R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Much of my hatred of the natural world came after witnessing my brother die of cancer. Not a pretty sight.
- Status
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m sorry for your sufferings. :hug1: Suffering is seen around us because of evil and sin, it is not the creation of God. You should read more about what the Church teaches about being, existence, and goodness. They all go hand in hand. Evil, sin, and suffering are not things which exist, they are “lack of existence” if you will, for want of a better word. So, because this world is not perfect existence there is suffering in it, but the suffering isn’t a really a thing, it doesn’t exist properly speaking, rather it is the result of the lack of perfect existence. If you are not aware, the Church teaches that the essence of God is existence itself in its purest form. All other forms of existence are imperfect reflections of this perfect existence/goodness of God. The analogy often used is that of light and darkness. Darkness isn’t some phenomenon in itself, it is merely the name that we give to the absence of light. Similarly evil and suffering are names given to absence of existence/goodness. But the created natural world itself, as an existing thing, is good.
It is absolutely 100% ok to hate the suffering and evil around us, but we should recognize that this is not truly an existant reality created by God, rather it is a lack of perfect existence and goodness. I know… its kind of confusing when you first hear people speak about reality this way, but it really is the only way of looking at reality that makes any sense with Catholicism.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
You forgot to provide me with a reference that the CCC is non-negotiable. Also, cancer is a thing or process whereby normal cells go through a biological mutation. To refute this, you would also have to say that babies are not real things since they to are just a clump of cells.
R
Razanir
Guest
I, too, feel your pain, but this respond is just rude! thewanderer was consoling you, and you just complained he never answered your question. That aside, I don’t know that we can find a non-negotiable reference that the CCC is non-negotiable. It’s like trying to find a source that the Bible is non-negotiable. It’s Catholic tradition that we follow that Bible and the CCC, where the CCC is the official Catholic interpretation of everything
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
If you cannot point me towards a reference, why insist that it’s non-negotiable?
My apologizes to thewanderer if I insulted him in any way, but I was really expecting a reference or a backing down form the claim that the CCC was non-negotiable. I feel fairly certain that it is not non-negotiable.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m sorry, for some reason when I clicked to go to next unread it skipped your post where you explained what you considered a non-negotiable source. I also don’t have all day to go searching for a quote that will fit your expectations, so I might not be able to find something to satisfy you right away, but I will look and get back to you about it when I can.
As for the comparison between cancer and a clump of cells that is a child there is a huge difference. Catholic thought, led by St. Thomas, holds to the idea that every thing has some form, or, “that which makes it to be the thing that it is”. Cancer is the name given to the process of the destruction of an existing being, a person. The clump of cells that is a child in utero is an organized body with its very own form, or unifying principle. Like I said, I understand if this is hard to accept or understand straight away, it is a complicated philosophy of reality that is really quite nuanced, carefully developed over time by many extremely intelligent thinkers. It is not going to be demolished by simply making an analogy. If you think you have more such analogies which disprove this way of thinking about the universe I respectfully suggest that you not make any snap judgements about this worldview as it is most likely that you are failing to see some distinction or nuance. This worldview is very nuanced, as any realistic worldview must necessarily be, and there is no way that you are going to truly understand it by simply reading a few posts online. Because of that it would be extremely hasty to toss it out the window simply because those few posts did not answer all of your difficulties. I will get back to you when I find something else to help show that the Church truly does hold that creation, even the physical world, is good.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
You’d have to answer that one. You’re the one who said “I hate them both, and I know that this is not what the Church teaches, but I cannot get myself to ‘worship’ these things,” as though hating and worshiping are the only two possibilities.
You really don’t see that hating God’s creation is disrespectful? By hating what God created, you’re telling him “You created things that are only worth of hate.”
It doesn’t get much more disrespectful than that.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
The CCC is the teaching of the Magisterium. Since you don’t agree with the teaching of the Church, why did you return to Catholicism?
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
The Beloved apostles says “You must not love this world, nor any of the things in this world. Whosoever loves the world, has not the love of the Father in them.”
I also kind of hate the physical world, considering it a kind of prison and burden. But, I love my fellow human beings, as well as animals and living things. ‘Contemptus mundi’ is traditionally regarded as a high virtue. Consider it a gift from the Holy Spirit.
From hatred, however, it is possible to move to indifference- to consider it a place of sojourn and exile, but filled with faith that it is passing, and therefore not really ‘real’, look upon it as nothing but a shadow, a dream, a delusion, ‘a tale told by an idio signifying nothing’.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Here is an article I found that you might find interesting.
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/goodness_of_creation.htm
While it is largely a philosophical argument it does also quotes various church councils and papal statements as to the goodness of creation.
One example of which is this statement from the Council of Florence
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/goodness_of_creation.htm
While it is largely a philosophical argument it does also quotes various church councils and papal statements as to the goodness of creation.
One example of which is this statement from the Council of Florence
I hope this is helpful, and if I have the time and find anything else that might help I will add it in.
O
Ophelia23
Guest
Here is an article I found that you might find interesting.
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/goodness_of_creation.htm
While it is largely a philosophical argument it does also quotes various church councils and papal statements as to the goodness of creation.
