Ticked off...

[ncjohn]

Sherlock:

Just another thought, ncjohn, to add to the above:

This exchange reminds me of an incident in a Jeff Cavins Bible study group that I was in. A very nice woman asked, “Did you see the wonderful program on TV about Jesus’ brothers and sisters?” Another gal (who, like me, was an orthodox Catholic) flashed me a look (kinda like, “oh, boy, here we go again”) and said, very nicely, “But Jesus didn’t have brothers and sisters…” The response was, “Oh, but the program was so beautifully done.”

reen has been very nice and has expressed herself in a nice, often poetical manner. Does that mean that what she says is infallible, or beyond questioning? Nice happy thoughts are only as good as the philosophy underlying them. It’s easier to confront people who are openly attacking the Church, but that doesn’t mean that those who attack her in nice, poetical ways are not attacking her.

Well, I guess I’ll just have to give up. Out of your three posts almost every question I asked was either misinterpreted, twisted into something I didn’t say, or not answered. As to what this particular post has to do with any of it, I don’t really know.

Apparently the entire point of my posts–that one must be very careful when proposing to speak for God in handling the souls of his children–either didn’t get through or is not felt to be important. Since none of the end of my post is addressed, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. My posts really only address reen as a generic example of the way I often see things approached in this particular forum.

Let me try one more time: If one is humble enough to be coming here with their soul in their hand–no matter how misguided they may seem–and trusting people to shine God’s Truth, it would seem to me that anyone proposing to speak to them needs to very much have Jesus’s statement in mind that anyone who misleads one of these children would be better to have a millstone tied around their neck and be cast into the sea.

Contrary to what I understand you to say, apologetics isn’t “debate class” and all about reason; it’s about helping people find the answers to their questions to clarify for them the mind of God. Good teachers learn how to use different methods to help people who learn in different ways, and apologetics can be no different. If I advance the most brilliant argument ever made, 100% theologically correct, but do it in a way that the person walks away upset because of my presentation, then I have failed. It means that I was not the “face of God” to that person. If I am that face, they may still walk away in disbelief because they are either not yet psychologically prepared or because God has not yet given the grace necessary, but it won’t be because they weren’t shown love and respect. That leaves the door open to future chances; if they walk away mad, those chances are likely lost forever.

Unfortunately, too often here the second case is the norm and lost souls are the consequence.

I will stop at this point as I already feel my restraint being compromised and I really don’t want a lack of charity to cause ill feelings by doing exactly what I am trying to point out.

Peace,

 

[AquinasXVI]

NCJohn:

So in summary, if I get it straight, what you’re saying is:

Love without Truth is blind.
Truth without Love is a clashing cymbal.
-BXVI
in XT.

 

[Sherlock]

ncjohn:

Well, I guess I’ll just have to give up. Out of your three posts almost every question I asked was either misinterpreted, twisted into something I didn’t say, or not answered. As to what this particular post has to do with any of it, I don’t really know.

Apparently the entire point of my posts–that one must be very careful when proposing to speak for God in handling the souls of his children–either didn’t get through or is not felt to be important. Since none of the end of my post is addressed, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. My posts really only address reen as a generic example of the way I often see things approached in this particular forum.

Let me try one more time: If one is humble enough to be coming here with their soul in their hand–no matter how misguided they may seem–and trusting people to shine God’s Truth, it would seem to me that anyone proposing to speak to them needs to very much have Jesus’s statement in mind that anyone who misleads one of these children would be better to have a millstone tied around their neck and be cast into the sea.

Contrary to what I understand you to say, apologetics isn’t “debate class” and all about reason; it’s about helping people find the answers to their questions to clarify for them the mind of God. Good teachers learn how to use different methods to help people who learn in different ways, and apologetics can be no different. If I advance the most brilliant argument ever made, 100% theologically correct, but do it in a way that the person walks away upset because of my presentation, then I have failed. It means that I was not the “face of God” to that person. If I am that face, they may still walk away in disbelief because they are either not yet psychologically prepared or because God has not yet given the grace necessary, but it won’t be because they weren’t shown love and respect. That leaves the door open to future chances; if they walk away mad, those chances are likely lost forever.

Unfortunately, too often here the second case is the norm and lost souls are the consequence.

I will stop at this point as I already feel my restraint being compromised and I really don’t want a lack of charity to cause ill feelings by doing exactly what I am trying to point out.

