Does God only forgive the repentant?

[grannymh]

Thanks, I was hoping you would reply to post # 51, but no worries.

Jesus, with the marks of nails in His hands This is the sort of guilt I’m thinking of.

I ask your patience. I have been working on a general reply to OneSheep since before the split of this thread. His posts 52 & 57 here helped me to focus.

When I wrote *Jesus, with the marks of nails in His hands, *I was thinking about His tremendous act of love for us black sheep. I was picturing Him not caring a bit about what searching through brambles would do to Him. He would be so intense about seeking union with me, He would not notice the condition of His hands. As for me, in this mental scenario, all I would be thinking about is that I would be going home.

Frankly, my sins were not on my mind, nor did I feel guilty. All I could think about was how I would feel when He lifted me up and out of the brambles. Yes, guilt would come as I prepare for the Sacrament of Confession. And I repent gladly because I am concentrating on the final outcome of God’s forgiveness.

Going back to your mentioning freedom in post 51, there is a lot more to discuss. When God reinstates the State of Sanctifying Grace, think of the freedom we have to explore the meaning of sharing life with God. Sometime ago, you asked if I questioned any doctrines. It is not questioning that I find in my current granny life. It is more a desire to go deeply into a doctrine, learning every nitty-gritty I can find. The difference between the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin has never been a problem. If there is a kind of problem, it is my disappointment in myself for not learning more about the State of Sanctifying Grace.

If this reply doesn’t meet your interests or if it does meet your expectation, either way, may we continue? Later?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what detail you are looking for, Granny, but I’ll try this.

Forgiveness is from the heart. The more people and instances a person forgives, the more forgiving a person is. Forgiveness of the repentant and the unrepentant are examples, because forgiveness of the unrepentant involves letting go of the natural “I only forgive if they are sorry” rule. A person may have to put aside some resistance from their natural conscience in order to forgive the unrepentant.

How can you ask me to understand that there is room in the Church for different journeys, different ways of looking at things without giving me some facts? (From post 122, Thread “Augustinism and Pelagianism”) The editors I worked for in the days before personal computers would jump from their graves if I responded to you without facts in my back pocket. I look forward to your details and then I will be able to truthfully answer your question – “So, what do you think, Granny, is there room or is there not?”

In reply to post 57. Examples of details. Different ways of looking at things. Which things? Different journeys. Which journeys as in which religious beliefs and practices. Details include belief or non-belief in the Catholic teachings regarding Original Sin, human nature, conscience, the State of Sanctifying Grace, the State of Mortal Sin, God’s forgiveness, and need for human repentance/contrition, etc. Note: the importance or non-importance of human repentance for Mortal Sin is part of this thread’s discussion.

Perhaps I am hearing “Cafeteria Catholicism” as the description for this “all encompassing room” or “big tent”. Now that I am thinking about that, could it be that “Cafeteria Catholicism” is actually what is being promoted?

Is it or is it not “Cafeteria Catholicism” which is being promoted in post 52 and in other places?

From post 52 above. “In the meantime, I request that you attempt to take this to heart: There is room in the Church for differences of opinion, whether it is mine or Cardinal Ratzinger or whoever.”

Stopping to take a breath.

We can look at the offered “room in the Church” as containing individuals doing their own thing. In my humble opinion a “room” populated by individuals with differences of opinion can be a reasonable approach. Yet, even though this “room” is reasonable, there may be a problem with the Catholic belief that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

I re-read post 122 in the thread “Augustinism and Pelagianism”. Here is a very interesting out-of-context comment.

“Jesus worked to move His religion, the Jewish religion, in the direction of more justice, more mercy, and more inclusivity.”

Since I do not have the context for this comment, I will assume that it is correct. The difficulty for me is that the Catholic Church established on Pentecost is not within the Jewish Religion even though it promotes more justice and more mercy. I am not sure about the “more inclusivity” because I do not know what all that entails. In fact, it is “more inclusivity” in the “room in the church” which needs evaluation.

I apologize for my wandering mind. I am trying to locate details for OneSheep’s post 52 “room in the Church for differences of opinion, whether it is mine or Cardinal Ratzinger or whoever.”

 

[Sirach2]

Note: the importance or non-importance of human repentance for Mortal Sin is part of this thread’s discussion [Bold is mine].

