The Confusion of Catholicism

[Gorgias]

If you can’t recognize that all of the Church’s documents go together in the sense that they imply certain dogmas, then you’re not reading them!

Oh, perhaps they imply them, but you were claiming that they were sources of these dogmata! Heck – I can read a Tom Clancy novel, and see that Jack Ryan stops at a red light, but in no way does that mean that traffic law is found in Clancy novels… it’s found in books of laws!

Who is the final authority? Is is the pope? Which one? When popes contradict each other, who “wins?” When councils contradict each other, which one holds? Newest? Oldest? Biggest? It seems that no one agrees about what is the final authority.

Maybe you think you know what it is. But that’s just your opinion. Others of equal knowledge disagree. How can they do this, if it is so obvious?

Popes contradict each other on matters of doctrine and dogma? Please, if you’d be so kind… show us an example. Councils contradict one another? Again, put your money where your mouth is. (Mind you, we’re not asking you to demonstrate that doctrine develops over time – we know that’s true – we’re asking you to show us the contradiction that you claim exists.)

And yes, even if you don’t know it, we know “what the final authority” is. It’s God, through His Church, and the successors of the person whom He placed in charge of it. (Sure, people can debate that fact – but you could debate with me till you’re blue in the face that the moon’s made of green cheese … but that wouldn’t mean that your irrational opinion implies ‘ambiguity’ in the makeup of the moon… )

 

[PRmerger]

No. The burden of proof is on you. You are making the claim that the gospel can be demonstrated.

Consider this scenario:

Me: My magic crystals can heal your back pain! Just give me $59.99 and we’ll get started!

You: No, I don’t believe that. People say all kinds of things about magic crystals. It’s not true.

Me: You’re begging the question! You have to prove that these crystals can’t do anything!

You: Ridiculous. I’m not going to make the sales pitch for you LOL.

Will do.

But first we must agree: is evangelization, as a concept, isn’t at its essence wrong.

That is, when you said this:

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.

…you were only speaking of, peculiarly, one specific type of evangelization.

Are we agreed on that?

 

[PRmerger]

All historical events are more ambiguous than a priori or demonstrable knowledge. I seriously doubt that 9/11 was a hoax, but of course I can’t prove it. I watched it happen. But I don’t know all the details. Who knows? Do you? How do I know that you know?

Please don’t turn this thread into a 9/11 “truther” debate. We have enough issues to discuss here LOL.

I think we can agree, then, that even if there’s debate and disagreement, that some people on an issue are just plain wrong.

There is a right answer and a wrong answer, regardless of whether there is debate, on some things, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

So you won’t retract your assertion even though you said you would.

I will retract what I said I will retract.

However, you have made an assertion MUCH, MUCH BIGGER than what I granted.

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

I stand by my assertion that you are woefully misinformed about Catholicsm. And that you left what you didn’t know.

Here is what I promised to do:

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.

I hereby retract and assert: Pumpkin Cookie gave a splendid answer regarding EENS. His answer will put to shame most lumpinthepew Catholics and they would do well to be as informed as he is on this.

 

[Reepicheep]

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

Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to instruct us and keep us grounded in the truth.
So the Church has the authority to teach us, and we have Christ’s promise that it will not be overcome by error.
John 14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

This is the “teaching authority” I was speaking of.

This authority resides in the person of the Pope and of the College of Cardinals as long as they remain in harmony with the Pope. It extends to the body of bishops and priests as long as they remain in harmony with the Cardinals.

Thus in general we can trust the priests and bishops to teach us. Should a priest or bishop fall into error we can trust their superiors. Should they fail us, there are the Cardinals and the Holy Father.
Individuals may fall into error but the Church will stand in the truth; and in case of dispute or doubt we know wherein resides the truth. We know where to turn.

 

[Reepicheep]

And how am I supposed to access this Magisterium? And would each of these Bishops agree on every point of doctrine?

Check my post # 167. To access this authority, begin with the Catechism. You can actually find it on the Vatican website as well as other places, online and dead tree copies.
If you need more, go to a priest, or to a bishop, or to a Catholic bookstore where you can buy Church-approved books on the subject you wish to learn about.
If that is not enough, check the Vatican site for the subject under question.

