Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

[Era Might]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

In order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Middle Ages, we need to avoid the way of thinking that got humanity to that point in the first place.

Whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic Church has made restoring marriage one of its primary missions.  The problem is that marriage was never purely about religion.  It was also about sexual reproduction, property arrangements, etc.  The restoration of marriage will never fully be achieved until the Church comes to terms with the fact that marriages were driven by many factors that were far stronger than religious dogma.  Religious dogma alone is only enough to drive the fringe (hard-line Traditionalist Catholics) to the pews.

Forgiving someone is not the same as getting married.  If I choose to forgive someone, I don't have to worry about that person taking 50% or more of my livelihood away from me.  However, marriage is dangerous for the very reason that wealth becomes legally shared.  Many people have reservations about marriage because they don't want to lose their stuff in a divorce.  The Church could mitigate this danger by letting people marry without state contracts, but whatever.

Jesus and the Apostles were very well aware of human nature. Some of them were married (St. Paul notably wasn't). One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is when it is said of Jesus:

Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. 

--John 2:24-25

Jesus was not naive or an idealis. He knew the hearts of men better than they knew themselves. He did not come to civilize man. The Greeks and Romans, and even the Jews, had already done that. The civilization of man was precisely the problem, because man thought he was wise. They asked Jesus, why did Moses permit divorce? And Jesus told them, because of your hardness of heart. Divorce is a very civilized thing, it's practical, realistic. But Jesus came to reveal something beyond the wisdom of man, he came to reveal the wisdom of God. The Gospel is not a philosophy, not a political program, not a civilization. The Gospel is the revelation of an entirely different order, based not on law, or rights, or peace, but on the most primordial truth about man's brokenness, and on love. Secular society is a technology for brokenness, a way to deal in the realities of a broken world. The Apostles knew this, but they were sent to witness to a kingdom that is both immanent and eschatological. St. Paul addressed the realists of the early church:

I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

--1Cor 6:5-8

And Jesus himself said:

One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?"

--Like 12:14

Jesus refused to play the game of civilized men. That was a scandal. Who was this Messiah from Nazareth? How dare he transgress our laws, our philosophy, our civilization?

Dostoevsky has a famous parable called The Grand Inquisitor, about Jesus coming back to earth, but the Grand Inquisitor tells him to leave and never return. The Grand Inquisitor says the people want bread and safety, and the church provides that. What do they need Jesus for? Jesus demands absolutely man's freedom, the freedom of truth which is a kingdom beyond this world, beyond bread, beyond law, beyond life itself. That is a scandalous claim, even to the church, God forgive us.

Let's try this again:

Jesus and the Apostles were very well aware of human nature. Some of them were married (St. Paul notably wasn't). One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is when it is said of Jesus:

Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. 

--John 2:24-25

Jesus was not naive or an idealist. He knew the hearts of men better than they knew themselves. He did not come to civilize man. The Greeks and Romans, and even the Jews, had already done that. The civilization of man was precisely the problem, because man thought he was wise. They asked Jesus, why did Moses permit divorce? And Jesus told them, because of your hardness of heart. Divorce is a very civilized thing, it's practical, realistic. But Jesus came to reveal something beyond the wisdom of man, he came to reveal the wisdom of God. The Gospel is not a philosophy, not a political program, not a civilization. The Gospel is the revelation of an entirely different order, based not on law, or rights, or peace, but on the most primordial truth about man's brokenness, and on love. Secular society is a technology for brokenness, a way to deal in the realities of a broken world. The Apostles knew this, but they were sent to witness to a kingdom that is both immanent and eschatological. St. Paul addressed the realists of the early church:

I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

--1Cor 6:5-8

And Jesus himself said:

One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?"

--Luke 12:14

Jesus refused to play the game of civilized men. That was a scandal. Who was this Messiah from Nazareth? How dare he transgress our laws, our philosophy, our civilization?

Dostoevsky has a famous parable called The Grand Inquisitor, about Jesus coming back to earth, but the Grand Inquisitor tells him to leave and never return. The Grand Inquisitor says the people want bread and safety, and the church provides that. What do they need Jesus for? Jesus demands absolutely man's freedom, the freedom of truth which is a kingdom beyond this world, beyond bread, beyond law, beyond life itself. That is a scandalous claim, even to the church, God help us.