Our new Saint Pope John Paul II was intensely concerned about reconciliation in the Church today, so much so that he wrote a lengthy document to the Bishops, clergy and faithful, called R***ECONCILIATION AND PENANCE. ***Read it here at the Vatican.

One paragraph in Article 13 stands out for me, and as doctrinal teaching, should be adopted by every sincere Catholic. It does not give any loopholes for varying private opinions, for it has always been our doctrine.

In effect, to become reconciled with God presupposes and includes detaching oneself consciously and with determination from the sin into which one has fallen. It presupposes and includes, therefore, doing penance in the fullest sense of the term: repenting, showing this repentance, adopting a real attitude of repentance- which is the attitude of the person who starts out on the road of return to the Father. This is a general law and one which each individual must follow in his or her particular situation. For it is not possible to deal with sin and conversion only in abstract terms.

In other documents, this repentance also refers to the Prodigal Son having come to his senses in a conversion of heart and decision to return to his Father. It is absolutely “presupposed” as the Pope stated.

You are on the right track, despite any opposition you may experience from those who would water down our faith and the necessity of repentance. Keep up the good work.

 

[Sirach2]

I overlooked this paragraph from the above document, Granny, and it also is important to understand the necessity of conversion. Yes, the Father forgives and is merciful – but it is “pre-supposed” and dependent upon conversion of heart. (Article 5)

The parable of the prodigal son is above all the story of the inexpressible love of a Father-God-who offers to his son when he comes back to him the gift of full reconciliation. But when the parable evokes, in the figure of the elder son, the selfishness which divides the brothers, it also becomes the story of the human family: It describes our situation and shows the path to be followed. The prodigal son, in his anxiety for conversion, to return to the arms of his father and to be forgiven, represents those who are aware of the existence in their inmost hearts of a longing for reconciliation at all levels and without reserve, and who realize with an inner certainty that this reconciliation is possible only if it derives from a first and fundamental reconciliation-the one which brings a person back from distant separation to filial friendship with God, whose infinite mercy is clearly known.
…]

In the light of this inexhaustible parable of the mercy that wipes out sin, the church takes up the appeal that the parable contains and grasps her mission of working, in imitation of the Lord, for the conversion of hearts and for the reconciliation of people with God and with one another-these being two realities that are intimately connected.

 

[J_Peterson]

In other documents, this repentance also refers to the Prodigal Son having come to his senses in a conversion of heart and decision to return to his Father. It is absolutely “presupposed” as the Pope stated.

He did have a coversion of heart but the father didn’t know that. I think we can assume that he was wating there every day since his son left, watching for his return. This tells me that he forgave his son long before any conversion.

How different would the story be if the son never returned home? His father would still be waiting, the son would still be forgiven but would still be lost. The father’s reaction to the son’s sin would still be the same.

I don’t see how this is “watering down our faith”.

 

[Sirach2]

He did have a coversion of heart but the father didn’t know that. I think we can assume that he was wating there every day since his son left, watching for his return. This tells me that he forgave his son long before any conversion.

How different would the story be if the son never returned home? His father would still be waiting, the son would still be forgiven but would still be lost. The father’s reaction to the son’s sin would still be the same.

I don’t see how this is “watering down our faith”.

It has been stated that God forgives those who are unrepentant. This is what waters down Church teaching on the necessity of repentance prior to absolution of sin. That many be either perfect or *imperfect *contrition, both of which will obtain forgiveness.

I have never contested the fact that God is merciful and willing always to forgive us and restore us to His friendship. But I stand with the Church regarding the need for contrition. Do you dispute this?

 

[J_Peterson]

It has been stated that God forgives those who are unrepentant. This is what waters down Church teaching on the necessity of repentance prior to absolution of sin. That many be either perfect or *imperfect *contrition, both of which will obtain forgiveness.

I have never contested the fact that God is merciful and willing always to forgive us and restore us to His friendship. But I stand with the Church regarding the need for contrition. Do you dispute this?

Absolutely not, I don’t dispute that. Although I do believe that contrition is for our benefit, not God’s. I don’t believe that confession or contrition causes God to forgive. Nothing we do can make God do anything, we can only reject what’s offered and contrition is offered to us by God. Confession to me is an acceptance God’s forgiveness and offeres assurance that we are in fact forgiven.

