Does the Church today know more about Love?

[grannymh]

Continued from post 58 which is my initial reply to OneSheep, post 57.

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.

There are so many different ways of knowing Jesus and loving Him for his restoration of the original relationship between Adam and his Creator.

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.

Yes, I do know about the different discussions regarding basic tenets. That was part of a long-ago high school class. One of the class’s key points was that not every word of a Church Father, Theologian, or Philosopher was automatically made into a proper Catholic Doctrine.

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.

Perhaps CCC 65-67 could shed some light regarding people developing at the same time that there will be no new public revelations.

The Cardinal did not address this “friendship lost” aspect in his book.

That is both fine and understandable since the Imprimi Potest for the CCC is by

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Interdicasterial Commission for the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *The CCC, with the guidance and (name removed by moderator)ut of Cardinal Ratzinger, has a lot of information about Original Sin aka “friendship lost”.

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!

My travels are not only physical, but they are also intellectual as I try to piece together some of the current thinking about God’s Divine Revelation that is properly defined and duly declared by the major Ecumenical Councils. Readers can check out these Councils in the *CCC “*Index of Citations” beginning on page 689.

It is also important that readers pay attention to CCC 20 & 21 which explains the use of small print.

My dear friend OneSheep,

I do appreciate your sharing of your beliefs. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

http://www.warnersallman.com/wp-content/themes/WarnerSallman/images/heartsdoorsmall.jpg

Christ at Heart’s Door
*Painting by *Warner Sallman

Please take a few minutes to gaze at our loving and forgiving God.

Why isn’t there a knob on the outside of the door?

 

[grannymh]

The problem is that if God loves us so much, then why can He not simply forgive without all of the bloodshed?

I have seen this question in many forms in a variety of places.

It is reasonable to believe that God is always loving and forgiving us. We may never completely understand the Catholic doctrinal position on “all the bloodshed.” We can correctly wish that the bloodshed never happened. Yet, we have chapter 14, Gospel of John, where Jesus assures us that the Promised Advocate, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, will guide the Catholic Church.
Verse 26. “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”
That promise has been kept since Pentecost. Unfortunately, life has become more complex because of dissention among some good-hearted writers, some going back centuries. Yes, the Catholic Church has recognized dissention as a preparation for its major councils. With the wisdom of the forever present Holy Spirit, these major councils have determined which writings reflect true Divine Revelation. Different opinions will always exist and that is why we currently have the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

As I recall, questions on God’s loving and forgiving have been in a variety of threads and forums. In my humble opinion, we need to look at loving and forgiving from two points of view, that is, we have to recognize both God the infinite Creator and the finite human creature who is gifted with a spiritual rational soul. Genesis 1: 26-27.

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. I have found that picture.

 

[grannymh]

wesleyanarminian.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/33855-christatheart.jpg?w=228

Christ at Heart’s Door
Painting by Warner Sallman

Please take a few minutes to look at this picture of a loving and forgiving God.
Why isn’t there a knob to open the door from the outside?

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning Granny!

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

Possibly, but could you explain what you are thinking in terms of a possible conflict between the statements of the people I have presented and Gen 2:15-17? And there is the next question, are they misunderstanding, or am I? And, maybe it is just fine to have more than one understanding.

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.

Yes, God does not hold a grudge, IMO, and any “fall from grace” is pretty much the same as an endless punishment. I know, you would say that the punishment ended with Jesus, but then we are talking about expiation again. Theologies are full of euphemisms, are they not? “Let’s have the man’s death be all his own fault, so we can preserve God’s benevolence.” “Lets call it ‘fall from grace’ rather than ‘hold a grudge’.” This, again, makes it all man’s fault. Well, this went on for centuries and God finally decided that it was time to straighten out the theology! You must admit, Granny, that plenty of people, from many religions, think that God is blaming them and punishing humanity - for which amends are to be made.

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.
​

Yes, the words in blue are Cardinal Ratzinger’s description of Anselm’s theology. Do read the words in context; I have read them many times:

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

As you say “Adam could not atone” are you using “atone” in the sense that there is a debt owed to God? The focus of the Cardinal’s words is not on the word “Adam”. The focus is on the concept of expiation put forth by Anselm.

His (Anselm’s) view has put a decisive stamp on the second millennium of Western Christendom, which takes it for granted that Christ had to die on the cross in order to make good the infinite offence which had been committed and in this way to restore the damaged order of things.

Cardinal Ratzinger points out the pervasiveness of the view in our Church, and then puts forth an alternative, Granny, that does not show God in a “sinister light”.

