The Confusion of Catholicism

[o_mlly]

I am not sure you could treat “existence” as the definition of a being. You can say of a being that it exists, but to say “existence” is itself a being seems similar to saying solidity is a being. Even then, existence is not a property in the same way solidity is. To say an object is solid is informative of the concept, to say it exists is not. Furthermore, “it exists” can only be properly applied to individual instances, so with “God is existence” you would end up saying nothing more than “God is the individual instances of things which have individual instances”. And to me that just seems like a really weird way of expressing pantheism…

The “thatness” or being of God is He exists. The “whatness” or a property of God is that He is Existence. A property or attribute is the “whatness” of a thing. Collectively, all beings having the same “whatness” determines the essence or nature of a category. That God is (necessary) Existence is descriptive or informative about God’s “whatness” and has nothing to do with God’s “thatness.”

I know you can say of general things that they exist (e.g. dog’s exist). But this means that there is at least one instance of a dog. It can also be used as a catch-all for all the individual instances of dog’s existing.

You have limited your investigation to the “thatness” of a dog. Until you identify a “whatness” to dogs, that is, a property common to all creatures such that you can call them “dogs” then no category has been established.

I am not sure “God” is a general concept in the Abrahamic tradition. When you and I talk about God we have a specific being in mind, not a class of beings. Miss Universe 2016 may sound general but by definition it is a single individual.

To Aristotle, god was a concept. Illuminated by revelation, Abram was able to expand the concept. If you want to create a category called, "All persons with the title “Miss Universe 2013” you may certainly do so. That the population of your category is one does not destroy the category although it may make it quite mute in its explanatory potential.

The question is whether existence can be part of something’s definition. If it is, what about my “realunicorn”?

If Necessary Existence did not exist then no contingent beings can exist. Contrapositive: If contingent beings can exist then Necessary (uncaused) Existence must exists. I’m not sure how you can get to a “realunicorn” from there.

Because of the kind of thing “existence” is, those two statements are the same. If you say God is existence you are saying the term “God” is synonymous with existence.

I may sound like an old phonograph record but I must say again that the word “is” does not mean “equals.”

 

[grannymh]

Not at all. But we must understand that people see/believe things differently, even within our church, and it doesn’t make them any less Catholic.
We each have our own personal belief about our faith, about God etc.

May I respectfully point out that in the Catholic Church, there are basic Catholic doctrines which come under the following words of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not giving His opinion. He was not saying that His followers can have their own personal beliefs and opinions, even if they differ from Catholic doctrines.
usccb.org/bible/john/14
at the Last Supper, Chapter 14, Gospel of John

26
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—He will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.

What the above verse is saying is that the Holy Spirit will guide the Catholic Church with His infinite wisdom and will remind the Church of Divine Revelation. In other words, it will be Major Catholic Church Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, which will properly define and duly proclaim Catholic doctrines. Not every “reasonable” opinion presented by saints to these Councils are accepted. Usually, this is because an “opinion” even a reasonable one, may not comport with Divine Revelation.

The doctrines, based on Divine Revelation, are rock solid. Certainly, people today will have their own opinions, the own preferences, their own beliefs. However, these opinions, preferences, and beliefs have to agree with the Catholic doctrines. Sad to say, many, not all, individuals are denying a bucket full of doctrines. Their talk is sweet and appealing. Beware.*

 

[guanophore]

 Ok, great. And on what basis do you deem this source trustworthy?

In addition to millenia of witnesses to His character, I have also encountered Him and found Him to be trustworthy.

 I Have Catholic on the ID because I used to be one and I haven't got round to changing it it yet. However, my baptism has left an indelible mark on my soul, and as such I will always be a member of the church. It is just that I will be a bad one.

Perhaps you would consider getting around to it? It causes a public scandal here for people to put out false pretenses about their faith. People coming here to find Catholic Answers, and understand what Catholics believe can be confused by such an affiiation. Perhaps “bad Catholic”, ,or better, “former Catholic”? Disenchanted, angry, unbelieving person?

  Another reason I keep it is that I do not have a proper alternative yet, and if I was to put something down it would shape perceptions of me. I don't want to come across as someone who has always been an outsider to the church.

