The Confusion of Catholicism

[TaurusRex]

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.

On our earth there are a variety of climates and terrains where man may attempt to plant his roots;
So he needs to be able to adapt …
if water is plentiful he needs to build his house where he can access it without contaminating it and where water is scarce he may need to dig for it.

Our Catholic faith allows us to be versatile to be able to survive all of the trials and tribulations set before us as long as we achieve justifications through Faith in God and through good works avoiding evil and mortal sin.

 

[jmcrae]

I meant ‘1+1+1=1’

It’s more like 1x1x1=1.

God reflects on Himself (is self-aware) - that reflection is the Son. The love between Father and Son is the Holy Spirit. All are self aware, aware of each other, and interconnected, but they are still only one God.

 

[paziego]

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

His human nature was created. The second person of the trinity in itself is one with the father. So you have a person who is created and uncreated at the same time, eternal and temporal at the same time.

All rational beings have immortal souls.

Then what was the point of the sacrifice? And how can a real sacrifice even be possible.

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

It does if he was to be fully human, as it is not in the definition of a human to be divine in the sense of being a member of the trinity.

Christ becoming man did not lose his divine omniscience.

And yet he claimed not to know certain things. Again, a human is an imperfect being, and by nature not divinely omniscient.

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.

What is the soul? Why do we need to believe in first-century Greek/Hellenistic ideas all of a sudden?
If a soul doesn’t die then we don’t need a sacrifice so that we can have life everlasting.

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

Again, this means a sacrifice did not happen because survival of the soul is not miraculous.

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.

But that is my point. If it is incomprehensible how can we assert it? My main argument is that the mysteries are unknowable and that it is therefore impossible to believe them, because you don’t even know what you are claiming to believe. Its as if I write a note and place it in a sealed envelope, and then give it to someone and that person says he believes what the note says. It is impossible.

 

[Upgrade25]

His human nature was created. The second person of the trinity in itself is one with the father. So you have a person who is created and uncreated at the same time, eternal and temporal at the same time.

Then what was the point of the sacrifice? And how can a real sacrifice even be possible.

It does if he was to be fully human, as it is not in the definition of a human to be divine in the sense of being a member of the trinity.

And yet he claimed not to know certain things. Again, a human is an imperfect being, and by nature not divinely omniscient.

What is the soul? Why do we need to believe in first-century Greek/Hellenistic ideas all of a sudden?
If a soul doesn’t die then we don’t need a sacrifice so that we can have life everlasting.

Again, this means a sacrifice did not happen because survival of the soul is not miraculous.

But that is my point. If it is incomprehensible how can we assert it? My main argument is that the mysteries are unknowable and that it is therefore impossible to believe them, because you don’t even know what you are claiming to believe. Its as if I write a note and place it in a sealed envelope, and then give it to someone and that person says he believes what the note says. It is impossible.

Well… Any takers?

 

[paziego]

It’s more like 1x1x1=1.

God reflects on Himself (is self-aware) - that reflection is the Son. The love between Father and Son is the Holy Spirit. All are self aware, aware of each other, and interconnected, but they are still only one God.

Ah, but you could extend the formula to 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1=1. And that formula does nothing to tell us what individuates the persons.

I have heard this. But how can a reflection or love be self aware? My self-consciousness is a function of my mind, but it is neither self aware in itself nor a separate person. Alternatively, my self-consciousness is the awareness of my mind, and it is my mind itself that is not self-aware.

I know God is different to the human mind and all, but this explanation seems like it is stretching things a bit. I’m not even sure that it makes sense to say that God reflects on himself since he has no need to reflect on anything, and knows himself intuitively.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, but you could extend the formula to 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1=1. And that formula does nothing to tell us what individuates the persons.

I have heard this. But how can a reflection or love be self aware? My self-consciousness is a function of my mind, but it is neither self aware in itself nor a separate person. Alternatively, my self-consciousness is the awareness of my mind, and it is my mind itself that is not self-aware.

I know God is different to the human mind and all, but this explanation seems like it is stretching things a bit. I’m not even sure that it makes sense to say that God reflects on himself since he has no need to reflect on anything, and knows himself intuitively.

Need doesn’t enter into it. If God is a rational being then He is self reflective and if he is truly God then so is his reflection, and the love between them, also being perfect, is also Divine in nature and thus also God.

 

[grannymh]

His human nature was created. The second person of the trinity in itself is one with the father. So you have a person who is created and uncreated at the same time, eternal and temporal at the same time.

Jesus Christ assumed human nature – which is totally absolutely completely different from the idea that His human nature was created.

Jesus Christ is the second real Person in the Most Holy Trinity. This means that Jesus Christ has a Divine Nature. Therefore, the easiest way to digest these basic facts is to recognize the fact that Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures.

The formal name for Jesus Christ being one Divine Person with two natures, Divine and human, is Hypostatic Union.

 

[Upgrade25]

No takers on the soul question?
How could Jesus have two souls? God is changing if they were joined.
Was the human one annihilated?
How could this make any sense?

