A profound Article worth careful reading

[Peter_Plato]

OK, I’ll be specific. Do you think it’s because all those Christians aren’t following the basic tenets of Christianity? It seems a little trite to say that it’s all the fault of the secular media/educational facilities/government/atheists etc.

This is YOUR problem, buddy. It’s Christians who are having hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. It’s Christians who responsible for the violence. You have over 80% of the population, so everything that you think is wrong with society is the responsibility of Christians.

Let’s face it, if 80% were atheists I’d be thinking that, hey, maybe this isn’t going as well as we said it would.

And I wouldn’t be too keen on suggesting that all these God fearin’ Christians are just being led astray by…well, fill in anyone you think has an agenda here. If they are that gullible and believe everything they are told without knowing if it’s right or wrong…well, you can probably see where the argument goes.

Actually, Bradski, I am not sure where your argument goes. There is nothing in the Christian ethic that supports the killing of innocent lives for the sake of convenience, or material benefit.

What is interesting is the 2012 Gallup poll that showed the pro-choice position to be much more consistent with a “no religion” affiliation (+49) than with a Catholic (-16) or Protestant (-24) one.

This, by the way, makes no distinction between Catholics and Christians who are active in their faith and those who nominally identify as “cultural” Catholics or Christians. It would be much more telling to break down the numbers of practicing Catholics or Christians who nevertheless have abortions or are pro-choice. Surely, that would be more reflective of the real problem. Right, buddy?

The other interesting implication of the survey is the effect that higher education has on the swing of young adults from a decidedly prolife position in high school (-20) to a decidedly pro choice one after/during post-grad (+21).



Higher Education would appear to be the culprit, Brad. So, if you are serious about literally stopping the blood flow, perhaps this is where we need to begin, no?

Higher education seems to have a decidedly chilling effect on the propensity of those so -]educated/-] inculcated to choose killing the unborn over taking responsibility for their “choices.”

But, of course, you aren’t serious, now are you?

 

[OneSheep]

I read a Deacon’s article on a Diocese Newspaper talking about homily. Here are a few paragraph to share with you. It is very good.

Hey

Thanks for the article.

Speaking of uncomfortable, I am wondering if my post 37 gave you a bit of uneasiness. Or, perhaps, you forgot to answer.

The question is very pertinent.

BTW, I have been thinking lately that if the real goal is to move hearts and minds, there is a level of trust that is important. For example, though I have been friendly to you, I have been presenting challenges from the get-go, which I am thinking is hardly a means to build trust.

On the other hand, building trust for the purpose of creating receptivity seems a bit manipulative, doesn’t it? No, it would be better to be truly genuine, methinks.

Perhaps, then, if you do not trust me (not that you have a reason to) , approach my post 37 as a scientific inquiry, even though it may seem only merely linguistic. The investigation is not merely linguistic, though, it probes into the depth of the conscience itself. The mind resists and vehemently protects this place. Self awareness, self-inquiry, involves a kind of courage of which we are not accustomed.

So, give the question a shot, if you are up to the challenge.

Thanks.

 

[PTL]

OneSheep, to answer your question in post #37 :

When I said those who killed Jesus were evil, it is in an objective sense. The tortures and the crucifixion are objectively evil.

This thread has its main points to discuss. Please keep the discussion relevant to the original article written by Fr. Heilman.

 

[ynotzap]

OneSheep, to answer your question in post #37 :

When I said those who killed Jesus were evil, it is in an objective sense. The tortures and the crucifixion are objectively evil.

This thread has its main points to discuss. Please keep the discussion relevant to the original article written by Fr. Heilman.

One Sheep is keeping it relevant to the discussion, you see, the people who killed Jesus are not evil, their actions were, and Jesus came to redeem these men from evil, not from themselves. They were created good, even though they were in need of salvation because of the curse of sin. Sin is the evil, not the people who are held in the bondage of sin. Jesus came to release these people from this bondage, to restore them to “the new life of grace” So to be objective it is not the people who crucified Jesus, that are evil, but their acts, and this is what Jesus came to rectify, to release them from the bondage of Satan. Evil is the absence of good, they made wrong choices under Satan’s influence. Jesus said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep, to answer your question in post #37 :

When I said those who killed Jesus were evil, it is in an objective sense. The tortures and the crucifixion are objectively evil.

This thread has its main points to discuss. Please keep the discussion relevant to the original article written by Fr. Heilman.

PTL, good morning.

I mainly agree with Ynotzap on this one, PTL. Yes, those actions were objectively evil, and when we observe an evil, our minds automatically condemn the perpetrators, we hold something against them, and our mind labels those people as “evil” or some other negative term.

