Forum Rules

[SpiritMeadow]

I didn’t. Although I suppose that doesn’t count, since I didn’t read the post in question.

That’s not the Catholic way of looking at it.

Take for example the Immaculate Conception. Are Catholics required to believe it? Yes. Were Catholics always required to believe it? No.

So does that means that it wasn’t always “taught by the Catholic Church”? This is where we disagree. Protestants would say that it wasn’t taught by the Catholic Church until 1854 because that’s when Catholics were required to believe it. But we Catholics would say that this truth (and all other Catholic doctrines) was contained in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning, even though it wasn’t a mandatory belief until 1854.

(Similarly, when certain Catholics lobby to have “Co-redemptrix” dogmatically defined, they are not saying “The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this, but she should.” Rather they are saying “The Catholic Church does teach this, and it would be even better if she proclaimed it as a dogma.”)

You correction is accurate. I should have said dogmatic teaching. The Assumption of Mary was taught and believed by most Catholics, although not required to be believed until 1950 when Pius XII declared it so. I do understand the difference, as I was Catholic for many years, but I neglected to state it correctly as you pointed out. I had simply recopied Kalt’s statement without correcting his inaccuracy. I shall attempt to read and write more carefully in the future.

 

[estesbob]

Its fyunny bit the most visous attacks on my fatih in CAF have come from other Catholics

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So many times I see the simplistic definition of faith to believe in what you cannot prove.

That is not faith. A friend tells you that they will meet you at three at the store. When you go to meet that friend you are demonstrating faith in that persons word. You will be able to prove your faith right or wrong. We express faith in things and people all the time that can be proven. When we drive a car we have faith that our car will work and that other drivers will drive in a way that will not hurt us.

A definition of FAITH

The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

Faith - In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness. As signifying man’s attitude towards God it means trustfulness or fiducia
Faith does not depend on proof or the lack of it. For if you say that it isn’t faith if you can prove it than none of the Apostles had faith. They saw the risen Jesus yet they still had faith. They witnessed all the miracles but still had faith. Faith can be without proof but it can also be with proof.

You make some interesting arguments but I don’t think you have changed the definition much. Your first examples would be on point but for the fact that you cannot determine whether your faith is well founded until the action has been completed, i.e., your friend has arrived, your car takes you where you are going, and no one has hit you.

I agree with the definitions given of course, but they don’t change it either. Faith cannot depend on proof since there is none. The apostles needed no faith that Jesus was risen or that he performed miraches. They saw those with their own eyes. That he died as the last and most perfect sacrificial lamb, and that life through him was eternal, remained faith, since they were not subject to proof until they happened as well.

There is of course such a thing as well placed faith versus silly or frivolous faith. I can have a frivolous faith that the sky will rain down marshmellows. That is faith, but not a very rational one. Faith in God can be highly rational and be based on very good logical analysis. That doesn’t prove it, but it is more than enough to justify one’s acting upon it.

I appreciate your efforts to engage on such an intellectual level.

 

[Peter_J]

You correction is accurate. I should have said dogmatic teaching. The Assumption of Mary was taught and believed by most Catholics, although not required to be believed until 1950 when Pius XII declared it so. I do understand the difference, as I was Catholic for many years, but I neglected to state it correctly as you pointed out. I had simply recopied Kalt’s statement without correcting his inaccuracy. I shall attempt to read and write more carefully in the future.

 

[kalt]

I didn’t. Although I suppose that doesn’t count, since I didn’t read the post in question.

That’s not the Catholic way of looking at it.

Take for example the Immaculate Conception. Are Catholics required to believe it? Yes. Were Catholics always required to believe it? No.

So does that means that it wasn’t always “taught by the Catholic Church”? This is where we disagree. Protestants would say that it wasn’t taught by the Catholic Church until 1854 because that’s when Catholics were required to believe it. But we Catholics would say that this truth (and all other Catholic doctrines) was contained in the Deposit of Faith from the beginning, even though it wasn’t a mandatory belief until 1854.

(Similarly, when certain Catholics lobby to have “Co-redemptrix” dogmatically defined, they are not saying “The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this, but she should.” Rather they are saying “The Catholic Church does teach this, and it would be even better if she proclaimed it as a dogma.”)

The line below, which is from my earlier post, and which you and SM say is “not the Catholic way of looking at it.” is from the CCC. I don’t think you mean to say that the CCC is printing things in something other than a Catholic way.

