The Confusion of Catholicism

[grannymh]

But the answers are only compromises between factions or the enforcement of a view popular with the most powerful party.

Compromises work. So bring one to me and I will be happy to show you why it works.

In some cases the councils are formed at the behest of state authorities rather than the church’s own initiative.

That sounds good to me. Some state authority type person can be so intelligent that problems can be solved before cocktail hour.

This was the case with Nicaea, precisely because the faith was so ambiguous.

Your powerful parties would be very insulted if you called their position ambiguous.

Thank Constantine, not the holy spirit.

Thank you Constantine.
Now I may be older than dirt, but I do know that it would be sheer stupidity to ignore any powerful party and that includes the Holy Spirit.

And thank his centurions, who kept the bishops from killing each other in a communal boxing match.

You need to read some good murder mysteries or find a rerun of “Murder She Wrote.”
Murder is not something one attempts in a public boxing match drawing hundreds of your powerful parties, all placing bets on their favorite powerful party boxer or bishop. Furthermore, it would not be a good idea to insult Constantine who may be very proud of his public arena and the entertainment there in.

The answers given by councils are not informative in the slightest. As we can see they can even be self-contradictory.

Time to get back to the real world. Please provide citations for your assertions. Or at least present some recognizable proposal by a powerful party. Or at least recognize the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

Answers to what?

Information for our Gentle Readers

Check out post 788, page 53, for information about the early years of the Catholic Church. If there are questions, because there is a lot involved, direct your comments/questions to that post.

 

[guanophore]

But when reading what some have to say on how we should practice our faith, they seem to suggest that unless you are following each and every teaching of the One True Church then you are not a Catholic, one can’t possible be a True Catholic.

I think this has to do with one’s attitude. Jesus is not separated from His Commandments, He has taught us that, if we love Him, we will obey Him. This is about relationship, not following a set of rules.

Of course, no matter how committed we are to a relationship in love, we may still fall short of our ideals. At such times when we fall short, we take responsibility, confess, and begin again. An example is seen with the parents of John the Baptist.

5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. 7But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years.… Luke 1:6.

Just following this declaration that the pair walked blamelessly we read that ol’ Zachy received the visitation from the angel doubtfully. His consequence was to be mute until the birth of the baby. Does not this passage make it clear that one can be righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly, and still fall short.

Yet you said you see holy people who are not Catholic, they do not participate in the Eucharist to become more Christ-like as we do, yet they find another way of attaining this.

I dont think it is the same as we do. Catholics have the advantage of having the fullness of the faith. The Church teaches it is possible to be saved without the Sacramental life, but it is much more difficult.

Sometimes Catholicism can sound like a trap, once you’re in there is no escape, if you do leave you are a dissenter, yet other people can be seen as good and holy.

Would this sound any different if it were stated in terms of relationship?

“Sometimes our relationship with Christ can sound like a trap. Once we have been united with Him in baptism, there is no escape. We can jump out of His had, and flee from his grace, but those who do not know Him can be seen as good and holy.”

It sounds a bit mad what I just wrote, that is why I said about giving each other a break, it’s God’s decision after all, not mine, or anyone elses.

I don’t think it sounds mad at all. On the contrary, I think every Catholic needs to wrestle with this and find a way to come to terms.

 

[paziego]

You’ve now said something that makes sense.

Neither do I believe what you write above.

That’s not what is meant by the Trinity.

I’m not sure how to help you.
Actually, I tend toward the belief that you do not want help.
Yet you continue to come here.
Curiouser and curiouser.

There’s the Catechism as a great resource.

As just another internet idiot, I’d suggest you try to enter into the mystery of participating in creation.
Is there some way to conceptualize the wholeness of that reality?
Once you have some sense of what is entailed in being in the world it may lead you to an understanding of the Source of which your being is a reflection.

That may get you nowhere because what is essential to God is love.
The primary connection to everything would be loving were it not for our fallen state.
When you understand love, Charitas specifically, you will understand God and His Triune nature.

