St. Paul is all things to all people: Should the Church accommodate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pnewton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pnewton

Guest
To what extent should the Church be accommodating to others? The Catholic Church has come under fire by some for softening its stance on such things as fasting and Holy Days. However, isn’t this exactly what St. Paul faced in dealing with those who were either strict within the Jewish Law or complete Libertarines (Christian Liberty)? The Scripture I am interested in is:
I Corinthians 9:19-23 Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law–though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ–to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.
*
 
Paul is not saying he relaxed/changed any requirements of the faith in order to accomodate/entice people, he is saying that he subjected himself to requirements which he knew God did not impose on him, in order to connect with those who believed those requirements to be essential.

So he wasn’t being less-stringent, but more stringent, in his observance.
 
NHInsider said:
So he wasn’t being less-stringent, but more stringent, in his observance.
Click to expand...
In the first part that is true. But he also said to the weak he became weak. I think the classic example of this is the eating of meat that was offered to idols. In the market place, such meat was sold for consumption by common men. Paul knew there was nothing wrong with eating this. At times though he fought for the right to eat such meat and at other times he encouraged that such a thing ought to be avoided for charity of the weaker brother.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I know that no element of the faith is to be dispensed with. Obviously we can not forgo the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ or the Immaculate Conception for the sake of offense. But in view of a Pauline view of Christian liberty, can the Church not at times change disciplinary practice for the sake of expediency?

A couple of contemporary examples that come to mind is the offering the Mass in the vernacular and the last overture the Holy Father made to the Anglicans, allowing the possibility of them maintaining their own authority structure.
 
In matters of discipline, the Church can revise practice for whatever reason “seems good to [her] and the Holy Spirit.” (cf Acts 15:28)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top