A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
vern humphrey:
Alan
Those are some great suggestions, IMNSHO!
Alan
- Status
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
vern
Love, prayer and humility are what we are commanded to do – not to judge others.
So Vern, is it that you do not approve of any real action beyond the above … such as withholding contributions from a bishop whom you “judge” to have misbehaved or mismanaged his diocese … and of course especially in an instance where the mismanagement is not even open to question?
Or, let me put it another way … are we not to “judge” anyone for anything … just submit to perverse and unjust people in authority and pray?
If that’s the case, why bother to change doctors when you “judge” one to be incompetent or negligent? Why bother to change political parties? Why judge the judges incompetent (perhaps even venal) who legislated Roe v Wade as the law of the land on the supposition that the fetus is not a human being?
Are we supposed to just love, pray, and be humble …?
Love, prayer and humility are what we are commanded to do – not to judge others.
So Vern, is it that you do not approve of any real action beyond the above … such as withholding contributions from a bishop whom you “judge” to have misbehaved or mismanaged his diocese … and of course especially in an instance where the mismanagement is not even open to question?
Or, let me put it another way … are we not to “judge” anyone for anything … just submit to perverse and unjust people in authority and pray?
If that’s the case, why bother to change doctors when you “judge” one to be incompetent or negligent? Why bother to change political parties? Why judge the judges incompetent (perhaps even venal) who legislated Roe v Wade as the law of the land on the supposition that the fetus is not a human being?
Are we supposed to just love, pray, and be humble …?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I recommend you read the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians on this matter.
Gilbert Keith:
Gilbert Keith:
Gilbert Keith:
The “judging” of this Bishop is a matter for his peers and the Pope, not the laity. We are, after all, the Catholic Church.
I recommend you read the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians on this matter.
Gilbert Keith:
You fail to distinguish between people and acts. We can rightly oppose things like abortion. We cannot judge or look down or vilify a woman who has had an abortion. The Catholic way is not blowing up abortion clinics – it is kneeling in front and praying the rosary. The Catholic way of treating women who have had abortions is Project Rachel.
Gilbert Keith:
When one asks for a second opinion, that is not condemning the first doctor. When one votes, one is exercising good citizenship, choosing the better candidate.
Gilbert Keith:
I sense a lot of anger in your post. You might want to try love and prayer.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
When I think of “judgmental” I think of someone who supposes to know that another’s heart has evil in it, based on our outward observations.
If “judge” simply means to evaluate so that you can proceed on your best course, then that’s a different meaning for the word “judge.”
I guess when I think “judge” in the religious sense, to me it means you have supposed a person a demon or a saint.
If they behave in a destructive or dangerous way according to my “judgment” then I have plenty of reason to avoid them or try to stop what they are doing, without regard to any presuppositions I have about the state of their soul. I can even “judge” that it’s a bad idea to judge, if I were to mix and match the different meanings of the word “judge.”
With the example of withholding contributions, that gets a bit more tricky. Technically, stewardship is based on our need to give, not as a reward or to cover the needs of the parish. Truly the needs of parishes depend on stewardship, but a “true” stewardship parish does not use those needs as a motivator for the parishioners to give under normal circumstances. I think that if you feel you are donating money to an evil cause, by contributing to an evil parish or diocese, that doesn’t bother me to withhold that, but a larger concern is that you don’t lose your opportunity to give over it.
Alan
If “judge” simply means to evaluate so that you can proceed on your best course, then that’s a different meaning for the word “judge.”
I guess when I think “judge” in the religious sense, to me it means you have supposed a person a demon or a saint.
If they behave in a destructive or dangerous way according to my “judgment” then I have plenty of reason to avoid them or try to stop what they are doing, without regard to any presuppositions I have about the state of their soul. I can even “judge” that it’s a bad idea to judge, if I were to mix and match the different meanings of the word “judge.”
With the example of withholding contributions, that gets a bit more tricky. Technically, stewardship is based on our need to give, not as a reward or to cover the needs of the parish. Truly the needs of parishes depend on stewardship, but a “true” stewardship parish does not use those needs as a motivator for the parishioners to give under normal circumstances. I think that if you feel you are donating money to an evil cause, by contributing to an evil parish or diocese, that doesn’t bother me to withhold that, but a larger concern is that you don’t lose your opportunity to give over it.
