R
reen12
Guest
quote: Tonks
reen12
Many thanks, Tonk. :tiphat:Well said!
reen12
- Status
R
reen12
Guest
I wanted to give an example, of where the philosophical
engages the biblical, in a profound and moving manner:
quote:reen12 [from another thread]
lost in the beauty of Christ, as Logos. Moved, emotionally,
as well as fulfilled, intellectually.
Thatâs what Iâm referring to, in this thread - and that is
an example, I think, of what Benedict XVI may have
in mind.
reen12
I trust that the above lays to rest any thought that I am
wed solely to the âemotive.â
engages the biblical, in a profound and moving manner:
quote:reen12 [from another thread]
A person could spend hours, contemplating this reality,
lost in the beauty of Christ, as Logos. Moved, emotionally,
as well as fulfilled, intellectually.
Thatâs what Iâm referring to, in this thread - and that is
an example, I think, of what Benedict XVI may have
in mind.
reen12
I trust that the above lays to rest any thought that I am
wed solely to the âemotive.â
N
ncjohn
Guest
I think I understand your point here that Apologetics is maybe primarily an intellectual pursuit. Unfortunately, I think youâve maybe missed the whole point of the thread, and consequently may be one who is causing discomfort for some people in the forums who come here seeking answers so theyâll know what to do.
Yes, apologetics is about the explaining and is largely theological. But any âexplanationâ that doesnât take our âhumanessâ into accountâincluding our emotional sideâand what we are going to do with the information, will often fall short of the mark. Further, any reply that dismisses peopleâs questions or concerns will only further drive people toward confusion and despair rather than clarity and acceptance.
Apologetics is a really tricky businiess that requires a wealth of accurate information that must be imparted with a loving spirit. While it fine to think that people should just logically accept Truth on its own terms and should be able to do so in a " take it or leave it" way, the fact is that we all carry emotional baggage coming into the discussion that affects our ability to receive or accept the message being given. Quite frankly, Truth given without the loving concern for the wellbeing of the recipient is just an ego exercise. It might make you feel good to demonstrate your (maybe) superior knowledge, but the message will be worthless.
Addditionally, as Reen noted, emotion functions to motivate action. If the answer given doesnât motivate one to action in some way, it is also worthless even if it is intellectually accepted. Worse, if the answer generates a negative emotion of fear or anger, it will cause a negative action and be counterproductive to the message sent, possibly sending someone running from the love of God.
As mercygate said, we need to harness both of the horses to the same wagon to get anywhere. I personally donât want to be one responsible for scaring someone away from God. The gospels are pretty clear about the consequences for those who put obstacles in the path.
Peace to all,
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, ncjohn,
I am most grateful, for your post, above.
Maureen
I am most grateful, for your post, above.
Maureen
R
reen12
Guest
Hello, fellow members of this thread, and those
who are reading same.
Iâve spend a great deal of time, money and effort,
for 8 years, to learn one hard thing:
Never to allow anyone to define me, but God alone.
Iâm the only one, beside God, who knows
my heart and mind - what I have done, to fulfill
Godâs commandments, for 59 years - and where,
when and how I have failed to do same.
If any faith requires âin your faceâ apologetics,
to defend itself, just know that this is one little
sheep whoâs outta the pasture.
Whether Christ is the Son of God, and God Incarnate,
or no, whether Roman Catholicism is or is not,
the true faith, will mean little, I think, at what the
Baltimore Catechism called the âparticular judgement.â
What will matter, and matter eternally, is whether
each of us tried to understand and reach out to -
rather than repel, by our speech or attitude - our
fellow human beings.
âGod is love. He who lives in love, lives in God, and
God in him.â
If a person is an RC, he/she might think of this
as a treasure, a gift God gave h/her, to be offered
humbly and confidently, to those seeking God.
The faith is not a set of propostions, to be hurled
at others, with an âin your faceâ attitude.
Catholics may or may not have the high ground,
in terms of spiritual reality. If they do, they will
be asked more penetrating questions by God,
than I will, when they come before Him.
