The Confusion of Catholicism

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes, any idea would do, though of course sane people make an attempt to ground themselves in reality. Regardless, it seems as though we can be grounded in an illusion so long as the illusion is coherent.

I am not an expert on Sartre, and I’ve read only a few of his pieces. Based on my reading of “Anti-Semite and Jew” I think he would say that hatred is the mechanism by which a shattered or empty ego builds itself an identity based on the fantastic projection of a loathsome “other.” In the book, he argues that anti-semites “create” “The Jew” in their imaginations, to give them something to hate. Hate gives us something to grab onto, it makes us feel a kind of brotherhood with those who hate with us. In a world of rapid change, uncertainty, and ambiguity, it seems to be a beacon of light.

And…, is the annihilation (by any means, and in the short or long term) of this loathsome “other” included in “hate”?

 

[puzzledtoo]

Thank you pumpkincookie for your take on what agnostic theism means. Blessings to all-stay safe.

 

[Reepicheep]

Several have responded that they know what it means to be Catholic.

I am sure each of you believe that you know what it means to be Catholic, but the real questions are: how can you be sure, and do you all agree with each other?

I have a suspicion that you wouldn’t agree with each other, and my suspicion is based on the thousands of pages of argumentation and disagreement on this website. My other evidence is the thousands of years of disagreement and violence about dogma, doctrine, and practice.

When you say you understand what it means to be Catholic, how do you know that you’re correct? Let’s take an example:

Several cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians believe that there is a pathway to communion for divorced and remarried couples. Others say this is impossible. Who are the real Catholics? How do we know?

There is disagreement here. But, you can all agree that you’re not protestants or atheists right? In hatred, in ostracism, there is unity.

*By hatred I don’t mean childish emotional outbursts, but the calm and rational hatred of the “wrong” other. This hatred excludes, belittles, patronizes, scorns, and separates. It is what allows me to feel “superior” to another fellow human being. It erases their unique identity, and makes me feel special.

1. Disagreement does not equal hatred.
2. ("Several cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians believe that ") Do these cardinals, bishops, etc. actually insist on giving the Eucharist to divorced and remarried Catholics, or do they merely express their belief that a pathway exists? There is actually room for disagreements within the Church.

Also what is the pathway you mention? Are they saying something like “divorced and remarried Catholics can repent/reform/return to obedience to the Church”? Because that would not be exactly a disagreement with the teachings of Mother Church.

1. (“In hatred, in ostracism, there is unity.”) Disagreement does not equal hatred. Exclusion for cause is not the same as ostracism, nor is it hatred.
2. Your assertion that we indulge in hate is just that – an assertion.

 

[Reepicheep]

Yes, that’s what I mean. Hatred doesn’t give us clarity about the real world, but it allows us to construct a rich illusion in which to plant our ego. “Me, me, me, mine, mine, mine” is the result: a clarity of ego and self-identification (though it is illusory).

I think Catholics are deeply confused about who they are. I suppose it is because the content of “Catholicism” is inherently ambiguous and debatable. However, there are other possible solutions. Though they can’t understand what it truly means to be Catholic, they can at least define what it means to be not a Catholic. They can define themselves by negation, by separating themselves from the wider humanity. Atheists can be a focus of this hatred, because they are so clearly not Catholic. In times past, Jews, Muslims, or Protestants were a focus of hatred. Now the hatred is focused on “liberals” “secular people” and “atheists.”

I don’t really know, just kicking around a theory.

The content of Catholicism is not at all ambiguous. I believe in God, the Father Almighty…

As for debatable, if you insist on contradicting the content of our Faith that does not make it “debatable” in the sense you seem to be using the word.

When I define what it means to be Catholic, I feel no need at all to do it by talking aobut what it means to be not a Catholic.

Again, you offer mere assertion and act as if it was evidence.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The content of Catholicism is not at all ambiguous. I believe in God, the Father Almighty…

As for debatable, if you insist on contradicting the content of our Faith that does not make it “debatable” in the sense you seem to be using the word.

