The Confusion of Catholicism

[PumpkinCookie]

Originally Posted by Vic Taltrees UK
Why is there an assumption (in myriad threads throughout CAF, not least from “Catholics” themselves) that being Catholic is merely a matter of being told what to think?

Note I said “merely”.]

I really don’t see what’s so ludicrous about the situation I have asked about here.

So, we have certain people who are non-Catholics and some of the ex-Catholics who were told this by non-Catholics. Fine.

Then among the people you “conveniently” airbrush out of your picture, ex-Catholics who have been told it by Catholics during their Catholic time, often their main formers, like parents, teachers, catechists, clergy.

Lastly we have those who are still Catholics but whose main impression of the faith is of this kind, who were told it by other Catholics including those prominent in their forming.

I have known several of both these groups personally and in addition, we have it from their own words from a number of fellow members at CAF.

Real catechesis involves intellectual guidance and great quantities of Bible-based (name removed by moderator)ut but in the context of trusting God in life’s ups and downs and, as one gets nearer and nearer to adult age, exercising one’s intellect and initiative in that relationship. Post-confirmational lifelong catechesis such as I have observed brings together people both who had a slightly heavy-handed style, and a laid-back style, of upbringing and gives them the chance to progress equally in this way.

On the whole I think it “poignant” rather than “ironic” that in so many localities there hasn’t been the opportunity to carry on progressing, deepening and growing in this kind of fashion.

The reason I included this in my question to PC which is also going to be read by thousands of “lurkers” with genuine curiosity, is that as I have pointed out before the question PC raised is not about how cleverly you can prove him wrong but about the emotional ground in the catholic community that leads to them sniping at non-believers, ex-believers, half-believers etc.

Onesheep hit upon some useful observations - it often relates to how meaningful relationships in the church are. In fact the core of Christ’s teaching concerns this, and it ties in with another of PC’s questions - why His teaching isn’t regarded as clear cut.

He calls for each of us to nurture the fruitful gifts in each other so that when they are profitable, we share in their reward - parable of talents, salt, light, lampstands, the servants who didn’t starve their fellow servants while the master was in the far country. (I Jn also refers - what is the actual quality and kind of the love for each other that “belies” love for God? I Cor 12:16-21, Eph 4:11 also.) A power-wielding element in the church for example will manoeuvre us out of this ambition and a “creep” like mentality will collude with that. Ready made underlying conflict, probably under a “nice” and “orthodox” veneer.

 

[meltzerboy]

There have been several threads aimed at questioning, refuting, mocking, and jeering atheism lately. It seems that this particular sub-forum has become a place of open hostility toward atheism. I suppose that’s fair, considering that the wider internet is a place of open hostility toward all religion. But, I thought I would offer a theory of why there seems to be so much rancorous mutual hatred and disdain between christians/catholics and atheists/agnostics.

Before proceeding, I would like to clarify that I am an agnostic theist. I do have a personal history of hating Catholicism, but I am trying to get over it to the best of my ability. I have stated my personal bias ahead of time; hopefully this is a sufficient disclosure.

Here is my theory about why so many people hate and fear atheism/atheists:

1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what it means to be a true Catholic. This website should be proof enough, but evidence abounds! Confusion reigns. Because of this, those who consider themselves Catholic and attempt to build their identities upon that idea are building on an ambiguous and shifting core. They cannot find a solid, rich, and nutrient-filled soil for them to root their egos.

2: Without a strong and clear identity, a negative definition emerges.
Because Catholics don’t know who they are, and consequently are unable to love themselves, they must turn outward to define what they are not. They hate the other, in order to give the ego something firm to grasp. Catholics are against such and such, they oppose so and so. Because they can’t agree, or even understand what they love they turn to hatred and fear in order to define themselves.

I believe that this same dynamic drives atheism. Of course atheists can’t agree on what to believe or who they are. There is no widespread agreement or consensus. Rather, there is a mutual disdain and hatred of religion and “blind faith.” Simply not believing in God or gods is insufficient to ground one’s ego. We need a mission, a purpose, a clear vision of ourselves (whether it is illusory doesn’t matter). Atheism and Catholicism are both ambiguous and open-ended. Because of this, each side turns to the invigorating clarity of hatred.

What do you think? Is this a plausible theory? Why or why not?

Also, I have to give credit to J.P. Sartre. I am adapting his theory of hatred in Réflexions sur la question juive to this situation of internet-based hatred.

