Being spiritually strong regarding stealth attacks against our Faith

[grannymh]

It is not only controversial authors who come among us as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Matthew 7:15. Similar tactics of omitting or downplaying some part of the Catholic truth can appear in posts by ordinary folk who have been influenced by…who has been influenced by…

With the internet as king, we cannot help reading the bad with the good. We need to maintain our spiritual strength so that we can spot the wolf’s stealth attacks within or next to valid Catholic teachings. We can do this by seriously reviewing our Catholic doctrines. Then, we need to kindly and respectfully point out the problems.

This thread depends on readers bringing questionable teachings here.

Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

From post 178, in thread Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

Originally Posted by tskrobacz forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation. We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed. "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst give him to drink (Rom. 12:20) Nowhere is service more necessary or more blessed than when we serve our enemies. How does love conquer? By asking not how the enemy treats her but only how Jesus treated her. The love of our enemies takes us along the way of the cross and into fellowship with the Crucified. As Thomas Merton says: “Our job is to Love without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy - that is not our business, and in fact, it is nobody’s business. What we are asked to do is love and this love itself will render both ourselves and our neighbors (or enemies) worthy, if anything can.”

Thank you for that explanation.

“Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” sounds like an acceptable definition especially when it is followed by “We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed.” which is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

However, with all the words about love, I wonder how many readers recognized that “Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the Catholic Church.

 

[grannymh]

However, with all the words about love, I wonder how many readers recognized that “Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the Catholic Church.

We need not focus on “absorbing evil” because that term can be used in a number of different ways.

What needs to be recognized is that there are some people who want to omit or downplay some difficult essential Catholic doctrines so that everyone can be comfortable with their own preferred beliefs, teachings, and practices. It sounds like a do-it-yourself religion where everyone can “break bread together” in a “big tent.”

“Avoiding confrontation with evil” becomes a good thing because flat out
truth-containing confrontation can make the listener uncomfortable. And we would look bad if we asked someone, who serves others in love, to stop and think about what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Sacrament of Matrimony, the Real Presence, or the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. Avoiding confrontation, especially when it comes to basic Catholic doctrines, is one of the ways to bring about progressive Christianity or the emerging Church or any of other “spiritual” titles which basically mean out with the old and in with everyone’s new.

Avoiding confrontation because of fueling evil is a good example of a stealth attack. It eliminates the desire for deeper study of what is evil and what is good – which is necessary for a strong spirituality, especially when we need to clarify some basic Catholic teachings. Our spiritual eyes need to be wide open in this cold indifferent world.

 

[simpleas]

I was checking out the thread Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr when I realised it was five years old!
I haven’t read all that thread, but I did wonder what the quotes held that Fr R had written, I haven’t come across a writing by him yet that has him quoted as saying absorb evil.

It is interesting the word Absorbing, my first thought about the word was that is means to soak up, take in, and I now wonder what Fr R meant by that.

What I don’t think he was saying (although I can’t be sure) is to “get into evil” or something like that, but maybe being able to be around evil, which we all are in different ways, and be able not to fuel the evil by confronting it peacefully.

Just my thoughts on a saturday afternoon

 

[grannymh]

Here is a good idea. Beginning with the positive instead of a problem is the healthiest and most hopeful way to find wholeness.

Looking for the positive – we can find some interesting suggestions. For example. Genesis begins with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. This suggestion to view only original blessings and certainly not the obnoxious Original Sin has been a winner for decades. It is still strong as an effective stealth attack against some basic fundamental Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Here is an interesting description of a stealth attack --The Church became preoccupied with the fly in the ointment. I did google “fly in the ointment” and the meaning is still the same. The exhortation goes something like this. The real Christianity must build on a foundation of original goodness (Colossians 1:15-29) not on a foundation of an original curse or sin. Service to others, as Jesus taught, is primary over doctrine.

The above is a brief summary of some ideas relating to the current push to make the first three chapters of Genesis easier, that is, omit some important doctrines ultimately relating to the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Paragraph 389, last sentence, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

“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.”

Stealth attacks may look like a bunch of organic apples. But long range … We will be looking at the Redeemer.

