The Confusion of Catholicism

[OneSheep]

Got it.
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.

Well, if it helps, you are in my “good graces”.

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’.

Cool!

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.

I still think that “mainstream” is a bit of a stretch. A few enlightened people do not make “mainstream”. I think that we can agreee that Jesus’ contemporaries harbored a great deal of resentment toward an empire; an empire that did not have authorities behaving in the guidance of love and forgiveness.

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.

You are addressing another issue of “legitimate differences”. The question is, did God ever hold anything against humanity, was there ever a “debt” to pay? What do you think?

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.

Hmmm. Why did they do that?

Thanks for your response.

 

[paziego]

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.

If existence is the cause of existing then nothing outside of a thing causes the existence of that thing. This would mean things are their own cause.

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.

I don’t want Church teaching to change. I like it as it is, but for different reasons that you do. Also, the rules of logic are the preconceptions God gave me and all of us. They are ‘sacred tradition’ too.

 

[paziego]

Well, if it helps, you are in my “good graces”.

Thank you, so are you.

Cool!

I know, right. They are fascinating guys and very practical. Spock was based on the Stoics.

I still think that “mainstream” is a bit of a stretch. A few enlightened people do not make “mainstream”. I think that we can agreee that Jesus’ contemporaries harbored a great deal of resentment toward an empire; an empire that did not have authorities behaving in the guidance of love and forgiveness.

Well, the stoics and Buddhist weren’t only the sages and Buddha’s, but also those only sort of living by the rules of the system. I agree that the vast populace did not take up these aesthetic lifestyles ‘full-time’, but the moral developments did percolate down into the mainstream. It was by no means a minority thing.

My point about the empire is that they it actually served to promote stoic ideas. Although Roman imperial Stoicism is probably not the same as Athenian stoicism. The Romans are actually portrayed in a relatively positive light I the Gospels, I think. You have the faithful centurion and Pilate’s wife, and even Pilate himself does not really want to go through with the execution. Jesus does not speak out against Rome in the way he speaks out against the Rabbis.

Then again, all this may be due to Roman ‘editing’, to make the Jews look bad and themselves good.

You are addressing another issue of “legitimate differences”. The question is, did God ever hold anything against humanity, was there ever a “debt” to pay? What do you think?

Well, I think there was a debt to pay according to Catholic theology. Otherwise what is it all about? There must at least be a debt for every time we sin, even if we don’t count original sin as a debt held by all.

Hmmm. Why did they do that?

I don’t know. It does not seem appropriate to me for the church to side with any regime.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hmmm. Again, that would depend on the optimist v. pessimist approach.

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.

Hereby undermined! You have made your point on that, and I agree.

It is not for your to forgive those people? Why not? Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold anything against. Can you see the benefit of such a call? Maybe I am not understanding your “don’t believe it is for me to forgive” statement.

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.

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

“Gates of hell?” Oh, you are thinking that God sends people to hell?

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.

I’m not doubting you, but I would really like to see some evidence of this. Do a little googling and get back to me, please.

Why do you not feel it is for you to personally forgive those acts?

No I haven’t. Who is Eva Kor?

Another person who forgave the Nazis. You will have to look her up, she is awesome!

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

Well, Manichean thinking is very natural, I think it is our “default”. In my own view, it is prevalent inside and outside the Church. Manichaeism is still well-intended, as is a monistic view. Perhaps you could show an example of his writings, and we could evaluate together?

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.

I found the text here:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

and I could not find the word “Judeo”. I am not denying that there may be such a reference elsewhere, but can you find one? Hey, the Church has done plenty of bad stuff, but we cannot address certain instances unless we find them.

I agree that the whole idea of putting forth a list of “condemned” ideas does not set up a tone of understanding and forgiveness. Can you imagine a modern Pope putting out such a list?

 

[OneSheep]

Well, I think there was a debt to pay according to Catholic theology. Otherwise what is it all about? There must at least be a debt for every time we sin, even if we don’t count original sin as a debt held by all.

I like this particular entry:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

So, you see that they have conceived a “distorted image” of God, and Jesus comes to clear up the distortion.

There are legitimate differences concerning whether God became incarnate to change God’s mind about man, or God became incarnate to change man’s mind about God. I currently go with the latter.

Is there a debt? Only if it is not forgiven. And ponder this one: Does omniscience preclude sense of debt? Think of God deciding whether or not to hit the “create” button.

I don’t know. It does not seem appropriate to me for the church to side with any regime.

Well, let’s say that it is understandable that the Church side with whichever regime in Syria, for example, that would protect Christians. However, the hierarchy would get A LOT of flack if that regime were to turn around and persecute those of other religions. Indeed, the recent Popes have called for religious tolerance in nations.

