The Confusion of Catholicism

[PRmerger]

Even if “evangelization” is not primarily motivated by hate, there is still a kind of hate in the thought that all people should be evangelized even if we’re not willing to go all the way and threaten them with death every time.

Do you think someone who posts this on Facebook is motivated by hate?

immunizeforgood.com/why-vaccinate

I don’t think you would.

I think you would understand that this evangelization is motivated by a desire to spread the good news of immunizations.

So just apply that to the real Good News.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Me: 12 times 13 equals 156.

You: How do you know?

Me: My math teacher says so.

You: How do you know that is really what the teacher said?

Me: (Shows you the textbook containing the Multiplication Table)

You: How do you know you are interpreting that book correctly?

This analogy is not meant to suggest that you should treat the contents of the Catechism as being as simple as the Multiplication Tables. My point is that no matter how clear, specific and unambiguous the document, it is always possible to say “How do you know you haven’t misunderstood it?”

To answer more directly: I am sure I have not misinterpreted the contents of the catechism because it is a very clear and well-written book, and because I grew up being taught what the Church teaches, and because I can read the book any time I want in order to check on my understanding of what it says.

If I suspect I’ve misunderstood, I have plenty of sources to check. I can go to my priest or bishop, or check other books written by Church experts, or (over the last couple of decades) go online. The Vatican itself now has a website I can consult.

It’s not like any of this is kept secret, Pumpkin Cookie. Nor is it like the Church is reluctant to explain and clarify things if we ask.

You are saying my criticism “does too much work” in the sense that it would undermine any kind of knowledge based on an authoritative text.

I accept and acknowledge your criticism. You are right, it undermines our confidence in any religious text. Yes.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is incorrect.

Catholicism, out of all the religions of the world, has the strongest and clearest identify, for it is the ONLY religion that has a central authority, a magisterium, which claims the authority to speak for all things Catholic.

There are two ways I can respond to this. Either I grant that Catholicism has the strongest identity of any religion, and then proceed to flesh out precisely why that illusory clarity proves that it is the mostly deeply hateful religion, or I could deny that Catholicism is the least ambiguous religion by arguing that comparing degrees of ambiguity is itself an ambiguous process that leads nowhere. What should I do?

 

[PRmerger]

There are two ways I can respond to this. Either I grant that Catholicism has the strongest identity of any religion, and then proceed to flesh out precisely why that illusory clarity proves that it is the mostly deeply hateful religion, or I could deny that Catholicism is the least ambiguous religion by arguing that comparing degrees of ambiguity is itself an ambiguous process that leads nowhere. What should I do?

The former, please.

But be careful, PC, that contempt for Catholicism is not limned in your arguments.

That is something that is not permitted here.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There are 2 options to that:

-leave the Catholic Church…but then you would be leaving what you didn’t have a clue about, and would be leaving a pornographized version of Catholicism

-find out what the CC actually teaches

-I already left, in my heart and mind years ago, and formally two years ago. I actually asked to be excommunicated formally so I would be released from my obligation to attend mass, receive the eucharist, and support the church. There are two forms of excommunication, and the second (which releases the apostate or heretic from the precepts of the church) has fallen into disuse. I excommunicated myself years ago, but just in case the church happens to be right, I’d rather not rack up more sins.

-right, why don’t you tell me all about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. You know, cuz it isn’t ambiguous at all. I can trust your opinion right? I have good reasons to suppose you know what Catholicism is really about right?

Also LOL at “pornographized.” Do you mean that my view of Catholicism is garish, disgusting, twisted, unrealistic, and woefully misguided? Maybe you are right. As I learned more and more about it, I became increasingly revolted. Was I just becoming more and more uninformed? How can I know?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Are you asking “how do I know that the Catechism actually the sure norm for what the CC teaches”?

No.

How do I know that PRmerger’s understanding of the Catechism is true Catholicism? How do I know that Pope Pius IX’s understanding of religious freedom is wrong and Vatican 2’s is right? Who are the real Catholics?