If what you meant is “which source do I trust if there is disagreement” my post addressed that point.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Oh, now I understand you! What you’re calling ‘ambiguity’, then, is simply ‘lack of knowledge’! Yes, I agree with you: there are many people who lack the knowledge of what the Church teaches authoritatively!

That’s not ‘ambiguity’, any more than (on my very first day in Calculus class) Calculus itself was ‘ambiguous’ – it was just unknown to me at that time. I think we’re done here, then, right? What you’re saying just boils down to “some people just don’t know.” Yep. I agree.

Calculus is qualitatively different from religion. I can demonstrate that Calculus allows us to successfully determine the area under curves. You cannot demonstrate that Jesus is God. No one can demonstrate that Muhammad is his true and final prophet, etc.

Further, none of the people who claim to speak for God or Jesus agree with each other. And, they can’t successfully prove each other wrong or right. The truth has eluded us.

Where in the world, in the Bible, do you see Christ saying “all of this should be crystal clear to all ya’ll”?!?!? In fact, He says the exact opposite – His ministry will cause division, as people rebel against His teachings!

Read your Bible: Jesus promises Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. I think I’d call it a victory for hell if heresy ruled His Church…

Your expectation that Christianity will be ambiguous based on your reading of certain biblical texts is itself a dubious claim. How can I know that you are right? How do I know that you know what the bible really says, or if we should even be reading that bible? How do I know, that you know what that single line of scripture means?

How about you answer my question: Is it necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, or not? What is the real Catholic teaching? Your contextual analysis didn’t answer the question. This wasn’t a “bull of attainder” aimed at Philip LOL. The very first sentence is a generality talking about the nature of salvation itself. What is the answer, and how can I know that you know?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Good Morning PC,

That is understandable, given your history. So, if you met someone who felt hatred toward the Institution, and especially toward those who hold an ideology of rigid dogmatism and traditionalism, how would you approach him? Would you let him hate, or because of your own insights, would you be able to gently explain to him how to understand people of rigid ideology? Since those rigid individuals are definitely in his outgroup, would you be able to communicate that we all share such the capacity to be protective of ideologies?

I would say: those who consider themselves to be Catholics had nothing to do with the creation of Catholicism itself and are not guilty for the crimes of their ideological forbears. They are victims, in some cases tragically so. They need your help and support, they need a place to go when the hate causes their souls to crumble and implode. They need to know that at least one person in “the world” doesn’t hate them back.

Question for you: Why did God give us the capacity to hate? (From where does it come? What is its function?)

I believe hate proceeds from our animal or physical nature. Like fear and disgust, it is meant to keep us away from things that would harm us. As we become more obedient to God and realize that this is totally his world under his control, our animal responses of hate, fear, and disgust are gradually replaced by wisdom, courage, and compassion.

In my own experience, I addressed my own hate through awareness. There is some “shadow work” involved. For example, I hated Osama bin Laden. Understandable, right? …[CUT]…Awareness leads to understanding, which leads to mature forgiveness.

Hate is a triggered reaction. No one decides “I think I am going to hate that person today.”. (Okay, there may be some rare exceptions to address). I cannot stop the trigger in myself. The best I can do is at some point it dawns on me, “Oh I hate that person”! Then I know it is time to take the steps to understand and forgive. We cannot stop hate from happening any more than we can stop anger or disgust from happening. What we can do is encourage understanding and forgiveness.

Want to hear a terrible story about how much of a hater I am? When Osama Bin Laden was caught and killed, I went outside to take a walk. I lived in a larger city at the time, and I saw a total stranger across the street. I shouted “we got him! they killed Osama! woooo!” and he smiled and shouted back “oh yeah buddy! alright!! woooo!” No I was not drunk, no I was not a frat boy. In that moment of shared hatred and rejoicing in the death of a hated individual, two strangers united. Hatred is a powerful force. It brings strangers together against an enemy. It is a confirmation of our superiority. It gives us meaning.

It is very difficult to forgive myself for being like that. I repent! While you were doing research, I was celebrating the destruction of another human being. You are a lot better than me Mr. Sheep!