One example of which is this statement from the Council of Florence
I hope this is helpful, and if I have the time and find anything else that might help I will add it in.
Good detective work, friend!!
U
Usagi
Guest
Robert,
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but your frequent quotation about the yetzer ha-ra doesn’t say what you always claim it says.
The paragraph in which the yetzer ha-ra is connected to the phrase “very good” also mentions that the yetzer ha-ra is the source of all drive and ambition, the only thing that pushes people to accomplish anything.
Though called the “evil impulse,” it doesn’t seem to be absolutely evil in the sense that Catholics think of concupiscence. It’s more like “Evil Kirk” in the old Star Trek episode, where Kirk was split into two by the transporter and discovered that without his “evil” side, he was no longer capable of confidence and command decisions.
The passage never says that “very good” means “evil.” It says that “very good” is interpreted by some to refer to the existence of the yetzer ha-ra IN THE ABOVE SENSE, that of the drive to accomplish and improve.
Do you really think that God created an entire material universe that He regarded as evil from the start? Being upset with certain aspects of the fallen world is one thing, but to look for reasons why even the pre-Fall creation was evil just seems perverse.
Usagi
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but your frequent quotation about the yetzer ha-ra doesn’t say what you always claim it says.
The paragraph in which the yetzer ha-ra is connected to the phrase “very good” also mentions that the yetzer ha-ra is the source of all drive and ambition, the only thing that pushes people to accomplish anything.
Though called the “evil impulse,” it doesn’t seem to be absolutely evil in the sense that Catholics think of concupiscence. It’s more like “Evil Kirk” in the old Star Trek episode, where Kirk was split into two by the transporter and discovered that without his “evil” side, he was no longer capable of confidence and command decisions.
The passage never says that “very good” means “evil.” It says that “very good” is interpreted by some to refer to the existence of the yetzer ha-ra IN THE ABOVE SENSE, that of the drive to accomplish and improve.
Do you really think that God created an entire material universe that He regarded as evil from the start? Being upset with certain aspects of the fallen world is one thing, but to look for reasons why even the pre-Fall creation was evil just seems perverse.
Usagi
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Robert Sock,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Some men, dear friend, have been quite puzzled as to how St. John’s exhortation, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him” (I Jhn. 2: 15), can be reconciled with the material world being declared “good” by God, as well as His love for the world in sending His Only Begotten Son (S. John 3: 16). It is, however, important to note that the “the world” referenced in this text has a very different connontation from the statement in Genesis and S. John 3: 16. Certainly creation should be loved, for it is God’s own handiwork, and, viewed as people made in God’s image, the world must be loved. However, viewed as an evil system that is opposed to what is good and which rebels against God’s holy Commandments, the world must clearly not be loved, for it is under the dominion of Satan and not God. The New English Bible translation elicidates the meaning of St. John’s passage quite well: “Do not set your hearts on the godless world”, which means that there can be no selfish love of participation in that which is unholy and which is at variance with the life of faith. As St. Paul says, “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12: 2). Since we Christians properly belong to the ‘high mountain land above’ we must resolutely refuse to descend to the level of those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world and whose outlook is consequently circumscribed by that which is temporal (cf. II Cor. 4: 4, 18). Now from this perspective one can clearly see that any friendship with the godless world is downright infidelity to God and therefore unacceptable for those who profess religion (Jam. 4: 4). No wonder St. James declares that pure religion involves keeping oneself “unstained from the world” (Jam. 1: 27).
Invariably, any talk nowadays of the pursuit of holiness and avoiding worldliness, is met with a frosty response and one will likely find himself branded a ‘Puritan prude’ or a joyless prigg. At the very least, he will probably be accused of overscrupulosity. However, if a man is serious respecting the pursuit of holiness, “without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14), is not a certain amount of healthy scrupulosity very necessary and even indispensable? If, dear friend, we are truly earnest in wanting to enter life eternal, then surely we will have to renounce certain practices and habits, certain questionable pleasures and certain places (e.g. dens of iniquity and vice). Before hastily and contemptuously dismissing all of this as some sort of Jansenism (which it most clearly is not) we ought to realize that there is a very spritually healthly element to it, namely our sanctification rendering us fit for Heaven. All this mortal life is a state of probation, as it were, and the faithful must ensure that they are duly diligent confirm their call and election (II Pet. 1: 10).
Whilst it is perfectly true, dear friend, that the life of faith is more than merely having a clearly-defined list of taboos, faith, hope and love are equally indispensable, it would be sheer folly to deny that “do’s” and “dont’s” have an integral part to play also. Thus, for example, a well-formed conscience will surely discern for itself that watching culturally unwhealthy films and TV programmes and listening to debased sensory material, such as rock/pop music, with its anti-Christian and immoral content, is unbefitting for those who profess the holy religion of Christ. Similarly, a well-formed conscience will discern that uttering profanity and using ‘locker room’ ribaldry do not comport with the Christian view of language and therefore should not once be named among those who profess to be disciples of Christ.
