The Confusion of Catholicism

[guanophore]

You would want to be one with such "lukewarm members" because you are committed to love them.  This brings us back to the first point I made on this post, that you put less emphasis on what happens between people.

No, One Sheep. Your definition of communion is quite different than God’s. Loving others, even the enemies of Christ, does not put us in communion with them. It fulfills God’s commandments, and thus, reinforces our communion with Him.

Such an approach might explain a person’s lack of effort to being welcoming, understanding, and accepting.

It could, but it is an insufficient excuse. We are called to be continual in zeal to be welcoming, understanding and accepting. None of these creates communion between us. That is dependent upon each of us having a right relationship with God.

It would definitely expand your scope of what other Catholics believe, how others interpret and follow the same “teachings” that you do!

Our individual interpretations are not relevant. It is God’s perspective that matters.

I love the charity of your answer, Gorgias!

PC’s “misunderstandings” are actually quite understandable, given the link he posted, am I right? O_milly’s post was also appropriate, and like yours, communicated inclusion.

I must have missed your appointment as judge and jury of “appropriate” responses and chief measure of the degree of “inclusion”. Congratualtions. :bowdown:

In contrast to the rather exclusionary views of the writings in the link he posted, your post communicates a deeper understanding; you look upon the rejecting with eyes of love, eyes that see the goodness of people. You have put aside blame and indifference.

God Bless you, Gorgias!

Ahh, and those who comply with the standards of One Sheep get blessings!

 

[OneSheep]

No, One Sheep. Your definition of communion is quite different than God’s. Loving others, even the enemies of Christ, does not put us in communion with them. It fulfills God’s commandments, and thus, reinforces our communion with Him.

Brother,

I have put forth Catholic teachings that support the definition I presented of communion, namely CCC790 and 791 which base communion on Eucharist, but you have not supported your view, that communion is based on complete acceptance of all Church teachings.

I have stated that there are many, many cases of people who have problems with some Church teachings. In their view, the teachings do not reflect Christ. For this very reason (among others, of course), guanophore, communion is not based on agreement with all doctrine. We profess the creed, guanophore, as a reaffirmation of our Baptism.

Would you be in favor of telling Catholics who do not agree with all the teachings to get out? Would you tell them that they are not in communion, even though they receive Eucharist? Please do not repeat the “it’s up to God line”, I get that. What about you, how do you feel towards people who you perceive in this way? Can you see Christ in them? Do you go to the table with them? Remember what it meant to people in Jesus’ day to eat together, it was very meaningful, like family, and Jesus ate with tax collectors and other outcasts. Can you come to the table with the same mentality that Jesus did?

It could, but it is an insufficient excuse. We are called to be continual in zeal to be welcoming, understanding and accepting. None of these creates communion between us. That is dependent upon each of us having a right relationship with God.

Zeal? You have refused to shake my hand, bro! Is that your idea of zeal in welcoming, understanding, and accepting? Look at that guanophore, he refuses to shake hands with people he disagrees with, but boy, he’s got that right relationship with God! Woohoo!

How do you separate, as a Catholic, “right relationship with God” from “right relationship with God-present-in-other-people?” If you don’t answer any other question on this post, please answer that one.

Our individual interpretations are not relevant. It is God’s perspective that matters.

Here is God’s perspective:

Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

March 19, 2015

I must have missed your appointment as judge and jury of “appropriate” responses and chief measure of the degree of “inclusion”. Congratualtions. :bowdown:

I think you may be presuming that I found your responses to PC inappropriate. Is that true? Did I say that?

Ahh, and those who comply with the standards of One Sheep get blessings!

Yes, it is all about me. Oops! did I say that? Seriously, guanophore, I commend a couple people’s words and you begrudge me?

Look, I don’t know you, but I know that your heart is in the right place. Yes, I am coming off a bit righteous, and I am realizing that, and you have every reason to find my posts to you a bit overbearing. I am sorry. We disagree on a few things, we are still Catholic.

Shake on it?

 

[Aloysium]

@OneSheep.

Established by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has the authority to determine what is the Catholic faith.
One may hold views that are different, and to some extent we may all struggle with some aspect or other of its teachings.
However, where we differ, we are on our own. Those views cannot be said to be under the umbrella of what is true.
It demonstrates a considerable amount of arrogance to claim one knows more than the Magisterium.
When opinions are professed that would undermine or corrupt the faith, they will be shunned. One may hold on to them, but to do more than that, to claim that they should be accepted, that is not going to fly.
Unfortunately it will get personal. If someone distances themselves from such views, and the person proclaiming them holds on to them, they will feel distanced.

