www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Just Suppose......(re: the new pope)

Dear ByzanTN - thanks for the suggestion; I shall have a hot chocolate!

Dear Hal, I'm not scorning "academics and others who present their views in a completely non-threatening manner" - as I wrote in another thread (cf Town Hall) in the past day or so, I have an absolute horror of people who used "administrative methods" to crush thought. I am well aware that such Gestapo types exist, and I have no part with them. But I would not throw them out of the Church,I would merely attempt to restrain their anti-intellectual behavior.

Incognitus

Lookie here the kid has a drachma to toss into the pot

Yeah Bill this is indeed quite the thread and its subject matter is important to because it goes to the heart of our faith. I think John summed it up quite well when he said the discussion touches upon the very meaning of what being a Catholic means.

For me it can only mean one thing: Love. Being a Catholic is first and foremost the relationship of love between Creator and creature. And as St Paul reminds us in 1 Cor 13 love 'believes all things'.

I'm a dirty thilthy sinner, of that there is no question. Many people call me 'good', they have a veil over their eyes. I am a horrendous sinner in so many secret ways that my spirit must run red with the blood of Christ at every confession, at every Mass. Damned and damnable were St Augustine's words I think and they apply to me excellently...

...if not for Jesus

The Divine Mercy strikes a revert like myself like a baseball bat to the back of the skull. I dont get it, I cant understand, at 19 I've grown up in a culture that says you're worth something if you DO something. But God says something different, something shocking. God says 'arent you not worth many sparrows?'

It stuns me because I am worth nothing. Nothing really is. The Universe itself is approximately 13.7 billion years old and even that is hurtling towards some kind of cataclysmic ending that will see it fall back into chaos. Does it not strike you then? That we beings who live 120 years at best have been given the gift of knowing and loving the infinate, transcendent, immutable God?
What has this to do with obidience to the Magisterium? My answer is everything.

Because we love because God first loved us as is written in 1 Jn 4:19 and we obey because of love. The two most important commandments are not general directives. The directives are covered in extensive moral codes found throughout scripture and tradition. But they speak of an attitude, a heart. When a man is in love with a woman, really in love, he can kill for her, die for her, he would even let her kill him if she wished it. And this is precisely what Jesus showed us. He let his loved ones murder Him to prove His love. The love of God inspires love and it is that love that gives me a Catholic heart.

You see Jesus' love moves me. It moves me in ways that the lexicon of the English language cannot explain. It is deep it is profound it is something that flows out of my soul and into somewhere else . And because I love my Lord I listen to Him. Now my Lord said to His Apostles whoever hears you hears me and whoever hears me hears the one who sent me. My Lord said to Simon that he could have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and bind and loose, my Lord told him to confirm his brethren, my Lord said to feed the flock. My Lord did all this and these powers were passed on by Apostolic Succession, the earliest Christians vouch for this as we all well know. As such I must obey the magisterium because love DRIVES me to honour Jesus' words because his love drives me to love Him. And 'if you love me you will abide by my commandments', did He not say these words??

I dont understand everything and I dont need to, theologian or not. Love does the understanding, love lets me the truth: Jesus. And perhaps thats why they say love is blind. Sometimes I go lukewarm sometimes my love is weak and reluctant. I am a teenager there are many sins and temptations i.e. sensuality that I struggle with. But the only way I can beat them is to look at the Lord in His Love because its so profound, so deep, so moving that even the lithe bodies of beautiful young girls cannot tear my attention from it. What could fulfil the heart more than the eyes of God staring deeply into your soul?

Having eyes do you not see, having ears do you not hear? Are your hearts also hardened? You even you to whom the Kingdom of God has been given?

To be a Catholic is to be madly, passionately in love with God and to be in love with God is to do whatever He says and to try, at least, to honour what He has uttered. I dont always understand why He does the things He does and the reasons arent always apparent. But I listen with my heart to the reasons given by Rome and with my heart I learn to like it and do it. Ours is a religion motivated entirely by love and without becoming mystics its impossible to keep it. Thats why God gave us sacraments, so we would have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so the burden would be easy and the yoke light because Christ would carry it Himself within us.

Have you not heard? We live under grace not under law? Trying to live the law by purely human means and trying to understand it all you will learn from it is sin and how to sin. But the sweetness and immanence of God makes it worthwhile, makes it possible full stop.

To conclude, for me, the only way to show my love for God is to honour His Word. Jesus said He would bind in Heaven what was bound on earth, Jesus said that those hearing the disciples heard Him. And for me thats all I need to know. Because Jesus has given me so much...so much...and the only way I can repay Him, the LITTLE I can give is to try and do what He asks of me and that is the heart of Catholicism. In the end taking up the cross is not an ascetic struggle, no it is request from God to respond to Him as He did to us: To die (to yourself) for love.

I dont believe there is any other way to actually follow the regulations of the faith. Jesus evidently didnt either since he told the Scribe that the whole law and prophets hinged on the commandments to love. God expects us to assent and believe that the Church is right with our whole heart, mind, strength and whatever else because He asks us to love with those same things. To trust in Him as a child trusts its Father and a wife trusts her beloved Husband. The magisterium is inerrant, love tells me so, and I obey accordingly.

To be a Catholic is to take on the Imago Christi to become a partaker in the divine nature to know God's love in your soul and simply...to respond with thanks in any way you can, which means to bow ones head when the Church demands and simply accept what we wouldnt otherwise do of our accord. She always gives good reasons and when the heart is full of love it can see that these are right. Even if the devil continues tries to sift us like wheat with sinfulness...

I appreciate your candor. I don't always agree with the Roman Catholic Church or even with the Byzantine Catholic Church but I have no problem trusting the dogmas and the doctrines of the Church. In those areas in which I have some question I can usually simply say I trust the Church but I keep my conscience. That is, in time I believe I will be proven wrong. In the meantime I see no problem with disagreement.

Yet, I think you must be joking when you say that the Pope and Ratzinger are the only ones thought infallible and that all others are treated in an authoritarian fashion. American Bishops who allow for the gutting of the liturgy are allowed to do so. American Bishops who promoted the homosexualists training grounds they called seminaries in the 1970's and 1980's with barely a protest from the Vatican. Virtually no heresy trials during this period. This does not look like the workings of an authoritarian.

Then look at the other side of the coin. Parish councils are in virtually every Church. Nuns have been permitted the abandonment of the habit. Every nation has its own council of bishops.

Now that Pope John Paul II has weathered the storms of heterodoxy the Church seems strong and ready to take on the 21st century.

Dan L

Hal,

Give it a rest. You know as well as anyone else that Michael was talking about baptized Catholics who with hostility challenge the Church. You are uncharitable in the extreme to challenge (mock) someone and use his vocation as a weapon with which to mock him.

Dan L

Well said, byzanTN! Have you run across those media reporters who insist on telling us that "a poll of Catholics in America" think the next Pope should do this, that or the other thing? I want to reach thru the TV and shake them!

(And the chocolate idea sounds really good. Let's all meet at Starbucks at the end of this thread and have a cafe mocha, on me! )

I thought I'd have something more to say here, but Charles, Dan and Myles have already stated what I might have.

Being a simple person, may I make a simple analogy. When a parent sternly corrects a child not to play with the fire or not to agitate the dog, it's not because they don't love the child. The parent is simply looking out for the child. Oftentimes, however, the child doesn't learn the lesson until they get burnt or bit. Love is not always kind. Hard love can be a lesson learned. Am I making any sense?

Bill

Dan:

It was not I who came up with the bit about the Pope and Ratzinger, but thanks for the credit!

Seriously, you raise what appear to be excellent points. Since I have not the faintest clue as to what the RC's do with their liturgy or how they screen their seminarians, I will simply have to take your word for it.

I'm also not sure that liturgical abuses or allowing a culture of homosexuality to exist in a seminary would consisute heresy.

Still, if there was an issue that JPII seemingly cared about, intellectual discourse was silenced on that issue. Can we say mandatory celibacy?

Yours,

hal

Hal,

Sorry if I mis identified the writer. Mandatory celibacy has been lifted for the Eastern Catholics for several years. Our own bishops are slow in acting though we now have some married priests. Ironically is was Pope John Paul II who lifted the ban. Moreover, there are a growning number of Latin Priests who are married. Is there really a ban on discussing the matter?

Doubtless Pope John Paul II had his limitations but they are well overshadowed by his strengths.

Dan L

Professional football has its "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" and The Byzantine Forum certainly has its "Sunday Afternoon Theologians".
Lord have mercy!

True. Obviously (from previous posts), I did not agree with every position Pope John Paul II held. Nevertheless, I greatly admire his consistent and emphatic support for human life and promoting a culture of life. I am also very impressed with his improvement of relations with other Christians and other religions. I am also very impressed with his spiritual writings that I have read; his "Church of the Eucharist" reminds me of the quality and spiritual depth of the Fathers of the Church. I am impressed that he actually apologized for the various sins of the Catholic Church in the past; it was a good and necessary first step to repentance within and with others. His role in the downfall of Soviet Communism was essential. His worldwide evangelism was unparalleled and utterly inspiring. His canonization of many saints, especially lay people, was also inspiring by providing so many new role models. Etc. Most of all, he had genuine love for human beings: individually and overall. I could go on and on, notwithstanding my personal disagreements on some issues. He was clearly John Paul the Great.

--John

Dear Dan, John, et al:

I think we all agree. Given the choice between a Pope who would not change the stance on birth control and one who helped bring down the Commies, I'll take the latter every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Yours,

hal

Miles, God bless him, has put in a welcome and necessary drachma - love is indeed at the foundation of our faith. But to respond with a lepta of my own, I would suggest the it would be well to research the concept of the "magisterium" and even the term itself.
Another correspondent offers the thought that love is not always kind. Saint Paul had a different view of the matter.

Incognitus

I'm sick of hearing the media discuss
allowing "priests to marry".
That's not the question.
No one has even suggested that
priests be allowed to get married.
The proper question is whether
"married men will be allowed to
become priests". There's a world
of difference between the two.

Antonius, that is an excellent point, and one I have not heard before! Good job!

As a convert to the Faith from a two long standing traditions of blatant and vicious anti-catholicism, I find the references here to disagreeing with the teaching of the Church quite troubling.

On Holy Saturday 4 years ago, as part of the Rite of Entrance for Catechumens, I took a VOW of obedience to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church as expressed by the Holy Father and the Ordinary Magisterium.

Those of you who disagree on certain "points" ... do you know that the word "sacramentum" is Latin for "oath"? Do you know that your parents took this oath on your behalf until such time that you would accept (or, God forbid) reject it for yourself??

Do you realize what the scriptures teach regarding the solemnity of making vows before God and then breaking them? I did....and when I took that oath I thought about it for a second or two (already fully convinced of the rightness of my decision to convert) in order to let the full impact of what I was about to do sink in, and then repeated it with all the force of heart and mind I could muster.

Sadly, I think that many, many millions of Catholics have no idea that this is what they have done, either as reverts, converts, or as babies baptized into the Church. Then they feel that because they live in a democracy where every nutcase and fruitcake expects to not only be heard, but to actually influence our lawmaking (vis a vis "gay marriages") that they have a "right" to oppose the teachings of the Church when those teachings do not appeal to them!!!

I think Christ shall have a far different opinion on the Judgment Day. After all, will we not be judged by what we have done with the rules of the Kingdom which we were given. Did Jesus not say this in John's Gospel:

"By this shall you know them that love me....THAT THEY KEEP MY COMMMANDMENTS."

And is not the Church the moral and doctrinal voice of our Lord upon this earth?

If you say "no".........

welcome to chaos, as shown and defined by Protesantism in all its crazy glory.

I would suggest that those here who disagree with the teachings on birth control and male only priesthood get a copy of Christpher West's teaching series on JP II's THEOLOGY OF THE BODY. It is without a doubt the simplest and most straight forward explanation I have heard on this sometimes made to be complex subject.

Brother Ed