Does the Church today know more about Love?

[Amandil]

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

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!

Why do you persist in making things about people and not about the subject matter?

Why is it that you seem to not be able to distance yourself from your views sufficiently enough to look at them objectively so when someone offers a criticism you can see it as merely a criticism of an idea and not a personal attack?

That aside:

Here’s the thing, I understand Ratzinger’s position perfectly, it’s a position which I share and restated rather concisely.

It’s for the fact that you somehow think that I share Anselm’s position and not Ratzinger’s is what lends to the fact that you are misconstruing and misinterpreting Ratzinger’s position.

Ratzinger, being a top-tier theologian and exegete(I have read both parts one and two of his work “Jesus of Nazareth”) understands rather well the sacrifice of Christ and it’s expiatory nature, and he centers on the very text that I cited from Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Going back to your citation, and this is where I still insist that your missing the point, it’s not that Ratzinger has ever said that expiation for sin was never required for sin. If that’s what he is saying then Christ’s death on the cross makes no sense at all, that Christ died for nothing.

Ratzinger has never said that, his work Jesus of Nazareth makes that quite clear, nor would the Cardinal contradict Scripture.

 

[grannymh]

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

In my humble opinion, the Catholic Church learned about God’s love in John 3: 16-17.
An amazing follow-up is the Gospel of John, chapter six. And of course, I cannot fail to mention that Pentecost, often considered the birth of the Catholic Church, is a continual description of God’s infinite love for us.

John 3: 16-17 is where God’s love is infinitely described. In chapter six, John gives us the true presence of Jesus Christ. Again, in the Holy Eucharist there is God’s infinite love.

It can be said that Jesus’ starting point is human suffering caused by human sins. The greatest suffering occurred when Adam, in whom is all humankind “as one body of one man,” freely chose to sever the original bonding of the human creature with God the Creator. This is why evil sins not only need to be named and exposed, but also the remedy, the Seven Catholic Sacraments, needs to be employed in the battle.

Within the Catholic Church, the central position of the Holy Eucharist Sacrament can never, absolutely never, be diminished or pushed aside. Even the great debates in preparation for the Council of Trent could not alter Christ’s personal teachings in chapter six, Gospel of John. This Real Presence of Jesus, our Lover, is the Light, Strength, and Life of our souls.

To directly answer the question – Is our Church, through the ages, learning more about Love?

I would say yes because our Catholic Church is both a visible human organization on earth and also the Mystical Body of Christ. Our human minds are finite; thus we continually learn about the infinite depth of Jesus’ love for us. This “learning” should not be confused with the “emerging Christianity” concept.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Simpleas!

I am referring to the all-encompassing definition, the Love we talk about when we say “God is love”. The Love Paul refers to in your quote, and I am talking about the whole Church, hierarchy included.

“Acceptance” is important, but there are times to lovingly correct another’s wrongs too. Look at what has happened through the ages, slavery is no longer sanctioned, racial and ethnic prejudice is disappearing, child rearing practices are less abusive. We are all learning more about love. I think you see what I mean.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

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.

It’s an interesting side issue to develop, if we have the space and time.

How does God see those who behave unjustly vs. justly?
Does God hold the unjust acts against them, or does He forgive?
Do unjust acts put us in some kind of “position” of unworthiness?

Thanks for your reply. Have we covered this territory before?

 

[fhansen]

It’s an interesting side issue to develop, if we have the space and time.

How does God see those who behave unjustly vs. justly?
Does God hold the unjust acts against them, or does He forgive?
Do unjust acts put us in some kind of “position” of unworthiness?

Thanks for your reply. Have we covered this territory before?

Well, it seems obvious to me that sin is what started the whole mess-with death and all-to begin with. And that repentance, a change of heart and a returning to God, is the answer. Unless God has no standards for justice in His universe-or had them originally but later decided to ignore them-then we can understand that He ultimately is meaning to restore His universe to the justice that He intends for it to have. And He tells us the standard which His justice is based on: love. God intends to bring all things into alignment with this standard. Forgiveness is only one step in that plan.

 

[OneSheep]

Why do you persist in making things about people and not about the subject matter?

Because people are more important than subject matter. Communion trumps opinion. Communion trumps dogma, doctrine, law, everything. Eucharist, Jesus, is central. Communion is much, much more than like-mindedness. On the other hand, if we agree that Eucharist, communion is of greatest importance, then we are already like-minded!