I’m pretty sure this makes no sense to you.
Just be true to yourself is all I would recommend.
Keep trying but consider alternative means.
We’re rooting for you.

To be honest, love itself is an ambiguous concept.
I get a sense of what you are saying. God must have an object for his love, since love is his nature and love needs an object. But why not say that he loves himself? I know that is what the trinity may be presented as saying, but the reality of it is that it does teach 3=1 and there is no way of reconciling it with monotheism or with the other theological commients of the church. There is no need to transform gods “conception of himself” into another person. God can love himself without this illogical invention.

 

[OneSheep]

Absolutely. Contrary to making any assumptions, I have carefully and prayerfully read all of your posts (some of them more than once) and applied the “gift of understanding” that you keep promoting. In charity I have accepted that this perspective is something very important to you. It is also clear that you are not in a position to relinquish it, since it is foundation stone of your spiritual development.

Disorder is a loaded word. Your posts have made it clear that you have progressed from a condition of holding resentments to one in which you are able to forgive everyone. To me that sounds like moving from a condition of ill health to positive health.

Thank you!

Do I detect a condescenting tone?

None was intended. I apologized for the possibility of such in my post.

I have chosen to accept that this perspective you have adopted meets your needs (makes sense and works for you).

Ah, I think I see where you went with that. You are possibly saying that having a “perspective I have adopted to meet your needs” does not occur with those who adhere to all the teachings as you do. Would you agree that your own embracing of Catholicism “makes sense and works for you”? You may be equating/contrasting some things differently than I do.

From my last post:
"OneSheep:

Let me pretend to say this: “Guanophore, I have come to understand that you need to believe in the depravity of mankind because you hold an underlying grudge against all people.” How do you feel when you read those words, guanophore?

guanophore:

On the depravity part, I feel sad, because such a statement reflects that you do not understand my positon.

On the grudge part, you have already implied this several times, along with Pumpkin, who imagines that Catholics need to be hateful toward others in order to embrace the faith.
It is just so far off my personal experience as to leave me feeling alienated from both of you.

Keep in mind I said that in pretense to make a point! This is what I was specifically addressing:

guanophore:

Thank you for the invite, but it seems like an exercise in futility. I have also come to understand that you need to believe this in order to preserve and promote your spiritual progress. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to dispute it. People construct such world views to meet their own needs.

When you said, “People construct such world views to meet their own needs” it implies, in context, that I am somehow “fabricating” as you said before, or I have on “rose-colored glasses” which you also previously stated, which also implies that I do not have a grip on reality in some way. However, when I ask you if we could investigate reality together, you call it an exercise in futility, so I don’t see any way to resolve this. You are refusing to discuss reality with me, but you continue to assert I do not know reality.

You refused to answer when I asked if those Mormons who profess Christ who come to my door should be invited to Eucharist…

I did not refuse to answer, guanophore. I would love to answer that and many other parts of your recent posts, but I am waiting for you to answer this, which preceded all of your recent posts, and you have so far failed to answer:

I’m not sure why you are bringing forth these old posts, guanophore. You have already responded to them once before. If you would actually like to stand up for your beliefs and practices, you could respond to post 751, or you could respond to this directly, which you have yet to do:

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?

So, I did not respond to a bunch of stuff you just wrote, but you did not respond to these earlier posts of mine. “Fair is fair”, right? (I know, that sounds a little silly). I’ll tell you what, you respond to the “two men scenario” above and post 751, and then we can continue with the rest of the very interesting issues. Deal? I would very much like to keep these things charitable.

I would really like to respond to the rest of what you posted, I really would! But please, let’s continue with the “right foot forward”.

So, is it a deal?

Blessings,

 

[paziego]

Compromises work. So bring one to me and I will be happy to show you why it works.

That sounds good to me. Some state authority type person can be so intelligent that problems can be solved before cocktail hour.

Your powerful parties would be very insulted if you called their position ambiguous.

Thank you Constantine.
Now I may be older than dirt, but I do know that it would be sheer stupidity to ignore any powerful party and that includes the Holy Spirit.