Is this really against Church teaching? I’ll re-read what’s already been said in this thread, no need to repeat anything that’s alread been said. I’m willing to rethink it if I’m wrong.

 

[Sirach2]

Absolutely not, I don’t dispute that. Although I do believe that contrition is for our benefit, not God’s. I don’t believe that confession or contrition causes God to forgive. Nothing we do can make God do anything, we can only reject what’s offered and** contrition is offered to us by God**. Confession to me is an acceptance God’s forgiveness and offeres assurance that we are in fact forgiven.

You’re not very far off the mark in stating this in layman’s terminology. I would only add that God does give men the grace to repent, so yes, this does originate from God, who wills to save all men. It may be helpful to reflect upon this paragraph from * Dives in Misericordia, *by Pope John Paul II.

1. Mercy in itself, as a perfection of the infinite God, is also infinite. Also infinite therefore and inexhaustible is the Father’s readiness to receive the prodigal children who return to His home. Infinite are the readiness and power of forgiveness which flow continually from the marvelous value of the sacrifice of the Son. No human sin can prevail over this power or even limit it. On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit it, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ.

 

[OneSheep]

I am not sure about the “more inclusivity” because I do not know what all that entails. In fact, it is “more inclusivity” in the “room in the church” which needs evaluation.

I apologize for my wandering mind. I am trying to locate details for OneSheep’s post 52 “room in the Church for differences of opinion, whether it is mine or Cardinal Ratzinger or whoever.”

Well, you could try this on for size, from Mark 9:

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

I do a lot for the Church, Granny.

As I have said before, I take a developmental approach. The first “God” we come to know is our conscience. Our conscience is judgmental, it punishes us (we get what we “deserve”), it rewards us, it tells us right from wrong, it shows us how to be fair, it tells us to avoid some people and not others (love your friend hate your enemy), it teaches us to greatly value saying we are sorry, and it gives us the impression of a Star-Wars-type universe, a great force of evil battling a great force of good. It guides us, it is a gift.

Jesus addressed every single one of these aspects of the conscience, and invites adults to find a deeper truth, a God that loves unconditionally, underlying these aspects of the conscience. This is for people who have their nature under control for the most part, people who are not needing to constantly battle their compulsions, people who have developed Empathy as a Greater Guide, where it is not a list of rules that are primary, but what we do out of love for everyone.

Forgiveness of the unrepentant is one of these issues that go against the doings of our “natural conscience”. I am saying that there is a place for the natural conscience, and there is a place, “room”, to grow beyond it. For example, is it “wrong” for a child to see the universe in a Star Wars way? It is Manichaeism. Should the Church make room for the child? IMO, absolutely. The child is perceiving based on his or her natural conscience. Is it wrong to think that God only forgives the repentant? No way! This, again, is our natural conscience. Is it “wrong” to think God forgives the unrepentant? No, this is what our calling is, and forgiveness of the unrepentant brings us to a new holiness, wholeness. It is a call taking us beneath the conscience, the underlying God.

 

[grannymh]

He did have a coversion of heart but the father didn’t know that. I think we can assume that he was wating there every day since his son left, watching for his return.

When we interpret the father of the prodigal son as reflecting God’s unconditional love, that is correct with one exception. We need to be careful of the common anthropomorphic approach. One of CAF’s early benefits was that I learned that my old and cranky brain could learn new stuff, because I was able to use the dictionary to find the word anthropomorphism which someone had used in a thread. I have that word highlighted so I can find it when needed. That word is needed now.

The father, being human, would not know what was going on in the soul of his son who lived in a distant country.

Is God human?

This tells me that he forgave his son long before any conversion.

Or is the point of the parable the concept that the human father is capable of reinstating the State of [Divine] Sanctifying Grace anytime he chose?

We can say that the father knows what is necessary for the son to return to the state of friendship with his father, because that condition is common among humans since the dawn of human history. And I am sure, being a parent myself, that the picture of the son returning home was always in his father’s mind. We can compare that to Genesis 3:15.

Was this parable meant as a direct contradiction to Jesus’ teaching in Luke 13: 1-5?

How different would the story be if the son never returned home?

No different. God does not change even when some, not all, people alter Divine Revelation.

His father would still be waiting, the son would still be forgiven but would still be lost. The father’s reaction to the son’s sin would still be the same.

