"They were the best of times; they were the worst of times"?
posted by: noelfitz
March 5, 2008
3:05 pm
The present time, as was the time when Charles Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities, is also, perhaps, the best of times and the worst of times.
It is easy to point out many failings in ourselves and in the Church, but there are also very positive signs.
Some time ago the pastor of the parish I attend hosted a dinner for almost 150 parish helpers: choir, readers, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, members of the Parish Council , the St Vincent de Paul Society, etc. It was a wonderfully successful night and the pastor paid tribute to all who gave their time and talents freely to the parish.
In the future with the decline in clergy the Church will rely more and more on the laity. It was encouraging to see so many involved in one parish and the goodwill among all those participants.
The role of the laity has only been discussed recently; perhaps Yves Congar was the first to raise the issue seriously. Vatican II, particularly in Lumen Gentium, focused on the role of the laity and the common priesthood of all the baptized people of God.
In your experience is the laity being encouraged to participate in the life of the Church? Are you happy with your role in the Church’s apostolate? Are you optimistic about the future, with very few priests, but more committed lay folk?
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: lpioch
March 5, 2008
3:56 pm
Noel,
I think you already know my own personal (optimistic!) answers. I will pause to allow others to answer first. It is a very good question.
posted by: noelfitz
March 5, 2008
11:20 pm
Loretta
I think I have a suspicion of your views.
I think you might agree with the following:
Cardinal Newman has been amply vindicated by subsequent teaching on the role of the laity, promulgated by Pope Pius X (1903-1914), Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), and Pope Pius XII (1939-1959).
These three Popes were the outstanding promoters of participation of the laity in the mission of the Church, together with St. Vincent Pallotti (1795-1850), the founder of the Society for Catholic Action.
In our own day the teaching of the second Vatican Council on the laity and the revised Code of Canon Law have undoubtedly leaned heavily on the preliminary work done by theologians such as Yves Congar, O.P., Raymond Spiazzi, O.P., and Cardinal Jerome Hamer, O.P. Nor can we forget the influence of Monsignor Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of Opus Dei, and his successor, Alvaro Del Portillo.
As early as 1932 Monsignor Escrivá made the following statement: The prejudice that ordinary members of the faithful must limit themselves to helping the clergy in ecclesiastical apostolates has to be rejected. There is no reason why the secular apostolate should always be a mere participation in the apostolate of the hierarchy. Secular people too have to have a duty to do apostolate; not because they receive a canonical mission, but because they are part of the Church. Their mission... is fulfilled in their professions, their job, their family, and among their colleagues and friends. (Reported in the book, Conversations with Msgr. Josermaría Escrivá, Dublin, 1968, p. 32).
Contemporary Church Teaching.
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) spoke so frequently about the laity — especially in the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen Gentium), the "Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity" (Apostolicam Actuositatem), and the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes) — that it has been called "the Council on the Laity."
At the same time it presented a new approach to ecclesiology by discussing so frequently the vocation and mission of the laity and by reviving the concepts of the Church as a mystery, a sacrament and the People of God. http://www.domcentral.org/study/aumann/xianlaity.htm.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 6, 2008
1:42 pm
Noel, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE SET APART. This is what defines the laity of the Catholic church. We all are priests in the sense that we minister to the sacraments by consensus. The Priest cannot do it all. If you recall, the 12 Apostles could not handle all the work there was to do so they elected ministers to serve the people so that the Apostles could focus on the adminstration of the Sacraments. Catholics are not the audience at a performing arts studio, we are a nation of priests led by the High Priest, Christ in the person of the Priest assigned to your church. I have been assigned many duties in my lifetime and rightly so. Any who would not servce cannot be disciple of Christ and as Christ said, "Those who aspire to greatness must be servant of all".
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: noelfitz
March 6, 2008
3:06 pm
Gabriel
You are very welcome here.
Thank you for your clear and robust statement on the position of the laity in the Church. You express completely what I believe, but you express in much better.
You have given the key quotation:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (NRSV, 1 Pet 2:9).
The common priesthood is shared by all baptized, even priests. The ministerial priesthood of the ordained does not detract from our priesthood.
I have been reading From Trent to Vatican II and in it there is a brilliant chapter on The Laity by Paul Lakeland (who teaches in Fairfield University in Connecticut).