I must have had the same drink! Your view expresses theosis. (It is a great word, I have recently been introduced to it). Your view sounds so much like Saint Francis, Pope Francis too.

Wow, you really got me thinking on that now. As young people we hunger to belong to a group, and I know from studies that in order to have a feeling of meaningful membership, there has to be some sense of exclusivity. I remember a youth director telling me this; as counter-intuitive as it seems, to make a group meaningful, it has to have an exclusive feel about it. It is no wonder that there are bar-mitzvahs and rites of passage, they serve a secondary function: “now you are IN”. Street gangs work the same way. I can definitely relate, the Catholic Church did not provide that exclusivity, so I was drawn to fundamentalist Christianity (okay, by a girl friend). Whew, was I then exclusive! I cannot say that I took the wrong path, though, it was a part of my journey I had to live.

Indeed, I was a “victim” of Vatican II. Just when I needed a rigid institution, the institution itself was transforming. Ultimately, it was I who needed to transform, to grow.

So maybe it is not so much an ambiguous self-identity (which we all have as youngsters, think of all the personas people wear), but lack of meaningful group membership? Because here are some other items: for group membership to be meaningful, it has to be exclusive, it has to such that your absence is noticed and you have an important function, and people in the group have to care about the group. Yes, it is perhaps apathy of fellow Catholics that contributes to this meaninglessness, and leads to some people finding exclusive membership in rigid ideology or something else.

So, confusion? I’m sure it plays a role, but I’m thinking it is not the driving factor.

It is so great talking about this topic with you. You have a very analytical mind.

Yes, your experience is sort of similar to mine in that you were more conservative when younger. So many people think that young people are liberal and then become conservative as they age. I think it is the opposite! Look at ISIS: it’s almost completely young people. Look at Quakers: they’re almost completely oldsters.

Ok maybe not confusion, maybe it is apathy and lack of cohesion that drives hatred. I’m not sure. It seems like the lack of cohesion drives a person to form an exclusive group and then the hatred results. Thanks for your contribution also.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Oh, perhaps they imply them, but you were claiming that they were sources of these dogmata! Heck – I can read a Tom Clancy novel, and see that Jack Ryan stops at a red light, but in no way does that mean that traffic law is found in Clancy novels… it’s found in books of laws!

Oh boy, I don’t want to open this can of worms. Let’s not talk about the truth values of sentences in fictional works.

I am unaware of any official church document that details all dogma and nothing but dogma. Ott’s book, while useful, is not official. Where is the official list of every single thing a Catholic is required to believe, with undeniably clear explanations that can’t possibly be contested? If the church were to publish such a list, organizations like CA would be made redundant immediately.

Because there is no such clear and unambiguous list, Catholics “glean” the answer to the question “What is a Catholic?” from various sources, and not simply catechisms. For instance, Catholics in some areas of Mexico actually consider the Virgin of Guadalupe to be the goddess Tonantzin. They’ve learned this via local tradition and custom. Are they not real Catholics?

Popes contradict each other on matters of doctrine and dogma? Please, if you’d be so kind… show us an example. Councils contradict one another? Again, put your money where your mouth is. (Mind you, we’re not asking you to demonstrate that doctrine develops over time – we know that’s true – we’re asking you to show us the contradiction that you claim exists.)

And yes, even if you don’t know it, we know “what the final authority” is. It’s God, through His Church, and the successors of the person whom He placed in charge of it. (Sure, people can debate that fact – but you could debate with me till you’re blue in the face that the moon’s made of green cheese … but that wouldn’t mean that your irrational opinion implies ‘ambiguity’ in the makeup of the moon… )

Do you really want to go there? I already know what is going to happen.

Me: Here, right here, look: an explicit contradiction!

You: That’s not a contradiction, it’s a development.

Me: :banghead:

No matter what I present as a contradiction, you’ll define it as a development. Conveniently, there is no way to distinguish the two ahead of time, and the definition can change to fit the facts whenever you want. You’ve started with the conclusion and reason about the facts. That doesn’t seem to be a useful epistemology to me.

