Gods grace is sufficient for us

[fide]

Does your use of "due" mean "owed"?



I do not know this ("pulses") pulsing of divine love in the Body of Christ - It sounds sensuous... Have you felt it? What is it feel like?

.....

Arsenios

Yes, due means owed, as long as it can be heard properly - not legalistically, not separable from divine love. In God, love and justice are one thing. From the Catechism:

2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.
2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God’s gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods. ​

Feelings in the senses can accompany the divine presence, if God chooses them to do so - divine love given or received by men is certainly not dependent upon any human feeling or sensation. The word was chosen merely as a poetic analogy.

 

[Arsenios]

The simplest way to say it, that I know of, is this: What is lacking in Christ's afflictions, that Paul completes, is Paul's participation in His sufferings. He writes this as a model, as a father, in Christ - this is a teaching meant for all who would follow Him carrying their own crosses, bearing their own afflictions in holy charity, and for their parts completing their shares in Him and in His love.

I tend to speak perehaps a tad bit more succinctly and directly -
The question, which you almost schmoozed around (in your reply above), was this:
"What exactly is it that is lacking in Christ's afflictions."
This question youu avoided, yet answered in a round-about sort of way...
I mean, are you some kind of closet Byzantine???
I mean, I am the bearer of the double headed eagle, not you!
This is too funny...
So EXACTLY: What is LACKING in Christ's afflictions?
Protestants have GOBS of troubles with this tiny little pericopic question...
And the answer is SO very obvious, IF you disciple any askesis at all...
It is YOUR afflictions that are lacking in CHRIST'S afflictions...
"In the world, you SHALL find tribulation..."
For anyone who truly follows Christ, THEIR afflictions are what are lacking in Christ's afflictions...

Forgive me - I couldn't resist asking the question...
And thank you for being my opportunity to proffer forth on the matter...
Protestants ask why good people suffer, you see...
The Orthodox do not...
The Latins are somewhere in the middle, I should think, being the Mother of the Reformation, and knowing that the fruit does not fall far from the tree...



Arsenios

 

[fide]

I tend to speak perehaps a tad bit more succinctly and directly -
The question, which you almost schmoozed around (in your reply above), was this:
"What exactly is it that is lacking in Christ's afflictions."
This question youu avoided, yet answered in a round-about sort of way...
I mean, are you some kind of closet Byzantine???
I mean, I am the bearer of the double headed eagle, not you!
This is too funny...
So EXACTLY: What is LACKING in Christ's afflictions?
Protestants have GOBS of troubles with this tiny little pericopic question...
And the answer is SO very obvious, IF you disciple any askesis at all...
It is YOUR afflictions that are lacking in CHRIST'S afflictions...
"In the world, you SHALL find tribulation..."
For anyone who truly follows Christ, THEIR afflictions are what are lacking in Christ's afflictions...

Forgive me - I couldn't resist asking the question...
And thank you for being my opportunity to proffer forth on the matter...
Protestants ask why good people suffer, you see...
The Orthodox do not...
The Latins are somewhere in the middle, I should think, being the Mother of the Reformation, and knowing that the fruit does not fall far from the tree...



Arsenios

Sorry, Arsenios, but 1) I don't know what "schmoozing around" means, but 2) I do know what "succinctly and directly" mean, and I wish you had spoken in your post more that way! You lost me.
3) I tried to answer as succinctly and directly as I could, the question posed, "What exactly is it that is lacking in Christ's afflictions." And my answer was/is:
What is lacking in Christ's afflictions, that Paul completes, is Paul's participation in His sufferings.

From the Catechism:

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. [1 Tim 2:5] But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. [GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2] He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]“, [Mt 16:24] for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” [I Pt 2:21] In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. [Cf Mk 10:39; Jn 21:18-19; Col 1:24] This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. [Cf. Lk 2:35]
Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven. [St. Rose of Lima: cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis (Louvain, 1668)] ​

As for my Byzantine-ness, no, this is simple Roman Catholic teaching. (Also Byzantine Catholic).
Maybe you could restate your post more directly - maybe I'd get it. I will try, if you do.

 

[Arsenios]

Sorry, Arsenios, but 1) I don't know what "schmoozing around" means, but 2) I do know what "succinctly and directly" mean, and I wish you had spoken in your post more that way! You lost me.

A schmoozer is a person who flows from person to person and conversation to conversation comfortably afloat with whomever he is socializing, with no particular point of aim... He is the opposite of a person with a point to succinctly establish... I was just a little at play with you in the way I put things... You did answer the question in a roundabout way, which I appreciated a lot, but I gave it a perhaps unhealthy dose of poetic license in my descriptive of it.

