D
davidv
Guest
I am sorry that the best explanation is rejected out of hand. To me this proves the error in the OP. Ambiguity is not the source of hate. Personal pride and stubbornness is the source.
- Status
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
OK grannymh I have no quarrel with your 3 truths.
Haha that’s OK, I suspect the same of myself sometimes!I tried and I tried not to respond to your bowl full of porridge example.
I really tried.
Alas and good grief, I failed. I have to admit. There are times when my poor mind is definitely a bowl full of porridge.
Would you agree, then, that if everyone were to agree about what has really happened in history, then everyone would be a Catholic?
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I am sorry for the loss of your friend. No one should ever have to feel so hopeless, to think that death is preferable to life! And yet, how can we explain the millions of atheists who do not commit suicide and choose to value their existences? Are they all illogical?
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Oh, is there only one “right” way to understand visual art? What is it, and how was it determined? I agree that we can’t escape our biases and subjectivity, but when looking at representational art, it would seem that we can get widespread agreement of observers regarding the essential and basic elements. It can of course be instructive to ask the artist what he or she means to convey, but can we therefore conclude there is only one true meaning to the work?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It depends on what they believe. Many don’t reject goodness, freedom, justice and love. To that extent they are logical because there is plenty of evidence that those concepts are not man-made but fundamental aspects of reality. The problem is that they have no rational foundation in a Godless universe which is valueless, purposeless and meaningless. Why should anything be good if the universe itself is neither good nor bad? It is the supposed absence of purpose that makes everything irrational. We cannot invent purpose: it is either a fact or an illusion! And if it is a fact how did it originate?
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Indeed, it would seem that the pride of those who insist they are always right in the face of uncertainty, incoherence, and ambiguity fuels the hatred.
“I don’t really understand what I believe, but I sure know I’m always right, and I’m certain everyone who disagrees with me is wrong!” - battle cry of the hater
- CS Lewis, Mere Christianity, Chapter 8
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems to me, if one wishes to have an intelligible discussion, one might consider using the terms that are used in that subject area. These terms are clearly, unabiguously defined for Catholics.
It seems like you don’t really want to discuss these ideas the way the Catholic Church believes and teaches them, but rather, to debunk the definitions and claim they are confusing and ambiguous.
I recently began talking to an architectual engineer. I had to learn a lot of new terms and concepts. It seems to me that having a meaningful converstation would be impossible if I picked holes in how these terms are defined and what they mean.
I don’t think it i s the rigid ideology as much as it is the rigidity of the person.
Sin may not account for it in your mind, but human persons have a dark side, and when we live in it, we can become very hateful.
G
guanophore
Guest
Such a position seems contrary to what Jesus taught.
Do you really think this compulsion does not have a dark side in humans?
This position seems to contradict what Jesus taugtht. How can one be responsible for that which one is unknowing?
G
guanophore
Guest
…5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” Gen 6:6
These concepts are part of the Catholic faith, OS. IF not, theywould not be contained in the Catechism. The section on the nature of man is quite clear.
If he thinks I have an exclusive attitude toward people if I don’t hold hands in Church, I might. You have asserted that holding hands is what creates communion.
R
rose_kelly
Guest
Some people perceive hatred where it isn’t, if we look for love and are willing to reach out and give it, we’ll receive much more of it, than hatred.
As to confusion among Catholics and atheists, you will never find a group/community of people that are in total agreement on everything, we don’t even agree with our individual selves sometimes, which is part of the inner conflict of human nature.
So we either accept that and learn to live alongside people without expecting them all to be perfect, or isolate ourselves from the whole human race.
G
grannymh
Guest
Use them as you wish. Sometimes, they can be comforting. Sometimes, they can generate new ideas on approaching an old issue.
Regarding the bowl full of porridge example.
It feels good to laugh.
No and No.
I would be surprised if 32 people could agree on some point which *really *happened in history. As for everyone being a Catholic, I would consider that a bowl of nuts.
I have a long time good friend who is an atheist. He is not illogical. Of course, I would like him to be Catholic, but I respect his world view. And he respects my world view. He definitely is not a militant atheist. The reality is that not everyone will choose Catholicism. However, I hope that everyone will understand Catholicism, at least the parts which are of interest.
