The forgotten sin and ecumenism

[bnapgh]

The forgotten sin and ecumenism

All of us spend a lot of time considering what God wants of us and how it is expressed in the Bible.

We spend hours arguing word meanings such as:

. . . . . Evolution vs. creation . . . . . . what is a ‘’day’’?

. . . . . Sola Scriptura . . . . . . . . . . . . . if Jesus gave instructions that were not ‘’written’’ in scriptures, how do we (as opposed to the Church) ‘’know’’ them?

. . . . . Is the free will to sin a ‘’moral’’ outrage by an all-powerful God?

Well one that has had growing importance to me is one that I hadn’t thought much about since school days: scandal.

We all know the popular connotations of the word, scandal. We usually think of it as an embarrassment or the loss of one’s reputation, do we not?

But I am not sure that is the intrinsic concept.

The Biblical foundation for this forgotten sin seems mostly in three verses: Matt 18:1, Luke 17:1 and Mark 9:41

Matt 18:1

1 At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, thinkest thou, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them. 3 And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. 6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Shall scandalize… That is, shall put a stumbling block in their way, and cause them to fall into sin. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals.

Luke 17:1

1 And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come. But woe to him through whom they come! 2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.

And Mark 9:41

41 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me: it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.

I am curious what others feel about the ‘’modern’’ emphasis on one’s reputation rather than on one creating an obstruction or road block for others, especially the weak, finding and keeping the Faith. (Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense, from Greek skandalon trap, stumbling block, offense; akin to Latin scandere to climb)
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal

When Christ repeatedly asks about Peter’s agape love, He also then chastises Peter to feed or care for his sheep ---- i.e. for the weak in His flock.

I shall add an extra fillip for interpreting scandal’s application in our lives, but later.

What has scandal meant to the lives of others? What do you think about the importance of this forgotten sin in leading or confusing Christ’s sheep?

 

[bbentrup]

If people use the word ‘scandal’ in two different senses, I don’t see what the big deal is as long as their intended meaning is clear - ideally, there would be separate words, but intelligent people can deal with it.

Neither do I see where your characterization of scandal in the stumbling-block sense as ‘forgotten’ is correct. I have no way of determining who knows of it and who does not. As to your questions regarding its importance, well, I think it’s safe to say that Jesus’s words are eternal and true and in this case cover a very serious topic - people’s immortal soul. How more important do you want it to be?

If you’re question is, in reality, a way of preaching, I’m listening. Scandal qua stumbling block is something I confess when aware of and definitely want to avoid. If you’re asking whether or not it’s a major issue in today’s society, I suggest you shouldn’t worry about it. The point is, you know about it - keep your own house clean and look not for the faults of others.

 

[spauline]

The forgotten sin and ecumenism

All of us spend a lot of time considering what God wants of us and how it is expressed in the Bible.

We spend hours arguing word meanings such as:

. . . . . Evolution vs. creation . . . . . . what is a ‘’day’’?

. . . . . Sola Scriptura . . . . . . . . . . . . . if Jesus gave instructions that were not ‘’written’’ in scriptures, how do we (as opposed to the Church) ‘’know’’ them?

. . . . . Is the free will to sin a ‘’moral’’ outrage by an all-powerful God?

Well one that has had growing importance to me is one that I hadn’t thought much about since school days: scandal.

We all know the popular connotations of the word, scandal. We usually think of it as an embarrassment or the loss of one’s reputation, do we not?

But I am not sure that is the intrinsic concept.

The Biblical foundation for this forgotten sin seems mostly in three verses: Matt 18:1, Luke 17:1 and Mark 9:41

Matt 18:1

Luke 17:1

And Mark 9:41

I am curious what others feel about the ‘’modern’’ emphasis on one’s reputation rather than on one creating an obstruction or road block for others, especially the weak, finding and keeping the Faith. (Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense, from Greek skandalon trap, stumbling block, offense; akin to Latin scandere to climb)
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal

When Christ repeatedly asks about Peter’s agape love, He also then chastises Peter to feed or care for his sheep ---- i.e. for the weak in His flock.

I shall add an extra fillip for interpreting scandal’s application in our lives, but later.