This is a good example of the principle of non-contradiction. The son cannot be simultaneous in the State of Mortal Sin and the State of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[simpleas]

I ask your patience. I have been working on a general reply to OneSheep since before the split of this thread. His posts 52 & 57 here helped me to focus.

When I wrote *Jesus, with the marks of nails in His hands, *I was thinking about His tremendous act of love for us black sheep. I was picturing Him not caring a bit about what searching through brambles would do to Him. He would be so intense about seeking union with me, He would not notice the condition of His hands. As for me, in this mental scenario, all I would be thinking about is that I would be going home.

Frankly, my sins were not on my mind, nor did I feel guilty. All I could think about was how I would feel when He lifted me up and out of the brambles. Yes, guilt would come as I prepare for the Sacrament of Confession. And I repent gladly because I am concentrating on the final outcome of God’s forgiveness.

Going back to your mentioning freedom in post 51, there is a lot more to discuss. When God reinstates the State of Sanctifying Grace, think of the freedom we have to explore the meaning of sharing life with God. Sometime ago, you asked if I questioned any doctrines. It is not questioning that I find in my current granny life. It is more a desire to go deeply into a doctrine, learning every nitty-gritty I can find. The difference between the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin has never been a problem. If there is a kind of problem, it is my disappointment in myself for not learning more about the State of Sanctifying Grace.

If this reply doesn’t meet your interests or if it does meet your expectation, either way, may we continue? Later?

Thankyou.
This read’s very “normal” to me, rather than quotes etc, not that they are not important or helpful.

Not sure how much later you mean, but I can be patient

I am just digesting taking part in the station’s of the cross this evening. Big reminder of how we can offend God. (Oh my Jesus, my love above all things, I repent with my whole heart at having offended thee, never permit me to separate myself from thee again, grant that I may love thee always, then do with me what you will)

I’ve said these words for a few years now, never did they sound like they do now. Maybe its just a misunderstanding of how we can offend Jesus and separate ourselves from him, because I don’t think any sincere Catholic would deliberatley do this.

Thank you for your patience once again Grannymh

 

[wmw]

At times we try very hard to find the reason why it is true that forgiveness of sin is not automatic and is dependent on repentance of the sinner in order to pave the way for acceptance of the Church’s doctrines. Yet, this time I think we just must rely on the authority of the Church.

From newadvent.org/cathen/11618b.htm

Penance is a supernatural moral virtue whereby the sinner is disposed to hatred of his sin as an offence against God and to a firm purpose of amendment and satisfaction. The principal act in the exercise of this virtue is the detestation of sin, not of sin in general nor of that which others commit, but of one’s own sin…
…The Council of Trent expressly declares (Sess. XIV, c.i) that penance was at all times necessary for the remission of grievous sin. Theologians have questioned whether this necessity obtains in virtue of the positive command of God or independently of such positive precept. The weight of authority is in favour of the latter opinion; moreover, theologians state that in the present order of Divine Providence God Himself cannot forgive sins, if there be no real repentance (St. Thomas, III:86:2; Cajetan, ibid.; Palmieri, op. cit., thesis VII). In the Old Law (Ezekiel 18:24) life is denied to the man who does iniquity; even “his justices which he has done, shall not be remembered”; and Christ restates the doctrine of the Old Testament, saying (Luke 13:5): “except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.” In the New Law, therefore, repentance is as necessary as it was in the Old, repentance that includes reformation of life, grief for sin, and willingness to perform satisfaction.

Also in my other readings in the Catholic Encycopedia it was apparent that “forgiveness of sins” is an effect of the santifying grace. In other words a result from it not a seperate act of either God’s will or our own. For it is God’s will and apparent by the death of His Son that He has gone to great lengths that we may be saved, but that He not intrude upon our free will.

One other confusion maybe that us forgiving the trespasses aganst us is trying to be made equal to being forgiving of sins. I think this a great error. Grevances that we suffer are often caused by sin, but we forgive the injury it causes us not the sin that was the cause of the trespass.

 

[Sirach2]

At times we try very hard to find the reason why it is true that forgiveness of sin is not automatic and is dependent on repentance of the sinner in order to pave the way for acceptance of the Church’s doctrines. Yet, this time I think we just must rely on the authority of the Church.

