I don't understand the Eucharist

[Vico]

I think this view misses the idea of a unique sacrifice that is efficacious and made for us.
We can’t achieve that on our own, we are not God ‘in a way that Jesus was God’

Keep in mind that rayteurfs said he is a Buddhist. Since Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, it is incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[Mammoths]

Keep in mind that rayteurfs said he is a Buddhist. Since Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, it is incompatible with Catholicism.

I don’t think his conversation on this forum is “in good faith.” His profile claims he is catholic. But then he claims to be other religions as well. He comes on saying I am catholic but all the dogmas of Christendom are corruptions of Jesus meant to enslave people. Look if he wants to be a pantheist thats his business. If he wants to discuss Unitarian pantheism with us, fine with me. But, why didn’t he say, “i am a pantheist, let’s talk.” It seems to me he is behaving dishonestly and trying to subvert the claim of a religious tradition to its historical identity and value system. People are free to make up any religion they want. But they should also name it honestly if love is so important that seems superfluous. You pantheist, me Christian, we can talk. You lie about being a Christian to promote an anti Christian view, I feel a need to expose you as a fraud. We are supposed to earnestly contend for the faith?

 

[rayteurfs]

Keep in mind that rayteurfs said he is a Buddhist. Since Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, it is incompatible with Catholicism.

I believe you have Buddhism wrong. There are a few sects of Buddhism that are credal to some extent. However, most Buddhism is not about creed. When I was 22 years old, 51 years ago, I responded to my very conservative professor, a Catholic theologian and priest, that it seemed to me that Buddhism was compatible with Catholicism because it required no belief. When one takes off the lens of rigid orthodoxy, this can only but become apparent. For instance, I would challenge anyone to tell me something about mainstream Buddhism that any Catholic could ascribe to and stay faithful to the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. Keep in mind, that my own take is that the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church is for the most part ephemeral, if made to seem essential. Love is all we need. ray

 

[Kliska]

…the part that made me think you were being sarcastic was your suggestion that maybe I just lied when dealing with my teachers in seminary. It seemed an odd suggestion to me. The last thing anyone who knows me would think is that I (1) would lie to a teacher or (2) that I would be afraid to tell the truth …and, therefore, see lying as a way out. Neither applies.

I am glad you learned something. …and, btw, I had no thought of your being sarcastic when you said you were asking out of curiosity …just the lying part.

Cheers, ray

Since I don’t know you, I doubt you’d be surprised that after reading only what you’ve written here, that someone would be curious as to your time at seminary. Having been a teacher, I’m well aware that lying is very often a go-to method to try to find “a way out” esp. if a student feels a teacher will treat them unfairly simply because their philosophy differs from the teacher’s philosophy, hence my inclusion of that possibility.

Have a pleasant evening,
K

 

[PRmerger]

Love is all we need. ray

Nope. This is not correct.

The only way it could possibly apply is on a deathbed conversion, and love, then, would be all that is necessary.

But for the average human person, it is certainly NOT all we need.

 

[rayteurfs]

What you are doing is lying and committing sacrilege. Your world view is a contradiction of all the above. If I were to claim to be a Unitarian and then say I believe Catholicism is the only religion God accepts, wouldn’t I be denying the very religion I claim! Your whole point of view disagrees with itself. Even if you don’t believe in the Eucharist, have enough respect not to profane the religion of the people who do. What you say sounds to me like if --my religion is to bless people by hocking my divine loogy in their eye, I should pay no heed to their disgust. --Obviously your heart is so full of this love you speak of that respect, honesty, and reverence are excluded.

Look: the fundamental laws of logic are

The law of identity: everything is identical to itself
The law of non-middle: a and not a simaltaneusly is impossible
The law of non contradiction: mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be true simaltaneusly

Your philosophy contradicts the dogmas of Catholicism therefore it is not catholic
You claim it is therefore you claim a falsehood.
You claim you understand catholic teaching better than most so you know it is a falsehood
Therefore you are a liar.

I think if you start meditating on true things instead of things you wish to be true, you might peal back some of the habitual non-sequitor arguments with which you delude yourself. In the meantime have a little honesty and post your religion to that which corresponds to reality. We all know the truth about you anyway.

“There for you are a liar,” I am sorry, but that one made me come out with a short, bark-like laugh. I did not say, btw, that I understand Catholic teaching better than most …so, that is your second judgment on me that I must reject.

