Swiss Catholics call for same-sex partnerships, change in teaching on Communion [CWN]

[Pulvis]

I imagine the Catholic church would not be influenced by “secular society”. Is it? That would not make sense.

Even though often, Secular society is wise in its ways.

But I would hope church teachings would “develop” as people learn more.

One must remember…even the Judeo-Christian God changed in teachings and morals from the Old Testament to the NT.

It was a reflection, IMO, of the evolving people. As are the reflections today.

.

In all charity, you do not seem to have a well formed understanding of the history between God and his covenants with Israel or the New covenant establish By Christ. And as for the wisdom of society, I believe this was discussed by Christ and the Apostles on several occasions.

 

[TMC]

I imagine the Catholic church would not be influenced by “secular society”. Is it? That would not make sense.

Even though often, Secular society is wise in its ways.

But I would hope church teachings would “develop” as people learn more.

One must remember…even the Judeo-Christian God changed in teachings and morals from the Old Testament to the NT.

It was a reflection, IMO, of the evolving people. As are the reflections today.

.

I would not say that God changed, but that people’s understanding of God grew and deepened. That understanding has continued to change - mostly in the direction of growth with some setbacks. Hopefully it will continue to grow, including in this Synod. I would say that secular society has been (at times) a force for positive growth in the Church, just as (at times) the Church has been a force for positive growth in society.

 

[Path_Finder]

I’d be skeptical that Swiss Catholics really want this, based on a poll or other means.

 

[SonOfMan]

I would not say that God changed, but that people’s understanding of God grew and deepened.

This is relativism. God in the OT made himself perfectly known, he was the one who directly ordered killings. To claim that the people’s knowledge of God grew is false, because the people of the OT had greater knowledge of him than we do now, since they directly communicated with him.

 

[TMC]

This is relativism. God in the OT made himself perfectly known, he was the one who directly ordered killings. To claim that the people’s knowledge of God grew is false, because the people of the OT had greater knowledge of him than we do now, since they directly communicated with him.

I have never heard a Christian make this claim - that the world understood God better before the Incarnation than after. It doesn’t make sense in Christian terms, and it certainly is not consistent with what Jesus told us. Christ said that the Spirit would continue to guide towards Truth:
John 6:12-13:

12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

 

[J_Peterson]

This is relativism. God in the OT made himself perfectly known, he was the one who directly ordered killings. To claim that the people’s knowledge of God grew is false, because the people of the OT had greater knowledge of him than we do now, since they directly communicated with him.

With all due respect, the Jews in the Old Testement did not have greater knowledge of God. They were constantly pulled towards paganism. If they knew God so well, why the temptation to leave Him?
We know God is Trinity, we know that He is Love, we know that God became man. We know a heck of a lot more now. Besides, the Jews did not communicate directly with God, God communicated through His angels. Nobody has seen the Father except the Son and those who the Son chooses to present to Him.

 

[JesusPeaceLove]

God has changed morals? Really? Another claim that will go undefended like the one about how theists supposedly hardy ever use reason to make arguments?

God has never changed in morals. The revelation of God has ended and therefore the teachings of Jesus, the complete revelation of God is to be taken as definitive for all time and all the previous revelations are interpreted under this revelation which is a revelation where all things are seen through love.

The right to life for instance. God always has total right over the life and death of anybody because he grants life. This did not end with Jesus and will never end ever because God will always be God. It is because God is love that we have the right “guaranteed” by God. Not because God would be “sinning” if he took life. Cartoons have no right to exist against the cartoonist. It is because God grants the right to life that it is wrong for me to kill you. Not because it is wrong for God himself to kill you. While you have a right to life against me and the whole world, you have NONE whatsoever against God to whom all life belongs. Therefore the notion of an immoral God is silly. Immoral against whom or what? The creature’s judgment? What are the sources of these morals to judge God against? What is moral to us is simply God’s will. What is immoral is whatever contradicts that will.

