The Confusion of Catholicism

[jmcrae]

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.

Right.

 

[grannymh]

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.

The difficulty which is being presented is the possible idea that Jesus added a human body created apart from Himself.

By using the words assumed human nature, the Person of Jesus stays the same, that is, He is always one whole Person Who has the Divine nature of the Blessed Trinity. Because of His Divinity, He can assume human nature itself immediately without any need for the creation process.

Regarding this point. “Any human nature is created because humans are a creation.” I need to point out that it is important to start with Jesus’ Divine nature because this is primary. His human nature came about in the mystery of the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, we see two natures which belong immediately to the Divine Person in the womb. It is the human nature which includes the physical and spiritual characteristics of the human person. Thus, Jesus’ human nature is complete without dependence on a created body and a created sou.

While I respectively understand that you are firm in your belief, readers may be interested in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *paragraphs 456-483. This is a tough read. The cross-references in the margins need attention. Personally, I started with CCC 470 and then read other paragraphs as questions arose.

Catechism links
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[OneSheep]

Good Evening, Guanophore, I have been away a few days.

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).

Yes, communion is based on Eucharist!

Now, let’s turn it around a little. If someone comes to you and says, “no, communion is not based on Eucharist, it is based on people completely in agreement with all the teachings of the Church”, would you think of the person having some kind of negative “heterodoxy”. How would you feel about his unsupported approach? Would you shake his hand as a fellow Catholic? You would, right?

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.

Fr. Anthony de Mello said, “God loves you at least as much as the person who loves you most.”
Jesus said: Matthew 25:40New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

So, lets say a person poor, imprisoned, sick, or hungry is a “lukewarm Catholic”. Now, are we called to “spit out” this person, or are we to serve him, to care for him? Do you see that such literal interpretations that may appear contradictory to unconditional love must be examined carefully? Does such “spitting out” reflect God’s understanding, forgiveness, and mercy?
Are you frustrated, disappointed, with “lukewarm Catholics”, guanophore? It’s okay to be frustrated. All of us have had times of such “lukewarmness”, have we not, where we fall short of having great zeal for Christ and His message?

Here is a suggestion: Perhaps such “spitting out” has not to do with individuals, but has to do with the parts of ourselves that are hesitant or unenthusiastic about Christ. Perhaps that is what “spitting out the lukewarm” refers to. He wants us to focus the attention of our conscience onto our worldly comfort. You can catalog that under “OneSheep’s commentary on Revelations 3:15-17” I know, you would not be first in line to buy the commentary.

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.

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

Look at that! See, we do agree on some things.

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.

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

So, are you saying that people who do not agree with all the Church’s teachings, even though they receive Eucharist and are inclined toward the Church are excommunicating themselves? Communion as upheld by individual Catholics, a real experienced community, is a phenomenon that is unquestionably influenced by our feelings toward one another. This is intuitive, guanophore. If I refuse to shake your hand, am I communicating communion? Make this real, guanophore. Like I said before, you would certainly shake the hand of a homeless person. What if that homeless person was “heterodox”? Would shaking his hand mean that you believe the same way he does? Of course not. Would shaking his hand communicate something about “right relationship with God”? Absolutely.

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

Possibly. I’m not sure that is in doctrine, but I won’t refute it. Jesus died for all of us. What do you have to support that “only”?

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

This seems to be what you are suggesting. I have only asked you if you would shake my hand as a fellow Catholic even though I do not see the teachings the same way you do. So far, you have not accepted such a simple handshake. It’s a bit puzzling.

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

So I, a fellow Catholic, put out my hand to shake yours. Do you grasp it, or do you fear that in so doing you accept my atrocious views? What does love look like? Can you take people from where they are?

Your posts reflect ideas that are not Catholic.

Interesting. I supported my “ideas” with the CCC and words from Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. Yes, strictly defined, “communion” is not “inclusive” of people who do not receive Eucharist or do so without sincerity. However, we are called to create the “Kingdom”. What does that Kingdom look like? It looks like people loving others unconditionally, it looks like people welcoming one another, not judgmentally scrutinizing their orthodoxy. It looks like Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners, it looks like Jesus speaking to the outcast Samaritan woman. Is this not inclusive?

