Passion of the Christ

[Shiann]

Ediana:

Felicity, thanks much for your kind words.
I’m not questioning why God loves me at all. I realize I can know part of that from my own experiences with my 2 daughters.

This is great. Many people don’t get that part either.

I’m talking about the Passion, and should I feel guilty that it happened?

Why should you feel guilty that it happened? You should not feel guilty but GRATEFUL.

If you are in dire straits, and a friend or relative comes to your aid unbidden, because they see your struggle and wish to lighten your load- do you feel GUILTY or GRATEFUL for their help?

He took the pain of rejection of the first man and woman- and still loved them. He punished them, but still loved them. He wanted them to be with him in “Paradise” again, along with all their children- down to you and me.

So he sent his son to endure the final punishment that post-Adam man was unable to overcome- Death.

I do not believe God wants us to carry around guilt because of the Passion. I believe he wants us to realize the extent he would go to, to bring us back to his fold realize the enormity of it and be Grateful- not Guilty.

The whole thing was to remove GUILT so we could join with God again… why would he want us to feel guilt after?

I do not believe the feeling one gets from realizing the depth of the sacrifice that a friend has made for us on our behalf in our time of need is guilt. That emotion which fills us with love and appreciation for that person- is not guilt.

Some Protestants seem to revel in that Act as a way to “convict” people of their sin. I can be grateful that God would go to lengths to provide for me…but I can’t logically understand how it is my fault that Christ died–being that (and the jury’s still out in my mind) most everyone has and will sin. And that’s despite positions I’ve heard that ‘people can be sinless’.

You aren’t at fault that Christ died- in the sense you didn’t make the original bad choice- that fault belongs to Adam and Eve. But part of the punishment Adam got was the immediate and extended seperation from God and from Paradise which included his kin. I guess I don’t really see that as a punishment in the penal sense of the word, but more in the consequence sense of punishment.

i.e. If I choose to drive drunk with my entire family in the car, and I hit a tree and kill them all except for me, I have two punishments. A penal one- I’m going to jail for their deaths. And a consequence one. I will never have my family again- I will personally carry around the guilt for that. But the “punishment” doesn’t stop there. The friends and family of the people killed would feel pain and sadness, and the “consequence punishment” of my personal actions.

But imagine God suddenly came to earth and brought back my family whom I had killed in the crash. The “consequence punishment” would be removed. I would still be responsible for the “penal punishment” of my actions- that is, I would still be responsible for the original act to begin with, but God ‘saved’ my friends and family from the pain and seperation from the ones I had killed.

If a dog can’t fly, we do not blame the animal for that. If a person cannot be sinless, are we to blame the person for not being perfect and have them study the Passion and feel a huge sense of guilt, a la “Jesus died because of your sins”.

Of course we do not knowingly lay penal punishment on someone who doesn’t deserve it. But again, there is the aspect of a “residual consequence punishment”. Jesus died to save you from the penal consequence of Original Sin and any mortal sin where you turn your back on God’s Love.

You are still responsible for the ‘eternal penal punishment’ aspects of all sins you choose to commit.

I might not be making a very good analogy here- with the whole drunk driver thing. The basic premise here is that Jesus died so that any sins you have will not affect your ability to get to Heaven and be with God, just because Adam made one stupid choice some millenia ago.

God agrees with you! The Passion happened because God agrees with you! He wants you to join with him, not feel the aspect of ‘consequence punishment’ of the punishment that Adam and Eve brought on themselves.

(My Faith tells me this, I do not presume to know the mind of God.)

Are you catching my drift? I’m starting to wonder if Catholics really see the Passion that way…more and more it just seems like God had a contingency plan (the cross) due to the fact of Original Sin.

I do understand what you mean. I hope I was clear in my response.

 

[Shiann]

st_felicity:

Well–I just flat out disagree that there were any “sinless” saints–they all struggled toward sinlessness, but the only two who achieved it were Jesus and Mary. Both had an advantage over us regular folks–Jesus being God, and Mary, free from the stain of Original Sin.

If you mean that people other than Mary and Jesus cannot truly be sinless because they had the stain of Original Sin at some point in their lives- I can see your point.

But we are clean as snow after Sacramental Baptism, and because it is possible to live sinless lives after, I believe it is possible. I darenot speculate that another has died with sin on their soul- but I have Faith that if God calls us to live sinless- it is possible!

To your point about being “guilty” of the Passion: I believe we are guilty in the sense that we participate in Original Sin.

I think this is Eugene’s point- she did NOT actively participate in turning our back on God in the Garden of Eden. Eugene is wondering why it seems that he/she must feel anything toward God’s active participation in fixing that which they had no hand in breaking.

I mean, God gave us (mankind) choice from the beginning. You may eat of any fruit except this one…(choice to do as God says or not).

True.

When our First Parents chose to disobey, they set into motion a warping of our nature and each time we sin in the least, a stray unchairitable thought for example, we are participating in that OS by virtue of the fact that it is born out of our warped human nature.

Maybe I am just not understanding your point here completely but I have a thought or two when I read this.

Our thoughts aren’t our sins- our actions are. If we have unclean thoughts, and do not act on them- we are still sinless. If those thoughts continue, and we make changes in our lifestyle to help keep those thoughts from our mind, we are avoiding sin. This is what God has asked us to do, and we are obeying.

