Is God male?
Where is the LOVE?
In the press recently it has been reported that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has ruled that a baptism is invalid if any substitution of ‘Father’ is used such as Redeemer, Creator or Sanctifier, which apparently are feminist terms arising from feminist theology. Once again some of the hierarchy of the Church want to put the blame for this ‘aberration’ onto to women, the convenient scapegoat for celibate men when they feel they are losing control of any situation. Adam gave them the idea.
In my understanding,the main message of Jesus’ teaching was “Love God and Love your neighbour.” We will be judged on how we lived out that practice of loving one another when we die not whether a particular ritual used the correct word. Does God really care about such legalities? Jesus did not say that when a person dies and meets their God that they will hear “I do not know you because you were baptized with the wrong word!!”
Didn’t Jesus encourage us to call God our Father to try to get us to understand that God wanted a personal relationship with each one of us, and thus see God as a loving father in a family context – Abba – Daddy? He wanted people to move away from seeing God as one to be feared.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their strict interpretation of the law and how they “put burdens on peoples’ backs.” It seems to me that some of the hierarchy of the Church today seem to be still in the same mindset as the Pharisees.
Where is the Love? Does such legalistic interpretations of baptism (hence making all other received sacraments invalid also) mean that if people of good will who have not been ‘done properly’ and do not front up to be ‘done again’ will go to Hell? Or perhaps we might have a revival of ‘Limbo’ and ‘ no salvation outside the one true Church’ days.
Jesus lived during a totally male dominated world and so it makes sense to represent God as male, to help the people of those times to accept a different aspect of God – a loving father. We must also remember that many Jewish beliefs were based on misconceptions about life:-
• man was the perfect. human form, woman was a ‘misbegotten male’
• women were inherently bad and led men astray – adam and eve story
• it was acceptable for men to divorce their wives but not the other way around
• the rich and healthy were blessed by God, the poor and the sick were been punished for their sins.
• taking revenge was acceptable - ‘An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’
• love your neighbours but hate your enemies e.g. samaritans
This misinformed view of the world formed the basis for the stringent laws that underpinned Jewish religious practice. Jesus challenged these attitudes and liberated us all - ‘no longer master or servant, slave or free, man or woman’ but equal before God. This was an amazing insight given the world Jesus lived in, when even today with all our knowledge, we can still hear the same old justifications been used to keep things as they have always been – the ‘tradition’ cannot be changed. Words like ‘Redeemer, Creator or Sanctifier’ might have come from a feminist mindset but that does not make them invalid words for God. In fact it makes more sense in the world we live in today, where both men and women are embracing a more balance society where they take equal responsibility for their lives. When one dominates the other, no-one wins.
I find it hypocritical where the Church quotes the Bible to justify its misogynist attitude that in baptism it cannot change the words ‘I baptise you in the Name of the Father…..’ but chooses to ignore another scripture passage that says “ You must not call anyone here on earth, Father, because you have only the one Father who is in heaven.’ (Matt 23:9) It seems it can ignore Jesus words sometimes when it suits. (we have called Catholic priests ‘Father’ for centuries.)
Here we are, 2100 years on, where we know that most poverty is the result of human greed, that all people have a right to be free, that men and women were created equal, but the heirarchy of the Church wants to cling to the tradition of male domination, male supremacy, and solely male interpretation of the ‘truth.’ The use of ‘male’ exclusive language is an insult to all women and maybe if Jesus were here today he might say something like “ How terrible for you, teachers of the Law! You hypocrites! You give to God the traditional titles but neglect to obey the really important teachings of the Law such as justice, mercy and honesty.” (adapted from Matt. 23:23.) Traditions should be changed when they are found to be wanting within a Christian understanding.
The Church let go the ‘traditions’ of having slaves - because it finally saw that no-one has the right to use another human being for their own advantage.
The Church had to apologise for judging indigenous people as pagans and treating them like animals - because it has seen that many of these ancient cultures can teach us a thing or two about how to live our lives in more wholistic ways.
The Church had to apologise for the sexual abuse of young children by some of its clergy and religious - because it had to admit that they put protecting the reputation of the Church before the welfare of children.
The Church needs to admit that it is partly responsible for the violent abuse of women in the home, when it still holds that a man is the head of the household and a women must obey her husband. There are still some men who use the Church to justify their abuse of women and children.
Vatican II opened the doors to sweep away many of the archaic practices that had become entrenched in the Church but it seems that some want to return to the ‘good old days’ when everything was black or white and people just did as they were told. Tick the right boxes and say the right words and you will get to heaven.
When is the Church going to see that it is made up of both men and women and that both should be contributing to the interpretation of the doctrines of the Church that Jesus began.
Maybe, just maybe the Christianity that ‘we know’ today with all the legalistic controls that some seem to want to re-instate, is not the religion that Jesus intended at all.
Where is the love?
What do you think?
A more apt question would
A more apt question would be, how old is God ? !
