The Confusion of Catholicism

[Abu]

paziego #947
Oh please, like a website called catholicleague is not going to be biased. I have read books and articles claiming the same thing about Islam and Hinduism. You shouldn’t trust any of the claims.

The complete inability to accept real facts of science, the unadulterated prejudice against the reality of history and the lack of knowledge, are staggering, but now so well established that anything else would indicate some progress towards reality.

The colossal bias against a “catholicleague” website betrays the utter ignorance that the author quoted there is Dr Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University – non-Catholic!

Even if all that were true, which it is not,

The repetitive jumping to conclusions without a skerrick of evidence is proof enough of the inability to face reality or even look for the truth.

the developments are not necessarily because of the church.

With all of the facts available, and readily accessible, the refusal to face the reality betrays a simplistic and inherent bias against that reality.

Even many scientists just don’t know the debt that the world owes to the Catholics who have discovered and developed science.

In Science and Creation Father Stanley Jaki lists seven great cultures in which science suffered a “stillbirth” – Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya – they did not have the Catholic conception of the divine. Fr Jaki emphasises that “nature had to be de-animized” for science to be born. (Creation and Scientific Creativity, Paul Haffner, Christendom Press, 1991, p 41). “During the twelfth century in Latin Europe those aspects of Judeo-Christian thought which emphasized the idea of creation out of nothing and the distance between God and the world, in certain contexts and with certain men, had the effect of eliminating all semi-divine entities from the realm of nature.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 93).

“From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities — that most Christian invention. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. The autonomy of individual faculty members was carefully guarded. Since all instruction was in Latin, scholars were able to move about without regard for linguistic boundaries, and because their degrees were mutually recognized, they were qualified to join any faculty. It was in these universities that European Christians began to establish science. And it was in these same universities, not later in the salons of philosophes or Renaissance men, that the classics were restored to intellectual importance. The translations from Greek into Latin were accomplished by exceedingly pious Christian scholars.

“It was the Christian scholastics, not the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, or Chinese, who built up the field of physiology based on human dissections. Once again, hardly anyone knows the truth about dissection and the medieval Church. Human dissection was not permitted in the classical world (“the dignity of the human body” forbade it), which is why Greco-Roman works on anatomy are so faulty. Aristotle’s studies were limited entirely to animal dissections, as were those of Celsius and Galen. Human dissection also was prohibited in Islam.

“With the Christian universities came a new outlook on dissection. The starting assumption was that what is unique to humans is a soul, not a physiology. Dissections of the human body, therefore, have no theological implications.
catholicleague.org/resear…nd_science.htm
Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)].

The twin pillars of Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio, St John Paul II) will always result in the best science – directed to the discovery of God’s laws and based on His natural moral law as to ends and means – with which Christ’s Church alone is fully equipped by Him to guide.

Everyone who knows the history of science sees the blindness so starkly in evidence.

 

[guanophore]

Yeah, but it is not a mortal sin to be a jerk. It is possible to be a jerk in a state of grace. Therefore a persons actions are not a reliable guide as to their holiness.

How did you figure that?!?!?! How is anything about being a jerk acceptable for a Christian?

How is being a jerk in any way compatible with the commandment to love your neighbor?

As I am reading about your experiences I am realizing that you were poorly catechized and needed more spiritual direction than you received. You have some bent ideas about Catholicism.

This is an incorrect assertion. Of course we “know them by their fruits”. A persons actions are most certainly a guide to holiness.

…17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.…Matt 7:18

A jerk can go to confession, and thereby be in a state of sanctifying grace, but said jerk must repent of one’s attitude and behavior. Said jerk is expected to bear the fruits that befit repentance.

This is where I see the problem. If the essence of the religion is to love God and your neighbour, then surely to be holy is to be loving and not a jerk. But the fact that is not the case suggests that Catholicism isn't based on the two greatest commandments.

If what you are asserting is true, I would agree. Fortunately it is not.

Besides, how many people do you know that participate in the sacraments but aren’t any more loving because of it? It seems a lot of people aren’t motivated by love for God or others, but find something to satisfy their own needs and egos.

It is true that we often fall short of God’s intention for us. Confession restores us to a state of grace, but it is spiritual disciplines and the practice of His teachings that changes our character. Change occurs through the power of the Holy Spirt - it is a transformation from within.

 

[paziego]

The complete inability to accept real facts of science, the unadulterated prejudice against the reality of history and the lack of knowledge, are staggering, but now so well established that anything else would indicate some progress towards reality.

