The Confusion of Catholicism

[paziego]

We can be certain of love, commitment to love God and one another, as certain as we are steadfast. It is no accident that these were Jesus’ primary commandments. He did not say “believe in all doctrine put forth by the Church”. Faith is not a set of doctrines; sorry to be repetitive. Central to faith is relationship

 

[Abu]

PumpkinCookie #542
The confusion is not only about which dogmas or doctrines are “Catholic” but their very meaning in the first place.

The coherence of Catholicism exists only in the mind of the individual
Catholic, it seems. I suppose this is true for every religious tradition so
focused on rigid dogmatic beliefs about obscurities and ambiguities.

Confusion exists only in the minds of those who fail to take the trouble to learn what the Church actually teaches – the Catholic Church founded by God the Son, the Christ. The CCC is the official summary but seems unknown to some here. To doubt God is puerile.

paziego #557
But it didn’t take long for Christians to talk to each other and realise that they had all sorts of divergent beliefs, often in very important matters. The result was the early councils, where no consensus was reached and everybody went home feeling bitter and believing their own Christianity.

The “divergent beliefs” arose because of self-will, the refusal to follow Christ’s teaching through His Magisterium.

There is no excuse for not knowing that ‘breakaways have occurred right through history, beginning in Apostolic times. Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, was really the forerunner of independent men who set up religions of their own. Christ Himself predicted that men would do this, saying, “There will arise false Christs and false prophets to seduce if possible even the elect.” Mk. XIII., 22. But in spite of this, He promised to His true Church, “I will be with you all days even to the end of the world.” In the first centuries there were heretical founders of rival Churches – men whose names are found only in textbooks of history – Montanus, Manichaeus, Arius, Donatus, etc. In later centuries we find the founders of the Greek Church, Photius and Michael Cerularius. And later still the founders of the various Protestant Churches–Luther, Henry VIII., John Knox, and a host of others. As the years go on, others will arise, linger for a time, and disappear. But the Catholic and Apostolic Church will go on with continued vitality till the end of time. Ever there will be in the world a Church able to trace itself back in an unbroken line to the Apostles; and that Church is the Catholic Church which is subject to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles.’
radioreplies.info/site-se…p?q=Magus&db=2

Why are none of the core doctrines taught explicitly in the record we have of his teachings? Everything is a vague interpretation; it is only there if you want to see it there. The whole thing is an exercise in seeing what you can get away with justifying with reference to the text. Of course that is going to cause controversy and a multiplicity of beliefs.

With such misconceptions no wonder there is confusion.

But Jesus of Nazareth was crystal clear and His mandates were recorded and guaranteed by His Church who gave us the Sacred Scriptures, this Catholic Church was guaranteed by Him to teach His Truths which She has done from the begging and will until the end of the age.

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[paziego]

I believe your explanation does not sufficiently separate the use of the terms “Person” and “Being” but uses them interchangeably as if their meaning were identical. Also the post tries to invent a fourth person in the Trinity as being the collection of the Three which is not Catholic doctrine. I have tried clumsily to insert and edit your post - sorry but this mode of debate has its limitations.

Hello again.

You are probably right about my failure to adequately separate ‘person’ and ‘being’. I am aware of their difference and of the usage made of these terms in Trinitarian theology. But then again, the usage of these terms is what is problematic about Trinitarian theology. Let me explain.

‘Being’ can either be a referent of identity, or it can not. (The Church, in its Trinitarian theology, seems to treat it as a referent of identity. That is, ‘God’ is who the persons are. I am aware it is also what the persons are, but in emphasising the joint-ness between them it is primarily making a claim about the persons as an entity).
If this is the case, then we have two options:

We can say things like the ‘son is God’, and ‘the father is God’. But then we will be forced to accept ‘the son is the father’ (A is F, B is F = A is B). This is a self-contradiction because Trinitarian theology also says the son is not the father.

Alternatively we can say that what we mean by ‘the son is god’, or ‘the father is god’ needs fuller explanation. We can say ‘the son is god sonwise’, or that ‘the father is god fatherwise’. The problem with this is that it yields partialism or modalism, both of which are heresies.

