“Peace on Earth” Means “No More War”

Joseph M.
Jesus died to save us from our sins misses most of the point of Jesus' life.

On the contrary: it is THE central point of His life. It is the very reason why God became incarnate.

He said he had come to liberate the captives and set free the oppressed. He said that as he began his work on earth.

Yes, He came to free them from sin.

Later "theologians" watered down the real purpose why Jesus died. He was nonviolently resisting the oppression of the Roman Empire and the priestly caste in Israel (the church of that day so to speak). In the end, they got him! Unlike other zealot groups in Israel, Jesus eschewed the sword and absorbed violence rather than inflict it.

His purpose is to free us from sin, no matter what our state in life; whether we are physically enslaved to another human being or whether we are rich; salvation from sin is available to all.

Be real. Where and when did Jesus say that he was dying to save us from our sins? He did tell us that we individually and as members of a community of believers would be judged on how we treat the oppressed. Did you feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, take care of the sick and visit the imprisoned? We would be punished for failing to love one another as he loved us.

Very simply: He said He came to set the captives free. He also said to go and make disciples of ALL nations. Be real: Jesus came to free us from our sins. Read the Gospels.

With regard to defense, Chrsitians during the first three centuries were prohibited from participating in the military.

And with good reason: quite often the military were obliged to recognize some other god or person as a deity. This would, of course, fly in the face of what Christians believed.

We sure have lost the fact that true security can only come from making the love of Jesus our primary value. No other security is worth our effort. Freedom does not come from tip of the sword or the barrel of the gun. Of course, if you acquiesce to our government's oppression of billions so we can support our life sytle, you had better get all the guns you can get.

Oh boy.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Good points H.
It's very difficult to see any unity with people who make a communist or utopian out of Jesus, stressing the "social gospel" instead of the genuine Gospel.
Peace on Earth will only happen when the social kingship of Christ is fully realized. But our liberal friends don't understand that. Peace that tramples upon the Faith is no peace at all.

So true. The thing is, there will be no lasting peace on earth until we go and sin no more. In order for the "social gospel" (like that wording!) to be valid, we must place the genuine Gospel before it.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Scorpi007,

You wrote: " stressing the "social gospel" instead of the genuine Gospel." I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you please explain it to me?

Space doesn't permit anything exhaustive so let me try to keep this brief Bob. Thanks for responding.
If we summed up the message of Jesus it would be, in my opinion:
First to love God with our whole body, mind, and soul, and secondly to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
This great commandment is so ordered by God that we will know that God comes first and our neighbor second.
To love God we must profess a belief in Him, His teaching, and His Church, and we must be doers - we must live our Faith. To be doers we must first focus on ourselves. We must resist sin - to avoid it as the deadly plague it is. We must do what God has commanded - be baptized, and take advantage of the sacraments (most especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass). Most people do not go to Hell because they prefer Hell over Heaven, but because they prefer to live a worldly existence of contentment and material happiness instead of an existence worthy of Heaven.
Charity is not a superficial love of neighbor, it is a supernatural love of God, and a love of neighbor for God's sake. This is because God loves all of us and desires that we all get to Heaven. To love our neighbor then is chiefly to help him attain his salvation. A lifetime of poverty is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity. So the salvation of a poor person's soul is infinitely more important than the size of his bank account or even his living conditions. To tell our neighbor that he is doing fine, or that he is loved by his peers, even his family, when in reality he is headed for perdition is NOT love of neighbor. This is a false charity.
The social gospel is a misrepresentation of God's message. Its focus is the socio-economic status of individuals and groups throughout the world rather than the status of their souls. It isn't concerned with conversion, but primarily with wealth redistribution, which may actually be considered "legal plunder" when monies are redistributed without the consent of the owners.
Not that helping those in need is a bad thing; on the contrary, it is a good thing. But such efforts, which must be voluntary, are minor compared to helping others work out their salvation. And helping to save souls is the primary responsibility of the bishops. Afterall, God commissioned the Apostles to preach and baptize. He said "Give to God what is God's and render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's."
Does that clear things up?

Scorpio,

Yes, it clears a lot up!

You wrote: "If we summed up the message of Jesus it would be, in my opinion: First to love God with our whole body, mind, and soul, and secondly to love our neighbor as we love ourselves"

I would like to call to your attention that each time this passage appears in the Gospels, it is referring to the Law of Mosses and the teaching of the prophets. In other words, it is referring the the Old Covenant and its Law. Christ gave us a New Covenant (or don't you really believe that) and a New Law, that we are to love one another, not as we love ourselves, but as he loves us.

