1. χάρις (Greek)-The KJV famously translates this word as "grace," but that is somewhat vague. χάρις apparently occurs 156 times in the NT and KJV renders it "grace" 130 times. However, other ways to render the word are "undeserved kindness" or "unmerited favor." Paul employs the term over 100 times.
2. δόξα (Greek)-Depending on the context, the word may denote "glory, reputation, opinion" or "splendor/radiance." See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/doxa
Compare 2 Corinthians 3:18
3. Secularism (English)-"the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country" (Cambridge English Dictionary).
Sunday, October 01, 2023
Words of the Month (October 2023)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
χάρις, another word that seems to have a range of meanings
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%87%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%82
see "2. good-will, loving-kindness, favor" here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/5485.htm
William Barclay’s New Testament Wordbook (1956, p. 29) says; The whole basic idea of the word (kha’ri.sma) is that of a free and undeserved gift, of something given to a man unearned and unmerited”.-Compare 2 Corinthians 1;11
I agree that it has a wide range of meaning: thanks for the additional information. Byington had some interesting thoughts on the word too.
Secularism does not mean that the Church should not be "involved" in public affairs. Rather, from the state's perspective, it dictates the obligation to be independent from religion, to have no established religion, and it also detaches the church from governmental influence, such as the phenomenon known as caesaropapism in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Of course, it's essential to differentiate between reasonable secularism and radical laicism. In its existence and activities, the Church is independent and autonomous from all other entities, including the state. However, the relationship that arises from the nature and divine purpose of both the Church and state is not total separation, contrary to what liberalism falsely claims. Both serve the same subjects; if each operates in isolation without considering the other, the shared subjects will suffer. The goals of the two are not parallel and independent. The temporal purpose, served by the state, is both transitional and subordinated to the supernatural goal, which the Church guides.
The Church and state are indeed different entities, and therefore, conceptually, they naturally need to be separated. But this conceptual separation cannot imply the legal and actual disconnection, which masonry and anti-religion movements push with this slogan. The "separation" of Church and state in modern history has often masked and concealed church persecution. In the name of separation, they practically suffocated the Church. Complete separation is not feasible when both sovereign entities, the Church and state, operate in the same geographic area, consider the same people as their citizens, and often have to intervene in the same actions but from different perspectives. For example, in the realm of education, both the state and the Church have their say in the upbringing and education process. Regarding marriage, the Church governs spiritual perspectives, while the state governs civil consequences. Therefore, the Church and state must work together closely and peacefully, not ignore or even work against each other.
It cannot be stressed enough that this collaboration benefits not only the Church but also, to an equal extent, the state. For the more freely and vigorously the Church can proclaim the Gospel in schools, associations, meetings, the press, etc., the quicker and more surely a nation progresses towards its well-being. This means that in all crucial public and social issues, principles of truth, love, order, and peace become guiding forces. In areas like land ownership, factories, banks, offices, family protection, defense of the ordinary person, etc., the guiding principles should not be selfishness, greed, and injustice, or pride and lovelessness, but the noble teachings of Christianity. Even today, we observe that the more a country or even a municipality is guided by genuine Christian spirit, the happier the people are, and the more prosperous the nation or municipality becomes.
The Catholic Church recognizes the "autonomy" of the state from the Church, but what does this mean? The state is autonomous in the sense that the revealed truths (revelations) cannot directly dictate the technical, administrative, domestic, and foreign policy methods that serve the common good under given circumstances. A lot of empirical knowledge is required for this. However, the state is in no way autonomous in the sense that the actions of state leaders are subject to God's moral laws, as every single person is bound to align their free-willed actions with God's commandments (the Ten Commandments). No individual, in any capacity, is exempt from this. Therefore, we can say that revelation serves as a negative norm for political and state actions: it indicates what state leaders must not do. This acts as a protective barrier for state activities: it prohibits immoral actions.
