Does God only forgive the repentant?

[OneSheep]

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

Actually, someone gave me the quote on another thread. I searched and found it here:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

It is a great section. Should be read in its entirety.

I disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger a bit, though. I would not use the words “false teachings”. I think that the teachings had their place in the history of the Church, and that the teachings reflect an essential part of our journeys.

It is not an “either/or” issue to me, it is a “both/and” issue.

 

[OneSheep]

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

Thank you, Granny, as I have said before, I appreciate your works too.

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

A confirmation text series I am familiar with presents a developmental approach.

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.

As it sounded to me, Sirach also acknowledged that Jesus forgave the unrepentant present. It sounds like Fr. Rohr in that quote expressed what I did in a different way, but I agree with him.

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.

I recognize that “God” is in quotes.

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.

There is a huge difference between the repentant and the unrepentant. The unrepetant are blind, slaves to their nature. The repentant are free. Absolutely there is a need for the conscience!! It is a gift from God.

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.

Please read the link I provided in my last response to Sirach, I think you might find it interesting. I found it fascinating, and I think I am going to get the book. There is room, Granny. Cardinal Ratzinger was not leading people away, he was calling people to a different way of looking at the Gospel.

 

[Sirach2]

Actually, someone gave me the quote on another thread. I searched and found it here:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

In reality, you simply requoted another’s post without asking for the source. That can be very problematic, and it carries the distortion forward to other readers. The original poster truncated the actual words of Cardinal Ratzinger in order to make his own point, and then you requoted it to make a similar point.

These actual words were omitted, but did show them in the search I made at his publisher’s website. “In other world religions …” He was not speaking about Catholics, apparently, but “other” religions that center on expiation. This distorts what you misunderstood due to the other poster not quoting the complete text.
Cardinal Ratzinger:

The scriptural theology of the cross represents a real revolution as compared with the notions of expiation and redemption entertained by non-Christian religions, though it certainly cannot be denied that in the later Christian consciousness this revolution was largely neutralized and its whole scope seldom recognized. 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 around the problem of expiation… [He did not include *Catholicism here, and I doubt he meant our faith, since he excluded it in his other sentences.]

OneSheep:

I disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger a bit, though. I would not use the words “false teachings”. I think that the teachings had their place in the history of the Church, and that the teachings reflect an essential part of our journeys. .

It is a false teaching, for Catholics, in the sense you and the other poster pulled the one sentence out of context. I was very disturbed, since the only other website where I found reference to your requote belongs to a blogger who has a strong belief in “universalism” on his home page. It caused me to wonder if that was the thrust of your messages, as having misunderstood Cardinal Ratzinger.

Thank you for providing the true reference to his writing.

 

[Sirach2]

As it sounded to me, Sirach also acknowledged that Jesus forgave the** unrepentant present.**

I did not say that. You may want to read my post #3 again. My belief is that the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ forgave all of humanity, past, present, and future, and obtained reconciliation with God for all mankind. The Church has taught in many documents that were posted throughout this thread, that this now takes place through repentance and a contrite heart. Jesus’ forgiveness was not confined merely to those nearby who were witnessing His crucifixion. And one must be careful not to misconstrue Jesus’s words as universalism.

In the same book,* Introduction to Christianity*, Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say:
The phrase about the forgiveness of sins, on the other hand, refers to the other fundamental sacrament of the Church, namely baptism; and from there it came very soon to include the sacrament of penance … The fact remains even now that one cannot become a Christian by birth, but only by rebirth: Christianity only ever comes into being by a man’s turning his life round, turning away from the self-satisfaction of mere existence and being “converted”. In this sense baptism remains, as the start of a lifelong conversion, the fundamental pattern of the Christian existence, as the phrase about the “remission of sins” is intended to remind us.

 

[Sirach2]

Just another thought, OneSheep. You maintain your version of the scripture about forgiveness, whereas I maintain mine in Luke 17:3. Who is right? We must always and everywhere rely upon the Church to give the correct meaning to scripture.

Similarly, Matthew 26:26 reads, “… which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins.” Luke 22:20 reads, “which will be shed for you.” Which is right? We can nitpick this and argue, I suppose, but the final word rests with the Magisterium. They, as you know, have changed the wording in the Canon of the Mass from “for all” to “for many.” Obviously, not all will repent and accept God’s reconciliation.