I can accept that. Perhaps it would be better to just leave it blank, that way you are not misrepresenting yourself.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, you keep saying this, but you have yet to come up with an example supported by “Church teachings”. You bring up things I said, and then say “this is contrary to church teachings”, but your assertions do not make them so, guanophore. I have stated nothing that goes against Catholic doctrine. Sure, what you hear on the radio may be different than what I am saying. It’s a big Church, guanophore.

Are you trying to be charitable?

It is important to point this out, for those who might be reading the threads. People can go back in the discussion and it will become clear where your comments deviate from the Teachings.

Confirming people in their errors is not charitable.

 I have held my hand to you the entire time, ready and willing to say that all these disagreements are **only words**, and that communion has to do with our willingness to embrace each other as the body, and actively seeking unity.

Statements such as this indicate you are holding a position contrary to the TEaching of the Church. Unity is not created by holding hands.

The disagreements are not just words, One Sheep. they are departures from the One Faith, deposited once for all to the Church by the Apostles.

Communion DOES NOT have to do with our willingness to embrace each other and actively seeking unity by hand holding, inclusion or any other human warm fuzzy activity. Communion occurs when each person is “in Christ”. Unity of doctrine exists because those who are In Christ accept HIs Teachings. The Holy Spirit creates communion.

   Let go of the words for a moment and shake my hand as a fellow part of the body!  After all, we share the same table, we eat together every week.  Can you do your part to make unity triumph over division, or must you hold onto your own interpretation of "the words" so tightly that your will is closed to including me?

The words represent and contain the One Faith. People who present themselves to participate in Eucharist say “Amen”, meaning that they affirm all that the Church teaches.

The idea that I, or anyone else can “do my part to make unity triumph over division” is a fantasy. Unity occurs between members of the Body that are conformed to Christ. It cannot be created by human “triumph” of any kind.

Division occurs when members of the Body depart from the Teachings of Christ. Every human person is free to deny the Teachings of Christ, just as you are doing now.

 

[guanophore]

How about this: I’ll videotape you at Mass and then show the video to people who are unfamiliar with Catholicism. I’ll translate the spoken words to their language and ask them what is happening in the video. I am certain they would affirm you are in fact literally kneeling before at least one man who is holding up an object while claiming it to be “the lamb of God” while everyone else says “amen.” Do you see what I mean? You imagine and/or believe that you are worshiping God, but the uninitiated will find my description more accurate and obvious.

This is silly, Pumpkin. Worship requires and act of the will. One does not worship by imagination, or by accident, but by choice. If the Monstrance is sitting on the altar, I will still kneel in worship (with no person near).

Are you going to try to assert that these Christians having an altar call are worshipping the klenex boxes?!

Worship is not defined by the hapless or ignorant onlookers, but within the heart of the person. Do you honestly believe that your “description” can replace the choices of the person praying?

I have no good reason to suppose you are delusional, I merely disagree with you and don’t believe your testimony. I think it is fine for you to believe what you believe, but I have not been presented with enough 1) reason and 2) evidence to share your beliefs. That’s OK (with me). I also do not think the billions of humans who have different beliefs than I do are delusional LOL. I just so happen to disagree with them because I apparently don’t have access to the evidence and reason they do.

It is an awfully great deal of human experience to set aside. Any researcher of human phenomena would consider such a large population statistically consistent.

However, doesn't your faith obligate you to believe that other religions are the result of demonic or satanic influence?

On the contrary. The Catholic Church teaches that truth can be found in most.

Wasn't that a popular theory among the architects of your religious tradition? I know that theory isn't popular anymore, but why do you think the early church fathers would have this opinion?

Yes, the NT writers and early fathers did write about paganism and pagan gods having ties to the devil.

 

[guanophore]

Do you accept the Qu’ran as the inerrant Word of God? Of course not. You reject it, right? Are you “proud” of your stance? I doubt it! I think more likely you just don’t care about it. I think you’ll find this reaction to religious texts is quite common. I bet you feel this way about all of them, except yours. I think others feel this way about yours too. OK?

You are right, I do not care about it.