When I define what it means to be Catholic, I feel no need at all to do it by talking aobut what it means to be not a Catholic.

Again, you offer mere assertion and act as if it was evidence.

Take a look at post #8. It looks like the poster has used exclusive and negative definitions to show what a Catholic is not.

If the content of Catholicism is not ambiguous, why did it need so many councils to painstakingly define every little thing? Why does it need an office whose main job is to make sure Catholics don’t believe “the wrong thing?”

Basically, if Christianity/Catholicism is not ambiguous, why do people who consider themselves to be Christians/Catholics have so many different contradictory ideas about what this means?

Why do organizations like “Catholic Answers” exist if the content of Catholic faith is obvious to any believer?

Here is a thought experiment: let’s say a bishop teaches that women should be ordained. I have personal acquaintance with such a bishop. Is this bishop not really a Catholic? How would we know?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. Disagreement does not equal hatred.

Hasn’t “disagreement” led to torture, imprisonment, the burning of books, and the execution of those who disagree? Don’t those seem like acts of hate? Fortunately the Church’s ability to do such things has been broken, but do you think it would be right for them to resume if they were able to gain power again?

I agree with you that simple disagreement is not hatred, but the reaction to disagreement is where there exists potential for hatred. Consider: you disagree with Muslims right? Do you think they are just as good as you? That God loves them just a much…or deep down do you feel just a little more “special” than them?

1. ("Several cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians believe that ") Do these cardinals, bishops, etc. actually insist on giving the Eucharist to divorced and remarried Catholics, or do they merely express their belief that a pathway exists? There is actually room for disagreements within the Church.

Also what is the pathway you mention? Are they saying something like “divorced and remarried Catholics can repent/reform/return to obedience to the Church”? Because that would not be exactly a disagreement with the teachings of Mother Church.

They want to give communion to remarried Catholics who remain remarried and continue to have sex with each other like married people do sometimes. Are they Catholic?

1. (“In hatred, in ostracism, there is unity.”) Disagreement does not equal hatred. Exclusion for cause is not the same as ostracism, nor is it hatred.

Let’s flesh out the difference between “exclusion for a cause” and “ostracism.” What precisely are the differences?

1. Your assertion that we indulge in hate is just that – an assertion.

Would you say the Pharisees did not hate Jesus but merely disagreed with him?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

And…, is the annihilation (by any means, and in the short or long term) of this loathsome “other” included in “hate”?

No, the hater needs the other in order to project their illusion onto them. A theory I’ve been kicking around is that the Catholic Church needs dissenters or other religions in order to rally around what they reject. I do not think it is a coincidence that the early church fathers were principally engaged in the refutation and negation of competing Christian beliefs. Our only knowledge of what Arius taught, for example, comes entirely from arguments against his ideas. The primary sources were all burned. We have no idea if these representations of his ideas are straw men or otherwise inaccurate. Later in Church history, when more doctrine had been settled and foreign influence vanquished, the protestant reformation/rebellion came in to give the Church authority new ideas/groups to exclude. During the 18th -19th century, modern liberal democracy became the new enemy. Consider Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors. It’s a big long list of what is wrong and what the Church scorns and excludes. If that isn’t evidence of the Catholic identity being founded on exclusion, rejection, and negation, I don’t know what is!

 

[puzzledtoo]

I believe hate, anger and the like are all born of fear. Fear doesn’t always lead to hate but certainly is a large contributor(in my opinion). Just listen to Trump and his fear mongering. Blessings.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I believe hate, anger and the like are all born of fear. Fear doesn’t always lead to hate but certainly is a large contributor(in my opinion). Just listen to Trump and his fear mongering. Blessings.

You are right, he is absolutely using the “hate” dynamic to rally his supporters.

One thing I must say is that Pope Francis is absolutely NOT a “hater.” I think he actually believes in Jesus and has built his identity in a personalistic theology with no room for hate. I admire him very much.

