A profound Article worth careful reading

[Peter_Plato]

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.”
*

The problem with this anecdote is that it makes a nice little sentimental tale, but that is about as far as it goes. After falling prostrate and crawling toward the altar, then what? Would he remain there the rest of his days?

Recall that the disciples and Apostles, too, were in the presence of God walking among them. There were times when face to the floor and washing Jesus’ feet with tears was the sincere response to one’s state coming face to face with the sublime Love of God, but that can’t be all, now, can it?

Christ sent out his Apostles and disciples to carry out a mission. They didn’t remain around his feet shedding tears the whole time he was on the earth, did they?

The Protestant minister mentioned nothing of the Catholic priest’s life of service before the Divine Presence but, rather, insisted that what recognition of God’s presence would (should?) look like would be continual contrition and tears; that “belief” in God should consist of perpetual sorrow.

That may be the sentiment of the minister, but the more crucial question is whether that is the will of God? To assuage his own sorrow and guilt the minister might be made to feel good by his prostration before God, but is that what God calls from him? Is his “belief/faith” God centered or feeling/self centered?

Perhaps the priest spent days, weeks or months doing exactly what the minister lays down as the condition for belief in the Divine Presence early on in his life. Perhaps he spends hours each day doing just that. The minister seems to be insisting that this ought to be the normative state of human existence – i.e., that the priest ought to be doing this all day each day. Why should that be believed?

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Recall that it was the arguments and “logic gospel” of the two Gregories, of Nyssa and Nazianzus, of Basil the Great and Hilary of Poitiers, which brought many of the semi-Arians back to orthodoxy and swayed not a few theological heretics back to the Nicean Creed.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 10, makes it very clear that “knowledge of God” is the goal of his mission and destroying arguments that are obstacles to that knowledge is central to what he is all about.

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

 

[Path_Finder]

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

I’d look at regions, I’m not going to throw stones at one place or another. I do think there are some regions, pockets of American Civilization that are in fact, still very Christian, otherwise.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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 doubt very much that the two are separable.

Consider an experience of going out into the mountain wilderness to “experience” the great outdoors.

Directly experiencing the trees, valleys, mountains, sunsets, etc., may fulfill emotional or sensual needs/desires, but without “heady” knowledge of survival, orienteering, biology, etc., a person will not endure but will eventually succumb to the “wildness” of nature.

In a very real sense, spirituality is like a wilderness – which is one reason why the Israelites spent 40 years wandering there and Jesus spent 40 days in spiritual “survival” mode in the desert wilderness.

Spiritual experiences, like wilderness experiences, may be overwhelmingly powerful, but without proper preparation – the “heady” stuff, properly done – those experiences can also have disasterous results.

That is why spiritual experience (properly directed and understood) – and NOT mere spiritual experiences (disconnected emotional highs) – is important for progress towards sanctity in the spiritual life.

Sure, “heady knowledge” can be put to the service of pride; but fideism (credulity) can suffer its own trackless wandering. The Church happens to view both as necessary in a strong spiritual life – faith AND reason. Each tempers the excesses of the other.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’m not sure it make sense to decry every and anything that denies the divinity of Jesus as some form of Arianism. Truth be told, we know very little about Arianism since all of Arius’ works were destroyed. We can deduce some of what he taught by looking at the arguments against his ideas, but it is difficult to determine whether the portrayals of his ideas by his opponents are caricatures or straw men.

That said, I must agree with the observations of the article, in that very few people in my lived experience as a Catholic seemed to believe that Jesus was actually God. Even fewer seemed to think the Eucharist was actually Jesus. I suspected this because people casually sauntered up to receive communion, munched it with an open mouth, and then left early. This is fine behavior if one believes communion to be a symbolic “family meal” but seems totally inappropriate if one thinks they are eating the mystical body of Christ. Also, when the “going gets tough” I noticed people would talk about God, and praying to God, but leave Jesus totally out of it. Talk of Jesus seemed forced and strained. As if he were an unnecessary add-on to God or something.

It is really more of a general feeling, this “stealth Arianism” isn’t it? It is the feeling of walking into a Catholic Church and feeling “God isn’t here.” It is this feeling of staring at a Crucifix for hours and thinking “this isn’t God.” I submit, respectfully, that a huge portion of everyday Catholics, even weekly mass-goers, are “stealth Arians.”

