For Pope Francis, legalism makes Christians stupid. [CNA]

[kyrie03]

Absolutely he was. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Mosaic Law, by the way. He also was speaking to the Galatians, not Catholics. This is all true. Yet even Catholics should read it. The principle remains the same. The Mosaic Law came from the mouth of God. Exodus 20:22 (right after the Ten Commandments) reads, "Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven,’ " and is followed by more commandments. No, I do not believe that the teaching of Paul here applies strictly to the Mosaic ceremonial law. If it had, there would be no purpose in having it as part of the canon of Scripture, as that issue had been passe by the Council of Carthage. Besides, I point to the very point of this thread. The Holy Father made the same application. One can never be too far from the Church sticking with the boss.

If you really believe that he was addressing Judaizers (I do not even know that any exist), I,…
I…
:shrug:I don’t know how to respond to that.

Ah, Let me go back to the very start of his papacy. He came out in simple vestment, bowed and asked the people to give him a blessing first, before he blessed others. He warned in his last letter not to take all situations as fitting in a canonical category. I think he has made clear his opinion of the subservience of all man-made laws and rules to the law of charity. Now nothing the pope says should be taken as lessening of the moral law. Absolute wrong is still absolute wrong, objectively speaking. The Pope has also made this clear. I grant that many in the media miss this point.

It isn’t MY private interpretation of Galations that Paul spoke of Mosaic law and NOT the 10 Commandments -I was quoting from Haydock Bible -Latin Vulgate original text with comparison to other Bible editions in diverse languages along with commentary and explanation from Church Fathers.
It is a good and holy endeavor to read Scripture. But we are obligated to interpret it as the Church does. Go back and read post #128 -find out what Pope Pius X had to say about “new” ways to interpret Scripture and those who subversively work to evolve meanings. He required an oath against the heresy of Modernism to which we should also be able to ascent if we care about preserving our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith.

 

[OraLabora]

It isn’t MY private interpretation of Galations that Paul spoke of Mosaic law and NOT the 10 Commandments -I was quoting from Haydock Bible -Latin Vulgate original text with comparison to other Bible editions in diverse languages along with commentary and explanation from Church Fathers.
It is a good and holy endeavor to read Scripture. But we are obligated to interpret it as the Church does. Go back and read post #128 -find out what Pope Pius X had to say about “new” ways to interpret Scripture and those who subversively work to evolve meanings. He required an oath against the heresy of Modernism to which we should also be able to ascent if we care about preserving our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith.

Are you suggesting that Pope Francis is subverting the meaning of Scripture?

 

[kyrie03]

Returning to the thread!

I was reading some of it last evening…had to stop but thought deeply in the night.

For me the difference between legalism and, yes, mercy , is epitomised in Jesus being appealed to re rhe woman caught in adultery Asking should they stone her as the law prescibed

had He, our Teacher and Lord, been legalsitic, yes…i

But He simply said no.“GO and sin no more”

No follow up to ensure she did, Just mercy, unconditional and pure

I have abandoned threads here as what I see is legalism, No mercy,
Legalism that insists the letter of the law be adhered to regardless of the pain it causes, regardless of th lack of mercy to our humanity

referring especially to the contraception as sin thread,

I was chatting today with a dear friend of around my age ( heading for 80) who was raised here in Ireland

Her grandmother had 22 babies, She was not “all right”

An aunt had 12, another aunt had a symphisiotomy without her consent as did many women here… it left her barely able to walk and permanently incontinent and she had no more babies

There was no mercy…just legalism. rules imposed…

My friend says how can we expect else when these strict rules are written by celibate men…

On that thread there was no mercy. Yes there was legalism… total insensitive adherence to rules

Jesus did not have the woman stoned to death. He showed mercy .

Incdientally the daughters of that 22 birth grandmother only had one child each.

The same words keep echoing in my heart. "In Thy wrath remember mercy "

Always a huge difference between male adnd female ideas on this, Jesus bridged that

Your interpretation is that there was no mercy - St Paul speaks of no longer living now that he is Catholic. Only Christ-crucified lives in Him. If Paul glories in anything, it is that he SUFFERED as did Christ! It’s a difficult thing to understand and embrace -the Catholic idea of taking up the cross and following after Christ.