 

[OneSheep]

You are right, he is absolutely using the “hate” dynamic to rally his supporters.

One thing I must say is that Pope Francis is absolutely NOT a “hater.” I think he actually believes in Jesus and has built his identity in a personalistic theology with no room for hate. I admire him very much.

Hi PC,

I admire him very much too!

I’ve read the thread so far, and it seems to be going well! Some comments:

1. Doctrine is meticulously written, but much is lost on the recipients of the words. Everyone has different experiences underlying the definition of each word. The more complex the concept, the more varying the definitions. That said, there is a need among many Catholics for very specifically defined doctrine, because their own faith is dependent on doctrinal assertions. This need is to be respected, in my view, but those with such need should also be encouraged to find a center in prayer and communion rather than the relative superficiality of words. Forgiveness of people, communion, is more important than doctrinal assertions.
2. Therefore, being Catholic is not focused on words, it is focused on communion, on Eucharist. It means upholding our faith in the context of a loving community.

3, The ministry of Christ involved two commandments, to love God and to love others. Like all humans, Catholics are capable of hate, but this is when the Catholic (or any Christian) is not behaving like a Christian. The atheist who hates can still be acting like as an atheist, but he is not behaving as a humanist, in my view.

1. Much of what you are addressing is referring to ingroup-outgoup thinking. Have you seen the Harvard study on infants concerning this thinking? It is part of our nature, we are drawn to trust the familiar and mistrust the unfamiliar. It is part of our survival instinct. It is true that ingroup/outgroup thinking is part of the drive behind shared hatred. For example, in America we have a “hate Obama club” and a “hate Trump club” among other clubs, (none of which have “hatred” in their actual names). It’s like “You hate Obama too?” “Bro!”.
2. When you see doctrinal dissent on the CAF, rejoice in it! It means that we are not in lock step, that we are given the freedom to think. Here are some assertions, though, that we can all agree on:
   A. Following Christ is the center of our lives, we life by His precepts.
   B. We are Catholic as a community, focused on the Eucharist.
   C. We all proclaim the same creed.

The rest is all the details, which make the CAF interesting.

Thanks for the thread, it keeps us focused on what is really important in the long run!

 

[Jack_Common]

Several have responded that they know what it means to be Catholic.

I am sure each of you believe that you know what it means to be Catholic, but the real questions are: how can you be sure, and do you all agree with each other?

The way that we can be sure that we are Catholic, that our definition of Catholic is true, is identical to the way that we can be sure of any doctrine of the faith: we look to the definition the Church itself provides. No individual Catholic decides what it means to be a Catholic; that is left to the authority of the Church to define.

I have a suspicion that you wouldn’t agree with each other, and my suspicion is based on the thousands of pages of argumentation and disagreement on this website.

There has always been argumentation and disagreement among Catholics, but that does not keep them from being Catholics. For example, if I argue with a fellow Catholic about money, does that keep either of us from being Catholic? Clearly, no. What if we argue about a theological matter? The Church has always permitted Catholics to argue theological matters that have not been dogmatically defined, however, where there is a dogmatic definition every Catholic is expected to submit his intellect to the dogmatic teaching of the Church.
The reasons that you find many disagreements on here are:

1. Pluralism. We live in an age where most (Western) countries do not have an official religion; all religions are permitted and so there is a proliferation of a plurality of contradictory doctrines in society. That being the case, it is easy for unsuspecting Catholics to pick up false doctrines or become confused by the sayings of others.
2. Poor catechesis. Not all Catholics have been well-catechised. They are not properly taught the truths of the faith. This does not keep them from being Catholics, however, as long as they still submit their intellect to the Church. For example, if a Catholic, because he has not been taught about the Immaculate Conception (a dogma of the faith), does not explicitly believe in the Immaculate Conception, he is assumed to have an implicit faith in the Immaculate Conception, in the sense that as soon as it was revealed to him that the Church teaches the Immaculate Conception authoritatively (by dogmatic decree), he would immediately, and without hesitation, submit his intellect to this teaching, because he is a Catholic who submits his intellect to the teaching authority of the Church. If a Catholic denies the Immaculate Conception without knowing that it is a dogma of the faith, then he is a material heretic, which means that he holds to a heresy, but not out of malice. If, however, it is revealed to him that the Immaculate Conception is taught by the Church, and he still refuses to believe it, then he is guilty of the sin of heresy and is a formal heretic, which puts him outside of the Catholic Church.
3. Poor discipline. The Church has sometimes been soft on punishing heretics among its ranks recently, which has allowed many dissident theologians to spread their errors throughout the Church, and confused laymen.