You said, if I understand you correctly, to be doers we must focus on ourselves first and this primarily means looking after our eternal salvaion. Now,I have no disarguement with that. Indeed, what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? We must resist sin (good) and do what God commanded. Fine, God (Christ) commanded we love one another. Be baptized and receive the Sacraments, fine. But, without love of neighbor, I don't think being baptized and receiving the Sacraments fulfills God's command.

You further stated we are to love our neighbor for God's sake. Firts of all, if you can't love a person for that person's sake I really question that you love him/her at all. Sceond, since you are concerned with your eternal salvaion, I would suggest that your own sake in involved here since, if you do not love your neighbor, your salvation is in danger.

You put another's salvaton above thier physical good and there is truth to that of course. On this point, since Herm said she would like to give you a 10 and, while she said she did not want to talk about abortion which I intended to respect, I just have to comment, Herm, that you saw abortion as genecide. The concern here would be for the babies killed. Well, if the important thing is salvation, these babies are in heaven (unless, of course, you are still klinging to Limbo) What you should be concernte with is the salvation of the women who have had the abortions.

Yes, to tell someone he is doing fine while he is headed for perdition is not charity. But then, who am I to decide who is and who is not headed to perdition. As I understand the Gospel, not to look after the needs of my neigbor leads to perdition. I don't think you would agree with that as you have stated that efforts to help those in need is a voluntary thing. I would refer you and Scorpio to Matt. 25.

Yes, ultimately, it is all about our eternal salvation. However, I believe that, while we do not earn our salvation, it is contingent on our love of neighbor which is exressed in the way we treat our neighbor. I would see the social aspects of the Gospels as a very real and important part of the whold message as the social teachings of the Chruch are a very real and important part of the Chruch's teaching.

I never cease to be amazed at how little the Gospels influence Christianity as it is understood today or how they are read selectively to support positions.

Bob,
Thanks for the response. I would point out that Jesus gave a complete understanding of the Law which was not suspended with the New Covenant. "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The New Covenant sacrifice replaced the Old Covenant sacrifice, but the only thing that changed with respect to how we are to live our Faith is explained by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
To love someone for God's sake is to truly love another. We should see in people what God sees (or we should make the attempt, however imperfectly we can). How else can we love even our enemies? If we love them for God's sake then we want for them what God wants, and not necessarily what our neighbor thinks he wants. I hope that makes sense. For example, out neighbor may dream of money, popularity and other worldly things which God cares nothing about. God wants that person in Heaven no matter the price. Sure, we still have to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and help the sick. But corporal charity should not trump spiritual charity - they go hand in hand, and those who push the social gospel place no emphasis on spiritual charity.
I must respectfully disagree with the notion that unbaptized babies go to Heaven. Such a notion makes a liar out of Jesus who said that baptism is necessary. The consistant teaching of the Fathers and doctors of the Church is that for the unbaptized it is impossible to enter salvation. No one would believe that babies go to Hell to suffer eternal torments, but we know of a certainty (Jesus is the truth and is incapable of lying) that they can't go to Heaven. If the private opinion of the Pope himself differs from the timeless teaching of the Fathers and the very words of Our Lord then I must beg to differ with him. Many popes have been wrong about certain issues in the past.
You say you are amazed by the selective use of the Gospels. I couldn't agree with you more! However, I am firmly convinced that it is those on the other side of the debate who practice it.

Bob:

I would argue that the command to love our neighbors as Christ has loved us is not simply another(new) commandment; but rather a summation of the old covenant.

God is ultimate goal and so we are to love one another not simply for each other's sake, but for love of God. Love of God comes first and then directly from that comes love of man.

I agree with you that without love of neighbor our baptism is basically null and void. We are not saved just because we are baptized (that idea, I believe belongs to the OSAS crowd), but we are saved because of the grace of Jesus Christ. I argue that when we truly and authentically love God, we truly and authentically have love for our neighbor. How can we not?

The question is what does it mean to love our neighbor and how do we express that love in our society?

I see it as not only helping them with the corporal works of mercy but also with the spiritual works of mercy. One is incomplete without the other. We must feed each other, not only physically, but spiritually as well. We must clothe each other not only physically, but spiritually. We must visit the imprisoned not only physically, but spiritually, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "voluntary" when you say that I said helping others should be only voluntary, but I will clarify what I mean by it. It should be voluntary only in that it should have to come from the government as a last resort; that the government should see to it that her citizens are well-cared for only when her citizens have failed to do so. It is NOT voluntary in that we are all obliged to care for one another; while no other person should force us to care for another against our will, it is our own inner obligation that should force us to do so.