It's certain that Freemasonry considered one of its greatest triumphs to be the widespread acceptance of a progressive interpretation of the conciliar text related to the autonomy of the state. According to this interpretation, the Church, in no way, not even as negative norms, can intervene in state affairs, thus it's unable to counteract the prevalence of Freemasonic tendencies in state life.
It is profoundly immoral — and unacceptable for a Catholic person — to hold the widespread opinion that "politics is not about morality." This view led to the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Nazi regimes, to the horrors of the extermination camps and the Gulags, to the ruined lives of tens of millions, to the destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and the examples could go on almost indefinitely... Politics and state leadership that wants to be "autonomous" in a way that ignores moral laws inevitably leads to the tragedy of masses — whether it appears in a "democratic" or authoritarian guise. It should be added that taking into account moral laws is only possible on a religious-moral basis; every attempt to go for a godless, so-called autonomous morality has failed and will always fail. If moral laws do not have an appropriate sanction, then adherence to them is merely an illusory idea. After all, a significant part of human (and political) actions cannot be legally punished, either because they occur in secret and thus are not legally provable, or because the internally contemplated actions and decisions, which do not immediately manifest outwardly, are crucial for the subsequent external actions. Yet, "a judge does not judge the internal." We can add: many politicians can avoid earthly punishments due to their power, and therefore those who commit wrongs always have hope that they too will get away unpunished. Therefore, only the fear of divine justice is an adequate sanction; a correct state policy that truly serves the public interest is only possible if state leaders consider the revealed divine moral laws as the negative norm for their actions.
For the reasons mentioned, moral education in schools without religious foundations cannot be successful. Without references to the existence of God and the moral laws He has given, moral rules will have no greater binding force than manners, but this is far from enough for the often personally sacrificial adherence to moral laws.
Pope Pius IX in the "Syllabus" condemned the following erroneous statement: "The state is the source of all rights, and its rights are unrestricted by anyone."
The misunderstanding about the so-called "autonomy" of the state has allowed numerous liberal politicians and "progressive" theologians to regard the state as autonomous in an absolute sense. This perspective underpins the usual liberal interpretation of the separation of "church and state," which means a demand from the state for the Church to completely withdraw from public life, not to express its views, regardless of whatever measures the state may implement (for instance, not to protest against liberal abortion policies, not to speak up against anti-religious or morally corrosive state television programs, etc.), and preferably not even to voice its opinions outside the church. The Church should not interfere in how citizens vote for political parties. This is often demagogically summed up as, "The Church should not get involved in politics." This slogan is ambiguous. If it means that the Church shouldn't interfere in the technical details of politics (i.e., daily politics), then this is a legitimate request, implying that the Church doesn't seek to be the positive norm of state politics. But if it means that the Church shouldn't uphold the Christian moral principles that are obligatory norms for everyone, including politicians, then this is an unjust intervention by the state in the Church's mission entrusted by Christ. The Church cannot renounce its teaching, apostolic-prophetic mission, for it's not only its right but also its duty!
In the liberal press, priests who dissuade even underage girls from abortion are vilified, even though such priests are fulfilling their most fundamental duties. Liberals who follow the ideology of the Freemasons would prefer if the Church didn't express opinions on any matter with state implications.
States claiming autonomy in all respects — if not openly persecuting religions — would prefer if the Church, instead of providing moral and world-view guidance to people, would exclusively engage in social work. This would make the ideological influence over people a state privilege, while clerical personnel would perform certain social tasks better and more affordably (often for free). The Church cannot accept this concept without betraying its Christ-given mission, which remains its task until the end of the world.
Nincsnevem, just to be clear, I'm not a secularist nor was my post intended to defend secularism. I just like to let my blog readers know what important terms mean and this is about expanding minds and vocabularies.
The definition I gave was straight from Cambridge Dictionaries but I realize that there is more than one definition for secularism. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with the one given by Cambridge.
American Heritage Dictionary Definitions for Secularism: 1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
Post a Comment