Mass in Latin again

[flowperson]

Here's an opinion article from the NY Times that speaks to the non-obvious issues here. This also seems related to what I posted on the "What's happened to Islam" thread last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun3.html?em&ex=1185940800&en=4ce8c6febe8dac36&ei=5087

flow....

 

[Muslimwoman]

It's a BA in Catholic Theology (what else?) And the concensus is that the exams were tough.

as salaam aleykum Thomas. Always a delight when I see you have had time to post. I wish you well and hope that you did well in your exams. When will get the results?

Your answers were, as usual, self explanatory but you know me I am left with just a couple more (hope I am not boring you yet).

Contrary to common opinion, there is nothing 'new' in Catholicism, only a greater depth and precision of explanation.

There must surely come a time where the traditional faith does not have an obvious answer, I am thinking of human cloning as one example. So where does the Church go with an issue such as this? I am assuming (always a bad sign) that the Pope and Cardinals decide where the morals of the Church lie on the issue. This troubles me, as in Islam we use this 'method', which is strictly human and therefore fallible.

Today people claim that anybody can read a bit of Scripture, and declare Christ to be whatever or whoever they like, and they are right, because they are infallible when it comes to such matters. No-one can tell anyone that how they interpret Scripture might be wrong.

You have confused me here, we sem to have jumped from requiring the traditional interpretation to everyone is infallible, therefore can make their own interpretations (or was sarcasm creeping in ).

I know. But I have also heard the angelic laughter of children as they were torturing an animal to death ... we have to beware of sentimentality.

Hmm, yes very good point, I shall take that one back. My rose coloured glasses in operation again.

So big question, what is the Catholic view of the soul of a child that dies? Do they go straight to heaven because children are innocent or are they judged like every soul? Can children truly commit a sin? (I am thinking about the killers of Jamie Bulger (sad how the name stays with you) whose killers were also children).

Sentimentalism again, I think. No. Animals don't wonder about God.

You sound so sure about that, why? Are animals not G-d's creatures. Did he not save them during the floods. I don't think they contemplate G-d in the way we do but we have no idea what goes on in the mind of an animal or even if they possess a knowledge of G-d we have lost or never had.

Hey I like a bit of sentimentality, I think it keeps me sane and humane.

Salaam
Sally

 

[Muslimwoman]

Here's an opinion article from the NY Times that speaks to the non-obvious issues here. This also seems related to what I posted on the "What's happened to Islam" thread last week.

The Pope Reopens a Portal to Eternity, via the 1950s - New York Times

flow....

Excellent link, thank you Flow. This is sort of where I was going when I started the thread. The question in my mind was, is it taking the faith back into the clergy to the exclusion of the followers? From this piece I would say the answer is individual, depending upon what each person is looking for.

Sometimes I do wish there could just be a bright flash of light and the answer to faith written in the sky for all to see. Although I bet it would be a much briefer statement than mankinds like to make it.

 

[Thomas]

When will get the results?

September.

There must surely come a time where the traditional faith does not have an obvious answer, I am thinking of human cloning as one example.

Or as one of our theology tutors asked — "Is it a sin to ride a bicycle? Scripture says nothing about bicycles, how do we know?". Actually it is very simple.
Human Life is sacred, and is a gift, so is not ours to dispose of as we will, hence the line on birth control/abortion/cloning/stem cell research etc., — contrary to common opinion, it's not a case of being for or against science, but against the diminution of the worth of human life.

So where does the Church go with an issue such as this? I am assuming (always a bad sign) that the Pope and Cardinals decide where the morals of the Church lie on the issue. This troubles me, as in Islam we use this 'method', which is strictly human and therefore fallible.

But, on the other hand, who sets the moral standard? They don't just pop out of the blue.

Western culture is steeped in materialism and consumerism which every day erodes the meaning and value of human existence. Left to market forces, the spiritual life of man would be shut down entirely, we would be what they world is trying to make us, units of production whose intrinsic worth is an equation, balanced between what we produce and what we consume. As soon as we consume more than we produce, we would be disposed of.

Without the Church, and even with it, the moral standards of the Wset are determined by the media. In the UK, this means effectively Richard Murdoch. I'd rather an outspoken philospher any day.

You have confused me here ... or was sarcasm creeping in ).

Yes it was. The assumption is illogical.

