The Confusion of Catholicism

[jmcrae]

1. Think about what you just said! If that doesn’t cause cognitive dissonance for you, then I am truly sorry for your life circumstances. If you are surrounded by so many evil and corrupt people that it is easy for you to believe “there are no good people” I sincerely hope you can escape your situation and find greener pastures.

But, that’s not what you mean, right? You mean there are no perfect people. I agree with you there of course! Of course we fall short of the glory of God, we’re not God! We’re imperfect, but that’s OK. God is not unreasonable, and doesn’t expect us to be perfect. The writer of Proverbs tells us “A righteous man sins seven times a day…” The difference between the righteous and the wicked is that the righteous repent and try again. They never give up trying to do the right thing.

Without perfection you can’t get into Heaven. God isn’t a teacher handing out passing and failing grades; He’s a craftsman trying to get the joints to fit. If you don’t fit perfectly into the joint called Heaven, you go into the fire.

1. So you say, but you have no proof, so I don’t believe this. If it were true, Catholics would be morally and spiritually better than other human beings. Further, those who receive the sacraments more frequently would be better, but they’re not (in my experience). Unless…you mean to say that grace doesn’t increase goodness but is merely favored bestowed upon cronies.

In my experience and in my reading, Catholics are either way ahead or way behind. The greatest Saints and the worst tyrants all attended Catholic schools when they were children; those in the middle went elsewhere.

As to the rest, you seem determined to refuse any consolation, so I won’t offer any.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s begin, again, with this scripture that you so generously offered to this thread:

"If anyone teaches other doctrine and does not agree with the sound teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the teaching that promotes godliness,4he is conceited, understanding nothing, but has a sick interest in disputes and arguments over words. From these come envy, quarreling, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant disagreement among people whose minds are depraved and deprived of the truth, who imagine that godliness is a way to material gain.I Tim. 6

Here, you are raising suspicions. You have failed to show where I deviate from teachings, and now you are saying that they are there, but leaving it up to people to do so. If there are deviations, guanophore, please stop making your accusations and prove it. I have asked at least half a dozen times, now, and you have come up with nothing. My saying that people are basically good does not diverge from Church teachings.

I can understand that you do not see/perceive/admit/incorporate the evidence that has been offered by myself and other members.

In fact your formulation that “people are basically good” does raise concerns that your perceptions diverge from the teachings of the Church. It does not seem to reflect an adequate grasp of what the Church teaches.

My saying that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God does not diverge.

It diverges massively.

Saying that I do not take revelations literally does not diverge.

It is true that there are many levels that need to be included when interpreting apocalyptic literature, but the literal is one of them. Your refusal to accept this level of interpretation is a divergence.

Your comments are uncharitable. Are all people of your order so disrespectful as to not shake a person’s hand? I think not.

Certainly not. We are actually quite affectionate. But affection and handshaking does not create communion. Unity is created by the Holy Spirit, when members of the body are in right relationship with Christ.

If you are trying to be charitable, do not make unfounded accusations and leave it up to readers to find the "deviations".

The observations I have made about where your posts deviate from the Teachings are well founded. I leave it to the readers because it is clear you are not willing or able to accept any responsibility for deviating.

Is this part of the Benedictine rule to behave as you are doing?  Is this the Benedictine idea of "charity"?

There is a very high level of accountability in my order, and those who hold ideas and actions, as you have, that are contrary to the teachings of Christ are confronted, corrected, disciplined and catechized. Of course I do not expect anyone here at CAF to hold to such expectations.

But it is not charitable to confirm people in error. You are creating humanistic doctrines and attempting to promote them here on CAF as “Catholic”. It is important for readers to understand that your assertions are dangerous deviations. If you look at the stats for this thread, you can see that there are 13 times as many persons reading as there are posting. That is a lot of readers that are at risk of being misled by people claiming to be “Catholic” in their affiliation, who do not give Catholic answers, and are not here to give Catholic answers.

The Church does not deny that unity can be enhanced by holding hands.

You might as well say that the Church does not deny that unity can be enhanced by parishioners doing cartwheels down the aisle on their way to find a seat in the pew.

The Church denies things when it becomes critical that the faithful will be led astray. The Church has already defined that unity occurs through the action of the Holy Spirit, when the members of the Body are “in Christ”.

The holding of hands during Mass is likely an import from 12 step programs and charismatic prayer groups. It is not included in the GIRM, and is not properly a part of the Mass.

If you have doctrine that shows otherwise, put it forth. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting the Church and its doctrine.

One Sheep, I have witnessed a great deal of liturgical abuse since Vatican 2. I have seen parishioners dancing through the sanctuary in leotards. Holding hands is minor in comparison. These are human practices that are not always appropriate to the celebration of the Eucharist. It does not require a “doctrine” to recognize that they are not part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. Can you produce anything from the GIRM, the Early Church Fathers, the Scritpures, history of the liturgies, or any official Catholic document that encourages the holding of hands?