In the old Testament, at times God did withdraw this right to life of some persons and there was therefore no sin in those very specific occasions because one did not by killing take what they had no right to take. But this was a very limited crucible of time in which revelation was limited and its meaning unclear. His revelation is now over and complete with Jesus. No one has been informed by Jesus that anyone has had their right to life withdrawn from above and no one will ever be so informed. In fact, Jesus showed that the previously withdrawn rights to life in some occasions like persons found guilty of adultery had been restored apart from those perfectly loving (sinless) persons who obviously will love the person and not desire to harm them. It is wrong then to kill those persons after that. The church has defined what per natural law is just killing when this divine right to life will not be violated even if the person dies. by the hand of another. If a person tries to kill you, they lose their right to life in the specific instances when you have to kill them to protect your own.

This shows these things were allowed fin the past for a limited period in specific and limited areas (Israelites) only to convey specific things to the Israelites and through them to us. All of that is interpreted now under light of Jesus full revelation of love. God can kill the body to save the soul because we will all die anyway and God will raise us up on the last day. But those eternally lost are lost forever and if a particular manner of death will lead to a person’s eternal salvation over another, God will choose for the person to be eternally happy even if it means a painful death. That is love whatever atheists may think, because this life is completely short and insignificant in the eternal perspective. For all we know, all those ordered killed in the ancient days are in heaven including sinners like Sodom and Noahs flood people. God has a much longer and much more loving perspective of history and eternity than some secularists on tv or whatever.

 

[SonOfMan]

With all due respect, the Jews in the Old Testement did not have greater knowledge of God. They were constantly pulled towards paganism. If they knew God so well, why the temptation to leave Him?

The same can be said now, except I think the current state of the Church is in a lot worse shape now than the faith of the Jews in the OT. If we know so much about God today, why is this happening and why are so many Christians falling away/non-practicing?

We know God is Trinity, we know that He is Love, we know that God became man. We know a heck of a lot more now. Besides, the Jews did not communicate directly with God, God communicated through His angels.

God communicated with Moses directly. God communicated with the Prophets directly. God spoke from the sky a few times and God also showed his wrath directly. No angels needed.

 

[SonOfMan]

I have never heard a Christian make this claim - that the world understood God better before the Incarnation than after. It doesn’t make sense in Christian terms, and it certainly is not consistent with what Jesus told us. Christ said that the Spirit would continue to guide towards Truth:

Well for Christians, they knew Jesus directly. Jesus the Son of God. All of the OT Jews had direct communication with God the Father.

God’s laws are unchanging, are they not? Its not possible to develop deeper meaning from what has already been fully established. To claim that our knowledge of God changed and therefore “God has changed” (ironic that God was always the level of understanding of how humans perceive him, wven though hes supposed to be unchanging) only proves the idea that God is a manmade concept.

 

[DCNBILL]

Well for Christians, they knew Jesus directly. Jesus the Son of God. All of the OT Jews had direct communication with God the Father.

God’s laws are unchanging, are they not? Its not possible to develop deeper meaning from what has already been fully established. To claim that our knowledge of God changed and therefore “God has changed” (ironic that God was always the level of understanding of how humans perceive him, wven though hes supposed to be unchanging) only proves the idea that God is a manmade concept.

Really?? You may want to read the Old Testament or maybe go talk to a local Rabbi, this statement is erroneous to the extreme.

You have your last statement a bit backwards.

Man is Godmade.

 

[Brendan_64]

I imagine the Catholic church would not be influenced by “secular society”. Is it? That would not make sense.

Even though often, Secular society is wise in its ways.

But I would hope church teachings would “develop” as people learn more…

Learn from what? From the world around us? Remember who is the prince of this world. One look at the world today makes it pretty clear that it is entrenched in filth and evil. You think that represents a more ‘developed’ view? You think the Church should learn from that?

St Paul clearly stated that we should not seek to conform ourselves to this world.

 

[TMC]

Well for Christians, they knew Jesus directly. Jesus the Son of God. All of the OT Jews had direct communication with God the Father.

