Is Satan Leading the Synod?

By Father Dickson from The Catholic Collar and Tie blog:

One of the major ploys of Satan is to take a truth and distort it. In Eden he took the truth that we are made in God’s image and likeness and twisted it to have Adam and Eve seek likeliness to God in the espousing of absolute autonomy: “You can be like God and know right from wrong”. In presenting autonomy to Adam as likeness to God, Satan had Adam follow a lie into suffering and death. Today, Satan is taking the truth that God is merciful to have us accept not simply the sinner but the sin.
Let us be brutally honest: from reports coming from the Synod, many at the highest levels of the Church seem to have been deceived by Satan; they are advocating ‘new directions’ outside of Gospel truth. Having taken on board modern, person-centred psychology in which “what is right for me is right” reigns, they are ditching Gospel Truth as ‘rigid’ and ‘lacking in mercy’, yet the mercy they talk of is one which means not judging the act or situation –which is a false mercy, for true mercy judges the act in order to save the person.

Sadly, Francis is not calling them back but seems to be encouraging their new direction, hinting that their idea of mercy is the work of a ‘God of surprises’. In reality, they are not asking us to be surprised by God; they are asking us to ignore God and His Divine Law. Francis has likened those who defend The Faith to those who wished to stone the woman caught in adultery; he implies they have no understanding of God’s mercy and are like the rigid doctors of the law. But they do understand mercy; they have read that Gospel passage to the end where Our Lord warns to woman, ‘go, and sin no more’.  If this Synod continues to focus on only half of the Gospel; on mercy without repentance and amendment of life (which we all have to engage in) it preaches a distortion of the Gospel and does the work of Satan. Those who promote this false mercy are steering toward the wide road that leads to perdition, and taking souls with them. To be sure, Francis can be read as upholding the Faith, but he does appear to engage in double-speak as a matter of course, for while he affirmed doctrine in his homily at the opening Mass of the Synod, he still asked the Synod Fathers to be surprised by God and allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into new ways of living out the Faith (labelled as mere ‘disciplinary changes’). The man-in-the-street, however, can see the idiocy and danger of saying we believe one thing yet doing another: “I believe in gravity, but I wish to fly and believe I can fly, so jumping of the Dome of St Peter’s will not harm me”.

Here is a surprise for those advocating a new style of mercy: nothing is impossible to God. A ‘No-thing’, a contradiction, is impossible to God. God cannot draw a square circle, and He cannot unite Himself to sin either. What we need from this Synod is not ways of admitting those in objectively sinful situations to the Holy of Holies, but ways to help marriages and the family stay a stable and strong light in this God-forsaking world. As this Synod progresses we faithful Catholics are called to act as in the days of the Arian Crisis and raise our voices in favour of orthodoxy. As Edmund Burke said, ‘all that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing’. Let us be faithful instruments of the Holy Spirit, who protects the Deposit of Faith given by Christ. Let us raise our voices in defence of The Truth so that Satan does not hoodwink the prelates of the Church and lead them -and us- astray.

Pat Archbold detects another sinister sign in The Scariest Quote of the Synod 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Is Satan Leading the Synod?

  1. Michael says:

    I think it’s important to remember what Cardinal Napier said (quoted in the previous article, in response to Rosica’s misleading presentation of the direction the Synod is going in):

    “The message has gone out and it’s not a true message,” he said. “Whatever we say hereafter is going to be as if we’re doing some damage control.”

    “The message has gone out that this is what the Synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying, and it’s not what we are saying at all,” he said. “No matter how we try correcting that … there’s no way of retrieving it.”

    Let us raise our voices in defence of the Truth, but let us also not let the narrative being put forward by dissenters do what they are trying to do – the faithful fathers there must be feeling pretty frustrated by what they hear some people telling the press, and it doesn’t help them if we buy into it as well. Satan is no doubt playing an influential part in some of the machinations going on here, but to suggest he is leading the Synod is a bridge too far, IMO.

  2. Marai says:

    The fear is that the false compassion / we cannot inflict any severity / there are no absolutes merchants – who are controlling so much of the culture – PC notions often included – will pollute the thinking and blur the issues.