I don’t think that holding hands is inherintly destructive, and I have done it myself in many venues, including celebration of the Eucharist, but there is nothing in Church teaching that promotes or prescribes this behavior. Neither is there any evidence that it “creates unity” as you are asserting.

You do not see any unity in hand-holding, that is okay, but if someone else does, it is not “contrary to Church teachings”. Again, you are making unfounded accusations.

You are free to interpret hand holding as a sign of unity, inappropriate as it may be, just like Pumpkin is free to assert that Catholics are “kneeling before a man” when the Precious Body is elevated. I am not making any “accusations”. I am observing that the assertion fo holding of hands creating or promoting unity has no basis in Church teaching, and is a false and misleading presumption.

 

[guanophore]

And by our “one faith” a person cannot find a unity, in part, by holding hands? Please find the teaching that says this. It does not exist, guanophore.

No, One Sheep. One person may subjectively and individually feel joined/connnected/and in communion when holding hands has no equity with the facts. The subjective feeling of connnectedness is a human phenomena, and has no bearing on the spiritual reality.

Spiritual reality is that unity is created by the Holy Spirit between members of the Body that are “in Christ”. People that hold hands with each other may, in their hearts, reject some of the Teachings of Christ, which is a wound to unity.

And the Holy Spirit may actually inspire people to hold hands, which may help create unity found in Love. Are you open to such action by the Spirit, or are you closed to such action?

I agree the HS may inspire people to hold hands, but you are wrong when you claim that hand holding “creates unity”. Unity in the Body is created by the HS when each person individually is in Christ.

What does the Church teach about respecting other people, guanophore?  If a person says, "I am a follower of Christ", but that person has some different ideas about practices and interpretations, does that mean you cannot shake his hand?

I can shake the hand of anyone.

Does the Church teach that?  No, it does not.  However, you refuse my hand, you let the words get in the way.  Are you saying that we are to remain in "constant disagreement" as in 1Tim6?  That is not my wish, guanophore.

I do not wish to be separated as we are either, OS, but I am not at liberty to reject aspects of the One Faith inorder to purport that we have a unity that does not exist.

You words there are not supported by doctrine, they are only opinion. Humans can create division, and you seem determined to do so with me, refusing to even shake my hand. So, humans can create unity. God does not divide the Church, guanophore, humans do.

I agree that humans can, and do, create division. Humans cannot create the unity to which you refer, though. We can cooperate with His grace, so that the unity is preserved, but the only way it exists is the action of the HS, joining us because we are each in right relatinship with Christ.

 This is the rationale for all the many, many divisions in Protestantism and in the history of the Church.

I agree completely! The divisions are created by human beings who erroneously believe that humans can create unity.

I find unity in hand-holding (and, of course, in the teachings of Christ) and you find my opinions a denial of the teachings.

It seems that your definition of unity diverges from what the Church teaches. Of course, you have the God given freedom to create whatever doctrines and practices your heart desires. If you wish to believe that unity is created by holding hands, that is your perogative. The church does not teach this.

I ask without accusation, but with curiosity: Do you have the right to say that I am denying the Teachings of Christ without providing **doctrinal proof** against something I have said?

OS, you are the one asserting an innovative practice/doctrine. It is incumbent upon you to support your position. Show me where, in the One Divine Deposit of faith, it is taught that holding hands creates unity in the Body of Christ.

If so, on whose authority?  Your superior?  Your Bishop?  The Pope?  Who gave you the authority to make such a judgment?  The CAF?  God?

You have hit on the core of the matter. There is no authority in the Church that promotes the concept that holding hands creates unity. You are your own authority, promoting doctrine/practice that departs from the teachings of the Church.

Oh, and you must have missed this part of my last post:

Let’s shake on it, guanophore, adherence to “sound teachings of our Lord” does not lead to disputes over words. Here are some “sound teachings” we can agree on: Love God. Love one another. Have mercy. Welcome strangers, everyone! Be charitable. Be merciful. Recognize that we who are baptized and have committed themselves to Christ are part of the body. Believe in the Creed.

It may perhaps be part of your fantasy world, but those who are baptized have not all “commited themselves to Christ”. All one need do is view a few posts on this thread to see that this is not the case. Perhaps it is essential to your mental health and recovery plan to believe this. We have persons baptized Catholic that utterly reject the teachings of the Church. I do not think you are one of them. You embrace the ones that feed your emotional needs, and create some to cover the rest of the appetite.
OneSheep;13698357:

Well, it sounds like you would rather continue the argument. Why?

Please, give it another think.

I want the 13 people reading the thread that are not posting to be clear that what you are promoting is not Catholic.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . People that hold hands with each other may, in their hearts, reject some of the Teachings of Christ, which is a wound to unity. . . I agree that humans can, and do, create division. Humans cannot create the unity to which you refer, though. We can cooperate with His grace, so that the unity is preserved, but the only way it exists is the action of the HS, joining us because we are each in right relatinship with Christ. . .

