What did the crowd not know?

[guanophore]

Let’s see, choices choices! Do I believe guanophore, who has the divine lens, is the holder of all Truth, much more so than I, or do I believe Jesus who said, “For they know not what they do”?

I’ll believe Jesus on this one, guanophore. They did not have sufficient knowledge.

Or, do you hold some obscure revelation?

I just hold to a different standard. Catholics are bound to reconcile all the Scriptures to each other. We are not at liberty to pick and choose the parts we wish to use to support a certain position, and exclude the other Scriptures.

What they did not know needs to reconcile with:

11*Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” John 19

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore!

Subtle coercion is still coercion, OneSheep. I think you have forgotten that this “handshaking” business started in the context of pushing a Humanistic framework of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. You will have to forgive me if I am not eager to affiliate myself with such ideas.

You are demanding some action on my part to prove my respect for you that exceeds beyond what CAF requires of all members. Perhaps you see yourself as over and above the standards to which all members are bound? Why should one member be more special than all others?

Please recall that I never “pushed” a Humanistic framework. That my framework is “Humanistic” and that I ever “pushed” were both inferences on your part. Indeed, your reading of my request for a handshake as coercive is also inferred. Please, give people the benefit of the doubt.

Is it the Truth that the CAF requires a given amount of respect of all members, one that is not to be exceeded, such that a shaking of hands in respect is “above the standards”?

Here is the Catholic Answer to this: Treat everyone as special, as we would Jesus. We are to love one another as He loved us. Do you have this in mind as you refuse to shake my hand in respect? Are you giving to those who ask of you, guanophore?

This is part of the coercive method, OneSheep. You are equating my refusal to shake your hand with me being “enslaved by fear and suspicion”. If I am to be seen by others as NOT being “enslaved by fear and suspicion” I must comply with your demand.

If I do not “shake hands” with you I am “encumbered by prejudice” and exclusivity.

Well, there appears to be something encumbering you. What is it? In the past, you used your human imagination to infer that I was “pushing some kind of framework onto you” which I contested from the beginning. You were prejudiced against my views, and you gave that as a reason not to shake my hand. What is encumbering you now? Do you not shake anyone’s hand? I am trying to give you a chance to discontinue disparaging yourself in the eyes of the reader.
Try to empathize with the onlooker, guanophore. A person offers his hand in respect, and the other refuses. Of course, the one who refuses has a very good reason, in his mind, for doing so, but what is communicated is disrespect. Since humans have mimetic responses, they will feel compelled (by nature) to either disrespect you or disrespect me. We reap what we sow. What are you sowing?

Think about it, guanophore. Based on the criteria you are using, you could call any request from Jesus Himself to be “coercive”.

In your eyes I have not kept civil respect and refuse to shake your hand. You have made disparaging remarks about my character, or lack of it, and have stated that no one will take my posts seriously because I won’t comply with your wishes.

I think people will judge your character based on the way you treat people, guanophore. You are refusing to shake my hand, and such a refusal is seen as disrespectful in the Western world. If you would like people to regard your posts seriously, I suggest that you treat people respectfully.
Where have I made disparaging remarks, you cranky, cantankerous, loveable old grump? It is a term of endearment. It says, “no matter how ridiculously unfriendly you are, you are still a person of value, and are to be loved.”

I doubt the Apostles considered this flogging “speculative”. Is there any reason that members of the crowd could not expect the same treatment, had they supported Jesus, or failed to join in condemning Him?

It seems to me that if there were any coercion on the part of the Sanhedrin toward the crowd, this would be incorporated into the Palm Sunday dialog. This scenario would have the crowd angrier at the Sanhedrin than Jesus. Yes, the Sanhedrin threatened and punished the apostles. The crowd’s fear of the Sanhedrin is speculative, a product of your human imagination. Like I said, though, we can still go with it.

OneSheep, you are correct that I do have a message, but I do not expect the message to impact you in any way. In other words, the message is not intended for you.

Well, let’s put it all out here then, guanophore. For whom is your message, and what is the message?

The moral consequences of putting to death the Lord of Glory are much higher than disobedience to the temporal authorities.

What were the moral consequences that did they not know of putting to death the Lord of Glory? I am not playing dumb, here, I am just asking you to be specific.

 

[OneSheep]

From the point of view of the Apostles, “full knowlege” constituting a mortal sin means awareness that one is aware it is “grave matter”. That does not equate with your standard of "all the relevant facts " (omniscience). God does not require that humans be in posession of “all the relevant facts” to prevent sin. It is not possible for human beings to know “all the relevant facts” without divine intervention.