The moon’s color is obvious. The moon’s composition can be and has been tested and verified.

It is not obvious that the Catholic Church owns God. It cannot be verified nor falsified.

Well, I suppose it could be falsified since it has set so many traps for itself. Like, for instance, if Pope Francis goes ahead and solemnly proclaims that divorced and re-married couples can get communion, that would falsify the claim of infallibility and cause the whole thing to come down like the last Jenga piece (in my mind at least). But, rather than Catholics throwing up their hands and saying “OK guys, that’s a wrap, let’s go home” we all know what would happen. The next day people would be coming up with all sorts of stuff to defend the new teaching as a legitimate “development.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Will do.

But first we must agree: is evangelization, as a concept, isn’t at its essence wrong.

That is, when you said this:

…you were only speaking of, peculiarly, one specific type of evangelization.

Are we agreed on that?

“Evangelizing” to me, is a subset of “trying to get someone else to agree with me.” Other forms:

coercing
selling
persuading
threatening
bargaining
bribing
intimidating

I can’t think of anymore right now, and I have to get back to work. Trying to get other people to agree with you isn’t wrong, in and of itself, unless the reasons for your beliefs are not demonstrable or not accessible to reason.

Me: Buy my magic crystal set, cuz it’s super cool and magic and stuff.

You: Ya right, no thanks! I don’t believe in magic crystals.

Me: OK fine whatever.

^That’s OK.

Me: Buy my magic crystal set, cuz it’s super cool and magic and stuff.

You: Ya right, no thanks! I don’t believe in magic crystals.

Me: If you don’t buy it, you’re a bad person, and when you die you’re going to a nasty place of endless torment and you’ll totally deserve it.

You: Wow, that sounds bad. But, I still don’t believe that. Go away.

Me: Buy my magic crystals, or I’m going to burn you to death.

You: :bigyikes:

^That’s NOT OK.

What could possibly motivate the second scenario? That’s the question I’m trying to answer.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think we can agree, then, that even if there’s debate and disagreement, that some people on an issue are just plain wrong.

There is a right answer and a wrong answer, regardless of whether there is debate, on some things, yes?

Yes, sometimes people debate settled issues and known facts…right? Can you think of any?

Can you come up with a known fact that people debate? I’m not sure any historical event counts as a certainly known fact. I think we have evidence for our beliefs about history, but we can’t demonstrate historical facts.

I have a hope that there is a unified truth of everything, yes. I think ultimately, there are answers to everything. But, for the time being, humanity engages in debate because the truth is not so obvious.

If it were obvious, if it were clear, then we would all agree!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I will retract what I said I will retract.

However, you have made an assertion MUCH, MUCH BIGGER than what I granted.

I stand by my assertion that you are woefully misinformed about Catholicsm. And that you left what you didn’t know.

Here is what I promised to do:

I hereby retract and assert: Pumpkin Cookie gave a splendid answer regarding EENS. His answer will put to shame most lumpinthepew Catholics and they would do well to be as informed as he is on this.

Thank you for that. :tiphat:

OK you think I am woefully uninformed. Maybe that’s true. Maybe I learned nothing at all, or totally wrong stuff, by spending years of my life carefully studying.

Do you think that it is impossible for someone to know what the Church teaches and still reject it? The Fulton Sheen theory (love that guy by the way, terrific stage presence)?

 

[Gorgias]

Calculus is qualitatively different from religion. I can demonstrate that Calculus allows us to successfully determine the area under curves. You cannot demonstrate that Jesus is God. No one can demonstrate that Muhammad is his true and final prophet, etc.

Stop moving the goalposts, please, Pumpkin. Your claim wasn’t about the differences between religion and math, so your refutation can’t be that the two disciplines are different – your claim was that there is ambiguity in Catholicism, and you used the example of ‘lack of knowledge’ to prove your point. I demonstrated that this was no proof at all – in other words, “lack of knowledge” does not imply “ambiguity.” That’s all that my counter-example demonstrates. If you want to attempt to disagree with the counter-example, you need to disagree with it on its merits: show me that lack of knowledge in Calculus equates to ambiguity in Calculus. That’s all we’re talking about here.