  3. ginnyfree says:

    Hmmmmm…….might have something there. I mean if you were the devil and you wanted to twist and distort the teaching of things so folks would fall into error, you might begin by twisting them up with a few words and if you can even manage to get certain words stricken from the language of polite society and insert new words with unclear meanings in place of the old words that were used to describe certain theological certainties thusly causing the trusting acceptance most give to their spiritual leaders to lead them into using words that make grave matter seem less grave and even simple, acceptable lifestyle choices, etc…………………..I think perhaps Father Dickson may be onto the devil’s game plan. Could be. Censorship censoring the language of the Church in describing the sins of our times. How long do they think they can pull this one off? More than once I’ve been expected to change the words I use to describe certain acts in the Land-O-Blog or face expulsion for being “uncharitable” and “insensitive.” I need “sensitivity training” so I won’t upset the LGBT community and it supporters. Yeah. I’ve been told exactly that. The words they chose to use describing this is charity. It is charitable not to call sin sin or heresy heresy or error error, for all errors are relative and truth is also relative to each situation and God loves everyone even the queers. How dare I say they are sick depraved human beings who need much help that most of us cannot give them. How dare I say their lifestyle choices impact many in our society and NOT in a positive way. How dare I say some are actually dangerous to youth and children. And there ya go. I kinda said all that to see if the Censor of the Place will accommodate those who have a problem with language and the supernatural sponsor. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  4. A friend wrote to me: “Is Satan leading the synod? Well, if he ISN’T, it certainly seems that it’s being led by bishops who are under Satan’s influence.

    “How else can you account for this sort of proposal: giving Communion to adulterers and sodomites? How else can you account for the idea that if you call adulterers adulterers and sodomites sodomites, that sort of language is ‘hurtful’ and ‘unhelpful’?

    “I suppose now when we read the Gospel, we have to change it so that we don’t read ‘the woman taken in adultery’, but rather ‘the woman taken in an irregular situation’.

    “Of course, for these bishops, it doesn’t matter that St. John wrote in the Book of Revelation: ‘If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this book, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life.’

    “No, things like that are unimportant for certain bishops. I mean, Cardinal Kasper says we have to take the historical situation into account. After all, the idea of NOT updating the Gospel, or NOT ignoring the parts we don’t like – well, that’s SO fourteenth century, isn’t it?

    “Then he added, ‘Actually, if THAT kind of thinking isn’t Satanic, I don’t know what is’.”

  5. Michael says:

    This video (apologies if everyone has seen it already – I got it from wdtprs.com) makes some really excellent points that are worth reflecting on:

    The thing that strikes me the most at the moment is that, whilst this was billed as a Synod of ‘encounter’ it is, in practice, turning out to be a Synod of Exposure – the fault lines that have existed in the Church for some time now are being shown ever more clearly.

    The faithful prelates are having extra light shone on their message that we sorely need to confront a way of doing theology that puts contemporary behaviour first and Scripture/Tradition second; the madness of the ‘progressive’ element is being revealed more as they desperately try to shoehorn as many of their pet issues in while they can (c.f.; Fr. Rosica’s gross misrepresentation of the discussions, slanted towards his pro-homosexual views, and Archbishop DuRocher’s bizarre mentioning of that central family problem – whether or not there should be a female diaconate).

    Whatever happens, when the dust has settled, there will be nowhere to hide for the dissenters – there views are right out there for everyone to see. And the faithful, orthodox prelates will have been given a platform to reassert clearly just why the views of the dissenters are so harmful, as well as letting the laity know who they can rely on in the future.

  6. Plain old Toad says:

    “One of the major ploys of Satan is to take a truth and distort it. In Eden he took the truth that we are made in God’s image and likeness and twisted it to have Adam and Eve seek likeliness to God in the espousing of absolute autonomy: “You can be like God and know right from wrong”.”
    Well, don’t we know right from wrong? If we don’t, it’s not our fault, then – is it? It’s Satan’s. We are not like God. So what is the author talking about?
    ….By the way, if Adam and Eve is no more than an allegory, like the shepherd and his dopey sheep – what is it an allegory for (or of)?
    What really happened?
    I honestly don’t know. Something to do with forbidden fruit, which is a metaphor for knowledge. I gather.
    But that’s allegory in itself – isn’t it?

  7. Roger says:

    Lovest Thou Me More Than The Rest? That question was to St Peter and Every succeeding Pope. Either Rome places CHRIST First or it becomes worthless. A Godless Rome is worthless in Heavens eyes.
    There is a false worldy view of the Church. The Church is NOT of the World, It is part of this world BUT NOT of this world. It is the mystical Body of Christ.
    This world isn’t Paradise its a place of exile created by God for choosing and proving. The choice is of Eternity Heaven or Hell.
    Creation Genesis and the consequences of Original Sin. Mans banishment into what is a place of exile. Christ came to open Heaven to Man and through the sacraments (sic marriage ) to provide the means for Man to live a Life of Holiness and gain Heaven.
    This wordly perception of marriage is NOT of God and is NOT a channel of Grace and is worldly and Satanic.
    Satan is God’s Ape how appropriate that the world has chosen the Ape for its Father!

  8. johnhenrycn says:

    Michael (16:26) says –“…when the dust has settled, there will be nowhere to hide for the dissenters…”

    They are not hiding now. We know the main perps. They will not hide. They will engulf us.