However, concerning the Church siding with “bad” regimes in Africa, we would have to look at the specific instance in order to understand/forgive the Church. Prior to that, one would have to somewhat value such understanding and forgiveness, and see a reason for it. My resentment has a way of stifling any desire to forgive. I do sometimes hold onto resentment until I get tired of the grudge.

 

[paziego]

Hmmm. Again, that would depend on the optimist v. pessimist approach.

Well, if the Church is the truth those who resist or oppose it are doing the devil’s work. Or so the logic goes. And the gates of hell thing is still a problem for me. And there is the ‘he you rejects you rejects he who sent you’, which implies that rejecting the church is rejecting Jesus personally and generally being very bad.

It is not for your to forgive those people? Why not? Jesus calls us to forgive anyone we hold anything against. Can you see the benefit of such a call? Maybe I am not understanding your “don’t believe it is for me to forgive” statement.

I guess I don’t want to say that in believe I forgiving - in the Catholic sense - those people whom I didn’t know or whose actions did not affect me. I believe in forgiving people who injured me personally, and intentionally or through lack of due reflection on their actions.

I believe that what I owe to others (everyone) is compassion on the basis that we all share the same human condition, and to put myself in their shoes. But forgiveness implies a personal authority I may have, and I don’t believe I have that forgiving authority.

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

No one is forced to convert, though it has happened (Spain, the Americas). But what about the treatment of those who don’t, or who aren’t convinced by the teachings and resist them in school, or resist social pressure in Catholic societies. Or those who were baptised as children and do not have the option to leave as far as Catholic law is concerned.

People who do not convert are still put under pressure or demonised, or collectively identified with the dreaded secular world. And people who study the faith earnestly but aren’t persuaded are accused of dishonesty and immaturity.

And there is always the threat of not gaining salvation. Many radicals think gleefully of their enemies burning in hell - those who wouldn’t agree with them in this life.

“Gates of hell?” Oh, you are thinking that God sends people to hell?

Do you mean ‘it is not God but us who send ourselves to hell’, or are you saying something else?

I’m not doubting you, but I would really like to see some evidence of this. Do a little googling and get back to me, please.

Ok, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy is implied, as for a long time that is how the Church perceived liberalism. The theory predates the Protocols. The writings of Augustin Barruel I think were the first to say that the Jews allied with the Masons to overthrow the French Monarchy, and the Idea has remained alive ever since.

This conspiracy theory was actually a central myth of the Franco regime in Spain, and was supported by the church.

Why do you not feel it is for you to personally forgive those acts?

Like I said. I don’t believe in forgiveness as a ‘thing’ beyond forgiving specific persons foe what they have done to me.

Another person who forgave the Nazis. You will have to look her up, she is awesome!

Great! Thanks.

Well, Manichean thinking is very natural, I think it is our “default”. In my own view, it is prevalent inside and outside the Church. Manichaeism is still well-intended, as is a monistic view. Perhaps you could show an example of his writings, and we could evaluate together?

It just seems that for a church founded on love and forgiveness the head of the church should be able to rise above this in official documents. He used the language of warfare and there is a theology supporting that.

I found the text here:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

and I could not find the word “Judeo”. I am not denying that there may be such a reference elsewhere, but can you find one? Hey, the Church has done plenty of bad stuff, but we cannot address certain instances unless we find them.

Sorry, I covered this above in this post.

I agree that the whole idea of putting forth a list of “condemned” ideas does not set up a tone of understanding and forgiveness. Can you imagine a modern Pope putting out such a list?

Well I guess they don’t have to since the old list is there. But the old list is still in vigour.

 

[paziego]

I like this particular entry:

Is there a debt? Only if it is not forgiven.

But nothing is forgiven. Jesus paid the full price.

 

[jmcrae]

If existence is the cause of existing then nothing outside of a thing causes the existence of that thing. This would mean things are their own cause.

No. Existence is the thing outside that causes things to exist. The thing outside that causes existence is called “God.”

I don’t want Church teaching to change. I like it as it is, but for different reasons that you do. Also, the rules of logic are the preconceptions God gave me and all of us. They are ‘sacred tradition’ too.

Okay.

 

[o_mlly]

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 (LOVE), -]but/-] AND they are -]all/-] independent of each other as fully separate -]entities/-] PERSONS IN ONE BEING.

Being = essence or nature. God’s essence is existence.

I can articulate the mystery, that is “know” it. But explaining a mystery will always leave one wanting because, absent comprehension, the mystery remains a mystery.

I believe you to be a serious searcher and wish you well in your studies.

 

[paziego]

No. Existence is the thing outside that causes things to exist. The thing outside that causes existence is called “God.” .