The interesting question, to me, is whether this hasn’t always been the case? Was there ever a time when the rank and file Catholic truly believed in the doctrine of the Trinity in a way that went beyond “mouthing assent” without understanding? Was there ever a time when most Catholics really believed the Eucharist was actually Jesus? If so, why would various heresies spread so rapidly? Why was violence needed to suppress them, if they were unbelievable to most Catholics? Why did the Protestant Reformation take off so quickly and spread so rapidly, if most Catholics had no doubts? Why is atheism and agnosticism spreading so rapidly today, if most Christians have a solid belief in the divinity of Jesus? Just some questions this article brings to mind…

 

[OneSheep]

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

Hi PTL,

I respect your concerns. We are not to coddle sin.

There is a balance to be achieved. If we come off too harsh, then we end up sounding condemning of people, which does not reflect forgiveness. If we are so “nice” that we do not bring up uncomfortable subjects, then the Gospel call for repentance is watered down. Such “niceness” reflects a fear of rejection perhaps.

There is a way of being firm without diminishing a friendly atmosphere. As we learned in a recent diocesan workshop, “everyone’s first ministry is hospitality”. We are to be welcoming, loving, and forgiving of saints and sinners alike. Jesus was not about ostracism, and we are to be Christ-like.

We reap what we sow. If we sow fear of “stealth arianists”, then we will ultimately reap fear in the form of a witch hunt. If we sow condemnation, we will be condemned by others and inspire condemnation and resentment.

The whole idea that we are to fear people, “stealth arianists who do not know that they are” or what have you, goes against the Gospel value of doing unto others as we would have done unto us. All people are well intended, and you are also, PTL. Imagine someone thinking that you are someone to be feared for some unknown reason. Such attitudes are not the Kingdom of God as we are trying to present, and I would be extremely surprised to find a Bishop who subscribes to it.

Were the above paragraphs an example of “firmness”? I hope so. Yet, I hope I came across in a non-condemning way. It is much harder in print. People fear. Priests fear. We are all human, and we all need a bit of help with our fears.

In addition, the notion that Priests are “nice” in order to keep the money flowing is not charitable. Most priests I know preach the Gospel pertinent to the mass of the day.

Do you see what I mean about balance?

Have a good one.

 

[PTL]

*"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/*

That is very true. I have a friend who traveled to different places and attended Mass in different places. He said one time when he knelt down to receive, the priest refused to give the Eucharist to him saying “come on, stand up”. This, and not preaching the truth are all the result of Stealth Arians. If a person truly believes Jesus is God, such things could not happen. Very sad.

 

[grannymh]

Do you see what I mean about balance?

Have a good one.

This is a great example of human to human balance. The hospitality of human to human is very important within the Catholic Church.

This idea that “Jesus was not about ostracism,” is a great example of today’s stealth Arianism.

The double-meaning idea that Jesus was not about ostracism is cleaver Arianism. It actually diminishes the Divine mission to forgive mortal sins because it also denies Jesus having the Divine Power to remove the ostracism of Mortal Sin…as taught by the Catholic Church. In a subtle way, it reinforces the idea that forgiveness is not necessary because God is all-loving regardless of human’s personal mortal sins.This of course denies the Catholic teachings on the purpose of free will.
(*CCC *1730-32)

 

[grannymh]

Do you see what I mean about balance?
Have a good one.

This is a great example of human to human balance. The hospitality of human to human is very important within the Catholic Church.

This idea that “Jesus was not about ostracism,” is a great example of today’s stealth Arianism.

The double-meaning idea that Jesus was not about ostracism is cleaver Arianism. It actually diminishes the Divine mission to forgive mortal sins because it denies Jesus having the Divine Power to remove the ostracism of Mortal Sin…as taught by the Catholic Church. In a subtle way, it reinforces the idea that forgiveness is not necessary because God is all-loving regardless of human’s personal mortal sins. This of course denies the Catholic teachings on the purpose of free will. (*CCC *1730-1732)

Below is the clever double-meaning idea from post 85 which also affirms current Arianism for those who dislike various Catholic doctrines on the two-way responsibility of a human relationship with Divinity and the necessity of seeking forgiveness, etc. Please note words in bold.
“There is a way of being firm without diminishing a friendly atmosphere. As we learned in a recent diocesan workshop, “everyone’s first ministry is hospitality”. We are to be welcoming, loving, and forgiving of saints and sinners alike. Jesus was not about ostracism, and we are to be Christ-like.”