He considers that the first developed theology of the laity was in 1953 (Yves Congar). For 1500 years prior to that ecclesiology left the laity invisible. The duties of the laity were “to pray up, pay up and shut up” http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/NEWMNLAY.HTM.
In the very early Church it was not so. Everyone was a member of the People of God, with his or her own unique gifts, flowing from baptism.
Then Vat II came along and we now have three great documents on the Laity, Lumen Gentium, Apostolicam Actuositatem and Gaudium et Spes.
However some fear that the ideas in these documents were never implemented. Others consider they went too far or they did not go far enough. Others fear the Church is rowing back from Vat II on the role of the laity.
My belief is that as in the west the Church will be a clergy free zone (almost). Thus lay people will have opportunities and obligations to participate more fully.
But no one ever gives up power/authority willingly, so there will be problems.
But, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church will be renewed, as it was reformed after Trent.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 6, 2008
4:08 pm
Noel, Thank you for the warm welcome from the heart of a Christian. I am happy to make your aquaintance especially as we realize the fullness of our mission to Christ and to the world. I am presuming that your talent and well intentioned faith would best serve the Diaconate. I do not know if you have ever considered this as the Diocese offers yearly enrollment and interviewing for the authoritative position in the ministry of the church and Sacraments. I am persuaded to believe you would be an gracious candidate. What do you think? Would you consider the apostolate of the Diaconate? And would your wife agree? Perhaps God is calling you to greater responsibility.
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: Tarheel
March 6, 2008
9:54 pm
Interesting. First I'm very happy in my parish and in my role as a catechist. But I feel strongly the urge to do more. Just what I will do next has yet to be decided.
I feel that the laity has an extremely important role in today's Church not just because of the decline in the clergy, but because it is a natural step for us to take as Christians in Christ's Church. As a convert I can't comment on why the laity taking on more roles in the church is a "new" concept. But, it is also good in that it allows our clergy to concentrate on more critical matters.
But in a way part of this is distressing. Have you noticed that in many parishes (mine included) it seems that the same group of lay people do more and more? The tasks or duties that the lay people take on needs to be spreader across a broader spectrum of the parish population. This year in my parish we lost two excellent catechists due to simply burn out after 15 plus years of teaching. Our DRE has struggled to find steady replacements for them. And my parish is the second largest in the state of Alabama.
We need fewer "pew warmers" and more "energized parishioners"
Tarheel (Dave)
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 7, 2008
10:10 am
Tarheel, Men are particularly called to the Diaconate because of our common priesthood with Christ. Every year your Diocese gathers Diaconate candidates. I am certain you would make a good candidate. I think this is where your heart belongs.
I am currently on a waiting list. I have interviewed for the Diaconate twice [unfortunately for me] our Diocese has enough money for only 25 Diaconate training slots and over 75 men applied for the Diaconate at the same time I did.
The Diaconate authorizes you to Baptize, Witness Catholic Holy Matrimony, Minister Last Rites, Preside at Mass including Homily and Gospel and concelebration. The Diaconate is only one step away from ordination to the Priesthood. The seminarian requirement for ordination includes the first step of the Diaconate. All Priests are first Deacons, then finally professing vows to the Holy Order of Priests.
What do you think Tarheel? Would you become a Deacon?
You would then have the authority to select and promote Catechists as well as moderate the volunteerism of laity, which would satisfy what you perceive as a desire to do more.
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: Tarheel
March 7, 2008
10:45 am
Personally I feel I'm a long way spiritually from becoming a deacon. But it is admittedly a dream. With family life and work (just where I happen to be while answering this) I don't have the time. I know I do want to expand my role as a teacher. Not just to children but to adults also. I always have had a strong call to tell others about our wonderful Catholic faith. Most of the people I tell about it are friends of my two son's who are Catholic and non-Catholic.
I receive a great deal of pleasure and peacefulness from Marian Devotions. So the majority of my reading focuses about that. The rest of reading is geared towards apologetics. I especially like how Keating writes. I also like Hahn and Weigel.
Deacon? If called I will answer.
Tarheel (Dave)
posted by: noelfitz
March 7, 2008
1:23 pm
Gabriel
Thank you for your kind words to me. It is a pity they are not deserved.
I hope you will enjoy our company here.