Links to the Catechism.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[simpleas]

Thy is confused

I thought we were going to discuss absorbing evil and what that actually means, but you have changed it to “the fly in the ointment” comment from another thread?

 

[grannymh]

Thy is confused

I thought we were going to discuss absorbing evil and what that actually means, but you have changed it to “the fly in the ointment” comment from another thread?

Going back to post 2. The first line is:
“From post 178, in thread Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr”
Originally Posted by tskrobacz forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation. We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed. "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst give him to drink (Rom. 12:20) Nowhere is service more necessary or more blessed than when we serve our enemies. How does love conquer? By asking not how the enemy treats her but only how Jesus treated her. The love of our enemies takes us along the way of the cross and into fellowship with the Crucified. As Thomas Merton says: “Our job is to Love without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy - that is not our business, and in fact, it is nobody’s business. What we are asked to do is love and this love itself will render both ourselves and our neighbors (or enemies) worthy, if anything can.”

Post 3 is where I first realized that the term “absorbing evil” can be used in a number of different ways. In addition, the important message was that we should avoid fueling evil. Then I went on to discuss the real issues of avoiding confrontation.

As I said in post 1:
This thread depends on readers bringing questionable teachings here.

Therefore, you would be welcomed to bring comments, questions, and/or teachings on “absorbing evil” here. Please do.

As I did in post 5, you can present a summary of the various ways or innuendoes used to dismiss the importance of a Catholic doctrine.

Looking forward to your post.

 

[simpleas]

I can’t find anything written about “absorbing evil”, so it may have been the posters way of expression.

If I find anything about “absorbing evil” I’ll come back to it, but for now I have nothing.

Confrontation on the other hand can escalate evil depending on how a person orders their words during a confrontation.

 

[grannymh]

I found the following in the Spirituality Forum thread “Julian of Norwich” post 20.
“If Lady Julian suffers from controversy, it is mostly from speculative commentators writing about her revelations, possibly to bolster their own ideas or an agenda. Sometimes they go too far in ascribing meaning to her work. It is important to try to find a good translation of her archaic middle English, or to read several translations in order to get the gist of what she tells us, and to see where translator bias might be slipping in.”

Those who wish to discuss Julian’s writings should do so in her own thread.

What is pertinent to this thread is the reference to “speculative commentators writing about her revelations, possibly to bolster their own ideas or an agenda.”

It is obvious that in the age of the blog, there are as many speculative commentators about the Catholic religion as there are mosquitoes in summer. What needs to be questioned are the references, however slight or poetically creative, to a standard Catholic teaching. Is a particular reference based on a true complete understanding of a particular Catholic doctrine? “Complete” is the operative word. For example, the Catholic doctrine on the Most Holy Trinity which is that there are three, not more, Persons in one Divine nature.

Completeness may cover numerous Catholic teachings like the one which explains the State of Sanctifying Grace which refers to our relationship with God by which we share, not become, in God’s life.

Information source. CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; Genesis 1: 27; CCC paragraphs 355-356 and paragraph 343.

 

[simpleas]

We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin

As Jesus died and rose again, becoming the new Adam, banishing death and showing the love and Mercy of God the Father rather than the wrath, would the above quote not be a place to start?

We know from the beginning everything was good, all that was created and even man. So there is always the original goodness, that never faded completely.

Quote from : myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

 

[grannymh]

We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin

As Jesus died and rose again, becoming the new Adam, banishing death and showing the love and Mercy of God the Father rather than the wrath, would the above quote not be a place to start?

We know from the beginning everything was good, all that was created and even man. So there is always the original goodness, that never faded completely.

Quote from : myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

Clarification please

Regarding “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Is this related to general Christianity or to a particular religion?

 

[simpleas]

Clarification please

Regarding “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Is this related to general Christianity or to a particular religion?

As you know it is written by a Catholic priest, but my guess is that it is for everyone to reflect on.

 

[grannymh]

Clarification please

Regarding “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” Is this related to general Christianity or to a particular religion?

As you know it is written by a Catholic priest, but my guess is that it is for everyone to reflect on.

Everything on the internet is for everyone to reflect on.

