Fratelli Tutti- I interview Pedro Gabriel of WherePeterIs.com in response to recent criticism of the Encyclical

[Guest]

Listening further to Pedro Gabriel commenting on Fratekku Tutti (All Brothers) I thought that Gabriel was putting FT into the larger context of what Pope Francis proclaims.  I feel the same way about PF as I did about Vatican II :- I can breathe, rather than holding to what I hold - and also holding my breath re Judgement with heaps of Hope.

If I had problems somewhere with what PF is stating for example, I would ask the advice of a priest.  His is the obligation towards The People of God.  However, too often, I went to Confession/asked advice to have The Law  quoted AT me as a response to a question. I also had the experience of further communicating my not understanding, for Father to merely repeat The Law.  There was no real interest in struggling me WITH the law, rather (it seems to me) that he wanted to stay on the right side of The Law.  With great gratitude and humility, The Lord saw to it that I very soon had a priest or a nun prepared to walk with me.  

I too was moved by @Lilllabettt's story.  Thank you very much for sharing and blessings on you and your babe.

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[HumilityAndPatience]

47 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If I had problems somewhere with what PF is stating for example, I would ask the advice of a priest.  His is the obligation towards The People of God.  However, too often, I went to Confession/asked advice to have The Law  quoted AT me as a response to a question. I also had the experience of further communicating my not understanding, for Father to merely repeat The Law.  There was no real interest in struggling me WITH the law, rather (it seems to me) that he wanted to stay on the right side of The Law.  With great gratitude and humility, The Lord saw to it that I very soon had a priest or a nun prepared to walk with me.  

Amen on this and your last post on the law. I think that VII and PF are tackling this head on. The law is of course very important. But has it's (somewhat organic) elevation in the minds of Catholics reached problematic levels, superseding fundamental tenets of the faith? I think this is (one of) the main questions VII and PF understand/address.

Edited November 23, 2020 by HumilityAndPatience

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Amen on this and your last post on the law. I think that VII and PF are tackling this head on.

This is how I felt with both VII and PF, they indeed do tackle "this head on".  Neither, the VII nor PF are saying that the law is unimportant because it is, rather both are leading and/or pointing to Jesus and Jesus as Saviour with His Law of Love: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another". 

All the law can tell us is that we are indeed sinners.  One offends here and another offends there.  If I am to uphold the law, then I must uphold all of it since the law comes from God.  And in upholding all of the law, I discover that I am indeed a sinner in need of saving, because the law cannot do it, it can only condemn me because, truth is, I cannot keep the whole of the law.  I fail too in its fullness in the new commandment of Jesus.  "Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God, since no human being will be justified in his sight 5 by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin." (Romans Chapter 3)

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (First Letter of St John)

 

Quote

'Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin"  Romans Chapter 7 - a beautiful chapter.

 

39 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

The law is of course very important. But has it's (somewhat organic) elevation in the minds of Catholics reached problematic levels, superseding fundamental tenets of the faith?

I very much agree.  Thank you for wording your thoughts as you have.

[Guest]

Take for example (all in the post is example) the issue of homosexuality.  We know that active homosexuality is against the law and constitutes grave matter.  But I too act against the law because e.g. I spoke deliberately uncharitably about so and so.  That is not grave matter.

Hang on a minute, I have The Mass and The Sacraments, The Church and Scripture, to support me in my journey, while the homosexual person does not.  That just MIGHT mean that my offence against the law is more serious than I realise and, in the eyes of God, PERHAPS more serious than the active homosexual person and the free knowledge and free consent involved.

I am not stating that the above is a fact, rather there is what I call an underlying dynamic involved.

Edited November 23, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Quote

 

“Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. 3“Truly I tell you, He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of God “ (Matthew Chapter 18)

“At that time Jesus said in reply, 14 "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.”  (Matthew Chapter 11)

 

 

[Guest]

The above does not mean that learning and education, a certain kind of worldly like understanding and ability to express same etc. has no value, because it has great value in our increasingly complex world and the diversity of science, related subjects, and the search for truth. 