But, I don’t really care anymore, that’s the thing. I’m trying to understand why some Catholics throughout history and today seem to hate those who disagree with them, even on minor points. That’s my project for this thread.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

• communion isn’t a reward. It’s far better to ignore it altogether than use it the way it is treated, as a lever of power
• the distinctive function of ordained clergy being sacramental, most especially in relation to communion, the same applies
• power should be taken away from those who demand to weild it over others in the church, not given them
• for those of us who don’t find the CCC enough help there are countless Catholic and (in the UK) Protestant sources to research, if we want to expand our glimpse of what the Christian faith may entail

Mistaken “debates” on these subjects whether “pro” or “anti” hardly illustrate sniping by Catholics at atheists.

At the beginning of this thread, you posed such an interesting question.

I think I understand what you mean. There are a bunch of Catholics in the USA who demand that communion be withheld from certain pro-abortion politicians based on canon 915.

Is this motivated by love? Do they think these politicians are harming God? Do they fear for the souls of those who are offending Jesus? Or, is it an attempt to control the narrative about who is a real Catholic? Is it a desire to “punish” those who are not “true” Catholics motivated by hate? I’m not sure!

I do think that several threads in this subforum right now are essentially “sniping” at our atheist fellow human beings.

 

[PRmerger]

-I already left, in my heart and mind years ago, and formally two years ago. I actually asked to be excommunicated formally so I would be released from my obligation to attend mass, receive the eucharist, and support the church.

Yes, and you left what you didn’t know.

That’s a shame when someone leaves and can’t even articulate a basic apologia for Church teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

Also LOL at “pornographized.” Do you mean that my view of Catholicism is garish, disgusting, twisted, unrealistic, and woefully misguided? Maybe you are right.

Yes.

And also not consonant with reality.

As I learned more and more about it, I became increasingly revolted. Was I just becoming more and more uninformed? How can I know?

Well, how about if you offer an apologia for why the Church proclaims that outside the Church there is no salvation.

I think you are woefully misinformed about this, and perhaps you can prove me wrong.

Please give us your understanding of this teaching, (in your own words, of course, without seeking succor in Father Google) and if it’s articulate and informed I will retract the above assertion that your understanding of this teaching is abysmal.

 

[Reepicheep]

I appreciate your account of Catholicism here, but Torquemada and Pope Pius IX disagree with you (or do they?) Whom should I trust? Who are the real Catholics? How should I know? Is this not ambiguous?

You ask me to justify Torquemada!?

…No, Pumpkin Cookie. No. This is not ambiguous. A fanatic who lived several centuries ago committed evil though fanaticism. The Church has repudiated such evil things and no longer practices them. Why must I now be asked to condone or justify them?

Who are the real Catholics? I have answered that question. Those who accept the truth of Catholic doctrine and seek to obey. How do we know who they are? They are the ones in harmony with the teaching authority of the Church, which means the Pope and the College of Cardinals.

There are many millions of Catholics alive today. It will always be possible to find some who do not live up to basic standards, who refuse to accept the authority of the Church and insist that the Church is wrong. That proves nothing about the Church itself, and no, it does not prove ambiguity in our teachings and practices.

Find a hundred people who have memorized the text of the American Declaration of Independence.
Ask them all to recite it from memory.
Let us suppose that ten or fifteen of them have made errors.
Let us suppose that some of them now argue with the others as to the exact wording of the Declaration.
*Does that mean the Declaration of Independence is an ambiguous document? *

No. No, it does not. It means there is disagreement among those who argue. One may consult actual copies of the Declaration to find out the exact wording.
Disagreement does not prove ambiguity.

Regarding the Pope Francis video, just Google it. You will find a bottomless pit of vitriol toward the pope in the comment boxes, and even on this website, I think there are threads about this in the “news” forum. Catholics are no more hateful than anyone else. I just think that the ambiguity of religion combined with the ego’s grasping for clarity breeds hatred in some religious people, Catholics included.

There are many millions of us. Among those you will find some who hate the Pope, or hate his authority, or hate what he says. The Church as a whole stands united in spite of this.
You will find some who, while they love the Pope, are honestly convinced he is wrong about some issue, and insist on placing their judgement above his, and above the teachings of the Church. The Church as a whole stands united in spite of that.