âTo whom much is given, much will be expected.â
All I know is, the grass of the pasture has turned
to ashes, for this little sheep.
reen12
who are reading same.
Iâve spend a great deal of time, money and effort,
for 8 years, to learn one hard thing:
Never to allow anyone to define me, but God alone.
Iâm the only one, beside God, who knows
my heart and mind - what I have done, to fulfill
Godâs commandments, for 59 years - and where,
when and how I have failed to do same.
If any faith requires âin your faceâ apologetics,
to defend itself, just know that this is one little
sheep whoâs outta the pasture.
Whether Christ is the Son of God, and God Incarnate,
or no, whether Roman Catholicism is or is not,
the true faith, will mean little, I think, at what the
Baltimore Catechism called the âparticular judgement.â
What will matter, and matter eternally, is whether
each of us tried to understand and reach out to -
rather than repel, by our speech or attitude - our
fellow human beings.
âGod is love. He who lives in love, lives in God, and
God in him.â
If a person is an RC, he/she might think of this
as a treasure, a gift God gave h/her, to be offered
humbly and confidently, to those seeking God.
The faith is not a set of propostions, to be hurled
at others, with an âin your faceâ attitude.
Catholics may or may not have the high ground,
in terms of spiritual reality. If they do, they will
be asked more penetrating questions by God,
than I will, when they come before Him.
âTo whom much is given, much will be expected.â
All I know is, the grass of the pasture has turned
to ashes, for this little sheep.
reen12
M
Mickey
Guest
:yup:
J
JimG
Guest
Although I tend more to the use of reason in theology and religion, I have to agree that reason without emotion is not good. A theologian will hardly ever hug you when youâre feeling down.
M
Mickey
Guest
D
Della
Guest
If any faith requires âin your faceâ apologetics,
to defend itself, just know that this is one little
sheep whoâs outta the pasture.
Apologetics doesnât have to be âin your faceâ. It can be a very long, slow process of education, patience and prayer. At least, thatâs been my experience of any successful attempts at apologetics. Apologetics isnât about winning arguments, after all, itâs about winning souls.
Whether Christ is the Son of God, and God Incarnate,
or no, whether Roman Catholicism is or is not,
the true faith, will mean little, I think, at what the
Baltimore Catechism called the âparticular judgement.â
I canât agree with your conclusion here. Really, dear friend, if Jesus isnât who he said he is then our faith means nothing and we may as well be theists or atheists for all it matters. I donât think you mean to say thisâyou are just frustrated because you want to reduce faith to âbeing goodâ. And while being good is good, itâs not everythingânot in the real world it isnât, anyway.
What will matter, and matter eternally, is whether
each of us tried to understand and reach out to -
rather than repel, by our speech or attitude - our
fellow human beings.
It certainly will matter, but it is not all we will be judged for. Wanting it to be so canât really make it so. Truth is truth. But it must be lived and taught in love. Thatâs the place you need to get too in order to be at peace and understand the nature of faith and what it means.
to defend itself, just know that this is one little
sheep whoâs outta the pasture.
Apologetics doesnât have to be âin your faceâ. It can be a very long, slow process of education, patience and prayer. At least, thatâs been my experience of any successful attempts at apologetics. Apologetics isnât about winning arguments, after all, itâs about winning souls.
Whether Christ is the Son of God, and God Incarnate,
or no, whether Roman Catholicism is or is not,
the true faith, will mean little, I think, at what the
Baltimore Catechism called the âparticular judgement.â
I canât agree with your conclusion here. Really, dear friend, if Jesus isnât who he said he is then our faith means nothing and we may as well be theists or atheists for all it matters. I donât think you mean to say thisâyou are just frustrated because you want to reduce faith to âbeing goodâ. And while being good is good, itâs not everythingânot in the real world it isnât, anyway.
What will matter, and matter eternally, is whether
each of us tried to understand and reach out to -
rather than repel, by our speech or attitude - our
fellow human beings.