Can I share a sad, but a bit humorous comment I heard from a teen recently? She said, in response to a person who felt compelled to watch a TV program instead of carrying out a parish commitment, “It’s okay to break from the commitment, after all, if we don’t sin, then Jesus died for nothing!” Such a the logical outgrowth of the expiation view!

(cont’d)​

 

[OneSheep]

Continued from post 58 which is my initial reply to OneSheep, post 57.

There are so many different ways of knowing Jesus and loving Him for his restoration of the original relationship between Adam and his Creator.

YES! Now we are REALLY on the same page! There are also so many ways of looking at the creation story itself, your pet topic, and more than one way of reading the creation story is to not take the story literally, to find that there is no matter of “restoration” because man did not break with God, from God’s view. It is man who thinks God has shunned him, or thinks badly of him, or is being punished, or owes a debt. Jesus came to straighten us out on this. This is one of the “many different ways” Granny! Do you see how great our Church is!

Yes, I do know about the different discussions regarding basic tenets. That was part of a long-ago high school class. One of the class’s key points was that not every word of a Church Father, Theologian, or Philosopher was automatically made into a proper Catholic Doctrine.
Perhaps CCC 65-67 could shed some light regarding people developing at the same time that there will be no new public revelations.

There is nothing from Rohr, Ratzinger, or Duns Scotus that can be excluded from this, extracted from CCC 66:
Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

It’s a work in progress, Granny. This seems to indicate that we are learning more about Love.

That is both fine and understandable since the Imprimi Potest for the CCC is by

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Interdicasterial Commission for the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *The CCC, with the guidance and (name removed by moderator)ut of Cardinal Ratzinger, has a lot of information about Original Sin aka “friendship lost”.

Feel free to paste excerpts from it that we can discuss in light of the Cardinal’s comments on expiation. “Friendship lost” can mean a lot of things. If it means that God holds something against us, then that is what the Cardinal appears to address.

My travels are not only physical, but they are also intellectual as I try to piece together some of the current thinking about God’s Divine Revelation that is properly defined and duly declared by the major Ecumenical Councils. Readers can check out these Councils in the *CCC “*Index of Citations” beginning on page 689.

It is also important that readers pay attention to CCC 20 & 21 which explains the use of small print.

My dear friend OneSheep,

I do appreciate your sharing of your beliefs. Thank you.

I appreciate yours too. Interesting material, isn’t it though? It makes theology come alive, it makes theology a quest, not a foregone conclusion!

Have a great day!

 

[OneSheep]

wesleyanarminian.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/33855-christatheart.jpg?w=228

Christ at Heart’s Door
Painting by Warner Sallman

Please take a few minutes to look at this picture of a loving and forgiving God.
Why isn’t there a knob to open the door from the outside?

Back to image: If this was me knocking on the door, and my kids were inside, I wouldn’t need a handle. Sledgehammer would do the trick.

 

[simpleas]

“The love of God reflected in our hearts pushes us to overcome the misunderstandings, suspicions, the bitter memories and the differences remaining among us to seek true communion,” the cardinal said.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600463.htm

 

[simpleas]

Back to image: If this was me knocking on the door, and my kids were inside, I wouldn’t need a handle. Sledgehammer would do the trick.

Yeah but then you would be forcing yourself upon them, unless they were in real danger…

God doesn’t force himself upon us, (some people may try to do that for him!)

The picture is nice, it is Jesus gently tapping on our hearts, reminding us that he has always been there, but maybe we have kept our hearts closed in some situations in our lives.

 

[OneSheep]

“The love of God reflected in our hearts pushes us to overcome the misunderstandings, suspicions, the bitter memories and the differences remaining among us to seek true communion,” the cardinal said.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600463.htm

Great find, dear!

another excerpt:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,” Pope Benedict said.

Do you see what we have been doing, Simpleas? We are harmonizing. We are not seeking out ways to exclude another Catholic, but we are determining how an opposing point of view falls into community. This is a way of knowing more about Love, that love trumps opinion and perspective.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Yeah but then you would be forcing yourself upon them, unless they were in real danger…

God doesn’t force himself upon us, (some people may try to do that for him!)

The picture is nice, it is Jesus gently tapping on our hearts, reminding us that he has always been there, but maybe we have kept our hearts closed in some situations in our lives.

Is love so passive?

It depends on what you mean by “forcing Himself upon us”. Sending Jesus among us was pretty forceful, no? He went to the people, he did not just stay “up there” in heaven, knocking!

