The Confusion of Catholicism

[Gorgias]

You’re right, it doesn’t hold up. I never said all the sources are equal, you are projecting that.

Fair enough. Yet, you are making the claim that these all are sources of doctrine (i.e., that we can determine the tenets of the Catholic faith from them). That just isn’t the case.

I have no idea how individual Catholics determine which contradictory sources to listen to. It’s…ambiguous!

No… it’s only ‘ambiguous’ if you go looking for an orange in a bushel of apples. There aren’t “contradictory sources”; there are sources, each of which addresses a certain item within its sphere of competence. If you want to learn Catholic doctrine, go to a source of doctrine: the catechism is a good summary, for instance. (If, on the other hand, you want to know how to celebrate the liturgy, go to the GIRM; if you want to learn about individuals’ attempts to think through theology, read the writings of various figures in the Church; if you want to learn the disciplines of the Church, read canon law; if you want to see what mystics have to say, look into private revelation.) But, for the love of all that’s holy, don’t think you’re going to find doctrine in a law book or liturgical directives in a papal bull! That’s just silly…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

…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…[CUT]…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.

First line of the text:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…

Look, we can go back and forth about this for centuries. There are huge ongoing arguments about what precisely extra ecclesiam nulla salus actually means. That’s all I need to prove my point. It’s ambiguous, it’s unclear. If it were clear, there wouldn’t be centuries of conflict about things like this.

I respect your interpretation and understanding of the text and context. Others would disagree. That’s my point.

 

[davidv]

First line of the text:

Look, we can go back and forth about this for centuries. There are huge ongoing arguments about what precisely extra ecclesiam nulla salus actually means. That’s all I need to prove my point. It’s ambiguous, it’s unclear. If it were clear, there wouldn’t be centuries of conflict about things like this.

I respect your interpretation and understanding of the text and context. Others would disagree. That’s my point.

Why does disagreement mean there is ambiguity?
I can think few more likely causes of disagreement.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Fair enough. Yet, you are making the claim that these all are sources of doctrine (i.e., that we can determine the tenets of the Catholic faith from them). That just isn’t the case.

No… it’s only ‘ambiguous’ if you go looking for an orange in a bushel of apples. There aren’t “contradictory sources”; there are sources, each of which addresses a certain item within its sphere of competence. If you want to learn Catholic doctrine, go to a source of doctrine: the catechism is a good summary, for instance. (If, on the other hand, you want to know how to celebrate the liturgy, go to the GIRM; if you want to learn about individuals’ attempts to think through theology, read the writings of various figures in the Church; if you want to learn the disciplines of the Church, read canon law; if you want to see what mystics have to say, look into private revelation.) But, for the love of all that’s holy, don’t think you’re going to find doctrine in a law book or liturgical directives in a papal bull! That’s just silly…

I don’t think the distinctions between the function of the different kinds of documents are so clear. I think doctrine, practice, dogma, tradition, Tradition, emerge from all of the documents in some way or another. You’re right that catechisms are more explicitly dogmatic, but I think all of the other Catholic stuff at least implies certain dogmatic ideas.

Besides that, how is one to know? How do we know that Unam Sanctam applies to a particular time and place, but Humani Generis doesn’t? How do we know the Council of Florence really meant such and such rather than so and so? Who gets to say?

 

[Reepicheep]

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.

1. What’s your source for the claim that there are 40,00 sects of Christians?
2. There are not 40,000 sects of Catholics, and it is the Catholic Church you question.
3. The attempt to create ambiguity does not prove that there is ambiguity. Your refusal to admit that the doctrines of the Church are definite and clear does not change the fact that the doctrines of the Church are definite and clear.
4. (Looking back to your first posts) Golly gee willikers, look at those goalposts gallop.

You began by saying that we Catholics cannot be sure what it means to be a Catholic. Now you claim that the slightest disagreement on any one point of belief proves that the whole thing is shifting sand.

1. As I said before, the fact that some people contradict the teachings does not prove that the teachings themselves are unclear.
2. God bless you anyway.

 

[Reepicheep]

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).

The fact that anti-vaxxers deny the benefits of vaccination does not disprove the benefits of vaccination.

The fact that someone denies a truth about God does not stop it from being true.
It is simply false to assert that whether a religious belief is true cannot be demonstrated.

The fact that anti-vaxxers deny the benefits of vaccination does not disprove the benefits of vaccination.

(Yes, I used that sentence twice. It’s not a typo.)