It certainly will matter, but it is not all we will be judged for. Wanting it to be so canât really make it so. Truth is truth. But it must be lived and taught in love. Thatâs the place you need to get too in order to be at peace and understand the nature of faith and what it means.
M
mercygate
Guest
Chuckling here. You make me recall one of the Desert Fathers (sorry, canât remember which one), who said: For a man to know his own heart is a greater thing than to raise the dead.
S
Sherlock
Guest
I agree with everything you say here. But to be honest, Iâve read reenâs posts in other threads, and when she accuses St. Thomas Aquinas of distorting Jesus and being a detriment to the Church, I see someone who is not going to be happy on an apologetics forum. St. Thomas happens to be a favorite saint of mine, and I suspect heâs a favorite saint of many apologists at all levels, and I donât take kindly to attacks on him. Nor could reen give me examples of posts that actually did what she criticized, that is, of elevating reason as âthe thingâ (her term). It was a staw-man argument. Since these arguments are not well grounded in logic, I think itâs safe to say that emotion is being pitted against reason, which is a mistake. This approach, needless to say, is going to guarantee that reen wonât like what she reads on an apologetics forumâwhich is why I think she ought to go to the âSpiritualityâ forum, as it might have a different tone than one can expect to find on an apologetics forum.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Sherlock,
Iâve also seen quite a few of reenâs posts on other threads. Iâve not seen the particular reference you make here, but even if she did say something to that effect, I donât see how that would put you in a position to be judging whether she belongs in an apologetices forum or not ssince we all get to choose where we go to get our questions answered.
Iâm not an argumentative person but Iâd like to address some of your points here as to logic and whether they would have the effect I think you desire since you are obviously both a logical person and one who desires to be fruitful for the Church.
St. Thomas Aquainas was indeed a master theologian, and one who spent the bulk of his life in primarily âreason onlyâ based theology. At the end of his life however, he all but renounced everything heâd written as worthless in light of the vision of God he was granted as he was nearing death.
Whether he is a favorite saint of yours or even everyone in the forums, I donât 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 âwrite them offâ or proclaim them unfit to preach the gospel for not appreciating him? I think weâd both agree that making judgments based on oneâs opinion of a particular saint is really just giving into our ego and reacting to our own âbaggage.â
I would have to totally disagree with you on this. Any cursory look through these forums will show an overabundance of posts dealing in nothing but âreasonâ and arguing that oneâs failure to accept the posterâs reasonable argument is a deficiency or worse on the part of the reader.
Yes, there are those who are not as knowledgeable who will use mostly emotion because they donât yet have the information needed. The problem is that in way too many casesâwhich Iâm pretty sure is at least part of what reen was really complaining aboutâthe person seeking the information is belittled for asking or questioning, gets defensive and emotional as a result, and goes away with a bad taste in their mouth about at least the apologist, if not the Church as a whole, because of the message they received. I run into these poor souls all the time when they are asking why they get treated that way. As I said in my previous post, if the message isnât given with loving concern it will be rejected and counter-productive no matter how good the information might have been.
Here is where I really have to take issue. I think we both agree that the Truth is the Truth. If that is the case, what is it that makes one person accept it and another reject it when it is presented? Why would reen or anyone else not like what they read if it is in fact the Truth and they are seeking the Truth?
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 âbaggageâ the person comes in with from their upbringing, the personal experiences with the Church and/or other Christians, and possibly what kind of day theyâve had prior to the exchange. There are daysâheck momentsâwhen Iâm totally prepared to listen to you, and others when someone just crapped in my oatmeal when Iâm not going to hear Jesus himself if he was standing next to me.
(continued)
N
ncjohn
Guest
(continued)
The third to me is the most important, and it is the dispostition of the messenger. As I said previously, if the messenger doesnât truly have loving concern and a lack of condescension for the person the message is going to, itâs all about the messengerâs ego. People sense that very quickly, which is why some apologists here, whether professional or amateur, are very effective while others are totally ineffective.