    I don’t see this ending well.There will not be an official pronouncement on 25 October. Pope Francis will release his encyclical on 8 December (already prepared in draft) which will seal our fate – in the short-to-mid term – at the hands of liberal feminist homosexual snakes.

    So sorry: I’m not Nostradamus, and I hope/pray my deep pessimism is foolish. I really do.

  9. Michael says:

    Toad @ 16:47:

    Your question re the paraphrasing of Genesis 3:5 could easily be answered by recourse to the actual text (i.e.; by picking up a copy of the Bible) and reading it in conjunction with the Catechism. Basically, when Satan said what he did to Eve, he was tempting her to disobey God by suggesting that if she were to do so, she would know good and evil in the same way that God does – that is, comprehensively and without ambiguity.

    Satan of course knew that this is impossible – we cannot be like God in the sense of sharing his perfect knowledge of the Good (and therefore of its converse, evil) – and also knew that experiential knowledge of good and evil, learnt in the context of disobedience to the divine plan, would bring with it a whole series of unwelcome results.

    By the way, if Adam and Eve is no more than an allegory, like the shepherd and his dopey sheep – what is it an allegory for (or of)?

    1. It isn’t ‘no more than an allegory’ – not quite sure where you got that idea from, as it isn’t presented as such in the article, and such a view contradicts Catholic teaching that Adam and Eve were historical persons.

    2. If you want to view it in a non-literal way (I actually think the term allegory is completely misplaced here, but mythopoetic or metaphorical might suffice) then the point is that Man’s turning away from God is at the root of all our subsequent sin, disintegration, unhappiness, etc. This is all pretty basic stuff though, so I presume there is something else you are getting at?

  10. Michael says:

    johnhenry @ 17:45:

    They are not hiding now. We know the main perps. They will not hide. They will engulf us.

    This is precisely my point – people who have been trying it on in various subtle and ‘behind the scenes’ ways (or some who have even expounded their views more publicly and been allowed to escape discipline, often because of the ‘coded’ way in which those views have been presented) are now well known to us, and the extent of their views is wide open for all to see.

    I suppose it all comes down to whether or not they will indeed ‘engulf’ us. If they do, then yes, their exposure won’t matter much as they’ll be in the ascendant. If they don’t though, they will be left in a situation where the ecclesiastical climate has not changed in the way they wanted, but without any way to make their views seem less brazenly heterodox as they really are.

    One can always take some comfort in the knowledge that bribes, scheming, intrigue, dissent and suchlike are nothing new to Church synods or councils – these things have always gone on, and yet Truth has been preserved.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    I really do think that Catholic blogs serve a purpose in this fight. The only bishops who read blogs like this one will be orthodox, but I’m sure some do; and the arguments advanced here and on other orthodox sites must give them heart that they are not alone.

  12. Plain old Toad says:

    “..the point is that Man’s turning away from God is at the root of all our subsequent sin, disintegration, unhappiness, etc. This is all pretty basic stuff though, so I presume there is something else you are getting at?”
    Your answers are fantastically good, Michael – I’d like nothing better than to be able to believe them. But.
    My dopey question of the night here is – what actual form did the earliest man ( and woman’s) “turning away from God,” take? Or have we no idea? I gather the dogma says, until we turned away from God – in whatever metaphysical form that took – we were immortal, and immune to death, let alone disease, or accident, like mudslides.
    That also seems fantastic to me. Fantastically unbelievable. But I’m open to suggestion.
    Do you really believe there really was a man called Adam, from whose rib a woman called Eve was fashioned? And who had no Mum and Dad?

    (Dear Mr and Mrs Moderators, I don’t really care, but it surely would be more entertaining for the rest of us if Michael was allowed a reasonable opportunity to reply to this – without undue and ludicrous “moderating” delay.
    …But you know best. No doubt of that. God Bless, Toad.)

  13. Michael says:

    My dopey question of the night here is – what actual form did the earliest man ( and woman’s) “turning away from God,” take? Or have we no idea?

    Again, I’m wondering here if I’m misreading your question, because the answer seems to me quite basic, and something that you would have already heard – our turning away from God ‘in’* Adam was materially the taking of a piece of fruit from a tree that had been expressly labelled as prohibited**, but the essence of this was simple disobedience, the prideful decision to believe we know better than the One who made us. This impulse (the ‘non serviam’) is at the root of all sin, however you break it down.

