” an absolute command? There are volumes written about this, and quite a bit of material in the CCC.

Cynical? Do you know of a single human being who actually knows and understands Church rules? If you can’t name anybody who actually understands it, then I ask you to endorse my adjective of “complexity” for it. Either that or I need to know your definition of complexity.

…When my children were little, I taught them that they are not each others’ bosses, but siblings. That means it is not their job to punish each other when they think the other has done wrong. Vengeance is mine, says I the dad.

Now that they are older I tell them that there will likely be a day when I am gone and they are still there. Therefore as they get into high school and beyond I think it’s much more important that they be unified with each other than with me anymore. They will have to take over and they need to get along without me there to referee them in person.

When they try to referee each other, there is nothing but disaster. That’s all it is when one Catholic says another Catholic isn’t Catholic enough to deserve the family name.

Someone said Catholicism is “clublike.” I now understand what he meant. In a club, you choose who is in and out based on how much you like them and how much they agree with you. In a family, you don’t get to choose – you are at the mercy of God to give you your family. You need to learn how to get along without one trying to punish the other. It just doesn’t work.

Another quiz about relativism. Which is the greater brother, the one who pontificates the best or the one who serves? Didn’t Paul specifically say he could recite all Scripture and still have not love? Knowing Catholic teachings intellectually and using it as a measuring stick to judge and condemn other Catholics in your heart might be just what he was talking about.

Alan

This is a direct quote from another Catholic Forums thread: on which you, Alan, said the following:

AlanFromWichita:

I’m such a sneaky twit. I amuse myself sometimes with the degree of sheer pettiness I’ve allowed myself to stoop to lately.

While I think it would be “cute” in a way if somebody banned me, I wish I had a list of people who have. (After all, I could either ignore them or take it as a challenge of wits and have some fun with it.) Then I could go onto threads where they’ve posted, and make comments that relate what they’ve said to things others have said in “unique” ways. :bounce:

The goal would be to somehow get those who have read my posts to write things that are confusing to the one who banned me so they say stupid things in response and make fools out of themselves for being one step behind everyone else. I know I say some relatively off-the-wall things, but anyone who bans me is simply not getting the full flavor of my presence, so I have to get their attention in other ways!

Gosh, I have so much fun here. More fun than a human being should probably be allowed to have.

Alan

Pope Benedict has written powerfully on ‘relativism.’ Is there a reason you have chosen to ignore what our Pope has to say on the matter and instead expound from your own ‘authority’? What btw is your own authority?