Your expectation that Christianity will be ambiguous based on your reading of certain biblical texts is itself a dubious claim. How can I know that you are right? How do I know that you know what the bible really says, or if we should even be reading that bible? How do I know, that you know what that single line of scripture means?

I think I’ve suggested this to you previously, but I’ll do it here (again): read up on the “illative sense”, as Newman describes it. It describes how we reach certainty through rational analysis, in various contexts. It answers your questions. There’s no need to keep playing ostrich and burying your head in the sand. There are reasonable answers; you don’t need to keep beating your breast and asking “how could we possibly know?!?!?!?”

How about you answer my question: Is it necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, or not? What is the real Catholic teaching? Your contextual analysis didn’t answer the question. This wasn’t a “bull of attainder” aimed at Philip LOL. The very first sentence is a generality talking about the nature of salvation itself. What is the answer, and how can I know that you know?

You already know that I answered it: in fact, without argument or analysis, you reject it out of hand. How can I know that you’ve considered the merits of my analysis? Yet, that doesn’t demonstrate to me that there’s ambiguity here: it just demonstrates your unwillingness to address the argument (and instead, to demur that ambiguity reigns). That holds up once or twice… but you’re beginning to be the boy who cries ‘wolf’…

 

[Gorgias]

Me: If you don’t buy it, you’re a bad person, and when you die you’re going to a nasty place of endless torment and you’ll totally deserve it.

You: Wow, that sounds bad. But, I still don’t believe that. Go away.

Me: Buy my magic crystals, or I’m going to burn you to death.

You: :bigyikes:

^That’s NOT OK.

You keep using this example. It’s a dramatic example. It’s also not at all what the Catholic Church teaches.

You can keep making this claim…

…but now that you’ve been told – multiple times – that this is not what the Church teaches, you have a choice: you can continue to argue for a counterfactual (and we’ll all recognize what your intentions are); or, you can admit that you’re setting up a strawman, and we can continue to discuss the teachings of the Church rationally. Your choice.

What could possibly motivate the second scenario? That’s the question I’m trying to answer.

Only a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church could motivate the second scenario.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Stop moving the goalposts, please, Pumpkin. Your claim wasn’t about the differences between religion and math, so your refutation can’t be that the two disciplines are different – your claim was that there is ambiguity in Catholicism, and you used the example of ‘lack of knowledge’ to prove your point. I demonstrated that this was no proof at all – in other words, “lack of knowledge” does not imply “ambiguity.” That’s all that my counter-example demonstrates. If you want to attempt to disagree with the counter-example, you need to disagree with it on its merits: show me that lack of knowledge in Calculus equates to ambiguity in Calculus. That’s all we’re talking about here.

Comparing dogmatic religious stuff to math is ridiculous.

My wife has a PhD in math. She is teaching calculus right now. She has knowledge of calculus. She can demonstrate it. It is not violent for her to teach her students about calculus, because she can demonstrate that it allows us to determine the area under curves quite well. It is demonstrably true.

You cannot demonstrate that your religious beliefs are true. It is violent for you to insist that everyone become a Catholic, when you cannot prove that Catholicism is true. You may have personal reason to believe it, but other people don’t, so they don’t!

Honestly, “magic crystals” and “eucharist” occupy the same space in my understanding. I don’t want magic crystals, I’m glad they work for you, that’s great. No, I don’t believe the stories about so-and-so being miraculously healed by the crystals, I suspect there is a better explanation.

I think I’ve suggested this to you previously, but I’ll do it here (again): read up on the “illative sense”, as Newman describes it. It describes how we reach certainty through rational analysis, in various contexts. It answers your questions. There’s no need to keep playing ostrich and burying your head in the sand. There are reasonable answers; you don’t need to keep beating your breast and asking “how could we possibly know?!?!?!?”

We’ve had thousands of years to come to agreement as a species, on matters of faith. It hasn’t happened. I don’t what that means, but it certainly see doubtful that everyone’s “illative” sense points in the same direction!