Should we indulge in such frivalties, or should one go for the call made in Ephesians 4: 2 ... lead a life worthy of your call ? !
God is Spirit and
God is Spirit and essentially beyond our conceptions of male and female. Even though there is clearly a maternal side to Gods affection for us, God has specifically revealed himself as Father and as Son and as Holy Spirit. Of these the revelation of God as Son, in the person of Jesus Christ, seems to be the crucial issue.
The spiritual aspects of God are clearly and without question beyond male and female...there is nothing that will make God the Father or God the Holy Spirit male or female, in the way we would understand. But Jesus is clearly male, and this was not an accident. Being God He chose his revelation to clearly transmit some essential component of his being. I think this has to do with our relationship with God being bridal we are to unite with God through Jesus like a bride and groom are united...totally and without reservation. Or put anouther way Fatherhood comes from God and finds its highest expression in God. We learn what it is to be Father from him. His eternal giving is to be paired with our eternal receiving.
So, since Jesus is God and Jesus is male then God is (in this sense) male. No other implications are intended or implied.
Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)
Your analogy would suggest
Your analogy would suggest that the bride gives herself to the groom 'totally and without reservation' but the reciprocal self-donation is not essential? Christ chose circumcised males as his apostles; if we can concede on circumcision why not on the whole deal?
I would suggest that the explanation is much more simple: God created man and woman. God chose one route to incarnation and not the other, expecting we human creatures to have sufficient common sense and good faith not to misinterpret any further meaning than that. It looks like God was wrong.
Submitted by Dennis on April
Submitted by Dennis on April 18, 2008 - 1:04pm.
"Your analogy would suggest that the bride gives herself to the groom 'totally and without reservation'"
Yes this is correct. As I understand it, we are to give ourselves totally to God without any reservation. Only in this way can we hope for our eternal beatitude.
Also by Dennis on April 18, 2008 - 1:04pm.
"but the reciprocal self-donation is not essential?"
How do you get this from my statement? If I somehow misspoke on this point I appologize. God has given himself to us totally and without reservation at Calvery and continuing through the Mass. He is waiting for our acceptance of the gift. There is no more he can do for us, having given us everything.
Also by Dennis on April 18, 2008 - 1:04pm.
"Christ chose circumcised males as his apostles; if we can concede on circumcision why not on the whole deal?"
The issues of circumsision are directly dealt with in Paul's letters. This being the Pauline year you should avail yourself of his wisdom.
In short, circumsision is supplanted by the superior sacramental sign of baptism. This gateway into the graces of the Church heals us and sets us apart as his members. Our union with God is tied to this wonderful sacrament in that we are united in Christ's death and brought forward into a new life in eager anticipation of our final joy and redemption with him in eternity.
I hope this helps. If not I will try to clarify upon your response.
Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)
Saintandsinner~ My comment
Saintandsinner~ My comment had to do with the use of the 'bride','groom' as an analogy to the God/human relationship. The analogy assumes that in reality the bridal element is totally submissive and receptive to the groom which is 'other'... (Joseph Card.Ratzinger seemed to flesh out this side a bit in his "Letter...on the Collaboration of Men and Women..."). That you acknowledge is your perspective. The analogy suggests quite plainly, and has been used as such perennially by the Church and, acknowledgely by cultural and historical stereotyping of woman, that the corresponding roles of the male/groom is 'complementary' to what is lacking in the bride/woman rather than reciprocal in what they share. I reread your post to see if I went beyond. I don't think so.
This analogy works only within the historical context of biblical time culture, sex stereotyping and mysogony and that of romantic poetry. Rather than being induced from reality, it seems to have been generalized and idealized from mysononistic culture and indeed non-relevant, non-stated but clearly operative agendas of the Church institution to exclude women and then imposed upon us as a timeless justification for attitudes, theological strictures and biases about women.
My point about circumcision is that if it is not an obstacle to full participation in the sacraments nor is the vagina. If the early community of Christians was able and willing to acknowledge the irrelevance and overcome the depth of this socio/religious requirement, we today should have the courage to overcome the non-sensical and perversly maintained exclusion of women from full sacramental access.
Peace and Good to you also.
Dennis this is a great
Dennis this is a great comment. It's not God's fault man has no common sense.
I suppose God could have incarnated as a set of boy/girl fraternal twins, but my guess is that given the patriarchal nature of Judaism the female twin would have had to have been the exact opposite of Jesus--following the "Eve" syndrome, planted there by Satan to subvert her brother. I justify that reasoning by refecting on how little time it took the Church Fathers to turn Mary Magdalene into a prostitute, when the gospels don't support this contention at all. They support the notion she was one of his most ardent and steadfast followers, unlike Peter.
I don't see much changing for women in the church until men in authority really get it through their heads that in God's scheme of things creation is a two fold project. Babies may incubate in the uterus of a female, but they are also products of the genetics of both sexes. Both sexes contribute equally to this unique creation.