Peace,

You say nothing that I disagree with. I have always been fond of St. Thomas’ sentiment (this might not be the exact quote, but is probably close): “Lord, in my love for truth, let me not forget the truth of love.” The problem is, you seem to be accusing me of not ageeing with you, and so therefore I must be responsible for lost souls—wow, that’s quite a charge! That’s hardly the case (as I do agree with your sentiments), but I wonder why you do not exhibit similar concern for those who would lead others astray (no matter how gently and luverly) by disparaging Jesus’ Church.

Please tell me just how I have “misinterpreted” or “twisted” “every question” you asked into something you didn’t say (your words). Please be specific: I cannot defend myself, or anyone else, against broad, vague, “feelings”—please give me specific examples of this misinterpetation and twisting. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps that is too much to ask of someone who appears to be very eager to condemn those who don’t toe the “nice” line.

 

[Sherlock]

AquinasXVI:

NCJohn:

So in summary, if I get it straight, what you’re saying is:

Love without Truth is blind.
Truth without Love is a clashing cymbal.
-BXVI
in XT.

Amen.

 

[Mickey]

ncjohn:

If one is humble enough to be coming here with their soul in their hand–no matter how misguided they may seem–and trusting people to shine God’s Truth, it would seem to me that anyone proposing to speak to them needs to very much have Jesus’s statement in mind that anyone who misleads one of these children would be better to have a millstone tied around their neck and be cast into the sea.

Yes! Discernment is imperative. And oh, how many times I have not used proper discernment.

But I am learning!

 

[fix]

Sherlock:

You say nothing that I disagree with. I have always been fond of St. Thomas’ sentiment (this might not be the exact quote, but is probably close): “Lord, in my love for truth, let me not forget the truth of love.” The problem is, you seem to be accusing me of not ageeing with you, and so therefore I must be responsible for lost souls—wow, that’s quite a charge! That’s hardly the case (as I do agree with your sentiments), but I wonder why you do not exhibit similar concern for those who would lead others astray (no matter how gently and luverly) by disparaging Jesus’ Church.

Please tell me just how I have “misinterpreted” or “twisted” “every question” you asked into something you didn’t say (your words). Please be specific: I cannot defend myself, or anyone else, against broad, vague, “feelings”—please give me specific examples of this misinterpetation and twisting. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps that is too much to ask of someone who appears to be very eager to condemn those who don’t toe the “nice” line.

Sherlock,

You have done a great job in defending your position. Reading this thread, to me, is one more example of the chronic debate here that claims any defense of the truth is mean spirited because the one receiving the truth “feels” slighted in some way. It is not always the fault of the person defending the truth, it may very well be the fault of the receiver.

I am not speaking about the person who started this thread. I am making a general statement. Many of us have thin skin and any explanation may be received as intolerable.

I see this all time when it comes to Church teaching. Even quoting a document may be seen as uncharitable. There is no one way that always works and sometimes no way works. The Spirit must open the person’s heart. We can only receive as much as we are willing to receive.

 

[ncjohn]

Sherlock:

Please tell me just how I have “misinterpreted” or “twisted” “every question” you asked into something you didn’t say (your words). Please be specific: I cannot defend myself, or anyone else, against broad, vague, “feelings”—please give me specific examples of this misinterpetation and twisting. I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps that is too much to ask of someone who appears to be very eager to condemn those who don’t toe the “nice” line.

Nope, I’m not accusing you of anything, nor am I condemning you or anyone else. I am doing nothing more than trying to make a general consructive criticism that if what is said is not said with loving concern for the listener’s wellbeing, it is an ego exercise and will be useless and counterproductive. Period. End of point.

As to specifics on misinterpretations, I make it a rule not to do this so as not to make things “personal” and be suspected of attacking someone. In spite of the condescending tone and language however, since you asked I’ll pick just one paragraph as an example.

Sherlock:

ncjohn:

Whether he is a favorite saint of yours or even everyone in the forums, I don’t see where that makes someone who esteems him less or questions some of what he wrote unsuitable for apologetics. As great a man as he was, he has not been proclaimed infallible and anyone is allowed to disagree with or question him just as you would be free to question their favorite saint. Many people for example deride my favorite saint, St Francis for refusing to engage in apologetics type issues at all, even though he brought about one of the biggest conversions in Church history. Am I allowed to “write them off” or proclaim them unfit to preach the gospel for not appreciating him? I think we’d both agree that making judgments based on one’s opinion of a particular saint is really just giving into our ego and reacting to our own "baggage

."

Sherlock:

Sorry, but you’re not making much sense. For starters, I have never posited that St. Thomas is infallible. He wasn’t, so why do you suggest that I think so? However, many popes (including Pope JPII, who advocated a return to the appreciation of his works) give him the “thumbs up”, and anyone (i.e, apologists) who has had to debate with atheists, etc., appreciate the marriage of faith and reason that Thomas presents. I like St. Francis too—he’s another of my favorite saint. You and reen see a conflict between the two. I don’t.