You need to read some good murder mysteries or find a rerun of “Murder She Wrote.”
Murder is not something one attempts in a public boxing match drawing hundreds of your powerful parties, all placing bets on their favorite powerful party boxer or bishop. Furthermore, it would not be a good idea to insult Constantine who may be very proud of his public arena and the entertainment there in.

Time to get back to the real world. Please provide citations for your assertions. Or at least present some recognizable proposal by a powerful party. Or at least recognize the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

Answers to what?

Information for our Gentle Readers

Check out post 788, page 53, for information about the early years of the Catholic Church. If there are questions, because there is a lot involved, direct your comments/questions to that post.

Thank you for responding to my post. I noticed you left out a response to my final point, the one about where the church derives its authority from. Would you mind clarifying this for me first?

 

[guanophore]

All those who reject God are at risk of spending eternity with out HIm. This is the choice that is given to all of us.

God only forgives the sins of those who repent. We have the choice to die in our sins.

Thank you for this, OneSheep. I see I need to find a better way to express this.

God is always waiting for us with open arms, ready to forgive us and take us back into his fellowship. By His death on the cross He purchased redemption for all.

It is more accurate to say that, without repentance, we cannot avail ourselves of His forgiveness. You see, no matter who he forgave from the cross, they still all had the right to refuse eternity with Him, just as we all do. What is required of us is the metanoia. Without that, we will die in our sins.

Even though redemption and forgiveness has been provided, people still refuse it. Some in ignorance, others willingly and knowingly.

 

[o_mlly]

1. Your first sentence presupposes you have intimate knowledge of the workings of the physical universe, the interior life of a divine being(s) outside of the universe, and the relation between the two. The sheer scope of what you claim to know is mind-blowing. I don’t believe you, prove it.

No, the sentence presupposes only that religious faith is above reason. Prove otherwise.

1. The law of identity is very obvious, and the stated A=A is a perfectly acceptable expression of it. plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/.

Do your read what you cite? The article does not, as it should not, offer A=A as an expression of the law of identity.

1. To make your third claim, you would need a holistic understanding of the “laws of logic” and direct knowledge of the realm “outside of time.” Again, the scope of this claim is truly shocking. Again, I don’t believe you.

No, only a sufficient knowledge of the laws of logic is necessary and the reasonable position that space and time had a beginning.

It’s time to “shake the dust off” for those on this thread who do not have religious faith. Those who have religious faith, see. Those who will not see, claim the doctrines “confusing” rather than admit the limitations of reason. It is astounding that they will make the natural leap of faith that everything that is real can be proved by the scientific method that cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.

Peace.

 

[Gorgias]

the reality of it is that it does teach 3=1 and there is no way of reconciling it with monotheism or with the other theological commients of the church.

It really isn’t. Your insistence that “3=1” (as you put it) must, by definition, be the relation we’re trying to define, demonstrates that you simply refuse to consider any other alternatives. My example of refusing to admit a dog is a dog, simply because you want to define him as ‘cat’, really does hold up here. The mathematical “equality” relation is not what’s appropriate in this case. The “is” relationship is more appropriate – but you refuse to consider it. So, to an observer, all we have here is a 21st-century Quixote, tilting at ‘giants’, but refusing to see the windmills…

 

[grannymh]

But when reading what some have to say on how we should practice our faith, they seem to suggest that unless you are following each and every teaching of the One True Church then you are not a Catholic, one can’t possible be a True Catholic.

Would it be possible for you to give some examples of “following each and every teaching?” I am now confused about Mortal Sin. I thought “True Catholics” could go the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You’ve now said something that makes sense.

Neither do I believe what you write above.

That’s not what is meant by the Trinity.

I’m not sure how to help you.
Actually, I tend toward the belief that you do not want help.
Yet you continue to come here.
Curiouser and curiouser.

There’s the Catechism as a great resource.

As just another internet idiot, I’d suggest you try to enter into the mystery of participating in creation.
Is there some way to conceptualize the wholeness of that reality?
Once you have some sense of what is entailed in being in the world it may lead you to an understanding of the Source of which your being is a reflection.