Then you would need something to cause God to exist. But if you say he is the cause of his own existence you make the whole thing redundant.

And that does not solve the trinity.

And you are still saying that existence itself is God. This is “existence=God”. This means that anything that exists would be God.

 

[paziego]

Being = essence or nature. God’s essence is existence.

I can articulate the mystery, that is “know” it. But explaining a mystery will always leave one wanting because, absent comprehension, the mystery remains a mystery.

I believe you to be a serious searcher and wish you well in your studies.

If you say god’s essence is existence you have pantheism, like I said.

As for A, B and C being separate persons in one being, I have already illustrated where that leads you.

 

[davidv]

If you say god’s essence is existence you have pantheism, like I said.

Pantheism does not follow from God’s essence is His existence. What is your logic? It is too great a logical a leap from one to the other.

As for A, B and C being separate persons in one being, I have already illustrated where that leads you.

Where it leads you? You illustration is based on false premises and cannot be trusted to be rational.

 

[jmcrae]

Then you would need something to cause God to exist. But if you say he is the cause of his own existence you make the whole thing redundant.

And that does not solve the trinity.

And you are still saying that existence itself is God. This is “existence=God”. This means that anything that exists would be God.

No. Existence itself is not the thing that exists. Existence (a spiritual substance) is what causes the thing to exist.

 

[paziego]

Pantheism does not follow from God’s essence is His existence. What is your logic? It is too great a logical a leap from one to the other.

Where it leads you? You illustration is based on false premises and cannot be trusted to be rational.

I said that ‘god’s essence IS existence’ is what leads us to pantheism, and that was the definition I was quoting someone else. Now you have changed it to ‘god’s essence is HIS existence’, which is an entirely different claim. And it is a claim that does no seem to achieve much. I fail to see what point it makes.

What is false about my illustration or the arguments made on this thread? I have shown that you have two options to interpret the word being, and none of them work to defend the trinity.

 

[paziego]

No. Existence itself is not the thing that exists. Existence (a spiritual substance) is what causes the thing to exist.

Existence is not a spiritual substance, it is a term to denote o describe something that is actual. What you are describing is both a cause and a result - look at the words ‘existence’ and ‘exist’ in your post.

Existence cannot exist without an actually existing object.

And this the trinity problem how exactly?

 

[o_mlly]

If you say god’s essence is existence you have pantheism, like I said.

As for A, B and C being separate persons in one being, I have already illustrated where that leads you.

Because you are trying to understand that which is outside nature from within nature, that is limited by your experiences within nature, we should I think re-title this thread: “The Mysteries of Catholicism.”

 

[o_mlly]

Then you would need something to cause God to exist. But if you say he is the cause of his own existence you make the whole thing redundant.

And that does not solve the trinity.

And you are still saying that existence itself is God. This is “existence=God”. This means that anything that exists would be God.

Objections:

            If God’s essence and existence are the same, then God has nothing added to him. Therefore, God is being in general and is universally predicated of all things (heresy of pantheism).

            Reply: God is existence to its fullest and simplest extent. All other beings participate in his existence on a contingency and thus do not posses the nature of God. Therefore, no being can be said to be a god or share a part in godhead since they exist solely on a contingency. God’s essence precludes any addition absolutely. Prime matter (of which all material things are composed) has a nature in which nothing is required to be added to it: but not absolutely. Thus prime matter is predicated of all material things, but God is not.
            It has been shown that we can know that God exists, but we cannot understand his nature. If this is true then God’s nature and existence cannot possibly be the same thing or we would understand his nature.

            Reply: We understand the proposition: God exists. We also understand the proposition: God is. Thus for both propositions, we understand them in the sense that we have joined a subject and a predicate and understand both terms. However, we do not understand the essence of either proposition. Thus we understand God’s existence and nature in the first sense but not in the deeper second sense.

saintaquinas.com/article4.html

 

[OneSheep]

Well, if the Church is the truth those who resist or oppose it are doing the devil’s work. Or so the logic goes. And the gates of hell thing is still a problem for me. And there is the ‘he you rejects you rejects he who sent you’, which implies that rejecting the church is rejecting Jesus personally and generally being very bad.

Good Morning, paziego

Have you seen this quote?

Pope Francis: “Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].”

You have met the truth, paziego, an so have I, all in certain degrees in certain directions. You are rejecting what you see as oppressive and false, and that is a good rejection. I can tell you that things can be, and are, different with the Church, and that most followers and hierarchy are not into condemnation, as neither was Jesus. Sure, people do condemn others, because it is in our nature to do so, but what do you do when you encounter it, paziego? I think it is an error to encounter a white racist and assume that all whites are racist. So it goes with Catholics and our hierarchy.

