Collegiality

[Abu]

Genesis315 #20
The problem with a completely free market, ironically, is that it destroys free enterprise.

When Bl John Paul II used the term “free economy” it meant precisely to what I have referred, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has expressed, in Post #15.

There is not and never has been a “completely free market”, and the State has the duty to improve laws as and when necessary, to regulate the actions of individuals, singly or as a corporation.

 

[Abu]

jimkhong #18
Jesus stressed the indisoluability of marriage when talking to the scribes but showed compassion when faced with the adulterous woman.

In the face of the evident sorrow of the woman, “Go and sin no more” is very clear. The Christ also commanded us to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
We need to face it.

One indication was the suggestion from Pope Francis that we may want to look at the Orthodox views on divorce. The Orthodox position is quite interesting as they accept the indissolubility of marriage but they also accept that people also make mistakes. In certain situations, they allow a second marriage (not annulment of the earlier one) but note that it is in certain situations only (I believe the priests/bishops have some guidance in deciding when it is appropriate but I haven’t discussed with any Orthodox priests yet on how it works). Off topic: I find it illustrative of how the humility of this Pope contrast with some triumphalist Catholics who feel we have nothing to learn from other religions.

The fantasy that “views” on divorce from those who have rejected the Magisterium could affect the teaching from Jesus in His Church on the indissolubility of marriage is false.

If a little flexiblity in how the doctrines are to be practiced bring people back to the sacraments, does the strength afforded by the sacraments in those areas a person has been good, outweigh the stain of the sin that coudl otehrwise have excluded them from the sacrament?

With the very evident propensity to evil ever growing in our world, the clarity needed to pursue growth in holiness needs to be continually sought amidst the morass of confusion.

Pope Francis: “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

Exactly. Some could well learn from this.

I just want to illustrate that when faced with the real life in the streets, things like doctrine gets murky.

Doctrine clarifies and enables the practice of virtue for real life. That is why it can develop without contradiction. Murkiness arises from human frailty, or design.

 

[steve_b]

Which doctrines
The Bible is full of doctrines, some of which are applicable is some situations and some in others. For instance, take the point of divorce. Jesus clearly said that marriage is indisoluable but then he goes to forgive the adulterous woman. Does this mean that we should be strict about marriage or do we forgive those who have remarried (and therefore technically in an adulterous relationship)? Most of us would have an opinion and that opinion would depend on which of the two Gospel readings we give more weight to. We could accpet one and minimise the other but most of us don’t. Most opinions would not be sitting at either extremes but would sit somewhere in between. We try to reconcile the two by determining which one would be more applicable in which situation.

re: the adultery issue

Or any sin for that matter, IMV the woman was given a warning and a valuable gift.

• If Jesus hadn’t been there she would be dead.
• The men who accused here and were willing to stone her, learned a lesson as well. Who knows, maybe they were guilty of being with her too…accomplices so to speak. Certainly none of them felt worthy in their own life of throwing the first stone because they were all guilty of as much
• The woman however, wasn’t given a permanent pass for her sin. She was told to sin no more , [John 8:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:11&version=RSVCE) .
• Looking forward, the sin is deadly.[1 Corinthians 6:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+6:9&version=RSVCE) , one won’t go to heaven if they die in this sin. And that warning and judgement ultimately came from Jesus the one who will judge everyone [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)

What I’m finding, all kinds of people sound bite the quote “neither do I condemn you”. They see that response from Jesus as liscence to commit all kinds of sin because Jesus won’t condemn me… since He didn’t condemn the adulteress. A total contradiction of what Jesus said.
jh:

This is why people, whom we assume are all to be equally informed ad educated, have different opinions on what doctrines mean in daily living, and, while the doctrines themselves and Church teachings do not change, they way we approach them may (but not always) change.

I wish that was true.

Truth is,. an ignorant Catholic, which the numbers sad to say are legion in numbers, can’t pass on the faith because they don’t know it themselves in the first place.

No question, that’s gotta change.
jh:

For instance, the doctine of the eucharist as spiritual sustenance is clear and unchanged but do you know that frequent communion is just over a century old. In medieval times, some people take communion only once a year and most are content to view the host for their salvation instead of eating it (one reason for the elevation of the host at mass today). I for one will not be telling them that they are wrong because they live the doctrines based on the thinking of the day, which differs today.

It’s also possible the Catholic of that day knew exactly what they were receiving, and were burdened with mortal sin, and they knew they weren’t worthy to receive until they got to confession, but they could still go to mass just the same. It’s interesting, the statistics in that day was ~80% of Catholics never deliberately missed Sunday mass. Not so today.
jh:

Pope Francis: “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently."

Application of rules
Doctrines are expressed in the daily living by rules and guidelines. Sometimes they need to be enforced by those same rules.

You may have heard of the saying “the law is an ***” (maybe more common in UK than US). This arises because the law is not able to adapt to a new situation that arises. That is why we have laws being repealed or amended constantly.

Sin is pretty clear cut. It doesn’t take much analysis.
jh:

Pope Francis : “I do not want a Church concerned with being at the center and then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures,”

I’ve seen the quote.

What I’m learning about this pope, he can’t be soundbited
vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

 

[jimkhong]

They see that response from Jesus as liscence to commit all kinds of sin because Jesus won’t condemn me… since He didn’t condemn the adulteress. A total contradiction of what Jesus said.

I agree with you Steve, that is why Jesus exercised judgement, which probably wasn’t clear in the reading. As I understand it, Orthodox priests before allowing a second marriage has to evaluate the situation before allowing it. For that matter, a priest would evaluate someone’s confession before granting absolution - if the confession does not reflect true contrition, he can withhold absolution.

It’s also possible the Catholic of that day knew exactly what they were receiving, and were burdened with mortal sin, and they knew they weren’t worthy to receive until they got to confession, but they could still go to mass just the same. It’s interesting, the statistics in that day was ~80% of Catholics never deliberately missed Sunday mass. Not so today.

They did, something that Pius X changed - among the things he introduced was First Holy Communion (I think in 1903). Without Pius X, we would still be reminding ourselves of our misery instead of taking the spiritiual sustenance Jesus promised. Still, there are those who think people take the Body of Jesus too loosely.

What I’m learning about this pope, he can’t be soundbited

Oh, I agree. It is true that they sound great but one should always try to read the entire abstract (I download the whole interview/statement/etc where I can). You get an understanding of why but I don’t agree that the underlying reading gives a perspective different from the headlines - most people, but not all, do not lack that much intelligence . Still, his statements are like that eternal well - they can give you more the more you dig (I hope that is not too hagiographic)