P
PRmerger
Guest
Please read my post again, PC.
I have a feeling you left the other part out intentionally.
And that is a very, very bad thing to do.
- Status
I have a feeling you left the other part out intentionally.
And that is a very, very bad thing to do.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Careful, PC.
I have offered you a friendship request (and please note, folks, this did not come from PC. Ironic, given his position here)…but that does not preclude me from reporting you for being uncharitable.
So I suggest you take it back a notch.
It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.
But watch how you present yourself.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
- it doesn’t
- for the rest of it, you’ve got a bad case of scruples! It would be “good Catholic” to let yourself off some of those hooks - and (I suspect) “good Noahide” as well!
R
Reepicheep
Guest
I did not say the faith was analogous to a PHD in physics.
You were asserting that PRMerger’s position is ambiguous because it took him a while to prepare to answer your objections. I spoke against that assertion.
And for the record, at least the basics of the faith can be understood well before 5th grade.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Congratulations, you’ve successfully baited me. Now I’m probably going to get banned.Please read my post again, PC.
I have a feeling you left the other part out intentionally.
And that is a very, very bad thing to do.
OK OK, I’m going to be direct instead of sarcastic.
Merely asserting that something happens to fulfill both ends of a contradiction is empty. The seemingly convenient solution of “both/and” is utter emptiness and sophistry.
If Catholicism is like something that requires a PhD it is not also able to be apprehended by 5th graders. These are mutually exclusive categories. It isn’t both/and, that’s ridiculous.
You know what else can be understood by 5th graders, is ambiguous and contradictory, generates thousands of pages of meaningless discourse, is principally the domain of celibate men, involves dressing up and playing make-believe, and is the subject of endless internet flame wars?
Comic books.
Do you need a PhD to understand comic books? Of course not. Just because the universe of discourse surrounding comic books is confusing, contradictory, and ambiguous doesn’t mean it is deep. Just because a 5th grader can appreciate the super heroes doesn’t mean it is beautiful.
You know what comic-book nerds shout at each other?
Nerd 1: "That isn’t canon dude! issue 35 of the Marvel series specifically says…and I quote: “blah, blah blah, nonsense, nonsense.”
Nerd 2: “No way bro! The DC series is definitely more authoritative for that particular character.”
**
Basically, most of the answers to my question in this thread so far can be boiled down to this:**
i.imgflip.com/y9eg4.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Maker
G
Gorgias
Guest
EENS was first expressed in the 3rd century AD. Even then, it wasn’t doctrine, but rather, was the theological opinion that would later become doctrine. So, you can’t expect a statement that was made a century earlier to be taken as an expression of a doctrine that hadn’t yet been developed, can you? Sorry – it’s unreasonable to look at earlier statements retroactively as if they were an exposition of later doctrine.
Not sure why you think this addresses EENS. It’s a warning to Christians against sinning through pride.
I wasn’t able to find this text through a Google search. Since you quoted it, perhaps you can find it in context for us?
Nevertheless, the sites that have this precise quotation explain that Pelagius is talking about Christians who are heretics – that is, they still believe in Christ, but believe false doctrine. EENS – as you’re railing against it – is accused of unjustly referring to non-Christians. Pelagius is talking to Christians. The Church still claims that those who leave the faith place their immortal souls in peril.
So, there are all your ‘before’ quotes. None of them does what you think you’re claiming they do. Sorry.
Anyone who uses these quotes and thinks they’ve proven that EENS condemns all non-Christians.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
There you go, it was a passive form of abuse by the Catholics at your college not to offer a Bible study (though I would say you should go to a Protestant one as well if you wanted).
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
That’s not what I meant. I do not mean to say anyone’s position is ambiguous simply because they take time to respond! People have things to do, including me. I have to get back to work LOL. Anyone can take as long as they want to engage, I don’t understand that to mean hesitance or ambiguity.
I understood you as meaning that just as it takes a long time to understand physics, because it is complex and abstract, Catholicism is similarly complex and abstract, and this is a better explanation for why nobody seems to agree about it. I disagree, I do not think the source of confusion is complexity, but rather contradiction and ambiguity.
The most basic tenet is the trinity and no one (including 5th graders) understands it or can articulate it without someone else shouting “heresy!”
G
Gorgias
Guest
It depends, and luckily, that judgment call isn’t ours to make, but God’s (and He does know for sure). It comes down to this: if, coming to know what the truth is, one nevertheless rejects it (out of pride, or spite, or hubris, or from deluding oneself), then “invincible ignorance” no longer applies. In other words, at some point in any endeavor, a reasonable person (who is in the presence of a truth) is responsible for recognizing the truth. If your lack of knowledge of the truth doesn’t rise to that standard, then you’re “invincibly ignorant.” If it does rise to that standard, then you’re not.