Rather it means that in our personal relationship with God, we need to be like a child at the knee of his/her Loving Father.  I read somewhere that the reason little children come into the world is as a continual reminder of the call to a child-like personal relationship with God.  That reminder will stay with me.

Childish to no person, child-like with God.

[Lilllabettt]

6 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Thanks for sharing @Lilllabettt- 

I must ask however- can you see how some might actually hold the opinion that PF is indeed teaching many people things which have been forgotten with the weight of legalism, for example. Indeed, some take it that he is unburdening the Church of her ecclesiastical baggage. 

 

 

You can hold that opinion, but I think it is based on a backwards understanding of what the Church is. The Church when she teaches, does not propose laws. Jesus did not establish a Church to make laws but to preach the Gospel and protect its saving knowledge from corruption. The Gospel is the good news, the saving knowledge of the Truth of who God Is - Jesus Christ. What the Church teaches is revelation of the truth in light of who we know and believe God is. 

Let us take the example @BarbaraTherese mentioned. Gay sex. The Church's teaching on gay sex is NOT A LAW. the characterization of this teaching as "law" is indicative of a profound misunderstanding. The Church's teaching is revelation of the meaning of marriage, divine love, the cosmic significance of sex and God's identity as creator, among other things. It is the Gospel, preached to us as the truth and proposed for our belief. 

Christianity is NOT a law based religion. It is a Credo. What makes a Christian is not adherence to a law but belief in the Gospel. Whether one engages in gay sex? much less important than if one believes the Gospel re: gay sex.

I mean, hopefully, if one accepts the Gospel, their attitude towards engaging in gay sex is necessarily impacted, even if they are not entirely succesful in making their actions align with their beliefs. This one, then,  is a Christian.  But one who never engages in gay sex? never even opens one's mouth to speak against the Gospel teaching? in fact speaks and writes in its favor? and yet in their heart is sure and peaceful in rejecting it - this one is not a Christian. 

Because of what the Church is, what she does - proposing the Gospel for our belief, that we might be saved - ambiguity about what she is teaching is totally upside down of her identity.

There is no relation between clear teaching and legalism.  On the question of embryo adoption the Church did not hesitate to be crystal clear there was no definitive Gospel teaching. This gave me, and many others,  the freedom to discern myself, as best I could, what aligns with the Gospel. (If the Church ever says embryo adoption is not acceptable in light of who God is, then I will be forced to choose what I believe - the Gospel or my personal discernment. )  I am not sitting here clamoring for the Church to give the teaching or complaining about her statement that she has none. Because she did not leave me twisting in the wind, wondering what I must believe to be saved. 

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Let us take the example @BarbaraTherese mentioned. Gay sex. The Church's teaching on gay sex is NOT A LAW. the characterization of this teaching as "law" is indicative of a profound misunderstanding.

As I stated, homosexual acts are a point of grave matter as per the CCC - Excerpt: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357 

It all depends, I guess, on the definition of Church Law (and my apologies if I have got it wrong re law or what is not a law)and there are various kinds of laws in The Church e.g. Canon Law, Precepts of The Church, Moral Law, Natural Moral Law, Law of The Gospel etc.  There might be more categories.  Jesus Himself stated "a NEW LAW I give you".

Other than that, I think we are saying the same thing using different words, except for a couple of things that got my passing attention, e.g.

45 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

ambiguity about what she is teaching is totally upside down of her identity

Yet we have Canon Lawyers, for example, to unravel complexities, which can and do exist.  If one has problems with e.g. Church laws or some matter, one can ring diocesan offices and be directed to someone with expertise in the matter(s).  There are also experts in a Catholic University or in a seminary.

I think too that that is why we have a concordance for Scripture for example.

