tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post3439580722776253343..comments2015-02-11T20:22:11.644-08:00Comments on Stomachosus Thomistarum: Is Proselytism An Evil? Is it Really Different from Evangelization?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post-6800418355915282842014-09-25T20:58:12.367-07:002014-09-25T20:58:12.367-07:00I agree that it is different. But I strongly disag...I agree that it is different. But I strongly disagree about how most people would hear it. Most people think voicing disagreement is a personal attack, and against the entitlement of their opinions. Stomachosushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985536970467983132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post-73899879750907406322014-09-24T23:04:06.108-07:002014-09-24T23:04:06.108-07:00Well, I certainly would not defend the use of the ...Well, I certainly would not defend the use of the Pope's terms as ideal. I think you are right that they can and will be misconstrued, I just think that most people would hear it the way I am suggesting. <br /><br />With regard to the Legion of Mary: I went door to door with them and I was struck at how different our praxis was from that of Mormons of JWs. When we went to the door our principle question was, "Is there anything you would like us to pray for?" Or something along those lines. Then we would just start a conversation, or not. Seems different, somehow. Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post-53522785047555262782014-09-24T14:00:36.712-07:002014-09-24T14:00:36.712-07:00I perhaps should have elaborated a bit more on rhe...I perhaps should have elaborated a bit more on rhetoric as used above. I called the preacher's role in convicting unbelievers of the credibility of the faith analogous to dialectics, and so too his effort in inclining them to at least suspect the truth of Christianity should have been called analogous to rhetoric. Analogous, because it rests not purely in leading reason from one thing to another discursively, as rhetoric does, but rests as much or more on the testimony of miracles, holiness, the four marks of the Church.<br /><br />But I do think rhetoric, as understood by Aristotle and Aquinas, is essential to the preacher. Now rhetoric is part of prudence, and Paul, in 1 Corinthians, condemns the prudence of the prudent.<br /><br />I understand that, with Aquinas, as similar to the "prudence of the flesh" in Romans.<br /><br /> Similiter non dicit reprobabo prudentiam, nam veram prudentiam sapientia Dei docet, sed dicit prudentiam prudentium, id est, quam illi qui se prudentes aestimant in rebus mundanis prudentiam reputant ut scilicet bonis huius mundi inhaereant. Vel quia, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, v. 6, prudentia carnis mors est. Et sic propter defectum sapientiae reputant impossibile Deum hominem fieri, mortem pati secundum humanam naturam; propter defectum autem prudentiae reputant inconveniens fuisse quod homo sustineret crucem, confusione contempta, ut dicitur Hebr. XII, 2. (Super 1 Corinthians, cap. 1 lect. 3)<br /><br />As far as the association of the word; most people I know don't have any association with it. They don't even know the word. Hence if they read the words of the pope they will either equate with with persuasion, since he does, or they will look up a dictionary and see it is about converting people or advocating your beliefs. <br /><br />It is only within a narrow circle of some Catholics that it acquires the association you ascribe to "most." "Converting" is what I would associate with Mormons and JWs.<br /><br />And the Legion of Mary, by the way, did door to door work. Is that what is so"despicable"? Is that peddling our religion? Most people think of JW and Mormons in that connection after all, as an annoyance at the door. Yeah they are more insidious elsewhere, say South America.<br /><br />Hmm taking the pope's penchant for using extremely hackneyed cliches and their being reported as some great wisdom and then reading them with all these layers of esoterism and exoterism, it is like a multi-layer Straussian cake....I mean really, there is the exoteric meaning, and then an esoteric meaning. And within that esoteric circle, there i a meaning, as it were, exoteric with respect to that community, and a meaning esoteric, understood by even a smaller group.<br /><br />I think we need to aim at, when addressing the general public, having true exoteric meanings...as much as possible.Stomachosushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985536970467983132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post-46863375657510896422014-09-24T11:18:21.067-07:002014-09-24T11:18:21.067-07:00Stomachosus,
On the whole I agree with your anal...Stomachosus, <br /><br />On the whole I agree with your analysis. I depart from you position, however, in this way: For most proseltyzation is a bad thing because it comes across as peddling one's religion. Most associate the idea with Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, which is reason enough to consider it a "bad word." <br /><br />We who would distinguish between poselytizing and evangelizing would do so with this in mind. Evangelization is about bringing Christ to others in actions first and then in words. We do not need Rhetoric, but to know nothing but Christ Crucified (Cf. 1Cor). We must be read to give reasons (Cf. 1Peter), but only when pressed. Paul tried reasoning and rhetoric in Athens, and it failed. That is why he resolved to speak only of the Crucified Christ in Corinth (Cf. 1Cor.) Frater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.com