Alan
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Jesus gives a perfect example when He tells us of the Pharasee who prayed that the was thankful he wasn’t like that sinner over there.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
All too often we are ready and willing to call someone else a sinner to cover up the fact that we are sinners, too.
These mix and match meanings lead us far astray.
I might add that I espouse what I call “Moral Pragmatism.” If we are morally impeled to do something, we are morally impeled to chose a course of action likely to lead to success.
All too often, our willingness to condemn others and to play holier-than-thou does nothing to stop bad or dangerous behavior – but it makes us feel superior.
Again, bishops are judged by their peers or the Holy See, not the laity. If you cannot give to one cause, give to another.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
*All too often, our willingness to condemn others and to play holier-than-thou does nothing to stop bad or dangerous behavior – but it makes us feel superior.
*Well Vern, let try another approach. Suppose you found out that a bishop was molesting you child. Would your righteous anger now have to be called a “holier than thou” attitude? And would you say that as a layman you had no choice but to wait for the pope to discipline your bishop because you are just a layman.
I don’t mind it that you think there’s some anger in my posts. Likewise, I hope you don’t mind it that I see something like servility in yours.
But I hope these personal jabs don’t cut off our dialogue.
*Well Vern, let try another approach. Suppose you found out that a bishop was molesting you child. Would your righteous anger now have to be called a “holier than thou” attitude? And would you say that as a layman you had no choice but to wait for the pope to discipline your bishop because you are just a layman.
I don’t mind it that you think there’s some anger in my posts. Likewise, I hope you don’t mind it that I see something like servility in yours.
But I hope these personal jabs don’t cut off our dialogue.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Gilbert Keith said:
Just how did I find this out?
Did I read about it in the paper? I read about lots of crimes every day, and generally feel the judicial system takes care of such things – no need for me to break out the rope, tar and feathers.
Was it my child? I would do what any parent would do, and file a criminal complaint.
Would I be angry? Sure.
Would I take the law into my own hands and appoint myself judge, jury and executioner? No.
Gilbert Keith:
I’m a Catholic. I accept the authority of the Church. If you’re talking about a bishop specifically, I recommend you read Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Gilbert Keith said:
I’m kind of the third wheel in this dialog, but I sense your anger is really not directed at anyone here so I feel safe chiming in.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether the person hurting my child is a bishop or BTK (serial killer – ex-dogcatcher no less – in Wichita finally caught after over 30 years of being our hometown “Freddie”). I have the right and obligation to do whatever I can to protect the child, and if applicable I do not have any problem filing charges.
Still, if I harbor anger toward these people and get my own shorts in a wad, so to speak, it only hurts me. Yes I will have anger initially, and that make cause me to act a little more rash than if not, but I will work on the anger because it hurts me more than them, and clouds my mind against thinking clearly about how best to take care of it.
If we’re talking about being called to action against wrongdoing, than I agree that anger is a motivator. Many angry people, though, make a mob unless they have a leader with a cooler head who can direct their actions so they are effective. Nor is personal judgment as in “they are going to hell” or “God is displeased with them so I should help God by taking wrath on them” a useful or even allowable mentality to intentionally continue to harbor.
If we’re talking about judging a brother for being angry over a personal or even imagined loss, then that is taboo too so I can only help minister to your anger but not judge it. I may even find that agreeing with you on how unrighteous and evil the acts of a person or group is, may be the best way to minister to your anger. Even though it may be true, if a person is hurt and angry, a little human tact says that it isn’t always best to say, “well you have to get over it.” They may not be ready to get over it, and now they figure they’ve got no friend in you, so maybe they’ll shut up and/or direct their anger at you instead of the original problem. It’s not an issue of being right, but of knowing how to deliver it the most effective way, which often means to Keep Your Mouth Shut.
Alan
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
*It’s not an issue of being right, but of knowing how to deliver it the most effective way, which often means to Keep Your Mouth Shut.
*
If you’re keeping your mouth shut, what are you delivering?
*
If you’re keeping your mouth shut, what are you delivering?
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
I repeat the theme question of this thread:
We live in a sick world. It is getting sicker. Are we supposed to be passive and shut up?
Are the Catholic bishops supposed to shut up when they take a stance on abortion, or homosexual marriage, or euthanasia?
I know the favorite rejoinder of abortion advocates, gays, and euthanasia enthusiasts is: “Who are you to judge?”
Are the bishops supposed to gulp and bow out because they are perceived as “holier than thou”?
We live in a sick world. It is getting sicker. Are we supposed to be passive and shut up?