From the Cardinal:
as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about.

No one can force us to do anything, but Jesus certainly makes more effort than a knock on the door. Wouldn’t you? Gimme a paint brush, and watch me paint Jesus with a sledgehammer. He has a big grin on his face, and in he has a parcel with Him containing an olive branch, a loaf of bread, and a comforter with hearts all over it.

BTW: He may have to use the sledgehammer on me, just to get my attention. Yes, I am that slow-witted sometimes.

Thanks

 

[simpleas]

Is love so passive?

It depends on what you mean by “forcing Himself upon us”. Sending Jesus among us was pretty forceful, no? He went to the people, he did not just stay “up there” in heaven, knocking!

From the Cardinal:
as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about.

No one can force us to do anything, but Jesus certainly makes more effort than a knock on the door. Wouldn’t you? Gimme a paint brush, and watch me paint Jesus with a sledgehammer. He has a big grin on his face, and in he has a parcel with Him containing an olive branch, a loaf of bread, and a comforter with hearts all over it.

BTW: He may have to use the sledgehammer on me, just to get my attention. Yes, I am that slow-witted sometimes.

Thanks

Love is a two way street, a relationship. Jesus always being there, in our hearts, I believe, but if we don’t open our hearts we can’t experience this love. I don’t know, maybe I’m delusional, but I’ve always thought God loved everyone, and wouldn’t need a sledge hammer to break through into their heart. A soft gentle loving touch is how I would describe God getting through to us.

And yes God came to us, and revealed who he was, how he loved, forgave etc. Something we are still learning even after 2,000.

Well we have the church and the people to get among each other, and many charities the world over minister to the suffering, including animals, this is the Love of God.

Jesus with a sledgehammer and a big grin on his face…the image of Jack Nicholson in the shining popped into my mind!!!


I think I know what you are saying, I remember reading Fr R about grace being given to us, sometimes in spite of us.

 

[OneSheep]

Love is a two way street, a relationship. Jesus always being there, in our hearts, I believe, but if we don’t open our hearts we can’t experience this love. I don’t know, maybe I’m delusional, but I’ve always thought God loved everyone, and wouldn’t need a sledge hammer to break through into their heart. A soft gentle loving touch is how I would describe God getting through to us.

And yes God came to us, and revealed who he was, how he loved, forgave etc. Something we are still learning even after 2,000.

Well we have the church and the people to get among each other, and many charities the world over minister to the suffering, including animals, this is the Love of God.

It would make sense that Jesus would tailor His approach to the person, right? I mean, sometimes I need the 2X4, but mostly I’d appreciate the gentle approach.

Jesus with a sledgehammer and a big grin on his face…the image of Jack Nicholson in the shining popped into my mind!!!

Please, Simpleas, please. I didn’t say devilish grin. OMG, Jack Nicholson as Jesus. Whew! I’m sure he’s a great guy, but that kind of casting would raise an eyebrow or two!

I think I know what you are saying, I remember reading Fr R about grace being given to us, sometimes in spite of us.

The whole idea of grace gets very complex. Why would not grace follow forgiveness? And doesn’t God forgive everyone? I’m thinking aloud here, I wonder if the whole idea of grace comes from gratitude and humility. It’s like, "how on Earth did I ever get the gift to see the world and life this new, wonderful way? and “It cannot possibly be from my own doing (pride recall), it can only be God’s doing.” And that is all great until a secondary conclusion is made, such as “Gee, I have been given this gift, and that other (less deserving in some way) person has not.”

Simpleas, you do have a bit of imagination! Thanks for the post.

 

[simpleas]

It would make sense that Jesus would tailor His approach to the person, right? I mean, sometimes I need the 2X4, but mostly I’d appreciate the gentle approach.

Please, Simpleas, please. I didn’t say devilish grin. OMG, Jack Nicholson as Jesus. Whew! I’m sure he’s a great guy, but that kind of casting would raise an eyebrow or two!

The whole idea of grace gets very complex. Why would not grace follow forgiveness? And doesn’t God forgive everyone? I’m thinking aloud here, I wonder if the whole idea of grace comes from gratitude and humility. It’s like, "how on Earth did I ever get the gift to see the world and life this new, wonderful way? and “It cannot possibly be from my own doing (pride recall), it can only be God’s doing.” And that is all great until a secondary conclusion is made, such as “Gee, I have been given this gift, and that other (less deserving in some way) person has not.”