The colossal bias against a “catholicleague” website betrays the utter ignorance that the author quoted there is Dr Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University – non-Catholic!

The repetitive jumping to conclusions without a skerrick of evidence is proof enough of the inability to face reality or even look for the truth.

With all of the facts available, and readily accessible, the refusal to face the reality betrays a simplistic and inherent bias against that reality.

I regards to all of the above, I think you need to be a little less melodramatic. “Inability to accept real facts”, “staggering unadulterated prejudice”, “colossal bias”, “utter ignorance”, “inability to face reality or even look for truth”.

Have you even read any ancient or medieval scientific treatise? Have you read any non-Greek and non-European science of any period?

You are ignoring the praise I gave Catholic science earlier in this thread. I even know catholic physicists personally.

Even many scientists just don’t know the debt that the world owes to the Catholics who have discovered and developed science.

Science was not separated from natural philosophy until much after the scholastic golden age, and it was not Catholics who did this. Therefore modern science was not “discovered” by the Church.

In Science and Creation Father Stanley Jaki lists seven great cultures in which science suffered a “stillbirth” – Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya – they did not have the Catholic conception of the divine. Fr Jaki emphasises that “nature had to be de-animized” for science to be born. (Creation and Scientific Creativity, Paul Haffner, Christendom Press, 1991, p 41). “During the twelfth century in Latin Europe those aspects of Judeo-Christian thought which emphasized the idea of creation out of nothing and the distance between God and the world, in certain contexts and with certain men, had the effect of eliminating all semi-divine entities from the realm of nature.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 93).

“From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities — that most Christian invention. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. The autonomy of individual faculty members was carefully guarded. Since all instruction was in Latin, scholars were able to move about without regard for linguistic boundaries, and because their degrees were mutually recognized, they were qualified to join any faculty. It was in these universities that European Christians began to establish science. And it was in these same universities, not later in the salons of philosophes or Renaissance men, that the classics were restored to intellectual importance. The translations from Greek into Latin were accomplished by exceedingly pious Christian scholars.

“It was the Christian scholastics, not the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, or Chinese, who built up the field of physiology based on human dissections. Once again, hardly anyone knows the truth about dissection and the medieval Church. Human dissection was not permitted in the classical world (“the dignity of the human body” forbade it), which is why Greco-Roman works on anatomy are so faulty. Aristotle’s studies were limited entirely to animal dissections, as were those of Celsius and Galen. Human dissection also was prohibited in Islam.

There are two fallacies in the thinking you describe,

1. The notion of a scientific revolution is itself fallacious. Historians in the 19th century used to use term “revolution” as a way of periodising history and anchoring their theories. But in the 21st century we are moving beyond this simplistic model and beginning to appreciate that development is much more gradual. European medieval scientist stood on the shoulders of their forbearers, and benefited from contact with middle eastern scientists and philosophers. That is well established history and it would be wilful blindness to ignore this
2. The notion of science as a monolithic whole is also fallacious. Every discipline is different, and a “revolution” in chemistry does not translate into a revolution in physics. Medieval physics was not understood in terms of laws, as we understand them in the post-Newton era. Therefore there was no revolution in physics in the middle ages, and when the revolution did occur it was not in a Catholic university. Notice how what you copied-and-pasted specifically mentions a development in physiology. But a development in physiology is not on its own a revolution in science.

Islam considers astrology and alchemy a sin. Alchemy did not disappear completely but you do have medieval Islamic chemists, and astronomers.
Just as European scholars shared the Latin language, muslim scholars had Arabic as a lingua franaca, and it served as a language of learning even in Europe.
Universities are not an invention of the Church. Ancient India had places where several academic disciplines were studied to a high level. The muslim world also had universities, the first being Al-Quaraouiyine founded in 856, well before any European university.
Strictly speaking these non-European higher learning institutions are not “universities” since the term university refers to an institution with the cultural characteristics of medieval European institutions. But these other higher learning institutions did the same teaching and research.

 

[Abu]

This thread now could be much better titled The Confusion of paziego.

Science was not separated from natural philosophy until much after the scholastic golden age, and it was not Catholics who did this. Therefore modern science was not “discovered” by the Church.

**Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., knew that Catholic theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, while stifled elsewhere. **
He explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpungable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15].

Though of great mind, Aristotle was faulty on many counts in science.

