Posted on 05/15/2018 7:28:18 AM PDT by Salvation
The first reading from Tuesday’s Mass is Paul’s farewell speech to the presbyters (priests) of the early Church. Here is a skilled bishop and pastor exhorting others who have pastoral roles within the Church. Let’s examine this text and apply its wisdom to bishops and priests as well as to parents and other leaders in the Church.
Paul’s Farewell Sermon – The scene is Miletus, a town in Asia Minor on the coast not far from Ephesus. Paul, who is about to depart for Jerusalem, summons the presbyters of the early Church at Ephesus. He has ministered there for three years and now summons the priests for this final exhortation. In the sermon, St. Paul cites his own example of having been a zealous teacher of the faith who did not fail to preach the “whole counsel of God.” He did not merely preach what suited him or made him popular; he preached it all. To these early priests, Paul leaves this legacy and would have them follow in his footsteps. Let’s look at some excerpts from this final exhortation.
From Miletus Paul had the presbyters of the Church at Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, “You know how I lived among you the whole time from the day I first came to the province of Asia. I served the Lord with all humility and with the tears and trials that came to me … and I did not at all shrink from telling you what was for your benefit, or from teaching you in public or in your homes. I earnestly bore witness for both Jews and Greeks to repentance before God and to faith in our Lord Jesus … But now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem … But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God … (Acts 20:17-27 selected).
Here, then, is the prescription for every bishop, priest, deacon, catechist, parent, and Catholic: we should preach the whole counsel, the entire plan of God. It is too easy for us to emphasize only that which pleases us, or makes sense to us, or fits in with our world view. There are some who love the Lord’s sermons on love but cannot abide his teachings on death, judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Some love to discuss liturgy and ceremony, but the care of the poor is far from them. Others point to His compassion but neglect His call to repentance. Some love the way He dispatches the Pharisees and other leaders of the day but suddenly become deaf when the Lord warns against fornication or insists that we love our spouse, neighbor, and enemy. Some love to focus inwardly and debate doctrine but neglect the outward focus of true evangelization to which we are commanded (cf Mat 28:19).
In the Church today, we too easily divide out rather predictably along certain lines and emphases: life issues here and social justice over there, strong moral preaching here and compassionate inclusiveness over there. When one side speaks, the other side says, “There they go again!”
We must be able to say, like St. Paul, that we did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. While this is especially incumbent on the clergy, it is also the responsibility of parents and all who attain any leadership in the Church. All the issues above are important and must have their proper places in the preaching and witness of every Catholic, both clergy and lay. While we may have particular gifts to work in certain areas, we should learn to appreciate the whole counsel and the fact that others in the Church may be needed to balance and complete our work. While we must exclude notions that stray from revealed doctrine, within doctrine’s protective walls it is necessary that we not shrink from proclaiming and appreciating the whole counsel of God.
If we do this, we will suffer. Paul speaks above of tears and trials. In preaching the whole counsel of God (not just your favorite passages or politically correct, “safe” themes), expect to suffer. Expect to not quite fit in with people’s expectations. Jesus got into trouble with just about everyone. He didn’t offend just the elite and powerful. For example, even His own disciples puzzled over His teachings on divorce, saying, “If that is the case of man not being able to divorce his wife it is better never to marry!” (Matt 19) As a result of Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, many left Him and would no longer walk in His company (John 6). When Jesus spoke of His divine origins, many took up stones with which to stone Him, but He passed through their midst unharmed (Jn 8). In addition, Jesus spoke of taking up crosses, forgiving one’s enemies, and preferring nothing to Him. He forbade even lustful thoughts, let alone fornication, and insisted we learn to curb our unrighteous anger. Yes, preaching the whole counsel of God is guaranteed to earn us the wrath of many.
Sadly, over my years as a priest, I have had to bid farewell to many congregations. This farewell speech of Paul is a critical one I use to examine my ministry. Did I preach even the difficult things? Was I willing to suffer for the truth? Did my people hear from me the whole counsel of God or just what was “safe”?