Simpleas, you do have a bit of imagination! Thanks for the post.

I didn’t mean I saw Jesus as JN, just that image with a sledgehammer breaking down the door. Sorry if I offended you. :flowers:

I have the thought that why do some of us seek God and others do not, and does God give grace to some people and not others?
I wonder if it’s to do with so much more distraction in our lives, more than ever before.
Not many of us even look up at the stars because there is so much artifical lighting on the ground now blocking the night view.

How wonderful the stars must have been when only the moon light gave light at night.
Just contemplating what maybe a small thing leads us (me) to see just where we are and how much love can be given to others, our world etc.

Have a good day.

 

[grannymh]

General Question for today.

Why would God’s True Love tolerate the original mortal sin?

 

[OneSheep]

I didn’t mean I saw Jesus as JN, just that image with a sledgehammer breaking down the door. Sorry if I offended you. :flowers:

No offense at all! Thanks for the flowers, though.

I have the thought that why do some of us seek God and others do not, and does God give grace to some people and not others?
I wonder if it’s to do with so much more distraction in our lives, more than ever before.
Not many of us even look up at the stars because there is so much artifical lighting on the ground now blocking the night view.

How wonderful the stars must have been when only the moon light gave light at night.
Just contemplating what maybe a small thing leads us (me) to see just where we are and how much love can be given to others, our world etc.

Have a good day.

Poor Simpleas, if you lived where there was no artificial lighting at night (I live on a farm) then you would know that the stars are brightest when the moon is not present.

Some people seek God when they are totally enslaved by sin and are suffering. The whole idea of grace, like I said, only makes sense in light of God giving everyone the ability to seek Him out. Some people are more motivated than others, for a variety of reasons.

I had a great day! The Giants won the World Series! Woohoo!

 

[rinnie]

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?

It would depend as to what the meaning of Our Church means to you. To myself Christ and our Church are one and the love of Christ and his Church is unchanging.

If you mean by the leaders or followers or our Church on earth, I don’t think so. Our RCC has always been believers of loving the sin not the sin, And accepting all of us for our faults and doing our best to pray for oneanother for our sins.

 

[OneSheep]

It would depend as to what the meaning of Our Church means to you. To myself Christ and our Church are one and the love of Christ and his Church is unchanging.

If you mean by the leaders or followers or our Church on earth, I don’t think so. Our RCC has always been believers of loving the sin not the sin, And accepting all of us for our faults and doing our best to pray for oneanother for our sins.

Hi Rinnie,

I was specifically addressing Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment of the idea of expiation, but we could also apply the Church’s position on the death penalty, on slavery, and on other issues.

I agree, though, the love never changes, it is constant and unconditional. What I am asking about is the “knowing more” about Love, and I think that the Cardinal’s discernment moves in the direction of such knowing.

Thanks for replying!

 

[grannymh]

This general question should be answered if we want to know more about love.
Did God’s True Love ignore Adam?
Perhaps the answer is in this picture.

wesleyanarminian.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/33855-christatheart.jpg?w=228
Christ at Heart’s Door
Painting by Warner Sallman

Perhaps the person inside is the one described in Genesis 3: 9-10. Perhaps this person is the one who scorned his Creator to the point that he went against the requirements of his status as a creature in a lovely Garden. This first true human, Adam, freely chose to disobey the commandment given by the Creator of the Garden and therefore, he hid himself from the presence of God, his Creator.

Adam intellectually chose a sin which had the serious result of destroying his Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace. He had turned away from God and thus hid himself behind a closed door. Adam, in serious pain, could do nothing because he did not possess his Creator’s power. Did God’s True Love ignore Adam?

In the picture, there is God at the door of Adam’s hurting broken heart. God wants to rush in and heal Adam, but there is no handle on the outside of the door so God knocks lovingly. Please recall that God gave Adam the freedom to reject Him through disobedience. God waits at the door respecting Adam’s free choice.

Not only does God wait outside, but He assumes the human nature of Adam in order to heal the hiding Adam’s hurting human nature. God, being Pure Love, remains free of the human creature’s Original Mortal Sin. Being free, God freely takes on the hurting human nature because only God has the power to restore humanity’s shattered friendship with Divinity. Adam, in his brokenness, did not have God’s freedom and power.

