Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[grannymh]

Now we have a poster here who feels that something should be said about the divinity of our Lord and Savior.

Now, I ask myself. WHY would that be necessary? Is it not plain that JESUS IS LORD AND SAVIOR?

In the early Catholic Church it was not plain that Jesus is True God.

When you have a free moment, please look up the Arian Heresy. You will find this heresy as you scroll down this Catholic Answers tract.
catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Today, there are many people who consider Jesus as a prophet among [human] prophets. He is also known as an historical figure who preached peace and love and thus improved the morals of the world. John Dominic Crossan (Jesus Seminar) is known for his description of Jesus as an itinerant preacher. There are many Christian faiths which do not accept the full reality of chapter 6, Gospel of John. In other words, Jesus is not divine enough to do what He is describing.

There have been some interesting comments about God forgiving everyone involved in the crucifixion of Jesus because they did not know what they were doing. In other words, Jesus did not have full divine power to know the extent of their culpability. From there, the premise of this thread is that humans do not have the rational power to commit a mortal rejection of God. Even if they did, God has already forgiven everyone because Jesus, on His cross, is not divine enough to separate the sheep from the goats.

Hopefully, one will get a sense of a modern version of Arianism, that is, Jesus was a great itinerant preacher Who was an excellent faith healer at times and because of politics He died as a regular human. Currently, according to the premise of this thread, we need not be concerned about our spiritual state in relationship to God. Rejection of God is described as impossible. Consequently, human nature as taught by the Catholic Church is trashed.

The state of mortal sin is a fantasy in the same way that Original Sin is a fantasy.

This thread asks us to smile and say – look folks, what Jesus taught is not all that serious. (partial divinity) If there is something serious, don’t worry, it can be explained away because the presumption is that there is no human who can knowingly and willingly reject God.

A belief in Adam has to be destroyed because that first real human did knowingly and willingly reject his Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Needed clarification of this sentence from post 359. “The state of mortal sin is a fantasy in the same way that Original Sin is a fantasy.”

The sentence should read: According to implications in this thread, the state of mortal sin becomes a fantasy in the same way that Original Sin is a fantasy.

 

[simpleas]

I haven’t settled my mind on what Jesus did mean when he spoke these words from the cross.

I came across this:

desiringgod.org/messages/father-forgive-for-we-know-what-we-are-doing

*The Guilt of Ignorance

Answer: Because they are guilty for not knowing what they are doing. Forgiveness is only needed for the guilty. Nobody can forgive an innocent person. That’s why all this talk these days about forgiving God is so wrongheaded, indeed, I would say, blasphemous if you really mean it. Forgiveness is for the guilty. So when Jesus says, “Father, forgive them,” he means they are guilty. Then when he says, “For they don’t know what they are doing,” he must mean, “And they should know what they are doing. And they are guilty for not knowing what they are doing.” In other words, they have so much evidence of the truth that the only explanation for their ignorance is they don’t want to see it. They are hard and resistant and have a guilty blindness. That is why they need to be forgiven.*

It’s not from a Catholic source.

Can one be guilty of being blind, is one blind through not knowing as much as God knows, or blind because they choose to be blind, I.E not face up to what they see in front of them?

I know there are people that just do not know about somethings and others that are aware of things but shrug it off and do their own will.
We know we are responsible for our own actions.

 

[Vico]

I haven’t settled my mind on what Jesus did mean when he spoke these words from the cross.

I came across this:

desiringgod.org/messages/father-forgive-for-we-know-what-we-are-doing

*The Guilt of Ignorance

Answer: Because they are guilty for not knowing what they are doing. Forgiveness is only needed for the guilty. Nobody can forgive an innocent person. That’s why all this talk these days about forgiving God is so wrongheaded, indeed, I would say, blasphemous if you really mean it. Forgiveness is for the guilty. So when Jesus says, “Father, forgive them,” he means they are guilty. Then when he says, “For they don’t know what they are doing,” he must mean, “And they should know what they are doing. And they are guilty for not knowing what they are doing.” In other words, they have so much evidence of the truth that the only explanation for their ignorance is they don’t want to see it. They are hard and resistant and have a guilty blindness. That is why they need to be forgiven.*

It’s not from a Catholic source.