When I refer to the early history of Catholic theology, I am thinking about the struggles and battles which preceded the Major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils. As a high school student, I really loved the fights over what Divine Revelation teaches. It seemed natural that different Church Fathers and different Saints would have different opinions. To me, the protocol of laying everything out, the good teachings, the bad teachings, and everything in between was the best way to sort out the real truth.
My confidence is in the promised Holy Spirit.
Chapter 14, Gospel of John
25
“I have told you this while I am with you.
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.
The wisdom of the Holy Spirit is what guides the Major Ecumenical Catholic Churches as they properly define Divine Revelation as Doctrines. This means that not all opinions of Church Fathers and Saints, etc., were automatically accepted as Divine Revelation. Usually, this was because some teachings did not comport with Divine Revelation. There is more to the story; however, you may wish to stop here in order to ask question and present your own opinions of this protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.*
G
guanophore
Guest
You are assuming that I have a closed heart becuase I reject the idea that holding hands creates communion in the Body of Christ.
I agree that “repent” (metanoia) does include an opening of mind and heart, but this falls short of the full picture.
The term “metanoia” is used in psychology to describe the process of experiencing a psychotic “breakdown” and subsequent, positive psychological re-building or “healing”. Are you suggesting that believers need a psychotic episode?
μετάνοια mĕtanŏia, met-an´-oy-ah:thinking differently does not just mean changing one’s mind from guanophore’s perceptions to OneSheep’s opinion. it means a drastic 180 degree turn away from a life of carnal thinking to God’s way of thinking. It is a compunction to reverse/repentance created in the heart of a person by the HS.
You seem to be suggesting that, if I were to have a more “open mind” to your opinons, then I would be in a proper state of repentance toward God. This suggests that you believe your way of conceptualizing communion is doctrinally correct, and that “open minded” persons will embrace it?
G
guanophore
Guest
"guanophore:
but it is much older than the Catechism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.”
This teaching is found in the writings of Justin Matryr around the year 165 AD. In his first Apology” (chapters 65-66) he explains how “Amen” is the response of the people to the prayers and thanksgiving offered by the priest in the Eucharist Prayer. “Amen” is the assent of the people that the holy Eucharist truly is the Body and Blood of Christ, that the priest has the authority to act in the person of Christ to confect the Eucharist, and that the teaching handed down from the apostles is truly the teaching of the Lord. St. Justin wrote, “We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the eucharistic prayer set down by Him and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.” Without the “Amen,” one should not receive.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/williamsaunders/straightanswers/82.asp
This is why the CC has closed communion. Only those who embrace the entire teaching of the apostles can genuinely say “amen” to the Eucharist. Here are some other links on the subject:
saintsbystudents.com/SpecialInterest/SundayGospelReflections/John06_51-58B09.htm
catholicexchange.com/a-simple-%E2%80%98amen%E2%80%99-is-a-powerful-declaration-of-faith
Sorry for the delay on this OS. I have been having problems with the computer and some of my theological databases needed to be restored from a back up. I wanted to make sure I had the correct sources on this.
This definition is found in the CCC in the discussion on Eucharist.
but it is much older than the Catechism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.”
This teaching is found in the writings of Justin Matryr around the year 165 AD. In his first Apology” (chapters 65-66) he explains how “Amen” is the response of the people to the prayers and thanksgiving offered by the priest in the Eucharist Prayer. “Amen” is the assent of the people that the holy Eucharist truly is the Body and Blood of Christ, that the priest has the authority to act in the person of Christ to confect the Eucharist, and that the teaching handed down from the apostles is truly the teaching of the Lord. St. Justin wrote, “We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the eucharistic prayer set down by Him and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.” Without the “Amen,” one should not receive.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/williamsaunders/straightanswers/82.asp
This is why the CC has closed communion. Only those who embrace the entire teaching of the apostles can genuinely say “amen” to the Eucharist. Here are some other links on the subject:
saintsbystudents.com/SpecialInterest/SundayGospelReflections/John06_51-58B09.htm
catholicexchange.com/a-simple-%E2%80%98amen%E2%80%99-is-a-powerful-declaration-of-faith
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello, Guanophore!
“You alone are present even with those who have set themselves far from you.”
“Every being is good. Beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good… as long as the exist, they are good.” St. Augustine, Confessions
So you see, guanophore, there are different ways of looking at the matter. Like I said, you can find another way of looking at the matter by reading the Linns, or reading Richard Rohr, among others. These are all Catholics, all with slightly different ways of looking at these issues, but all part of the Body.