“To be a Catholic means that one accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches because it alone teaches with the authority God gave to it in the person of St. Peter, the first pope and all the popes who have succeeded him.”

 

[dianaiad]

Your A implies that this is just what “we believe” and that it is not the truth.

Well, given that this particular forum is “non-Catholic religions,” it would seem logical that many of those who participate (you know, the ‘non-Catholics’) would tend to view at least some of Catholic teachings as something other than ‘truth.’

If you are going to insist that non-Catholics agree with Catholics on everything, it will cause a few communication problems.

I’m just sayin…

Why are you surprised that Catholics think that what they believe is the actual truth and not just one opinion among many equally valid and true opinions?

You seem to think that we should water down what we really believe because you get upset by the truth about what Catholicism is.

Well, I didn’t see that this post was addressed to just Catholics…especially since this forum is set apart for the discussion of non-Catholic religions.

 

[Peter_J]

Kalt,

Tell me this, if you would please: has the Catholic Church always taught that Mary was Immaculately Conceived?

 

[kalt]

Well, given that this particular forum is “non-Catholic religions,” it would seem logical that many of those who participate (you know, the ‘non-Catholics’) would tend to view at least some of Catholic teachings as something other than ‘truth.’

If you are going to insist that non-Catholics agree with Catholics on everything, it will cause a few communication problems.

I’m just sayin…

Well, I didn’t see that this post was addressed to just Catholics…especially since this forum is set apart for the discussion of non-Catholic religions.

OK, firstly, Sm wasn’t saying that only Catholic teachings “might not be true”, she was saying that all of religious thought “might not be true”. She said that there is no such thiing as objective truth and that if there were, we coudln’t know it anyway. She specifically demanded that a Catholic “admit” that truth can’t be known. (See below for more on that.)

Secondly, I didn’t insist that she believe anything. It was SM who insisted that Catholics “admit” (her term), that truth can’t be known, that there is no such thing as objective truth, and that no one can know that what they beleive is the truth. If that’s what she beleives, good. To insist that Catholics “admit” (her term again ) that Catholics can’t know that what the Cahtolic Church teaches is the truth is out of line. No one should be insisting that another person “admit” to something that is against their religion. The idea that “truth can’t be known” is not a Catholic idea. Catholics believe that there is objective truth and that it (truth) can be known. SM was insisting that Catholics “admit” that we (Catholics) can’t know that our faith is the truth.

If you agree with SM that you can’t ever know that your faith is the truth, that’s good. I didn’t insist that SM believe in Catholicism, and I won’t insist that you believe.

You will, however, if you look at the thread this exchange occured in, find SM insisting that Catholics “admit” that they can’t know that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth. She went so far as to say something to the effect that if you don’t admit that objective truth doesn’t exist, that you can’t know it, and that you can believe anything you want, but can’t know that it’s truth, you’re a dope.

Thirdly, this is a forum to compare and contrast religions. That doesn’t mean that it’s a free-for-all. All of the forum rules apply, and one of those rules is that you can’t be disrespectful to the faith of the Catholics on the board.

Please note that the rule doesn’t say that SM has to respect me (or any other poster), just that she has to be respectful of the religion. Insisting that Catholics “admit” to an idea that is not a Catholic idea is disrespectful.

And I will repeat, if you and SM agree that you can’t know that what you believe is the truth, you won’t get an argument from me. I think you should know that what you believe is the truth, why believe it otherwise, but if you don’t, you don’t.

Catholics, however, do believe in truth (objective truth), that truth can be known, and that what we believe, what the Catholic Church teaches, is the truth. Why insist that Catholics admit that objective truth doesn’t exist? Why insist that Catholics admit to an idea that is anti-Catholic (that is against Catholic thought)?

 

[kalt]

Kalt,

Tell me this, if you would please: has the Catholic Church always taught that Mary was Immaculately Conceived?

We’ll get to that in another post. For now, let’s not try to deflect. Let’s get back to the quote from the CCC.

You didn’t know that it was from the CCC, obviously. And it’s clear that you disagree with it. Can you explain why you think that it isn’t in line with Catholic thinking. (I believe that that is now you put it.)

 

[Peter_J]

Kalt,

Tell me this, if you would please: has the Catholic Church always taught that Mary was Immaculately Conceived?

Alright, I don’t want to rush you.

I’ll tell you what I believe: that the Immaculate Conception was always taught by the Catholic Church – more specifically, that it was contained (at least implicitly) in the Deposit of Faith.