 

[OneSheep]

That is very true. I have a friend who traveled to different places and attended Mass in different places. He said one time when he knelt down to receive, the priest refused to give the Eucharist to him saying “come on, stand up”. This, and not preaching the truth are all the result of Stealth Arians. If a person truly believes Jesus is God, such things could not happen. Very sad.

Good Morning, fellow Christian,

It is time to be firm again, you are a great person, and very well meaning in that you want the best for the world, but there is another issue here. Take a look at this:

"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.”

We are starting with a story of two friends. If they are friends, the exchange is somewhat friendly. Surely the Protestant minister did not mean to condemn his friend, accuse him of heresy, or judge him. After all, Jesus asks us not to judge. However, sometimes the words of comedy can be put into a different tone - I have heard it done on radio, and it is not pretty - a light interchange between friends can be turned into racism and worse.

Labeling anyone as a “stealth arianist” is a judgement, PTL. We are to avoid judging. Now, I will grant that I have a real tough time avoiding judgement of others, I have no reason to point my finger, because I can be just as judgmental as the next guy. The problem is, judging is triggered in the mind. We don’t even realize that it has happened. So, sometimes I may be tootling along throwing words here and there, and I don’t even realize that I have judged. I need you, PTL, and we all need each other to gently, but firmly, call us to question when we see that our brother or sister is judging because the person may not have clue.

No, the conviction of the priest is not to be called into question any more than my conviction should be called into question when I do not do such crawling. All of us have different paths; we express our adoration in different ways, our prayer takes different forms, and we all have a different set of shortcomings.

There is an older Italian sister I love who points her finger with her hand like pistol and says, “Look, when I point my finger like this, there are three fingers pointing back at me!”

Again I say, PTL, I respect your concerns, as I said on my last post. I am glad you brought up the issue of lack of call for repentance from sin during homilies when priests are trying to be “nice”.

And concerning your friend’s experience, here is a a way to approach the encounter. Let us start with the question, “Why did the priest ask him to stand up?”. For starters, was there a long line behind your friend? If so, perhaps your friend was not considering the fact that people have schedules. Imagine how long mass would be if everyone kneeled before receiving. In addition, Jesus asks us not to “show off” our conviction; He speaks firmly about praying in public, avoiding such attempts to gain status in that way. It could be that the priest perceived that your friend was trying to gain status in his motion. I am not saying that this was the motive of your friend, but that may have been the perception of the priest. After all, such kneeling in a Catholic mass would surely call attention of others. I have no reason to think that the actions of the priest are due to “stealth arianism”, but I do empathize with what probably turned out to be a very embarrassing experience for your friend.

God Bless your day.

 

[OneSheep]

This is a great example of human to human balance. The hospitality of human to human is very important within the Catholic Church.

This idea that “Jesus was not about ostracism,” is a great example of today’s stealth Arianism.

The double-meaning idea that Jesus was not about ostracism is cleaver Arianism. It actually diminishes the Divine mission to forgive mortal sins because it denies Jesus having the Divine Power to remove the ostracism of Mortal Sin…as taught by the Catholic Church. In a subtle way, it reinforces the idea that forgiveness is not necessary because God is all-loving regardless of human’s personal mortal sins. This of course denies the Catholic teachings on the purpose of free will. (*CCC *1730-1732)

Below is the clever double-meaning idea from post 85 which also affirms current Arianism for those who dislike various Catholic doctrines on the two-way responsibility of a human relationship with Divinity and the necessity of seeking forgiveness, etc. Please note words in bold.
“There is a way of being firm without diminishing a friendly atmosphere. As we learned in a recent diocesan workshop, “everyone’s first ministry is hospitality”. We are to be welcoming, loving, and forgiving of saints and sinners alike. Jesus was not about ostracism, and we are to be Christ-like.”

The Holy Trinity is not about ostracism, Granny. God forgives. If you do not believe me, ask a priest.

Again we are back to the question, but we have already gone through this. Did the incarnation happen in order to change God’s mind about man, or to change man’s mind about God? There is room in the Church for either approach, but in either case, God is not about ostracism. Abba forgives.

Do you remember the words of Pope Benedict?