I believe it is equally, if not more, uncertain what it means, beyond technical definitions, to be a Jew. Yet I do not associate Judaism with hatred of atheism.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There are about a million things that you believe using the same epistemology that Christians use to believe that Jesus is God.

One has to wonder why you have such a double standard…

OH BOY here we go. This is one of your favorite “rabbit holes” I think. Let’s not get into a silly argument about how I’m confident the ancient Egyptians actually existed when I can’t demonstrate it or prove it a priori and therefore I’m a hypocrite because I don’t believe Jesus was/is God.

Are you a hypocrite because you reject Muhammad? Are you a hypocrite because you reject Satya Sai Baba? Of course not!

I am not a disciple of Clifford. I don’t think we need rock-solid irrefutable evidence for religious beliefs. plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

If my ship goes down and I drown, so be it! However, I refuse to insist that others believe my ship is perfectly safe and sound and all the others are leaky.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I believe it is equally, if not more, uncertain what it means, beyond technical definitions, to be a Jew. Yet I do not associate Judaism with hatred of atheism.

Yes good point. I think, in my experience, Jewish people are more OK with opinion. I find that even very observant Orthodox Jews are not as married to their theological opinions as many Christians seem to be.

Also, I think that the Jewish identity is more communal and biological than Christian identity. Even if a Jewish person does not keep halacha, this doesn’t mean they’re not really Jewish.

Lastly, some Jews believe something extremely important, which is that this world is not a mistake. Imperfect, yes, but not an “oops!” Human religions among the nations exist for a reason. While idolatry is wrong for everyone, everywhere, not all religions are essentially idolatrous. Islam, for instance, is absolutely NOT idolatrous at all. There is no gaping, eternal hell waiting for all those who happen to be born gentiles or do not attain a spiritual level where they recognize the oneness of the divine. The 7 laws are obvious to most people, and many try to uphold them whether they understand it or not.

Indeed, almost all human beings are gentiles. I have often thought that it is possible we are all “extra.” I know that there are some Rabbi’s who have thought that only Jews have a place in Olam Haba. That isn’t the majority opinion though, I think. But even if that were true, that all of us are just “extra” I’m OK with that. It would fit the pattern. Think of the vast universe. So much “extra” if this little earth is the only place of life. Think of the tree shedding its thousands of acorns, only to have a new tree pop up only occasionally. I’m OK with being an acorn.

The other thing about Judaism is that it confers a kind of “special-ness” in a positive manner, without relying on the exclusion or negation of the rest of humanity. This identification as one of the creator’s special people does not mean that all other human beings are worthless garbage. The Jewish people don’t turn outward and say “hey everyone, you have to be like us, or you’re doomed! You’re broken, born evil, and only we can fix it!” Therefore, you don’t see Jewish people proselytizing or sniping non-Jews.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes good point. I think, in my experience, Jewish people are more OK with opinion. I find that even very observant Orthodox Jews are not as married to their theological opinions as many Christians seem to be.

Also, I think that the Jewish identity is more communal and biological than Christian identity. Even if a Jewish person does not keep halacha, this doesn’t mean they’re not really Jewish.

Lastly, some Jews believe something extremely important, which is that this world is not a mistake. Imperfect, yes, but not an “oops!” Human religions among the nations exist for a reason. While idolatry is wrong for everyone, everywhere, not all religions are essentially idolatrous. Islam, for instance, is absolutely NOT idolatrous at all. There is no gaping, eternal hell waiting for all those who happen to be born gentiles or do not attain a spiritual level where they recognize the oneness of the divine. The 7 laws are obvious to most people, and many try to uphold them whether they understand it or not.

Indeed, almost all human beings are gentiles. I have often thought that it is possible we are all “extra.” I know that there are some Rabbi’s who have thought that only Jews have a place in Olam Haba. That isn’t the majority opinion though, I think. But even if that were true, that all of us are just “extra” I’m OK with that. It would fit the pattern. Think of the vast universe. So much “extra” if this little earth is the only place of life. Think of the tree shedding its thousands of acorns, only to have a new tree pop up only occasionally. I’m OK with being an acorn.

The other thing about Judaism is that it confers a kind of “special-ness” in a positive manner, without relying on the exclusion or negation of the rest of humanity. This identification as one of the creator’s special people does not mean that all other human beings are worthless garbage. The Jewish people don’t turn outward and say “hey everyone, you have to be like us, or you’re doomed! You’re broken, born evil, and only we can fix it!” Therefore, you don’t see Jewish people proselytizing or sniping non-Jews.