Secondly, I agree that we have affects of OS which are a part of the “consequences” of Adam and Eve’s direct actions. These affects make it very difficult to remain sinless.

Undoubtedly God expected this to happen, since he is Omnipresent, so he also knew from the beginning His creation was going to need the Redeemer–It was part of the plan–it’s unfair to hold God responsible for planning our failings, He didn’t set us up for failure, but he knew we would fail.

This is one of those aspects of Catholicism which is very difficult to get your mind around. How can God see something bad that will happen, and still refrain from interfering. It all boils down to choice. He wants us to choose Him- starting with Adam and Eve. As you said, he knew they wouldn’t, but he knew what their rejection would mean to the rest of humanity- and wanted to offer redemption for those who could earn it!

He gave us the opportunity for perfection and knew we would fall, but in His mercy, he had a plan for redemption–ergo, our love for him could truly be our “choice”. Not a “contingency plan”–part of the whole plan–Jesus WAS and IS, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit WAS and IS–timeless and eternal.

Yes, exactly.

As for Mary being conceived without OS: She got to make that original choice again all throughout her life and chose to ALWAYS obey God–she is the new Eve so that our warped human nature can be redeemed to through Christ’s Passion.

The part of our broken nature that Jesus fixed through the Passion was Death. He made it possible for people to choose God again, and get the full benefit of being with Him in Paradise. Even those who came before Jesus, who deserved Heaven, had to wait until Jesus opened the Gates for them.

Jesus accomplished the Passion, but we are still left with, what you refer to as, our broken nature. That is, those consequences that were revealed after Adam chose to reject God. But even with that broken nature- the tendency to sin- we can remain sinless after our baptism! That is an example of God truly working with someone in perfect harmony here on earth! Who those people are, are not important. But to not believe that they could exist, is almost a rejection of God’s power over sin.

So we are guilty in a sense of the Passion, but we should not feel guilty about it. It’s a gift given us out of mercy and love.

I’ll take a step toward you, and agree with you on this at face value.

Good post.

 

[st_felicity]

Shiann:

If you mean that people other than Mary and Jesus cannot truly be sinless because they had the stain of Original Sin at some point in their lives- I can see your point.

But we are clean as snow after Sacramental Baptism, and because it is possible to live sinless lives after, I believe it is possible. I darenot speculate that another has died with sin on their soul- but I have Faith that if God calls us to live sinless- it is possible!

**Yes–I did mean that all were born w/OS, and yes, I am aware that baptism completely cleanses us from all sin, but I will speculate that even those great saints who were baptised late in life did not remain sinless until their last breath unless they drew that breath while their hair was still wet. OK–it IS possible, but call my cynical, I doubt it–but again, I am just speculating. We develop habits in our lives and though the temporal and eternal consequences for sin are eradicated at baptism, habits remain. And since I also disagree with the following…

Shiann:

Our thoughts aren’t our sins- our actions are. If we have unclean thoughts, and do not act on them- we are still sinless.

I believe it would be most difficult. Vanity, ungratefulness, anger, jealosy, all are sins of thought. Matt. 5:22 “…whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement…” Why do we say in the Confiter, “I have sinned…in my thoughts and in my words…in what I have failed to do…” if it’s not true that one can sin in thought?

Shiann:

I think this is Eugene’s point- she did NOT actively participate in turning our back on God in the Garden of Eden. Eugene is wondering why it seems that he/she must feel anything toward God’s active participation in fixing that which they had no hand in breaking.

OK–I see that, but even so, I don’t think he’s claiming he could have done it better than our first parents. Personally, I would rather suffer the consequenses of OS through my membership in the earthy family rather than be the one who broke with God in the first place. That is one HUGE responsibility! I know “I” couldn’t have remained sinless–even with a perfect human nature–and that is why I am so thankful for Our Lady. She had the fortitude that I lack.

Shiann:

Secondly, I agree that we have affects of OS which are a part of the “consequences” of Adam and Eve’s direct actions. These affects make it very difficult to remain sinless.

I don’t know exactly what A & E’s exact first sin was, (I believe the tree of knowledge is metaphorical language) but as I said, I can’t convict them for something I couldn’t do. Besides, Satan hates holiness–he works very hard to trip up the most holy–he even went after Jesus! It’s not only our nature warped by sin, we are also under attack from the father of lies! “Difficult” to remain sinless? I say damned near impossible! (note the equivocation “near” impossible)

Shiann:

This is one of those aspects of Catholicism which is very difficult to get your mind around. How can God see something bad that will happen, and still refrain from interfering. It all boils down to choice. He wants us to choose Him- starting with Adam and Eve. As you said, he knew they wouldn’t, but he knew what their rejection would mean to the rest of humanity- and wanted to offer redemption for those who could earn it!

I believe that is what I said in my post–except I’d not say “those who could earn it.” It was a gift, and redemption is for those who accept the gift.

Shiann:

The part of our broken nature that Jesus fixed through the Passion was Death.

**No. Death was the consequence, not our nature. Just being a stickler… **

Shiann:

He made it possible for people to choose God again, and get the full benefit of being with Him in Paradise. Even those who came before Jesus, who deserved Heaven, had to wait until Jesus opened the Gates for them.

Yes. Absolutely true.

