Luman Fidei encyclical letter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Norwich12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paduard said:
"So possibly Pope Francis was implying that each of us would have to undergo a mini – transfiguration in order to take on the eyes and mind of Christ."

So I don’t think that we are speaking here (at least I am not) of shunning or anything otherwise directed to other human beings, even though what you say is correct in the spiritual sense. No - what we are talking about here is how we SEE others through the eyes of Jesus [albeit through a glass darkly] and if one can advance sufficiently through our individual love of Him we can SEE especially those for example who we dislike etc. and then form a quite different sight according to the eyes of Christ…and so on.

God Bless
Paduard
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t command us to see people differently with our eyes, or even to feel differently about them. Rather, he demands that we recognize their status as children of God, and respect that with our moral actions; not for their sake (they deserve no good treatment by their actions,) but for the sake of your own soul, and the hope that they may see your good works, and give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.

Man has value only in his relationship to God, from whom all value derives. Every time mortal man starts to get full of himself, or arrogate to himself a central place in his relationship to God, I’m filled with revulsion at the sight. Man has nothing to offer God, and he should come to realize this.

It’s also important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not a “personality cult,” which hangs on the words of each individual Pope, no matter what he may say. Even if the Pope were to stand in front of cameras from every nation in the world, and scream blasphemous heresies from dawn until dusk at the top of his lungs, not one dot of the Law of God would change, and not one teaching of the Church would change. These things come to us from the unchangeable nature of God, not from the Pope. He merely ratifies and guarantees them, by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, whatever the Pope may say or do, we must remember that it is first and foremost Jesus who we must concern ourselves with. Our relationship with -him- is the important one.
 
Here is a section of the Encylical that emphasizes that faith should not be only a personal journey to Jesus, but a whole community of believers helping each other.
This the Church.
  1. It is impossible to believe on our own. Faith is not simply an individual decision which takes place in the depths of the believer’s heart, nor a completely private relationship between the “I” of the believer and the divine “Thou”, between an autonomous subject and God. By its very nature, faith is open to the “We” of the Church; it always takes place within her communion. We are reminded of this by the dialogical format of the creed used in the baptismal liturgy. Our belief is expressed in response to an invitation, to a word which must be heard and which is not my own; it exists as part of a dialogue and cannot be merely a profession originating in an individual. We can respond in the singular — “I believe” — only because we are part of a greater fellowship, only because we also say “We believe”. This openness to the ecclesial “We” reflects the openness of God’s own love, which is not only a relationship between the Father and the Son, between an “I” and a “Thou”, but is also, in the Spirit, a “We”, a communion of persons. Here we see why those who believe are never alone, and why faith tends to spread, as it invites others to share in its joy. Those who receive faith discover that their horizons expand as new and enriching relationships come to life. Tertullian puts this well when he describes the catechumens who, “after the cleansing which gives new birth” are welcomed into the house of their mother and, as part of a new family, pray the Our Father together with their brothers and sisters.[34]
This is the way, the truth, and the Light of Faith.
 
Norwich12 said:
Here is a section of the Encylical that emphasizes that faith should not be only a personal journey to Jesus, but a whole community of believers helping each other.
This the Church.
  1. It is impossible to believe on our own. Faith is not simply an individual decision which takes place in the depths of the believer’s heart, nor a completely private relationship between the “I” of the believer and the divine “Thou”, between an autonomous subject and God. By its very nature, faith is open to the “We” of the Church; it always takes place within her communion. We are reminded of this by the dialogical format of the creed used in the baptismal liturgy. Our belief is expressed in response to an invitation, to a word which must be heard and which is not my own; it exists as part of a dialogue and cannot be merely a profession originating in an individual. We can respond in the singular — “I believe” — only because we are part of a greater fellowship, only because we also say “We believe”. This openness to the ecclesial “We” reflects the openness of God’s own love, which is not only a relationship between the Father and the Son, between an “I” and a “Thou”, but is also, in the Spirit, a “We”, a communion of persons. Here we see why those who believe are never alone, and why faith tends to spread, as it invites others to share in its joy. Those who receive faith discover that their horizons expand as new and enriching relationships come to life. Tertullian puts this well when he describes the catechumens who, “after the cleansing which gives new birth” are welcomed into the house of their mother and, as part of a new family, pray the Our Father together with their brothers and sisters.[34]
This is the way, the truth, and the Light of Faith.
Click to expand...
You’re right. The Church should be a whole community of believers helping each other. It’s often not, however. Sometimes, one can walk into a church and find oneself among a whole community of bold heretics, perfectly content to yack about how wonderful it is to be there with -one another- and how God accepts everyone no matter what, and never demands anything of anyone, and yadda yadda yadda.