I’m sorry, Amandil, it doesn’t sound like you are agreeing to my requests in post 13, so I’m going to leave it at that. I accept your decision.

If you reconsider, let me know!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny!

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.
​

Thanks for your agreement on these items. I would like a little more specificity, though, before we begin.

I am going to say some things that you disagree with, for sure. In the past, I have assured you that I accept your point of view as Catholic. I am asking if you are willing to accept my own opinions in this way also, that there is room for difference of opinion and ways of seeing God among Catholics. What do you think, can you accept as Catholic, even though you do not agree?

Is faith inclusive, as the Cardinal states?

I am not asking for you to accept whatever I say as Catholic, in a blanket statement. I am asking that you try to fully understand my point of view, and then seek clarification if it appears to clearly go against Church teachings.

Thanks for your reply. I look forward to addressing your posts on the material.​

 

[OneSheep]

Well, it seems obvious to me that sin is what started the whole mess-with death and all-to begin with. And that repentance, a change of heart and a returning to God, is the answer. Unless God has no standards for justice in His universe-or had them originally but later decided to ignore them-then we can understand that He ultimately is meaning to restore His universe to the justice that He intends for it to have. And He tells us the standard which His justice is based on: love. God intends to bring all things into alignment with this standard. Forgiveness is only one step in that plan.

Hmmm. “standards for justice”

What do you think, does the fully aware human abide by all of the standards? Additionally, does not the aware person change their heart, repent, when they are in the wrong?

Have a great day, fhansen!

 

[fhansen]

Hmmm. “standards for justice”

What do you think, does the fully aware human abide by all of the standards? Additionally, does not the aware person change their heart, repent, when they are in the wrong?

Have a great day, fhansen!

I guess that would depend on the definition of “fully aware”. Basic standards for Gods justice we’re publicly revealed by the Ten Commandments. But the law was still based on love. Unless and until we love as well, then any obedience fails to come from the motivation God desires in us (“love fulfills the law” Rom 8:10). He wants us to be like Him. But He also reveals that we cannot be like Him apart from Him, without grace IOW.

 

[Amandil]

Because people are more important than subject matter. Communion trumps opinion. Communion trumps dogma, doctrine, law, everything.

This is you asserting a false dichotomy between Creed and worship; both are necessary and integral to being a Catholic Christian.

The fact is you break communion when you contradict dogma.

OneSheep:

Eucharist, Jesus, is central. Communion is much, much more than like-mindedness. On the other hand, if we agree that Eucharist, communion is of greatest importance, then we are already like-minded!

The Gospel insists that we are to be One in all things.

OneSheep:

I’m sorry, Amandil, it doesn’t sound like you are agreeing to my requests in post 13, so I’m going to leave it at that. I accept your decision.

If you reconsider, let me know!

Your request is nothing more than you asserting that you’re right and I’m wrong and that I have to be silent about it.

 

[Amandil]

On second thought, OneSheep, I will be stepping out on this, but only because it’s clear to me that you are incapable of having a reasoned discussion but instead only want your preconcieved ideas confirmed.

Obviously for all your calls for “charity” and “tolerance” dissenting voices are not allowed within your realm.

Good day.

 

[grannymh]

I would say yes because our Catholic Church is both a visible human organization on earth and also the Mystical Body of Christ. Our human minds are finite; therefore, we continually learn about the infinite depth of Jesus’ love for us. This “learning” should not be confused with the “emerging Christianity” concept.

As we learn more about love by exploring the infinite depth of Jesus’ love for us, we need to trust our Catholic Church because it is continually guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. (Information source: Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Being part of the visible human organization known as the Catholic Church, we yearn to have all humans be one flock, one Mystical Body of Christ. We want to see this goal emerge from our love of Jesus Who gave us His Catholic Church. We want Catholicism to be inclusive and not exclusive. However, being inclusive cannot mean that we set aside some fundamental teachings in order to appease those with contradicting opinions about Divine Revelation. Letting someone’s personal interpretations of God trump the Catholic Deposit of Faith does not lead to the true unity at Pentecost.

Today, we can understand that the people of the Catholic Church know more about love because it needs to be practiced more.

