J
JimG
Guest
“Ongoing revelation of the Spirit”?
For what it’s worth, the Church teaches that divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
For what it’s worth, the Church teaches that divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
With Jesus, public Revelation ended. By stating this,“Ongoing revelation of the Spirit”?
For what it’s worth, the Church teaches that divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
the Church is not saying that God went silent with the
ascension of Jesus into heaven. While public
Revelation ended with Jesus, our understanding of
Revelation did not end.
In his book, The Essential
Catholic Catechism, Alan Schreck writes:
The truth that is found in Jesus Christ is
something like a gold mine. We have discovered
the mine (or rather, God has revealed the mine
to us), yet we still have the task of digging out
all the gold. This means that the Holy Spirit is
enabling the Church over the course of centuries
to “uncover” the truth revealed in Christ, and at
times along the way to define the truth that she
has come to understand.
E
Ender
Guest
If anyone doubts the impact of the Church’s inaction when faced with clear challenges to her doctrine, we need look no further than this for a textbook example of scandal. It is hard to condemn tskrobacz for doubting the truth of the Church’s position on homosexuality when the Church herself acts as if she doesn’t take it seriously.The mystery of truth is part of the ongoing revelation of the Spirit - the truth too evolves as we become aware of bigger truths. This is not relativism…it is simply a recognition that matters such as Gay marriage are not “already and ultimately decided” as there is evidence in the animal kingdom of similar behaviors. Jesus, himself, did not speak directly on the matter although we can learn much from his Gospel of inclusion. I for one am willing to remain open to a bigger truth that we, in our times, have not yet fully grasped.
Apparently, like Gov. Cuomo, we are to decide for ourselves what constitutes right and wrong, and are free to behave accordingly regardless of what the Church teaches … er, suggests.Like Gov. Cuomo. we too must continuously examine the collective conscience as more is revealed.
T
tskrobacz
Guest
The Church herself teaches on matters of Primacy of Conscience - we are indeed obligated to follow faithfully what he or she knows to be just and right:If anyone doubts the impact of the Church’s inaction when faced with clear challenges to her doctrine, we need look no further than this for a textbook example of scandal. It is hard to condemn tskrobacz for doubting the truth of the Church’s position on homosexuality when the Church herself acts as if she doesn’t take it seriously.
Apparently, like Gov. Cuomo, we are to decide for ourselves what constitutes right and wrong, and are free to behave accordingly regardless of what the Church teaches … er, suggests.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
P
pataburd
Guest
You mean: . . . er, KINDA suggests.If anyone doubts the impact of the Church’s inaction when faced with clear challenges to her doctrine, we need look no further than this for a textbook example of scandal. It is hard to condemn tskrobacz for doubting the truth of the Church’s position on homosexuality when the Church herself acts as if she doesn’t take it seriously.
Apparently, like Gov. Cuomo, we are to decide for ourselves what constitutes right and wrong, and are free to behave accordingly regardless of what the Church teaches … er, suggests.
The members of Church “leadership”, by-and-large, if not actively accelerating this country’s moral decay, are passively assisting in its moral demise.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
So, as long as my conscience says it’s ok, it must be ok?The Church herself teaches on matters of Primacy of Conscience - we are indeed obligated to follow faithfully what he or she knows to be just and right:
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Talk about moral relevitism.
C
Cider
Guest
But it needs to be properly formed first.The Church herself teaches on matters of Primacy of Conscience - we are indeed obligated to follow faithfully what he or she knows to be just and right:
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
T
tskrobacz
Guest
If your conscience is well informed, then yes…(according to the teaching of the Catholic Church - Catechism).So, as long as my conscience says it’s ok, it must be ok?
Talk about moral relevitism.
J
JimG
Guest
Conscience is simply a judgment of the intellect as to the moral quality of specific actions, based upon the moral law. If a conscience is not well informed, it is in error. How do we know if our conscience is well informed? For one thing, it does not contradict divine moral law as set forth by the Church.
