Gleaning up the excess billions.

Xeno.of.athens · Thursday at 5:44 PM

Clare73 said:
Thanks. . .my statement was incomplete.

We are to obey the law of the land except where it requires us to personally sin, in which case we are to be prepared to suffer the conseqences of that disobedience.

I wonder if you meant something more specific by ‘personally’—it raised a question for me. We're the body of Christ and not individuals alone. What we do and say as a community of Christians is also to be governed by obedience to God first and to legally constituted authority after and only when the law does not violate both individual conscience and the integrity of the Christian community. Individual conscience is to be formed by the community and scripture and tradition and the teaching of the Church, we can't just leave it to private judgements alone.

Clare73 · Friday at 9:45 AM

Xeno.of.athens said:
I wonder if you meant something more specific by ‘personally’—it raised a question for me. We're the body of Christ and not individuals alone. What we do and say as a community of Christians is also to be governed by obedience to God first and to legally constituted authority after and only when the law does not violate both individual conscience and the integrity of the Christian community. Individual conscience is to be formed by the community and scripture and tradition and the teaching of the Church, we can't just leave it to private judgements alone.

A law requiring all mothers to comply does not apply (personally) to those who are not mothers.

My sin is not reckoned to every member of the body of Christ.

Xeno.of.athens · Friday at 2:13 PM

Clare73 said:
A law requiring all mothers to comply does not apply (personally) to those who are not mothers.

My sin is not reckoned to every member of the body of Christ.

I appreciate your reply, and I can see we’re coming at this from different angles. You’re right to point out that a law about mothers doesn’t apply to someone who isn’t one. That’s just common sense. But I think the deeper question isn’t about legal applicability—it’s about moral responsibility within the Body of Christ.

You said, “My sin is not reckoned to every member of the body of Christ.” And strictly speaking, that’s true—we’re each accountable before God for our own actions. But Catholic teaching also insists that sin has a social dimension. It’s not just about me and my private conscience. When I sin, even in secret, I wound the Body. When I act unjustly, or fail to act when justice calls, the whole community suffers—even if no one sees it. That’s what we mean by social sin.

Now, I know the word “personally” can be doing a lot of heavy lifting in these conversations. If by “personally” we mean “not legally bound,” fair enough. But if we mean “not morally implicated,” then I’d gently push back. Because in the Church, we’re not just individuals with private moral compasses—we’re a communion. And conscience, while deeply personal, is never meant to be private in the sense of isolated or self-referential. It’s meant to be formed—by Scripture, by tradition, by the teaching of the Church, and by the lived witness of the faithful.

That’s not to deny the primacy of conscience. The Church has always upheld it. But it’s a formed conscience that binds—not just a sincerely held opinion. As the Catechism says, “A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful” (CCC 1783), and forming it is the work of a lifetime. It’s not about outsourcing our moral judgement, but about rooting it in something deeper than our own preferences.

So no, your sin isn’t automatically mine. But if I see injustice and say nothing, if I benefit from structures that harm others and do nothing, then I’m not just uninvolved—I’m complicit. That’s not about guilt-tripping; it’s about solidarity. It’s about being the Body of Christ in more than name.

Happy to keep the conversation going if you’d like to explore how this plays out in practice—especially when conscience and Church teaching seem to clash. That’s a real tension, and one worth wrestling with.

PS: I can't help but say, your terse replies and their avoidance of the substance of the matter is a bit personally frustrating.

Clare73 · Friday at 2:16 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
I appreciate your reply, and I can see we’re coming at this from different angles. You’re right to point out that a law about mothers doesn’t apply to someone who isn’t one. That’s just common sense. But I think the deeper question isn’t about legal applicability—it’s about moral responsibility within the Body of Christ.
You said, “My sin is not reckoned to every member of the body of Christ.” And strictly speaking, that’s true—we’re each accountable before God for our own actions. But Catholic teaching also insists that sin has a social dimension. It’s not just about me and my private conscience. When I sin, even in secret, I wound the Body. When I act unjustly, or fail to act when justice calls, the whole community suffers—even if no one sees it. That’s what we mean by social sin.

Where do we find this "wounding" of the spiritual body of Christ in the NT?
Is Jesus' arm too short?

Where do we find this "social sin" in the NT?

