Faith and modernity

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Post Reply
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
" . . However, this little book is meant for everyone, including you, dear Sir. Yet we can hardly expect you to condescend to such an inclusion. On the contrary, your strongest confidence and self-assurance comes from the certainty that no one will dare to think of you when the simple word 'everyone' is utttered."

—Franz Rosenzweig, from the preface to Understanding the Sick and the Healthy

If the shoe fits . . . ;)
Good one. :D

Franz sounds a bit like a Black Adder.

gmk4PfuiPVY
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

The birth of UR-Islam

Post by Parodite »

One thing I like of Islam is its rejection of semi-divine mediaters. Prophets (and other poets) are fine sources and resources but in the end it is only me and Him-Her.

But Islam is not radical enough, so I propose an ultra-radical Islam , UR-Islam, where even Muhammed should be taken with at least a few chuncks of serious salt. As one should do with all human beings, especially with oneself.

Islamic cultures for the most part turn Muhammed in another human Idol and rely on human fabricated books and commentaries giving them Divine status of Gospel.

It is a disaster because it contradicts the genuine Islamic insight that no human mediation is ultimately possible. Not what may or may-not be revealed to others is important and if you believe that to be true or not, but what is revealed to you... and only you matters.

A tradition is like a train. The idea is to step out when you reach your destination.

UR-Islam empties that heavy bag and lets the Saints march out.. together with their holy books and endless scribblings.

Staring for millions of years at a pebble will never maketh it a diamond. The time has come for UR-Islam.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: The birth of UR-Islam

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:One thing I like of Islam is its rejection of semi-divine mediaters. Prophets (and other poets) are fine sources and resources but in the end it is only me and Him-Her.

But Islam is not radical enough, so I propose an ultra-radical Islam , UR-Islam, where even Muhammed should be taken with at least a few chuncks of serious salt. As one should do with all human beings, especially with oneself.

Islamic cultures for the most part turn Muhammed in another human Idol and rely on human fabricated books and commentaries giving them Divine status of Gospel.

It is a disaster because it contradicts the genuine Islamic insight that no human mediation is ultimately possible. Not what may or may-not be revealed to others is important and if you believe that to be true or not, but what is revealed to you... and only you matters.

A tradition is like a train. The idea is to step out when you reach your destination.

UR-Islam empties that heavy bag and lets the Saints march out.. together with their holy books and endless scribblings.

Staring for millions of years at a pebble will never maketh it a diamond. The time has come for UR-Islam.
Amen & seconded.

Humans are horrible judges of what is beyond their experience..... as well as full of hypocrisy, vanity, arrogance, ego, and an over inflated sense of self-importance.

Interestingly enough, many have warned of this phenomena over and over thruout history. But often it is the proselytizers who seem the most easily perturbed...... :o

"Man never manages to create a god superior to himself. Most gos have the manners and morals of a spoiled child!"
"It is only one's sense of self-importance that allows one to feel offended."
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Seconded SM! Not a very obvious connection with the subject but it is about salt and peanuts... so should be good :)

qP7XA_CHuPM
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

The Cult Deficit - Ross Douthat
LIKE most children of the Reagan era, I grew up with a steady diet of media warnings about the perils of religious cults — the gurus who lurked in wait for the unwary and confused, offering absolute certainty with the aftertaste of poisoned Kool-Aid. From the 1970s through the 1990s, from Jonestown to Heaven’s Gate, frightening fringe groups and their charismatic leaders seemed like an essential element of the American religious landscape.

Yet we don’t hear nearly as much about them anymore, and it isn’t just that the media have moved on. Some strange experiments have aged into respectability, some sinister ones still flourish, but over all the cult phenomenon feels increasingly antique, like lava lamps and bell bottoms. Spiritual gurus still flourish in our era, of course, but they are generally comforting, vapid, safe — a Joel Osteen rather than a Jim Jones, a Deepak Chopra rather than a David Koresh.

Twice in the last few months I’ve encountered writers taking note of this shift, and both have made a similar (and provocative) point: The decline of cults, while good news for anxious parents of potential devotees, might actually be a worrying sign for Western culture, an indicator not only of religious stagnation but of declining creativity writ large.

The first writer is Philip Jenkins, a prolific religious historian, who argues that the decline in “the number and scale of controversial fringe sects” is both “genuine and epochal,” and something that should worry more mainstream religious believers rather than comfort them. A wild fringe, he suggests, is often a sign of a healthy, vital center, and a religious culture that lacks for charismatic weirdos may lack “a solid core of spiritual activism and inquiry” as well.

