Does the Church today know more about Love?

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

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.

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.

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!

No problem

Yes I’ve read the story. Not quite got the meaning of it. I know the couple did not have to sell the land, but as they did, as a part of the community, they were obliged to give all their monies to the apostles so they could help the less fortunate. It sounds straight forward for those times, but the dropping down dead part I don’t understand.
That because they did not give all the money just some, they had not lied to men but to God. I don’t think it has anything to do with money, I think it might mean about not giving all to God and keeping some of yourself back. Could be wishful thinking. It does sound like a scare tatic to make sure everyone hand over all monies from their land sales to the apostles, and I don’t think it would happen now, I see people giving generously to the parish and other Catholic charties, they just don’t hand over all their money, well maybe some people do.

 

[grannymh]

It is very sad that God’s infinite love in the “atonement” of Jesus Christ is misunderstood.

If we want to know more about love, we need to start with God creating a human being capable (image of God) of freely sharing in God’s life here on earth (Sanctifying Grace) and in joy eternal after bodily death (Beatific Vision).

 

[OneSheep]

No problem

Yes I’ve read the story. Not quite got the meaning of it. I know the couple did not have to sell the land, but as they did, as a part of the community, they were obliged to give all their monies to the apostles so they could help the less fortunate. It sounds straight forward for those times, but the dropping down dead part I don’t understand.
That because they did not give all the money just some, they had not lied to men but to God. I don’t think it has anything to do with money, I think it might mean about not giving all to God and keeping some of yourself back. Could be wishful thinking. It does sound like a scare tatic to make sure everyone hand over all monies from their land sales to the apostles, and I don’t think it would happen now, I see people giving generously to the parish and other Catholic charties, they just don’t hand over all their money, well maybe some people do.

Hi again,

Can you imagine the Pope treating someone’s wife that way, Simpleas? The occurrence reportedly did scare people, and there was nothing in the story about the Church leadership trying to waylay such fears as unfounded.

Thanks for triggering my memory of the story, this is more indication that we know more about love today.

Have a nice Sunday!

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Granny!

Well, I have read a few of Fr. Rohr’s books, and I know that he has some regard for aspects of what I have heard called the “Emerging Church”.

I am more inclined to think that Catholic doctrine is guided by love. Love has been around a lot longer than Catholic doctrine. But I think I understand, that you are saying Catholic doctrine guides our efforts at putting love into action.

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.

Quite often differences of opinion are acceptable in Catholic doctrine. Did you read the article I linked on here two days ago? An extremely important difference in perspective, one that shows “payment” to God as necessary, the other not. Is one of these condemned as blasphemous? No, not in anything I have read. The differences are respected.

It is very sad that God’s infinite love in the “atonement” of Jesus Christ is misunderstood.

If we want to know more about love, we need to start with God creating a human being capable (image of God) of freely sharing in God’s life here on earth (Sanctifying Grace) and in joy eternal after bodily death (Beatific Vision).

More good points, thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

Well, I have read a few of Fr. Rohr’s books, and I know that he has some regard for aspects of what I have heard called the “Emerging Church”.

I am more inclined to think that Catholic doctrine is guided by love. Love has been around a lot longer than Catholic doctrine. But I think I understand, that you are saying Catholic doctrine guides our efforts at putting love into action.

Actually, according to chapter 14, Gospel of John, Catholic doctrine is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

Quite often differences of opinion are acceptable in Catholic doctrine. Did you read the article I linked on here two days ago? An extremely important difference in perspective, one that shows “payment” to God as necessary, the other not. Is one of these condemned as blasphemous? No, not in anything I have read. The differences are respected.

I read the link in post 33 and quoted from it in my response in Post 34.

Here is another interesting quote from the link in post 33.
The God of the atonement perspective seems basically devious and more than a little treacherous.

I wonder if the author, who was so very careful to insert the word “seems,” knows that certain people have dropped the word “seems” and the words “a little treacherous.” It really doesn’t matter who wrote what and who repeated from someone who heard that. The bottom line is the popular complaint that the God of Catholicism is basically devious and treacherous.

Further on in this thread, we read the following from the link in post 38.
Jesus, Scotus said, was not “necessary” to solve any problem whatsoever–he was no mopping-up exercise after the fact–but a pure and gracious declaration of the primordial truth from the very beginning which was called the doctrine of “the primacy of Christ.”
Here is another quote from the same link in post 38.
Jesus is not a ''necessity.” Rather, Jesus is pure gift, grace and glory!