Can one be guilty of being blind, is one blind through not knowing as much as God knows, or blind because they choose to be blind, I.E not face up to what they see in front of them?

I know there are people that just do not know about somethings and others that are aware of things but shrug it off and do their own will.
We know we are responsible for our own actions.

Yes, one can be guilty of ignorance.

Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Voluntary doubt and spiritual blindness.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

**2088 **The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
​

 

[OneSheep]

… trying to make the ‘opponent’ appear ignorant and then argue that obviously one cannot accept an argument from such a person --while not addressing the actual argument itself…

Dear Tantum,

I am hearing some anger, as you are writing in red to me, which is very hard on my eyes. It is so often that we criticize in others exactly what we ourselves are doing in the very moment.

As far as I can see in your reaction to my summary, there was one statement that actually addressed the actual argument itself. Here it is:

the Cardinal never said that humanity didn’t need forgiveness because there was never any sin to forgive, or that Christ’s death on the cross was independent of man’s sinning.

True, nor did I. I said that the incarnation was independent of man’s sinning, which is from Duns Scotus. What Pope Benedict said was this:

To many Christians, and especially to those who only know the faith from a fair distance, it looks as if the cross is to be understood as part of a mechanism of injured and restored right. It is the form, so it seems, in which the infinitely offended righteousness of God was propitiated again by means of an infinite expiation.

Which he contrasted with this:

Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about. With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction.

Looking over my statements again, I want to clarify something you did not mention, but may have reacted to.

“Christ did not come to erase sin…”

Christ’s coming certainly addressed sin. He gave us the means to overcome it, and He forgave us. He also taught us how to forgive. So in this sense, “erasing” sin was part of the reason for the incarnation. What I was relaying was that “salvation” has more to do with “straightening us”, putting us on the right path, rather than any sort of displaced punishment.

However, Tantum ergo, you must admit that many people do believe in a wrathful God, right? This is what I am saying that I am not quick to dismiss as “un-Catholic”, indeed, I think the view is understandable and acceptable.

For example, I am gathering that you are feeling a bit wrathful towards me, at least that is the impression I am getting from your last post. Does it make sense to you, then, that God is also feeling angry at me?

Why are you refusing to investigate that by dismissing it from the start???

I did not intend to dismiss. I am sorry if you got that impression. It is very hard to work on personal examples, and I wanted to give you something to consider. Your first post communicated to me that you still have some self-resentment, and I tried to address it directly.

Do you still have some self-resentment? Are you still in the mode of punishing yourself for your past errors? If so, an investigation here might help you understand and forgive yourself. If you do not want to throw all of your life onto the public screen here, you could PM me, but either way you would have to trust me somewhat, and at this point I do not think that you do, for understandable reasons.

I must admit, I am a bit confused by the “prayer warrior” designation. This is not the first time that the emphasis appears to be more on the “warrior” than the “prayer”. Pray for me, Tantum ergo, forgive me. Try to understand where I am coming from, if it helps.

Before you write back, forgive me, please. You could indicate such forgiveness by not writing in red.

God Bless your day. May He bless your family, your loved ones, your Church, all that supports you. May He guide you and I both, and shine the light of love upon us.

Enlighten us, dear Father, bring your Spirit and show us your way. Give us all the gift of understanding that we may forgive all, that none of us hold anything against the other.

Amen.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Iron Donkey!

Fair enough. I used myself as an example for two reasons: I know how my mind works (at least reasonably well), and I don’t want to accuse any other particular person of anything specific. However, I suspect my experience is very far from unique, since it appears to line up well with what is described by St. Paul in Romans (and I don’t suspect that most of the population is more holy than Paul).

What Paul said was that God forgave him for his persecution of Christians because He saw his ignorance. Paul’s words about doing what he did not think right were observations and words of frustration. We can all relate to that. It is through suffering that everything becomes more clear. All of us have not suffered enough, in various ways.

In any case, the example of my own actions certainly demonstrates that a human does in fact occasionally knowingly and willingly reject God. I’ve done it. St. Paul has done it. St. Peter did it at least three times. I suspect one or two other people might have as well

.