That may get you nowhere because what is essential to God is love.
The primary connection to everything would be loving were it not for our fallen state.
When you understand love, Charitas specifically, you will understand God and His Triune nature.

I’m pretty sure this makes no sense to you.
Just be true to yourself is all I would recommend.
Keep trying but consider alternative means.
We’re rooting for you.

Firstly, you’re not an “internet idiot” in my opinion. I think we simply speak different languages and think in different modes. Mostly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It seems that this mis-communication is mutual. I think that’s OK, we don’t all have to think the same way.

I come here because I am shocked by the idea of intelligent and/or knowledgeable adults believing in Catholicism. I want to understand why people subscribe to a set of beliefs that make no sense to me. It fascinates me, and I desire to know how an intelligent and/or knowledgeable adult living in 2016 can believe these things. I feel similarly about Mormonism, Scientology, Horoscopes, Psychics, Christian Science, Snake-Handlers, and everyone else making extreme claims, but I don’t have any members of those groups in my personal life so I lack motivation to investigate. Slowly, I am building a satisfying answer to this question, so I stay.

 

[OneSheep]

I am now confused about Mortal Sin. I thought “True Catholics” could go the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation.

Hi granny,

I looked back and could not find where Simpleas was contesting your comment there. Is there a post I did not see?

 

[guanophore]

Ah, I think I see where you went with that. You are possibly saying that having a “perspective I have adopted to meet your needs” does not occur with those who adhere to all the teachings as you do. Would you agree that your own embracing of Catholicism “makes sense and works for you”? You may be equating/contrasting some things differently than I do.

Absolutely I would say so. I was musing while trapped in traffic about this the other day. This is what came to mind:

Pumpkin Cookie’s world view is very sad for me.
I prefer a world view that does not leave me so sad.
I have chosen Catholicism because it is a world view that makes sense to me, and gives me joy and peace.

This may seem very simplistic and self centered, and of course it is not the whole story, but it is true.

I think you have done something similar, in fashioning a perspective that supports the changes you wanted to make in your life. It appears from where others are sitting that you have denied some fundamental tenents of the Catholic faith:

 When you said, "People construct such world views to meet their own needs" it implies, in context, that I am somehow "fabricating" as you said before, or I have on "rose-colored glasses" which you also previously stated, which also implies that I do not have a grip on reality in some way.

We make our way through life with our perceptions. The framework that you have chosen allows you to make sense of relationships with yourself and others.

When “reality” is actually explored, it is possible to see that it is constituted by a shared consensus. You have repeatedly invited me to share in a consensus within your framework. I am unwilling to depart from the shared consensus I have with the Catholic faith.

However, when I ask you if we could investigate reality together, you call it an exercise in futility, so I don't see any way to resolve this.  You are refusing to discuss reality with me, but you continue to assert I do not know reality.

You know and embrace the reality that makes sense to you. The futility lies in the fact that the perspectives you hold are the ones that work for you. It would not be prudent to attempt to change them. It is discussing them/reading your posts that has brought me to this resolve.

 I would very much like to keep these things charitable.

In charity I will accept that we have diferent perceptions of reality.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No, the sentence presupposes only that religious faith is above reason. Prove otherwise.

Do your read what you cite? The article does not, as it should not, offer A=A as an expression of the law of identity.

No, only a sufficient knowledge of the laws of logic is necessary and the reasonable position that space and time had a beginning.

It’s time to “shake the dust off” for those on this thread who do not have religious faith. Those who have religious faith, see. Those who will not see, claim the doctrines “confusing” rather than admit the limitations of reason. It is astounding that they will make the natural leap of faith that everything that is real can be proved by the scientific method that cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.

Peace.

In order to negate the claim that faith is “above” reason, one cannot avoid appealing to reason thus proving we cannot escape from it and consider ourselves “above” it. Faith is the assertion of that which is unknown, uncertain, and not falsifiable by empirical methods, so there is no possible way to negate it other than internal contradictions or incoherence.