From the cross, Jesus forgives, he models forgiving those without evidence of repentance. When we condemn someone, we are holding something against them. I go so far to say that condemnation itself has its place, but eventually it becomes time to forgive. When I forgive someone, including using the gift of understanding to come aware that I could have done exactly what the perpetrator did (understanding their scope of the situation and motives involved) the condemnation simply disappears, and the label “evil” with it, as applied to the person.

So, I am wondering if you also have this experience. Have you picked someone who you think is evil, and then prayed for him, prayed to understand him, did not condone his actions but understood his actions in light of “for they do not know what they are doing”? And then, if this has occurred, has the thinking of him as evil simply fallen away?

The pertinence to the thread is in terms of how we approach the issues that Fr. Heilman presents. Do you see what I mean?

So, at this point, I’m not sure if answering post 37 is necessary. Maybe this post clarifies more what I am asking?

Thanks

 

[grannymh]

So, I am wondering if you also have this experience. Have you picked someone who you think is evil, and then prayed for him, prayed to understand him, did not condone his actions but understood his actions in light of “for they do not know what they are doing”? And then, if this has occurred, has the thinking of him as evil simply fallen away?

Heavens to Betsy!

This reminds me of some similar personal experience questions I was asked many moons ago. As I recall, I considered those personal questions totally improper as well as off topic.

 

[OneSheep]

Heavens to Betsy!

This reminds me of some similar personal experience questions I was asked many moons ago. As I recall, I considered those personal questions totally improper as well as off topic.

Indeed, it is much more proper to judge another’s questions as improper.

Understand and forgive, Granny, please, there is no mal intent. I explained the pertinence in my post. If you would like to present an argument against my explanation, instead of simply judging it as improper, feel free to do so.

Experience, Granny, plays a huge role in our knowledge of the divine; remember the quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas? All experience is personal. So, if we close our minds to the experiences of others, we close off this aspect of knowing the Father. Would you encourage such closing off? I think not. When the CAF is all in the head, without addressing spirituality, it is no better than a secular forum. CAF, for all of its shortcomings, is still far better than a secular venue.

God Bless you, Granny, I know you mean well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Indeed, it is much more proper to judge another’s questions as improper.

Understand and forgive, Granny, please, there is no mal intent. I explained the pertinence in my post. If you would like to present an argument against my explanation, instead of simply judging it as improper, feel free to do so.

Experience, Granny, plays a huge role in our knowledge of the divine; remember the quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas? All experience is personal. So, if we close our minds to the experiences of others, we close off this aspect of knowing the Father. Would you encourage such closing off?

We predominantly live in a culture which makes adept use of “the experiences of others” as a principal scourge by which to flail and restrain all personal difference for the sake of political correctness with regards to the “proper” way of seeing things. Differences are discouraged even though “tolerance” is exalted as the high and glorious path.

There is, in my personal view, a distinct move to abolishing the individual for the sake of the “ideal,” even though that “ideal” remains vague and nebulous. Sadly, CS Lewis in The Abolition of Man was essentially correct in foreseeing where humanity is going – literally Hell – by abolishing the dignity of the human person and replacing it with an ideology of progress going nowhere good.

See: youtu.be/tX5e6eSkaMc

Human experience can be meaningful only if the person(s) having the experiences can properly understand the meaning and significance of those experiences. THAT requires spiritual maturity, understanding, a moral compass and, most of all, Divine guidance. It is not enough to merely have “experiences” and share them.

As to Aquinas, the Divine plays a bigger role in “our knowledge of the divine” than experience does. That is why revelation, the guidance of the Holy Spirit AND the magisterium of the CHURCH are far, far more important features of our formation than experience tempered and guided by human desires/wills.

Replace the word “tradition” with “experience” in the following passage from Matthew and you get a sense of the vanity of what is worshiped that is at stake.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

(Matt 15:1-10)

Mere experience becomes tradition becomes transgression.

Experience enlightened by the Holy Spirit becomes Tradition becomes formation in the Way – the Church.

 

[grannymh]

As to Aquinas, the Divine plays a bigger role in “our knowledge of the divine” than experience does. That is why revelation, the guidance of the Holy Spirit AND the magisterium of the CHURCH are far, far more important features of our formation than experience tempered and guided by human desires/wills.

Going back to the article linked in post 1 which explains stealth Ariansim.