The second writer is Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, venture capitalist and controversialist, who includes an interesting aside about the decline of cults in his new book, “Zero to One” — officially a book of advice to would-be entrepreneurs, but really a treatise on escaping what he regards as the developed world’s 40-year economic, technological and cultural malaise.

The implications of Jenkins’s argument are specific to religion. Cults can be dangerous, even murderous, but they can also be mistreated and misjudged (as Koresh’s followers were, with fatal consequences); moreover, spiritual experiments led by the charismatic and the zealous are essential to religious creativity and fruitful change. From the Franciscans to the Jesuits, groups that looked cultlike to their critics have repeatedly revitalized the Catholic Church, and a similar story can be told about the role of charismatic visionaries in the American experience. (The enduring influence of one of the 19th century’s most despised and feared religious movements, for instance, is the reason the state of Utah now leads the United States on many social indicators.)

Thiel’s argument is broader: Not only religious vitality but the entirety of human innovation, he argues, depends on the belief that there are major secrets left to be uncovered, insights that existing institutions have failed to unlock (or perhaps forgotten), better ways of living that a small group might successfully embrace.

This means that every transformative business enterprise, every radical political movement, every truly innovative project contains some cultish elements and impulses — and the decline of those impulses may be a sign that the innovative spirit itself is on the wane. When “people were more open to the idea that not all knowledge was widely known,” Thiel writes, there was more interest in groups that claimed access to some secret knowledge, or offered some revolutionary vision. But today, many fewer Americans “take unorthodox ideas seriously,” and while this has clear upsides — “fewer crazy cults” — it may also be a sign that “we have given up our sense of wonder at secrets left to be discovered.”

Thiel’s view of our overall situation is hotly contested, not surprisingly, on his own Silicon Valley turf. The Internet is cluttered with debates (some friendly, some less so) between Thiel and his peers over whether innovation has actually slowed down, whether recent technological progress is actually as disappointing as he frequently suggests.

But in the intellectual realm, the stagnation he identifies seems readily apparent, since whole swaths of political, ideological and religious terrain that fascinated earlier generations have been mostly written off in ours. As Mark Lilla noted in a recent New Republic essay, it’s not just that alternatives — reactionary, radical, religious — to managerial capitalism and social liberalism are no longer much embraced; it’s that our best and brightest no longer seem to have any sense of why anyone ever found alternatives worth exploring in the first place.

Perhaps the sacrifice is worth it, and a little intellectual stagnation is a reasonable price to pay for fewer cults and Communists.

Or maybe the quest for secrets — material or metaphysical, undiscovered or too-long forgotten — is worth a little extra risk.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

I don't think cults are a very good indicator of anything. There my also be cults we don't know about: I'm thinking specifically about Oath Keepers and survivalst cults.

What I do see as confounding influnces are the way the internet gives an outlet for the socially alienated and a general cynicism and incredulity. I would expect both of these to affect the attraction to a charismatic and isolationalist leader.

Jenkins is blatantly biased against calling many Southern hemisphere Christian sects cults. There are also Jewish cults like Lev Tahor and Muslim cults like Boko Haram.

A friend showed me some of Applewhite's cult videos in the 80's and were amazed when the Heaven's Gate tragedy was announced years later. I imagine there are many cults out there which just have not found media attention.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:I don't think cults are a very good indicator of anything. There my also be cults we don't know about: I'm thinking specifically about Oath Keepers and survivalst cults.

What I do see as confounding influnces are the way the internet gives an outlet for the socially alienated and a general cynicism and incredulity. I would expect both of these to affect the attraction to a charismatic and isolationalist leader.

Jenkins is blatantly biased against calling many Southern hemisphere Christian sects cults. There are also Jewish cults like Lev Tahor and Muslim cults like Boko Haram.

A friend showed me some of Applewhite's cult videos in the 80's and were amazed when the Heaven's Gate tragedy was announced years later. I imagine there are many cults out there which just have not found media attention.
Perhaps. There are always isolated, fringe groups of all varieties that one could always point to. The potential for "unknown" groups does exist, but there is no way to discuss such an assertion.

I am just not as quick to facilely dismiss Jenkins' and Douthat's observations and the interesting questions those raise.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

kmich wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I don't think cults are a very good indicator of anything. There my also be cults we don't know about: I'm thinking specifically about Oath Keepers and survivalst cults.