    As to the rest of your question, I am afraid my eyelids are weighed down with sleep, so I don’t think I can reply properly now. Here are a couple of links that may help though:

    http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/was-there-death-before-the-fall

    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/before-sin

    http://blog.adw.org/2015/10/genesis-and-genre-a-brief-consideration-of-the-need-to-understand-literary-form/

    I will be more than happy to elaborate on any issues they raise, or areas you feel haven’t been adequately addressed, etc, tomorrow sometime. Briefly though, I do believe there was a historical first man (Adam), though I’m agnostic about whether he, the first human as we understand the term (self-conscious, reflective, aware of God, etc) emerged from another hominid group that shared many of the same physical faculties, or that he was a special creation physically, as well as spiritually. As to Eve and the rib, I defer to the third link above!🙂

    *Quite what it means to be ‘in’ Adam is itself an interesting question, which leads one to reflect on the essentially communal nature of humankind, the solidarity and interconnectedness we have with one another and responsibility we bear for one another (c.f.; Fr. Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov). Personally I think his act actually was and is our act in some mystical way that it we cannot fully understand – that he, at that moment, represented all humanity not just symbolically but almost sacramentally.

    **The act in question could, of course, have been any other kind of prohibited act, but this does not mean that there is not perhaps some richer significance to the one that was actually chosen – the fact that it was a tree and the plucking of fruit from its branches has been mused over by many throughout the ages, but I’m not aware of there being any ‘official’ statements on this. The key thing really is the disobedience and pride.

  14. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Toad. U: “Do you really believe there really was a man called Adam, from whose rib a woman called Eve was fashioned? And who had no Mum and Dad?”
    Me: Yes! Original sin as well as the whole enchilada. Betta ya two plug nickels I’m right about all the rest o the package too. Only one caveat: you won’t know if I’m wrong till they do your post mortem. Ready to ante up? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  15. ginnyfree says:

    P.S. Toad. You are one of the finest examples of a man who has turned away from God that I’ve met in the Land-O-Blog. So, for the answer to your dopey question, simply look in any handy mirror and see how the turning away part plays itself out in your own lifetime. It is different for every little toady that does the same, but the starting point is the axiom of the whole equation. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  16. Plain old Toad says:

    Ginny, you assume too much, I suggest. You have no idea how God and I get along.
    However, since you show some friendly interest, I read only the other day that Original Sin was not “originated,” for want of a better word, until after 500 a.d. . Is this true, do yu know. Did Christ ever mention it?

    Michael, I have read the wonderfully-named Matt Fradd, (via your link) who says animals (humans nor being animals, of course) and plants did die before The Fall. What a can of decomposing worms that opens!
    I will read the others today.

  17. ginnyfree says:

    Right Toad, we made it all up! Us Catholics make up all kinds of stuff. We shouldn’t be trusted with anything like history at all. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  18. Michael says:

    Toad @ 08:16:

    What a can of decomposing worms that opens!

    Not really. As you’ve read the article by Matt Fradd, you will have noticed that he quotes Saint Thomas Aquinas on this matter, who wrote that ‘the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.‘ There is also a link following this to another article (by Jimmy Akin) which elaborates on this, and connects it with the plain sense of what Saint Paul wrote in Romans, Chapter 5.

    Saint Augustine also held this view with respect to the effects of Original Sin on the rest of the animal kingdom (he wrote about it in The City of God). The position of the Church is only that, as a result of Adam’s sin, our relationship with the rest of creation now lacks the harmony it would have had, and that, because of our special position as stewards of the natural world, the latter has become more subject to decay than it would have done. It is not taught that animal and plant death per se are the result of the Fall.

  19. Michael says:

    Did Christ ever mention it?

    As at other times, you seem to be taking a very Protestant view of doctrine – namely that unless something is expressly mentioned in Scripture, it cannot possibly be authentic Christian teaching. Very strange. And no, wherever you read that the doctrine of Original Sin wasn’t ‘originated’ (I’m not sure whether you mean discussed at all, or formally accepted) until after 500 A.D., is not true – it was first given clear elaboration by Saint Ireneaus in the 2nd Century A.D., and has been part of Church teaching, in one form or another (there are differences of emphasis in East and West), ever since.

  20. Plain old Toad says:

    I don’t make a habit of taking a “protestant” view of anything, Michael. If my view on a particular
    issue happens to coincide with a protestant one, well – there we are. As we all agree, the’s more than one way to skin a cat. They surely can’t be wrong about everything, can they? ( No, Toad, only about the bits that matter.)
    Right, the concept of Original Sin originated some 200 years after Christ.

