The Confusion of Catholicism

[PumpkinCookie]

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

Why do you always answer my questions with more questions?

Are you going to retract your assertion that I don’t know about Catholicism?

Why don’t you go ahead and build your case that Catholicism is the most well-defined religion. I could do this, but I’d rather not because I have to do twice as much work. First I’d have to build the case, and then pull it apart. Is that what you want? I can do that, but it’s dinner time right now!

 

[PRmerger]

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).

But let’s address the question I asked: why don’t you feel like this is an evangelization motivated by hate?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Well done, PC! Well done!

 

[PRmerger]

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

I am confused by the dichotomy you are asserting.

Dogmas are accessible to reason.

For what are dogmas except expressions of what is true, and what truth except that which is reasonable?

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you always answer my questions with more questions?

Are you going to retract your assertion that I don’t know about Catholicism?

I will not, but I will grant that you gave an A+ answer on my question.

Why don’t you go ahead and build your case that Catholicism is the most well-defined religion. I could do this, but I’d rather not because I have to do twice as much work. First I’d have to build the case, and then pull it apart. Is that what you want? I can do that, but it’s dinner time right now!

Er, no, sir. You made an assertion right here. You made a request. I complied.

Now put your money where your mouth is.

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?

You asked. I said I want you to follow through with your first assertion.

 

[PRmerger]

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).

:sad_yes:

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).

May God’s grace fill you beyond measure, friend!

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.

No, dearest, that wouldn’t justify leaving the CC.

Imagine if one of Jesus’ disciples, after following him for a few months, listening to him preach, being touched and moved by Him, decided to leave Him because he wasn’t “getting it and not able to explain why he doesn’t get it”.

Wouldn’t you tell this guy: hey, stick around! Ask some more questions! Hang out with the guys who do get it, and see what happens!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I am confused by the dichotomy you are asserting.

Dogmas are accessible to reason.

For what are dogmas except expressions of what is true, and what truth except that which is reasonable?

There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

That’s a dogma. You say dogmas are expressions of what is true.

Ready to become a Muslim? I think not! It is possible that “dogmas” are sometimes true, but your formulation makes it seem like they always express truth.

Are you saying all truths are accessible to reason? We know this is false too, for humans have always had reason, and yet we continue to discover new truths by observation rather than a priori reasoning. Applied reason based on observation leads to truth also, right?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But let’s address the question I asked: why don’t you feel like this is an evangelization motivated by hate?

It is not essentially violent to encourage others to get vaccinated, because the value of vaccinations can be demonstrated.

It is essentially violent to assert that your religion is better or truer than another’s, because it cannot be demonstrated to be the case.

We can prove that vaccinations lead to better outcomes for individuals and society. We have the data. We can do the experiments.

You cannot prove that Catholicism is inherently better than any other religion. You have no data. You can’t demonstrate anything at all.

 

[davidv]

That’s a dogma.

It is also deducible from then tenants of both faiths.

You say dogmas are expressions of what is true.

Ready to become a Muslim?

No. What does this have to do with anything?

I think not! It is possible that “dogmas” are sometimes true, but your formulation makes it seem like they always express truth.

Are you saying all truths are accessible to reason?

I would not say that. The truth that God is a Trinity is only available through revelation.

We know this is false too, for humans have always had reason, and yet we continue to discover new truths by observation rather than a priori reasoning. Applied reason based on observation leads to truth also, right?

Not quite. Right reason (no faulty logic) applied to properly interpreted observation leads to truth.

 

[OneSheep]

I like Pope Francis because he is OK with ambiguity, like a child. He is not a hater because he embraces the ambiguity instead of trying to gain clarity by defining an evil “other” to work against.

Good Morning PC,

He probably has his own ideas of an evil “other” like most people do. Our conscience forms a shadow self, and those who demonstrate the parts of ourselves that we resent (in our shadow) are seen as evil. It is normal and natural. He seems to be a bit wary of his own shadow, he does not use it to motivate himself or others, as many do. It’s hard to know for sure how he handles our natural dualism.