I wasn’t citing the article, I was linking to it for reference, since the discussion about “the law of identity” has moved considerably beyond Aristotle since the early 20th century. The circular and vacuous “law of identity” formulation A ≡ A tells us absolutely nothing, in my opinion. I do think it implies that A is not non-A.

Funny enough, this Sunday’s first reading is the Torah’s offered definition of God: “I will be what I will be.” This puzzling statement is rendered in English in several ways, but the self-reference and circular identity relation is clear in most renderings. The problem with the trinity is that it defines God differently from the offered definition that the Torah says is his name forever. God has three names in Christianity that pick out different referents, that’s the problem. God has many titles in Judaism and Islam, but they each pick out the same referent.

 

[Aloysium]

To be honest, love itself is an ambiguous concept.
I get a sense of what you are saying. God must have an object for his love, since love is his nature and love needs an object. But why not say that he loves himself? I know that is what the trinity may be presented as saying, but the reality of it is that it does teach 3=1 and there is no way of reconciling it with monotheism or with the other theological commients of the church. There is no need to transform gods “conception of himself” into another person. God can love himself without this illogical invention.

FYI

“(Jesus) showed us that God is love not in the unity of a single person, but in the Trinity of a single substance. Thus He is Creator and merciful Father; only-begotten Son, eternal Wisdom incarnate Who died and rose again for us; and finally, Holy Spirit Who moves everything, universe and history, towards the final recapitulation. Three Persons Who are one God because the Father is love, the Son is love and the Spirit is love. God is entirely and only love, pure love, infinite and eternal. He does not live in splendid solitude, rather He is the never-ending source of life Who incessantly gives and communicates Himself.” - Benedict XVI

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Pumpkin Cookie’s world view is very sad for me.
I prefer a world view that does not leave me so sad.
I have chosen Catholicism because it is a world view that makes sense to me, and gives me joy and peace.

This may seem very simplistic and self centered, and of course it is not the whole story, but it is true.

I’m not so sure you’re as knowledgeable about my world-view as you think. You’ve repeatedly made the allegation that I’m a scientific “fundamentalist” but seem to be unable or currently unwilling to offer a clarification of your accusation. Again, I reject your characterization of me as a “scientific” fundamentalist unless it means nothing more than I am unwilling to claim certainty about things that can neither be confirmed nor denied by observation or reason. I am willing to believe the truth of propositions that cannot be verified by the scientific method so long as those propositions are not internally contradictory or incoherent. Catholicism (at least, one rendering of it) requires the affirmation of a series of propositions that contradict one another and/or are incoherent, so I am not able to believe it.

I also sympathize with your emotional motivations. For me, some Catholics (usually those clamoring the loudest about how authentic they are) present a view of man, God, and existence that is not only irrational but deeply hateful and abusive. The doctrines of grace, original sin, endless hell, sacraments, the exultation of suffering, the encouragement of self-loathing, and the conquest of the other are, frankly, ugly! I’ve said this before, but if your world-view is correct, I sincerely wish I had never been born, and I think it would have been better, on balance, if nothing had been created by god(s) at all.

 

[OneSheep]

It appears from where others are sitting that you have denied some fundamental tenents of the Catholic faith:

In charity I will accept that we have diferent perceptions of reality.

Thanks for your charity, guanophore! Hopefully, those “others” will also come to the understanding that they, too, have a different perception of reality than I do, and find it within themselves to alter such judgments.

In fact, every single person has a different perception of reality, generally speaking.

It appears to me that you are not going to accept the “deal” on post 840, so I guess this is it.

God Bless you, guanophore. My hand remains ready for you to grasp it.

 

[guanophore]

In order to negate the claim that faith is "above" reason, one cannot avoid appealing to reason thus proving we cannot escape from it and consider ourselves "above" it.

Yes, such a position is unreasonable.

