Seek That Which is above

[Justin Swanton]

Hi Eschator,

I just assumed irony implies contradiction (the perception that something is the opposite of what it should be) without checking in the dictionary. Could be I'm the one who is wrong!

But it is beyond my logic and comprehension what creates the extremes of malice manifested in some worst acts of mortal sin--only the reality of Satan seems an explanation--certainly not the almost benign theory of the absence of Good.

What did you have in mind? I can understand monsters of iniquity like Stalin by looking at the nature of evil, in that an evil man increasingly loses touch with reality and is increasingly unaffected by the misery he causes others, hence Stalin's growing paranoia and creation of the Gulag. But this may not be what you are referring to?

That raises the obvious question, why does God not destroy Satan, and perhaps the answer is that if humans and angels are free, some other will again chose evil.

Evil beings, like tempting demons, try the good and increase their goodness by obliging them to confirm themselves in good by resisting evil. This comes out in Solzhenitsyn's writings, where he saw his time in the camps as the great turning point in his life, obliging him to abandon his Communism and turn to God.

In my item 8 of that post, I used the term Revelation in referring to the question why Jesus had not appeared (ie revealed Himself) to more people after His resurrection.

This raises the whole question of why God obliges us to live by Faith at all: i.e. why does not Christ remain visible in this world in a dramatic and unmistakable fashion so that we know for sure he is the Son of God, rather than having to make an act of Faith in that truth? A very schematic answer to that question, which I would like to develop later on, is that God reveals enough of himself so we may know, if we examine the evidence with good will, that he is who he says he is, but he also hides himself enough so that we can, with a little bad will, disregard the evidence. In other words, we are always free to mentally push God aside - we are never compelled by the evidence to accept him. That is why, for example, the evidence of the Shroud points to authenticity, but God has allowed a dysfunctional C14 test to make it possible to reject it.

He will make exceptions to this rule if the general good of the faithful requires it, like working enough miracles to establish his Church, but that is all. The average believer must go through this life without ever seeing Christ, only believing in him.

This is all writing from the hip, so feel free to argue with what I say!

[eschator83]

We are about to head out camping with grandchildren, and Nana does NOT invite my laptop to come along--so please forgive delay in response to other issues for a bit.

Originally Posted by Justin Swanton

What did you have in mind? I can understand monsters of iniquity like Stalin by looking at the nature of evil, in that an evil man increasingly loses touch with reality and is increasingly unaffected by the misery he causes others, hence Stalin's growing paranoia and creation of the Gulag. But this may not be what you are referring to?

It is the personal, face-to-face, one-on-one cruelty that is hardest for me to understand, and somehow it can begin among very young children. Jesus said evil is within us, and I think we must be taught Goodness, or we will live in evil. In the first meditation (p 14), Ratzinger wrote, "The person who has never experienced goodness and kindness simply does not know what such things are." We are raising many children with little or no Goodness, and this must stop.

I believe that if our schools do not teach morality (to supplement our homes and churches), our civilization has little chance of survival.

[eschator83]

Originally Posted by Justin Swanton

I just assumed irony implies contradiction (the perception that something is the opposite of what it should be) without checking in the dictionary. Could be I'm the one who is wrong!

I have just had a very enjoyable time searching definitions and examples of irony and ironic situations--I recommend it highly to everyone. My tentative conclusion is that like so many other words we have twisted and contorted our usage of the word beyond its inital origin (Greek). Certainly it began with the element of opposition--whether we deem it proper or not, usage seems to have drifted toward any type of incongruity. Or perhaps I just trying to justify my misuse(s).

By way of recap, I thought I saw several ironies in the way (to me surprising) that the essay started with the title The Word of the Witnesses and wound up with the concluding statement: "By following (Jesus) we can see Him." This last statement is not one that I characterized specifically as an ironic--I am more inclined to feel it to be an effort toward mysticism, like the Scriptural statement about seeking the Face of God, which the Pope often refers to. The conclusion clearly is referring to Salvation, and Heaven, and is based on Mark 16:6 : "...(Jesus) is going before you to Galilee; there you will see Him."
I guess do feel there is irony in the final words--or is there a better word?
"...once and for all, we are told where the Risen One is to be found
"and how we are to meet Him;
"He goes before you.
"He is present in preceding us.
"By following Him we can see him."

[Justin Swanton]

Originally Posted by eschator83

I have just had a very enjoyable time searching definitions and examples of irony and ironic situations--I recommend it highly to everyone. My tentative conclusion is that like so many other words we have twisted and contorted our usage of the word beyond its inital origin (Greek). Certainly it began with the element of opposition--whether we deem it proper or not, usage seems to have drifted toward any type of incongruity. Or perhaps I just trying to justify my misuse(s).

By way of recap, I thought I saw several ironies in the way (to me surprising) that the essay started with the title The Word of the Witnesses and wound up with the concluding statement: "By following (Jesus) we can see Him." This last statement is not one that I characterized specifically as an ironic--I am more inclined to feel it to be an effort toward mysticism, like the Scriptural statement about seeking the Face of God, which the Pope often refers to. The conclusion clearly is referring to Salvation, and Heaven, and is based on Mark 16:6 : "...(Jesus) is going before you to Galilee; there you will see Him."
I guess do feel there is irony in the final words--or is there a better word?
"...once and for all, we are told where the Risen One is to be found
"and how we are to meet Him;
"He goes before you.
"He is present in preceding us.
"By following Him we can see him."