And as to abortion: I don't worry about where the babies will end up, just as say, I wouldn't have worried about where Maximilian Kolbe ended up, but I am concerned for the souls who would do or permit such a heinous thing to happen.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Dear Herm,

You wrote: "I would argue that the command to love our neighbors as Christ has loved us is not simply another(new) commandment; but rather a summation of the old covenant."

In the Hebrew bible, "Moses called all the elders of Israel adn said to them, 'Go and procure lambs for your families, and slaughter them as Passover victims. Then take a bunch of hyssop, and sprinkle the lintel and the two doorposts with this blood. But none of you shall go outdoors until morning. For, the Lord will go by, striking down the Egyptians. Seeing the blood on the lintel and two doorposts, the Lord will pass over that door and not let the destroyer come into the house to strike you down." (Ex. 12: 21-23) Thus, saved by the blood of the lambs, the Israelites were led into the desert and to Mt. Sinai where God reminded them of what he had done for them and entered into covenant with them. God, on his part, who had already freed them, would continue to be their God and protect them. They, for their part, were to be his people and obey the commandments he gave to Moses on the Mount.

Christ, our Paschal Lamb, on the night he suffered, said, "this is my blood, the blood of the covenant (Mt. and Mk simply say "covenant" while Lk says "new covenant), to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." John, who gave us the beautiful discourse on the Eucharist in chapter 6, does not write its institution at the Last Supper, although he devotes some 5 chapters to it beginning with the washing of feet in chapter 13 to the prayer for all believers at the end of chapter 17, because he sees it rather in the Passion and Death of Jesus itself. He does, however, within the framework of the Last Suppper, say, "I give you a new commandment: Love one another. Such as my love has been for you, so must your love be for each of other. This is how all will know you for my disciples: your love for one another."

So, understanding the relationship of covenant and law, either we believe Christ, our Passover, made a new covenant with us and with it gave us a new law, or, if we insist on following the Law of Moses, then we must see ourselves within the framework of the covenant God made with Israel and call ourselves Jews.

So, do you believe there is a New Covenant? If so, believe its Law.

As for the "voluntary" thing, sorry for the confusion, I was addressing what Scorpio said in his post. I understood it to say helping others was simply a nice option for the Christian.

Paul says in Galatians that anyone who binds himself to any part of the law is bound to all of it. (no milk with meat, no blended fabrics, no football) He also says that anyone who seeks to bind those set free in Christ to the law should castrate themselves. Which is where, I think, we got the celibate priesthood.

Of course I believe in the New Covenant. All I am saying is that the covenant is not so "new", but rather, is the spirit of the older covenant. I suppose we can say it is a 'renewal' of sorts.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Joseph M.
Please tell me how you can separate the socio-economic staus of individuals from their souls. We are made whole persons in Christ who came to librate us from the personal oppression of sin and socio-economic oppression. Radical evil is apathy is the face of relievable human suffering no matter how you try to divide the person and escape the "social gospel." I have never seen a soul but I have seen starving and suffering people--men, women and children--in slums in America, Haiti and Nicaragua. Jesus came to liberate them. He never said, "Save your soul." He said, "feed the hungry, etc..."
Every nine seconds someone dies of hunger while you are trying to save their souls? Every six seconds someone dies of a preventable disease while you are rendereing whatever?

I guess you skipped over Matthew 10:28 which says, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Christ's message was all about saving souls, John 10:10 says "I came so that they may have life and have it abundantly," and I don't think he was talking about food. True we do need to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and whatnot but Christ's greatest commandment was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your SOUL, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37 emphasis added). Then after your love of God came love of neighbor. The social Gospel tries to divide the person not the genuine Gospel, because the social Gospel divides the person into what he/she is physically and discards body/soul composite that he/she really is. Suffering is not a bad thing either, it can actually be quite good as the Catechism says, "Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus" (paragraph 1521) and St. Paul tells us "I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col 1:24). So you're argument is not really based on much truth, Christ came to save our souls, Suffering is not bad, and the social Gospel divides the person into only the physical aspect, but you are right we are called to feed the hungry, etc. but most importantly we are called to lead them to God who will fill their starving souls.

miles jesu:

I suppose we can say, to sum it up, that we must do both the Spiritual works of Mercy and the Corporal works of Mercy. I find usually that those who emphasis the latter forget about the former, but I've never seen those who emphasis the former forget about the latter.

