Is it actually sinful not to help the needy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
Yes, and everybody needs to be made more aware of this dangerous sin.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that people should be made more aware that* sin is dangerous*. Not just this sin but any sin.

For some reason, about the only time we hear the word “sin” today is in reference to delicious chocolate desserts.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I never meant to suggest that anyone has to give to a particular charity, but I’m just asking for opinions on whether or not it’s sinful not to do what one can to feed the hungry and clothe the naked as suggested by Christ in the Gospels.

The fact that so few are interested in this and other threads I started on the elimination of extreme poverty, seems to suggest that people may be apathetic on this commandment of Christ. Nobody is obligated to answer to me but will have to answer to Christ on judgment day.

I greatly pleased that Pope Francis has been so vocal on poverty. That people have to eat from garbage heaps in third-world countries has me very distressed. I myself meet the financial definition of poverty, but I live like a king compared to those in extreme poverty.
Click to expand...
Some people may be apathetic Robert Sock, not disagreeing with you. We all have areas we need to grow and do better. Some have been given the grace to see things others don’t. Others may see but have different views on how to help.
 
WORKS DONE IN CHARITY

NEVER do evil for anything in the world, or for the love of any man. For one who is in need, however, a good work may at times be purposely left undone or changed for a better one. This is not the omission of a good deed but rather its improvement.

Without charity external work is of no value, but anything done in charity, be it ever so small and trivial, is entirely fruitful inasmuch as God weighs the love with which a man acts rather than the deed itself.

He does much who loves much. He does much who does a thing well. He does well who serves the common good rather than his own interests.

Now, that which seems to be charity is oftentimes really sensuality, for man’s own inclination, his own will, his hope of reward, and his self-interest, are motives seldom absent. On the contrary, he who has true and perfect charity seeks self in nothing, but searches all things for the glory of God. Moreover, he envies no man, because he desires no personal pleasure nor does he wish to rejoice in himself; rather he desires the greater glory of God above all things. He ascribes to man nothing that is good but attributes it wholly to God from Whom all things proceed as from a fountain, and in Whom all the blessed shall rest as their last end and fruition.

If man had but a spark of true charity he would surely sense that all the things of earth are full of vanity!
-The Imitation of Christ
 
Hey Robert Sock! Interesting question. I will make several successive posts. Please read them all in their connection to each other and context.

I would argue, firstly, that the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus may not necessarily concern hell. Terms mentioned therein are “hades,” which, in Hebrew, was “Sheol,” a place of gloomy emptiness and nothingness (Sheol was not Gehenna/Hell). Around the time of the first century, however, Sheol was further explained to contain several different places within it: 1) Abraham’s bosom, where the Old Covenant righteous went after their deaths (think of Jesus on Holy Saturday); 2) and the Sheol of suffering (where the rich man is; and 3) probably a neutral gloomy place called the “abyss” (sealed off by the Foundation Stone of the Temple Holy of Holies). Besides terms, there are also many fascinating details in this passage. The Rich Man calls out in reverence and respect to Abraham by calling him “father” and shows concern for his own erring family members. Furthermore, Abraham addresses him as “son.” Is it really conceivable that people in hell show reverence to holy Saints, show concern and love for their families, and are still recognized as a son by one of the greatest Old Testament Saints? Worse yet, since “father” and “son” covenant language is used, can the Saints really expect to be in covenant with the damned in hell? The fire spoken of here may also be purgative. The idea of purgation after death does, after all, have its roots in the Maccabean Books in offering sacrifices for the sake of those who died while in certain unfaithfulness. But is it really possible that those in hell actually look for relief, especially through holy water from a saint’s fingers? Aren’t the damned contend with their miserable lot. If you take, the Book of Revelation into account, hell doesn’t exist until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD…then hell exists, and sheol was thrown into it. But why would the Rich Man, here, have good characteristics left if he was a part of a sheol that was going to be thrown into the fire? Is it not possible, then, to argue that he was being purified?
 
