A profound Article worth careful reading

[OneSheep]

PTL:

I really do thank you for enlightening me about Fr. Heilman and for presenting this thread. It has been a good discussion. I hope you read my last post to Granny.

You are well intended and are trying to do the right thing, which I truly appreciate. I do not see any desire on your part to malevolently sow fear or promote the idea that we are not to forgive everyone involved in any theological differences.

I request that if you find an example of a writing that is truly arianistic, write or call the writer and present your objection. If he does not listen to you, let me know and I will join you in the effort. If he does not listen to both of us, we go to Church authority.

As I told Granny, though, we must forgive the person before beginning the action. This is our calling.

Thanks, and let me know. Feel free to PM me.

 

[davidv]

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.

Adam’s sin was done deliberately and with full knowledge. If it had not been so, original sin would not have occurred. What blindness did he have?

 

[grannymh]

Okay, let’s connect “stealth Arianism” to the problem of ignorance, shall we?

Quote:
The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. **He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. **He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:9-13)

This post 134 by Peter Plato contains an excellent explanation. I am still finding gems in it.

What better way of expressing the ignorance of sin than by the expression “the world knew him not?” Also note that Christ is the Word, the Logos, the Light that “enlightens EVERY man.”

With all the chatter about lack of awareness and blindness, I find myself on the wrong path.

This means the truth that needs to be known – the Light – is not something which we create by knowledge – that is Gnosticism. The Truth required to dispel the darkness, to dispel the “ignorance” that enables sin – as you claim – exists within every man. That is clear from “The true light that enlightens every man…was in the world…the world was made through him” YET “…his own people received him not.” Humankind did not welcome the light, preferring darkness and culpable ignorance instead.

This entails that the ignorance that enables sin is not the result of living in the world as an aspect of creation because the world was “made through him” the light itself, and that light “enlightens every man” and indwells in each heart – we were not originally created ignorant in the sense of being oblivious to the Light of God.

Yikes! I said to myself as I read " we were not originally created ignorant in the sense of being oblivious to the Light of God." The prevalent popular idea that the only reason I would choose to sin is because lack of awareness or blindness is involved–just floated down the river.

Blindness, darkness and ignorance are preferred by those who sin as shown by the fact that “his own,” those made in the Imago Dei, “received him not” and chose not to “know him” by their preference for darkness and blindness.

Preferred? Really? That means that the Catholic teachings on human free will are really real. Maybe, there is a rare possibility that all that chatter about blindness and ignorance could be from another religion. It seems like the only thing I do is to ask
“Which religion teaches that?”

Here is the body of post 134.

What better way of expressing the ignorance of sin than by the expression “the world knew him not?” Also note that Christ is the Word, the Logos, the Light that “enlightens EVERY man.”

This means the truth that needs to be known – the Light – is not something which we create by knowledge – that is Gnosticism. The Truth required to dispel the darkness, to dispel the “ignorance” that enables sin – as you claim – exists within every man. That is clear from “The true light that enlightens every man…was in the world…the world was made through him” YET “…his own people received him not.” Humankind did not welcome the light, preferring darkness and culpable ignorance instead.

This entails that the ignorance that enables sin is not the result of living in the world as an aspect of creation because the world was “made through him” the light itself, and that light “enlightens every man” and indwells in each heart – we were not originally created ignorant in the sense of being oblivious to the Light of God. Blindness, darkness and ignorance are preferred by those who sin as shown by the fact that “his own,” those made in the Imago Dei, “received him not” and chose not to “know him” by their preference for darkness and blindness.

Now, Arianism is the belief – expressed in various ways – that the Son is not “one substance” nor “one in being” with the Father, but a subordinate being, a created being; not God, but a creature.

That would mean John’s Gospel insisting that the “true light” that “enlightens every man” is not really referring to God himself, but some lesser being. To be “enlightened” by the Word, the Truth and the Light is not to be enlightened by God, but by a lesser being, a created being somewhat removed from God – a representation of sorts.

This leads towards a kind of gnostic objective “knowledge of” which gains us access to Christ in a similar manner to which our knowledge of the universe aids us in getting “closer” to its reality.

If Christ is God, the True Light, Being Itself, One with the Father, then we can not have objective knowledge of the Father or Son as a result of our endeavor, but, rather, interiorly as a result of being enlightened by the Light Itself, Being Itself.