If we take the other approach and say ‘being’ is not a referent of identity, then we have even bigger problems. It is unclear what ‘being’ would mean in this case, but since identity is ruled out we would most likely be talking about what type of being a thing is, rather than what individual thing the being. (For example, you and I are both humans, but what is shared by us really ends there. It does not make us the same being identity-wise, but we are the same being nature-wise). So in this case we can say that all three persons are divine, but we are not positing any joint being-ness to be shared by them, as to do so would transform it into an identity claim.
But this leaves us with three, divine, independent beings - with three gods.

 

[paziego]

Yes, there are those who find security in doctrine, as I mentioned. It is a false sense of security, but it is very human to seek it in this way. After all, people form their ingroups within the institution based on favored language and concept formation, which is also quite observable on the fora. And then there is spiritual development; in different phases we see God very differently. It’s all human, and all has its place. Of course, the violence can be avoided through transcendence of compulsions, through awareness, through commitment to Love.

 

[paziego]

For the Church everyone is an ‘other’, and this other is unsatisfactory to god and represents hell on earth. I know nobody says that (anymore), but the underlying theology is there and cannot be changed. To deny this is to be a modernist - the synthesis of all heresies!

 

[paziego]

Good catch on “synagogue” . I think that the Church’s attitude has come a long way toward accepting Judaism and its followers, to the point that we can look back at the use of “synagogue” in context and find it amusing rather than something that expresses a modern reality.

I just have to make this last point. In the encyclical I quoted the Pope is showing he accepts as truth the idea of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, as articulated in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This theory is what fuelled the 20th century anti-Semitism which resulted in the Holocaust. It is not at all funny and never will be no matter how much time passes.

It is not amusing that the Pope endorsed lies which led to genocide, and that he showed this support in encyclicals. He contributed towards promoting the general attitude that made such an atrocity plausible and possible years later. It hardened hearts towards the Jews.

Isn’t he a saint now?

 

[o_mlly]

Hello again.

…

‘Being’ can either be a referent of identity, or it can not. …

“Being” means “God is existence.” That is, God does not exist, He is existence itself. All creatures depend on God’s being existence as He is sole the source of their existence. " I am who am" (outside time).

We can say things like the ‘son is God’, and ‘the father is God’. But then we will be forced to accept ‘the son is the father’ (A is F, B is F = A is B). This is a self-contradiction because Trinitarian theology also says the son is not the father…

Since the non-transitive property obtains in the relations I think the math metaphor for the Trinity would be notated as A → B, A + B → C. The Son is begotten of the Father in eternity and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son in eternity.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Note the difference here between Catholicism and other religions such as Judaism or Buddhism, or philosophies such as Stoicism or Humanism, which do not declare universal moral and teaching authority over mankind. These other belief systems do not conceive of the ‘other’ in negative or terms and are quite happy to accept differences permanently. On the other hand Catholicism has a drive to convert, which means identifying the other and then ‘destroying’ them. I don’t mean this literally, of course, but what I mean is that the ‘otherness’ of a non-Catholic is considered a state of error and ignorance, and the aim of
the Church and individual Catholics is to make that ‘other’ cease to be an ‘other’. By bringing in an ‘other’ into the fold you are transforming them into something new, and this entails the destruction of the old self.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying all, or even most Catholics are nasty people. But I am making a case for the nastiness if the religion itself, and when Catholics are good people it seems to be in spite of, and in opposition to, the central Catholic drive for expansionism and dominion. A Catholic will gladly admit that no one is perfect, but they will have to affirm that the additional imperfection of a non-Catholic is of an entirely different class, as it is not just a personality defect but a separation from the one true church.

I certainly agree with this observation. I never drew the connection between the taqiyya/jihad dynamic and the “God loves everyone/but everyone should convert” dynamic. To be fair, I think this dynamic must exist in any exclusivist religion based on domination and conversion. Most forms of Christianity and Islam probably have this tension.

 

[paziego]

“Being” means “God is existence.” That is, God does not exist, He is existence itself. All creatures depend on God’s being existence as He is sole the source of their existence. " I am who am" (outside time).

Since the non-transitive property obtains in the relations I think the math metaphor for the Trinity would be notated as A → B, A + B → C. The Son is begotten of the Father in eternity and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son in eternity.