3) I tried to answer as succinctly and directly as I could, the question posed, "What exactly is it that is lacking in Christ's afflictions." And my answer was/is:
What is lacking in Christ's afflictions, that Paul completes, is Paul's participation in His sufferings.

Exactly so, but I would balk a tad, because our own Cross is not Christ's Cross but ours... Just as Christ took up His Own Cross, so also are we to take up our own cross, that we should follow Him... This is as Christ instructs:

"If ANYone is willing...
after Me to be following...
Let him FIRST deny himself...
Then take up his (own) cross...
And follow me..."

This indicates what is needed in order to follow Christ...
It does not indicate that one who does so is participating in Christ's Sacrifice...
They are simply following Christ...

And as I am sure you know from your reading of the Saints of the first millennium, great Grace flowed from God by means of such sacrifices...

From the Catechism:

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. [1 Tim 2:5] But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. [GS 22 # 5; cf. # 2] He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]“, [Mt 16:24] for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” [I Pt 2:21] In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. [Cf Mk 10:39; Jn 21:18-19; Col 1:24] This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. [Cf. Lk 2:35]
Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven. [St. Rose of Lima: cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis (Louvain, 1668)] ​

​

I don't know why exactly that I am resisting this notion of our "participation in the sacrifice of Christ" in our own voluntary sufferings... I have simply not ever seen it referred to in those words... Can you perhaps cite a first century [eg shared] Saint who wrote in those terms? Basil, maybe? Or Pope Leo perhaps?

As for my Byzantine-ness, no, this is simple Roman Catholic teaching.

That was just a humorously intended tweak at what I perceived as your indirectness -

(Also Byzantine Catholic).
Maybe you could restate your post more directly - maybe I'd get it. I will try, if you do.

What is lacking in Christ's suffering?
YOUR suffering...

THAT is the direct answer, it two very succinct words...

Which most Protestants I have asked the same question of have not exactly embraced... They tend to not see voluntary suffering as salvific... They see it instead as a kind of morbid masochism...

All the while voluntarily sacrificing themselves for their families...

Oh well!

Arsenios

 

[fide]

A schmoozer is a person who flows from person to person and conversation to conversation comfortably afloat with whomever he is socializing, with no particular point of aim... He is the opposite of a person with a point to succinctly establish... I was just a little at play with you in the way I put things... You did answer the question in a roundabout way, which I appreciated a lot, but I gave it a perhaps unhealthy dose of poetic license in my descriptive of it.



Exactly so, but I would balk a tad, because our own Cross is not Christ's Cross but ours... Just as Christ took up His Own Cross, so also are we to take up our own cross, that we should follow Him... This is as Christ instructs:

"If ANYone is willing...
after Me to be following...
Let him FIRST deny himself...
Then take up his (own) cross...
And follow me..."

This indicates what is needed in order to follow Christ...
It does not indicate that one who does so is participating in Christ's Sacrifice...
They are simply following Christ...

And as I am sure you know from your reading of the Saints of the first millennium, great Grace flowed from God by means of such sacrifices...

​

I don't know why exactly that I am resisting this notion of our "participation in the sacrifice of Christ" in our own voluntary sufferings... I have simply not ever seen it referred to in those words... Can you perhaps cite a first century [eg shared] Saint who wrote in those terms? Basil, maybe? Or Pope Leo perhaps?



That was just a humorously intended tweak at what I perceived as your indirectness -



What is lacking in Christ's suffering?
YOUR suffering...

THAT is the direct answer, it two very succinct words...

Which most Protestants I have asked the same question of have not exactly embraced... They tend to not see voluntary suffering as salvific... They see it instead as a kind of morbid masochism...

All the while voluntarily sacrificing themselves for their families...

Oh well!

Arsenios

 

[fide]

The Catholic Church believes the "participation in the sacrifice of Christ" is celebrated liturgically, communally, in every Holy Mass. The celebration of Eucharist is a "participation in the sacrifice of Christ" with priest and people all offering themselves with Christ in His perfect Self-offering to the Father. Thus one Bishop of the Church phrased it this way:

Jesus offered himself on Calvary in generous, unselfish love, in the midst of evilgiving and not counting the cost. In each celebration of the Eucharist, Christ allows us to experience the life flowing from the one sacrifice of Calvary.

We, the baptized, through the sacramental sacrifice of the Mass, are joined to the one sacrifice of Jesus, and are invited to live daily in the generous self-giving spirit of the Lord whom we receive in Holy Communion.​

Our self-offering ought to held up to the Father every day, in any circumstance, in our part as priest, prophet and king in Christ, received in Baptism.