It is perfectly fine to say: “The differences are respected.” in post 42. However, the plain fact is that the Catholic Church does not offer a choice of differences when it comes to Divine Revelations. The necessity of a Person, Who is True God and True Man, is not negotiable.

 

[grannymh]

P.S. to post 43.

On their own, the links in posts 33 and 38 are examples of sweet talk which can contain seeds of truths. The question remains. Are these seeds trampled in the rush to form a more appealing atmosphere, one that glosses over hard truths?

The fact that the Catholic Church’s Founder has true love for human creatures does not mean that the horror of Adam’s free choice (Original Sin) should be eliminated or dressed up in fancy figurative language which sidesteps the true love of atonement, that is, the true love found in Jesus Christ’s reconciliation of humanity with Divinity. Nor should the responsibility for the horror shift from the first human to an infinite loving God, our Creator.

We live in a decade of horror. If we are to bring more love to others, then we cannot sidestep the truths flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. We should not sidestep the love in Genesis 3: 15 and in John 3:16-17.
(Information source. *CCC *410-411)

 

[simpleas]

Did the church teach that God is Love on the level we now hear it, say a thousand years ago?

Mass wasn’t celebrated visually as we see it now, I’m not sure, but there was no homilies back then?

We’ve gone through many stages in history which include the Hell, Fire and damnation, medieval times, gothic times, especially here.

We may well be in the Love and compassion times now, some would say not, and we are worse now, but we don’t live in the sort of control, violent times we have seen in the passed, we ain’t perfect, but we have progressed.
Having the teaching of the Saints, mystics has and will always help us to remember Christ was love from the beginning.

Last nights homily our priest was preaching again that God is love. We are told God has always been love, but we have failed to recognise that love sometimes.

 

[grannymh]

Did the church teach that God is Love on the level we now hear it, say a thousand years ago?

God does not decrease or increase His love.

We need to constantly keep in mind that God is a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit without the material/physical restrictions of His human material/physical creatures whose nature is not pure super-natural spirit.

Starting with Pentecost, the Catholic Church continues to teach God’s perfect love which is found in
Genesis 1: 26-27.

Mass wasn’t celebrated visually as we see it now, I’m not sure, but there was no homilies back then?

Please google “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you.”

Next, compare the citations, Matthew 26: 26, Luke 22: 19, and 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26 with the Eucharistic Prayer in today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as evidence that today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as what Jesus visually did during the Last Supper.

 

[simpleas]

God does not decrease or increase His love.

We need to constantly keep in mind that God is a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit without the material/physical restrictions of His human material/physical creatures whose nature is not pure super-natural spirit.

Starting with Pentecost, the Catholic Church continues to teach God’s perfect love which is found in
Genesis 1: 26-27.

Please google “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is My Body, which will be given up for you.”

Next, compare the citations, Matthew 26: 26, Luke 22: 19, and 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26 with the Eucharistic Prayer in today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as evidence that today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as what Jesus visually did during the Last Supper.

Thanks.

I know that God’s love doesn’t increase or decrease, I was asking if the church spoke about God’s endless Love on the level I hear it now. Maybe it’s now I’m hearing it…

I did not google what you said, but thanks for taking the time to type it. My question was about homilies/sermons and I came across this :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass

Which for me is some new learning about the history of Mass. I knew that Mass was celebrated with the Priests back to the congregation before vatican 2, and from the link on the table it shows there was always a homily/sermon included in the Mass.
So what were the homilies/sermons about, most likely about the trials of the era.

I thought this was interesting :

In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to “the president of the brethren.” The language used was doubtless Greek, except in particular for the Hebrew word “Amen”, whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (γένοιτο), saying that by it “all the people present express their assent” when the president of the brethren “has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings.”

I may have to get a copy of The First Apology.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

I know that God’s love doesn’t increase or decrease, I was asking if the church spoke about God’s endless Love on the level I hear it now. Maybe it’s now I’m hearing it…

An individual can hear about the top level of God’s endless love in any year, in any place where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being celebrated. When it comes to the “Church” speaking about God’s endless love on the level one hears it now, – we need to recall that the highest level of love was taught by Jesus Christ the night before He “opened the gates of heaven” aka atonement.

