Does the Church today know more about Love?

[OneSheep]

A question inspired by Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

I have just recently finished this book by Cardinal Ratzinger, and I have a question that perhaps some of you would like to tackle.

First, I would like to say that I very highly recommend the book,( though it is written for those somewhat learned in philosophy, which immediately excludes me). After taking such a beating lately on the CAF from traditionalist-minded individuals who are unwilling to state that they are in communion with those of us who are a bit more open-minded, I enjoy wonderful lines such as:

“There is no such thing as pure objectivity.” (pg175)

“For anyone who recognizes the Christ in Jesus, and only in him, and who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, anyone who grasps the total oneness of person and work as the decisive factor, has abandoned the exclusiveness of faith and its antithesis to love; he has combined both in one and made their mutual separation unthinkable. “ (208)

“On the contrary, every heresy is at the same time a cipher for an abiding truth…”(173)

In the book, the Cardinal makes clear that salvation is not a matter of expiation for sin for “infinite offense”, as put forth by Anselm of Canterbury. This, he says is what “all other religions” have, some aspect of expiation. He describes the notion of a god who wants payment as a “sinister god”, one who “gives, and then “takes away”, and that this image is a false one, that instead God is one of “foolish love” which does not depend on us to come and reconcile but instead comes to us, makes the move, gathers His people to Himself.

For a synopsis of this issue in the book see this website:

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

In addition, he later states: “Basically this also answers the question with which we stated, whether it is not an unworthy concept of God to imagine for oneself a God who demands the slaughter of his Son to pacify his wrath. To such a question one can only reply, indeed, God must not be thought of this way.”

Finally, in the section on the development of faith in Christ, he states, “The early Christians, with their cry “Our Lord, come” interpreted the second coming of Jesus as an event full of hope and joy, stretching their arms out longingly toward it as the moment of the great fulfillment. To the Christians of the Middle Ages, on the other hand, that moment appeared as the terrifying “Day of Wrath”, which makes man feel like dying of woe and terror, and to which he looks forward with fear and dread. The return of Christ is then only judgment, the day of the great reckoning that threatens everyone. Such a view forgets a decisive aspect of Christianity, which is thus reduced for all practical purposes to moralism and robbed of that hope and joy which are the very breath of life.”

So, here is my question (though I have many other related questions):

Is our Church, through the ages, learning more about Love?

 

[jenna1983]

I love this question and am willing to read the book. Did you obtain a copy online? Then I would love to discuss.

 

[OneSheep]

I love this question and am willing to read the book. Did you obtain a copy online? Then I would love to discuss.

I think I found it on Amazon. If you like, send me a note through CAF when you have read it, and we can either resurrect this thread or start a new one. Like I said, though, much of the book is fairly philosophical in approach, and I think our pope emeritus probably wrote it atheistic classmates in mind. To me, there were some great parts to glean, for the “commoner”.

 

[fhansen]

A question inspired by Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

I have just recently finished this book by Cardinal Ratzinger, and I have a question that perhaps some of you would like to tackle.

First, I would like to say that I very highly recommend the book,( though it is written for those somewhat learned in philosophy, which immediately excludes me). After taking such a beating lately on the CAF from traditionalist-minded individuals who are unwilling to state that they are in communion with those of us who are a bit more open-minded, I enjoy wonderful lines such as:

“There is no such thing as pure objectivity.” (pg175)

“For anyone who recognizes the Christ in Jesus, and only in him, and who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, anyone who grasps the total oneness of person and work as the decisive factor, has abandoned the exclusiveness of faith and its antithesis to love; he has combined both in one and made their mutual separation unthinkable. “ (208)

“On the contrary, every heresy is at the same time a cipher for an abiding truth…”(173)

In the book, the Cardinal makes clear that salvation is not a matter of expiation for sin for “infinite offense”, as put forth by Anselm of Canterbury. This, he says is what “all other religions” have, some aspect of expiation. He describes the notion of a god who wants payment as a “sinister god”, one who “gives, and then “takes away”, and that this image is a false one, that instead God is one of “foolish love” which does not depend on us to come and reconcile but instead comes to us, makes the move, gathers His people to Himself.