Luke 12:51-53 - Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Fascism and communism are attempts by mankind to create unity without God.
They demand a surrender of individuality to the group giving the person the illusion of closeness, power and identity, while depriving him/her of those very things.
In contrast, through love, through surrender to God we are brought closer to our true self who is Christ-like, the person we were meant to be. We become ourselves.
Unity lies in the one true vine - Jesus Christ.
In order to grow in Christ we must forsake our sinfulness and the only way to do that is to call on our Saviour.

 

[jmcrae]

I would add to my argument that God, described as existence itself or as a being whose essence is existence, would imply that this God is not a person or intellect at all.
If God is existence itself he is not a whatness of any kind. He would be pure thatness.

Which is perhaps why he identified himself to Moses as “that I am,” it seems to me. (Personal opinion)

So as you can see, I agree that there is the possibility or arbitrarily positing beings who must necessarily have an instance. But I am not agreeing to a being whose essence is existence. Such a being would cease to be a being as we think of one.

God is not a creature. He is a spirit. (Not a vapour, or an invisible man.) You are correct that he does not exist in the same way that his creation exists.

 

[Hunho]

What are the people in this picture doing?

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/aztecs.gif

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?

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.

PumpkinCookie,*** this*** is what the Blessed Virgin Mary came to Mexico as Our Lady of Guadalupe to end. The Conquistadors and their guns did the physical job and Our Lady of Guadalupe did the spiritual job.

 

[Gorgias]

I saw your claim that no one addressed your post, and was intrigued…

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

That would mean ‘what’, not ‘who’, then, right?

(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

It would seem to resolve the issue if it were precisely the opposite: God is what the persons are; who they are is ‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’.

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.

That doesn’t hold up; the relation is too simplistic, and you’re not showing why it must be the case. Just thinking off the top of my head, I might propose a different solution:

Take ‘essence’ and ‘existence’ as relations. By definition, Essence(God)-> God. Moreover, Essence(Father)-> God. Essence(Son)-> God. Essense(Spirit)->God.

This doesn’t imply that Father=Son=Spirit, but just that the relations have identical values: Essense(Father) = Essense(Son) = Essense(Spirit) = God.

(In terms of humans, Essence(Gorgias)->Human. Essence(paziego)->Human. That doesn’t imply anything more than our essences (that is, ‘what’ we are) are the same.)

But, there’s another relation: Existence. Existence is ‘who’ we are. Existence(Gorgias)->The-human-named-Gorgias. Existence(paziego)->The-human-named-paziego. We are distinct, because although our essence is the same, we are not the same being.

For God, of course, Existence(God)->God. He’s a ‘singleton’ (in object-oriented programming terms). The class has only one member, so the class is functionally identical to its instance. To ask something about the class is to ask it of its single existing member.

How can we understand the differences between ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’, then? I would answer that there’s another relation – one that is trivial for creatures, since it always gives the same answer: Person. So, Person(Gorgias)->Gorgias, and for all creatures, Person(x)->x. But, by definition, Person(God) resolves into a set: Person(God)->{‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’}.

Alternatively we can say that what we mean by ‘the son is god’, or ‘the father is god’ needs fuller explanation.

My notion seems to resolve that problem.

For all members (x={‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’}) in Person(God), Essence(x)=Existence(x)=God.

The math seems to hold up. Can you see any problems with it?

 

[Gorgias]

What are the people in this picture doing?

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/aztecs.gif

Obviously, they’re murdering some poor guy by taking out his heart and holding it up to the sun.

Or, maybe he’s performing heart transplant surgery.

That is literally what they are doing. See my point, or do I need to spell it out?

No, we see your point: one can (willfully or in ignorance) mis-interpret a picture in many ways, even if someone who knows what’s really going on says that something different is happening. Oh, wait… that’s not what you meant?

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.

Why should it? Millions of persons thought the earth was flat. Millions thought that the sun revolved around the earth. They were mistaken. So what?

 

[OneSheep]

I can understand that you do not see/perceive/admit/incorporate the evidence that has been offered by myself and other members.

The observations I have made about where your posts deviate from the Teachings are well founded.

In fact your formulation that “people are basically good” does raise concerns that your perceptions diverge from the teachings of the Church. It does not seem to reflect an adequate grasp of what the Church teaches.

Genesis 1:31New International Version (NIV)

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

It is through the Spirit that we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good - St Augustine.

As with all your accusations, you have no authority, and they are only your opinions.

I have given you a good number of my own opinions on spiritual issues, and I have never claimed them to be doctrinal, including the observation that holding hands can create a sense of unity.

The observations I have made about where your posts deviate from the Teachings are well founded.

If they are “well-founded”, prove it, please stop your assertions and prove it!