The level of God’s endless love is continually taught in today’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the “Consecration of Bread and Wine” within the Eucharistic Prayer. (Information source. Matthew 26: 26; Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26)

I did not google what you said, but thanks for taking the time to type it. My question was about homilies/sermons and I came across this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass

Which for me is some new learning about the history of Mass. I knew that Mass was celebrated with the Priests back to the congregation before vatican 2, and from the link on the table it shows there was always a homily/sermon included in the Mass.
So what were the homilies/sermons about, most likely about the trials of the era.

What I remember about pre-Vatican II sermons, currently known as homilies, is that I learned the life of Jesus Christ and also the value of knowing right from wrong. In addition, there was an emphasis on the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation. Considering the geographic location of my parish, there probably were some sermons on the Catholic’s civil responsibilities including justice for all races. Civil responsibilities and civil rights were intertwined with family and parish life.

I thought this was interesting :

In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to “the president of the brethren.” The language used was doubtless Greek, except in particular for the Hebrew word “Amen”, whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (γένοιτο), saying that by it “all the people present express their assent” when the president of the brethren “has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings.”

Yes, that is very interesting. I do wish that all Catholics would give a sincere “Amen” to the fact that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. If people really believed that, there would be standing room only in our churches. In Spain, I recently participated in the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where there was standing room only. A gentleman made room for me in his pew.

It is this quote from the link in post 47 which refers to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the same as it was in Justin Martyr’s time. Note that today’s Transubstantiation is the same as it was in the year 148 which is the same as what Jesus did at the Last Supper.
(Information source. Matthew 26: 26; Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26; Eucharistic Prayer 1)
Also, in Chapter 66 of Justin Martyr’s First Apology, he describes the change (explained to be transubstantiation) which occurs on the altar: “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20 [AD 148]).

I certainly share your curiosity about the rest of the elements in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The history of those elements is certainly fascinating. We can learn from the past.

 

[OneSheep]

Here is another interesting quote from the link in post 33.
The God of the atonement perspective seems basically devious and more than a little treacherous.

I wonder if the author, who was so very careful to insert the word “seems,” knows that certain people have dropped the word “seems” and the words “a little treacherous.” It really doesn’t matter who wrote what and who repeated from someone who heard that. The bottom line is the popular complaint that the God of Catholicism is basically devious and treacherous.

Hi Granny,

I’m not sure what you are saying, but the intent of the article I linked does not say that the God presented by Catholicism is devious or treacherous. I agree, though, anyone can twist things to make it suit their opinion.

I would not have used the words “basically devious and treacherous”. It does not “seem” that way to me, even though I disagree with the standard “God of atonement perspective”.

Further on in this thread, we read the following from the link in post 38.
Jesus, Scotus said, was not “necessary” to solve any problem whatsoever–he was no mopping-up exercise after the fact–but a pure and gracious declaration of the primordial truth from the very beginning which was called the doctrine of “the primacy of Christ.”
Here is another quote from the same link in post 38.
Jesus is not a ''necessity.” Rather, Jesus is pure gift, grace and glory!

It is perfectly fine to say: “The differences are respected.” in post 42. However, the plain fact is that the Catholic Church does not offer a choice of differences when it comes to Divine Revelations. The necessity of a Person, Who is True God and True Man, is not negotiable.

I think it depends on our use of “necessity”. For me, Jesus was necessary to guide me from seeing God as loving conditionally to seeing God as loving unconditionally.

The “necessity” that John duns Scotus refers to is the question of whether or not Jesus had to come and die in order for God to love us or allow us into heaven. Jesus was not “necessary” in terms of some “payment” needed to be made to God, which is also what Cardinal Ratzinger explained.

To me, it follows from the fact that God loves unconditionally that heaven, union with God, was always available because that is God’s will. He wants us, He loves us, and why would he have it any other way? There is no debt. Perception of debt, to me, is a function of our conscience, but does not reflect God’s nature. However, this was not always the case for me. That we “owe something to God” used to make perfect sense; I respect that viewpoint I no longer hold.

Am I addressing the same aspects that you are? If not, please let me know.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

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

Thanks for providing the link, Simpleas!