Pierre Duhem, A.C. Crombie and Edward Grant have argued that the condemnations of the Bishop of Paris (1277) forced thinkers to break out of the intellectual confinement of Aristotelian presuppositions, from the restrictions of Aristotelian science and to adopt new thinking to the physical world.

Aristotle had denied the possibility of a vacuum, and the condemnations “seem definitely to have promoted a freer and more imaginative way of doing science.” (Dales, The De-Animation of the Heavens in the Middle Ages, p 550).

“Newton, Kepler and Galileo regarded the creation itself as a book41 that was to be read and comprehended. The sixteenth century scientific genius René Descartes justified his search for natural ‘laws’ on grounds that such laws must exist because God is perfect and therefore ‘acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible,’ except for the rare exceptions of miracles.42 In contrast these critical religious concepts and motivations were lacking in those societies that seem otherwise to have had the potential to develop science but did not: China, Greece, and Islam. [My emphasis].
Notes:
41. David Lyle Jeffrey, By Things Seen: Reference and Recognition in Medieval Thought, 1979, University of Ottawa Press.
42.* Oeuvres*: book 8, ch. 61…"

The notion of a scientific revolution is itself fallacious.

Really?
“The celebrated Muslim philosopher Averroes and his students in the twelfth century, despite their efforts to exclude all Muslim doctrines from their work….became intransigent and doctrinaire Aristotelians – proclaiming that his physics was complete and infallible and that if an observation was inconsistent with one of Aristotle’s views, the observation was certainly incorrect or an illusion.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 21].

surrey.ac.uk/ati/ibc/file…e&Creation.pdf
“By the time of the Jewish Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides (1135-1204) the heyday of the Islamic empire had passed: its science had come to a standstill, and even its days were numbered as its western and eastern flanks were soon to be lost.

“The most, Maimonides noted, that the theologians2 were willing to admit about lawfulness in the universe was that it resembled human habits, such as the customary riding of the king of a city through its streets. Still, a king could readily break his habits, and so could any or all parts of the universe shift to a different “habit”. Maimonides pointedly remarked: “the thing which exists … only follows the direction of habit …On this foundation their whole fabric is constructed.”
Note:
2. Thus, the influential mystic al-Ghazzali (1058-1111), known as Hujjatu-l-Islam (“Islam’s convincing proof”) wrote a book attacking the scientists which became a milestone of Muslim thought not only by its contents but also by its evocative title: Tahafut-al-falisifah (“Incoherence of the Philosophers”, translated into English by Sabih Ahmad Kamali, Lahore: The Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1958). He asserted that human reason had to stop at the observation of simultaneity, and forgo the obvious inference to causality: “… all these things are observed to exist with some other conditions. But we cannot say they exist by them … On the contrary, they derive their existence from God … So it is clear that existence with a thing does not prove being by it.” (p 49)

For St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the ultimate raison d’être of the cosmos consisted in its subordination to man’s unique and supernatural destiny. Motivated by the sad predicament of Muslim theologians and philosophers, and by their highly unsettling impact on a Christian Europe going through its birth pangs, he made a gigantic effort to bring reason and faith into a stable synthesis.5 His polemical Summa contra gentiles (1257), aimed at countering the occasionalism and fatalism contending with one another within Muslim theology and philosophy and centred on questions about the Creator and the nature of human intellect.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes I am thinking confession alone is not always effective for all. There is no time for consultation and discussion, it is the place to be forgiven through a priest for the sins we know we have committed that is all. Our parish is working on developing ideas to bring confession into the church again. Since you are in the UK, have you heard about the mercy bus?

I must confess I haven’t!

 

[tonyrey]

I would say that there is plenty of evidence that a religious movement was initiated by Jesus. But I don’t trust the gospels as accurate accounts of his life and ministry, nor do I believe there is any indication, other than an ambiguous statement in the gospels, that he intended to create an institution as we think of the Church now. Church history is also very hazy in the early period. Paul and the church fathers seems to suggest there are other Christian groups which are in error or preaching a false Christ, which is no doubt was those other groups would have said about Paul and the fathers.

How do you think Jesus expected His teaching to survive?

I am no friend of Protestantism - I mean its theology and vision oh history, I am not against protestants themselves. So I agree that a sola scriptura Christianity ignores the fact that someone must have held the beliefs before writing the theology.

Indeed - and selected the true from the false.

Of course you are right, and I was not suggesting otherwise. I was just saying that, equally, the holiness of individual Catholics does not prove the religion right.