    “…because of our special position as stewards of the natural world, the latter has become more subject to decay than it would have done.”
    Really. How odd. How come?
    Any point in asking you whether you personally believe that animals and plants died and rotted in Paradise before the Fall? Regardless of the rate of decay?‘

    “…the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.‘ “
    AA trifly clumsily put by the Saint, but OK. Lions ate zebras in Eden, but didn’t eat humans. Where does that leave parasites on humans, such as lice, leeches,and malarial flies, who do “eat” humans, after a fashion? Were our first parents somehow immune? Is disease caused by sin, then?
    “…he essentially communal nature of humankind, the solidarity and interconnectedness we have with one another and responsibility we bear for one another (c.f.; Fr. Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov). “
    Yes, that would be a nice idea, all right. I see little sign of if since Cain and Abel had a difference of opinion.

  21. ginnyfree says:

    Toad, could you be wronger? The concept of Original sin, though not as fleshed out as it is in Christianity, was part of the theology of the Jews and if you haven’t noticed, they were around BC, that is BEFORE Christ which would make your newest venture into error even more silly. There are about a 50-50 split in modern Jewish scholarship about the idea, most believing Adam brought sin to man whose punishment is death, etc. but the others don’t see it that way entirely. The bottom line though is that the foundational theology was there long before the Messiah came. Though they will not call it “Original sin” and they do think it is an inherited sin passed down thru the generations and the proof of this is that all men die, the punishment for sin. Read a little Toad and perhaps you won’t fall for such nonsense and try to pass it off as fact. God bless. GInnyfree.

  22. Cloister says:

    Ginnyfree, where is your evidence for Toad turning from God? You may indeed be right, but how do you know that?

    Ginnyfree, I fear for you (and Michael) if you recklessly believe in a historical Adam and Eve. Yet learn from Michael who guides you with his provenanced comment opposing Toad’s view, though Michael does stumble somewhat when he says ” … I think his (Adam’s) act actually was and is our act in some mystical way that it we cannot fully understand ”. If we cannot understand then we are lurching through the dark and thus the easy victims of malevolence. To understand is to be human – and (avoiding hubris) we are nothing else.

    Michael says ”This impulse (the ‘non serviam’) is at the root of all sin”. No, for didn’t Christ refuse to serve the orthodoxy of his day? It cost him his life, remember? Without this refusal, no Church. For one example, isn’t it a Christian duty to refuse to serve the ‘values’ of the predatory asocial economic system under which we live? Refusal is a duty, not a crime.

  23. Michael says:

    I don’t make a habit of taking a “protestant” view of anything, Michael. If my view on a particular
    issue happens to coincide with a protestant one, well – there we are. As we all agree, the’s more than one way to skin a cat. They surely can’t be wrong about everything, can they?

    I am finding myself in the familiar position of wondering whether you are really not seeing where I’m coming from, or are being deliberately contrary. My comment re your Protestant view of the relationship between Scripture and doctrine was made because, given the fact you have made several references to your Catholic upbringing and education here before, I would have thought that you might have come across the fundamental premise that the Church does not, and never has, taken a ‘Scripture alone’ approach to discerning and formulating its doctrine.

    Right, the concept of Original Sin originated some 200 years after Christ.

    More like 100 years – I said the 2nd century A.D., not 200 A.D. But the basic point is the same – this doesn’t matter, given the fact that a Scripture alone approach has never been characteristic of orthodox Christianity.

    Any point in asking you whether you personally believe that animals and plants died and rotted in Paradise before the Fall? Regardless of the rate of decay?‘

    Sorry, I thought it was already apparent that I do, given that I provided (and thereby implicitly endorsed) the links I did, and re-emphasised this point in my follow-up comment.

    Where does that leave parasites on humans, such as lice, leeches,and malarial flies, who do “eat” humans, after a fashion? Were our first parents somehow immune? Is disease caused by sin, then?

    I, and others, have been through this quite a few times with you before. Quite frankly I don’t see how going over it again will help – if you weren’t convinced then, you won’t be now. Furthermore (and I might, of course, be wrong), judging by the (comparatively flippant) tone of your responses you seem to be less genuinely interested in an answer now than you seemed to be originally.

    I see little sign of if since Cain and Abel had a difference of opinion.

    Good grief – the fact that we are all guilty of the very same motivations/impulses that drove Cain to slay Abel, and that drive all our sins, is precisely part of what Fr. Zosima was saying.* My point about interconnectedness and mutual responsibility was not meant to be some fluffy ideal about our all loving and caring for each other all the time because we’re such nice people, but that we are fundamentally connected in and through our sins and our guilt, as well as in what good we do to one another.

    This is a key part of what Original Sin is all about, and is why I wrote what I did about what it means for us to be ‘in’ Adam – we are bound together in our common humanity and the roots of what we do are no different, regardless of how severe the sins we commit might be. Recognising the universality of the human condition and the shared root of all sin should bring us to the realisation that we are all responsible, and to humble ourselves accordingly.