The sacraments are needed in order for a person to get to Heaven, and in this sense, even if you have to receive them from heretics, it’s better than not receiving them at all, but this is a choice of evils. What evils will you brave, in your quest for eternal salvation? A person, it seems, must be a saint from birth, in order to retain their faith in some of these parishes.

And speaking of people who were saints, and speaking also of how it’s “impossible to believe on our own,” unless he’s talking about the necessity of the Holy Spirit to provide the grace to believe, a statement like that would be a condemnation of St John of the Cross, St John Fisher, St Joan of Arc, St Thomas Moore and many others, who died very, very alone and abandoned by everyone -except- God and the saints. Yet, did they lose faith because of this? I think the answer is; clearly not.

I’m sorry. I just don’t find this convincing. Keep in mind; I live dead center in Massachusetts where things are at their worst, and have been craving the times of the Old Testament God for virtually my whole life because of it. I’ve had to study theology intensely, just to hold onto my own faith, and every lesson in the faith that I’ve ever learned, which has been worth learning, has either been written by people who were dead before I was born, or else been delivered to me through non-standard writers in magazines and on the internet, so I just don’t take kindly to all this self-congratulatory talk about the wonderful things that those in my church have done for me.

It’s -God- we should be thankful to. The rest of mankind -does not- deserve eternal salvation, or even meager satisfaction. The very fact that God wants to give it to some of us anyway (and has somehow found a way to do it without committing an injustice) is one of the greatest miracles of all.
 
MTP2 stated:

“Jesus didn’t command us to see people differently with our eyes, or even to feel differently about them.”

I feel MTP2 that you are missing the point in this dialogue. We are not speaking of seeing people differently with our eyes, but through the eyes of Christ. Quite a different proposition.

Paduard
 
paduard said:
MTP2 stated:

“Jesus didn’t command us to see people differently with our eyes, or even to feel differently about them.”

I feel MTP2 that you are missing the point in this dialogue. We are not speaking of seeing people differently with our eyes, but through the eyes of Christ. Quite a different proposition.

Paduard
Click to expand...
I hope you’ll forgive me, but I suspect you don’t mean this statement to be taken literally, so it must have some metaphorical significance that I’m still missing. Are you more or less saying what I said when I replied…

“Rather, he demands that we recognize their status as children of God, and respect that with our moral actions; not for their sake (they deserve no good treatment by their actions,) but for the sake of your own soul, and the hope that they may see your good works, and give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.”

…Or did I misinterpret you?
 
mytruepower2 said:
I hope you’ll forgive me, but I suspect you don’t mean this statement to be taken literally, so it must have some metaphorical significance that I’m still missing. Are you more or less saying what I said when I replied…

“Rather, he demands that we recognize their status as children of God, and respect that with our moral actions; not for their sake (they deserve no good treatment by their actions,) but for the sake of your own soul, and the hope that they may see your good works, and give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.”

…Or did I misinterpret you?
Click to expand...
Thank you for that MTP2. I admit that I had some difficulty in trying to explain my thoughts. Perhaps we might agree that there is something in saying that the sense I am speaking lies somewhat in the middle of each of our statements.

However let me put something to you and ask for your reaction. It is this; and I have put it in italics for your and others convenience regarding identification:-

*However on the whole my reading by instinct is we should not concern ourselves with the ‘I’, so to speak, but more so with the ‘other’ (as distinct from the ‘self’).

Pope Benedict referred directly to the ‘other’ within the general context of his Encyclical Deus Caritas Est. For example - when discussing the question of Eros & Agape - I am reminded of his phrase:

“love for the other that no longer seeks itself but that becomes concern for the other”.