Let’s take a look at your last two sentences.

(“Those who encourage vaccines are doing a favor for humanity.”)
–Those who attempt to force vaccines on others are feeding their own egos.

(“Those who attempt to force others to convert to a particular religion are feeding their own egos,”)
–Those who encourage conversions to the truth are doing a favor for humanity.

It’s called “Excluding the Middle”. You speak as if the only choices were forced conversion or no attempt at conversion.

Apparently this was done to you. Someone tried to shove their own beliefs down your throat. I’m sorry that it happened. That doesn’t make the entire Church guilty of what someone did to you.

 

[Reepicheep]

Okay, I’m snipping most of this because I’ve already responded to most of it. There is one point though, that bears responding to.

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!

You have been asserting that Catholics are motivated to hate others because “what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous”.

Here you say that what it means to be an American is ambiguous.

I do not think you will admit that Americans are motivated to hate non-Americans because “what it means to be an American is ambiguous.”

So you don’t get to claim such a thing about the Church.

 

[Reepicheep]

What you quoted:

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.

Your own words:

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.

You persistently seem to use “this is ambiguous” when what you really mean is “I disbelieve”. That does not mean that I, or anyone else, must accept your definition of ambiguity.

The statement you quoted is quite clear, definite and unambiguous. That fact that it’s a little longer and more complex than 4+5=9 does not make it less clear or definite.

And your skepticism does not in the least undermine it. Either it is true or it is false, and your opinion does not alter the chances of either.

 

[Reepicheep]

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.

“It is essentially violent to assert that your religion is better or truer than another’s,”

…Then aren’t you being essentially violent by asserting that your religious position is better or truer than ours?

…In any case it seems the goalposts continue their gallop. Now all religion is violence.

I’m out. God bless you anyway, Pumpkin Cookie.

 

[Reepicheep]

Okay, just this one more, than I’m out.

I don’t think the distinctions between the function of the different kinds of documents are so clear. I think doctrine, practice, dogma, tradition, Tradition, emerge from all of the documents in some way or another. You’re right that catechisms are more explicitly dogmatic, but I think all of the other Catholic stuff at least implies certain dogmatic ideas.

Besides that, how is one to know? How do we know that Unam Sanctam applies to a particular time and place, but Humani Generis doesn’t? How do we know the Council of Florence really meant such and such rather than so and so? Who gets to say?

Besides that, how is one to know?
By consulting the teaching authority of the Church.

How do we know that Unam Sanctam applies to a particular time and place, but Humani Generis doesn’t?
Consult the teaching authority of the Church.

How do we know the Council of Florence really meant such and such rather than so and so?
**Consult the teaching authority of the Church. **

Who gets to say?
**The teaching authority of the Church gets to say. **

God’s blessing to you, Pumpkin Coolie.

 

[Gorgias]

Look, we can go back and forth about this for centuries. There are huge ongoing arguments about what precisely extra ecclesiam nulla salus actually means.

And yet, the magisterium of the Church – that is, the teaching authority – has unambiguously interpreted it. Yes, others try and add their own opinions to the mix. Yet, that means neither that there is ambiguity nor that the authoritative teaching is unclear.

That’s all I need to prove my point. It’s ambiguous, it’s unclear. If it were clear, there wouldn’t be centuries of conflict about things like this.

No – as others have noted, there are more potential reasons for argument than lack of clarity. The ‘centuries of conflict’ have more to do with denials of authority than with ambiguity.

I respect your interpretation and understanding of the text and context. Others would disagree. That’s my point.

That some might disagree only demonstrates that each has his own opinion; it doesn’t demonstrate that an authoritative teaching does not exist.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think the distinctions between the function of the different kinds of documents are so clear. I think doctrine, practice, dogma, tradition, Tradition, emerge from all of the documents in some way or another.

Then you misunderstand the various types of documents.

You’re right that catechisms are more explicitly dogmatic, but I think all of the other Catholic stuff at least implies certain dogmatic ideas.

It might proceed from the teachings of the Church, but that’s not what you were claiming: you were claiming that doctrine is found in each of these, which it does not.

Besides that, how is one to know?

You keep asking this question, but not acknowledging the answer: by referencing the authoritative teaching of the Church. It really is a simple answer – you just refuse to admit it.

How do we know that Unam Sanctam applies to a particular time and place, but Humani Generis doesn’t?

It’s called ‘context’, Pumpkin.