Our obedience cannot simply follow our own interpretation, but only what the Church teaches. She has seen fit to teach that there must be repentance of sins before God forgives them in the Sacrament of Penance, or even outside of it, whenever there is no priest to absolve the penitent. So it is pointless for us to debate what is already formulated by the Church.

I think it just muddies the water to impose one’s own ideas and teach them as dogmatic. That is why you are receiving so much objection from others.

No, it is not ok to formulate your own theology, but the only that which is taught by the Church.

 

[JamesATyler]

I believed that Jesus asked for our forgiveness from the cross for his killing because he understood that some (maybe all) did not know what they were doing. In other words, no one (who knew not what they were doing) is held liable for Jesus’s death because Jesus asked his Father (who always gives what Jesus asks) to forgive them. If there were any that knew who he was and was responsible for his death, Jesus was not asking for their forgiveness. Judas maybe? Not sure.

Jesus lays down one of the formats for how the Church forgives. He made his killing not a mortal a sin for those he prayed. Those that did not know who they killed. Mortal sin requires the matter to be grave matter with full knowledge and deliberate consent. For his own death, Jesus asks for their forgiveness because the condition of full knowledge is not met. The Church still follows his teaching in this regard.

I do not understand his request to the Father, “forgive them for they know not what they do”, to be a blanket request to forgive all sins, mortal and venial, for all people, repentant or not, and throughout all time. I think that is an incorrect understanding.

 

[grannymh]

There is a huge difference between the repentant and the unrepentant. The unrepetant are blind, slaves to their nature. The repentant are free. Absolutely there is a need for the conscience!! It is a gift from God.

Speaking of conscience, did you ever get an answer to your question in post 57?
*Does God have a conscience that says “only forgive the repentant”? To me, in my opinion, Jesus from the Cross gives the answer. He answered it in other ways also. *
This cranky (feminine of snarky) granny has an answer which sidesteps the conscience and instead focuses on forgiveness which can only be given by God. God’s forgiveness is the reinstatement of the State of Sanctifying Grace.

From post 6, by OneSheep
I am saying that it makes sense in terms of my own spirituality. I forgive everyone I hold something against whether or not they repent. I cannot fathom a God who would withhold forgiveness where I would not.

Forgiveness of other humans is important. It is important that we forgive. Please tell me. When a person is in the State of Mortal Sin, how does your forgiveness handle that?

From post 16 above posted by OneSheep
*Did you not tell me, Granny, that you also forgive the unrepentant? And did you not also say that God does not? Therefore, Granny is more forgiving than God. I know you do not think this, though. Please, clarify for me Granny. *
Would this clarification work? This morning I looked in the mirror and I discovered I do not look like God, I did not create the world like God, and I do not recall hanging from a cross like Jesus Christ Who is True God and True Man. Therefore, I am neither God nor a quacking duck. Therefore, my forgiveness of the unrepentant, and I do have a human in mind, works on my level. But so far, my forgiveness has never reinstated the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Please read the link I provided in my last response to Sirach, I think you might find it interesting. I found it fascinating, and I think I am going to get the book.

Yes, from the point of view of a former journalist who occasionally investigated facts, that is an interesting link. My suggestion is for readers to read posts 79-80.

There is room, Granny. Cardinal Ratzinger was not leading people away, he was calling people to a different way of looking at the Gospel.

"Ah, one says, “The promotion of the famous room with expanding walls.” True.

I may have misunderstood OneSheep. But his sales pitch sounds like the Catholic Church has room for everyone without any requirements or guidelines regarding the truth of Catholic doctrines. All that is required is “calling people to a different way of looking at the Gospel.”

Note to OneSheep. I do apologize. I believe I have misunderstood you about this room.

What kind of guidelines or requirements are you proposing for the room?

Could this room be a throwback to the cornerstone belief that while hanging bloody on His cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant crowd?

How does this room relate to the Mystical Body of Christ?

Speaking of the crowd. ---- You have referred to Luke 23: 34.

Which member of your room is implying that the Mother of Jesus, a visible member of the crowd, is a sinner? (John 19:25-27) If I ever meet that member, I am going to slap her or him upside the head. :slapfight:
*In other words, because this room has expandable walls, any writer, teacher, Catholic person can lead Catholics away from basic Catholic doctrines. *
From post 75. – Proselytizing

 

[wmw]

I came back to the this thread because I had not addressed the word of Christ on the cross.