Excerpt:

We are the only religion in the world that worships the scapegoat as God. In worshiping the scapegoat, we should gradually learn to stop scapegoating, because we also could be utterly wrong, just as “church” and state, high priest and king, Jerusalem and Rome, the highest levels of discernment were utterly wrong in the death of Jesus. He was the very one that many of us call the most perfect man who ever lived! If power itself can be that wrong, then be careful whom you decide to hate, kill and execute. Power and authority itself is not a good guide, if we are to judge by history. For many, if not most people, authority takes away all of their anxiety, and often their own responsibility to form a mature conscience.

I also liked what Fr. Rohr said about two-thirds of the Gospel having to do with forgiveness. One of the reasons, I think, that the Church knows more about Love today is because we are learning more about forgiveness, how to forgive, when to forgive, why, etc. We are understanding more about why we do what we do.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

The “necessity” that John duns Scotus refers to is the question of whether or not Jesus had to come and die in order for God to love us or allow us into heaven. Jesus was not “necessary” in terms of some “payment” needed to be made to God, which is also what Cardinal Ratzinger explained.

To me, it follows from the fact that God loves unconditionally that heaven, union with God, was always available because that is God’s will. He wants us, He loves us, and why would he have it any other way? There is no debt. Perception of debt, to me, is a function of our conscience, but does not reflect God’s nature. However, this was not always the case for me. That we “owe something to God” used to make perfect sense; I respect that viewpoint I no longer hold.

Am I addressing the same aspects that you are? If not, please let me know.

Thanks!

We are addressing the same aspects but from different sources of information.

I will set aside Cardinal Ratzinger as a source of information because currently I do not have direct access to the book Introduction to Christianity.

The more I read about atonement, the more I see the greatest love in Jesus Christ hanging bloody on His freely chosen cross.

As a Christian people, I am beginning to think that we know less and less about love.
We do “owe something to God.” We owe God our love in obedience. Atonement for Adam’s disobedience was needed to restore obedience. Obedience unto death.
Atonement is the pledge of sincere sorrow.

Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.

Time to re-read John 3: 16-17. That sounds like God is loving us. I don’t see any anger. Verse 17 says;
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
Christ’s atonement, payment of our debt, is really amazing love. How many homilies or threads are on that love topic? God’s love is so unconditional that He immediately promised His beloved material/spiritual creature Adam that there would come a Divine Savoir Who could repair the damage on God’s level. Genesis 3:15.

Now the question is Why did Jesus have to suffer and die? Recall that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures. Adam had a human nature subject to bodily death. In order for Christ to be victorious over the dominion of human death, He would have to first die. “Where, O death, is your victory?” 1 Corinthians 15: 50-58.

Sin, in its deepest essence, is suffering. In Original Sin, Adam suffered the loss of his original State of Holiness, aka Sanctifying Grace. In His sinless state, Jesus took on
Adam’s suffering. By Christ’s wounds, we have been healed. 1 Peter 2: 24

Information source. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-411; paragraphs 595-623

Links to Catholic teachings

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[OneSheep]

We are addressing the same aspects but from different sources of information.

I will set aside Cardinal Ratzinger as a source of information because currently I do not have direct access to the book Introduction to Christianity.

The more I read about atonement, the more I see the greatest love in Jesus Christ hanging bloody on His freely chosen cross.

As a Christian people, I am beginning to think that we know less and less about love.
We do “owe something to God.” We owe God our love in obedience. Atonement for Adam’s disobedience was needed to restore obedience. Obedience unto death.
Atonement is the pledge of sincere sorrow.

Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.

Time to re-read John 3: 16-17. That sounds like God is loving us. I don’t see any anger. Verse 17 says;
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
Christ’s atonement, payment of our debt, is really amazing love. How many homilies or threads are on that love topic? God’s love is so unconditional that He immediately promised His beloved material/spiritual creature Adam that there would come a Divine Savoir Who could repair the damage on God’s level. Genesis 3:15.

Now the question is Why did Jesus have to suffer and die? Recall that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures. Adam had a human nature subject to bodily death. In order for Christ to be victorious over the dominion of human death, He would have to first die. “Where, O death, is your victory?” 1 Corinthians 15: 50-58.