First of all, if you say God is existence itself then anything that exists is God, and this results in pantheism. Not only the three persons, but everything else as well enters the diety.

I must confess that I have not studied logic and I can’t follow your formula. Would you mind putting it into prose for me? Alternatively, if this formula depends on God being defined as existence itself see above.
Thank you.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Confusion exists only in the minds of those who fail to take the trouble to learn what the Church actually teaches – the Catholic Church founded by God the Son, the Christ. The CCC is the official summary but seems unknown to some here. To doubt God is puerile.
The “divergent beliefs” arose because of self-will, the refusal to follow Christ’s teaching through His Magisterium.

As you embrace the hate, you prove my point. I’m not doubting God my friend, I merely do not equate the Catholic Church with God. Which catechism? There are many! What happens when they contradict each other? Is the newest one the truest one?

You appear to be certain about what the Catholic Church really teaches. Yep, you and so many others, and for some reason you all disagree. Why is that? Are they all full of “self-will?” Precisely what other kind of will should they have?

There is no excuse for not knowing that ‘breakaways have occurred right through history, beginning in Apostolic times. Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, was really the forerunner of independent men who set up religions of their own. Christ Himself predicted that men would do this, saying, “There will arise false Christs and false prophets to seduce if possible even the elect.” Mk. XIII., 22. But in spite of this, He promised to His true Church, “I will be with you all days even to the end of the world.” In the first centuries there were heretical founders of rival Churches – men whose names are found only in textbooks of history – Montanus, Manichaeus, Arius, Donatus, etc. In later centuries we find the founders of the Greek Church, Photius and Michael Cerularius. And later still the founders of the various Protestant Churches–Luther, Henry VIII., John Knox, and a host of others. As the years go on, others will arise, linger for a time, and disappear. But the Catholic and Apostolic Church will go on with continued vitality till the end of time. Ever there will be in the world a Church able to trace itself back in an unbroken line to the Apostles; and that Church is the Catholic Church which is subject to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles.’
radioreplies.info/site-se…p?q=Magus&db=2

So, the author(s) of Matthew say Jesus said other people would disagree with his teachings at some point in the future. Not such an unlikely possibility now is it? Gosh, any of us could say that about anyone and it would be extremely unlikely for our “prediction” to be false, now wouldn’t it? Also, I have no idea how this relates. Are you saying the authors of Matthew were aware that Christianity is essentially ambiguous?

With such misconceptions no wonder there is confusion.

But Jesus of Nazareth was crystal clear and His mandates were recorded and guaranteed by His Church who gave us the Sacred Scriptures, this Catholic Church was guaranteed by Him to teach His Truths which She has done from the begging and will until the end of the age.

**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Those quotes don’t do nearly as much work as you think they do. If they did, then you would be forced to believe that all “heretics” throughout the last 2,000 were just ignorant dummies, or evil tools of satan. How likely do you think that is? Do you have this attitude in life in general? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you about uncertainties, obscurities, and ambiguities is either a dummy or evil? LOL.

 

[paziego]

“Being” means “God is existence.” That is, God does not exist, He is existence itself. All creatures depend on God’s being existence as He is sole the source of their existence. " I am who am" (outside time).

Since the non-transitive property obtains in the relations I think the math metaphor for the Trinity would be notated as A → B, A + B → C. The Son is begotten of the Father in eternity and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son in eternity.

Actually, looking at your formula I think I can already see that there is no basis for the unity of the persons in the godhead. A, B, and C all have relations, but they are all independent of each other as fully separate entities.

 

[Aloysium]

First of all, if you say God is . . .

This is a philosophy forum so one would expect people to discuss their thoughts.
I do get the impression that you are interested in knowing God and that is why you are thinking about Him.
Such an exercise is a form of prayer in which we give voice to our confusion and ignorance.
The problem isn’t with the concept of the Trinity; rather it is those ideas, beliefs and misunderstandings that are contradictory and fail to capture the Truth.
I would say that the quickest and surest way to grow in one’s relationship with God is by joining the body of Christ, more specifically by participating in the church He established for that very purpose.
Through acts of charity, prayer, the eucharist and the mass, in contemplation of sacred teachings we journey along the Way that is Jesus Christ.
We are transformed into our true Self, who is eternally in communion with the Father through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t intend to argue or clarify any of these points. Much better is written out there and ultimately it is for you to pursue this most important of callings in life. You will know Him then.