There is a very high level of accountability in my order, and those who hold ideas and actions, as you have, that are contrary to the teachings of Christ are confronted, corrected, disciplined and catechized. Of course I do not expect anyone here at CAF to hold to such expectations.

Another unfounded accusation in bold.

Okay, I am ready to hold you accountable. I stand by every word I wrote on this thread, do you stand by yours? Please show this thread to your superior, and tell me his reaction. I cannot imagine anyone of authority in our great Church approving of what you are doing here.

But it is not charitable to confirm people in error. You are creating humanistic doctrines and attempting to promote them here on CAF as “Catholic”. It is important for readers to understand that your assertions are dangerous deviations.

Your saying that I am “creating doctrines” is another accusation. What you are rejecting is my opinions.

At the beginning of this post, I addressed one of the “dangerous deviations” that I have never stated were doctrine, but you say go against doctrine, that I am “rejecting Christ”. If that is the case, the writer of Genesis rejected Christ, and so did St. Augustine.

One Sheep, I have witnessed a great deal of liturgical abuse since Vatican 2. I have seen parishioners dancing through the sanctuary in leotards. Holding hands is minor in comparison. These are human practices that are not always appropriate to the celebration of the Eucharist. It does not require a “doctrine” to recognize that they are not part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. Can you produce anything from the GIRM, the Early Church Fathers, the Scritpures, history of the liturgies, or any official Catholic document that encourages the holding of hands?

Guanophore, the issue is not that I am claiming that holding hands creates unity is doctrinal. I have never made the claim. The issue at hand is that you are saying that my observations and opinions I write “reject the teachings of the Church” or other such unfounded, uncharitable accusations.

I suggest you read Good Goats: Healing our Image of God. It has an imprimatur, and it will probably cause you to blow a gasket. I think, guanophore, that it would be helpful for you to get used to encountering Catholics with a different spirituality than your own. Open your mind. Did you know that is what the root of “repent” means? It means to open your mind. While you are at it, open your heart.

I am not making any “accusations”…

You are not? Okay, observe, read, and look at these:

If you have Catholicity, it got lost.

One Sheep. Here you have claimed you are Catholic while consistently denying essential doctrines of the faith.

I think the difficulty is that you judge persons to be “in Christ” who are not in actually "in Christ. You include those in the Commuion of Saints who are not in communion with the saints.
Jesus called evil when He saw it. You reject His teachings.
.

. It is clear from your posts that you have rejected essential teachings of the Church, so such a level of communion will not exist between us unless and until you set aside your heretical views.

. In saying this, you are denying the Truth that is in the Scriptures, and replacing it with the Truth of the One Sheep.

You are basically saying that what is written in Scripture is not true.

I can clearly see that the content of your posts deviates with Church Teaching. I was just listeing to Catholic radio today, when they were saying how it is possible to willingly and knowingly reject God. It made me realize that your formulation makes a mockery of God. It means that God has supposedly given us a choice that really does not exist. It makes Jesus a liar, for teaching that such a thing is possible.

You adhere to One Sheep’s truth. You have redefined terms, and created your own theology that fits together for you,

Your posts delcare that you do not embrace the Apostolic faith (or only parts of it).

You have denied the doctrines of the faith, but you do not see it that way. Your forumlations are not consistent with what the Church teaches…

These are only a partial list of your accusations. All are unfounded, all presented without any Catholic teachings to back them up.

Now, show this post to your superior. Tell me what he says. Show him all your posts.

 

[paziego]

I saw your claim that no one addressed your post, and was intrigued…

I am not a logician, so you will have to help me through this one step by step.

That would mean ‘what’, not ‘who’, then, right?

It means we can either be claiming that “God” is a who and a what, or just a what.

It would seem to resolve the issue if it were precisely the opposite: God is what the persons are; who they are is ‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’.

This would not resolve the issue. If God is what father son and holy spirit are then we are saying all three have a godness about them. We have three gods, unless we explain some sort of relation between them that makes them one “who”.

Take ‘essence’ and ‘existence’ as relations. By definition, Essence(God)-> God. Moreover, Essence(Father)-> God. Essence(Son)-> God. Essense(Spirit)->God.

This doesn’t imply that Father=Son=Spirit, but just that the relations have identical values: Essense(Father) = Essense(Son) = Essense(Spirit) = God.

Ok. But are you claiming God is one being? What makes the persons distinct if they all have the same essence?

What do you mean by identical values?

(In terms of humans, Essence(Gorgias)->Human. Essence(paziego)->Human. That doesn’t imply anything more than our essences (that is, ‘what’ we are) are the same.)

But, there’s another relation: Existence. Existence is ‘who’ we are. Existence(Gorgias)->The-human-named-Gorgias. Existence(paziego)->The-human-named-paziego. We are distinct, because although our essence is the same, we are not the same being.

