Jump to content

3DOP

Contributor
  • Posts

    3,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 3DOP

  1. CV75, I think that is fair. Thank you for a satisfactory answer.
  2. Hi CV75. What was different in the first centuries after Christ, that allowed the "Former-day Saints" to eventually emerge from the catacombs after three centuries of bloody persecution victorious over arguably the greatest pagan empire in human history...without the divinely inspired US Constitution and its bill of rights, in contrast with the Latter-day Saints who, according to what The Plains quoted, could not have survived, or according to your words to "retain their footing"? I don't get this apparent LDS idea of submissive obedience to godless state authority if it opposes the Gospel. If the Former-day Saints had done that, we wouldn't have any kind of Christianity today, nor a bill of rights! However you would identify them by name, I am with the Former-day Saints who disobeyed man. I identify them as Catholics. We should both agree that they were certainly not modern LDS Restorationists. They did not accept that "Without a Bill of Rights, [the Roman Empire] could not have served as the host nation for the [Proclamation] of the gospel..." They would not obey Caesar when Caesar opposed Christ. "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men". (Ac. 5:29) Maybe you agree that if it comes down to a conflict we obey Christ rather than Caesar. But at times it seems like your beliefs seem to be that there will never be such a conflict. What do you say about the early church. Should those Christians have sacrificed to idols in obedience to the State? I suggest that there are times when God makes his children choose between state and church, between man and God. Certainly in the the first three centuries. Maybe in the next few? Rory
  3. The point is that non-restored Christianity has spread in the absence of bills of rights.
  4. No empty content? Can't just delete a regretted remark that has escaped notice? This does just that.
  5. Politics in the first sentence. Politics in the last sentence. You see Luther's questioning of indulgences for the poor souls in Purgatory as political? I am intrigued. Please explain. I have been to Rome in our own century. I doubt that what outraged me was nicer than what Luther found. Whatever Luther thought, the priesthood survives outrage, if we can believe both Testaments. Unlike Luther, who wouldn't take his outrage to its logical conclusion, I hold that if his outrage was just, mere reformation was inadequate. This is why I continue to talk to LDS...the consistent "lutherans". Ecclesiology.
  6. Hi Maureen. The Catholic Church makes truly extravagant claims, which are either true or false. Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia means in English, No Salvation Outside the Church (Catholic Church). I hope that explains a little why I would say that to be non-Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church is false. It seems hard to think that a non-Catholic could think such a teaching to be inconsequential. I am glad if Protestants agree with Catholics about Trinitarian doctrine. But it concerns me about why they agree. For a Catholic, it is important to deny that Scripture alone is sufficient to prove the Nicene Trinity. I am confident that Scripture alone is insufficient. Sometimes I fear that LDS and Protestants think that we think the Bible alone is enough. Without Tradition, we could believe as most LDS do, or as Calvin! ----- By the way, "Godhead vs. Trinity"? If I am not delusional, I have seen that here somewhere. For Catholics, the Godhead derives exclusively from the Father, the Fount of divinity, who eternally begets a Son, from whom the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. Godhead and Trinity are necessarily compatible ideas according to a correct understanding of the Catholic faith. My apologies, I have forgotten who mentioned this.