Okay, you suggested that the crowd did not know that the moral consequences of putting to death the Lord of Glory were much higher than disobedience to the temporal authorities. Are you saying that they knew that putting Jesus to death was a grave matter, or did they not?

I am not talking about “normal human blame” OneSheep. I am not using a Humanistic perspective that is centered on the human person. I am looking from God’s perspective, which has been revealed to us in His Word. For Catholics, this is the primary Source of Truth available to us.

I was trying to make sense of the definition, because Jesus did not blame.

It is not a term I prefer to use, either, for many reasons. I prefer culpability, as this is a Catholic term.

The definition of culpability includes “blameworthy”, so how do you avoid the word?

How is that, OneSheep? Is that why you are affixing so many disparaging discriptions to me? Do you feel compelled to punish the wrongdoing of others?

Can you substiantiate with any Catholic source that human beings are compelled to punish wrongdoing?

When I say “compelled”, I am saying that we are compelled by our nature, by our natural consciences. The Bible is full of examples of people compelled to punish others. In addition, the OT also has many examples of a projected God compelled to punish the tribes.

If they did not sin/have culpabiity, why did they need forgiveness?

This is my point, they did “sin” when we use the word “sin” as “doing great harm”. And yes, the people who had the biggest roles in the crucifixion had the greater sin.

Yes, that is a big question, “why did they need forgiveness”? Shall we save that for a different thread?

Jesus redeemed the whole world “while we are yet sinners”.

He forgives us while we continue to sin. Not all benefit from His redemption, or forgiveness. Some choose not to participate in redemption. Some choose not to avail themselves of forgiveness.

Actually, when all is considered, you have no idea whether or not any individual person chooses never to avail himself of forgiveness. What I am saying is that it is my observation that people do not knowingly and willingly choose not to avail themselves. You disagree, and that is okay. We are both Catholic, guanophore.

 

[OneSheep]

I just hold to a different standard. Catholics are bound to reconcile all the Scriptures to each other. We are not at liberty to pick and choose the parts we wish to use to support a certain position, and exclude the other Scriptures.

What they did not know needs to reconcile with:

11*Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” John 19

Actually, I see absolutely no contradiction between the above verse and “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”.

Some people had a bigger part in the sin than others, as you pointed out earlier. They all did not know what they were doing, which was again substantiated in Acts 3:17.

Let’s go back to your original quote:

You must assume this, in order to preserve your framework. You must assume that, had they “known” they would not have committed this sin. This is where your framework falls apart, One Sheep. People do willingly and knowingly reject God. They had sufficient knowledge. Some of them had spent hours listening to Him preach and teach. Some of them were baptized already. There were even members of the Sanhedrin that were believers!

And Jesus said, “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”, which means that there was indeed a deficiency in their awareness. Note: I think we can agree that it is probable that not all of the Sanhedrin agreed with putting Jesus to death.

Are you saying that Jesus’ observation was incorrect?

 

[guanophore]

Please recall that I never “pushed” a Humanistic framework.

I understand that you see it that way. I have agreed to disagree with you.

your reading of my request for a handshake as coercive is also inferred. Please, give people the benefit of the doubt.

Let’s see, I think coercion is is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, such as name calling, disparaging remarks, bullying, and other types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response. I am relieved that you do not have the power of the Sanhedrin over the crowd, so that I have not been submitted to flogging for non-compliance. There are multiple examples on the threads of your posts maligning my character because I am reluctant to shake hands. I am happy to go back and collect them and put them together, if it helps.

Is it the Truth that the CAF requires a given amount of respect of all members, one that is not to be exceeded, such that a shaking of hands in respect is “above the standards”?

Here is the Catholic Answer to this: Treat everyone as special, as we would Jesus. We are to love one another as He loved us. Do you have this in mind as you refuse to shake my hand in respect? Are you giving to those who ask of you, guanophore?

Well, there appears to be something encumbering you.  What is it?  In the past, you used your human imagination to infer that I was “pushing some kind of framework onto you” which I contested from the beginning.

I don’t think so, OneSheep. You are pushing the framework that belongs to you. Everyone here on CAF has the privilege of doing so. I do not think you are trying to make converts. I think you are just trying to support your contention that it is a Catholic framework. I don’t think it is personal toward anyone, including myself.

What I said was that the pressure to shake hands emerged in the context of a non-Catholic framework of the Holy Eucharist, and I found it quite offputting. I am very reluctant to align myself with such concepts.