Now that I come to think about it, in many ways the Christian concept of satan is literally an imaginary embodiment of evil to help Christians form an identity against something. Think of the baptismal promises. The very first question “do you reject satan?” Interesting…I’ll have to think about this some more…

I think you are on the right track there. First, I make the painful admission that I (as we all) are probably operating on a perceived embodiment of evil (to you, the institutional Church I think). Go ahead and admit to yourself “I see the Church as an embodiment of evil” (can you do this?). Next, I make the painful admission that I have a post in my eye as I try to pull out the splinter in someone else’s.

The part about “help Christians” sounds too calculated/deliberate. As humans, we all condemn those who demonstrate the parts of our shadow we resent. Keep in mind that such resentment also has its place in the conscience, it keeps you from repeating the mistakes of your past, i.e. you probably still hate yourself as a “hater”. The irony is that if we hate haters, we still hate. The conscience does not listen to this reasoning, though. The door away from hate is to forgive.

Fortunately you do not have power over him so you are not able to suppress him or his views. However, doesn’t your Church teach that his views should be suppressed? Doesn’t “error have no rights?” This is hate. You are not a hater, and that’s good! However, hate is part of the institution, and I believe it is a factor in the psychology of many believers, especially conservative “traditionalists.” I suspect this, because I used to be one. I was full of hate, and so were my friends and community, at the time. No, not childish hate, but this feeling of superiority and “separation” from “the world.” Look at the uproar over the video recently made by Pope Francis saying we are all children of God, regardless of religion. It’s like “what??? you mean…those people are God’s children too??” I remember that mindset, and it is born of hate.

Do you see your own conscience rewarding you here? So, in the past you hated, and then the light came. You have incorporated into your shadow hate=bad. If you hate, then your conscience give you a stiff shot of guilt. Also, you have not-hate=good incorporated. When you refuse to hate, your conscience gives you a shot of righteous happiness, complete with all the mechanical neurotransmitters. Trouble is that hatred comes from a deeper place than the frontal lobes. When we deny that we are hating, we only temporarily save ourselves from the guilt-shot (I am certain that our capacity to deny has stopped many a suicide). So, really the only way to deal with the hate is to admit it is there and to forgive. We can forgive ourselves for hating, just as we can forgive others for demonstrating the parts of ourselves that we hate.

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?

They are whoever you include. The freeing path, the holy path, is to be totally inclusive.

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.

The capacity to hate is human. The answer lies in the workings of the conscience. What Jesus calls us to do is to love beyond the confines of our own conscience. For example, unfairness is naturally unconscionable, but Jesus gives us the parable of the workers of the vineyard, and statements like “the last will be first”. Forgiveness of enemies is naturally unconscionable. Forgiveness of those who hung Him on the cross was absolutely unconscionable, and still is for many people.

I’m sorry to keep bringing this forward, but your thread is so stimulating. Forgive that old hater, PC. He did not know what he was doing.

And thanks again for the thread!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I will not, but I will grant that you gave an A+ answer on my question.

Now put your money where your mouth is.

You asked. I said I want you to follow through with your first assertion.

So you won’t retract your assertion even though you said you would. I can understand how someone like me would make you comfortable. How can anyone who actually knows what the Church teaches…today…reject it? Very disturbing for those who think faith is essentially reasonable.

Alright…cracks knuckles…time to build a case and then tear it down.

Thesis: Catholicism is the most well defined "religion"

When we try to define Catholicism, we can ask ourselves: “What is a Catholic?”

First, who gets to answer that question? Who has the ability or right to say? Is it the pope? Which one? All of them? Is it people who claim Catholicism as an identity? Is it official ecumenical councils? Is it scripture? Is it tradition? Who gets to say?

For the purpose of this discussion, I will allege that all of the aforementioned entities have a partial ability and/or right to answer the question “What is a Catholic?”

This acknowledged, there is abundant documentation in answer to this question. A brief summary:

The New Testament
The writings of the Greek fathers
The writings of saints
Conciliar documents
Papal bulls, exhortations, declarations, etc.
Canon law
The GIRM
Various liturgies
Various catechisms
Various sacramental manuals
Various documents adopted by local episcopal councils
Various private revelations

In total, the body of documentation is astounding. It amounts to hundreds of thousands of pages of dense text, answering in an oblique way “What is a Catholic?”

