The Confusion of Catholicism

[grannymh]

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.

When you go back to the beginning history of Catholic theology, you will find all of the above and then some. One of the greatest and longest disagreement, as I recall, is Arianism. Interestingly, it is still around in bits with a tad here and a tad there.

When you go back to the beginning history of Catholic theology, you will find that common sense prevailed. A major Church Council was convened to decide the issues according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Did that stop debates? Of course not. As long as the human species exists, there will be someone challenging the decisions of those councils. What people today do not realize is that Catholic doctrines duly declared do not change. Catholic doctrines can be further explained, but that does not change the base doctrine.

P.S. It looks like guanophore was posting as I was writing. Do go back to his post right above.

 

[paziego]

And what of those faithful for whom the ambiguity is not resolved by the pronouncement that the discussion on the topic has ended?

The only thing that is not ambiguous is who has the right to declare discussions closed, whether the answers are satisfactory or not.

But then we forfeit our own right to pursue satisfactory answers. Some may even feel entitled to deny this right to others.

 

[guanophore]

And what of those faithful for whom the ambiguity is not resolved by the pronouncement that the discussion on the topic has ended?

The only thing that is not ambiguous is who has the right to declare discussions closed, whether the answers are satisfactory or not.

The closure of the discussion is, as you say, done by those whom God appointed for that purpose. And for those who accept the authority He has left, ambiguity is also resolved. Everyone is free to reject what God has revealed to mankind about Himself. What will happen to such persons reults from thei state of their souls.

But then we forfeit our own right to pursue satisfactory answers. Some may even feel entitled to deny this right to others.

Ahh, rights. How did people come to have a "rigth "to pursue satisfactory answers?

But yes, no one can take away the right to pursuit of one’s own will. It is not forfeieted. It can only be yielded.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

I take it you have abandoned attempting to prove this premise which underlies all your arguments about the supernatural.

If you want to say that the heavens simply work differently, and that therefore we cannot disprove anything claimed about them, go ahead.

Very Kantian or idealistic of you – truth itself is objects conforming to our minds.

However, I hold the negation: The existence and properties of things that transcend nature cannot be dis-proven by things in nature not because I want to but because it is self-evidently true. Unlike Kant, as a realist I hold that truth is a mind conforming to reality.

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.

Again, very Kantian of you. However, claiming the self-evident as commonsensically true without drowning in the convoluted thinking of Kant does not limit my truth claims regarding divine revelations.

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.

All that Jesus said is knowable, unambiguously knowable. Some teachings may be obscure but not confusing. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,nor are your ways my ways” (Is 55:8).

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

Revelation comes first, but reason has primacy. In this instance I am somewhat sympathetic with Kant as we are both more certain of revealed truth than we are of truths arrived at through reason.

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.

Through intellect and reason, God gives us a natural connection to know the divine but we cannot understand the divine.

Finally, I note that the claims of “ambiguity” and “confusion” in Catholic teaching that I have followed in this thread have been limited to two supernatural teaching, i.e. Trinity and Incarnation (there are other teachings on man’s relation to man and to himself). And the evidence offered is that the claims have no parallels in the nature. That is why they are called supernatural. Because one cannot grasp or understand the supernatural does not throw the supernatural into ontological oblivion nor does this inability of natural reason to grasp the supernatural make the supernatural claims either “ambiguous” or “confusing." If you are in either of those states of mind on Catholic teaching then the remedy is simple: buy, read and study the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Actually, it is referring to everyone who was a Christian in 325 AD, who was not a member of an heretical sect; that is to say, those who were loyal to the Bishop of Rome, and not (for example) to Arius, who was also a Bishop in those days.

 

[OneSheep]

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?

Good Morning, guanophore!

The opinion that the God in the Noah story does not depict the image of God presented by Jesus is not just my opinion, it is that of many, many Christians. Compare/contrast these two:

…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

Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

Both of these reflect images of God that “work” for Catholics. Neither of these images are “fabrications”, nor do they contradict Christian teachings.