So big question, what is the Catholic view of the soul of a child that dies? Do they go straight to heaven because children are innocent or are they judged like every soul? Can children truly commit a sin? (I am thinking about the killers of Jamie Bulger (sad how the name stays with you) whose killers were also children).

This is a deep question, made deeper because even we are uncertain of what motivates those, such as you mention.

My answer:
Every soul is judged, not only for what they have done, but whether they can be held responsible for what they have done — so the 'grace' we extend to children, I will also extend to adults, in certain situations, including, for example, the suicide, which is considered a mortal sin, or those suffering from mental disorders ... or even those victims of a given sociological situation ... however I balance that between an inherent idea of what is right and what is wrong ... murder is wrong ... so the case recently of a refugee who murdered a woman in cold blood, and whose defence said he was innocent because of the violence of the society from which he had fled, I consider insufficient... but I am open to discussion.

You sound so sure about that, why?

Because they would build altars?

Are animals not G-d's creatures.

Yes. But they are what they are. God asks nothing other than that they be themselves. They don't know God as we do, but they were not made to know God as we do.

Hey I like a bit of sentimentality, I think it keeps me sane and humane.

I like the saying "I wish I was half the man my dog thinks I am."

Celtic Christianity has many animal stories, some apocryphal, some unique. My argument is actually in favour of the integrity of the flora and fauna kingdom, I do not believe that animals have to be like us to be happy, or be perfect.

A few years ago there was a string of documentaries to show how wonderful meerkats are, almos like us, in caring for the young, and acting with an advanced community spirit.

Later, long-term and indepth work painted a different picture. In one social unit, the top meerkat, a female, systematically killed the daughters of her nearest relatives, to ensure her own daughters had the pick of the best males in the group. Her three sisters united to oust her, whilst the naturologist knew what was going to happen — once the queen was out of the way, the strongest of the three sisters then disposed of the other two. This was neither 'good' nor 'evil', simply survival instinct at work — there were no moral issues at play.

I have also watched films of dolphins playing volleyball with seal pups off the coast of Scotland ... same thing, just honing certain skills ... I have also watched a dolphin fight a shark for hunting rights in a given patch of water, and win ... the shark is a natural fighter, but the dolphin is a clever one (or perhaps malevolent, but I don't think so), he was certainly equally as ruthless ... continually out-turning and ramming the shark in its gills.

Nature is indeed red in tooth and claw.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Here's an opinion article from the NY Times that speaks to the non-obvious issues here. This also seems related to what I posted on the "What's happened to Islam" thread last week.

The Pope Reopens a Portal to Eternity, via the 1950s - New York Times

flow....

If it takes a generation or two for an error to come to light, then maybe it's gonna take a generation or two to fix it?

Perhaps it's the generation of your correspondent and his ilk that we must wait to pass, before things will be restored? Because left to the likes of them, we'd have empty churches.

The stats speak for themselves ... the vernacular mass led to an exodus from the church, the Latin Mass sees numbers growing against the trends.

Today the Orthodox is growing even faster, with Old Greek ... or perhaps the Orthodox faithful are different, better equipped to follow a Mass which takes 3 hours (not 45 minutes) — whilst we in the fast-food, instant-gratification West continue to erode our powers of concentration ...

... but then, let's not even suggest the problem might lie with us, and not with the Church at all ...

"Unless the church, which once had a problem with the law of gravity, can repeal inertia, too, then silent, submissive worship won’t go over well. Laypeople, women especially, have kept this battered institution going in a secular, distracted age."

I agree, but I disagree about 'silent submissive worship' — it misses the point. And the noisy self-congratulatory celebrations, is that worship? Is that a sense of Mystery? I have my doubts, as do many others...

"Reasserting the unchallenged authority of ordained men may fit the papal scheme for a purer church. But to hand its highest form of public worship entirely back to Father makes Latin illiterates like me irate."

Actually, the vernacular Mass made the priest the star — he faces the audience, and they face him, he occupies center stage ... whereas the Latin Mass the priest led the congregation in prayer, all facing the same way.

It seems your correspondent thinks that silence signifies nothing going on, whilst noise, any noise ... indicates activity ...

Oh dear ... oh dear, oh dear ...

Here's a crazy notion ... why doesn't he make an effort to learn something? It's actually healthy, for both mind and body ... but if nothing else, it will help pass the time, and he can sneer knowingly at the ignorant, huddled, submissive plebs all around him, for whom he obviously has no empathy at all. He might even spot the priest make a mistake, and can berate him afterwards.

