I wonder what you would say about the "lawyer's" answer to Jesus' last question to which the "lawyer" said "The one who showed mercy". Was it the "lawyer's" hardness of heart that he could not use the name Samaritan? Thanks!
That's a common interpretation, but there's nothing in the Gospel to indicate it is so; and Coleridge's interpretation makes just as much sense of it as the other.
Thank you! I heard a retired priest on Relevant Radio say that V-II is a way by God to get the laity more involved. His view on the documents which he has read show how V-II is a Grace. Any brief thoughts? Thanks!
Thank you! My interior dissatisfaction with the NO, and these Fathers' Cheerful, is relatively new to me. I have believed that there has to be so much more. I appreciate your all's work!
I wonder what you would say about the "lawyer's" answer to Jesus' last question to which the "lawyer" said "The one who showed mercy". Was it the "lawyer's" hardness of heart that he could not use the name Samaritan? Thanks!
That's a common interpretation, but there's nothing in the Gospel to indicate it is so; and Coleridge's interpretation makes just as much sense of it as the other.
Thank you! I heard a retired priest on Relevant Radio say that V-II is a way by God to get the laity more involved. His view on the documents which he has read show how V-II is a Grace. Any brief thoughts? Thanks!
Yes, that's one aspect of it but it is actually the inauguration of a whole new religion. See here:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiv-complete-commitment
Thank you! My interior dissatisfaction with the NO, and these Fathers' Cheerful, is relatively new to me. I have believed that there has to be so much more. I appreciate your all's work!
Thank you!