Are the Catholic bishops supposed to shut up when they take a stance on abortion, or homosexual marriage, or euthanasia?
I know the favorite rejoinder of abortion advocates, gays, and euthanasia enthusiasts is: “Who are you to judge?”
Are the bishops supposed to gulp and bow out because they are perceived as “holier than thou”?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
Don’t get all wrapped around the axel – judges and bishops have an official duty. It’s one thing to BE a judge, and another to go around sneering at your fellow man.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
VERN
and another to go around sneering at your fellow man.
Which implies a sneer of sorts, don’t you think? A sneering judgment against those who sneer?
Round and round we go.
I’ve lost interest in this thread.
So long.
and another to go around sneering at your fellow man.
Which implies a sneer of sorts, don’t you think? A sneering judgment against those who sneer?
Round and round we go.
I’ve lost interest in this thread.
So long.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
You may be delivering prayer.
You may be delivering yourself to the presence of God as in silent prayer, the deepest form of prayer that leads to Divine Union when accompanied by contemplation, a gift at the Holy Spirit’s will that you are making accessible, to strengthen you so that you may open your eyes and see the chariots afire around you.
In the context I meant, I meant if a person is angry or hurt over something, unless you are pretty good friends with them and know them very well, this is not usually the time to try to befriend them with the “truth” that they brought it on themselves, or try to tell them they have to get over it when you have not walked in their shoes.
They hurt, for real. They may have thrown themselves off a cliff, it doesn’t make their physical or spiritual injuries any less real, you don’t go to an sick or injured animal and try to scold it out of its pain. Why would you treat a human being with any less dignity?
Alan
First, you are not delivering verbalized anger.
You may be delivering prayer.
You may be delivering yourself to the presence of God as in silent prayer, the deepest form of prayer that leads to Divine Union when accompanied by contemplation, a gift at the Holy Spirit’s will that you are making accessible, to strengthen you so that you may open your eyes and see the chariots afire around you.
In the context I meant, I meant if a person is angry or hurt over something, unless you are pretty good friends with them and know them very well, this is not usually the time to try to befriend them with the “truth” that they brought it on themselves, or try to tell them they have to get over it when you have not walked in their shoes.
They hurt, for real. They may have thrown themselves off a cliff, it doesn’t make their physical or spiritual injuries any less real, you don’t go to an sick or injured animal and try to scold it out of its pain. Why would you treat a human being with any less dignity?
Alan
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
Good bye.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
ALAN
*In the context I meant, I meant if a person is angry or hurt over something, unless you are pretty good friends with them and know them very well, this is not usually the time to try to befriend them with the “truth” that they brought it on themselves, or try to tell them they have to get over it when you have not walked in their shoes.
*
Alan, are you aware that you have used the straw man argument. I’ve never advocated judging the kind of person you are talking about with the language of “you brought it on yourself.”.
But how about this guy?
(Text of Martin Niemoller’s remarks in the Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, page 31636):
“When Hitler attacked the Jews, I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant Church – and there was nobody left to be concerned.”
Pastor Niemoller spent over eight years in a Nazi concentration camp.
Niemoller is raising the classic case of the person who need to be judged for what he is and stopped in his tracks. Neimoller refused to judge. Neimoller refused to stand up to and fight the most transparent evil of his time. And he suffered the consequences, as did we all, especially England who also refused to judge Hitler and suffered devastating consequences.
“The reason that evil triumphs is that good men do nothing.”
And they do nothing because they are afraid to judge. And because they are afraid to judge, they did “bring it upon themselves.”
*In the context I meant, I meant if a person is angry or hurt over something, unless you are pretty good friends with them and know them very well, this is not usually the time to try to befriend them with the “truth” that they brought it on themselves, or try to tell them they have to get over it when you have not walked in their shoes.
*
Alan, are you aware that you have used the straw man argument. I’ve never advocated judging the kind of person you are talking about with the language of “you brought it on yourself.”.
But how about this guy?
(Text of Martin Niemoller’s remarks in the Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, page 31636):
“When Hitler attacked the Jews, I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant Church – and there was nobody left to be concerned.”
Pastor Niemoller spent over eight years in a Nazi concentration camp.
Niemoller is raising the classic case of the person who need to be judged for what he is and stopped in his tracks. Neimoller refused to judge. Neimoller refused to stand up to and fight the most transparent evil of his time. And he suffered the consequences, as did we all, especially England who also refused to judge Hitler and suffered devastating consequences.