One who is not culpable of not acknowledging the truth. It’s not meant to be a simple metric that’s trivial to apply; you have to examine your soul and be honest with yourself. After all, the God who judges us all will likewise examine our souls and pass judgment…
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Some people in the Church argue that all of her doctrine were revealed by Christ even if they weren’t totally “developed” yet. “Transubstantiation” didn’t appear until medieval times, are you going to argue that John 6 can’t be taken as an expression of a doctrine that hadn’t been developed? Besides that, aren’t you implying EENS wasn’t true until it developed?
A doctor and father of your Church, Basil, calls Jews filthy rags!! Centuries later, churchmen say it’s all good. If that isn’t a contradiction I don’t know what is. Let’s not go down the church antisemitism rabbit hole for now, it’s very ugly.
OK so you think protestants/heretics/schismatics are headed for eternal torture, but not people who haven’t been exposed to preaching or whatever. How do I know that you are right about this understanding of EENS?I wasn’t able to find this text through a Google search. Since you quoted it, perhaps you can find it in context for us?
Nevertheless, the sites that have this precise quotation explain that Pelagius is talking about Christians who are heretics – that is, they still believe in Christ, but believe false doctrine. EENS – as you’re railing against it – is accused of unjustly referring to non-Christians. Pelagius is talking to Christians. The Church still claims that those who leave the faith place their immortal souls in peril.
So, there are all your ‘before’ quotes. None of them does what you think you’re claiming they do. Sorry.
Anyone who uses these quotes and thinks they’ve proven that EENS condemns all non-Christians.
Right, just like I acknowledged before, you will be able to “hand wave” even the most glaring contradictions. This is because you have started with the conclusion and apply reason to the facts. You are not open to the possibility that there are various contradictory understandings of “Catholicism” among self-proclaimed Catholics and therefore can do anything to explain away the facts or make them fit your narrative.
That’s fine. Do what you want.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
If you don’t consider yourself a Catholic, why care whether or not an action is morally right or wrong, according to the Catholic Church?
Also, I’m with those who say stop beating yourself up. You are not the judge of yourself, God is your judge. Follow God according to your conscience. Catholics here are dong so and there’s no reason to beat up on others for doing what you wish to be free to do yourself. (And are free to do.) But, to see rule following as the main gist of things ignores God’s love and the freedom to which you are created.
But I get it. All of my extended family are homogenized to one religion, which I was raised in, which I do not believe. Period. It is wishful thinking on my part, not living in reality, to think they are going to accept my choices and further to not see my choices as directly going against what they believe about God. They certainly believe about me that I will know a lesser reward in an afterlife. And yes sometimes I saw them as gullible and stupid. I believed for a long time the religion of my youth was an abuse of my soul. It fueled an anger for that long time, decades, that served no purpose, other than perhaps my fuel for “getting out” and getting out as far away as possible. Spiritually speaking.
I’m not going to find acceptance with my family by telling them are gullible and stupid. Forgiveness for the perceived spiritual abuse, and unconditional love. It is the only way to Peace.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I hardly call it abuse! How can they be blamed, no one would show up. I think the priest assigned to the campus attempted to start a bible study and no one was interested.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because we know for sure the way to attain to heaven: baptism, and a life spent doing works of supernatural virtue and participation in the sacraments, and death in a state of grace. On the other hand, we know that God can save those who are ‘good and earnestly seek God’, but we have no way of knowing whether a person fits that bill. (Now there’s ambiguity for you – there’s no way for the non-Christian to know if they fit that description! And yes – that is truly scary!)
So, since we know the path to eternal life, we seek to help others follow this known path. That’s the whole ‘why’ behind evangelization…
Oh, I’m sure you’re gonna claim that as proof of ambiguity, but it isn’t – and I suspect you know that to be the case. Rather, it’s just proof of selective (and dishonest) proof-texting (or of a lack of understanding what the quotes are actually saying). That’s not ambiguity, it’s misunderstanding. Big difference.
Read the Sullivan book.
As a gross over-simplification, he makes the case that the fathers of the Council of Florence clearly believed in a just God. Therefore, if they were willing to make such a blanket statement, it implies that they thought “all Jews, pagans, and heretics” had had sufficient opportunity to know the truth of Christianity, such that they would be justly judged to have failed to accept it. (After all, if God is just, and therefore does not condemn the innocent, then the rational conclusion (given the statement of Florence) is that these unbelievers had been given sufficient opportunity to accept the faith.) So, the statement is more a human judgment on whether people were culpably unbelieving. That’s not a doctrinal stance.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right. Understanding came later; revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.
John 6 doesn’t describe transubstantiation. It describes the doctrinal truth that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation just explains how that happens.
Nope. Only that, prior to the promulgation of the doctrine, we can’t expect that someone was stating that doctrine. (Especially since it’s my stance that the quote you provided is precisely the opposite of what EENS means; clearly, that quote is not expressing the truth of EENS.