I therefore re-iterate the suggestion that ‘configuredto Jesus, does not imply any direction. We do not face Christ, nor do we follow behind Him (e.g. as in his footsteps) – but what we achieve is a kind of - being within Christ (e.g. similar to baptism where we are buried with Christ).

In other words configuredto is a state. And as a state it is not in my opinion an infused state as in contemplation, but a state by ‘gift’ so to speak open to all Christians – Catholics and non-Catholics alike - according to their individual love of Christ and hopefully therefrom to rest in God’s good will.*

Indeed I respect your contributions, as no doubt you do mine. I would welcome a critical response for that is what debate is all about.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Paduard
 
paduard said:
Thank you for that MTP2. I admit that I had some difficulty in trying to explain my thoughts. Perhaps we might agree that there is something in saying that the sense I am speaking lies somewhat in the middle of each of our statements.

However let me put something to you and ask for your reaction. It is this; and I have put it in italics for your and others convenience regarding identification:-

However on the whole my reading by instinct is we should not concern ourselves with the ‘I’, so to speak, but more so with the ‘other’ (as distinct from the ‘self’).

Pope Benedict referred directly to the ‘other’ within the general context of his Encyclical Deus Caritas Est. For example - when discussing the question of Eros & Agape - I am reminded of his phrase:

“love for the other that no longer seeks itself but that becomes concern for the other”.

I therefore re-iterate the suggestion that ‘configuredto Jesus, does not imply any direction. We do not face Christ, nor do we follow behind Him (e.g. as in his footsteps) – but what we achieve is a kind of - being within Christ (e.g. similar to baptism where we are buried with Christ).

In other words configuredto is a state. And as a state it is not in my opinion an infused state as in contemplation, but a state by ‘gift’ so to speak open to all Christians – Catholics and non-Catholics alike - according to their individual love of Christ and hopefully therefrom to rest in God’s good will.

Indeed I respect your contributions, as no doubt you do mine. I would welcome a critical response for that is what debate is all about.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Paduard
Click to expand...
I agree with you that that would be a gift, as all things are a gift from God.

However, it’s a gift in another way as well; namely, it’s humanly impossible. No person can enact this type of behavior by wishing to. It has to be given to them.

Finally, I should point out that I’ve never seen any good evidence that our motives must be entirely selfless in order for our actions to be good and holy. Evil intentions, in the sense of planning to do evil, is sinful, but motives? Not how I read it.

Jesus didn’t talk about motives. He talked about people’s actions; the things they chose. From this, and the relevant entries in the Catechism and the Summa Theologica, I’ve concluded that sins are always acts of the will. Nobody sins without committing to a course of action by their will, whether that action is physical or not. The -decision- is the sinful part.

This was a question that I asked on these boards a while back; suppose someone heard the parable of the Pearl of Great Price, and took is absolutely literally. He spends his life serving others, sacrificing, preaching the word of God, and being faithful, then repenting almost immediately after sins, and frequenting the sacraments. In fact, he does all that any Catholic Saint might be expected to do, including works of incredible charity for others. Yet, through it all, it is the pearl that drives him on. It’s the pearl that he wants. He thinks of his reward in pearl-shape, and has no understanding of all this stuff about the physical versus the spiritual, pleasure vs happiness, etc… He’s too busy trying to get that pearl.

At the end of his life, he makes a good confession and receives Our Lord in the eucharist, all the while dreaming about the pearl. Now, does this man go to Hell, merely because his motive was a pearl, rather than the wellbeing of others? I’ve yet to hear a good argument that he would.

Again, I think we need to be a bit careful when talking about things that aren’t necessary for salvation; that we don’t make them seem like they are.
 
“Again, I think we need to be a bit careful when talking about things that aren’t necessary for salvation; that we don’t make them seem like they are.”

Yes I agree with you on that MTP2; and that e.g. science and communication etc. come under that category. Such was initiated by Norwich 12 and entered into by myself.

However I do not think we have been making them seem like they are necessary for salvation, and cannot recall anywhere in the posts that this was being suggested. It is for example quite obvious that trying to understand transubstantiation is not necessary in that regard, but to offer it up for discussion (as Aquinas did) is not necessary to be in error.

Paduard.
 
paduard said:
“Again, I think we need to be a bit careful when talking about things that aren’t necessary for salvation; that we don’t make them seem like they are.”