You already know that I answered it: in fact, without argument or analysis, you reject it out of hand. How can I know that you’ve considered the merits of my analysis? Yet, that doesn’t demonstrate to me that there’s ambiguity here: it just demonstrates your unwillingness to address the argument (and instead, to demur that ambiguity reigns). That holds up once or twice… but you’re beginning to be the boy who cries ‘wolf’…

OK so cool. Evangelization is pointless. No one needs to be a Catholic to be saved, and everyone can go to heaven as long as they do what is right and honestly seek God, or whatever subjective understanding of God they have. Sounds good! I guess you can tell CA to pack up, shows over. I will miss this forum though, LOL.

OK but seriously, are you ready to see a boatload of evidence suggesting a different understanding of the Church’s teaching regarding salvation “outside the church” or “out from under the Roman Pontiff?”

Here’s a teaser quote:

Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (To Peter on the Faith)

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens.html

Now, go ahead and tell me they’re all wrong, and not really Catholics, and then with a straight face tell me it’s unambiguous.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You keep using this example. It’s a dramatic example. It’s also not at all what the Catholic Church teaches.

You can keep making this claim…

…but now that you’ve been told – multiple times – that this is not what the Church teaches, you have a choice: you can continue to argue for a counterfactual (and we’ll all recognize what your intentions are); or, you can admit that you’re setting up a strawman, and we can continue to discuss the teachings of the Church rationally. Your choice.

Only a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church could motivate the second scenario.

OK how about this:

Me: Buy my magic crystal set, cuz it’s super cool and magic and stuff.

You: No thanks, I don’t believe in magic crystals.

Me: Well, everyone in this town uses my magic crystals.

You: That’s great, I’m not interested.

Me: OK, but just to warn you…people in this town don’t like it when others deny the power of magic crystals and refuse to buy them.

You: OK, whatever, you can go now.

Me: Ya know…I have a lot of influence around here. Everyone in this town thinks I’m the official magic crystal expert. The other townspeople are just chomping at the bit to kill you because you don’t believe in the crystals. You’re lucky I’m so merciful, I’m holding them back…for now…

You: Ummm, what? Are you threatening me?

Me: Threaten you? Ohh no way, of course not! You don’t have to buy the crystals if you don’t want to, I guess you’re just hopelessly stupid and can’t see the power of the crystals. That’s OK, the Ur-Crystal might forgive you. I know cuz I’m the expert.

You: Forgive me for what?

Me: Oh you didn’t know? You’re broken. You need the crystals to fix you.

You: Hey buddy, who are you calling broken?

Me: Oh, it’s OK, we’re all broken. We’re born that way. And because we’re broken, we can’t go to live in the magical crystal realm when we die.

You: Yeah…OK…

Me: But don’t you want to live in the magical crystal realm?

You: I don’t believe in magical crystals OK? It makes no sense.

Me: Oh…ok…well…that’s too bad. Maybe you can find some other way to get to the magical crystal realm when you die. I really hope you do! Cuz if ya don’t…well then you will end up in the naughty land of frozen ice!

You: Alright, ok whatever. I’ve heard your pitch, and it is incoherent so I don’t buy it. Just the other day some guy was trying to sell me on magical pebbles. I didn’t buy those either.

Me: Hmmm, that is a shame. I’m afraid I can’t protect you from the angry townspeople if you don’t buy my crystals. Shucks…I can see them coming now. Wow they look angry, and they’ve got burning torches and pitchforks. Darn, too bad there is nothing I can do to save you. You should have bought the crystals I guess!

You: leaves town

What motivates the magical crystal salesman? I say, in some instances, hate. In some others, fear. In some others, desire for control and domination. What other reasons could there be?

If the salesman truly believed in the power of the crystals, then threats would be unnecessary. If the nature of religious truth were clear and unambiguous, then there wouldn’t be hundreds of thousands of salesmen running around trying to convince everyone that only their understandings were correct and everyone else is either deluded or a liar.

Is that better?

 

[Gorgias]

Comparing dogmatic religious stuff to math is ridiculous.

Of course it is. Because, in the way that I compared the two, I shredded your assertion to pieces. It’s ok, PC… you can refuse to address my counter-example. We all know that it holds, especially since you refuse to address it.