But the person to whom this was directed claims to be Catholic, so one would expect that such a person would have a Catholic attitude about the Scriptures. The point you make here just reinforces my concern that Catholicity is absent from that persons’ framework of the Scriptures.

 

[paziego]

In addition to millenia of witnesses to His character, I have also encountered Him and found Him to be trustworthy.

By what standards do you judge him to be trustworthy? By what standards do you deem the accounts of his life trustworthy?

If it is simply the fact that you feel it then I think you have no place criticising the theology of OneSheep or of anyone else.

The millennia of witnesses to his character leaves a lot to be desired. “Carnally challenged” popes and imposed adherence to the faith by state authorities. Expulsions of pagan philosophers from the Byzantine empire and of muslims and jews from Spain. Forced conversions in America. Suppression of challenges to a flawed cosmological view. Monasteries which help the poor, while at the same time defending the institution of serfdom because the Church was the largest landowner. In addition to apocalyptic claims which never materialised and an unremarkable social message, of course.

“bad Catholic”, ,or better, “former Catholic”? Disenchanted, angry, unbelieving person?

See what I mean? You are already forming a profile on me now that I have identified myself as an ex-Catholic. Why characterise me me as disenchanted or angry? Can’t I be reasonable, rational and spiritually curious? Do you know enough about me to make that judgment? You seem to be trying to portray me as an unreasonable person.

Disagreeing with you and satirising Catholicism by reflecting what I see in posts does not make me any of the things you describe me. Nor does it automatically make me a disenchanted and angry person - though I am not surprised you jump to such conclusions, as Catholics are indoctrinated to consider ex-Catholics some kind of failure. As far as you are concerned, it seems, if I left Catholicism because there was something wrong with me.

I can accept that. Perhaps it would be better to just leave it blank, that way you are not misrepresenting yourself.

No, I think I would rather keep it as it is. Since the church practices infant baptism and forces its prescribed lifestyle and beliefs on people it has to accept that it is a cultural identity as wall as a faith. You can be a secular Catholic in the same way you can be a secular Jew. I am still not going to change it to “secular Catholic” because that will cause even more misconceptions about me.

 

[guanophore]

See what I mean? You are already forming a profile on me now that I have identified myself as an ex-Catholic.

Not at all! Your posts make it clear that you do not embrace the Catholic faith, but I hve done badly. None of the adjectives I can propose would be more appropriate than a blank entry.

Why characterise me me as disenchanted or angry? Can’t I be reasonable, rational and spiritually curious? Do you know enough about me to make that judgment?

You could, of course, except that your posts have already given away the contrary. But you are right, my descriptions fall short.

Disagreeing with you and satirising Catholicism by reflecting what I see in posts does not make me any of the things you describe me. Nor does it automatically make me a disenchanted and angry person - though I am not surprised you jump to such conclusions, as Catholics are indoctrinated to consider ex-Catholics some kind of failure. As far as you are concerned, it seems, if I left Catholicism because there was something wrong with me.

Perhaps you have made as many assumptions about me as I have about you! I used to be an angry ex Catholic myself, though I never had the temerity to claim to be Catholic while posting my anti-Catholic sentiments on a public forum.

Many people leave the faith who are not disenchanted and angry. I left in search of something more authentic, and sojourned among my separated brethren for about two decades.

Of course I would have to believe that people leave Christ because there is something wrong with them. Why would anyone who was in their right mind separate themselves from the author of their life? But at the time we have convinced ourselves it is the right thing to do…

No, I think I would rather keep it as it is. Since the church practices infant baptism and forces its prescribed lifestyle and beliefs on people it has to accept that it is a cultural identity as wall as a faith. You can be a secular Catholic in the same way you can be a secular Jew. I am still not going to change it to “secular Catholic” because that will cause even more misconceptions about me.

This is not a bad solution. At least it would communicate to the reader that you do not embrace the faith. This is evident from reading your posts, of course, but each one is labelled disingenuously.

 

[paziego]

The “thatness” or being of God is He exists. The “whatness” or a property of God is that He is Existence. A property or attribute is the “whatness” of a thing. Collectively, all beings having the same “whatness” determines the essence or nature of a category. That God is (necessary) Existence is descriptive or informative about God’s “whatness” and has nothing to do with God’s “thatness.”