Jesus and the Apostles were very well aware of human nature. Some of them were married (St. Paul notably wasn't). One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is when it is said of Jesus:

Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. 

--John 2:24-25

Jesus was not naive or an idealist. He knew the hearts of men better than they knew themselves. He did not come to civilize man. The Greeks and Romans, and even the Jews, had already done that. The civilization of man was precisely the problem, because man thought he was wise. They asked Jesus, why did Moses permit divorce? And Jesus told them, because of your hardness of heart. Divorce is a very civilized thing, it's practical, realistic. But Jesus came to reveal something beyond the wisdom of man, he came to reveal the wisdom of God. The Gospel is not a philosophy, not a political program, not a civilization. The Gospel is the revelation of an entirely different order, based not on law, or rights, or peace, but on the most primordial truth about man's brokenness, and on love. Secular society is a technology for brokenness, a way to deal in the realities of a broken world. The Apostles knew this, but they were sent to witness to a kingdom that is both immanent and eschatological. St. Paul addressed the realists of the early church:

I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

--1Cor 6:5-8

And Jesus himself said:

One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?"

--Luke 12:14

Jesus refused to play the game of civilized men. That was a scandal. Who was this Messiah from Nazareth? How dare he transgress our laws, our philosophy, our civilization?

Dostoevsky has a famous parable called The Grand Inquisitor, about Jesus coming back to earth, but the Grand Inquisitor tells him to leave and never return. The Grand Inquisitor says the people want bread and safety, and the church provides that. What do they need Jesus for? Jesus demands absolutely man's freedom, the freedom of truth which is a kingdom beyond this world, beyond bread, beyond law, beyond life itself. That is a scandalous claim, even to the church, God help us.

[Era Might]

Jesus and the Apostles were very well aware of human nature. Some of them were married (St. Paul notably wasn't). One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is when it is said of Jesus:

 

Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. 

--John 2:24-25

Jesus was not naive or an idealist. He knew the hearts of men better than they knew themselves. He did not come to civilize man. The Greeks and Romans, and even the Jews, had already done that. The civilization of man was precisely the problem, because man thought he was wise. They asked Jesus, why did Moses permit divorce? And Jesus told them, because of your hardness of heart. Divorce is a very civilized thing, it's practical, realistic. But Jesus came to reveal something beyond the wisdom of man, he came to reveal the wisdom of God. The Gospel is not a philosophy, not a political program, not a civilization. The Gospel is the revelation of an entirely different order, based not on law, or rights, or peace, but on the most primordial truth about man's brokenness, and on love. Secular society is a technology for brokenness, a way to deal in the realities of a broken world. The Apostles knew this, but they were sent to witness to a kingdom that is both immanent and eschatological. St. Paul addressed the realists of the early church:

I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren.

--1Cor 6:5-8

And Jesus himself said:

One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?"

--Luke 12:14

Jesus refused to play the game of civilized men. That was a scandal. Who was this Messiah from Nazareth? How dare he transgress our laws, our philosophy, our civilization?

Dostoevsky has a famous parable called The Grand Inquisitor, about Jesus coming back to earth, but the Grand Inquisitor tells him to leave and never return. The Grand Inquisitor says the people want bread and safety, and the church provides that. What do they need Jesus for? Jesus demands absolutely man's freedom, the freedom of truth which is a kingdom beyond this world, beyond bread, beyond law, beyond life itself. That is a scandalous claim, even to the church, God help us.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Era Might

[Jack4]

20 hours ago, polskieserce said:

People don't even know what God is.  All we have been told is that there is some higher intelligence that created humanity, gave us rules to follow, got mad when humans didn't follow those rules, and sent down his Son to set us straight.  I believe in God to this day because I simply can't accept the idea that humans naturally evolved from primitive apes.  Humans are by far the most peculiar species on the planet that doesn't remotely resemble the others.  Humans had to have been created by a higher power, a higher power we call God.  But if I really interrogated you on the topic, you wouldn't actually be able to give me a scientific explanation of what God is.