Therefore, I cannot agree with the idea that the Catholic Church teaches only those things which are required beliefs for Catholics.

You didn’t know that it was from the CCC, obviously.

(emphasis on the past tense added) You say that it’s a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and yet when I google it the only thing that turns up is this thread.

Even assuming it is from the CCC, I find your actions here to be very suspicious: you provided a quote, saying that you “snatched this from another board”, then a couple days later you say that it’s quote from the CCC without giving a paragraph number …

 

[kalt]

Kalt,

Tell me this, if you would please: has the Catholic Church always taught that Mary was Immaculately Conceived?

“Since the time of Alexander VII, long before the final definition, there was no doubt on the part of theologians that the privilege was amongst the truths revealed by God. Wherefore Pius IX, surrounded by a splendid throng of cardinals and bishops, December 8 1854, promulgated the dogma.”

Again we are back to truth. You can’t get around the fact that Catholics do indeed believe in truth, that objective truth exists, and that it can be known.

When the Church teaches something, Her adherents are required to believe. We’re not required to believe in the personal ideas of theologians, priests, popes, or private citizens, even if those ideas are the truth. It’s only when the Church teaches that we are required to believe.

The Church has developed since its birth on Pentacost. The truth doesn’t begin with a dogmatic pronouncement. Truth is eternal. If it’s true, it’s always true.

If something is blue, it’s true that it’s blue, even if you don’t recognize it as such. It doesn’t begin to be blue when you take off your dark glasses and recognize it as blue. It was always blue, though you didn’t always know it.

 

[kalt]

Alright, I don’t want to rush you.

I’ll tell you what I believe: that the Immaculate Conception was always taught by the Catholic Church – more specifically, that it was contained (at least implicitly) in the Deposit of Faith.

Actually, it wasn’t always taught. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t always true.

Therefore, I cannot agree with the idea that the Catholic Church teaches only those things which are required beliefs for Catholics.

(emphasis on the past tense added) You say that it’s a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and yet when I google it the only thing that turns up is this thread.

Even assuming it is from the CCC, I find your actions here to be very suspicious: you provided a quote, saying that you “snatched this from another board”, then a couple days later you say that it’s quote from the CCC without giving a paragraph number …

I was wrong. (The CCC quote was in another post.) This is where I found it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5169075#post5169075

The question stands. Will you explain why you think it’s not in line with Catholic thinking?

 

[kalt]

“To be a Catholic means that one accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches because it alone teaches with the authority God gave to it in the person of St. Peter, the first pope and all the popes who have succeeded him. *”

Fr Serpa didn’t pluck this thought from thin air. He didn’t make the idea up.

Here is the CCC version of the same thought.

"When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” "

“To be a Catholic means that one accepts all that the Catholic Church teaches (must be adhered to with the obedience of faith) because it alone teaches with the authority God gave to it in the person of St. Peter, the first pope and all the popes who have succeeded him. (When the Church through its supreme Magisterium***** proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as beiing divinely revealed’”

*Magisterium
The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)

Catholics are require to believe what the church teaches. Why do you think this is not in line with Catholic thinking?

 

[dianaiad]

OK, firstly, Sm wasn’t saying that only Catholic teachings “might not be true”, she was saying that all of religious thought “might not be true”. She said that there is no such thiing as objective truth and that if there were, we coudln’t know it anyway. She specifically demanded that a Catholic “admit” that truth can’t be known. (See below for more on that.)

Secondly, I didn’t insist that she believe anything. It was SM who insisted that Catholics “admit” (her term), that truth can’t be known, that there is no such thing as objective truth, and that no one can know that what they beleive is the truth. If that’s what she beleives, good. To insist that Catholics “admit” (her term again ) that Catholics can’t know that what the Cahtolic Church teaches is the truth is out of line. No one should be insisting that another person “admit” to something that is against their religion. The idea that “truth can’t be known” is not a Catholic idea. Catholics believe that there is objective truth and that it (truth) can be known. SM was insisting that Catholics “admit” that we (Catholics) can’t know that our faith is the truth.

If you agree with SM that you can’t ever know that your faith is the truth, that’s good. I didn’t insist that SM believe in Catholicism, and I won’t insist that you believe.

You will, however, if you look at the thread this exchange occured in, find SM insisting that Catholics “admit” that they can’t know that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth. She went so far as to say something to the effect that if you don’t admit that objective truth doesn’t exist, that you can’t know it, and that you can believe anything you want, but can’t know that it’s truth, you’re a dope.

