O
OneSheep
Guest
I’m sorry, Vic, I don’t understand what you are referring to in my “lecture”. Could you find a comment I made and directly address it?
- Status
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning! 
Another point: Jesus forgave, from the cross, people who had not forgiven Him. This is off-topic, but your view and mine are both supported in the Gospel, and are to be respected. This is a side issue, unrelated to the definition of culpability, correct?
I refer to the quote in my signature. In addition, a scripture scholar priest once explained what appeared to be conditional forgiveness in this way (paraphrased): “God always forgives, however, if we do not forgive others, we will project a God who does not forgive us, or forgives us only conditionally. The person will not realize the unconditional love and forgiveness that comes from God.”
Another point: Jesus forgave, from the cross, people who had not forgiven Him. This is off-topic, but your view and mine are both supported in the Gospel, and are to be respected. This is a side issue, unrelated to the definition of culpability, correct?
I see your point. It is not common usage of “grudge” when referring to being jealous or envious of someone, but if that usage is included, it works. Jealousy and envy, as blaming are something we will best overcome. It is a label to overcome. And yes, jealousy and envy can also be transcended through awareness.
O
OneSheep
Guest
O
OneSheep
Guest
I’m sorry, feel free to substitute some words when doing so gives me the benefit of the doubt. I will rephase:
I do see the value of a victim narrative when one is suffering and angry, and I also see the value of a narrative that transcends that narrative. The original narrative need not disappear, and a new narrative can arise.
The new narrative is a healing one, Vic, or indicates some healing has taken place.
I am not understanding at all what happened, but my understanding does not matter. I am wondering how you feel about what happened? Did you forgive? You have no reason to share with me your answer. It is none of my business. I think that I am hearing that correctly.
I’m not sure what you are saying there. If I have done any “mob rule and arm twisting”, please show me where. Are you seeing a theme in my responses to these sort of comments? I am hearing from you that I am perhaps being insensitive or domineering in some way, but I cannot correct my ways unless you can show me where such has occurred.
Deciding on people’s timing, their comprehension, their boundaries, should be none of your business because you care.
PleaseWe all have our callings. Mine is always under the process of discernment. Are you voice of God to me? I don’t know, and (but) I am open to the possibility.
I am trying to discern your tone. Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I have a clear conscience; I am not trying to push anyone around.
Now, can we get back on topic? Do you prefer the Catholic definition of “culpability” the way it stands? If so, support your argument, and we can take it from there.
V
Vico
Guest
Collins dictionary:Good Morning!
I refer to the quote in my signature. In addition, a scripture scholar priest once explained what appeared to be conditional forgiveness in this way (paraphrased): “God always forgives, however, if we do not forgive others, we will project a God who does not forgive us, or forgives us only conditionally. The person will not realize the unconditional love and forgiveness that comes from God.”
Another point: Jesus forgave, from the cross, people who had not forgiven Him. This is off-topic, but your view and mine are both supported in the Gospel, and are to be respected. This is a side issue, unrelated to the definition of culpability, correct?
I see your point. It is not common usage of “grudge” when referring to being jealous or envious of someone, but if that usage is included, it works. Jealousy and envy, as blaming are something we will best overcome. It is a label to overcome. And yes, jealousy and envy can also be transcended through awareness.
to grudge (v.t.) to envy and resent (someone) because of that person’s possession or enjoyment of (something); begrudge
grudge
a strong, continued feeling of hostility or ill will against someone over a real or fancied grievanceNo, there is no absolution without our proper disposition and that means contrition and the intention to sin no more. If a person has the intention to willfully not forgive another then uncharity exists and there can be no absolution for any sin when a person has improper disposition. If it were a minor matter then it would wound charity (and be venial of course), and that attachment would be purged in life or purgatory.
So, for those fight against the desire for vengence, and forgo vengeful acts, for an offense, will not be blocked from obtaining absolution for sins. The blame remains, as recognition of the offense for which the forgiveness was given.
You asked before:
The answer is yes, in fact, that is what I was taught by a priest, who regularly conducts spiritual retreats.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, they would be finding you culpable, blaming you for not being Christian enough.
When someone points out something I have written as offensive, or seems bent on criticizing me, saying that what I am writing is “dangerous” or so forth, it is my hope that they can forgive me.
