A profound Article worth careful reading

[grannymh]

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.

My apology. Apparently, I did not thank you for providing words from Pope Benedict. Reading what the Pope is thinking is a wonderful way to start the day.

In addition, you do not need to worry about Pope Benedict being a “stealth Arianist”. The Pope completely believes that Jesus is divine especially when the Pope celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Regarding the obvious fact that a human being can freely ostracize himself from sharing in the life of God. (*CCC *Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; State of Sanctifying Grace, CCC Glossary, page 898 )

The Catholic teaching is that God has a loving relationship with each individual human person. I have seen the shingles on a barn roof which, via different colors, proclaim John 3 16.

This may sound a bit silly and I do apologize for that. A human person is not God. A human person is not equal to God. The original heresy of Arianism claimed that Jesus Christ was not true God. Jesus Christ was considered as the “greatest” but not God. Now fast forward to this century. Humans are still not divine, but some, not all, act as if Jesus is a good fellow, but He doesn’t quite have full authority. For example, some want the Church, which Jesus founded, to stop saying that there are certain doctrines written in stone.

Life is easier and happier (imprudent “eirenism” as in Humani Generis # 12) when the divinity of Jesus has wiggle room.

Now it should be common sense that full divinity trumps within the relationship between God and humans. The Catholic Church teaches that of all the marvelous creatures on earth, only the human person is able to know and love his Creator. That was Adam at the dawn of human history. Only the human person has the ability (free will) to be in a relationship with his Creator. Human freedom means that the person can choose to share in God’s life or not. Human freedom means that the person can obey the Ten Commandments or not. Human freedom means that the person can accept the teachings of God, through Divine Revelation, or not.

The reality is that when a person directly chooses to freely seriously disobey God, that act shatters the person’s relationship with God. (ostracism) Obviously, God still loves the person. John 3: 16. Even when a person stomps on the fact that he can share in God’s life (State of Sanctifying Grace, CCC Glossary, page 898 ) God loves the person. The fully divine Jesus so loved each person that He assumed human nature in order to reconcile humanity with Divinity.

However, in the relationship between God and a human, that human has the power to destroy the relationship. The human then ostracizes himself. The Catholic Church still teaches about mortal sin. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

Did Jesus ignore the person who separated himself from God (ostracism)?

 

[OneSheep]

My apology. Apparently, I did not thank you for providing words from Pope Benedict. Reading what the Pope is thinking is a wonderful way to start the day.

In addition, you do not need to worry about Pope Benedict being a “stealth Arianist”. The Pope completely believes that Jesus is divine especially when the Pope celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Regarding the obvious fact that a human being can freely ostracize himself from sharing in the life of God. (*CCC *Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; State of Sanctifying Grace, CCC Glossary, page 898 )

The Catholic teaching is that God has a loving relationship with each individual human person. I have seen the shingles on a barn roof which, via different colors, proclaim John 3 16.

This may sound a bit silly and I do apologize for that. A human person is not God. A human person is not equal to God. The original heresy of Arianism claimed that Jesus Christ was not true God. Jesus Christ was considered as the “greatest” but not God. Now fast forward to this century. Humans are still not divine, but some, not all, act as if Jesus is a good fellow, but He doesn’t quite have full authority. For example, some want the Church, which Jesus founded, to stop saying that there are certain doctrines written in stone.

Life is easier and happier (imprudent “eirenism” as in Humani Generis # 12) when the divinity of Jesus has wiggle room.

Now it should be common sense that full divinity trumps within the relationship between God and humans. The Catholic Church teaches that of all the marvelous creatures on earth, only the human person is able to know and love his Creator. That was Adam at the dawn of human history. Only the human person has the ability (free will) to be in a relationship with his Creator. Human freedom means that the person can choose to share in God’s life or not. Human freedom means that the person can obey the Ten Commandments or not. Human freedom means that the person can accept the teachings of God, through Divine Revelation, or not.

The reality is that when a person directly chooses to freely seriously disobey God, that act shatters the person’s relationship with God. (ostracism) Obviously, God still loves the person. John 3: 16. Even when a person stomps on the fact that he can share in God’s life (State of Sanctifying Grace, CCC Glossary, page 898 ) God loves the person. The fully divine Jesus so loved each person that He assumed human nature in order to reconcile humanity with Divinity.