But when we read the Passian narrative and begin to comprehend just how much Our Lord suffered for us, and how unwillinging we are to be like him…it should arouse sorrow, not indignation.

Christ was mocked, spit upon, falsely accused, buffeted, etc… by the very ones He set apart as his Chosen -his own People. He remained silent, like a fool, praying for them, loving them, begging forgiveness for them. And we, knowing what He did for us, how often do we reject following his example? Mercy IS available to all…but all don’t accept it.

Let us pray for one another and help each other bear our crosses!

 

[pnewton]

But when we read the Passion narrative and begin to comprehend just how much Our Lord suffered for us, and how unwilling we are to be like him…it should arouse sorrow, not indignation.

We all suffer from this, I fear. The Holy Father shows us by example as well as words what it is to be like Christ. He rejects perks of office for simplicity of life. Living a life of love is very demanding.

 

[kyrie03]

Absolutely he was. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Mosaic Law, by the way. He also was speaking to the Galatians, not Catholics. This is all true. Yet even Catholics should read it. The principle remains the same. The Mosaic Law came from the mouth of God. Exodus 20:22 (right after the Ten Commandments) reads, "Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven,’ " and is followed by more commandments. No, I do not believe that the teaching of Paul here applies strictly to the Mosaic ceremonial law. If it had, there would be no purpose in having it as part of the canon of Scripture, as that issue had been passe by the Council of Carthage. Besides, I point to the very point of this thread. The Holy Father made the same application. One can never be too far from the Church sticking with the boss.

If you really believe that he was addressing Judaizers (I do not even know that any exist), I,…
I…
:shrug:I don’t know how to respond to that.

Ah, Let me go back to the very start of his papacy. He came out in simple vestment, bowed and asked the people to give him a blessing first, before he blessed others. He warned in his last letter not to take all situations as fitting in a canonical category. I think he has made clear his opinion of the subservience of all man-made laws and rules to the law of charity. Now nothing the pope says should be taken as lessening of the moral law. Absolute wrong is still absolute wrong, objectively speaking. The Pope has also made this clear. I grant that many in the media miss this point.

It is not just MY opinion that Paul was speaking of the ceremonies of the Mosaic law and not the 10 Commandments/ the moral law contained in the Decalogue. This is how the Haydock Bible – the Latin Vulgate original text compared to editions in diverse languages and commentary of the Church Fathers –clearly interprets Galatians. See my 2 quotes below:

St Paul wrote to the Galatians because they were being seduced by some false teachers who had been Jews, and who were attempting to oblige all Christians, even those who had been Gentiles, to observe circumcision and other ceremonies of the Mosaic law. The council in Jerusalem 4 years earlier had established Christians were exempt from the old legalisms. He teaches that it is not by the law, but by faith, that the blessings of salvation are imparted to them. (From Haydock Bible)

The law to which Paul had been attached had passed away. Now he was united to Christ and his cross. St Paul speaks exclusively of the ceremonial law, not the moral law contained in the Decalogue - because he says in Romans 2:13 “the doers of the law shall be justified.” -this is interpretation in Haydock Bible.

You and I can only guess as to what Pope Francis meant when he said legalism makes Christians stupid. Paul agreed with him in the sense of the Mosaic Law as I pointed out in Galatians. To opine that perhaps the 10 Commandments are dispensable according to Paul or Pope Francis is NOT in accordance with CCC or any Catholic teaching. Such opinions are destructive to the gospel as taught by Jesus and the Apostles and safeguarded by the Church. (I realize you are not saying this, other posters, however, do seem to be arguing such.)