Furthermore, this parable is placed within a Lukan re-application of older material from Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, specifically those parts that concern the love of earthly honour based upon covetousness, a covetousness that concerns itself with earthly currency vs. spiritual currency specifically in regards to one’s practice of devotional righteousness or mercy, AS WELL AS WITHIN the context of Jesus’ battle with the Pharisees over certain issues. The theme here, therefore, is rivalry of authority: Jesus vs. the Jewish authorities of his day who were both the Pharisees and Sadducees. In order to make the point of whose authority is really legit but also who will be vindicated in their authority through the proof of the resurrection, Jesus warns the Pharisees by using their next biggest rival beside him, the Sadducean High Priest. The parable can, therefore, be interpreted as follows: the rich man is the High Priest (who wore purple on certain important Jewish Feasts, and wore linen daily, and who also lived in luxury in the Temple apartments). Lazarus, here, is actually Jesus. He begs by seeking the “fruit” of repentance and faith for Himself in others. Like Lazarus, he too will be covered with sores, outside the Temple Gate on the cross, surrounded by “dogs,” an epithet for gentiles. In the end, the Person the High Priest denied is the very Person that he asks be sent to his family, raised from the dead, and Jesus, was resurrected. Finally, there’s the subtle idea that all of the Scriptures speak of Jesus and his resurrection, as well as the fact that if one does not listen to the Scriptures, he cannot be convinced by Jesus’ resurrection. This parable, therefore, concerns making a prophecy. Not teaching morality.

I think, therefore, we have to place this parable within its own proper literal sense understanding before actualizing it in regards to certain topics such as helping the needy, especially since it’s firstly about Jesus, and not the needy.
 
Now, in regards to the “whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you did to me” passage - this does not mean non-Christians or even those who have knowingly or unknowingly apostasized from the Faith, since “least,” qatan in Hebrew, is a covenantal term opposite of “great,” gadol in Hebrew; “brothers” is also obviously a covenantal term. Our Faith is the New Covenant, and covenants are sacred family liturgical kinship bonds. The only non-Christians to which this can be applied is certain Jewish people who are truly ignorant of who Christ is and what he did, since Christ was, and for these few of them, still is, in covenant with them. Therefore, Jesus’ judgment between the sheep and goats specifically concerns loving those with whom you are in covenant. When Saul persecuted the Church, Jesus asked him why he was persecuting Him, since He is one with the Church. But there is, in reality, no passage where Jesus identifies Himself in such a way with people who are not in the Church. If people argue that he did so within the Gospels, it must be, again, understood, that, at that time prior to his inauguration of the New Covenant, he was in covenant with all his people. He even sends the Apostles out to his own people, commanding them not to go to the gentiles. And, in the context of the above explanation, it makes sense why. Furthermore, when Jesus “preached good news to the poor,” it was never done merely to practice covenant agape, but to fulfill an eschatological and Messianic theological mission. When he says to “invite the poor when you have a feast,” he has in mind the eschatological Wedding Feast with the Son of Man, so popular within apocalyptic literature. For this reason, one of the Pharisees, understanding Jesus’ words, responds “blessed is he who shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God,” and Jesus, in turn, gives the parable of the Great Banquet. In Luke its Jesus’ disciples who are identified as the “poor,” indicating, furthermore, a form of shared ownership that would be later even more evident within the Jerusalem community, gathered around the Apostles, in Acts.

But while I believe that charity, or agape (which is so much more than “love,” or even the biblical concept of affection), really, according to context, can only be given to one’s fellow Christians, I do believe in being a “light to the nations,” Christ to the world. Most people in my life are non-believers…but I love them still. I don’t believe that, since they are not in Christ, I can do whatever I want to them, or ignore their suffering. If I did violence to them, I wouldn’t hurt Christ…but I’d still ruin my vocation, and, depending how bad it was, still lose out on eternal life. My point is, let’s keep the focus on Christ. Muslims are not the Body of Christ, neither is, sadly, most poor people in our society, because most of society is not in Christ, nowadays. We, therefore, should realize the important distinction between agaping insiders and being Christ to outsiders, and, when attempting the latter, we should do so not in terms of “good works” (which St. Paul always spoke of as being between fellow Christians), but in terms of evangelization and a theological mission, just like Christ’s. If we do not do that, we do not, truly, help them, since, as Jesus says “there will always be the poor.” Why not help them to be rich in Christ?
 
In honesty, we can’t fully alleviate their poverty unless we bring them, not merely into our homes, but into our actual families (which are covenants WITHIN the New Covenant). But, out of care and protection of our own families, no one brings an outsider into his own house without first making him a part of his family. But this cannot be forced; it must be accepted and desired by the outsider. If an outsider will not accept this, he cannot live in your house. Therefore, this should teach us something about helping the poor, and even helping muslim refugees.