It is getting confusing here with the term “being”. We can say humans are a kind of being, and we can also say you and I aren’t the same token being. Is God a being in the first or second sense?

Why didn’t you introduce the notion of person at this stage? paziego and gorgias are persons , aren’t they?

I am not sure that existence is “who” we are. What individuates me are properties exclusive to me, the characteristic modifications of the human essence pertaining to me Once I die I am still not you, even if I don’t exist.

What properties individuate the Trinitarian persons?

For God, of course, Existence(God)->God. He’s a ‘singleton’ (in object-oriented programming terms). The class has only one member, so the class is functionally identical to its instance. To ask something about the class is to ask it of its single existing member.

How can we understand the differences between ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’, then? I would answer that there’s another relation – one that is trivial for creatures, since it always gives the same answer: Person. So, Person(Gorgias)->Gorgias, and for all creatures, Person(x)->x. But, by definition, Person(God) resolves into a set: Person(God)->{‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’}.

This is still unclear to me. It seems to be restating the formula that God is father, son and holy spirit. But his is the thing we are trying to understand.

For humans you are saying, essence (class of being)-> human. Token (particular being) → paziego.

And then for God, essence (class of being)->Deity. Token (particular Deity) → father, son and holy spirit.

This is an identity claim, and requires further explanation of the relation the composing persons have with the token being they represent. You need to explain why these are the same being. It is either father, son and holy spirit as three different tokens, or it is God=[father, son and holy spirit]. The latter does not solve the problem, as it requires God to be a person with three internal aspects, and this is not consonant with Trinitarian orthodoxy.

You have said that different humans can have the same essence but different being. Surely if father, son and holy spirit have the same essence but aren’t identical to each other they are also different beings?

For all members (x={‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’}) in Person(God), Essence(x)=Existence(x)=God.

God is not a person. If you say he is then father, son and holy spirit become parts or modes. This seems to be what the formula is stating.

I apologise if I have completely misunderstood and mangled you explanation. As I have said, I am not a logician and I find some of this a struggle. The terminology is also confusing.

 

[paziego]

In order to prove me wrong, the basic premise that you must prove is:
*
The existence and properties of things that transcend nature can be dis-proven by things in nature.*

Good luck.

We have already touched upon this difficulty,

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

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

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

If you want to say that the heavens simply work differently, and that therefore we cannot disprove anything claimed about them, go ahead.
If you do this you are also giving up any right to consider revelation authentic, other than the fact you may find it personally appealing. Even if Jesus was who he said he was, understanding what he was talking about would be impossible because his frame of logic would be completely inaccessible to us. And even then, we would have no way of gauging whether he was who he said he was because we have no knowledge of the divine to start with.

Alternatively, if you say God gives us a natural connection to understand the divine, then the trinity objections are vulnerable to our own logical analysis.

 

[paziego]

My notion seems to resolve that problem.

For all members (x={‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Spirit’}) in Person(God), Essence(x)=Existence(x)=God.

The math seems to hold up. Can you see any problems with it?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/#Tri

Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., reflecting on the Council of Toledo’s formulation, remarks that it “possesses great puzzling power” (Plantinga 1989, 22). No doubt this is an understatement. The doctrine of the trinity is deeply puzzling, and it is so in a way that has led some of Christianity’s critics to claim that it is outright incoherent. Indeed, it looks like we can derive a contradiction from the doctrine, as follows: The doctrine states that there is exactly one God; that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God; and that Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. Now, ‘is God’ either means ‘is identical God’ or ‘is divine’. Either way, however, we have a problem. If the Father is identical to God and the Son is identical to God, then (by the transitivity of identity) the Father is identical to the Son, contrary to the doctrine. On the other hand, if the Father is divine and the Son is divine and the Father is distinct from the Son, then there are at least two divine persons—i.e., two Gods—also contrary to the doctrine. Either way, then, the doctrine seems incoherent.

…Or why not say that Father, Son, and Spirit count as one God in just the way that the various items in your shopping cart might count as “one order”? The answer, in short, is that the Christian tradition has set boundaries on how the doctrine is to be explicated, and these sorts of models fall afoul of those boundaries. Two of the most salient “errors” to be avoided are modalism and tritheism. In the words of the so-called Athanasian Creed, the doctrine of the trinity is to be understood without either “confounding the persons” or “dividing the substance”. Modalism confounds the persons. It is the view that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere manifestations, modes, or roles played by the one and only God. Tritheism divides the substance. It is a bit tricky (because controversial) to say exactly what tritheism, or polytheism more generally, is. (For discussion, see Rea 2006.) But whatever else it might be, it is certainly implied by the view that there are three distinct divine substances. Assuming the items in your shopping cart count as multiple distinct substances, then, the problem with the shopping cart analogy is that it suggests polytheism.

 

[paziego]

That doesn’t hold up; the relation is too simplistic, and you’re not showing why it must be the case.