Our ignorance or blindness is inexcusible because being enlightened does not depend upon anything we do, but on the Light of God revealing himself to us – God from God, Light from Light – within the very act of our being itself. “The true light that enlightens every man…was in the world…the world was made through him” YET “…his own people received him not.”

Our ignorance is culpable ignorance precisely because it is the result of us turning away from the Light, from God himself. Sin is the very act of making oneself ignorant of the Light of Truth, Goodness Itself.

 

[OneSheep]

Adam’s sin was done deliberately and with full knowledge. If it had not been so, original sin would not have occurred. What blindness did he have?

Hi David,

I have gone round and round about Adam with Granny, and unfortunately his circumstances are not resolvable. As it turns out, Granny ends up insisting that Adam is omniscient (she will deny this, but it is essentially what she says) so that Adam is no longer human anyway, but an all-knowing quasi-god. We have no evidence one way or another what Adam knew or did not know, we can only project such based on what we know of modern humans, humans who are not omniscient.

So, in order to have a reasonable discussion on the issue, we would have to discuss a sin carried out by a normal human. If on the other hand, you are willing to discuss Adam as a normal human, we could begin with “what did he not know?” how was he blinded? And in that case, for example, he could have been blinded by desire for power or knowledge, as desire blinds normal people. It is not ordinarily chosen; it is a function of the mind.

God Bless you, and thank you David. Great question!

 

[PTL]

Hi David,

I have gone round and round about Adam with Granny, and unfortunately his circumstances are not resolvable. As it turns out, Granny ends up insisting that Adam is omniscient (she will deny this, but it is essentially what she says) so that Adam is no longer human anyway, but an all-knowing quasi-god.

Please, if you have problem of understanding, at least do not put your words into others’ mouth. I read the other thread by granny, what you said is not true.

 

[OneSheep]

Please, if you have problem of understanding, at least do not put your words into others’ mouth. I read the other thread by granny, what you said is not true.

Let’s see. Start a little earlier. 2013 maybe? It’s a lot of reading. You and I could take it up if you like, but that would be off-topic, right? And it does take a lot of back and forth discussion.

Like I told Peter, please join the thread that I hope to start in a couple of weeks. It will be something like “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?”.

Thanks for coming to defense for Granny, though. She is wonderful. I do not intend to disparage her at all.

Thanks

 

[PTL]

So why did they take away the rails and the kneeling then?

Here is an article for your reference.

Others are troubled by discrepancies between what they find in their parishes and what Rome has mandated. For example, Vatican II never mandated removing altar rails, moving tabernacles from the altar, receiving Communion in the hand while standing rather than kneeling, using lay eucharistic ministers, lay lectors, female altar servers, or having the priest face the people. Where did all these changes come from? Though now mainstreamed and licit, they were all introduced amidst controversies following Vatican II that tended to politicize the Mass, making it divisive rather than unitive, a source of controversy, polarization and alienation rather than consolation, devotion and joy.

churchmilitant.com/news/article/is-it-ok-to-dislike-mass

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

No. It’s amazing what a minority can discuss where they get power.

 

[grannymh]

Here is something which requires serious reflection.

Stealth Arianism is an attack on the Catholic Church from the inside.

 

[simpleas]

Here is an article for your reference.

Others are troubled by discrepancies between what they find in their parishes and what Rome has mandated. For example, Vatican II never mandated removing altar rails, moving tabernacles from the altar, receiving Communion in the hand while standing rather than kneeling, using lay eucharistic ministers, lay lectors, female altar servers, or having the priest face the people. Where did all these changes come from? Though now mainstreamed and licit, they were all introduced amidst controversies following Vatican II that tended to politicize the Mass, making it divisive rather than unitive, a source of controversy, polarization and alienation rather than consolation, devotion and joy.

churchmilitant.com/news/a…o-dislike-mass

Thanks.
I’ve been digging alittle here and there online when I get time to try and find some concrete answers. What I’ve read so far is when V2 came about, the mass being said in a nations own language rather than Latin brought about a change as people could fully understand what was being said in the Mass. And then other changes like the priest facing the lay, altar children including females, and females allowed to read at Mass. EM’s both male and female. (As above in the link) but must have been approved during the changes?