We do not have deacons, as in other countries, in Ireland. However I do not think I would be suitable.
Tarheel
Congratulations on being a catechist.
Also in Ireland we do not have catechists as such. But as you can gather many catechize/evangelize in different ways.
I would prefer to be a catechist, rather than a deacon, as that "ministry" is open to all baptized.
One of the problems here is that many conscientious Catholics do courses, then on qualification find they are not wanted. A friend of ours qualified as a counseller and offered her services to her parish. The paster congratualted her and said there were no opportunities at present, but if ever these would arise he would contact her. She understood what "don't call me, we will call you" meant.
Also people doing these courses, which are very expensive, usually in former seminaries, feel disillusioned. They are encouraged to do the courses and then they are rejected.
To me it seems strange that most of the orders in Holy Orders have been abolished. Holy orders used to be divided into minor (porter reader, exorcist and acolyte) and major orders (subdeacon, deacon and priest). Most of these have gone.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 7, 2008
4:27 pm
Tarheel, Of course you are a long way from becoming a Deacon however the reason training is provided is to close that gap. Time will be given to you by God Himself in order to accomplish the training. You will be surprised to find that when you commit your time to God, He gives you all the time in the world and some time thereafter. I am praying for your realization of a dream come true.
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 7, 2008
4:40 pm
Noel, I am certain my time here will be enjoyable with you for you see I am Irish also and a fellow brother in Christ. Every Priest I have had the pleasure of understanding in person has told me that when they went to seminary, they did not deserve the honor of becoming a Priest. God provides the means and the way to become worthy. This is only done through prayer and a calling. You may feel you do not have what it takes and that is true, no one has what it takes. That is why the Priesthood [and the Diaconate] is such a remarkable mystery of Christ. Christ enables men to become like Him in such a marvelous way.
If there is no Diaconate in Ireland then I hope you may at least become Presider in the Absence of a Priest. You could easily accomplish that with the approval of the Diocese if you so desire, God will grant you that. I have been granted by my Diocese to become Presider in the Absence of a Priest and have many times been so blessed to deliver Holy Communion to the faithful when our parish priest was not available.
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: noelfitz
March 8, 2008
6:13 am
I am grateful to all who contributed to this discussion.
There seems to be general agreement.
However perhaps it is important to clarify what we mean by clergy. In the old days members of the church were divided into clergy, monks and laity. This was ambiguous as monks may be clerical or lay. Then it was claimed that the tonsure made one a clergy member, this has gone, as has the old idea of minor orders (porter, exorcist, reader and acolyte) and major orders (sub-deacon, deacon and priest). Now laity are those baptized who are not deacons, priests or bishops and clergy are those who are.
Nuns (enclosed) and religious sisters are not clergy, neither are brothers or members of secular institutes (lay ecclesial movements) (usually) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_of_International_Associations_of_the_Faithful.
Today at Mass the priest pointed out that St John of God, the founder of the Order of Hospitallers of St John of God (http://www.stjohnofgod.org/, was a lay man.
St Francis of Assisi was also a lay man.
So lay people have contributed to the Church throughout history.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: gabriel.gardner
March 8, 2008
7:23 am
Noel, I would take your assertion, "that lay people have contributed to the Church throughout history" , a great step further. Lay people must contribute to the Church at the command of Christ when he said to Peter, "Unless you allow me to wash your feet, you cannot be my disciple".
Without the contributions of the Laity, either great or small, there would be no Catholic church. In fact, the Church in your community will rise[and fall] according to your contributions. This is attested to by the many regions of the country where Christ is not present. The United States of America is an example of this fact in that only 25% of USA is Catholic, the rest of the country either worships a false Christ or no Christ at all.
You are not aware Noel that the USA has become a missionary territory for Catholicism, a great many Priests are imported from abroad to evangelize this country to Catholicism. We suffer here tremendously at the hands of aetheists and false doctrine because of our lack of Laity or the lack of participation of our Laity.
The clergy would soon become useless without the Laity, the clergy rely heavily upon your support, in fact many clergy are left abandoned by their own constituents to suffer without the brotherhood of faith that Christ came to deliver.