Thank you o_mlly, the “thatness”, “whatness” terminology is actually very useful.

The problem I have with your argument, however, is that existence cannot be a “whatness”. Saying something “exists” is saying that it exists. In other words, existence is the thatness of a particular thing. This means it has no place in the “whatness box” because it is what constitutes the thatness box.

You cannot speak of an instance without having something for the instance to belong to. Because of this, you cannot treat existence as a pure abstraction, without a corresponding object. “Existence” does not have any other meaning apart from the thatness of a thing. When you say “existence” you are speaking of everything which has a thatness.

You can say of God that his thatness (an instance of him) is necessary, but you cannot say that existence is his whatness. If you say this, what you are saying is that thatness in general is what God is, and this will necessarily include anything which has an instance. This gives us pantheism.

 

[paziego]

You could, of course, except that your posts have already given away the contrary. But you are right, my descriptions fall short.

You believe my posts show a lack of reason and curiosity? I don’t think you are at all justified in saying that, as my posts have been driven by rational arguments.

Why don’t you try responding to them rather than quibble about the way I represent myself or what kind of person I am?

Perhaps you have made as many assumptions about me as I have about you! I used to be an angry ex Catholic myself, though I never had the temerity to claim to be Catholic while posting my anti-Catholic sentiments on a public forum.

Care to debate me on the points raised? I don’t think arguing that the trinity is self-contradictory, that incomprehensible things cannot be believed, or that there is a dialectic of destruction of the other in Catholicism constitute anti-Catholic sentiments. Neither does pointing out the regrettable actions of the church in history. And even if they are, they have a clear justification and are legitimate sentiments and questions that demand an answer on a philosophy and apologetics forum.

This is specifically a philosophy forum and I am questioning the Catholic faith mostly from a philosophical standpoint. Furthermore, though I am not a practicing catholic I still have something of a catholic identity and my questioning of the problems I see in the faith arose in me as a catholic.

Of course I would have to believe that people leave Christ because there is something wrong with them. Why would anyone who was in their right mind separate themselves from the author of their life? But at the time we have convinced ourselves it is the right thing to do…

So I haven’t made incorrect assumptions about you. My judgement was sound and based on what the church encourages people to believe.

This is not a bad solution. At least it would communicate to the reader that you do not embrace the faith. This is evident from reading your posts, of course, but each one is labelled disingenuously.

As I have said, it is both a faith and a cultural identity. I am entitled to the label. Furthermore, my questions arose when I was a believer and my current line of questioning is a continuation of that initial doubt. My observations and arguments are from the inside. In a way I am here as a catholic, only as one who wants better answers than the one he has been getting at his parish.

It is also disingenuous to say you believe in love when it is not the case. That is not aimed at you personally, but at the theology of taqiyya and jihad. Even as I am writing this I can see at the top of the screen an advert that says “marching orders: a tactical plan for converting the world to Jesus Christ”; a book by Catholic Answers Press. Militarism and world conversion, exactly what I have been talking about.

The fascinating thing is you haven’t even accused me of misrepresenting the Catholic Church. Think about that.

 

[guanophore]

You believe my posts show a lack of reason and curiosity?

On the contrary! You are clearly a deep philosophical thinker.
There must be some reason a person so hostile to the Catholic faith would frequent a catholic forum and represent himself as affiliating with a faith that has been rejected. Reason and curiosity are as good a reason as any.

Why don’t you try responding to them rather than quibble about the way I represent myself or what kind of person I am?

I am rightly chastized for being off the thread topic. But I am responding to your posts, the attitude embodied within them, and the disingenuious affiliation under which they are posted.

 

[paziego]

On the contrary! You are clearly a deep philosophical thinker.
There must be some reason a person so hostile to the Catholic faith would frequent a catholic forum and represent himself as affiliating with a faith that has been rejected. Reason and curiosity are as good a reason as any.

I would not characterise my attitude to the faith as hostile. At least, not without further qualification. I disagree with its precepts and teachings, and I have a realist attitude about its role in history. Perhaps that is a form of hostility. I accept that it may be, but by the same token the Catholic faith would be hostile to non-Catholicism.