We can try to address St. Peter, if you bring up a specific instance. In the denial moments, Peter’s mind was overcome with fear, which compromised his “knowing”. What I am suggesting is that when people experience fear, desire, and resentment they are blinded in several ways. This blindness does not, in my definition, describe “knowingly”. Specifically, if Peter was not blinded in this way, he would not make the same choice to deny Christ. His blindness was a crucial part of his denial.

Not true. When I ignore something, I willingly and knowingly refuse to take it into account even though I know it is there. When my phone rings and I don’t have time to talk right now, I ignore the rings. But they’re still there and I still know that.

Yes, they are still there but you are not valuing the rings at the moment. Your mind may be saying “I should value” but as you said further on, it is not what the mind says that is important. Instead, we “speak with our feet” concerning our values, right?. Our values are communicated by real action.

I think you are missing the distinction I am making here. I have a motivation for my actions, but that motivation is illogical. There is a reason why I have that motivation, and there is a reason why I have an inclination to act on it (original sin in both cases), but there is no reason whatsoever that I actually do other than that I decided to. I did it because I wanted to, and for no other reason, and I have no valid reason for wanting to, or for acting on that want despite knowing that it is wrong.

Yes, in retrospect you had no “valid” reason for wanting to take an action contrary to the values that you uphold when you are not blinded by desire, fear, or resentment. You did it because you wanted to, and your actions spoke louder than your words at the moment. Regardless of what some little voice said “this is what you ‘should’ do”, you spoke your immediate values “with your feet”. Why did you want to do it? Probably some appetite was at work, that is the reason, that is the motivation.

Why did you “vote with your feet” in a direction opposite to the values you hold when you are not caught up in desire?

Which is why it is important to understand that there is no reason for sin, only (attempts at) excuses

.

There are explanations, though. Let’s keep it up. Keep in mind that we are not trying to avert consequence.

cont’d

 

[OneSheep]

Iron Donkey:

The thing is, it doesn’t matter what mental noise he makes. He can tell himself all kinds of lies that he doesn’t believe, but which are “noisy” enough to cover up the voice of reason (which he knows is still there, and which he knows is correct) long enough to go through with the action.

You are seeing what I am seeing. Yes, the value of the object he wants is making more noise than the voice of reason.

He may know that the voice of reason is “correct”, but he is not valuing it at the moment, he is “speaking his values with his hands”. Nearly everyone has some value of not stealing, even the Roma (‘gypsies’) do not steal from their own. In order to steal, a person’s “knowing” is somehow compromised, or the stealing does not happen. Something happens in the mind. If something did not happen in the mind, would he steal? Well, I must admit that once when a store refused to take back a faulty product I was tempted to pocket something in my next purchase, my mind was resenting, and the resentment affected my values. Without this resentment and subsequent blindess, I would not have been tempted to steal. What was needed was to forgive the store management, which I did.

A rather dark example: imagine someone trying to work up the nerve to step out in front of a train. They might close their eyes and cover their ears so that the fact that it’s coming is easier to ignore before they take the step, but they still know it’s coming, and if they step out in front of it, they will still get hit. They block out as much of the more obvious signs of the truth, not because doing so makes it go away or actually makes them think it went away, but because it makes it easier to act against it, knowing that it is there.

So, why does he want to act against it? What is the main value, at the moment, he is acting on?

Further, in reference to your number 5, it is not necessary to explicitly say “I want to reject God” in order to be rejecting God. You don’t have to consciously be telling your friend “I betray you” in order for the act of throwing him under the bus at work to get a promotion to be a betrayal - it is a betrayal precisely because it uses unjustly harming him as a method to gain things for yourself, and any person with a reasonable grasp of morality knows this.

Likewise, you don’t have to say “I betray you, Jesus” in order to knowingly betray Him.

Okay, remember I am using “knowingly” such that there is something not being considered, or a there is something different taking precedent over a value. The explicit rejection is not necessary, I am trying to reach a subconscious voice.

Let’s say, in your example, a person does not say “I betray” but betrays. Yes, he knows he betrays. However, why does he betray? What is going on in his mind?

Thank you Iron Donkey, for your patience and engagement. I truly appreciate your participation (as opposed to detractors). I very much look forward to reading your counter to my observations.

God Bless your day!