In the Bible the cross does not appear as part of a mechanism of injured right; on the contrary, in the Bible the cross is quite the reverse: it is the expression of the radical nature of the love which gives itself completely, of the process in which one is what one does, and does what one is; it is the expression of a life that is completely being for others. To anyone who looks more closely, the scriptural theology of the cross represents a real revolution as compared with the notions of expiation and redemption entertained by non-Christian religions…

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about.

For the first time, I am seeing the significance of “one is what one does, and does what one is”. God, from the cross, expressed his forgiveness of an unrepentant crowd. This is who God is, Granny. This is His approach to us!

This is not about a God who ostracizes, Granny.

God Bless.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Holy Trinity is not about ostracism, Granny. God forgives. If you do not believe me, ask a priest.

Again we are back to the question, but we have already gone through this. Did the incarnation happen in order to change God’s mind about man, or to change man’s mind about God? There is room in the Church for either approach, but in either case, God is not about ostracism. Abba forgives.

Do you remember the words of Pope Benedict?

In the Bible the cross does not appear as part of a mechanism of injured right; on the contrary, in the Bible the cross is quite the reverse: it is the expression of the radical nature of the love which gives itself completely, of the process in which one is what one does, and does what one is; it is the expression of a life that is completely being for others. To anyone who looks more closely, the scriptural theology of the cross represents a real revolution as compared with the notions of expiation and redemption entertained by non-Christian religions…

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about.

For the first time, I am seeing the significance of “one is what one does, and does what one is”. God, from the cross, expressed his forgiveness of an unrepentant crowd. This is who God is, Granny. This is His approach to us!

This is not about a God who ostracizes, Granny.

God Bless.

This is all very interesting, but what does it tell us about our responsibilities with regard to God and with regard to each other?

It seems to me that it brings us to a branch in the road. One branch leads down the “tolerate everything” path which appears to take us into rather unhealthy enabling behaviours culminating in abetting perniciousness under the guise of being charitable towards others.

The other branch requires that before we “do unto others” we have a healthy and well-developed idea of what “as oneself” means. On other words we would not permit others to fall into traps and behaviours we recognize as being harmful to ANY well-constructed moral self.

This is, at least in part, what Jesus made quite apparent – what it means to be the intact well-put-together ethical and spiritual being that is positively required before we go permitting, abetting or ignoring all kinds of evil – and calling it good and charitable to do so.

The term “blind guides,” as used by Jesus, means that not only ought we to correct our own views before we condemn others, it also means we need to see straight before we begin to think we have the right to legitimize whatever behaviours others engage in.

 

[grannymh]

The Holy Trinity is not about ostracism, Granny. God forgives. If you do not believe me, ask a priest.

Thank you.

Here are some additional points about the Holy Trinity in reference to the thread’s issue of stealth Arianism.

Arianism never denied God per se. Arius denied that Jesus Christ was True God. In theological terms, Arius declared that Jesus was not of the same substance as God. In other words, Jesus was the highest of created beings. (American Heritage College Dictionary, fourth edition) In today’s language, in some, not all, geographical locations, there is the reference to Jesus as being a prophet among [human] prophets.

Then and now, the Catholic doctrines of the Holy Trinity are being challenged. Then, there was the flat out heresy of Arianism. Now, it is only necessary to hint at Arianism which is slowly reducing the necessity of a Divine Jesus Christ. Ultimately, Chapter six, Gospel of John becomes the object of attacks. This is why there is the issue of stealth Arianism. Hints can have great power when some, not all, people already deny human origin, etc.

It is only necessary to hint that “Jesus was not about ostracism”. (refer to post 87 above) There are plenty of unnamed popular authors and also unnamed ordinary folk who carry that double-meaning to a more pleasing meaning that a Jesus was not interested in the state of ostracism caused by mortal sin. The idea that Jesus was not about ostracism (refer to post 87 above) actually diminishes the Divine mission to forgive mortal sins because it denies Jesus having the Divine Power to remove the ostracism of Mortal Sin…

Stealth Arianism slips quietly past the reality of the two-way relationship between humanity and Divinity. Stealth Arianism may focus on the goodness of God which is good in itself. Then, stealth Arianism exaggerates and misinterprets God’s love so that people lose sight of human responsibility when it comes to maintaining a relationship with the Most Holy Blessed Trinity.