Indeed, there are as many opinions as there are belly buttons. Many of those opinions contradict the teaching of the Church.

This is your comment in reaction to Fr. Rohr and the Linns. Are you saying that they reject the teachings of Church, as you used to accuse me of the same?

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.

I have taken a long, hard look within myself, in the depths of prayer and meditation, and found my Lord who loves unconditionally, Who is reflected in Pope Francis’ words above. Simultaneously, in understanding and forgiving all people, I have found man’s true nature, which Jesus showed us from the cross in the words “forgive them, but they know not what they do.” In addition, from my own commitment to love and forgive unconditionally, I have found that the Father loves and forgives unconditionally. Are you saying that you do not share this image of God? If not, I understand.

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.

In fact, they have already placed themselves “out” of communion.

Based on my post you linked, I think that you may be confusing my request to shake my hand with hand-holding during the mass. Yes, your refusal to shake my hand not only seems to demonstrate that you have an exclusive attitude, but it demonstrates that you do not respect me as an ordinary person in our American culture. Are you ever going to answer my post 751?

Your post separates the creed from the rest of the Teachings of the Faith, thereby excusing those who confess “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” from adherance to all that she teaches.

Are you referring to post 751? I would be happy to modify the “sound teachings” I presented. Could you, then, come up with a list or a summary of the “sound teachings” as expressed in 1Tim6? “Professes/believes in the Creed” is good enough for me.

In fact, they have already placed themselves “out” of communion.

I’m not sure you who you are referring to here. Allow me to present this: Two men who disagree with each other meet in the street. One man says, “hey, we disagree, but we are both human, and God loves both of us, and we both love God.” he extends his hand to the other and says, “let’s shake hands”. The other man refuses, and continues to argue. Which of these people has an "unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words"1Tim6:4 ? Which of these people is excluding himself, in a very, very basic sense?

Now, will you address my post 751? Will you shake my hand?

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.

I want to thank you for your usage of the words “seems to contradict” and “somehow”! By using these words, you are not claiming to know my mind, and you are not making unfounded accusations. Indeed, you did not question the sincerity of my faith, but you made some speculative comments.

I do not “cling” to the notion that humans do not knowingly and willingly reject God, guanophore. If you come up with an example to investigate, we can subject the example to scrutiny. I can change my mind. Would you like me to start a new thread? Or, feel free to PM me.

I do not “cling” to any belief in order to “function better”. I have found God within myself, within everyone, and the God I have found loves and forgives unconditionally.

Thank you for not questioning my sincerity!

 

[paziego]

I take it you have abandoned attempting to prove this premise which underlies all your arguments about the supernatural.

I don’t think you understand the full magnitude of what your defence entails. It is hardly an enviable position.

For the record, I am not a Kantian and I have not even read much Kant aside from his refutation of the ontological argument and some of his ethics. I have read quite a bit of Hegel, who may come across as Kantian and idealist at first but is actually a realist.

Very Kantian or idealistic of you – truth itself is objects conforming to our minds.

However, I hold the negation: The existence and properties of things that transcend nature cannot be dis-proven by things in nature not because I want to but because it is self-evidently true. Unlike Kant, as a realist I hold that truth is a mind conforming to reality.

You are misidentifying me as a Kantian, and I am not claiming what you say I am. I offered you many choices, one being accepting that 2+2=4 is true objectively of us. And I believe that is the case. But you deny that heaven is like this.

Nor can things and properties beyond nature be proven. And your acceptance of the position that they are completely removed from what we understand means you have no grounds to assert anything about things beyond nature. It means you have no grounds to believe in anything beyond nature.

I am not denying that there is something beyond us with a completely different logic. I am happy to accept this. But you can’t have your cake and eat it, claiming such a world exists and then trying to say something meaningful about it.

