Love one another

[NoelFitz]

PluniaZ

not all popes were men of sanctity, some were not admirable.

But recent popes have been excellent, of the last three one was a philosopher, one a theologian and one a pastor. We are fortunate.

 

[NoelFitz]

Tantum Ergo

Your contributions are very sound and Catholic and it is with deference that I query you.

You wrote “Noel, with respect, you have it wrong. Only if a person clearly and knowingly sins mortally and does not ever repent would that person have condemned himself or herself to hell for eternity”. You say I have it wrong, not unusual for me, but I hope it is not culpable ignorance. I learned in school that for mortal sin repentance is not enough, one must confess the sin in confession (except perhaps if one has perfect contrition, which is almost impossible to have).

The case I present is the teenager who stays out late. He does not say he will only obey what he chooses, no more than the Catholic missing mass says he will not obey.

In Ireland in some parishes about 2% of Catholics attend mass, and there is rarely many under 60 at mass.

Fundamentally we must all admit we are sinners and hope for God’s mercy and love.

 

[NoelFitz]

I am somewhat surprised that my plea for unity among Catholics met with such little support and with so much disagreement. I thought that Catholics of good will would have supported a plea for Catholics to be of one mind.

However the first reply to me was by Tantum Ergo, and it was the most challenging.

First of all universalism is mentioned. This is of great interest, but is not the main focus of this thread. At the present time ideas tending towards universalism are prominent in the Church. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and St J P II express views concerning universal salvation. Catholics can hope that all will be saved.

Catholics also agree that the fundamental criterion of morality is conscience. Blessed John Henry Newman, St Thomas Aquinas and the consistent teaching of the Church stresses the primacy of conscience.

You disagree with ‘just love and accept each other as you are’. St Augustine did claim one should “love and do what you like”. The principal requirement for the Catholic is to love. The same commandment is the basis of all Christianity and Judaism.

*Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with your whole heart, and with your whole being, and with your whole strength. Take to heart these words which I command you today. Keep repeating them to your children. Recite them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. (Deut. 6:4-7 NAB)
*

You mention ‘fellowship’, which is vital for Catholics, so again may I plead, along with St Paul, for unity and love among Catholics?

*God is faithful, and by him you were called to fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.(1 Cor. 1:9-10 NAB)
*

 

[davidv]

I am somewhat surprised that my plea for unity among Catholics met with such little support and with so much disagreement. I thought that Catholics of good will would have supported a plea for Catholics to be of one mind.

However the first reply to me was by Tantum Ergo, and it was the most challenging.

First of all universalism is mentioned. This is of great interest, but is not the main focus of this thread. At the present time ideas tending towards universalism are prominent in the Church. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and St J P II express views concerning universal salvation. Catholics can hope that all will be saved.

Catholics also agree that the fundamental criterion of morality is conscience. Blessed John Henry Newman, St Thomas Aquinas and the consistent teaching of the Church stresses the primacy of conscience.

You disagree with ‘just love and accept each other as you are’. St Augustine did claim one should “love and do what you like”. The principal requirement for the Catholic is to love. The same commandment is the basis of all Christianity and Judaism.

*Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with your whole heart, and with your whole being, and with your whole strength. Take to heart these words which I command you today. Keep repeating them to your children. Recite them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. (Deut. 6:4-7 NAB)
*

You mention ‘fellowship’, which is vital for Catholics, so again may I plead, along with St Paul, for unity and love among Catholics?

*God is faithful, and by him you were called to fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.(1 Cor. 1:9-10 NAB)
*

Allowing disagreement with the truth cannot foster unity. Confirming someone in their sin is not loving.

 

[e_c]

** e_c #5**

Thank you for your post.

Three points concern me:

1. I am not considering nondenominationalism, as I am concerned with issues within the Roman Catholic Church.
2. There are disagreements in the Church about basic moral principles. Often it seems the majority of Catholics accept contraception.
3. We do not work out our salvation, Jesus saves. Phil2:12 is followed by
   *For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. (Phil. 2:13 NAB) *

Hi Noel,

1. It seems you are very much looking for a kind of nondemoninational Catholicism - a contradiction of terms.
2. Our Lord did not ask the Apostles to vote on doctrine - in fact, He asked, “Will you leave me too?” (see John 6)… The Holy Spirit does not ask us to vote on doctrine today. It is a similar question put to us all… “This is my doctrine - will you leave me?”
3. Yes - we do. A thorough reading of Trent and Second Orange will explain the doctrine clearly enough. This is not Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian.

Peace,
-e_c

 

[NoelFitz]

e_c

Thank you for your contributions.

I think we differ little, but how could it be otherwise as we are both Catholic, please look at my signature.

Our church is very much a both/and church, while reformed Christians are more either/or.

You wrote ‘1. It seems you are very much looking for a kind of nondemoninational Catholicism - a contradiction of terms’. I agree nondemoninational Catholicism is a contradiction, so I do not believe in it. But Catholics can differ. In good faith some can support Mr Trump, while others do not.

You also wrote ‘2. Our Lord did not ask the Apostles to vote on doctrine - in fact, He asked, “Will you leave me too?” (see John 6)… The Holy Spirit does not ask us to vote on doctrine today. It is a similar question put to us all… “This is my doctrine - will you leave me?”’. The Holy Spirit asks Cardinals to vote for a pope, The Church is not against elections and democracy. In the 19th century under Pius IX it has been claimed the Church was against democracy, based in large part on the Syllabus of Errors. In Vat II there were votes on issues, and all the participants did not agree. There is a collegiate nature in the Church. Thus in Church Councils voting has been used on doctrinal issues (see catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/VaticanCouncil2.htm).