Quite frankly, we all have a grave responsibility in this. We are dealing with other peopleâs eternal souls and what weâre doing better reflect the concern and love of God in how we deal with those souls. Love is an emotionâthe Great emotionâthat motivates every good thing we accomplish as instruments of God. Getting people to think right about God is an admirable thing, but helping people to love God, and thus his children here on earth, is the more important thing and takes modeling.
Without meaning to be uncharitable or point fingers at you or anyone else here, have we been that face of God to reen here? I tend to think we havenât as she is now gone and the message apparently didnât reach her.
Peace to all,
The third to me is the most important, and it is the dispostition of the messenger. As I said previously, if the messenger doesnât truly have loving concern and a lack of condescension for the person the message is going to, itâs all about the messengerâs ego. People sense that very quickly, which is why some apologists here, whether professional or amateur, are very effective while others are totally ineffective.
Quite frankly, we all have a grave responsibility in this. We are dealing with other peopleâs eternal souls and what weâre doing better reflect the concern and love of God in how we deal with those souls. Love is an emotionâthe Great emotionâthat motivates every good thing we accomplish as instruments of God. Getting people to think right about God is an admirable thing, but helping people to love God, and thus his children here on earth, is the more important thing and takes modeling.
Without meaning to be uncharitable or point fingers at you or anyone else here, have we been that face of God to reen here? I tend to think we havenât as she is now gone and the message apparently didnât reach her.
Peace to all,
M
Mickey
Guest
Hi John,
If I may be so boldâIâm not an expert on St Thomas Aquinas, but I donât believe he ârenounced everything he had written as worthlessâ. This is his quote:
âBrother, I can write no more. I have seen things which make everything I have written seem as mere straw.â
To Thomas, his Summa Theologica seemed as mere straw in contrast to his mystical experience. This does not render his writings to be inconsequential.
"Seemed as mere straw" is much different than ârenouncing as worthlessâ.
I think that at the end of his life, because of his vision, he finally acquired the perfect balance between scholasticm and mysticism.
Thatâs my take on it!
N
ncjohn
Guest
Youâve accurately summed up my understanding also, and probably more elogquently, although Iâm not sure thereâs that much difference between âmere strawâ and âworthlessâ in the context.Hi John,
If I may be so boldâIâm not an expert on St Thomas Aquinas, but I donât believe he ârenounced everything he had written as worthlessâ. This is his quote:
âBrother, I can write no more. I have seen things which make everything I have written seem as mere straw.â
To Thomas, his Summa Theologica seemed as mere straw in contrast to his mystical experience. This does not render his writings to be inconsequential.
"Seemed as mere straw" is much different than ârenouncing as worthlessâ.
I think that at the end of his life, because of his vision, he finally acquired the perfect balance between scholasticm and mysticism.
Thatâs my take on it!
I didnât try to go into detail as it is really peripheral to what I was trying to say. My point in saying it was that he counted what he had written as nothing compared to his vision of the glory of God.That does not in any way lessen his writings, but it should help us put them in perspectiveâthat our knowledge of God is nice, but our experience of God is whatâs really important.
By the way, I love your signature line; itâs really what this thread was all about in my opinion.
Peace,
M
Mickey
Guest
Agreed.
Thanks brother!
P
Pentecost2005
Guest
That is most unfortunate.
Exit signs? There is no exit.
S
Sherlock
Guest
ncjohn,
Your comments in quotes; my responses follow.