The attempt at a precise answer to that question has been painstaking. It has taken thousands of years and involved bloodshed, torture, imprisonment, war, the collapse and rise of empires, and billions of contradictory opinions to reach this point, and they’re not even done yet! Surely it must be the most well-defined religion, with all those specific dogmas.

Anti-thesis: The clarity or unity is illusory

There is a parallel here in human history: Judaism. There are also hundreds of thousands of pages written by Jews in an attempt to answer the question, “What is a Jew?” And yet, the joke goes, “Two Jews, Three Opinions.” Why is this so? What is the difference between the painstaking documentation of both religions that leads a claim of “perfect unchanging clarity” by (some) Catholics, and an admittance of doubt and ignorance by Jews?

I allege that though unity is sought by Catholics, and even proclaimed by individual believers, the unity is largely illusory and a product of the individual Catholic’s own projection. Within the body of documentation, contradictions abound! How to reconcile this? The Catholics with the clearest idea of themselves are those who have mentally excluded the most people from the identifier “Catholic.” The problem is, this ideology is a close cousin of hate, because to not be a Catholic, even merely implicitly, is to be one who is doomed to eternal torture. It isn’t OK to be different. It isn’t OK to not believe. Everyone has to be a Catholic. No, and not like those people, but like us. We’re the real Catholics, see, the documents say so. And, if you’re not like us, well then you’re at serious risk of being despised by God!

Could there be a more hateful ideology? “You have to be like me, just like me. You have to think like me, just like me. If you don’t, well, then either you’re invincibly ignorant or God despises you, and you must despise God too! No, you can’t possibly love God or be a good person unless you’re just like me and think just like I do. Here, read these documents, they say so, and they’re always right, just like me!”

This isn’t a childish, tantrum inducing hate. This is a cool, calm, and collected hate. A systemic hate that simultaneously builds the Catholic’s ego into a towering edifice, 2,000 years old, founded by God himself, etc while smashing all of humanity into nothingness. Original sinners. Chaff. Ultimately and only valuable to God if they convert one way or the other, explicitly or implicitly.

Deep within Catholicism is a hatred of humanity, and a desire to obliterate it. Most Catholics are not self-conscious of this of course. Catholics aren’t monsters or psychopaths. If they knew what they were doing, they’d stop! Indeed, as the consciousness awakes to the hatred, the believer drifts away from rigid dogmatism. We see this with “liberal” sisters who spend all of their time helping the poor. And, I argue, we see this with Pope Francis. He is not a hater. He is not a rigid dogmatist. He calls all of humanity “God’s children.” Is he a Catholic?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It is also deducible from then tenants of both faiths.

No. What does this have to do with anything?

I would not say that. The truth that God is a Trinity is only available through revelation.

Not quite. Right reason (no faulty logic) applied to properly interpreted observation leads to truth.

PRMerger says dogmas are expressions of what is true.

There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

That’s a dogma. PRMerger must think it expresses what is true. If that is the case, then she should be a Muslim!

Yes, not only is a dogma like the trinity inaccessible to reason, there are many others, from all sorts of religions.

Your last sentence, OK.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Good Morning PC,…I think you are on the right track there. First, I make the painful admission that I (as we all) are probably operating on a perceived embodiment of evil (to you, the institutional Church I think). Go ahead and admit to yourself “I see the Church as an embodiment of evil” (can you do this?). Next, I make the painful admission that I have a post in my eye as I try to pull out the splinter in someone else’s.

It’s not so much that I see the institutional Church as an embodiment of evil (rather the opposite, they help the poor, lonely, and ill). I see the ideology of rigid dogmatism and traditionalist Catholicism as harmful to humanity, chiefly to those who hold the ideology, but also to humanity in general although the influence is waning drastically in our times.

The part about “help Christians” sounds too calculated/deliberate. As humans, we all condemn those who demonstrate the parts of our shadow we resent. Keep in mind that such resentment also has its place in the conscience, it keeps you from repeating the mistakes of your past, i.e. you probably still hate yourself as a “hater”. The irony is that if we hate haters, we still hate. The conscience does not listen to this reasoning, though. The door away from hate is to forgive.