Information source: *CCC *Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity, page 898; Mortal Sin, that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner, page 889.

 

[PTL]

Labeling anyone as a “stealth arianist” is a judgement, PTL. We are to avoid judging.

I am afraid you don’t really understand the meaning of “not judging”. The not judging is not to judge others’ conscience, but any normal person should be able to judge objectively about others’ behavior. If we cannot judge “behavior”, the world will be even more chaotic. We do not judge others’ conscience because only God knows people’s heart, but we must make sound judgement about others behavior. This has been discussed in many different places - in different parish seminars, in some priests’ teaching tape, in other forums of CAF.
Please know there is difference between judging people’s heart and judging people’s behavior. Don’t mix them up and simply say “not judge”.

 

[PTL]

To change the crisis of Stealth Arianism, we must start from restoring our reverence toward the Eucharist.

Here is a good article about it.

Communion on the tongue helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety. To step up to a communion rail, and kneel, and receive on the tongue, is an act of utter and unabashed humility. In that posture to receive the Body of Christ, you become less so that you can then become more. It requires a submission of will and clear knowledge of what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what is about to happen to you.
romancatholicman.com/reverence-matters/#.VdYe1trRa9A.facebook

 

[OneSheep]

I am afraid you don’t really understand the meaning of “not judging”. The not judging is not to judge others’ conscience, but any normal person should be able to judge objectively about others’ behavior. If we cannot judge “behavior”, the world will be even more chaotic. We do not judge others’ conscience because only God knows people’s heart, but we must make sound judgement about others behavior. This has been discussed in many different places - in different parish seminars, in some priests’ teaching tape, in other forums of CAF.
Please know there is difference between judging people’s heart and judging people’s behavior. Don’t mix them up and simply say “not judge”.

Hi PTL,

So, here is how to tell the difference. If I say, “what he did was hurtful” or something like that, I am judging a behavior. If I say, “he is a jerk” or anything that puts a person’s character in some kind of negative light, then I am judging the person. When we say “stealth arianism” we are first of all implying that there is some kind of conspiracy, the word “stealth” is key, so I may be judging behaviors but I may be making an uncharitable assumption, I may be judging the person’s conscience.

If I use the words “conservative”, “liberal”, “immigrant”, “pro-lifer”, any of these labels in a negative tone, I am communicating that I hold something against them, in which case Jesus calls us to forgive them. Jesus does not specify judgment of other’s conscience. He says not to judge one another, and He says to forgive.

When I say or imply that there are “stealth arianists”, and that such a label puts the person in a negative light, worthy of condemnation, then I am judging. If you see something from a Catholic publication that says differently, please let me know.

I was hearing a negative tone in your writing, i.e. implying that the priest who refused to give communion to the person is to be held in a negative light, that perhaps we are to share in condemning the priest rather than express that his behavior was hurtful or unjust or something of that nature.

For example, if there are indeed “stealth arianists”, PTL, do you hold something against them? If so, you are not alone in this. Do you? This may help clarify the issue of judgement.

Thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you.

Here are some additional points about the Holy Trinity in reference to the thread’s issue of stealth Arianism.

Arianism never denied God per se. Arius denied that Jesus Christ was True God. In theological terms, Arius declared that Jesus was not of the same substance as God. In other words, Jesus was the highest of created beings. (American Heritage College Dictionary, fourth edition) In today’s language, in some, not all, geographical locations, there is the reference to Jesus as being a prophet among [human] prophets.

Then and now, the Catholic doctrines of the Holy Trinity are being challenged. Then, there was the flat out heresy of Arianism. Now, it is only necessary to hint at Arianism which is slowly reducing the necessity of a Divine Jesus Christ. Ultimately, Chapter six, Gospel of John becomes the object of attacks. This is why there is the issue of stealth Arianism. Hints can have great power when some, not all, people already deny human origin, etc.

It is only necessary to hint that “Jesus was not about ostracism”. (refer to post 87 above) There are plenty of unnamed popular authors and also unnamed ordinary folk who carry that double-meaning to a more pleasing meaning that a Jesus was not interested in the state of ostracism caused by mortal sin. The idea that Jesus was not about ostracism (refer to post 87 above) actually diminishes the Divine mission to forgive mortal sins because it denies Jesus having the Divine Power to remove the ostracism of Mortal Sin…

Stealth Arianism slips quietly past the reality of the two-way relationship between humanity and Divinity. Stealth Arianism may focus on the goodness of God which is good in itself. Then, stealth Arianism exaggerates and misinterprets God’s love so that people lose sight of human responsibility when it comes to maintaining a relationship with the Most Holy Blessed Trinity.