The Decalogue in the Church’s Tradition
2064 In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with the example of Jesus, the tradition of the Church has acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue.
2065 Ever since St. Augustine, the Ten Commandments have occupied a predominant place in the catechesis of baptismal candidates and the faithful. In the fifteenth century, the custom arose of expressing the commandments of the Decalogue in rhymed formulae, easy to memorize and in positive form. They are still in use today. The catechisms of the Church have often expounded Christian morality by following the order of the Ten Commandments.
2067 The Ten Commandments state what is required in the love of God and love of neighbor. The first three concern love of God, and the other seven love of neighbor.
As charity comprises the two commandments to which the Lord related the whole Law and the prophets . . . so the Ten Commandments were themselves given on two tablets. Three were written on one tablet and seven on the other.27
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm

Quote pnewton about Pope Francis: I think he has made clear his opinion of the subservience of all man-made laws and rules to the law of charity.

Yes, man-made laws are dispensable. The MORAL laws, however, are not. To suggest that moral laws “evolve” has been condemned in Pascendi by Pope St. Pius X. (see post #128 and read encyclical and Oath against Modernism).

BTW, I am in NO WAY suggesting that Pope Francis is attempting to subvert Catholic teaching! I am merely attempting to “read” what Pope Francis says through lens of how the Catholic Church has consistently interpreted Scriptures and doctrines. My salvation depends upon believing and living in accordance with God’s laws! It is unlawful to pretend or manufacture ignorance.

 

[pnewton]

I am a little hesitant to take footnotes from a two hundred year old Bible too literally, that is, if I get the impression that language barriers might exist. Yes, if we look only at ceremonial law and moral law as the only two possible categories, I see what he meant. But as I said earlier, there are many kinds of law. Moral law, those principles that God has deemed right and wrong, are absolute. I do not think anyone here is arguing that they are not.

I do realize that there are special interests in the media that might glob onto such an idea as some inkling that a moral law might some day change (homosexual behavior, abortion, contraceptive, divorce, artificial contraception.)

 

[kyrie03]

I think he has made clear his opinion of the subservience of all man-made laws and rules to the law of charity.

Speaking of charity, the Haydock Bible refutes the “uncharitable” accusation leveled against the Church in Her interpretation of St Paul pronouncing anathemas against those who would pervert the gospel of Christ:

“Let them hear and take notice of those, who pretend that the unity of the one Catholic faith is sufficiently maintained by all Christian societies, that agreeing, as they say, in fundamentals, their faith is a saving faith: that the council of Trent, without reason, pronounced such anathemas against them: that all Catholics are uncharitable for denying them to be in way of salvation, when they take Scripture alone, as interpreted by their private judgement, the only rule of faith. ** They may as well accuse not only St Chrys. but also St. Paul of uncharitableness!”** (direct quote from Haydock Bible in explaining Gal 1:7

I pray this helps stem the new, innovative ways of interpreting Scripture apart from how the Church interprets it.

 

[kyrie03]

I am a little hesitant to take footnotes from a two hundred year old Bible too literally, that is, if I get the impression that language barriers might exist. Yes, if we look only at ceremonial law and moral law as the only two possible categories, I see what he meant. But as I said earlier, there are many kinds of law. Moral law, those principles that God has deemed right and wrong, are absolute. I do not think anyone here is arguing that they are not.

I do realize that there are special interests in the media that might glob onto such an idea as some inkling that a moral law might some day change (homosexual behavior, abortion, contraceptive, divorce, artificial contraception.)

Footnotes are from Father’s of the Church, teachings of the Church, comparison with Bibles in other languages, etc… In climate of today’s confusion and widespread misinterpretation of Scripture, it’s refreshing to read clearly explained and verified Church teaching in the Haydock Bible and not rely on my own fallible leanings. Yes, language can be difficult to smoothly read but it’s not difficult to clearly comprehend as it’s well documented and explained. Good meditative Bible. I usually read other versions of the Bible and return to Haydock when I have questions on how best to iunderstand certain passages.

 

[pnewton]

I usually read other versions of the Bible and return to Haydock when I have questions on how best to iunderstand certain passages.

I understand. I feel the same way about current issues and the role of the Holy Father. He is always my go to guy.

 

[KSU]

I admire your honesty and courage [EIF5A]. You have a heavy cross to bear. God Bless You.