Thirdly, this is a forum to compare and contrast religions. That doesn’t mean that it’s a free-for-all. All of the forum rules apply, and one of those rules is that you can’t be disrespectful to the faith of the Catholics on the board.

Please note that the rule doesn’t say that SM has to respect me (or any other poster), just that she has to be respectful of the religion. Insisting that Catholics “admit” to an idea that is not a Catholic idea is disrespectful.

And I will repeat, if you and SM agree that you can’t know that what you believe is the truth, you won’t get an argument from me. I think you should know that what you believe is the truth, why believe it otherwise, but if you don’t, you don’t.

Catholics, however, do believe in truth (objective truth), that truth can be known, and that what we believe, what the Catholic Church teaches, is the truth. Why insist that Catholics admit that objective truth doesn’t exist? Why insist that Catholics admit to an idea that is anti-Catholic (that is against Catholic thought)?

The irony…

I wonder; do the forum rules state that Catholics have to be respectful of the FAITH of those non-Catholics they have invited into this forum?

However, I do see both sides here; I, for instance, have a very strict definition of 'knowlege" vs. ‘truth,’ and I believe that it is scripturally based. What you describe as ‘know’ is very, very strong faith, and a willingness to live your life in complete confidence that what you believe to be true IS true; that’s faith, and it is what God meant when He said that faith is what is important, and that knowledge is something else.

You can say you ‘know…’ but we don’t know to the extent that God means when He says ‘know.’ We CAN believe to the extend that we cannot conceive of anything that would change our opinions, or alter our faith. We can have faith to the extent of total conviction.

However…“know?” Not quite; not until we actually see His face. What we CAN have is complete conviction that we will see His face…the two concepts aren’t quite the same thing. So in that sense, I believe that she is correct.

However, where she goes wrong, I believe, is in the idea that this complete conviction (but not ‘knowledge’) is less; that the world is some amorphous relative collection of religious concepts that mean nothing and do less. In fact, religious conviction is about the most solid wall one can run up against. In fact, that level of faith is stronger than knowledge, and it is why God values it, why He gave us the Holy Ghost to confirm it, and why He does NOT give us ‘objective evidence’ for subjective things, like religion. It’s like being handed a measuring cup to figure out how long a board is; wrong system of measurement.

 

[kalt]

The irony…

I wonder; do the forum rules state that Catholics have to be respectful of the FAITH of those non-Catholics they have invited into this forum?

However, I do see both sides here; I, for instance, have a very strict definition of 'knowlege" vs. ‘truth,’ and I believe that it is scripturally based. What you describe as ‘know’ is very, very strong faith, and a willingness to live your life in complete confidence that what you believe to be true IS true; that’s faith, and it is what God meant when He said that faith is what is important, and that knowledge is something else.

You can say you ‘know…’ but we don’t know to the extent that God means when He says ‘know.’ We CAN believe to the extend that we cannot conceive of anything that would change our opinions, or alter our faith. We can have faith to the extent of total conviction.

However…“know?” Not quite; not until we actually see His face. What we CAN have is complete conviction that we will see His face…the two concepts aren’t quite the same thing. So in that sense, I believe that she is correct.

However, where she goes wrong, I believe, is in the idea that this complete conviction (but not ‘knowledge’) is less; that the world is some amorphous relative collection of religious concepts that mean nothing and do less. In fact, religious conviction is about the most solid wall one can run up against. In fact, that level of faith is stronger than knowledge, and it is why God values it, why He gave us the Holy Ghost to confirm it, and why He does NOT give us ‘objective evidence’ for subjective things, like religion. It’s like being handed a measuring cup to figure out how long a board is; wrong system of measurement.

I think we have a different idea of what respect for someone else’s faith means. In my post I said that SM’s insisting that Catholics “admit” to something that is anti-Catholic (against their faith) is disrespectful to the person’s faith. Disagreeing, even vehemently disagreeing, isn’t against the rules.

A person is free even to say that what the Catholic Church teaches is bunk. That’s not against the rules, as far as I know. Someone crosses the line when he disprespects the faith of the individual Catholics on the boards by insisting that they agree to an anti-Catholic idea (an idea that is opposed to Catholic thinking and beliefs).

The disprespect isn’t found in the disagreement, it’s found in the insistance that Catholics abandon what they believe and agree to ideas that are contrary to their faith.