 

[OneSheep]

QUOTE=OneSheep;13677658

Hi OneSheep,

Sorry for chopping your post in my last. It was an accident; I realised my mistake but my attempts to fix it just made it worse.

Good Morning!

First, a little more coaching on the posts, if you don’t mind! What I do to break up the quotes is that for the first part of the quote I leave the first “QUOTE=paziego;13677786”
intact, and then manually type in the /quote [with brackets] at the end of the first part I want to address. That way, the first quoted part still has a link to the post you are quoting. See the little blue arrow after your name above?

I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying. However, does the Church teach that we should believe all the doctrine put forth by it? I think it does, and I think it teaches that that is what Jesus told them to teach.

On cafeteriaism, give these a look:

uscatholic.org/articles/201507/proud-be-cafeteria-catholic-30253

news.va/en/news/the-popes-mass-at-santa-marta-a-house-thats-not-fo

From the second article:

And this docility which transforms the Church from a house “for rent” into a house in which everyone feels at home. “I’m at home — explained the Pope — because the Holy Spirit gives me this grace”. He then invited the request during mass for “the grace of unity in the Church: to be brothers and sisters in unity”, feeling “right at home. Unity in the diversity of everyone” but “free diversity”, without imposing conditions. “May the Lord send us the Holy Spirit — was Pope Francis’ closing invocation — and create this harmony in our communities, parishes, dioceses, movements, so that, as said by a father of the Church: “The Spirit, he himself is harmony”.

There it is, the Spirit is harmony. Pope Benedict spoke of harmonizing “legitimate differences”. There are legitimate diffierences.

Yes, people already knew all of this except for the stuff about killing god, which is specifically Christian. But as for the rest, it was more that known, but actually mainstream.

Love of enemies “mainstream”?

I am reading Marcus Aurelius’ *Meditations * right now and all of these other points are there. He was a Stoic and Stoicism was mainstream during that time; it was the basic worldview of the contemporary Hellenistic sphere, which included all of the Levant.

It is unclear whether Catholicism honestly teaches that god loves unconditionally. I find that irreconcilable with the notion of mortal sin and the general obsession with punishment.

Well, now you have hit directly on two “legitimate differences”. Does God love/forgive conditionally, or does He not? In fact, both approaches can be found in the Gospel.

Jesus unconditionally forgave those who crucified Him.

I agree with you in that we can transcend our faults, with a lot of hard work. But from a historical perspective it would seem the Church cares little for this, and that it only thought about taking the moral high ground once it realised it was no longer ‘holding the pan by the handle’. It is no accident that its history of violence ended when the world moved into modernity and it ceased to have the same level of support by the state. And that modernity is precisely what Pious IX was crusading against.

But we have no reason to really believe that the Church is committed to love. It is convenient for them now, but if they ever had the power they used to would they be as tolerant as they are claiming to be now?

Paziego, we can ask all kinds of “ifs”, but the answer is going to depend on our own view of history. History shows me that the human species is becoming more inclusive and benevolent, the walls of ingroup/outgroup are breaking down, that love and compassion are becoming more manifest. The opposite of such a view is also legitimate.
.
continued…

 

[grannymh]

My poor over the hill brain.

I am now confused about the subject matter of this thread.

If I were to address the confusion of Catholicism, I would start the process with these three axioms or truths. Of course everyone is free, on a public message board, to deny these truths. Just as free speech gives me the opportunity to present these truths.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator

From the dawn of human history, humans have a natural sense that there is something super-natural which is evinced in ancient myths and legends, Greek gods, Hindu gods, the shaman and the medicine man, and so on. So that my posting does not get cluttered with all this back history, I will use God as expressed in the basic teachings of the so-called confused Catholic Church. Therefore, there should not be confusion about points 1. and 2. It is point 3. which can be a source of confusion because there are lots of individual humans, living and dead, on earth and under the earth.

