Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[PRmerger]

There are so many Catholics who don’t understand the Church. Is it a coincidence or logical that a person who doesn’t participate in the Church also doesn’t understand the Church?

'zactly.

Most Catholics don’t even understand what the Immaculate Conception is. They will jokingly refer to it when they say, about being pregnant, “Well, it must have been by Immaculate Conception!”.

 

[nmgauss]

'zactly.

Most Catholics don’t even understand what the Immaculate Conception is. They will jokingly refer to it when they say, about being pregnant, “Well, it must have been by Immaculate Conception!”.

Have you detected any confusion about who was conceived immaculately?

 

[PRmerger]

Have you detected any confusion about who was conceived immaculately?

All the time. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Have you detected any confusion about who was conceived immaculately?

Why would you think there is no confusion about this?

 

[rinnie]

Please. You know me better than I know myself…?

I asked LisaA this before: do you think it’s possible to be well-cathechized, and open-minded, and not become Catholic? I say yes.

In all due respect I truly don’t. Because how can you have the true word of God know you do, and refuse to accept it. Why would you want to?

There would have to be something in the faith that you just didn’t WANT to live by. Thats all I could think of.

 

[rinnie]

'zactly.

Most Catholics don’t even understand what the Immaculate Conception is. They will jokingly refer to it when they say, about being pregnant, “Well, it must have been by Immaculate Conception!”.

Or where I live they say YEAH!! Thats that Catholic Church up there on Main Street!! It is called the Immaculate Conception Church of Washington Pa!

 

[rinnie]

All the time. :sad_yes:

And here is my favorite one of ALL TIME.

How Protestants mostly can accept that God by the Power of the Holy Spirit entered into the Blessed Mother and she became with Child and was still a Virgin. They have NO problem with accepting and believing that.

But have a Problem with him saving her from all sin at the moment of Her Conception.

Are you kidding me.

 

[mek42]

How are people defining ‘‘well catechized’’?

 

[ffg]

How are people defining ‘‘well catechized’’?

This would make for a great discussion.

We might see where a simple understanding of a little information passed on verbally over centuries could set someone out on a life path of knowing right from wrong and with reason could navigate life’s choice obstacles / temptations.

We might also see where a person who does a lot of reading and class-work would not know they were well-catechized as they might have a deep understanding of their sinfulness that grows (the understanding) as they continue to learn about the many details in the Church.

Many times it’s the most knowledgeable that consider themselves the most in need to learn more.

The opposite can be quite true as well, with a dash of ego.

Both examples I would consider ‘well-catechized’. Where I would question the term ‘well-catechized’ for someone would be if they themselves proclaim it.

 

[PRmerger]

And here is my favorite one of ALL TIME.

How Protestants mostly can accept that God by the Power of the Holy Spirit entered into the Blessed Mother and she became with Child and was still a Virgin. They have NO problem with accepting and believing that.

But have a Problem with him saving her from all sin at the moment of Her Conception.

Are you kidding me.

I know, right!

 

[PRmerger]

How are people defining ‘‘well catechized’’?

Anyone who has the ability to provide a defense for the reasons for what we believe As Catholics.

 

[Major_Tom]

Fair enough.

Then if it’s* not* absolute truth, then your response to my suggestion that you actually are not well catechized is peculiar.

It’s like your saying, “I believe that staph causes strep throat” and my saying, “No. I disagree with you. It’s strep pyogenes that causes strep throat.”

And you respond with, “How dare you be so offensive!”

:whacky:

If you’re not absolutely sure about your position, then you ought to be more receptive to contrary opinions.

I already stated, it was your tone more than content.

 

[PRmerger]

I already stated, it was your tone more than content.

Then I retract.

I apologize for offending you, friend.

 

[Major_Tom]

Again, fair enough.

You took offense to my use of a GIF that said, “Nope”?

But you don’t have any emotion attached to the fact that I don’t believe you are well catechized. At all.

Is this a correct synopsis of your position?