What has scandal meant to the lives of others? What do you think about the importance of this forgotten sin in leading or confusing Christ’s sheep?

I think scandal is the major force behind Christian division. So much so, that it seems a spiritual stage that prepares for Christian division. Why did the Protestants rebel? Was it not that a great portion of Catholic clergy were lazy fat hypocrites?

 

[bnapgh]

Thanks for responding!

If you’re question is, in reality, a way of preaching, I’m listening. Scandal qua stumbling block is something I confess when aware of and definitely want to avoid. If you’re asking whether or not it’s a major issue in today’s society…

I wouldn’t choose the word ‘‘preach’’ but rather ‘‘propose for discussion’’.

Before we get into that, however, I was hoping to get some feedback from posters. You put it: ‘‘whether or not it’s a major issue in today’s society’’. I feel quite confident scandal is not even on the radar screen in today’s society as a whole. That said, I have no feel at all whether my own experience — of ‘‘forgetting’’ scandal — has been shared by other posters here. I’d like to know whether scandal in the classic/biblical sense is very high in the moral consciousness for thoughtful people like those on this board.

I suggest you shouldn’t worry about it. The point is, you know about it - keep your own house clean and look not for the faults of others.

Perhaps that is the better course, but I think scandal might have some fairly significant implications for ecumenism. Before I broach my thoughts on that, however, I would like to better understand where other religious folks’ “heads are at” on the topic.

If people use the word ‘scandal’ in two different senses, I don’t see what the big deal is as long as their intended meaning is clear - ideally, there would be separate words, but intelligent people can deal with it.

Neither do I see where your characterization of scandal in the stumbling-block sense as ‘forgotten’ is correct. I have no way of determining who knows of it and who does not.

I am very pleased that you remain sensitized to the ‘‘stumbling block’’ risk. In my own experience I recall just one other bringing up scandal in the classic sense — a priest. I recall no lay person ever doing so. I suspect that most others pay it little attention and I would like to better understand if that is the case.

As to your questions regarding its importance, well, I think it’s safe to say that Jesus’s words are eternal and true and in this case cover a very serious topic - people’s immortal soul. How more important do you want it to be?

I hope I have never doubted the import of any of Christ’s words. I do know when I read the above passages I would always think only of children and I rarely would think of it as slander. I do not believe it is necessary to discuss the importance; as you say, that is obvious.

What I initially am interested in is to understand what these thinking posters do or do not think about Biblical slander.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[bnapgh]

I think scandal is the major force behind Christian division. So much so, that it seems a spiritual stage that prepares for Christian division. Why did the Protestants rebel? Was it not that a great portion of Catholic clergy were lazy fat hypocrites?

How do you really feel?

I agree with your conclusion — but in reverse. But more on that later.

I am wondering whether ‘‘modern’’ Christians ever stop and ask themselves if their actions and positions — say their interpretation of scripture, for instance — might have a negative impact on the Faith of others. What do you think?

I take it that in your estimation the Reformation was precipitated in great part by scandalous behavior by some clergy (you call it a ‘‘great portion’’ — not to mention fat and lazy).

I wonder which might have caused more confusion and consternation among the most souls in the Christian flock: the behavior you mention or the responses of Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al. Do you think that, if there had been no Protestant Reformation, there would be more or fewer souls embracing Christianity today?

 

[spauline]

How do you really feel?

I agree with your conclusion — but in reverse. But more on that later.

I am wondering whether ‘‘modern’’ Christians ever stop and ask themselves if their actions and positions — say their interpretation of scripture, for instance — might have a negative impact on the Faith of others. What do you think?

I take it that in your estimation the Reformation was precipitated in great part by scandalous behavior by some clergy (you call it a ‘‘great portion’’ — not to mention fat and lazy).

I wonder which might have caused more confusion and consternation among the most souls in the Christian flock: the behavior you mention or the responses of Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al. Do you think that, if there had been no Protestant Reformation, there would be more or fewer souls embracing Christianity today?

personally, let me summarize my thoughts by saying this: the successive falls of the human race I would say are inevitable given the first fall of man. That is, once man falls, it is inevitable that the fallen nature of man will continually drag him into punctuated successive falls that are partitioned by great acts of Divine Redemption.