Yes I agree with you on that MTP2; and that e.g. science and communication etc. come under that category. Such was initiated by Norwich 12 and entered into by myself.

However I do not think we have been making them seem like they are necessary for salvation, and cannot recall anywhere in the posts that this was being suggested. It is for example quite obvious that trying to understand transubstantiation is not necessary in that regard, but to offer it up for discussion (as Aquinas did) is not necessary to be in error.

Paduard.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It might be -unwise- for a person to get into discussion over a topic of the faith they’re not familiar with themselves, but it’s not as though it’s a sin. Approaches to how one preaches the faith vary widely, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided the core doctrines are adhered to.

As for science, I would certainly never claim that it’s needed for salvation, but rather, that science -supports- the truths of the faith. However, if a person is actually willing to -reject science,- (not just certain findings, but science itself,) then I, for one, would be careful around them, as they’re more likely to reject legitimate religious authority as well, I think. I know at least one person on these very boards who’s like that.
 
Thank you MTP2. Regarding science and religion, my knowledge of neuroanatomy led me to believe that there is a correlation.

Decades ago I wrote a piece about the symbolic language in the last 2 chapers of the Book of Revelation and specific structures of the human brain and skull base.

There are definite similarities.
 
mytruepower2 said:
Agreed. It might be -unwise- for a person to get into discussion over a topic of the faith they’re not familiar with themselves, but it’s not as though it’s a sin. Approaches to how one preaches the faith vary widely, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided the core doctrines are adhered to.

As for science, I would certainly never claim that it’s needed for salvation, but rather, that science -supports- the truths of the faith. However, if a person is actually willing to -reject science,- (not just certain findings, but science itself,) then I, for one, would be careful around them, as they’re more likely to reject legitimate religious authority as well, I think. I know at least one person on these very boards who’s like that.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that reply MTP2; perhaps Norwich 12 would indicate, in his own good time, the similarities he referred to above.

Paduard
 
Thank you Paduard.

Over the next couple weeks I will give my neuroanatomical
comparisons and interpretations of the symbols of the closing two chapters of the Bible—
Revelation 21 & 22.

I will use texts from the Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible.
 
REVELATION 21:1-3

*Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them (as their God).” *

New American Bible
“…a bride adorned for her husband.”

The bridal gown is traditionally white to represent purity.
In my experience in neurosurgery, regardless of race, nationality, or gender – the skull is always white. In my experience in orthopaedic surgery, the bones are always white.
“…God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people…”

The brain is the engine of the mind. The mind is part of the soul. The image of God is in every human soul. God is with us.

View attachment 18599

This is the interior of the base of the human skull. The front is at the top of the picture.
The hole near the back is where the brainstem is connected to the spinal cord which goes down the spinal canal so that the brain controls the body and receives signals from the body.

(The opinions expressed are my own).
More interpretations to follow next week.
 
Norwich12 said:
REVELATION 21:1-3

*Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them (as their God).” *

New American Bible
“…a bride adorned for her husband.”

The bridal gown is traditionally white to represent purity.
In my experience in neurosurgery, regardless of race, nationality, or gender – the skull is always white. In my experience in orthopaedic surgery, the bones are always white.
“…God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people…”

The brain is the engine of the mind. The mind is part of the soul. The image of God is in every human soul. God is with us.

View attachment 18599

This is the interior of the base of the human skull. The front is at the top of the picture.
The hole near the back is where the brainstem is connected to the spinal cord which goes down the spinal canal so that the brain controls the body and receives signals from the body.

(The opinions expressed are my own).
More interpretations to follow next week.
Click to expand...
Good for you Norwich 12. Pending more interpretions to follow, the only observation I would make is that at the second-coming all our bodies will rise, and they will rise to fit our human physics so to speak.

Paduard
 
Continuing from post 113:

REVELATION 21: 5-6 (New American Bible)

*The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then he said, “Write these words down, for they are trustworthy and true.”
He said to me, "They are accomplished. I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. *

“The one who sat on the throne….”

In my previous post, note the saddle shaped structure in the center of the base of the skull. That is the Sella Turcica (“Turkish saddle”) where the pituitary, the Master Gland of. the brain sits

View attachment 18614

“…I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.”