One site explained that rails were taken away so that school children could preform dance upon the altar (i think it was an Australian church)
But another said rails just lost there place once standing for communion was allowed by V2. The Vatican still maintains that communion is received on tongue, this I wasn’t aware of, yet most all church’s have hand receiving.

I was thinking maybe if a parish “works well” and the lay are respectful enough to receive communion by hand then it’s ok, but where a parish may have lay not fully in tune with what they should be respecting, the priest can “order” that communion be received by mouth only.

Don’t want to sound like I’m lowering lay people into little children who don’t know what they are doing, but I have read a few stories of people taking to host back to the pew or even home, and thought maybe that’s how the church can work out problems that may accrue, under direction of the bishop too.

I remember hearing one PP saying, if he had his way, the rails would be back and everyone would kneel and receive on the tongue.

But I think because we are accustomed to choice now, it wouldn’t be taken back there, yet I see no reason why rails and kneeling could not be reintroduced if the lay of the parish really wanted it.

Some of what I read made me think that some people do not like change, as far as I understand the Church has never changed it’s doctrine, we just have changes taking place to bring the church into a modern world view.
That picture in the link you provided is a different matter! And if someone is blatantly saying Christ is not in the bread and wine, then there is a problem.

 

[grannymh]

Like I told Peter, please join the thread that I hope to start in a couple of weeks. It will be something like “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?”.

I am a bit concerned about the question “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?”
It sounds bumpy.

Hopefully the source is from the Catholic religion itself and not from personal preferences being preached by public persons (no names are mentioned) who often use the internet as a stealth means of drawing people away from sound teachings.

It is very important to use the Catholic teachings on our intellective rational soul given directly by God at our conception.

 

[simpleas]

I am a bit concerned about the question “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?”
It sounds bumpy.

Hopefully the source is from the Catholic religion itself and not from personal preferences being preached by public persons (no names are mentioned) who often use the internet as a stealth means of drawing people away from sound teachings.

It is very important to use the Catholic teachings on our intellective rational soul given directly by God at our conception.

If you have time to read some of this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=879640&highlight=does+anyone+knowingly+willingly+reject+god

 

[grannymh]

If you have conclusive, unquestionable evidence that there is a “stealth arianist” in this world, do not refrain from action! Write the person and demand that they refrain from diminishing Christ’s divinity. If he or she does not respond to you, let me know, and I will support you Granny. If the person does not listen to the two of us, we go to the church. Be proactive, Granny! We do not have the authority nor the call to sow fear, but we do have the call to correct sin.

I must add, however, that before we even go after the sinner, we must forgive him. That is our first calling in these circumstances.

I forgive everyone involved here who has been sowing fear. It’s okay, but people must either present a solid proof or end. I know of no “stealth arianists”. Again, the gospel provides a way of dealing with these matters, and it appears that Fr. Heilman has chosen an alternative. I do not hold it against him, but there are more Christian ways of behaving, where we do unto others as we would have others do unto us.

Go for it Granny! Find the arianist! I’m with you!

“The mission of the Church in this age is to share the gift of the Gospel with the people of this time in history.” This quotation is on page 47 of the book Rediscovering Catholicism by Matthew Kelly.

Since this is a public message board, I wish to share the gift of the Gospel with the readers.

The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 23. usccb.org/bible/luke/23

33When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left.q

34[Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”]* They divided his garments by casting lots.r

35The people stood by and watched; the rulers, meanwhile, sneered at him and said,s “He saved others, let him save himself if he is the chosen one, the Messiah of God.”t

36Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/23#50023036-u”) 37they called out, “If you are King of the Jews, save yourself.”

“Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
​

In the midst of those who doubted that He is the Messiah of God, Jesus Divinely loved all the people. In these words, “Father, forgive them,” we find that the Divinity of Jesus includes unquestionable mercy.

Today’s Arianism presents Christ’s forgiveness of the crowd’s sins as meaning that Christ automatically forgives all sins so that all sinners, including present ones, do not have to do a thing besides smiling. What is gently left out of the picture of Jesus hanging bloody, is the fact that Jesus’s Divinity also includes the power to understand each person’s spiritual soul, including the state of that soul, including the ability or lack of ability to commit a grave sin aka mortal sin, including the human power to freely reject God.

In real life … scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1730.htm
"God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.”