I agree with most of what you say about Judaism. However, I would also add that I know of no rabbi of the modern age who would exclude gentiles from the World to Come on the basis of their religion other than Judaism or their atheism. Judaism is not exclusive but neither is it inclusive, in the sense that it believes that, while conversion to Judaism is possible for anyone, it is not necessary for everyone in order to live a meaningful and rewarding life.

 

[PRmerger]

None of the things you mention apply to me, personally. Thank God I was never abused by a priest, never had “pelvic issues,” am happily married, etc. I remember I was part of a protestant bible study in college (Catholics didn’t have one) and all of those guys were addicted to porn. And these are the guys studying the bible weekly! It was awful. It’s truly a crisis for many men. I somehow never had that problem. I don’t recall my parents being snubbed.

Yeah, well…none of those examples were meant to be restrictive, but rather they were descriptive.

And I am 100% certain that something* like *the above examples happened to you.

100% certain.

No one has a self-described hatred for something based purely on its ideology or theology.

I may not be a psychologist, but I do access my reason as well as my experience quite well…

and no one hates the Catholic Church because she teaches that hell is eternal, God is a Trinity, Mary was ever-virgin, saints can intercede for us…

No one.

Now, if you want to assert here that there is no emotional component to the reasons for your hatred of the CC–that is, nothing bad happened to you and you simply left the CC out of desuetude, and this hatred is purely ideological, I will consider retracting…but let’s hear you assert this first.

 

[PRmerger]

OH BOY here we go. This is one of your favorite “rabbit holes” I think.

Oh, but it’s a good one.

This is like a vaccine denier saying, “Oh, boy. Here we go again. You’re telling us that vaccines are efficacious because polio is almost eradicated. What a rabbit hole you love to chase!”

Well, yeah. Because it’s incontrovertible.

Let’s not get into a silly argument about how I’m confident the ancient Egyptians actually existed when I can’t demonstrate it or prove it a priori and therefore I’m a hypocrite because I don’t believe Jesus was/is God.

You do demonstrate a peculiar double standard when you assert this.

Are you a hypocrite because you reject Muhammad? Are you a hypocrite because you reject Satya Sai Baba? Of course not!

Well, no, because I don’t have that double standard that you’ve embraced.

I understand that most thing I believe I believe because I trust in the person who told me.

I trust Mrs. Caltigarone when she told me in 4th grade that Katmandu is the capital of Nepal.

Just like you do.

Except, for some weird reason, you hold a different standard for the Numinous.

One has to wonder why this is…

 

[o_mlly]

…
1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what it means to be a true Catholic. …

Sure there is. A Catholic first acknowledges himself a wretched sinner; an attitude that, absent knowledge of Christ and his offer of forgiveness, is intellectually impossible. He then becomes his brother’s keeper — another wounded-healer (Nouwen).

 

[meltzerboy]

Sure there is. A Catholic first acknowledges himself a wretched sinner; an attitude that, absent knowledge of Christ and his offer of forgiveness, is intellectually impossible. He then becomes his brother’s keeper — another wounded-healer (Nouwen).

Is this specific to Catholicism rather than Protestantism?

 

[PRmerger]

The newer understanding of some Catholics regarding EENS is a contradiction of older teachings and beliefs.

Er,no.

Not a contradiction at all.

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i59/2/12/...not-think-it-means-what-you-think--c96aff.jpg

See here:
google.com/search?q=contradiction+definition&oq=contradiction+definition&aqs=chrome…69i57j69i65l3j69i61l2.3636j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

For it to be a contradiction, EENS would have had to declare “A is true” then, and either declare today “A is false” or “Not A is true”.

Can you show us where this occurred?

 

[PRmerger]

And, if Catholic teaching is so unambiguous, why would you need an entire sabbatical to research and refute the claims made? Shouldn’t it be obvious and clear?

What is being asserted is that Catholic teaching is clear enough for those who want to know.

It is also easy enough for a 5th grader to apprehend while deep enough for scholars to wax poetic about it with tomes of theological discourse.

That’s the beauty of Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

I defined my religious beliefs against Catholicism on my way toward a more positive understanding of what I believe rather than what I don’t believe. As I learn to be OK with the ambiguity of my own beliefs, I am slowly leaving my hatred behind.