I am happy to see my return was almost completely unnecessary since JamesATyler as already released the Thunder:

Jesus lays down one of the formats for how the Church forgives. He made his killing not a mortal a sin for those he prayed. Those that did not know who they killed. Mortal sin requires the matter to be grave matter with full knowledge and deliberate consent. For his own death, Jesus asks for their forgiveness because the condition of full knowledge is not met. The Church still follows his teaching in this regard.

I do not understand his request to the Father, “forgive them for they know not what they do”, to be a blanket request to forgive all sins, mortal and venial, for all people, repentant or not, and throughout all time. I think that is an incorrect understanding.

But I add or repeat that it is not a lack on God’s part that anyone is not forgiven. The Forgiveness is Christ and he has provided all Forgivness to an infinite portion. Still, repentance is part of the act of our free will to be reconciled to God and by not performing our penance we prevent the full forgiveness of God to enter us in the form of santifying grace.

I also say that the answer to “Does God only forgive the repentant?” as NO. In the most real sense God has forgiven everything since He has done the humiliation of His Son for it, but it will only benefit the sheep that partake of His Sacrements and perfect contrition.

I feel I can say, “NO”, the same as the OP though for the very opposite reasons because the semantics of the word “forgiven” are quite muddled and start to show its confused state when we then start saying that forgiven people are to be in hell eternally. Which sounds both true and absurd at the same time. Therefore, this lack of a word’s precise meaning shows no lack of God, but our lack of percise language.

 

[grannymh]

I came back to the this thread because I had not addressed the word of Christ on the cross.

I am happy to see my return was almost completely unnecessary since JamesATyler as already released the Thunder:

But I add or repeat that it is not a lack on God’s part that anyone is not forgiven. The Forgiveness is Christ and he has provided all Forgivness to an infinite portion. Still, repentance is part of the act of our free will to be reconciled to God and by not performing our penance we prevent the full forgiveness of God to enter us in the form of santifying grace.

I also say that the answer to “Does God only forgive the repentant?” as NO. In the most real sense God has forgiven everything since He has done the humiliation of His Son for it, but it will only benefit the sheep that partake of His Sacrements and perfect contrition.

I feel I can say, “NO”, the same as the OP though for the very opposite reasons because the semantics of the word “forgiven” are quite muddled and start to show its confused state when we then start saying that forgiven people are to be in hell eternally. Which sounds both true and absurd at the same time. Therefore, this lack of a word’s precise meaning shows no lack of God, but our lack of percise language.

Would you kindly unmuddle the semantics of the word “forgiven” since that usually refers to the sinner plus the verb “forgives” referring to God and not to humans who forgive?

The basic reason for Christ’s obedience was to atone for the disobedience of Adam. All of us benefit.

When we say that God has forgiven everything, we have to consider that everything would include everyone’s personal sins, including Mortal Sins. Regarding Mortal sins, God’s forgiveness reinstates the State of Sanctifying Grace. Because we have free will, we can choose to remain in the State of Mortal Sin by not repenting. The problem about God forgiving everything including Mortal Sins is that the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin cannot exist simultaneously in one person. That is the principle of non-contradiction.

We cannot separate God’s action of forgiveness from the reinstatement of Sanctifying Grace. If that were possible, that would leave a forgiven person in the State of Mortal Sin. A repentant person cannot be forgiven and also be in the State of Mortal Sin at the same time. Forgiveness exists in its fullness.

 

[OneSheep]

I believed that Jesus asked for our forgiveness from the cross for his killing because he understood that some (maybe all) did not know what they were doing. In other words, no one (who knew not what they were doing) is held liable for Jesus’s death because Jesus asked his Father (who always gives what Jesus asks) to forgive them. If there were any that knew who he was and was responsible for his death, Jesus was not asking for their forgiveness. Judas maybe? Not sure.

Hi James.

To me, anyone who purposefully kills anyone else does not know what he is doing. They are not seeing the divine within. I am not referring to self-protection and so forth.

Jesus lays down one of the formats for how the Church forgives. He made his killing not a mortal a sin for those he prayed. Those that did not know who they killed. Mortal sin requires the matter to be grave matter with full knowledge and deliberate consent. For his own death, Jesus asks for their forgiveness because the condition of full knowledge is not met. The Church still follows his teaching in this regard.