​

What is left out of some interpretations of Christ’s words of forgiveness is that Christ Divinely knows if the sinners seek forgiveness and mercy, or if they reject God completely. What is left out is the individual divine interaction between Christ and each individual person. Each individual person has the intellective free choice of accepting and loving God or rejecting and mortally disobeying God. God recognizes human’s choices which include the choice to remain in a relationship with the Creator or the choice to shatter that relationship by scorning the Creator.

 

[PTL]

Today’s Arianism presents Christ’s forgiveness of the crowd’s sins as meaning that Christ automatically forgives all sins so that all sinners, including present ones, do not have to do a thing besides smiling.

I think many want to paint such a picture to mislead people, so they could throw away the concept of sin.

Satan’s best trick is to let people believe he does not exist. And Satan’s goal is to let people think all is well, there is no such a thing called sin. So many could end up with him in hell. Thus Satan will get what he wants.

 

[steve_b]

romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/

Consider this sobering analysis of our present condition from columnist Jeffrey Kuhner at the** Washington Times**:

For the past 50 years, every major institution has been captured by the radical secular left. The media, Hollywood, TV, universities, public schools, theater, the arts, literature — they relentlessly promote the false gods of sexual hedonism and radical individualism. Conservatives have ceded the culture to the enemy. Tens of millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered; illegitimacy rates have soared; divorce has skyrocketed; pornography is rampant; drug use has exploded; sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS have killed millions; birth control is a way of life; sex outside of wedlock has become the norm; countless children have been permanently damaged — their innocence lost forever — because of the proliferation of broken homes; and sodomy and homosexuality are celebrated openly. America has become the new Babylon.

I agree with Jeffrey Kuhner .

It’s no doubt why Jesus said, few make it to heaven, ergo the rest go to hell

Mt 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few

 

[PTL]

Universalism: Christianity’s Killer:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/universalism-christianitys-killer

 

[grannymh]

Universalism: Christianity’s Killer:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/universalism-christianitys-killer

Universalism – The kind which means that everyone is going to heaven. I have seen this quietly promoted (in a stealth way) as “love.”

People are not stupid as the link in post 154 says. patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/universalism-christianitys-killer
“They’ve drawn the obvious conclusion that they therefore don’t need to go to church, or that it doesn’t matter what church they go to. If everybody’s going to heaven there is no such thing as mortal sin and if there’s no such thing as mortal sin why bother with God, religion, Jesus, Mary and Mass?”

There’s that big happy tent again where everyone is in communion with each other because annoying Catholic doctrines are not permitted inside. That is exactly the dangerous imprudent “eirenism” which Pius XII opposes in paragraphs 11 & 12 in Humani Generis. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Could the “lack of awareness” idea be part of universalism? Because it obscures the real meaning of human’s free choice in regard to the human relationship with the Creator God. This reminds me of the simple question – “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?” As I think about it, that is probably a stretch. So skip that idea. Yet, there could be a slight connection between “lack of awareness” and “knowingly and willingly.” ? ? ?

 

[simpleas]

Having social evenings youth groups soup kitchens etc is all part of doing what Jesus taught. Paying taxes does not ensure your money takes care of people in need.

As for everyone getting to heaven, why not? Seriously I need to understand why we don’t trust in God’s mercy for all.

 

[grannymh]

Having social evenings youth groups soup kitchens etc is all part of doing what Jesus taught. Paying taxes does not ensure your money takes care of people in need.

As for everyone getting to heaven, why not? Seriously I need to understand why we don’t trust in God’s mercy for all.

There is no issue about God’s mercy because universalism’s “everyone has automatic entrance into heaven” denies the state of mortal sin.
Why not spit in God’s face – heaven is already assured by universalism.

It should be obvious that the Catholic teaching is that everyone has the possibility of getting into heaven.

 

[simpleas]

There is no issue about God’s mercy because universalism’s “everyone has automatic entrance into heaven” denies the state of mortal sin.
Why not spit in God’s face – heaven is already assured by universalism.

It should be obvious that the Catholic teaching is that everyone has the possibility of getting into heaven.

I’m not sure if universalism assures everyone gets to heaven, but I’ve read it means that ALL people will be reconciled to God.

“All died in Adam and All are made alive in Christ”.

If in mortal sin then one relies on God’s mercy even more, but of course one would need to believe in mortal sin to begin with.