  7. Hi poptart. I think somebody owes something? I am sorry if I have alienated. I think you misunderstand. I was not suggesting anything like a debt from Protestants to the Catholic Church, when I said that "Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking with the Catholic Church". The "gravity" means that Protestants can't appeal to anything except the Bible if they call LDS non-Christian. That seems like a grave difficulty to a non-Protestant like me. As a Catholic, I cannot prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone. That was all that I meant. I doubt Luther, or you, or anyone can prove the Nicene Trinity from Scripture alone. As soon as they were cut off from Catholic Tradition, many Protestants have gone far away from the Nicene Trinity. That was a good point made, I think, by Anakin7. John Calvin rejected Nicea when he affirmed that Christ was "autotheos". That means that Jesus would be God the Son, independently of the Father. That is as blasphemous to Catholic ears as anything the LDS might say. In what respect can a son be independent of a father?. https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/02/is-there-a-calvinist-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
  8. Mark...I would truly be displeased to see you go. This is just personal. It would make things easier for me around here with you out of the way! Virtually everything I write and much of what I don't write is with you in mind. I want to go to church with you. Your philosophical orthodoxy, in my opinion, is too rigid because it does not seem to allow for a transcendent God to find a way to express His goodness to man, or for man to express to Him, his desire for the eternal and transcendent God. This desire is in the bosom of man. Nothing else can perfectly satisfy. As Augustine says, "Our hearts are restless..." Informed Catholics should believe that Somebody put this desire in us not out of malice to make us miserable, but because it is attainable. When you say the transcendent God cannot or will not hear our prayers, it seems to me that you place unreasonable limits on what the transcendent God wishes for us, and can do for us. No creature in a good creation can desire what is unattainable. I have really liked (loved, I should confess) one of our cats over the years. But the most she seemed to want was to stretch her paws (hands) out on my chest while I was in the recliner. Her wishes were attainable. And here is the thing in Catholicism. We believe that those who are sons of God, not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, are indeed gods, or perhaps I should make that "gods in the making", partaking of His transcendent nature. And thus to those who are becoming gods, the transcendent God becomes immanent and intimate, God with us, revealing to us His heart through His Son and by His Spirit. Our most sublime desires are possible. Be nice to me now. God bless. Rory
  9. Fether is asking why, from his perspective, other Christians put a strong emphasis on their preferred form of the Trinity. It seems like a reasonable question. If as all Protestants agree, the Catholic Church is false, on what authority do they require LDS to loosely follow a Creed formulated by over 300 Catholic bishops one thousand-seven hundred years ago? Protestants should recognize the gravity of breaking from the Catholic Church. They still do not seem to realize that this means more than disdaining a sacerdotal priesthood. Everything is open for reevaluation. This includes the Trinity of the Council of Nicea which is not clear from the Bible alone. Of course it is compatible with Bible. But so what? So are the positions LDS usually take. Protestants cannot legitimately appeal to Catholic Tradition, and that is the problem when they insist that LDS are in the wrong about "the Trinity".
  10. I believe differently now about what happens when one is born again. To be born again means that one's first birth as a child of Adam is inadequate. a second birth is required which restores the soul to friendship with God with the infused virtues of faith, hope, and charity. When Adam fell, his spiritual union with God was truly lost. He experienced spiritual death. His children are born in the same sad condition. On this much, most Protestants and Catholics are agreed. Luther spoke of regeneration as God graciously covering up our sins with the blood of Christ, (the dunghill covered with snow allusion). Catholics think this is a cramped and unappreciative view of God's work in us. The Catholic Church teaches that if Adam fell through sin, that the regeneration by Christ does more than merely cover up a creature that remains offensive. Redemption is more than a mere judicial pardon. Adam became truly unrighteous before God. Redemption through the second Adam and second birth reverses this completely. It brings life and true righteousness back to the soul. It gives eternal life, the life that Adam had in God before his fall. It permits God to be intimate with us again because He communicates His own life to us. It is a stupendous truth. By partaking of the divine nature, we can have union with God again: "As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Pet. 1:3-4) One writer explains very beautifully I think, the precious opportunity that is given in this life to those who have been born again: "Even while living in the flesh, they bear evidence of their heavenly origin, by going on from virtue unto virtue. Though sojourning in this vale of tears, they are ever on the assent, approaching gradually nigher to the high summits of holiness; they reflect in their lives the perfection of their heavenly Father, who surrounded as He thus is in Sion by this noble family, is seen to be, in all truth, the God of gods." ---Ps. 83:8 (it is Psalm 82 or 84 in Protestant Bibles) ---The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, Vol. 11, p. 330, St Bonaventure Publications (2000) I want to say