I do not see where this is relevant. The scripture I quoted pretty much speaks for itself. It is neither out of context nor irrelevant. The rest of chapter explains how insufficient knowledge is, as it will “pass away,” comparing all one can know to a dark glass.
Actually, no. We can be inviting to all without compromising our values. We can accompany all towards acceptance of all truth. Inclusivity requires unity, which requires more than tolerance. It requires conversion. If a person does not want to give up the things that prevent true communion, then yes, we would compromise our values to offer full inclusion.
So how do you feel about the words “as revelation unfolds”? Does they seem to be contrary to the faith?
I agree.
This is a great question. I think we all need to support one another in finding our way to truth!
Teek, this statement goes to the crux of the matter. I honor your position on this, as it comes from a very natural place. You are believing that God slams a gate, right? That it is not a matter of a person choosing hell, but God judges a worthiness. What you are saying is that It makes sense that some people are not worthy, right?
If a person does not know all of the right understanding, and because of such lack, he holds to some beliefs that are contrary to the catechism, but still desires communion, is he not included in the Church?
Sorry about the implication, it was unintended. I know that you are not saying that this is all about you.
Unity is achieved in the hearts of those who embrace Eucharist as what unifies. If a person is dedicated to the premise that doctrine (and interpretation of doctrine) is primarily what unifies, then they understandably see disunity. Personally, there is not a single Christian with whom I do not have unity. However, I also honor a more exclusive approach. Do you see Pope Francis as coming from a more inclusive, or more exclusive, position?
Well, you are referring to a “head” unity. Isn’t unity a matter of relationship, though? Do we all not have loved ones who disagree with us? Isn’t unity found and grounded in such love?
Yes! And thanks for sharing. As you see, I’m trying to limit my comments. I also have amazing spiritual encounters through Eucharist.
This goes back to the “crux of the matter” above.
I guess it depends on what values take precedent. When I am in relationship, I include people. It is the relationship that takes precedent, and relationship itself is the basis of my own inclusion of people. I include you, Teek. If you had some misunderstanding of doctrine, even to the degree that you were involved in grave sin, I would include you in who I see as loved and forgiven by our Father. And then, if a person, even a hierarchy of people, were to exclude someone that I would not, does this exclusion mirror the Abba that I know from within, the Abba I know through my own prayer life? Well no, it does not. On the other hand, I honor the approach, and understand it. Also, I love the people at the top of the hierarchy no matter what they say or do; and in the spirituality I know, my inclusion follows my love.
Jim, your words are not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The state of mortal sin is that of separation from God to a mortal, fatal degree, and the norm for forgiveness is sacramental confession, not ‘feeling forgiven’ and not the penitential rite at Mass which forgives not mortal, but venial sin.
Yeah, what is needed is longer, non-superficial hugs.
Good morning! I can’t believe the last week of advent is one day. It’s so strange! I hope yours is as well.
I will commit to being unoffendable, myself.No, they are not contrary to the faith. Jesus was quite plain about that.
Your post made sense… up until this part. I’m not certain why you’re characterizing things in this way, but it’s a subtle (yet critical) mischaracterization. The issue here isn’t “I’m more worthy than you to receive the Eucharist”, it’s a simple matter of whether there’s a factual basis upon which to say, “I’m sorry, but you cannot receive the Eucharist at this time.”
These are good examples. I think there were real opportunities for you to help them understand what is really going on:
This is the point where you had the opportunity to reply, "it’s not that all divorced and remarried are being offered a new route to return to the Eucharist! In fact, the goal here is precisely to provide a means for people to come to the realization that you did! If, however, they’re in an untenable situation, and this realization is coming rather slowly, then this is a means to help them reach the understanding that you’ve already attained! It’s not a process to “leave [them] in their tepid indifference!”
I think I would have challenged him (gently): was this process he underwent – of understanding what we say the Eucharist is – dependent on the means by which people reach it? That is, he came to understand by hitting a brick wall and a ‘no’. Can people not come to understand by means of a process that invites them to slowly accept the teaching?
That we cannot know—the desires of a person’s heart. That is a matter for God’s judgement.
I may have expressed myself poorly, but, no, that is not what I meant. At the first moment we are dead, the gate has shut. Our choices become final. There is no second chance. In that respect, we are called to do battle on earth to save others from peril, before their death.
Of course, he is included in the Church. His beliefs that are contrary to the Church are not equal to the Church’s teaching, or to the beliefs of one who is conformed to the truth. The question you had originally raised was whether it was wrong to believe one was more worthy of inclusion in the Church than someone else who holds to a different ideology than you. I was answering objectively that conformation to Truth determines objective worthiness.
Unity can be to degrees. All Christians possess unity to the extent that they are unified in one Lord, one faith, and baptism, and one Church. All Christians profess one Lord, and, more or less, one baptism (if done as Christ commanded.) They do not profess one faith, nor are they united in one Church.
No, unity is a matter of truth. Tolerance is a matter of relationship. Truth cannot be compromised in pursuit of a false unity that lets everyone feel fine where they are, if they are not fine where they are.
If God said, “Unless you do these things, you have rejected me.” And we go on to say, “Well, I don’t think he really meant that. I like to think God meant…” and we go on to disregard what He said. We didn’t actually change the rules by justifying disobedience, or alter the consequences for not following them. Only God could do this, and He does not.
Yes, we do not reject people. Personal relationships do not require unity of belief, only acceptance of the other as created in the image and likeness of the Father. Respect. That is different than theological unity in religion and faith. I do not possess unity of belief with a person who is Hindu, or atheist. But I can include them, and invite them.
It doesn’t matter what you think of whether I would be loved and forgiven by the Father. It doesn’t matter what I believe about you, and whether you are. It matters what God has revealed to us.
I disagree. In the spirituality I know, sometimes the greatest act of love is exclusion. (Continued…)