Shiann:

Jesus accomplished the Passion, but we are still left with, what you refer to as, our broken nature. That is, those consequences that were revealed after Adam chose to reject God. But even with that broken nature- the tendency to sin- we can remain sinless after our baptism! That is an example of God truly working with someone in perfect harmony here on earth! Who those people are, are not important. But to not believe that they could exist, is almost a rejection of God’s power over sin.

I addressed this earlier–possible, not probable. I don’t question God’s power over sin, I’m sure Mary was loaded up on God’s grace and that helped her remain sinless even as she had free will to choose otherwise, I just say she is UNIQUE.

Thanks!

 

[Shiann]

st_felicity:

Yes–I did mean that all were born w/OS, and yes, I am aware that baptism completely cleanses us from all sin, but I *will *speculate that even those great saints who were baptised late in life did not remain sinless until their last breath unless they drew that breath while their hair was still wet. OK–it IS possible, but call my cynical, I doubt it–but again, I am just speculating. We develop habits in our lives and though the temporal and eternal consequences for sin are eradicated at baptism, habits remain. And since I also disagree with the following…

But in your cyncism, you believe it is still possible. This is all I am suggesting. God would not ask it of us, if it weren’t possible. Many sins call us to overcome VERY difficult situations.

This was my comment on sin that you don’t agree with:

Shiann:

Our thoughts aren’t our sins- our actions are. If we have unclean thoughts, and do not act on them- we are still sinless. If those thoughts continue, and we make changes in our lifestyle to help keep those thoughts from our mind, we are avoiding sin. This is what God has asked us to do, and we are obeying.

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding “internal sins”:

Internal Sins

That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not covet”, and from Christ’s rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to “whited sepulchres… full of all filthiness” (Matt. 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they “sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed”. Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:

delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and
desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.

An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice, mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view. An inefficacious desire is one that carries a condition, in such a way that the will is prepared to perform the action in case the condition were verified. When the condition is such as to eliminate all sinfulness from the action, the desire involves no sin: e.g. I would gladly eat meat on Friday, if I had a dispensation; and in general this is the case whenever the action is forbidden by positive law only. **When the action is contrary to natural law and yet is permissible in given circumstances or in a particular state of life, the desire, if it include those circumstances or that state as conditions, is not in itself sinful: ** e.g. I would kill so-and-so if I had to do it in self-defence. Usually, however, such desires are dangerous and therefore to be repressed. If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil, e.g. blasphemy: one cannot without committing sin, have the desire – I would blaspheme God if it were not wrong; the condition is an impossible one and therefore does not affect the desire itself. The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of. Much, however, depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions. The pleasure, e.g. which one may experience in studying the nature of murder or any other crime, in getting clear ideas on the subject, tracing its causes, determining the guilt etc., is not a sin; on the contrary, it is often both necessary and useful. The case is different of course where the pleasure means gratification in the sinful object or action itself. And it is evidently a sin when one boasts of his evil deeds, the more so because of the scandal that is given.

---

So with my whole statement taken into account- that is when a person with unclean thoughts takes steps to cleans the thought from their head or makes changes in his life to avoid those thoughts… There is no sin. The Confetior is taking into account those sins where we are not making changes to our lifestyle to avoid the thoughts.

Continued…

 

[Shiann]

I believe it would be most difficult. Vanity, ungratefulness, anger, jealosy, all are sins of thought. Matt. 5:22 “…whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement…” Why do we say in the Confiter, “I have sinned…in my thoughts and in my words…in what I have failed to do…” if it’s not true that one can sin in thought?

See previous post.

OK–I see that, but even so, I don’t think he’s claiming he could have done it better than our first parents. Personally, I would rather suffer the consequenses of OS through my membership in the earthy family rather than be the one who broke with God in the first place. That is one HUGE responsibility! I know “I” couldn’t have remained sinless–even with a perfect human nature–and that is why I am so thankful for Our Lady. She had the fortitude that I lack.

I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying here. I have a philosophically different opinion.

I don’t know exactly what A & E’s exact first sin was, (I believe the tree of knowledge is metaphorical language) but as I said, I can’t convict them for something I couldn’t do.

We convict people all the time in courts of law for things we couldn’t do ourselves. But I’m not sure this speculation is productive. It happened- whether we could withstand the temptation or not is moot. We are called to withstand temptation in the life we are given.

Besides, Satan hates holiness–he works very hard to trip up the most holy–he even went after Jesus! It’s not only our nature warped by sin, we are also under attack from the father of lies! “Difficult” to remain sinless? I say damned near impossible! (note the equivocation “near” impossible)

Duly noted. I agree. It is damned near impossible. But still possible, and God asks it of us. Which makes it something more worthy of our attentions than almost anything I can think of.

I believe that is what I said in my post–except I’d not say “those who could earn it.” It was a gift, and redemption is for those who accept the gift.

I totally agree. Earn/Accept, the important thing here is that some sort of acknowledgement of the gift must happen before we are bestowed with the Graces from the gift.

No. Death was the consequence, not our nature. Just being a stickler…

“Death” makes us mortal by nature which is the consequence of OS.

I addressed this earlier–possible, not probable. I don’t question God’s power over sin, I’m sure Mary was loaded up on God’s grace and that helped her remain sinless even as she had free will to choose otherwise, I just say she is UNIQUE.