Xeno.of.athens said:
Now, I know the word “personally” can be doing a lot of heavy lifting in these conversations. If by “personally” we mean “not legally bound,” fair enough. But if we mean “not morally implicated,” then I’d gently push back. Because in the Church, we’re not just individuals with private moral compasses—we’re a communion. And conscience, while deeply personal, is never meant to be private in the sense of isolated or self-referential. It’s meant to be formed—by Scripture, by tradition, by the teaching of the Church, and by the lived witness of the faithful.
That’s not to deny the primacy of conscience. The Church has always upheld it. But it’s a formed conscience that binds—not just a sincerely held opinion. As the Catechism says, “A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful” (CCC 1783), and forming it is the work of a lifetime. It’s not about outsourcing our moral judgement, but about rooting it in something deeper than our own preferences.

So no, your sin isn’t automatically mine. But if I see injustice and say nothing, if I benefit from structures that harm others and do nothing, then I’m not just uninvolved—I’m complicit. That’s not about guilt-tripping; it’s about solidarity. It’s about being the Body of Christ in more than name.

Happy to keep the conversation going if you’d like to explore how this plays out in practice—especially when conscience and Church teaching seem to clash. That’s a real tension, and one worth wrestling with.

PS: I can't help but say, your terse replies and their avoidance of the substance of the matter is a bit personally frustrating.

Xeno.of.athens · Friday at 3:02 PM

Clare73 said:
Where do we find this "wounding" of the spiritual body of Christ in the NT?
Is Jesus' arm too short?

Where do we find this "social sin" in the NT?

I’ve heard your questions—“Where do we find this ‘wounding’ of the Body of Christ in the New Testament?” and “Where’s this ‘social sin’?”—and I’ll be frank: they strike me as rhetorical jabs rather than genuine inquiries. But let’s take them seriously, because the New Testament doesn’t leave us guessing.

Wounding the Body of Christ? It’s right there in Scripture.
St Paul writes plainly in 1 Corinthians 12:26:

“If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together with it.”

That’s not poetic fluff—it’s ecclesiology. We are not isolated units; we are “members of Christ” (1 Cor 6:15), and what affects one affects all. When a Christian sins, especially in ways that scandalise or harm others, it wounds the unity and witness of the Church. That’s not just metaphor—it’s spiritual reality.

And Paul doesn’t stop there. In Romans 14:15, he warns:

“If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.”

So yes, our actions can injure others spiritually. That’s not sentiment—it’s apostolic teaching.

Is Jesus’ arm too short?
Of course not. But that’s not the point. The question isn’t whether Christ is powerful enough to heal the Body—it’s whether we’re humble enough to admit we’ve wounded it. Grace doesn’t cancel responsibility. The Cross doesn’t make sin harmless; it makes repentance possible.

Social sin in the New Testament? Absolutely.
Let’s not pretend the New Testament is silent on this. Jesus Himself condemns not just personal sin but systemic injustice. In Matthew 23, He rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for “neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (v.23). In Luke 16:19–31, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a blistering indictment of social indifference.

And in Matthew 25:31–46, Christ judges the nations—not individuals alone—on how they treated the hungry, the stranger, the sick, and the imprisoned. That’s not just personal sin; that’s social failure.

Saint John Paul II put it plainly:

“Social sin… refers to the relationships between human communities, and it is the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins.” (Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 16)

So yes, the New Testament affirms that sin has communal consequences. And Catholic teaching doesn’t invent this—it draws it from Scripture and tradition.

In short:

The Body of Christ can be wounded—because we are bound together in Him.
Jesus’ arm is not too short—but He calls us to be His hands and feet.
Social sin is real—because love of neighbour is not optional.

If we ignore that, we’re not defending the Gospel—we’re domesticating it!

Clare73 · Friday at 3:43 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
I’ve heard your questions—“Where do we find this ‘wounding’ of the Body of Christ in the New Testament?” and “Where’s this ‘social sin’?”—and I’ll be frank: they strike me as rhetorical jabs rather than genuine inquiries. But let’s take them seriously, because the New Testament doesn’t leave us guessing.

Wounding the Body of Christ? It’s right there in Scripture.
St Paul writes plainly in 1 Corinthians 12:26:

“If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together with it.”
That’s not poetic fluff—it’s ecclesiology.

That is not a spiritual wound, nor a "social sin"--they suffered no personal spiritual loss, that is natural wounding, as in the Christians being affected by the martyrdom of James and the imprisonment of Peter (Ac 12:1-5).

Xeno.of.athens said:
We are not isolated units; we are “members of Christ” (1 Cor 6:15), and what affects one affects all. When a Christian sins, especially in ways that scandalise or harm others, it wounds the unity and witness of the Church. That’s not just metaphor—it’s spiritual reality.
And Paul doesn’t stop there. In Romans 14:15, he warns:

“If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.”
So yes, our actions can injure others spiritually. That’s not sentiment—it’s apostolic teaching.