If the Church is going to insist on the bridegroom/bride analogy at least they could get the importance of the creative potential of both sexes accurate. That's not just common sense, it's indisputable science.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Colkoch ~ '...a set of
Colkoch ~ '...a set of boy/girl fraternal twins...the female twin would have to have been the exact opposite of Jesus--following the "Eve" syndrome, planted by Satan to subvert her brother". What a great idea for a novel or an apochraphal gospel, planted in a jar somewhere in Palestine.
First of all, just because
First of all, just because the Catholic Church says that in order to be a legitimately Catholic baptism the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may not be omitted or substituted, does not mean that it is saying that people baptised with other words are doomed to hell.
You are challenging the traditional image of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by substituting Redeemer, Creator, and Sanctifier. It is not so much that Father and Son are male nouns that they are to be used, but that Redeemer, Creator, and Sanctifier are insufficient descriptions of God.
You quote Jesus as saying "no longer master or servant, slave or free, man or woman", but overlook the abundance of times he refers to God as The Father. And, like it or not, Jesus was The Son.
In my opinion, it is entirely possible for there to no longer be any distinctions in status (no longer man or woman) and for God to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because, in fact, after the Son's resurrection, the Holy Spirit that has no gender is seen and called upon to work in our lives.
Men who might use the Church to justify their abuse of women and children are sinning according to the teachings of the Church, so it does not seem a legitimate justification for doing away with the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit during baptisms.
"It is not so much that
"It is not so much that Father and Son are male nouns that they are to be used, but that Redeemer, Creator, and Sanctifier are insufficient descriptions of God."
When and where has anyone devised a 'sufficient' description of God? Simply because 'Father' is used a lot, does that make the word a 'sufficient' description? If so, why is there need for any other? And we know there is such need because Scripture and liturgy abound with additional descriptions, even apophatic "non-descriptions". This seems to be the never ending power stuggle of, 'do it this way because we have the power to order it'. At what point does the requirement of a precise, particular wording garner the whiff of magic words?
The description of the
The description of the Trinity uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They, not Creator, Sanctifier, Redeemer, are the terms that convey the Christian understanding of God as three-in-one. Using Redeemer, Creator, and Sanctifier focuses on three things the one God did or does. By referring to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are focusing on the being of God rather than God's past or present actions. If words don't matter, then why should anyone care to make them gender-neutral?
Obviously, God is neither
Obviously, God is neither male nor female. However, in Matthew's Gospel, Christ references the Father 17 times in Chapters 5-7 alone. Surely Christ is trying to teach us and tells us something about the nature of God using these repeated fatherhood references. The prayer from his lips starts, "Our Father....." I defer to his Word.
I, too, defer to the words
I, too, defer to the words of Jesus, when the bough.
I defer to his words when he says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling" (Matthew 23:37).
This is a theme I've been discussing on my blog at www.bilgrimage.blogspot.com, should you like to read more of my reflections on this image of God as a mother bird folding her wings over her chicks, which runs through the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
William D. Lindsey
Yes, you are right about the
Yes, you are right about the references of God as Father in scripture. The nature of God, however, is Divine, and we should not forget that and make God into man's image. We are made, both men and women, in God's image. I think that is the point that she, the writer of the original post was trying to make. I was not the writer of that original post, in case you were wondering, and I wish that she would respond to some of the comments. I have felt the need to respond since she has not.
Also, God said to Moses "I AM." God did not say to Moses "I am your father."
"The Church let go the
"The Church let go the ‘traditions’ of having slaves - because it finally saw that no-one has the right to use another human being for their own advantage.
The Church had to apologise for judging indigenous people as pagans and treating them like animals - because it has seen that many of these ancient cultures can teach us a thing or two about how to live our lives in more wholistic ways."
How wrong you are. You do know the Church condemned slavery early on right? Please go to http://fisheaters.com/forcatholics.html. On the right hand side there are various papal bulls and encyclicals that are from the 15th and 16th centuries that condemned slavery. Also various Dominican, Franciscan and Jesuit priests condemned slavery as well. Read the book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." It discusses how certain Catholic priests of the era stood up for the rights of Native Americans. You do realize many Catholic clergy were against such horrid treatment as was the papacy? Why is it that liberal Catholics must, to prove their point, go on and on about the "abuses" of the Church like their the American media?
Do you know what a sedevacantist is? Whenever I read comments like "some Catholics in Rome etc...." it reminds me of them. This seems to be a form of liberal sedevacantism. Pope Benedict XVI, the successor of Peter, is not "your" pope. Thus you feel no reason obey him as the vicar of Christ. Right now I have to go. But I will be back to discuss some more of why the feminist theologian terms were utterly wrong. Before I discuss the crux of your argument I just wanted to point out some of the glaring inaccuracies which, as an aspiring medeivalist, I found unbearable. However, until then please examine the rest of my comments. Thankyou and God bless.