As you can see in the quotes from Fr Serpa and the CCC, Catholics do believe that truth can be known. There will be a greater knowledge in Heaven, of course, but that is not to say that we can’t know the truths that are revealed by God. To say otherwise is to say that people can never be sure of their faith, because they can’t know if it is true. Isn’t that really the opposite of faith?

Believe can be used to mean something close to “I think, but I’m not sure.”, but it can also be used to mean “to know with certainty”.

And doesn’t that bring to mind the movie, Doubt, and “certainty”. Some things are private contemplations, other things are taught by the Church (the Magisterium). Catholics are require to believe, as they are the revealed truth of God, the things that the Church teaches.

I understand that you don’t believe these things, and please don’t make the mistake that others here have, that my stating these Catholic facts is an attempt to make you agree with me. It’s important that people understand that these things are true about the CC, but it’s not important to me that they also share the faith. Knowing what the CC says about truth and accepting Catholicism as your faith are two different things.

I can know what your faith is without believing it. I think non-Catholics can know what the Catholics faith is without believing it. But far too many people think that they have to deny that the CC teaches what it does, because they don’t agree with it. That’s silly, imo. The Catholic Church does teach that truth can be known and that its adeherents are required to believe these revealed truths that are taught by the Church.

The CCC on living in truth.

2465 The Old Testament attests that God is the source of all truth. His Word is truth. His Law is truth. His "faithfulness endures to all generations."255 Since God is “true,” the members of his people are called to live in the truth.256

2466 In Jesus Christ, the whole of God’s truth has been made manifest. “Full of grace and truth,” he came as the “light of the world,” he is the Truth.257 "Whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness."258 The disciple of Jesus continues in his word **so as to know “the truth **[that] will make you free” and that sanctifies.259 To follow Jesus is to live in “the Spirit of truth,” whom the Father sends in his name and who leads "into all the truth."260 To his disciples Jesus teaches the unconditional love of truth: "Let what you say be simply ‘Yes or No.’"261

2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth."262

 

[Peter_J]

"When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” "

Thank you, kalt (if I may say so, your unsubstantiated claims that the other quotation was from the CCC were really starting to get annoying) and have a blessed Mother’s Day, everyone!

 

[guanophore]

Why is it Catholics can be nasty and disrespectfull to Protestants and it is easily tolerated?

I agree that there is a bias on CAF toward Catholics. I have been reprimanded, and I know of some Catholics who have been banned for rudeness, but overall, I think there is a much higher sensitivity to non-Catholics.

You make an excellent point.

On the other hand:

A. My church teaches that there is no valid priesthood but our own, and thus no valid Eucharist but ours. I am required to accept my church’s teaching on this

vs.

B. Your church has no valid priesthood and your Eucharist is just bread of no spiritual value.

You’d be surprised how many RC’s use B. And they are uniformly “surprised” that we get upset.

I too am distressed that the rules don’t seem to operate for both sides. I’ve been called a lot of things here, and apparently it’s okay, but I have been “penalized” for disrepecting a political party, a corporate entity if you will…Bet you can guess which one!

You make an excellent point too, Spirit. You example is excellent, and illustrates very well how we could, with just a little adjustment, dialogue more productively with one another.

Everybody gets reprimands for saying things about political parties or candidates. That is across the board. CAF cannot allow that, or they will lose their status.

 

[guanophore]

I’m relatively new to this forum and have a ton of respect for the moderators because they can tell the difference between a strong opinion stated bluntly vs. total disregard and disrespect for the religious beliefs of others. It’s only through the moderators fair judgment that I’m still here (and the grace of God).

I think you have been allowed to stay because up until now, you have been williing to comply with the forum rules. I see your acct. is under review today, and that you violated a number of forum rules last night. Many of us have done that in the heat of the moment.

I agree with you, the mods do try to be fair.

My question is, what would any of you do differently if it was your forum?

COLOR! I hate this drab gray.

 

[kalt]

Thank you, kalt (if I may say so, your unsubstantiated claims that the other quotation was from the CCC were really starting to get annoying) and have a blessed Mother’s Day, everyone!

You’re easily annoyed. You asked me about it once, and I responded, correcting my error.

You haven’t answered the question, though. Why do you think Fr Serpa’s satement and the entry from the CCC are not in line with Catholic thinking?

We visited my MIL who is 97. I hope everyone had a nice Mother’s Day, too.

 

[kalt]

oops