Also in my other readings in the Catholic Encycopedia it was apparent that “forgiveness of sins” is an effect of the santifying grace. In other words a result from it not a separate act of either God’s will or our own. For it is God’s will and apparent by the death of His Son that He has gone to great lengths that we may be saved, but that He not intrude upon our free will.

One other confusion maybe that us forgiving the trespasses aganst us is trying to be made equal to being forgiving of sins. I think this a great error. Grevances that we suffer are often caused by sin, but we forgive the injury it causes us not the sin that was the cause of the trespass.

There is much wisdom in your words, my friend. Thank you for a short, but well proven post. It is good to find evidence of solid Catholic teaching, as you have shared here.

 

[wmw]

Thanks, but my reading and copying are but a simple tapping of keyboard and mouse. All the wisdom is brought forth by others and for others to apply.

Spiritual journey’s are good only if you have a good guide. We are “fish out of water” in the spirtual relm. If I were on a journey of forgiveness I would choose the greatest of the Priests that administered the Sacrament of Forgiveness and an extraodinary mystic that I’ve read about is Padre Pio.

Confession was the principal daily activity of Padre Pio. He had the ability to look within the souls of his penitents. It was not possible to lie to Padre Pio during a confession. He saw inside people’s hearts. Often, when the sinners were timid, Padre Pio listed their sins during the confession.

from: padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Confess.htm

When the question was asked, “who’s sins would you retain”? (I only read this yesterday) I first thought of this story though I think I’ve read a longer version it is also on the same web page as above:

A man once went to St. Giovanni Rotondo to confess to Padre Pio. It was between 1954 and 1955. When he finished the accusation of his sins Padre Pio said: “Do you have anything else to confess?” and he said, “No Father!” He repeated the question: “Do you have anything else to confess?” “No Father!” For a third time Padre Pio asked him: "Do you have anything else to confess? At this third negative answer the hurricane exploded. With the voice of the Holy Spirit Padre Pio howled: “Go away! Go away! Because you are not reformed of your sins!”
The man was also petrified because of the shame that he felt in front of so many people. Then he tried to say something but Padre Pio said: "Keep silent, gossiper, you have spoken enough; I now want to speak. Is it true that you go to discos?”* “Yes, Father.” “Do you know that dancing is an invitation to the sin?”
The man was surprised and he didn’t know what to say: he had the membership card of a disco in his wallet. The man promised not to commit any other sins and after a lot of effort he received absolution.

Also off the subject: I’ve been moved to greive the future of humanity for the beginnings of the shrinking of the human population of the Earth is estimated by the UN to begin about the year 2050 and I see that Padre Pio had insight into this future:

One day, Padre Pellegrino asked Padre Pio: "Father, this morning you denied absolution to a lady who confessed to an abortion. Why have you been so rigorous with this poor unfortunate? ".*
Padre Pio said: "The day, in which people, frightened by the economic boom, from physical damages or from economic sacrifices, will lose the horror of the abortion, it will be the most terrible day for humanity. Abortion is not only homicide but also suicide. And with these people we see on the point of committing two crimes…do we want to show our faith? Do we want to save them? "*
"Why suicide?” Padre Pellegrino asked.*
"You would understand this suicide of the human race, if with the eye of reason, you could see the Heart populated by old men and depopulated by children: burnt as a desert.”

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks, but my reading and copying are but a simple tapping of keyboard and mouse. All the wisdom is brought forth by others and for others to apply.

Yes that’s true, but you are too modest. What I commended is your wisdom that BELIEVES these truths – so firmly, that you posted them. Not everyone here is in accord with these teachings.

 

[grannymh]

I do a lot for the Church, Granny.

I believe you. In spite of our differences, I recognize that you have shared some deep truths about “forgiveness”.

As I have said before, I take a developmental approach.

I am not sure if the developmental approach comes from the teachings of Father Rohr or someone else.

Personally, it was not my intention to be on CAF. I was doing some research, looking for the reasons that people do not consider the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as an important, necessary part of their lives. Google landed me in the middle of CAF and I could not figure out how to escape. So I registered. God does have a sense of humor. The bottom line is that I have to catch up with what is happening in our Church. So, please be patient with me as I try to put the pieces of the puzzlement together.

For example, decades ago, authors and teachers were trying to reinvent the wheel of Catholicism. And there were authors and teachers trying to reconcile ancient Catholicism with contemporary life. Coincidentally, in some geographic areas, education in basic Catholicism began slipping. Therefore, when one refers to approaches, I look at the fruits of the approach.