This is a Catholic apologetics forum, and being a catholic is not a perquisite for participation. If anything, it is here for the benefit of non-Catholics or ex-Catholics who wish to learn about the church and possibly return to it. At the same time, it is a place for debate about Catholic theology and history. As long as I am not misrepresenting the church or fabricating outright lies about it, and justifying the positions I do put forward, I cannot see what the problem is. Especially in the philosophy sub-forum.

I am rightly chastized for being off the thread topic. But I am responding to your posts, the attitude embodied within them, and the disingenuious affiliation under which they are posted.

The topic is the confusion in Catholicism, and also the hostility towards the outside world this causes. See the OP. In this discussion I am entitled to accept the second premise, that the negative definition of Catholicism leads to hostility to the ‘other’, and to debate why this is the case and what logic drives this trend. I cannot talk about this hostility without presenting it in a negative light, because by its very nature it is a negative thing.
As form my affiliation, it has little bearing on the arguments themselves and I have already explained several times now why it is what it is. I wrote what I wrote.

 

[o_mlly]

Thank you o_mlly, the “thatness”, “whatness” terminology is actually very useful.

The problem I have with your argument, however, is that existence cannot be a “whatness”. …

I think we’re agreed on God’s “thatness.” He exists.

If God’s “whatness” did not include Necessary Existence then you and I would not be having this debate.

 

[paziego]

I think we’re agreed on God’s “thatness.” He exists.

If God’s “whatness” did not include Necessary Existence then you and I would not be having this debate.

Oddly enough I do agree with you here, sort of. I don’t know what to say about God as it is understood in Catholicism, or Islam and Judaism for that matter. But I do believe that that the answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is that there cannot be “nothing”. I believe that, somehow, there is necessary existence, although I am not sure I would identify this with the Abrahamic god or even with a personal being. I guess this is where faith comes in.

So are you saying that “necessary existence” rather than “existence” itself is God’s whatness? Or at least part of it?

That is something I can agree with, and that Kant can also agree with. But it does not mean God exists. I am not denying he exists, just to be clear, I am just saying that that particular argument does not work. It would be the same as my realunicorn, which has necessary being as part of its whatness. We can say that if a realunicorn exists it exists necessarily, but we are entitled to reject the entire concept.

 

[littlestsouls2]

1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what it means to be a true Catholic. This website should be proof enough, but evidence abounds! Confusion reigns. Because of this, those who consider themselves Catholic and attempt to build their identities upon that idea are building on an ambiguous and shifting core. They cannot find a solid, rich, and nutrient-filled soil for them to root their egos.

Unanimity in belief is not always common among Catholics, Protestants and secularists. In the case of Catholics, this divergence of beliefs can often be explained by pride, poor catechesis, and ignorance. This is no argument against the clarity of Catholic orthodoxy.

A true Catholic is one who does God’s Will. This statement obviously requires clarification. Such light can be sought after in prayer, in various Catechisms, in the Doctors of the Church, in papal encyclicals, in many writings of the Saints, and in the guidance of a pious spiritual director.

God gives us what we need to a “true Catholic.” He does not give us the answer to every question. This is no surprise given the feebleness of the average person’s intellect (myself included).

2: Without a strong and clear identity, a negative definition emerges.
Because Catholics don’t know who they are, and consequently are unable to love themselves, they must turn outward to define what they are not. They hate the other, in order to give the ego something firm to grasp. Catholics are against such and such, they oppose so and so. Because they can’t agree, or even understand what they love they turn to hatred and fear in order to define themselves.

Those who know the Church well, generally love it. As Catholics, we should love God, His Church, and His Creation - including the greatest sinners. We should hate the world, the flesh (in so far as it cries out for sinful self-indulgence), and the Devil. In a word, we should hate sin and its occasions.

Pax!

 

[tonyrey]

Oddly enough I do agree with you here, sort of. I don’t know what to say about God as it is understood in Catholicism, or Islam and Judaism for that matter. But I do believe that that the answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is that there cannot be “nothing”. I believe that, somehow, there is necessary existence, although I am not sure I would identify this with the Abrahamic god or even with a personal being. I guess this is where faith comes in.