Perhaps, dear friend, as regards this matter of worldliness, we need to focus upon our dear Lord; never singular, never an ascetic, enjoying the good things of this world and yet all the while aloof, aloof from the iniquity and sin which abounded around Him. There was this wonderful balance; He was in the midst of it and yet all the time He was completely untainted and unpolluted. To put it quite simply, there was contact but without contamination. Nevertheless, Jesus was also quite emphatic regarding the duty of self-denial and the call to holiness. He said that if any man would be His disciple that man must take up his cross daily and deny himself. Now implicit in this command is renunciation and abstinence from worldy pleasures and pursuits of the questionable and morally unhealthy variety. However, this is a jolly unpopular and unwelcome message today, given the Laodicean lukwarmeness that sadly prevails in Western contemporary Catholicism (even among those who would indentify as conservative). The fact is that many professing Catholics have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice (a sort of ‘Catholicism Lite’), which makes little or no demand upon them as regards living up to the arduous demands of our most holy religion. They need to realize that sanctity and separation from the godless world is not some optional extra for the thoroughgoing ‘spiritual types’, but a requirement for all who name the name of Christ.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
F
fpt
Guest
As catholic human being, with a body and a soul, with their own corollaries – the intellect, the reason, the mental, the psyche, the body of male and the body of female, the marriage, the marital act, the procreation, the family, the creation of God, the beauty of the nature – we have the moral natural obligation and the catholic obligation to avoid: Manicheism, jansenism, catharism, angelism, puritanism, victorianism, fideism, quietism and the neo “ism words”; because they are heresies. They are dangerous and against the human nature. They are wrong. It is immoral to agree with them. We have the duty to try of avoiding them in your mind. It is a strong battle.
The Talmudic literature is not the Old Testament. It is a rewrite coming from after Jesus Christ. Talmudic books are in reaction to Jesus Christ. It is a falsification of the Old Testament. It is not the true Old Testament. Talmud is not the traditional Old book of the First Covenant.
Talmud is a wrong adaptation, a rewriting.
A
accesscatholic
Guest
This is the answer.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
God made a SACRIFICE in taking on material form. God did not say “Oh, it look like fun being a human- subject to disease, betrayal, poverty, injustice and death. I’d like to give that a go.” On the contrary, He say the infinite woe placed on us poor banished children of Eve, and in mercy, to redeem us, assumed the wretched form of humanity.
We bow our head at the mention of the Incarnation, not the Crucifixion. The Incarnation of God is the greatest sacrifice.
God came to earth, to tell us to reject the vanity of earthly things- that the soul, free of earthly desires, will eventually escape the ‘miserable prison of the body’, as St. Francis said, and return to Heaven, if we avoid sin, and love of this world.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
These teachings of the Church are not non-negotiable like a lot of readers seem to think. Here’s some food for thought? Let me know if my returning to the Catholic Church was valuable?
*
The death of the just: Death will reach everyone, the good and the bad; but the destiny of each one is quite different. The just man sees himself in this valley of tears as a prisoner, serving a very hard term. He considers himself a slave in this world, suffering an extremely distressing servitude. He regards himself a sailor caught in a horrible storm. And as death means an end of his confinement, an end of his slavery, and is the port of his salvation, he ceases not to cry with David, “Woe is me that my sojourning is prolonged!. . .” (Ps. 119:5). He ceases not to ask with the Apostle, “. . . Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24)
–The Golden Key to Heaven, by Saint Anthony Mary Claret*
“Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”
-John 12:25 *
*
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!
*“Just as a blind man is unable to form any idea about colors, or a deaf person to fathom what it means to hear sounds… so the body cannot comprehend the delights of the soul… For we live in a material world, and the only kind of pleasure we can understand is that experienced through our body. But the joys of the spirit are everlasting and ceaseless. There is no resemblance of any kind between the enjoyments of the soul and those of the body.”
–Maimonides
*
*“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
–1 John 2:15
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
Yes, all the teachings you have listed here are non-negotiable. And, sure, the Catholic Church values all, especially those with a sound grasp of orthodox traditional.
Here is what Thomas a Kempis says:
Living on earth is truly a misery. The more a man desires spiritual
life, the more bitter the present becomes to him, because he
understands better and sees more clearly the defects, the corruption of
human nature. To eat and drink, to watch and sleep, to rest, to labor,
and to be bound by other human necessities is certainly a great misery
and affliction to the devout man, who would gladly be released from
them and be free from all sin. Truly, the inner man is greatly burdened
in this world by the necessities of the body, and for this reason the
Prophet prayed that he might be as free from them as possible, when he
said: “From my necessities, O Lord, deliver me.”
But woe to those who know not their own misery, and greater woe to
those who love this miserable and corruptible life."
There it is. Its not the kind of thing we might like to tell our kids, or, depending upon how insecure we are, ourselves. But, in fact, in the depths of their heart, everyone, even little children, knows what Robert is saying is true.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Since he refuses to accept the statement from the Council of Florence I don’t think that there’s much chance of getting Robert to abandon Manicheism.
R
Razanir
Guest
What John is saying in both of these is that we shouldn’t become overly attached and value our life more than God. Loving things in this world is not a sin
- Status