Again, very Kantian of you. However, claiming the self-evident as commonsensically true without drowning in the convoluted thinking of Kant does not limit my truth claims regarding divine revelations.

What exactly is self-evident? You have just forfeited the right to judge anything as divine revelation because you claim that heavenly things are so completely distant from us. You are claiming that the heavens operate with a logic where “2+2+43” may be true, and where circles may be square. You can’t even use analogies.
You have no standard by which to judge the supernatural content of anything. You can’t even use words like divine or heaven to discuss the supernatural. There is simply no frame of reference. It is like asking a blind man to describe a colour from his own experience of sight.

All that Jesus said is knowable, unambiguously knowable. Some teachings may be obscure but not confusing. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,nor are your ways my ways” (Is 55:8).

Even if he was who he said he was, which you are no longer in any position to verify, his words could mean anything. Despite the words "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” for all you know he could actually be discussing his favourite brand of tofu. If you accept a realm where reality has zero resemblance with ours on the most basic things such as logic, this is what you are left with.

Through intellect and reason, God gives us a natural connection to know the divine but we cannot understand the divine.

You cannot even know it because it is so alien. Like I said, it would be like the inability of a blind man to experience colour.

Because one cannot grasp or understand the supernatural does not throw the supernatural into ontological oblivion nor does this inability of natural reason to grasp the supernatural make the supernatural claims either “ambiguous” or “confusing."

I am sorry, but it absolutely does. I think it is worth re-posting what said,

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.

 

[paziego]

Here is the first part of that post, for reference,

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).

 

[OneSheep]

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?

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

I don’t want to be patronizing, but I understand. It is normal to be proud of beliefs which bring you joy and that you believe to be true and beneficial for humanity in general.

Yes, it is normal to be “proud” of our beliefs! And those beliefs that bring us joy are those that we wish to share with others, to spread the joy. This desire to share demonstrates the true nature of man, wishing the best for others, loving people, including people in those we love and care for, having some good intent in all action regardless of how violent or how exclusive the acts may appear.

So, let us look again at the OP:

PumpkinCookie:

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.

The problem is, PC, that people are disconnected from the Love within. Our “core” cannot be found in a pile of words, in a book. Our “core” is found in prayer, in reflection, in meditation, in being in touch with that part of ourselves that Loves all, is One with all. What does Jesus say to those who are stubbornly clinging to all the words? He says, “be like a child”.

What is it about children that He is asking adults to emanate? It is surely not their behaviors, for children can be quite naughty. It is not their obedience, for they by nature can be quite disobedient if they are undisciplined. What is it about children then? I spoke this morning with my kindergarten-teacher wife. It is the open-mindedness, the fresh inquisitiveness, unencumbered by notions of “that person says nothing worth listening to” or “that group knows nothing of the truth” or other such closures.

So, what I am seeing in your journey is a move to becoming more child-like. Yes, you have in the past taken on a more closed position, and you suffered. Here you are, willing to interact with those of a faith that you have left, yet offering us wisdom and being open to people’s ideas with a child-like inquiry.

Thanks again, PC, for this thread!

 

[guanophore]

The opinion that the God in the Noah story does not depict the image of God presented by Jesus is not just my opinion, it is that of many, many Christians. Compare/contrast these two:

…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

Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

Both of these reflect images of God that “work” for Catholics. Neither of these images are “fabrications”, nor do they contradict Christian teachings.

In saying that the Noah story does not reflect what Jesus taught, it seems that you are discounting everything in Scripture that precedes this account. You also seem to be disregarding Teachings of Jesus that may be among the “hard sayings” of Jesus. The example of the tower of Siloam might be an example.

My concern relates to the arbitrary classification of certain pasages as “not literal” so that their contents does not need to be reconciled with the whole of the faith.