It’s very hard to forgive myself you are right. I did so much harm to myself. When I see others tormenting themselves under the same hate, I want to reach out and grab their hate away from them. I resent the hate, because I know first hand that it almost led me to hate God. What a crime! I wish I could help put an end to it. How can I forgive myself if I allow others to continue down a path that I know leads to pain, anger, and despair?

Do you see your own conscience rewarding you here? So, in the past you hated, and then the light came. You have incorporated into your shadow hate=bad. If you hate, then your conscience give you a stiff shot of guilt. Also, you have not-hate=good incorporated. When you refuse to hate, your conscience gives you a shot of righteous happiness, complete with all the mechanical neurotransmitters. Trouble is that hatred comes from a deeper place than the frontal lobes. When we deny that we are hating, we only temporarily save ourselves from the guilt-shot (I am certain that our capacity to deny has stopped many a suicide). So, really the only way to deal with the hate is to admit it is there and to forgive. We can forgive ourselves for hating, just as we can forgive others for demonstrating the parts of ourselves that we hate.

OK I can try that. How can we help stop the hate in others?

They are whoever you include. The freeing path, the holy path, is to be totally inclusive.

I include everyone. We’re all God’s children, even those of us who don’t believe in him, even those who hate him. Even animals, even plants, even dust, even vibrating strings of energy. Somebody must have slipped something into my drink this morning…

The capacity to hate is human. The answer lies in the workings of the conscience. What Jesus calls us to do is to love beyond the confines of our own conscience. For example, unfairness is naturally unconscionable, but Jesus gives us the parable of the workers of the vineyard, and statements like “the last will be first”. Forgiveness of enemies is naturally unconscionable. Forgiveness of those who hung Him on the cross was absolutely unconscionable, and still is for many people.

I’m sorry to keep bringing this forward, but your thread is so stimulating. Forgive that old hater, PC. He did not know what he was doing.

And thanks again for the thread!

Thanks for contributing. A question: do you think my thesis makes sense? Is rigidly-dogmatic Catholicism a child of hate born in the absence of an ambiguous self-identity? I’m not too committed to it, anyway. If it turns out to be wrong, it would be interesting to figure out a better answer.

 

[Gorgias]

Alright…cracks knuckles…time to build a case and then tear it down.

Somehow, it’s refreshing to me to hear someone admit that they know that all they’re doing is building strawman arguments…

When we try to define Catholicism, we can ask ourselves: “What is a Catholic?”

One who believes in the Catholic faith. See how easy that was? Next question…

First, who gets to answer that question? Who has the ability or right to say? Is it the pope? Which one? All of them? Is it people who claim Catholicism as an identity? Is it official ecumenical councils? Is it scripture? Is it tradition? Who gets to say?

Why, this one is simple, too! It’s “one who has authority to speak for the Church which Christ founded”!

there is abundant documentation in answer to this question. A brief summary:

Aah… now the rubber meets the road! You’re not asking for a definition of a ‘Catholic’, you’re asking for a definition of what Catholicism teaches as a religion! Totally different question, PC…

And yet, your list of documents runs the gamut: from Divine Revelation, to theological musings, to official statements (which include doctrinal and dogmatic teachings) from magisterial sources, to legal documents, to liturgical sources, to private revelation.

Not all of these answer the question you think you’re asking. In fact, not all of them are authoritative! More to the point, not all are trying to answer doctrinal questions (some define legal concepts; others discuss matters of prayer; still others make local disciplinary assertions for their region). Yes, all of those materials are out there, but you’re framing this up poorly – it’s as if you’re walking into a library and asserting that all the books there are equally authoritative in answering one particular arbitrary question. That just doesn’t hold up.

The problem is, this ideology is a close cousin of hate, because to not be a Catholic, even merely implicitly, is to be one who is doomed to eternal torture.