So are you saying that “necessary existence” rather than “existence” itself is God’s whatness? Or at least part of it?

That is something I can agree with, and that Kant can also agree with. But it does not mean God exists. I am not denying he exists, just to be clear, I am just saying that that particular argument does not work. It would be the same as my realunicorn, which has necessary being as part of its whatness. We can say that if a realunicorn exists it exists necessarily, but we are entitled to reject the entire concept.

The difference between “a realunicorn” and “God” is that the former explains nothing!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I am not sure I would identify this with the Abrahamic god or even with a personal being. I guess this is where faith comes in. . .

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by faith.

You said that you have, what I would paraphrase as, a sense that there is something more; that there is existence seems to stand out in your mind.
I find that my own existence, unique and irreplaceable in myself is pretty awesome.
Even the pain, how is it that it hurts? I do know all the physiology; that’s not what I’m talking about. Its undeniable reality is what I am getting at. Undeniable to me only. Who is me? The what’s and why’s of existence demand reality.

Some people have said they have reached God through reason.
I don’t understand how that can be, but that’s what some say.
I think God is reached through beauty and especially by love.

Ultimately, it is through the grace of the Holy Spirit that it makes sense.

As in everything, the more one knows, the more one realizes what one does not know. The ultimate mysteries reveal themselves in their reality.

Faith as belief is what others understand. Faith as trust, hope and a light illuminating the world is what happens within the person.

 

[paziego]

The difference between “a realunicorn” and “God” is that the former explains nothing!

Of course. The realunicorn thing was just to demonstrate a principle. It is an adaptation of an argument by James Harris, who used the example of a “remartian” - a real martian. I am in no way suggesting the concept of God is as trivial or gratuitous that of a realunicorn.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is silly, Pumpkin. Worship requires and act of the will. One does not worship by imagination, or by accident, but by choice. If the Monstrance is sitting on the altar, I will still kneel in worship (with no person near).

Are you going to try to assert that these Christians having an altar call are worshipping the klenex boxes?!

Worship is not defined by the hapless or ignorant onlookers, but within the heart of the person. Do you honestly believe that your “description” can replace the choices of the person praying?

What are the people in this picture doing?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Obviously, they’re murdering some poor guy by taking out his heart and holding it up to the sun. That is literally what they are doing. See my point, or do I need to spell it out?

It is an awfully great deal of human experience to set aside. Any researcher of human phenomena would consider such a large population statistically consistent.

On the contrary. The Catholic Church teaches that truth can be found in most.

Yes, the NT writers and early fathers did write about paganism and pagan gods having ties to the devil.

If you’re so concerned about the lived experiences of your fellow humans, then the thought that the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived did not believe in Catholicism should keep you up at night. You reject the experience of a billion Muslims, a billion non-religious,a billion hindus, hundreds of millions of protestants, hundreds of millions of Chinese traditional believers, hundreds of millions of buddhists, hundreds of millions of animists of various sorts, and hundreds of millions of believers in thousands of other religious traditions.

 

[grannymh]

I would not characterise my attitude to the faith as hostile. At least, not without further qualification. I disagree with its precepts and teachings, and I have a realist attitude about its role in history. Perhaps that is a form of hostility. I accept that it may be, but by the same token the Catholic faith would be hostile to non-Catholicism.

This is a Catholic apologetics forum, and being a catholic is not a perquisite for participation. If anything, it is here for the benefit of non-Catholics or ex-Catholics who wish to learn about the church and possibly return to it. At the same time, it is a place for debate about Catholic theology and history.

Would you mind if I jump in here, since you did refer to Catholic theology and history? I would say that one of the essentials of confusion about the Catholic Church is that the history, especially early history, of Catholic theology, not precepts, not teachings, is rarely known or understood.

Therefore, I am most interested in how you understand the history of Catholic theological doctrines.

Regarding terminology. A doctrine is the defined base for Catholic teachings. Thus, in a sense, doctrines and teachings can be interchanged. However, when people abuse Catholic teachings or commit evil acts, that does not change theological doctrines. Precepts would be based on both Catholic teachings and Catholic doctrines. History usually refers to points in time.

So, how did Catholic theology come about historically?