However, in the relationship between God and a human, that human has the power to destroy the relationship. The human then ostracizes himself. The Catholic Church still teaches about mortal sin. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

Did Jesus ignore the person who separated himself from God (ostracism)?

Good morning!

I agree mostly with what you are saying above, with some additions.

Let’s start with a definition.

Definition of OSTRACISM (Free Dictionary)

os·tra·cism (ŏs′trə-sĭz′əm)
n.
1.
a. The act of banishing or excluding.
b. Banishment or exclusion from a group; disgrace.
2. In Athens and other cities of ancient Greece, the temporary banishment by popular vote of a citizen considered dangerous to the state.

So Granny, note the words “popular” and “group”. Ostracism does not involve what a person does to himself unless others participate. In order for “ostracism” to take place, others exclude the person.

Yes, God still loves us regardless of what we do. Forgiveness is an act of love, so God forgives us regardless of what we do. As soon as we say that God only forgives “if”…, then we are putting a cap on God’s infinite love and mercy. God, from the cross, forgave us without limit, without a cap, without condition. It did not occur at that moment, though, Granny, in my view. He was showing us what had occurred before always. God never resented us, never held anything against us, even when he saw what Adam did, even when He saw what all sinners would ever do, even before He saw what they would do to Him on the cross, well before He hit the “create” button.

God’s forgiveness, however, goes nowhere on the unrepentant. Sin is alienation, and a person who continues to sin, unremorseful, unrepentant, is still alienated from love within, he is alienated from his own awareness of God in others and God in himself. People remain in sin because of lack of awareness; they do not know what they are doing.

So, what I am saying is that there is a huge difference between ostracism and alienation. Alienation is what happens because of blindness/lack of awareness. Ostracism is exclusion by another. Jesus never, absolutely never, promotes ostracism. (Exception: towards St. Peter, a couple times). Jesus brings back the ostracized, he undoes all ostracism. Ostracism is what humans do to each other.

And I repeat: This is one way of looking at the whole picture. There are other ways too. If “ostracism” by God is what make sense to you, then I can accept that view as one that serves you spiritually.

So, Truce?

 

[inocente]

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?

After the anecdote (“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 OP article continues:

“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.”

Perhaps in the past the priest did as you imagined, but if he did then he no longer experiences any awe in the divine, and so he can’'t pass that on to his parishioners. What he does pass on is a sense of routine, of reasonableness, of normality. Or, at least, that’s the impression left by some.

The OED says stealth = cautious and surreptitious action or movement. Those who feel that notions of the sacred, of sanctity, are a bit outmoded and embarrassing in our scientific age are likely to tone them down, and instead emphasize God as a logical argument, and Christ as a role model. Or, at least, that’s the impression left by some.

I don’t believe there’s any conspiracy, it’s just an undirected “cautious and surreptitious movement” by some trying to come to terms with the modern world by making religion uber-rational, businesslike and normal. But something gets lost. Compare the atmosphere in their churches with the charismatic Catholic, Pentecostal or street Baptist down the road.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t believe there’s any conspiracy, it’s just an undirected “cautious and surreptitious movement” by some trying to come to terms with the modern world by making religion uber-rational, businesslike and normal. But something gets lost. Compare the atmosphere in their churches with the charismatic Catholic, Pentecostal or street Baptist down the road.

Luke 19: 28-40

 

[grannymh]

Good morning!

I agree mostly with what you are saying above, with some additions.

Let’s start with a definition.

Definition of OSTRACISM (Free Dictionary)

os·tra·cism (ŏs′trə-sĭz′əm)
n.
1.
a. The act of banishing or excluding.
b. Banishment or exclusion from a group; disgrace.
2. In Athens and other cities of ancient Greece, the temporary banishment by popular vote of a citizen considered dangerous to the state.

No big deal.

So Granny, note the words “popular” and “group”. Ostracism does not involve what a person does to himself unless others participate. In order for “ostracism” to take place, others exclude the person.

No big deal

Yes, God still loves us regardless of what we do. Forgiveness is an act of love, so God forgives us regardless of what we do.

That is a big deal.

As soon as we say that God only forgives “if”…, then we are putting a cap on God’s infinite love and mercy.

Which religion teaches that?