My wife has a PhD in math. She is teaching calculus right now. She has knowledge of calculus. She can demonstrate it. It is not violent for her to teach her students about calculus, because she can demonstrate that it allows us to determine the area under curves quite well. It is demonstrably true.

You cannot demonstrate that your religious beliefs are true. It is violent for you

Wait – since I disagree with you, you’re going to call my refutation of your case ‘violence’? Really? That’s what you’re going to go with? Yeah… that’s a good approach.

It is violent for you to insist that everyone become a Catholic

Just stop, ok? I’ve never insisted that “everyone become a Catholic”. In fact, I’ve said – time and again – that this is not what Catholicism teaches. If you want to believe that this is what it teaches, then I’ll leave you to your delusion. What I won’t do, however, is let you get away with asserting that this is, in fact, what Catholicism teaches. It is not.

it certainly see doubtful that everyone’s “illative” sense points in the same direction!

That’s not what “illative sense” means. I’ll defer responding to your refutations of Newman… until you actually read him. I’m waiting…

OK so cool. Evangelization is pointless. No one needs to be a Catholic to be saved, and everyone can go to heaven as long as they do what is right and honestly seek God, or whatever subjective understanding of God they have. Sounds good!

I’m glad you finally understand what the Church teaches, then! For those who know that the teachings of the Church are true, this understanding is binding. For those who do not, it is not. (Of course, for those who know it is true, but refuse to enter into the Church, well…)

OK but seriously, are you ready to see a boatload of evidence suggesting a different understanding of the Church’s teaching regarding salvation “outside the church” or “out from under the Roman Pontiff?”

Yep. Problem is, you don’t have it.

Here’s a teaser quote:

Look – maybe you’re not getting it, but here’s the point: any person (outside of the teaching authority of the Church) may say whatever they wish. They might be a good person or bad, sinner or saint – but, the teaching of the Church isn’t what any arbitrary person says… only what the magisterium says. If you want to quote Joe Six-Pack, go ahead: but, if you want to claim that the teachings of the Church are ambiguous, you need to quote magisterial teachings. You can’t quote non-authoritative teachings (regardless of the source) and then claim that you’re serving up the teachings of the Church; all you’re serving up is individuals’ assertions. Give me Church teachings… or give up your unsubstantiated claims. It’s. Just. That. Simple.

Now, go ahead and tell me they’re all wrong, and not really Catholics, and then with a straight face tell me it’s unambiguous.

Umm… I hate to tell you this – cause maybe you haven’t glommed onto it – but you realize that ‘romancatholicism.org’ is a site that is in schism with the Catholic Church… haven’t you? They’re sedevacantists – which means that they think that there is no valid pope. In other words, they have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. Explicitly. No ambiguity. They walked away.

Now, you may want to claim that they’re “really Catholics”, but I have to ask you – would you claim that those who rail against the Church are “really Catholics”? Seriously? I mean… folks who have distanced themselves from the Church? That’s like saying that Baltimore Ravens fans are really Cleveland Browns fans. Trust me – no one will buy that one, either.

Look – if you want to claim that the Church is confused, then give us Church teaching. Don’t give us claims from splinter groups. That only proves that people have left the Church. We won’t dispute that people have left. However, given that the authoritative teaching comes from the magisterium, you can’t claim that the existence of other groups disproves the authority of the magisterium – rather, this only proves that some have left the Church. That’s not the same thing…

 

[Gorgias]

OK how about this:

Me: Ya know…I have a lot of influence around here. Everyone in this town thinks I’m the official magic crystal expert. The other townspeople are just chomping at the bit to kill you because you don’t believe in the crystals. You’re lucky I’m so merciful, I’m holding them back…for now…

Me: Oh…ok…well…that’s too bad. Maybe you can find some other way to get to the magical crystal realm when you die. I really hope you do! Cuz if ya don’t…well then you will end up in the naughty land of frozen ice!

Me: Hmmm, that is a shame. I’m afraid I can’t protect you from the angry townspeople if you don’t buy my crystals. Shucks…I can see them coming now. Wow they look angry, and they’ve got burning torches and pitchforks. Darn, too bad there is nothing I can do to save you. You should have bought the crystals I guess!