The problem here is that you have no proof to your assertion. God gives us no proof as to whether or not others (other than Mary and Jesus) have been sinless or not after their baptisms- in fact is asks us specifically NOT to speculate. We can only Hope, have Faith, and Love in the name of God.

Theological Virtues

Peace

 

[st_felicity]

Shiann,

RE: the lengthy entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia
You originally stated that:

“Our thoughts aren’t our sins- our actions are. If we have unclean thoughts, and do not act on them- we are still sinless. If those thoughts continue, and we make changes in our lifestyle to help keep those thoughts from our mind, we are avoiding sin. This is what God has asked us to do, and we are obeying.”

The part I highlighted in bold stands as a statement seperate from the second part. In your subsequent post, you seem to drop that assertion. It is that specific assertion with which I took issue.

“So with my whole statement taken into account- that is when a person with unclean thoughts takes steps to cleans the thought from their head or makes changes in his life to avoid those thoughts… There is no sin. The Confetior is taking into account those sins where we are not making changes to our lifestyle to avoid the thoughts.”

Perhaps you saying sinful thoughts are only a sin if we have them and don’t then correct ourselves mentally. If we think awful things, and then think “boy, those were awful things to think, I shouldn’t do that.” The original thought somehow was a “potential sin” that was averted and the person avoided “actual sin” simply by thinking “oh–that was a bad thought”? You can’t mean that. There has to be an originating sin in that process–one that is an actual sin–the subsequent struggle may not include sinfulness, but the originating sin was sin. How can we correct a sin that never existed in the first place?

The encyclopedia entry does not contradict anything I said.

Shiann:

I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying here. I have a philosophically different opinion.

That’s cool.

Shiann:

We convict people all the time in courts of law for things we couldn’t do ourselves. But I’m not sure this speculation is productive. It happened- whether we could withstand the temptation or not is moot. We are called to withstand temptation in the life we are given.

This example does not fit the issue at hand. In very loose language, I’m saying I can’t criticize A&E for NOT being perfect in their obedience to God. Law and morals are two different things. And I don’t think is is a moot point–it was part of God’s plan all along. Because as humans, we have free will, someone somewhere would have fallen from Grace–if it hadn’t have been A&E, it would have been Fred & Ginger–it would have been ME! So from the beginning God planned for our redemption! It is not moot because it IS the plan.

Shiann:

“Death” makes us mortal by nature which is the consequence of OS.

**touche’ **

Shiann:

The problem here is that you have no proof to your assertion. God gives us no proof as to whether or not others (other than Mary and Jesus) have been sinless or not after their baptisms- in fact is asks us specifically NOT to speculate. We can only Hope, have Faith, and Love in the name of God.

Theoretically… I’m not naming names…I’m speculating on the “probability”… Rom. 3:23 “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” 1Jn 1:8 "If we say, ‘We are without sin,’ we deceive ourselves…"

 

[Shiann]

st_felicity:

Shiann,

RE: the lengthy entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia
You originally stated that:

“Our thoughts aren’t our sins- our actions are. If we have unclean thoughts, and do not act on them- we are still sinless. If those thoughts continue, and we make changes in our lifestyle to help keep those thoughts from our mind, we are avoiding sin. This is what God has asked us to do, and we are obeying.”

The part I highlighted in bold stands as a statement seperate from the second part. In your subsequent post, you seem to drop that assertion. It is that specific assertion with which I took issue.

It was never my intention to make the statement two seperate issues. I had hoped I had clarified that by my second, very thorough posting- restating what I believed.

Perhaps you saying sinful thoughts are only a sin if we have them and don’t then correct ourselves mentally. If we think awful things, and then think “boy, those were awful things to think, I shouldn’t do that.” The original thought somehow was a “potential sin” that was averted and the person avoided “actual sin” simply by thinking “oh–that was a bad thought”? You can’t mean that. There has to be an originating sin in that process–one that is an actual sin–the subsequent struggle may not include sinfulness, but the originating sin was sin. How can we correct a sin that never existed in the first place?

This is getting really off topic, but in the hope of clarification, I will briefly attempt to clarify my point of internal sin. We know that a sin requires three things: Knowledge, Grave matter, and Free Will.

It is a funny thing, but many thoughts enter into our minds not of our Free Will. They are spontaneous. Therefore we are not culpable for them.

But there are moments when we may begin to PONDER thoughts with full access to our Free Will. We may purposely call these thoughts up to dwell on them- roll them around in our minds. This is when things start to go south and we can fear for our souls.

If you would like to discuss this further- you might start a new thread. It would be an interesting topic.

The encyclopedia entry does not contradict anything I said.

I never said it did. Nor was I using it to evidence failures in your thoughts. I was merely giving context and a little evidence to my brief statement.

That’s cool.

Ditto

This example does not fit the issue at hand. In very loose language, I’m saying I can’t criticize A&E for NOT being perfect in their obedience to God. Law and morals are two different things. And I don’t think is is a moot point–it was part of God’s plan all along. Because as humans, we have free will, someone somewhere would have fallen from Grace–if it hadn’t have been A&E, it would have been Fred & Ginger–it would have been ME! So from the beginning God planned for our redemption! It is not moot because it IS the plan.

Hmmm. Again, I philisophically disagree with you on two points. One, Morals and Law often coexist in a given judgment, but you are correct religious morals are different than secular law. But speaking specifically to Adam and Eve, you cannot “convict” them because you believe they were place holders (it could have been anyone) in “God’s Great Plan”?

