, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, your humble blogger got a bit sidetracked, going into further detail with respect to the official Deus Ex Machina (DEM) HYPOTHESIS pertaining to the “destruction” of the Institutional Church. This diversion was brought about by a loyal reader and the comment he wrote in the comment box under the post titled If The Shoes Fit…, and I suggest a quick reading before you, dear reader proceed to the below post.

And then  over at the One Peter Five website came to the assistance of your humble blogger here. But I digress…

What is of utmost importance to understand and I need to be very clear about this, the DEM official HYPOTHESIS pertaining to the destruction of the Institutional Church rests solely on the suppression of the Aristotelian definition of what constitutes TRUTH. More precisely, the suppression of an objective definition of TRUTH, i.e. bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’) to a subjective definition, i.e. bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’), IS at the ROOT CAUSE of the present day problems afflicting the Universal Church, especially in the lands that constitute Western Civilization.

Given the above, it is fair to say that the problems afflicting the Institutional Church are ones of a philosophical nature.

What’s more, the problems afflicting Western Civilization appear also to be of a philosophical nature. Actually, the problems afflicting Western Civilization can be diagnosed as being the SAME as those that are afflicting the Institutional Church.

As to the above wider Western Civilization HYPOTHESIS, I have been providing links to the youtube videos being produced by Stefan Molyneux. This is not accidental and there is a method to this madness.

The reason why I have been linking to the Molyneux videos is that Stefan and his guests, very concisely and poignantly not only diagnose the problems that have been brought about by the adaptation of the logically false ‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’ definition of truth, but provide a very effective framework for finding a cure for the Modernist, or rather the neo-Modernist disease.

Furthermore, the appropriateness of using the Molyneux videos as a guide to developing and disseminating a remedy for that which afflicts the Institutional Church is this: Stefan Molyneux’s approach is universal.

To be more precise, Stefan’s approach works on a very basic level. In other words, Stefan can engage, on a rational level with people who have a very diverse set of personal beliefs. For those who have been taking advantage of actually going into the provided links, will notice how Stefan can have a coherent, intelligent conversations with people who are Catholic – Gavin McInness or those who are Christian – Vox Day, Dr. Duke Pesta (he might be Catholic) on the one hand and people who are avowed atheists – Michael Shermer on the other hand. And this continuum is collectively exhaustive. Collectively exhaustive to people who still possess a rational thought process, that is.

What all of the above mentioned people have in common, other than their capacity to think critically and rationally, is that they are searching for what can be called the “meaning of their existence”. In other words, they are trying to understand not only how they got HERE, but why they ARE here.

Allow me to beat this dead horse a bit further…

Looking at it through the framework of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the one common characteristic of the above named individuals is that they all function at an intellectual level above the base level of satisfying their biological and physiological needs (basic life needs – air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep, sex, etc.).

Given the above, and provided that it is an accurate and correct observation, and I think it is, it would appear to this humble blogger that we as Catholics and Restorationists have identified a “level” on which we can carry on our public discourse with a wider audience.

The basis on which to carry out this wider discourse going forward, is what is known as one of the sources of our Faith, namely through our senses:  as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”.

Therefore, it would appear as a framework for carrying out this “wider discourse with the rational elements of humanity” can look as follows:

(1) Identify – Identify individuals who are searching for what can be called the meaning of life and identify the level at which he can be engaged.

(2) Evangelize – These identified individuals need to be engaged on a rational, philosophical level.

(3) Proselytize – Once these individuals are engaged on a philosophical level, they can be brought to the supernatural level.

(4) What needs to be kept in mind is that Our Lord did not come to save everyone, (pro omnes) but only to save the many (pro multis). Even if we cannot convert everyone to the ONE TRUE FAITH, we can gain valuable allies to which we can relate on a Natural Law and rational, philosophical level, to at least help in saving Western Civilization.

Concluding, what is of utmost importance to understand is that the above framework is a structured framework. This framework is a methodology that addresses the individual’s needs at that level that is amenable to that particular individual with who we are engaging.

An example of how to engage at an amenable level of discourse has been provided in the Molyneux video titled Evidence for God?, that we linked to in our previous post. Notice how the lady, Amy – a practicing Catholic engages Stefan – a self described atheist during the conversation. At one point Stefan, using sensory evidence, as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made, admits (which he frequently does, btw…) that there is a compelling case for the belief in the existence of God.

It is to this point where ALL exchanges between rational people can be brought.

The opposite side of the above positive case is that for those instances where an exchange cannot be brought to this point, we are in fact dealing with an ideologue

In the above identified positive case, problems arise when we as Catholics do not make a distinction between the natural part of our Faith and the supernatural part of our Faith. An excellent example of just situation I am providing in the video above.

Notice the call-in guest, one Mark, trying to make the rational case for the existence of God, while interjecting arguments from the supernatural source of our Faith. As you can see dear reader, it becomes a messy process.

Also notice that Mark’s conversation is not as effective as the one in the video with the Catholic Amy.

I will leave off here.

However, I will say that there are reasons for this, but I will save those for a future post.