Like I said, inclusion is a very, very basic sentiment. Do we draw people in, or do we push them away? Am I pushing you away? If so, I am sorry. You are part of the body.

There is more, I overran the word limit again!

 

[OneSheep]

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

“One Body”

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221

791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice."223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."224

Your comment reflects the CCC as long as it accommodates the spirit of these paragraphs, and it must, for you value adherence. Disagreement over doctrinal interpretation can create a “human division”. Is that the case with you guanophore? If so, what does that “triumph” look like? Does it look like a handshake?

There is neither liberal or conservative! There is neither warm fuzzy or non-warm fuzzy! Do you see how those divisions are even more superficial than gender or ethnicitiy?

We are of one body, guanophore, right? We share in the Eucharist.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi 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.

So far so good!

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.

I agree, it may come across that way. I have never said people can forget; nor is it our calling. It is our calling to forgive, though not necessarily right away. It is a process.

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.

“Freely” is limited by our knowing, as Jesus observed from the cross. People can be blind or lacking awareness, and this is always the case when it comes to hurting others. If you can think of a counterexample, please bring it forward.

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.

I agree. One possible exception: when people act against love, they do not know what they are doing. If such is therefore a mistake or a misunderstanding, then all sins are mistakes or misunderstandings. This is a lot easier to explain with examples.

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.

There are always reasons why people sin. There is always something to understand. Again, if you can think of a counterexample, bring one forth.

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.

When Jesus looked upon the crowd and said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” he was not blaming them, he was seeing that their lack of knowing affected their minds.

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.

Yes, I agree! Now, are you saying that something I wrote “undermines or corrupts the faith?” If so, what?

Thanks!

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

You were discussing apostasy and your own judgement. Apostasy is a subject of morality. From a Catholic view your soul is in jeopardy. Your view is that saying so is akin to Nazism. There is moral relativism in believing that one’s personal views are “it”. Of course, God is our judge. Not even you are a judge of yourself.

Leaving the religion I was raised in, my family views me as destined for a lesser heaven than they hope to know. My immediate family are atheists. My hope is in their salvation, through Jesus, and God’s mercy. Otherwise, I don’t see that anyone close to me will be joining me in my Catholic faith, so, heaven would be a less than satisfying experience for me, kinda like going to Mass by myself every week is what I suppose.

With this in mind, I favor theologians who have put forth the concept of an empty hell, rooted in our Hope, Jesus Christ.

Of course, there are Catholics who strongly disagree with me, and would say I am a moral relativist. I suspect they have Catholc/Christian family. None of my family, for generations back and all around me now, have had a Christian baptism. My husband is an atheist, which, is rather hopeless in most Catholic theology, for judgement day. I just can’t get on board, that in this world, so secularized and spiritually confusing for so many people, that the whole world is going to hell. That seems to me rather Old Testamenty, without acknowledging our New Covenant, Jesus Christ. He came to save, not to condemn.

Anyway, I’m not in agreement with the going to hell accusations, for anyone. Including the ones you make for yourself, attributing this to Catholicism. It is God who will judge.

 

[paziego]

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.

We assert things we know but don’t comprehend, but only about things we experience. For example, the ancients may not have known what the aurora borealis was, but they knew they were witnessing something. Likewise, there are things in the natural world we don’t yet understand, but we know the fact of them through experience.

The trinity is not comparable to this, as it is not an experience in nature we haven’t studied yet. Ideas aren’t the kind of thing you can assert but not understand. Since I doubt the truth of the trinity, and I know it was created formulation in its current by human minds in the early centuries of our era, I have no reason to treat is as revelation. Especially considering it seems to conflict with the most fundamental points of earlier revelation.

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

Why is it erroneous? I have explained why the unknowable cannot be believed since I began my participation in this thread and my point has not yet been refuted. I have made very clear that my argument is that you don’t know what you believe, and the formal Catholic response agrees with me in that these things are ineffable mysteries above human comprehension and knowledge. The thing is, I have drawn this to a logical conclusion and presented the paradox implied in this, of which the many on this website are not aware. Do you see the paradox? ‘We know in that we believe, which is something unknowable’.