 

[OneSheep]

There are three sources of acts that may be forgiven: ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice. Certainly we understand that fear, violence, heredity, temperament, and pathological states are motivation for some acts that we may forgive through compassion. We may also forgive malice even if we do not comprehend that motivation, through striving for charity.

So, Vico,

Yes, we can forgive without understanding, but it can be very difficult to do so. If you are capable in this way, you are blessed.

I do not detect any resentment or lack of forgiveness in your tone. I truly believe that you forgive all people you hold anything against, so this thread for you may have no purpose.

My own observations, as you know, indicate that violence, fear, heredity, temperament, and pathological states affect our minds, and that effect is precisely why people reject God. Without those crucial factors affecting the mind, the rejection simply would not occur, so the rejection of God to me cannot be characterized as “knowingly”. You, on the other hand, are using “knowingly” to include the irrational. What is the purpose of having “knowingly” include the irrational? Is there something within that does not want to forgive our irrationality?

Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do.” If I claim that “irrational” is “knowing” then I find reason to remain in a group of those still blamed by God, perhaps. Yet surely there were plenty of people at the crucifixion who were behaving irrationally, and such irrationality compromised their “knowing” and led to their choice to crucify. Are we to say that Jesus was not addressing their irrational choices when he said “for they know not what they do?” Or that Jesus was not addressing those in the crowd who had chosen to be ignorant?

On the subject of ignorance, what I have observed is that people who choose ignorance do so in ignorance. I have not found a counter-example to this observation, have you?

Thanks Vico!

 

[OneSheep]

I haven’t settled my mind on what Jesus did mean when he spoke these words from the cross.

I came across this:

desiringgod.org/messages/father-forgive-for-we-know-what-we-are-doing

*The Guilt of Ignorance

Answer: Because they are guilty for not knowing what they are doing. Forgiveness is only needed for the guilty. Nobody can forgive an innocent person. That’s why all this talk these days about forgiving God is so wrongheaded, indeed, I would say, blasphemous if you really mean it. Forgiveness is for the guilty. So when Jesus says, “Father, forgive them,” he means they are guilty. Then when he says, “For they don’t know what they are doing,” he must mean, “And they should know what they are doing. And they are guilty for not knowing what they are doing.” In other words, they have so much evidence of the truth that the only explanation for their ignorance is they don’t want to see it. They are hard and resistant and have a guilty blindness. That is why they need to be forgiven.*

It’s not from a Catholic source.

Can one be guilty of being blind, is one blind through not knowing as much as God knows, or blind because they choose to be blind, I.E not face up to what they see in front of them?

I know there are people that just do not know about somethings and others that are aware of things but shrug it off and do their own will.
We know we are responsible for our own actions.

Hi Simpleas,

All the people who supported the crucifixion were guilty for what happened. I think Jesus was addressing all of them. I think that chosen blindness is rare, but there may have been some present. In my observation, chosen blindness follows either triggered blindness or ignorance.

Did I address the jist of your comments, though?
Thanks

 

[grannymh]

Dear Tantum,

I am hearing some anger, as you are writing in red to me, which is very hard on my eyes. It is so often that we criticize in others exactly what we ourselves are doing in the very moment.

Could it be that in some cases, for example anger when there is injustice, that anger urges us to correct the injustice? When there is misinformation about our Catholic Church, possibly, that could be considered a form of injustice to our readers.

I said that the incarnation was independent of man’s sinning, which is from Duns Scotus.

It is time to examine the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth in regard to its mission. Matthew 28: 16-20.
"Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Personally, I like John 21: 15-18 where Jesus tells the first Pope to feed My lambs, tend My sheep, feed My sheep.

Starting with Acts, chapter 15, known as the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles gathered together to examine the legitimate views (plural intended) on circumcision. The tradition of presenting legitimate views is present in each and every Major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council, including the views of Duns Scotus, all the Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Philosophers, Theologians, and Poets. In addition, the Liturgy as practiced world wide is reviewed. Homilies, letters, and prayers are read. Sacred Scripture is searched endlessly. Previous declared doctrines offer valuable information regarding Divine Revelation.

The above is known as the protocol of preparation for a Church Council. It should be obvious that all the above preparation is necessary to discern which legitimate view expresses Divine Revelation. It also should be obvious that when the preparation material is examined, basic propositions, pro and con, are formed.