God, from the cross, forgave us without limit, without a cap, without condition

That is a big deal.

It did not occur at that moment, though, Granny, in my view. He was showing us what had occurred before always. God never resented us, never held anything against us, even when he saw what Adam did, even when He saw what all sinners would ever do, even before He saw what they would do to Him on the cross, well before He hit the “create” button.

This sounds like a denial of something. ???

God’s forgiveness, however, goes nowhere on the unrepentant.

This sounds like a denial of Sanctifying Grace. ??? (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

Sin is alienation, and a person who continues to sin, unremorseful, unrepentant, is still alienated from love within, he is alienated from his own awareness of God in others and God in himself. People remain in sin because of lack of awareness; they do not know what they are doing.

Very interesting. In the Catholic religion, sin is an abuse of a person’s freedom. Obviously, one next has to consider the consequences, especially the serious consequence of mortal sin. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

So, what I am saying is that there is a huge difference between ostracism and alienation. Alienation is what happens because of blindness/lack of awareness. Ostracism is exclusion by another. Jesus never, absolutely never, promotes ostracism. (Exception: towards St. Peter, a couple times). Jesus brings back the ostracized, he undoes all ostracism. Ostracism is what humans do to each other.

Jesus never, absolutely never, promotes ostracism. That is true.

However, that truth should not be used to deny free will.
That truth should never be used to deny a rational human’s ability to perform deliberate actions.
That truth should not be twisted as to eliminate a rational human’s responsibility for his State of Mortal Sin as taught by the Catholic religion. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

And I repeat: This is one way of looking at the whole picture. There are other ways too.

Which religion teaches that?

Note to our gentle readers–Contemporary Arianism
The above and post 99 are minor examples of contemporary Arianism. When there are denials or partial denials of basic Catholic doctrines, that is usually a sign that the Catholic religion is not qualified to interpret and preserve Divine Revelation. That impinges on the divinity of its founder.

The challenge in post 99 is that we need to consider Jesus’ divine relationship with a person who made the free decision to exclude himself from God’s company. The act of excluding appears in a. in the definition of ostracism above. While b. refers to a group, it does not explicitly deny that the rational human person has the capability (free will) to, on his own, leave the group. Granted, that it is not exactly normal to apply the word ostracized to one’s own actions; still, the result of separation is apparent. An individual is no longer part of a specific group with specific requirements like being in the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898 )

Back in post 85, there is this very interesting statement. “Jesus was not about ostracism.” In post 100, there is this very interesting statement. “Jesus brings back the ostracized, he undoes all ostracism. Ostracism is what humans do to each other.”

It is possible for Arianism to use lack of information as a way to diminish Jesus’ divine mission.

The Catholic religion teaches that a person in the State of Mortal Sin needs to freely and sincerely acknowledge his sin, express his sorrow, and seek mercy and forgiveness from God. (Catholic Sacrament of Confession, Reconciliation) This is possible because we know that God never stops loving us. On the other hand, for some reason, we do not hear about human’s two-way relationship with God. We need to bring back the fact that Jesus had both a human and divine role as He hung bloody on His chosen cross. Jesus, because He is divine, could assume human nature and with His human obedience He could offer divine reparation for Original Sin.

On His cross, Jesus comes to meet us, love us, and bring us to Himself in heaven’s eternal joy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...yEGDAQ4OwwONcMATHz5U-gdA&ust=1440270663702692

 

[PTL]

I think most people approach communion with reverence while standing. People follow people

Even most people approach Holy Communion with reverence, we can never be too reverent in front of God Almighty. And you are right, people usually follow people. That is exactly I believe the article is correct:
romancatholicman.com/reverence-matters/#.VdYe1trRa9A.facebook

When communion rail is there and every kneel to receive in tongue, no one will feel awkward and every one shows the best reverence possible in physical manner for the Sacrament.

 

[simpleas]

Even most people approach Holy Communion with reverence, we can never be too reverent in front of God Almighty. And you are right, people usually follow people. That is exactly I believe the article is correct:
romancatholicman.com/reverence-matters/#.VdYe1trRa9A.facebook

When communion rail is there and every kneel to receive in tongue, no one will feel awkward and every one shows the best reverence possible in physical manner for the Sacrament.