Just learn about the Mass, and stop asking for everything to be tailored to suit his own inertia.

Thomas

 

[flowperson]

Hi Thomas and Muslimwoman...salaam/peace:

I believe the point of the correspondent and the piece that I posted is that there is now, after the Pope's reinstatement of the Latin Mass, a split more prominently becoming and widening within the Catholic Church which has probably always been there, but will now be accentuated anew because of the regression of a portion of the faithful back to the formalities of the 1950's.

I am not disagreeing with anything that you say Thomas. I am merely stating the unfortunate reality that this splitting of the faithful within the Abrahamic Religions seems to stem from some fundamental change in the basic nature of believers after WWII. My personal belief that it has more to do with an evolutionary process within humanity triggered by the increasingly instant availability of desirable outcomes through the illusions of avaiability as presented in the media. This really started with radio in the 1920's, but really didn't become prevalent until visual illusions became a social standard with the advent of TV.

Yes, I do believe that the passing away of the desirability of delaying gratification is at the core of all this...but if we are evolving as a species in that direction, Papal proclamations and reversal of policies back to those of five decades ago will not begin to ameliorate the problem over the long haul. This all is also related, IMHO, to the increasing prevalence of psychological disorders in young people and the dreadful need to medicate teens and pre-teens in developed countries in order to make them able to function on a day-to-day basis.

flow....

 

[Muslimwoman]

September.

Please keep us posted (no pun intended).

But, on the other hand, who sets the moral standard? They don't just pop out of the blue.

I accept we must have moral standards and they must be set by someone, it just worries me how often this trust and authority is abused.

Because they would build altars?

I don't think they are that daft quite frankly.

Yes. But they are what they are. God asks nothing other than that they be themselves. They don't know God as we do, but they were not made to know God as we do.

I do not see animals in the same way as humans but I like to think they have a soul, live the life that G-d gave them and will return to G-d at the end of that life. As I believe this then it follows, for me, that they have some sort of spiritual connection with G-d, although I think not in a conscious level.

I like the saying "I wish I was half the man my dog thinks I am."

I have never heard that saying before but it now my screensaver.


May I ask about original sin? Is it true Catholics believe babies are born sinful or is that another misconception?

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yes, I do believe that the passing away of the desirability of delaying gratification is at the core of all this...but if we are evolving as a species in that direction, Papal proclamations and reversal of policies back to those of five decades ago will not begin to ameliorate the problem over the long haul. This all is also related, IMHO, to the increasing prevalence of psychological disorders in young people and the dreadful need to medicate teens and pre-teens in developed countries in order to make them able to function on a day-to-day basis.

flow....

Hi Flow

I had sort of assumed (there I go again) that a degree of consultation had taken place before this decision was made? If there is a percentage of the Catholic population that desire a return to the old ways, is this not perhaps a good sign? Does it not demonstrate that people are recognising the moral decay in our society and desiring a return to the bastion of the church, prior to what they may see as the onset of this decay?

(I realise I have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about, as I clearly know nothing of the Catholic faith - just trying to mentally feel my way around in the dark, so feel free to mock).

 

[flowperson]

Hi Flow

I had sort of assumed (there I go again) that a degree of consultation had taken place before this decision was made? If there is a percentage of the Catholic population that desire a return to the old ways, is this not perhaps a good sign? Does it not demonstrate that people are recognising the moral decay in our society and desiring a return to the bastion of the church, prior to what they may see as the onset of this decay?

(I realise I have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about, as I clearly know nothing of the Catholic faith - just trying to mentally feel my way around in the dark, so feel free to mock).

MW....salaam
I have seldom been a mocker, but have often been a mockee, so you're safe in that regard.

Yes, I agree with you that a decision to return to past practices in the mass is a reinforcement of traditional practice, and for those that see the world in that way it's decidedly a good thing. But those who took to the new directions pointed to in the 60's because of Vatican II, well they will inevitably feel a degree of abandonment in parishes that elect for the Latin Mass.

That's all I'm really saying. It all has the potential to aggrivate some of the divisions in the Church that are already apparent in some ways I believe. Perhaps it will bring more grey hairs back into the Church to experience what they remember from their youth, but there's little attraction in this move, it seems to me, for those young parishoners who seek comfort in their lives from the Church due to the everyday stresses of today's rapidly changing world.