Going back some years on CAF, there was a brief discussion about an author who published a book in which some chapters did not match the author’s religion which appeared to be Catholic. I am now very hesitant about assuming that every word written by a public commentator on things religious is about Catholicism.

Seems to me that the only way to determine the direction of this very interesting comment *** “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” *** is for people to comment on it.

Comments from post 10
We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.
As Jesus died and rose again, becoming the new Adam, banishing death and showing the love and Mercy of God the Father rather than the wrath, would the above quote not be a place to start?

We know from the beginning everything was good, all that was created and even man. So there is always the original goodness, that never faded completely.

 

[simpleas]

Everything on the internet is for everyone to reflect on.

Going back some years on CAF, there was a brief discussion about an author who published a book in which some chapters did not match the author’s religion which appeared to be Catholic. I am now very hesitant about assuming that every word written by a public commentator on things religious is about Catholicism.

Seems to me that the only way to determine the direction of this very interesting comment *** “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” *** is for people to comment on it.

Comments from post 10
We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.
As Jesus died and rose again, becoming the new Adam, banishing death and showing the love and Mercy of God the Father rather than the wrath, would the above quote not be a place to start?

We know from the beginning everything was good, all that was created and even man. So there is always the original goodness, that never faded completely.

I am now very hesitant about assuming that every word written by a public commentator on things religious is about Catholicism.

Good point.

 

[grannymh]

Here is one of those wonderfully sounding statements which hides a lot of confusion.
“There is room for a variety of approaches in our great Church, in our great world.”
Our “great Church” and our “great world” – Who would want to challenge that? :bowdown:

Challenge? The real challenge is to dig up the information regarding that variety of approaches. Considering that the Catholic Church has Seven Sacraments, its members have the most to lose when being in comfortable community with different belief systems is valued more than some Catholic teachings like the importance of seeking God’s forgiveness or the importance of loving worship of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Beware of the red flag.
“There is room for a variety of approaches in our great Church, in our great world.”

 

[Memaw]

From post 178, in thread Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

Thank you for that explanation.

“Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” sounds like an acceptable definition especially when it is followed by “We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed.” which is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

However, with all the words about love, I wonder how many readers recognized that “Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the Catholic Church.

AMEN! And that’s just what they want us to do, sit down, shut up and “love” them. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I can’t find anything written about “absorbing evil”, so it may have been the posters way of expression.

If I find anything about “absorbing evil” I’ll come back to it, but for now I have nothing.

Confrontation on the other hand can escalate evil depending on how a person orders their words during a confrontation.

Confrontation doesn’t have to mean arguing or anger. It can mean defending the Faith. I have talked to many protestants over the years that tried to tell me “what I believe”. When I tried to explain what I really believe, they became very defensive and at times angry saying I was just trying to deny it. No reasoning at all, so I just ended the discussion. God Bless, Memaw

 

[simpleas]

Confrontation doesn’t have to mean arguing or anger. It can mean defending the Faith. I have talked to many protestants over the years that tried to tell me “what I believe”. When I tried to explain what I really believe, they became very defensive and at times angry saying I was just trying to deny it. No reasoning at all, so I just ended the discussion. God Bless, Memaw

What does this have to do with absorbing evil?

 

[simpleas]

From post 178, in thread Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

Thank you for that explanation.

“Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” sounds like an acceptable definition especially when it is followed by “We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed.” which is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

However, with all the words about love, I wonder how many readers recognized that “Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the Catholic Church.

Thinking on this, Jesus didn’t confront people in every teaching I have read. When asked something he never answered the question right out, he told a story. He didn’t talk at people, he talked with them.
So ok, we need not be all lovely in what we say, sometimes things have to be said, pointed out quite clearly that a situation is wrong. But most of the time when we talk with people, avoiding confrontation, the out come can be better. If we go at people “with all guns blazing” people are more likely to become confrontational, or just walk away.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

From post 178, in thread Absorbing Evil and Fr. Richard Rohr

Thank you for that explanation.

“Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” sounds like an acceptable definition especially when it is followed by “We must love not only in thought and in word, but in deed.” which is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

However, with all the words about love, I wonder how many readers recognized that “Absorbing evil means avoiding fueling it by confrontation.” is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the Catholic Church.