What I do see as confounding influnces are the way the internet gives an outlet for the socially alienated and a general cynicism and incredulity. I would expect both of these to affect the attraction to a charismatic and isolationalist leader.

Jenkins is blatantly biased against calling many Southern hemisphere Christian sects cults. There are also Jewish cults like Lev Tahor and Muslim cults like Boko Haram.

A friend showed me some of Applewhite's cult videos in the 80's and we were amazed when the Heaven's Gate tragedy was announced years later. I imagine there are many cults out there which just have not found media attention.
Perhaps. There are always isolated, fringe groups of all varieties that one could always point to. The potential for "unknown" groups does exist, but there is no way to discuss such an assertion.

I am just not as quick to facilely dismiss Jenkins' and Douthat's observations and the interesting questions those raise.
I don't dismiss the observations, but there is no real evidence here either. Douthat confounds 'fringe groups' and 'cults', which is a major problem. Cults are usually defined as having a charismatic leader who excludes outside contact. I think we saw some of both at the Bundy ranch.

Douthat may well be onto something, but it's not soup yet. The article is premature.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Atonement theory

Post by Parodite »

Nonc mentioned there are at least three atonement theories that explain, give meaning to the sacrifice of Jesus' life. I googled and read some. Life, death and resurrection are suggested to remain connected in order to fully understand its meaning.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Atonement theory

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Parodite wrote:Nonc mentioned there are at least three atonement theories that explain, give meaning to the sacrifice of Jesus' life. I googled and read some. Life, death and resurrection are suggested to remain connected in order to fully understand its meaning.
What stood out to you in your research?

I think Jesus' first and greatest sacrifice was His incarnation, when he laid His divinity aside to experience humanity. Experience is not the same as knowledge. I know childbirth hurts, but I don't have the experience. God had knowledge of human temptation, suffering, doubt etc. but could not experience them without incarnation.
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Hebrews 2:17-18
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Atonement theory

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:Nonc mentioned there are at least three atonement theories that explain, give meaning to the sacrifice of Jesus' life. I googled and read some. Life, death and resurrection are suggested to remain connected in order to fully understand its meaning.
What stood out to you in your research?
Hardly a research.. but what stood out is that over time the meaning of the atonement moved away from a bare boned "Jesus paying the price for a/b/c.." (especially where God pays off the Devil by sacrificing his own Son) to the effort of making sense of paying a price without being guilty of anything.
I think Jesus' first and greatest sacrifice was His incarnation, when he laid His divinity aside to experience humanity. Experience is not the same as knowledge. I know childbirth hurts, but I don't have the experience. God had knowledge of human temptation, suffering, doubt etc. but could not experience them without incarnation.
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Hebrews 2:17-18
Just a thought: we all are in that position. Before we were born... we were divine and without sin. We made the sacrifice of incarnation. Now we experience temptation, doubt, suffering, death...
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Excellent observations overall. I am particularly impressed with your belief that we exist before birth. A decent description of original sin, and of evil being a natural feature of existence.

You are also getting my point that Christian thought is in perpetual progress. Religion is the interface between God and man. Faith and modernity are not in perfect sync, but they do move together.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Excellent observations overall. I am particularly impressed with your belief that we exist before birth. A decent description of original sin, and of evil being a natural feature of existence.
Not sure what I believe really.. but like to follow new leads.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Excellent observations overall. I am particularly impressed with your belief that we exist before birth. A decent description of original sin, and of evil being a natural feature of existence.
Not sure what I believe really.. but like to follow new leads.
That’s good, Parodite, but what happens with those leads entirely depend upon your willingness to give up what you think you know to seriously follow them.

To really live, to be renewed, means to grow, to come into a new being, but that is a process of sacrifice. To paraphrase Kierkegaard, what is necessary in itself cannot come into being or really live, and all coming into being is suffering, for the possibilities we are attached to are annihilated in the actual. To truly live is sacrifice.

Jesus typically put things more bluntly: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” ~ Matthew 16:24-25

It is a narrow, tough road, but everything that matters hangs in a precarious balance and we have very little time.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Excellent observations overall. I am particularly impressed with your belief that we exist before birth. A decent description of original sin, and of evil being a natural feature of existence.
Not sure what I believe really.. but like to follow new leads.
Good attitude. Keep an open mind to ideas which cannot be proven or disproven by rational means. There are more leads to follow indicating the possibility of life after death than before birth.