By the way, I'm not a Catholic, although I sought and was given valuable spiritual support when I felt that I was under severe spiritual attack. My father was baptised in the Catholic Church. In fact I was more or less drummed out of a liberal denomination of mainline Protestantism because of what I wrote and said publicly.

flow....

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sometimes I do wish there could just be a bright flash of light and the answer to faith written in the sky for all to see. Although I bet it would be a much briefer statement than mankinds like to make it.

"BE GOOD"

says it all really does it not?

Tao
​

 

[Thomas]

I believe the point of the correspondent and the piece that I posted is that there is now, after the Pope's reinstatement of the Latin Mass, a split more prominently becoming and widening within the Catholic Church which has probably always been there, but will now be accentuated anew because of the regression of a portion of the faithful back to the formalities of the 1950's.

As the Latin Mass is an option, something the media has ignored, and blown up out of all proportion, I can't agree. I do see it as an attempt to repair the damage done. Maybe late, maybe too late, but not to attempt it would be negligent.

My personal belief that it has more to do with an evolutionary process within humanity triggered by the increasingly instant availability of desirable outcomes through the illusions of avaiability as presented in the media. This really started with radio in the 1920's, but really didn't become prevalent until visual illusions became a social standard with the advent of TV.

I don't see that as evolution. but rather a regression, or perhaps a movement in an unfortunate direction. It is surrendering the self to media manipulation. That is not evolution to me, that's simply an addiction. It is conforming to the lowest common denominator ... evolution tends to draw the better from the best? This is heading in quite the opposite direction...

Yes, I do believe that the passing away of the desirability of delaying gratification is at the core of all this...but if we are evolving as a species in that direction, Papal proclamations and reversal of policies back to those of five decades ago will not begin to ameliorate the problem over the long haul. This all is also related, IMHO, to the increasing prevalence of psychological disorders in young people and the dreadful need to medicate teens and pre-teens in developed countries in order to make them able to function on a day-to-day basis.

Precisely. In short, if society chooses to go that way, we shall not go with you, but rather stand as exemplars of 'a better way'.

This is not just about the Mass, Flow, it's about the diminution of the human being, a reduction in status that will eventually rule out the spiritual as anything other than superstition. The Mass is ordered towards the spiritual, not the appetites and the need for instant, ephemeral and superficial gratification.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The point remains, and this is a statistical fact, that those churches who celebrate a Latin Mass attract more numbers than those who don't.

So I think all this talk of the Latin Mass by the media is hokum and typical trouble-making. It will not replace the vernacular mass, but will be offered alongside it, if the parish so chooses, and they are under no obligation to choose, so I fail to see how a widening of choice will cause more conflict.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

May I ask about original sin? Is it true Catholics believe babies are born sinful or is that another misconception?

Yes, it's a misconception.

Catholics believe babies are born human, and human nature is wounded, as a result of original sin.

The Orthodox believes in the damage of sin as passive, inherited, something like the transmission of a genetic disorder — "Adam sinned, and now I'm stuck with the consequence" — I have seen it described as something akin to being the family of someone who is a criminal ... but I think that's a poor analogy. It does create problems, as it would suggest that God punishes the child for the sin of the father, yet Christian Scripture states the contrary. As Orthodox theologians are not stupid, and know this, the doctrine must be somewhat more involved ... as I understand it however, I do think it is flawed, but that's a 2nd year theology student talking, so what the hell do I know?

(I spoke to a 90 year old Dominican priest recently, a real comedian and with wisdom beyond even his years — when he found out I was doing a BA in theology he asked, "Does that mean when you qualify you can write letters after your name and talk at great length about things you know very little about?" That put me in my place!)

The Catholic believes the child inherits an active disposition to sin — and as such ontologically shares with Adam in the error, rather than innocently under yet still condemned by it.

People don't understand the doctrine because they don't understand the nature of sin — it is by definition a moral fault, the freely-taken choice to do other than what one's conscience or one's religion requires — so children, or anyone incapable of making such a choice, cannot and is not held culpable for their actions.

Catholics believe that in Baptism the dispostion is 'healed', the pouring of the water signifies not only the cleansing of sin, but the uncovering of the imprint of the Divine Image in the soul ... but the 'habits' of the flesh remain ... and, heaven help us, we are creatures of habit.