So, here again are reasons to clarify the definition of “culpable”. Am I “culpable” (blameworthy) of some type of underhanded collaboration or conspiracy? Well, I say that I am not, but why would a person accusing simply take my word for it? So, let’s say the person goes on and on and continues to think negatively about me (for the rest of their life, even). The antidote would be for them to forgive, would it not? However, a big part of that forgiveness may involve understanding a person’s point of view. On the other hand, if a person wants to hang onto to the blaming, there is no incentive to even begin to understand the others’ perspective.
Of course, this is not an issue if one prefers that others accuse (or hold against one) some perceived lack of faith, hope, or charity. I know, that’s ridiculous. Such preference goes against our nature. Of course, there is something to be said for being a slave to approval from others, but that is beside the point. There is a “oneness” a “holiness” that is in itself freeing.
Thanks, Vic, you are bringing forth some important considerations. I am trying (somewhat) to stay with the topic.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Are you saying that the way to address the problem I put forth is to tell the person who holds a grudge that they will not be forgiven by God until they forgive?
There can be some problems though, which may eventually cause difficulties for people. For example, we are called to “be perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect”. If God forgives conditionally, then we are called to the same perfection.
If conditional forgiveness is perfection, then we can be “justified” to never forgive someone who does not forgive others or refuses to repent. To me, this is why and when what Jesus said and did from the cross is the final word. He forgave those who did not forgive, He forgave those who did not repent. He did not hang onto blame. He forgave His enemies. Doing exactly this is what has helped me on my own journey.
Vico, please do not feel compelled to see things the way I am seeing them. There is more than one legitimate way of addressing these issues. The priest who runs those retreats is meaning the best for the participants; his words are supported in doctrine and scripture.
Thanks for sharing the Collins definition of “grudge”. We can see the distinction between “begrudge” and “hold a grudge”. It is the latter that comes into play with the usage of the word “culpable”. As I observe, awareness plays a role in overcoming both “begrudging” and “holding a grudge”. Note: prayer is the most important part of any approach, of course.
I did not ask the question to imply that such a means is “wrong”. The words taught by the priest you know do imply that God forgives conditionally, but there is a place for that image of God. I agree with the emphasis and importance of forgiveness.
There can be some problems though, which may eventually cause difficulties for people. For example, we are called to “be perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect”. If God forgives conditionally, then we are called to the same perfection.
If conditional forgiveness is perfection, then we can be “justified” to never forgive someone who does not forgive others or refuses to repent. To me, this is why and when what Jesus said and did from the cross is the final word. He forgave those who did not forgive, He forgave those who did not repent. He did not hang onto blame. He forgave His enemies. Doing exactly this is what has helped me on my own journey.
Vico, please do not feel compelled to see things the way I am seeing them. There is more than one legitimate way of addressing these issues. The priest who runs those retreats is meaning the best for the participants; his words are supported in doctrine and scripture.
Thanks for sharing the Collins definition of “grudge”. We can see the distinction between “begrudge” and “hold a grudge”. It is the latter that comes into play with the usage of the word “culpable”. As I observe, awareness plays a role in overcoming both “begrudging” and “holding a grudge”. Note: prayer is the most important part of any approach, of course.
V
Vico
Guest
Hold
There is more than one meaning of hold, and they are significant for the comparison with culpability, if imputability is considered, because it may be involuntary (Collins dictionary, tr. verb):
- (US) to keep from going away; not let escape
- to have or keep in the mind
- a strong, continued feeling of hostility or ill will against someone over a real or fancied grievance
- a reason or cause for this
Modern Catholic Dictionary
FORGIVENESS
Definition
Pardon or remission of an offense. The Catholic Church believes that sins forgiven are actually removed from the soul (John 20) and not merely covered over by the merits of Christ. Only God can forgive sins, since he alone can restore sanctifying grace to a person who has sinned gravely and thereby lost the state of grace. God forgives sins to the truly repentant either immediately through an act of perfect contrition or mediately through a sacrament. The sacraments primarily directed to the forgiveness of sins are baptism and penance, and secondarily, under certain conditions, also the sacrament of anointing.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
1730-5 were under discussion, Guanophore pointed out how important it is to realise when to talk about offence and forgiveness from God’s point of view, when from our own as victims, as perpetrators, etc etc.