Now, one thing that you have been discussing is forgiveness.

Forgiveness has to do with sin and its consequences.
It is important that we do so. It is not only up to the priests. Each one of us is called upon to forgive our neighbour as we grow together in Christ.
This is very difficult to do and for some of us, it will be a life-long work in progress.
When one hears “Forgive and forget.” in some circumstances, it comes across that the speaker has little if any appreciation of what some of us have had to deal with in life.
Anyway, understanding motivations and circumstances may help one forgive another’s trespasses, but it is usually it does not becuase for whatever reason, they did what they did freely.
If you are confronted with someone in pain, you will do much more good comforting them rather than telling them to forget about it, to deny or suppress their feelings.
When we forgive as God forgives us, a sin is forgiven, not a mistake, not a misunderstanding, but an act against love.

In terms of our own sinfulness and need to be forgiven, there are no reasons, no excuses.
When we have hurt someone, we have hurt that person.
Sharing the blame with, or attrributing it to society, our parents, our genetic make up, our grade two teacher, or whatever makes it about us.
It is up to us to ask forgiveness where we have hurt another and to make reparations if possible.
In the end it is important to reconcile ourselves with God, who gave us this life, these abilities and the free will to love, which in those situations we have abused.
We must ask the Man on the cross to forgive us for putting Him there, if we are to thank Him for setting us free.

 

[guanophore]

Brother,

I have put forth Catholic teachings that support the definition I presented of communion, namely CCC790 and 791 which base communion on Eucharist, but you have not supported your view, that communion is based on complete acceptance of all Church teachings.

Yes, communion is based upon unity that exits within the Eucharist, ,but Eucharist is a celebration of those who are “in Christ”. That is, those who love him (and thus, obey His commandments).

This warm, fuzzy, inclusive, don’t spit out the lukwarm stuff has nothing to do with the communion that is created between us by the Holy Spirit.

Those who are made one with Christ are those who love Him. This love is shown by following His commandments. It is shown by embracing all that He taught.

I have stated that there are many, many cases of people who have problems with some Church teachings. In their view, the teachings do not reflect Christ. For this very reason (among others, of course), guanophore, communion is not based on agreement with all doctrine. We profess the creed, guanophore, as a reaffirmation of our Baptism.

As you wish, OS. The First Epistle of One Sheep to the Faithful.

Would you be in favor of telling Catholics who do not agree with all the teachings to get out? Would you tell them that they are not in communion, even though they receive Eucharist?

That would depend upon my role and relationship to them. It would be more accurate to say that they have placed themselves “out” (excommunicated themselves). Withholding the Truth from people is not loving.

 Please do not repeat the "it's up to God line", I get that.  What about you, how do you feel towards people who you perceive in this way?

Communion is quite beyond my personal feelings, OS. None of us can read the heart of another person.

Can you see Christ in them? Do you go to the table with them? Remember what it meant to people in Jesus’ day to eat together, it was very meaningful, like family, and Jesus ate with tax collectors and other outcasts. Can you come to the table with the same mentality that Jesus did?

Jesus only gave Himself in Eucharirist with those who were willing to accept all that He taught.

Zeal? You have refused to shake my hand, bro! Is that your idea of zeal in welcoming, understanding, and accepting?

Is that right? My refusal to accept your heterodoxy is equivalent to a refusal to shake your hand?

Look at that guanophore, he refuses to shake hands with people he disagrees with, but boy, he’s got that right relationship with God! Woohoo!

You seem to want to apply some sort of peer pressure, social ostracism, or shaming to compel me to accept your heterodox views.

How do you separate, as a Catholic, “right relationship with God” from “right relationship with God-present-in-other-people?” If you don’t answer any other question on this post, please answer that one.

Right relationship with God results in right relationship with others. As I have stated above, we are called to love.

Yes, it is all about me. Oops! did I say that? Seriously, guanophore, I commend a couple people’s words and you begrudge me?

As the founder of your own approacch, your are free to commend anyone you like.

Look, I don't know you, but I know that your heart is in the right place.  Yes, I am coming off a bit righteous, and I am realizing that, and you have every reason to find my posts to you a bit overbearing.  I am sorry.  We disagree on a few things, we are still Catholic.

Shake on it?

Your posts reflect ideas that are not Catholic.

Communion does not occur because we treat one another with “inclusivity”. Communion occurs when each of us are in right relationship with God.

 

[Gorgias]

Our individual interpretations are not relevant. It is God’s perspective that matters.