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

"BE GOOD"​

says it all really does it not?​

Tao​

Brilliant Tao, thank you.

Only problem is of course, now people will all argue over interpretation. What does good really mean? When he says BE does he mean be or be? If you translate 'good' into satwanian, then entimini and back through portarian it means 'naughty'. You know the kind of thing, then the sects emerge, then the bombs ..........

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yes, it's a misconception.

I am so ashamed that I have managed to get to such an age and still carry so many misconceptions in my head. Makes we want to go back to kindergarten and start all over again.

(I spoke to a 90 year old Dominican priest recently, a real comedian and with wisdom beyond even his years — when he found out I was doing a BA in theology he asked, "Does that mean when you qualify you can write letters after your name and talk at great length about things you know very little about?" That put me in my place!)

Hee, hee, my sides are physically hurting with laughter. I wonder why it is that so many old people of faith have such a wonderful sense of humour? Perhaps they have lived long enough to see the 'truth' and even the stupidity of us all?

The Catholic believes the child inherits an active disposition to sin — and as such ontologically shares with Adam in the error, rather than innocently under yet still condemned by it.

So in simple terms, each baby is born with the potential to sin in the future, as sin is in human nature?

Catholics believe that in Baptism the dispostion is 'healed', the pouring of the water signifies not only the cleansing of sin, but the uncovering of the imprint of the Divine Image in the soul ... but the 'habits' of the flesh remain ... and, heaven help us, we are creatures of habit.

Sorry I need more of an in depth explanation here. So at baptism the disposition is healed, which would suggest you cannot sin but we know that Catholics do sin. Or are sins and bad habits different things? Surely adultery is a sin and some baptised people commit adultery (although I imagine some think of it just as a bad habit).

Salaam

 

[lunamoth]

Sorry I need more of an in depth explanation here. So at baptism the disposition is healed, which would suggest you cannot sin but we know that Catholics do sin. Or are sins and bad habits different things? Surely adultery is a sin and some baptised people commit adultery (although I imagine some think of it just as a bad habit).

Salaam

I don't know what the 'official' explanation of this is, but as you note baptism does not keep us from sinning. The way I think of it, baptism makes to possible for us to fully repent of and heal the sins we invariable will make in our lives.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I don't know what the 'official' explanation of this is, but as you note baptism does not keep us from sinning. The way I think of it, baptism makes to possible for us to fully repent of and heal the sins we invariable will make in our lives.

Thank you for your response Lunamoth. May I ask if you believe in a Day of Judgement, where you will have to answer for your sins?

Also, when you go to confession (assuming you repent honestly and from the heart), if the priest forgives you are your sins then forgiven by G-d completely and if so what if you have murdered someone?

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you for your response Lunamoth. May I ask if you believe in a Day of Judgement, where you will have to answer for your sins?

Also, when you go to confession (assuming you repent honestly and from the heart), if the priest forgives you are your sins then forgiven by G-d completely and if so what if you have murdered someone?

I believe that the Day of Judgement represents the moment of awareness we next have after death. I believe in that moment of our resurrection the scales fall from our eyes and the blessed ignorance we have had during this life is replaced by complete and clear knowledge. In that knowledge we realize all the hurt, pain and suffering our choices and actions caused in this world, whether that pain was caused by our climb up the corporate ladder or because we murdered someone. Everyone causes such pain and suffering, even the best of us, it's part of human life although some cause more than others. Who besides God though can understand why the muderer murders? We clearly see and feel hell in this awareness. Blessedly, we also see heaven in all the love we have created in this life. It is only the love that is capable of going on after this judgment.

I am forgiven of all of my sins when I turn to the Lord and repent.

 

[Thomas]

So in simple terms, each baby is born with the potential to sin in the future, as sin is in human nature?

Yes, one could say that. I think we might be a tad more dogmatic, as your statement could be used to argue that we might not sin ...

We now tie in with the idea of 'the good'. Catholic doctrine broadly utilises Aristotelian logic to suggest that the 'good' of something is for that thing to be all that it can be, to realise itself according to the will of its Creator, who has in mind its 'end' and its 'perfection' from even before its individual causation.

We as humans do not know what the end is, for ourselves, for our neighbours, for the Kosmos ... so when we are good, we act 'in the best interest of' — as any reasonable humanist would do.