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

The point of the analogy is that the thing believed in (the message on the note) cannot be known. Again, the question to ask is whether it really is a true revelation, not to presuppose it.

 

[o_mlly]

We assert things we know but don’t comprehend, but only about things we experience…

No. Have you experienced a super void or only read about this phenomena? Once you’ve read about the super void and validate the credibility of the witnesses you then know that it is. No one comprehends it, that is no one knows what it is. Existence always precedes essence. The knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our natural senses – that’s why it’s called supernatural. That is why it must be revealed to be known.

Why is it erroneous? I have explained why the unknowable cannot be believed since I began my participation in this thread and my point has not yet been refuted. Yes, you have been refuted. Look up the meaning of “know” and “comprehend.” I think you confuse the terms by equivocating their meaning. I have made very clear that my argument is that you don’t know what you believe, and the formal Catholic response agrees with me in that these things are ineffable mysteries above human comprehension and knowledge. The mysteries are beyond comprehension but not beyond knowing – we can and do articulate them. The thing is, I have drawn this to a logical conclusion and presented the paradox implied in this, of which the many on this website are not aware. I think many understand you, we simply do not agree with your understanding of the terms you use. Nor does the dictionary. Do you see the paradox? No, I see the mystery. . We know in that we believe, which is something unknowable’. …Change "unknowable to “incomprehensible” and we are in agreement.

Corrections in red.

The point of the analogy is that the thing believed in (the message on the note) cannot be known. Again, the question to ask is whether it really is a true revelation, not to presuppose it.

One cannot presuppose a true revelation. That is why such an event is called “revelation.”

Friend, it is clear that I will not move you and you cannot move me on the state of the mysteries held by the Catholic Church. I wish you well in your ongoing studies and hope the same from you.
Peace.

 

[OneSheep]

You were discussing apostasy and your own judgement. Apostasy is a subject of morality. From a Catholic view your soul is in jeopardy. Your view is that saying so is akin to Nazism. There is moral relativism in believing that one’s personal views are “it”. Of course, God is our judge. Not even you are a judge of yourself.

Leaving the religion I was raised in, my family views me as destined for a lesser heaven than they hope to know. My immediate family are atheists. My hope is in their salvation, through Jesus, and God’s mercy. Otherwise, I don’t see that anyone close to me will be joining me in my Catholic faith, so, heaven would be a less than satisfying experience for me, kinda like going to Mass by myself every week is what I suppose.

With this in mind, I favor theologians who have put forth the concept of an empty hell, rooted in our Hope, Jesus Christ.

Of course, there are Catholics who strongly disagree with me, and would say I am a moral relativist. I suspect they have Catholc/Christian family. None of my family, for generations back and all around me now, have had a Christian baptism. My husband is an atheist, which, is rather hopeless in most Catholic theology, for judgement day. I just can’t get on board, that in this world, so secularized and spiritually confusing for so many people, that the whole world is going to hell. That seems to me rather Old Testamenty, without acknowledging our New Covenant, Jesus Christ. He came to save, not to condemn.

Anyway, I’m not in agreement with the going to hell accusations, for anyone. Including the ones you make for yourself, attributing this to Catholicism. It is God who will judge.

And if God judges the way you appear to judge, then our hope is well-founded. Really, we can only perceive God as at least as loving and understanding as we are (certainly not less so!).

Did you see my post with the March 19, 2015 tweet from the Holy Father? That is what the “just Judge” looks like to me.

“Old Testamenty”? Are you fond of word-inventism?

 

[paziego]

No. Have you experienced a super void or only read about this phenomena? Once you’ve read about the super void and validate the credibility of the witnesses you then know that it is. No one comprehends it, that is no one knows what it is. Existence always precedes essence. The knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our natural senses – that’s why it’s called supernatural. That is why it must be revealed to be known.

Corrections in red.

One cannot presuppose a true revelation. That is why such an event is called “revelation.”

Friend, it is clear that I will not move you and you cannot move me on the state of the mysteries held by the Catholic Church. I wish you well in your ongoing studies and hope the same from you.
Peace.