Ahh, and those who comply with the standards of One Sheep get blessings!

Actually, I’m just going with what the Church teaches.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, I’m just going with what the Church teaches.

I see that, Gorgias, and I appreciate it. I mean no offense. I am pointing out that One Sheep is picking and choosing about what to believe.

 

[paziego]

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.

Dear Pumpkin Cookie,

Your theory echoes my thoughts exactly, so I will present my understanding of this issue.

Due to doctrines based on mystery and totally unexplainable by reason - the trinity being the prime example - when a Catholic says he believes what his religion professes he is unknowingly telling a lie.

To believe something we must have a grasp of what it is, even if we have no way of confirming it. For example, I can be given the choice of believing whether the total amount of grains of sand on the earth are an even or odd number. I will never know which of these two answers is correct, but when I pick one I can understand what it is I am choosing to believe.

But with doctrines such as the trinity (in the Nicene understanding), which violate the laws of logic akin to claims that there is a square circle, such belief is not possible. It is literally impossible for a human mind to conceive of such a concept, and therefore there is no real object in the mind which can be the subject of belief.

What happens is that Catholics assent to doctrines rather than believe them. You assent because you cannot know the object in order to believe it. To assent to something that belongs to the realm of belief is to take as a core value something you do not understand. In fact, you don’t even know what you are assenting to because the concept in question is illogical and unknowable. The only thing you are really assenting to the authority of the teacher rather than the teaching itself, which cannot even be grasped sufficiently to be the object of assent. This is intellectual capitulation

With intellectual capitulation and subjection to an authority that claims infallibility and universal jurisdiction comes hardness of heart and arrogance. If you give up the right to reason for yourself how will you be able to reason with others who disagree?

 

[paziego]

And yes, point 2 is right on the money. An unknowable concept can only be defined negatively, and even then it is still just an illusion. All you can know as a Catholic is what you are not, and you will then see errors everywhere you look in the world. Your only guiding directive will be that there is an authority that must be accepted, by you and all others. But as to the content of that authority’s teaching, it will be as senseless to the assenter as mantras in a lost language. It is emotional at best.

 

[o_mlly]

…

But with doctrines such as the trinity (in the Nicene understanding), which violate the laws of logic akin to claims that there is a square circle, such belief is not possible. It is literally impossible for a human mind to conceive of such a concept, and therefore there is no real object in the mind which can be the subject of belief.
…

I believe your highlighted statement above is self-contradictory. If a concept exists then a human mind has conceived it.

Not only can we possess the concept, an abstract notion, of the Trinity, we can also imagine, an idea from sense experience, the Trinity. Multiple personalities in a single human being are known to exist. What we cannot do is understand the Trinity.

Although reason could never disclose the concept of the Trinity, reason does not stand in opposition to the existence of the Trinity.

 

[jmcrae]

Communion does not occur because we treat one another with “inclusivity”. Communion occurs when each of us are in right relationship with God.

I agree with this.

 

[paziego]

I believe your highlighted statement above is self-contradictory. If a concept exists then a human mind has conceived it.

Not only can we possess the concept, an abstract notion, of the Trinity, we can also imagine, an idea from sense experience, the Trinity. Multiple personalities in a single human being are known to exist. What we cannot do is understand the Trinity.

Although reason could never disclose the concept of the Trinity, reason does not stand in opposition to the existence of the Trinity.

Does a square circle exist? We can speak of the ‘concept’ of a square circle, but can you actually conceive it in your mind? It is not a real concept, even if we use that word to describe it. We understand the words ‘square’ and ‘circle’, and we can understand the relation between these words suggested by the expression ‘square circle’. But this is the extent of it. We can conceive of this mixed and contradictory bag of words as something tied together trying to express something, but not as the thing it is trying to express.

The multiple personality example would seem to be a case of modalism, as I don’t believe the multiple personalities manifest themselves simultaneously in persons with a disorder. And in the case of a Trinitarian god they would all be omniscient, meaning the content of their minds must be exactly the same. Otherwise there would be something one of the persons would know that the other would not, and that would be a compromise on their divinity. But triple omniscience would amount to being one mind guided by one perfect will. The division of persons would vanish.

I cannot make sense of the trinity according to the Nicene definition.

 

[o_mlly]

Does a square circle exist? We can speak of the ‘concept’ of a square circle, but can you actually conceive it in your mind? It is not a real concept …
.

The principle of contradiction, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, precludes the possibility of a “square circle.” The same principle does not preclude the concept of Trinity.