From a theological viewpoint then, we have the philosophical terms 'potential' and 'actual', and the idea that all things, in an ideal world, progress from their actuality to fulfill their potentiality ... the acorn grows to be an oak...

Humanity was created, according to Scripture, in the image and likeness of its Creator, and furthermore created to serve Him as steward, warden, whatever, in the fulfillment of the Divine Plan, with an enormous amount of freedom, to share in the Divine Life.

When man chose to pursue the chimera, the illusion (the lie) of his own individual life, rather than the Divine Life (assuming himself equal to God, as the beguiling serpent implied) he got himself sacked by the boss, for being unreliable, dishonest and untrustworthy.

So it's not so much the case that the child will sin, but rather the child cannot not sin, as it lacks that transcendant vision of its own good, and the good of all — 'Father, forgive them, they know not what they do' — that was Our Lord's summation of the human experience.

Sorry I need more of an in depth explanation here. So at baptism the disposition is healed, which would suggest you cannot sin but we know that Catholics do sin. Or are sins and bad habits different things? Surely adultery is a sin and some baptised people commit adultery (although I imagine some think of it just as a bad habit).

Yes, I was a bit loose before. The disposition remains, but we are no longer inescapably subject to it, because the Holy Spirit infuses the soul, which means the possibility of Transcendence is always Immanently present — we can be transformed, transfigured, in a twinkling.

Although given, it is not a given — man has not lost his freedom of will through baptism, simply that a vista is now open to him that was not open to him before ... 'freedom' as someone observed, 'is not an end in itself, it is a choice directed towards an end' — modernity still labours under the illusion of freedom as a good in its own right, as if being free (the ego able to do as it wills without any constraint) is of necessity a good thing.

But man is still subject to himself (and no more subject to God than he was before — God does not desire the subjugation of man, but his freely-given will to participate) — this is what Islam means, is it not? The assumption that the devout Moslem is subject to God is wrong, the devout Moslem has chosen God as his object — God stands at the centre of the Moslem Kosmos, and irradiates every atom of it — but man is still subject to apetites and passions, the gravity of the flesh — but God willing, Insha'Allah, he can be redeemed.

So Baptism is a Sacrament that actually infuses the Holy Spirit in the soul (a gift of Divine Love) and thus opens up a potentiality for the person ... whether that potentiality is realised or not, is up to us ... baptism is not, as many assume, a guarantee, nor is it an insurance policy.

Sin is a habit, but a habit is not necessarily a sin — prayer can be a habit if it is 'a thing that one does' — if it defines the way a person is. So our habits dispose us to good things and bad, and by such we create a culture in which either become acceptable and the norm ...

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Thank you for your response Lunamoth. May I ask if you believe in a Day of Judgement, where you will have to answer for your sins?

Also, when you go to confession (assuming you repent honestly and from the heart), if the priest forgives you are your sins then forgiven by G-d completely and if so what if you have murdered someone?

In that knowledge we realize all the hurt, pain and suffering our choices and actions caused in this world, whether that pain was caused by our climb up the corporate ladder or because we murdered someone.

I am forgiven of all of my sins when I turn to the Lord and repent.

It seems to be a recurring question. Again and again people ask if we're "simply forgiven." It's as if there is a set of rules on who God will accept or reject. It then becomes a matter of following the rules in the hope that somehow we will be able to manipulate God into accepting us.

I know it must be rather cynical for me to say this, but I just don't agree with or like the idea. Many Christian religious leaders are afraid if they can't give people straight answers or assure people that there is a clear path ahead of them that people will stop respecting them or going to other churches. They start coming up with criteria or a list of things to do to be accepted by God. They start making rules like "if you do this and that you're in the safe zone."

I think such leaders just aren't worthy of being leaders at all. It's the coward's way out. Jesus wasn't intimidated by people who asked him for rules on who went to "heaven" and "hell" or who God accepted. When asked about the so-called "hell" Jesus didn't define any concept of "hell." He didn't set limits or boundaries on what "hell" was like or who went there or who didn't.

He did, however, give examples. He also gave examples on who God would accept. The trouble is that we think that these examples are "limiting cases" or "boundary conditions" or "criteria" on deciding how God would respond. We have seen, in the list 2,000 years, Christian religious leaders formulating all kinds of philosophies to define the process by which God accepted/rejected people, with attached rules, boundaries and sets of criteria.