You know that does not refer to bodily injury, but injury to faith (Ro 14:13-15).

Xeno.of.athens said:
Is Jesus’ arm too short?
Of course not. But that’s not the point. The question isn’t whether Christ is powerful enough to heal the Body—it’s whether we’re humble enough to admit we’ve wounded it. Grace doesn’t cancel responsibility. The Cross doesn’t make sin harmless; it makes repentance possible.
Social sin in the New Testament? Absolutely.
Let’s not pretend the New Testament is silent on this. Jesus Himself condemns not just personal sin but systemic injustice. In Matthew 23, He rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for “neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (v.23). In Luke 16:19–31, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a blistering indictment of social indifference.

That parable is about two people, not about society, and its main point is that Lazarus is in Hades because he did not repent of his sin due to unbelief of Scripture (Lk 16:27-31), and it is also a prophecy of the Jews' rejection of Jesus because of their unbelief of Scripture, even though God raised him from the dead.

Xeno.of.athens said:
And in Matthew 25:31–46, Christ judges the nations—not individuals alone—on how they treated the hungry, the stranger, the sick, and the imprisoned. That’s not just personal sin; that’s social failure.

The final judgment is personal, based on personal sin (Mt 25:31-46), including against loving one's neighbor, which personal sin reveals their lack of faith, which lack thereof is what condemns them.

Xeno.of.athens · Friday at 4:32 PM

Clare73 said:
That is not a spiritual wound, nor a "social sin"--they suffered no personal spiritual loss, that is natural wounding, as in the Christians being affected by the martyrdom of James and the imprisonment of Peter (Ac 12:1-5).

You know that does not refer to bodily injury, but injury to faith.

That parable is about two people, not about society, and its main point is that Lazarus is in Hades because he did not repent of his sin due to unbelief of Scripture (Lk 16:27-31), and it is also a prophecy of the Jews' rejection of Jesus because of their unbelief of Scripture, even though God raised him from the dead.

The final judgment is personal, based on personal sin (Mt 25:31-46), including against loving one's neighbor, which personal sin reveals their lack of faith, which lack thereof is what condemns them.

I cannot continue this discussion with you; the excuses offered in your post for ignoring what is in holy scripture are not only unconvincing but betray a troubling unwillingness to receive the fullness of divine revelation as entrusted to the Church.

Your post speaks as though the Gospel were merely a ledger of individual transgressions, as if salvation were a private transaction between the soul and God, untouched by the wounds of the world. But the Word became flesh and dwelt among us—not to save isolated souls in abstraction, but to redeem a people, to heal a broken humanity, to reconcile all things in Himself (Col 1:20).

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not a theological footnote about personal repentance alone. It is a searing indictment of indifference to the suffering poor at one’s gate. The rich man is not condemned for doctrinal error, but for failing to love his neighbour—a failure that reveals a heart closed to grace. That is not merely a “natural wounding”; it is a spiritual blindness, a refusal to see Christ in the afflicted (cf. Mt 25:40).

Your post dismisses the idea of “social sin” as if Scripture were silent on the matter. But the prophets thundered against it. Isaiah, Amos, and Micah did not speak only of personal piety, but of unjust scales, neglected widows, and trampled poor. The Church, in fidelity to this prophetic tradition, teaches that sin can be both personal and social—because grace is both personal and social. We are saved into a communion, not into isolation.

To reduce the final judgement to a mere test of private belief, as your post does, is to flatten the Gospel. Christ will judge us not only by what we profess, but by how we have loved—especially the least among us. That is not works-righteousness; that is the faith that works through love (Gal 5:6), the faith that is not dead (Jas 2:17).

I say this not to win an argument, but because I cannot pretend that such a narrow reading of Scripture is faithful to the fullness of the Catholic faith, which sees in every human face the image of God, and in every injustice a wound to the Body of Christ.

May the Lord, who is rich in mercy, lead us both deeper into the mystery of His love, which is always personal, always communal, and always incarnate.

Clare73 · Friday at 4:38 PM

Clare73 said:
That is not a spiritual wound--they suffered no personal spiritual loss, that is natural wounding, as in the Christians being affected by the martyrdom of James and the imprisonment of Peter (Ac 12:1-5).
You know that does not refer to bodily injury, but injury to faith (Ro 14:13-15).