May the road rise to meet you, the wind be always at your back and the Lord hold you in the palm of his hand, until we meet again.
posted by: MREINER16
March 8, 2008
1:04 pm
I guess I don't focus on what each group contributes to the Church as much as I perceive that we are all (clergy, laity, religious) part of the Church. We are members of the mystical Body of Christ. We are the Church Militant. As a Baptized Catholic, it's not that I now have a choice to contribute to the Church. By my Baptism, I am a member of the Church. Certainly we might have specific roles and we codify them with words of clergy, religious, deacon and lay person. Throughout the history of the Church some of te specific roles may have changed and perhaps they will again. I leave that up to the Magistareum and in faith and loyalty will abide with how they describe these roles. However, it is my personal responsibility not matter what my role to uplift and to strengthen the Body of Christ while alive here on Earth.
posted by: noelfitz
March 8, 2008
2:34 pm
Gabriel
Thank you so much for your most recent post. I agree fully with you. The lay person is the default Catholic.
I called this discussion "They were the best of times; they were the worst of times"? as there are so many encouraging signs at present, as well as the obvious negative one.
To focus solely on either set is wrong.
Mreiner16
I also agree with your very sensible post, in general.
However I disagree with you when you wrote We codify them with words of clergy, religious, deacon and lay person, since religious may be members of the clergy or laity and deacons are members of the clergy.
You wrote:
it is my personal responsibility not matter what my role to uplift and to strengthen the Body of Christ while alive here on Earth.
I fully agree and hope that my contributions here help to uplift and to strengthen the Body of Christ – People of God.
I welcome robust and frank discussions. However I think that the Catholics here should try to remain within Church teaching. Thus I welcome this discussion where we are all in essential agreement.Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (NRSV, 1 Cor 12:4-7).God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: noelfitz
March 25, 2008
1:21 pm
Recently, the founder of Focolare, Chiara Lubich, died.
She is an inspiration of what can be achieved by a lay person.
Focolare, like Opus Dei, is a brilliant movement which gives hope for the future.
Some time ago I was at the launch of the Book Chiara Lubich Essential Writings. The introduction was by the Anglican Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The launch was made by an Anglican priest, one of the editors, and this was followed by an address by the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, and talks by leading lay Catholics in Ireland (a male economics professor and a female lawyer).
At the Lunch the Shiite Imam in Dublin, the leader of the Sikh community and representatives of Churches and Ecclesial Communities were present.
I was very heartened. There is hope for the future.
You might like to look at
http://www.zenit.org/article-22060?l=english and
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-22119.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: sainthenry
March 30, 2008
2:29 pm
Noel, Thank you for the wonderful news. My parish priest also informed us that the world now contains 1.3 billion Catholics and many more are being added to their numbers. Marvelous isnt it? We have much to be thankful for in Jesus Holy Name!
King Henry 11 Holy Roman Emporer of Germany, Italy and Switzerland of the 10th Century: Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ and May God Bless Us All!
posted by: noelfitz
April 2, 2008
6:28 pm
Sainthenry
I am grateful for your kind words.
However my point in this discussion is that there is good news and bad news at present. To focus exclusively on either is wrong.
It is correct to say there are about 1.3 billion Catholics. But for the first time ever the mumber of muslims is greater than the number of Catholics.
Also in counting 1.3 billion Catholics one is including many who are ignorant of the faith, are hostile to it and do not practise.
The glass can be considerd half full or half empty.
In this round-table I have noted before that the future of the Church shows many postiive signs, especially with the rise of new movements such as Opus dei, Focolare etc.
It will be a lay church, with fewer clerics, more like the Church of very early times. The numbers of practising Catholics may be smaller than in the past, but perhaps the Catholics who practise will be more committed.
God knows.
Muslims now outnumber Catholics
Rome, Mar. 31, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The world's Catholics are now outnumbered by Muslims, according to the editor of the Vatican's statistical yearbook.
Msgr. Vittorio Formenti, who supervises the compilation of demographic figures for the Annuaro Pontificio, told L'Osservatore Romano that the latest data-- from 2006-- show a worldwide population of 1.115 billion Catholics, but 1.322 billion Muslims.
"For the first time in history, we are not at the top," Msgr. Formenti told the Vatican newspaper. He noted that the Catholic proportion of the world's population has held steady in recent years, while the Muslim representation has grown because of the larger family sizes in the Islamic world. Catholic families are having fewer children, he observed.