Unlike the square and the circle which are ideals, not real, and not perceivable (one has never perceived a square or a circle because one cannot draw, no matter how precise their drawing instruments, either object), the Trinity is real yet not perceivable.

The multiple personality example would seem to be a case of modalism, as I don’t believe the multiple personalities manifest themselves simultaneously in persons with a disorder.

We know the Deity through revelation and their work. That which exists in creation cannot fully embrace the being of the Deity but may point to it. If a disordered thing exists imperfectly in creation then such a thing may exist perfectly outside creation.

And in the case of a Trinitarian god they would all be omniscient, meaning the content of their minds must be exactly the same. Otherwise there would be something one of the persons would know that the other would not, and that would be a compromise on their divinity. But triple omniscience would amount to being one mind guided by one perfect will. The division of persons would vanish.

Your argument – If three persons are of the same mind in and of all things then they are one person – is illogical. If I and my wife agree on all things then we are still two persons.

I cannot make sense of the trinity according to the Nicene definition.

Neither can I. If I could, what need would I have of faith. But nor can you make nonsense of the Trinity, that is prove the concept internally inconsistent, that is irrational.

The topic is the “Confusion of Catholicism.” The concept of the Trinity is common to all Christians except Unitarians, I believe. Since belief in the Trinity is common to all Christians who profess Jesus is God then this is not a “confusion” of Catholicism but of Christianity.

 

[Reepicheep]

(snip)

Due to doctrines based on mystery and totally unexplainable by reason - the trinity being the prime example - when a Catholic says he believes what his religion professes he is unknowingly telling a lie.

To believe something we must have a grasp of what it is, even if we have no way of confirming it.

With intellectual capitulation and subjection to an authority that claims infallibility and universal jurisdiction comes hardness of heart and arrogance. If you give up the right to reason for yourself how will you be able to reason with others who disagree?

Trusting the trustworthy does not require me to stop reasoning for myself. For one thing it is my reason that leads me to the conclusion that the Church is a reliable teacher, and that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (as actually taught by the Church, not the version thrown up to us by anti-Catholics) is true.

Further it is possible to know that something is true without knowing how it is possible.
I don’t begin to comprehend all that Nuclear Physics could teach me about the inner workings of stars but I know the Sun provides heat and light to the Earth.
In the same way, I don’t comprehend how the Trinity is possible, but I comprehend what “Trinity” means and believe on reliable evidence that God is Trinity.

 

[paziego]

The principle of contradiction, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, precludes the possibility of a “square circle.” The same principle does not preclude the concept of Trinity.

I think saying that one being is simultaneously three distinct persons is a contradiction. If what is predicable of God is not predicable of the son then the son is not God.

Unlike the square and the circle which are ideals, not real, and not perceivable (one has never perceived a square or a circle because one cannot draw, no matter how precise their drawing instruments, either object), the Trinity is real yet not perceivable.

That the trinity is real is what is in question. I don’t know what it is so I can’t believe in it. Unlike a circle it is a complex notion and can’t be known in the same way as the notion of a circle.

We know the Deity through revelation and their work. That which exists in creation cannot fully embrace the being of the Deity but may point to it. If a disordered thing exists imperfectly in creation then such a thing may exist perfectly outside creation.

I don’t entirely understand what you mean here. But you seem to be saying that it is a question of assent rather than belief, since the object of belief in question is unknowable. You can’t believe what you don’t know; you can only assent to the authority that teaches it.

Your argument – If three persons are of the same mind in and of all things then they are one person – is illogical. If I and my wife agree on all things then we are still two persons.

But you don’t posses all the knowledge your wife does. You don’t know what it is to be a woman, for example. The relation between three omniscient minds is one of complete interchangeability. If a mind is defined by its content and by the way it operates then all persons of the trinity have the same mind, indistinct from one another. You are postulating one being with three identical, overlapping minds. That results in one mind and one personality.

Besides, you and your wife are two different beings as well as two different persons.

Neither can I. If I could, what need would I have of faith. But nor can you make nonsense of the Trinity, that is prove the concept internally inconsistent, that is irrational.

Perhaps faith is hope that we will be saved, which we cannot know as it is in the future. A person can have faith without believing in a trinity. But I think the Trinity, as defined by the Church, is irrational. I know there is a lifetime of reading on the subject and I have not read every relevant book under the sun, but I have yet to come across a convincing demonstration.

The topic is the “Confusion of Catholicism.” The concept of the Trinity is common to all Christians except Unitarians, I believe. Since belief in the Trinity is common to all Christians who profess Jesus is God then this is not a “confusion” of Catholicism but of Christianity.