Here is an interesting out-of-context example of the fruits of dissension.

Falling Upward Quotes
“every time God forgives us, God is saying that God’s own rules do not matter as much as the relationship that God wants to create with us.”
― Richard Rohr, Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life

The reference to God’s own rules sounds like a possible source for the error that God forgives the unrepentant.

To me, the key point in this out-of-context quote is the reference to the relationship that God wants to create with us. It is the time factor of “wants to create” that should alert readers to future errors. At the dawn of human history, God established the preferred Divinity/humanity relationship found in Adam’s State of Original Holiness. There is no “wants to create” – the preferred relationship occurred at the very beginning of human history.

We cannot confuse “wants to create” with God’s purpose in creating human nature as an unique unification of the spiritual and material worlds. God willed that the human person should be left in the hand of his own counsel so that he can freely seek union with God on planet earth and in the spiritual eternal world following bodily death. In the time frame of our material world, we have the possibility of freely choosing between the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin.

The first “God” we come to know is our conscience.

I recognize that “God” is in quotes.

The first “God” we come to know is our conscience. Our conscience is judgmental, it punishes us (we get what we “deserve”), it rewards us, it tells us right from wrong, it shows us how to be fair, it tells us to avoid some people and not others (love your friend hate your enemy), it teaches us to greatly value saying we are sorry, and it gives us the impression of a Star-Wars-type universe, a great force of evil battling a great force of good. It guides us, it is a gift.

While there is some truth in the above description of conscience, the overall picture is that conscience is somehow a separate entity as if it were really a first “God”. It punishes. It rewards. It shows us how. It teaches us to. The last two references, “It guides us, it is a gift” are proper.

What I am observing is that the confusion regarding conscience looks like a throwback to the cornerstone of the belief that while hanging bloody on His cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant crowd. When there is no difference between repentant and unrepentant, there is no need for a real conscience as described by the Catholic Church. Yet, that part of us which occasionally nags us in regard to natural moral laws needs an explanation.

Because of a variety of dissenters to basic Catholicism, we can pick what we want to believe and/or do, including our own “creating” of conscience. This brings us back to what is being promoted as – the Catholic Church having room for different journeys, different ways of looking at things.

In other words, there is room in the Church for differences of opinion, whether it is mine or Cardinal Ratzinger or whoever. In other words, because this room has expandable walls, any writer, teacher, Catholic person can lead Catholics away from basic Catholic doctrines.

 

[grannymh]

I do a lot for the Church, Granny.

I believe you. In spite of our differences, I recognize that you have shared some deep truths about “forgiveness”.

As I have said before, I take a developmental approach.

I am not sure if the developmental approach comes from the teachings of Father Rohr or someone else.

Personally, it was not my intention to be on CAF. I was doing some research, looking for the reasons that people do not consider the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as an important, necessary part of their lives. Google landed me in the middle of CAF and I could not figure out how to escape. So I registered. God does have a sense of humor. The bottom line is that I have to catch up with what is happening in our Church. So, please be patient with me as I try to put the pieces of the puzzlement together.

For example, decades ago, authors and teachers were trying to reinvent the wheel of Catholicism. And there were authors and teachers trying to reconcile ancient Catholicism with contemporary life. Coincidentally, in some geographic areas, education in basic Catholicism began slipping. Therefore, when one refers to approaches, I look at the fruits of the approach.

Here is an interesting out-of-context example of the fruits of dissension.

Falling Upward Quotes
“every time God forgives us, God is saying that God’s own rules do not matter as much as the relationship that God wants to create with us.”
Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life

Richard Rohr

The reference to God’s own rules sounds like a possible source for the error that God forgives the unrepentant.

To me, the key point in this out-of-context quote is the reference to the relationship that God wants to create with us. It is the time factor of “wants to create” that should alert readers to future errors. At the dawn of human history, God established the preferred Divinity/humanity relationship found in Adam’s State of Original Holiness. There is no “wants to create” – the preferred relationship occurred at the very beginning of human history. Could there be a disconnect with the first three chapters of Genesis?

We cannot confuse “wants to create” with God’s purpose in creating human nature as an unique unification of the spiritual and material worlds. God willed that the human person should be left in the hand of his own counsel so that he can freely seek union with God on planet earth and in the spiritual eternal world following bodily death. In the time frame of our material world, we have the possibility of freely choosing between the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin.

