Freedom of Conscience

[NotWorthy]

Matt16_18:

I am trying to figure out what you mean when you say that God “builds His Plans gradually” through the covenants he makes with man.

Do you agree with the Supralapsarians that “God’s decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race”? i.e. “O necessary sin of Adam …”

Matthew, I am just a humble servant of my church. If the words, “Oh, happy fault. Oh, necessary sin of Adam, who gained for us, so great a redeemer”, make me that Mary Poppins thing, then so be it, because the Church includes this in the Exultet every Easter Vigil.

Regarding God building His plan gradually: I don’t know how to explain it any better.
A) If there was no reason to build it, then Jesus would have come to redeem us, immediately.
B) God had to show His Children that if they follow Him, they will prosper. If they turn away from Him, they will be punished.
C) Didn’t each Covenant encompass a larger group at the time of the Covenant Blessing?
D) Did we understand God’s plan fully after Genesis? After Exodus? After Joshua? After 2 Kings? Or did we come to understand His plan for us more fully as we get deeper and deeper into the Old Testament?

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

Hello, Matt16_18,

quote: reen12

There are many sources, in the world, that will convey what is “right” “OK” “wrong”…movies, books, this group, or that group.

I was contrasting the “what’s good/bad” -
provided by worldly sources - as opposed
to that - which Holy Mother Church teaches.

I was not endorsing those sources - simply pointing
out, that the “world” is trying to convey it’s values,
constantly, thru movies, books, etc.

quote: Matt16_18

IOW, the ultimate temporal authority that you will accept in matters of interpretation of scriptures is ….youself.

Well, no, Matt16_18. The 'in other words" [IOW], in the
present instance, means:

Judaism had it’s view of God -and the things of God -
in place, 25 centuries before Christianity - which views
increased in understanding, over time, as God willed.
I accept their “… interpretation of scriptures…”

“Schma Yisroel, adoinoi elokenu, adoinoi echud.”

Not Three in One, Matt16_18…One.

And if you ask “By what authority, do you…etc.”
my answer is:
By the authority of God, who spoke through Moses…

BTW:
quote: Matt16_18

IOW, the ultimate temporal authority…

That you choose to accept Christianity- specifically
Catholicism - is lovely, Matt16_18. All best wishes,
as you worship the God of Israel, through the
rituals of the Church - who recognizes Him
as Three Persons in One God.

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

I accept their “… interpretation of scriptures…”

Jesus was a Jew. Mary was a Jew. Salome, Johanna, and Martha were Jews. Peter was a Jew, as were all the other apostles. You can only claim that you accept the interpretations of the Jews that reject Christ as the Messiah of the Jews. … every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Matt. 10:32-33

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

If the words, “Oh, happy fault. Oh, necessary sin of Adam, who gained for us, so great a redeemer”, make me that …

Do you believe that it was God’s perfect will for Adam and Eve to commit sin, and that we should sing praises to God for Adam sinning?

Didn’t each Covenant encompass a larger group at the time of the Covenant Blessing?

No, I don’t, since both the covenant made with Adam and Eve and the covenant made with Noah included the whole human race.

Did we understand God’s plan fully after Genesis? After Exodus? After Joshua? After 2 Kings?

No. My question to you is this, what part of that plan would not have been revealed to man if Adam had not sinned?

Or did we come to understand His plan for us more fully as we get deeper and deeper into the Old Testament?

Yes, I do. But do you believe that the moral law revealed in the OT was corrupt and that Jesus came to change the moral law given to the Jews?

 

[Breton]

reen12:

If “properly formed” conscience includes necessarily
acknowleding the authority of the CC - as sole and
infallible interpreter of what God demands - I’d have to
politely dissent.

What I can assent to, while maintaining intellectual
integrity, is:

How does one “maintain intellectual integrity”?

 

[reen12]

quote: Matt16_18

Jesus was a Jew. Mary was a Jew. Salome, Johanna, and Martha were Jews. Peter was a Jew, as were all the other apostles. You can only claim that you accept the interpretations of the Jews that reject Christ as the Messiah of the Jews.… every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Matt. 10:32-33

Judaism makes no attempt to convert others.

Be well, Matt.16_18,

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[NotWorthy]

Matt16_18:

Do you believe that it was God’s perfect will for Adam and Eve to commit sin, and that we should sing praises to God for Adam sinning?

No, it was Adam’s and Eve’s will. Their Fall made it necessary for us to meet our Redeemer

Do I think we should we praise God for Adam’s Sin? No. Should we praise God’s for saving us from Adam’s Sin? Yes. But I really haven’t put much thought into this. Are you planning on going anywhere with this line of questioning because I haven’t a clue where this is leading.