IOW, I see salvation history as an inevitable sequence of alternation: Fall down, get up, fall down, get up…

That being said, I would say that the Protestant Reformation was unavoidable because of the fallen nature, and that the confusion and chaos (which is ALSO scandalous, just like hypocritical bishops) that resulted was the scandal that led to humanities disillusionment with organized religion and its supernatural fall into the disbelief in Divine Revelation altogether in the Enlightenment.

I would however say that God can use the mess that results
as a way of bringing about redemption that will be far greater than if this mess never would have occurred.

IOW, here’s what i see is what is important since Constantine:

Christians confound nature of Trinity and Incarnatoin, therefore a religion arises the utterly denies These (Islam)

Peter and his children fall, therefore Peter’s authority is rejected (the Great Schism)

A great portion of Bishops fall morally, causing the great heretical rebellion and rejection of their authority altogether (and of the Tradition), the Protestant Rebellion.

Protestants confound living heck out of pursuit of Biblical doctrine, causing loss of humanity’s faith in Divine Revelation and Assistance (the Enlightenment)

Eventually humanity loses interest even in religion and directs its primary attention toward the Creation, science accelerates, and so humanity considers itself utterly independent of any religion or morals (the modern secular apostasy)

But in the Minor Chastisement, all the various deficiencies of non-Catholic doctrine will be shown for what they are, Christians reuinted, and humanity restored to faith for a great age of peace.

IOW, God can abandon humanity into the consequences of its sins and errors, thereby showing them the true nature of their spiritual depravities, restoring them to the light and issuing a great restoration and vindication of the Gospel that is better than if the mess that started 1700 years ago never happened at all.

I have an article on my site that elaborates on this in much more detail if you are interested.

 

[bnapgh]

the successive falls of the human race I would say are inevitable given the first fall of man. …partitioned by great acts of Divine Redemption.

I would say that the Protestant Reformation was unavoidable because of the fallen nature, and that the confusion and chaos (which is ALSO scandalous, just like hypocritical bishops) that resulted was the scandal that led to humanities disillusionment with organized religion and its supernatural fall into the disbelief in Divine Revelation altogether in the Enlightenment.
…

A great portion of Bishops fall morally, causing the great heretical rebellion and rejection of their authority altogether (and of the Tradition), the Protestant Rebellion.

Protestants confound living heck out of pursuit of Biblical doctrine, causing loss of humanity’s faith in Divine Revelation and Assistance (the Enlightenment)

…

Thanks for the response.

You have covered a lot of history quickly here and I found it interesting — and much I would like to discuss in another thread — but in this thread I wold prefer to stay focused on scandal and biblical interpretation.

It seems you and I agree that much of the Protestant Reformation could be considerd scandalous in the Biblical sense. (I expect others will take issue with this). If I may, I would like to reiterate a few points on the macro level, and then address what to me is the more intriguing micro issue today.

I am not a Biblical scholar, and my ignorance can be a challenge to me. As I read the early Church Fathers, especially Augustine, when they discuss various Biblical interpretations — some of which were deemed heresies (a term I am often dissatisfied with) — I was struck that even when there seemed to be some logical basis for an alternative view these Fathers seemed to stress the overall importance of unity in the official Church interpretation, even over the reasonableness of the arguments. At first this sometimes perplexed me, but then I came back to Biblical scandal and Jesus’ triple charge for Peter to ‘‘feed my lambs’’.

As the good Sisters always taught us in elementary school, we are only here to get to heaven.

Perhaps the Church’s stance on some issues is based essentially on its impact on the Faith of the maximum number of its lambs.

This makes sense to me and casts a different light on some of my own attitudes with certain Church interpretations — I yield to the Church even when I disagree with its explanations.

It is with ‘‘reason’’ that Man is made in God’s image. God wants us to reason through his creations. Some of us — whether from within or without — often have open defiance of Church doctrines. We rationalize such a stance by our own very good reasoning. But perhaps it is really due more to selfish pride than to the impeccible nature of our logic that we do protest so much. Perhaps our logic seems clearly better to us. In any event, when we take such stances do we consider biblical scandal? Do we even think through the potentially deleterious impact our very arguments might have on the faith of so many lambs?

What should our priorities be?