E
Ender
Guest
Not exactly. Right is not whatever we believe it to be no matter how sure we are of our position. The Church does not teach that the individual is justified in doing whatever his conscience leads him to believe is true. We are obligated to follow our conscience but that doesn’t automatically excuse our action if our choice is a bad one.The Church herself teaches on matters of Primacy of Conscience - we are indeed obligated to follow faithfully what he or she knows to be just and right:
*
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet** it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.*
Relying on the autonomy of your own conscience and rejecting the Church’s teaching on homosexuality would seem to be one of the things likely to be “imputed to personal responsibility.” Your conscience is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Ender
R
Roy5
Guest
If the Catholic Church begins to withhold communion from all politicians who do not follow church policy, that will include many, many more than Cuomo. It will simply alienate more people from the church, many of whom hold on by a thread already.
Communion is between God and the communicant. I understand that in 'open communion' Protestant churches they indicate that if, for any reason, the communion of a worshiper is invalid that is a matter to be decided by God and not by a priest or other church official. Sounds reasonable to me. Who can really judge the inner soul and heart of another when it comes to such matters?
T
tskrobacz
Guest
In good conscience I cannot support any notion of a legal system in a free society that excludes gay people from the same rights afforded everyone else. If you wish to call it something other than marriage, it is just semantics…the end result must be justice for all people, regardless of their gender, race, beliefs… or sexual disposition.Not exactly. Right is not whatever we believe it to be no matter how sure we are of our position. The Church does not teach that the individual is justified in doing whatever his conscience leads him to believe is true. We are obligated to follow our conscience but that doesn’t automatically excuse our action if our choice is a bad one.
*
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet** it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.*
Relying on the autonomy of your own conscience and rejecting the Church’s teaching on homosexuality would seem to be one of the things likely to be “imputed to personal responsibility.” Your conscience is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Ender
As one priest I know exclaims:
"A number of the many church’s non-negotiables today are at major variance with what Jesus actually emphasized. If gay marriage and abortion as single issues are the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity, why didn’t Jesus allude to them at least once? How can you read the Eight Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and not believe Jesus was teaching nonviolence? For some reason, things like this are hidden in plain sight. We could not see what we did not want to see, and particularly things that asked US to change!
All spiritual teachers tell us “DO NOT JUDGE.” For those of us raised in a religious setting, this is very difficult. In a strange way, religion gave us all a Ph.D. in judgmentalism. It trained us very early in life to categorize, label, and critique. It told us all about worthiness and unworthiness. This judgmental mind told us what is right and wrong, who is gay or straight, and who is good or bad. This sort of mind never creates great people, because everybody has to fit into our way of thinking. At an early age our grid was complete. We had decided who fit in and who did not fit in. We fashioned our own little world.
Christianity that divides the world in this manner and eliminates all troublesome people and all ideas different from our way of thinking cannot be mature religion. It cannot see the multiple gifts of each moment, nor the dark side that coexists with it. This mind does not lead us to awareness, and above all, this mind will find it impossible to contemplate. To practice awareness means you live in a spirit of communion; your world becomes alive and very spacious, and not divided by mere mental labels."
E
Ender
Guest
Your conscience is not the measure of morality. Your position seems very similar to the one taken by Gov. Cuomo - what I believe is what matters - but the Church sees this not as a legal issue but a moral one, with you and Cuomo on the wrong side. All this, however, is beside the point which is the Church has proclaimed that gay “marriage” is wrong and she ought therefore to behave as if she meant it. The issue being discussed is how the Church ought to behave, not your take on whether her position is or is not correct.In good conscience I cannot support any notion of a legal system in a free society that excludes gay people from the same rights afforded everyone else.
Yes, well that’s not helpful either. He’s another one who believes the Church just doesn’t get it but that he is able to untangle the real truth from the superstition the backwards fuddies in positions of power are spouting. It is bad enough to hear this nonsense from the laity; it is stupefying to hear it from a priest. Either the Church is right on significant questions or she isn’t to be trusted on any of them; we don’t get to pick and choose.As one priest I know exclaims:…
Ender
T
tskrobacz
Guest
That type of dualistic thinking is the very core of the problem - the church is a guiding light on many significant questions and has formed and shaped her theology to adapt to the ongoing revelations of science and history. If we are not open to the possibility that we do not yet have clear vision on these relatively modern day issues then we are potentially excluding or denying the movement of the Spirit in our times. The Church has been wrong in the past AND she can be trusted to continually move in the direction of wisdom.Either the Church is right on significant questions or she isn’t to be trusted on any of them; we don’t get to pick and choose.