Your excellent point in post 67 – “As to Aquinas, the Divine plays a bigger role in “our knowledge of the divine” than experience does.” reminds me of these sentences from the article.
“Stealth Arianism follows the same fatal error, but with a twist: while the Arians of the fourth century openly denied Christ’s divinity, today‘s Arians will profess Jesus as God, and yet through their actions deny it.”

skip<
“You see, once we diminish the identity of Christ as the Son of God, we are left to view Him as simply a historical figure that was a nice guy, a respectable teacher and a good example for how we are to live. Religion is then reduced to a nice organization that does nice things for people as we seek a kind of psychotherapy for self-actualization.”

I wish someone would shout – Remember that the Divine Jesus Christ is the only person who could reconcile, by His obedience, humanity with Divinity. Listen to Him. Listen to “revelation, the guidance of the Holy Spirit AND the magisterium of the CHURCH” which the Divine Jesus Christ founded as it is today with its seven Sacraments.

And I will add – even private personal experiences, not meant to be shared on a public message board, can bring a person into a closer union with God. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

 

[PTL]

“You see, once we diminish the identity of Christ as the Son of God, we are left to view Him as simply a historical figure that was a nice guy, a respectable teacher and a good example for how we are to live. Religion is then reduced to a nice organization that does nice things for people as we seek a kind of psychotherapy for self-actualization.”

That is exactly the problem in many parishes today. When a parish emphasizes “nice organizations” and “happy homilies”, they diminish Christ and desert moral teaching from the Scriptures. That is what this thread is discussing, not any personal feelings, experience, or the definition of evil.

It is good to know there are courageous priests who believe Jesus is God with their words and actions. They preach what should be preached. Here is a website follows many courageous priests who don’t fall into the pity of stealth Ariansim. Thanks be to God. You can subscribe their email by clicking the link on the right side of the screen.

courageouspriest.com/life-greatest-social-justice-issue?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+courageouspriest%2FqTKF+%28Courageous+Priest%29

 

[MikeFrancisSDCA]

Wow! Neo-Arianism. (I’m trying to memorize the Christological heresies for my upcoming RCIA class.)

 

[simpleas]

Are posters saying that having knowledge of God is how we come to know God, rather than experience of God?
What is the difference between knowledge and experience?
I would think that experience of God in life is more powerful than having heady knowledge?

 

[Mike_Dye]

Considering that the vast majority of the population in America Is Christian, do you think that that might be the cause of the problem?

Yes’… The problem is the vast majority of the population in America that calls themselves Christian. Remember that in the last election 53% of Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion president we have ever had, and that was just the tip of the immoral iceberg that followed. In the end you get what you deserve.

 

[PTL]

Are posters saying that having knowledge of God is how we come to know God, rather than experience of God?
What is the difference between knowledge and experience?
I would think that experience of God in life is more powerful than having heady knowledge?

No one is saying our experience of God is not important. What was said is to keep the discussion of this thread relevant to the theme of stealth Ariansim,. We try to discuss what have been witnessed (or experienced) about stealth Ariansim, and what could be done with it. This thread is not about our experience of God. Of course our experience of God is important. But that discussion is more appropriate for the “Spirituality” forum.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are posters saying that having knowledge of God is how we come to know God, rather than experience of God?
What is the difference between knowledge and experience?
I would think that experience of God in life is more powerful than having heady knowledge?

The word “experience,” like the words “love” or “fulfillment” means different things to different people in addition to the several accepted dictionary definitions.

One meaning might be the direct perception of realities around us. We “experience” using our senses. If that is what is the intended meaning, then any such “experience” must be interpreted and assessed for its significance and meaning.

What would you suggest ought to be the means by which such experiences are grasped for meaning? Doesn’t knowledge or understanding serve to do precisely that? Our knowledge of the larger picture provides a lens through which to add perspective to such experiences.

Now, if you mean “experience” as in a direct or intuitive communion with God, I wouldn’t necessarily dispute that such experiences are very important, but I would insist that even those are subject to weighing and assessment by spiritually mature individuals who may have a much better understanding of their significance than the individual having them. This is why the community of the Church is key - the Magisterium and Tradition along with the living and faithful Body of the Living Christ provide the “head” AND knowledge that can properly interpret the “experience” for its significance and meaning.

Merely because someone somewhere has or claims to have an “experience” of God does not mean that experience will be legitimately interpreted by the subject of the experience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would think that experience of God in life is more powerful than having heady knowledge?

The Apostles and disciples of Jesus had a powerful and direct experience of God walking and speaking to him each day for three years. Yet, it wasn’t until after the Resurrection that they began to understand the significance of what they experienced directly. The Church continues to try to unravel the significance of the Incarnation both in the man Jesus Christ and post-Resurrection in the Church - the Body of Christ. Both are direct “experiences” of God in the sense of God making himself fully available to humanity.