A big plus one:thumbsup:

 

[kyrie03]

I understand. I feel the same way about current issues and the role of the Holy Father. He is always my go to guy.

Curious and not sure I understand correctly…… Pope Francis is your go-to-guy to cut through confusion regarding proper interpretation of Scripture and doctrine? Did you think the same of Pope Benedict when he held the office? When Pope St John Paul II was Pope? Not sure how old you are, but what about when Pope Pius XII held the Keys? Prior Popes have also spoken on current issues. Would we have a better understanding of the fulness of Church teaching if we read what they had to say, or is it sufficient to just reference 1 Pope?

 

[Rau]

Returning to the thread!

I was reading some of it last evening…had to stop but thought deeply in the night.

For me the difference between legalism and, yes, mercy , is epitomised in Jesus being appealed to re rhe woman caught in adultery Asking should they stone her as the law prescibed

had He, our Teacher and Lord, been legalsitic, yes…i

But He simply said no.“GO and sin no more”

No follow up to ensure she did, Just mercy, unconditional and pure

I have abandoned threads here as what I see is legalism, No mercy,
Legalism that insists the letter of the law be adhered to regardless of the pain it causes, regardless of th lack of mercy to our humanity

referring especially to the contraception as sin thread,

I was chatting today with a dear friend of around my age ( heading for 80) who was raised here in Ireland

Her grandmother had 22 babies, She was not “all right”

An aunt had 12, another aunt had a symphisiotomy without her consent as did many women here… it left her barely able to walk and permanently incontinent and she had no more babies

There was no mercy…just legalism. rules imposed…

My friend says how can we expect else when these strict rules are written by celibate men…

On that thread there was no mercy. Yes there was legalism… total insensitive adherence to rules

Jesus did not have the woman stoned to death. He showed mercy .

Incdientally the daughters of that 22 birth grandmother only had one child each.

The same words keep echoing in my heart. "In Thy wrath remember mercy "

Always a huge difference between male adnd female ideas on this, Jesus bridged that

When Jesus showed mercy, he forgave the sinner and urged them to sin no more. He did not comfort them by saying, “hey, that’s not sin”. I sense that the latter is what some would like mercy to be - a wider set of acceptable behaviors, as in: It’s merciful to allow mercy killings, so let us say it is good. It’s merciful to allow contraception, so let us say it is good. And so on…

 

[pnewton]

Curious and not sure I understand correctly…… Pope Francis is your go-to-guy to cut through confusion regarding proper interpretation of Scripture and doctrine? Did you think the same of Pope Benedict when he held the office? When Pope St John Paul II was Pope? Not sure how old you are, but what about when Pope Pius XII held the Keys? Prior Popes have also spoken on current issues. Would we have a better understanding of the fulness of Church teaching if we read what they had to say, or is it sufficient to just reference 1 Pope?

I referred to Pope Francis because I was using the present tense. Of course the office is what carries the authority. I am older enough to have lived under six popes, but was only Catholic under three.

Remember that this thread is about a homily given by the Holy Father on a day when the letter to the Galatians was the Scripture. That is what I was referring to. If you believe that it can only apply to the Judaizers of the past, I believe it to be broader. Pope Francis presented it as a current issue.

 

[zz912]

I was chatting today with a dear friend of around my age ( heading for 80) who was raised here in Ireland

Her grandmother had 22 babies, She was not “all right”

An aunt had 12, another aunt had a symphisiotomy without her consent as did many women here… it left her barely able to walk and permanently incontinent and she had no more babies

There was no mercy…just legalism. rules imposed…

Which of the 22 and 12 (and how many) should have been killed?

My friend says how can we expect else when these strict rules are written by celibate men…

Celibate men like Jesus Christ? The One who laid out the teaching the Church is giving?

Incidentally the daughters of that 22 birth grandmother only had one child each.

Is it a good thing they rejected their own children that could have been?

 

[zz912]

When Jesus showed mercy, he forgave the sinner and urged them to sin no more. He did not comfort them by saying, “hey, that’s not sin”. I sense that the latter is what some would like mercy to be - a wider set of acceptable behaviors, as in: It’s merciful to allow mercy killings, so let us say it is good. It’s merciful to allow contraception, so let us say it is good. And so on…

Bingo.