)You’re missing an important point: ‘doctors of the Church’ and ‘fathers of the Church’ aren’t gifted with the charism of infallibility (such that their every utterance on faith and morals is protected against error). Only the magisterium of the Church, acting as such, has that charism. So no, I reject your implicit assertion that everything a “doctor and father of the Church” says must be true! Hey – Augustine was an awesome guy, but he proposed ‘limbo’ (and that’s not the doctrine of the Church).
I don’t have a problem with individuals making contradictory statements – but that’s not what you’ve been claiming: you’ve been claiming that the Church has made official doctrinal statements that contradict each other. You haven’t demonstrated that to be the case. You really do need to realize that individuals can say silly things, but that doesn’t rise to the level of official doctrinal statements of the Church.
Because it’s what the Magisterium teaches. You keep asking the same question – and getting the same answer! – but you seem not to be hearing the answer you receive!
Goalposts. Moving. :sad_yes:
In your OP, you said something completely different: it wasn’t merely that different people think different things, it was that “there doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what it means to be a true Catholic” (which you later admitted was a claim about the tenets of Catholicism), such that “Catholicism is both ambiguous and open-ended.” Now, it’s changed solely to “there are various contradictory understandings.”
You have a choice: you can make the trivial claim that “different people think different things about various topics” – which is universally true, about all contexts and people! – or you can make the false claim that there is no standard definition of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If you want to back away from the claim you cannot prove, then you can stick to the “different people, different ideas” claim. But, that’s nothing new under the sun; it speaks more to human nature than it does to any given system of belief.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
I don’t understand those two hyper-uber-falutin words
but your OP made good enough sense to me to be getting on with!Apology in your 275 as it stands accepted. Now go on to the rest of my 272 and choose to answer the 10% of the responses that take the real, underlying realities of the argument forward the best. Build on what we have got (those few of us) not what we haven’t got.
You were told a lot of hollow waffle in which hell featured without context or meaning, and are perturbed your family have got an eccentric hobby of churchgoing (which you could just as well humour
). If your family are nice to rub along with, rub along with them!You could inspire your family to be curious themselves (in their own time) if you are straightforward. You could be a great evangeliser for real truth but not if you are as sarcastic with them as you (sometimes) have been with us. You may have felt that some of us “deserved” it but by so doing you were in fact hurtful and mean-spirited to yourself more than anyone.That prayer you prayed when you were 12 - maybe I’m part of the answer to it now, so please don’t get overly distracted by every minor eddy involving everybody else.
If you post on CAF you will run a colossal risk - that someone from the other side of the world who isn’t a “CAF type” suddenly turns up in the middle of it.
It’s also good to critique what seemed to be the assumptions of our parents and grandparents, now that we are of age ourselves. Maybe it was them that had the uber-hyper-complicated way of expressing themselves, not your PP after all! Certainly enough to make a 12-year old’s heart heavy!
Everyone else, please! Some of your responses haven’t been important enough to worry how PC responded to them.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
If you were the only one interested, he should have followed it up with you. It was also abusive of the others, in a passive way.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
The Holy Trinity is that relationship in which there is always room for the other other.
Sorry, am too old for 5th grade!
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
- To be fair to you I should have added that about 90% of the time, later is better, and in the event of the many contradictions go with the later. The present case as per Lumen Gentium paras 12-14 is one of these.
- Not only seeing as the Catholic Church isn’t clear what salvation is, it is unfair to assume members believe this. The other reason is explained in my post 184 as well as some of the others’ posts.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Permit me to be interested in your beliefs. Am I right in thinking you are not talking about secular laws here.
As for hoping people will cotton onto these things of their own accord, once Noahidism catches on in larger numbers it might manifest the same divisions and (on the part of some) negative emotions towards outsiders as you have observed among catholics.
These verses pertain:
[Jeremiah 31:33-34]
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
As for “teach” and “know” in verse 34 what it means is teach and know as external and intellectual content. That is because it is in the Old Testament.
When we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit we have got to know Him in the sense of being introduced, personally.
That’s why New Testament evangelising isn’t getting people to agree with us, it is giving them the opportunity to be shown a person like Philip did Nathaniel and Andrew did Simon Peter.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
I stand corrected. .
No one understands the Trinity?
In God there are three Persons, who we call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Each of these is a Person. Thus there are three Persons in God.
The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there is only one God.
I could have told you this when I was seven years old.
Now how this is* possible* is a thing beyond our understanding. We could not have worked it out for ourselves had we not had it revealed to us by God.
But what it* means *is very clear and easy to articulate, and can be explained to children of seven so that they will understand what it means.
Someone shouts “heresy!”?
In the first place it won’t be Catholics shouting heresy, so please don’t say that someone else accusing us of heresy proves anything about us.
In the second place contradiction does not prove ambiguity. Someone may shout “heresy” as much as they like. The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Catholic Church remains clear, plain and precise.
One God. Three Persons. Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. :bowdown2:
- Status