True, and in so doing, though, Jesus gave us the means to forgive while forgiving the unrepentant present.

James, does anyone who sins ever know what they are doing? I have yet to find an example. So, to me, not only does Jesus show that he forgave all those present, but He gave us the means to forgive others; the means of forgiveness by seeing others’ blindness and ignorance.

I do not understand his request to the Father, “forgive them for they know not what they do”, to be a blanket request to forgive all sins, mortal and venial, for all people, repentant or not, and throughout all time. I think that is an incorrect understanding.

Well, the priest who taught me said that God always forgives, which falls in line with what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the section we are discussing. Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold something against, so if the Father held anything against anyone, would He not not follow the same advice? I am not pushing this, James, just giving food for thought.

As I have said before, it is unconscionable to forgive the unrepentant. However, Jesus calls us to forgive even if our conscience tells us not to, just as He tells us to love our enemies. These go against the “natural” conscience, which is a good conscience, but it can be enslaving when it drives us to hold onto a grudge. Yes, I do use the word “conscience” a little bit differently than most. People naturally do not want to forgive enemies. Jesus calls us to modify this natural tendency.

And, actually, I agree with what you said about Jesus’ words from the cross, but for a different reason. Like Cardinal Ratzinger, I do not agree with the idea of a wrathful God. The way I see it, God never gets offended in the first place; He already knew what all people would do before He created us, and He did so anyway. It doesn’t make sense that God goes through the same anger-forgive-anger-forgive ups and downs because it is through awareness, seeing the blindness, that we can forgive at an adult level. Since God is omniscient, He already has the awareness of people’s blindness and ignorance, and knows we are going to do really bad stuff because of it. So to me, Jesus’ call from the cross for forgiveness was more about teaching us how to forgive one another as God forgives us, through the use of awareness.

This may all sound rather foreign, but I am not saying that the opposing view presented by Anselm is “false picture” as Cardinal Ratzinger described. There is a place for other viewpoints.

 

[OneSheep]

I did not say that. You may want to read my post #3 again. My belief is that the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ forgave all of humanity, past, present, and future, and obtained reconciliation with God for all mankind. The Church has taught in many documents that were posted throughout this thread, that this now takes place through repentance and a contrite heart. Jesus’ forgiveness was not confined merely to those nearby who were witnessing His crucifixion. And one must be careful not to misconstrue Jesus’s words as universalism.

Okay. It sounds like you are saying that Jesus was forgiving more than just the unrepentant present. I agree.

In the same book,* Introduction to Christianity*, Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say:
The phrase about the forgiveness of sins, on the other hand, refers to the other fundamental sacrament of the Church, namely baptism; and from there it came very soon to include the sacrament of penance … The fact remains even now that one cannot become a Christian by birth, but only by rebirth: Christianity only ever comes into being by a man’s turning his life round, turning away from the self-satisfaction of mere existence and being “converted”. In this sense baptism remains, as the start of a lifelong conversion, the fundamental pattern of the Christian existence, as the phrase about the “remission of sins” is intended to remind us.

This does not contradict what he said in the link I provided. Conversion is key to salvation, a salvation from the slavery of our nature.

Just another thought, OneSheep. You maintain your version of the scripture about forgiveness, whereas I maintain mine in Luke 17:3. Who is right? We must always and everywhere rely upon the Church to give the correct meaning to scripture.

Similarly, Matthew 26:26 reads, “… which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins.” Luke 22:20 reads, “which will be shed for you.” Which is right? We can nitpick this and argue, I suppose, but the final word rests with the Magisterium. They, as you know, have changed the wording in the Canon of the Mass from “for all” to “for many.” Obviously, not all will repent and accept God’s reconciliation.

Our obedience cannot simply follow our own interpretation, but only what the Church teaches. She has seen fit to teach that there must be repentance of sins before God forgives them in the Sacrament of Penance, or even outside of it, whenever there is no priest to absolve the penitent. So it is pointless for us to debate what is already formulated by the Church.

Yes, in theory, not all will accept God’s love. However, I cannot imagine this actually happening. I cannot think of why someone would not. God does not force us, but the individual’s choice, when clear, is going to be made towards God. It is human to do so.

I think it just muddies the water to impose one’s own ideas and teach them as dogmatic. That is why you are receiving so much objection from others.