And there can only be mercy when we admit there is right and wrong. If there is no wrong, then there is no need for mercy.

 

[OraLabora]

Which of the 22 and 12 (and how many) should have been killed?

None. But a more responsible approach to procreation might have allowed the poor woman to space out births and bear a more reasonable number of children. As it was, 22 kids from the same woman isn’t “pro-life”, it is abuse pure and simple. There are moral and licit ways to space pregnancies to a more human level that dont force a family into poverty. Both Ireland and Quebec fell to the same errors of Jansenism and clericalism in the same era. Priests would deny absolution to women who weren’t either pregnant or nursing. There is an amusing anecdote in a book by a old priest I recently read. A woman is in the confessional. The priest asks if she’s pregnant. She says no. Then he asks if she’s nursing. She says no. Then he asks how old her last born is. Three years old. The priest then says “then I cannot absolve you”. The woman says “you can (expletive) your absolution. I’m a widow”. Oops…

It’s not for nothing that both Ireland and Quebec had huge backlashes against the Church and clericalism.

Celibate men like Jesus Christ?

I don’t recall ever reading in Scripture where Jesus said women should bear 22 children. Her point is well-taken though, concerning the clergy of the era, who were imperfect humans and committed many errors in that period, of which borderline Jansenism and rampant clericalism led to such abuses.

 

[kyrie03]

None. But a more responsible approach to procreation might have allowed the poor woman to space out births and bear a more reasonable number of children. As it was, 22 kids from the same woman isn’t “pro-life”, it is abuse pure and simple. There are moral and licit ways to space pregnancies to a more human level that dont force a family into poverty. Both Ireland and Quebec fell to the same errors of Jansenism and clericalism in the same era. Priests would deny absolution to women who weren’t either pregnant or nursing. There is an amusing anecdote in a book by a old priest I recently read. A woman is in the confessional. The priest asks if she’s pregnant. She says no. Then he asks if she’s nursing. She says no. Then he asks how old her last born is. Three years old. The priest then says “then I cannot absolve you”. The woman says “you can (expletive) your absolution. I’m a widow”. Oops…

It’s not for nothing that both Ireland and Quebec had huge backlashes against the Church and clericalism.

I don’t recall ever reading in Scripture where Jesus said women should bear 22 children. Her point is well-taken though, concerning the clergy of the era, who were imperfect humans and committed many errors in that period, of which borderline Jansenism and rampant clericalism led to such abuses.

The cause and Creator of life - is Almighty God. I have difficulty hearing that having 22 children is not “pro-life” but abuse, pure and simple. (St. Catherine of Siena was 24th child in her “non, pro-life” family). In a way, it imputes abuse to God who is the originator of all life. I know and am not arguing about licit means to space birth (not limited to abstinence that used to be practiced not only with food and drink but also with marital embrace……BTW it’s still recommended during Advent and Lent in the Byzantine tradition, although it may not be addressed frequently by priests today).

It’s offensive- the way you phrased your reaction.

You don’t recall reading in Scripture that Jesus tells women to bear 22 children?! - meaning what?

Borderline Jansenism and rampant clericalism led to the abuse - that families were more open to life than we are today? That a woman’s health (mental or physical) may have been adversely affected?

The backlash to clericalism (and rejection of living life of embracing the cross) we see in Quebec and Ireland you believe is due to families being open to life and priests not advising them appropriately?

Our outrage is properly placed when we look to ourselves and ask how we fall short of being crucified to Christ.

I’m not suggesting we turn a blind eye to abuses of the past. But what you are calling abusive doesn’t begin to compare to the abuses accepted and even embraced by society today (willful murder of children in the womb, denial of marriage as God established it in the beginning, rejection of natural law written by God on the hearts of all men, etc….) THAT should cause outrage!