To me, I can understand your sense of needing to differentiate between our crosses and His Cross: His Cross is unique. From my side, however, our "individual" crosses have meaning and significance and efficacy only in union with His: we are gathered into His Body, the Mystical Body the Church - and by that participation in Him, in His life and death, in His Cross and Self-sacrifice, our following of Him carrying "our own" crosses has meaning.

I'll look around for a teacher on this issue, who pre-existed the schism...

 

[Arsenios]

The Catholic Church believes the "participation in the sacrifice of Christ" is celebrated liturgically, communally, in every Holy Mass. The celebration of Eucharist is a "participation in the sacrifice of Christ" with priest and people all offering themselves with Christ in His perfect Self-offering to the Father.

So that by Christ's Holy Sacrifice, we eat His Body and drink His Blood, yes? And that in this action the Latins think we are participating in His Sacrifice that sanctifies us and gives us Life? ["Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you have no Life in you."]

So I can affirm that we are enabled through Christ's Sacrifice to partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharistic eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood, what I balk at is the idea that we are joining with Christ on His Cross in that action. We eat and drink IN ORDER THAT we be ABLE to follow Christ. To claim that we are joining Christ's Sacrifice FOR us steps into the abyss of vainglory...

Thus one Bishop of the Church phrased it this way:

Jesus offered himself on Calvary in generous, unselfish love, in the midst of evilgiving and not counting the cost. In each celebration of the Eucharist, Christ allows us to experience the life flowing from the one sacrifice of Calvary.

We, the baptized, through the sacramental sacrifice of the Mass, are joined to the one sacrifice of Jesus, and are invited to live daily in the generous self-giving spirit of the Lord whom we receive in Holy Communion.​

​

This account is on both sides of us being recipients and of us being givers of God's Grace in the Eucharist... eg We receive Life from His Gody and Blood, and we in that same action, are joined to the Giver of that Grace as givers of the Gift we are receiving...

Our self-offering ought to held up to the Father every day, in any circumstance, in our part as priest, prophet and king in Christ, received in Baptism.

Indeed so, for freely have we received [Eucharist], and freely should we give [in the Way of Christ]

Two different actions, the one enabling the other...

To me, I can understand your sense of needing to differentiate between our crosses and His Cross: His Cross is unique. From my side, however, our "individual" crosses have meaning and significance and efficacy only in union with His: we are gathered into His Body, the Mystical Body the Church - and by that participation in Him, in His life and death, in His Cross and Self-sacrifice, our following of Him carrying "our own" crosses has meaning.

We are but RECIPIENTS of Grace in the Eucharist...

Outside it, we then HAVE our good works to GIVE...

I'll look around for a teacher on this issue, who pre-existed the schism...

I don't think you will find any who claim that we become givers of the Eucharistic Grace by becoming CO-PARTICIPANTS with Christ in His Crucifixion that GIVES us His Life...

Arsenios

 

[fide]

So that by Christ's Holy Sacrifice, we eat His Body and drink His Blood, yes? And that in this action the Latins think we are participating in His Sacrifice that sanctifies us and gives us Life? ["Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you have no Life in you."]

So I can affirm that we are enabled through Christ's Sacrifice to partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharistic eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood, what I balk at is the idea that we are joining with Christ on His Cross in that action. We eat and drink IN ORDER THAT we be ABLE to follow Christ. To claim that we are joining Christ's Sacrifice FOR us steps into the abyss of vainglory...

​

This account is on both sides of us being recipients and of us being givers of God's Grace in the Eucharist... eg We receive Life from His Gody and Blood, and we in that same action, are joined to the Giver of that Grace as givers of the Gift we are receiving...



Indeed so, for freely have we received [Eucharist], and freely should we give [in the Way of Christ]

Two different actions, the one enabling the other...



We are but RECIPIENTS of Grace in the Eucharist...

Outside it, we then HAVE our good works to GIVE...



I don't think you will find any who claim that we become givers of the Eucharistic Grace by becoming CO-PARTICIPANTS with Christ in His Crucifixion that GIVES us His Life...

Arsenios

We join with Him ( in our imperfection) in His Gift of perfect obedience and charity to the Father, in suffering. We receive, in Eucharist, His resurrected and glorified Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity - the whole Christ as He IS.) We are not yet resurrected nor glorified, but His promise is resurrection into eternal life:

Jn 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Jn 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
​

He calls us into His life - and that life includes the drawing of all men into Himself. Preaching the Gospel, and suffering with Him, and in Him, are parts of our participation in His life.