Matt16_18:

No, I don’t, since both the covenant made with Adam and Eve and the covenant made with Noah included the whole human race.

OK, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Matt16_18:

My question to you is this, what part of that plan would not have been revealed to man if Adam had not sinned?

Since we’re dealing with conjecture, here, none of it after Adam would have been revealed. We would all have lived in Paradise, negating a need for a flood, a promised land, and a New Covenant.

Matt16_18:

But do you believe that the moral law revealed in the OT was corrupt and that Jesus came to change the moral law given to the Jews?

No, not corrupt, just incomplete. As I have (time and time again) tried to show, the Old Testament covenants dealt with love for your neighbor, but your neighbor was only those under the same covenant, not the gentiles.

Jesus’ New Covenant included love of neighbor, but gentiles were our neighbors. Jesus also preached love for your enemy.

OT - forgive your brother 7 times.
NT - forgive your brother 70 x 7 times.

OT - numerous imperfect sacrifices.
NT - one perfect sacrifice

As I said earlier, Lex Talionis dealt with treating others how you would like to be treated - strictly a horizontal relationship.

Jesus’ New Covenant deals with treatings others as you would have the Lord treat you. - a vertical relationship.

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

While no attempt is made to convert another,
it is perfectly acceptable to simply state what
Judaism holds:

jewfaq.org/brother.htm

jewishaz.com/jewishnews/050506/torah.shtml

Best,

reen12

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“O necessary sin of Adam…”
I wonder how the word “necessary” is explained, theologically. Because, if I were a reallllly smart, 12 year old kid, I’d be “all over”
that word! …in terms of needing an explanation.

As I understand it, the Church explains it in two different ways, so there’s not one “school of thought” within Catholicism.

1. “necessary” as in terms of absolutely necessary, like water is necessary for life.
2. “necessary” as in “most fitting” as a horse is necessary for a journey.

I personally tend towards the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus that the Incarnation of Jesus was not “plan b” but was always “plan a” in God’s revelation to man. In other words, the Incarnation would have occurred even if Adam had not sinned. Thus, I see the Incarnation as “necessary” in the second sense, as in “most fitting” whether Adam sinned or not, thus making the “necessity” of Adam’s sin for the incarnation, not of the kind that is to be understood as absolutely necessary.

 

[Breton]

reen12,

Forgive me for pressing you for an answer but it is important for me to understand what you mean by “maintaining intellectual integrity” as you form/free your conscience.

Also, I agree with your statement that it is “perfectly acceptable to simply state what Judaism holds” though I don’t agree that this is what occurs in reality. The website you provided earlier is a perfect example, jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq125.html. This website expends a lot of time stating - in many cases erroneously - what Christianity holds.

And why does it create credibility (or maybe this is what you mean by intellectual integrity) if “no attempt is made to convert others”? If you claim to hold the truth, shouldn’t you attempt to share that truth? Isn’t that God’s will for Jew an Christian alike? Isn’t that why you started this thread?

Peace.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

I just noted the following:
quote: Breton

Breton:

I prefer to think of humankind as merely blinded to the joy imprinted on the hearts of all humanity and which we all instinctively seek.

I think St. Thomas Aquinas addresess this very thing.

I disagree that St. Thomas taught that humankind is blinded to the ultimate joy or true end of human existence. They certainly can be blinded, and often are, but St. Thomas was famous for refuting the teaching of his day that faith was incompatible with reason. As G.K. Chesteron put it, a saint is like a medicine or antidote. A saint works to restore the world to sanity by exaggerating whatever the world neglects. Thus, St. Thomas appealed to Reason and the Authority of the Senses, as these were beginning to be tossed aside as incompatible with faith. Indeed, this seems still true even today.

reen12:

Humans seek the “good.” But, if the “good” is
mis-identified, mis-perceived, a human may end up in sin.
*

Maybe one of the posters who is quite familiar with Aquinas,
would be willing to address this point.
*
Indeed St. Thomas did see all human action as having good as the ultimate goal, whether that good is objectively the true good or objectively a false good. Following a false good is a material sin which may be due to invincible ignorance, or may be due to culpable ignorance (formal sin), such as vincible and affected ignorance. Ignorance is not always without guilt according to St. Thomas. He, like St. Augustine, believed that God at times “hardens the heart” of man as punishment for prior sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church likewise states, “ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt” (CCC 1801).

I pray that we are judged more by our likeness to Christ rather than our notions of Him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Breton:

reen12,

And why does it create credibility (or maybe this is what you mean by intellectual integrity) if “no attempt is made to convert others”? If you claim to hold the truth, shouldn’t you attempt to share that truth? Isn’t that God’s will for Jew an Christian alike? Isn’t that why you started this thread?

