The Confusion of Catholicism

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore!

In what way? Are you starting to find it difficult to offer me your hand, since I do not agree with you?

Not at all, the hand is still there, inviting you to grasp it! Disagreement is way over-rated. Opinions are based in experiences, and experiences are as varied as the stars.

None of us is in a position to know the heart of another. We are called not to judge. I am not a “fruit inspector” that I can go about evaluating the quality of other person’s relationship with their Maker.

I can judge behavior, and in the case of CAF, I can judge the content of what is written in posts. I can clearly see that the content of your posts deviates with Church Teaching. I was just listeing to Catholic radio today, when they were saying how it is possible to willingly and knowingly reject God. It made me realize that your formulation makes a mockery of God. It means that God has supposedly given us a choice that really does not exist. It makes Jesus a liar, for teaching that such a thing is possible.

Are you saying that everything “taught” on Catholic radio is “Church teaching”.? Since when does Catholic radio have a blanket imprimatur? I do not assert without qualification that no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God, guanophore, it is an observation I have made, and I can support my conclusion with a great deal of evidence. I invite others to provide a counterexample.

That was quite a slippery slope there to coming to the conclusion that I said Jesus was a liar, guanophore. Are you tying to understand? I think you want to, but try giving me the benefit of the doubt, this is our calling. No, nothing I have said means that God has given us a choice that does not exist, and no, nothing I have said makes Jesus a liar.

I am not sure what "aspect’ this means. I think St. Paul uses Jew and Greek to refer to race and religion. Jews were considered believers by default, while Greeks were considered pagans. I am not sure how it applies here?

I apologize for continuing to bring this forth, but this section is very important in terms of rectifying “the confusion of Catholicism”. It has to do with unity, and how that unity is formed. Here it is again:

223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Both of us were baptized into Christ and have put on Christ! Note, I have not “divided” myself from you, claiming that you have “rejected His teachings” or express “heretical views” saying that “such level of communion cannot exist between us”. All of those words you wrote exhibit a human division, guanophore. Again, how are we to “triumph”? How can we create the “unity” if you are so set on upholding a division based on opinion? Because I observe that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God, I am against Christ? I am one with you, guanophore, we are part of the same body, even if you think I am wrong about everything I say. What about you? Are you one with me in Christ Jesus?

I have no need to “divide” myself from you. We are divided by heterodoxy of beliefs. Unity occurs when members of the body embrace Truth. To the extent that any members of the body depart from the apostolic teaching, division exists. Your posts delcare that you do not embrace the Apostolic faith (or only parts of it). Maybe you never embraced it,s o you cannot have departed from it?
You have denied the doctrines of the faith, but you do not see it that way. Your forumlations are not consistent with what the Church teaches, but you believe there is sufficient room for such “diversity”.

Name one thing I wrote that declares I do not embrace apostolic teaching, guanophore. You will not find anything. I have a different opinion than you do on certain issues. Name one denial of the doctrine of faith, just one!

I fear you have taken my posts far too personally, OS. I have no way of grasping who is or is not in communion. Only God knows the hearts of His flock.

As for: “I have no way of grasping who is or is not in communion. Only God knows the hearts of His flock.”

On the contrary, you said “such level of communion cannot exist between us”, which indicates that you do know. Do you have the humility to change your mind about this?

(continued, with mercy)

 

[OneSheep]

]
what I have clarity about is the basis upon which communion rests. I have clarity that Christ is not separated from His teachings, and that those teachings are infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

Church teachings allow for some differences, guanophore. Amazingly, there is an example right here:

He forgives all who repent and believe in Him.

Yes, He forgives all who repent and believe in Him. On the other hand, Jesus forgave the unrepentant from the cross, so repentance and belief are not a condition of forgiveness, in another legitimate view. This is also the same view presented when Pope Francis says, “God always forgives”. Both conditional and unconditional forgiveness are supported in the Gospel.

There were many examples brought forth on your thread, and you rejected them all. Since you already have your mind made up on the matter, it is not useful to discuss it. Suffice to note that your position contradicts what Jesus taught.