That parable is about two people, not about society, and its main point is that Lazarus is in Hades because he did not repent of his sin
due to unbelief of Scripture (Lk 16:27-31), and it is also a prophecy of the Jews' rejection of Jesus because of their unbelief of Scripture, even though God raised him from the dead.
The final judgment is personal, based on personal sin (Mt 25:31-46), including against loving one's neighbor, which personal sin reveals their lack of faith, which lack thereof is what condemns them.

Xeno.of.athens said:
I cannot continue this discussion with you; the excuses offered in your post for ignoring what is in holy scripture

That must be Biblically demonstrated, not just asserted, if it is to have merit.

Rose_bud · 2025-07-05T00:56:41-0500

Clare73 said:
That must be Biblically demonstrated, not just asserted, if it is to have merit.

What @Xeno.of.athens is rightly pointing out is that God reveals Himself in community, and the Bible illustrates this through various examples.
In the Old Testament, we see how individual actions can have far-reaching consequences, such as Achan's sin affecting his entire household and the nation (Joshua 7), and David's census bringing judgment upon the entire nation (2 Samuel 24). The New Testament examples demonstrate this same concept. It's about the importance of communal accountability. In modern times, this principle still applies - if your pastor commits adultery (God forbid) and it's exposed, the consequences wouldn't be limited to just him and his family, but could also impact the entire congregation. We've all seen the effects of this on various denominations, as well as our witness as the Jesus church to the world. I know you're Protestant, so I'll point out that it's also the understanding and underlying principle we have of baby dedication and baptism, where the church witnesses and keeps parents accountable to what they profess in how they'll raise their children and live the gospel. So, it's not just about personal sins, but it has bearing on the community.

Xeno.of.athens · 2025-07-05T02:09:13-0500

Rose_bud said:
What @Xeno.of.athens is rightly pointing out is that God reveals Himself in community, and the Bible illustrates this through various examples.
In the Old Testament, we see how individual actions can have far-reaching consequences, such as Achan's sin affecting his entire household and the nation (Joshua 7), and David's census bringing judgment upon the entire nation (2 Samuel 24). The New Testament examples demonstrate this same concept. It's about the importance of communal accountability. In modern times, this principle still applies - if your pastor commits adultery (God forbid) and it's exposed, the consequences wouldn't be limited to just him and his family, but could also impact the entire congregation. We've all seen the effects of this on various denominations, as well as our witness as the Jesus church to the world. I know you're Protestant, so I'll point out that it's also the understanding and underlying principle we have of baby dedication and baptism, where the church witnesses and keeps parents accountable to what they profess in how they'll raise their children and live the gospel. So, it's not just about personal sins, but it has bearing on the community.

Thanks. I'd give you a hug if I could.

Clare73 · 2025-07-05T10:39:13-0500

Rose_bud said:
What @Xeno.of.athens is rightly pointing out is that God reveals Himself in community, and the Bible illustrates this through various examples.
In the Old Testament, we see how individual actions can have far-reaching consequences, such as Achan's sin affecting his entire household and the nation (Joshua 7), and David's census bringing judgment upon the entire nation (2 Samuel 24). The New Testament examples demonstrate this same concept. It's about the importance of communal accountability. In modern times, this principle still applies - if your pastor commits adultery (God forbid) and it's exposed, the consequences wouldn't be limited to just him and his family, but could also impact the entire congregation.

The pastor's sin is not attributed to the congregation in any sense.

Rose_bud said:
We've all seen the effects of this on various denominations, as well as our witness as the Jesus church to the world. I know you're Protestant, so I'll point out that it's also the understanding and underlying principle we have of baby dedication and baptism, where the church witnesses and keeps parents accountable to what they profess in how they'll raise their children and live the gospel. So, it's not just about personal sins, but it has bearing on the community.

Rose_bud · 2025-07-05T11:13:50-0500

Clare73 said:
The pastor's sin is not attributed to the congregation in any sense.

Hey Clare

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the pastor's sin becomes the congregation's sin or its their fault or that they are to blame. But rather that the pastor's sin has bearing on the congregation... i.e they suffer because of it. They are significantly affected by it, emotionally, mentally and spiritually (the lament, disappointment, confusion etc).

I don't know your family dynamic but I'll make another example. It's the same with any tight knit family... if your brother or sister is caught up in drug addiction. The entire family shares in that predicament whether it's the shame of it, whether its the addiction that robs them of the peace or finances. Its the shared experience of pain and suffering that's being referenced.

Search

Search

Gleaning up the excess billions.

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Rose_bud

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

More options

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

More options

Clare73

Blood-bought

More options

Rose_bud

Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father...

More options

Similar threads