My other evidence is the thousands of years of disagreement and violence about dogma, doctrine, and practice.

The unity of the Church is based on its visible head, the pope. The papacy is indefectible (it shall never lose the faith or preach heresy). Whoever is in union with the pope, in faith and in communion, is a Catholic. Heresies have arisen because of the mystery of iniquity:

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many.

Matthew 24:11

…

When you say you understand what it means to be Catholic, how do you know that you’re correct? Let’s take an example:

Several cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians believe that there is a pathway to communion for divorced and remarried couples. Others say this is impossible. Who are the real Catholics? How do we know?

Like I’ve said, the Church has always allowed theologians to debate theological topics that have not been dogmatically defined. Those on both sides are real Catholics, assuming that none of them are wilfully refusing to submit themselves to the Church’s dogmatic teaching.

 

[Jack_Common]

I mean, I allege that the meaning of “Catholic” is ambiguous.

It is unambiguous.

The word “Catholic” as an adjective comes from the Greek word “universal”, so when the Creed talks of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, by Catholic what is meant here is the truth that the Church is universal, i.e. that it embraces all peoples, nations, and ethnicities (it is just not the “Italian Church”, or the “German Church”, or the “English Church”, it embraces all nations), and that it has universal jurisdiction (it has the right to teach and to govern all Christians throughout the world).

Now, to be “a Catholic”, means to belong as member to this One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, this Mystical Body of Christ, as St. Paul calls it. One becomes a member by baptism and by faith, and by submitting oneself to the Church’s teaching and ruling authority. If you are baptised, believe everything that the Church teaches, and are in communion with the pope — then you are a Catholic.

 

[Jack_Common]

In my opinion an agnostic theist is someone who thinks it is impossible to know whether God exists, but who happens to believe in God.

It’s not so relevant to the thread, but just so you know, Catholics are not allowed to be agnostics. It’s a (dogmatically defined) teaching of the Church that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason alone:

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2S 3004; cf. 3026; Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 6.

Not all truths about God can be known by reason, e.g. you cannot know by reason that God spoke to Moses at Mt. Sinai, or that God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. But the existence of an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being can be known by man’s reason alone. This teaching is taught by St. Paul:

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Romans 1:20

Here is the Hymn of Cleanthes, written centuries before Christ, written by a Stoic who knew the existence of God by reason alone:

HYMN OF CLEANTHES.

Greatest of the gods, God with many names, God ever-ruling, and ruling all things!
Zeus, origin of Nature, governing the universe by law,
All hail! For it is right for mortals to address thee;
For we are thy offspring, and we alone of all
That live and creep on earth have the power of imitative speech.
Therefore will I praise thee, and hymn forever thy power.
Thee the wide heaven, which surrounds the earth, obeys:
Following where thou wilt, willingly obeying thy law.
Thou holdest at thy service, in thy mighty hands,
The two-edged, flaming, immortal thunderbolt,
Before whose flash all nature trembles.
Thou rulest in the common reason, which goes through all,
And appears mingled in all things, great or small,
Which filling all nature, is king of all existences.
Nor without thee, Oh Deity, does anything happen in the world,
From the divine ethereal pole to the great ocean,
Except only the evil preferred by the senseless wicked.
But thou also art able to bring to order that which is chaotic,
Giving form to what is formless, and making the discordant friendly;
So reducing all variety to unity, and even making good out of evil.
Thus throughout nature is one great law
Which only the wicked seek to disobey,
Poor fools! who long for happiness,
But will not see nor hear the divine commands.
[In frenzy blind they stray away from good,
By thirst of glory tempted, or sordid avarice,
Or pleasures sensual and joys that fall.]
But do thou, Oh Zeus, all-bestower, cloud-compeller!
Ruler of thunder! guard men from sad error.
Father! dispel the clouds of the soul, and let us follow
The laws of thy great and just reign!
That we may be honored, let us honor thee again,
Chanting thy great deeds, as is proper for mortals,
For nothing can be better for gods or men
Than to adore with hymns the Universal King.