Information source: *CCC *Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity, page 898; Mortal Sin, that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner, page 889.

I’m going to say it again, Granny. Jesus Christ was not about ostracism. Please read again the quotes from Pope Benedict. Please, do not imply that Pope Benedict is a stealth arianist.

What? You did not imply that? I believe you. Now, please do not imply that “God is not about ostracism” comes from an arianist position.

God is love, Granny. Ostracism is not love.

Take a look at this one, which a friend sent me recently:

1 John 4:18

New International Version
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

We have nothing to fear, Granny. Jesus loves without condition.

On the other hand, if it is important in your journey that fear of punishment keeps your behaviors in check, then the net effect is good. Go ahead and fear, I am thinking that it is better to be fearful and behave well than to have no fear while treating yourself or others badly. Fear has a function, it has its place when empathy has more developing to do.

However, when empathy is more developed, the love drives out all the fear. The fear of punishment goes away when the desire to punish is abated. How is desire to punish abated? Now we are back to forgiveness. See why it is in the Lord’s Prayer? See why Jesus makes such a big deal about it? Does this clarify Pope Benedict’s words?

Forgiveness of others is a way we can know God. When forgiveness does not result in a release of emotional desire to punish, then it is not forgiveness, and we come no closer to knowing God.

 

[grannymh]

. When we say “stealth arianism” we are first of all implying that there is some kind of conspiracy, the word “stealth” is key, so I may be judging behaviors but I may be making an uncharitable assumption, I may be judging the person’s conscience.

May I gently suggest that a dictionary be used to find the definition of Arianism so that we can be on the same page. I also suggest that a dictionary will be helpful in understanding the word stealth. My first encounter with the word stealth was in connection with a plane used in war.

 

[simpleas]

To change the crisis of Stealth Arianism, we must start from restoring our reverence toward the Eucharist.

Here is a good article about it.

Quote:
Communion on the tongue helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety. To step up to a communion rail, and kneel, and receive on the tongue, is an act of utter and unabashed humility. In that posture to receive the Body of Christ, you become less so that you can then become more. It requires a submission of will and clear knowledge of what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what is about to happen to you.
romancatholicman.com/reve…rRa9A.facebook

I think most people approach communion with reverence while standing. People follow people, when I am in a different country and at mass I watch which way things are done in the parish and follow through. I think if a person knelt for communion the priest should act just as he would if the person stood, no need to comment, people always knelt for communion back in the day. I remember making my first holy communion kneeling at the foot of the altar when there was still a low rail. I think I took communion a few times like that but I was young, and then when I went to a different parish I just stood as the others did because there was no rail.
If someone came to me at communion and knelt I would still administer without a thought, I’ve had people dip the host into the blood, which caught me unaware, and I’d find that difficult to prevent when it happens, because this is what that person is used to doing in their homeland, yet the priest has to announce that this can not be done before communion takes place as a reminder to the people.

 

[Sirach2]

This is a great example of human to human balance.
In a subtle way, it reinforces the idea that** forgiveness is not necessary because God is all-loving regardless of human’s personal mortal sins**. This of course denies the Catholic teachings on the purpose of free will. (*CCC *1730-1732)

There is a rampant distortion of truth being proselytized by certain TV evangelists, notably Joseph Prince, who teach that Jesus’ death restored men to God’s friendship. All sins are therefore remitted: past - present - and those we may commit in the future. ALL SINS - forgiven, since we are not under the Law, but under “grace.” The only requirement is to accept what Jesus did on the cross and we are never going to lose our salvation - never!

May I share what the Spirit inspired in answer to this heresy.
It is Canon VI on Justification, Council of Trent, in answer to Protestantism rampant in that century…
If anyone says [and *teaches] that nothing besides faith is commanded in the gospel;
that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free;

or that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; [since we are now under “grace”. ]

that the man who is justified is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if the gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments;

that Christ Jesus was given of God to man, as a Redeemer in whom to trust, [since He will always forgive us] and not also as a legislator whom to obey,

Let him be anathema!