Peace.

I don’t know if I should speak for Reen12, but I think she wouldn’t feel right coming onto a Catholic Forum and attempt to convert others to Judaism (that may be what she means). I’ve found Reen to be quite adequate at “evangelizing” just by her open, honest answers.

Just as most Catholics are wounded by (most) Non-Christian abandonments of our beliefs simply because they "are too Catholic-y", our Jewish brothers are probably wounded by how little we consider the deep Jewish roots to our faith.

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote:itsjustdave,

Indeed St. Thomas did see all human action as having good as the ultimate goal, whether that good is objectively the true good or objectively a false good.

Yes, that was what memory recalled, in terms of
“good as the ultimate goal.” Thank you for clarifying
these points.

In terms of:
quote: reen12

I think St. Thomas Aquinas addresess this very thing

“very thing” was meant to refer to “the good” -as
the object sought. [substituting “good” for the orginal
word employed: “joy.”]

quote:itsjustdave

I disagree that St. Thomas taught that humankind is blinded to the ultimate joy or true end of human existence

I was zeroing in on the idea of “the good” [and God as
the ultimate Good] being mis-perceived. I surely
agree with the point that St.Thomas did not teach
that human beings are “blinded to…[the] true end of
human existence” for, if that were the case, God
would be acting unjustly, toward His creatures - which
would constitute a contradiciton in terms.

Thanks, again, for clarifying what Aquinas taught.

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote:itsjustdave

As I understand it, the Church explains it in two different ways, so there’s not one “school of thought” within Catholicism.

1. “necessary” as in terms of absolutely necessary, like water is necessary for life.
2. “necessary” as in “most fitting” as a horse is necessary for a journey.

I personally tend towards the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus that the Incarnation of Jesus was not “plan b” but was always “plan a” in God’s revelation to man. In other words, the Incarnation would have occurred even if Adam had not sinned. Thus, I see the Incarnation as “necessary” in the second sense, as in “most fitting” whether Adam sinned or not, thus making the “necessity” of Adam’s sin for the incarnation, not of the kind that is to be understood as absolutely necessary.

---

God bless,

Dave

Whoa! Nicely explained. Thank you,

reen12

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

The following paragraph, in the CCC, seems to address men and women, in terms of moral behavior:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1782.htm

Where, in the catechism, is the issue of freedom
of conscience, in terms of “belief,” addressed?

I believe CCC 1782 does address “belief” because we do have a moral obligation to believe in accord with God’s will.

According to St. John’s Gospel, “belief” is the opposite of “disobedience.”

John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God”

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

The Greek used by St. John for “does not obey” is apeiqwn (“apeitheo”), which means “not believing” but also means “disobey”

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel, et. al, (abridged edition):

***apeitheo. ***This word means “to be disobedient” and is a significant term in the LXX for disobedience to God. In the NT it is used of the wilderness generation in Heb 3:18, that of the flood in 1 Pet. 3:20, all sinners in Rom. 2:8, and Gentiles in Heb 11:13; Rom. 11:30. “To believe” is the opposite in Acts 14:1-2, and unbelief is parallel.

So you can see that in accord with Christian teaching, “to believe” so as to attain eternal life includes obedience.

People have free will and are certainly free to either assent to or dissent from the truth. So strictly speaking, all men have such a freedom understood in this sense. They are not, however, permitted to do so without the consequences of sin. Thus such freedom in this sense is more like “tolerance.” God tolerates evil, and in fact, draws good from it.

The just consequences of all sin include temporal punishment, and for those who die impenitent of mortal sin or merely original sin, the consequences of such sin is eternal punishment.

Thus our role is to inform our conscience and then follow it. And since God the Son gave to us the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and taught that “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me,” then a properly formed conscience is one that does not dissent with the certain teaching of the Catholic Church.

For further information on “religious liberty” see here:

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

See also this discussion: Against Indifferentism

For what the Church teaches regarding “dissent” see here:
Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian

 

[reen12]

quote: Breton

reen12,

Forgive me for pressing you for an answer but it is important for me to understand what you mean by “maintaining intellectual integrity” as you form/free your conscience.

Also, I agree with your statement that it is “perfectly acceptable to simply state what Judaism holds” though I don’t agree that this is what occurs in reality. The website you provided earlier is a perfect example, jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq125.html. This website expends a lot of time stating - in many cases erroneously - what Christianity holds.