 

[Jack_Common]

If the content of Catholicism is not ambiguous, why did it need so many councils to painstakingly define every little thing?

Because of the rising up of heretics. When, for example, the Protestants began to corrupt the true doctrine of Justification, the Council of Trent went and dogmatically defined the truth teaching of Justification, which before had not been defined because it was never contradicted.

Why does it need an office whose main job is to make sure Catholics don’t believe “the wrong thing?”

The same reason why the United States has the President and the United Kingdom has the Queen — to unite all the members of one body under one visible head.

Basically, if Christianity/Catholicism is not ambiguous, why do people who consider themselves to be Christians/Catholics have so many different contradictory ideas about what this means?

Catholics do not have contradictory ideas about what it means to be Catholics. Those that do have contradictory ideas are heretics, some of them merely material heretics who are erring out of ignorance, and some of them formal heretics who are erring out of malice.

Why do organizations like “Catholic Answers” exist if the content of Catholic faith is obvious to any believer?

There are multitude of reasons:

1. Not every Catholics knows every detail of the Catholic faith.
2. Not every Catholics knows how to apply the Catholic faith to current societal affairs/issues.
3. To evangelise those who are not Catholic.
4. To defend the faith against heretics.
5. To defend the Church against calumniators.
   etc.

Here is a thought experiment: let’s say a bishop teaches that women should be ordained. I have personal acquaintance with such a bishop. Is this bishop not really a Catholic? How would we know?

That bishop is a heretic. We know because the Church teaches that only a man can be ordained to the priesthood.

 

[Jack_Common]

Hasn’t “disagreement” led to torture, imprisonment, the burning of books, and the execution of those who disagree? Don’t those seem like acts of hate? Fortunately the Church’s ability to do such things has been broken, but do you think it would be right for them to resume if they were able to gain power again?

There may have been abuses from time to time*, but in general the torture, imprisonment, burning of books, and execution of heretics is not in itself evil or illicit.
Throughout history most countries have employed the death penalty for those who commit serious crimes, e.g. murder. This is because such people threaten the life of society. Murderers kill the bodies of men.
Now, heretics threaten the life of a Christian society even more than murderers, because they threaten the Christianity upon which the Christian society is built. Heresy is more harmful than murder, because murder kills the body, whereas heresy kills the soul; heretics do not go to heaven. Therefore, in Christian societies, it was permissible to punish very obstinate and pernicious heretics by death in order to safeguard Christian society and Christian souls.
The circumstances are different in non-Christian societies, like the pluralist/liberal societies of the modern world.

*these abuses are often exaggerated though, see this documentary: youtube.com/watch?v=CY-pS6iLFuc

 

[Jack_Common]

Consider Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors. It’s a big long list of what is wrong and what the Church scorns and excludes. If that isn’t evidence of the Catholic identity being founded on exclusion, rejection, and negation, I don’t know what is!

Have you heard of the Law of the Excluded Middle? It’s a law of logic which states that a statement is either true or false, i.e. a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.
The true excludes the false, and the false excludes the true. This is why the Catholic Church, which holds the truth, excludes false doctrines.
The Syllabus of Errors is not proof that the Church defines itself in opposition to heretics. It is more accurate to say that heretics define themselves in opposition to the Church.