With this understood, I will just re-paste certain statements that I have already made in regards to the Muslim refugee situation:

“Are we just supposed to allow the mass, un-vetted migration of millions of people into Europe and America? Is that how we are to help people who flee from a country (they are also “fleeing” from other Islamic parts of the world that do not have such inter-muslim conflict) that embraces a religious ideology that caused its destruction – we give them welfare (which is how, according to the example of Muhammad, as mentioned within the hadiths, their religion teaches them to live…off the backs of others). That may work within socialism but it doesn’t have any part within the Catholic Tradition. Why doesn’t the 100-plus other countries conquered by Islam (some of which are very rich) take them in?”

TO FINISH THIS CONVERSATION, I would like to now point out another huge problem that hasn’t been addressed. It would seem that the Church has never had to make the points that I have made for hundreds of years because, for a long time, society was Christian. Now, it no longer is. So the above points must carefully be understood since we can no longer be content that everyone else has our worldview. Think about it. Most of the world was once so Christian that the Catholic philosophical tradition was able to apply our morality in a universal way, and it made sense! But, now, it no longer does. Furthermore, I would argue that, without understanding the above, we risk being hijacked by fake social justice “Catholic” groups, such as “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good,” which wikileaks proved that people like John Podesta, through his own words, deliberately created to undermine the Church from within. Do not give to Church collections that support “a cause for the poor.” Many of these have been linked to pro-prostitution and pro-abortion groups, and the bishops do nothing about it. Finally, if I’m right, without properly understanding all of this, we may actually be in moral heresy.

God Bless
 
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention/ask a few more things. 1) we don’t want people we’d think to be “needy” taking advantage of us. I know a fellow Christian man who was always asked for money on the streets, but he’d buy that person some food instead of supporting, most likely, a bad drug/alcohol habit. To his shock, he watched the homeless person return his food to the store in an attempt to get a refund of the money, and this was confirmed by the store clerk.
  1. Do we really have the same poverty that Jesus had in his day? In Jesus’ day, if you were poor, it meant that you were either a widow, having no one to support you, or an orphan, which was the same, or crippled or blind or a leper. Nowadays, people are poor because of drugs/alcohol, or mental illness (which they may have had a part in, and, within which they still continue to choose to do immoral things). The true poor people are actually working-poor families, struggling to make end’s meet. How does knowing this, change our understanding of the topic.
  2. are people who take advantage of welfare (my Canada is huge with supporting welfare) and never get out because they don’t try, poor when they are taking advantage of the system, and making more money than me with my job?!
 
You have to be careful not to blame the victims. It’s a way out of fulfilling our moral obligation. Myself, I donate to charities like Catholic Relief Services or Saint Vincent DePaul. These charities have much expertise in knowing how to help, and how not to help.

“Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.”
~ Proverbs 21:13

Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

1 John 3:17-18
“If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

“Life’s prime needs are water, bread, and clothing, a house, too, for decent privacy.”
-Sirach 29:21

Isaiah 58:7-10
Thus says the Lord:
Share your bread with the hungry,
and shelter the homeless poor,
clothe the man you see to be naked
and do not turn from your own kin.
Then will your light shine like the dawn
and your wound be quickly healed over.
Your integrity will go before you
and the glory of the Lord behind you.
Cry, and the Lord will answer;
call, and he will say, ‘I am here.’
If you do away with the yoke,
the clenched fist, the wicked word,
if you give your bread to the hungry,
and relief to the oppressed,
your light will rise in the darkness,
and your shadows become like noon.

Gal 5:13 (Douay Rheims)
13 For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another.

At the end of our life, we shall all be judged by charity. - St John of the Cross.

4A beggar’s request do not reject;
do not turn your face away from the poor.
-Sirach 2

27 He who gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.
-Proverbs 28

34
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.
35
This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
–John 13:

Luke 3:11
John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
 
The Didache, written in about 90 AD, cautions “let your alms sweat in your hands,” and, from what I have heard from Catholic speakers, this implies proper discernment, even when dealing with the poor. What I’m saying is that you have to take into consideration the points that I raised. All the quotes that you have provided have been decontextualized from a covenantal understanding, which was the message on the topic from the source of Tradition that is Scripture.