The problem can be the lack of docility re expert advice re moral and/or spiritual matters, understanding The Gospel etc.  Some will want to shop around until there is a statement of some authority anyway agreeing with what they think anyway.  If they cannot find such authority in agreement, then a person might/could feel that The Church is wrong and this is where disagreements surface for one - or what is far worse, a person might/could decide to stop practising their Faith.  The problem is that lack of docility towards legitimate authority in The Church.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Docility towards legitimate authority is not blind obedience.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

The Gospel is the good news, the saving knowledge of the Truth of who God Is - Jesus Christ.

I would add to your excellent point about the revelation that the major revelation is Christ Himself, His Person (I am after personhood in theology) hence so much can be understood via looking at His Person, at how He taught. He has always spoken very clearly, He always answered questions when a person was genuinely interested to know the truth, a person with whom He dealt with would always have His full attention. His parables are down to earth, easy to understand. On the other hand, the “Pharisees” (bad Pharisees because there were also some good) were ones who kept creating a web of verbal blur into which they tried to catch the Lord.

All this is normal and simple again. Obviously, one who wants his message to be understood speaks clearly, answers questions and tirelessly peruses persons until he is sure he was understood correctly or until he sees he cannot do anything else…

Edited November 23, 2020 by Anastasia

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

 

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

He has always spoken very clearly, He always answered questions when a person was genuinely interested to know the truth, a person with whom He dealt with would always have His full attention. His parables are down to earth, easy to understand.

 

Jesus did not always speak clearly so all could understand.  Sometimes, he explained only to His apostles.  I think probably today, we can have good insight because of homilies, what we read, videos that we might see, education we might undertake, discussions we might have.

‘To you has been given the secret [mystery] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables [riddles] 12 in order that [the following prophecy might be fulfilled] “they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.”’ (Mark Chapter 4)

"Jesus uses parables as a means of facilitating revelation. They remain, however, meaningless riddles to those who are unwilling to repent, and who avoid any insights that might urge change upon them." http://mbfallon.com/mark_commentary/mark_3,7-6,6a.pdf -  Sometimes one might feel like Jacob, wrestling with an angel, as one wrestles with understanding,  Father Michael Fallon MSC is  a South Australian Missionary of The Sacred Heart (MSC) and a scripture scholar of some renown.

What both Fr. Michael and also what Jimmy Aiken state (see video below 7:03 minutes) are very much the same thing, similar understandings.

  

 

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

On the other hand, the “Pharisees” (bad Pharisees because there were also some good) were ones who kept creating a web of verbal blur

Well said.

Good News indeed that discussion is happening on the Good News, Jesus and His Gospel.  

 

[Guest]

One of the things some Pharisees did too was multiply laws for the people, refusing any sort of lifting of very "heavy burdens" indeed.  That can still be done today.

"One of the experts in the law told Him, “Teacher, when You say these things, You insult us as well.” 

“Woe to you as well, experts in the law! He replied. “ You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load." (Luke Chapter 11)

I think one can really wrestle with those words of Jesus.  I can, anyway.  

[Lilllabettt]

7 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Jesus did not always speak clearly so all could understand.  Sometimes, he explained only to His apostles.  I think probably today, we can have good insight because of homilies, what we read, videos that we might see, education we might undertake, discussions we might have.

‘To you has been given the secret [mystery] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables [riddles] 12 in order that [the following prophecy might be fulfilled] “they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.”’ (Mark Chapter 4)

"Jesus uses parables as a means of facilitating revelation. They remain, however, meaningless riddles to those who are unwilling to repent, and who avoid any insights that might urge change upon them." http://mbfallon.com/mark_commentary/mark_3,7-6,6a.pdf -  Sometimes one might feel like Jacob, wrestling with an angel, as one wrestles with understanding,  Father Michael Fallon MSC is  a South Australian Missionary of The Sacred Heart (MSC) and a scripture scholar of some renown.

What both Fr. Michael and also what Jimmy Aiken state (see video below 7:03 minutes) are very much the same thing, similar understandings.