You say they are mistaken. You say Mother Church says such and such. Other Catholics disagree. They say you are mistaken. They say Mother Church says so and so. Who is “right?” How can the prove it? Who are the real Catholics? How do we know?

We know because we have a reliable and authoritative source.

Well if you love wisdom then you’re a philosopher! Everyone has a different style of expression, so maybe nitpicking doesn’t work for you. It’s funny actually. More analytical philosophers get accused of “nitpicking” but they usually accuse more intuitive or evocative philosophers of “hand waving.” I’m fine with either. I enjoy a good hand-waving just as much as the next guy.

The reason I drew a parallel between the Pharisees and the Church is because the model of hate culminated in the same ends. We suspect that the Pharisees hated Jesus because they tried to silence him, discredit him, and eventually had him put to death by putting pressure on the state. The Church has done the same thing to “heretics.” So, that is why I suppose the Church has “hated” those with whom she has disagreed in the past.

The church has existed for two thousand years. In that time members of the Church, sometimes members in high places, sometimes even the Pope, have committed sins. Have done wicked things.

Torquemada is not alive today. He has not been alive for centuries. The wicked Popes are not alive today. They have not been alive for centuries.

You prove nothing by pointing out that in the span of two millennia there have been Church officials who failed to live up to their Lord’s commands. Those commands were clear in spite of determined efforts at distortion and misrepresentation by many who heard Him. The teachings of the Church today are equally clear. in spite of many who try to muddy the waters. The attempt to create ambiguity is not proof that ambiguity exists.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You conflate uncertainty of meaning with uncertainty of accuracy.
Regardless whether or not you believe the teachings of the Church, the content of those teachings is clear.
Regardless whether some members of the Church dispute or disagree over the truth of a doctrine, the doctrines themselves are clear.

(“People who call themselves Christians or Catholics believe opposing things, and they always have.”)

Yes, and people believe opposing things about any subject of importance. Yet some things are objectively true no matter how many people doubt them.
The fact that some people question Catholic doctrines does not in itself disprove the doctrines. It most certainly does not prove them ambiguous.

Further there exists a standard by which one may reliably determine whether a given statement is in harmony with Catholic doctrine or belief. We have a central authority; the Papacy and the College of Cardinals. If a doctrine contradicts the central teaching authority of the Church then it is not an authentic Catholic doctrine.

(“How could this possibly happen, if the content of Christianity or Catholicism or religion is as simple as the math examples you present?”)

The content of Catholicism is not as simple as my math example. I did not say that it was. My math analogy was meant to point out that your question (“how do you know your interpretation is correct?”) could be asked however simple the subject.

I know my interpretation is correct when my interpretation is in harmony with the teaching authority of Holy Church. Should I be in doubt as to the content of that authority’s teachings, I know where to go to find out.

How do you know your interpretation is in harmony with the teaching authority of the church? You say “the content is clear” but do you mean the words themselves or the meaning of the words or both? If it is so clear, why do people who read the same texts disagree? Some people are just dumb? Is that a hateful thing to believe?

Is it because you literally say it to yourself verbatim? Like, you believe exactly word-for-word what is in the 1993 Catechism, and nothing else? What happens if you come across a conciliar document or a papal proclamation seemingly saying the opposite? How would you know if they are actually contradictory or not? Which one is right? Is it “newest is truest?”

If we’re not dealing with ambiguities, then why are there 40,000 sects of Christians all claiming to be “the real Christians” even though they think they hold mutually contradictory beliefs? How could a situation like this have arisen if religious truths are unambiguous?

I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’ve answered this question. I’m not trying to prove or disprove any particular doctrine, merely to point out that it isn’t so easy to do either, and that is excellent evidence of the truth being esoteric and ambiguous.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Do you think someone who posts this on Facebook is motivated by hate?

immunizeforgood.com/why-vaccinate

I don’t think you would.

I think you would understand that this evangelization is motivated by a desire to spread the good news of immunizations.