It proves what men and women who follow Christ’s teaching are capable of - in stark contrast to those who are sceptics.

The trinity (as everyone on this thread is probably now aware of). But I also do not believe the account of genesis literally, and I think this position undermines the idea of original sin.
In fact, I don’t see the sense in a sin you inherit which puts you in a condemned state automatically. I know the claim is that we are living with the effect of original sin and not with the guilt, but if original sin can send you to hell then it seems we really do inherit the guilt.

A solitary Person is the apotheosis of egoism! Two Persons are fruitless whereas Three Persons are a community…

The whole premise of fall and salvation seems strange to me. Of itself it seems to make little sense, and is not even the traditional Jewish reading of Genesis. I have studied Iranian religions, such as Zoroastrianism and Ismaili Islam, which explain how some kind of fall and historical process of salvation is occurring. But these religions present man as a partner of God, helping Him complete creation after it experienced a setback. In these religions it is man’s job to bring about the end of history by bringing the world to a state of perfection - there is no concept of the world falling into an irrevocable mistake which must then be aborted at the end of time. Existence is inherently good, as Aquinas would say, and our mission in these religions is to increase this goodness-existence. Personal judgment in these religions has to do with how well we contributed to perfecting the world by being moral and respecting nature, rather than looking to the next world at the expense of our life in this one. There is no concept of spending your earthly existence making up for an irrevocable imperfection, as is the case in Christianity. Nor is there any obligation to love God under the threat of going to hell, which is absolutely not a loving attitude. Instead we are partners in doing good works, and our motivation is that the perfected world is as much in our interest as it is in God’s.

The bottom line is, I don’t believe the world being imperfect is my fault. Since I live in an imperfect world and am imperfect myself, I often contribute to this imperfection. But I can’t bear the blame (if it even is a question of blame) for the context I was born into. Nor can I inherit the blame of any person who is responsible. This is simply not justice.

For this reason I also do not believe in atonement. It is not clear to me what this attainment of worthiness is or what justifies this whole sin-salvation mechanism.

Imperfection is not our fault but we are the victims of our ancestor’s faults - as we can see from the blood-stained history of mankind. We need to be liberated from evil by the unselfish love Jesus demonstrated in the way He lived and died for us. If we go to Hell it is because we choose to live for ourselves at the expense of others

 

[tonyrey]

This illustrates clearly that God is NOT ever addressed as female, and is NOT female, but His male reality is expressed in many loving ways by the faithful who appreciate God’s Fatherhood.

Indeed. The Deity is neither male nor female. Jesus referred to God as “Father” because He chose to be born into a patriarchal society which was the rule rather than the exception.

 

[benhur]

The bottom line is, I don’t believe the world being imperfect is my fault. Since I live in an imperfect world and am imperfect myself, I often contribute to this imperfection. But I can’t bear the blame (if it even is a question of blame) for the context I was born into. Nor can I inherit the blame of any person who is responsible. This is simply not justice.

For this reason I also do not believe in atonement. It is not clear to me what this attain

ment of worthiness is or what justifies this whole sin-salvation mechanism.

Hi paz,

You know, I almost agree with you on the first paragraph. In fact I do. It is not your fault. You indeed were born this way, as we all were. And you do have a good handle on what justice should be like. Irregardless of fault you also correctly perceive your own imperfection, or a missing the mark as in bulls eye (sin).

Now, where we differ, what has to be understood, is that we do not go to hell because of what we are , but for what we choose not to be. We do not go to hell because we broke some or all of the ten commandments , which is only in our nature, but because we refused to then receive the solution. We inherit the problem thru no fault of our own , so God makes a solution, not of our own making, to inherit, if we so choose to receive.

We did not screw things up. We also did not have anything to do with the fix. We accept the mess, why not accept the fix ? That is the true depravity of ourselves, avoiding, rejecting the fix,and that quite naturally. At some point however, God can intervene quite unnaturally (supernaturally, spiritually), but not against our free will. We even reject His enabling our own will to go His way.

Now we have justice. We are doomed for refusing the help that would overcome our natural refusal. We have to be responsible for something.

Blessings

 

[simpleas]

I must confess I haven’t!

That’s ok, we are in a different part of the country! Here is a link to what I meant :

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/01/29/salfords-mercy-bus-project-is-blessed-by-pope-francis/

I hoping you know who Jimmy Cricket is? Fr Mulgrew is one of the priests who came up with the idea and he is the comedians son!