Love needs to be true to the Divine Revelation properly proclaimed according to Catholic protocol under the guidance of the promised Advocate, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. In some geographic areas, there is the philosophy of the Emergent Church. In other areas, there is the Big Tent philosophy. Reaching out to all peoples, regardless of our differences, has been a part of Catholicism from the beginning. (Information source. Council of Jerusalem, Acts, chapter 15)

Sitting shoulder to shoulder in love for others does not mean altering Catholic doctrines --just because we understand.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

I am referring to the all-encompassing definition, the Love we talk about when we say “God is love”. The Love Paul refers to in your quote, and I am talking about the whole Church, hierarchy included.

“Acceptance” is important, but there are times to lovingly correct another’s wrongs too. Look at what has happened through the ages, slavery is no longer sanctioned, racial and ethnic prejudice is disappearing, child rearing practices are less abusive. We are all learning more about love. I think you see what I mean.

Thanks!
“Acceptance” is important, but there are times to lovingly correct another’s wrongs too.*

I think you made this statement or similar on another thread and was curious to how you or others in your parish “lovingly correct another’s wrongs”
I think maybe you meant point something out, like maybe when someone is being uncharitable towards another?

I know you mentioned you do alot in your parish with the youth. But no one can “correct” anothers wrong, they can only show/advise them that what they are doing is harmful to them or another.
I have seen alot of acts of kindness and helping of people who really need the support in my parish and beyond.
What I never see is anyone trying to correct anybody else, apart from the priest trying to preach love and compassion. I’ve heard the odd gossip and back stabbing, pretty normal for us humans.
So unless we know what wrongs we are doing, we don’t go about the church correcting each other.

About the Eucharist, although I know what you mean about breaking bread and being in communion with others, I think that communion is a very personal encounter. Like just after we pray the not worthy prayer we become completely as one with Christ ready to receive as one with him alone for just those few minutes, but also as a church and body of Christ, in praise and thanksgiving.

Hope that makes sense

I think the church does move slowly, but I believe even way back when in the dark ages the church was full of love or else it would not be a Christian Church, but a dictatorship.

 

[OneSheep]

I would say yes because our Catholic Church is both a visible human organization on earth and also the Mystical Body of Christ. Our human minds are finite; therefore, we continually learn about the infinite depth of Jesus’ love for us. This “learning” should not be confused with the “emerging Christianity” concept.

I agree, but I don’t have any beefs with the “emerging Church” concept, from what I know of it. Well stated, Granny.

As we learn more about love by exploring the infinite depth of Jesus’ love for us, we need to trust our Catholic Church because it is continually guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. (Information source: Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Being part of the visible human organization known as the Catholic Church, we yearn to have all humans be one flock, one Mystical Body of Christ. We want to see this goal emerge from our love of Jesus Who gave us His Catholic Church. We want Catholicism to be inclusive and not exclusive. However, being inclusive cannot mean that we set aside some fundamental teachings in order to appease those with contradicting opinions about Divine Revelation. Letting someone’s personal interpretations of God trump the Catholic Deposit of Faith does not lead to the true unity at Pentecost.

I agree. I’m not talking about “trumping”, though, when I talk of including. Our language and definition usage is so complex, and people have such varying experiences of the divine that there has to be some “wiggle room”. The Cardinal, and St. Paul, tolerated the approach put forth by St. Anselm and some early believers, respectively, even though theirs were different. I found another article today that addresses the same spectrum:

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

Today, we can understand that the people of the Catholic Church know more about love because it needs to be practiced more.

Love needs to be true to the Divine Revelation properly proclaimed according to Catholic protocol under the guidance of the promised Advocate, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. In some geographic areas, there is the philosophy of the Emergent Church. In other areas, there is the Big Tent philosophy. Reaching out to all peoples, regardless of our differences, has been a part of Catholicism from the beginning. (Information source. Council of Jerusalem, Acts, chapter 15)

Sitting shoulder to shoulder in love for others does not mean altering Catholic doctrines --just because we understand.

Like I said, I agree. Catholic doctrine, if it does move (revelation clarified), must do so very slowly. I think it is clarified a little too slowly, and you probably think differently. I’m sure that there are plenty of Bishops that have the same issues.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, glamorous granny!

 

[Lion_IRC]

…You don’t get to talk down to me as if I’m some dog.