“The reason that evil triumphs is that good men do nothing.”
And they do nothing because they are afraid to judge. And because they are afraid to judge, they did “bring it upon themselves.”
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
If you were talking a different context that’s fine. My point was that just because you know of a sin that you can inform a fellow Catholic of, when they are angry or hurting sometimes Keeping Your Mouth Shut is the best strategy rather than trying to talk them out of their anger by telling them they need to get over it.
If you have a friend, for example, who is bummed out because he just got a speeding ticket, and says, “man I’m so bummed. I got a speeding ticket today and now I have to find the money to pay it.” Do you think it is your Solemn Duty and Obligation to tell him, “well you deserved it for speeding,” or “oh well, that’s what you get,” or, “you should have known they’d catch you sooner or later.” This is exactly what I was talking about. Your example below is like from out of this air or something, I guess, unless you are getting me mixed up with someone else.
You’re leaving me with a blank as to what you are trying to explain to me. There are several conversational threads intertwined in this one thread, so perhaps you didn’t see the part where I thought we agreed the word “judge” has several significantly different meanings, that when mixed and match make absurd statements.
Nobody is saying we should stand around and watch evil and not pitch in. What I am saying is we are not to judge their hearts. Does anybody think we really should? And this “judge behavior and not the person” we’ve been through too.
Now, we who think it’s our Solemn Duty to judge can pontificate to me about how we should interpret these passages by Christ in a sufficiently relativistic way that we dare go around saying we have a “duty” to judge each other:
Jesus:
And yet we are saying that we as Christians have a “duty” to judge. We bait and switch the meaning of “judge” within the same context, just to come up with pontificating words that justify our setting aside the sound teachings of Our Lord, unless someone can tell in which of those verses above, Christ really meant any of the below:
When He said, “stop judging” did He really mean “judge when you feel like you think you should or are particularly angry or offended?”
When He said, “stop condemning” did He really mean, “condemn in your heart and respond in anger to your brother?”
When He said He knows how to, and has the authority to, make a right judgment and we don’t, and that He chooses not to judge. Does that really mean that since He isn’t getting the job done we had better do it for him?
When we see someone who knows what Christ has commanded and doesn’t do the word, Christ doesn’t condemn him. Again, since Christ doesn’t seem to want to get the job done, I guess we’ll have to because somebody has to condemn misbehavior, right?
When somebody doesn’t know the difference between taking action to prevent evil and destruction, and judging another’s soul, then that person still has a lot to grasp about Christ’s teachings. To me, trying to use worldly explanations of why we “must” judge, either uses the word “judge” in a way unlike Christ meant and is therefore a straw man argument, or it is a direct affront to our Savior and His Teachings and exalts ourselves above Christ since we obstinately will to trump His decisions not to judge, and in fact insist that others too judge as we do.
Alan
How can I be using a straw man argument? I set up the context in the first place, you asked a question about it, and I reiterated and clarified (I thought) the context. Your comment was about something I had said in a specific context.
If you were talking a different context that’s fine. My point was that just because you know of a sin that you can inform a fellow Catholic of, when they are angry or hurting sometimes Keeping Your Mouth Shut is the best strategy rather than trying to talk them out of their anger by telling them they need to get over it.
If you have a friend, for example, who is bummed out because he just got a speeding ticket, and says, “man I’m so bummed. I got a speeding ticket today and now I have to find the money to pay it.” Do you think it is your Solemn Duty and Obligation to tell him, “well you deserved it for speeding,” or “oh well, that’s what you get,” or, “you should have known they’d catch you sooner or later.” This is exactly what I was talking about. Your example below is like from out of this air or something, I guess, unless you are getting me mixed up with someone else.
What does any of this have to do with judging hearts? They are not afraid to judge, they’re afraid to act or they are each too exclusive of their own kind.
You’re leaving me with a blank as to what you are trying to explain to me. There are several conversational threads intertwined in this one thread, so perhaps you didn’t see the part where I thought we agreed the word “judge” has several significantly different meanings, that when mixed and match make absurd statements.
Nobody is saying we should stand around and watch evil and not pitch in. What I am saying is we are not to judge their hearts. Does anybody think we really should? And this “judge behavior and not the person” we’ve been through too.