So just apply that to the real Good News.

Whether or not vaccines work to prevent illness can be demonstrated via observable evidence.

Whether or not a religious belief is true cannot be demonstrated at all.

Those who encourage vaccines are doing a favor for humanity.

Those who attempt to force others to convert to a particular religion are feeding their own egos (in many cases…maybe).

 

[Reepicheep]

You are saying my criticism “does too much work” in the sense that it would undermine any kind of knowledge based on an authoritative text.

I accept and acknowledge your criticism. You are right, it undermines our confidence in any religious text. Yes.

…No. I am saying your criticism is not valid. The fact that you can use that question no matter how simple and clear the material, shows that asking that question does not show the material to be ambiguous.
Your question undermines nothing except perhaps in your opinion.

I think now that nothing I say will change your opinion of the Church.

May the Lord God bless you and lead you to Him.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes.

And also not consonant with reality.

Well, how about if you offer an apologia for why the Church proclaims that outside the Church there is no salvation.

I think you are woefully misinformed about this, and perhaps you can prove me wrong.

Please give us your understanding of this teaching, (in your own words, of course, without seeking succor in Father Google) and if it’s articulate and informed I will retract the above assertion that your understanding of this teaching is abysmal.

OK I am not consulting Google or my 1993 Catechism or any other text. I will describe what I think the current teaching means. (also LOL at Father Google…he is always watching ).

The Church proclaims that there is no salvation outside of the Church. What this means is that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, and Christ himself told us that he is the only path to salvation, and that all those who are ultimately reconciled to God will come through him. Essentially, everyone who is ultimately saved is a Catholic, although they might not be conscious of this during their earthly life. God offers salvation through Christ alone, in his church alone (which subsists in the Catholic Church), but this salvation may reach those who, through no fault of their own, fail to be visibly united to her during their earthly lives. This failure to be joined visibly to the Catholic Church could be a result of invincible ignorance. However, invincible ignorance itself is not a cause of salvation, rather it is Christ who saves the human not visibly joined to the church by a mysterious grace offered to those who follow their consciences informed by natural law.

How’s that?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You ask me to justify Torquemada!?

…No, Pumpkin Cookie. No. This is not ambiguous. A fanatic who lived several centuries ago committed evil though fanaticism. The Church has repudiated such evil things and no longer practices them. Why must I now be asked to condone or justify them?

I’m not asking you to justify anyone. I’m merely asking you: how do you know that Torquemada was a “sinner” and not a “real” Catholic? Same for Pope Pius IX, or Augustine, or any number of people who taught/said/did things that were different from your understanding of what it means to be a Catholic. Are you saying the Church makes mistakes? How do we know what it currently teaches isn’t a mistake? What if artificial birth control isn’t actually an intrinsic evil? How will we know?

Who are the real Catholics? I have answered that question. Those who accept the truth of Catholic doctrine and seek to obey. How do we know who they are? They are the ones in harmony with the teaching authority of the Church, which means the Pope and the College of Cardinals.

There are many millions of Catholics alive today. It will always be possible to find some who do not live up to basic standards, who refuse to accept the authority of the Church and insist that the Church is wrong. That proves nothing about the Church itself, and no, it does not prove ambiguity in our teachings and practices.

How do we determine which Catholics are “in harmony” and which are out of tune? What happens when someone you think is out of tune insists that they are in tune and you are out of tune? What if the conductor doesn’t seem to know? What if his opinion changes over time? Doesn’t that mean the pitch itself is…ambiguous?

Find a hundred people who have memorized the text of the American Declaration of Independence.
Ask them all to recite it from memory.
Let us suppose that ten or fifteen of them have made errors.
Let us suppose that some of them now argue with the others as to the exact wording of the Declaration.
*Does that mean the Declaration of Independence is an ambiguous document? *

No. No, it does not. It means there is disagreement among those who argue. One may consult actual copies of the Declaration to find out the exact wording.
Disagreement does not prove ambiguity.

You are talking about the text itself. That’s pretty unambigous. I’m talking about what it means to be an American. That’s pretty ambiguous!