Just be careful, PC, that in your quest to define your religious beliefs you don’t actually just create a religion that worships the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty.

For I think we are agreed that IF there is a God, then what God reveals about his plan for the world, his vision of what is, his moral code, so to speak, will absolutely NOT be the same as what you envision.

So if you can’t say, “I personally would like it that [A], but God has revealed that it’s [not A], so now I profess [not A]”, then I daresay that you’ve created a god after your own image, and not the Real Image.

And in the interest of self disclosure, I will say that if I had my way, all nonCatholics who believe in the Real Presence of Christ could receive the Eucharist…

however, since I’m not God, and God has declared that only those who are Catholic (or Orthodox) and without mortal sin can receive, I declare that, too.

I don’t recreate a religion/theology/ideology that says what I personally believe.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Therefore, you don’t see Jewish people proselytizing or sniping non-Jews.

The odd exception, that proves the rule, will turn up one day!

 

[PRmerger]

Who is the final authority? Is is the pope? Which one? When popes contradict each other, who “wins?” When councils contradict each other, which one holds? Newest? Oldest? Biggest? It seems that no one agrees about what is the final authority.

Keep checking. And then check some more. Especially with Scriptures. And make sure you are filled with the Holy Spirit all the time.

That’s the general answer.

For the specific, work out where you are personally at the moment and talk to people about it.

Now, you do realize, Vic, that in saying to check with the Scriptures (presuming you mean the Christian Scriptures, and not the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon or…) you’re saying that he should submit to the authority of the CC on this, yeah?

For there is no other way that he would know that the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, is theopneustos, and that the Epistle of Clement is not, save for giving his tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Er,no.

Not a contradiction at all.

See here:
google.com/search?q=contradiction+definition&oq=contradiction+definition&aqs=chrome…69i57j69i65l3j69i61l2.3636j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

For it to be a contradiction, EENS would have had to declare “A is true” then, and either declare today “A is false” or “Not A is true”.

Can you show us where this occurred?

“Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not attain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private person, a master or a servant, a man or a woman.”

-St. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyrnaeans CA 100 AD.

Beware lest you fall down like the devil, who raising himself against men was cast down by a Man, and placed beneath the feet of the one he had trodden on. Such too was the calamity of Israel. For raging against the Gentiles as unclean, they became in very truth unclean themselves; while the Gentiles have become clean, their own justice has become like a menstruous rag (Is. lxiv. 6); while the wickedness and impiety of the Gentiles was wiped out through faith.

-St. Basil the Great On Humility pg. 31, col. 525, Homily 20 CA 350 AD

Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned.

-Pope Pelagius II, epistle 2, Dilectionis vestrae, 585 AD

---

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or of His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation.

-Lumen Gentium

Thank God, I have no Church; I follow Christ.

-Pope Francis, June 29, 2014, interview for Il Messaggero

… the Church must do something, must change, must convert in order to become mother. She must be fruitful!… This is not a question of seeking to proselytize, no, no! To go ring the bell: ‘Would you like to come to this association called the Catholic Church?…’… The Church – Benedict XVI told us – does not grow through proselytism…

-Pope Francis, June 16, 2014, address to the diocese of Rome

From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.

• Vatican Commission For Religious Relations With The Jews, *“The Gifts And The Calling Of God Are Irrevocable” *, paragraph 36, December 10, 2015

---

So, who is poorly catechized? Is it St. Ignatius or the fathers of Vatican 2? Is it St. Basil or the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews? Is it Pope Pelagius or Pope Francis?

How do you know? How do I know that you know?

Want more contradictions? Just google it. The people who think they are the real Catholics have done years of research and there are dozens of websites showing the contradictions plainly and straightforwardly. Here’s a good one:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm

 

[PRmerger]

-St. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyrnaeans CA 100 AD.

-St. Basil the Great On Humility pg. 31, col. 525, Homily 20 CA 350 AD

-Pope Pelagius II, epistle 2, Dilectionis vestrae, 585 AD

---

-Lumen Gentium

-Pope Francis, June 29, 2014, interview for Il Messaggero

-Pope Francis, June 16, 2014, address to the diocese of Rome

• Vatican Commission For Religious Relations With The Jews, *“The Gifts And The Calling Of God Are Irrevocable” *, paragraph 36, December 10, 2015

---

So, who is poorly catechized? Is it St. Ignatius or the fathers of Vatican 2? Is it St. Basil or the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews? Is it Pope Pelagius or Pope Francis?