For a synopsis of this issue in the book see this website:

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

In addition, he later states: “Basically this also answers the question with which we stated, whether it is not an unworthy concept of God to imagine for oneself a God who demands the slaughter of his Son to pacify his wrath. To such a question one can only reply, indeed, God must not be thought of this way.”

Finally, in the section on the development of faith in Christ, he states, “The early Christians, with their cry “Our Lord, come” interpreted the second coming of Jesus as an event full of hope and joy, stretching their arms out longingly toward it as the moment of the great fulfillment. To the Christians of the Middle Ages, on the other hand, that moment appeared as the terrifying “Day of Wrath”, which makes man feel like dying of woe and terror, and to which he looks forward with fear and dread. The return of Christ is then only judgment, the day of the great reckoning that threatens everyone. Such a view forgets a decisive aspect of Christianity, which is thus reduced for all practical purposes to moralism and robbed of that hope and joy which are the very breath of life.”

So, here is my question (though I have many other related questions):

Is our Church, through the ages, learning more about Love?

Yes, absolutely. The light that entered the world 2000 years ago has always been growing in brilliance, even as darkness continues on its path. It has changed humanity/the Church since it’s appearance but these changes are slow, the lessons that come with it often hard. We’re an obstinate bunch. I think we’re just now learning the meaning of the word Love on a greater scale.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, absolutely. The light that entered the world 2000 years ago has always been growing in brilliance, even as darkness continues on its path. It has changed humanity/the Church since it’s appearance but these changes are slow, the lessons that come with it often hard. We’re an obstinate bunch. I think we’re just now learning the meaning of the word Love on a greater scale.

I agree with you. Revelation continues to unfold. Many think otherwise, that the world is getting worse, that even the Church is moving in the “wrong direction”.

Some people seem to think that nothing changes at all, and that such lack of change is the way it is supposed to be, but as the “brilliance” grows, we see more clearly the path, and much changes. Our Pope Emeritus seems to think so too. Doctrine, dogma, etc. follows the same growing brilliance.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[fhansen]

I agree with you. Revelation continues to unfold. Many think otherwise, that the world is getting worse, that even the Church is moving in the “wrong direction”.

Some people seem to think that nothing changes at all, and that such lack of change is the way it is supposed to be, but as the “brilliance” grows, we see more clearly the path, and much changes. Our Pope Emeritus seems to think so too. Doctrine, dogma, etc. follows the same growing brilliance.

Thanks for your reply!

Thank you. One qualification, tho. I wouldn’t agree that revelation unfolds if by that we mean that new revelation is received. If, OTOH, we mean that revelation can be continuously clarified/understood better-much better, even-with that I would agree.

 

[Amandil]

OneSheep:

In the book, the Cardinal makes clear that salvation is not a matter of expiation for sin for “infinite offense”, as put forth by Anselm oof Canterbury. This, he says is what “all other religions” have, some aspect of expiation. He describes the notion of a god who wants payment as a “sinister god”, one who “gives, and then “takes away”, and that this image is a false one…

Your summary here sorely misconstrued the meaning of Benedict’s words.

The fact of the Redemption, Christ’s Passion, death, and Resurrection, was in fact an act of atonement and expiation, and Paul makes this clear in Romans 3(vs 23-25).

Expiation for what? For the sins of the world.

Benedict’s point is that it would be “sinister” for any God, especially the Christian God, to continue to demand expiation for sin from man when Christ paid for the sins of all men for all time by His single act of Atonement.

Benedict is in no way implying that Atonement for sin was unnecessary or that God was “sinister” for requiring expiation for the sins of man in the person of Christ. What He’s saying is that because of Christ that such expiation on our part is unnecessary, He’s already done it; such a state of mind focuses our attention too much on ourselves and our sinfulness and therefore we become paralysed and subject to despair and unable to go outside of ourselves.