that I do not feel like I am always "ever on the assent". I feel the weight of my flesh, but I also feel the pull of the Spirit. If I reflect the perfection of my heavenly Father, it is undoubtedly a dim reflection. We are taught that without Christ we can do nothing. Every time I say through the day "Jesus, Saviour, have mercy", it is because I am acted upon by our gracious God to ask it. It makes me hope that I am still climbing and not falling. Any act pleasing to God is only by God's grace. The act may be truly small. But I am small. And the grace is great. I am pretty sure that if we are making progress, God finds a way to keep us from recognizing it too clearly. We are all prone to have pride and becoming complacent. It is okay with me if I seem to be the least worthy of God's servants so much of the time. I know I do not deserve what my good God wants to give to me. That gives me hope too. It is better to fall and get up knowing one's unworthiness, than to never fall and begin to forget one's unworthiness. Of course, the saints retain through wisdom the knowledge of their unworthiness, while doing great things with God's grace, taking no credit for it. We can lose the great promises that God gives us in our second birth through willful acts of faithlessness. Like Adam at his fall, those who are born again may foolishly throw away the treasure that God has given them through baptism. Such souls will always have been born again, and that cannot be repeated. In contrast to those who eventually see Jesus face to face, to know God as he is, and who are happy, those are "unhappy born agains" who reject God's great and precious promises. St. Paul wisely set the example in explaining his fear of becoming a "castaway" (KJV). I think the Douay says "reprobate". Either way, I can not assume that I will be among them, but I hope to always remain a happy born again. Rory
  11. Hey phil...that question shows a lot of insight. I have thought about it the same way. Yes, I think I remain fundamentalist, according to a definition that understands the history. Now, fundamentalism for many people merely means someone who is hateful about anyone not of his religion. This narrow view of fundamentalism is unfortunate. By accepting the label of fundamentalist, I mean that there were traits in the teachings and folkways I accepted from my Baptist days, that were also quite Catholic. I would further suggest that fundamentalism as a Protestant phenomenon was preceded by Catholic fundamentalism by about 1800 years. This is what leads me to observe sometimes that many who think they are anti-Catholic fundamentalists might be "more Catholic" than they realize. Probably more Catholic than some of our own bishops and popes have been over the last many years! In the late 19th Century Pope Leo XIII, and in the early 20th, Pope St. Pius X were opposing in Rome, the same ideas, that were changing the faith of Protestants. Catholics, including priests and some prelates, began questioning long held norms regarding birth control, biblical infallibility, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and ecumenism. One cannot help but see the parallels. Rory
  12. I should add that the questions I raise above are the basis of what is only my opinion. I am open to the idea that the modern Catholic Church is correct in judging no LDS baptism to ever be valid. I will try to explain my problem a little bit more. I am afraid that Catholics, being creedal, fail to appreciate what it might mean when Protestants (and LDS), take Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion and hold that the Bible alone is their sole authority for belief. The early reformers did not do this. One could know what Presbyterians, Anglicans, or Lutherans believed and more accurately understand the beliefs that potential converts had learned and experienced from the creeds of their churches. Even early Baptist groups made creeds. This is not so much attended to anymore. I remember being anti-creedal when I was a minister. "My only creed is in my hand, the Word of God." I therefore think that things have changed in our times, and that the Catholic Church might be slow to recognize that it is probably not good enough to assume that all Baptists, for instance, believe the same things. And I make a case below for why the Catholic Church should perhaps not judge the validity of every LDS baptism in consideration of what might be believed by any LDS father who is baptizing one of his children. ---------- So, getting back to why the Trinity is so important. This exercise could lead me to accept the Catholic Church's proclamation against LDS baptism. Part of my doubt about the invalidity of all LDS baptisms is a hunch that I have about the importance of the Trinity according to LDS. I have believed for a long time that there is a wide range of doctrinal variance which can co-exist in a religion that is more concerned with practice than with dogma. In all of my discussions over the years with Latter-day Saints about the so-called Great Apostasy, one of the signs of apostasy is the making of creeds, of canonizing a doctrinal formula. It is not so much the content of a creed, but of declaring creeds to be irreformable that is the primary objection, if I correctly understand. With that in mind, could an orthoprax Latter-day Saint remain in good standing with the Church, if he or she quietly believed in the Trinity as propounded at the Council of Nicea? Could such an one baptize? If the answer is yes, an orthoprax Latter-day Saint is not prohibited from believing in what might be called by most LDS, an "alternative view of the persons of the Trinity", such as would be compatible with Catholics and many Protestants. This would lead me to appreciate why, from an LDS perspective, that non-LDS overemphasize the importance of the Trinity. If the answer is in the negative, it seems to me that getting the Trinity wrong, is just as important to LDS as it is to everybody else. It would mean uniformity of an irreformable doctrine that must always be condemned. And to return to what I wrote last night regarding LDS baptism, if the question I asked above can be answered in the affirmative, as I am suspecting, that would explain why I am not comfortable at this time, with declaring all LDS baptisms to be certainly invalid. If the answer is no, that might make it a little easier for me to be comfortable with the Catholic declaration that every LDS baptism is certainly invalid. 3DOP