At this point, verses 25-26 of the extremely important chapter 14, Gospel of John, are needed.
“I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name—He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you."

With the supreme guidance of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, doctrines are properly formed and duly proclaimed.

The modern question is – What happens to the teachings of people like Duns Scotus and others which do not become formal doctrines. Back then, nothing happens because people generally yield to the decisions of the Council which often include the erroneous material to be avoided. However, considering the amount of preparation material, not every piece that has been discarded becomes a formal heresy. Rational intelligence did exist in those days.

Just for fun. Take a look at the “Index of Citations” starting on CCC page 689.

The simple explanation is that not every word of great saints automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

It is perfectly proper for unnamed public authors and speakers to go back to the teachings presented in the past. A difficulty occurs when a complex doctrine, such as Jesus being True God and True Man due to the Incarnation, is explored.

Here is an example from OneSheep, post 363.
" I said that the incarnation was independent of man’s sinning, which is from Duns Scotus."

Unfortunately, I do not have the reasoning from Duns Scotus. Still, a red flag is prominent because of the omission or avoidance of Original Sin. In the Catholic Church, Adam’s Original Sin necessitated the Incarnation of True God and True Man.

Duns Scotus is a great thinker so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Without seeing the context of Duns Scotus words, it is possible to consider couple of interpretations.

Here is how OneSheep approached the Incarnation. From post 264, page 18.

In the alternative view, which I am for now coining the “supernatural” view, God forgives us “before always”, even before He hit the “create” button. Christ did not come to erase sin, but instead Christ’s incarnation was totally independent of man’s sin, that the incarnation was not dependent on man sinning. In this view, Christ’s coming served more to show man that He (as seen as the Father) does not hold anything against us, indeed forgives unconditionally, as proven from the Cross.



I am going to skip possible interpretations because OneSheep has presented his interpretation. In any case, I do not believe that Duns Scotus denied Mortal Sin. OneSheep could provide the context if Duns Scotus denied Mortal Sin. I also wonder if Duns Scotus denied the existence of Adam and his original relationship with his Creator.

Personally, I would consider giving our readers an alternative view filled with holes as an example of injustice. A bit of anger will help us get off our comfortable chairs and defend the truth of Catholicism.

 

[OneSheep]

Personally, I would consider giving our readers an alternative view filled with holes as an example of injustice. A bit of anger will help us get off our comfortable chairs and defend the truth of Catholicism.

Is that why you posted, Granny, because you feel angry?

If so, what specifically triggered your anger?

 

[grannymh]

Is that why you posted, Granny, because you feel angry?

If so, what specifically triggered your anger?

I love your compliments.

What did you say was the object of my anger?

Sorry my mistake. You want to know specifically what triggered my anger. Heavens to Betsy! That would take a month of Sundays for me to give you specifics. Is there any way you could propose a couple of specifics and then I could say yes, no, maybe?

Bless my soul! Am I ever slow today. You already know specifically what provokes this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny. It is right at the top of my post 368. It is “injustice to our readers.”

 

[grannymh]

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

Be very careful in reading this presentation from OneSheep, post 264, page 18.
Approximately 97% of it is not Catholic teaching.

“In the alternative view, which I am for now coining the “supernatural” view, God forgives us “before always”, even before He hit the “create” button. Christ did not come to erase sin, but instead Christ’s incarnation was totally independent of man’s sin, that the incarnation was not dependent on man sinning. In this view, Christ’s coming served more to show man that He (as seen as the Father) does not hold anything against us, indeed forgives unconditionally, as proven from the Cross. For what could be a worse death that torture, and yet from this position He forgives, showing us, by His observation/assertion, that we do not know what we are doing, and He did so without any sign of repentance from the crowd. He showed us something humanly possible, a perfection found in the Father, an unconditional love. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change man’s view toward God. (But also, in my mind, serves to change man’s view toward man.)”

In the Catholic Church, it is true that Jesus forgives the repentant sinner. And it is true that a person in the state of mortal sin can knowingly and willingly seek reconciliation with the Creator. It is true that the incarnate Jesus Christ is True God and True Man.