âIâve also seen quite a few of reenâs posts on other threads. Iâve not seen the particular reference you make here, but even if she did say something to that effect, I donât see how that would put you in a position to be judging whether she belongs in an apologetices forum or not ssince we all get to choose where we go to get our questions answered.â
Her comments include: âThe Jesus of the gospels
is also unrecognizable, by the time St. Thomas got
finished with Him.â âUnfortunately, his writings were considered of such consequence, that RC theology has been saddled
with same for 8 centuries.â âThe CCC is certainly presented
with clarity, but the doctrines of the Church, of
course, remain the same, and echoes of St. Thomas
can still be heard, de temps en temps, in itâs
pages. Many of these doctrines I find to be in conflict with
the peace, promised by Christ.â I think there are others in the same vein, but this ought to give you the jist, which is, that to the extent that the Catholic Church embraces Thomism, it is wrong. Since the Catholic Church DOES embrace Thomism (as it does other trains of philosophical thought) the unescapable conclusion is that reens rejects the mariage of reason and faith that is the main thrust of Thomism. She doesnât present any evidence to support her claim that Thomism is in conflict with the peace promised by Christ. Certainly, no one has suggested that reason was the sole way to find God (that would be worthy of criticism). Perhaps you can tell me how the suggestion that reen go to the âSpiritualityâ forum instead of âApologeticsâ is âjudgingâ? Apologetics, by its very nature, involves using reason to advance a particular position. If reen objects to the use of reason, then a suggestion to go to a different forum seems to me like a common-sense solution to her damaged sensibilities.
âSt. Thomas Aquainas was indeed a master theologian, and one who spent the bulk of his life in primarily âreason onlyâ based theology. At the end of his life however, he all but renounced everything heâd written as worthless in light of the vision of God he was granted as he was nearing death.â
What is the evidence for this? St. Thomas Aquinas was a man who masterfully used reason (a God-given gift) as a way to better know, and thus love, God. His beautiful hymns of praise are still sung today. Give me evidence of his dismissal of the emotional aspects of worship in his life. Though he experienced marvelous mystical gifts, and, as a result, was made humbly aware of the limits of human reason, there is no good reason to suppose that he dismissed reason as a result. Also, as I asked reen: if Thomas was so off-track, then why was he gifted with such experiences? If reen is correct, he would have received NOTHING, as he would have been wasting his time. During one of those experiences, an observer (Br. Reginald) heard a voice from the crucifix saying, âYou have written well of Me, Thomas.â God didnât agree with reen or you.
"Whether he is a favorite saint of yours or even everyone in the forums, I donât 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 âwrite them offâ or proclaim them unfit to preach the gospel for not appreciating him? I think weâd both agree that making judgments based on oneâs opinion of a particular saint is really just giving into our ego and reacting to our own âbaggage.â
Sorry, but youâre not making much sense. For starters, I have never posited that St. Thomas is infallible. He wasnât, 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 âthumbs upâ, 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 tooâheâs another of my favorite saint. You and reen see a conflict between the two. I donât.
âI would have to totally disagree with you on this. Any cursory look through these forums will show an overabundance of posts dealing in nothing but âreasonâ and arguing that oneâs failure to accept the posterâs reasonable argument is a deficiency or worse on the part of the reader.â
Give examples, please, that show that the poster is elevating reason above all else. Your feelings are nice and all, but Iâd rather address specific examples of the elevation of reason (which is not in accordance with Catholic theology).
continuedâŚ
Your comments in quotes; my responses follow.
âIâve also seen quite a few of reenâs posts on other threads. Iâve not seen the particular reference you make here, but even if she did say something to that effect, I donât see how that would put you in a position to be judging whether she belongs in an apologetices forum or not ssince we all get to choose where we go to get our questions answered.â
Her comments include: âThe Jesus of the gospels
is also unrecognizable, by the time St. Thomas got
finished with Him.â âUnfortunately, his writings were considered of such consequence, that RC theology has been saddled
with same for 8 centuries.â âThe CCC is certainly presented
with clarity, but the doctrines of the Church, of
course, remain the same, and echoes of St. Thomas
can still be heard, de temps en temps, in itâs
pages. Many of these doctrines I find to be in conflict with
the peace, promised by Christ.â I think there are others in the same vein, but this ought to give you the jist, which is, that to the extent that the Catholic Church embraces Thomism, it is wrong. Since the Catholic Church DOES embrace Thomism (as it does other trains of philosophical thought) the unescapable conclusion is that reens rejects the mariage of reason and faith that is the main thrust of Thomism. She doesnât present any evidence to support her claim that Thomism is in conflict with the peace promised by Christ. Certainly, no one has suggested that reason was the sole way to find God (that would be worthy of criticism). Perhaps you can tell me how the suggestion that reen go to the âSpiritualityâ forum instead of âApologeticsâ is âjudgingâ? Apologetics, by its very nature, involves using reason to advance a particular position. If reen objects to the use of reason, then a suggestion to go to a different forum seems to me like a common-sense solution to her damaged sensibilities.