I have never experienced or read about a super void, but I assume it is either theoretical or its existence is somehow empirically validated. There must be something observable that led to scientist proposing its existence.

As for the difference between knowledge and comprehension, this may be a result of me not explaining myself clearly. You are right, I have made a mistake in the wording used.
However, let me draw a distinction between knowledge of definitions and knowledge of facts, and between comprehension of definitions and comprehension of facts.

For example, I cannot know whether the doctrine of reincarnation is real - it is unknowable to me. But I can believe it because I comprehend the concept, even if I don’t comprehend its workings. This is similar to the example I used earlier about belief in an even number of grains of sand in the world. Whether the grains of sand in the world are even or odd in number is unknowable to me, but I can comprehend the statement ‘there is an even number of sand grains in the world’, and thus it can be the subject of belief.

You are suggesting the trinity is something like this, and that we can’t comprehend things about it (its inner working), but that we can at least comprehend its basic premise. Now, you are right in so far as we can know the definition and teaching of the trinity, as all that is available in books and the internet. In this sense we can also say we know the definition of a square circle - a shape that is simultaneously circular and square. But does this mean we can ‘know’ a square circle or the trinity? I believe we can’t, because unlike reincarnation our hurdle is not with the ins and outs of the activity of the concept, but with its basic idea and the possibility of its existence. The only thing you can know beyond the definition of a square circle is that it cannot be - its incomprehensibility entails its impossibility. Or rather, you comprehend it perfectly well, well enough to know it is impossible. What we comprehend is not the square circle itself, but the separate notions which comprise it and the impossibility of their joining. Therefore, we cannot really ‘know’ a square circle even if we know the definition, as our mind stops at the point where it realises the constituent concepts do not match. Our knowledge is really that of the logical boundaries constraining the concept, while denying the concept itself. Knowledge of a square circle is in fact denial of a square circle.

The definition of the trinity is equally problematic, as it suggests modalism or tri-theism while simultaneously denying these. It is not a case of comprehending the inner workings of the trinity, it is the basic idea itself which cannot be comprehended in order to get the concept off the ground to be asserted in the first place. The definition is knowable in the inaccurate sense of the word, but like a square circle denial of its existence on account of its incomprehensibility and impossibility is what constitutes knowledge of it.

 

[Aloysium]

Hi Aloysium!
So far so good!
I agree, it may come across that way. I have never said people can forget; nor is it our calling. It is our calling to forgive, though not necessarily right away. It is a process.
“Freely” is limited by our knowing, as Jesus observed from the cross. People can be blind or lacking awareness, and this is always the case when it comes to hurting others. If you can think of a counterexample, please bring it forward.
I agree. One possible exception: when people act against love, they do not know what they are doing. If such is therefore a mistake or a misunderstanding, then all sins are mistakes or misunderstandings. This is a lot easier to explain with examples.
There are always reasons why people sin. There is always something to understand. Again, if you can think of a counterexample, bring one forth.
When Jesus looked upon the crowd and said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” he was not blaming them, he was seeing that their lack of knowing affected their minds.
Yes, I agree! Now, are you saying that something I wrote “undermines or corrupts the faith?” If so, what?
Thanks!

Glad to meet with your approval.
I along with others have repeatedly provided you with numerous counter examples.
Maybe the process of asking people to bring forward examples is your way of abolishing sin.
I want this to be clear; your process does not lead to reconciliation, but merely complacency.
I don’t think you are failing to understand what people have been saying so it is a matter of your not accepting the church’s teachings regarding the nature of sin.
A sin is not a mistake nor a misunderstanding.
In making these sorts of claims, you trivialize the horror of sin and the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross.
You are free to believe whatever it is that you want. I don’t think anyone has an issue with that.
This is as far as I would take it in terms of whether you are intentionally attempting to undermine and corrupt the faith.
I do not know you, but you may wish to engage in some self-examination, praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
I hope this helps you.
You are welcome.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

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.

You mean an example for Poe’s Law?

No-one can tell the intent behind anyone’s posts in any thread, unless they give enough clues. That’s always been the case on all internet forums though, nothing new.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

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.