No, it is not ok to formulate your own theology, but the only that which is taught by the Church.

There is nothing I have stated in a dogmatic way. I am speaking as one sheep. It sounds like you are saying that it is not right for a person to make conclusions from their own relationship with God, and I respect that. However, I think my views are acceptable, and I may have a broader range of such acceptability than you do. This is not a problem to me. Does that sound dogmatic?

 

[Sirach2]

OneSheep:

James, does anyone who sins ever know what they are doing? I have yet to find an example.
…but the individual’s choice, when clear, is going to be made towards God. It is human to do so.

Looks like the doctrine of *universalism *to me, which is heretical. Forgetting completely about our recitation of “through MY fault, through MY fault, through MY most grievous fault.” If you believe human choice is going to be made towards God, then nobody is in hell.

You can continue to preach to the choir, but this is not Catholic truth. Period. I’m done. No point debating with one who invents their own religion.

 

[grannymh]

James, does anyone who sins ever know what they are doing?

Of course, people know when they are sinning. However, some, not all, people prefer to squeak past responsibility. They really go for that Church room for different opinions.

Well, the priest who taught me said that God always forgives, which falls in line with what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the section we are discussing. Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold something against, so if the Father held anything against anyone, would He not follow the same advice? I am not pushing this, James, just giving food for thought.

No pushing is necessary because according to a popular sales pitch, the Church is a big room or big tent for all different journeys and different ideas. Being true to the Catholic Church is not a requirement. “There is a place for other viewpoints.” according to OneSheep post 86, last line. Now that line is what some people will call “pushing”

As for what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, check out posts 79-80. It is a good bet that there is more tinkering in other sections. Recall that One-Sheep’s “room” is for different opinions and certainly different ways to subtract and/or add meanings.

 

[OneSheep]

In reality, you simply requoted another’s post without asking for the source. That can be very problematic, and it carries the distortion forward to other readers. The original poster truncated the actual words of Cardinal Ratzinger in order to make his own point, and then you requoted it to make a similar point.

The source was written into the post, the source was Cardinal Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity. I had not provided an online link; is this required on the CAF?

These actual words were omitted, but did show them in the search I made at his publisher’s website. “In other world religions …” He was not speaking about Catholics, apparently, but “other” religions that center on expiation. This distorts what you misunderstood due to the other poster not quoting the complete text.

Did you read the text? Cardinal Ratzinger was clearly showing that Anselm’s premises pointed in the same direction.

It is a false teaching, for Catholics, in the sense you and the other poster pulled the one sentence out of context. I was very disturbed, since the only other website where I found reference to your requote belongs to a blogger who has a strong belief in “universalism” on his home page. It caused me to wonder if that was the thrust of your messages, as having misunderstood Cardinal Ratzinger.

Thank you for providing the true reference to his writing.

I think you are misunderstanding me a bit. Cardinal Ratzinger referred to Anselm’s premises as painting a “false picture” of a sinister god. I am saying that such a picture, that of a wrathful god, may be part of the perceptions of a person’s journey. I think “false” is perhaps a bit harsh. I prefer “misperceived” or “clouded”, but the wording is not a serious issue to me. I generally agree with the Cardinal’s article.

We would have to sit down and analyze the “other world religions part”, but he was clearly contrasting Anselm’s picture.

Here is the section:

Many devotional texts actually force one to think that Christian faith in the cross visualizes a God whose unrelenting righteousness demanded a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son, sinister wrath makes the message of love incredible.

“This picture is as false as it is widespread. In the Bible the cross does not appear as part of a mechanism of injured right; on the contrary, in the Bible the cross is quite the reverse: it is the expression of the radical nature of the love which gives itself completely, of the process in which one is what one does, and does what one is; it is the expression of a life that is completely being for others.

And, again, the link:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

I take it that you disagree with the other blogger’s outlook. The question is, assuming that he has not “repented” from his outlook, of which I am taking your word for it, can you forgive him? Can you forgive these fellow Christians (assumption) for having different opinions?

BTW, I am not a follower of the priest’s blogs. I only linked there because it was the longest section of the Cardinal’s writings I could find with the important section in context. Did you read the entry completely? I am going to buy the book.

God Bless, Sirach, Bless you this Holy Week, may He continue to guide all of us.