Now, we who think it’s our Solemn Duty to judge can pontificate to me about how we should interpret these passages by Christ in a sufficiently relativistic way that we dare go around saying we have a “duty” to judge each other:
So let’s see. Christ said, “stop judging.” He said, “stop condemning.” He said He could judge, but chooses not to even though He knows the truth better than us, and can make a right judgment. And if anyone hears the words of Christ and does not obey them, Christ does not condemn them.
And yet we are saying that we as Christians have a “duty” to judge. We bait and switch the meaning of “judge” within the same context, just to come up with pontificating words that justify our setting aside the sound teachings of Our Lord, unless someone can tell in which of those verses above, Christ really meant any of the below:
When He said, “stop judging” did He really mean “judge when you feel like you think you should or are particularly angry or offended?”
When He said, “stop condemning” did He really mean, “condemn in your heart and respond in anger to your brother?”
When He said He knows how to, and has the authority to, make a right judgment and we don’t, and that He chooses not to judge. Does that really mean that since He isn’t getting the job done we had better do it for him?
When we see someone who knows what Christ has commanded and doesn’t do the word, Christ doesn’t condemn him. Again, since Christ doesn’t seem to want to get the job done, I guess we’ll have to because somebody has to condemn misbehavior, right?
When somebody doesn’t know the difference between taking action to prevent evil and destruction, and judging another’s soul, then that person still has a lot to grasp about Christ’s teachings. To me, trying to use worldly explanations of why we “must” judge, either uses the word “judge” in a way unlike Christ meant and is therefore a straw man argument, or it is a direct affront to our Savior and His Teachings and exalts ourselves above Christ since we obstinately will to trump His decisions not to judge, and in fact insist that others too judge as we do.
Alan
F
francisca
Guest
This has been an interesting thread, but I just can’t read all postings. So I would just comment on one thing :
Gilbert Keith:
There is no dichotomy in judging the sin and love the sinners.
“Good” and “evil” are separated by Jesus’s Cross. It means God’s Love judge everything.
The fist thing God did in creation is to separate “light” from “darkness”. God did not create darkness, so God has nothing to do with evil nor condemnations (this we know after Jesus). Rather, God’s goodness condemns evil automatically. Existance condemns nothingness just as God create light and separate it from “what God did not create”.
So in real life, we do not condemn (judge) because we expect God’s mercy, because we believe in it. On the opposite scenario, we condemn, because we expect punishments.
When we are angry, that’s because we have “a case” of the law. Somebody must have tresspassed our teritory, or maybe we have broken a law ourselves. In both ways, the law comes alive because of somebody’s/ people’s tresspasses.
Anger in itself is not sin. For example a mother got angry to her son because he failed exam. The reason was because she sensed “his irresponsibility” and therefore she must “spoke”. The father, however, was also angry, but the reason that he was is because he feared that his son would not be able to become a “successful doctor” as he was. Now, both anger, although looks similar, but actually, one anger is more righteous than the other.
Love is the reason that an action is righteous, even if it looks like anger. Because all bad things are judged in the pressence of goodness. But goodness doesn’t judge nor condemns.
As for the world, there will always be laws, judgement, punishments, and condemnations in the world, so long people still sin. But when we stop sinning, no law can judge us, nor others can. Yet it does not mean people will stop judge us. It means, we are in peace with God (and ourselves) even as our body is in trial (others still judge us, but we are in peace because we are innocent).
So… speak up or not to speak up when tres passes happens ? I would say, just believe in the Spirit of God’s Love in us, and let Him lead the way.
If somebody slap us one time (while we are innocent), we can rightfully slap him one time, and still be righteous according to the law. This is better than being unrighteous altogether.
Yet, when Jesus comes, he teach us to be righteous according to faith. When somebody slap me, I will not slap him back because of Jesus’s Cross. We are forgiven, therefore bound to forgive.
Surely in the topic of judgemental, forgiveness is the next topic. And it is not easy. All kinds of law breaking business will lead to tears. But for those who hang on Jesus’s Cross, they hope in His salvation, to be saved from those tears and gain God’s Joy again not according to their own strength but according to God’s.
Gilbert Keith:
Yes, we are supposed to love, pray and being humble. For in doing so, others would see us and therefore are judged by love, prayerfulness, and humility in us. But it is not us to judge them.
There is no dichotomy in judging the sin and love the sinners.
“Good” and “evil” are separated by Jesus’s Cross. It means God’s Love judge everything.