    *“Love one another, Fathers,” said Father Zosima, as far as Alyosha could remember afterwards. “Love God’s people. Because we have come here and shut ourselves within these walls, we are no holier than those that are outside, but on the contrary, from the very fact of coming here, each of us has confessed to himself that he is worse than others, than all men on earth…. And the longer the monk lives in his seclusion, the more keenly he must recognize that. Else he would have had no reason to come here. When he realizes that he is not only worse than others, but that he is responsible to all men for all and everything, for all human sins, national and individual, only then the aim of our seclusion is attained. For know, dear ones, that every one of us is undoubtedly responsible for all men — and everything on earth, not merely through the general sinfulness of creation, but each one personally for all mankind and every individual man. This knowledge is the crown of life for the monk and for every man. For monks are not a special sort of men, but only what all men ought to be. (Book IV, Chapter I)

  24. Michael says:

    P.S. For one final roll of the dice, perhaps it might help if you think about the way serious changes to an environment affects the ecosystem – if something is removed or introduced, or the balance of things is upset in some way, the ecosystem changes accordingly.

    The claim of the Church re the Fall of Man and its impact on the rest of the natural world is similar to this – that in the Fall, we ourselves became dis-integrated, and due to our significant role in creation overall, a subsequent disintegration occurred in the natural world and regarding our relationship to it. Thus, processes that already existed could conceivably have adjusted in reaction to this change – species attacking other species (including Man) that they hadn’t done previously, mutations leading to disease, etc.

    It happens on a small scale all the time, so if one grants the momentousness of the Fall of Man, it is not hard to see its having a similarly momentous impact on the natural world overall. Furthermore (as a slight aside), with respect to our perception of the world around us, processes that would have appeared morally neutral previously now appear evil, and the contour of much of the world changes.

  25. Plain old Toad says:

    First.. “..from the very fact of coming here, each of us (monks) has confessed to himself that he is worse than others, than all men on earth…”
    Second: “For monks are not a special sort of men, but only what all men ought to be. (Book IV, Chapter I)
    I give up. God bless us all – especially Ginnyfree.
    If it were not for my Catholic “education,” I wouldn’t be on here, anyway. I know as well as anyone that my presence here is a waste of all our time.
    But some things should be questioned.
    ...you seem to be less genuinely interested in an answer now than you seemed to be originally.”
    Probably true. I begin ro despair of getting any coherent answer to that.
    Oh, all right – one last time: Is disease a result of sin? Yes or No?
    No need to explain. One word will do.

  26. ginnyfree says:

    In one word Toad: Yes.

  27. johnhenrycn says:

    “Is disease a result of sin? Yes or No?”

    In one word, Toad: yes. (Hi Ginny). You declined explanation, which I’m grateful for. I’m grateful that you can allow that children born with flippers for arms might have done because of sin.

  28. Tom Fisher says:

    There are some (ahem) problems with simply chalking disease up to sin. for example.. actually I can’t be bothered. Whatever y’all say Ginny.

  29. Robert says:

    To understand Creation and Adam and Eve (unique and Created) look at Jesus and Mary. The Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth are Creative NOT Evolved! Look at the Eucharist.
    This ridiculing of Genesis is just a way of denying Our Lord and dumping Man back into Adams Sin.
    Look at Genesis and the SELF Awareness of Adam and Eve. Self and Selfishness the fruit of the Fall. Look at the Trinity and see that the Three are selfless! The Son always placing the Father first etc..
    The Sacraments give Us the Life of Grace and open the door to Heaven. Marriage between Man and Woman, this is all we need to know. Man will Live for Eternity he is Body/Spirit/Soul. but where Heaven? of Hell? We live in an Age where the Body (the material) is promoted and the Spirit/Soul denied!!

  30. Michael says:

    Toad @ 19:00, October 11th:

    I thought maybe providing that excerpt would be a mistake – you have a very black and white way of reading things, which, as I’ve said before, is strange for an agnostic.

    I know as well as anyone that my presence here is a waste of all our time.

    Your presence here is not a waste of anyone’s time – what is frustrating though is that you start a line of enquiry seemingly out of genuine desire for an answer, then as soon as anyone takes the time to provide you with one, you become dismissive of the responses and reluctant to continue to engage in the same manner as you started.

    Oh, all right – one last time: Is disease a result of sin? Yes or No?

    See my ‘P.S.’ at 18:57, October 11th. It may seem incoherent to you, but I don’t think I can say it any plainer than that.

  31. Plain old Toad says:

    Excellent responses all round. Gold star for Michael again(!)
    Despite what it might seem at times, I am searching for truth as best I can, and at some length.. I am the product of my environment, as is everyone on here. Mine is sceptical. None of us on CP&S are Hindu’s ( as far as I know) because we don’t come from a Hindu environment. If we did, we probably would be.
    That’s logic, that is. So, I feel it’s not a good idea to take too dogmatic a view of life. It all depends on circumstances. Though why anyone would choose to be born in, say Syria, these days, escapes me.
    Don’t suppose all this makes much sense.
    I may be a “strange Agnostic,” for all I know. We don’t hold meetings.