Sin, in its deepest essence, is suffering. In Original Sin, Adam suffered the loss of his original State of Holiness, aka Sanctifying Grace. In His sinless state, Jesus took on
Adam’s suffering. By Christ’s wounds, we have been healed. 1 Peter 2: 24

Information source. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-411; paragraphs 595-623

Links to Catholic teachings

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Hi Granny,

I don’t find anything in those resources about owing a debt to God. The bottom line is, if God is so loving and forgiving, why would He not simply love and forgive? Why would someone have to suffer and die?

I like what Fr. Rohr said. (Paraphrased): Jesus came not to change God’s attitude toward us, He came to change our attitude about God.

It would be interesting to compare/contrast anything from the CCC that mentions debt with Cardinal Ratzinger’s book or the teachings of John Duns Scotus. None of what you presented above contradicts Duns Scotus or what I linked to Cardinal Ratzinger’s book in the OP. The Cardinal does not spend a lot of time on the topic; the link I provided really says the majority of it, and there are no qualifiers later, the quote in the link is not taken out of context. The word “owe” has different meanings too. I could refer to debt payment, or it could mean an inspired response.

Did you see Fr. Rohr’s quote in my last post to Simpleas? It is very much like Cardinal Ratzinger’s “foolish love” assertions, and also shows the contrast to other religions.

Do get the book, though.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

I don’t find anything in those resources about owing a debt to God. The bottom line is, if God is so loving and forgiving, why would He not simply love and forgive? Why would someone have to suffer and die?

That “someone” is True God and True Man.

From post 51.
Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.

I like what Fr. Rohr said. (Paraphrased): Jesus came not to change God’s attitude toward us, He came to change our attitude about God.

That is really interesting. Could lead to all kinds of questions about various attitudes.
How about the attitude of love?

It would be interesting to compare/contrast anything from the CCC that mentions debt with Cardinal Ratzinger’s book or the teachings of John Duns Scotus. None of what you presented above contradicts Duns Scotus or what I linked to Cardinal Ratzinger’s book in the OP. The Cardinal does not spend a lot of time on the topic; the link I provided really says the majority of it, and there are no qualifiers later, the quote in the link is not taken out of context. The word “owe” has different meanings too. I could refer to debt payment, or it could mean an inspired response.

Since I have not read all the references in post 51, I may have a bit of trouble getting on the same page especially since I use the words debt and atone in a very broad sense. However, I have referred to paragraph 396 so often that one of these days, I will recite it backwards. The same goes for the cross-referenced paragraph 1730. It would probably be best to let you have the last word on Duns Scotus and Cardinal Ratzinger.

Did you see Fr. Rohr’s quote in my last post to Simpleas? It is very much like Cardinal Ratzinger’s “foolish love” assertions, and also shows the contrast to other religions.

Yes. I read it.

Do get the book, though.

Thanks for your reply!

I am traveling; however, I have my favorite Catholic book store’s phone number in plain sight. Dang! they may not be open on Monday.

I love reading your posts. But I never seem to do them justice. I was going to ask you about John duns Scotus’ feelings regarding the “necessity” of Jesus. I feel that it is God’s love for us, which is the “necessity” for a True God and True Man.

In my geographic area, I do not often hear Eucharistic Prayer IV. Referring to Adam and Original Sin, this prayer says:
“And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the domain of death.”

Wow! That is really great love on God’s part. I bet that the “love for God attitude” would increase magnificently if people would reflect on that section in Eucharistic Prayer IV.

Thank you.

 

[simpleas]

That “someone” is True God and True Man.

From post 51.
Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.

That is really interesting. Could lead to all kinds of questions about various attitudes.
How about the attitude of love?

Since I have not read all the references in post 51, I may have a bit of trouble getting on the same page especially since I use the words debt and atone in a very broad sense. However, I have referred to paragraph 396 so often that one of these days, I will recite it backwards. The same goes for the cross-referenced paragraph 1730. It would probably be best to let you have the last word on Duns Scotus and Cardinal Ratzinger.

Yes. I read it.

I am traveling; however, I have my favorite Catholic book store’s phone number in plain sight. Dang! they may not be open on Monday.

I love reading your posts. But I never seem to do them justice. I was going to ask you about John duns Scotus’ feelings regarding the “necessity” of Jesus. I feel that it is God’s love for us, which is the “necessity” for a True God and True Man.

In my geographic area, I do not often hear Eucharistic Prayer IV. Referring to Adam and Original Sin, this prayer says:
“And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the domain of death.”

Wow! That is really great love on God’s part. I bet that the “love for God attitude” would increase magnificently if people would reflect on that section in Eucharistic Prayer IV.

Thank you.

Just wanted to say I only ever hear this prayer at Easter. Obviously that it should be said at that time, but I wonder why it isn’t said more often. People tend to forget what the proper teaching are of the church, and if they heard this often it may help them think more about what they are actually doing.

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.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for providing the link, Simpleas!

Excerpt:

We are the only religion in the world that worships the scapegoat as God. In worshiping the scapegoat, we should gradually learn to stop scapegoating, because we also could be utterly wrong, just as “church” and state, high priest and king, Jerusalem and Rome, the highest levels of discernment were utterly wrong in the death of Jesus. He was the very one that many of us call the most perfect man who ever lived! If power itself can be that wrong, then be careful whom you decide to hate, kill and execute. Power and authority itself is not a good guide, if we are to judge by history. For many, if not most people, authority takes away all of their anxiety, and often their own responsibility to form a mature conscience.

I also liked what Fr. Rohr said about two-thirds of the Gospel having to do with forgiveness. One of the reasons, I think, that the Church knows more about Love today is because we are learning more about forgiveness, how to forgive, when to forgive, why, etc. We are understanding more about why we do what we do.

Thanks!

Yes, this is what I hear most in homilies, and depending on the priests issue’s that are close to his heart.
We are learning more on how to understand each other rather than just condemn people.

It’s all good.

 

[grannymh]

Speaking about loving and forgiving which certainly is God’s love that is taught in the Church today.

I wonder if CCC 356 is such a simple explanation of God’s love for us, that some, not all, writers ignore our human responsibility in CCC 1730.

Links to Catholic teachings

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Granny,

That “someone” is True God and True Man.

Yes, when that “someone” is God Himself, it makes it just as difficult. God creates man with the capacity to defy, knowing that man will defy Him. Then, when man does defy him, as God knew would happen, god gets angry and wants payment from man for defying him, god wants blood. The problem is that if God loves us so much, then why can He not simply forgive without all of the bloodshed?

If someone hurts me in some way, and I get offended, do I require something from them in order to forgive? If that is the case, I may have to wait a lifetime, and in that lifetime am I going to hold onto my resentment? That is not an “eternal life” at all! No, Jesus calls us to holiness, an eternal life, free from the trappings of our nature. So, does God hang onto grudges, when we ourselves are called, by God himself, not to hold onto such grudges, to forgive anyone we hold something against?

On the other hand, isn’t God concerned about justice? Shouldn’t all bad acts be punished? Shouldn’t people have to pay for their sins? Well, actually, people do pay for their sins. There are internal consequences for sin, that do not involve God punishing us in some way. An eternal life is a life of holiness, a life of freedom. Sin is slavery. The consequence of sin is slavery. You know all this; pardon my rambling.

From post 51.
Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.

Where did that come from, Granny? Let us compare/contrast your quote with this from Cardinal Ratzinger, when talking about the “false image” presented by Anselm:

But the measure of the offence demands infinite reparation, which man is not capable of making. He can offend infinitely – his capacity extends that far – but he cannot produce an infinite reparation; what he, as a finite being, gives will always be only finite. His powers of destruction extend further than his capacity to reconstruct. Thus between all the reparations that man may attempt and the greatness of his guilt there remains an infinite gulf which he can never bridge.

About which the Cardinal states:
…the perfectly logical divine-cum-human legal system erected by Anselm distorts the perspectives and with its rigid logic can make the image of God appear in a sinister light.

Concerning Rohr’s approach you stated:

That is really interesting. Could lead to all kinds of questions about various attitudes.
How about the attitude of love?

Yes, Fr. Rohr is saying that Jesus is showing us the love of the Father, it is not that Jesus is paying a debt so that we are once more acceptable to the Father. Jesus is showing us that we are infinitely loved by the Father, which goes against our own human limitations of only loving those who do not offend us, loving only those who are sorry they hurt us or have “paid” for injury.

Since I have not read all the references in post 51, I may have a bit of trouble getting on the same page especially since I use the words debt and atone in a very broad sense. However, I have referred to paragraph 396 so often that one of these days, I will recite it backwards. The same goes for the cross-referenced paragraph 1730. It would probably be best to let you have the last word on Duns Scotus and Cardinal Ratzinger.