It would, therefore, not really be a help to the poor, if the the people you consider to be “poor” are taking advantage of you, whether that be street people or political, religious-ideological-driven refugees, whom leaders of the Islamic countries, years ago, have threated to mobilize into Europe. How do you discern then? How can you protect yourself from any outside political manipulation, from groups such as “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good?” It would, also, not be good to strip yourself and your fellow Christians of our high state in Christ, through the distortion of our own covenant language and identity, to an analogousness to outsiders (a “brotherhood of man” idea which does not exist).

There’s also another very important idea found within the Text from Matthew 25. “Whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done to me” also applies to non-Christian, non-covenantal outsiders in the sense that the manner in which they treat us, reflects the manner in which they treat Christ. We are co-saviours with our Lord, and outsiders may be able to find mercy through the manner in which they treat us. But we also do not want to let outsiders take advantage of us, or confuse our proper understanding, because if we allowed them to do this to us, we’d be allowing them to do this to Christ. And Christ will judge them for this, if they are attempting to do this. It would, therefore, also be merciful to outsiders to not assist them in this sin.

We are morally obligated to truth and proper authority within the Covenant, not half-truths and illegitimate authoritative exhortations from bishops that do not take the sources of our Tradition (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Councils, Fathers, etc) seriously. Therefore, with discerment, it is NOT always sinful to not “help” the “needy.” Sometimes, it is wisdom to not do so.
 
tiny_augustine said:
The Didache, written in about 90 AD, cautions “let your alms sweat in your hands,” and, from what I have heard from Catholic speakers, this implies proper discernment, even when dealing with the poor. What I’m saying is that you have to take into consideration the points that I raised. All the quotes that you have provided have been decontextualized from a covenantal understanding, which was the message on the topic from the source of Tradition that is Scripture.

It would, therefore, not really be a help to the poor, if the the people you consider to be “poor” are taking advantage of you, whether that be street people or political, religious-ideological-driven refugees, whom leaders of the Islamic countries, years ago, have threated to mobilize into Europe. How do you discern then? How can you protect yourself from any outside political manipulation, from groups such as “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good?” It would, also, not be good to strip yourself and your fellow Christians of our high state in Christ, through the distortion of our own covenant language and identity, to an analogousness to outsiders (a “brotherhood of man” idea which does not exist).

There’s also another very important idea found within the Text from Matthew 25. “Whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done to me” also applies to non-Christian, non-covenantal outsiders in the sense that the manner in which they treat us, reflects the manner in which they treat Christ. We are co-saviours with our Lord, and outsiders may be able to find mercy through the manner in which they treat us. But we also do not want to let outsiders take advantage of us, or confuse our proper understanding, because if we allowed them to do this to us, we’d be allowing them to do this to Christ. And Christ will judge them for this, if they are attempting to do this. It would, therefore, also be merciful to outsiders to not assist them in this sin.

We are morally obligated to truth and proper authority within the Covenant, not half-truths and illegitimate authoritative exhortations from bishops that do not take the sources of our Tradition (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Councils, Fathers, etc) seriously. Therefore, with discerment, it is NOT always sinful to not “help” the “needy.” Sometimes, it is wisdom to not do so.
Click to expand...
This is why it’s important to donate to a well-organized charity who know how to help the poor. To convince me that it’s not always a good thing to give alms to the poor, you need to convince me that these well-organized charities do not know what they are doing. If you’re convinced that you do not have to try to help the poor to the best of your ability, know that you will have to answer to Christ on judgment day! As for me, I would rather try to help even at the risk of being exploited than to do nothing when our alms really would have made a difference.
 
Hey again! Thanks for the response.