It does hold and it is valid. It may be open to objections but you cannot dismiss it out of hand like that.

Take ‘essence’ and ‘existence’ as relations. By definition, Essence(God)-> God. Moreover, Essence(Father)-> God. Essence(Son)-> God. Essense(Spirit)->God.

This suggests three, or perhaps four gods. No unity between these has been demonstrated. All this claims is that there are three to four beings with a divine nature.

For God, of course, Existence(God)->God. He’s a ‘singleton’ (in object-oriented programming terms). The class has only one member, so the class is functionally identical to its instance. To ask something about the class is to ask it of its single existing member.

Sorry, but you cannot make this leap. You are slipping the conclusion into the argument without warrant. There is not any evidence that God is a singleton, as from what you have put forward so far we have three to four candidates. Three to four entities with a divine essence and with distinct identities, just as you and I share a human essence but are not identical tokens.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Or, maybe he’s performing heart transplant surgery.

No, we see your point: one can (willfully or in ignorance) mis-interpret a picture in many ways, even if someone who knows what’s really going on says that something different is happening. Oh, wait… that’s not what you meant?

This reply is not just for you, but also the others discussing the pictures.

Yes, this is the difficulty. Some Catholics say that what is obviously and manifestly the worship of an object is in fact the worship of the second person of the trinity. Those people need to demonstrate that they are “someone who knows what’s really going on.” I am not aware of any such demonstration, so rather than subscribe to a conspiracy theory, I cannot avoid common sense. I view Catholicism as a conspiracy theory of history, spirituality, and human nature. It seems to me to deny what is obvious in favor of the mystical, the incoherent, and the hidden. That’s fine, but in order to believe a conspiracy theory, I need excellent evidence. All I have is hearsay. Not good enough.

In the case with the picture above, you are right, it could be any number of things. The person who wants to argue that it is a heart transplant needs to provide evidence and reason to persuade me to believe. The person who believes it is a cannibalistic ritual needs to do the same, a religious rite, the same. However, it straightforwardly depicts the murder of a man by removal of the heart. We don’t need any special insight to know this. We don’t need indoctrination or catechism to know this. It is obvious from our lived experience. To take the heart out of a human being is to murder that human being. To kneel and adore an object is to worship an object.

Now, I’m not denying that what is depicted in either case may be something more profound, but I can’t believe it based on the mere assertion of a self-proclaimed authority.

Why should it? Millions of persons thought the earth was flat. Millions thought that the sun revolved around the earth. They were mistaken. So what?

Exactly! Guanophore suggested that I was foolishly discounting the experience of millions of Catholics throughout ~1,700 years of history. I then suggested that he was foolishly discounting the experience of most of humanity throughout all of history. Here you observe that the opinions of human beings throughout much of history can be wrong. Yes, precisely.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You are projecting your assumptions into the interpretation. How do you know he did not volunteer himself to be sacrificed? How do you know that the offering of a heart to the Sun God was not believed to be a source of eternal life?

Of course we can assume, based on our own modern interpolation into the event, that what you are saying is true, but this is not a culturally or historically appropriate hermeneutic.

I’m not making any assumptions, I’m trying to understand the picture with as few preconceived notions as possible. Even if he volunteered, consent does not make murder acceptable. You wouldn’t accept physician assisted suicide as non-murder, so I doubt you’re ready to accept voluntary religious execution as non-murder.

I don’t care about the subjective inner emotional states of the people depicted. I am trying to describe what is depicted, objectively. Objectively, some people are removing the heart from a person thereby killing him. Objectively, Catholic mass is the worship and adoration of an object performed by kneeling before the men who uphold that object while prayers are addressed to that object. If I were to videotape it and send it to any human beings who are not indoctrinated insiders, I am certain they would affirm my description.

I do not believe the Christians in the earlier photo are worshipping the kleenex boxes, or the podium, or the band. But if I were to use your method, I could assume any one of these possibilities.

Observation, although helpful, is insufficient. Observation tells us nothing about the motivations, values, beliefs and intentions of the person. This is one reason that scientific method is insufficient as a tool of investigation for such phenomena.

Why would it? The Catholic Church teaches that every soul is given sufficient grace to be saved. It is not my job to give them grace, so why would my peace of mind be disturbed? We are His creatures, and He has provided a method of attaining eternal fellowship with Him.

I do nothing nof the kind!

You did not answer my question. Are you asserting that the people in the photo are worshipping the kleenex boxes?

It is not appropriate to make assumptions about the attitude of the heart in another human being. When a person kneels in prayer, who are any of us to judge/condemn them because we are looking at what is within their eyesight?

^ That’s the image you’re talking about, right? At first glance it seems like the people are suffering from some sort of illness, like they’re doubled over in pain. Second thought, it could be that they are exceedingly sad or possibly exhausted. Third thought, they are engaged in an act of worship of something that is in the direction in which they are kneeling. Possibly Satyha Sai Baba has manifested himself but is off-screen. Possibly they are adoring an invisible flying spaghetti monster from outerspace. Who knows?! It doesn’t matter. Objectively, there are people kneeling and bowing on the floor. That is literally what is happening.