We are sinners. All of us. “If we say that we have no sin we make of ourselves liars, because the truth is not in us.”

Faith in Christ’s Atonement sets us free from the bondage to our sins. That to me it seems is the point.

 

[Amandil]

…That said in regards to the question I think that there is a departure from what the Church has classically regarded as love(caritas) and the modernist notions of love as sentiment.

 

[OneSheep]

Your summary here sorely misconstrued the meaning of Benedict’s words.

The fact of the Redemption, Christ’s Passion, death, and Resurrection, was in fact an act of atonement and expiation, and Paul makes this clear in Romans 3(vs 23-25).

Expiation for what? For the sins of the world.

Benedict’s point is that it would be “sinister” for any God, especially the Christian God, to continue to demand expiation for sin from man when Christ paid for the sins of all men for all time by His single act of Atonement.

Benedict is in no way implying that Atonement for sin was unnecessary or that God was “sinister” for requiring expiation for the sins of man in the person of Christ. What He’s saying is that because of Christ that such expiation on our part is unnecessary, He’s already done it; such a state of mind focuses our attention too much on ourselves and our sinfulness and therefore we become paralysed and subject to despair and unable to go outside of ourselves.

We are sinners. All of us. “If we say that we have no sin we make of ourselves liars, because the truth is not in us.”

Faith in Christ’s Atonement sets us free from the bondage to our sins. That to me it seems is the point.

Hi Amandil!

Did you read the link? Where does it say in the Cardinals writings, there, that Jesus’ death was a matter of expiation?

Quite the opposite, in my reading. However, I will add my own two cents, as a contrast to Cardinal Ratzinger, that supports the idea of expiation:

:twocents:In light of an individuals’ relationship with God, expiation may make sense, and such relationships are to be respected.

Cardinal Ratzinger did admit that there were parts of the N.T. that support Anselm. However, the Cardinal’s own theology differed from Anselm, and he has plenty of NT support for his too. I would not have used the word “sinister”, but I understand our pope emeritus’ position.

So, if you believe in Anselm’s position, take heart! I sincerely believe that there is plenty of room, and has been for years, for differences of opinion.

 

[Amandil]

This is why St. Jerome, and which was reiterated by St. JP II, said that, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

Romans 3:
21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,*
[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;*
[23]** since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,***
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,*
[25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.*

And you’re completely missing the point. Anselm’s opinion was that we still make expiation for our own personal sins apart from Christ’s expiatory death but which add to Christ’s redemptive power.

Ratzinger is saying nothing different than what I’m telling you now: Christ’s death paid for all sins, His death was expiation for the sins of all men. Therefore there is nothing that WE can do to add to something which already has infinite value in the sight of God. And to try is to fall into the trap of dwelling too much on our sinfulness instead of focusing our attention outward.

 

[grannymh]

Some very tiny general advice.

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is where one can find the fullness of the Catholic Faith. There are pages and more pages regarding Jesus Christ’s mission on earth. (John 3:16-17) For example: a section on Christ’s Redemptive Death in God’s Plan of Salvation begins with paragraph 599. Check out paragraphs 615-618.

Please see post 10 above for St. Paul’s teaching on expiation by His blood. This is explained in CCC 433 and footnote 26.

The Catholic definition of Expiation is found in *CCC *Glossary, Expiation, page 878

Please note that this Catechism is not a collection of different opinions.

Correct Catholic teachings are found here:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[fhansen]

I agree with Ratzinger on this. The Atonement isn’t particularly well understood, which most theologians admit, meaning the way in which expiation takes place isn’t well understood. God isn’t infinitely offended-like some poor little deity with His feelings hurt and to whom some great retribution must be paid. Rather God, like a good parent, is profoundly saddened by the waywardness of His creation; man* is* infinitely lost, with no way of finding his way home, until and unless God rescues him. So God pays the price; He comes down and offers the gift, of Himself, and only demands our acceptance of His forgiveness in return. God’s ways, and the Christian faith, are very, very different from fallen man’s ways. I’m glad the Catechism doesn’t include Anselm’s theory in the way he structured it, helpful as it may be compared to other theories in the past.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Amandil, I have been praying about how to respond to you.

