Posted on 09/29/2019 7:48:47 AM PDT by Salvation
Jesus dealt with each person as an individual. He did not tell all rich men to give up their wealth to follow him; he told a specific one for whom his wealth was a chief stumbling block.
“The poor you will always have with you,...” [Matthew 26:11]
I have never been wealthy, and I have devoted much of my life to helping others. There is only so much any finite human can do - and not all are called to do the same amount, in the same manner, for the same need.
Implying some generic standard is a legalistic approach.
I suppose it includes those who post articles like this and those who take it to heart thinking they must do good works or go to hell...I imagine that is most Catholics...
You will find it at Matthew 25:31-46.
Keywords and phrases: hungry, thirsty, separate them, accursed, eternal fire.
The main talking points are repeated four times, usually an indication meaning, "Listen up, people, this is serious."
Mind you, none of the people I know -- as far as I know --- are good to the hungry, friendless, and shelterless because of fear of hell fire, but rather to extend to others the love which the Living Christ has placed in their hearts.
The Judge Himself, however--- the Same who has the lead part in the actual coming Judgment --- saw fit to insert an explicit reference to hell fire into His sermon, to indicate the destiny of those who do not love and care for Him when He is hungry, thirsty, shelterless, sick or in prison.
He's preaching on hell: and He's not just blowing smoke.
For our own good, I am sure.
As I mentioned before ---admittedly, I do not have CAT scan vision into souls -- but according to their own testimony, I have never seen Catholics profess that they do good to the poor out of fear of eternal damnation, but rather because they are "impelled by the love of Chris" to love as they have been loved.
Fear of hell, though, as an element of motive in doing good and avoiding evil, is not to be flicked away like a piece of lint.
I don't know if you have heard of Franz Jagerstatter. He was the only -- absolutely singular --- Austrian during WWII who was executed for refusing to be conscripted into the Nazi Army. One influence which strengthened his resolve to give his life, if necessary, rather than cooperate with the Nazis, was a dream he had. He dreamed he was about to join the surging throng and board a train (which he associated with Hitler's movement) when a Voice restrained him. It said "Do not board that train, Franz. It is going to hell."
Trusting God and resisting to the end, Jaegerstatter was beheaded at Brandenberg Prison on August 9, 1943.
If you read the letters--published decades later--- which he wrote to his wife and three little children, you can see he was a man of love. But his will to do what is right was purified, one could say, by his horror of the literally damnable nature of cooperating with Nazism's diabolical evil.
As I mentioned before ---admittedly, I do not have CAT scan vision into souls -- but according to their own testimony, I have never seen Catholics profess that they do good to the poor out of fear of eternal damnation, but rather because they are "impelled by the love of Chris" to love as they have been loved.
Fear of hell, though, is not to be flicked away like a piece of lint. I don't know if you have heard of Franz Jagerstatter. He was the only -- absolutely singular --- Austrian during WWII who was executed for refusing to be conscripted into the Nazi Army. One influence which strengthened his resolve to give his life, if necessary, rather than cooperate with the Nazis, was a dream he had. He dreamed he was about to join the surging throng and board a train (which he associated with Hitler's movement) when a Voice restrained him. It said "Do not board that train, Franz. It is going to hell."
Jaegerstatter was beheaded at Brandenberg Prison on August 9, 1943.
If ou read the letter-- which still survive--- he wrote to his wife and three little children, you can see he was a man of love. But I would say his will to do what is right was purified, one could say, by his horror of the damnable nature of cooperating with Nazism's diabolical evil.
Amen.
I further suggest that our vocation to care for the poor is personal ... we can't just fob it off on the government to do it with "other peoples' money".
Both of those are crimes.
Where it really gets tough is when the poor person is a drug addict or alcoholic.
It takes a tough love in such situations.
The Liberals say poverty causes crime.
The reality is that crime causes poverty.
That is an exceptionally tough problem. More than food, that person needs to clean up ... and frequently don’t want to.
That’s funny.
I am prejudiced against a lot of things and people and make no bones of it.
Muzzards , for instance.
**teaching people to fish rather than enabling the people to be perpetual victims constantly begging for you to give them a fish.**
I agree with this.
This morning at church a new Ministry was announced in giving free clothing and food to the poor children in local schools — Chapter 9?
The thought that went through my mind was “Why not teach their parents a skill so they could get a job and provide these needed items for their own children?”
Well I don't either...But since this is what this Mr. Pope and the rest of your Church teaches it's reasonable to assume that since Catholics continue to be Catholic, they believe this teaching...
That’s when you church can start a Drugs Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous to allow them help themselves when they hit bottom.
2 Corinthians 11:12But I will keep on doing what I am doing, in order to undercut those who want an opportunity to be regarded as our equals in the things of which they boast. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their actions.
You also assume you understand what the Church teaches about salvation, but you do not. You erect your assumption into a "given," supposedly a Catholic axiom, which you then proceed to knock down. It's called a "straw man" argument. This makes reasonable discussion impossible.
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.