God’s laws are unchanging, are they not? Its not possible to develop deeper meaning from what has already been fully established. To claim that our knowledge of God changed and therefore “God has changed” (ironic that God was always the level of understanding of how humans perceive him, wven though hes supposed to be unchanging) only proves the idea that God is a manmade concept.

“All” Jews had direct communication with God in the past in the same way that all Christians (and all Jews, for that matter) have direct communication with God today.

God is unchanging, but mankind’s understanding of God and his laws is not. Mankind’s understanding of God changes throughout the Scriptures (OT and NT), and continues to change through history since biblical times. It is our obligation to continue to seek a better understanding of God. Given that obligation, and Jesus’s promise (which I pointed out in post 92), we should not be surprised to see continued growth and development.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is our obligation to continue to seek a better understanding of God. Given that obligation, and Jesus’s promise (which I pointed out in post 92), we should not be surprised to see continued growth and development.

But that continued growth and development cannot ever contradict revealed teaching. The source of teachings is from scripture and the word of God, not from the world around us. The world around us is not a source to inform Church teaching.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s those who disagree that are the losers. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. Study the TRUTH about Her and find out. God Bless. Memaw

 

[SonOfMan]

“All” Jews had direct communication with God in the past in the same way that all Christians (and all Jews, for that matter) have direct communication with God today.

God is unchanging, but mankind’s understanding of God and his laws is not. Mankind’s understanding of God changes throughout the Scriptures (OT and NT), and continues to change through history since biblical times. It is our obligation to continue to seek a better understanding of God. Given that obligation, and Jesus’s promise (which I pointed out in post 92), we should not be surprised to see continued growth and development.

I dont think God has appeared to anyone in the form of a burning bush lately, so no, its not the same.

 

[TMC]

But that continued growth and development cannot ever contradict revealed teaching. The source of teachings is from scripture and the word of God, not from the world around us. The world around us is not a source to inform Church teaching.

Contradiction is often in the mind of the beholder. There are many who believe that Vatican II contradicts earlier teachings. I view VII as a development on earlier teaching. If the Synod changes anything (a big “if”), I am sure there will be some difference of opinion on how to view that change.

 

[TMC]

I dont think God has appeared to anyone in the form of a burning bush lately, so no, its not the same.

Perhaps we have a different understanding of the meaning of “all.” According to the OT, exactly one person saw a burning bush, and maybe six or eight people had a similar kind of direct interaction with God over thousands of years. But all people had the same access to God then that all people do now (perhaps not the same understanding, but the same access). So that is pretty much the same.

 

[SonOfMan]

Perhaps we have a different understanding of the meaning of “all.” According to the OT, exactly one person saw a burning bush, and maybe six or eight people had a similar kind of direct interaction with God over thousands of years. But all people had the same access to God then that all people do now (perhaps not the same understanding, but the same access). So that is pretty much the same.

Moses had direct communication with God. Thats more than we have now, which is zero.

All of the prophets had direct communication with God. More than we have now, which is zero.

All of the people who witnessed God’s wrath flare up. Many people saw that, according to Judaism and the Bible.

The point is, God already made it clear who he is, and, he is unchanging. To claim that we can know him better now with no direct communication, is a ridiculous statement. The ones who knew him better were the ones who actually spoke with him. All of that “deeper meaning” stuff is relativism, projecting our views and saying that’s God.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

This thread is wandering. Please return to the topic of the original post.

 

[Bluesprite333]

Five months before the upcoming Synod of Bishops, the Swiss Bishops’ Conference has published a report summarizing the results of recent discussions by Swiss Catholics on marriage and …

More…

Oh great… :dts:

Don’t they realize that when you change these basic principles, these tenets of the faith, that it ceases to be? I’m soooo tired of people wanting to change things due to it being “current” or “fashionable.” Of course some Swiss are complaining - they find the faith “too rigid.” So be it.

It’s like Chesterton said: *"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” *