To the furthest extent of our knowledge, God has never revealed his true identity to us.  When Jesus started teaching the Israelites, he turned the orthodox understanding of religion on its side.  If God were to truly reveal himself to humanity, the Church's understanding of God may very well be proven inaccurate.

I'll come back to you, but, can you give clear answers to each of my questions, please?

[Jack4]

21 hours ago, polskieserce said:

People don't even know what God is.  All we have been told is that...

Why do the people not know: is it because of their unwillingness or inability to find out, or because His nature has not been revealed to us.

 

Quote

there is some higher intelligence that created humanity, gave us rules to follow, got mad when humans didn't follow those rules, and sent down his Son to set us straight.  I believe in God to this day because I simply can't accept the idea that humans naturally evolved from primitive apes.

...Do you have a background in philosophy, have you read Aquinas' five ways?

Quote

  But if I really interrogated you on the topic, you wouldn't actually be able to give me a scientific explanation of what God is.

Insofar by the word "scientific" you presume observation and experimentation, no. Nonetheless, reason can indeed know things about God. 

Quote

To the furthest extent of our knowledge, God has never revealed his true identity to us.  

I'm not understanding you fully here. 

 

Quote

When Jesus started teaching the Israelites, he turned the orthodox understanding of religion on its side. If God were to truly reveal himself to humanity, the Church's understanding of God may very well be proven inaccurate.

Proof?

[polskieserce]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I'll come back to you, but, can you give clear answers to each of my questions, please?

The New Testament was added because God interacted with humanity and gave people some new marching orders.  The rules not to change anything apply to people, not to God.  God commanded people not to kill one another, but it doesn't prohibit God from killing people.  People were told not to work on the Sabbath.  But it doesn't prevent God from being active on the Sabbath.

The Trinity is a topic of mystery, much like the true identity of God is.  We just know that Jesus was the Son of God.  The Father and Son are connected to one another.  But precisely how they are connected is unknown to us.  I can't give you a more concrete answer to this question without knowing what God actually is.

 

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Why do the people not know: is it because of their unwillingness or inability to find out, or because His nature has not been revealed to us.

 

...Do you have a background in philosophy, have you read Aquinas' five ways?

Insofar by the word "scientific" you presume observation and experimentation, no. Nonetheless, reason can indeed know things about God. 

I'm not understanding you fully here. 

 

Proof?

God's nature has not been revealed to us.  We don't know if he was a being of the flesh like Jesus was or if he was a primordial energy-being that used some of its matter to create the universe (I'm just speculating here).  This is what I mean by God's true identity.  In this age of science and technology, it surprises me that more people aren't asking these questions. 

No, I don't have a background in philosophy.  What is that text about?

[Jack4]

7 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The Father and Son are connected to one another.  But precisely how they are connected is unknown to us. 

 

7 hours ago, polskieserce said:

We don't know if he was a being of the flesh like Jesus was or if he was a primordial energy-being that used some of its matter to create the universe (I'm just speculating here).

 

The Church does have teaching on these. This involves some philosophical jargon. 

7 hours ago, polskieserce said:

No, I don't have a background in philosophy.  What is that text about?

Five proofs of the existence of God. Again, it has some philosophical jargon. 

Seriously, many of your questions can be answered by  philosophy, and Thomism in particular. 

5 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

The Church does have teaching on [Trinity and Christology]. This involves some philosophical jargon. 

For some basics, see Quicumque vult

[Anastasia13]

This thread is still going on??? 

[Nihil Obstat]

On 7/2/2017 at 8:55 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

This thread is still going on??? 

Well, it was nearly a month inactive until yesterday, so...

[little2add]

On 7/2/2017 at 10:55 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

This thread is still going on??? 

Yes, for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
until this tread is parted by death or closed by the moderators 
 

[Norseman82]

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:48 PM, little2add said:

Yes, for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
until this tread is parted by death or closed by the moderators 
 

Unless the moderators delete it and make it null, in which case the OP will be free to create a new thread on the topic...