 

[Aloysium]

granny

 

[OneSheep]

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

Be very careful in reading this presentation from OneSheep, post 264, page 18.
Approximately 97% of it is not Catholic teaching.

“In the alternative view, which I am for now coining the “supernatural” view, God forgives us “before always”, even before He hit the “create” button. Christ did not come to erase sin, but instead Christ’s incarnation was totally independent of man’s sin, that the incarnation was not dependent on man sinning. In this view, Christ’s coming served more to show man that He (as seen as the Father) does not hold anything against us, indeed forgives unconditionally, as proven from the Cross. For what could be a worse death that torture, and yet from this position He forgives, showing us, by His observation/assertion, that we do not know what we are doing, and He did so without any sign of repentance from the crowd. He showed us something humanly possible, a perfection found in the Father, an unconditional love. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change man’s view toward God. (But also, in my mind, serves to change man’s view toward man.)”

In the Catholic Church, it is true that Jesus forgives the repentant sinner. And it is true that a person in the state of mortal sin can knowingly and willingly seek reconciliation with the Creator. It is true that the incarnate Jesus Christ is True God and True Man.

Sheesh, Granny!

97% ? Okay. Why don’t you start with 1%. Name one thing in the “alternate view” that contradicts Catholic teaching. Let the reader evaluate. Does anything in my statement contradict what you wrote in your last paragraph? Not a word.

In the mean time,Granny, saying “omni” is arianism? And now you are being so uncharitable. What is wrong, dear?

 

[Vico]

So, Vico,

Yes, we can forgive without understanding, but it can be very difficult to do so. If you are capable in this way, you are blessed.

I do not detect any resentment or lack of forgiveness in your tone. I truly believe that you forgive all people you hold anything against, so this thread for you may have no purpose.

My own observations, as you know, indicate that violence, fear, heredity, temperament, and pathological states affect our minds, and that effect is precisely why people reject God. Without those crucial factors affecting the mind, the rejection simply would not occur, so the rejection of God to me cannot be characterized as “knowingly”. You, on the other hand, are using “knowingly” to include the irrational. What is the purpose of having “knowingly” include the irrational? Is there something within that does not want to forgive our irrationality?

Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do.” If I claim that “irrational” is “knowing” then I find reason to remain in a group of those still blamed by God, perhaps. Yet surely there were plenty of people at the crucifixion who were behaving irrationally, and such irrationality compromised their “knowing” and led to their choice to crucify. Are we to say that Jesus was not addressing their irrational choices when he said “for they know not what they do?” Or that Jesus was not addressing those in the crowd who had chosen to be ignorant?

On the subject of ignorance, what I have observed is that people who choose ignorance do so in ignorance. I have not found a counter-example to this observation, have you?

Thanks Vico!

You do not use the vocabulary of the Church with regard to knowledge. The purpose of using the definitions the way the Church does is that they are more clearly defined and consistent with the Catechism.

Passion is irrational and yet we may willingly resist it because God has given us the grace to do so. We ask for forgiveness for the offense in not opposing our irrational thoughts, actions, and ommissions, where we could oppose them.

Jesus addresses irrational acts because all sin is irrational, and also tells us not to sin, and that not all sin will be forgiven.

Sometimes people are blinded through habitual sin, first established by bad environment, had dulled consciences, and have not learned the moral truths, and may therefore not be culpable, yet their actions are objectively immoral. Damage, unintended, is thereby done through scandal, and this may be forgiven by those harmed. You also know of invincible ignorance and vincible ignorance. Some people choose to ignore their consciences because of pride or malice, which they could curb.

 

[OneSheep]

You do not use the vocabulary of the Church with regard to knowledge. The purpose of using the definitions the way the Church does is that they are more clearly defined and consistent with the Catechism.

Good Morning, Vico

I am using “knowingly” in the sense that the knowledge is pertinent to the act. This is not contrary to Church teachings.

Passion is irrational and yet we may willingly resist it because God has given us the grace to do so. We ask for forgiveness for the offense in not opposing our irrational thoughts, actions, and ommissions, where we could oppose them.

Passion is irrational in terms of the value that one should have is not taking precedent over the value from which the person with passion is acting. People make choices based on value, Vico. Unless a person is positively insane, which appears to be the example you gave, people make their decisions based on the value that compels them in the moment. If a person says “yes, I value my faith” but acts immorally, they are “voting with theiir feet”, they are ignorant of the actual goings-on in their mind. The person who has an affair is saying with their decision, right here and right now, “the decision I am making is based on the value I place on having this affair”. To do any less than acknowledge this, Vico, is to avoid holding the person accountable.

Jesus addresses irrational acts because all sin is irrational, and also tells us not to sin, and that not all sin will be forgiven.

Pope Francis, 19th May - God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us. @Pontifex

All sins are forgiven, Vico. Of course, if we do not repent and ask forgiveness for sin, we do not experience God’s love and forgiveness in a real way, we are still lost. Jesus said to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Forgiveness, Vico, is love. Unconditional forgiveness is an example of perfect love.

God does not withold his forgiveness from us until we’re sorry. He’s constantly offerring his forgiveness to us, but by being unforgiving to others, we block ourselves from receiving this gift. [To refrain from forgivenness puts us] in a spiritually dangerous position, and [sets us] up for continuing emotional pain.
Fr. Scott Hurd

See the first comment on this article:

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/to-forgive-or-not-to-forgive-%E2%80%94-that-is-the-question

Sometimes people are blinded through habitual sin, first established by bad environment, had dulled consciences, and have not learned the moral truths, and may therefore not be culpable, yet their actions are objectively immoral. Damage, unintended, is thereby done through scandal, and this may be forgiven by those harmed. You also know of invincible ignorance and vincible ignorance. Some people choose to ignore their consciences because of pride or malice, which they could curb.

On culpability: If “culpable” means “blameworthy”, then such blame is going to based on the beholder. When I hold onto blame, I am holding a grudge, and we are not called to this. Does God hold onto blame: no, see above.

That said, how does one forgive? That is why this thread is pertinient. Yes, people can curb pride and malice, if they have the awareness to do so and value such “curbing”. People sin because in the moment they do not value such curbing, are not aware of the possibility of such curbing or do not have the skills to enact such curbing. All of these scenarios we can more easily forgive if we utilize the gift of understanding. All chosen ignorance is done from a position of blindness or ignorance.

If you can think of a counterexample to that last sentence, please feel free to provide one.

Do you see what I am saying, Vico? Take a look at the article I referenced above. The author rationalized non-forgiveness possibly because he lacks the skill to forgive. But Jesus shows us, from the cross, how to forgive in even the absolute worst of circumstances, we can see that people “know not what they do” which is exactly what this thread is about.

Thanks, Vico. I hope you can see now that this thread is about forgiveness. You are extremely knowledgeable and resourceful, and I appreciate that.

 

[grannymh]

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

Be very careful in reading this presentation from OneSheep, post 264, page 18.
Approximately 97% of it is not Catholic teaching.
“In the alternative view, which I am for now coining the “supernatural” view, God forgives us “before always”, even before He hit the “create” button. Christ did not come to erase sin, but instead Christ’s incarnation was totally independent of man’s sin, that the incarnation was not dependent on man sinning. In this view, Christ’s coming served more to show man that He (as seen as the Father) does not hold anything against us, indeed forgives unconditionally, as proven from the Cross. For what could be a worse death that torture, and yet from this position He forgives, showing us, by His observation/assertion, that we do not know what we are doing, and He did so without any sign of repentance from the crowd. He showed us something humanly possible, a perfection found in the Father, an unconditional love. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change man’s view toward God. (But also, in my mind, serves to change man’s view toward man.)”

Sheesh, Granny!

97% ? Okay. Why don’t you start with 1%. Name one thing in the “alternate view” that contradicts Catholic teaching. Let the reader evaluate. Does anything in my statement contradict what you wrote in your last paragraph? Not a word.

The first sentence denies some of the Catholic teachings on the two-way relationship between a separate Divinity and a separate humanity. That could be due to the influence of panentheism, that is, God is not transcendent.

The second sentence denies the fundamental reason for the Incarnation.

The third sentence misrepresents the positions of God and man.

The fourth sentence is correct regarding torture and death; however, the rest has a stealth attack on the meaning of full divinity which could be due to modern Arianism.