True. Though the Trinity is a doctrine formulated by the Catholic church and inherited by other denominations. In regards to point 1 from the OP the initial doctrinal confusion would have been a specifically Catholic issue, since it predates other denominations.

 

[paziego]

Trusting the trustworthy does not require me to stop reasoning for myself. For one thing it is my reason that leads me to the conclusion that the Church is a reliable teacher, and that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (as actually taught by the Church, not the version thrown up to us by anti-Catholics) is true.

Further it is possible to know that something is true without knowing how it is possible.
I don’t begin to comprehend all that Nuclear Physics could teach me about the inner workings of stars but I know the Sun provides heat and light to the Earth.
In the same way, I don’t comprehend how the Trinity is possible, but I comprehend what “Trinity” means and believe on reliable evidence that God is Trinity.

But how do you know they are trustworthy when what they teach is not accessible by reason. You can’t know what it is you are trusting them about. And that would make me mistrustful.

With nuclear physics you don’t have to contend with it seeming impossible on the face of it. And your salvation does not depend on it, so it is ok to trust an authority because it is ultimately inconsequential.

What does ‘Trinity’ mean?

 

[paziego]

The principle of contradiction, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, precludes the possibility of a “square circle.”.

By the way, I am not staking my entre reluctance to accept Catholicism on this one issue. Another clear contradiction, in my mind, is the statement that Jesus was ‘fully God and fully human’.

How can you be created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, divine and non-divine, omniscient and partially ignorant, all at the same time? I know he has two natures, apparently, but these seem contradictory and mutually exclusive. Perhaps even so if we accept a Nestorian solution.

And how can Jesus die on the cross without God dying also. You can’t have a person dying without his nature dying, and the whole trinity is inseparable in its nature. If you say that just the man died you are saying his natures are separable, which is incorrect according to Catholicism. If you say he didn’t die you are denying the sacrifice.

Either God as a whole dies on the cross or the persons are truly distinct and different beings. Alternatively you can be a Nestorian and deny that the entire person of Jesus died on the cross, and that it was only his human side.

 

[paziego]

Trusting the trustworthy does not require me to stop reasoning for myself. For one thing it is my reason that leads me to the conclusion that the Church is a reliable teacher, and that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (as actually taught by the Church, not the version thrown up to us by anti-Catholics) is true.

Further it is possible to know that something is true without knowing how it is possible.
I don’t begin to comprehend all that Nuclear Physics could teach me about the inner workings of stars but I know the Sun provides heat and light to the Earth.
In the same way, I don’t comprehend how the Trinity is possible, but I comprehend what “Trinity” means and believe on reliable evidence that God is Trinity.

Also, nuclear physics can be learned from a textbook. The working of the sun is probably not even university level stuff. This does not compare with statements that defy comprehension like ‘1+1+1=3’ or other formulations of this mystery.

 

[paziego]

I meant ‘1+1+1=1’

 

[o_mlly]

By the way, I am not staking my entre reluctance to accept Catholicism on this one issue. Another clear contradiction, in my mind, is the statement that Jesus was ‘fully God and fully human’.
paziego;13668429:

How can you be created and uncreated

Christ is not created. He is one in being with the Father.

mortal and immortal

All rational beings have immortal souls.

divine and non-divine

Christ is divine. To also become human does not erase His divinity.

omniscient and partially ignorant

Christ becoming man did not lose his divine omniscience.

And how can Jesus die on the cross without God dying also. You can’t have a person dying without his nature dying

One’s soul does not die, therefore one’s nature survives the death of the body. We believe in the resurrection, the reuniting of body and soul at the Parousia.

and the whole trinity is inseparable in its nature. If you say that just the man died you are saying his natures are separable, which is incorrect according to Catholicism. If you say he didn’t die you are denying the sacrifice. …

Christ’s human and divine natures survived the death of his body to be reunited at his Resurrection.

Friend,
The Trinity and the Incarnation are mysteries, incomprehensible to reason known only through divine revelation. That’s the nature of a mystery. Your arguments, I believe have failed to prove these mysteries are not real. Proving a negative, that something is not, is beyond the finite mind because such a mind, limited in experience, has not seen all things. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Triune God = God is Love

The light of faith allows one to see.

There is no point asking reason based on mundane truths to lead you to the Divine.
It is in fact their failure to do so that urges us forward humbly towards God.

We are talking about He whose Word brings us into existence, the Word who became one of us that we might enter into eternal communion with the Father through the grace of His Holy Spirit. We are talking about transcendent, perfect relationality - Divine Love.