Cardinal Kasper: Latin theology is a 'prisoner' of commutative justice [CWN]

Does the Priest forgive the confessor’s contrite sins? Then he showed mercy.

If the Priest was unnecessarily nasty to the confessor, he could show more COMPASSION.

Frankly, the best confessions I had were when the Priests were brutal towards me. They lead me toward a much more spiritual life.

You’re really grasping at straws here.

No priest should treat a person who is confessing, with a lack of compassion and mercy in the confessional.

Too many people I’ve met in life who were treated this way, never returned to the sacrament.

Jim

If the confessor’s sins were forgiven, he was shown Absolute Mercy.

Too many people I have met think the Church just cares if you are nice and try to get along, and have never returned because they do not even believe they are sinners. It is up to the Pastor to decide what tone will help his flock to get to Heaven. That’s the true litmus test of compassion.

He wasn’t shown it through the priest, so his understanding will often be nil.

Jim

Priests who cannot show mercy should not hear confessions, Pope says

“If you can’t forgive, you are not a Christian,” Pope Francis said in his homily at morning Mass on September 10.

“What’s more,” the Pope continued, “if you can’t forgive, you cannot receive the peace of the Lord.”

The Pope went on to say that a priest who cannot show forgiveness should not hear confessions: “If you are a priest and you can’t manage to be merciful, tell your bishop to give you an administrative job, but please don’t go into the confessional box!” He added that a priest who is impatient with penitents should ask his doctor for a pill to calm his nerves before hearing confessions.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26079

Jim

Well, Commutative Justice is very Very Basic virtue. The God is all Just; there is nothing more natural in upholding equivalence between action and reaction.

I don’t see how exactly theology might be “prisoner” of commutative justice. :confused:There can never be “too much” justice. :frowning:

The public revelations ENDED when Jesus ascended into heaven!

Holy Spirit now helps the Church to PRESERVE the message of Jesus, not to “adapt” it to anything.

This is the Catholic position!

God’s justice was answered in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Those who think God will seek justice on those who commit sin, are mislead.

Pope Benedict XVI said it himself, in DEUS CARITAS EST

God’s passionate love for his people—for humanity—is at the same time a forgiving love. It is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html

Jim

The Church has not changed truths revealed by Jesus Christ, but has deepened her understanding of those revealed truths and has communicated that understanding more clearly over the centuries.

Oh and BTW, the Immaculate Conception is a revelation not in Scripture, but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So, not all public revelation ended with Jesus ascension.

Jim

But none of those truths change, such as how God punished the Israelites at several points.

Oh and BTW, the Immaculate Conception is a revelation not in Scripture, but through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

It was revealed to the Apostles as part of Sacred Revelation, and that Truth, like all the others, did not change.

So, not all public revelation ended with Jesus ascension.

The Assumption was not a new revelation, it was certainly revealed to the Apostles, as several were there when it happened.

Juris was incorrect in that matter. The Church considers Divine Revelation to be closed with the death of St. John.

Brendan

But none of those truths change, such as how God punished the Israelites at several points.

God did not punish the Israelites, this is tribal theology.

It was revealed to the Apostles as part of Sacred Revelation, and that Truth, like all the others, did not change.

I believe you’re thinking of the Assumption, not the Immaculate Conception which dogma nearly caused as schism in 1854.

However, that revelation came after the Ascension.

The Assumption was not a new revelation, it was certainly revealed to the Apostles, as several were there when it happened.

And that was after the Ascension.

The claim was made that all public revelation ended after the Ascension.

Jim

To deepen understanding of revealed truth is very different from receiving new revelations. As well as from adapting the revealed truth to the fashions of the world.

Immaculate Conception is a revelation from Holy Tradition. The Pope by his constitution in 1854 only confirmed that Immaculate Conception is part of that Tradition - that there have always been people believing in it.

Ok, You’re right here. :yup:

But that revelation came after the Ascension, which you said ended all public revelation

Also Pope Pius IX used tradition in the context of interpreting Scripture to justify the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

There is nothing by the Apostles or Sacred Scripture that shows they taught this dogma in their time.

Jim

I said nothing of the sort.