  13. Miserere... With regards to intent, I think the Church is as broad as can be, and I accept the breadth. But sometimes I think her pastors have failed to appreciate how anti-Catholic Protestant baptisms are sometimes. Can fundamental Baptist ministers who believe that the pope is the Antichrist and the Church is the Whore of Babylon intend to to do what the Catholic Church does in baptism? I am glad my wife and I received conditional baptism from a SSPX priest. My sister, hopefully baptized by one who thought he hated the Catholic faith, was assured by her SSPX priest that she was baptized. I know and am glad for baptism of desire. I have confidence my sister is okay, because of desire. I cannot say I am so sure she has received Sacramental baptism. I sometimes think that Catholics, including Traditionalist priests, are not quite familiar with how difficult it is for formerly fundamentalist Christians to believe that virulently anti-Catholic ministers of baptism can administer the Sacrament. Most atheists and Jews are only passively anti-Catholic. I more easily believe they can administer baptism, than these fundamentalist ministers like I once was. I was actively anti-Catholic when I baptized. I hope the baptisms were Catholic and valid, but I don't know. The Church never investigated what our fundamental pastor who baptized my sister and I believed about the Trinity. Very easily, he may have been as messed up about the Trinity from a Catholic perspective as the LDS. It seems to me that we need to examine on a case by case basis. I cannot simply believe that all LDS baptisms are non-Catholic, and all fundamental Baptist baptisms are Catholic. I think the Church makes a misstep in judging that ALL LDS need baptism, (LDS are not for orthodoxy but orthopraxy. There is a wide range of beliefs, acceptable to being a faithful LDS, and some that are not far from what Catholics believe about the Trinity), some of which are potentially administered with the correct intent. I also think the Church makes a misstep if she judges that ALL converts from Baptist fundamentalism are certainly baptised sacramentally. I can't accept that document from 2001. I understand why most, but not EVERY LDS baptism might be concluded to be invalid, from a Catholic perspective. But do we know in each case? Why do we have to proclaim universal certainty? Let us baptize everybody who wants to eb Catholic conditionally. There is nothing hard about conditional baptism. Why should we have to proclaim certainty about who is or is not baptized? I believe in doubt, in this area. I have no faith in certainty. I heartily advocate for lots of conditional baptisms. Rory
  14. Hi Chum. Thanks for the reply. I am afraid I don't understand "2kyo church people". But I get "Dood", and "Sheesh". (Not good). I am sorry for my overzealous and imprudent words. I cannot deny that it was the real me. But I will try to have more restraint in the future. Still...take care...no malice intended...believe me...God bless. 3DOP
  15. The minister of Catholic baptism is any human who intends to do what the Catholic Church does. Yes, of course, when a new baby is born to a faithful Catholic, they don't have a non-cleric as minister of the Sacrament. But Catholic authority has always allowed that literally any human can administer baptism with the correct intention. Because of this very liberal, yet Traditional Catholic policy regarding the minister of baptism, I am on record for many years here at this site, as suggesting the imprudence of judging every LDS baptism as invalid. The "Catholic" judgment, that all LDS baptisms are invalid, comes from from this very topsy turvy century of the Catholic Church when it is disoriented from its foundations. I cannot defend it. (I wish I did not not feel the need to criticise and recommend the Catholic Church at the same time, but "despising not prophecies", helps lead some faithful Catholics like me to think that this is necessary for our unique and privileged moment of salvation history). 40 years? That is way too recent. 1981 is after the liturgical revolution had sadly denied the Catholic faith and at a time when the true Catholic needed to search (without the internet!) for a faithful remnant. But only 60 years ago? The liturgical revolution had planted roots, but you would have as recently as 60 years ago have been easily able to universally experience that... "...our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God." ----The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Fr. Adrian Fortescue,, first printed in 1912, third reprinting Dec. 2007, Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville NY, (1930 edition), p. 213 The New Roman Mass, which allegedly abrogated the Mass of which Fr. Fortescue writes before the current liturgical wars could be imagined, attempting to abolish the faith of our Fathers, was written in restaurants and in consultation with Protestant ministers who hate Catholicism as well as Mormonism because both profess faith in one true church. Liturgy is neither promulgated nor abrogated by committee, and not in restaurants, but in blood. No one, not even a pope of Rome, has the authority to deny Catholics, of any ancient rite of East or West, the liturgical heritage that has come down from the very Apostles themselves. It probably won't happen because of my unworthiness, but what a privilege it would be, if God helped me to shed my blood, if necessary, for the Holy Mass of our Fathers of whom Fr. Fortescue writes. No one would ever die for the New Mass. It has already been killed by a mere virus and without objection. The New Mass is unbeloved. No one sings its praises like Fr. Fortescue, and no one could. God bless, 3DOP