âSt. Thomas Aquainas was indeed a master theologian, and one who spent the bulk of his life in primarily âreason onlyâ based theology. At the end of his life however, he all but renounced everything heâd written as worthless in light of the vision of God he was granted as he was nearing death.â
What is the evidence for this? St. Thomas Aquinas was a man who masterfully used reason (a God-given gift) as a way to better know, and thus love, God. His beautiful hymns of praise are still sung today. Give me evidence of his dismissal of the emotional aspects of worship in his life. Though he experienced marvelous mystical gifts, and, as a result, was made humbly aware of the limits of human reason, there is no good reason to suppose that he dismissed reason as a result. Also, as I asked reen: if Thomas was so off-track, then why was he gifted with such experiences? If reen is correct, he would have received NOTHING, as he would have been wasting his time. During one of those experiences, an observer (Br. Reginald) heard a voice from the crucifix saying, âYou have written well of Me, Thomas.â God didnât agree with reen or you.
"Whether he is a favorite saint of yours or even everyone in the forums, I donât 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 âwrite them offâ or proclaim them unfit to preach the gospel for not appreciating him? I think weâd both agree that making judgments based on oneâs opinion of a particular saint is really just giving into our ego and reacting to our own âbaggage.â
Sorry, but youâre not making much sense. For starters, I have never posited that St. Thomas is infallible. He wasnât, 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 âthumbs upâ, 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 tooâheâs another of my favorite saint. You and reen see a conflict between the two. I donât.
âI would have to totally disagree with you on this. Any cursory look through these forums will show an overabundance of posts dealing in nothing but âreasonâ and arguing that oneâs failure to accept the posterâs reasonable argument is a deficiency or worse on the part of the reader.â
Give examples, please, that show that the poster is elevating reason above all else. Your feelings are nice and all, but Iâd rather address specific examples of the elevation of reason (which is not in accordance with Catholic theology).
continuedâŚ
S
Sherlock
Guest
continuedâŚ
âYes, there are those who are not as knowledgeable who will use mostly emotion because they donât yet have the information needed. The problem is that in way too many casesâwhich Iâm pretty sure is at least part of what reen was really complaining aboutâthe person seeking the information is belittled for asking or questioning, gets defensive and emotional as a result, and goes away with a bad taste in their mouth about at least the apologist, if not the Church as a whole, because of the message they received. I run into these poor souls all the time when they are asking why they get treated that way. As I said in my previous post, if the message isnât given with loving concern it will be rejected and counter-productive no matter how good the information might have been.â
Do you think that reen was really just looking for answers, and was then belittled for asking questions? I see instead a pattern of trying to posit that reason and faith are not compatible, and that the Catholic Church was an obstacle in the way of the Christ.
âHere is where I really have to take issue. I think we both agree that the Truth is the Truth. If that is the case, what is it that makes one person accept it and another reject it when it is presented? Why would reen or anyone else not like what they read if it is in fact the Truth and they are seeking the Truth?â
So you are suggesting that reason is infallible, and so if the truth is presented, one automatically will follow it? If so, then you are not in agreement with Catholic theology. Reason is NOT infallible; emotion CAN overide the truth (especially when the truth requires that we submit to an authority other than our own). Godâs grace, in the end, is what can make the differenceâbut we have to cooperate with that grace. Rejecting His Church in favor of oneâs own proclivities is not likely to produce a result that is coherentâand thatâs the real problem that reen has.