You claim to have been a Catholic earlier in your life. If so, then – with all due respect – you were poorly catechized. No, it’s not true that “not to be a Catholic is to be… doomed to eternal torture.” More to the point, that’s not at all what the Catholic Church teaches. So, if you want to continue your screed, please realize that you’re tilting at windmills, 'cause you’re definitely no longer talking about the actual Catholic Church.

It isn’t OK to be different. It isn’t OK to not believe. Everyone has to be a Catholic. No, and not like those people, but like us.

Really, Pumpkin, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper! It’s becoming more and more evident that, whatever you think Catholicism is… well, it’s so unlike Catholicism that it’s pretty amusing to see you rail against it. Really – this smells like the old story of the blind men in a room with an elephant. I don’t know what part of the elephant you’re holding… but you’re certainly not conversant with what the elephant is. :nope:

 

[davidv]

PRMerger says dogmas are expressions of what is true.

That’s a dogma. PRMerger must think it expresses what is true.

I agree with her. Catholic dogmas are only proclaimed for known truths. I don’t know if this a applies to a Muslim.

If that is the case, then she should be a Muslim!

Non sequitur. See above.

Yes, not only is a dogma like the trinity inaccessible to reason, there are many others, from all sorts of religions.

Your last sentence, OK.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I agree with her. Catholic dogmas are only proclaimed for known truths. I don’t know if this a applies to a Muslim.

Non sequitur. See above.

Oh I see, you placed the qualifier “Catholic” in front of “dogmas.” So only Catholic dogmas are true, not any dogmas whatsoever right?

What do you say to a Muslim who says “Only Muslim dogmas are true?”

 

[Partinobodycula]

So you won’t retract your assertion even though you said you would. I can understand how someone like me would make you comfortable. How can anyone who actually knows what the Church teaches…today…reject it? Very disturbing for those who think faith is essentially reasonable.

Alright…cracks knuckles…time to build a case and then tear it down.

Thesis: Catholicism is the most well defined "religion"

When we try to define Catholicism, we can ask ourselves: “What is a Catholic?”

First, who gets to answer that question? Who has the ability or right to say? Is it the pope? Which one? All of them? Is it people who claim Catholicism as an identity? Is it official ecumenical councils? Is it scripture? Is it tradition? Who gets to say?

For the purpose of this discussion, I will allege that all of the aforementioned entities have a partial ability and/or right to answer the question “What is a Catholic?”

This acknowledged, there is abundant documentation in answer to this question. A brief summary:

The New Testament
The writings of the Greek fathers
The writings of saints
Conciliar documents
Papal bulls, exhortations, declarations, etc.
Canon law
The GIRM
Various liturgies
Various catechisms
Various sacramental manuals
Various documents adopted by local episcopal councils
Various private revelations

In total, the body of documentation is astounding. It amounts to hundreds of thousands of pages of dense text, answering in an oblique way “What is a Catholic?”

The attempt at a precise answer to that question has been painstaking. It has taken thousands of years and involved bloodshed, torture, imprisonment, war, the collapse and rise of empires, and billions of contradictory opinions to reach this point, and they’re not even done yet! Surely it must be the most well-defined religion, with all those specific dogmas.

Anti-thesis: The clarity or unity is illusory

There is a parallel here in human history: Judaism. There are also hundreds of thousands of pages written by Jews in an attempt to answer the question, “What is a Jew?” And yet, the joke goes, “Two Jews, Three Opinions.” Why is this so? What is the difference between the painstaking documentation of both religions that leads a claim of “perfect unchanging clarity” by (some) Catholics, and an admittance of doubt and ignorance by Jews?

I allege that though unity is sought by Catholics, and even proclaimed by individual believers, the unity is largely illusory and a product of the individual Catholic’s own projection. Within the body of documentation, contradictions abound! How to reconcile this? The Catholics with the clearest idea of themselves are those who have mentally excluded the most people from the identifier “Catholic.” The problem is, this ideology is a close cousin of hate, because to not be a Catholic, even merely implicitly, is to be one who is doomed to eternal torture. It isn’t OK to be different. It isn’t OK to not believe. Everyone has to be a Catholic. No, and not like those people, but like us. We’re the real Catholics, see, the documents say so. And, if you’re not like us, well then you’re at serious risk of being despised by God!