Amandil,

I don’t think that was being done to you.

Please stay in the discussion. Your posts are very thoughtful.

In any case…

http://www.quotesvalley.com/images/49/no-one-can-make-you-feel-inferior-without-your-consent-3.jpg

 

[grannymh]

I’m not talking about “trumping”, though, when I talk of including. Our language and definition usage is so complex, and people have such varying experiences of the divine that there has to be some “wiggle room”.

Complex language is such an interesting approach when it comes to the Catholic Church per se knowing more about love, especially the love of Jesus hanging bloody on His cross.

Here is a summary of some current theological thinking about Jesus Christ’s love for humans. I am embarrassed to give the source.
However, while it may be easy to explain historically why Jesus died, it is not so easy to explain why theologically Jesus had to die? [sic]This was perhaps the first theological difficulties that Jesus’ followers had to resolve (Roberts, 2004).



In my childhood neighborhood, this was explained in the primary grades. Humans died – what is so difficult about that concept? In addition, Adam was a human. The problem for some people is that the Catholic Church has not updated Divine Revelation. It still teaches that there was a real human person who, along with his human spouse, founded humankind. In Adam is all humanity “as one body of one man.” (Information source. the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404)

It is easy for children to understand that God loved Adam who lived in a beautiful garden. Children also can understand that there is a difference between God as Creator and Adam as a creature. After Adam disobeyed his Creator, God did not abandon mankind. (Information source. CCC 410) Those people who actively listen during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will occasionally hear these words in the Eucharistic Prayer IV.
You formed man in Your own image and entrusted the whole world to his care, so that in serving You alone, the Creator, he might have dominion over all creatures. And when through disobedience he had lost Your friendship, You did not abandon him to the domain of death. For You came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find You.

It should be obvious that the way anyone could overcome the domain of death is for that person, on his own power, to come alive after dying. Perhaps some people should read the rest of the story.

Regarding the concept that people have such varying experiences of the divine that there has to be some “wiggle room”. Varying experiences of the divine is so totally obvious. The source of varying experiences of the divine is God the Creator. The “wiggle room” is for the creatures. The Creator does not “wiggle” in His Divine Revelation.

 

[OneSheep]

Complex language is such an interesting approach when it comes to the Catholic Church per se knowing more about love, especially the love of Jesus hanging bloody on His cross.

Here is a summary of some current theological thinking about Jesus Christ’s love for humans. I am embarrassed to give the source.
However, while it may be easy to explain historically why Jesus died, it is not so easy to explain why theologically Jesus had to die? [sic]This was perhaps the first theological difficulties that Jesus’ followers had to resolve (Roberts, 2004).



In my childhood neighborhood, this was explained in the primary grades. Humans died – what is so difficult about that concept? In addition, Adam was a human. The problem for some people is that the Catholic Church has not updated Divine Revelation. It still teaches that there was a real human person who, along with his human spouse, founded humankind. In Adam is all humanity “as one body of one man.” (Information source. the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404)

It is easy for children to understand that God loved Adam who lived in a beautiful garden. Children also can understand that there is a difference between God as Creator and Adam as a creature. After Adam disobeyed his Creator, God did not abandon mankind. (Information source. CCC 410) Those people who actively listen during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will occasionally hear these words in the Eucharistic Prayer IV.
You formed man in Your own image and entrusted the whole world to his care, so that in serving You alone, the Creator, he might have dominion over all creatures. And when through disobedience he had lost Your friendship, You did not abandon him to the domain of death. For You came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find You.

It should be obvious that the way anyone could overcome the domain of death is for that person, on his own power, to come alive after dying. Perhaps some people should read the rest of the story.

Regarding the concept that people have such varying experiences of the divine that there has to be some “wiggle room”. Varying experiences of the divine is so totally obvious. The source of varying experiences of the divine is God the Creator. The “wiggle room” is for the creatures. The Creator does not “wiggle” in His Divine Revelation.

I am a little confused about the point of the bulk of your post, there, Granny, but I obviously agree, the “wiggle room” is for the creatures. The Creator does not “wiggle” (oh but this language is so technical!), but humans take a long time to understand it all.