So why did they take away the rails and the kneeling then? Shouldn’t our leaders know what they are doing in their teaching to us?

 

[PTL]

So why did they take away the rails and the kneeling then? Shouldn’t our leaders know what they are doing in their teaching to us?

I cannot answer why. But there are still churches have railings. At least two parishes in my neighbor cities I visited still use railings and lot of people kneel and receive in tongue. Some walk to the rail and receive by hand. It is always refreshing when I visited those churches and kneel at the railings with many people.

Since both forms are allowed, I guess it depends how much piety we want to give to God. But it will be good to make kneeling a standard, just like it is standard to genuflect before getting into the pew.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Very interesting. In the Catholic religion, sin is an abuse of a person’s freedom. Obviously, one next has to consider the consequences, especially the serious consequence of mortal sin. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

Jesus never, absolutely never, promotes ostracism. That is true.

However, that truth should not be used to deny free will.
That truth should never be used to deny a rational human’s ability to perform deliberate actions.
That truth should not be twisted as to eliminate a rational human’s responsibility for his State of Mortal Sin as taught by the Catholic religion. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

Expressed by John C. Wright as follows…

I just got an email from an SJW theologian telling me that it is impossible to hate a sin while loving a sinner whose sins are corrupting, lobotomizing, torturing, and killing him. His logic seemed to be that it is hypocrisy to love someone and yet to hate what hurts him.

Of course, being self-lobotomized with modern education and an industrial sized sense of his own self righteousness, the SJW theologian believes that the word ‘sin’ is another word for ‘fun’ — in which case, he thinks I am advocating loving the funster while hating his fun which would be a paradox.

I hate my sins because they hurt me and damn me and darken my intellect. I love myself just fine, perhaps too much. I do not see how it is hypocritical to treat others with the same standard with which I regard myself. Indeed, to a non-SJW, treating others as you treat yourself is not hypocrisy, but the very opposite.

scifiwright.com/2015/08/time-and-lies-wait-for-no-man/

 

[simpleas]

I cannot answer why. But there are still churches have railings. At least two parishes in my neighbor cities I visited still use railings and lot of people kneel and receive in tongue. Some walk to the rail and receive by hand. It is always refreshing when I visited those churches and kneel at the railings with many people.

Since both forms are allowed, I guess it depends how much piety we want to give to God. But it will be good to make kneeling a standard, just like it is standard to genuflect before getting into the pew.

People fail to genuflect toward the tabernacle alot too. So if kneeling was brought back then receiving on the tongue would be part of it. But then I think why stop there, we would need to stop Extra-ordinary ministers as they are not consercrated.

The early church practiced communion on hand and then changed it to on tongue concerned about particles dropping on hands or even dropping the host.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

I never knew all the practices that we seemed to have lost through progression, it does seem that alot of spiritual fulfillment has been lost, on some people, we can’t say one who receives standing and on the hand is any less respectful, knowledgeable than the person who receives on tongue, standing or kneeling.
But the idea of a choice would be welcoming, maybe.

 

[OneSheep]

This sounds like a denial of something.

Good Morning Granny,

“Denial” does not describe well. What I was explaining was along the same track of the incarnation happening in order to change man’s mind about God, not to change God’s mind about man. In keeping with that theme, God’s mind is unchanging, ever loving, ever embracing, ever forgiving of man. Infinitely so. In the more standard view, this is not the case.

This sounds like a denial of Sanctifying Grace. ??? (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

I think you may have either misunderstood what I wrote, or read something into it that I did not intend.

Jesus never, absolutely never, promotes ostracism. That is true.

Thank you. I was finally able to express myself well enough on that one that you agree with me.

However, that truth should not be used to deny free will.
That truth should never be used to deny a rational human’s ability to perform deliberate actions.
That truth should not be twisted as to eliminate a rational human’s responsibility for his State of Mortal Sin as taught by the Catholic religion. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

Of course Adam is responsible for his actions, as we all are, Granny. The rational human, though having the ability to perform deliberate actions, is limited in awareness. Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing, remember? We have been through this before. You are going to end up depicting A&E as omniscient, and I am going to say that such omniscience is therefore not human.

Note to our gentle readers–Contemporary Arianism
The above and post 99 are minor examples of contemporary Arianism. When there are denials or partial denials of basic Catholic doctrines, that is usually a sign that the Catholic religion is not qualified to interpret and preserve Divine Revelation. That impinges on the divinity of its founder.

