God Is LOVE

[AccountDeleted]

Sorry to hear about your friend.  I use the example of Jesus turning over the tables and grabbing the whip to illustrate that his actions would be viewed as fanatical by many.  Even the things he said "he who is not with me is agaisnt me" would be viewed by many as fanatical.  

The idea that Jesus is perfect and therefore the only person who can admonish sinners is, IMO, wrong.  Christ gave this authority to his Apostles and their successors, and Christ also gave us the way to correct our brethren when they're in error in Matthew 18:15-17.  I think what most forget though is that our correction should encourage others to go toward the Church for the answer if they do not agree with us when we say what the Church preaches.

IMO, I also think it's dangerous to pick parts of Jesus teaching we like and leave the rest which challenge us.  Christ's mercy is suppose to be conducive toward us having a better and correct outlook regarding His justice.  What I mean by that is if we see God's great mercy then we know and can be sure that hell is a just punishment.  Therefore we should not separate the two as if one Jesus is always nice and another Jesus is harsh.  There is one Jesus and hell is not contrary to his merciful nature.

Lastly I think we need to understand that admonishing the sinner does not mean judging the sinner.  Admonishing a sinner is when we warn others that their actions and beliefs, or lack thereof, is putting their salvation in serious jeopardy. Doing this has always been looked at by that Church as an act of charity because it is.  It is charity to warn others of the dangers they may encounter by proceeding on certain paths.  The problem nowadays is if you do this everyone thinks you're passing judgment and condemning them to hell.  

​Jesus also said 'he who is not against us is for us.' That is why I object to people taking quotes out of the Bible to support their own thesis - any side can do this. From admonishing the sinner to not looking for the twig in your brother's eye, this type of scriptural debate has been going on as long as there have been Christian vs Christian arguments. I agree that it is dangerous to argue like this but you still do it, as do I. We each grab the passages that support our point of view. And if that fails, we pull out saints or theologians that agree with us ad infinitum. 

And your lastly point, that admonishing the sinner does not mean judging the sinner. That is not my experience over the years. It may be the ideal, but it is not what happens in practice, which is that self-righteous people attempt to 'save' the other 'sinner' in a way that supports their own view of how holy and unlike the sinner that they are. There are not many people who actually can admonish another person about their sins with the love and mercy that are required to do so without actually appearing to be a prig. As dUSt said, presentation is everything.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

The fact, which some would see as unfortunate, is that not all opinions are equal. Some opinions, perhaps most, are worthless. The only value they have is in their refutation. The person has worth. Great, infinite worth. Any erroneous opinions they have do not.

The Church, as we know, is perfect, and it is only in faithfulness to the Church that we can sort out what is truth and what is error, and therefore to be absolutely rejected. Opinions that do not conform with the Church are worthless, even though - and in fact precisely because - the person who holds them is not.

[KnightofChrist]

Judging someone can also include judging them for the apparent judgement of others, and charges of self-rightness. Anyway back to work.

[AccountDeleted]

Judging someone can also include judging them for the apparent judgement of others, and charges of self-rightness. Anyway back to work.

​How judgmental of you!     

[Nihil Obstat]

Life Site News: How can the Church really help all those concerned: abandoned spouses, children of legitimate marriages who are hurt by the divorce of their parents, people who are struggling with homosexual tendencies or who have in a way let themselves be “trapped” into an illegitimate union? And what should our attitude be: the attitude of the faithful?

Cardinal Burke: What the Church can do, and that is the greatest act of love on the part of the Church, is to present the teaching on marriage, the teaching that comes from Christ’s very words, the teaching which has been constant in the tradition, to everyone, as a sign of hope for them. And also, to help them to recognize the sinfulness of the situation in which they find themselves, and at the same time  call them to leave that sinful situation and to find a way to live in accord with the truth. And that’s the only way the Church can help. That was my great hope for the synod: that the synod would hold up to the world the great beauty of marriage, and that beauty is the truth about marriage. I always say to people: indissolubility is not a curse, it is the great beauty of the marital relationship. This is what gives beauty to the relationship between a man and a woman, that the union is indissoluble, that it is faithful, that it is procreative. But now one almost begins to get the impression that somehow the Church is ashamed of the very beautiful treasure which we have in marriage, as God made man and woman from the beginning.

[AccountDeleted]

Life Site News: How can the Church really help all those concerned: abandoned spouses, children of legitimate marriages who are hurt by the divorce of their parents, people who are struggling with homosexual tendencies or who have in a way let themselves be “trapped” into an illegitimate union? And what should our attitude be: the attitude of the faithful?