To be clear, yes, we must help the poor. But we must do so with proper discernment, as well as by taking care of actual, sincerely poor Christians first, since we have this strict obligation from our Covenant. While we are commanded, therefore, to help sincerely poor Christians first, and then sincerely poor non-Christians, all through serious discernment, the sources of our Tradition do not command us to give to well-organized charities. Rather our Tradition just tells us, simply, if our discernment is right, to help the poor.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with organizing ourselves in this necessity. But, we must follow our Lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, wherein he commands us to not do our merciful deeds of devotional righteousness (alms, prayer, and fasting) for the sake of receiving earthly honour, coveting positions of importance and praise from within the Church, as well as from outside of Her. Discernment, therefore, is needed even for organized efforts, and, with such discernment, several problems in regards to well-organized charities as institutions arise:
  1. Charities promote what they do, through advertising, specifically to receive praise from others. They are not concerned with doing things secretly for the fulfilment of the Will of God, but so that they may be noticed and celebrated, in order to receive the funding of earthly wages, and even more after that. Of them our Lord says, “Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward,” by which he means their earthly, fallen, non-spiritual wages, not from God, but from the world. Besides, with most charities out there, most of the money they collect goes to lining CEOs’ pockets and advertising, and very few of it actually goes to the cause.
  2. Many of these charities receive funding, support, legislative help, and even large donations from political governments and forces that do not, at all, care about fulfilling our Lord’s Will, nor even care to learn about how to fulfil that will, but are out for their own honour. Jesus says, within Matthew 6:22-24, interpreted (my clarifications, based upon the literal sense of the passage, are in large font):
“YOU KNOW THAT THE MEN OF OLD SAID THAT the eye is the lamp of the body BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT IT SHINES LIGHT OUT INTO THE WORLD SO THAT THE WORLD CAN THEN BE SEEN BY THE EYE, AND ONE CAN THEN UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS DOING AND WHERE HE IS GOING. So, if your eye SHINES A LIGHT THAT is SINGULARLY DEVOTED TO MY PRESENCE, THAT OF TOTALLY GRACIOUS GENEROUSITY, NOT MAKING IT ONE WITH EARTHLY HONOUR, WHICH IS COVETOUSNESS, your whole body will be full of MY light; 23 but if your eye SHINES A LIGHT THAT IS CONTAMINATED WITH EARTHLY HONOUR, OR ONE THAT DESIRES ONLY THAT, your whole body will be full of darkness.** If then MY light in you is ONE WITH darkness, how much more GREATER IS the darkness! **24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon, THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN YOUR HEART AND THE COVETOUSNESS OF HONOUR, LIKEWISE, WITHIN IT.”

Why are we acting as “one,” in unity with outsiders (secular political government and forces) who are, for all purposes, against our Faith. How does the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of satan have anything in common?
  1. Not only should we ask this question, but we should also research what associations well-organized charities have with other questionable groups and associations (it’s not hard to do since most explicitly mention these associations on their websites!). Exactly such research has been pursued, and has shown that many so-called “charities,” officially recognized by the Church, have been connected to pro-prostitution, pro-abortion, and pro-communist groups, etc. Check out: youtube.com/watch?v=pP1lDiDygtI&list=PLmBX1JVbyAgZgzboqlQ4bELvdR4l7YT_D&index=3
In regards to your final sentence, are we so ready to help (again, only temporarily) and risk being exploited, that we risk having Christ exploited too? This was the point of the second last paragraph of my previous post.

I just can’t help feel that our Faith is being appropriated by the world against its own Tradition.
 
tiny_augustine said:
Hey again! Thanks for the response.

To be clear, yes, we must help the poor. But we must do so with proper discernment, as well as by taking care of actual, sincerely poor Christians first, since we have this strict obligation from our Covenant. While we are commanded, therefore, to help sincerely poor Christians first, and then sincerely poor non-Christians, all through serious discernment, the sources of our Tradition do not command us to give to well-organized charities. Rather our Tradition just tells us, simply, if our discernment is right, to help the poor.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with organizing ourselves in this necessity. But, we must follow our Lord’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, wherein he commands us to not do our merciful deeds of devotional righteousness (alms, prayer, and fasting) for the sake of receiving earthly honour, coveting positions of importance and praise from within the Church, as well as from outside of Her. Discernment, therefore, is needed even for organized efforts, and, with such discernment, several problems in regards to well-organized charities as institutions arise:
  1. Charities promote what they do, through advertising, specifically to receive praise from others. They are not concerned with doing things secretly for the fulfilment of the Will of God, but so that they may be noticed and celebrated, in order to receive the funding of earthly wages, and even more after that. Of them our Lord says, “Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward,” by which he means their earthly, fallen, non-spiritual wages, not from God, but from the world. Besides, with most charities out there, most of the money they collect goes to lining CEOs’ pockets and advertising, and very few of it actually goes to the cause.
  2. Many of these charities receive funding, support, legislative help, and even large donations from political governments and forces that do not, at all, care about fulfilling our Lord’s Will, nor even care to learn about how to fulfil that will, but are out for their own honour. Jesus says, within Matthew 6:22-24, interpreted (my clarifications, based upon the literal sense of the passage, are in large font):
“YOU KNOW THAT THE MEN OF OLD SAID THAT the eye is the lamp of the body BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT IT SHINES LIGHT OUT INTO THE WORLD SO THAT THE WORLD CAN THEN BE SEEN BY THE EYE, AND ONE CAN THEN UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS DOING AND WHERE HE IS GOING. So, if your eye SHINES A LIGHT THAT is SINGULARLY DEVOTED TO MY PRESENCE, THAT OF TOTALLY GRACIOUS GENEROUSITY, NOT MAKING IT ONE WITH EARTHLY HONOUR, WHICH IS COVETOUSNESS, your whole body will be full of MY light; 23 but if your eye SHINES A LIGHT THAT IS CONTAMINATED WITH EARTHLY HONOUR, OR ONE THAT DESIRES ONLY THAT, your whole body will be full of darkness.** If then MY light in you is ONE WITH darkness, how much more GREATER IS the darkness! **24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon, THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN YOUR HEART AND THE COVETOUSNESS OF HONOUR, LIKEWISE, WITHIN IT.”