I am traveling; however, I have my favorite Catholic book store’s phone number in plain sight. Dang! they may not be open on Monday.

I love reading your posts. But I never seem to do them justice. I was going to ask you about John duns Scotus’ feelings regarding the “necessity” of Jesus. I feel that it is God’s love for us, which is the “necessity” for a True God and True Man.

Thanks, Granny, I love reading your posts too. I don’t want you to miss one of the most important parts of our side-discussion. I am trying to show you that there are some very basic tenets, such as whether or not God requires “payment for a debt” that people have opined in different directions over the millennia.

Our desire for security in doctrine demands that these differences be resolved, it is like “surely one of these opinions must be a heresy!”. But no, neither position has been branded as such, isn’t that amazing? The Spirit allows the differences, I think, because people grow and develop, people become more aware in a lifetime. Fr. Rohr refers to the “second half” of life. People in the second half are more likely than those in the first half to ascribe to the John Duns Scotus (a “subtle doctor” of the Church) position.

In my geographic area, I do not often hear Eucharistic Prayer IV. Referring to Adam and Original Sin, this prayer says:

“And when through disobedience he had lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the domain of death.”

Wow! That is really great love on God’s part. I bet that the “love for God attitude” would increase magnificently if people would reflect on that section in Eucharistic Prayer IV.

Thank you.
​

The Cardinal did not address this “friendship lost” aspect in his book. I think you know that I don’t believe we ever lost God’s friendship. To me, it is man who thought that we lost God’s friendship, and Jesus came to tell us that Daddy has loved and forgiven us all along.

Keep in mind that though the Cardinal’s comments on the topic appear to reflect Duns Scotus, he never mentions or quotes him.

God bless you, Gracious Granny, be well in your travels, and thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!​

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Granny,

Yes, when that “someone” is God Himself, it makes it just as difficult. God creates man with the capacity to defy, knowing that man will defy Him. Then, when man does defy him, as God knew would happen, god gets angry and wants payment from man for defying him, god wants blood. The problem is that if God loves us so much, then why can He not simply forgive without all of the bloodshed?

I do not mean to be rude; but, is it possible that Genesis 2; 15-17 is being misunderstood?

If someone hurts me in some way, and I get offended, do I require something from them in order to forgive? If that is the case, I may have to wait a lifetime, and in that lifetime am I going to hold onto my resentment? That is not an “eternal life” at all! No, Jesus calls us to holiness, an eternal life, free from the trappings of our nature. So, does God hang onto grudges, when we ourselves are called, by God himself, not to hold onto such grudges, to forgive anyone we hold something against?

I am so sorry. I do not find a God’s grudge in the first three chapters of Genesis. I do find an historical account of the original first human’s actions.

On the other hand, isn’t God concerned about justice? Shouldn’t all bad acts be punished? Shouldn’t people have to pay for their sins? Well, actually, people do pay for their sins. There are internal consequences for sin, that do not involve God punishing us in some way. An eternal life is a life of holiness, a life of freedom. Sin is slavery. The consequence of sin is slavery. You know all this; pardon my rambling.

This sounds a tad like *CCC *1733 which ends with a reference to “the slavery of sin.” Footnote 28. It is encouraging that people are using the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

From a previous post by granny.

From post 51.Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.

Where did that come from, Granny? Let us compare/contrast your quote with this from Cardinal Ratzinger, when talking about the “false image” presented by Anselm:

But the measure of the offence demands infinite reparation, which man is not capable of making. He can offend infinitely – his capacity extends that far – but he cannot produce an infinite reparation; what he, as a finite being, gives will always be only finite. His powers of destruction extend further than his capacity to reconstruct. Thus between all the reparations that man may attempt and the greatness of his guilt there remains an infinite gulf which he can never bridge.

About which the Cardinal states:
…the perfectly logical divine-cum-human legal system erected by Anselm distorts the perspectives and with its rigid logic can make the image of God appear in a sinister light.

Beautiful, the words in blue are simply beautiful. They affirm and further explain my simple statement.

“Adam was not on the level of God; therefore, Adam could not atone for the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity. We living mortals are not on the level of God.”
This statement is new to me. Is it from the book Introduction to Christianity?
He can offend infinitely – his capacity extends that far – but he cannot produce an infinite reparation; what he, as a finite being, gives will always be only finite.

Continued in next post.​