The fact that there are realities beyond the reach of reason in now way implies that we need to “escape” reason or consider ourselves above it. Reason, science, and philosophy can only take us so far in penetrating spirtual realities. They are limited, but not useless. God gave them to us as gifts and expects us to use them and cherish them.

Faith is the assertion of that which is unknown, uncertain, and not falsifiable by empirical methods, so there is no possible way to negate it other than internal contradictions or incoherence.

This is the definition of faith that you have adopted for yourself. We have a different definition.

Funny enough, this Sunday’s first reading is the Torah’s offered definition of God: “I will be what I will be.” This puzzling statement is rendered in English in several ways, but the self-reference and circular identity relation is clear in most renderings. The problem with the trinity is that it defines God differently from the offered definition that the Torah says is his name forever. God has three names in Christianity that pick out different referents, that’s the problem. God has many titles in Judaism and Islam, but they each pick out the same referent.

I think you might be thinking of titles, rather than names? The concept of the Trinity contradicts nothing that was previously revealed.

 

[paziego]

It really isn’t. Your insistence that “3=1” (as you put it) must, by definition, be the relation we’re trying to define, demonstrates that you simply refuse to consider any other alternatives. My example of refusing to admit a dog is a dog, simply because you want to define him as ‘cat’, really does hold up here. The mathematical “equality” relation is not what’s appropriate in this case. The “is” relationship is more appropriate – but you refuse to consider it. So, to an observer, all we have here is a 21st-century Quixote, tilting at ‘giants’, but refusing to see the windmills…

“Is” has two meanings, but you have to use them consistently. Your defence of the trinity switches between them mid-argument and that is why it is invalid.

 

[paziego]

It really isn’t. Your insistence that “3=1” (as you put it) must, by definition, be the relation we’re trying to define, demonstrates that you simply refuse to consider any other alternatives. My example of refusing to admit a dog is a dog, simply because you want to define him as ‘cat’, really does hold up here. The mathematical “equality” relation is not what’s appropriate in this case. The “is” relationship is more appropriate – but you refuse to consider it. So, to an observer, all we have here is a 21st-century Quixote, tilting at ‘giants’, but refusing to see the windmills…

My original presentation of the trinity problem was that “if the son is god and the father is god then the son is the father.” The “is” relations are what they are. Deal with it.

You responded to my original argument with an original and well developed argument of your own. Fine.

Then I replied to you proving your argument wrong by your own methodology.

Then you replied to me trying to argue against my refutation by rejecting your own methodology, thus invalidating your original argument.

Then you put up another post simply denying my point, rather than contributing anything new or justifying your denial.

Now you do the same. You are flatly rejecting my point without offering one of your own.

Gorgias, please contribute to the argument, rather than attempting to derail it.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for responding to my post. I noticed you left out a response to my final point, the one about where the church derives its authority from. Would you mind clarifying this for me first?

Like any visible large organization, the Catholic Church derives its authority from the organization’s president and the board of directors. In Catholic terminology, Jesus Christ is president. Sometime back there was a mile of posts on a thread debating Scripture as to how it described establishment of the Catholic Church or how it did not describe establishment of the current visible Catholic Church. My apology. I rather take a walk in this spring weather than do another mile of posts. I respect your right to make up your own mind.

The Catholic Church’s board of directors is headed by the Pope. His authority comes from the structure of the organization. That is the way Jesus designed it . As I said above, this is also a situation where you need to make up your own mind. At this point, all I need to do is to describe the visible organization.

I did describe how the organization basically works when there is a particular issue to be decided back in post 788, page 53.

There were a number of things at the bottom of post 827 which I did not reply to.
For example. “As with all lies, you can go forwards by not backwards.”
As a journalist before the birth of Google, going backwards is a primary tool when one is investigating or simply trying to make a dull subject into something fascinating.

I have no clue about Plato and most of the modern philosophers. In my era, journalists used the questions Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? which provided the information used in the “reasoning” process for a top news story. If I may respectfully point out – the way post 827 is written, there are not enough hard facts, answering the above journalism questions, to substantiate its premise of denying what the Catholic Church does as a visible organization on planet earth.