I wholeheartedly disagree. God didn’t create humans to Fall just because they have Free Will. He created them with all the equipment to resist temptation- but with the ability to choose not to resist. Because he is timeless- you are right, he knew A&E SPECIFICALLY were going to fall and had things in place to rectify that for the rest of humanity.

Philisophically speaking- huge differences, but both moot in the fact that either way it could have happened, we have the same outcome. We are faced with daily temptations- and opportunities to turn toward God. That is what is important in speaking of our personal journeys to Heaven.

Theoretically… I’m not naming names…I’m speculating on the “probability”… Rom. 3:23 “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” 1Jn 1:8 “If we say, ‘We are without sin,’ we deceive ourselves…”

Could he be speaking of Original Sin?

Then I’m back to my earlier question, so what if the probability is HUGELY against us- so what? Are we not still called to be sinless?

 

[st_felicity]

Shiann:

This is getting really off topic, …
If you would like to discuss this further- you might start a new thread. It would be an interesting topic.

Not really–I think our exchange has probably gotten to the heart of some of the issues Ediana has brought up. I think it has been valuable. I don’t think there needs to be a whole new thread–Sorry to anyone who thinks we’ve highjacked–I’d have dropped out of the conversation if I thought we veered too far.

Shiann:

It is a funny thing, but many thoughts enter into our minds not of our Free Will. They are spontaneous. Therefore we are not culpable for them.

Ahh…Gotttcha now… Agreed.

Shiann:

Hmmm. Again, I philisophically disagree with you on two points. One, Morals and Law often coexist in a given judgment, but you are correct religious morals are different than secular law. But speaking specifically to Adam and Eve, you cannot “convict” them because you believe they were place holders (it could have been anyone) in “God’s Great Plan”?

I wholeheartedly disagree. God didn’t create humans to Fall just because they have Free Will. He created them with all the equipment to resist temptation- but with the ability to choose not to resist. Because he is timeless- you are right, he knew A&E SPECIFICALLY were going to fall and had things in place to rectify that for the rest of humanity.

Philisophically speaking- huge differences,

Two points…“Philisophically speaking” is really vague, and second, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say, A&E are “placeholders” I again “speculated” for the purpose of expressing God knew mankind would fall, and it didn’t matter who fell first–it was going to happen precicely as a RESULT of free will–NOT God gave us free will SO we would fall. To change that around as you have is to twist what I have said throughout these posts–And I too would “philisophically” disagree.

Shiann:

Could he be speaking of Original Sin?

Could it also be true he is not?

 

[st_felicity]

Shiann–

I thank you for this interesting exchange–our conversation on the matter has helped me explore my faith diligently. You are clearly a devout and charitable person.–I look forward to seeing you around the forum…THANKS.

 

[Shiann]

Two points…“Philisophically speaking” is really vague,

I only mean that I cannot argue with your logic, but I do have a different “impression” from the information I have. It is only a philisophical difference that I see. You are right- it is extremely vague, and truly not that important other than it offers another perspective.

and second, you are putting words in my mouth.

I truly did not mean to do that. This is why I formulated the question. I was offering it back in my own words to see if I was on the right track. I can see I wasn’t.

I did not say, A&E are “placeholders” I again “speculated” for the purpose of expressing God knew mankind would fall, and it didn’t matter who fell first–it was going to happen precicely as a RESULT of free will --NOT God gave us free will SO we would fall. To change that around as you have is to twist what I have said throughout these posts–And I too would “philisophically” disagree.

This is apparently where I am confused by your statement. But I think this might be a (chicken first/egg first) problem, that cannot easily be resolved. And truth be told, I’m not sure it actually matters. Either way, I meant no disrespect, nor did I mean to take issue with your interpretation. I only tried to understand your point more clearly.

Could it also be true he is not?

Ok, but it seems like in the general sense, both these passages, and surrounding verses discuss the difference between living without God (prior to baptism), and living in the full embrace of God. St. Paul and St. John were speaking to groups of people not yet convinced of their salvation through Jesus. They had not yet been baptised/become Christians.

But because I don’t know the full context of these passages, I can concede that it could be that he is talking of sins in general.

Thank you for the nice words! I too have learned a lot from our dialogue. I’m glad to see there are a lot of very informed Catholics on the board. It makes me feel better knowing there are people I can rely on to help point out any wayward thinking I have- and that there are people who can answer questions I have in the context of Catholisism.

I’m glad to put you in that category.

 

[dumspirospero]

Just wondering…are you also not grateful for the sacrafices of our soldiers that have died on the field of battle in this current war and all previous wars…even though you were not directly involved or the cause of such wars?

The point I am making is that when people sacrafice for you…especially the ultimate sacrafice, which is giving ones life so that another may live…you should be grateful…and if not…I am at a loss of words. That is true love…like Jesus said, “You are my friends, and the greatest love a person can have for his friends is to give his life for them.”

Ediana:

Hi, greetings to all of you, and thanks in advance for your attention.

Let me get right to it. This has been bothering me for years. I was raised Catholic, switched to being Protestant at around age 18, and now I’m 32 and have left going to church completely for the past 5 years…but thinking of coming back to the Catholic church.

When the above film came out, I was excited for Mel Gibson…but I didn’t go to the film, nor have I a desire to see it. I’ve studied the crucifixion in depth, and used to be grateful, but I am no more.