This is a prime example. Statement 1: You’re not making much sense. I gave this paragraph to 5 people and not one of them had any problem understanding what it meant or felt it didn’t make sense. I’m not sure what part of it didn’t make sense to you or why.
Statement 2: I have never posited that St. Thomas is infallible. He wasn’t, so why do you suggest that I think so? I never said anywhere in my post that I thought you did. What I said is that he is not and that anyone is allowed to disagree with him or question him.
Statement 3: I like St. Francis too—he’s another of my favorite saint. You and reen see a conflict between the two.I don’t. I can’t speak for reen, but I see no conflict at all and never said I did. I only used the comparison to highlight the major point that I think we’d both agree that making judgments based on one’s opinion of a particular saint is really just giving into our ego and reacting to our own "baggage."

Almost every response is based on these types of misinterpretations of what I said. Quite frankly though the one that scared me the most was the statement: God didn’t agree with reen or you. Out of another paragraph that totally missed the point, I hear you telling me that you speak for God and can tell me what he does and doesn’t agree with. I’d really be interested to know where that authority might come from.

I’m going to make one last comment, trying to say this kindly and constructively as I do not mean it to offend, only to help prevent future problems. While not as important as the concept of conducting yourself with true concern for the reader of your answer, if you are going to try to do apologetics, it is really important to make sure you understand the question you are trying to answer. If you misunderstand the question, you are likely to do two things: you are likely to give an answer that is wrong or unrelated to the question being asked; and/or you are going to react inappropriately to the question through not understanding it, which will be reflected in the response you give, resulting in a completely different result than you sought and increased confusion.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

AquinasXVI:

NCJohn:

So in summary, if I get it straight, what you’re saying is:

Love without Truth is blind.
Truth without Love is a clashing cymbal.
-BXVI
in XT.

Aquainas, I wish I could be as succinct as you. As a summary, that is pretty brilliant.

I unfortunately often suffer from diarrhea of the keyboard and can’t answer a “yes or no” question in less than 3 paragraphs.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Sherlock,

You have done a great job in defending your position. Reading this thread, to me, is one more example of the chronic debate here that claims any defense of the truth is mean spirited because the one receiving the truth “feels” slighted in some way. It is not always the fault of the person defending the truth, it may very well be the fault of the receiver.

fix,

I totally agree with you on this, as I think I said in the previous posts which I quote here:

I would suggest a couple of factors are in play here. First is the grace of God, which will make them more or less ready to receive any Truth. Jesus made it clear to Peter that it was his heavenly Father that made Peter ready to understand that Jesus was the Son of God, not any teaching from man.

A second is the “baggage” the person comes in with from their upbringing, the personal experiences with the Church and/or other Christians, and possibly what kind of day they’ve had prior to the exchange. There are days–heck moments–when I’m totally prepared to listen to you, and others when someone just crapped in my oatmeal when I’m not going to hear Jesus himself if he was standing next to me.

The third to me is the most important, and it is the dispostition of the messenger. As I said previously, if the messenger doesn’t truly have loving concern and a lack of condescension for the person the message is going to, it’s all about the messenger’s ego. People sense that very quickly, which is why some apologists here, whether professional or amateur, are very effective while others are totally ineffective.

I would never claim that it is always the apologist’s fault for the message not getting through, as that is only one part of the equation. I will claim though that an uncharitable attitude on the part of the apologist, which does not reflect a genuine concern for the recipient, will in almost all, if not all, cases produce a negative result.

When we take the souls of others into our care we must at all times remember that we’re in this together–both parties sinful and weak–and that both the apologist and the recipient are part of the same Body of Christ and each is called on to help the other carry their cross.

Peace,

 

[Mickey]

ncjohn:

I unfortunately often suffer from diarrhea of the keyboard

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

 

[Sherlock]

ncjohn,

Your comments in quotes; my responses follow.

“I am doing nothing more than trying to make a general consructive criticism that if what is said is not said with loving concern for the listener’s wellbeing, it is an ego exercise and will be useless and counterproductive. Period. End of point.”

I agree.

“This is a prime example. Statement 1: You’re not making much sense. I gave this paragraph to 5 people and not one of them had any problem understanding what it meant or felt it didn’t make sense. I’m not sure what part of it didn’t make sense to you or why.”

The five people you gave it to are obviously smarter than I am. This is what didn’t make sense to me: “Whether he is a favorite saint of yours or even everyone in the forums, I don’t see where that makes someone who esteems him less or questions some of what he wrote unsuitable for apologetics. As great a man as he was, he has not been proclaimed infallible and anyone is allowed to disagree with or question him just as you would be free to question their favorite saint.” It doesn’t make sense to me because I never suggested that not esteeming Aquinas makes someone “unsuitable” for apologetics. It would be highly unusual, given the nature of apologetics (certainly I have never come across a well-known apologist—or a “beginner” apologist—that thinks that Thomas distorted Jesus, as reen posits), but I didn’t say that that person would be “unsuitable”. I merely suggested that since reen doesn’t appear to care for the use of reasoned arguments for the faith (which is what apologetics is), partly evidenced by her contention that the Catholic Church, because of her esteem for Thomism, is leading people astray, that she go to the “Spirituality” forum—it might be more to her liking. She would probably find less of the reasoned defense of the faith, which is just what one would expect to find on an apologetics forum. That’s why your post didn’t make sense: it didn’t address anything I was saying, regardless of its independent coherence.

continued…

 

[Sherlock]

continued…

“I never said anywhere in my post that I thought you did. What I said is that he is not and that anyone is allowed to disagree with him or question him.”

Making a point of typing out the bloody obvious (that St. Thomas isn’t infallible and that people are free to question him) implies that those positions had been posited and that you are responding to them. Otherwise, why write it at all?

“I can’t speak for reen, but I see no conflict at all and never said I did. I only used the comparison to highlight the major point that I think we’d both agree that making judgments based on one’s opinion of a particular saint is really just giving into our ego and reacting to our own “baggage.””

It depends, doesn’t it, on what those opinions are: since the Catholic Church esteems Thomism and the marriage of faith and reason that it presents, the opinion that Thomism has been detrimental to the Church and distorts Jesus is a very revealing position. What you might not see, because of the “nice and sweet” packaging, is that this is an attack on the Church. It’s done gently and mildly, which is probably why you can’t see it. This has nothing to do with my ego or “baggage”: I defend the Catholic Church against unreasonable attacks, as much as I can.

“Quite frankly though the one that scared me the most was the statement: God didn’t agree with reen or you. Out of another paragraph that totally missed the point, I hear you telling me that you speak for God and can tell me what he does and doesn’t agree with. I’d really be interested to know where that authority might come from.”

This is bizarre. My comment about God not agreeing with you and reen was directly in response to the idea that because St. Thomas described his own writings (a very humble man) as “straw” relative to his mystical experiences, that those writings had no value. My comment was based on the account of an observer (Br. Reginald), who heard a voice from the crucifix saying, “You have written well of Me, Thomas”, during one of these experiences. If we can grant some credence to this account, then it would appear that God thought that St. Thomas had “written well”. This implies that St. Thomas’s writings are not straw, despite his humble appraisal. I’m not telling you that I speak for God—where did you get that??—but am relating the report of an observer.

“I’m going to make one last comment, trying to say this kindly and constructively as I do not mean it to offend, only to help prevent future problems. While not as important as the concept of conducting yourself with true concern for the reader of your answer, if you are going to try to do apologetics, it is really important to make sure you understand the question you are trying to answer. If you misunderstand the question, you are likely to do two things: you are likely to give an answer that is wrong or unrelated to the question being asked; and/or you are going to react inappropriately to the question through not understanding it, which will be reflected in the response you give, resulting in a completely different result than you sought and increased confusion.”

Yup. And it is also important to be able to see a position for what it is, and not be duped by pretty packaging.

 

[ncjohn]

Mickey:

Yes! Discernment is imperative. And oh, how many times I have not used proper discernment.

But I am learning!

And you’ll keep failing. And I’ll keep failing. No matter how hard we try, it’s almost impossible to even remember at any given moment that we need to be trying to discern. Add into that that our best attempts at discernment are still prone to error and…

If we can at least recognize that though, so we will be more charitable as a result of realizing that our best efforts to discern may still be wrong or incomplete, we’ll have come a long way in imparting the Peace of Christ. And even when we fail then people will cut us some slack since they don’t feel like they need to “gotcha!”

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

Sherlock:

ncjohn,

Your comments in quotes; my responses follow.

“I am doing nothing more than trying to make a general consructive criticism that if what is said is not said with loving concern for the listener’s wellbeing, it is an ego exercise and will be useless and counterproductive. Period. End of point.”

I agree.

Well, I guess if we agree and are able to do something about only this one point, that is still a good thing and will serve God well.

Thanks for your dedication and your efforts on behalf of God’s people.

Peace,

 

[Mickey]

ncjohn:

And you’ll keep failing. And I’ll keep failing. No matter how hard we try, it’s almost impossible to even remember at any given moment that we need to be trying to discern. Add into that that our best attempts at discernment are still prone to error and…

If we can at least recognize that though, so we will be more charitable as a result of realizing that our best efforts to discern may still be wrong or incomplete, we’ll have come a long way in imparting the Peace of Christ. And even when we fail then people will cut us some slack since they don’t feel like they need to “gotcha!”

Peace,

Oh how true. The ego always seems to battle against discernment. These flesh tents are so cumbersome sometimes! :banghead:

 

[BarbaraTherese]

You know, I, for one, am fed up to my eyeballs with the seeming denigration of “emotion” as part of the life of faith, [an attitude that occassionally pops up, on various threads, IMHO.]

Christ wept over Jerusalem.

He experienced emotional agony in the Garden.

He counseled us not to “be anxious”…thereby
acknowledging that a human being is created
*with *emotions - as part of his/her make-up.

He experienced anger, at both the sellers in
the Temple and those who waited to “catch”
Him, in the act of curing the man with the
withered hand, on the Sabbath.

It reminds me of Joe Friday’s “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Well, life is made up of more than just “facts,” in
the intellectual sense…the life of faith is
more than just an exercise of deductive and inductive
reasoning.

Jesus did not merely “think” about how His coming
Passion was going to ransom sinners, He sweat
blood over the coming ordeal.

Because I have been unable to use this computer at will, nor will be able to rather than whenever I wish and for as long as I like, nor will be able to do so for some time, I have gone back to Reen12’s (Hi Reeny!) original post in this thread. I will catch up with this whole thread and read all the Posts as soon as I can. It has caught my eye and attention with interest after having been pointed out to me.

But I agree with Reeny’s comments as quoted above about Jesus…many are the times he displays emotion…as well as the times Reeny has quoted, he is disturbed, unhappy about the lack of gratitude of the nine lepers - only one returns to thank him of the ten he cured. Also he was a very angry young man when he cleared the t emple. I’m sure others could find more examples.
Perhaps life is all about striking a happy balance between our feelings and our minds, our logic … and not an easy balance to discern which way to go, let alone effect. Emotions are important and we are emoting 24 hours a day…they are a vital part of who we are, our identity. Even in a forum like Apoligetics, emotions come into play in the spirit behind our post…the way we say what we say!!! and our spiritual life, our Faith, is about primarily loving one another - Charity. Bu t then too we remain fallible and faulted human beings who perhaps oft do not reach our ideal…as St. Paul st ated “why is it I find myself doing the things I have made up my mind not to do?” We humans are indeed complex constructions…even to ourselves at times a mystery. Our roots in very early Christianity were at times an argument as it were on important issues of Faith…and again nevertheless the common comment about these very early Christians was “see how they love one another!”

I 'll catch up with the Posts that comprise this thread as soon as I can and hope I will have something positive to say…this very fallible and entirely faulted human being!

Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

mercygate:

reen12, St. Ignatius of Loyola built a spiritual powerhouse (both for individuals and for the Society of Jesus and the Church) by harnessing both the heart and the mind for Christ. Check out The Spiritual Exercises.

Although we should not function out of pure emotion, because emotions are so unreliable, if you harness the emotions to the intellect and hitch that team to the wagon of faith, you will have an unbeatable combination!

Hi there Mercygate…while I am intensely loathe to disagree with St. Ignatius for sure…and agree that we need to attempt honestly to keep emotions and mind in our own control, I disagree that emotions “are so unreliable”…they can be unreliable as can our thinking processes (we can be incorrect) at times our emotions are entirely reliable and our minds tell us this is so. This can be either correct or incorrect. About all I think anyway we can successfully achieve is an honest attempt at whatever…while we remain always faulted and somewhat short of *the mark (sin comes from Greek and means “to miss the mark”). *That is to say that in the spiritual realm we remain always and everywhere sinners and short of the mark. As I see matters …“even the just man falls seventy times seven in a day”…“why do you call me good, only God is good”.
Also “harnessing the mind and emotions for Christ” is the ideal and excellent as an ideal…but not so easy for faulted human beings to actually effect if we ever truly do completely, nor can ever be sure if we have or even how close we may be to effecting such.
I think too to state that “I am thoroughly fed up” (emotion) is entirely valid, entirely! if indeed we feel fed up and should (with respect!) be always accepted as valid and another person’s opinion.
Barb

E&OE!!!