When we say that God as Creator exists, can we imply that God loves us? When we say that God interacts with us, can we imply that God has a goal for us?

 

[OneSheep]

"paziego:

I know it is made up of individuals. But it is made up of defined groups of individuals, and there is a clear distinction between the laity and the clergy, and among the latter there is a distinction between the clergy in Rome who run things and those who follow orders. In fact, regardless of our personal morals we all have to accept what comes down to us, so the argument for a Catholic’s individuality has severe limitations.

Furthermore, the clergy is a group of self-selected individuals - it attracts a certain type. Most of the priests I know come from an education background (ex schoolteachers), and many of them are also gay. What I am saying is that you don’t get a broad cross-section of personalities in the clergy, and that already those who teach us come from a particular world-view and outlook.

Also, you have to look at who gets promoted and why, and you will soon see that elites form at the top, who create a club around their particular theology and politics. So at the very top you have a group of people who got each other into these high positions or who favour those who agree with them when considering promotions. This is of course common to any institution.

Thus, from a small and self-selected group at the top come rulings which we are supposed to follow, and this is a huge problem for individualism and the possibility of variety in the church. If those at the top hate an ‘other’ then that is the message that gets passed down, and the perspective that is perpetuated by the institution’s inner workings.

And what of those who disagree with the elite? These people represent the gates of hell, against whom the church will prevail in the end.

For the Church everyone is an ‘other’, and this other is unsatisfactory to god and represents hell on earth. I know nobody says that (anymore), but the underlying theology is there and cannot be changed. To deny this is to be a modernist - the synthesis of all heresies!

I think you are reacting to the Church of 100 years ago, friend. (Pope Pius X wrote against Modernity in 1910). A lot has happened since then. But yes, the institution does tend to change very slowly. You probably heard recently about the studies that show that employers hire the people who are most like themselves. I did this too, without realizing it

Universal love vs war against the gates of hell. Given the importance of doctrinal correctness the latter will always trump the former, but both aim at instilling the same obedience (and the war rages until the end of time). These two tendencies actually mirror taqiyya and jihad perfectly.

The antidote to war is forgiveness. Have you forgiven the past hierarchy? Pope Francis addresses the “rigidity” aspect in the link I provided. People with a condemning approach are not joyful, and Pope Francis makes it pretty clear that a Christian community is a joyful one.

I just have to make this last point. In the encyclical I quoted the Pope is showing he accepts as truth the idea of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, as articulated in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This theory is what fuelled the 20th century anti-Semitism which resulted in the Holocaust. It is not at all funny and never will be no matter how much time passes.

I think this is a bit of a stretch, but I understand your point of view. Have you forgiven the Pope, the writers of the Protocols, antisemitic racists, and those who carried out the holocaust? Do you hold something against those people? They behaved in understandable ways, and I could have done the same in their shoes. Have you read of Eva Kor?

It is not amusing that the Pope endorsed lies which led to genocide, and that he showed this support in encyclicals. He contributed towards promoting the general attitude that made such an atrocity plausible and possible years later. It hardened hearts towards the Jews.

Isn’t he a saint now?

Pius IX is a saint, yes. No saint is 100% free of errors and sin. Do you have anything that shows he did anything less than encourage forgiveness of “the Jews”? I don’t know, but I have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt, as you might guess.

As for “synagogue of satan”, I did a quick look and found this:

cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/114/What-Is-Synagogue-Satan-Revelation-29-39.htm

So it may be a leap to say that Pius IX use of “synagogue” was different from the use in the book of Revelations.

In the process of forgiving those in history I hold something against, first, I give them the benefit of the doubt, and seek to understand (sorting out of motives, lack of awareness, etc.), that led up to their choices. Then, I throw out the benefit, and address the worst of the doubt, and seek to understand what led up to their choices. I cover all the options. In the end, I always (with the help of God) understand and forgive.

Oops, I left something out. First, I pray for the person, then I begin the sorting out of motives, lack of awareness, etc. involved in understanding.

Thanks for enlightening me on all the Pope Pius IX and X quotes! I look forward to your response.

 

[paziego]

Good Morning!