Perhaps you can help me through my logical conundrum:

I can be grateful (or at least a bit thankful) that God created me and my family/friends. However, I can’t seem to connect the gratitude for the crucifixion, though. I’ve learned that it was God’s plan to have His Son killed, planned ‘before the beginning’…so how am I to be blamed/held responsible → we all sin, and don’t seem to have a choice in the matter, whether we will sin in our lives–we surely will.

1. Did Jesus die because we sin?
2. If we sin because God didn’t give us the capacity to be sinless, then why are we to blame?

I realize I sound like Paul in Romans, but I don’t see how I can be grateful for Jesus “saving” me. I can be grateful for the lifestyle and blueprint for happiness, no doubt. But grateful for the sacrifice that really truly God intended…? Seems the ‘Christ-killers’ were actually doing God’s will, in some sense?

Thank you, hopefully you can help me sort this out,
Eugene

 

[Ediana]

The situation of soldiers dying for me is a noble thing, and I am grateful when it is actually true. In order to say that someone dies “for you”, though, there should be a few things in place:

1. A sufficiently direct relationship between the action (the death) and the beneficiary (me).
2. The beneficiary should have been helpless.
3. The situation should be independent of the hero’s control.

e.g. #1: If a woman jumps off a bridge in Baton Rouge and then her aunt’s cousin tells me that she “died for me”, I am not grateful b/c there is no clear relationship to my well-being and this person’s demise.

e.g. #2: I’m crossing Christian Street in Baton Rouge and a car is coming my way, but it’s 100 feet from me. A woman jumps in front of the car and is killed, so the car stops and doesn’t even come close to me. I was not helpless, so I have a hard-time being grateful. I feel bad for the poor woman, but I didn’t see the need for her to do that.

e.g. #3: God creates mankind, knowing that we would sin, so he provided for that in Jesus’ Passion. Being that it’s [almost?] impossible to be totally sinless (God made us, recall), it is realistically inevitable that I (and all others) need to tap-into this sacrifice and get baptized for forgiveness.

Conditions 1 and 2 are met in this last example. But God had control of how He created things, so I’m finding it hard to understand and to say, “Whew, thank God! We really had a chance to be perfect but we messed it up–thank God for the Passion!” It doesn’t seem like humanity had much of a chance to be sinless at all: 1) Adam and Eve were the very first humans and even they blew it–despite seeing God and being in the Garden; 2) If anyone today really claimed sinlessness (even the Pope?) there would be huge suspicion and disbelief.

I’ll have to address the soldiers question in another post.

Regards, and thanks for your thought-provoking questions–they do help considerably.

Eugene

 

[st_felicity]

e.g. #3: God creates mankind, knowing that we would sin, so he provided for that in Jesus’ Passion. Being that it’s [almost?] impossible to be totally sinless (God made us, recall), it is realistically inevitable that I (and all others) need to tap-into this sacrifice and get baptized for forgiveness.

Conditions 1 and 2 are met in this last example. But God had control of how He created things, so I’m finding it hard to understand and to say, “Whew, thank God! We really had a chance to be perfect but we messed it up–thank God for the Passion!” It doesn’t seem like humanity had much of a chance to be sinless at all: 1) Adam and Eve were the very first humans and even they blew it–despite seeing God and being in the Garden; 2) If anyone today really claimed sinlessness (even the Pope?) there would be huge suspicion and disbelief.

I think you are being obstinate. But that is your choice since you are given free will which allows you to accept or deny that there is one God, creator of all things, who gave you the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in Him, and love Him, and whether to accept the gift of his sacrifice. I think you should pray for the gift of faith.

You don’t HAVE to believe, love, worship, trust accept, etc. anything, you know. He didn’t do it so you could intellectualize Him to smithereens and conclude, absent of faith, that He is to be loved and worshipped–what kind of love would that be? It’s like the slave reasoning that the master is “worthy” to be served–it is simply folly–and ultimately prideful.

PLUS: You have some statements in that portion I quoted that just don’t add up…this is why I say I think you’re being obstinant–some of this, you have mentioned before and it has been addressed, then you do not acknowledge the dialogue and post a similar statement in a different way.

it is realistically inevitable that I (and all others) need to tap-into this sacrifice and get baptized for forgiveness.

See Jimmy’s post #19…
It’s more than just forgiveness. It is a re-incorporation into Christ’s body–the Church–all souls living and dead in Christ. And then you’ve got to persevere in Christ’s body until you die.

But God had control of how He created things,

See my post #38
yeah…and THIS is how He decided to do it. Who are we to think it could have been done a better way? or even a “different” way?

1. Adam and Eve were the very first humans and even they blew it–despite seeing God and being in the Garden;

See Shiann’s post #37 (especially the middle)
and the exange we had from posts #42 -#50. Yeah, it’s a lot of reading, but it is EXACTLY on point to this!

WE are not gods. WE, as creations as a whole, do not have the capacity to 100% ALL of us, be obediant. Because we have free will, we can choose. We aren’t automatons–yuck–wouldn’t WANT to be. I thank God I have the choice to love Him or not–I assent to that which I do not understand because I CHOOSE to accept I cannot BE God and know ALL. A&E chose NOT to assent to this (urged by Satan) and wanted to “know” as “gods”.