This is why St. Jerome, and which was reiterated by St. JP II, said that, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

Romans 3:
21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,*
[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;*
[23]** since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,***
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,*
[25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.*

And you’re completely missing the point. Anselm’s opinion was that we still make expiation for our own personal sins apart from Christ’s expiatory death but which add to Christ’s redemptive power.

Ratzinger is saying nothing different than what I’m telling you now: Christ’s death paid for all sins, His death was expiation for the sins of all men. Therefore there is nothing that WE can do to add to something which already has infinite value in the sight of God. And to try is to fall into the trap of dwelling too much on our sinfulness instead of focusing our attention outward.

Before I respond, Amandil, I would like to come to an agreement “up front”, if you don’t mind, not because your post was uncharitable, which is was not in the least, but because we have a bit of history.

One cannot read the Cardinal’s words without gleaning the centrality of the Eucharist in our worship, in our interactions with one another. I suggest that charity in our conversation is not enough, that since we are both Catholic, we break bread together every week, and that should be a goal, to continue to break bread together, do you agree? Secondly, it is a shame to avoid discussions of religion (and politics) just because we think it would end badly. Indeed, can we agree that we would not let differences of opinion compromise our willingness to come to the table and break bread together? In other words, are you willing to come to an understanding of my point of view, or the Pope Emeritus’ position, even if you do not agree with it? And if you do not agree with my position, are you willing to lovingly continue to break bread together with me? If we can agree on these, I am willing to continue. If not, I would rather not begin conversation on the topic.

I am a bit “fed up” with the vanity of winning debates. If debate itself divides people, then the centrality of Eucharist in our Church is diminished, even pushed aside. Eucharist, communion, is key, and I am hoping that you agree that we are always to keep mindful of it. Subsequently, our discussion is not about winning or losing, but about opening our minds to the others’ point of view, especially their own point of view of Abba Himself. Our discussion makes use of the gift of the Holy Spirit, understanding, as a means of entering into the experience of another human without judging. Do you agree?

If you do agree, can we also try to summarize others’ point of view first, before we continue with our own? I am not disciplined very well in doing this, could you help me out if I forget?

Thanks, Amandil, for your reply. Have a great day!

 

[OneSheep]

I agree with Ratzinger on this. The Atonement isn’t particularly well understood, which most theologians admit, meaning the way in which expiation takes place isn’t well understood. God isn’t infinitely offended-like some poor little deity with His feelings hurt and to whom some great retribution must be paid. Rather God, like a good parent, is profoundly saddened by the waywardness of His creation; man* is* infinitely lost, with no way of finding his way home, until and unless God rescues him. So God pays the price; He comes down and offers the gift, of Himself, and only demands our acceptance of His forgiveness in return. God’s ways, and the Christian faith, are very, very different from fallen man’s ways. I’m glad the Catechism doesn’t include Anselm’s theory in the way he structured it, helpful as it may be compared to other theories in the past.

Yes, I obviously agree too. You are also saying that God demands our acceptance of His forgiveness. The wording in the Introduction was quite different on this aspect.

“God does not seek bulls and goats but man; man’s unqualified Yes to God could alone form true worship…”(p.285)

“With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction. Worship follows in Christianity first of all in thankful acceptance of the divine deed of salvation. The essential form of Christian worship is therefore rightly called `Eucharistia,’ thanksgiving. In this form of worship human achievements are not placed before God; on the contrary, it consists in man’s letting himself be endowed with gifts; we do not glorify God by supposedly giving to him out of our resources – as if they were not his already! – but by letting ourselves be endowed with his own gifts and thus recognizing him as the only Lord.”(p283)

Indeed, the word “demand”, nor its implication, did not enter into Cardinal Ratzinger’s presentation. It is human, in response to an outpouring of love, to love in return. Those who do not see the outpouring, only see paid debts, are not likely to have the worship response, right? We do not exactly worship the IRS after our debts are paid, its like “I’m glad that is over with, now let me be away from the IRS.”