Could there be a more hateful ideology? “You have to be like me, just like me. You have to think like me, just like me. If you don’t, well, then either you’re invincibly ignorant or God despises you, and you must despise God too! No, you can’t possibly love God or be a good person unless you’re just like me and think just like I do. Here, read these documents, they say so, and they’re always right, just like me!”

This isn’t a childish, tantrum inducing hate. This is a cool, calm, and collected hate. A systemic hate that simultaneously builds the Catholic’s ego into a towering edifice, 2,000 years old, founded by God himself, etc while smashing all of humanity into nothingness. Original sinners. Chaff. Ultimately and only valuable to God if they convert one way or the other, explicitly or implicitly.

Deep within Catholicism is a hatred of humanity, and a desire to obliterate it. Most Catholics are not self-conscious of this of course. Catholics aren’t monsters or psychopaths. If they knew what they were doing, they’d stop! Indeed, as the consciousness awakes to the hatred, the believer drifts away from rigid dogmatism. We see this with “liberal” sisters who spend all of their time helping the poor. And, I argue, we see this with Pope Francis. He is not a hater. He is not a rigid dogmatist. He calls all of humanity “God’s children.” Is he a Catholic?

Very eloquently expressed PC. This is what makes CAF such a blessing. Every once in awhile, whether I agree with them or not, people express their beliefs with clarity, humility, and passion. And that’s all that we can ask of our fellow members. So like OneSheep, I would like to thank you again for a wonderful thread.

How can we help stop the hate in others?

We may not be able to stop it, but through our words, and through our actions, we may be able to mollify it a bit. Doesn’t the bible teach that one must first remove the splinter from their own eye. It may be that simply in doing so, we aid our fellow man in removing the log from theirs. It may seem that you have affected nothing, but this isn’t true.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Aah… now the rubber meets the road! You’re not asking for a definition of a ‘Catholic’, you’re asking for a definition of what Catholicism teaches as a religion! Totally different question, PC…

The answer to the question “What is a Catholic” is a subset of what the Catholic Church teaches about everything.

And yet, your list of documents runs the gamut: from Divine Revelation, to theological musings, to official statements (which include doctrinal and dogmatic teachings) from magisterial sources, to legal documents, to liturgical sources, to private revelation.

Not all of these answer the question you think you’re asking. In fact, not all of them are authoritative! More to the point, not all are trying to answer doctrinal questions (some define legal concepts; others discuss matters of prayer; still others make local disciplinary assertions for their region). Yes, all of those materials are out there, but you’re framing this up poorly – it’s as if you’re walking into a library and asserting that all the books there are equally authoritative in answering one particular arbitrary question. That just doesn’t hold up.

You’re right, it doesn’t hold up. I never said all the sources are equal, you are projecting that. I have no idea how individual Catholics determine which contradictory sources to listen to. It’s…ambiguous!

You claim to have been a Catholic earlier in your life. If so, then – with all due respect – you were poorly catechized. No, it’s not true that “not to be a Catholic is to be… doomed to eternal torture.” More to the point, that’s not at all what the Catholic Church teaches. So, if you want to continue your screed, please realize that you’re tilting at windmills, 'cause you’re definitely no longer talking about the actual Catholic Church.



Really, Pumpkin, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper! It’s becoming more and more evident that, whatever you think Catholicism is… well, it’s so unlike Catholicism that it’s pretty amusing to see you rail against it. Really – this smells like the old story of the blind men in a room with an elephant. I don’t know what part of the elephant you’re holding… but you’re certainly not conversant with what the elephant is. :nope:

OK why don’t you go ahead and confirm this statement:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely unnecessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Is that what the Catholic Church teaches? That it isn’t necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Very eloquently expressed PC. This is what makes CAF such a blessing. Every once in awhile, whether I agree with them or not, people express their beliefs with clarity, humility, and passion. And that’s all that we can ask of our fellow members. So like OneSheep, I would like to thank you again for a wonderful thread.
We may not be able to stop it, but through our words, and through our actions, we may be able to mollify it a bit. Doesn’t the bible teach that one must first remove the splinter from their own eye. It may be that simply in doing so, we aid our fellow man in removing the log from theirs. It may seem that you have affected nothing, but this isn’t true.