  

 

 

 

 

By comparing PFs words to Jesus' use of parables, you are suggesting that PF is also deliberately trying to conceal the truth of his meaning and cause confusion so that some will not understand.  

If you admit this, then why do you and others try to explain to those who do not understand? You are at cross purposes with the Pope! You are undoing his work!

9 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

As I stated, homosexual acts are a point of grave matter as per the CCC - Excerpt: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357 

It all depends, I guess, on the definition of Church Law (and my apologies if I have got it wrong re law or what is not a law)and there are various kinds of laws in The Church e.g. Canon Law, Precepts of The Church, Moral Law, Natural Moral Law, Law of The Gospel etc.  There might be more categories.  Jesus Himself stated "a NEW LAW I give you".

Other than that, I think we are saying the same thing using different words, except for a couple of things that got my passing attention, e.g.

Yet we have Canon Lawyers, for example, to unravel complexities, which can and do exist.  If one has problems with e.g. Church laws or some matter, one can ring diocesan offices and be directed to someone with expertise in the matter(s).  There are also experts in a Catholic University or in a seminary.

I think too that that is why we have a concordance for Scripture for example.

 

 

when Jesus said he was giving a new Law, he was using those words for dramatic effect. Because his next sentence was not a new law at all but the Gospel: love one another as I have loved you. Literally this is Jesus revealing who God is, the one who loves us to the end. 

If you consider this a law, no wonder you also see the Good News about sex and marriage as legalism.  Christopher West and others have written books specifically to preach the Gospel about sex to a modern audience. Maybe helpful to you to understand what I'm talking about.

It must be very unpleasant to be Catholic and have all these rules you must follow. If you can accept the Church's preaching as the Gospel, the "rules" will not feel burdensome to you but following them will be naturally motivated from your belief. Internal motivation of belief in the Gospel vs external motivation, following a "law" imposed from outside. 

Anyways... regarding your comments re: experts. That is well and good although you yourself know, living in Australia, that one cannot take the word of an expert or a priest simply because they are a priest. I have heard all manner of nonsense spouted from priests and professors at Catholic universities.

But Anyway. There is no point consulting experts on the confusing items in PFs magisterium - other than as a hobby or intellectual exercise.  The experts do not agree as the meaning is not clear. It is fun for some to listen to them argue and come to their own personal interpretation... or at least it is a way to pass the time. But my vocation in the world is very busy and there is no way for me to "receive" PFs teaching, whatever it is. As you suggested before, and I agree, obscuring this from us and others is PFs point. But there is no reason to fight him and try to understand.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

If you consider this a law, no wonder you also see the Good News about sex and marriage as legalism.  Christopher West and others have written books specifically to preach the Gospel about sex to a modern audience. Maybe helpful to you to understand what I'm talking about.

Since you have addressed me personally making some observations about me personally, I will attempt to further explain my viewpoints.  I do not see the laws (and they are laws) pertaining to human sexuality and marriage as anything but positive.  I probably have explained myself inadequately.  I think that The Gospel is absolutely wonderful and good news, astounding and amazing news.  I can grieve however that sometimes the way The Gospel can be presented is anything but good news.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Anyways... regarding your comments re: experts. That is well and good although you yourself know, living in Australia, that one cannot take the word of an expert or a priest simply because they are a priest. I have heard all manner of nonsense spouted from priests and professors at Catholic universities.

I have long maintained, very long indeed, that one needs to be discerning about from whom one seeks advice.  My SD died suddenly while on holidays and I am still in the discernment process re a new SD.  My problem can be that so many are reluctant to direct a person who has a mental illness and made private vows.  I can understand and empathize with the why of it - if vice versa has rather often been lacking.  It was St Teresa of Avila who said that if one cannot find a suitable director, one can confidently put oneself in the Hands of God, of Jesus, while continuing to seek and pray for a director.  I have had patches in-between directors in my long journey to date where I have had no joy in finding a suitable director and have never been led astray, totally confident I was in the Hands of Jesus and His Divine Providence.  I have never been confounded.