And why does it create credibility (or maybe this is what you mean by intellectual integrity) if “no attempt is made to convert others”? If you claim to hold the truth, shouldn’t you attempt to share that truth? Isn’t that God’s will for Jew an Christian alike? Isn’t that why you started this thread?

Peace.

Breton, I have been mulling, on how to address your original query:

quote: Breton

How does one “maintain intellectual integrity”?

and, I have been mulling on same, partly because it’s
a particularly perceptive question, IMO.

[We’ve got company coming for lunch, so I’ll begin to
address same, by posing a rhetorical question:
What is the definition of “intellectual integrity.”]

I would be hard pressed to venture an opinion on “how”
to preserve same, until we could agree on what
constitutes same.
Be back later,

Best,

reen12*

 

[Matt16_18]

Reen12:

Judaism makes no attempt to convert others.

Caiaphas accused Jesus of not being a good Jew too.

Reen12:

What the Church says, basically, is: Holy Mother Church will convey to you, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what is truely right, and what is sinful - she will teach you the moral laws that should govern your life.

Which is also the claim of Moses.

Just where, exactly, do you see the Catholic Church’s moral teaching at odds with the moral teaching God gave to the Jews? And where, exactly, is the moral teaching of the Catholic Church defective?

You want “freedom of conscience”, and apparently you think that means that you get to decide what is right and what is wrong. Even though you claim to accept the authority of Jewish rabbis, you pick and choose among the opinions of the various rabbis until you find a rabbi that agrees with your own personal opinions. Rabbis are like Protestant preachers - one can always find a rabbi that will agree with what one believes. How is what you are doing anything less than embracing moral relativism?

NotWorthy:

I don’t know if I should speak for Reen12, but I think she wouldn’t feel right coming onto a Catholic Forum and attempt to convert others to Judaism (that may be what she means).

Maureen has no interest in being a Jew – or a Catholic, or a Protestant Christian either. Maureen was initiated into the new covenant through the Sacraments of Initiation, but she has openly declared herself to be an apostate that has rejected the new covenant.

Maureen is a self avowed “Noahide”, i.e. a Gentile outside of the covenant with Abraham. As a “Noahide”, Maureen is free to create her own personal little religion with herself a pope. As the ultimate temporal authority in her “non-denominational” Noahide religion of one, she alone decides which interpretation of scriptures she will accept, and she alone decides what the standards of morality are for her personal religion.

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

As I have (time and time again) tried to show, the Old Testament covenants dealt with love for your neighbor, but your neighbor was only those under the same covenant, not the gentiles.

I know that you have tried to show me this, and I disagree with your explanations. Jesus confronted the Jewish rabbis that had the interpretations of scriptures that you are presenting, and Jesus taught them that they were misinterpreting the scriptures that they possessed. Why would any Catholic accept your interpretation of what the OT scriptures meant and not accept the interpretations that Jesus gave? This is the crux of my disagreement with you.

The Jews, in fact, had the moral law in a complete and uncorrupt form, but because their rabbis did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they lacked the interior light to understand the true meaning of the scriptures that they possessed. **Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Old Testament

121 **The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

**The unity of the Old and New Testaments

128** The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. ** As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.**Maureen wants to accept certain rabbinical interpretations of the Jewish scriptures, and by doing that she is embracing the erroneous opinions of men and not the interpretations of the Magisterium of Christ’s church which is infallibly guided by the light of the Holy Spirit. If Maureen actually understood the moral teaching of the OT, she would know that the Catholic Church’s teachings in no way contradict the moral teachings contained in the OT. Jesus never gave any new moral teaching that wasn’t already taught in the OT. What Jesus did was is give us access to the life of the Spirit which enables us to perfectly embrace the morality that is taught in the OT.For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 2:13

The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:11-13

 

[NotWorthy]

Matt, where do you get the idea that I don’t venerate the Old Testament? I, too, think the New Testament is incomplete without the Old. I liken it to just reading the cliff notes. Here is my point. In the Old Testament, the neighbor that you had to love was only those within the covenant. This isn’t due to mis-interpretion, it’s due to Leviticus.

The Old Law demanded mercy, but only for those who were within the covenant: “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18).

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

I have spent about 11 months, trying to arrive
at a conclusion, on what to believe.

Some days, I conclude that Christianity reflects
theological reality = is true.

Other days, I conclude that Judaism reflects
theological reality = is true.

While this ambivilance - on my part - may not
be understandable, to any given individual,
it is understandable to me.

I will continue to post, remaining within the rules of
CAF, and all here on the forums, can choose, whether
to agree with - or to challenge - what I say. [or, a bit of both.]

And, of course, any poster can choose to add me to
their “ignore” list.

Best to all,

reen12