Why are we acting as “one,” in unity with outsiders (secular political government and forces) who are, for all purposes, against our Faith. How does the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of satan have anything in common?
  1. Not only should we ask this question, but we should also research what associations well-organized charities have with other questionable groups and associations (it’s not hard to do since most explicitly mention these associations on their websites!). Exactly such research has been pursued, and has shown that many so-called “charities,” officially recognized by the Church, have been connected to pro-prostitution, pro-abortion, and pro-communist groups, etc. Check out: youtube.com/watch?v=pP1lDiDygtI&list=PLmBX1JVbyAgZgzboqlQ4bELvdR4l7YT_D&index=3
In regards to your final sentence, are we so ready to help (again, only temporarily) and risk being exploited, that we risk having Christ exploited too? This was the point of the second last paragraph of my previous post.

I just can’t help feel that our Faith is being appropriated by the world against its own Tradition.
Click to expand...
Was Saint Mother Theresa motivated by gaining self-attention? Judge and you will be judged. Should the Pope abolish these charities because all they want is attention? Excuse me for saying this, but what you say is very presumptuous and slanderous.
 
Robert Sock,

THIS FROM WHAT I POSTED TO ANOTHER, WITHIN THESE FORUMS, WHO STARTED TO ATTACK ME RATHER THAN CONVERSE WITH ME:

Jesus said, “whatever you did to the LEAST of my [COVENANTAL] BROTHERS [THAT IS, OLD COVENANT JEWS, OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HIM, OR DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE TAUGHT OR DID, AS WELL AS, ALL CHRISTIANS, WHO BELONG TO THE NEW COVENANT] you did to ME.” He also said, “Saul why are you persecuting ME?” When he said, “judge not, lest you be judged,” he meant “do not judge according to the corruption of this world, that is, the covetousness of honour, social standing, riches, possessions, politics, or your own sinful desires.” But he clearly commands us to judge sin, which is either apostasy, idolatry, and false oaths, as well as ripping apart the Body of Christ, the family covenant of the Members of the Church, through destructive words and actions.

Have I sinned, brother, in any way? Why not judge the validity of the arguments that I put forward according to the sources of our Tradition? Aren’t me and you believers in these same sources? Aren’t these our shared Faith? If my arguments are false, show me, and I will change my position. I’ve come here to learn, to share what I’ve learned, and to have fellowship. You are allowed to judge me if what I said was sinful, but, I’ve not denied God or ripped apart the Body of Christ. Show me how I’ve done this.

If what I say is presumptuous, show me how I’ve been so? I gave you a video to watch, and there’s no way that you’ve watched it that quickly. Check it out.

I’ve said nothing against Saint Mother Theresa. I don’t know her life that well. But, you know, I am allowed to disagree with others, even certain saints, according to the Tradition. But, have I called anyone a “sinner,” or am I accusing anyone of sin? And sharing certain facts is not sinful, but the truth. How have I slandered anyone, when all I did was present to you our Tradition?

If you want my opinion, if I were the Pope or a high-ranking bishop who has been delegated power, I would abolish these charities.
 
“If you can’t feed a hundred people, then feed just one.” Mother Teresa.