The fist thing God did in creation is to separate “light” from “darkness”. God did not create darkness, so God has nothing to do with evil nor condemnations (this we know after Jesus). Rather, God’s goodness condemns evil automatically. Existance condemns nothingness just as God create light and separate it from “what God did not create”.
So in real life, we do not condemn (judge) because we expect God’s mercy, because we believe in it. On the opposite scenario, we condemn, because we expect punishments.
When we are angry, that’s because we have “a case” of the law. Somebody must have tresspassed our teritory, or maybe we have broken a law ourselves. In both ways, the law comes alive because of somebody’s/ people’s tresspasses.
Anger in itself is not sin. For example a mother got angry to her son because he failed exam. The reason was because she sensed “his irresponsibility” and therefore she must “spoke”. The father, however, was also angry, but the reason that he was is because he feared that his son would not be able to become a “successful doctor” as he was. Now, both anger, although looks similar, but actually, one anger is more righteous than the other.
Love is the reason that an action is righteous, even if it looks like anger. Because all bad things are judged in the pressence of goodness. But goodness doesn’t judge nor condemns.
As for the world, there will always be laws, judgement, punishments, and condemnations in the world, so long people still sin. But when we stop sinning, no law can judge us, nor others can. Yet it does not mean people will stop judge us. It means, we are in peace with God (and ourselves) even as our body is in trial (others still judge us, but we are in peace because we are innocent).
So… speak up or not to speak up when tres passes happens ? I would say, just believe in the Spirit of God’s Love in us, and let Him lead the way.
If somebody slap us one time (while we are innocent), we can rightfully slap him one time, and still be righteous according to the law. This is better than being unrighteous altogether.
Yet, when Jesus comes, he teach us to be righteous according to faith. When somebody slap me, I will not slap him back because of Jesus’s Cross. We are forgiven, therefore bound to forgive.
Surely in the topic of judgemental, forgiveness is the next topic. And it is not easy. All kinds of law breaking business will lead to tears. But for those who hang on Jesus’s Cross, they hope in His salvation, to be saved from those tears and gain God’s Joy again not according to their own strength but according to God’s.
C
contemplative
Guest
CHAPTER XX.
Of the clause “Thy will be done.”
THE third petition is that of sons: “Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth.” There can now be no grander prayer than to wish that earthly things may be made equal with things heavenly: for what else is it to say “Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth,” than to ask that men may be like angels and that as God’s will is ever fulfilled by them in heaven, so also all those who are on earth may do not their own but His will? This too no one could say from the heart but only one who believed that God disposes for our good all things which are seen, whether fortunate or unfortunate, and that He is more careful and provident for our good and salvation than we ourselves are for ourselves. Or at any rate it may be taken in this way: The will of God is the salvation of all men, according to these words of the blessed Paul: “Who willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Of which will also the prophet Isaiah says in the Person of God the Father: “And all Thy will shall be done.” When we say then “Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth,” we pray in other words for this; viz., that as those who are in heaven, so also may all those who dwell on earth be saved, O Father, by the knowledge of Thee.
CHAPTER XXII.
Of the clause: “Forgive us our debts, etc.”
“AND forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.” O unspeakable mercy of God, which has not only given us a form of prayer and taught us a system of life acceptable to Him, and by the requirements of the form given, in which He charged us always to pray, has torn up the roots of both anger and sorrow, but also gives to those who pray an opportunity and reveals to them a way by which they may move a merciful and kindly judgment of God to be pronounced over them and which somehow gives us a power by which we can moderate the sentence of our Judge, drawing Him to forgive our offences by the example of our forgiveness: when we say to Him: “Forgive us as we also forgive.” And so without anxiety and in confidence from this prayer a man may ask for pardon of his own offences, if he has been forgiving towards his own debtors, and not towards
those of his Lord. For some of us, which is very bad, are inclined to show ourselves calm and most merciful in regard to those things which are done to God’s detriment, however great the crimes may be, but to be found most hard and inexorable exactors of debts to ourselves even in the case of the most trifling wrongs. Whoever then does not from his heart forgive his brother who has offended him, by this prayer calls down upon himself not forgiveness but condemnation, and by his own profession asks that he himself may be judged more severely, saying: Forgive me as I also have forgiven. And if he is repaid according to his own request, what else will follow but that he will be punished after his own example with implacable wrath and a sentence that cannot be remitted? And so if we want to be judged mercifully, we ought also to be merciful towards those who have
sinned against us. For only so much will be remitted to us, as we have remitted to those who have injured us however spitefully. And some dreading this, when this prayer is chanted by all the people in church, silently omit this clause, for fear lest they may seem by their own utterance to bind themselves rather than to excuse themselves, as they do not understand that it is in vain that they try to offer these quibbles to the Judge of all men, who has willed to show us beforehand how He will judge His suppliants. For as He does not wish to be found harsh and inexorable towards them, He has marked out the manner of His judgment, that just as we desire to be judged by Him, so we should also judge our brethren, if they have wronged us in anything, for "he shall have judgment
without mercy who hath shown no mercy."