I guess I don’t want to say that in believe I forgiving - in the Catholic sense - those people whom I didn’t know or whose actions did not affect me. I believe in forgiving people who injured me personally, and intentionally or through lack of due reflection on their actions.

I have posted many threads on forgiving people like Osama Bin Laden, child molesters, politicians, etc., and your response is the most common pushback on such forgiveness. We are called to love others, and we are certainly inclined to compassion for victims. Those people we love and empathize with become part of ourselves; indeed we often put the well-being of those we love, have compassion for, over our own needs.

If I am saying, therefore, that the actions of the Nazis, oppressive Catholic hierarchy of the past, and many other characters in history do not affect me personally, then I am saying that my own sense of empathy and inclusion has not been extended to the victims.

I get a sense, though, that you do empathize and have compassion for the victims of persecution, racism, and other crimes, and it truly sounds like you “hold something against” the perpetrators. You are to be commended for such compassion. Therefore, Mark 11:25 applies, does it not?

I believe that what I owe to others (everyone) is compassion on the basis that we all share the same human condition, and to put myself in their shoes. But forgiveness implies a personal authority I may have, and I don’t believe I have that forgiving authority.

This was the same argument that Eva Kor had to deal with. Among Jewish people, she received a lot of criticism, and she explained that she was not forgiving in the name of all her people, she was forgiving for herself. Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die, as they say. If I “do not have the authority to forgive” then I do not have the authority to let go of the poison. Does that sound like a good life?

No one is forced to convert, though it has happened (Spain, the Americas). But what about the treatment of those who don’t, or who aren’t convinced by the teachings and resist them in school, or resist social pressure in Catholic societies. Or those who were baptised as children and do not have the option to leave as far as Catholic law is concerned.

People who do not convert are still put under pressure or demonised, or collectively identified with the dreaded secular world. And people who study the faith earnestly but aren’t persuaded are accused of dishonesty and immaturity.

And there is always the threat of not gaining salvation. Many radicals think gleefully of their enemies burning in hell - those who wouldn’t agree with them in this life.

Have you read Awareness by Anthony de Mello? He was a priest and psychotherapist. Here is one of my favorite quotes:

Anytime you have a negative feeling toward anyone, you’re living in an illusion… You’re not seeing reality… But what do we generally do when we have a negative feeling? “He is to blame, she is to blame. She’s got to change”. No! The world’s all right. The one who has to change is YOU.

People condemning and demonizing are living in an illusion. I think that the world needs to change, but that minor point is obviously not the gist of what he was saying.

Do you mean ‘it is not God but us who send ourselves to hell’, or are you saying something else?

I especially like the opinion of a priest I learned from: “If anyone goes to hell, the do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” This is not the image of a “gotcha god”, the bureaucrat god who looks at your list of sins and beliefs and says, “oh well, you gotta take the down elevator”.

It just seems that for a church founded on love and forgiveness the head of the church should be able to rise above this in official documents. He used the language of warfare and there is a theology supporting that.

Well I guess they don’t have to since the old list is there. But the old list is still in vigour.

Yes, some people cling to the old list. If a person clings to the list with vigor, and such clinging indicates that they hold something against a person who holds the beliefs, then the call is to forgive. Spread the word!

Thanks for your response!

 

[OneSheep]

But nothing is forgiven. Jesus paid the full price.

Can you clarify? I’m confused.

 

[paziego]

Objections:

            If God’s essence and existence are the same, then God has nothing added to him. Therefore, God is being in general and is universally predicated of all things (heresy of pantheism).

            Reply: God is existence to its fullest and simplest extent. All other beings participate in his existence on a contingency and thus do not posses the nature of God. Therefore, no being can be said to be a god or share a part in godhead since they exist solely on a contingency. God’s essence precludes any addition absolutely. Prime matter (of which all material things are composed) has a nature in which nothing is required to be added to it: but not absolutely. Thus prime matter is predicated of all material things, but God is not.
            It has been shown that we can know that God exists, but we cannot understand his nature. If this is true then God’s nature and existence cannot possibly be the same thing or we would understand his nature.

            Reply: We understand the proposition: God exists. We also understand the proposition: God is. Thus for both propositions, we understand them in the sense that we have joined a subject and a predicate and understand both terms. However, we do not understand the essence of either proposition. Thus we understand God’s existence and nature in the first sense but not in the deeper second sense.

saintaquinas.com/article4.html

Existence cannot be a predicate. That is one of the most established pints in philosophy. Look up the ontological argument to see why. “God is” and “God exists” are the same proposition, and both rely on the ontological argument.

Existence and essence cannot be the same. But I can’t be bothered to repeat the argument.