 

[Reepicheep]

Can you be an “infidel” or “apostate” of any religion if you’ve never been a member/believer of/in it???
.

You can’t be an apostate if you were never a believer.
As for infidel, that depends on how you define the term. I prefer 'unbeliever".

And I respond to DaddyGirl. Stlll done with talking to Pumpkin Cookie.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I should clarify: not all dogmas are true. They are simply expressions of what a particular group believes to be true.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Consult the teaching authority of the Church.

Reepicheep, if I may ask an ignorant question, who or what is the “teaching authority of the church”?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. What’s your source for the claim that there are 40,00 sects of Christians?
2. There are not 40,000 sects of Catholics, and it is the Catholic Church you question.

40,000 is a hyperbolic exaggeration. It is difficult to estimate the total number of differing forms of Christianity, because new ones are constantly developing while some older ones fade away. There are many tens of thousands at least (formally). And, within those official sects you will hardly find two people who agree about what Christianity means. I think the same dynamic is operative in Catholicism. You’ll hardly find two Catholics who agree on everything. I think this is good evidence that the content of “Christianity” or “Catholicism” is up-for-debate, because people are debating it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

1. The attempt to create ambiguity does not prove that there is ambiguity. Your refusal to admit that the doctrines of the Church are definite and clear does not change the fact that the doctrines of the Church are definite and clear.
2. (Looking back to your first posts) Golly gee willikers, look at those goalposts gallop.

You began by saying that we Catholics cannot be sure what it means to be a Catholic. Now you claim that the slightest disagreement on any one point of belief proves that the whole thing is shifting sand.

1. As I said before, the fact that some people contradict the teachings does not prove that the teachings themselves are unclear.
2. God bless you anyway.

LOL, ok that’s fine. Believe whatever you’d like. At this point it seems rather silly now doesn’t it? We’re spilling so much ink just trying to establish whether Catholicism is ambiguous or not. But…it’s perfectly clear right?

Thanks for your blessing!

 

[PRmerger]

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

Ok.

So Evangelization, as a concept, isn’t at its essence wrong.

So let’s go back to your original assertion–what you’re saying is that it’s wrong to evangelize if your Good News can’t be demonstrate.

And that’s begging the question.

You first have to prove that the kerygma can’t be demonstrated, in the same way that the truths of, say, the Peloponnesian Wars can’t be demonstrated.

 

[PRmerger]

Reepicheep, if I may ask an ignorant question, who or what is the “teaching authority of the church”?

The Magisterium–that is, the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The fact that anti-vaxxers deny the benefits of vaccination does not disprove the benefits of vaccination.

The fact that someone denies a truth about God does not stop it from being true.

You are attempting to supplant “a religious belief” with “a truth about God.” They’re not the same thing.

It is simply false to assert that whether a religious belief is true cannot be demonstrated.

Yes you are right. Jesus’ prediction of the end of the world within one generation of his time on earth has been demonstrated to be false. Many religious beliefs are not so unambiguous though, and so I think that most of them cannot be demonstrated to be either true or false.

The fact that anti-vaxxers deny the benefits of vaccination does not disprove the benefits of vaccination.

Yep.

(Yes, I used that sentence twice. It’s not a typo.)

Let’s take a look at your last two sentences.

(“Those who encourage vaccines are doing a favor for humanity.”)
–Those who attempt to force vaccines on others are feeding their own egos.

They could be, but at least they are helping others too.

(“Those who attempt to force others to convert to a particular religion are feeding their own egos,”)
–Those who encourage conversions to the truth are doing a favor for humanity.

“a particular religion” isn’t the same as “the truth.” Islam is a particular religion, and ISIS “encourages” conversions to it. They are doing a favor for no one, quite the opposite.

It’s called “Excluding the Middle”. You speak as if the only choices were forced conversion or no attempt at conversion.

Apparently this was done to you. Someone tried to shove their own beliefs down your throat. I’m sorry that it happened. That doesn’t make the entire Church guilty of what someone did to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Look, we can go back and forth about this for centuries. There are huge ongoing arguments about what precisely extra ecclesiam nulla salus actually means. That’s all I need to prove my point. It’s ambiguous, it’s unclear. If it were clear, there wouldn’t be centuries of conflict about things like this.

I find this type of thinking so peculiar.

“People disagree about a particular issue–confusion exists–therefore there is no truth that can be apprehended, in the end”.

In no other area of epistemology do you embrace this.

One has to wonder why, when it comes to the numinous, you do.