Glad you have been helped on the core issue in your thread, when it wasn’t being derailed.

Oh, and my point that Catholicism is confusing and ambiguous is manifesting as we speak in this thread. …

Why should you think, not only that you have to be told what to think, but also that any of us might think we have to be told what to think? (That may be the case for some but that’s their problem.)

I’m not querying the idea of straight informational (name removed by moderator)ut, which we then chew over, in our own way, at our own speed.

Hence, why, when you came to the forum, were you outside your comfort zone at the phenomenon of 488,000 members all having a different viewpoint? To me, we’re different stones in a mosaic. To you, it has to be wall to wall whitewash.

Christ will be manifested in person through the lives of some people. I’m no evangelist, my ministry is (informally) within the churches. My testimony is that Christ was manifested in person through the lives of some people. No-one ever won an argument with me!

I think you need to keep up the good work of distancing yourself from the ancestral idea in the part of Italy some of your family of origin came from, reinforced (unless you’ve misunderstood them) by the parts of Ireland and Latin America most of your neighbours and clergy come from, of having to be told what to think. We’re so blessed in the UK that we don’t have this problem, not even from the Irish !

 

[OneSheep]

Glad to meet with your approval.

Agreement is not about me, it is about us, right?

I along with others have repeatedly provided you with numerous counter examples.

Yes, you have provided examples, asserting that people knew what they were doing. However, upon investigation of what people know or do not know, you seem to drop out of the discussion, if I remember right, which many others have done, yes. If you are going to provide a counterexample, please be ready to support your assertions.

Maybe the process of asking people to bring forward examples is your way of abolishing sin.
I want this to be clear; your process does not lead to reconciliation, but merely complacency.

Hmmm. Can you explain how forgiveness enhanced by the use of the Gift of understanding leads to complacency? Sin is terrible, I make no statements otherwise. Many people carry out atrocities because of failure to understand and forgive. Forgiveness is not passive, nor complacent.

Use of the gift of understanding is not “my” process. The gift comes from the Spirit, and all of us have access.

I don’t think you are failing to understand what people have been saying so it is a matter of your not accepting the church’s teachings regarding the nature of sin.
A sin is not a mistake nor a misunderstanding.
In making these sorts of claims, you trivialize the horror of sin and sacrifice of our Lord on the cross.

People do hurtful things because they do not know what they are doing. The word “sin” is very complex, Aloysium. A person can “live in sin” by being a slave to popularity and wealth, separated from the “true self” within. Even so, when people are living in such separation, they do not know what they are doing. What am I not accepting regarding the Church’s teaching about the nature of sin? I agree that calling sin a “mistake” or a “misunderstanding” falls short of an explanation. I prefer this wording: “When people do hurtful things, they do not know what they are doing”, or “people do not knowingly and willingly reject God.”

I don’t see how you can say that I trivialize the horror of sin by claiming people do not know what they are doing. If that is the case, then Jesus also trivialized sin. The sacrifice was also far from trivial, as people needed to be shown that we can forgive even in the worst of circumstances, and we needed to be shown that God loves us and forgives us even when we torture and kill Him. This is not trivial, it is revelation.

For many Catholics, Jesus also died as payment to God for sin, which I also previously believed. Does this “payment” belief better describe your own view of the importance of the crucifixion sacrifice?

You are free to believe whatever it is that you want. I don’t think anyone has an issue with that.
I hope this helps you.
You are welcome.

I appreciate that you are trying to be helpful. Thanks!

 

[o_mlly]

…
The definition of the trinity is equally problematic, as it suggests modalism or tri-theism …

The definition suggests something supernatural which by definition cannot be directly related to or explained by anything in nature.

… like a square circle denial of its [Trinity’s] existence on account of its incomprehensibility and impossibility is what constitutes knowledge of it.

We cannot deny the existence things simply because we cannot comprehend them. We cannot deny the Trinity because, unlike the square-circle, the Trinity is not self-contradictory. Proofs of contradiction taken from experiences in nature cannot be applied to things outside nature.