And I want to commend you on your acknowledgement that having an exclusive attitude is contrary to the Gospel! Yes, this is exactly what I am saying, inclusion is Christ’s example, exclusion is not. But here is an inclusion that is very, very difficult, but doable: including people, shaking their hand, even if you vehemently disagree with their views. It’s a matter of “taking people from where they are”, and, as the guidelines for the CAF say, to never question the sincerity of someone’s beliefs. Thank you, guanophore, for not saying I have made “fabrications” or that I am “calling Jesus a liar”, etc. Thanks!
Now will you respond to my post 751?
I want to thank you, guanophore, for asking questions instead of making accusations! I am very grateful. I will answer your questions as soon as you answer my question on post 751
Oh yes, the story of Noah. I don’t take it literally, nor do I believe the O.T. depicts an accurate image of God, generally speaking. But I do want to thank you for supporting your objections! Note: Even in this story, God does not find all people loathsome, he finds Noah “pleasing”.
“You alone are present even with those who have set themselves far from you.”
“Every being is good. Beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good… as long as the exist, they are good.” St. Augustine, Confessions
So you see, guanophore, there are different ways of looking at the matter. Like I said, you can find another way of looking at the matter by reading the Linns, or reading Richard Rohr, among others. These are all Catholics, all with slightly different ways of looking at these issues, but all part of the Body.
Where did I assert that, guanophore? I looked back and could not find it in my posts, nor do I agree with it. Communion is a matter of sharing in the Eucharist, which is in part a proclamation that Christ is our center. Having Christ as our center is more than words, remember 1Tim6?
And I want to commend you on your acknowledgement that having an exclusive attitude is contrary to the Gospel! Yes, this is exactly what I am saying, inclusion is Christ’s example, exclusion is not. But here is an inclusion that is very, very difficult, but doable: including people, shaking their hand, even if you vehemently disagree with their views. It’s a matter of “taking people from where they are”, and, as the guidelines for the CAF say, to never question the sincerity of someone’s beliefs. Thank you, guanophore, for not saying I have made “fabrications” or that I am “calling Jesus a liar”, etc. Thanks!
Now will you respond to my post 751?
O
OneSheep
Guest
I love it! You assumed that I made an assumption based on something upon which I hadn’t!
I’m sure I have done this too, plenty of times. And I repeat: I never said that holding hands creates communion. I did say that holding hands can create a feeling of communion, of unity. It has essentially no significance in comparison to Eucharist.Love is the basis of communion. Love is found in the Eucharist, and is in those who participate in Eucharist. Was it Augustine who said, “Eucharist is Christ meeting Himself”? I don’t remember.
I asked you to open your heart because I was weary of your constant accusations, questioning my sincerity, and generally uncharitable attitude.
You have now made your posts more charitable. Again, I thank you!
751 guanophore, 751. None of us is perfect. Answer post 751, please. Persistent, am I not?
E
eamonnroma
Guest
Of course the word ‘catholic’ in the creed does not refer to ‘Roman’ catholics, but to all christians who accept the creeds and teachings of the original 7 Councils of the church. Meaning that the Orthodox, for example, are catholics.The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is neither ambiguous nor misleading.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day, He rose again from the dead.
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and of His Kingdom there will be no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.
I could talk about the meaning of each phrase, or about the significance of the Sacraments, or about the role of the Virgin Mary, or about Holy Mass. But the Apostle’s Creed makes my point.
I know what it means that I am a Catholic. Glory be to God.
P
paziego
Guest
No, Gorgias. You cannot compare what I am doing to calling a dog a cat.That doesn’t make sense, either. If I’m trying to refute that my dog is an animal, and I describe him as ‘cat’, that doesn’t demonstrate the inconsistency of his nature – just that I mis-defined his nature!
No Catholic apologist can claim not to have seen the triangular diagram with God at the centre and the persons surrounding him, with the “is” and “is not” relations between them.
I am working off of that diagram and I am perfectly entitled to sat that it is not logically consistent. It clearly says that the son is god, the father is god and the holy spirit is god. The problem is that these relations cannot be forced to obtain in the way the diagram wants them to. If it says that both the father and the son are god then the father is also the son.