First of all, I did not deny any Catholic doctrine, I am suggesting an alternative that can be included along the already valid Catholic doctrine, which it is. Secondly, the requirement of participation in the CAF is that we remain charitable, and your accusation that I am promoting Arianism is not only false but uncharitable. Are you now pointing at anyone who has a different view than you as an Arianist? Find one example of Arianism in anything I wrote, Granny, and explain why it is Arianism. It is not there.

The challenge in post 99 is that we need to consider Jesus’ divine relationship with a person who made the free decision to exclude himself from God’s company. The act of excluding appears in a. in the definition of ostracism above. While b. refers to a group, it does not explicitly deny that the rational human person has the capability (free will) to, on his own, leave the group. Granted, that it is not exactly normal to apply the word ostracized to one’s own actions; still, the result of separation is apparent. An individual is no longer part of a specific group with specific requirements like being in the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898 )

In an alternative view, which does not take the creation story literally, Adam and Eve did not make a “free” decision. They were limited by lack of awareness, for they were not omniscient. They did not know what they were doing, and that is not what the story is about anyway. Again, we have been there. Your view is legitimate, so is mine.

Back in post 85, there is this very interesting statement. “Jesus was not about ostracism.” In post 100, there is this very interesting statement. “Jesus brings back the ostracized, he undoes all ostracism. Ostracism is what humans do to each other.”

It is possible for Arianism to use lack of information as a way to diminish Jesus’ divine mission.

The Catholic religion teaches that a person in the State of Mortal Sin needs to freely and sincerely acknowledge his sin, express his sorrow, and seek mercy and forgiveness from God. (Catholic Sacrament of Confession, Reconciliation) This is possible because we know that God never stops loving us. On the other hand, for some reason, we do not hear about human’s two-way relationship with God. We need to bring back the fact that Jesus had both a human and divine role as He hung bloody on His chosen cross. Jesus, because He is divine, could assume human nature and with His human obedience He could offer divine reparation for Original Sin.

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…

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.

Do you remember these lines, Granny? Not expiation. Are you calling this Arianism?

Some say the incarnation was for expiation, and others not. Both legitimate, IMO. Is the “reparation” an expiation, or is the “reparation” not expiation, but revelation?

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

Granny:

On His cross, Jesus comes to meet us, love us, and bring us to Himself in heaven’s eternal joy.

Now you’re talking. Yes, Jesus reaches to the alienated. Alienation happens because of blindness and lack of awareness, Granny. We do not know what we are doing.

Jesus brings the light, and part of the awareness He brings is this: We do not know what we are doing. You are in the mode of blaming Adam and Eve, and I am not. Both legitimate.

And if you feel compelled to apologize for your accusation, such would be welcome!

God Bless your day, and keep you in good health.

 

[davidv]

Now you’re talking. Yes, Jesus reaches to the alienated. Alienation happens because of blindness and lack of awareness, Granny. We do not know what we are doing.

Are you sure this is the only way? What about deliberate, intentional acts of the will?

Jesus brings the light, and part of the awareness He brings is this: We do not know what we are doing. You are in the mode of blaming Adam and Eve, and I am not. Both legitimate.

And if you feel compelled to apologize for your accusation, such would be welcome!

God Bless your day, and keep you in good health.

 

[OneSheep]

Are you sure this is the only way? What about deliberate, intentional acts of the will?

Hi David!

I am always open to the possibility that lack of awareness and/or blindness are not crucial ingredients in all sin, but I cannot think of a single example where they are not. If you can come up with one, please do!

An act done in blindness can still be deliberate and intentional, as we see in the crowd who hung Jesus.

Thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

The Anatomy of a Witch Hunt

1. Make a claim that there are fellow humans who intend ill, that they are doing it clandestinely with “stealth”. Encourage fear.
2. Refrain from defining the parameters. Demonize the fellow humans and make the means of identification as vague as possible. “modern Arianists are different…” “they don’t even know that they are arianists”
3. Establish proof in terms of behaviors that are contrary to your own preferences “He does not crawl” or “He does not say harsh enough things from the pulpit” or “he thinks the CCC could use some modification.”
4. If anyone calls the question to task or asks for real evidence, accuse the person of being a witch.