 

[OraLabora]

The cause and Creator of life - is Almighty God. I have difficulty hearing that having 22 children is not “pro-life” but abuse, pure and simple. (St. Catherine of Siena was 24th child in her “non, pro-life” family). In a way, it imputes abuse to God who is the originator of all life. I know and am not arguing about licit means to space birth (not limited to abstinence that used to be practiced not only with food and drink but also with marital embrace……BTW it’s still recommended during Advent and Lent in the Byzantine tradition, although it may not be addressed frequently by priests today).

It’s offensive- the way you phrased your reaction.

You don’t recall reading in Scripture that Jesus tells women to bear 22 children?! - meaning what?

Borderline Jansenism and rampant clericalism led to the abuse - that families were more open to life than we are today? That a woman’s health (mental or physical) may have been adversely affected?

The backlash to clericalism (and rejection of living life of embracing the cross) we see in Quebec and Ireland you believe is due to families being open to life and priests not advising them appropriately?

Our outrage is properly placed when we look to ourselves and ask how we fall short of being crucified to Christ.

I’m not suggesting we turn a blind eye to abuses of the past. But what you are calling abusive doesn’t begin to compare to the abuses accepted and even embraced by society today (willful murder of children in the womb, denial of marriage as God established it in the beginning, rejection of natural law written by God on the hearts of all men, etc….) THAT should cause outrage!

You are way off base. These women in Quebec were denied the sacraments if they didn’t comply. That is not being “open to life”.

I happen to live in Quebec. I’m 58 years old and have met many women who were in this situation. 10 + children was the norm. Most were poor and couldn’t afford to educate their families, or could only send their brightest child to higher education, and most didn’t even complete secondary school.

Fortunately Vatican II happened and the local clergy have changed, alas after too many left the Church already.

You may want to take off your rose-coloured glasses and read up on the history of “The Quiet Révolution” in Quebec when francophones backlashed and tried to rise up against this sort of enforced poverty, as well as the discrimination it engendered as Anglos felt francophones were an inferior race because of their backwardness. It’s actually pretty similar to Ireland, though much less violent except for a short time in the 60s and 70s.

 

[KSU]

You are way off base. These women in Quebec were denied the sacraments if they didn’t comply. That is not being “open to life”.

I happen to live in Quebec. I’m 58 years old and have met many women who were in this situation. 10 + children was the norm. Most were poor and couldn’t afford to educate their families, or could only send their brightest child to higher education, and most didn’t even complete secondary school.

Fortunately Vatican II happened and the local clergy have changed, alas after too many left the Church already.

You may want to take off your rose-coloured glasses and read up on the history of “The Quiet Révolution” in Quebec when francophones backlashed and tried to rise up against this sort of enforced poverty, as well as the discrimination it engendered as Anglos felt francophones were an inferior race because of their backwardness. It’s actually pretty similar to Ireland, though much less violent except for a short time in the 60s and 70s.

CCC 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

Quebec’s anti-subsidiarity revolution was a Socialist/Nationalist/Sovereignist revolution against authority, plain and simple. It was a revolt against the Church only in the sense that the French and Russian revolutions were revolts against the Church. For you to say that it was a revolt against some sort of religious horror show which denied the sacraments to women who didn’t produce children every nine months is a gratuitous slap at the Church.

I saw the revolution happening during trips to Canada, and had friends there who sadly bought into it. Sexual “freedom” naturally develops when man’s tether to God is cut, and beautiful Canada became an example. It broke my heart, as did the shameful Winnipeg Statement–a byproduct of the revolution.

Socialism and its sexual spawn eventually poisoned all of Canada, including some of the clergy in collusion with Government. Of course VC II was misused (what else is new?) as justification for the revolution. Did VC II teach that even bishops in Canada could be prosecuted for “hate” crimes when reading anti-homosexuality scripture from the pulpit? Of course not, but your “Quiet Révolution” did. It turned Canada in to an anti-Catholic gulag.

 

[OraLabora]

I didn’t say I supported it. I said it happened as a backlash against the Church, among other things. What I do support is Vatican II and the Church view on natural and licit means of spacing births. Unfortunately that view was not held by the clergy of the time, and the people, in their own way, revolted.