 

[o_mlly]

… If it is incomprehensible how can we assert it?

We often assert what we know but do not yet comprehend. Knowing that something is and comprehending or understanding *what *it is are two different activities of the intellect. The revealed truths transcend human nature and are knowable but cannot be comprehended.

My main argument is that the mysteries are unknowable and that it is therefore impossible to believe them, because you don’t even know what you are claiming to believe. …

Many on this website are proof of the error in the above claim. We know in what we believe.

Its as if I write a note and place it in a sealed envelope, and then give it to someone and that person says he believes what the note says. It is impossible.

Revealed means not concealed. Perhaps I am missing your point in this analogy.

 

[jmcrae]

No takers on the soul question?
How could Jesus have two souls? God is changing if they were joined.
Was the human one annihilated?
How could this make any sense?

Jesus doesn’t have two souls. He is one person who has two natures.

 

[grannymh]

No takers on the soul question?
How could Jesus have two souls? God is changing if they were joined.
Was the human one annihilated?
How could this make any sense?

The spiritual soul is what animates the human person.

Jesus Christ is a Divine Person of the Most Holy Trinity. As the Divine God, Jesus did not need a “soul.” He assumed human nature without sin and its human soul which is the principle or form which animates the human body. (see post 507 & CCC 364-366)

The question “How could this make any sense?” Start with John 3: 16-17. And then consider Genesis 3:15 as a prophesy that a Messiah and Redeemer would be sent.

The original Adam was the human who shattered the original relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam could not repair this relationship because this relationship was created by God. Adam did not possess the creative power of God.

God so greatly loved Adam and in turn loved all Adam’s descendants, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed a different nature, human without sin. Having this nature, Jesus Christ could step into the shoes of the disobedient Adam and repair the damage by His own human obedience. (1 Corinthians 15: 54-55)

I know it is hard to wrap one’s mind around the fact of One Divine Person having two natures, Divine and Human. We are persons and now we are calling the Most Holy Trinity three persons. ?? God is three Divine Persons within one Divine Nature.

Perhaps one has to always keep in mind how much God loves us. He created a special relationship between humankind and His Divine Self. Adam freely shattered that relationship. Yet, God did not abandon Adam. Even today, God does not abandon us. We have Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, present in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you feel OK about the fact that people, such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Catholicism but find it to be false, are going to burn in hell forever?

Or, are you happy about that?

Or, are you upset about that?

Or, do you simply not care?

If you are OK with it, if you are happy about it, or if you simply don’t care, it seems impossible that you wouldn’t be filled with hate. Again, not a childish, tantrum inducing hate, but the same hate that ignored the Jews going to the gas chambers with a “meh, what are you going to do” and a shrug.

If you are upset about it, why? Do you know better than God? Are your Church’s teachings mistaken here? At least you wouldn’t be essentially grounded in hate in this case.

The inevitability of Godwin’s Law.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The inevitability of Godwin’s Law.

LOL of course.

I try not to indulge, but antisemitism is intimately related to my thesis in this thread. I basically took Sartre’s analysis of antisemitism and tried to discuss whether it could explain religious hatred (specifically between “conservative” or “rigid” Catholics and Atheists) similarly well.

I now realize that it explains the hatred emanating from a variety of religious believers, not just Catholics or Atheists. The “rigidity” is the essential element. The belief that “I am always right, and my way is the only way” is the sine qua non of hate, and it appears in a variety of religious traditions.

Oh, and my point that Catholicism is confusing and ambiguous is manifesting as we speak in this thread. I haven’t been participating because the others are providing plenty of evidence.

I don’t have too much more to say, that’s really it. Thanks all for participating.

Still waiting for someone to come in and confirm Poe’s law, like this (from another old thread):

My heart is greatly saddened…

 

[RebeccaJ]

LOL of course.

I try not to indulge, but antisemitism is intimately related to my thesis in this thread. I basically took Sartre’s analysis of antisemitism and tried to discuss whether it could explain religious hatred (specifically between “conservative” or “rigid” Catholics and Atheists) similarly well.

I now realize that it explains the hatred emanating from a variety of religious believers, not just Catholics or Atheists. The “rigidity” is the essential element. The belief that “I am always right, and my way is the only way” is the sine qua non of hate, and it appears in a variety of religious traditions.

Oh, and my point that Catholicism is confusing and ambiguous is manifesting as we speak in this thread. I haven’t been participating because the others are providing plenty of evidence.

I don’t have too much more to say, that’s really it. Thanks all for participating.

Still waiting for someone to come in and confirm Poe’s law, like this (from another old thread):

Hatred is a valid point. But so is the point that those who exhibit hatred are not an example of Catholic doctrine.

The root cause, as I see it for all people, religious or not, is concupiscence. None of us are immune. We are called to love, not hate. Our hope is in Jesus Christ, not ourselves, or any man or woman.