Faith is a series of daily command decisions, not a logically proven conclusion. You always have beliefs, but it is foolish to hold onto them superstitiously.
Test everything; hold fast what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving. Proverbs 14:8
Sounds almost scientific, doesn't it?
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

"My friends, pray to God for gladness. Be glad as children, as the birds of heaven. And let not the sin of men confound you in your doings. Fear not that it will wear away your work and hinder its being accomplished. Do not say, 'Sin is mighty, wickedness is mighty, evil environment is mighty, and we are lonely and helpless, and evil environment is wearing us away and hindering our good work from being done.' Fly from that dejection, children! There is only one means of salvation, then take yourself and make yourself responsible for all men's sins, that is the truth, you know, friends, for as soon as you sincerely make yourself responsible for everything and for all men, you will see at once that it is really so, and that you are to blame for every one and for all things. But throwing your own indolence and impotence on others you will end by sharing the pride of Satan and murmuring against God.

"Of the pride of Satan what I think is this: it is hard for us on earth to comprehend it, and therefore it is so easy to fall into error and to share it, even imagining that we are doing something grand and fine. Indeed, many of the strongest feelings and movements of our nature we cannot comprehend on earth. Let not that be a stumbling-block, and think not that it may serve as a justification to you for anything. For the Eternal Judge asks of you what you can comprehend and not what you cannot. You will know that yourself hereafter, for you will behold all things truly then and will not dispute them. On earth, indeed, we are as it were astray, and if it were not for the precious image of Christ before us, we should be undone and altogether lost, as was the human race before the flood. Much on earth is hidden from us, but to make up for that we have been given a precious mystic sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds. That is why the philosophers say that we cannot apprehend the reality of things on earth." (Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Book VI, "Conversations And Exhortations Of Father Zossima," Chapter 3)
WsxxJNpZtHA
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

B8ISzf2pryI
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11567
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


‘ What will Catholics tell their children ? ’
Bishops signal ‘seismic shift’ on family issues



:lol: :lol:


what a disaster

Only hope left is Putin

Go, Russian Orthodox Church, Gooooooooo


.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Typhoon »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


‘ What will Catholics tell their children ? ’
Bishops signal ‘seismic shift’ on family issues



:lol: :lol:


what a disaster

Only hope left is Putin

Go, Russian Orthodox Church, Gooooooooo

.
Long overdue.

The ~ 3% [or whatever] of the population that are gay do not put civilization at risk.

Rather, that group has made a disproportionate contribution.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Miss_Faucie_Fishtits »

Glad to see that the Church recognises gay people putting their lives and their fortunes under the discipline of matrimonial bond is a net positive thing.....'>...........
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

This really is not that big of a change. The church has been a safe haven for homosexuals for centuries. The only caveat is that gays be discreet.

Opening up a frank discussion is not the same as acceptance. I don't think there will be any change in RC doctrine. This is going to end up being a nuanced version of "Love the sinner, but hate the sin".
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

I think y'all totally misread the situation. The working document wasn't up to snuff at the end of the day. If anything, it reflected only the impasse right now between the German, Dutch&Austrian clergy, (the British and American to a lesser extent) and the rest of the world. We'll see in a years time; but I'd be surprised if anything really changes. The character of bishops, going back to Sixtus V, have been administrative in manner and disposition. They are not theologians or philosophers or intellectuals and they prefer to be instructed with simple and moderate answers that they can rely on when questioned. Nothing spoken about in the initial synod screamed simple. As administrators, none of this will do.

Anyway, The Holy Father warns against temptations that all would do well to heed:

“- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

- The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

- The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

- The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

- The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…”

Pope Francis at the conclusion of the synod
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:The Holy Father warns against temptations that all would do well to heed:

“- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

- The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

- The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

- The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

- The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…”

Pope Francis at the conclusion of the synod
Thank you for the words and link from the Holy Father, Nap.

I claim no expertise in Vatican history, but, as an outsider from a different, Orthodox, Christian background, Francis' approach seems to be rooted in the understanding that the renewal of the church must come from inspiring a clarity of spirit and intention informed by kindness, mercy, and justice in the spirit of the gospels. While it remains unclear what this portends for doctrine or structural renewal, Pope Francis appears to have an abiding faith that God will surely guide the Church’s regeneration in this way. I pray for him.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Nonc Hilaire wrote: Cults are usually defined as having a charismatic leader who excludes outside contact.
Democrats.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply