O
OneSheep
Guest
It is not a change. Please explain what I am “changing”. But since this thread is about understanding and forgiving, can you message me instead?
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you nailed it right here, OS. The perspective has shifted to one of understanding and forgiving.
Instead of evaluating human behavior based upon grave matter, sufficient knowledge, and assent of the will, understanding and forgiving can be substituted as a framework or lens through which we perceive that behavior, so the outcome is significantly different. Instead of focusing on blame and culpability, the focus can be on healing.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, the call to forgive involves an awareness of the “holding”. Since Jesus calls us to forgive “as we stand praying” (Mark 11:25), He is asking us to reflect on whether or not we hold something against someone. Once we have the awareness that we are feeling resentment, we can actually choose to address this “holding against” by practicing forgiveness. Once we are aware of resentment, we can either voluntarily address it through forgiveness from the heart, or we can voluntarily ignore the call, right?
V
Vico
Guest
No switching terms because it will not address the point: holding not as containment, but as you said before, holding against. Holding against is voluntary, an act, whereas containment is either voluntary or involuntary.Vico:
Yes, the call to forgive involves an awareness of the “holding”. Since Jesus calls us to forgive “as we stand praying” (Mark 11:25), He is asking us to reflect on whether or not we hold something against someone. Once we have the awareness that we are feeling resentment, we can actually choose to address this “holding against” by practicing forgiveness. Once we are aware of resentment, we can either voluntarily address it through forgiveness from the heart, or we can voluntarily ignore the call, right?
Once we are aware of resentment, we can either voluntarily forgive in charity, or not (which constitutes a sin), however, to forgive does not mean that the feeling does not remain, only that there is no ill will.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
No intent to “switch” at all. “Containment” depending on the definition, is not voluntary when it we are talking about a triggered emotion. When we realize resentment (all definitions) is there, we can choose to address it.
I agree, but I think you are saying that in your experience, the feeling sometimes remains. When I have forgiven from the heart, the negative feelings I had go away.
V
Vico
Guest
To forgive is an act which is voluntary. Feelings are not necessarily cultivated, that is, inflamed by uncharitable thoughts, so may remain involuntarily. To forgive from the heart is a charitable act which may not bring removal of involuntary feelings. See the Catechism:Vico:
No intent to “switch” at all. “Containment” depending on the definition, is not voluntary when it we are talking about a triggered emotion. When we realize resentment (all definitions) is there, we can choose to address it.
I agree, but I think you are saying that in your experience, the feeling sometimes remains. When I have forgiven from the heart, the negative feelings I had go away.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
I don’t see how 1855 supports what you are saying one way or the other. There is probably a range of negative feelings, Vico. For example, I have some cases where I have forgiven someone but I know that I cannot trust them. It can be difficult to distinguish resentment from distrust, but when I can totally understand and relate to a person who once offended me, to the point that I have no desire for payment from them in any way, then I have forgiven.
We all do what we can, Vico. When our own capacity to forgive falls short, we can simply do all we can but then surrender the feelings to God.
V
Vico
Guest
Really it is not desire but will that determines the giving of forgiveness.Vico:
I don’t see how 1855 supports what you are saying one way or the other. There is probably a range of negative feelings, Vico. For example, I have some cases where I have forgiven someone but I know that I cannot trust them. It can be difficult to distinguish resentment from distrust, but when I can totally understand and relate to a person who once offended me, to the point that I have no desire for payment from them in any way, then I have forgiven.
We all do what we can, Vico. When our own capacity to forgive falls short, we can simply do all we can but then surrender the feelings to God.
Easy to understand considering that actual sin in voluntary and feelings that are not voluntary cannot constitute actual sin. For those feelings that are cultivated with ill will, they are voluntar and be either mortal or venial sin, depending upon knowledge and gravity. Forgiving from the heart would destroy any mortal sin, but venial sin is not a destruction of charity in the heart, but a wound. I wrote: “To forgive from the heart is a charitable act which may not bring removal of involuntary feelings. See the Catechism: 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man … Venial sin allows charity to subsist …”
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
This concept has always been a bit confusing to me. Even a person who has done the worst of sins has within him a capacity for charity. I’m thinking that the word “destroy” is better replaced by “stifles” or “diminishes”, for Christ is in everyone, and where He is there is charity. Sin diminishes or even blocks our access to charity, but it is always there, just as our capacity to love is always there.
V
Vico
Guest
CatchismVico:
This concept has always been a bit confusing to me. Even a person who has done the worst of sins has within him a capacity for charity. I’m thinking that the word “destroy” is better replaced by “stifles” or “diminishes”, for Christ is in everyone, and where He is there is charity. Sin diminishes or even blocks our access to charity, but it is always there, just as our capacity to love is always there.
O
OneSheep
Guest
The “infusion” is the waking of a capacity that is already there. We are created good, and His goodness is within us always.
V
Vico
Guest
Grace is not natural but supernatural gift beyond human nature.Vico:
The “infusion” is the waking of a capacity that is already there. We are created good, and His goodness is within us always.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, I agree. Thanks Vico!
V
Vico
Guest
So we receive the theological virtues with sanctifying grace at baptism. These make us “capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life”.Vico:
Yes, I agree. Thanks Vico!
Catechism 396 … The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” 277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. …
0
0104
Guest
Jesus has the power to do anything at anytime. Out of His own will He chose to forgive all of those people at once. Just like he took the repentant thief from on the cross and took him straight to heaven. They were given special grace, because of them not asking for forgiveness but Jesus just giving it to them out of His own free will.
We have a Conscience that tells us when we have sinned. So we do need to repent and stay right with God. God bless
We have a Conscience that tells us when we have sinned. So we do need to repent and stay right with God. God bless
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, if our conscience is well-formed, it may tell us when we have sinned, but the question remains, "Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin? Do they have all the relevant information?
Yes!
G
guanophore
Guest
This is true, we are made in the image and likeness of God. But there are some sins that are “unto death” beceause they are so serious that they disconnect us from the love of God. The Church calls these “mortal” sins. Your definition of sin categorizes all sins as venial (locking access to charity that is 'always there". This might be one of the points where your definition of sin is different than the one given in the catechism.
Yes. There is nothing that can “undo” the image of God in which we are created. He created us “good” and the purpose for which He created us will never change. However, we have free will, and we can choose actions that will so mar this goodness as to separate us from Him eternally. I realize that this construction is not consistent with your theophilosphy. Perhaps, if you will write your ideas to the Bishops, they can update the catechism so that it better reflects what has been revealed to you by God as Truth?
0
0104
Guest
The Catholic Church is the only Church I trust. Does the clergy sin of course they do. Think of when Jesus said to Peter you will denie me three times. And he did, so we all are sinners. Let’s pray for our priest instead. God bless
O
OneSheep
Guest
While I agree with this statement, I am not sure whether or not you have an underlying sarcasm…
But yes, an evaluation that leads to negative affect leads to a “holding against”, and if we come to the conclusion that God holds something against people based on some criteria, we are definitely seeing things from a lens that is different from one we would use to understand and forgive.
If God is seen as judgmental, then the former lens is valid for the individual. If God is seen as always forgiving, then it’s the latter that is congruent with the image.
Judgment is a gut-level, faster-than-thinking reaction to people’s behaviors. We think that people should be punished for bad behavior (part of the gut reaction), and we do not think of forgiveness. And then, of course, what we “hold” on Earth is certainly what God “holds” in heaven, it makes sense in our minds, correct?
G
guanophore
Guest
In that case I am glad that I had an accurate understanding of the changes you are proposing the the Catechism!
This perspective seems to be based on human affect, which is markedly different than what the catechism describes as being unrelated to affect entirely.
It seems that your paradigm focuses on understanding an forgiveness. In this paradigm, culpabiliy involves “blame” which is a function of human conscience inappropriately projected upon God. Whereas, in contrast, God always hears, and always forgives.
In this paradigm, God does not “hold against” humans anything they do that falls short of perfection. He does not “hold against” because He understands and forgives humans when they fall short, knowing that we are blind, and act out of blindness.
By definition, then, God could not, and would not, take a position of judgment. All the scriptures that refer to God judging humans are nothing more than a projection of fallen human psychology. God does not have a gut-level reaction to bad behavior. On the contrary, he always forgives.
As a result, all the references in Scripture and the Catechism that indicate there will be punishment for “bad behavior” are really not inspired by God. They are just human projections that result from our conscience reacting to injustice.
It is possible that there really is no objective reality in heaven at all, but only what we imagine that God “holds” because we presume it is so based upon “what makes sense in our own minds”, correct?
- Status