Also Pope Pius IX used tradition in the context of interpreting Scripture to justify the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

So, the Deposit of Sacred Tradition ended at the Death of St. John. The purpose of the Church is to preserve what was handed down.

There is nothing by the Apostles or Sacred Scripture that shows they taught this dogma in their time.

They witnessed it as a Divine Revelation. That makes it part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith

The proof of that Doctrine is that no ancient Church claimed to hold the relics of Mary’s Body. Nor could they, as to do so would have contradicted what the Apostles taught them about Mary’s last moments on Earth.

Brendan

I said nothing of the sort.

You read my reply to JurisPrudens, it wasn’t a reply to you.

So, the Deposit of Sacred Tradition ended at the Death of St. John. The purpose of the Church is to preserve what was handed down.

Again, JurisPrudens said it ended at the Ascension, which I did not agree with.

[quote]They witnessed it as a Divine Revelation. That makes it part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith

[/quote]

If you’re referring to Revelation 12:1, the footnotes in Catholic Bibles do not say this represents the Blessed Mother, and in fact, older Catholic Bibles specifically says it does not.

The proof of that Doctrine is that no ancient Church claimed to hold the relics of Mary’s Body. Nor could they, as to do so would have contradicted what the Apostles taught them about Mary’s last moments on Earth.

Again you’re referring to the doctrine of the Assumption which I know was held in Sacred Tradition going back to the Apostles.

I was referring to the Immaculate Conception.

Jim

Because we don’t have the omniscience and omnipotence of God, it’s impossible for us to know perfect justice in human relations. When God takes an eye for an eye it is with an all knowingness about everything that goes beyond human vision. We can only apply justice in accordance with the common good and with the guidance of Jesus who as per todays gospel (Luke 6:27-38) makes our ideal attitude pretty clear…

Jesus said to his disciples:
“To you who hear I say, love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you.
To the person who strikes you on one cheek,
offer the other one as well,
and from the person who takes your cloak,
do not withhold even your tunic.
Give to everyone who asks of you,
and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
For if you love those who love you,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who do good to you,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners do the same.
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners lend to sinners,
and get back the same amount.
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them,
and lend expecting nothing back;
then your reward will be great
and you will be children of the Most High,
for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be merciful, just as also your Father is merciful.

“Stop judging and you will not be judged.
Stop condemning and you will not be condemned.
Forgive and you will be forgiven.
Give and gifts will be given to you;
a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing,
will be poured into your lap.
For the measure with which you measure
will in return be measured out to you.”

What the Cardinal is saying is a bit more complicated, involving the relationship of two concepts “on which the fate of the Latin tradition depends.” This means that a spiritual truth has become in moral theology a dualism, a dynamic inherent in both Hellenistic and Latin tradition–linguistically, as a form that limits or sets thinking such that there are truths that cannot be expressed in the language. These two concepts, properly a unity, have been set one against the other and reduced to separate ideas–prisoners–with one of them marginalized as the result of legalism. This is not easily resolved.

What proof do you have? You have the word of an accuser and silence from a priest who is unable to defend himself. It doesn’t seem very merciful for someone to come out of a confessional and then blame the priest and the Church for the penitent’s apostasy.

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples spoke in Aramaic. This was the common language of Judea at that time. Language itself develops and evolves in its culture. Christ likely spoke in Aramaic. The New Testament was written primarily in Greek. It was centuries later transliterated from Greek (a different alphabet) to the Latin of the Vulgate. The Vulgate was centuries later translated into English. There are cultural and historical influences in all these languages.

These limits are of the temporal world and apart from the divinity of Christ. But it is a huge assumption that Aramaic (a language not even certain the one Christ spoke), could express eternal truth, and if that were possible that the listeners correctly understood or later conveyed it. The Gospels were first reduced to writing only later, and in Greek. It is a gigantic assumption to read a biblical verse today, in English, and conclude those words were precisely what Christ meant as eternal truth–truth that is perhaps beyond the limits of language and human reason. Perhaps this was why Christ so often spoke in parables, a way of communicating a teaching in a more general way more easily grasped and beyond a literal context too easily misunderstood.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.