Conferences by John Cassian
Of the clause “Thy will be done.”
THE third petition is that of sons: “Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth.” There can now be no grander prayer than to wish that earthly things may be made equal with things heavenly: for what else is it to say “Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth,” than to ask that men may be like angels and that as God’s will is ever fulfilled by them in heaven, so also all those who are on earth may do not their own but His will? This too no one could say from the heart but only one who believed that God disposes for our good all things which are seen, whether fortunate or unfortunate, and that He is more careful and provident for our good and salvation than we ourselves are for ourselves. Or at any rate it may be taken in this way: The will of God is the salvation of all men, according to these words of the blessed Paul: “Who willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Of which will also the prophet Isaiah says in the Person of God the Father: “And all Thy will shall be done.” When we say then “Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth,” we pray in other words for this; viz., that as those who are in heaven, so also may all those who dwell on earth be saved, O Father, by the knowledge of Thee.
CHAPTER XXII.
Of the clause: “Forgive us our debts, etc.”
“AND forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.” O unspeakable mercy of God, which has not only given us a form of prayer and taught us a system of life acceptable to Him, and by the requirements of the form given, in which He charged us always to pray, has torn up the roots of both anger and sorrow, but also gives to those who pray an opportunity and reveals to them a way by which they may move a merciful and kindly judgment of God to be pronounced over them and which somehow gives us a power by which we can moderate the sentence of our Judge, drawing Him to forgive our offences by the example of our forgiveness: when we say to Him: “Forgive us as we also forgive.” And so without anxiety and in confidence from this prayer a man may ask for pardon of his own offences, if he has been forgiving towards his own debtors, and not towards
those of his Lord. For some of us, which is very bad, are inclined to show ourselves calm and most merciful in regard to those things which are done to God’s detriment, however great the crimes may be, but to be found most hard and inexorable exactors of debts to ourselves even in the case of the most trifling wrongs. Whoever then does not from his heart forgive his brother who has offended him, by this prayer calls down upon himself not forgiveness but condemnation, and by his own profession asks that he himself may be judged more severely, saying: Forgive me as I also have forgiven. And if he is repaid according to his own request, what else will follow but that he will be punished after his own example with implacable wrath and a sentence that cannot be remitted? And so if we want to be judged mercifully, we ought also to be merciful towards those who have
sinned against us. For only so much will be remitted to us, as we have remitted to those who have injured us however spitefully. And some dreading this, when this prayer is chanted by all the people in church, silently omit this clause, for fear lest they may seem by their own utterance to bind themselves rather than to excuse themselves, as they do not understand that it is in vain that they try to offer these quibbles to the Judge of all men, who has willed to show us beforehand how He will judge His suppliants. For as He does not wish to be found harsh and inexorable towards them, He has marked out the manner of His judgment, that just as we desire to be judged by Him, so we should also judge our brethren, if they have wronged us in anything, for "he shall have judgment
without mercy who hath shown no mercy."
Conferences by John Cassian
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I think that’s a fascinating point. Thank you.
Alan
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
ALAN
I repeat the question that started this thread:
It is said that the reason evil triumphs is that good men and women do or say nothing. And finally it is too late when outrage is no longer even possible.
We live in a sick world. It is getting sicker. Are we supposed to be passive and shut up?
Or are we supposed to judge the actions of others to be evil and oppose them in the most Christian way possible and not resort to stoning them to death, which seems to be the context in which Jesus opposed judgment?
I repeat the question that started this thread:
It is said that the reason evil triumphs is that good men and women do or say nothing. And finally it is too late when outrage is no longer even possible.
We live in a sick world. It is getting sicker. Are we supposed to be passive and shut up?
Or are we supposed to judge the actions of others to be evil and oppose them in the most Christian way possible and not resort to stoning them to death, which seems to be the context in which Jesus opposed judgment?
- Status