    You are all very wonderful and I love you* (it is 11.30 a.m., and I’m sober.) – as I must.

    *Even the moderators.

  32. johnhenrycn says:

    Happy Thanksgiving,Tom:

    What I meant – and I expect what Ginnyfree also meant – in responding affirmatively to Potty’s question (19:00 hours) about whether disease is a result is sin is that there was no disease before the Fall of Man. PoT probably thinks the eviction from the Garden was illegal since Adam and Eve’s ‘sinful’ act was performed by two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, but in any case, disease came into the world thereafter.

  33. johnhenrycn says:

    “…what did the other animals and trees die of?”

    Potty: Roger/Robert can point out to you that death did not exist before the Fall, either for Man, or for other animals or for trees.

    As for why children were born with flippers for arms, it was because of sin – viz the grasping by Big Pharma for profits at the expense of fetal health. Thalidomide. But didn’t you tell us earlier that you didn’t require an explanation for the connection between disease and sin?

  34. GC says:

    Tom Fisher @ October 12, 2015 at 07:29

    There are some (ahem) problems with simply chalking disease up to sin. for example.. actually I can’t be bothered. Whatever y’all say Ginny.

    Though it is really quite off topic (which is often the case with Toad’s “interventions” here), why not indulge us just for a few minutes anyhow, Mr Fisher?

  35. Robert says:

    Death is distinguished by Our Lord into that of the Body and Eternity. Man as created lives forever either in Heaven or Hell.
    Hades was known to the ancients (sic Iliad which has excellent examples of shades with knowledge memory and intellect after physical death).
    The point is this is a place of exile because of Sin.
    Our Lord through his Passion and Death reverses all things but in God’s time not Mans. This means that this world will not survive for ever. Its for Us to use these period of Free Will to choose Heaven or Hell. We have to add Our small drops to that of Our Lord to earn and merit Heaven.
    13 October is the anniversary of the Great Miracle of Fatima lets SEE what response we will get from Rome! Fatima clearly predicated the 20 century and remains to be fulfilled meaning we should focus on its fulfilment.

  36. Plain old Toad says:

    “Fatima clearly predicated the 20 century “
    Quite a lot of people saw it coming, Rogot.

  37. Tom Fisher says:

    why not indulge

    Thanks GC, but the result would probably be more heat than light. And as you say it’s wildly off topic!

  38. Michael says:

    Toad @ 10:31, October 12th:

    An excellent response yourself there – rather moving in its candour and lack of cynicism. Also, I quite like the idea that agnostics do hold meetings – not sure what they’d talk about, given the basic premise of the affair, but, perhaps precisely because of this I see it as quite an attractive idea – very quaint, a bit like one of those Quaker meetings (but probably not quite as quiet)🙂

  39. Tom Fisher says:

    @ Michael, can you remember which thread your comment re women was on? By the time I came back to it there had been an influx of new comments and posts

    @ Toad 1907, brilliant

    Roger / Robert, Hades was known to the ancients (sic Iliad which has excellent examples of shades with knowledge memory and intellect after physical death — no, you simply can’t use Homer as a source of knowledge about the afterlife. That just does not work, from either a Christian or secular standpoint.

  40. Mimi says:

    I’m just going to throw this weird idea out here, and I’d be very interested to hear your response, Michael, in view of your excellent PS on 11 October at 18.57, which resonated strongly with me.

    I have always wondered why humans use such a small proportion of their brain. What is the rest of it for? It occurred to me many years ago that perhaps that large percentage of our brain was involved in our connection with God, and we lost the use of it after the Fall, when we cut ourselves off from Him.

    It occurred to me that before the Fall, when we had full brain-power, so to speak, perhaps we had what might now be called para-normal abilities — maybe telepathy, or telekinesis, or the ability to communicate with animals (or at least to control them mentally), the ability to heal ourselves after injuries, and the like. I wonder if perhaps we could have transported ourselves to other places instantaneously, like Jesus did after His Resurrection?

    And then I wondered about the abilities demonstrated by some saints — e.g. levitation, bi-location, and that sort of thing. Is it possible that their holiness, their closeness to God, enabled them to reconnect with God to the extent that they could access some of that dormant brain-power?