Thanks, Granny.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

I think you made this statement or similar on another thread and was curious to how you or others in your parish “lovingly correct another’s wrongs”
I think maybe you meant point something out, like maybe when someone is being uncharitable towards another?
No one can “correct” anothers wrong, they can only show/advise them that what they are doing is harmful to them or another.

I have seen alot of acts of kindness and helping of people who really need the support in my parish and beyond.
What I never see is anyone trying to correct anybody else, apart from the priest trying to preach love and compassion. I’ve heard the odd gossip and back stabbing, pretty normal for us humans.
So unless we know what wrongs we are doing, we don’t go about the church correcting each other.

Yes, a gentle “pointing out”. I have tried with one individual specifically to do such gentle pointing out, but then the person accuses me of red herrings and condescension. I don’t know what to do, I just pray now.

Yes, “correct” is not the best word to use.

About the Eucharist, although I know what you mean about breaking bread and being in communion with others, I think that communion is a very personal encounter. Like just after we pray the not worthy prayer we become completely as one with Christ ready to receive as one with him alone for just those few minutes, but also as a church and body of Christ, in praise and thanksgiving.

Hope that makes sense

Yes, it does make sense. Eucharist is both personal (God and I) and communal (everyone else and I). In the celebration of the Eucharist, God’s presence is in the priest, in the host, and in the community too.

We are indeed worthy, Simpleas, in the eyes of God. And it is not because of the humility of the statement “I am not worthy to receive you”, though the statement has its purpose, it is a statement of faith. We are worthy, to God, because to Him we have infinite value.

I think the church does move slowly, but I believe even way back when in the dark ages the church was full of love or else it would not be a Christian Church, but a dictatorship.

Hmmm. I don’t know about the contrast there. Even when the papacy is dictatorial, it is a loving dictatorial, for the most part. I think that the hierarchy, too, has learned much more about love. Did you ever read the story in Acts about Ananias and Sapphira? Whew! That would never occur now. We know more today about love - and forgiveness.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[grannymh]

I am a little confused about the point of the bulk of your post, there, Granny, but I obviously agree, the “wiggle room” is for the creatures. The Creator does not “wiggle” (oh but this language is so technical!), but humans take a long time to understand it all.

Thanks, Granny.

Pardon me, I am in the beginning stage of researching the “emerging Christianity” concept mentioned in connection with Father Richard Rohr’s interests. At this point, I really do not know a lot about either Father Rohr or the emerging/emergent church movement.

So as not to go off topic, I will only comment that when we talk about the Catholic Church’s Love for others, we have to recognize that this love is grounded in Catholic doctrines.

As members of the Catholic Church, we love those who seriously disagree with basic Catholic doctrines. Our love for these people does not necessarily mean that we are in communion with them, that is, accepting and sharing their different religious faith teachings. True love recognizes and understands differences in opinions. However, when it comes to recognizing differences regarding basic Catholic doctrines, true love does not downgrade or omit our own Catholic doctrines.

Obviously, we can understand the positions of others who are not in agreement with Catholic doctrines. Obviously, we need to love these others because God commanded us to love others. But this love does not make us blind.

 

[simpleas]

Pardon me, I am in the beginning stage of researching the “emerging Christianity” concept mentioned in connection with Father Richard Rohr’s interests. At this point, I really do not know a lot about either Father Rohr or the emerging/emergent church movement.

So as not to go off topic, I will only comment that when we talk about the Catholic Church’s Love for others, we have to recognize that this love is grounded in Catholic doctrines.

As members of the Catholic Church, we love those who seriously disagree with basic Catholic doctrines. Our love for these people does not necessarily mean that we are in communion with them, that is, accepting and sharing their different religious faith teachings. True love recognizes and understands differences in opinions. However, when it comes to recognizing differences regarding basic Catholic doctrines, true love does not downgrade or omit our own Catholic doctrines.

Obviously, we can understand the positions of others who are not in agreement with Catholic doctrines. Obviously, we need to love these others because God commanded us to love others. But this love does not make us blind.

Just for your interest, I came across this a while back and what I read about Jesus as Scapegoat lead me to buy the book, for my own interest. It’s the whole of chapter 9 in the book, so if you’ve got some reading time you may like to take a look.

spiritofststephens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1380:the-mystery-of-the-cross-richard-rohr-ch-9-things-hidden-scripture-as-spirituality&catid=66&Itemid=82