Last point, you suggested that I shouldn’t reject the experience of Catholics. I then suggested that if you were so concerned about the experience of others, then you would think twice about being Catholic since the vast majority of humans who have ever lived did not believe Catholicism. So, you respond by saying you don’t reject their experience, but you’re equivocating on the meaning of “reject.” I think you reject Islam, because you do not accept Muhammad as his final prophet and worship an idolatrous trinity of gods. I think you do not accept any other religious dogma unless it confirms your dogmatic beliefs. I consider this rejection even if you choose to consider it acceptance.

It is sort of like this:

You: I’m a vegan, eating meat is evil!
Me: So then you reject hamburgers as evil.
You: No, of course not, I accept them : )
Me: What??
You: I accept them in so far as they are righteous and comport with the Truth.
Me: What does that mean?
You: Well, hamburgers include lettuce, tomatoes, and onions sometimes, and those are “shadowy images” of vegan-appropriate foods, so therefore I accept hamburgers.
Me: I guess the terms “accept” and “reject” mean very different things to both of us!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’d like to propose a new method for this thread. Let’s limit our replies to 10 or fewer sentences each (excluding quotes from scholarly sources). I have gone first here. So many words are being written, but shockingly little worthwhile dialogue is being produced. It’s mostly obfuscation, avoidance, and equivocation. Wouldn’t it be more interesting to stay on task? Here’s a refresher:

Is the essence of Catholicism and/or atheism confusing or ambiguous, why or why not? Do rigid ideologies seem to produce hatred in the souls of those who hold them, why or why not? Is the ambiguity (if it exists) related to the hate (if it exists)?

 

[OneSheep]

I agree the HS may inspire people to hold hands, but you are wrong when you claim that hand holding “creates unity”. Unity in the Body is created by the HS when each person individually is in Christ.

Good morning, guanophore,

Holding hands can create a feeling of unity, but I think you don’t like holding hands with people, especially during the liturgy. There is nothing “wrong” about what I said. You continue to create a straw man and knock him down. I am not making doctrinal claims, and there is nothing in the CCC or any Catholic doctrine that says holding hands cannot help create a feeling of unity, and cannot be inspired by the unifying action of the Spirit.

I can shake the hand of anyone.

I do not wish to be separated as we are either, OS, but I am not at liberty to reject aspects of the One Faith inorder to purport that we have a unity that does not exist.

Okay, I am not asking you to reject any aspects of the One Faith. I am only asking that you not get caught up in words and shake my hand as a fellow Catholic. We can agree to disagree on things, guanophore. Your accusations are loaded with presumptions.

General Guidelines

Always abide by the forum rules.
Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
**Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner**.

** It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs**
** It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.**
And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Do these guidelines look familiar, guanophore? Would you have me make presumptions about your opinions and then accuse you of “loss of Catholicity” or “calling Jesus a liar” or “rejecting Church teachings”? Ask questions, guanophore, if you read something you don’t like. Please do not assume.

I agree completely! The divisions are created by human beings who erroneously believe that humans can create unity.

Humans, through the help of the Holy Spirit, can create unity in our world, between nations, religions, races, all people. If you have Catholic doctrine that says otherwise, please bring it forth.

OS, you are the one asserting an innovative practice/doctrine. It is incumbent upon you to support your position. Show me where, in the One Divine Deposit of faith, it is taught that holding hands creates unity in the Body of Christ.

I cannot show you, guanophore. I never claimed that it was taught. It is my opinion that holding hands can help create unity. When it is forced against a person’s will, it does not.

Now, in this post you responded to, my last comment was this:

Let’s shake on it, guanophore, adherence to “sound teachings of our Lord” does not lead to disputes over words. Here are some “sound teachings” we can agree on: Love God. Love one another. Have mercy. Welcome strangers, everyone! Be charitable. Be merciful. Recognize that we who are baptized and have committed themselves to Christ are part of the body. Believe in the Creed.

Aren’t those “words” enough? Or would you rather continue the argument?

Well, it sounds like you would rather continue the argument. Why? Can we agree on the words I wrote above? Pope Francis asks us to begin with what we have in common. Do we have those words in common?

This was your response:

It may perhaps be part of your fantasy world, but those who are baptized have not all “commited themselves to Christ”. All one need do is view a few posts on this thread to see that this is not the case. Perhaps it is essential to your mental health and recovery plan to believe this. We have persons baptized Catholic that utterly reject the teachings of the Church. I do not think you are one of them. You embrace the ones that feed your emotional needs, and create some to cover the rest of the appetite.