 

[Hunho]

******:frighten:
******What happened to everybody? :bighanky:

 

[Gorgias]

******:frighten:
******What happened to everybody? :bighanky:

Light Grenade.

 

[Hunho]

Light Grenade.

New rule: Whenever the artifact says “Pick Me Up”–DON’T!!

 

[fred_conty]

Originally Posted by PumpkinCookie
1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
2: Without a strong and clear identity, a negative definition emerges.

Confusion is what reigns here on this site because it is an apologetical site, which by nature is contraversial. The questions and answers are too often arguments instead of discussions. And sometimes one or the other person becomes miffed and hurt. This is a site where all sorts of “questionable” as well as wise topics appear. The range in ages of people is 6 to 86, from atheistic to mystic, from sinful to holy, and covers any topic in the entire world that has to do with religion and beliefs.

Isn’t it logical that this would seem to be a mumble jumble stew pot leading to confusion, when most of the time one person doesn’t know where the other person is comming from, and each talk past one another. Not to mention whether some are sincere or telling the truth.

Some participants are learned and others ignorant. Some just starting down the path to find truth, with others have advanced down the path quite a ways.

So what it comes down to is that this confusion can’t be otherwise with such a hodgepodge of people.This is a site of apologetics, even for the forms not labeled apologetics as such.

But there is no confusion if we leave out apologetics. The average person should be clear as to what to do and how to do it. It really isn’t that difficult if we just follow the simple rules of our faith and live accordingly. I know this because simple average Catholics do this. They know Jesus, they love him personally and in their neighbor, and they are waiting for Jesus to call them home to their paradise with him. It isn’t complicated at all. Jesus was simple in his teaching, and straight forward for those who listen to him and want the truth.

And so Catholics who are devoted don’t have an identity problem as such.
Their cause is that of knowing Jesus, and loving him as best they can personally and in their neighbor, just as Jesus loved his Father and all of us. If they have an identity issue, it would be that of becoming more like Christ and immersing their life with his. Which is what Jesus does when he gives himself to us in the Blessed Euchrist. It is so simple…to love him and then all else falls into place.

Good question and glad you brought it up. This is not the best site for many who are seeking Jesus and need a more loving and constructive environment.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Disclaimer: I read the OP’s post, but I did not read all 65 pages of the thread.

I would say that the culture, politics, people and even traditions of the church can be very confusing, but that her teaching and founder are very solid foundations.

Those Catholics who choose to build their identities as Catholics on Catholic culture, politics, people or tradition are building on shifting sands and may very well not be Catholics or Christians in a true sense at all. But those Catholics who choose to build upon the Church’s official teaching and her founder, which is God himself, have built upon solid rock upon which we will develop in our understanding, but it will not falter nor contradict itself.

 

[guanophore]

Disclaimer: I read the OP’s post, but I did not read all 65 pages of the thread.

I would say that the culture, politics, people and even traditions of the church can be very confusing, but that her teaching and founder are very solid foundations.

Those Catholics who choose to build their identities as Catholics on Catholic culture, politics, people or tradition are building on shifting sands and may very well not be Catholics or Christians in a true sense at all. But those Catholics who choose to build upon the Church’s official teaching and her founder, which is God himself, have built upon solid rock upon which we will develop in our understanding, but it will not falter nor contradict itself.

Well said!:clapping:

 

[PRmerger]

Disclaimer: I read the OP’s post, but I did not read all 65 pages of the thread.

I would say that the culture, politics, people and even traditions of the church can be very confusing, but that her teaching and founder are very solid foundations.

Those Catholics who choose to build their identities as Catholics on Catholic culture, politics, people or tradition are building on shifting sands and may very well not be Catholics or Christians in a true sense at all. But those Catholics who choose to build upon the Church’s official teaching and her founder, which is God himself, have built upon solid rock upon which we will develop in our understanding, but it will not falter nor contradict itself.

Well said!:clapping:

I echo the sentiment above!

Kudos to SecretCatholic for his trenchant insights!

 

[tonyrey]

This is not the best site for many who are seeking Jesus and need a more loving and constructive environment.

It is the best site for those who are seeking answers to attacks on Catholic doctrines - following the tradition of the first Christian apologists: St Clement, St Ignatius, St Justin and St Irenaeus. Jesus Himself gave reasons for believing His teaching. There couldn’t be a more loving and constructive environment than that even though He was faced with fierce opposition and didn’t hesitate to counter-attack and condemn the self-righteous hypocrisy of the Pharisees who exploited the poor.