You were prejudiced against my views, and you gave that as a reason not to shake my hand.

On the contrary, OS, your views were quite novel to me. I had never encountered such ideas before, so there was no way for me to develop a prejudice about them.

 What is encumbering you now?   Do you not shake anyone’s hand?   I am trying to give you a chance to discontinue disparaging yourself in the eyes of the reader.

I have not shaken hands, that I recall, but at this point, the coercive methods you are using would be sufficient for me to recoil from it.

Try to empathize with the onlooker, guanophore.  A person offers his hand in respect, and the other refuses.

OneSheep, your posts disparaging my character have not been respectful. Just above, you state that, by refusing to shake your hand, I am “disparaging” myself. This method of coercion is using peer pressure and social status to gain compliance (much like the Sanhedrin did with the crowd). You have judged me and devalued me repeatedly for failure to comply with your demand.

Of course, the one who refuses has a very good reason, in his mind, for doing so, but what is communicated is disrespect. Since humans have mimetic responses, they will feel compelled (by nature) to either disrespect you or disrespect me. We reap what we sow. What are you sowing?

I know we have different frameworks of human nature, but Catholics believe that our human nature has been wounded by the Fall. One of the consequences of this is concupiscence is that we have a tendency to lean toward sin and away from God. We may feel “compelled by nature” to do things that are wrong, but Catholics are no longer slaves to sin, having been delivered from it’s power over us by the cross. Therefore we are able to choose the good, by God’s grace, and not follow our “compelled mimetic responses”.

Think about it, guanophore. Based on the criteria you are using, you could call any request from Jesus Himself to be “coercive”.

How so, OneSheep? He has the authority to command, unlike yourself, who demands compliance from me though you have no right to do so. I have given my life in service to HIm, so His wish is my command. I do not recognize you the shepherd and guardian of my soul. If Jesus asks me to do something,and I am slow to respond, He draws me with love into His fold,and into obedience. I have not experienced this with you.

What were the moral consequences that did they not know of putting to death the Lord of Glory? I am not playing dumb, here, I am just asking you to be specific.

I don’t think we are in a position to judge that, OneSheep. Jesus stated they had the “greater sin”.

Later, when the Apostles preached the Gospel t them, the had the chance to receive God’s mercy. Those who chose to repent and be baptised were freed from the moral consequences.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed, your reading of my request for a handshake as coercive is also inferred.  Please, give people the benefit of the doubt.

Here is the Catholic Answer to this: Treat everyone as special, as we would Jesus. We are to love one another as He loved us. Do you have this in mind as you refuse to shake my hand in respect? Are you giving to those who ask of you, guanophore?

Well, there appears to be something encumbering you. What is it? What is encumbering you now? Do you not shake anyone’s hand? I am trying to give you a chance to discontinue disparaging yourself in the eyes of the reader.

Try to empathize with the onlooker, guanophore. A person offers his hand in respect, and the other refuses. Of course, the one who refuses has a very good reason, in his mind, for doing so, but what is communicated is disrespect.

I think people will judge your character based on the way you treat people, guanophore. You are refusing to shake my hand, and such a refusal is seen as disrespectful in the Western world. If you would like people to regard your posts seriously, I suggest that you treat people respectfully.

Where have I made disparaging remarks…?

I just collected a few from this thread alone. This pressure has continued through several threads now, so I can collect some more if you need them. I do believe that a pattern is represented.

Can we agree that we will remain charitable…
If so, let us shake hands and agree, okay? I am quite certain that anyone else on the CAF would be happy to do so. Thanks.

I must shake hands with you to demonstrate my intention to be charitable. “Anyone else on CAF would be happy to do so”, therefore, ,if I do not, I am ostracized from my community.

... in the U.S. it is a form of courtesy to shake a person's hand that is offered to you.

declining to shake your hand is “diiscourtesy”.

...For example, (and I apologize for bringing this forth, but its application is primary) when one person refuses to shake the hand of the other because of differences, then non-acceptance, exclusion, blame, etc. are what is being communicated.

The stakes are rising! First, I was just discourteous, now I am communicating non-acceptance, exclusion, and blame, and this is “primary” to bring forth.

The pressure is on to comply with the demand, lest I portray myself with socially unacceptable qualities.

 The person who refuses to shake hands is communicating that he is holding something against the other.  Now, the person who refuses may well have *decided* to forgive the other, but the decision is not manifested in something real, something that involves a freedom to love.   I think it is plain to the observer that the person who refuses to shake hands has not forgiven.