I will say this: what I have been trying to say in these posts is not the easiest thing to convey …and I am NOT calling you slow. But, I will look over your post and do my best to explain myself a bit better. When we studied philosophy and logic in seminary, there was a distinction made between major truth and minor truth. Minor truth was, basically, logic. Let me give you a for instance. The laws of syllogism dictate our logical conclusions. If some alien species comes to earth and they have a hard and fast definition of what a cow is that: it is that which has four legs. Definitions are stated in such a way that the converse is always true: so, if it has four legs it is a cow. Now, having accepted that, when they see one of our four-legged tables, they must exclaim in wonderment, “what a funny-looking cow.” The laws of syllogism demand this. This is an example I used in Geometry class (where logic is taught these days), showing how an attorney can use it to win a case: just sneak in an untrue, but harmless seeming premise. …You know, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit. I cannot go into all of the logical stuff you names, but I do not think they apply. You will have to give me a concrete example of my error: then, I will happily address it.

That my philosophies contradict Catholic Dogma and therefore I am not a Catholic is pretty specious to me. First, I have claimed and given even Catholic reasoning why I am happy to dispense with all dogma and doctrine in regards to the Catholic faith while claiming that what is essential to being Catholic is being a member of the mystical body of Christ (Catholic dogma). What is necessary to be a member of the mystical body of Christ is to be in a state of sanctifying grace (Catholic dogma). In order to be in a state of sanctifying grace, you must be baptized (Catholic dogma). There are three kinds of baptism: fire, water and desire (Catholic Dogma). Baptism by desire is having pure (enough?) love in your heart (C. dogma). You must follow your conscience, the primacy of conscious (Catholic dogma). So, even though I do not need any of those dogmas to call myself Catholic whilst I hold love as the only essential element of the Church, there it is for you. There is a long transitive property there (chain of syllogisms) that lead to this conclusion. If my conscience tells me that doctrine and dogma, those beautiful certainties that most Catholic hold, are in the way of love, then I must logically and morally conclude that they are. This is the logic of my thinking. Show me my error. But, please do not lower your own self-respect by calling me a liar. I am sure you just had a human moment and lost it. No problem.

• end of part one - …I am too long-winded -

 

[rayteurfs]

part two

I was watching one of America’s most well-known Catholics the other night (jan 11), Stephen Colbert. He had a delightful young actor on Andrew Garfield. Garfield said - so poignantly - that what he was afraid of most was certainty. His explanation was so wise to me.

One more thing. I have claimed pretty much to believe in all faiths and an agnostic and an atheist. I am sure you could have fun telling me how illogical that is. Go for it if you want. But, for now, let me give a short explanation. I believe all religions are founded when some individual is struck with something deep within them. I believe this almost always comes from the Core of our being, where, as St. Bonaventure would say, we contuit God, that is, the moment we intuit our deepest self, we intuit the Self or God. This is very much in line with a lot of eastern spirituality as well, e.g., the Ground of Being. I further believe that religions are then used for good and for bad. What helps here are a lot of doctrines that make for a good control story. Salvation, sin, hell, forgiveness by priests, and a lot more are great for that. EVEN: Jesus was God. Read the ex nun and still theologian Karen Armstrong’s book, The History of God. Read the Anglican theologian, Tom Harpur’s Pagan Christ. It is not a bad thing to doubt one’s religion. God cannot be hurt by doubt. The great Thomas Merton was a big doubter.
.
I doubted, too. I trusted that God and this universe was not going to send me to hell for all eternity because I chose to think through my doubts. I did. And I came out with love as all that matters. I find truth in all religions, looking at their core and practical beliefs. I find agnostic essential: it is the mind’s humble response to what we do not know: I do not know. Do you or anyone you know understand how and why there is existence in the first place? If we do not understand why anything exists, how are we able to be so certain in our words that do not even grasp the nouns that are the subject and the objects in our sentences? We do not know to the depths. To the depths we do not know. We have metaphor, symbol, archetypes, etc. Our minds do not contain the uncontainable. So, even if the pope is infallible, he is unable to make a statement of certainty because all words are imperfect symbol. So, there is no absolute truth on this plane. So, just forget orthodoxy and figure out how to love it all. I am working on it.

 

[rayteurfs]

Nope. This is not correct.

The only way it could possibly apply is on a deathbed conversion, and love, then, would be all that is necessary.

But for the average human person, it is certainly NOT all we need.

What makes the deathbed different than other times?