Amazingly enough, this can even happen in the realm of Christianity, where every day we say “as we forgive those who trespass against us” and the gospel says, “if you hold anything against anyone, forgive the person.”

I repeat here, because this is a matter worth addressing, so important that we may need to bring in a Bishop or other of authority to put an end to this.

Ask yourself these questions:

A. Are there really “stealth arianists”? And if so, whom?

B. Once you have figured out the “whom”, ask yourself, “do I hold something against this person or group of people?” Be honest.

C. If you do hold something against someone, use the gift of Understanding. Ask “why does the person do this?” “why does the person say this?” When you have come to the point that you realize that if you had the same experience and awareness as the other, you could have said or done the same as your enemy, and you no longer hold anything against anyone, then you have forgiven. If you still hold the individual or group in contempt in any way whatsoever, you are not done. This is mature forgiveness.

Basta!

 

[grannymh]

Ask yourself these questions:

A. Are there really “stealth arianists”? And if so, whom?

As I am currently working on previous OneSheep posts, I will simply reply to these two rather interesting questions – Are there really “stealth arianists”? And if so, whom?

Taking into consideration the variety of attacks on the doctrines of the Catholic religion, I conclude that there are “stealth Arianists.” Whom? As an old-time journalist, my sources of information are usually confidential. Nonetheless, most of my current information comes from public articles, etc., etc., and from a public message board so that everyone is capable of finding such information if they so choose to use Google and other search engines.

I used the word “usually” because in the past, there would be times when I would refer directly to public authors, articles, miscellaneous posts, or media reports. On this thread, the basic issue of stealth Arianism comes from a link in post 1. I still refer to CAF posts, because currently that is the best source of information.

 

[PTL]

As I am currently working on previous OneSheep posts, I will simply reply to these two rather interesting questions – Are there really “stealth arianists”? And if so, whom?

Taking into consideration the variety of attacks on the doctrines of the Catholic religion, I conclude that there are “stealth Arianists.”

Of course there are “stealth Arianists.”. Not only the original article of this thread said so, many other resources said so too. For example, www.churchmilitant.com. Anyone who has independent and critical thinking can make sound conclusion that our Church is not a perfect church and problems exist. We don’t have to address to the opinions that denies this. It is not uncommon for people purposely paint a picture that all is well and deny any problem. For such, it is not necessary to argue with them for it will not get anywhere.

 

[grannymh]

In an alternative view, which does not take the creation story literally, Adam and Eve did not make a “free” decision. They were limited by lack of awareness, for they were not omniscient. They did not know what they were doing, and that is not what the story is about anyway. Again, we have been there. Your view is legitimate, so is mine.

The alternative view in post 109, “which does not take the creation story literally, Adam and Eve did not make a “free” decision.” is not a Catholic religion doctrine.

The alternative view (post 109) “They were limited by lack of awareness, for they were not omniscient.”-- I am familiar with this opinion in various forms. Usually, it is seen in relationship to a kind of opposition to the complete nature of Adam pre-fall. The Catholic religion teaches that Adam has an intellective soul and free will to choose his actions. (Genesis 1: 26-27; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 11; CCC 1730-1732)

Personally, my guess is that some people do not take the extra time to understand how the first three chapters of Genesis are the base for many Catholic doctrines. In my humble opinion–and I am not naming names–a large variety of people, from ordinary folk to popular clergy, have fallen for the easy glamour of a one-size-fits-all type of religion. Humani Generis, Pius XII, paragraph 12 refers to the imprudent goal of “eirenism.” Paragraph 11 also deserves attention when it speaks about the danger which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

ALERT –
It has come to my attention that I must immediately respond to this item which is also in post 109.
“First of all, I did not deny any Catholic doctrine, I am suggesting an alternative that can be included along the already valid Catholic doctrine, which it is. Secondly, the requirement of participation in the CAF is that we remain charitable, and your accusation that I am promoting Arianism is not only false but uncharitable. Are you now pointing at anyone who has a different view than you as an Arianist? Find one example of Arianism in anything I wrote, Granny, and explain why it is Arianism. It is not there.”

And this line in post 110.
“And if you feel compelled to apologize for your accusation, such would be welcome!”