In these in-between type periods, I can turn to my Carmelite Prioress with great confidence indeed.  Her vocation, however, and I am very much aware of this, means that her primary focus is on prayer and monastic life.  Her prayers for me are amazing, almost startling in their efficacy. But we can now reach each other by both phone and email.  With my disabilities, I am unable to catch the two buses to the other side of the city to see her.  I have an iron in the fire that just might allow me to visit her at least now and then.

So, you can see, I hope, that I am indeed careful about a SD and/or any advice I might seek.  I always get a second opinion as well, which is why I quoted both Fr. Michael and Jimmy Aiken on the same subject in a previous post.  Since they both say the same slightly differently, I am inclined to take what they have to state onboard - unless and until further sound information comes to light.  Scripture is indeed an inexhaustible treasure!

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

But my vocation in the world is very busy and there is no way for me to "receive" PFs teaching, whatever it is. As you suggested before, and I agree, obscuring this from us and others is PFs point. But there is no reason to fight him and try to understand.  

Wasn't me that said the above.  I had a very busy life indeed too prior to my physical disabilities worsening (and will continue that trend as time unfolds) meaning I cannot travel any more via bus.  In January I will be 75.   I used to say when available time and my appointments and To Do List were in conflict "Stop the world, I want to get off!"   

I was also a mother of two children (one a foster child) and a wife with a job when my sons were old enough (I had a few jobs in my time) I really enjoyed - personal assistant at executive level.  My job was demanding and stressful as, of course, could be life at home.  Another saying of mine is "It is Life and Life only and Life? I love You".  I also studied as a counsellor.  I was in on the ground floor of Lifeline here in Adelaide helping get it off the ground.  I was a face to face marriage guidance counsellor until bipolar hit out the blue.

When I left work, I studied for a few years and then took up voluntary work and worked for a few charities in my time including for over 5 years for St Vinnies, also in the parish conference.  I worked voluntary for Anglicare on two sites supporting the poor and homeless, there was also Down Syndrome Support charity and also The Smith Family supporting in many ways children at school who could not afford much at all.  TSF also offered mentor support by voluntary workers.  The reason I held a few voluntary positions was due to the transport situation and my slowly worsening physical problems. In the main anyway - there was one exception, and my unasked choice to leave.

I miss the busy life and have found it difficult to adjust - but our Doctrine of Divine Providence is a real blessing and continual support, encouragement.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

It must be very unpleasant to be Catholic and have all these rules you must follow. If you can accept the Church's preaching as the Gospel, the "rules" will not feel burdensome to you but following them will be naturally motivated from your belief. Internal motivation of belief in the Gospel vs external motivation, following a "law" imposed from outside. 

Rules, guidelines, laws etc. … whatever … 

Gosh, I must have made a mess of things and nothing new.  No way, NO WAY, is it unpleasant for me to be Catholic.  I am regularly overcome with gratitude for His Blessing and His call and vocation to Catholicism.  My obedience to the various laws in The Church, for example, comes from Grace and internal motivation alone.  It is not obedience because I have to, it is obedience because I am happy to obey.  There are internal positive reasons for my obedience to The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

Edited November 23, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Lilllabettt]

36 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Wasn't me that said the above.  

But, you explained PFs behavior by pointing out that Jesus Himself did not always clarify, rather he spoke in parables, which, he says explicitly, he did for the reason that some of his listeners would be confused. You mean to say PF does the same no? Or otherwise, if PF does not intend to confuse, why make this analogy?

Your life is less busy now than before but perhaps you are the type of Christian PF intends to understand his teaching. Whereas we busy ones he intends to leave confused?

I said what I did re legalism because you agreed with HaP that perhaps PFs goal is addressing the oppressive legalism entrapping the Church, this being one of the big, urgent, priority problems we are currently facing. My experience is that people rather try to make the demands of the Gospel out to be some kind of law they must follow. Then they blame the Gospel for being rigid and legalistic - but they themselves are the architects of legalism.