Ender
J
JMJSHJ
Guest
That is self contradictory.. The Church has been wrong in the past AND she can be trusted to continually move in the direction of wisdom.
J
JimG
Guest
As citizens, gay people have exactly the same rights as everyone else.In good conscience I cannot support any notion of a legal system in a free society that excludes gay people from the same rights afforded everyone else. If you wish to call it something other than marriage, it is just semantics…the end result must be justice for all people, regardless of their gender, race, beliefs… or sexual disposition.
And if we wish to change the definition of marriage, let’s see the new definition before enacting it into law.
E
Ender
Guest
Not really. There have been developments in her theology but no reversals. There have been changes in her interpretation of scripture because of scientific development … but these led to no new moral developments. Name one of the “significant questions” on which you think she has reversed herself.That type of dualistic thinking is the very core of the problem - the church is a guiding light on many significant questions and has formed and shaped her theology to adapt to the ongoing revelations of science and history.
There is a difference between being incomplete and being wrong. Your position would have the Spirit speaking to modern society while letting the Church get it wrong for 2000 years. Is that really what you believe?If we are not open to the possibility that we do not yet have clear vision on these relatively modern day issues then we are potentially excluding or denying the movement of the Spirit in our times.
Specificity would be helpful. What significant moral question has she gotten wrong?The Church has been wrong in the past AND she can be trusted to continually move in the direction of wisdom.
Ender
T
tskrobacz
Guest
I did not say reversal. In fact higher order truths are always inclusive of lower level truths and consciousness. It is also not my intention to make this a discussion about the imperfections, warts or blemishes throughout the church’s history or a discussion of my personal beliefs…clearly God, in his perfection, is inclusive of all that is perfect and imperfect and often uses failings, including those of the church, to move us all to higher levels of awareness, compassion, forgiveness and love.Not really. There have been developments in her theology but no reversals. There have been changes in her interpretation of scripture because of scientific development … but these led to no new moral developments. Name one of the “significant questions” on which you think she has reversed herself.
There is a difference between being incomplete and being wrong. Your position would have the Spirit speaking to modern society while letting the Church get it wrong for 2000 years. Is that really what you believe?
Specificity would be helpful. What significant moral question has she gotten wrong?
Ender
Any notion that the church is perfect or beyond reproach and has not fallen historically is about religious ideals and the need for security, not about truth and spirituality. The only absolute is God himself…everything else, everything, falls short
E
Ender
Guest
For the Church to accept homosexual “marriage” it would have to reverse - not merely modify - her current position.I did not say reversal.
It is easy to talk in generalities; it is more difficult to defend specific statements, which I think is apparent from your lack of specificity. As I said, however, this is all irrelevant to the question of what the Church should do with regard to Gov. Cuomo. Whether the Church is right or wrong on the question of homosexuality she should at least act as if she believed what she teaches was right. If she fails to act as if she believes her doctrines it should be unsurprising if others show the same doubts.Any notion that the church is perfect or beyond reproach and has not fallen historically is about religious ideals and the need for security, not about truth and spirituality. The only absolute is God himself…everything else, everything, falls short
Ender
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Not exactly…should science discover a genetic link then the church would have to adapt to a new understanding. Until that is known definitively it remains premature to claim it to be solely (or even souly) a moral defect.For the Church to accept homosexual “marriage” it would have to reverse - not merely modify - her current position.
It is easy to talk in generalities; it is more difficult to defend specific statements, which I think is apparent from your lack of specificity. As I said, however, this is all irrelevant to the question of what the Church should do with regard to Gov. Cuomo. Whether the Church is right or wrong on the question of homosexuality she should at least act as if she believed what she teaches was right. If she fails to act as if she believes her doctrines it should be unsurprising if others show the same doubts.
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.