What did the crowd not know?

[guanophore]

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.

Pilate was also threatened by the Sanhedrin. He had the status of “Friend of Ceasar”. The Jews hated that, and hated that Pilate had been made their governor. Pilate could not afford to allow his status as the “Friend of Ceasar” be tarnished. If he did not give in to the Jews, news would get back to Rome, and Pilate would be in more trouble. He was already in trouble, because Palestine was one of the boils on the backside of the Roman Empire where officials got sent to do penance for infractions and insults to the Emperor. He could not afford to lose any more status. He chose his political position over the Lord of Glory.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore!

This is a very solid Humanistic approach to understanding others.

You are judging my words, which were supported by the CCC, as “humanistic”. Why don’t you address the words of the CCC, presenting your own interpretation of them rather than saying that your version of Truth is so much better? I know, you are not trying to influence or coerce me, you are saving the readers from what you see as non-Catholic views. How are the readers going to regard your words as more authoritative if you neither present a counterargument nor address the Catholic teachings I referred to? Have you thought of a more pastoral approach toward addressing people’s views?

Guanophore: “It is Humanistic because I say it is Humanistic”. It doesn’t work, friend. Could you just present your own points without labeling mine, or is that too much to ask?

I remember reading somewhere on the CAF that we are not supposed to label other’s views, that it is uncharitable.

So, can you be a friend and stop the labelling?

This is grist for another thread.

Yes!

“…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.

Thanks for bringing this forth.

And it is obvious that they greatly valued their Judaism, correct? Also, isn’t this lack knowing “by rejecting Him, they were rejecting their own Judaism” relevant?

for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

This again confirms that the crowd and the leaders did not have “sufficient awareness” in their decision.

Can you read what I am saying here without labelling? Such labelling expresses a pre-judgement, a prejudice. In addition, can you see my request as non-coercive?

Please, try to be polite and respectful.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Well, they shouldn’t be knocking dogs!

“Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”

Mark Twain

Well, I think you have already answered your question as to “why people do not know the exact reason why they sin”. People are born ignorant, and people do not take the time to reflect on why they do evil, other than in self-condemning ways, such as “I do evil because I am evil.”

When they think that what they have done is not evil, then they think “I did what was best”, right? Do you agree that people always do what they think is best?

Thanks!

 

[LethalMouse]

Well, they shouldn’t be knocking dogs!

“Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”

Mark Twain

Well, I think you have already answered your question as to “why people do not know the exact reason why they sin”. People are born ignorant, and people do not take the time to reflect on why they do evil, other than in self-condemning ways, such as “I do evil because I am evil.”

When they think that what they have done is not evil, then they think “I did what was best”, right? Do you agree that people always do what they think is best?

Thanks!

I think people are professionals at denial.

And I understand sort of many not knowing the answer to why sin? But if I know it there has to be someone in the other camp who understands why they do specifically… at least one person somewhere has to have the same clarity of decisions that I do? Maybe? Idk…

 

[guanophore]

You are judging my words

I am not sure what you mean by this. We are called upon to exercise discernment. It is not a condemnation of any kind.

"…judge with right judgment.” John 7:24

right = κρίσιν judgment = κρίνετε*.

The Gk. root kris and krin also form the basis of our modern words “criteria”. It is discerning between. There is no moral attachment to it. It is simply applying a set of criteria to that which is being analyzed.

It means that we are to evaluate things based upon the Truth of what God has revealed to us.

which were supported by the CCC, as “humanistic”.

Humanism is not “supported by the CCC”. Neither is it condemned. There is nothing immoral about using a Humanistic approach to understanding the actions of others.

In other words, put yourself in their shoes…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 not a method mentioned in the CCC. It is using the human imagination to enter into the process of speculating.

Why don’t you address the words of the CCC,

Like what, specifically? Is there something about speculative imagination in the CCC I have missed? Please post a link, and I will study it.

presenting your own interpretation of them rather than saying that your version of Truth is so much better? I know, you are not trying to influence or coerce me, you are saving the readers from what you see as non-Catholic views.

Have you considered that some of your readers may ENJOY your non-Catholic views? Have you considered that there are others here on CAF that prefer a Humanistic approach? Why should they need “saving”?

