Hi, Matthew. Thanks for this reading. Question: Have we got down to the most basic adjustment in understanding required for moving forward? I think we have not. Our basic misunderstanding shows up in the descriptions of baptism and mission: "Baptism makes us children of God, unites us with Christ, and provides us the grace that “enables us to walk together as brothers and sisters” (21). Our identity as members of the People of God, in virtue of our baptism, is “lived out as a call to holiness and a sending out in mission” (15)." Aren't we children of God by virtue of being alive and held in being by an ever-present Creator with all other humans and creatures? Isn't our baptism our parents' and then our own recognition of that fact? Is "grace" an added-on "gift" or "thing"? And what is the "mission"? What are we going out into the world as disciples to do? To bring people into the Roman Catholic institution? I don't think so. Is there any place in the document that says what Jesus did that we are also to do? Do you see what I mean? We lack a coherent religious vision of who we are and what we are here to do. I think "synodality" and "faith formation" require a common narrative at the most fundamental level. Am I wrong?
Thanks for responding, Richard. Yes, I did not mean to deny the institution. I have been thinking that the institution needs reform for the grace of the sign to be communicated within the consciousness of the members. Does a "graced" sign communicate outside the consciousness of the humans involved? I don't view that as a bunch of feelings. What does "efficacious" mean if not operative in people's consciousness? Are you talking "ex opere operato"?
Richard, do you think the formation may require an operating vision that provides the unity and harmony? Are you familiar with the work of Michael Morwood, your fellow Australian? Here is Michael from a 9/12/20 talk by video to a congregation in Houston TX.
Hi, Matthew. Thanks for this reading. Question: Have we got down to the most basic adjustment in understanding required for moving forward? I think we have not. Our basic misunderstanding shows up in the descriptions of baptism and mission: "Baptism makes us children of God, unites us with Christ, and provides us the grace that “enables us to walk together as brothers and sisters” (21). Our identity as members of the People of God, in virtue of our baptism, is “lived out as a call to holiness and a sending out in mission” (15)." Aren't we children of God by virtue of being alive and held in being by an ever-present Creator with all other humans and creatures? Isn't our baptism our parents' and then our own recognition of that fact? Is "grace" an added-on "gift" or "thing"? And what is the "mission"? What are we going out into the world as disciples to do? To bring people into the Roman Catholic institution? I don't think so. Is there any place in the document that says what Jesus did that we are also to do? Do you see what I mean? We lack a coherent religious vision of who we are and what we are here to do. I think "synodality" and "faith formation" require a common narrative at the most fundamental level. Am I wrong?
Thanks for responding, Richard. Yes, I did not mean to deny the institution. I have been thinking that the institution needs reform for the grace of the sign to be communicated within the consciousness of the members. Does a "graced" sign communicate outside the consciousness of the humans involved? I don't view that as a bunch of feelings. What does "efficacious" mean if not operative in people's consciousness? Are you talking "ex opere operato"?
Thanks and onward in grace, Richard G.
Do you take Luke Acts to be historical?
Richard, do you think the formation may require an operating vision that provides the unity and harmony? Are you familiar with the work of Michael Morwood, your fellow Australian? Here is Michael from a 9/12/20 talk by video to a congregation in Houston TX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QJB-VxKX8
See also: Roger Haight, S.J., Faith and Evolution: A Grace-Filled Naturalism.
How does your take on actual grace fit into the old "analogy antis"? Isn't the Creator present in the creation?