Anyway, you would have to apply Godwin’s Law to the OT, such as when Moses “Withstood him in the breach to turn back his destroying anger.” Psalm 106. There goes God, all Nazi on the Hebrews. Good thing Moses was there to correct God’s morality!

Relativism in morals, focuses on the rights of humans, to believe and act however we want with no consequence. Hell is God’s justice, His right, and His right to our judgement and justice is not absent in the Noahide laws.

Again, you show a propensity towards wanting to believe what you like, with no consequence, while Catholics are condemned by you to the realm of Hitler and the Nazis. God has never favored hypocrites.

 

[Gorgias]

Still waiting for someone to come in and confirm Poe’s law, like this (from another old thread):

Oh, I wouldn’t be too concerned about that. You’ve been parodying what the Catholic Church teaches through this whole thread, every time you tell us what you think she teaches…

 

[jmcrae]

Do you feel OK about the fact that people, such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Catholicism but find it to be false, are going to burn in hell forever?

Or, are you happy about that?

Or, are you upset about that?

Or, do you simply not care?

If you are OK with it, if you are happy about it, or if you simply don’t care, it seems impossible that you wouldn’t be filled with hate. Again, not a childish, tantrum inducing hate, but the same hate that ignored the Jews going to the gas chambers with a “meh, what are you going to do” and a shrug.

If you are upset about it, why? Do you know better than God? Are your Church’s teachings mistaken here? At least you wouldn’t be essentially grounded in hate in this case.

It’s that I don’t love you enough.

It’s the same as how I feel about “skippers” in school who didn’t get to go to college because they thought school was boring, so they skipped classes to do drugs out in the parking lot. Some of them died before school was even over, and some of them died shortly after that, some of them got off the drugs and figured out some other way to survive, and some are still doing drugs, and wondering why the universe seems to be always picking on them, with failed relationships, inability to hold down a job, etc.

I don’t rush out to save them because my sense of it is that I can’t help them; they don’t want to be helped, and I don’t love them enough to think that saving them would be worth the hassle of trying in the face of almost certain failure.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Do you feel OK about the fact that people, such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Catholicism but find it to be false, are going to burn in hell forever?

…

Is it a fact because people related to your family of origin, or at your college, or any priest, said so?

 

[grannymh]

Do you feel OK about the fact that people, such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Catholicism but find it to be false, are going to burn in hell forever?

I never underestimate the power of God to reach a soul and I never underestimate the power of a soul to reach out to God.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hatred is a valid point. But so is the point that those who exhibit hatred are not an example of Catholic doctrine.

The root cause, as I see it for all people, religious or not, is concupiscence. None of us are immune. We are called to love, not hate. Our hope is in Jesus Christ, not ourselves, or any man or woman.

Anyway, you would have to apply Godwin’s Law to the OT, such as when Moses “Withstood him in the breach to turn back his destroying anger.” Psalm 106. There goes God, all Nazi on the Hebrews. Good thing Moses was there to correct God’s morality!

Relativism in morals, focuses on the rights of humans, to believe and act however we want with no consequence. Hell is God’s justice, His right, and His right to our judgement and justice is not absent in the Noahide laws.

Again, you show a propensity towards wanting to believe what you like, with no consequence, while Catholics are condemned by you to the realm of Hitler and the Nazis. God has never favored hypocrites.

I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not advocating moral relativism.

People who say “I am always right, and my way is the only way” are in danger of becoming hateful. Some Catholics are like this. Some atheists are like this. Some Christians, some Muslims, some humanists, some [insert ideology or religious belief system here] are like this. Nazis were like that. That doesn’t mean Catholics=Nazis LOL.

God is of course always right. God’s way is of course the only way. However, here is the crucial thing to remember:

You are not God. I am not God. Rabbis are not God. The Catholic Church is not God. Muhammad is not God. The Bible is not God. The Southern Baptist Conference is not God. Catholic Answers is not God. No one and nothing is God except…God.

I am not always right. My way is not the only way (so far as I know). I can’t help but believe what I believe based on the evidence and reason available to me. You go ahead and believe whatever you are convinced is true, that is 100% fine with me, and I don’t think you’re ever at risk of being doomed to endless hell. Temporary hell, sure (but who isn’t? am I right? ).

I’d rather not discuss hell anymore on this forum since I’ve contributed what I wanted to contribute and am bored of it at this point.

My point in linking to that post was to suggest it as an example of Poe’s law LOL. I honestly can’t tell if the poster is trolling or a true believer.

 

[paziego]

Jesus Christ assumed human nature – which is totally absolutely completely different from the idea that His human nature was created.

Jesus Christ is the second real Person in the Most Holy Trinity. This means that Jesus Christ has a Divine Nature. Therefore, the easiest way to digest these basic facts is to recognize the fact that Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures.

The formal name for Jesus Christ being one Divine Person with two natures, Divine and human, is Hypostatic Union.

His human body and human soul were created, just as that of any of us. Any human nature is created because humans are a creation. The second person assumed a created body and a created soul.