Finally you wrote ‘3. Yes - we do. A thorough reading of Trent and Second Orange will explain the doctrine clearly enough. This is not Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian.’
There was a long and detailed discussion about whether we save ourselves. The consensus seemed to be that it is again both/and. Jesus is our sole saviour, but our cooperation is needed.

I quote from the WWW ‘“God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us,” according to St. Augustine (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1847).’

 

[e_c]

e_c

Thank you for your contributions.

I think we differ little, but how could it be otherwise as we are both Catholic, please look at my signature.

Our church is very much a both/and church, while reformed Christians are more either/or.

You wrote ‘1. It seems you are very much looking for a kind of nondemoninational Catholicism - a contradiction of terms’. I agree nondemoninational Catholicism is a contradiction, so I do not believe in it. But Catholics can differ. In good faith some can support Mr Trump, while others do not.

You also wrote ‘2. Our Lord did not ask the Apostles to vote on doctrine - in fact, He asked, “Will you leave me too?” (see John 6)… The Holy Spirit does not ask us to vote on doctrine today. It is a similar question put to us all… “This is my doctrine - will you leave me?”’. The Holy Spirit asks Cardinals to vote for a pope, The Church is not against elections and democracy. In the 19th century under Pius IX it has been claimed the Church was against democracy, based in large part on the Syllabus of Errors. In Vat II there were votes on issues, and all the participants did not agree. There is a collegiate nature in the Church. Thus in Church Councils voting has been used on doctrinal issues (see catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/VaticanCouncil2.htm).

Hi Noel,

1 - Then there are certain non-negotiable items. Some of the things you seem to be dismissing as trivial are in fact of grave importance and teach us how to do what you want us to do - “love one another” (and God).

2 - Dogmatic councils (which VII was not, by its own explicit choice) are to settle disputes about doctrines that are unclear and/or unrefined to address modern problems. Thus, the old faith is simply explained and articulated more fully. There is no introduction of new faith the way there is the introduction of a new elected representative. It is not a good analogy, and seeing as the pope is the sole arbiter of what a council finally says, the democratic element falls away almost entirely.

 

[NoelFitz]

E_c

The pope, in general, is not the sole arbiter in matters of believe. The Church, the people of God, is the mystical body of Christ built on the apostles and their successors. The pope is infallible, as is the Church, only in matters of faith and morals to be held by all the faithful. Infallibility is very limited.

I do really think our apparent disagreements are slight. I believe we are here to love God and neighbor. I also believe we are sinners standing in need of God’s love and mercy. Our salvation is not guaranteed, but we can hope. I do not think many Catholics would disagree with this.

 

[e_c]

E_c

The pope, in general, is not the sole arbiter in matters of believe. The Church, the people of God, is the mystical body of Christ built on the apostles and their successors. The pope is infallible, as is the Church, only in matters of faith and morals to be held by all the faithful. Infallibility is very limited.

Yes - and this apparently runs up against some things you have put forward in this thread.

 

[e_c]

IWantGod

You wrote

• A Morally evolving infallible Church doesn’t really work.*

Blessed John Henry Newman wrote of the development of Christian Doctrine. Things do change. Both doctrine and moral values change with time.

In the moral field we no longer believe in slavery, burning of heretics and witches, trial by ordeal, torture, the sinfulness of banks charging interest, the subjection of wives and the beating of children.

Just noticed this post.

I’ve read Newman on the topic - studied “the 7 notes” under a very reputable systemitician in Rome - and I can say these issues are not at all equivalent with the original examples of “Sunday Mass attendance” and “contraception.”

There has not been a development of doctrine with regard to slavery. There are different kinds of slavery (some commanded generically by God, for example, Who does not command immoral legislation) and different situations of slaves (such as those who perhaps are not being enslaved justly but have no chance of overthrowing their masters).

Executing heretics is not done presently - but we still very much believe in heresy (and witches, by the way, of which there is a spectrum) and also in the goodness of capital punishment (also commanded through the Law by God), depending on the circumstances.

Etc.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I also believe we are sinners standing in need of God’s love and mercy. Our salvation is not guaranteed, but we can hope. I do not think many Catholics would disagree with this.

It sometimes sounds as if our Lord only died for Catholic sinners, but it makes more sense that Christ died for everyone of us.

I believe we are here to love God and neighbor.

If Christ died for all of us, it must mean that he loves everyone as he loves himself. We are commanded to do likewise.

If we make judgements about other people, are we ignoring the plank in our own eye?

 

[NoelFitz]

Eric Hyom
From your post I see there are solid views on the Third Planet.

*The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made. (Ps. 145:9 NRS)

For everything created by God is good, (1 Tim. 4:4a NRS)
*

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Eric Hyom
From your post I see there are solid views on the Third Planet.

*The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made. (Ps. 145:9 NRS)

For everything created by God is good, (1 Tim. 4:4a NRS)
*

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he could do nothing greater than the greatest commandments. But how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself? Those who condemned him to death and nailed him to the cross. We know Jesus prayed on the cross, ‘forgive them Father’

The love and forgiveness of our Lord seems extreme and beyond our understanding. Could Jesus really look on our non Catholic friends as being worse than the soldiers who nailed him to the cross?