1. If anyone today really claimed sinlessness (even the Pope?) there would be huge suspicion and disbelief

Did the pope claim sinlessness? News to me! Has any well informed Catholic claimed the pope is sinless. Nope. If you’re introducing some argument about what it means to be infallible–that is not the same thing as immaculate–and the pope is only infallible under specific terms. Secondly, If one claims they are sinless, they are seeking attention and are probably (most certainly) not sinless–humility??? And lastly, we are not to judge–doubt, sure…but judge another’s standing before God, no way.

 

[st_felicity]

Ediana:

1. The situation should be independent of the hero’s control.

Eugene

P.S.
Jesus isn’t a “hero”. He’s God.

 

[Shiann]

Prayer for Guidance-

O creator past all telling,
you have appointed from the treasures of your wisdom
the hierarchies of angels,
disposing them in wondrous order above the bright heavens,
and have so beautifully set out all parts of the universe.

You we call the true fount of wisdom and the noble origin of all things.
Be pleased to shed on the darkness of mind in which I was born,
The twofold beam of your light and warmth to dispel my ignorance and sin.

You make eloquent the tongues of children.
Then instruct my speech and touch my lips with graciousness.
Make me keen to understand, quick to learn, able to remember;
make me delicate to interpret and ready to speak.

Guide my going in and going forward, lead home my going forth.
You are true God and true man, and live for ever and ever.

–St Thomas Aquinas, 1225-74

 

[Ediana]

Felicity,

On a side note:

P.S. Jesus isn’t a “hero”. He’s God.

I couldn’t help but take this as a parting shot.

He most certainly IS a hero…being God and being a hero are not mutually exclusive. **If He saves your life is He not a hero? **

Plus, my whole purpose of that phraseology was to build a generic platform–perhaps you didn’t understand what I was trying to do.

Anyway, take care, and I’ll respond to the other in a different post.

Thanks,
Eugene

 

[Ediana]

Hi, and thanks for your thoughts ahead of time.

I think you are being obstinate. …I think you should pray for the gift of faith.

I do pray. God planned the Passion because A&E would sin–I understand and believe that. But, I have reason to believe that we weren’t created to be sinless:

1. The very first humans messed up, in the Garden of Eden, no less
2. No one in human history (except Jesus and Mother) is claimed to be completely without sin
3. We admit that it’s “near” impossible to be sinless–but realistically if NO ONE has done it, how can anyone claim that it’s possible? It’s just wishful thinking and theorizing based on what, I don’t know.
4. Many scriptures, including Romans 3 and 1 John 1 need to be explained–show me 1 scripture that says we can be sinless, or that someone has been (besides God and His Mother).

You don’t HAVE to believe…

I know I don’t–never said I didn’t have a choice to love, either. But what I did say was that even though you have freedom, that doesn’t give you ability to be perfect.

PLUS: You have some statements in that portion I quoted that just don’t add up…

The dialogue didn’t completely help. It was a bit of going back and forth about internal sin (off-topic), and the fact that you philosophically disagree whether someone can be sinless or not, with no answer to my queries about the two scriptures I provided.

it is realistically inevitable that I (and all others) need to tap-into this sacrifice and get baptized for forgiveness.

See Jimmy’s post #19…

That didn’t answer the question at all.

But God had control of how He created things,

See my post #38

yeah…and THIS is how He decided to do it. Who are we to think it could have been done a better way? or even a “different” way?

Again, I’m not complaining about how God made us. That is off-topic, again. That’s not my question. I’ve mentioned this already in another post.

1. Adam and Eve were the very first humans and even they blew it–despite seeing God and being in the Garden;

See Shiann’s post #37 (especially the middle) and the exange we had from posts #42 -#50. Yeah, it’s a lot of reading, but it is EXACTLY on point to this!

I’ve read all of the posts you’ve cited, again. None answer what I’m asking. And I readily admit that what I’m asking is not easy to communicate. I’ve ventured into this and desperately want to understand.

WE are not gods. WE, as creations as a whole, do not have the capacity to 100% ALL of us, be obediant. Because we have free will, we can choose. …

I thought someone said that we could be obedient, since we have free-will, and we can always choose what’s right? (i.e. be sinless) I’ve heard that over and over on this thread. I’ve been arguing that I don’t think it’s possible, nor does it seem (given the fact that most people admit they don’t know of any sinless people, including the Pope) that we can, even after baptism.

1. If anyone today really claimed sinlessness (even the Pope?) there would be huge suspicion and disbelief

Did the pope claim sinlessness? News to me! Has any well informed Catholic claimed the pope is sinless. Nope. …

Again, you misunderstand…but then you go on to assume I’m misinterpreting Catholic dogma about infallibility…huh? I never suggested that anyone claimed the Pope was sinless.

I’m sorry for the miscommunication. Hopefully someone can wade through this and we can see eye to eye. Thanks for hanging-in-there with me, though, this far.

Eugene

 

[Shiann]

This is the Opening Post:

Ediana:

Hi, greetings to all of you, and thanks in advance for your attention.

Let me get right to it. This has been bothering me for years. I was raised Catholic, switched to being Protestant at around age 18, and now I’m 32 and have left going to church completely for the past 5 years…but thinking of coming back to the Catholic church.

When the above film came out, I was excited for Mel Gibson…but I didn’t go to the film, nor have I a desire to see it. I’ve studied the crucifixion in depth, and used to be grateful, but I am no more.