BTW: know any good books on redemptive suffering?

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I heard that The Suffering of Love by Regis Martin is a good book, I've never read it myself though. Salvific Doloris is an encyclical by Pope John Paul II about Redemptive Suffering and is excellent. Peace of Soul by Fulton Sheen doesn't deal with it directly by does deal with it in some parts.

I agree that those who mainly focus on the Corporal tend to forget the Spiritual Works while our main focus should be both because they deal with the entire person not just the physcial aspect.

Thanks!

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Dear Herm,

I would agree, it is both that are requited of us. As for never having seen " those who emphasis the former forget about the latter.", I would suspect you see what you want to see.

Not really. Even when I was among those who emphasized the corporal works of mercy, I never saw anyone who did so also emphasize the spiritual.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Doesn't Jesus say that it is on the corporal that we will bw judged?

Show me in the Gospel where Christ came to liberate us from socio-economic oppression. And you don't think Christ said "Save your soul"? What the heck do you think "Go and sin no more" means????

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Scorpio, if I could give you a 10 on that I would!

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Thank you very much H. (I hope it's alright if I abbreviate your name this way).

Dear Joseph M.

I find your post most interesting. Jesus did come as the Jewish Messiah to liberate captives and set free the oppressed. When Christianity was carried to the Gentiles, there was a change from Messiah to Redeemer. I have always been intrigued by that change. I really can't say I have ever seen him as having resisted the Roman Empire, but certainly he spoke out loud and clear about the religious oppression of the Scribes and Pharasees. I would also say that his concept of sin had more to do with how we treat one another than with breaking God's law unless you accept that God's law is to love one another.

" We sure have lost the fact that true security can only come from making the love of Jesus our primary value." Powerful! It was that very lesson Israel could never learn in terms of trusting the God with whom they were covenanted.

I am sure you are going to take some "flack" about what you wrote, but I, for one, would like to hear more.

Thanks.

Joseph M.
Bob,
I just read A Political Reading of the Gospel by George W. Baldwin. I met the author at SOA Watch. He was a minister and seminary professor. Then, for 12 years, he embraced a life of voluntary poverty and lived in Nicaragua. His analysis is that Paul is repsonsible for ther shift from liberation to slavation. You also might want the read both of Albert Nolan's books, Jeus Before Christianity and Jesus Today.

Joseph M.

Thanks.

Bob

Fr. John Forgot about the Border Patrol and Coast Guard. He probably considers them evil, because they protect our nations borders

would one argue that some of these "systems" such as at Los olomos is inherently evil... the "individual person" is good, but the SYSTEM...SYSTEM !!! That is what Jesus spoke out most against!!!!!!!!!!

I live in Texas, a state that has never met a death penalty it didn't like. by the logic of the "System" the one who pull the switch or gives the injection is not evil, but the System is at fault. I don't think that makes an sense. We are all individually compable. Mind you I do not think those who work at Los Alamos or serve in our nations military are evil. I am just trying to follow your train of thought

NY had the death penalty under some type of statute. Never once did we put anyone to death. The statute (I'm probably using the wrong word) ran out without a peep.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I think it's funny how in calling for peace Fr. John attacks the president, vice president, the war, the military, and nuclear research labs.

Ummmn, no. He has never "attacked" anybody in his life, I'm sure. When you use hyperbole like that, it only makes you look defensive. He uses words to CRITICIZE, which is his right to do. Actually, it's not only his right, it's his obligation as a priest to criticize what he believes is wrong in society.

Yes, because all four of the people listening to him need to hear this.

In the article he's not criticizing by using words like "mocking Christ", abolition, hypocrisy, and making allusions to Herod and Pilate, he's flat out attcking everyone he mentions in his article, except for the angels. If he was merely criticizing then I wouldn't have a problem, but he does so much more then critize, especailly when he calls anybody working in the military and anybody not speaking out agaisnt them as "Christmas mockers"

Paul says in Galatians that anyone who binds himself to the law makes a mockery of the death of Christ. Is that a criticism or an attack?

Yes, I'm sure John would agree with your comment. In his speeches and writings he does say repeatedly that abortion is evil, along with the death penalty. Unlike many other Christians, he sees the correlation between those things... along with working with many governors to grant stays of execution and trying to abolish the death penalty, he has also demonstrated against abortion in the past.