What about you? Have you proclaimed the whole counsel of God? If you are a clergyman, when you move on; if you are a parent, when your child leaves for college; if you are a youth catechist, when the children are ready to be confirmed; if you teach in RCIA, when the time comes for Easter sacraments—can you say you preached it all? God warned Ezekiel that if he failed to warn the sinner, that sinner would surely die for his sins but that Ezekiel himself would be responsible for his death (Ez 3:17 ff). Paul can truthfully say that he is not responsible for the death (the blood) of any of them because he did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. What about us?
We must proclaim the whole counsel of God, not just the safe or popular things, not just what agrees with our own politics or those of our friends. We must present the whole counsel, even the hard parts, even the things that are ridiculed. Yes, we must proclaim the whole counsel of God.
It is a sin to have intentionally barren intercourse. That is, to choose against the natural God-designed fertility of marital acts.
"Besides, if Genesis 38 meant what you think it means, Onan and most boys wouldn't have made it past the age of 14, let alone make it to marriage."
You don't know what I think it means. It does not mean that masturbation calls for the death penalty . (!!)
You're not just arguing with me: you're arguing with all Christian history until 1930. Biblical and historic Christianity taught that Onanism (intentionally wasting the seed) is a sin. Contracepting --- impairing the natural fertility of --- the sexual act is a sin. Christianity did not, and does not, teach that it is a capital crime.
I asked first.
??
And what is that?
If you have sex with your daughter, can you be saved?
That being said, Onanism is defined as both masturbation and coitus interruptus.
Again, I am not arguing against contraception as a historical Christian prohibition; I'm just saying Genesis 38 is not a good example. Matthew Henry's commentary on Genesis 38 points out that Onan's sin is what I showed it to be, not a general prohibition against contraception. I'm not saying that he was for contraception, just that Genesis 38 is about something different.
Again, if you want to argue the fertility route that contraception is wrong, that is a different argument.
I think the point is clear. Just look at some of the posts that have been on here in the last month.
Was Lot saved?
“According to the Bible, are slavery and polygamy OK for Christians?”
Yes. “For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” - Philemon
Scripture doesn’t overthrow slavery nor forbid it. However:
“Philemon is to regard Onesimus as his Christian “brother” (v. 16) and “partner” in the faith (v. 17), which makes their owner-slave relationship no longer possible. So Paul is sending Onesimus back to Philemon for their reconciliation; they are both his spiritual sons, and he is the religious patron and responsible for the nurture of both. In my view, under these new and revolutionary circumstances Philemon’s only real option is Onesimus’s manumission.”
What person would make a slave of his own brother? And if it is possible for us to be brothers in Christ, then can we continue to keep them enslaved? Can we keep ANY enslaved?
The Bible does not teach that all Christians must immediately free their slaves, nor does it openly oppose the institution of slavery. But what Jesus did for us sets up the long-term impossibility of slavery as a matter of individual conscience.
Polygamy? David was, yet he was also a man after God’s own heart. However, an elder must be “the husband of one wife” - not two, or three. And “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...”
Once again, as a matter of individual conscience, polygamy is discouraged - but not forbidden.
More to the point, we are to reject sin and honor God. HOW we do that is a learning process, and we know we will fail many times in our lives. The individual sins we struggle with differ. A rich Southerner in 1823 might struggle and fail where slavery was concerned. Pride and anger are both sins, and I sure haven’t won victory against either. Nor do I expect to in this life.
The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin according to HIS schedule. Not mine and not anyone else’s.
The church - not “The Catholic Church”, but simply the church - also has a role to play. Teachers, pastors, and a brother privately rebuking another brother. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean a man is supposed to wrap himself in the Bible and ignore the church that the Bible speaks so much about.
But in terms of what a man must know in order to be saved and changed, the scripture is sufficient. DO what it says. Repent. Believe. Submit. Pray. Etc.
You do not need “transubstantiation” to be saved. Theology doesn’t save a man, and many men have been ruined by it. Jesus saves. And in scripture, and by following it, you can be made complete. Paul DID teach “The Whole Counsel of God”. What Paul taught was not incomplete. If it had been incomplete, it would not have been whole.