Jesus' message was simple: focus on the important things and God would accept/reward/vindicate us.

Do we really know for sure if God accepts us? My views on this have evolved over the last few years, but in the last few weeks I'm starting to see things in a completely different way. My response to the question now would be to say that some of us can be sure, while some of us cannot, regardless of whether or not we're "Christian" in the conventional sense.

This may seem to be in some sense contrary to the purpose of Christianity, that the purpose of Christianity was to give people an assurance that they were accepted by God if they had the right attitude. I would agree with that, but it's quite possible that we have got the notion of "right attitude" wrong after 2,000 years. I would also like to ask the fundamental question: Just who do we think we are? I'm thinking most of us don't really know ourselves well enough to know who is being addressed here.

What an interesting question to ask!!! The notion of "forgiveness" has become quite a bit of a cliche, to the point that the philosophy of "forgiveness" in Christianity has become all but meaningless. That is to be expected, as people have a general distrust of philosophy: philosophy and ideology can be used to manipulate people. People don't like being manipulated.

There is one aspect where we may have got it wrong: we think God was making an offer for everyone (universal) rather than a specific group of people. (Once again: Just who do we think we are?)

I'd like, therefore to introduce a slightly different concept: vindication. The people Jesus came to assure was not specifically people "needing forgiveness," but people needing vindication. It is commonly said that Christianity is about redemption, but if we read the stories of Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary Magdalene, they weren't redeemed. Instead, they were vindicated.

Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary Magdalene were social outcasts, social misfits, social aliens. They were rejected and despised by society. They wanted to be accepted for who they were as people, and they believed that some God out there would accept them. They believed that Jesus was a man who spoke on behalf of this God. So they were thus drawn to Jesus. It was not God who couldn't accept them, but society. Society despised them. Society could not accept them. Society had alienated them. Society could not forgive what they had done. For God, there was nothing to forgive. God welcomed them.

If vindication, rather than redemption is the main thrust of Christianity, this has quite a few implications. Most of the Christian world today believes in redemption rather than vindication. (It is no wonder that people often find Christianity insulting as, by tradition and convention, it claims that everyone needs redemption.) Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary Magdalene were victims of society. Society didn't understand them and had persecuted them. They didn't deserve that treatment. Yes, from the point of view of society, they had done controversial and "immoral" things, but morality wasn't the most important thing to God. What God saw was a bunch of people who didn't deserve such hatred, condemnation and rejection. From a "natural justice" point of view, God would treat these people more favourably than the others. God would give those needing vindication, love and acceptance with greater precedence. God saw the world upside-down. This is perhaps where the famous saying "those who are first will be last" comes from.

I think we are all, to some extent, victims of society, but at a different extent than others. Sometimes we can become so proud of who we are, and overlook our dark side. We neglect all the times that we have hurt and victimised others. When we realise the injustice we have committed, we transition into a state of humility, which could well be called "redemption."

At different points in our lives we are persecutors and oppressors and other times we are victims. But while we may be "redeemed" at some point, we may revert back to the position of "persecutor" and "oppressor" without an intervening phase of "victim." That makes the redemption phase meaningless because we are never punished for our injustices. In that position we have no need for vindication because we haven't suffered for our crimes.

Redemption isn't invalid, but vindication, I believe is important. Persecution by others is what makes us realise how inadequate, depraved, self-absorbed, narcissistic or arrogant we have become. What I disagree with in the contemporary philosophy of "forgiveness" is that everyone is depicted as "equal" in terms of their need of "forgiveness" and that God treats everyone the same. We all go through phases of redemption and needs of vindication with varying intensities.

There may therefore be no "universal certainty" in Christianity on who is accepted or rejected, particularly in today's society. The assurance and certainty Jesus gave was to people who had suffered greatly as victims of a society that promoted values that were incompatible with their natural personalities and as a result oppressed and alienated them. The certainty increases with our need for love, acceptance and vindication and our understanding of God. These people felt a greater need for vindication and acceptance by God. No redemption was necessary as the painful treatment they received far outweighed any injustices they would have committed. It was just a relief for those people that there was a God who didn't care what other humans thought.

The story that I see in Christianity, therefore, is where people who have no or little hope are given a free gift. The examples Jesus gave in the Four Gospels are supposed to be ways in which we can personally identify with the pain, suffering and struggles of those alienated by a society that had turned against them.