The first “God” we come to know is our conscience.

I recognize that “God” is in quotes.

The first “God” we come to know is our conscience. Our conscience is judgmental, it punishes us (we get what we “deserve”), it rewards us, it tells us right from wrong, it shows us how to be fair, it tells us to avoid some people and not others (love your friend hate your enemy), it teaches us to greatly value saying we are sorry, and it gives us the impression of a Star-Wars-type universe, a great force of evil battling a great force of good. It guides us, it is a gift.

While there is some truth in the above description of conscience, the overall picture is that conscience is somehow a separate entity as if it were really a first “God”. It punishes. It rewards. It shows us how. It teaches us to. The last two references, “It guides us, it is a gift” are proper.

What I am observing is that the confusion regarding conscience looks like a throwback to the cornerstone of the belief that while hanging bloody on His cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant crowd. When there is no difference between repentant and unrepentant, there is no need for a real conscience as described by the Catholic Church. Yet, that part of us which occasionally nags us in regard to natural moral laws needs an explanation.

Because of a variety of dissenters to basic Catholicism, we can pick what we want to believe and/or do our own “creating” of conscience. This brings us back to what is being promoted as – the Catholic Church having room for different journeys, different ways of looking at things.

In other words, there is room in the Church for differences of opinion, whether it is mine or Cardinal Ratzinger or whoever.

In other words, because this room has expandable walls, any writer, teacher, Catholic person can lead Catholics away from basic Catholic doctrines.

 

[Sirach2]

Interesting…

OneSheep alludes in this post that Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly wrote, “**almost all religions center around the problem of expiation **…” yet searching within his book reveals no such comment. Nor did subsequent searches reveal anything else from that paragraph allegedly written by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is important to see the statement in its context, but oddly enough, there is nothing that can be found.

I am wondering whether this quote was taken from a website or blog in order to justify an unorthodox point of view, just as OneSheep has done in attributing the quote to this holy Cardinal. This is not the first time people publish words from famous writers in a manner that the writer never penned. One wonders whether he actually owns this book and actually read the comment personally.

 

[Sirach2]

Interesting…

OneSheep alludes in this post that Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly wrote, “**almost all religions center around the problem of expiation **…” yet searching within his book reveals no such comment. Nor did subsequent searches reveal anything else from that paragraph allegedly written by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is important to see the statement in its context, but oddly enough, there is nothing that can be found.

I am wondering whether this quote was taken from a website or blog in order to justify an unorthodox point of view, just as OneSheep has done in attributing the quote to this holy Cardinal. This is not the first time people publish words from famous writers in a manner that the writer never penned. One wonders whether he actually owns this book and actually read the comment personally.

 

[Sirach2]

Did you read the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger? He shows the Father not waiting at all.

Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity criticizes the old theory about a vengeful God needing reparation: “Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God”.

He states that “God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them”, because “His righteousness is grace”, so the crucifixion “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”.

I must ask what pages you found this quote on in the book you referenced. My search with his publisher, who permits searching within these books on their website, produced no such words for your paragraph two. Link source

Your search - God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them - did not match any documents

For paragraph one, the sentence was in a totally different book. Either you or the blogger conveniently omitted the preceding words which add much more sense to Card. Ratzinger’s thought. Source
http://books.google.com/books/ignat...ns+centre+round+the+problem+of+expiation&cd=1

Co-workers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year - Page 371http://books.google.com/books/ignat...ns+centre+round+the+problem+of+expiation&cd=1
Pope Benedict XVI - Religion - 1992 - 415 pages
169 November 25
In other world religions expiation usually means the
restoration of the damaged relationship with God by means of expiatory actions
on the part of men. Almost all religions center round the problem of expiation …

Searching within the book itself on Amazon also produced no results. The only reference to these two paragraphs is on a blogger’s website, where he expressed the opinion that you have promoted here, almost in the same wording as his.

As I mentioned, I think, we need to see these words IN CONTEXT in order to understand Cardinal Ratzinger’s true thought, not that of a blogger who is not even Catholic. So, do you own the book? If so, post the entire context, if you please. It disturbs me that the good Cardinal is possibly being misquoted in order to promote a false teaching here.