First, God with His assumed human nature conquers bodily death. However, that still leaves a human nature in the State of Mortal Sin, no longer capable of enjoying God’s Sanctifying Grace. Sanctifying Grace is the special grace which brings us into friendship with God by giving us a share in the divine life of the Holy Trinity. Our human goal is to remain in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

What good is freedom from eternal death when the hidden Adam does not have the power to open the door to God, his Savior? It should be common sense that Adam had to atone, which is the demonstration of true sorrow, for his mortal sin. It is Adam who had to clean the slate which is the simple meaning of atonement or expiation. God remained the same God after the Original Sin. It is Adam who changed. Adam shut the door and remained behind it. It is Adam’s responsibility to make amends for his own decision.

God, standing at the closed door, loved Adam so much that He took on Adam’s human nature with all its pain and suffering. John 3: 16-17 not only refers to Adam, but to the whole world of human creatures. God, with His human nature, freely chose to stand in Adam’s place in order to atone for Adam’s defiant choice by suffering the results of Adam’s sin in a visible way. Today, this choice is re-presented in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

God did come to Adam, ready to give him His loving forgiveness. But Adam was behind a closed door and without the power to open it. God did not abandon Adam. God so loved Adam that He assumed Adam’s human nature so that there would be human obedience in the place of the disobedient Adam. This obedience was not lip service; it was the ultimate obedience of human suffering unto death. No one can say that natural atonement as a pledge of sorrow was lacking when Jesus freely chose to hang bloody on His cross.

 

[OneSheep]

This general question should be answered if we want to know more about love.
Did God’s True Love ignore Adam?
Perhaps the answer is in this picture.

wesleyanarminian.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/33855-christatheart.jpg?w=228
Christ at Heart’s Door
Painting by Warner Sallman

Hi Granny!

It’s a painting that works for you, but I still believe the Jesus I know has a sledge hammer in His other hand. Thomas got to put his hand into Jesus’ side, do you think He would withhold such a graphic truth from others? If so, why? Is Jesus the type that would say, “oh well, I knocked, tough luck for him.”? This is a rather passive image, that is all I’m saying, it is not the image of Christ that I know.

Sure, we have the freedom to say no, but would Thomas have said it? No, because his eyes were open; he is human, and he is God’s creature, he saw the light.

Perhaps the person inside is the one described in Genesis 3: 9-10. Perhaps this person is the one who scorned his Creator to the point that he went against the requirements of his status as a creature in a lovely Garden. This first true human, Adam, freely chose to disobey the commandment given by the Creator of the Garden and therefore, he hid himself from the presence of God, his Creator.

Adam intellectually chose a sin which had the serious result of destroying his Original Holiness aka Sanctifying Grace. He had turned away from God and thus hid himself behind a closed door. Adam, in serious pain, could do nothing because he did not possess his Creator’s power. Did God’s True Love ignore Adam?

In the picture, there is God at the door of Adam’s hurting broken heart. God wants to rush in and heal Adam, but there is no handle on the outside of the door so God knocks lovingly. Please recall that God gave Adam the freedom to reject Him through disobedience. God waits at the door respecting Adam’s free choice.

Not only does God wait outside, but He assumes the human nature of Adam in order to heal the hiding Adam’s hurting human nature. God, being Pure Love, remains free of the human creature’s Original Mortal Sin. Being free, God freely takes on the hurting human nature…

To me, human nature is not hurting, but it is enslaving. Sounds like a technicality, but it is not. Either way is okay with me, even though I go with the latter. Human nature is Good, as created by God. Choices do not change nature. Choices do change perceptions and freedom. Are we using different definitions of “nature”?

because only God has the power to restore humanity’s shattered friendship with Divinity. Adam, in his brokenness, did not have God’s freedom and power.

Back to the Cardinal with this:

To many Christians, and especially to those who only know the faith from a fair distance, it looks as if the cross is to be understood as part of a mechanism of injured and restored right. It is the form, so it seems, in which the infinitely offended righteousness of God was propitiated again by means of an infinite expiation. It thus appears to people as the expression of an attitude which insists on a precise balance between debit and credit; at the same time one gets the feeling that this balance is based on a fiction. One gives first secretly with the left hand what one takes back again ceremonially with the right. The `infinite expiation’ on which God seems to insist thus moves into a doubly sinister light. Many devotional texts actually force one to think that Christian faith in the cross visualizes a God whose unrelenting righteousness demanded a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his own Son, sinister wrath makes the message of love incredible.

“This picture is as false as it is widespread.

As I said before, I would not personally use the word “false”. However, I hope that you are understanding that there is a different way of seeing these things. Are you getting that, Granny? Catholics do not have to see the cross as expiation, not that God wants/needs expiation. Do you understand?

cont’d…