I have taken a long, hard look within myself, in the depths of prayer and meditation, and found my Lord who loves unconditionally, Who is reflected in Pope Francis' words above.  Simultaneously, in understanding and forgiving all people, I have found man's true nature, which Jesus showed us from the cross in the words "forgive them, but they know not what they do."  In addition, from my own commitment to love and forgive unconditionally, I have found that the Father loves and forgives unconditionally.  Are you saying that you do not share this image of God?  If not, I understand.

It seems clear from your posts that you have developed your position through a great deal of personal spiritual discipline.

What you have found about “man’s true nature” does not reconcile with what the Church teaches, but it is clear that it is a position that benefits you immensely in your personal spiritual life.

I think the problem lies in the mixing of apples and squash. You are describing a personal spiritual practice that works for you. In that case, it is not relevant that anyone else “share this image of God” or your image of man. It is a perspective that functions well for you, and enables you to have the life you want, without resentment, able to be loving , and to exercise “the gift of Understanding”.

Based on my post you linked, I think that you may be confusing my request to shake my hand with hand-holding during the mass. Yes, your refusal to shake my hand not only seems to demonstrate that you have an exclusive attitude, but it demonstrates that you do not respect me as an ordinary person in our American culture.

The hand shaking/holding did come up in the context of Eucharist/communion and it does seem like your are conflating normal American civility with an “inclusion/exclusion” of faith. It is customary in the US to shake hands as a form of greeting. It is polite, and courteous. It does not create or necessarily foster spiritual communion, and says nothing about a persons belief. I shake hands with people who a are avowed Satanists, rapists, and murders, but id does not mean I am including them in my understanding of Eucharist. Neither does it mean they are “excluded” from coming to repentance and faith in Christ.

 "Professes/believes in the Creed" is good enough for me.

If this works for you. You have already made it clear that your understanding of the Creed is different from what the Church teaches.

I want to thank you for your usage of the words “seems to contradict” and “somehow”! By using these words, you are not claiming to know my mind, and you are not making unfounded accusations. Indeed, you did not question the sincerity of my faith, but you made some speculative comments.

I have drawn conclusions based on your posts that apparently came across accusatory, so I will strive to express myself better. My conclusions have not changed.

I do not “cling” to the notion that humans do not knowingly and willingly reject God, guanophore. If you come up with an example to investigate, we can subject the example to scrutiny. I can change my mind. Would you like me to start a new thread?

I went and looked over the thread you started. There is nothing in it that indicates you are open to another point of view.

I do not “cling” to any belief in order to “function better”. I have found God within myself, within everyone, and the God I have found loves and forgives unconditionally.

Same difference. People embrace what makes sense, and works for them.

 

[grannymh]

And what of those faithful for whom the ambiguity is not resolved by the pronouncement that the discussion on the topic has ended?

The only thing that is not ambiguous is who has the right to declare discussions closed, whether the answers are satisfactory or not.

But then we forfeit our own right to pursue satisfactory answers. Some may even feel entitled to deny this right to others.

When I was learning early Catholic history in high school, it looked like the only reason a major council was convened was because the level of disagreements had gone so high that a decision one way or another had to be made.

The protocol for a major council includes extensive preparation. Basically, every document, writing, poetry, letter, homily, Holy Scripture, and so on, which was connected to the disagreement was examined by future council participants. Being a Catholic endeavor, prayers and more prayers were said. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was important, just like it is today. People came together to write proposals for defining the doctrine which would settle what was Divine Revelation. Often, those proposals were debated even before the council took place. If I may say this – the Holy Spirit was swamped with all the ideas going around.

Eventually, the wisdom of the Holy Spirit brought a sense of peace as people were working hard to define the truth. When the major church council finally began, there were still debates as proposals were studied. Yet, there was a difference because being guided by the Holy Spirit, various participants could reach deep into the truth. Actually, the Holy Spirit guided those who debated before the council so that both objections and solutions would be included.