Not specifying, would come over to unwary readers as being lectured by you.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Please We all have our callings. Mine is always under the process of discernment. …… I will rephase:
I do see the value of a victim narrative when one is suffering and angry, and I also see the value of a narrative that transcends that narrative. The original narrative need not disappear, and a new narrative can arise.
The new narrative is a healing one, Vic, or indicates some healing has taken place.
… I am wondering how you feel about what happened? Did you forgive? … It is none of my business. I think that I am hearing that correctly.
Yes but I can volunteer as much as I like if I feel like it! Bewildered in that it called into question in a supposedly authoritative church context important elements like faith and Scripture. As to “Did you forgive?” I can only say how long do you think it takes for bewilderment to hit one?
I’m not sure what you are saying there. If I have done any “mob rule and arm twisting”, please show me where. Are you seeing a theme in my responses to these sort of comments? I am hearing from you that I am perhaps being insensitive or domineering in some way, but I cannot correct my ways unless you can show me where such has occurred.
I was relating those events. Arm twisting was a way for some individuals to get their way by sucking up to higher authority while riding roughshod. It wasn’t referring to you. However, simply because of your customarily not specifying the boundaries and dynamics, I believed your pieces around these subjects could be construed as some form of “lecturing” in the ears of those trying to process events of this kind that they have been through. I saw this in your general pieces especially, more than responses to me.
Deciding on people’s timing, their comprehension, their boundaries, should be none of your business because you care.
I am trying to discern your tone. Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I have a clear conscience; I am not trying to push anyone around.
I did put it rather strongly. Same point as before, clarity on boundaries and dynamics would make it come over fine.
Now, can we get back on topic? Do you prefer the Catholic definition of “culpability” the way it stands? If so, support your argument, and we can take it from there.
I’ve never had troubles with Catholic definitions of culpability.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
OS, this is a very interesting quote from that priest.
What is interesting is that he doesn’t say anything about the time, space and manner elements in the situation. If I hurt someone badly enough (God forbid), he may go away with a frown on his face and give me a wide berth ever after but as far as his relationship with God is concerned may have forgiven me (there not being a hard and fast rule about approaching one’s past oppressor).
In relation to his last statement he is probably over-emphasising the directness of any connection as a general rule. For some people, God’s love is demonstrated to them through other sources meantime. In my case God would realise that my feelings don’t need rescuing in that way. Or indeed He may delay the man’s move till I have descended so many pegs that I would be receptive.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Vico, this is very helpful as it states at every point whose the dynamics and boundaries are.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
OS, this explanation by Vico of the distinction between sins against God and offences against another is interesting to me.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, Vico, well posted. I can’t really say anything at this point that I haven’t said already.
Have a great day, a blessed Sabbath.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Ironically, your call for clarity on boundaries and dynamics is unclear and somewhat appears boundless!
Please, find something I wrote that you find too unclear or boundless and ask for clarification, I would be happy to do so!Okay, fair enough.
Yes, this is true, he did not state such a “hard and fast rule”. Would you like one? I think love should be our guide, right? When we have come to the point where we can prayerfully approach a person with love, I think that is our calling.
He definitely promoted the idea that God’s love is demonstrated through many sources. Holding grudges, refusing to forgive, compromises our own realization of God’s forgiveness. It’s something like, “if you want to feel forgiven, then forgive.” Some might wince at my use of “feel” there, my wording could be better.
What does that mean, “my feelings don’t need rescuing”? Also, the second sentence is unclear to me. God delaying a man’s move? Sounds like puppetry. I’m confused.
G
guanophore
Guest
You seem to be test driving ideas for a book, or a class, or topics to teach hapless parishioners. You seem to be motivated and have a sense of calling to show Catholics your Truths about how no one knowingly and willingly rejects God, and therefore, there is no mortal sin, because all sin emanates from ignorance and blindness. I would classify it more as an “agenda” than a lecture, but you use a pedantic and sometimes socratic method to persuade your readers about your ideas.
In this thread, the “lecture” seems to be that blame (finding others culpable) is a function of emotional reasoning and resentment from people being hurt and offended. If someone still has “blame” or finds others “culpable” then they have not fully forgiven the other person.
And you would like the Catholic definition to be revised so as to accommodate your observations that finding others culpable inhibits the forgiving process. Anyway, that is how I caught the content of the “lecture”.