 

[OneSheep]

So, Pumpkin Cookie, have a look:

Now, to be “a Catholic”, means to belong as member to this One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, this Mystical Body of Christ, as St. Paul calls it. One becomes a member by baptism and by faith, and by submitting oneself to the Church’s teaching and ruling authority. If you are baptised…,

baptised - This is letter “A” on my last post.

believe everything that the Church teaches

,

Practically speaking, this is letter “C” on my last post.

and are in communion with the pope — then you are a Catholic.

And practically speaking, this is letter “B” on my last post, although I like using “Eucharist” in the words, and I am certain that Jack would agree on the importance of “Eucharist”.

So, you see, Pumpkin Cookie, there is some uniformity among Catholics. Love is key in each of the points. And concerning “A”, we value forgiveness, which drives away hatred. You also value forgiveness, which did not specifically come from atheism.

When people of all religions and ideologies uphold and practice forgiveness (especially of enemies), then the world changes, it changes from the tribal ingroup/outgroup to the universal oneness that moves toward what we call the “Kingdom” (not to use that term in a patriarchal sense).

Does that help?

 

[fisherman_carl]

There have o be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.

There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on …net-based hatred.

The essence of being Catholic is to be saved and sanctified in Christ and part of his Body, the Church. We don’t have to completely understand it as long as it is Christ who is in us and doing the sanctifying.

I have a book recommendation for you. “Honey From the Rock: Sixteen Jews Find the Sweetness of Christ”, by Roy Schoeman.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think Catholics are deeply confused about who they are.

It may be just as possible that you are the one who is deeply confused about who Catholics are, since you are not even a Catholic.

All human beings struggle with their own identity, not just Catholics.

That is why you see so many atheists and other non-Catholics at Catholic Answers searching for their own identity because they need to be more assured that they are better than the Catholics they so heartily despise.

 

[Jack_Common]

"OneSheep:

And practically speaking, this is letter “B” on my last post, although I like using “Eucharist” in the words, and I am certain that Jack would agree on the importance of “Eucharist”.

Yes, it is practically the same, in the sense that to be in communion with the pope means to share in the same Eucharistic sacrifice and meal. Every Catholic Mass is offered in union with the pope, as the pope’s name is explicitly mentioned in the Mass.

The essence of being Catholic is to be saved and sanctified in Christ and part of his Body, the Church. We don’t have to completely understand it as long as it is Christ who is in us and doing the sanctifying.

The problem with this definition is that not all Catholics are saved.

The Church exists in three states:

the Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians on earth who are living; who struggle against sin, the devil and “…the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12);

the Church Triumphant (Ecclesia Triumphans), comprising those who are in Heaven; and

the Church Penitent (Ecclesia Penitens), a.k.a. Church Suffering or Church Padecent or Church Expectant (Ecclesia Expectans), which in Catholic theology comprises those Christians presently in Purgatory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_militant_and_church_triumphant

All of those in the Church Triumphant (heaven) are saved; all of those in the Church Penitent (purgatory) are guaranteed to eventually be saved; not all of those in the Church Militant (earth) are guaranteed to be saved, for some live and die in mortal sin.

You are correct though in the sense that we, as Catholics, constitute one mystical body of Christ, and that we are sanctified and saved, those of us who are saved, by Christ Himself. I suppose what you mean by “the essence of being Catholic” is what it means to be Catholic in the most sublime and mystical sense, and, yes, in the most sublime and mystical sense to be Catholic means to be sanctified by Christ and share in His eternal life. You are also right in saying that we don’t have to completely understand it, because the Church is a mystery that can’t be fully understood.
The only reason for my commentating on your definition is that PumpkinCookie is looking for a practical way to distinguish Catholics from non-Catholics, and your more sublime definition isn’t sufficient because it’s not always clear who is being sanctified and saved by Christ, because that goes on invisibly in the interior of the soul. The sacraments are a visible sign that Christ is bestowing grace upon us through the Holy Spirit, but not all Catholics regularly receive the sacraments and not all Catholics are in a state of grace.