"Read the book "How the
"Read the book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." It discusses how certain Catholic priests of the era stood up for the rights of Native Americans. You do realize many Catholic clergy were against such horrid treatment as was the papacy? Why is it that liberal Catholics must, to prove their point, go on and on about the "abuses" of the Church like their the American media?"
Someone has to cover the abuses as well as the good as part of the entire true story BlessedKarl. To promote reconciliation and peace in the world we must take into account the entire story or we deceive ourselves and remain in darkness and are not credible as witnesses of the truth. We cannot continue to live in a fantasy world and deny the truth and shove it under a rock somewhere that we believe God might not see it. It is God who overturns the rocks and tables and exposes the truth for our understanding and betterment. It is the world and the secular that exposes evil to promote itself and its agenda of evil against others.
It is not such a rosy and grace-filled story, the History of the Catholic Church, when one takes into account the entire story of two-thousand years. For example, the Council of Trent and the consequent and subsequent killing of 30,000 Protestants in Paris by an army of Catholics. What a waste of religion and faith! It was by such acts that the Catholic Church lost credibility as a religious entity in the world, lost their power as a result of it, and it marked the beginning of the rise of monarchal absolutism and to our current system of modern governments. If we can admit and learn from the horrid bloody mistakes of the many Papal decrees of the past, we can then move forward and try not to commit the same dreadful acts again. If we confess them and then repeat the sin, only to confess it again and repeat the sin again, we are not truly being Christian but like the mafia in our faith and institution.
Read Hans Kung's The Catholic Church/ a Short History / and you'll know what I am talking about.
What I find disconcerting about your post is the attitude of labeling people and identifying them so rigidly in a negative context such as like the "American media" or "liberal"; a promulgation of an untruth that the media is somehow liberal, so therefore anyone with a different view than you is liberal. That is of late always the conservative's cheap shot against anyone with a valid claim to the truth that you seem to want to deny or forget and shove under a rock and start the name calling instead of having a real Christian conversation. The American media of late is not as you say liberal but is very secular and is only concerned with ratings and not the truth.
It is a glaring inaccuracy as you seem to forget that you are talking to Catholics and Christians and we are not your enemy, but the media would like for you to believe we are. It certainly has worked to keep their ratings high, to pit people against one another. The concept of liberal that you hold onto is a false and deceptive concept, but some still don't get it and are stuck in the lie. It's an easy solution to label the supposed "enemy" instead of desiring the fullness of truth. We are somewhere else BlessedKarl and if we are truly Christian and Catholic and want to preserve the Faith in Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church, we must find ways of doing so by not being so rigidly against the entire truth and come together as a people of God in unity with Him and to His saving grace and healing. We must truly try to transcend the media's devilish and deceptive concepts that are projected onto others from ignorance and not the truth, for ratings, that keep the battle focused away from us loving one another and understanding one another.
I will be back as well to discuss some other points but don't have the time to address right now.
Peace to you in this Easter Season.
I have to admit that the
I have to admit that the idea of making a big deal out of "people" who Baptize using the "wrong" language is like those campaigns against "people" who take Christ out of Christmas. It seems like a great deal of noise about not much. They really have not even convinced me that this IS a big problem; they haven't even convinced me that it is a medium problem.
This just seems like the control police are on patrol again.
God is love is right. The
God is love is right. The greatest love that you can give to someone is to help that person get to Heaven. We are not here to make people comfortable. Remember that we were thrown out of the Garden of Eden and it is everybody's job to help everyone to get back home to Heaven. God the Father is most definetely a father. Don't go with the flow of Satan with trying to wash down what the Bible or the Church teaches. God's word is forever true.
Robert R. Allard, Director
Apostles of Divine Mercy
www.DivineMercySunday.com
Jesus had other ideas of
Jesus had other ideas of what the greatest love is: things like feeding the hungry and forgiving others the harm they do us. That's what he showed us when he asked us to follow him and become like him.
"As the Father hath loved
"As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love: as I also have kept my Father's commandments and do abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled. This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends because all things, whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you. You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. These things I command you, that you love one another." John 15:9-17
hmm, no "greater love than this..that a man lay down his life for his friends", He didn't just feed them and forgive them, but He died for them, and us.
I would push harder, but do you want to go down the rabbit hole of "Why did Jesus come?", "Why did Jesus die?" with me? (Anyone who wishes to do so, I certainly wouldn't mind)
++++++
Ok, enough with whatever I
Ok, enough with whatever I may have meant or not meant by "rabbit hole", if you don't understand it by now, that topic is becoming one.
Anyway, the original comment that sent us on this tangent was (from AnnieO) "Jesus had other ideas of what the greatest love is: things like feeding the hungry and forgiving others the harm they do us."
My (open) question is what reason did Jesus come? Was it, as Annie's* quote suggests to teach us to feed the hungry and forgive others? Or was it something more?
Why did he die? Was it an act of peaceful protest? Or to open the gates of Heaven?