How do you know? How do I know that you know?

Want more contradictions? Just google it. The people who think they are the real Catholics have done years of research and there are dozens of websites showing the contradictions plainly and straightforwardly. Here’s a good one:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm

Nope, PC.

Try again.

You need something from the Magisterium.

Not something from Catholics, no matter how learned and saintly.

You should know that already that words of Catholics, no matter how holy, do not (necessarily) represent Catholic teaching.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What is being asserted is that Catholic teaching is clear enough for those who want to know.

It is also easy enough for a 5th grader to apprehend while deep enough for scholars to wax poetic about it with tomes of theological discourse.

That’s the beauty of Catholicism.

The same can be said about other religions, all human languages, food, dance, music, culture, and any other endemically human thing!

 

[PRmerger]

The same can be said about other religions, all human languages, food, dance, music, culture, and any other endemically human thing!

Sure.

So I’m not sure what your big take-home message is regarding the putative ambiguous nature of Catholic teaching.

Surely you’re not saying this: because it’s (putatively) ambiguous, it can’t be true.

That couldn’t be logically correct, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out here?

 

[Partinobodycula]

What is being asserted is that Catholic teaching is clear enough for those who want to know.

Actually, I’m not so sure that this is true. Having been following this discussion closely I was curious when the topic of EENS came up, and so I went to CA’s article on the topic.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

After reading it a number of times I must say that I’m still confused. On the one hand it seems to clearly indicate that for most people, me included, the only path to salvation is through the Catholic Church. On the other hand it leaves open the possibility of salvation for those who are “Invincibly Ignorant”, or as the article puts it, “innocently ignorant”. This could be construed as meaning that everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, can be saved. Atheists can be saved. Paganists can be saved. Satanists can be saved.

One line in the article stands out for me, “But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it.” There’s a difference between hearing the truth and knowing the truth. So even though I may be intimately familiar with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I can’t honestly say that I know it to be true. So am I “innocently ignorant”?

This seems odd to me, that an article meant to clarify the meaning of EENS, does no such thing. All the article did was leave me more confused than I was before. Who exactly qualifies as “innocently ignorant”?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Just be careful, PC, that in your quest to define your religious beliefs you don’t actually just create a religion that worships the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty.

For I think we are agreed that IF there is a God, then what God reveals about his plan for the world, his vision of what is, his moral code, so to speak, will absolutely NOT be the same as what you envision.

So if you can’t say, “I personally would like it that [A], but God has revealed that it’s [not A], so now I profess [not A]”, then I daresay that you’ve created a god after your own image, and not the Real Image.

And in the interest of self disclosure, I will say that if I had my way, all nonCatholics who believe in the Real Presence of Christ could receive the Eucharist…

however, since I’m not God, and God has declared that only those who are Catholic (or Orthodox) and without mortal sin can receive, I declare that, too.

I don’t recreate a religion/theology/ideology that says what I personally believe.

LOL this is soooo “Catholic.”

“A religious belief isn’t true unless it is disagreeable to me at least a little bit!”

OK, I will share this, but not for any purpose of trying to get other people to be interested in my religious beliefs.

I believe it is one of God’s commandments for gentiles to create laws and courts for the purpose of upholding and enforcing the other Noahide laws. Essentially, I believe that the world will not see complete peace until every human being follows the Noahide laws, and it is my duty to help support a civilization which will support this goal. So, the end game is a human civilization where there is no:

1. Idolatry
2. Blasphemy
3. Lies
4. Murders
5. Non-marital sex of any kind
6. Animal cruelty/abuse of the environment

OK, so what I’m talking about is a world-wide theocracy with no religious freedom. I suppose it could be a representative democracy rather than a dictatorship, but it still gives me the heebie jeebies.

By disposition, I’m a libertarian. I think freedom is awesome. I tend not to care what other people do, and I hesitate at the thought of a theocratic world government.

However, I can definitely see the value of God’s other laws, so I suppose his plan must be good. I believe this world-peace under the one true God will be achieved someday, though I must admit we have a long way to go!

The path to peace is not through violence and force, however. So don’t worry, this isn’t the same vision as Islamic fundamentalists who are trying to establish a world-government under the Caliph.