God becomes fully present in Bread and Wine, yet how many would count the experience of that Presence as one of Communion with or of having the “experience” of God?

 

[simpleas]

The word “experience,” like the words “love” or “fulfillment” means different things to different people in addition to the several accepted dictionary definitions.

One meaning might be the direct perception of realities around us. We “experience” using our senses. If that is what is the intended meaning, then any such “experience” must be interpreted and assessed for its significance and meaning.

What would you suggest ought to be the means by which such experiences are grasped for meaning? Doesn’t knowledge or understanding serve to do precisely that? Our knowledge of the larger picture provides a lens through which to add perspective to such experiences.

Now, if you mean “experience” as in a direct or intuitive communion with God, I wouldn’t necessarily dispute that such experiences are very important, but I would insist that even those are subject to weighing and assessment by spiritually mature individuals who may have a much better understanding of their significance than the individual having them. This is why the community of the Church is key - the Magisterium and Tradition along with the living and faithful Body of the Living Christ provide the “head” AND knowledge that can properly interpret the “experience” for its significance and meaning.

Merely because someone somewhere has or claims to have an “experience” of God does not mean that experience will be legitimately interpreted by the subject of the experience.

Thanks.

I thought what you posted here :

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

As to Aquinas, the Divine plays a bigger role in “our knowledge of the divine” than experience does. That is why revelation, the guidance of the Holy Spirit AND the magisterium of the CHURCH are far, far more important features of our formation than experience tempered and guided by human desires/wills.

meant that knowledge of the Divine was better than experience. We can’t have one without the other anyway.

I’m not sure if you are speaking of visions of God…I’m thinking of experience of God in our own being and in life everyday. Although I can’t say I think everyday that I experienced God, I most probably do, just don’t think of it that way.

 

[simpleas]

The Apostles and disciples of Jesus had a powerful and direct experience of God walking and speaking to him each day for three years. Yet, it wasn’t until after the Resurrection that they began to understand the significance of what they experienced directly. The Church continues to try to unravel the significance of the Incarnation both in the man Jesus Christ and post-Resurrection in the Church - the Body of Christ. Both are direct “experiences” of God in the sense of God making himself fully available to humanity.

God becomes fully present in Bread and Wine, yet how many would count the experience of that Presence as one of Communion with or of having the “experience” of God?

What I meant by heady knowledge was that we can know all about the church, saints, prayers and yet fail to live as Jesus taught. Our actions speak louder than our words to others.

I do agree though that seeking understanding needs to done in order to make sense of life. I know that I have looked back at moments in my life after some personal investigation and seen that I had experienced God, but I wasn’t fully aware of it at that time.

I think that the presence of God in the bread and wine is obviously a personal experience which we all will experience in our own way, also how it is approached will definitely make the difference.

 

[simpleas]

No one is saying our experience of God is not important. What was said is to keep the discussion of this thread relevant to the theme of stealth Ariansim,. We try to discuss what have been witnessed (or experienced) about stealth Ariansim, and what could be done with it. This thread is not about our experience of God. Of course our experience of God is important. But that discussion is more appropriate for the “Spirituality” forum.

Sorry, I just had to question what was being said.

 

[inocente]

I am still interested in contemporary Stealth Arianism.

And what is really tough is that I have no clue how to combat it.

Hi, granny. I’m still interested in that too. To me, for the heart and soul of “Stealth Arianism”, look no further than some posters on this philosophy forum, the guys who reduce God to a logical proof and hardly ever mention Christ.

The key passage in the OP article is, IMHO, the following, where the Protestant minister could easily be replaced by any number of Catholics at the more charismatic end of the spectrum, those who get called irrational and wet for putting faith before the logic gospel of Thomas and Aristotle :

*"How do we recognize this pervasive Stealth Arianism?” There is a story of two friends – a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister. They stood in the doorway of the priest’s church, staring at the tabernacle in the sanctuary at the other end. The Protestant minister said to his priest friend, “You don’t believe that is God in that tabernacle.” The priest was startled, and said, “What do you mean? Of course I do.” The Protestant minister said, “Listen, if I believed that was God, I would, right here and now, fall prostrate on my face and crawl toward that tabernacle, with tears of joy running down my face … you don’t believe that is God.”

Over the past 50 years, the Stealth Arians have done everything within their power to remove from our lived experience of Catholicism anything that would point to the divinity of Christ, and the supernatural quality of our faith." - romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/*