 

[grannymh]

There is nothing I have stated in a dogmatic way. I am speaking as one sheep. It sounds like you are saying that it is not right for a person to make conclusions from their own relationship with God, and I respect that. However, I think my views are acceptable, and I may have a broader range of such acceptability than you do. This is not a problem to me. Does that sound dogmatic?

As I recall that big room you call the Catholic Church – you were referring to the Catholic Church???-- does not have any dogmatic statements just different opinions. One does not have to worry if no one accepts one’s views because each person is on their own.

That room being promoted is the opposite of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Speaking of different journeys. Wow, is that a great excuse for leaving in the middle of a dull discussion about a free-for-all room. I’m not bored. I am tired.

 

[grannymh]

Painting by
Diego Velazquez

 

[grannymh]

I believed that Jesus asked for our forgiveness from the cross for his killing because he understood that some (maybe all) did not know what they were doing. In other words, no one (who knew not what they were doing) is held liable for Jesus’s death because Jesus asked his Father (who always gives what Jesus asks) to forgive them. If there were any that knew who he was and was responsible for his death, Jesus was not asking for their forgiveness. Judas maybe? Not sure.

Jesus lays down one of the formats for how the Church forgives. He made his killing not a mortal a sin for those he prayed. Those that did not know who they killed. Mortal sin requires the matter to be grave matter with full knowledge and deliberate consent. For his own death, Jesus asks for their forgiveness because the condition of full knowledge is not met. The Church still follows his teaching in this regard.

I do not understand his request to the Father, “forgive them for they know not what they do”, to be a blanket request to forgive all sins, mortal and venial, for all people, repentant or not, and throughout all time. I think that is an incorrect understanding.

 

[grannymh]

I came back to the this thread because I had not addressed the word of Christ on the cross.

I am happy to see my return was almost completely unnecessary since JamesATyler as already released the Thunder:

Your return is always necessary.

Previously, I replied that it is impossible for a person to be in the State of Sanctifying Grace at the same time that the person is in the State of Mortal Sin. That is not the only way to approach your comments.

If I am misinterpreting your thoughts, please correct me.

But I add or repeat that it is not a lack on God’s part that anyone is not forgiven.

What I hear here is a description of God’s love. He continually calls us to come to Him and be in union with Him. He has given us the means by giving us an individual spiritual soul in the image of God. However, God has willed that we should be left in the hand of our own counsel so that we can freely seek our Creator, our ultimate good. (Information source. CCC, 1730-1733)

The Forgiveness is Christ and he has provided all Forgiveness to an infinite portion

.

“The Forgiveness is Christ” appeals to me; nonetheless, I see Christ as both the sign and active source of God’s Forgiveness. The Christian tradition sees Genesis 3:15 as a first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer. As such, we can say that Adam and Eve were comforted by the announcement or “sign” of future reconciliation, which is a crucial element in Christ’s redemption of humanity. Not only is the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation a sign, it is also the action of God forgiving, which in the case of Mortal Sin, it is God restoring the State of Sanctifying Grace. Personally, this double concept is hard for me to totally understand. Yet, I know its importance.

The salvific action of Jesus opened the gates to heaven (another favorite description of mine) by His power to restore the State of Sanctifying Grace. There are many descriptions of this role of Jesus such as going through the narrow gate or following the sound of the Shepherd’s voice, but it all comes down to the presence of Jesus in our personal lives. The Holy Eucharist (Real Presence of Jesus) is the Light, Strength and Life of Our Souls.

Still, repentance is part of the act of our free will to be reconciled to God and by not performing our penance we prevent the full forgiveness of God to enter us in the form of sanctifying grace.

I think a better description would be that by remaining unrepentant, we prevent the fullness of God’s love to enter in the form of Sanctifying Grace. The fullness of God’s love would be Himself present in our soul. We can prevent the fullness of God’s presence in our soul, by our free choice to commit Mortal Sin or to freely stay in the State of Mortal Sin. But we cannot prevent God from loving us.

I also say that the answer to “Does God only forgive the repentant?” as NO. In the most real sense God has forgiven everything since He has done the humiliation of His Son for it, but it will only benefit the sheep that partake of His Sacrements and perfect contrition.