Due to the limitation of characters for a post, I will respond in a separate post.

 

[grannymh]

ALERT –
It has come to my attention that I must immediately respond to this item which is also in post 109.
“First of all, I did not deny any Catholic doctrine, I am suggesting an alternative that can be included along the already valid Catholic doctrine, which it is. Secondly, the requirement of participation in the CAF is that we remain charitable, and your accusation that I am promoting Arianism is not only false but uncharitable. Are you now pointing at anyone who has a different view than you as an Arianist? Find one example of Arianism in anything I wrote, Granny, and explain why it is Arianism. It is not there.”

And this line in post 110.
“And if you feel compelled to apologize for your accusation, such would be welcome!”

In response,
I do understand many of the various “alternatives” to foundational Catholic doctrines. When dealing with “alternatives” and “legitimate views,” it is important to notice the fact that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Its protocol relies on the specific guidance of the Holy Spirit. (chapter 14, Gospel of John; Acts, chapter 2) In Acts, chapter 15, the “Council of Jerusalem” became the model for the eventual protocol used to discern Divine Revelation. 1Corinthians 1: 10-17 has powerful information about the need for the Holy Spirit’s wisdom.

An early example of protocol was the issue of Jesus Christ’s nature. This was known as the heresy of Arianism because Arius is its teacher.
From the Catholic Answers Tract, The Great Heresies
catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Arianism (4th Century)

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

Please take note of the reference to the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him. The protocol for defining Catholic doctrines is that every word written or preached by the bishops who supported Arius and every word written or preached by those who opposed Arius had to be studied thoroughly. I cannot imagine the time that would take. Speaking of time, the protocol starts with many prayers, especially to the Holy Spirit for His wisdom, and participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And there were plenty of discussions.

Finally, an Ecumenical Council would be opened. For a list of these Councils, refer to the CCC Index of Citations, starting on page 689. Common sense or the principle of non-contradiction will tell us that only one definitive statement regarding Divine Revelation can be made. Never in the history of the Catholic religion has a major Catholic Council declared two essentially different opposing alternative views as equal beliefs when it comes to basic fundamental divinely reveled doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Currently, some public authors and speakers are bringing forward some old alternative views of particular Catholic doctrines. According to the principles of free speech, it is permissible to discuss these rejected alternative views on CAF. Therefore, as I was curious about some of the comments in post 100, in post 103, I legitimately asked the proper question – “Which religion teaches that?”

As far as the idea of promoting Arianism, I certainly can understand confusion over what is happening in current life. I cannot think of anyone who is flat out publically promoting Arianism. Though technically, I could suggest some popular prolific public authors/speakers who are dressing up the old time Arianism. As far as I know, even those who flat out deny the Most Holy Trinity do not refer to the original heresy of Arianism. Maybe some do. So I would need to ask – “Which religion teaches that?”

The reason that stealth is a great adjective for Arianism in this century, and the previous century in which I discovered Arianism before I learned about it, is that it emphasizes the almost invisible ways the Divinity of Christ is being downgraded. As the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, pointed out. Note well the words I put in bold.
**CCC 389 **The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

 

[PTL]

People fail to genuflect toward the tabernacle alot too. So if kneeling was brought back then receiving on the tongue would be part of it. But then I think why stop there,** we would need to stop Extra-ordinary ministers as they are not consercrated.**

The early church practiced communion on hand and then changed it to on tongue concerned about particles dropping on hands or even dropping the host.

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

I never knew all the practices that we seemed to have lost through progression, it does seem that alot of spiritual fulfillment has been lost, on some people, we can’t say one who receives standing and on the hand is any less respectful, knowledgeable than the person who receives on tongue, standing or kneeling.
But the idea of a choice would be welcoming, maybe.

I agree we should not have so many extra-ordinary ministers. The Eucharist should be given by consecrated ministers, i.e. priests and deacons.

Father Z’s blog discusses lot of such matter.
Here is one talks about people being deprived of traditional solemn Mass. There are forces in the Church do not want more reverence to the Eucharist. Various sources are pointing to contemporary Arianism. Whoever deny this must think they know better than many priests and bishops who are concerned about this problem.

wdtprs.com/blog/2015/08/you-are-the-periphery-which-can-revitalize-the-church/