Sorry, I'm a bit hamstrung by not having the book before me. Can anyone give this entire passage (without having to manually type it all out)?

Hope the camping trip was enjoyable!

[DesertSister62]

Originally Posted by Justin Swanton
I don't see any irony. St Paul did see the resurrected Christ, who appeared to him on his journey to Damascus. The point is that St. Paul saw Christ in the flesh, not that he saw him at every one of his appearances. And what is inconsistent about his account?

5. There is no contradiction, hence no irony. The origin of St Paul's Faith was Christ's appearance to him on the road to Damascus, but he still bound himself to the Church to which Christ had entrusted his teaching. What Christ taught Peter about the Keys of the Kingdom et al. would have been taught to and believed by St Paul.

Originally Posted by Eschator83
If someone could explain how to move a quote to the other thread, I'll do it next time--or I suspect someone also knows how to just move this post, which if you want would be ok with me.

I think there is irony, or perhaps paradox, in the Church sometimes explaining the development of Christian faith, yet other times stressing the concept of a deposit of faith, as if it were an absolute, unchanging, "once and for all." I suppose the best answer is that our faith has elements of both.

In the Witness meditation, as it concludes with the concept of following Jesus in order to see him, it also seemed to me ironic to cite St Paul, who had contested much of the Law (circumcision, food restrictions, association with gentiles, purification, etc) as bound by the words or rituals of others. Consider Paul's conclusion that he was called to teach, not to baptize. And Paul's several accounts in Acts of Jesus' "appearances" do have surprising differences.

I think the most important message of the meditation is that we "see" (or know) Jesus through "following" Him (or obeying his instructions) and this is the best way to find and strengthen our faith. When the Apostles asked how to increase their faith, Jesus replied even tiny faith could do incredible works.

________________________________________ __

[Dee S]

Hi - just popping by to say hello.

I'm going to get back to reading Seek That Which is Above, now that my daughter' wedding is over, and hopefully will post in the Catholic Book Club Group soon.

Here is a link to the group for anyone who is interested in taking a look at our discussions:

http://forums.catholic.com/group.php?groupid=763

Papal Arms - Pope Benedict XVI

[Dee S]

Originally Posted by Dee S

If you would like to view these discussions/reflections please click on the following link

http://forums.catholic.com/group.php?groupid=763

New members welcome, please contact the group leader to apply. Always looking for new points of view and contributions to our discussions

[Dee S]

Originally Posted by Dee S

Here is a link to the group for anyone who is interested in taking a look at our discussions:

http://forums.catholic.com/group.php?groupid=763

Papal Arms - Pope Benedict XVI

We are still discussing Seek That Which is Above (Pope Benedict XVI's book of meditations).

At present we are on the chapter called The Feast of The Spirit. It has two chapters:
1. Be Awake to Receive the Power that Comes out of Silence
2. Think of Acting According to the Spirit

This extract from the first chapter is providing some interesting and varied ideas among us, particularly the section in bold:

"A parable may help to make it clearer. A few
years ago there was an impressive film entitled “The
Transmigration of Souls”. It was about two poor
wretches who, because of their good-naturedness,
could not improve their lot. One day one of them hits
upon the idea of selling his soul, since he has
nothing else left to sell. It is sold cheap and packed
up in a box. From this moment, to his absolute
amazement, everything in his life changes. He
climbs fast, gets more and more wealthy, attains
high honors and dies as a consul, well furnished with
money and possessions. The moment he got rid of
his soul, he lost all consideration, all humanity. Now
he acts without scruple simply for profit and success.
The human being is no longer of any account (and he
himself has no soul). In a deeply moving way the film
shows how, behind the façade of the successful
man, there is an empty existence. On the surface
nothing seems to be missing—but the soul has
gone, and everything else along with it.

It is true, of course, that man cannot really throw
away his soul, that is, what makes him human. He is
and remains a human being. And yet he has the
terrible ability to be an inhuman human; while
remaining human he can barter away his humanity
and lose it. The gap between the human and the
inhuman is vast and yet cannot be proved; it is the
decisive factor, yet on the surface it seems of slight
significance. To me, this is a parable illustrating
much of what is involved in Pentecost.

Whether the Holy Spirit, the gift of the new
creation, enters a man or not, whether a man makes
room for him or not, is not something that can be
seen or verified from the outside. It does not seem to
have any relevance. And yet it is something that
opens up a new dimension of human life that
ultimately determines everything else. The point of
Pentecost, therefore, is not to make us dream of
better future worlds, let alone to encourage us to
adopt a strategy of the future, thoughtlessly
sacrificing the present for some supposedly future
chimera. On the contrary, these days are meant to
awaken us to the present hour, to the silent energy of
divine goodness, which is knocking at the door of
our being and wanting to refashion it. To be awake
to receive the power that comes out of silence—is
this not a task and a hope that could be embraced
by Christians and nonChristians alike, a Pentecost
for all?"

Feel free to comment here on this thread if you are not able to join in on the group.