Holiness

[Laurie]

It’s just occurred to me to state 2 things.

I think some of the discussion here assumes that if someone “is equal to” someone else, that somehow must mean “they are the same.”

You can be *not the same* and still *be equal*. E.g., man & woman.

Added to that, you can be first, in an order of hierarchy, and still be equal to those who fall lower in the hierarchy than you do.

God the Father is FIRST. He is first in the sense that HE IS FATHER. In the hierarchy, He alone is Father, and that IS a hierarchy, over the Son. They are both equally Divine. One did not pre-exist the other. One is not *more God* than the other; and yet, they are also not *the same*. One is Father, one is Son.

They have a unique love for each other. And, *I* have a unique love for them. I love one as Father and one as Christ the Son. And the 3rd as Holy Spirit.

Do some of us, here on earth, love one Person of the Trinity more than another? Probably. Will we in heaven? No. Which is not to say we will love each of them *the same*. We will love each of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity equally, yet uniquely to who each of them Is.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Laurie

[Guest]

1 At that time the disciples 2 approached Jesus and said, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, 3 you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.

(Matthew Ch18)

 

[linate]

 

this says some vocations are superior to other vocations...

"This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church." (Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, 32)

but i now common talk amoung catholics is that all vocations are equal. i might want to be quick to saying there's a contradiction afoot, but i realize one has to be careful with out to parse out these things, and ya'll have been doing a good job of in this thread. 

if you want to read more on a related subject, from this site.... "are all vocations equal?"

some say priests are best because without priests there are no sacraments. some say married are best because without married there are no priests. some say religious like sisters and brothers are best, because priests are "perfectoers" but the religous are "perfected", there are interesting arguments all around. 

[Guest]

I don't think it is a question of "better or best" personally.  I think all the vocations are linked with each other and exist in The Church under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit for the common good - the good of The Church.  And being for the good of the whole Church, they are for the good of all mankind.

I think objectively theologically speaking, the vocations can have a hierarchy and :

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded." (Luke Chapter 12)

The subject of this thread is "Holiness" and there can be the risk of holding to a concept that the higher theologically a vocation might be means the more holy will be the person in that vocation i.e. closer to God.  Such 'measuring' does not apply at all.    The person called to Holy Orders must strive to be a holy priest - God's Will for him.  The married person must strive to be holy in marriage - God's Will for that person.  And so on and so forth with all the various vocations.  If the married person, as an example only, tends to neglect the obligations of his or her state in life in order to spend more time in prayer - then that person has things amiss.

Who is going to be the most holy?  The one who strives to love and obey the Will of God no matter their vocational call.  God's Will is not something only connected to one's vocation, His Will is an ongoing 'conversation' for the whole of life in  all the vocations.

[Guest]

Jesus has expressed The Will of God for all mankind at all times in all walks of life, in all vocational calls:

"Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the greatest and the first commandment.

The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

(Matthew Chapter 22)

 

[fides' Jack]

On 7/11/2018 at 12:23 PM, Laurie said:

Everyone can be equally united to the Beloved without having to be equal in all aspects. As you point out, the angels exist in a hierarchy. I was waiting to see if someone would bring them up... But to say there are hierarchies in angels doesn't mean one angel is more loved than another, and it doesn't mean one is holier/more full of grace than another. They are all fully, full of grace, & fully united to God.

There's no dichotomy in saying a priest has a special status as priest in heaven. It's absolutely true. But it doesn't mean that all priests in heaven are going to be higher or holier or more loved by God than these other persons, because they are priests.

And, again, I myself would never mush together theological hierarchies, with levels of holiness, with how much someone is loved (more or less than another).

 

I guess that's where we disagree.  I will take that step.  God loves some more than others.  That doesn't necessarily directly correspond to hierarchical organizations.  

I would say not all in Heaven on equidistant from God.  Some are closer, some are farther away.  But all are perfectly happy.  Those closest to God will be the ones who love Him the most (and in turn are loved the most by Him).  My view of Heaven is probably somewhat closer to the view that Dante had in Paradiso.