In the early history of Catholic theology, further discussion following a defined doctrine was encouraged. That means that all aspects of a particular Divine Revelation were not always formally proclaimed in the first particular Council. Enough aspects were formally proclaimed so as to resolve the immediate questions. Being part of the human species, we rarely close discussions. When it comes to the multiple suggestions, these are closed when the specific doctrine is properly declared. In other words, there is a specific final Catholic doctrine which, because of the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit, is declared Divine Revelation which does not change.

Note: While multiple suggestions for the wording of a particular doctrine are closed, that does not prevent the human species to keep suggesting. Some of these suggestions are occasionally seen on CAF.

Questions on this part of early Catholic Theology?

 

[Abu]

OneSheep #771
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.

That such as Richard Rohr should be brought forward as among real “Catholics” who exemplify the teaching of Christ and His Church, explains the weird pitfalls into which some have fallen.

Every real Catholic sees Richard Rohr as a dissenter as Fr Bryce Sibley, STL shows in The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon
Excerpts:
‘Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God “Father.” He writes in *Adam’s Return *(which was the basis for his presentations) that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God…”

‘Rohr’s thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called “Mother” is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, “Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father…” (#240).

‘Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.

‘Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr’s support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as Soulforce (and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on “male spirituality.” As the *Catechism *states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (#2357). “They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity” clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.”

‘In the first chapter of Adam’s Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: “‘Incarnation is already redemption,’ and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God’s commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing’ place of God.” Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption.

‘In sum, Rohr’s presentation of his so-called “male spirituality” should certainly not be called Catholic. Though he claimed at his conference to sit in the “larger Christian and Catholic tradition,” he fails to demonstrate how referring to God as Mother, encouraging homosexual advocacy, denying the spiritual reality of Original Sin, denying the necessity of the Cross for redemption, and promoting pagan rituals resides within the Catholic or even Christian tradition.’

The Rev. Bryce Sibley, STL, who holds a Licentiate degree from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family in Rome, is Pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Parks, Louisiana, in the Diocese of Lafayette.
New Oxford Review, March 2006, Volume LXXIII, Number 3.
catholicculture.org/cultu…fm?recnum=6819

The “confusion” is NOT in Catholicism, but is in the warp and woof of the those who do not really know what Christ’s Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Thorolfr]

That such as Richard Rohr should be brought forward as among real “Catholics” who exemplify the teaching of Christ and His Church, explains the weird pitfalls into which some have fallen.

Every real Catholic sees Richard Rohr as a dissenter as Fr Bryce Sibley, STL shows in The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon
Excerpts:
‘Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God “Father.” He writes in *Adam’s Return *(which was the basis for his presentations) that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God…”

‘Rohr’s thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called “Mother” is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, “Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father…” (#240).

Are you aware that in the medieval Catholic church, Jesus was often seen as “mother”? You might want to take a look at the book by Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (University of California Press, 1984). According to the dust jacket:

During the high Middle Ages many of the devout really did address Jesus as mother and depict their devotion to him in feminine imagery. And not all of these were women

This kind of feminine imagery of Christ has a long history in the Catholic Church.

 

[simpleas]

What I find confusing is when people say " a real catholic"…blah blah blah

What or who is a real catholic if you please?

I was reminded of this tonight :

Sin is failing to reach an ideal, rather than a rebellion against God.

Does anyone agree with this?

Do people see some sins as failing to live up to the high standard of God, or actual rebellion against God.

If it’s seen as a failing, then we need to give each other a break, we’re human, we’re all on this journey together, believer and non believer and we all can live peacefully together.

 

[jmcrae]

What I find confusing is when people say " a real catholic"…blah blah blah

What or who is a real catholic if you please?

I was reminded of this tonight :

Sin is failing to reach an ideal, rather than a rebellion against God.

Does anyone agree with this?