My brief answers, as I am sure anyone could guess, is that He came to free us from our sin, reconcile us with the Father, and open the gates of Heaven. This is both the primary reason He came and died.
What say you?
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
*Yes, Annie, I know this is overly simplistic of what you believe, but as you know I like to chase things down to first principles, and our first reaction often belies our first principles.
~~~~~~
"Oh, by the way, if you'd really like to know, he went that way." =====>
No, HT, you are simply
No, HT, you are simply reading what I wrote through an "either/or" lens. I didn't supplant what Bob said, I added to it. The rabbithole is that you aren't reading what I wrote as I wrote it, and you want to go somewhere you've already been with someone else, even though I don't know where it is and I don't seem to be properly fearful of where we are headed. Oh well..let's start over here, and go where it is you want to go and get it on the table. I see no reason to fuss around the edges for the next five years and get there anyhow...although I guess we will circle back anyhow...:-)
You want to say that the Great Commission is the one thing that I am supposed to be most focused on? And that's interesting to me, since I see myself hardly a part of that. I wasn't taught that pre-V2 and it doesn't fit into what is asked of me on a daily basis now. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't have the daily authority to baptize anyone, so it is hard for me to see how this is primarily directed at me--a very happy "lay" woman (such a poor choice of words!!). In those good ole days that you love so much, this was taught as the message for priests, not lay people. Frannie would say that this is above my paygrade and I think most people see it that way because that is what the church gives us. You see it differently--and mostly because you believe you have the vocation to the priesthood--but that is not my vocation. Nor my husband's. And good catholics both. So there must be more to the story than what you are suggesting?
What Jesus did was to care for people around him. He showed us that caring for people's daily lives and health and disabilities and shame and outcasting was what he did to care for them. They followed him because he gave them his love and attention and different ways of seeing God that didn't ask of them that they follow some 900 rules of externals, but that they love and forgive each other. Jewish thought of the time was not actually even about the salvation of the individual soul, but of following the rules and becoming a righteous person. Jesus said we would be finally judged not on our righteousness but on our mercy and love through such real daily things like feeding the hungry etc.--all those things he did for other people that showed that God is love. He didn't split out people's souls while ignoring their physical and emotional needs. That's not Jesus.
I do hear people on here who believe that their primary focus should be to 'instruct the ignorant' and such, and while all be worthy enough goals, they actually aren't what Jesus put out their first for us. Right now those seem to me to be the easy armchair exercises more than anything else--just as they always have been. Jesus showed us how to free each other from sins, how to reconcile us with each other (which is also reconciliation with the Father), and how to open the gates of Heaven for each other. It's not just something done to us, but something we are supposed to do with each other. That my focus is often primarily there is because that's what I was told by Jesus to do. The relationships are all part of the same experience of love that is God. We grow in that love partly because we practice it, in other words.
So, yes, you are being oversimplistic with me. I don't mind if you want to "chase things down to first prinicples" and if you want to think that I am belying my first principles, but please just do that. Don't try to re-write what I said to get there. Or, I'll keep talking about the rabbithole and the vanishing rabbit act. :-)
Actually, as Here Today has
Actually, as Here Today has already stated, if you get The Great Commission right, all the rest is just details.
" If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples."
" If you Love me, you will keep my Commandments." We are to follow Him, Perfect Truth, Perfect Love, The Hope of Salvation, The Way To Love.
Actually not, anneD. The
Actually not, anneD. The Church has always considered Jesus' parable of the last judgment (sheeps and goats) more the focus.
In which direction, would
In which direction, would you say these " sheeps and goats" should be heading? I would suggest if they were to follow each other they may find themselves going in circles. That is why Christ came, to show us the way back to our Father in Heaven. The way of Truth. The Way to Love. Such is the Power of the Union of God's Love and His Mercy.
" If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples."
" If you Love Me, you will keep My Commandments."
" Come Follow Me."
I guess you are just being
I guess you are just being silly now? Or perhaps just need to read the parable? (I'm not sure).
And I think the Commandment Jesus tells us is most important--is my memory with me?--is 'to love one another.' Sorta ties into the last judgment scenario, yes?
"You want to say that the
"You want to say that the Great Commission is the one thing that I am supposed to be most focused on?"
Well, yes, as the role of the laity in evangelization has certainly been brought to the fore-front since Vatican II (and Apostolicam Actuositatem). There has existed some element of this from the beginning of the Church, indeed since the Great Commission. Immediately prior to Vatican II this was largely expressed through the activities Catholic Action and the Confraternity for Christian Doctrine (aka CCD). The role of the laity has always included spreading the Gospel and leading friends and co-workers to Christ. This is our vocation, as members of the Church, to carry out the last command of Christ.
You did not present your statement as an option or addition to what Bob had posted, but as a correction ("Jesus had other ideas..."). There should of course be care for the material needs of those less fortunate, but which is greater the soul or the body?