First, a little more coaching on the posts, if you don’t mind! What I do to break up the quotes is that for the first part of the quote I leave the first “QUOTE=paziego;13677786”
intact, and then manually type in the /quote [with brackets] at the end of the first part I want to address. That way, the first quoted part still has a link to the post you are quoting. See the little blue arrow after your name above?

Got it.

On cafeteriaism, give these a look:

uscatholic.org/articles/201507/proud-be-cafeteria-catholic-30253

news.va/en/news/the-popes-mass-at-santa-marta-a-house-thats-not-fo

From the second article:

And this docility which transforms the Church from a house “for rent” into a house in which everyone feels at home. “I’m at home — explained the Pope — because the Holy Spirit gives me this grace”. He then invited the request during mass for “the grace of unity in the Church: to be brothers and sisters in unity”, feeling “right at home. Unity in the diversity of everyone” but “free diversity”, without imposing conditions. “May the Lord send us the Holy Spirit — was Pope Francis’ closing invocation — and create this harmony in our communities, parishes, dioceses, movements, so that, as said by a father of the Church: “The Spirit, he himself is harmony”.

There it is, the Spirit is harmony. Pope Benedict spoke of harmonizing “legitimate differences”. There are legitimate diffierences.

Thanks for the articles, I will look at them.
I am glad the Pope interested and active in creating a different feeling. I know some differences can be legitimate, but at the same time there are things that simply must be believed, or at least assented to, as a minimum criteria for being in the good graces of the church.

Love of enemies “mainstream”?

This may sound highly unlikely, but it really was one of the most important aspects of Aurelius’ philosophy. You see, the Stoics were pantheists and they see love for another, even an enemy, as love for oneself. Loving the entire human race is a core doctrine, called oikeosis. The Stoics were also strict determinist, and believed that everything down to the smallest detail was the will of god. So if you have an enemy you are supposed to be grateful to god (they saw him as benevolent) and to accept your situation with ‘stoicism’.

I imagine Buddhism also teaches one to reach out to all sentient beings, no matter how they may have treated you or what sentiments they harbour towards you, and to feel love and compassion for them. Love and compassion are the only appropriate emotions towards other beings in Buddhism, to my understanding, so that wold be another example of this ‘love your enemies’ trend.

Now I am not saying every Stoic or Buddhist actually lived up to the ideal, but that is exactly the same case with Christianity. The point is it is not exclusive or original to Christianity, nor was it Christianity that popularised it. In fact Christianity was born in the milieu where the concept was a given, around the time the Romans were pushing the philosophy hard (as their imperial ideology) on the newly acquired province of Judea.

Well, now you have hit directly on two “legitimate differences”. Does God love/forgive conditionally, or does He not? In fact, both approaches can be found in the Gospel.

Jesus unconditionally forgave those who crucified Him.

I have my doubts about the account of his crucifixion, but I am glad if he did. Having said that, if he did die for all of us on the cross then god exacted his full price and we cannot say he forgives at all.

Paziego, we can ask all kinds of “ifs”, but the answer is going to depend on our own view of history. History shows me that the human species is becoming more inclusive and benevolent, the walls of ingroup/outgroup are breaking down, that love and compassion are becoming more manifest. The opposite of such a view is also legitimate.

Ok you have a point. But as far as a ‘character reference’ I would say we have good grounds to assume the Church would re-adopt its ways and sins of old if the winds blew in their favour. They have sided with bad regimes in Africa when it suited them.

 

[jmcrae]

First of all, if you say God is existence itself then anything that exists is God, and this results in pantheism. Not only the three persons, but everything else as well enters the deity.

No. God causes all that is to exist. This causing doesn’t make everything else to be its own cause. Quite the opposite.

I must confess that I have not studied logic and I can’t follow your formula. Would you mind putting it into prose for me? Alternatively, if this formula depends on God being defined as existence itself see above.
Thank you.

God contains three persons, each of whom is God. Each of the three persons is distinct. The Father is God but he is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but he is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but he is neither the Father nor the Son. The three persons of God share one will, one mind, and one Divine nature. The Son alone also has a human nature, which is not shared with the Father or the Holy Spirit, but which is shared with us - with you.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

[paziego]

No. God causes all that is to exist. This causing doesn’t make everything else to be its own cause. Quite the opposite.