Fair enough, but too bad many readers on NCR aren't as consistent. Too many fight against the death penalty, the war, etc, but somehow think abortion should remain legal, or support politicians who believe abortion should remain legal.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Dear Herm,

I, for one, am against abortion. I understand the agruements about not knowing when life begins, etc., but, for me, even if life does not begin for some time after conception, I believe humans beget humans and that even if the fertalized egg is only a "potential human", I think it should be protected.

However, I recognize that many do not see it this way and to make abortion illegal will not stop it. The illegal abortions will be done in secret without proper medical procedure and be a greater problem than we have now. I would keep it legal and safe and do all that we can do to discourage it.

Birth control would be one very good example of a way to reduce abortions because, in the country anyway, most abortions are an alternative means of birth control anyway. Using a condom or pill or vasectomy would be a much lesser "evil" than abortion.

If the Vatican can consider using condoms to prevent AIDS, I would suggest the same arguements could be used in favor of using condoms to pervent unwanted pregnancies that end up as abortions and, in the cases of sexual relations where there is no danger of AIDS, any other means.

I would further suggest that if the Vatican does not give permission to use condoms to prevent AIDS, it will be because they too see this logic and would rather protect "infallibiliy" than save lives.

It in not known as the Infernal City for nothing.

Bob:

I used to hold the same view as you regarding abortion until I came to the sad fact that it doing nothing more than supporting legalized genocide.

And while while birth control sounds like a viable way to reduce abortions, it isn't. Birth control has been widely available for decades now, and abortions continue to occur on a phenomenal scale. Sex education is also more widely available, but then so is abortion "services."

I might add, let's NOT turn this into an abortion debate. So, this is my last post on the subject on this thread.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

What violent reactions to the suggestion that we live the Gospel. Quick, lets get back to condemning gays and people who practice birth control. Then we will be free to kill one another.

I would not call someone who puts down those who serve our county a violent reaction. Interesting you bring up birth control, Gandhi, who Fr. John quotes in the article, thought it was terrible too. You should look up some of his quotes. might make you rethink the matter

Gadhi was, to put it mildly, eccentric. His friends complained that "the world will never know how much it's cost us to keep this 'simple old man' in poverty".
Like Deer, Gandhi had the advantage of people willing to pay his bills so that he could preach 'no thought for the morrow'. And there are people still stupid enough to believe both of them.

Mavfan46,

For myself, I think there is more than a bit of a jump from being against war to not supporting our troops. I am against war. I don't think it solves anything and its price in human suffering is beyond words. I pray for our troops. I pray for their safe return home. I pray they will not get caught up in the madness of war and do things they will regret for the rest of their lives. I pray, too, for those they are fighting and especially for the innocent victims who cannot escape from the violence around them. I do not pray for victory, but for the war to stop.

Look at Viet Nam. How many young Americans, to speak only of our troops, had their lives destroyed in that war. And, yes, I do believe that, in that war, our troops became the targets of antiwar groups and individuals and suffered, not only on foreign soil, but when they got home also. Many can still be seen on street corners looking for handouts. Ask them about war. And Viet Nam, oh, it's doing quite well, thank you. What was the point? Who won" Who lost? What, except for the lives destroyed, would be different if it never happened.

I often wonder where all the "hippies" went. I suspected that, for many, it was not the war they were opposed to but the possibility of being called upon to take part in it. Where are they now? Why are they not marching in our srteets with thier peace symbols? I don't know.

The statement of Pope JPII, "No more war!" Did it mean anything. Perhaps he should have been "in the chair" when he said it. Would Catholics then, perhaps, at least be opened to the possibility that Christ came to bring peace and that war, by its' very nature, is contrary to Christ's teaching?

Do you know on what grounds Gandhi opposed birth control? You see, simply going by quotes proves little. Upon what understanding was the statemtnt made. It is the same question we are asking about the Chruch's teaching on birth control. We know what the Chruch said, but is the validity of the arguement upon which the statement is made?

Read what some people leading marches and protests themselves said. When Nixon ended the draft, many realized that mass mobilization was over, that it had ceased to be a 'gut' issue for the people that mattered.

Fr. John make the jump. I did not go out on a limb and make the comparison, he himself calls those people evil. I hope you are misunderstanding me. I do not like war, but as someone who has family in the military, it is a bit discouraging to hear a priest put down the military. For Vietnam, i was not alive so I will not try and speak about that. Gandhi opposed birth control becasue he saw that it was against human dignity. that is exactly what Paul VI saw. Do you think that family life has improved since the sexual revolution and the development of the birth control pill. Read Humane Vitae written in the 60 and look at our world today, that is why we consider Paul Vi a prophet