How are the readers going to regard your words as more authoritative if you neither present a counterargument nor address the Catholic teachings I referred to?

I could address a more Catholic method of epistemology, and that would include the CCC. But, it is your thread, and you have the right to conduct imaginative speculation if you so desire. In fact, I was going to recommend that you start this thread over on the philosophy forum, as you may get a much more vigorous response. The folks over there thrive on imaginative speculation!

Have you thought of a more pastoral approach toward addressing people’s views?

Daily.

Guanophore: “It is Humanistic because I say it is Humanistic”. It doesn’t work, friend. Could you just present your own points without labeling mine, or is that too much to ask?

I understand it does not work for you, and that is ok.

In fact, that was my point. Humanism does not always leave room for a Catholic approach. You see, Catholics have criteria to apply that lies within the Divine Revelation, and Humanism has no place for that. That is why it falls short as an epistemology.

I remember reading somewhere on the CAF that we are not supposed to label other’s views, that it is uncharitable.

That is about labeling people. Views are open for discussion and the application of any various criteria.

So, can you be a friend and stop the labelling?

I have been, and will continue to strive to avoid labeling you as a Humanist. I accept that you believe your views are Catholic, and you identify yourself as Catholic, and I think you honestly don’t realize how Humanistic your views really are.

I am glad to see you are reading your catechism, though. It is my hopeful prayer that the CCC will permeate your heart and mind, and eventually replace all that is not consistent with His Holy Bride.

Thanks for bringing this forth.

And it is obvious that they greatly valued their Judaism, correct? Also, isn’t this lack knowing “by rejecting Him, they were rejecting their own Judaism” relevant?

for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

This again confirms that the crowd and the leaders did not have “sufficient awareness” in their decision.

With all due respect, OS, this is not our call to make. Only God knows the hearts of people, and only He can judge whether or not the individual had full knowledge.

I submit that there were people in the crowd that were like Judas, who knew Jesus’ blood was innocent. Some of them did nothing to stop the travesty, others participated in it. The degree of their culpability is based upon how much they knew. The Sanhedrin knew more, which is why they had “the greater sin”.

Can you read what I am saying here without labelling? Such labelling expresses a pre-judgement, a prejudice. In addition, can you see my request as non-coercive?

Not any more. It screams to me from the page.

No, I do not see it as a request. You say they are questions, but you have a pattern of asking then answering your own questions, so I read them more as assertions.
An example can be found just above, where you ask if they had 'relevant" information, then you immediately answer the “question”.

Please, try to be polite and respectful.

Thanks!

I do not mean to be impolite and disrespectful in identifying the content of your posts as Humanistic. I wish there was some way to do it without hurting your feelings, but I cannot think of any.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

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

Maybe because you both ain’t in the same room

Seriously though, Catholic’s are in communion with each other, even if they disagree on certain issues. After 11 pages of your discussion I’m lost in what is being said.

Being in communion with the Church is being obedient to all that is taught by the Church, and so participating in the Eucharist. Some people are not allowed to participate in the Eucharist as Catholics for one reason or other, but they are in communion with the people of the Church.
I think that is what Onesheep is hinting at. We can be in communion with each other as sisters and brothers and as Catholics?

 

[OneSheep]

I submit that there were people in the crowd that were like Judas, who knew Jesus’ blood was innocent. Some of them did nothing to stop the travesty, others participated in it. The degree of their culpability is based upon how much they knew. The Sanhedrin knew more, which is why they had “the greater sin”.

Why do you suppose that some of these people did nothing to stop the travesty? In other words, what could have been their reasoning?

Why did others who “knew Jesus’ blood was innocent” still participate? For example, would they have participated if they valued Jesus as they did their own children or parents, even though they (we can assume for some) feared the Sanhedrin?

These are the kinds of questions addressed by St. Augustine, St. Thomas A., and many others. It is not against the CCC to speculate these questions. It is a utilization of the gift of understanding, to which all of us have access.

 

[guanophore]

Being in communion with the Church is being obedient to all that is taught by the Church, and so participating in the Eucharist.

This is part of the problem, simpleas. I brought this to his attention at one point, and I don’t think there is agreement on this. I stated that presenting oneself for Eucharist meant that one is in full agreement with all that the Church believes and teaches.