I know. I was responding to the definition of god as ‘existence itself’. You will agree that that definition leads to pantheism. Have you been following this trinity discussion over the last couple of pages?

God contains three persons, each of whom is God. Each of the three persons is distinct. The Father is God but he is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but he is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but he is neither the Father nor the Son. The three persons of God share one will, one mind, and one Divine nature. The Son alone also has a human nature, which is not shared with the Father or the Holy Spirit, but which is shared with us - with you.

I hope that helps a bit.

I you see some of my recent posts you will see why I have a problem with that. Thank you though.

 

[jmcrae]

I know. I was responding to the definition of god as ‘existence itself’. You will agree that that definition leads to pantheism.

No, I wouldn’t. Existing is a response to existence. Existence is the cause of existing. That you exist doesn’t make you your own cause.

Have you been following this trinity discussion over the last couple of pages?

I have been skimming it, but I lack the patience to delve into it very deeply, since the protagonists on all sides don’t seem to really know what they are talking about. It’s a difficult subject, and that isn’t intended as a negative criticism; it’s just my own perception. T

I you see some of my recent posts you will see why I have a problem with that. Thank you though.

You’re welcome. I don’t think it’s possible to change Church teaching to suit your preconceptions; all any of us can do is try to explain as clearly as possible.

 

[paziego]

I think you are reacting to the Church of 100 years ago, friend. (Pope Pius X wrote against Modernity in 1910). A lot has happened since then. But yes, the institution does tend to change very slowly. You probably heard recently about the studies that show that employers hire the people who are most like themselves. I did this too, without realizing it

Fair enough. But the conversion dynamic will always be there, as will the identification with opposition to the Church as the work of the devil.

The antidote to war is forgiveness. Have you forgiven the past hierarchy? Pope Francis addresses the “rigidity” aspect in the link I provided. People with a condemning approach are not joyful, and Pope Francis makes it pretty clear that a Christian community is a joyful one.

I have slightly different spirituality. I know it says “Catholic” on my ID but that is only there because, well… I am nothing else right now and the Church will always consider me one.

Consequently, I don’t believe it is for me to forgive these people. But I do feel it I important to undermine the image of a Church which is morally faultless in history. A lot of people will agree that it was not morally faultless, but will then vehemently defend church history.

I know Francis is making an effort, but the ‘gates of hell’ thing is still there though. How much of the church can he realistically change. Conversion is still a destruction of the other, even if it is in a friendly way, and this mission is an obligation.

I think this is a bit of a stretch, but I understand your point of view. Have you forgiven the Pope, the writers of the Protocols, antisemitic racists, and those who carried out the holocaust? Do you hold something against those people? They behaved in understandable ways, and I could have done the same in their shoes. Have you read of Eva Kor?

Again, I do not feel it is for me to personally forgive those particular acts. I do feel that the pope’s encyclical legitimised anti-Semitism and endorsed a conspiracy theory that targeted the Jews. He certainly contributed to this trend and was a powerful and influential person in shaping public opinion - he was pope after all. I don’t think it is a stretch to say he contributed towards the negative spirit of the period, especially against the Jews.

No I haven’t. Who is Eva Kor?

Pius IX is a saint, yes. No saint is 100% free of errors and sin. Do you have anything that shows he did anything less than encourage forgiveness of “the Jews”? I don’t know, but I have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt, as you might guess.

Well, the tone of his writings were not forgiving or positive in any way. He seemed to be quite Manichean.

As for “synagogue of satan”, I did a quick look and found this:

cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/114/What-Is-Synagogue-Satan-Revelation-29-39.htm

So it may be a leap to say that Pius IX use of “synagogue” was different from the use in the book of Revelations.

Now that is interesting. I did not get the reference. Ok, it is possible he may not have talking about the Jews and referencing Revelations instead. However it seems more likely that he was doing at least both, as he explicitly refers to the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory in the text and in the role they play against the church in America. I think the overall context makes a strong case for his anti-Semitism. Even if the reference is not intended that way, other parts of the encyclical are.