If I do not shake hands, I am unforgiving, olding resentment, enlsaved to my resentments and deprived of the freedom to love. Gracious! This handshaking seems to have great power of deliverance! I would be such a “nicer” human being if I would just comply!

  Blame is the communication of something negative about the other, something unacceptable about the other..

Now I am communicating “something negative” by not shaking hands, that there is something unacceptable in the other person. I have been so uncharitable by refusing to comply…

Lingering emotions are reminders that the forgiveness is incomplete.  For example, if a person believes he has forgiven, but refuses to shake hands with the person he held something against, has the forgiveness actually occurred?  Is there a change of heart?

Unforgiving AND unrepentant. My choice not to comply is based in emotions and resentment. My spiritual state is clearly suffering due to my lack of compliance with the demand to shake hands. :bigyikes:

  Shaking hands, I repeat, is a sign of respect *for the person*.   By treating people disrespectfully, are you truly avoiding communicating the very non-acceptance that you say is part of our "fallen nature"?

I am disrespectful, non-accepting and acting according to the “fallen nature” by refusing to comply with the demand.

 Is it resentment?  Is it blame?  Thats okay, you are human.  But if there is resentment there, what are you going to do with it?   Whenever we treat anyone else disrespectfully, .....

I am called to dispatch my “resentment” and demonstrate respect. The only way to do so that is acceptable is compliance.

(continued)

 

[guanophore]

(continued disparagement for non-compliance)

 I said "shake hands in agreement".  If you are of a different culture, do people of your culture shake hands in agreement?

How about spitting in someone’s face? If you came from a culture where spitting in someone’s face was showing respect, would you spit in my face? If you were to spit in my face, as an American I would take such spitting to mean disrespect, because that is my cultural background. In America, when a person refuses to shake the hand of another (excepting any health or disability issues) it is seen as a sign of disrespect.

Now my refusal to shake hands in agreement is compared to spitting in the face! Thie discourtesy has now grown into active insult!

What I stated was not a perception of disrespect on your part, but my observation.  In American society, refusal to shake hands is a communication of disrespect.  You have refused to shake my hand, so yes, this communicates disrespect, just as spitting on someone's face communicates disrespect in our society.

It appears that you and I both agree that accountability is very important. Here is your opportunity to give account.

Do you have the freedom to love everyone, shake everyone’s hand (I am using that metaphorically, meaning ability to show love and mercy), or are you encumbered by “lingering enmity”? Please read these as real questions, not accusations.

The pressure continues. Clearly my refusal to shake hands indicates a truncated ability to show love and mercy, that my soul is encumbered by “lingering enmity”.

However, true forgiveness involves a change of heart, guanophore.

There is an implication that I am unforgiving of something (that my disagreement with the content of the posts has resulted in lingering resentment) and I am “unrepentant”, not having had a change of heart/mind. If I was truly loving, I would shake hands in agreement.

My heart leapt for joy for a moment, eagerly anticipating an end to the pressure…

 You would like me not to ask you to shake my hand, and you would like me not to ask why.  You may be intending disrespect, or you may not be, but I hear your request.

But my joy was short lived…

  Your refusal to shake my hand, guanophore, does not tell me that you have a new humility after your apology.  Instead, your refusal continues to prove that you cannot be trusted.  When you can earn my trust, I will answer your posts on the topic.  Until then, I will not.

Alas, I lack humilty, and cannot be trusted, since I will not comply. :crying:

. We tend to disvalue those who violate our rulebooks or are in the outgroup. Jesus, of course, addressed the exceptions by encouraging us to forgive those we hold anything against (violate the rulebook) and to include (i.e. be able to eat together or shake hands with) those we tend to reject.

Refusal to shake hands means I have devalued another who I think has violated by “rulebook” and means I have placed them in an “outgroup” (socially ostracizing), rejecting them. Gosh this handshaking gets more and more loaded with symbolism by the day!

I have extended my hand to you, guanophore, and you refuse to shake it. Your words are full of criticism, and you show no kindness…
Did you intend to honor me, or do you intend to dishonor me?

My hand is still extended, waiting for you to grasp it! C’mon, calm down and get a grip! What are you so worried about?

Yet more intention and symbolism has now been woven into this “handshaking”. My failure to comply is “dishonoring”, critical, lacking in kindness, and somehow indicates that I need to calm down and get a grip because I am “worried”. If I was not reluctant to shake hands prior to this point, the great load of meaning that has been poured into this simple gesture would be sufficient to give me pause.

 I am not demanding this, and never had.  Will you, guanophore, shake my hand as a sign of respect?

Now the bar has moved. The initial refusal to respond to my posts without the handshake has now moved to be a “sign of respect”. Something is being required over and above the forum rules at CAF.

So, do you choose to shake my hand, or do you choose to be enslaved by your fear and suspicion? Can you give freely, or are you encumbered by prejudice and ingroup/outgroup mentality?

Fear and suspicion are now added to my character defects, along with being encumbered by prejudice and rejecting mentality. Oh the woes of human deficiency that could just be cured with a simple handshake!

 

[guanophore]

This is my point, they did “sin” when we use the word “sin” as “doing great harm”. And yes, the people who had the biggest roles in the crucifixion had the greater sin.

This definition of sin seems to lack a great deal of Catholic teaching about sin. While I would concur that sin does cause harm, there is much more to the Catholic understanding of sin that transcends this humansitic framework.

    What I am saying is that it is my observation that people do not knowingly and willingly choose not to avail themselves.  You disagree, and that is okay.  We are both Catholic, guanophore.

Actually, espousing the position that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God is not a Catholic.

Choosing a theology based on one’s own “observations” over and above what God has revealed is also not Catholic.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore!

What I said was that the pressure to shake hands emerged in the context of a non-Catholic framework of the Holy Eucharist, and I found it quite offputting. I am very reluctant to align myself with such concepts.

Wow! an opportunity to do a “full circle”!

Yes, you found my “framework” concerning the Holy Eucharist “quite offputting”. The framework I presented was that when we receive communion, we are saying that we are in communion with Christ our Lord and we are in communion with all those who receive communion, at the very least. This is supported here, which I am not sure I presented before:

1325 “The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.”

What I actually wrote was this:

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.

Note: “sacrament of love, sign of unity, bond of charity”. It is an act affirming a bond with Christ, who is present in all people. There is nothing in the CCC, though, that contradicts what you are saying. If in receiving communion you are testifying that you are affirming all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, that is great!

So, given that we all have very different experiences and interpretation of teachings, can we agree that the main “bond”, manifest in Eucharist, is one of love and charity?

Which I later also supported with CCC 790 and 791 which say, in part this:

This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another.

And your responses were along this line:

Communion occurs in adherance to right doctrine. Doctrine is determined by God. Those who do not accept what He has revealed will not be in communion. The “beholders” don’t get to decide that, the Creator does.

And I said this:

I agree that adherence to doctrine is important, but again, doctrine is words. To me, Communion is based on Eucharist, not in complete doctrinal agreement. Doctrine is guided by the Spirit. As revelation unfolds, doctrine clarifies and evolves. These are temporal things. Love, inclusion, is unchanging.

And you responded:

Well this is good to know. I realize with clarity now that you are taking a position that is contrary to the Catholic faith, so I think it is time for me to discontinue this conversation. I shall commend you to your “views” and your rose colored glasses.

I’m not sure where the “handshake” thing started. It is difficult to find. However, your refusal to shake hands does follow the same theme about communion based on “doctrinal agreement”. That is, you find my views “offputting”, and for this reason you refused to shake my hand.

In addition, though I expressed that Love also creates communion, we are called to love everyone, and through such love communion is enhanced.

And your response was this:

The vast majority of people I love, those in my family, my neighbors, my clients and my co-workers are quite removed from communion with Christ. It is people’s relationship with Him that creates communion among the members of His Body, not our treatment of each other. We are called to love our enemies, and that includes the enemies of Christ. Loving others does not create communion with them.

So, you not only said that communion is based on adherence to right doctrine, but you said that the vast majority of people you love are not in communion with Christ, and love does not create communion.

I think that the bottom-line questions are these:

1. When we receive Eucharist, are we not only proclaiming our communion with Christ, but also with those who also receive, regardless of the variation of their manifested adherence to doctrine? (Note: what is implied, of course, is that the individual Catholic determines the other’s “adherence”, which you have determined I am not.)
2. Does love itself create communion?

Perhaps we can refer these questions to Fr. Vincent or someone else who would be willing to shake both of our hands as fellow Catholics. What do you think?

 

[LethalMouse]

OneSheep, IDK if you are awesome or sucky, but I’d shake your hand anyway… so long as you aren’t suffering a contagious illness

 

[guanophore]

Wow! an opportunity to do a “full circle”!

Yes, you found my “framework” concerning the Holy Eucharist “quite offputting”.

Actually, it seems that you are using the opportunity to derail the thread. All of this is very off topic. It seems that you feel a strong need to defend yourself, and cannot do so without getting off the topic thread.

If you want to revisit the topic, we should go to another thread. The crowd knew nothing about communion.

I’m not sure where the “handshake” thing started. It is difficult to find.

It started in the context of pressuring me to accept a Humanistic view of the Holy Eucharist.

   However, your refusal to shake hands does follow the same theme about communion based on "doctrinal agreement".  That is, you find my views "offputting", and for this reason you refused to shake my hand.

Your formulation did not include what has been revealed by God as true.

In addition, though I expressed that Love also creates communion, we are called to love everyone, and through such love communion is enhanced.

This is grist for another thread. But this is the root of the problem, yes. People being chums with one another is not the same communion taught by the CC. You can read about this in the inside cover of any missal at Mass. Communion and non-catholics.

In any case, the handshake has now, as I have demonstrated, become so filled with the symbolism and metaphors of other matters, the misunderstanding of what the Church teaches about Eucharist no longer has primary relevance.

 

[guanophore]

OneSheep, IDK if you are awesome or sucky, but I’d shake your hand anyway… so long as you aren’t suffering a contagious illness

You can always use some waterless hand wash to take care of that!

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep, IDK if you are awesome or sucky, but I’d shake your hand anyway… so long as you aren’t suffering a contagious illness

Thank you, I accept! No contagion, far as I know!

Do you have an opinion on the question of this thread?

 

[OneSheep]

I just collected a few from this thread alone. This pressure has continued through several threads now, so I can collect some more if you need them. I do believe that a pattern is represented.

I must shake hands with you to demonstrate my intention to be charitable. “Anyone else on CAF would be happy to do so”, therefore, ,if I do not, I am ostracized from my community.

declining to shake your hand is “diiscourtesy”.

The stakes are rising! First, I was just discourteous, now I am communicating non-acceptance, exclusion, and blame, and this is “primary” to bring forth.

The pressure is on to comply with the demand, lest I portray myself with socially unacceptable qualities.

If I do not shake hands, I am unforgiving, olding resentment, enlsaved to my resentments and deprived of the freedom to love. Gracious! This handshaking seems to have great power of deliverance! I would be such a “nicer” human being if I would just comply!

Now I am communicating “something negative” by not shaking hands, that there is something unacceptable in the other person. I have been so uncharitable by refusing to comply…

Unforgiving AND unrepentant. My choice not to comply is based in emotions and resentment. My spiritual state is clearly suffering due to my lack of compliance with the demand to shake hands. :bigyikes:

I am disrespectful, non-accepting and acting according to the “fallen nature” by refusing to comply with the demand.

I am called to dispatch my “resentment” and demonstrate respect. The only way to do so that is acceptable is compliance.

(continued disparagement for non-compliance)

Now my refusal to shake hands in agreement is compared to spitting in the face! Thie discourtesy has now grown into active insult!

The pressure continues. Clearly my refusal to shake hands indicates a truncated ability to show love and mercy, that my soul is encumbered by “lingering enmity”.

There is an implication that I am unforgiving of something (that my disagreement with the content of the posts has resulted in lingering resentment) and I am “unrepentant”, not having had a change of heart/mind. If I was truly loving, I would shake hands in agreement.

My heart leapt for joy for a moment, eagerly anticipating an end to the pressure…

But my joy was short lived…

Alas, I lack humilty, and cannot be trusted, since I will not comply. :crying:

Refusal to shake hands means I have devalued another who I think has violated by “rulebook” and means I have placed them in an “outgroup” (socially ostracizing), rejecting them. Gosh this handshaking gets more and more loaded with symbolism by the day!

Yet more intention and symbolism has now been woven into this “handshaking”. My failure to comply is “dishonoring”, critical, lacking in kindness, and somehow indicates that I need to calm down and get a grip because I am “worried”. If I was not reluctant to shake hands prior to this point, the great load of meaning that has been poured into this simple gesture would be sufficient to give me pause.

Now the bar has moved. The initial refusal to respond to my posts without the handshake has now moved to be a “sign of respect”. Something is being required over and above the forum rules at CAF.

Fear and suspicion are now added to my character defects, along with being encumbered by prejudice and rejecting mentality. Oh the woes of human deficiency that could just be cured with a simple handshake!

:clapping:

Congratulations, may I shake your hand?

I can commend you for your efforts, guanophore. You have succeeded in inferring all of my efforts to create communion through a handshake as “coercive”, and that you are the victim of such coercion. I stand by everything I said, in context, of course.

Guanophore, you know I love and respect you. I see you as Catholic and in Communion. I am in communion with you. I must acknowledge that the pattern is such that whenever you accused my views of being “anti-Catholic”, etc., I did return to the handshake issue, because yes, your refusal to shake my hand says more than your judgement of my Catholicism.

In saying the above, you will again construe that I am being coercive. What I am saying, however, is that when we go out to evangelize the world, we begin with a handshake, we welcome people into our lives. When people do not meet our expectations, we are not called to cut people off, we are to remain in communion (at least from our side) always with open arms, just as the prodigal son’s father. In this manner, we build the Kingdom.

So, while I am shaking people’s hands, welcoming them into our Church, are you evaluating their orthodoxy and chasing them away? Or, is it a little bit possible that in your refusal to shake hands you trying to coerce them into your own version of our faith?

There I go again, I am sure that you will see those questions as coercive. Indeed, even that last sentence I wrote may be seen as coercing you to not see the questions as coercive. Please, guanophore, see my requests for what they are, requests. See my challenges for what they are, challenges. There is no threat of “if you don’t do this”, something bad will happen to you; all of that is imagined. In fact, did you look at my comments? They are questions, guanophore, real questions. Did you look at my “ifs”? There are no assumptions there, again they are statements based on “if” this is what is behind your refusal to shake hands.

Look, I am not perfect, and neither are you. For some reason, you won’t shake my hand, and it is a puzzle. It leaves a big question mark in my mind, and I am sure this is the same of the readers.

Shall we poll the readers? (if there are any!) Why does guanophore refuse to shake my hand?

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t think we are in a position to judge that, OneSheep. Jesus stated they had the “greater sin”.

So, I am quite ready to get back onto the topic. We are not in a position to judge people, but we can certainly speculate as to what the crowd did not know.

You mentioned that the crowd did not know the consequences of their actions. What were the consequences of their actions such that if they did know, they would not have crucified Christ? I am not asking you to judge, I am asking what you think.

In other words, put yourself in their shoes, just as presented on Palm Sunday mass. What would have changed your mind, specifically, about crucifying Jesus? Surely you must see that Peter, Mary, and others knew something that the crowd did not.

 

[LethalMouse]

Thank you, I accept! No contagion, far as I know!

Do you have an opinion on the question of this thread?

IMO much as Judas, Jesus was offering forgiveness to those who condemn him. He was saying they are truly ignorant due to personal limits to step out of their self righteousness and see whohe was. I think there were likely a few involved who were interested in their own power at all costs, but most in the crowd who condemned him truly believed their higher ups.

Pontious Pilate was a pagan who struggled with conscience to nit condemn him for example, but given the values known to him, to settle unrest the murder of one was justified. So I believe he would be the most known figure of condemnation out of ignorance. He knew not the ins and outs of Jesus’s teaching or even the OT that would make Jesus seem real. The crowd was largely ignorant followers of the corrupt/fanatical priests and everything was done from fear and not knowledge.

 

[OneSheep]

IMO much as Judas, Jesus was offering forgiveness to those who condemn him. He was saying they are truly ignorant due to personal limits to step out of their self righteousness and see whohe was. I think there were likely a few involved who were interested in their own power at all costs, but most in the crowd who condemned him truly believed their higher ups.

Pontious Pilate was a pagan who struggled with conscience to nit condemn him for example, but given the values known to him, to settle unrest the murder of one was justified. So I believe he would be the most known figure of condemnation out of ignorance. He knew not the ins and outs of Jesus’s teaching or even the OT that would make Jesus seem real. The crowd was largely ignorant followers of the corrupt/fanatical priests and everything was done from fear and not knowledge.

Hi LethalMouse (should I be scared? Squeek!)

I find it insightful when you said “due to personal limits to step out of their self righteousness”. The whole aspect of “self-righteousness” is very interesting to me. Isn’t it true that we see our own righteousness as truly right, and the same with others who agree with our own? And then, of course, the righteousness of others that we don’t agree with is “self-righteousness”?

If that is true, how do we “step out of” our own righteousness? Specifically, how do we “step away from” our condemnation of others for violations of what we see as right?

Thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

It started in the context of pressuring me to accept a Humanistic view of the Holy Eucharist.

Yes, this was your accusation, based on inference of such pressure. It was not the case. If you think it was, please find it.

Your formulation did not include what has been revealed by God as true.

Just to set the record straight, “My formulation” included at least 4 sections of the CCC. Yours, saying that “communion occurs in adherence to right doctrine” you did not support through any Catholic doctrine (though I agreed that such adherence is important, and certainly adds to communion).

I am still reading that when it comes to love of Christ and everyone else, we can’t let words get in the way.

This is grist for another thread.

Yes!

 

[LethalMouse]

Hi LethalMouse (should I be scared? Squeek!)

I find it insightful when you said “due to personal limits to step out of their self righteousness”. The whole aspect of “self-righteousness” is very interesting to me. Isn’t it true that we see our own righteousness as truly right, and the same with others who agree with our own? And then, of course, the righteousness of others that we don’t agree with is “self-righteousness”?

If that is true, how do we “step out of” our own righteousness? Specifically, how do we “step away from” our condemnation of others for violations of what we see as right?

Thanks for your response.

I was raised and am a huge patriotic democracy lover… but my life has shown me some things lol.

How many people have you met that dont kniw anything about politics, economics, or any sciences or history who vote?

How many people who say they dont vote or follow because they just wanna live their life?

The second half is not as bad as the first perse.

But people then and now are not smarter. Reading words does not change undo mental limits.

Its like when I mentioned not voting for a particular thing (stocks) and my son said “YOU HAVE TO VITE” i said no, it is more responsible not to if you arent thoroughly briefed. Alot of people who vote should not have a say so lol.

Personally my main source of pride is acknowledging my potential fails. I have made serveral posts saying that people can’t tell the truth because people are delluded abd convince themselves of the false truth. When asked why I should be believed I say I should not either… the only claim to credibility I have is that I can acknowledge that it is possible for me to be bias… which I do think allows me a half an extra ability to unbias myself, but still how do I know if I am like the rest?

I am generally not self righteous with the exception of being self righteous about self righteousness itself. I think it is funny because every post that I have been attacked on already contained a disclainer of the very hole I was attacked on.

Ie: people are so self righteous they actually cannot see when you agree with them.

At the end of the day… people are freaking insane. It is the reason why no one can answer my “why sin” thread from a personal standpoint… they don’t know what they do or why!!! I don’t get it. Like I say in that post I have an exact reason why I sin when I do. And I cannot understand how people can sin without one… other than to think people are not very intelligent which soneone compared them to dog brains… so maybe that is the onky reason… idk I dont understand humans lol.

 

[guanophore]

…all of my efforts to create communion through a handshake…

… and in Communion. I am in communion with you.

… we are to remain in communion (at least from our side) always

For some reason, you won’t shake my hand, and it is a puzzle.

This is a Humanistic perspective of communion. This is the starting point of our disagreement, perhaps you do not remember, claiming that communion is created between Catholics on the basis of handshaking and inclusive attitudes. This is not a Catholic understanding of what it means to be in communion.

Yes, this was your accusation, based on inference of such pressure.  It was not the case.  If you think it was, please find it.

I know the precise location, but it is not necessary. You are still forwarding this concept of “communion” here. Communion with Christ in the Holy Eucharist is not created through the initiative or actions of human beings. The communion that exists between members of the Body who are in communion with Christ is a spiritual reality that is also not created by humans.

So, I am quite ready to get back onto the topic.  We are not in a position to judge people, but we can certainly speculate as to what the crowd did not know.

This is a very solid Humanistic approach to understanding the behavior of others.

 You mentioned that the crowd did not know the consequences of their actions.  What were the consequences of their actions such that if they did know, they would not have crucified Christ?  I am not asking you to judge, I am asking what you think.

“…but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” I Cor 2:8

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you handed over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you. You killed the source of life, whom God raised from the dead; we are witnesses of this. And now, brothers, I know that you did it in ignorance, just as your leaders also did. But what God predicted through the mouth of all the prophets–that His Messiah would suffer–He has fulfilled in this way. herefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, And everyone who will not listen to that Prophet will be completely cut off from the people." Acts 3

Everyone who would not listen to Jesus would be completely cut off form the people, the community of faith. By rejecting HIm, they were rejecting their own Judaism.

    In other words, put yourself in their shoes, just as presented on Palm Sunday mass.  What would have changed your mind, specifically, about crucifying Jesus?  Surely you must see that Peter, Mary, and others knew something that the crowd did not.

This is a very solid Humanistic approach to understanding others.