There was nothing, in the least, that indicated any kind of threat from the Cardinal’s writings. He put a lot of emphasis on the idea of salvation not being individual at all, it is a continuing theme:

“Resurrection expresses the idea that the immortality of man can exist and be thought of only in the fellowship of men, in man as the creature of fellowship… even the concept of redemption, as we have already said, only has a meaning on this plane; it does not refer to the detached, monadic destiny of the individual.”

Oh, and as far as “revelation” vs “clarification”, if I learn something new, is it a revelation or a clarification? How could I possibly discern the difference? It’s a toe-may-toe/toe-mah-toe issue. I am not hung up on the word usage., though many are. It’s all okay, but we all need to focus on Christ as revelation, for sure

Thanks, fhansen, for your reply. It was a great book, and I love talking about it.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny, I hope you are well. I would love to engage in conversation with you, but I apologize, I am going to cut-and-paste the request I made of Amandil.

Some very tiny general advice.

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is where one can find the fullness of the Catholic Faith. There are pages and more pages regarding Jesus Christ’s mission on earth. (John 3:16-17) For example: a section on Christ’s Redemptive Death in God’s Plan of Salvation begins with paragraph 599. Check out paragraphs 615-618.

Please see post 10 above for St. Paul’s teaching on expiation by His blood. This is explained in CCC 433 and footnote 26.

The Catholic definition of Expiation is found in *CCC *Glossary, Expiation, page 878

Please note that this Catechism is not a collection of different opinions.

Correct Catholic teachings are found here:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Before I respond, Granny, I would like to come to an agreement “up front”, if you don’t mind, not because your post was uncharitable, which is was not in the least, but because we have a bit of history.

One cannot read the Cardinal’s words without gleaning the centrality of the Eucharist in our worship, in our interactions with one another. I suggest that charity in our conversation is not enough, that since we are both Catholic, we break bread together every week, and that should be a goal, to continue to break bread together, do you agree? Secondly, it is a shame to avoid discussions of religion (and politics) just because we think it would end badly. Indeed, can we agree that we would not let differences of opinion compromise our willingness to come to the table and break bread together? In other words, are you willing to come to an understanding of my point of view, or the Pope Emeritus’ position, even if you do not agree with it? And if you do not agree with my position, are you willing to lovingly continue to break bread together with me? If we can agree on these, I am willing to continue. If not, I would rather not begin conversation on the topic.

I am a bit “fed up” with the vanity of winning debates. If debate itself divides people, then the centrality of Eucharist in our Church is diminished, even pushed aside. Eucharist, communion, is key, and I am hoping that you agree that we are always to keep mindful of it. Subsequently, our discussion is not about winning or losing, but about opening our minds to the others’ point of view, especially their own point of view of Abba Himself. Our discussion makes use of the gift of the Holy Spirit, understanding, as a means of entering into the experience of another human without judging. Do you agree?

If you do agree, can we also try to summarize others’ point of view first, before we continue with our own? I am not disciplined very well in doing this, could you help me out if I forget?

Thanks, Granny. May God Bless your day, your family, your health.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I obviously agree too. You are also saying that God demands our acceptance of His forgiveness. The wording in the Introduction was quite different on this aspect.

“God does not seek bulls and goats but man; man’s unqualified Yes to God could alone form true worship…”(p.285)

“With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction. Worship follows in Christianity first of all in thankful acceptance of the divine deed of salvation. The essential form of Christian worship is therefore rightly called `Eucharistia,’ thanksgiving. In this form of worship human achievements are not placed before God; on the contrary, it consists in man’s letting himself be endowed with gifts; we do not glorify God by supposedly giving to him out of our resources – as if they were not his already! – but by letting ourselves be endowed with his own gifts and thus recognizing him as the only Lord.”(p283)

Indeed, the word “demand”, nor its implication, did not enter into Cardinal Ratzinger’s presentation. It is human, in response to an outpouring of love, to love in return. Those who do not see the outpouring, only see paid debts, are not likely to have the worship response, right? We do not exactly worship the IRS after our debts are paid, its like “I’m glad that is over with, now let me be away from the IRS.”