  16. Navidad...hey...Other questions need more time to answer. I don't have much time on weekdays. Labor Day is around the corner though... The Catholic Church holds that anyone that is human may sacramentally baptize, IF, they intend to do what the Church (Catholic) does. Name your human. It does not matter what they believe. They can baptize if they can meet that single condition. They can be confused about their sexual orientation, atheist, criminal, Baptist (!), etc. My wife and I have never been "re-baptized". The Catholic Church does not believe in re-baptism. Once baptized, always baptized. The complete remedy for original sin, (which LDS verbally deny, ordinarily without a complete grasp of our meaning), and any actual sin, is baptism. If through grave sin, another remedy is needed, one cannot undergo baptism again...or be born again again. Born twice, yes, born three or more times, no. Once of the flesh, once of the Spirit. The remedy for sins unto death after baptism, according to the faith I have accepted, is the Sacrament of Confession. Anyway...late on a Tuesday night...more details to follow...probably on the long weekend, which is happily anticipated. Because of once baptized always baptized, this might give a clue as to why I might have referred to "happy born agains" in the third person. While I have great hope, I do not presume to count myself among that number. There will be, those who have been born again, who retain the mark of their baptisms, that are not necessarily eternally happy (the regenerated can still lose their souls through abuse of their privileges as members of Christ and sons or daughters of the Father). I use born again as a synonym for regenerated, a fully Catholic concept. Our good God willing, I look forward to sharing some more developed thoughts about your excellent questions in the near future. Thank you for your interest Navidad, Rory
  17. Do you imagine that anyone thinks that your abilities or willingness to do any activity is infinite? Since you are moving on to other things, I will take the last word. Thanks. One can be mistaken without being guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You do not know me as well as many of the people on this board do. I have been here 17 years without being accused of intellectual dishonesty. Stupidity and ignorance? Maybe. Wrong? Certainly. But you and I have had not enough interaction in your short time here for you to have such a suspicion like this about me. Nor do I think, you can see into my mind. Like you said, you have finite ability. You would have to know that I actually believe the same thing as you about what the rest of your abbreviated 66 book Bible (not 39, see below) says in support of purgatory to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Is this plausible? I cannot imagine ever being willing to lie to support my religion. All the peace in my soul would vanish, my faith would be lost, and I would not want to defend Catholicism anymore if it requires lies to be defended. My life would fall apart if I deliberately defended falsehoods that I knew to be falsehoods. But my conscience is clear, I know I disagree with you about the absence of any biblical support for this belief of the Catholic faith. Therefore, although I could be wrong merely, I categorically deny your assertion that for me to be intellectual honest, I must now "admit that within the 39 books (sic) of the Bible, there is no theological support for such practice" (as prayers for the dead in purgatory). Take care, 3DOP PS: To all, Dave Waltz tells this story about him calling a particular "anti-cult ministry" many years ago. They had done some kind of apologetics piece about the LDS faith, and I think Dave pointed out some factual error in one of their arguments. I don't remember the details, but I can never forget the answer he says that they gave him. The answer he got back, was that they knew it wasn't true, but that it works! What a horror it would be to face God on that day telling Him that I lied, "because it worked"? What could that even mean? To get people to the truth, one must sometimes lie to them? What does it imply about service to God? What presumption and arrogance to think God needs his truest followers and loving children to tell a deliberate falsehood to advance His cause. So anyway, I know that the phenomenon of intellectual dishonesty exists. May we all be preserved from such fearful folly. I hope I toned things down enough up above. If perhaps someone thinks I overreacted, maybe you can see why Islander's words struck a nerve with me.
  18. Women like neck hair? The older I get, the more plentifully it is exhibited! My wife seems disappontingly ambivalent. She shaves mine at my request, without any expression of regret. Neck hair, if am correct, has been neither help nor hindrance to young romance nor old romance. What about throat beards? I think I am capable. One of those apostles/70 seemed to have a good one.
  19. There are beards and then...there are BEARDS. I prefer beards. When I grow BEARDS they get mayonnaise, peanut butter, and egg yolk in them. I am currently Lord Lackbeard (Much Ado About Nothing). With all respect to BEARD boys everywhere who can eat a sandwich without experiencing my problems... Rory
  20. Upvote for sure. Not that I agree...but it is consistent! You guys (not you, ever) sometimes seem like you believe what we do about God. I am glad that you see that you cannot have such cake as well as eating it. Even our (Catholic) Jesus could not get His body from an incorporeal Father. His human body is entirely from His Mother. One sees the resemblance in most theologically accurate Catholic art.