âI 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.â
Of course.
âA second is the âbaggageâ the person comes in with from their upbringing, the personal experiences with the Church and/or other Christians, and possibly what kind of day theyâve had prior to the exchange. There are daysâheck momentsâwhen Iâm totally prepared to listen to you, and others when someone just crapped in my oatmeal when Iâm not going to hear Jesus himself if he was standing next to me.â
You just gave an excellent reason why one should have a logical, as well as emotional, love for Jesus and His Church. Itâs a bit like a marriageâwe donât stay together only because we happen to âfeelâ like it at the time. We are meant for joy and happiness in communion with God, and so sometimes we will have to use our heads to overide our hearts when our hearts donât want to cooperate.
âYes, there are those who are not as knowledgeable who will use mostly emotion because they donât yet have the information needed. The problem is that in way too many casesâwhich Iâm pretty sure is at least part of what reen was really complaining aboutâthe person seeking the information is belittled for asking or questioning, gets defensive and emotional as a result, and goes away with a bad taste in their mouth about at least the apologist, if not the Church as a whole, because of the message they received. I run into these poor souls all the time when they are asking why they get treated that way. As I said in my previous post, if the message isnât given with loving concern it will be rejected and counter-productive no matter how good the information might have been.â
Do you think that reen was really just looking for answers, and was then belittled for asking questions? I see instead a pattern of trying to posit that reason and faith are not compatible, and that the Catholic Church was an obstacle in the way of the Christ.
âHere is where I really have to take issue. I think we both agree that the Truth is the Truth. If that is the case, what is it that makes one person accept it and another reject it when it is presented? Why would reen or anyone else not like what they read if it is in fact the Truth and they are seeking the Truth?â
So you are suggesting that reason is infallible, and so if the truth is presented, one automatically will follow it? If so, then you are not in agreement with Catholic theology. Reason is NOT infallible; emotion CAN overide the truth (especially when the truth requires that we submit to an authority other than our own). Godâs grace, in the end, is what can make the differenceâbut we have to cooperate with that grace. Rejecting His Church in favor of oneâs own proclivities is not likely to produce a result that is coherentâand thatâs the real problem that reen has.
âI 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.â
Of course.
âA second is the âbaggageâ the person comes in with from their upbringing, the personal experiences with the Church and/or other Christians, and possibly what kind of day theyâve had prior to the exchange. There are daysâheck momentsâwhen Iâm totally prepared to listen to you, and others when someone just crapped in my oatmeal when Iâm not going to hear Jesus himself if he was standing next to me.â
You just gave an excellent reason why one should have a logical, as well as emotional, love for Jesus and His Church. Itâs a bit like a marriageâwe donât stay together only because we happen to âfeelâ like it at the time. We are meant for joy and happiness in communion with God, and so sometimes we will have to use our heads to overide our hearts when our hearts donât want to cooperate.
S
Sherlock
Guest
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, âDid you see the wonderful program on TV about Jesusâ brothers and sisters?â Another gal (who, like me, was an orthodox Catholic) flashed me a look (kinda like, âoh, boy, here we go againâ) and said, very nicely, âBut Jesus didnât have brothers and sistersâŚâ The response was, âOh, but the program was so beautifully done.â
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. Itâs easier to confront people who are openly attacking the Church, but that doesnât mean that those who attack her in nice, poetical ways are not attacking her.
This exchange reminds me of an incident in a Jeff Cavins Bible study group that I was in. A very nice woman asked, âDid you see the wonderful program on TV about Jesusâ brothers and sisters?â Another gal (who, like me, was an orthodox Catholic) flashed me a look (kinda like, âoh, boy, here we go againâ) and said, very nicely, âBut Jesus didnât have brothers and sistersâŚâ The response was, âOh, but the program was so beautifully done.â
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. Itâs easier to confront people who are openly attacking the Church, but that doesnât mean that those who attack her in nice, poetical ways are not attacking her.
- Status