All of the baptized are members of the One Body, but those persons who are validly baptized that do not accept the Teachings are not in full communion. The communion is imperfect.

Some people are not allowed to participate in the Eucharist as Catholics for one reason or other, but they are in communion with the people of the Church.
I think that is what Onesheep is hinting at. We can be in communion with each other as sisters and brothers and as Catholics?

Certainly we are all children of God, and everyone should be treated with dignity because we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Non-Catholic Christians are my siblings in Christ, though our communion is imperfect.

Sometimes I wonder if OS is Christian, I can’t tell. One thing I know for sure, there are many central doctrines of the faith that are not espoused, so the “communion” that is suggested does not exist. Nor will it exist by shaking hands.

 

[simpleas]

This is part of the problem, simpleas. I brought this to his attention at one point, and I don’t think there is agreement on this. I stated that presenting oneself for Eucharist meant that one is in full agreement with all that the Church believes and teaches.

All of the baptized are members of the One Body, but those persons who are validly baptized that do not accept the Teachings are not in full communion. The communion is imperfect.

Certainly we are all children of God, and everyone should be treated with dignity because we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Non-Catholic Christians are my siblings in Christ, though our communion is imperfect.

Sometimes I wonder if OS is Christian, I can’t tell. One thing I know for sure, there are many central doctrines of the faith that are not espoused, so the “communion” that is suggested does not exist. Nor will it exist by shaking hands.

I’m not thinking of non Catholics, I’m thinking of those who can’t receive the Eucharist, they are still Catholic in communion with the Church as the body of Christ. At least that’s how it seems to be being taught much much more in this year of mercy.

I get what you are saying, that unless a person is in full communion with the church then it is an imperfect communion, but that leaves out those who can not receive, there are many people who attend church who do not participate in the Eucharist, I wouldn’t say they were any less Catholic than those that do.
We live in an imperfect world after all.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not thinking of non Catholics, I’m thinking of those who can’t receive the Eucharist, they are still Catholic in communion with the Church as the body of Christ. At least that’s how it seems to be being taught much much more in this year of mercy.

I get what you are saying, that unless a person is in full communion with the church then it is an imperfect communion, but that leaves out those who can not receive, there are many people who attend church who do not participate in the Eucharist, I wouldn’t say they were any less Catholic than those that do.
We live in an imperfect world after all.

I see your point. Thanks.

I think that communion has been broken when “Catholics” reject fundamental tenants of the faith.

 

[OneSheep]

Maybe because you both ain’t in the same room

Maybe!

Seriously though, Catholic’s are in communion with each other, even if they disagree on certain issues. After 11 pages of your discussion I’m lost in what is being said.

I get lost too.

Being in communion with the Church is being obedient to all that is taught by the Church, and so participating in the Eucharist. Some people are not allowed to participate in the Eucharist as Catholics for one reason or other, but they are in communion with the people of the Church.
I think that is what Onesheep is hinting at. We can be in communion with each other as sisters and brothers and as Catholics?

I agree that we should be obedient to all that is taught, that is the ideal, but sometimes there are instances where disobedience to the Church is exactly what the conscience asks us to do, Simpleas. This is a topic for another thread though. Some people’s “obedience” is more strict than others.

God Bless.

 

[OneSheep]

I think that communion has been broken when “Catholics” reject fundamental tenants of the faith.

Do you see that it is up to an individual’s (or the individual’s ingroup) opinion what those “fundamentals” are? And then, once someone else has violated those fundamentals, what happens? The person is excluded in some way, they are suddenly in the outgroup.

This is exactly the way that fundamentalism operates. Once a person is in the outgroup, they are rejected, they are “not in communion”. Are you familiar with Catholic fundamentalism, guanophore? If so, do you have a more specific characterization of the label?

 

[guanophore]

Do you see that it is up to an individual's (or the individual's ingroup) opinion what those "fundamentals" are?  And then, once someone else has violated those fundamentals, what happens?  The person is excluded in some way, they are suddenly in the outgroup.

No, OS, I don’t see that at all. The Church has One Faith. It is not up to any individual or any “ingroup”. It is not an opinion. Persons who do not embrace that faith have excluded themselves from the One Faith.