I cannot think of any case where Jesus taught that forgiving each other was the same as being forgiven by God. There are examples who have done all that the Law demanded, and more, and were yet lacking. (The rich young man, for example).
But there are also several statements that imply that it was His departure from the disciples that allows us to follow Him from this world: "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also." (Jn 14:3)
++++++
Annie, I took pains(ok, it doesn't take much to ctrl-c, ctrl-v (cut and paste) your exact words) not to misquote you.
You can check my post against yours by scrolling. Kindly have the courtesy to check before accusing me of such again.
Very few of my posts are influenced by my discernment, but rather by my belief. There are other posters who share my belief, but not my vocation (anneD, mavfan, Saint and Sinner, and several more).
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
I haven't the time I had
I haven't the time I had hoped to respond more fully, but I am puzzled over your use of the parable of the rich young man, to whom Jesus suggested entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven would be difficult or more than difficult because he wasn't willing to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor, and then follow Jesus. Yes, it would seem that following the Law was not enough and giving to the poor was the next necessary step, which was lacking.
Well, I'm glad that you
Well, I'm glad that you finally acknowledge a shift in focus toward the participation of the "lay" in the church since V2.
But help me out here. Women can't be priests because they were not one of the Twelve sitting at table at the Last Supper, but they are charged with the Great Commission as the primary focus of their spirituality when they were not among the Eleven?
I'm going to keep working on this logic here HT, but I'm troubled....
I don't recall denying it.
I don't recall denying it.
The Great Commission has been applied to the whole Church including (but not starting) at Vatican II.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
I think I posted a reply,
I think I posted a reply, but it's not showing up and I don't think I wrote anything that wouldn't, so I must have been interrupted on the sending. I've been trying to work through your thinking, HT, and I think I'm finally where you are, or closer, but don't have time for posting right now. You write in code sometimes but I don't think you realize that, and I don't always even understand how you are connecting things, but I think I've got the same dots connected now. Will be back. I gather I am left with the puzzle of women in the church, but I already told b7m8 that the church would need to focus arguments on church authority, not whether women were present at the time of the sacramental passing of authority in scriptures, so I have an increased sense of the strength of that point after re-reading the great commission part of matthew.
Sylvester, think "Through
Sylvester, think "Through the Looking Glass", a journey into the bizarre, as I have run into here before.
When people start denying that our goal is heaven, or that Jesus is the Way to get there, discussion tends to break down quickly. (there was a poster here a while ago who I repeatedly tried to discuss these issues with, and the responses were so bizarre I consider this a rabbit hole topic.)
++++++
"Bizarre" is the human
"Bizarre" is the human imagining through the ages, and even now, what heaven is. Pope John Paul II has famously said that heaven is "not a place" but "a relationship with God". Don't we have "relationship with God" now? Shouldn't we "in the now" have a sense of heaven?
I think we should and can if we exercise personal conscience in the matter of all relationships — that means using our "personal" intelligence to inform judgments, and always to choose the judgment our conscience tells us is the better choice. "Owning" faith is about appropriating consciousness and being faithful to conscience.
Unless, of course, your
Unless, of course, your consciousness has not been properly formed to Christ.
HT, if you are trying to
HT, if you are trying to suggest--through response to someone else rather than directly to me--that I have denied heaven or Jesus as the way, than you need to settle down and re-read what I wrote. You are the one flaming off somewhere.
Please read my post, in the
Please read my post, in the past, with other people (particularly one poster whose name was edited out of my last post [thanks dennis c] and who I haven't seen for some time) a conversation or two on this topic went off the deep end. I responded to my original post because I wanted to answer multiple people with one post (given that each post is individually moderated, anything I can do to lessen the volume without sacrificing my input ;-) ). I seemed to cause some confusion with my personal designation of a topic as a "rabbit hole" issue, for that I apologize.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
Now where did that white rabbit go?
Here Today, I don't think I
Here Today,
I don't think I am the poster to whom you're referring, but I do remember your saying in a response to me something to the effect that I might be denying the existence of hell.
I didn't reply to that comment because I didn't know where to begin to respond. I think I have very different theological starting points than the ones you use, when it comes to thinking about "why Jesus came," and about heaven and hell.
As I read the gospels, the fundamental point of the incarnation is to enflesh God's love for all creation: to make that love visible in a human person.
Given the incarnation, it doesn't make sense to me, then, to frame everything in terms of dichotomies: either salvation or social justice, either a theology that wants to make this world more like the reign of God or one focused on heaven or hell.
To talk about the meaning of Jesus's life in terms of justice, in terms of the practical ways in which he enfleshed the redemptive love of God within his own society, is not to deny heaven or hell--or sin, for that matter.