Sometimes I think it would be better if the logs in my eyes would keep me from being able to reach my keyboard LOL. Well, thanks for reading. I went back and read some of your threads.

I had never heard of “Christian Solipsism” prior to seeing it next to your forum name. I think a lot of people understand solipsism to be a positive statement about the existence of objects other than minds, but I think you mean to say that you can’t be certain of anything other than your own mind. I suppose it is kind of like a general agnosticism. You’re not saying things don’t exist, just that you can’t be sure. It’s like extreme epistemic humility. You must do a lot of thinking!!!

 

[Gorgias]

OK why don’t you go ahead and confirm this statement:

Sure! Thanks for the opportunity!

PumpkinCookie:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely unnecessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Is that what the Catholic Church teaches? That it isn’t necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved?

Nope. You’re mischaracterizing it; or, at least, you’re misreading it.

Have you ever read the entirety of ‘Unam Sanctam’? Do you know the historical situation and the background that gave rise to it?

Before I begin, let me provide my standard caveat about encyclicals, bulls, and the like: they don’t exist in a vacuum. They aren’t written in the abstract. They always are a reaction to some existing controversy or dilemma. Thus, when we read the writings from a council, we have to recognize that they respond to someone or something; and, if we hope to understand them, we must therefore know what it is to which they’re responding!

So, in the context of Unam Sanctam, we have to recognize that Pope Boniface and King Philip IV of France were in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out fight. It kept going back and forth, and finally, Philip arrested, imprisoned, and convicted a papal legate. (If you want to picture this in 21st century terms, imagine that some country arrested and convicted a U.S. Ambassador. Better yet, imagine that a state governor arrests and convicts an ambassador, and imagine the brouhaha that would ensue…!)

Boniface, naturally, was incensed. In the 21st century, we tend to be blissfully ignorant of the politics of religion and state in medieval Europe. Back then, there was a real tension between popes and kings, and part of that tension was the politics of supremacy: when a dispute arose, who should have the final word? There’s a whole story to be told about coronations and what it meant to have someone put the crown on your head (short version: it implied that they had authority over him in order to do so). Sometimes, kings even crowned themselves, in order to make the claim that they were supreme.

But, in terms of this particular dispute, the issue was clear: traditionally, the pope had the right to put his own clergy on trial, and civil kings did not. When a member of the clergy was accused of a crime, he was remanded to the pope, who had the final say as to his guilt or innocence. The real issue here, then, was that Philip was usurping for himself a right that had always been reserved to the pope. The controversy, then, was all about power: was a Christian king subject to the demands of the pope, or was he an authority above the pope himself?

If you read Unam Sanctam, you can see that this issue is what the bull is all about:

• “There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah”
• “of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter”
• “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. … Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord”
• “Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.”
• “However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power.”
• “we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal.”
• “if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man”
• “Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God”

Clearly, Boniface is making the claim that his authority trumps Philip’s. And, this claim is being made in the context of Philip’s civil conviction of a Catholic cleric.

So, what does Boniface mean here? Well, the sentence you quote is the final sentence of the bull. And, it kinda does just hang out on its own. So, what did Boniface have in mind?

Well, it seems clear that he’s talking about those who are subject to the pope. So, we’re talking about those who belong to the Church in that day. (In other words, those who want to make the claim that Boniface is talking about those who are not in the Church, really need to demonstrate that this is what he’s talking about in the bull. If they can’t, well… then they’re the ones talking bull. )

So, given that we’re talking about Philip (the king of a Christian nation), who was no boy scout himself (after all, he destroyed the Templars in order to avoid paying the crown’s debts to them, and exiled the Jews from France in order to collect on the loans they had made), and who was trying to make himself out to be an ersatz pope (or at least, someone who had the authority of a pope), it’s pretty clear that Boniface’s closing statement is geared at Philip: there’s no one (in the Church) who can make claim that he’s above the pope’s authority.

Does this mean that the Pope is saying that any arbitrary person will go to hell if he does not obey the pope? Hardly.

But hey… nice try.