    I hope I’m not coming across as a complete weirdo — it’s difficult to put my conceptions into words! But I can’t help living in hope that at the end of time, when we’re all resurrected, our new and glorious bodies will have these amazing powers! (Probably the end result of a mis-spent youth that involved an excessive consumption of Marvel comics!😉 )

  41. Tom Fisher says:

    I have always wondered why humans use such a small proportion of their brain. What is the rest of it for? It occurred to me many years ago that perhaps that large percentage of our brain was involved in our connection with God, and we lost the use of it after the Fall, when we cut ourselves off from Him.

    The oft quoted figure is that we use 10% of our brains. But you need to remember that brains do a lot more, as an organ, than cognition. They burn energy, and produce heat, for one thing. Also, our close cousins the Chimpanzees use a similarly small proportion of the brains for cognition — and presumably they never experienced the Fall.

  42. Mimi says:

    @Tom @12.21:

    Yes, well, all our organs burn energy, do they not? But that is not their function, surely? Hearts, lungs, kidneys and livers do not exist simply to burn energy; that is a means, not an end, no? So what is the purpose of our largely unused brain? I am no closer to an answer.

    Good point about the chimpanzees, though. I know diddley squat about primate biology, and so they never featured in my musings!

  43. Plain old Toad says:

    “It occurred to me that before the Fall, when we had full brain-power, so to speak, perhaps we had what might now be called para-normal abilities …”
    The implication Mimi, is that if we could each use the whole, or a far higher proportion, of our brains, we could all perform what are now seen as miracles.
    So miracles would cease to be so. Very interesting idea.

  44. Michael says:

    Mimi @ 12:00:

    An interesting proposition, and, whilst I agree with Tom that the idea we only use a certain small percentage of our brains is something of an urban myth (neuroscience is a discipline in its infancy, and many things are claimed for it which have very little basis in established fact – the truth is that we still do not know very much about the brain at all), I have had thoughts similar to yours before, at least insofar as wondering whether we may be capable of more than we commonly are at present.

    For instance, there is an enormous amount of testimony to the effect that sometimes people can exhibit some kind of extra-sensory perception. Now, some, even the majority of these claims may be bunk, but I do not think one can simply reject all these claims out of hand – some evidence is much more convincing than others, and the really convincing cases are usually only rejected because of a priori materialist assumptions. I certainly don’t discount the possibility of people having such faculties, and some of the testimony has made we wonder whether the mind may be capable of more.

    However, whilst I think that such potential capacity would entail physiology in some respect (i.e.; the brain, being the physical means by which the mind works, would have to have that extra ‘room’ so to speak), I think ultimately for humans to be able to do things above and beyond what they are capable of now (and what we will be able to do in our glorified bodies) is purely a grace – there may be hints here and now in this life, but it is something extra that is ‘given’. This would indeed be the case pre-Fall, but I think the gifts given to some of the saints are probably hints of the glorified life, and so are gifts which exceed even that which Adam and Eve were given.

    This has become a bit rambly, and I’ve left a lot out, but hopefully this at least partly answers your question!

  45. Michael says:

    Tom @ 10:56:

    Sorry, I can’t for the life of me remember it now!

  46. Robert says:

    Tom “..Also, our close cousins the Chimpanzees use a similarly small proportion of the brains for cognition ..”
    Please elaborate on whose and which of Jesus , Mary and Joseph’s cousins where Chimp’s!
    Perhaps you are calling the Eucharist the Flesh of an Ape! Which is blasphemy.
    The Lord’s prayer expressly says Our Father who Art in Heaven!
    I simply repeat that in the Iliad you will find references to Hades and spirits we had intelligence, knowledge, memory, vision, hearing, speech but who were dead.
    Hamlet has an example in the Ghost of his deceased murdered Father evidencing the intelligence, knowledge, memory, vision, hearing and speech.

  47. Plain old Toad says:

    Virtually every religion has an afterlife. It’s what the whole ball of wax is all about.
    No afterlife – no point to this life. So there must be one. That’s logic, that is.

    Personally, I’d be considerably happier in the company of my Chimp cousins than with some of my human ones. Fewer idiotic ideas. And far nicer looking.

  48. Mimi says:

    Thanks for that thoughtful response, Michael, though it hasn’t quite cured me of my wild fantasies!

    And, basically, thanks to everybody for not just pointing and laughing!🙂

  49. Tom Fisher says:

    Perhaps you are calling the Eucharist the Flesh of an Ape! Which is blasphemy

    Hey steady on Robert. I did no such thing! I did not blaspheme the Eucharist, I never have, and I never will. — Play fair mate.

  50. Plain old Toad says:

    “Perhaps you are calling the Eucharist the Flesh of an Ape! “
    Would you eat the flesh of a man that you didn’t think was God, then – Robert?
    Personally, I would not. But then, I’m a sort of Ape.

    (Dietary prejudices are fascinating, aren’t they? Some Hindus beat a man to death the other day for eating beef.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s