This is not slipping the conclusion into the argument, as you have accused me of doing.
I can’t tell if this is a genuine counterargument to me, or if you are just trying to flatly deny anything I put forward to derail the discussion.
I am not throwing away anything. You can use any sources you like, but you are not entitled to use the divine authority of Jesus to prove the divinity of Jesus. It is not about sources, it is about the rules of an argument.
You are obfuscating things here. What you are doing is not expanding the content of a term, but radically redefining it to suit your needs. You are doing the equivalent of taking “gender” and then changing it to mean something about the wattage of light bulbs, rather than adding another form of gender.
Hold on here. When you presented your argument you did it in a series of steps whereby you spoke about god, then you spoke about how essence/existence relations obtain with humans, and then you tried (unsuccessfully) to make this fit with Trinitarian theology.
You used the example of humans to exemplify how the terms work and what they relate to, and to clarify how you were using them. You then applied this model to the trinity.
I responded by showing that what you suggested does not work, because it leads to modalism or tritheism. I played by your rules and used the terms as you established them, in the manner you established.
Now your response is to say that the stage of your argument where you spoke about humans had nothing to do with the overall explanation, and that in fact the terms “essence” and “existence” mean something completely different when applied to God and to human beings. I refuse to accept your excuse that 50% of your argument was not in fact part of your argument, but was instead a superfluous exercise that was in no way a crucial step in your reasoning.
G
guanophore
Guest
Hmmm. So, Genesis is “literally” correct when you find something that supports what you want to believe, but not “literally” correct when it contains something that might contradict your opinion?
Indeed, there are as many opinions as there are belly buttons. Many of those opinions contradict the teaching of the Church.
You have chosen a framework on the nature of man that works for you. When compared to what Jesus taught, it seems preposterous, but I understand that it works for you. It is not uncommon to reject any evidence that does not support one’s view. This thread is a prime example.
This post not only contradicts the teaching of Justin Martyr contained in the catecism od the meaning of “Amen” (adherance to all the Apostles taught) but also implies that one who does not shake hands has an exclusive attituede. The clear statement is made that a person must be in communion with one’s peers to be in communion with Christ.
I do not question the sincerity of your faith. Like Pumpkin Cookie, who seems to be a scientific fundamentalist, your faith is clearly very strong. Many people design a religion of their own making, then cling to it because it somehow meets their needs.
Clearly with all the earnestness at your command, you must cling to the notion that a human being does not willignly and knowingly reject God. Although this seems to contradict the teaching of the Church, somehow embracing it makes you function better, just like rejecting ideas that can’t be proved by scientific inquiry makes Pc function better.
[/quote]
P
paziego
Guest
I am going to put an end to this trinity discussion, as all the defences of the concept seem to take the same form.
The arguments will sometimes use the term “God” as a specific being and at other times as the property of divinity held by the three persons. Whether we accept either of these usages or combine them there are problems, but no one acknowledges that.
In every argument the usages of the term are suddenly changed mid-discussion depending of how the term needs to be deployed to make the argument work. I am tired of pointing out this inconsistency. Eventually, after I have restated this problem enough times, an appeal is made to mystery or to the inaccessibility of heavenly matters to the intellect of man.
At the very least it has been demonstrated that the foundational doctrine of Christianity is ambiguous. Controversy over the doctrine has always been an issue in the church, so this point has already been amply demonstrated.
The arguments will sometimes use the term “God” as a specific being and at other times as the property of divinity held by the three persons. Whether we accept either of these usages or combine them there are problems, but no one acknowledges that.
In every argument the usages of the term are suddenly changed mid-discussion depending of how the term needs to be deployed to make the argument work. I am tired of pointing out this inconsistency. Eventually, after I have restated this problem enough times, an appeal is made to mystery or to the inaccessibility of heavenly matters to the intellect of man.
At the very least it has been demonstrated that the foundational doctrine of Christianity is ambiguous. Controversy over the doctrine has always been an issue in the church, so this point has already been amply demonstrated.
G
guanophore
Guest
Indeed, one of the limitations of investigating the supernatural while limited by the natural.
I am sure it may seem that way to those who have rejected the Councils. You are right, theological concepts have produced controversy, but those controversies are ended once a dogma has been proclaimed. This happens precisely to prevent that which you are accusing. It resolves the ambiguity so that the faithful can have confidence.
- Status