While Muslims outnumber Catholics, Christianity-- taken as a whole, including Orthodox and Protestant faithful-- still represents the world's largest religious group, with well over 2 billion believers.
(http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=86573)
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: fishman
April 2, 2008
11:06 pm
Catholics would not have the problem they are having now if most of them followed the churches teaching about contraception.
posted by: noelfitz
April 3, 2008
5:29 am
Fishman
One of the problems is that many Catholics do not follow the Church's teaching on contraception. In Ireland one of the major reasons for the decline in the Catholic Church is its rulings on contraception.
The Church seemed to have been unable to get its teaching on contraception accepted.
That is the reality.
What can one do?
Next year every Catholic family in Dublin will be visited. Special emphasis will be given to encouraging those who have fallen away to return, especially those who have been hurt by the Church.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: Protect the Rock
April 4, 2008
3:17 pm
What can one do?
I suggest giving Pope John Paul II's "Love and Responsibility" the sidest dissemination. If that's too high brow, then Chirstopher West's "Theology of the Body" talks through The Gift Foundation put the HOly father's teachingns in layman's terms that make sense.
posted by: fishman
April 6, 2008
9:53 pm
noel, ireland isn't alone, all of old europe is in danger of being destroyed and displaced by muslim culture , and that is largely due to the rejection of the catholic churches teaching on birth control. Protestantism having abandoned that teaching being part of that rejection.
posted by: noelfitz
April 7, 2008
12:48 pm
Fishman
Thank you for your post.
You may be correct in what you say.
The Church is going through difficult times. Its teaching on sex may be one of its major problems in the modern world.
People today seem to reject the Church's teaching and the Church seems unable to present its teaching in a way that peope can accept.
Ireland and Europe has problem, so has the US.
I read in our local Catholic paper that Rusell Shaw,a former spokesman of the American bishops, has warned against the collapse of the Catholic Church in the US, due to liberal Catholic views.
However as has been pointed out to me it is none of my darn business whether people are in sin or not. It should be none of my concern if very many will end up in hell.
Whether those who practise contraception etc. are in the state of grave sin is not my businress, neither is it if there is wholesale apostacy in the Church.
God is almighty. The future is up to Him and his providence.
The whole point of this discussion is that at present there are positive and negative signs concerning the future of the Church. To focus on only one aspect is not to see the whole story.
There are many encouraging signs. Let us see these and rejoice in the Lord.
posted by: lpioch
April 7, 2008
2:38 pm
Now Noel,
You write:
However as has been pointed out to me it is none of my darn business whether people are in sin or not. It should be none of my concern if very many will end up in hell.
And I know you're referring to me.
I think you misunderstood me, or I was not clear.
It is none of our darn business to JUDGE whether or not any individual is GOING TO HELL. Jesus Christ is our Judge. We individuals do not have the right nor the ability to discern the hearts of any man.
We can and must do all we can (as I already also said) to bring anyone and everyone to Heaven. If this truly is our task and our concern, we should not have to ask ourselves "Is he going to Hell?" As I said before, Corrections are a necessary part of this, but a determination of the state of the soul is not necessary to make a fraternal correction.
One need not determine the state of a brother's soul to lead him out of sinful behavior.
If you determine that your brother is sinful, but NOT going to Hell, do you not bother to help and to correct him? I seriously doubt that. If not, then why do you need to concern youself with whether his soul is damned? That was my point. I never said that it is not our business to be concerned with sin. It is simply beyond our own CAPABILITIES to know whether or not an individual is condemned to Hell. You won't ever even find the Church proclaiming a soul is in Hell. If not the Church, then why should we?
posted by: noelfitz
April 8, 2008
1:57 am
Loretta
I am always very grateful for your sound, faithful and constructive contributions, even though I am often quite apprehensive in case I will be gently but firmly rebuked.
As you know my permanent diffiulty is with the number of people.especoially Catholics, who may seem bound for helll. Thus the doctrine that it is none of my business is attractive.
To repeat: in some diocese in Ireland 1% attend Mass on Sundays. are the rest in sin?
It seems the vast majority of Catholics reject the Church's teaching on contraception. Are they in sin?
If one accepts that for sin to be mortal the act must be serious/grave and committed with clear knowledge and full consent, many of these folk may be in the state of grace.