I agree with God...Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For *it is by grace you have been saved, through faith*—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— *not by works*, so that no one can boast.”
We are saved by grace, through faith and not by works.
Couldn’t be any more specific.
Faith that saves is always followed by a life marked by good works, as a result.
You wrote:
Sorry. Your interpretation lacks logic to me.
There is no interpretation. I agreed literally with what God through Paul literally wrote! 😀
And yet, you only put forth this one passage and it doesn't teach what you claimed...
Keep in mind that NO Christian leader or denomination approved of contraception before 1930
And that doesn't matter.
not a single Christian writing between the 1st and 19th centuries saw Onan's sin as other than perverting sexual intercourse, wasting his seed upon the ground. This is a Christian consensus.
Can't wait for you to prove that truth claim! What do you have to prove that?? Also, all that matters is what God's Word actually teaches, and not what others write about it.
This lines up perfectly with Natural Law, which sees fertility as a natural sign of health, and therefore the sabotage of fertility as a harm.
There is a difference between sabotage and regulation.
Thus Natural Law teaches that intentionally impairing fertility via any deviate intercourse included contracepted intercourse, sodomitical intercourse, intentional maiming of sexual competency via sterilization, castration or sex-reassignment surgery, is a wrong. This is acting against the good of normal, healthy sex by impairing its nature.
I rank God's Words as authoritative and He spent darn little time on the topic. This is why you are turning to "natural law."
Natural Law recognizes the good design of sexual intercourse. The Biblical perspective tells us Who was the Designer of this natural good, and for what purpose.
ALWAYS ignore consensus when it disagrees with God's Word and when it adds to God's Word. If people can ignore absolute Biblical and Christian consensus on that, lasting several millennia, it would not be surprising for people to approve other deviations from natural sex as well.
Deviant sex is condemned in Scripture.
It is a development of doctrine, however,that there is today no Christian polygamy and the concept of Christian slavery is almost unthinkable: universally condemned.
Chapter and verse please, Mrs. Don-o?
It is deviant because it intentionally deconstructs the Creator's design. If you can rearrange organ and system function to suit your purposes, there's no reason you can't do anal penetration, sex reassaignment or any other form of perversion.
I sure disagree, both with your characterization of protected sex with deviance - as in a perverse act. And I point out that you have not proved this from Scripture.
It doesn't deconstruct the Creator's design. It regulates it. I note that God also gave husbands and wives brains and a full understanding of all the circumstances in their lives.
As an example, I have an aunt (her husband is departed now). She got pregnant early in their marriage. She almost died, list the baby, was hospitalized for weeks, and doctors told her not to get pregnant again. She did not. I believe they continued to enjoy the act of married love for the next +50 years. It was not perverse.
Not seeing that is like the Footprint Scene in Godzilla 1998 (worth a click) where the "worm guy" can't see the footprint because it's all around him: he's standing in the middle of it.
The rest is Natural Law Philosophy, for which you can find libraries full. It recognizes that normal, natural human sexuality is in itself a created good. Therefore to directly intend and choose to disable a healthy system is unethical, for the same reason that sex reassignment surgery is unethical: it is acting directly against a natural good.
And who said it was a good? Surely God.
And explicitly defining what that means, in terms of the sanctity of sex, is a development of doctrine which has been there since Genesis, and was embraced by all Christians until-- comparatively speaking --- 15 minutes ago.
God said, “Go forth and multiply.”
Been happening for thousands of years. God added, “to fill the earth.”
Pretty sure it’s full.
I read something a long time ago that said all the inhabitants of the world could fit in the state of Texas.
The earth is not full.
“plus the whole survey of Scripture where fertile sex is blessed, and intentionally infertile sex of any sort is never, never, ever blessed.”
You did not post “the whole survey of Scripture” to me.
Undoubtedly, children are a blessing from God. That isn’t the issue. A wife is a blessing from God, but not all marry. Some choose not to.
Your doctrine here is based on one verse about the Jewish covenant and lots of made up stuff not said by God - *nor ever commanded by God in Scripture*, except related to the Jewish covenant.
Apparently, we can’t feed them all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.