This is very interesting indeed. So glad you shared these findings. I keep thinking also of the satanic element that AI introduces. If Satan can seduce through ouija boards, he will most certainly ply his most cunning seductions through this type of technology.
This statement, from the footnote, is highly significant: "I do believe he has done much in this way in the course of the last few centuries. I believe he has moved every part of the Church, this way or that way, but some way or other, from 'the truth as it is in Jesus,' from the old faith on which it was built 'before the division of the east and west.'" If we go back a "few centuries" from Newman, we are at the end of the Middle Ages. He is referring, I think, to what we might call the "excessive westernization" of Catholicism that began as medieval spirituality transitioned into the more humanistic, self-consciously aestheticized spirituality of the Renaissance and the more rationalistic, centralized spirituality of the Counter-Reformation. The East–West schism formally began in the eleventh century; however, artistic, devotional, and liturgical practices mark the Middle Ages in general as an era that was, to a large extent, "before the division of the east and west."
I have often wondered, or pondered, or hypothesized, that perhaps there is usually both a spiritual and a physical, a literal and metaphorical meaning to these things, wherein both senses of them come to pass. It seems to me that they need not be mutually exclusive. Or, additionally, that they can be both metaphorical and physical, or literal and spiritual. I dont know that I am expressing this properly, but, I hope its meaning can be understood. It seems to me that (and in so writing, it should be understood that I claim no authority in any of this), so many of the fathers have spoken of these things as their meanings being one way, or another, literal or allegorical/metaphorical, yet, I do not see why it must be one and not the other.
This is the way followed by Saint Robert Bellarmine: to interpret the “signs” not only literally, but also spiritually (and vice versa). Actually, this is the “core of the matter” - so to say. And, certainly, it is not an easy issue. It is true that I always incline more to the spiritual interpretation - but I take into consideration Saint Robert’s option.
Are you asking about this book written by Cardinal Manning - "The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy"? In any case, I plan to read all what he wrote on the end of the world and, eventually, to write an article about his interpretation. I admire especially his sermons on moral issues.
This is very interesting indeed. So glad you shared these findings. I keep thinking also of the satanic element that AI introduces. If Satan can seduce through ouija boards, he will most certainly ply his most cunning seductions through this type of technology.
This statement, from the footnote, is highly significant: "I do believe he has done much in this way in the course of the last few centuries. I believe he has moved every part of the Church, this way or that way, but some way or other, from 'the truth as it is in Jesus,' from the old faith on which it was built 'before the division of the east and west.'" If we go back a "few centuries" from Newman, we are at the end of the Middle Ages. He is referring, I think, to what we might call the "excessive westernization" of Catholicism that began as medieval spirituality transitioned into the more humanistic, self-consciously aestheticized spirituality of the Renaissance and the more rationalistic, centralized spirituality of the Counter-Reformation. The East–West schism formally began in the eleventh century; however, artistic, devotional, and liturgical practices mark the Middle Ages in general as an era that was, to a large extent, "before the division of the east and west."
Thank you for this!
I have often wondered, or pondered, or hypothesized, that perhaps there is usually both a spiritual and a physical, a literal and metaphorical meaning to these things, wherein both senses of them come to pass. It seems to me that they need not be mutually exclusive. Or, additionally, that they can be both metaphorical and physical, or literal and spiritual. I dont know that I am expressing this properly, but, I hope its meaning can be understood. It seems to me that (and in so writing, it should be understood that I claim no authority in any of this), so many of the fathers have spoken of these things as their meanings being one way, or another, literal or allegorical/metaphorical, yet, I do not see why it must be one and not the other.
This is the way followed by Saint Robert Bellarmine: to interpret the “signs” not only literally, but also spiritually (and vice versa). Actually, this is the “core of the matter” - so to say. And, certainly, it is not an easy issue. It is true that I always incline more to the spiritual interpretation - but I take into consideration Saint Robert’s option.
Have you ever read Cardinal Manning’s writing on the end of the world?
Are you asking about this book written by Cardinal Manning - "The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy"? In any case, I plan to read all what he wrote on the end of the world and, eventually, to write an article about his interpretation. I admire especially his sermons on moral issues.
Dear R. L. K., the new AI voice is not better than your previous choice. Thank you for your writing. God bless you.