We think differently, friend. We are alike, perhaps, in that my faculties do a better job at finding the truth in the physical world than the truth in the spiritual realm. The duality I suggest here is not ontological but epistemological. I am better equipped to grasp the reality of rocks than the reality of God. For the latter, I must depend on the grace of revelation.

We are no alike in our metaphysics. Descartes was wrong. Reality, I believe, does not consist of two distinct and totally separate modes of existence, the subjective and the objective, the spiritual and the physical, mind and body, the personal and the impersonal, the qualitative (values) and the quantitative (things, facts). Indeed, reality is singular, but we come to know it in two different modes—subjectively and objectively. This “duality” is an epistemological premise, not ontological. These two modes of knowing are not discrete, I think, but continuous and depend on the level of bias incurred in experiencing phenomena. I readily confess my faith as bias.

I do not, as Descartes thought, have to infer my existence from the fact that I am aware of myself thinking. I perceive it directly, just as I perceive directly the existence of all the others physical objects that surround me, but I perceive immaterial objects only indirectly. Like physical objects, spiritual objects exist whether I think about them or not—God’s existence (or His interior life – the Trinity) does not depend on human thinking. But my perception of spiritual objects is less certain, more ethereal. My expression of ethereal experiences will always lack the clarity and explicitness of my sensual experiences. My inability to express them indicates a parallel inability to comprehend them. Such is the nature of mysteries, but my inability to comprehend a mystery does not throw the mystery into ontological oblivion.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You were discussing apostasy and your own judgement. Apostasy is a subject of morality. From a Catholic view your soul is in jeopardy. Your view is that saying so is akin to Nazism. There is moral relativism in believing that one’s personal views are “it”. Of course, God is our judge. Not even you are a judge of yourself.

Why is my soul in jeopardy? Why am I at risk of eternal torture? Is it because I can’t believe the Catholic Church is always right about everything to do with faith and morals? Is it because I disagree that they are always right and their way is the only way? If so, then yes, that is hateful. Nazis were hateful too. So were/are many ideologues and zealots.

Leaving the religion I was raised in, my family views me as destined for a lesser heaven than they hope to know. My immediate family are atheists. My hope is in their salvation, through Jesus, and God’s mercy. Otherwise, I don’t see that anyone close to me will be joining me in my Catholic faith, so, heaven would be a less than satisfying experience for me, kinda like going to Mass by myself every week is what I suppose.

With this in mind, I favor theologians who have put forth the concept of an empty hell, rooted in our Hope, Jesus Christ.

Of course, there are Catholics who strongly disagree with me, and would say I am a moral relativist. I suspect they have Catholc/Christian family. None of my family, for generations back and all around me now, have had a Christian baptism. My husband is an atheist, which, is rather hopeless in most Catholic theology, for judgement day. I just can’t get on board, that in this world, so secularized and spiritually confusing for so many people, that the whole world is going to hell. That seems to me rather Old Testamenty, without acknowledging our New Covenant, Jesus Christ. He came to save, not to condemn.

Anyway, I’m not in agreement with the going to hell accusations, for anyone. Including the ones you make for yourself, attributing this to Catholicism. It is God who will judge.

Were you a Mormon or a JW? If so, I respect you immensely for your struggle. Good on you for following where your reason and conscience lead.

“The whole world going to hell” is absolutely not “Old Testamenty.” The concept of endless Hell is Zoroastrian/Graeco-Roman/Islamic/Christian but foreign to Judaism.

There is no mention of any such thing as eternal hell in the Torah at all. In fact, it is questionable whether the author(s) of the Torah had hope for indefinitely long life/resurrection of any kind. I personally hope for this, but I can see how some people wouldn’t believe it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Glad you have been helped on the core issue in your thread, when it wasn’t being derailed.

Why should you think, not only that you have to be told what to think, but also that any of us might think we have to be told what to think? (That may be the case for some but that’s their problem.)

I’m not querying the idea of straight informational (name removed by moderator)ut, which we then chew over, in our own way, at our own speed.

Hence, why, when you came to the forum, were you outside your comfort zone at the phenomenon of 488,000 members all having a different viewpoint? To me, we’re different stones in a mosaic. To you, it has to be wall to wall whitewash.