Cardinal Burke: What the Church can do, and that is the greatest act of love on the part of the Church, is to present the teaching on marriage, the teaching that comes from Christ’s very words, the teaching which has been constant in the tradition, to everyone, as a sign of hope for them. And also, to help them to recognize the sinfulness of the situation in which they find themselves, and at the same time  call them to leave that sinful situation and to find a way to live in accord with the truth. And that’s the only way the Church can help. That was my great hope for the synod: that the synod would hold up to the world the great beauty of marriage, and that beauty is the truth about marriage. I always say to people: indissolubility is not a curse, it is the great beauty of the marital relationship. This is what gives beauty to the relationship between a man and a woman, that the union is indissoluble, that it is faithful, that it is procreative. But now one almost begins to get the impression that somehow the Church is ashamed of the very beautiful treasure which we have in marriage, as God made man and woman from the beginning.

​Burke presents his content much better than Voris but I do call exception to the statement in bold (my emphasis). I don't think that this is the ONLY way the Church can help, although I do agree that it is ONE way the Church can help. But once again, presentation is very important to convey content, especially important content.

 

[AccountDeleted]

Pope Francis says that we need to lead by example not words.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

​Burke presents his content much better than Voris but I do call exception to the statement in bold (my emphasis). I don't think that this is the ONLY way the Church can help, although I do agree that it is ONE way the Church can help. But once again, presentation is very important to convey content, especially important content.

 

I think Burke's point stands as he said it, because without that call to repentence,  every effort is worthless and in vain. 

[AccountDeleted]

I think Burke's point stands as he said it, because without that call to repentence,  every effort is worthless and in vain. 

​Well, I like the way Pope Francis says it better. Example, not words. But that's my preference.

[Nihil Obstat]

​Well, I like the way Pope Francis says it better. Example, not words. But that's my preference.

When people say that they tend also to imply that someone using words lacks action.

[AccountDeleted]

When people say that they tend also to imply that someone using words lacks action.

​Well he also states that words can be meaningless because there are so many of them these days. Voris doesn't particularly seem to be an example of God's love, although he does have plenty of words. Burke is certainly not offensive in his words, like Voris (to me I mean) but he does come across as less of an example of God's love than Francis. But I accept that we all respond differently to different methods of presentation. don't get me wrong, I like Burke, I even knew him when I lived in St Louis and he was Archbishop there. But his style isn't as appealing to me as Francis' is. It's a bit like the Pope thing - some people preferred JPII, some Benedict and some Francis. Variety is God's spice of life. 

[Nihil Obstat]

But it would be extremely wrong to infer that Cardinal Burke is lacking in the ability to set an example of Christ's love simply because you do not prefer his instruction. Which, I think we should bear in mind, is his solemn obligation as a pastor of countless souls.

[AccountDeleted]

But it would be extremely wrong to infer that Cardinal Burke is lacking in the ability to set an example of Christ's love simply because you do not prefer his instruction. Which, I think we should bear in mind, is his solemn obligation as a pastor of countless souls.

​Well, I don't think I said or inferred that he is lacking in the ability to set an example of Church teaching. I think I was implying that his example is not one that I relate to. Once again, it comes down to presentation style. Please don't infer so much that you end up accusing me of things I haven't done or said. I think I have been pretty clear about the fact that I agree with the importance of the content, but that the presentation makes a big difference as to how someone receives that content (my meme about reading out PowerPoint slides is an example of poor presentation - no matter how good the content, it bores everyone to death). I don't want to get into specifics of presentation because it is a very personal type of preference for most people, depending a lot on their own background and previous experiences etc.

I am trying very hard not to judge you for your choices. Please don't do it to me.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I did not say you did. Though you did say it about Michael Voris, which in my mind is presumptuous.

 

The thing is, my preference does not matter, and nor does yours. What matters is saving souls, speaking truth, and sanctifying the world. No matter how much you dislike his presentation, whatever that really means, if he is speaking the Truth, living in service to Christ, striving for righteousness, bringing Faith, Hope, and Charity into our bleak world, then he does his duty. Whether or not we like his presentation, Cardinal Burke *is* doing precisely that. I think that is undeniable.

[AccountDeleted]

I did not say you did. Though you did say it about Michael Voris, which in my mind is presumptuous.

 

The thing is, my preference does not matter, and nor does yours. What matters is saving souls, speaking truth, and sanctifying the world. No matter how much you dislike his presentation, whatever that really means, if he is speaking the Truth, living in service to Christ, striving for righteousness, bringing Faith, Hope, and Charity into our bleak world, then he does his duty. Whether or not we like his presentation, Cardinal Burke *is* doing precisely that. I think that is undeniable.

​Of course our preferences matter. What good is it to speak the truth to anyone if you present it in a way they can't receive it? My preference matters, so does yours, and so does that of everyone else. 

I didn't infer it of Voris either, simply that I dislike his presentation to the point that he doesn't appear to be an example to me. Perception may not be reality but it certainly has an effect on our view of reality.

As for Burke, he is doing his duty, but he could improve his presentation if he wanted everyone to hear him. But then he obviously does appeal to many, so perhaps it is impossible to expect anyone to appeal to everyone. Even Pope Francis doesn't appeal to everyone. That is why I said that God provides us with so much diversity. Benedict didn't appeal to everyone either. That's my point.