There was nothing, in the least, that indicated any kind of threat from the Cardinal’s writings. He put a lot of emphasis on the idea of salvation not being individual at all, it is a continuing theme:
“Resurrection expresses the idea that the immortality of man can exist and be thought of only in the fellowship of men, in man as the creature of fellowship… even the concept of redemption, as we have already said, only has a meaning on this plane; it does not refer to the detached, monadic destiny of the individual.”

Yes, we’re drawn to whatever we percerive to be the greatest good. While God seeks to draw us to our true good, Himself, He doesn’t force it upon us.The demand is implicit. Redemption may be universal but justification and salvation are still contingent on our response. We don’t have to care. We don’t have to recognize our sin, much less accerot forgivens for it. We dont have to change. Adam’s obligation to his Creator remains for us and can probably be most concisely summed up by the command: “Thou Shalt Love”. It’s simply that our justuice can’t be complete anyway until we do so willingly, which is the only way love operates, of course. I doubt the Pope would disagree. I doubt that he’s eliminated hell-the absence of God- as an option.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, we’re drawn to whatever we percerive to be the greatest good. While God seeks to draw us to our true good, Himself, He doesn’t force it upon us.The demand is implicit. Redemption may be universal but justification and salvation are still contingent on our response. We don’t have to care. We don’t have to recognize our sin, much less accerot forgivens for it. We dont have to change. Adam’s obligation to his Creator remains for us and can probably be most concisely summed up by the command: “Thou Shalt Love”. It’s simply that our justuice can’t be complete anyway until we do so willingly, which is the only way love operates, of course. I doubt the Pope would disagree. I doubt that he’s eliminated hell-the absence of God- as an option.

I see, you are saying that salvation and justification are contingent on our response. I agree completely, if we continue to choose poorly, we continue to be enslaved by our appetites.

However, if “our justice” is a matter of that we have a debt to pay God, then I think that this is part of the Anselmian approach addressed by the Cardinal. This is how he addressed salvation:

“In other words, because Christianity relates to the whole and can only be understood from the idea of community and with reference to it, because it does not mean the salvation of the isolated individual but being enlisted in service to the whole, which he neither can nor may escape, for this very reason it is committed to the principle of the “the individual” in its most radical form. Here lies the the intrinsic necessity of the unheard-of scandal that a single individual, Jesus Christ, is acknowledged as the salvation of the world.” (p250)

As far as hell goes:

“This article thus asserts that Christ strode through the gate of our final loneliness, that in his Passion he went down into the abyss of our abandonment. Where no voice can reach us any longer, there is he. Hell is thereby overcome, or, to be more accurate, death which was previously hell, is hell no longer. Neither is the same any longer because there is life in the midst of death, because love dwells in it. Now only deliberate self-enclosure is hell or, as the Bible calls it, the second death. But death is no longer the path into icy solitude; the gates of sheol have been opened.” (p301)

To me, people to not knowingly and willingly self-enclose, but that was a topic for another thread.

God Bless.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny, I hope you are well. I would love to engage in conversation with you, but I apologize, I am going to cut-and-paste the request I made of Amandil.

Before I respond, Granny, I would like to come to an agreement “up front”, if you don’t mind, not because your post was uncharitable, which is was not in the least, but because we have a bit of history.

One cannot read the Cardinal’s words without gleaning the centrality of the Eucharist in our worship, in our interactions with one another. I suggest that charity in our conversation is not enough, that since we are both Catholic, we break bread together every week, and that should be a goal, to continue to break bread together, do you agree? Secondly, it is a shame to avoid discussions of religion (and politics) just because we think it would end badly. Indeed, can we agree that we would not let differences of opinion compromise our willingness to come to the table and break bread together? In other words, are you willing to come to an understanding of my point of view, or the Pope Emeritus’ position, even if you do not agree with it? And if you do not agree with my position, are you willing to lovingly continue to break bread together with me? If we can agree on these, I am willing to continue. If not, I would rather not begin conversation on the topic.

I am a bit “fed up” with the vanity of winning debates. If debate itself divides people, then the centrality of Eucharist in our Church is diminished, even pushed aside. Eucharist, communion, is key, and I am hoping that you agree that we are always to keep mindful of it. Subsequently, our discussion is not about winning or losing, but about opening our minds to the others’ point of view, especially their own point of view of Abba Himself. Our discussion makes use of the gift of the Holy Spirit, understanding, as a means of entering into the experience of another human without judging. Do you agree?

If you do agree, can we also try to summarize others’ point of view first, before we continue with our own? I am not disciplined very well in doing this, could you help me out if I forget?

Thanks, Granny. May God Bless your day, your family, your health.

And may God bless you, OneSheep and your family every day.

I am sorry to say that this summer my age finally caught up with me. Seems to me that our simple Catholic teachings have become more complex. I do hope that you younguns will be patient with this older than dirt cranky granny.

For example, this sentence from post 15.
I suggest that charity in our conversation is not enough, that since we are both Catholic, we break bread together every week, and that should be a goal, to continue to break bread together, do you agree?

I travel a lot to see family and health professionals so I frequent a variety of Catholic Churches. In these churches, the congregation did not have a ceremony breaking bread with each other.

On the other hand, I am sure that metaphorically you are saying that we Catholics together have Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist. Later in post 15, you clarify.
Eucharist, communion, is key, and I am hoping that you agree that we are always to keep mindful of it.

Of course, I agree to that concept. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic Faith.

As a former journalist before fax machines, I had to understand other people’s positions on popular topics in order to write about them. But understanding other people did not mean that I agreed with everything I heard or read. Sometimes, I had to do my own digging for the truth. I still dig for evidence out of sheer curiosity.

An example of needed digging for the Catholic truth is this comment from post 15.
I am a bit “fed up” with the vanity of winning debates. If debate itself divides people, then the centrality of Eucharist in our Church is diminished, even pushed aside.

I could write a short article about the vanity of winning debates. And I am often very “fed up” about this vanity involved with the debate itself.

As I said, out of sheer curiosity, I dig for the evidence. Currently, the media, including the internet, is full of rather interesting explanations for some of our Catholic teachings. The media is a good source of opposing positions on Catholicism. I am too old to change my [journalistic] stripes of seeking the evidence.

As for my going to Church with lots of people who may or may not have the proper interpretations of certain Catholic doctrines, I do not go to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to discuss differences. Once I am out the door, I will use my own mind to freely evaluate differences.

 

[simpleas]

I was thinking what definition of love you are asking about?

And are you asking about what the hierchy know about love or the laity within the church?

The Apostle Paul glorified love as the most important virtue of all. Describing love in the famous poem in 1 Corinthians, he wrote, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.” (1 Cor. 13:4–7, NIV)

All what St Paul says above is what we can come to with acceptance of one another I think.

 

[fhansen]

I see, you are saying that salvation and justification are contingent on our response. I agree completely, if we continue to choose poorly, we continue to be enslaved by our appetites.

However, if “our justice” is a matter of that we have a debt to pay God, then I think that this is part of the Anselmian approach addressed by the Cardinal. This is how he addressed salvation:

“In other words, because Christianity relates to the whole and can only be understood from the idea of community and with reference to it, because it does not mean the salvation of the isolated individual but being enlisted in service to the whole, which he neither can nor may escape, for this very reason it is committed to the principle of the “the individual” in its most radical form. Here lies the the intrinsic necessity of the unheard-of scandal that a single individual, Jesus Christ, is acknowledged as the salvation of the world.” (p250)

Our justice is simply our righteousness/holiness, that which makes us just in the eyes of God as opposed to sin: whatever makes us unjust/unrighteousness. This justice is defined by the two greatest commandments.Not sure if that’s what you were referring to.