  21. Mark. Hi! I have said this before. Everybody that is Christian believes in a "purgatory". Between earth and heaven, those who enjoy exaltation cannot even sin anymore or want to sin. I have not heard of the Christian sect, or any successful error of any kind, that teaches that "sin" (misbehaviour), occurs in the happy place after death. Catholics go farther than most in saying that the process is gradual, and involves some suffering...but a happy...glad...and resigned kind of suffering. Graduality can occur in a split second or in a thousand years or more. I can see how non-Catholic Christians would doubt our ideas about suffering and a graduality that can be measured chronologically, but all Christians believe that those who gain eternal life are changed and indeed purged (from which the name purgatory arises). None of the saints in heaven can sin anymore, nor do they want to according to any successful error, or a claimed to be one true church. The happy born agains know what is good and they are perfectly attached to the good. It might not be taught as a process for non-Catholics, but for everybody, between earth and heaven something happens, that makes for perfection. Call it by a different name. A lot of people are still anti-Catholic and don't want to think that they believe in "purgatory" because that is what those Catholics believe in. But everybody that believes in eternal perfection (sinless and loving devotion to God which results in joyful obedience) also believes in a "purgatory" of some kind. I would suggest that Purgatory therefore, is not distinctly Catholic. All Christians are more agreed about this than we are disagreed, including I suspect, Islander.
  22. Islander, hi. You can reject 2 Maccabees as Scripture, but the practise, right or wrong, was clearly acceptable to many long before the 4th Century, even preceding the times of Christ. You are correct in that 2 Maccabees does not command prayers for the dead. But it clearly commends prayers for the dead. Are you saying that Christians are prohibited from any activities that are not commanded? I am not questioning your canon, as I said above. But I am curious, as a Latter-day Saint, do you think that those who commended prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees were the bad guys? Agents of Satan? Should Mormons like those the Maccabees opposed, like Antiochus, better instead? I have not heard that the enemies of the Maccabees prayed for the dead. Perhaps they are the good guys in this saga?
  23. I acknowledged that we had different Scriptures. Am I the ill informed Catholic to whom you refer? It is okay if you think so. I just want clarity. I appreciate your zeal better than your fellow LDS, I think. But something is off. I think there is a language barrier. You misunderstand me and alienate your co-religionists. In all sincerity, you should consider that your English is the problem...I speak one language...and that imperfectly. I greatly admire multi-lingual persons. I wish I knew any language besides English as well as you do English. But in this instance, where everything is in English, I think you are hindered. Precision is necessary, but the tools are lacking.
  24. 1) Anger is a human reaction that occurs when one perceives a real or imagined injustice. Anger is a good and necessary aid to the virtue of courage, when utilized according to right and real injustices. Some seem to mistake our Lord's anger in the Temple with the overthrowing of the money changers as an example of "losing one's temper", of being "out of control". But the biblical text does not bear this interpretation very well in my opinion: "And the pasch of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew. And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic." ---Jn 2:13-16 Note first that Jesus observes the profanation of the Temple. In St. Matthew's Gospel we hear Him regretting that the house of prayer is changed into a "den of thieves", or illicit profit making. In this passage we see that He is not offended personally, but on behalf of His Father, whose Temple is being profaned. Secondly, we can see that He is not abusing but using His anger reasonably, in a calm and collected manner, as He silently makes a scourge of little cords, with which to drive these infidels away. This would be an example given to us of how righteous anger may be reasonably used. 2) I will confess that most of the anger in my life has been unreasonable, wasted on perceived violations against my own person. Without humility (an accurate estimation of our true condition before God), pride makes us over-sensitive to those who don't appreciate how wonderful we think we are. 3) I can't remember the more distant past, but I think it is always a good exercise to analyze one's angry moments. Am I angry because of disrespect towards me, who thinks I am deserving of better treatment, or of a real injustice that hurts others or myself? Ordinarily these days, I can easily spot what made me angry, whether it was mere pride, or sound reason. 4) It would be insane to angrily question God if you believe in God. But none of us are immune to occasional insanity. ---- It is interesting to me that a synonym for angry is mad and a synonym for mad is insane. Not all anger is unrighteous, but all madness is unrighteous, and crazy. Even though it is easily abused, it needs to be recognized that anger is a necessary component to human perfection. Those who would advance in virtue would wish to gain the ability to correctly hate sin, to have a courageous spirit of anger against violations of charitable behaviour towards God, our neighbour, and all of creation.
×
×
  • Create New...