This is exactly the way that fundamentalism operates. Once a person is in the outgroup, they are rejected, they are "not in communion".

Yes.

Are you familiar with Catholic fundamentalism, guanophore? If so, do you have a more specific characterization of the label?

Yes, I am familiar with it. Catholic Fundamentalists have also drifted from the One Faith, which is inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus calls all to repent and believe.

 

[simpleas]

Maybe!

I get lost too.

I agree that we should be obedient to all that is taught, that is the ideal, but sometimes there are instances where disobedience to the Church is exactly what the conscience asks us to do, Simpleas. This is a topic for another thread though. Some people’s “obedience” is more strict than others.

God Bless.

Well it seems the topic of the thread has changed to being in communion with the church, not much about what the crowd didn’t know.

 

[guanophore]

Well it seems the topic of the thread has changed to being in communion with the church, not much about what the crowd didn’t know.

Catholic communion is build upon the Passover Sacrifice. When this sacrifice was instituted, everyone who did not participate was not part of the community/covenant.

Althugh Jerusalem was full of pilgrims that came to observe the Passover in Jersalem, I do not think they understood that Jesus was Himself the passover lamb.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, I am familiar with it. Catholic Fundamentalists have also drifted from the One Faith, which is inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus calls all to repent and believe.

So, what is a “Catholic Fundamentalist”?

Does a “Catholic Fundamentalist” if being exclusive, know what they are doing to those they exclude, i.e., do they know that they are mistreating people?

 

[OneSheep]

Well it seems the topic of the thread has changed to being in communion with the church, not much about what the crowd didn’t know.

There is a loose tie. For example, if I say or imply that someone else is not in communion with the Church, when that other person receives Eucharist and desires to comply with Church teachings, do I know what I am doing?

It would be hurtful for me to say or imply this. Would I know what I am doing?

 

[simpleas]

There is a loose tie. For example, if I say or imply that someone else is not in communion with the Church, when that other person receives Eucharist and desires to comply with Church teachings, do I know what I am doing?

It would be hurtful for me to say or imply this. Would I know what I am doing?

It would be none of your business.

And I do think you would hurt someone by implying something you as a human couldn’t ever know, yes.

 

[simpleas]

Catholic communion is build upon the Passover Sacrifice. When this sacrifice was instituted, everyone who did not participate was not part of the community/covenant.

Althugh Jerusalem was full of pilgrims that came to observe the Passover in Jersalem, I do not think they understood that Jesus was Himself the passover lamb.

So in this not understanding that Jesus was the passover lamb, they to a degree didn’t know what they were doing. Yes?

 

[guanophore]

So, what is a “Catholic Fundamentalist”?

Does a “Catholic Fundamentalist” if being exclusive, know what they are doing to those they exclude, i.e., do they know that they are mistreating people?

Catholic communion is closed, OS, because it is a celebration between those who adhere to the One Faith.

There is a loose tie. For example, if I say or imply that someone else is not in communion with the Church, when that other person receives Eucharist and desires to comply with Church teachings, do I know what I am doing?

It would be hurtful for me to say or imply this. Would I know what I am doing?

There are a great many Catholics that reject teachings of the Church, and yet present themselves for Holy Eucharist. It is a sacrilege, but most of them are ignorant, yes. Many people believe it is acceptable to be a “cafeteria catholic” (Protesant) and still receive communion.

There are many who desire their views to comply with Church Teaching and for this to be synonymous withe being in compliance with the Chuch Teaching. I am having dialogue with a Lutheran on another thread who claims he is a “Catholic of the Augsburg confession”, and his Lutheran community is “a valid continuation of the Church Catholic - not in union with the successor of Peter”. They have their Eucharist, which they believe is Catholic. :whacky:,

There is One Faith. Catholics are those who have embraced the One Faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles…

This post seems to have little to do with the thread topic, but I can say this. Jesus came to be the fulfillment of Judaism. They saw him as a heretic, and not the arrival of all the promises about the Messiah. They did not recognize Him as the one about whom Moses prophesied. They excluded Him, and mistreated Him. Were they being Jewish Fundamentalists?