I'm reading Bishop Geoffrey Robinson's splendid new book now--and wonder if you have read it? If not, I highly recommend it. One of the things I like very much about his thinking is how holistic and measured it is--how it does not imagine that, if we focus on the connection between the reign of God and this-worldly justice, we're denying heaven and hell. Robinson keeps together the poles in this conversation, as the Catholic tradition at its best always does (and as we must, if we focus on the incarnation)--
but as recent neo-conservative political applications of Catholicism in the U.S. do not....
I hope that E.J. Dionne is correct when he argues, in his new book Souled Out, which I also just finished reading, that the religious right is running its course in American politics. As he notes, the 2004 election was a real nadir for Catholicism in the public sphere, because of the coercive, obtrusive attempt of Catholics in alliance with the religious right to reduce the conversation to one set of very stark, very narrow, very unCatholic alternatives.
Catholicism is, at its best, always both-and, not either-or.
William D. Lindsey
With all due respect,
With all due respect, William, I have never heard Christ refered to as The Great Compromiser.
No, the poster I referenced
No, the poster I referenced has not been on in a while, and I do wish that his name hadn't been edited out of my post to spare the confusion.
I agree that it is not either/or, but I AnnieO post seems to be a correction to Bob's, not an addition. If we were to pose it as an either/or (or even which is most important), then the issue of these fundamental questions arise.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
btw, there are many of us conservatives who are, for some reason lumped in with neo-cons, that actually have significant areas of departure from the ideals of the neo-conservative movement, in secular or church politics.
Mine was indeed an addition,
Mine was indeed an addition, HT. You just read with a "hard" lens, as you say yourself, when you're in the mood to have at it with one of your issues. Sorry that my language is not in the perfect format for you, but the meaning was not intended as you read it. You just can't read it the way it was intended.
BTW, the reason cons are lumped with neocons is partly because cons go silent about what they say, mostly because your interest is only addressing liberals and you don't want to weaken the con side. if one wants to entertain the idea that 'liberal ideas are exhausted' the honest person has to recognize the correlary--that conservative ideas are exhausted--because they only come into occasional full fever as a response to that of liberals. The orthodox middle is much more boring to you, just face it, HT.
Rabbit holes are dark
Rabbit holes are dark places; Jesus is Light
They are rabbit holes only
They are rabbit holes only if you see them as rabbit holes, HT.
Laying down my life for my friends (and "enemies") may be feeding the hungry and forgiving those around me--which is the witness of being Christ's hands and feet in this world.
What on earth (or heaven) are you fighting about here? Why is talking about Jesus suddenly a rabbit hole to you? Push on, you have something you need to get outside of yourself, obviously. By all means, do so...I'm right here.
When the conversation turns
When the conversation turns AWAY from The Light, The Truth and The Way, you are left in DARKNESS.
Then you don't want to go
Then you don't want to go down the rabbithole with us, do you? HT suggests that this conversation will lead us there....
...but I don't yet know why or what there is to fear. God is with me as I talk and think and feel all these things! And that would be part of the Light.
God is a Spirit and not male
God is a Spirit and not male or female. If saying so makes you believe that is going with the flow of Satan, you are sadly mistaken and go with the flow of Satan and the male hierarchy to its misogynist teachings that do nothing to save souls, but hinder souls.
"We are not here to make people comfortable." Obviously, you like to make people, especially women, feel uncomfortable. But, we were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, and none are comfortable with that. It is Jesus that consoles, and it has not been the Church that has done consoling over the last two thousand years, but is more willing to rule it over others, forging documents to make the Pope "infallible" and leaving out the message of Jesus Christ in its teachings. If anything, the hierarchy is washing down what the Bible says. Your comment is a lot of hogwash. It is neither someone like you or the hierarchy that helps persons get to Heaven. If you have read the Bible, you should know, it is by the saving grace of Jesus Christ and He has the final say, thank God.
I do not worship false idols. I do not worship the hierarchy. I do not worship false gods. I do not worship the Church. I worship Jesus Christ, the son of God, who is the Ruler and Teacher of all that is good. I don't need the Church. I was not made for the Church, but the Church was made for man and I am not a man, so you can have your man-made Church. For the Church has become a Church not of Love, but of hatred toward women. I will not sit idly by to hear your false claims that you can help someone get to heaven. Jesus is the helper, not you. Stop flattering yourself.
Shirley Bianchi How about:
Shirley Bianchi
How about: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sophia"? If the Holy Spirit is the Wisdom of the Trinity, then that should take care of the problem.
Apparently the members don't
Apparently the members don't know the difference between validity and liceity. The intent of the recipient and the intent of the performer are what would make the sacrament valid. In societies where the mother is the authority,is God still a father. Can someone who can not speak and thus say the word Father,can he baptise.
It amazes me when I see the church being dogmatic about mysteries of the heart and spirit. Pay no attention to those who are laden down by the law but know nothing about the love the Christ taught us.
I am not sure what you are
I am not sure what you are in disagreement with, but I think you are saying that they should be making such a big deal about the wording in a Baptism, and should then refer to it as a "feminist theology" and that is ok with you?