I am going to presume, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you agree with all the rest of the “sound teachings” I presented in the paragraph above and that you are doing unto me as you would have done unto you. Okay, I think that you are saying that you do not recognize that all of us who are baptized and have committed themselves to Christ are part of the body. Well then, if you agree on everything else, can we shake on it? After all, you said you could “shake the hand of anyone” and that you do “not wish to be separated”.

Can you put the differences aside and shake my hand? Let’s call it “enough” on this argument.

God Bless your day.

 

[davidv]

I’d like to propose a new method for this thread. Let’s limit our replies to 10 or fewer sentences each (excluding quotes from scholarly sources). I have gone first here. So many words are being written, but shockingly little worthwhile dialogue is being produced. It’s mostly obfuscation, avoidance, and equivocation. Wouldn’t it be more interesting to stay on task? Here’s a refresher:

Is the essence of Catholicism and/or atheism confusing or ambiguous, why or why not?

Essence of Catholicism: Jesus, the son of God suffered, died and rose from the dead to save us from our sins and show how to live free from the slavery of sin.

Essence of atheism: There is no God

Neither of these is confusing nor ambiguous.

Do rigid ideologies seem to produce hatred in the souls of those who hold them, why or why not?

I don’t know. However, ideologies appear to be the source of some apparently hateful actions.

Is the ambiguity (if it exists) related to the hate (if it exists)?

Since there is no ambiguity, there is no relation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Essence of Catholicism: Jesus, the son of God suffered, died and rose from the dead to save us from our sins and show how to live free from the slavery of sin.

This is unintelligible unless a person accepts many doubtful, controversial, and contested concepts like: Catholicism, Jesus, son of God, rising from the dead, freedom, slavery, and sin. Each of these terms has widely differing referents depending upon whom one asks. The meaning of the statement offered is therefore ambiguous, since there is no widespread common understanding of the terms.

Essence of atheism: There is no God

Neither of these is confusing nor ambiguous.

I don’t know. However, ideologies appear to be the source of some apparently hateful actions.

A naked negation of an ambiguous concept (God) is hardly an unambiguous essence! Merely professing a lack of belief in something or other can’t rightly be counted as much of an ideology with which to identify oneself in a positive way. Why do you think rigid ideologies are the source of hateful actions?

Since there is no ambiguity, there is no relation.

Then what causes the hate? What causes atheists and rigid Catholics to bait and berate each other? “Sin” isn’t a good enough explanation since it doesn’t account for specifics as I have pointed out dozens of pages ago.

 

[OneSheep]

No it would most likely be disrespectful to refuse a hand shake here. It’s a very common greeting.

This is my experience also.

You mentioned the kiss of peace in church? Is that what is done in your church? We make the sign of peace by shaking hands just before the Eucharist.

We shake hands too, but I always kiss my wife, and I give hugs to people I feel comfortable hugging. I would give you a hug (I’d read your cues) and shake guanophore’s hand - if he let me.

I do remember years back at a parish I used to attend when I couldn’t get to my regular parish due to work, that there was a family from New Zealand, mum, dad and two sons, they would hug and kiss each other at the sign of peace, that was the first time I saw that being done. I remember thinking they must be a close family, they never kissed and hugged anyone else, just shook hands, and no one else followed suit.

The very early church used to have the kiss of peace, so it’s not a new thing, but a very ancient one by all accounts.

Yes, even though we have a bit of “Confusion of Catholicism”, that is, we do not always agree on the words and interpretations, it is Love that binds us, we all have commitments to Christ, and none of us is perfect even though we try our best.

Here and in the rest of Europe we have little lent and advent booklets that have short scripture quotes and daily reflections, yesterdays seems to reflect on what is being discussed here so I thought I’d share it. This is the “type” of Catholicism I am used to being exposed to :

Hear my voice when I call, O Lord, be merciful to me and answer me.(Psalm 27:7)

Matt 20:17-28

The son of man did not come to be served but to serve.

Mercy needs to become a way of life for us, a lifestyle.
This means we must choose mercy over judgement, goodness over evil and humility over arrogance. This is easier said than done and can only be done with God’s help. This is because like Ss John and James, there is a force or darkness within us which wants to lord it over others, to be considered the greatest and to look down on others. We think and act like this when we lose the sight of God’s mercy. The goal of lent is to recover and recommit ourselves to a lifestyle of mercy. This means that we seek first to understand God’s mercy towards us and then to extend this mercy to others.

Prayer :

Lord, help me to desire mercy and humility that I may walk humbly before you my Lord and my God.

As you know, I would not say that “there is a darkness within us”, but I do agree that we have compulsions to “lord it over others, to be considered to be greatest”. We have this compulsion because it is in our nature to dominate, desire status, and desire power, which are drives also found in many other species.

Whenever we “look down on others” we do so in blindness or ignorance, we do not know what we are doing. Yes, hopefully, when we focus on God’s mercy, we can overcome our blindness and ignorance.

Thanks, Simpleas!