If so, then I merrily retract the use of the GIF. I rescind it and will never use it again in dialogue with you, in this context.

Merrily, even! Nice…!

Emotion? I don’t quite follow. We have a simple disagreement, which is not a shocking one. We have a difference of opinion as to the fundamental nature of the Catholic Church.

 

[Lochias]

We have a difference of opinion as to the fundamental nature of the Catholic Church.

But your opinion, as demonstrated in this thread, cannot be said to come from a place of reliable knowledge about the Church; therefore, the onus would be upon you to spend some time to research the facts.

 

[Major_Tom]

This is demonstrated, just in this thread, by the inability to know where the OT is referenced in the Mass…

Who else got that wrong…? I wasn’t the only one…!

…, and the question as to how the Catholic Church could provide abysmal catechesis yet also be the One True Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

No well-catechized Catholic is unable to reconcile that.

Knowing a certain string of facts or assumptions doesn’t automatically lead to belief in a particular conclusion. For example, I understand Supply-Side Economics. I could make a defense of it if I was on the Debating CLub. Do I believe? Not really. I think it’s a flawed economic theory. Yet I understand it.

I could recite (or look up and then paraphrase back to you) a textbook definition of the Cathechism to answer your question. Does knowing the page number and making the recitation mean that I should believe it 100%?

 

[Major_Tom]

Then I retract.

I apologize for offending you, friend.

On another note:
back in post 897, I had a question at the bottom… your thoughts?

Do you think that Absolute Truth dictates a single answer to any moral quandary? I do not think that absolute truth gives us only one correct answer.

One more example. Two families are dealing with end-of-life concerns for a parent. (My family went through this). Both families pray, consult with their priest, yet come up with different actions: one carries out every possible measure to prolong life, even though that life is struggling. The other family decides on no extraordinary measures, administering as much pain-relief as possible. Aren’t both defensible?

 

[Major_Tom]

But your opinion, as demonstrated in this thread, cannot be said to come from a place of reliable knowledge about the Church; therefore, the onus would be upon you to spend some time to research the facts.

No, not really.

I can’t prove this particular supposition to you. I’ve given you some basics, you can take it or leave it as you wish.

I think we’ve established a difference of opinion. I think you can be well-cathechized, and still deny the essential truth of Catholicism. A few people have chimed in with “no, you can’t”; I think PR at first said “no way”; but recently said “maybe”. I do not know what the official teaching of the Church is on this. Regardless, I personally feel this line has kinda run itself dry. I don’t think rehashing will accomplish much more.

 

[PRmerger]

Merrily, even! Nice…!

Emotion? I don’t quite follow. We have a simple disagreement, which is not a shocking one. We have a difference of opinion as to the fundamental nature of the Catholic Church.

That, and a difference of opinion about how well catechized you were.

And, I would add: the fact that you are quite adamantine about the fact that you are a well-catechized ex-Catholic is testimony to this: you believe there is a truth, an absolute truth, out there that you wish to proclaim and wish that others conform to your point of view: "I was well catechized when I left the faith.’

So your position seems to be in conflict with the UU paradigm.

 

[PRmerger]

Who else got that wrong…? I wasn’t the only one…!

To be sure.

I am perplexed, though, as to what you think this means?

Knowing a certain string of facts or assumptions doesn’t automatically lead to belief in a particular conclusion. For example, I understand Supply-Side Economics. I could make a defense of it if I was on the Debating CLub. Do I believe? Not really. I think it’s a flawed economic theory. Yet I understand it.

I get that.

But my position is that you could not provide any reasoned defense of most Catholic teachings.

I could recite (or look up and then paraphrase back to you) a textbook definition of the Cathechism to answer your question. Does knowing the page number and making the recitation mean that I should believe it 100%?

No. Recitation is not the same as being able to provide a reasoned explication of the teachings.

Recitation is not the same as catechesis.

That, friend, is another example of not knowing the faith. You don’t even know what catechesis is.

I apologize in advance if you take offense to this. My tone is nothing other than that which a debater offers in a moderated debate.