Perhaps you can help me through my logical conundrum:

I can be grateful (or at least a bit thankful) that God created me and my family/friends. However, I can’t seem to connect the gratitude for the crucifixion, though. I’ve learned that it was God’s plan to have His Son killed, planned ‘before the beginning’…so how am I to be blamed/held responsible → we all sin, and don’t seem to have a choice in the matter, whether we will sin in our lives–we surely will.

1. Did Jesus die because we sin?
2. If we sin because God didn’t give us the capacity to be sinless, then why are we to blame?

I realize I sound like Paul in Romans, but I don’t see how I can be grateful for Jesus “saving” me. I can be grateful for the lifestyle and blueprint for happiness, no doubt. But grateful for the sacrifice that really truly God intended…? Seems the ‘Christ-killers’ were actually doing God’s will, in some sense?

Thank you, hopefully you can help me sort this out,
Eugene

I think there were a number of people here who answered your questions. Now maybe these aren’t your real questions, but they were answered from a Catholic perspective.

1. Did Jesus die because we sin?

kmktexas:

I think you may be confusing omniscience with pre-destination. God did not WILL for Adam and Eve to sin. He gave them free will and they chose wrongly. Being all-knowing, he was aware that this would happen and sent his Son for our redemption.

He not only knew Adam and Eve would sin, but he knew of every other sin until the end of time. God sent Jesus for those sins too. In fact, Jesus’ death made Mary’s Immaculate Conception possible. But if you are still wondering why…

Exporter:

In the begining, before there was a universe, God knew his creations would sin. They sinned against God.

We as creatures cannot ever do a thing to repay God for our sins. So God let his Only Son, Jesus pay the price for our sins. Jesus was a Jew.

In the Jewish religion they killed a bull or a bird and blood had to flow for it to be a real sacrifice for sin. Thats why Jesus had to have his blood flow(to pay for all our sins…for all time! )

Since Jesus was God( remember the Trinity?) then He could pay for sins against God. People couldn’t do that.

 

[Shiann]

Your second question:

1. If we sin because God didn’t give us the capacity to be sinless, then why are we to blame?

We have sin because God DID gave us the choice to, or not to be sinless.

Further, Adam and Eve chose to sin in a way that was the biggest slap in the face to God.

They sought to SUPPLANT God. To become Gods themselves.

A & E didn’t just go where they weren’t supposed to. Their intention was to become greater than God. That intention could never be confined to A & E. Some of their children and on down through the rest of humanity could seek to supplant God at every turn- because they had the choice to.

Because of this choice, A & E and their decendents seperated themselves from God- they became mortal, they suffered pain and anguish and toil. These things partnered with the propensity to sin didn’t come as a punishment from GOD, but as a consequence of the choice of A & E.

The fact that humanity can sin comes from the attitude that A & E had to be greater than God. Please realize, in every sin that we can commit against God is an attempt by the sinner to become Godlike themselves by assuming they know better than God.

If we choose this seperation from God in our earthly life- how can we possibly seek to bind ourselves to God again in Heaven with the “God Envy” racing through our heads? God knew we couldn’t, but we are a Family, and he wanted us to be with Him.

It hurt God to know that his children turned away from Him, and he wanted them to have an opportunity to be together again how it should be. Adam and Eve were perfect beings that choose to supplant God- to be greater than God (and delivered that intent through ‘sin’ down to the rest of humanity.) In order to balance this- a perfect being had to Choose to be Humble to God- to do His will.

Jesus.

After Jesus, Heaven was opened up for us again. God was able to welcome us back into the Family because Jesus made a choice we were not equipped to make. A perfect being chose NOT to be a God. He choose to be Loved by God, and to do the Will of God, perfectly, completely. And until the end of time, Jesus would have made that choice. He healed Humanity, He did what A & E would not do.

If we sin because God didn’t give us the capacity to be sinless, then why are we to blame?

We have- and have always had the personal capacity to be sinless. A & E passed on the “God Envy” they experienced in the Garden through Original Sin. This removed us from God in total- until a perfect being such as A & E could make the opposite choice.

We are to blame for our own actions of “God Envy”. We are gratefull that God gave us the only other perfect being He could- Himself- to make repirations for those who chose to be Loved by God, and do the Will of God. (Me, you, and our fellow Catholics).

 

[st_felicity]

I too am sorry that there seems to be miscommunication going on here. I did not mean that you didn’t pray, and I do not question your sincerity–I just think maybe praying for faith rather than understanding may be of benifit. 2Cor 5:7 “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”

And I am also sorry that my P.S. came across as a “parting shot”. It was an actual afterthought. According to your premis:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Passion of the Christ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ediana

3) The situation should be independent of the hero’s control.

Eugene
**
…it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be a hero since He controls all. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but he was also fully God and the two cannot exist seperately. I still say Jesus isn’t a hero; He’s God.

I hope that you are not alienated by the assertiveness of my last posts–I apologize if I have done that–I truly would very much like be of help.

Perhaps, if I was incorrect about you obstinancy, you could, for the benefit of a more productive dialogue, restate as clearly as possible, what it is exactly that you are asking–maybe stating those things you do understand and specifically what you do not, so that the responses don’t get caught up in discussing things that are not on topic of what it is you seek help in understanding.