On this argument Catholics could be considered to be free to supoort laws allowing for abortion, since those having abortions may not have clear knowlege and full consent and thus may not be morally culpable for having an abortion. Surely this is an argument of reductio ad absurdum.
Since I received your previous post I said I would need to mediatate on what you said. I have been doing this.
Essentially I agree, with you however there remains a niggling "but".
Would you like to look at
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0702btb.asp?
Part is repeateds below (sorry if it is too long):
Often people in these situations have tried to take some action already, only to be shot down immediately with the accusation that they are being "judgmental," that the Bible teaches us not to judge others, that they should just mind their own business. "After all," they’re told, "I’m not judging you and you shouldn’t be judging me. Read the Bible." But is that really what the Bible teaches?
When pressed to show where the Bible supports this, those who can come up with any response at all usually point to Jesus’ words found in the Gospel of Matthew, "Judge not, that you not be judged." Most people will stop there, with the clear conviction that the Bible teaches that we are not to pass any form of judgment on others. A closer look at this Bible verse and other related verses, however, uncovers a different understanding of Jesus’ teaching.
First, let’s look at the full context of Jesus’ words: Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matt. 7:1-5)If we break this passage down line by line, it becomes clear that Jesus was not telling his disciples that they could not ever judge the behavior of others. Rather, he was cautioning them to live righteous lives themselves so that their judgment of others’ behavior would not be rash judgment and their efforts would be effective in admonishing their neighbors.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: David T Garrison
April 8, 2008
8:23 am
Noel,
You wrote:
If one accepts that for sin to be mortal the act must be serious/grave and committed with clear knowledge and full consent, many of these folk may be in the state of grace.
I would hardly say that they are in the state of grace, but it would be difficult to condemn to Hades a thirteen year old girl who has an abortion after being "counseled" to do the same by her peers, parents, popular media and quite possibly her parish priest!
"If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible.
Lev 5:17
I also find it difficult to believe that an inquiring soul would not know that it is considered a sin by Rome, if not their parish, to not attend Mass when it is possible to do so, as well as using contraception.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Mt 7:13-14
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock{Peter, the Church}...But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand{human wisdom}.
Mt 7:24,26
very sad, but the Truth has spoken...I want to be in that number, pray for me, please
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me... Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: noelfitz
April 8, 2008
8:33 am
David
many thanks for your reply.
My central problem is that I find it hard to believe that a loving God would allow any person whom he created to suffer in hell for all eternity.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________
posted by: David T Garrison
April 8, 2008
9:09 am
Noel,
de nada, In my absence, I longed for the discourse we enjoy here!
In your statement, you reveal God's greatest love for man. Jesus Christ. By our gift of free will, God enjoined us to His Son and the Sacrifice He chose. Jesus laid down His life because it was the will of the Father. In His act of obedience, He expressed the greatest love He could for the Father and mankind. We are all called to this obedience and to emulate Christ in setting aside our own "lives" that we may have life.
In the scheme of things, the great love of our God is the mercy He gives to us all. I believe He will pardon all offenses, save the sin against the Holy Spirit{Mk 3:29}. If we try. When the weight of our cross brings us to our knees, we must try to rise again. When we cannot on our own, we must swallow our sin and let another help us on the way. This is a lesson of the Cross.
All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Eph 2:3-5
There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me... Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: lpioch
April 8, 2008
9:39 am
Noel,
Objective evil is still objective evil whether or not a person is culpable. We always must work for His Kingdom come, His Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. We must vigilantly work without ceasing and without rest of bring Christ's kingdom to everyone we meet.
No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
What if you DID have the divine knowledge of who was under mortal sin? Would your actions and behaviors be different? Why or why not? I suggest that they should NOT be any different...if we are truly trying to be other Christs...otherwise you are limiting your love.
Christ came to save ALL. But some still choose not to accept such a tremendous gift.
posted by: noelfitz
April 8, 2008
1:20 pm
David and Loretta
many thanks for your encouraging posts.
I enjoy being here.
In a safe, supportive and friendly atmosphere I feel I can discuss my deepest concerns, knowing that they will be treated with sincerity.
I am grateful to the two of you, but also to all those who contribute here from within the household of the faith.
God bless,
NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________