Christ will be manifested in person through the lives of some people. I’m no evangelist, my ministry is (informally) within the churches. My testimony is that Christ was manifested in person through the lives of some people. No-one ever won an argument with me!

I think you need to keep up the good work of distancing yourself from the ancestral idea in the part of Italy some of your family of origin came from, reinforced (unless you’ve misunderstood them) by the parts of Ireland and Latin America most of your neighbours and clergy come from, of having to be told what to think. We’re so blessed in the UK that we don’t have this problem, not even from the Irish !

It seems like some Catholics think Catholicism is all about what and how to think. You say, “that’s their problem.” OK.

I’m glad that England has not been affected by this kind of thinking. Why is that, do you suppose?

OK, so then I can be a Catholic if I don’t have to agree with all of the teachings? I don’t believe Jesus was God, I don’t believe in the trinity, I don’t believe the Church is always right, I think all people who have died are simply dead and can’t hear our prayers although it might be beneficial for us to pray for them, I don’t believe in grace, I don’t believe in original sin, I don’t believe sacraments do anything supernatural, I don’t believe the New Testament is the word of God, I don’t believe the visions of various saints, I don’t believe in endless hell, and I don’t believe the eucharist is anything other than bread and wine.

Can I fit in the mosaic?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why is my soul in jeopardy? Why am I at risk of eternal torture? Is it because I can’t believe the Catholic Church is always right about everything to do with faith and morals? Is it because I disagree that they are always right and their way is the only way? If so, then yes, that is hateful. Nazis were hateful too. So were/are many ideologues and zealots.

Were you a Mormon or a JW? If so, I respect you immensely for your struggle. Good on you for following where your reason and conscience lead.

“The whole world going to hell” is absolutely not “Old Testamenty.” The concept of endless Hell is Zoroastrian/Graeco-Roman/Islamic/Christian but foreign to Judaism.

There is no mention of any such thing as eternal hell in the Torah at all. In fact, it is questionable whether the author(s) of the Torah had hope for indefinitely long life/resurrection of any kind. I personally hope for this, but I can see how some people wouldn’t believe it.

Raised Mormon, left for atheism, converted to Catholicism. Many stops along the way. I had an interest in “belief systems”. Tried out different things from New Age (gemstones and tarot) to Buddhism and a study for a couple of years the sutras of Pantanjali (Hindu). I found all that interesting but never believed during all that sampling of beliefs. The sutras were the most interesting, very thorough philosophy, but I couldn’t believe in the multiple gods of Hinduism and the attraction of the divine within, is not something I possess.

Anyway, it isn’t hatred. Give people the benefit of the doubt! Someone once told me years ago that my family view me like a toddler, who is sitting in the middle of traffic, and they aren’t going to leave me there. Some Catholics may be hateful, or even fearful of you, but most are indifferent. There are a few, probably less than 20, who will love you enough to view you as the toddler in the middle of the road.

Old Testamenty, as in destroying whole populations. You make a distinction between God’s right to total destruction in this life, while rejecting hell. I find that to be incongruent.

 

[paziego]

We cannot deny the existence things simply because we cannot comprehend them. We cannot deny the Trinity because, unlike the square-circle, the Trinity is not self-contradictory. Proofs of contradiction taken from experiences in nature cannot be applied to things outside nature.

Ok. Now there are two interrelated points which are at the heart of the issue.
The first is whether the trinity is or is not self-contradictory. If it is, then it won’t be a case of denying it because we can’t comprehend it, and I have already said in my last post that we are not entitled to do this anyway - I explained that reincarnation is not comprehensible in its working but is comprehensible in principle. So I agree with you so far.

But as to the self-contradictoriness of the trinity, I have yet to find an explanation of the Nicene definition of the trinity that is not contradictory. It seems to describe either a being with three modes, or three different beings which it simply calls persons for the sake of preserving cosmetic monotheism. Now, I can’t claim to have read every book on the subject or seen every argument ever made - that may not even be possible. But with the resources available to me I cannot find a satisfactory explanation. The Stanford encyclopaedia online is a good philosophy source which has a article on the trinity itself, as well as one on general Christian philosophy which includes further arguments for the trinity. Yet none of thee can preserve orthodoxy.