There are many millions of us. Among those you will find some who hate the Pope, or hate his authority, or hate what he says. The Church as a whole stands united in spite of this.
You will find some who, while they love the Pope, are honestly convinced he is wrong about some issue, and insist on placing their judgement above his, and above the teachings of the Church. The Church as a whole stands united in spite of that.

Is it united? Seems like a giant battle to me.

We know because we have a reliable and authoritative source.

The church has existed for two thousand years. In that time members of the Church, sometimes members in high places, sometimes even the Pope, have committed sins. Have done wicked things.

Torquemada is not alive today. He has not been alive for centuries. The wicked Popes are not alive today. They have not been alive for centuries.

You prove nothing by pointing out that in the span of two millennia there have been Church officials who failed to live up to their Lord’s commands. Those commands were clear in spite of determined efforts at distortion and misrepresentation by many who heard Him. The teachings of the Church today are equally clear. in spite of many who try to muddy the waters. The attempt to create ambiguity is not proof that ambiguity exists.

How do we know those who you call “wicked” were not actually doing what they believed the Church required of them? They would call contemporary Catholics “wicked.” Who is right? How do we know?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…No. I am saying your criticism is not valid. The fact that you can use that question no matter how simple and clear the material, shows that asking that question does not show the material to be ambiguous.
Your question undermines nothing except perhaps in your opinion.

I think now that nothing I say will change your opinion of the Church.

May the Lord God bless you and lead you to Him.

4+5= 9

Is that dogmatic to you? It seems accessible to reason to me. I don’t think there is any ambiguity here.

Sacramento is the capitol of California.

Is that dogmatic to you? It seems verifiable and based on human agreement. I don’t think there is much ambiguity here.

If anyone says that the Body and Blood together with His whole Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the Sacrament only as in a sign or figure or by His power, let him be anathema.

Is a statement like this truly as unambiguous as the other two above? You aren’t willing to grant that this might be a qualitatively different statement from the others?

Does my skepticism undermine 4+5=9 the same way it undermines the last statement? You don’t have to respond, just something to think about when you’re bored.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The former, please.

But be careful, PC, that contempt for Catholicism is not limned in your arguments.

That is something that is not permitted here.

Wait, so you want me to grant your given which will undermine my thesis?

LOL.

:nope:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think now that nothing I say will change your opinion of the Church.

May the Lord God bless you and lead you to Him.

Thanks for your blessing, I appreciate it. You are right, I can only think of one thing that would compel me to be a Catholic again, and I don’t think any human can make it happen.

 

[puzzledtoo]

Prmerger,
You wrote–“Yes, and you left what you didn’t know.” also–“That’s a shame when someone leaves and can’t even articulate a basic apologia for church teachings.”
This describes me exactly. I dropped away from the catholic church about 50 years ago as a young adult shortly after I entered the military and then got married. I just didn’t understand what the church taught, stood for, etc… nor did I care about anything other than my self (little s).
I’ve been on caf for several years now and watching the daily mass on ewtn and even watching the journey home(love the show). I haven’t found that will allow my ego to lessen enough to begin being catholic again. I’m not anti catholic or anti anything (religion) for that matter. I guess my question to you would be- what would justify someone leaving the catholic church if not getting it doesn’t and not being able to explain what they don’t get doesn’t? Blessings to you and yours. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Wait, so you want me to grant your given which will undermine my thesis?

LOL.

:nope:

You can’t do this without demonstrating contempt for Catholicism?

Curious. Very curious.

There are a multitude of folks here who have been able to offer their arguments against Catholicism without breaking forum rules.

Why can’t you do this?

I fear that your emotions have taken over any logic and reason here?

For if one assesses Catholicism without the blinders of one’s emotions I think one simply cannot have any valid objections.

#noneatall

Please try to separate the emotions from your actual objections. PC.

Now, you said you could do this. 'Either I grant that Catholicism has the strongest identity of any religion, and then proceed to flesh out precisely why that illusory clarity proves that it is the mostly deeply hateful religion,"

Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is