Yeah… cause hordes of angry, pitchfork-wielding, crystal-believing ‘Catholics’ is something you’ve experienced? Or, maybe just… it’s something that you’re making up?

If the salesman truly believed in the power of the crystals, then threats would be unnecessary.

Yeah, you’ve got me. My life as a Catholic is all about making threats to unbelievers. Dang… you’ve really uncovered the truth, here!

 

[fhansen]

There have been several threads aimed at questioning, refuting, mocking, and jeering atheism lately. It seems that this particular sub-forum has become a place of open hostility toward atheism. I suppose that’s fair, considering that the wider internet is a place of open hostility toward all religion. But, I thought I would offer a theory of why there seems to be so much rancorous mutual hatred and disdain between christians/catholics and atheists/agnostics.

Before proceeding, I would like to clarify that I am an agnostic theist. I do have a personal history of hating Catholicism, but I am trying to get over it to the best of my ability. I have stated my personal bias ahead of time; hopefully this is a sufficient disclosure.

Here is my theory about why so many people hate and fear atheism/atheists:

1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what it means to be a true Catholic. This website should be proof enough, but evidence abounds! Confusion reigns. Because of this, those who consider themselves Catholic and attempt to build their identities upon that idea are building on an ambiguous and shifting core. They cannot find a solid, rich, and nutrient-filled soil for them to root their egos.

2: Without a strong and clear identity, a negative definition emerges.
Because Catholics don’t know who they are, and consequently are unable to love themselves, they must turn outward to define what they are not. They hate the other, in order to give the ego something firm to grasp. Catholics are against such and such, they oppose so and so. Because they can’t agree, or even understand what they love they turn to hatred and fear in order to define themselves.

I believe that this same dynamic drives atheism. Of course atheists can’t agree on what to believe or who they are. There is no widespread agreement or consensus. Rather, there is a mutual disdain and hatred of religion and “blind faith.” Simply not believing in God or gods is insufficient to ground one’s ego. We need a mission, a purpose, a clear vision of ourselves (whether it is illusory doesn’t matter). Atheism and Catholicism are both ambiguous and open-ended. Because of this, each side turns to the invigorating clarity of hatred.

What do you think? Is this a plausible theory? Why or why not?

Also, I have to give credit to J.P. Sartre. I am adapting his theory of hatred in Réflexions sur la question juive to this situation of internet-based hatred.

The more Catholic one is, the more they love atheists-and everyone else for that matter. We all start out atheistic after all, for all practical purposes. But the reason one would find atheism at all objectionable is because of the treasure they find by leaving it behind. “Finding” God means that one becomes grounded, in a universe that has its very foundation based on goodness, order, and purpose. And congruent with this is the knowledge of continued existence, beyond death. Its the ultimate good news -and basis of sound and positive thinking.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I have only three things to say.

First:

I’m glad you finally understand what the Church teaches, then! For those who know that the teachings of the Church are true, this understanding is binding. For those who do not, it is not. (Of course, for those who know it is true, but refuse to enter into the Church, well…)

…… I can’t believe you just admitted that.

Second:

Why don’t you go read the essay I linked to? It’s mostly direct quotes of popes, councils, saints, martyrs, bishops, miracle-workers, visionaries, mystics, doctors, and early fathers.

Are they all “schismatics” too? Are they all not really Catholic? How do you know?

Third:

We don’t have hordes of angry Catholics/Protestants ready to burn “heretics” because no one cares about religion anymore. Not really anyway. Not enough to kill someone about it. I was offering an oblique criticism of the apologia that the Church is not responsible for burning or torturing anyone, rather it was the secular arm of society executing people. We should ask “why didn’t the Church stop mobs/governments from burning heretics if they didn’t approve” rather than “why did the Church burn heretics?” BTW, I’m not pointing the finger at Catholics as though they are especially bad or something. All forms of Christianity engaged in the murder of those who disagreed with them, except for Quakers perhaps. In areas affected by Islam this is still a reality.

May God himself bring us peace.

P.S. I will read Newman’s Essay once I am done with Apologia Pro Vita Sua.