I have reasonable grounds - overwhelming, in fact - to say that the Nicene trinity is self-contradictory, and no good grounds to believe in the possibility that it may be otherwise. Of course, that is not to say that the trinity puzzle may have a solution which we haven’t found yet. But as it stands it seems to be a contradictory doctrine, with itself and with the old testament.

 

[paziego]

We think differently, friend. We are alike, perhaps, in that my faculties do a better job at finding the truth in the physical world than the truth in the spiritual realm. The duality I suggest here is not ontological but epistemological. I am better equipped to grasp the reality of rocks than the reality of God. For the latter, I must depend on the grace of revelation.

We are no alike in our metaphysics. Descartes was wrong. Reality, I believe, does not consist of two distinct and totally separate modes of existence, the subjective and the objective, the spiritual and the physical, mind and body, the personal and the impersonal, the qualitative (values) and the quantitative (things, facts). Indeed, reality is singular, but we come to know it in two different modes—subjectively and objectively. This “duality” is an epistemological premise, not ontological. These two modes of knowing are not discrete, I think, but continuous and depend on the level of bias incurred in experiencing phenomena. I readily confess my faith as bias.

I do not, as Descartes thought, have to infer my existence from the fact that I am aware of myself thinking. I perceive it directly, just as I perceive directly the existence of all the others physical objects that surround me, but I perceive immaterial objects only indirectly. Like physical objects, spiritual objects exist whether I think about them or not—God’s existence (or His interior life – the Trinity) does not depend on human thinking. But my perception of spiritual objects is less certain, more ethereal. My expression of ethereal experiences will always lack the clarity and explicitness of my sensual experiences. My inability to express them indicates a parallel inability to comprehend them. Such is the nature of mysteries, but my inability to comprehend a mystery does not throw the mystery into ontological oblivion.

Now as to the second point, we have to look at what we can know in and outside of nature and what proofs are acceptable. We can look at this several ways; first we will have to look at how it works in the natural world and then see what the implications are when we extend this to the supernatural.

First, we can say that the world is not rationally structured, and that we impose our own logical structure on it in order to make it comprehensible. In this sense we are all subjective agents, but human reason in the form of logic contains notions shared by all of us, and this provides us with an objective viewpoint. (That is, there is no real ‘2+2=4’, but all humans share this notion and therefore it is ‘objective’. ‘Objectivity’ is a special sort of universally shared subjective viewpoint).
Alternatively, we can say that both the world and our minds are rationally structured, and that rather than impose logical categories on the world to make it intelligible, what is happening is that our minds and the world are ‘speaking the same language’. This means the world as it is objectively can be known. (In this case ‘2+2=4’ is how the world really is, and our notions inform us accurately of this. Knowledge is not an imposition of categories, but a dialogue between our rationality and that of the world).

What happens when we apply this to the heavens? Are the heavens rationally structured?
If they are not then we are denying that God is rational. If they are then they can either be rationally structured in the same way as our world, or in in a different - perhaps higher - way, with their own logic and metaphysics.
If the heavens are structured rationally in the same way as our world, then the accusation of the trinity’s self-contradiction - if it holds - does disprove the trinity, as we can hold the heavens to our own standard of logic (because we share this standard of logic). If, on the other hand, the logic and metaphysics of the heavens are of a different nature, then I see two complications. On the one hand we traditionally see the soul as the rational and ‘God breathed’ part of ourselves whereby we can recognise higher truths and somehow partake in divinity. If this soul does not use the same logical categories as the heavens then I see this as problematic for the idea that we have a divine soul, as it seems to place us in the category of animals, or imply that there isn’t really anything higher than the world.
On the other hand, if the logic and metaphysics of the heavens really are that different from ours then we cannot claim to know, comprehend or understand anything about God and the heavens. Revelation would be in a language and conceptual structure where ‘2+2=43’ could easily be true, and the words of scripture could mean absolutely anything or nothing. It would completely undermine any possibility of relation with he divine, and would make intelligible revelation impossible. It would be like us trying to explain the meaning of life to an ant.