I take no offense in the Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I have essentially been desensitized into believing that God is male all of my life, told that men are better and more superior than women, that the role of women should be demeaning and demeaned. I am used to it. I don't pay it much mind though, because God is a Spirit and I call Him a He and not a She out of sheer habit. But it is about time we all knew the truth and the lie that continues to be promulgated in the world and in the Church about women being less and inferior to men. I do take offense in their using this in an opportunistic way as a political tool and making it into a misogynist stance against anything they deem as a feminine quality or feminist theology as being inferior.
You said: "The intent of the recipient and the intent of the performer are what would make the sacrament valid." The infant who is most likely being baptized in the Church today is the recipient and has no conscious intention of its own yet. In societies where the mother is the authority, is God still a father... are you asking me or telling me?
God is Spirit and is not male or female. Are you in disagreement with this basic theological truth? I didn't make it up.
Were you in disagreement with Pope John XXIII in handing out blank baptismal certificates? Do you think all is well in the male-dominated hierarchy and that we should all be complacent about the hierarchy's patriarchal misogyny?
It is time for the Truth to become valid and that is that men and women are equal in the sight of God.
For the sake of clarity: Jesus taught us the Our Father to pray, so God can be seen as our Father. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the hierarchy always putting women in an inferior context to men. God did not make us inferior. If he made women inferior than we would not have been made in God's image and likeness. If women were not made in God's image and likeness, then whose image are we made in then? We give birth, as God has given us life and the ability to give life as well to both male and female. Perhaps we are closer to God's image than men? I don't know. The point here is not to make women more superior, but equal to men. We are equally responsible in sharing our gifts. The Scriptures were not just written for men, and if we believed that to be true, we might just not even be required to believe as men do and shouldn't even bother being Catholic or Christian or being baptized either.
If women are not equal, then why did Jesus speak to the women also? Why didn't he just ignore women?
Carmel, I share your
Carmel, I share your frustration and disapproval that the Church continues to act and speak in ways that are demeaning and unjust toward women. Surely the formula of baptism can be worded in a way that is not offensive to anyone. To frame God in politically loaded words that advance male arrogance, demean women and invade the domain of the Godhead goes against every Christian instinct.
Is God male? Theology 101 -
Is God male?
Theology 101 - God is Spirit.
It does seem absurd for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to be obsessing over the wording of the Baptisms the way they are. To then call "Redeemer, Creator or Sanctifier" a feminist theology because the words are different is outrageously ignorant and condescending to all women everywhere. Don't they have anything better to do than sit around and be bothered about the wording at a Baptism?
In sharp contrast, Pope John XXIII during World War II prior to becoming Pope, as apostolic delegate in Turkey saved the lives of thousands of Jews from Romania and Bulgaria, especially children, by issuing blank baptisimal certificates. I wonder if anyone doing this sort of thing today would also be called into question by the CDF? It seems more likely that they would be told they were being disobedient and maybe face excommunication? The Church hierarchy is blindly going on with abuse, negligence, and insults to its other half, the females, whereas during World War II the Curia was anti-Semitic and did not care about the killing of Jews; now it seems their energies are focused against women and from any wording that might allude to the feminine, while females are essentially trashed throughout the world in one way or another or deemed even unnecessary to even be born, like in China or India.
This seems very strange for me to try to understand them or have sympathy for them when they hold onto this anti-feminine view, even while they know Mary, the Blessed Mother as being the Queen of Angels, who nurtured Jesus in His early life on earth before His mission and she was the first believer of the Messiah, our Jesus. It does not make sense that the CDF would harbor such hatred and contempt for women, knowing how much Jesus loved women and spoke to them and came to save them also and calls them to Himself just as He does for men. Despite women also being among the earliest martyrs of the Church, prophetesses and serving as apostles and disciples of Jesus, our Church holds onto a false view of women and denies them equality.
"There are still some men who use the Church('s example) to justify their abuse of women and children." The Church is complicit in this, as it was complicit by not denouncing the killing of Jews in World War II and retaining the Prayer for the Jews prior to Vatican II.
Our Church desperately needs a Vatican III soon to put its priorities in order, abolish anti-Christian attitudes and dogma, and it would be wise to follow the recommendations of Hans Kung's four conditions that need to be met that he writes of in his The Catholic Church p.203-204 if it is going to survive this century and beyond.
In case anyone missed
In case anyone missed this:
"Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.'" Matthew 28:18-20
When Jesus addresses the crowd in Matthew 23, he is not issuing a directive as he is in the verses in Matthew 28, above. He is advising people that God is THE Father, not literally forbidding people from calling their paternal parent Father. Therefore, where Carmel is advocating that God THE Father not be called the Father based on a verse in Matthew 23 that has been taken out of context, the verse actually gives more credence to using the term Father when referring to God.
I would no more expect the Catholic Church to be agreeable to alternate wordings for baptism than I would for it to allow variations in the wording of the Lord's prayer as part of the Mass.