The fifth sentence has the implication that a divine perfection in God can be humanly possible. Divine and human are separate. The influence of panentheism could be present.

The sixth sentence speaks about man’s view of God. There can be a thousand legitimate views of God. But not all legitimate views have been formally defined as Catholic doctrines. And some of the legitimate views are downright ugly.

It is a beautiful morning. It reminds me of Genesis 1: 26-27. Consequently, I will give the sixth sentence the benefit of the doubt. Someone can figure out the change in percentage.

In the mean time,Granny, saying “omni” is arianism? And now you are being so uncharitable. What is wrong, dear?

Lots of things can be said about modern Arianism. I have just started exploring stealth Arianism in depth. Here is an interesting link. romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico

I am using “knowingly” in the sense that the knowledge is pertinent to the act. This is not contrary to Church teachings.

Passion is irrational in terms of the value that one should have is not taking precedent over the value from which the person with passion is acting. People make choices based on value, Vico. Unless a person is positively insane, which appears to be the example you gave, people make their decisions based on the value that compels them in the moment. If a person says “yes, I value my faith” but acts immorally, they are “voting with theiir feet”, they are ignorant of the actual goings-on in their mind. The person who has an affair is saying with their decision, right here and right now, “the decision I am making is based on the value I place on having this affair”. To do any less than acknowledge this, Vico, is to avoid holding the person accountable.

Pope Francis, 19th May - God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us. @Pontifex

All sins are forgiven, Vico. Of course, if we do not repent and ask forgiveness for sin, we do not experience God’s love and forgiveness in a real way, we are still lost. Jesus said to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Forgiveness, Vico, is love. Unconditional forgiveness is an example of perfect love.

God does not withold his forgiveness from us until we’re sorry. He’s constantly offerring his forgiveness to us, but by being unforgiving to others, we block ourselves from receiving this gift. [To refrain from forgivenness puts us] in a spiritually dangerous position, and [sets us] up for continuing emotional pain.
Fr. Scott Hurd

See the first comment on this article:

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/to-forgive-or-not-to-forgive-%E2%80%94-that-is-the-question

On culpability: If “culpable” means “blameworthy”, then such blame is going to based on the beholder. When I hold onto blame, I am holding a grudge, and we are not called to this. Does God hold onto blame: no, see above.

That said, how does one forgive? That is why this thread is pertinient. Yes, people can curb pride and malice, if they have the awareness to do so and value such “curbing”. People sin because in the moment they do not value such curbing, are not aware of the possibility of such curbing or do not have the skills to enact such curbing. All of these scenarios we can more easily forgive if we utilize the gift of understanding. All chosen ignorance is done from a position of blindness or ignorance.

If you can think of a counterexample to that last sentence, please feel free to provide one.

Do you see what I am saying, Vico? Take a look at the article I referenced above. The author rationalized non-forgiveness possibly because he lacks the skill to forgive. But Jesus shows us, from the cross, how to forgive in even the absolute worst of circumstances, we can see that people “know not what they do” which is exactly what this thread is about.

Thanks, Vico. I hope you can see now that this thread is about forgiveness. You are extremely knowledgeable and resourceful, and I appreciate that.

I did not give an example of insanity, but rather all sin is irrational. Irrational is a different word and meaning that insane.

Yes, God always forgives us, but we may self-exclude ourselves through final impenitence and that is what is meant by the unforgivable sin. Jesus says:Matt 12:30-32 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

 

[OneSheep]

I did not give an example of insanity, but rather all sin is irrational. Irrational is a different word and meaning that insane.

Yes, God always forgives us, but we may self-exclude ourselves through final impenitence and that is what is meant by the unforgivable sin. Jesus says:Matt 12:30-32 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Hi Vico

The use of “unforgiveable sin” is very controversial. In my own catechesis, it has to do with being completely closed-minded about forgiving others and closed to the love of God. It is essentially refusal to choose eternal life, refusal to choose love.

Does any person knowingly and willingly refuse to choose love? Can you think of an example? I have tried, but I cannot.

Again, we are going to have different approaches to “irrational”. The irrationality is key to the person’s behavior, and irrationality does not indicate a “knowing” or “willing”.
No person “knowingly” wants to be irrational, when a person is irrational, something is not right in their mind.

Thanks.