I feel I can say, “NO”, the same as the OP though for the very opposite reasons because the semantics of the word “forgiven” are quite muddled and start to show its confused state when we then start saying that forgiven people are to be in hell eternally. Which sounds both true and absurd at the same time. Therefore, this lack of a word’s precise meaning shows no lack of God, but our lack of percise language.

Previously, I asked you to unmuddle the words of forgiven and forgive. I am not having much luck with this. On the other hand, if we try to keep our own nature front and center, we could say that God’s infinite love is always ready to reinstate Sanctifying Grace which is both the sign and action of forgiveness. To me, unrepentance is choosing to be in a solid stone state refusing to love the Infinite Source of true life.

On Friday, we recall the infinite love of God Who emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, every knee should bend, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Source. Philippians 2: 1-18)
So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

Death is swallowed up in victory.
Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?
(1 Corinthians 15: 45-58)

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny, too much to respond to at once, here. I am interested as to whether or not you read the link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s work. I agree with him on that part, and so I am feeling fairly comfortable saying that he and I are in the room. To me, the body is not defined by like-mindedness, Granny. It has to do with community, with relationship. And in so saying, this may be the most major difference between your approach and my own.

Speaking of conscience, did you ever get an answer to your question in post 57?
*Does God have a conscience that says “only forgive the repentant”? To me, in my opinion, Jesus from the Cross gives the answer. He answered it in other ways also. *
This cranky (feminine of snarky) granny has an answer which sidesteps the conscience and instead focuses on forgiveness which can only be given by God. God’s forgiveness is the reinstatement of the State of Sanctifying Grace.

According to my catechesis, the unrepentant are forgiven, but they do not experience a state of freedom if they do not repent. It is a cause-and-effect thing. Did you read the section from Cardinal R. about the God give-take-give thing?

[/INDENT]Forgiveness of other humans is important. It is important that we forgive. Please tell me. When a person is in the State of Mortal Sin, how does your forgiveness handle that?

We are called to forgive everyone we hold something against, Granny.

From post 16 above posted by OneSheep
*Did you not tell me, Granny, that you also forgive the unrepentant? And did you not also say that God does not? Therefore, Granny is more forgiving than God. I know you do not think this, though. Please, clarify for me Granny. *
Would this clarification work? This morning I looked in the mirror and I discovered I do not look like God, I did not create the world like God, and I do not recall hanging from a cross like Jesus Christ Who is True God and True Man. Therefore, I am neither God nor a quacking duck. Therefore, my forgiveness of the unrepentant, and I do have a human in mind, works on my level. But so far, my forgiveness has never reinstated the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Again, you are talking in terms of the effect of forgiveness, not the act of forgiveness, which I have pointed out before.

I may have misunderstood OneSheep. But his sales pitch sounds like the Catholic Church has room for everyone without any requirements or guidelines regarding the truth of Catholic doctrines. All that is required is “calling people to a different way of looking at the Gospel.”

Note to OneSheep. I do apologize. I believe I have misunderstood you about this room.

What kind of guidelines or requirements are you proposing for the room?

Could this room be a throwback to the cornerstone belief that while hanging bloody on His cross, Jesus forgave the unrepentant crowd?

How does this room relate to the Mystical Body of Christ?

To me, Granny, the room is a mystery. We could go back and forth as far as who is objectively included in the Catholic Church and not. I think of “Church” as at least inclusive of all who profess a faith in Christ. Does it matter what I think? Not really. What does matter is, do I hold anything against anyone? If someone has a different opinion than I do, how do I feel toward the person? Is there someone I need to forgive? How can I reach out with love to other who are suffering?

What I am saying is that IMO like-mindedness is a bit over-rated. Church is about communion, community, relationship. You are in mine, Granny, am I in yours?

 

[wmw]

When we forgive someone a trespass we do what we can to reconcile with them. We forgive though they may not wish any forgiveness or reconcilation. God does the same, but does it in perfect quality, abundance, and love. He has done this for all and completely. There is nothing more He can do to forgive everyone, but where there is no reconciling through repentance and reception of santifying grace. Also, there is no relief from seperation from God and eventual comdemnation to hell if continued until departing this world.

Then there is the “forgiveness of sin” that is the effect of santifying grace. Granny you have said it better than I what this is.

So you see the implication of the question of this thread’s title are a confusion of these two ways of thinking about forgiveness.

I agree with everyting in the above post except every knee shall bend and confess is more Biblical than “should”.