Matthew 6:3

Parallel Verses
New International Version
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

New Living Translation
But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

English Standard Version
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

6:4

Parallel Verses
New International Version
so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

New Living Translation
Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

English Standard Version
so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Ed
 
tiny_augustine said:
Robert Sock,

THIS FROM WHAT I POSTED TO ANOTHER, WITHIN THESE FORUMS, WHO STARTED TO ATTACK ME RATHER THAN CONVERSE WITH ME:

Jesus said, “whatever you did to the LEAST of my [COVENANTAL] BROTHERS [THAT IS, OLD COVENANT JEWS, OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HIM, OR DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE TAUGHT OR DID, AS WELL AS, ALL CHRISTIANS, WHO BELONG TO THE NEW COVENANT] you did to ME.” He also said, “Saul why are you persecuting ME?” When he said, “judge not, lest you be judged,” he meant “do not judge according to the corruption of this world, that is, the covetousness of honour, social standing, riches, possessions, politics, or your own sinful desires.” But he clearly commands us to judge sin, which is either apostasy, idolatry, and false oaths, as well as ripping apart the Body of Christ, the family covenant of the Members of the Church, through destructive words and actions.

Have I sinned, brother, in any way? Why not judge the validity of the arguments that I put forward according to the sources of our Tradition? Aren’t me and you believers in these same sources? Aren’t these our shared Faith? If my arguments are false, show me, and I will change my position. I’ve come here to learn, to share what I’ve learned, and to have fellowship. You are allowed to judge me if what I said was sinful, but, I’ve not denied God or ripped apart the Body of Christ. Show me how I’ve done this.

If what I say is presumptuous, show me how I’ve been so? I gave you a video to watch, and there’s no way that you’ve watched it that quickly. Check it out.

I’ve said nothing against Saint Mother Theresa. I don’t know her life that well. But, you know, I am allowed to disagree with others, even certain saints, according to the Tradition. But, have I called anyone a “sinner,” or am I accusing anyone of sin? And sharing certain facts is not sinful, but the truth. How have I slandered anyone, when all I did was present to you our Tradition?

If you want my opinion, if I were the Pope or a high-ranking bishop who has been delegated power, I would abolish these charities.
Click to expand...
Wow, I can’t believe you said that! Is there anything more to discuss? I’m lost for words! When you accuse Catholic charities of nothing more than attention seeking, I honestly have nothing more to say. Have a nice day!
 
To be fair, you’ve taken me out of context. The context was that discernment was needed in all aspects of our entire conversation. I was partly talking about well-organized charities in general, and then partly talking about many of those involved within the Church, who are, yes, involved with things that are condemned by the Church. I SAID THAT I WOULD ABOLISH THESE CHARITIES, and that’s implied from the context of my words, in connection to all my posts. BUT I NEVER SAID THAT I WOULD ABOLISH ALL CATHOLIC CHARITIES. Nor did I say that all charities are guilty of such and such. All charities do, however, broadcast what they do, and I just asked the question of how kosher would this be with regards to our Lord’s words, which is a perfectly legitimate question.

Brother, charitable organizations are not people; they are made up of people but are like a brand. But I’m a person. Did Christ die for a charitable organization, or did he die for me? Why are you so reactionary? Do you work for a charity or something?
 
tiny_augustine said:
To be fair, you’ve taken me out of context. The context was that discernment was needed in all aspects of our entire conversation. I was partly talking about well-organized charities in general, and then partly talking about many of those involved within the Church, who are, yes, involved with things that are condemned by the Church. I SAID THAT I WOULD ABOLISH THESE CHARITIES, and that’s implied from the context of my words, in connection to all my posts. BUT I NEVER SAID THAT I WOULD ABOLISH ALL CATHOLIC CHARITIES. Nor did I say that all charities are guilty of such and such. All charities do, however, broadcast what they do, and I just asked the question of how kosher would this be with regards to our Lord’s words, which is a perfectly legitimate question.

Brother, charitable organizations are not people; they are made up of people but are like a brand. But I’m a person. Did Christ die for a charitable organization, or did he die for me? Why are you so reactionary? Do you work for a charity or something?
Click to expand...
How can a charity possibly expect to gain donations without “broadcasting” what they do? It may help to be specific and say which Catholic charities you would abolish if you were a bishop or the pope.
 
Charities belonging and related to the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” (CCHD), as well as belonging and related to “Development and Peace.”
 
tiny_augustine said:
Charities belonging and related to the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” (CCHD), as well as belonging and related to “Development and Peace.”
Click to expand...
How would you help those living in poverty? Or would you just ignore them in a state of apathy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top