If I believe in my conscience that I can take the essential aspect of Catholicism and practice it and therefore be in a state of sanctifying grace, am I mistaken? Do you know that God will see it differently? Do you know that my stance is 100% in line with even Catholic dogma. The primacy of the conscience is the primacy of the conscience. Show me the error of my ways. Please. If you can, I will come back into orthodoxy in a heartbeat.
Cheers,
ray

…afterthought: “for the average person”…that is a good point. The average person is very accustomed to not having to think past their catechism on anything spiritual or religious. This is my point. There is an enormous amount of energy in the Catholic Church because orthodoxy gets in the way. I have been called a liar and a committer of sacrilege on this thread. That is okay: I realize that what I am saying does not settle well…enough for someone to call me a liar without having any real evidence at all that I am one …because, simply, I don’t lie. My hope is that somehow, the Catholic Church will ease up on the whole authority thing so that many things the Church does it will stop doing …like the archbishop of San Francisco coming out and saying that masturbation is (still) a mortal sin. I remember when John XXIII started doing his thing, a priest had to assure us seminarians of the same thing. The Catholic Church would do well to jettison its centuries of doctrine and dogma and start from scratch. The priesthood, male only…really? Is this really something we must stick to? Jesus had a huge message that is hidden in the 4th century idea that Jesus is God (in some way more than all god-incarnate matter is). That message can only be understood by an honest revisiting of Church history. Karen Armstrong, Tom Harpur and others have done it, but orthodoxy is an entrenched thing.

 

[Vico]

I believe you have Buddhism wrong. There are a few sects of Buddhism that are credal to some extent. However, most Buddhism is not about creed. When I was 22 years old, 51 years ago, I responded to my very conservative professor, a Catholic theologian and priest, that it seemed to me that Buddhism was compatible with Catholicism because it required no belief. When one takes off the lens of rigid orthodoxy, this can only but become apparent. For instance, I would challenge anyone to tell me something about mainstream Buddhism that any Catholic could ascribe to and stay faithful to the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. Keep in mind, that my own take is that the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church is for the most part ephemeral, if made to seem essential. Love is all we need. ray

I have studied Buddhism schools of thought extensively in college. Here is one example from Vajrayana Buddhism, from the Dalai Lama:

Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?

A. …We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean that there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum.

It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the “Compendium of Valid Knowledge” written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an “interpretable” sutra.

From “Beyond Dogma: The Challenge of the Modern World”, (c) 1996 North Atlantic Books, translated by Alison Anderson and Marianne Dresser from talks given during His Holiness’s visit to France end 1993.

 

[PRmerger]

part two

I was watching one of America’s most well-known Catholics the other night (jan 11), Stephen Colbert. He had a delightful young actor on Andrew Garfield. Garfield said - so poignantly - that what he was afraid of most was certainty. His explanation was so wise to me.

One more thing. I have claimed pretty much to believe in all faiths and an agnostic and an atheist. I am sure you could have fun telling me how illogical that is. Go for it if you want. But, for now, let me give a short explanation. I believe all religions are founded when some individual is struck with something deep within them. I believe this almost always comes from the Core of our being, where, as St. Bonaventure would say, we contuit God, that is, the moment we intuit our deepest self, we intuit the Self or God. This is very much in line with a lot of eastern spirituality as well, e.g., the Ground of Being. I further believe that religions are then used for good and for bad. What helps here are a lot of doctrines that make for a good control story. Salvation, sin, hell, forgiveness by priests, and a lot more are great for that. EVEN: Jesus was God. Read the ex nun and still theologian Karen Armstrong’s book, The History of God. Read the Anglican theologian, Tom Harpur’s Pagan Christ. It is not a bad thing to doubt one’s religion. God cannot be hurt by doubt. The great Thomas Merton was a big doubter.
.
I doubted, too. I trusted that God and this universe was not going to send me to hell for all eternity because I chose to think through my doubts. I did. And I came out with love as all that matters. I find truth in all religions, looking at their core and practical beliefs. I find agnostic essential: it is the mind’s humble response to what we do not know: I do not know. Do you or anyone you know understand how and why there is existence in the first place? If we do not understand why anything exists, how are we able to be so certain in our words that do not even grasp the nouns that are the subject and the objects in our sentences? We do not know to the depths. To the depths we do not know. We have metaphor, symbol, archetypes, etc. Our minds do not contain the uncontainable. So, even if the pope is infallible, he is unable to make a statement of certainty because all words are imperfect symbol. So, there is no absolute truth on this plane. So, just forget orthodoxy and figure out how to love it all. I am working on it.

Let me ask you this: do you agree that if God exists that His Way may not necessarily be man’s way?

Our view of things may converge with God’s will, but there are times when as a creature we must change our thinking in order to conform with God’s?

Yes?