Do you honestly think that, if someone tried to tell you your methods came across as coercive, you would give that any merit? I don’t think so!
Of course you do! We all do what we think is best, and have the courage of our convictions. You would not be here proselytizing your view if you did not believe it was from God!
It is an interesting psychological speculation. I wonder if “not realize” actually amounts to “not forgiven”. Of course, since you espouse the view that hell is really more like school or therapy that souls spring out of once they have "fully realized’ I guess it really doesn’t matter if they fully realize now, or later.Good Morning!
In addition, a scripture scholar priest once explained what appeared to be conditional forgiveness in this way (paraphrased): “God always forgives, however, if we do not forgive others, we will project a God who does not forgive us, or forgives us only conditionally. The person will not realize the unconditional love and forgiveness that comes from God.”
I think you missed the point Vico was trying to make in post 113, as well as what is in the Catechism. Culpability is between a person and God. It is not our place to determine the status of another persons’ soul before his Creator. I would argue that we are not even qualified to determine the state of our own, due to our own ignorance and blindness.
G
guanophore
Guest
As long as you are following the posting guidelines, people who may be “offended” by your views have their own problem to solve.
People who are reading your public proclamation of yourself as Catholic while reading non or anti-Catholic ideas in your posts will not be able to solve that problem by themselves.
Critique is open to any and all. If you post, your post may be critiqued. Besides, if you are writing a book, won’t that help?
If what you are writing is dangerous (to the faith because it misrepresents what the Catholic Church teaches) that does not necessarily mean that the person who notices the dangerous path is personally offended, or find you culpable in some way. You have the privilege to post your views here, even if they are dangerously contrary to the Catholic faith. These matters are not between individuals (who get offended) as they are between the One Faith and those who have departed from it. Noticing that someone has departed from the faith need not include resentment or unforgiveness. One can be quite compassionate while watching another walk away.
Most of the things that we do in ignorance and blindness we do because we think we are right. I think you have noted that people do their best to do the right thing, did you not? So you would not be presenting this “lecture” if you did not strongly believe that Catholics can be liberated by it’s message.
Stand facing the sun one day. Someone next to you will see your shadow behind you, but you will not see it, because you are facing away from it.
A person might take your word for it that you mean well, but that person may not be able to “take your word for it” that the message is consistent with what the Catholic faith teaches. No one can’t say you would be “culplable” though, since you may well not have “sufficient awareness”.
I think you are making an erroneous assumption here. Disagreement with the content of your lecture does not equate to thinking negatively about the professor as a person.
I agree with your point, but you also must consider that a person might just disagree with you, not hold any blame, see your point of view but not share it, and believe your point of view is not Catholic, all without animosity.
I dont’ think this can be equated with an opposing view either. Just because someone disagrees with another, the assumption that the person lacks faith, hope or charity may not be made. It puts me in mind of Pauls disagreement with Barnabus in Acts 15;
39They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus,
There is no reason to think that either Paul or Barnabas were lacking in faith, hope or charity, but they did have a strong disagreement and parted ways.
I am not so sure it is beside the point. In fact, our innate desire for approval by others is the foundation of most of what we find “offensive” would you not agree? We naturally want ourselves and our ideas, and especially our faith, hope, and charity to be esteemed by others, especially those in the household of faith.
V
Vico
Guest
Before, I found this remark puzzling that there were two views (yours and mine) because I am not aware of two views:
But actually Jesus asks his Father to forgive them, he does not say he forgives them. Many thought he was a sorcerer, they were invincibly ignorant. And then shortly he descends into the underworld to deliver the Gospel and free the just, but not the unjust. Upon the death of Jesus Christ’s body, the New Covenant began, Hebrews 9:15-18:
15 For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. 16 Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive.18 Thus not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Catechism
637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.
634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.
635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487
Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."488
G
guanophore
Guest
Thanks for posting these great sections Vico. I think perhaps you do have a very different view than OneSheep, if you believe these things that you posted from the Catechism.
O
OneSheep
Guest
John 12:
44 And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. 45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.
49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.
There is no need to tease apart the trinity, Vico. It is a mystery. The Son speaks for the Father, yet when we see Him we see the Father. Surely you are not saying that Jesus did not forgive those who hung Him; the passage references in my Bible go to Jesus’ call to forgive our enemies.
have a great Sunday.
- Status