I think that in most cases, that’s where sin begins. We fail before we begin because we don’t strive high enough, due to our own sense of inadequacy and out of fear. From there, it becomes habitual. I think there are very few people who say to themselves, I hate God and therefore I will do this that God hates - rather, it’s the other way around - they come to hate God because they know they aren’t living up to His expectations, which seem unrealistic on the face of the inadequacy they feel in themselves, by which they excuse themselves into sin.

For example, the boy who doesn’t know how he can be a provider, father, and husband, so gets into sinful living arrangements and has children out of wedlock, and then resents God for the instinctive sense within himself that is requiring him to commit to their welfare -a task made impossible by the fact that he isn’t their mother’s husband , so he blasts the Church for being too old-fashioned, or not understanding “the modern reality” or some such thing.

Failure comes first, and then rebellion, to justify failure.

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #790
This kind of feminine imagery of Christ has a long history in the Catholic Church.

Interminably, various “views” are presented as though there is no dogma and no doctrine and anything goes! Some never learn.

Simpleas #791
What or who is a real catholic if you please?

It is salutary for all Catholics to know, love and serve God through His Church which defines the real Catholics:

**Can. 205. **Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

 

[grannymh]

Sin is failing to reach an ideal, rather than a rebellion against God.

Another attack on mortal sin. Another way to downgrade the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation. That is all I will say about it, period.

 

[Aloysium]

It is not a matter of “giving each other a break”. It is all about developing one’s relationship with God, accepting the graces of the Holy Spirit, growing in Christ and doing the Father’s will. True peace is to be found in Christ, which means taking up our cross and remaining faithful to His teachings. There is no other way “to live peacefully together”; the motivation in that case being basically to rid ourselves of the bother. A Tower of Babel, it will crumble, leaving us even more alienated than when we started. Only the Truth will do.

 

[guanophore]

  What I find confusing is when people say " a *real* catholic"......blah blah blah

What or who is a real catholic if you please?

You are right, of course. Here at CAF there is a plethora of adjectives.

Contrary to what the OP has posted, Catholicism is not confusing. A “real” Catholic is one who adheres to the teachings of Jesus infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit. Those who depart from those teachings may qualify for a great number of various descriptions. I have thrown out many myself.

Catholicism is not defined by those who depart from it. Those who depart from it are the ones that create the confusion the OP describes.

I was reminded of this tonight :

Sin is failing to reach an ideal, rather than a rebellion against God.

It is both. Clearly there is sin that is a blatant rebellion against God. Don’t mention this to OneSheep, but I do agree that sin occurs in unknowing /ignorance. The Greek for sin “hamartia” is the word used to describe archery target practice. So literally, sin is “missing the mark”.

Does anyone agree with this?

I would prefer “both/and” instead of “rather than”.

 Do people see some sins as failing to live up to the high standard of God, or actual rebellion against God.

Yes.

If it’s seen as a failing, then we need to give each other a break, we’re human, we’re all on this journey together, believer and non believer and we all can live peacefully together.

I think people need nurturing on both sides. People that are in rebellion need to be reached in love, because love is what conquers the rebellious spirit. Those who are falling short, and missing the mark, need catechism, fellowship, guidance, etc. They may be striving but not know how to attain.

"1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love one another deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

But don’t tell OS, it will ruin my reputation for being cold and exclusive.

 

[guanophore]

This is your comment in reaction to Fr. Rohr and the Linns. Are you saying that they reject the teachings of Church…?

I have been profoundly influenced by Fr. Rohr, with whom I have had personal contact. I can say without reservation that his early work was completely orthodox, and that his later work continues to drift. I have not kept up with the Linns to the same degree, who have also been very influential in my life in their early years, so I cannot speak to that part on my personal observations.

Here is another link that reflects on the issues/concerns.

Have I been able to shake his hand, and give him a hug? Yes.

  I have found God within myself, within everyone, and the God I have found loves and forgives unconditionally.

I find myself wondering if you find God in the Church…

Or if that is just considered a man made institution, like the Scriptures.