 

[fbl9]

Let me ask you this: do you agree that if God exists that His Way may not necessarily be man’s way?

Our view of things may converge with God’s will, but there are times when as a creature we must change our thinking in order to conform with God’s?

Yes?

 

[fbl9]

Nope. This is not correct.

The only way it could possibly apply is on a deathbed conversion, and love, then, would be all that is necessary.

But for the average human person, it is certainly NOT all we need.

me thinks you are bit quick on the draw there partner
Why do you avoid sin? Because you love God
Why do you do good works? You love God and your neighbour alike.
etc.
But this is not at all possible without God’s love first.
The gift of faith is an act of God’s love for us.

 

[PRmerger]

me thinks you are bit quick on the draw there partner
Why do you avoid sin? Because you love God
Why do you do good works? You love God and your neighbour alike.
etc.
But this is not at all possible without God’s love first.
The gift of faith is an act of God’s love for us.

But you have to have some articulation of who God is, that is some formulation of doctrine, in order to love.

You can’t love what you don’t know, yes?

So is God the mountains? Is God Shiva? Is God the crucified Christ?

Important questions, no?

 

[Gorgias]

Ray,

While I understand why and how people have so far responded to my unorthodoxy, I am hoping someone will decide to discuss this at more depth with me. I am familiar enough with Catholic teaching to not have to be reminded (as proof, especially) that I am wrong vis a vis much official Catholic doctrine.

Ahh… now this helps the discussion! When you present yourself as Catholic, and then espouse things that fly in the face of the Church’s teachings, there’s a certain natural skepticism that your remarks generate. But, if you’re willing to say that what you believe isn’t Catholicism, then a good discussion can ensue!

But, since I do not accept Catholic doctrine as essential to true Catholicism (which I believe needs to become more noncredal)

Fair enough. You think that you have a better way, then. Let’s establish some grounds, first, though, if you don’t mind: your assertions are either of the tenor “I know better than Jesus does” or “I know Jesus better than the Church does.” I’m guessing that it’s the latter. If so, how do you rationalize this position, especially given that Jesus founded the Church and promised to protect it?

 

[fbl9]

But you have to have some articulation of who God is, that is some formulation of doctrine, in order to love.

You can’t love what you don’t know, yes?

So is God the mountains? Is God Shiva? Is God the crucified Christ?

Important questions, no?

rewriting last line.
The gift of The Faith is act of God’s love for us.
The Faith referring to Catholicism.

 

[rayteurfs]

I have studied Buddhism schools of thought extensively in college. Here is one example from Vajrayana Buddhism, from the Dalai Lama:

Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?

A. …We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean that there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum.

It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the “Compendium of Valid Knowledge” written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an “interpretable” sutra.

From “Beyond Dogma: The Challenge of the Modern World”, (c) 1996 North Atlantic Books, translated by Alison Anderson and Marianne Dresser from talks given during His Holiness’s visit to France end 1993.

I especially like the part where he says, “If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an “interpretable” sutra.” I did not study various schools of thought extensively at all. I studied the essential of Buddhism and accept a lot of it. I do believe that I understand well the passage I quoted and said I like (very similar to the Catholic mystic, Raimon Panikkar’s explanation). The rest is interesting and does represent, I am sure, the Dalai Lama’s Vajrayana Buddhism, which, of course, has a lot of esoteric knowledge in it is certainly credal.

If you have a question or a particular point, I did not get it.
Cheers, ray

 

[Vico]

I especially like the part where he says, “If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an “interpretable” sutra.” I did not study various schools of thought extensively at all. I studied the essential of Buddhism and accept a lot of it. I do believe that I understand well the passage I quoted and said I like (very similar to the Catholic mystic, Raimon Panikkar’s explanation). The rest is interesting and does represent, I am sure, the Dalai Lama’s Vajrayana Buddhism, which, of course, has a lot of esoteric knowledge in it is certainly credal.

If you have a question or a particular point, I did not get it.
Cheers, ray

I answered you question: “I would challenge anyone to tell me something about mainstream Buddhism that any Catholic could ascribe to and stay faithful to the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church.”

It is necessary for a Catholic to accept the infallible moral teachings of the Church – these are revealed truths – which conflicts in any system of thought where that acceptance is not necessary. Three major branches of Buddhism are Theravada (Teaching of the Elders), Mahayana, and Vajrayana. (Some also call Zen a fourth.) You referred to Mainstream Buddhism, which to scholars means Theravada but I did not take your meaning to be that but large number of practitioners, so I used one of the three main branches.