The brain contains cavities called ventricles and aqueducts to transport the clear watery cerebro-spinal fluid to the spinal canal. The watery fluid has 3 main functions: protective cushioning of the brain, transporting hormones to the brain, and getting rid of wastes.

Notice in the diagram of the side view of the brain, that the watery cerebro-spinal fluid in the ventricular system passes over the Sella Turcica. This arrangement is is similar to the Biblical symbol— like a throne with water coming from it.

View attachment 18615

Please skip ahead to the final chapter of the Bible, Revelation 22:1.

“Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water, sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…”

IMO the human brain is a microcosm of the Heavenly City, the New Jerusalem.
_____________________________________

More to come later this week….
 
REVELATION CHAPTER 21: 9-12
  1. One of the seven angels that had the seven bowls full of the seven final plagues came to speak to me and said, ‘Come here and I will show you the bride that the Lamb has married.’
  2. In the spirit, he carried me to the top of a very high mountain, and showed me Jerusalem, the holy city, coming down out of heaven from God.
  3. It had all the glory of God and glittered like some precious jewel of crystal-clear diamond.
    –----------------
    The physical propterty of a diamond is its brilliance and its hardness. It if the hardest of the jewels.

The Skull bone is very hard also and brilliant.​

  1. Its wall was of a great height and had twelve gates; at each of the twelve gates there was an angel, and over the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel;
I will post pictures and diagrams of the inside of the base of the skull. Twelve pairs of cranial nerves exit the skull through foramina (gates).
 
Very interesting contributions Norwich 12; you deal with the science/material physics most professionally. Please continue.

In the meantime I would comment that in my opinion, evenutally you will be drawn to address the questions posed by Duns Scotis on materiality and how they may connect - even with Revelations… Which I have dupliated below, just for reference so that any others do not have to hunt for it on some previous page put here:-

**Duns Scotis:
God alone is absolutely immaterial, since He alone is absolute and perfect actuality, without any potentiality for becoming other than what He is. All creatures, angels and human souls included, are material, because they are changeable and may become the subject of accidents. But from this it does not follow that souls and angels are corporeal; on the contrary they are spiritual, physically simple, though material in the sense just explained. Since all created things, corporeal and spiritual, are composed of potentiality and actuality, the same materia prima is the foundation of all, and therefore all things have a common substratum, a common material basis. This materia, in itself quite indeterminate, may be determined to any sort of thing by a form–a spiritual form determines it to a spirit, a corporeal form to a material body.

God Bless
Paduard
 
Thank you Paduard-- you always seek unity in ideas.
There is something about Materia Prima that reminds me
of Quantum Physics. Like in our early discussions of the
the Light of Faith-- how photons could be waves or particles.
I will present a paragraph tomorrow to show the similarities
in Philosophy and Physics.
 
I found a preview online. There is a chapter “Physics” in a book published in
2006. It was written by Antonie Vos.
The book title is “The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus.”

Here is the paragraph:

PREVIEW
This chapter analyses the ideas and thoughts of John Duns Scotus related to physics. It discusses Scotus’s theory of matter and theory of unity, and describes his view on the debate on the unicity or plurality of forms, which was a heated one in the thirteenth century. The chapter suggests that many creative lines in Scotus’s thought can be extended and extrapolated. An example of this is Axel Schmidt’s linking of Scotus’s contingency ontology to quantum theory by exploring the intimate connections between reality that is synchronically contingent and the ontological structures which quantum physics is in need of.
 
There is a pertinent article in Science Daily on March 14, 2013.
The title is "Electrons behave like a particle and a wave "

The first and last paragraphs are presented here:

Mar. 14, 2013 — The precise methodology of Richard Feynman’s famous double-slit thought-experiment – a cornerstone of quantum mechanics that showed how electrons behave as both a particle and a wave – has been followed in full for the very first time.​

Unlike sound waves and water waves, Feynman highlighted that when electrons are fired at the wall one at a time, an interference pattern is still produced. He went on to say that this phenomenon “has in it the heart of quantum physics [but] in reality, it contains the only mystery.”​

IMO there are parallels in what Paduard presented about the philosophy of
Duns Scotus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top