I rejected none of them. What I would do is ask questions, and people were usually unwilling to continue with the investigation. Yes, people make assertions, and they are unwilling to back them up with the facts. I do not rule out the possibility that I have drawn the wrong conclusion, guanophore. If you can think of one example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, bring it forth and we can discuss it. Perhaps you could bring forth an example from the radio program you heard?

Now, here is what I wrote on my last post to you:

"Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

Indeed, guanophore, I understand where you are coming from, and I do not find your views “heretical” or “rejecting” of the Gospel. Do you understand my views? Please try, without first assuming that I am rejecting Church teaching. It is a simple request."

And here was your response:

I am having more and more clarity. I realize that people create a fantasy world for themselves in which to live because they need it. Yours has enabled you to overcome resentment and unforgiveness, and to put yourself in the shoes of others. You must have been broadened as a person by the ideals you have created and embraced.

Well, I think you are actually trying. I defended my view with the words of Pope Francis, though, and you are saying I live in a “fantasy world”. Well, perhaps we are all living in “fantasy worlds” to some degree. None of us truly knows the workings of the universe. Unless, of course, you mean to say that you are in full knowledge of the Truth, and have no illusions at all.

Please do not shy away, guanophore. If you think that my conclusion that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God is a fantasy, then it seems to me that is important for you to prove to me the truth as you see it. On the other hand, maybe you are open to the possibility that regardless of our views of whether anyone ever K&W rejects God, we are still fully part of the body.

Think about it.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly, I feel that I owe you an apology. In my last reply to you I did not offer you a complete answer even though you took the trouble to present an argument and provide a link. I am sorry for coming across as dismissive or rude. I owe you more, so here is a proper reply.

No harm, no foul.

Compare the sentences “a black dog” and “a black dog exists”. The second sentence is making a claim about the black dog, but it is not telling me anything additional about the black dog itself. It does not inform me in the same way “black” does. That is, it does not add content to the term “dog”, but makes a claim about the dog and the contents of its concept.

But the claim is that God is Existence. One could not make such a claim for any contingent being.
"A black dog exists " and “A black dog is existence” are two different claims; the former true and the latter false.

Furthermore, you can say of a dog that it is thirsty and that is a mammal. That it is a mammal is necessary, as it is part of the (GENERAL) definition of a dog. But it is not by definition that the dog is thirsty; it is a proposition about a (PARTICULAR) dog that may or may not be true. Similarly, saying that something exists (that there is an instance of it) is making a proposition about something such as saying that it is thirsty. It is not something you can include in a definition. Otherwise you could come up with something called a “realunicorn”, which is like a unicorn except “exists” is part of its definition. This would force the realunicorn into existence - this situation is absurd.

God is a concept, an idea, that is GENERAL . Since the category has but one instance, all that is PARTICULAR to God is also GENERAL. Therefore, your use of the term “proposition” as something that may apply in one instance but not in all instances would not apply to the concept of God.

So, going back to Aquinas’ argument, to say that existence is part of God’s essence and therefore intrinsic to him (and only to him) is to mistakenly use “existence” as a predicate and as part of the definition of God. The only way you can have “existence” as part of God’s definition is if you simply say that the word “God” is a synonym of “existence”, which would yield pantheism.

Since the claim is that God is Existence, and not that God is a synonym for existence, I do no see how pantheism follows.

In case my explanation seems muddled, I will add another version of it.
The definitive refutation of the ontological argument was presented by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his two objections to its Cartesian version.

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments. “How anyone in the twentieth century can take Kant’s transcendental philosophy seriously is baffling, …(” Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Mortimer Adler, 1985)

Firstly, he established the distinction between analytic statements: those which are known to be true by the definition of their terms (for example: all pigeons are birds); and synthetic statements: those which require additional knowledge to be verified (for example: pigeons are numerous in Venice). Accepting Descartes’ claim that God’s definition includes the property of existence, he acknowledged that ‘God exists’ is correct as an analytic statement, and that to reject His existence would be contradictory. But analytic statements, Kant argued, do not necessitate a corresponding instance, and no contradiction would result when rejecting God, together with all his attributes, as a synthetic truth. Kant concluded that, in fact, “all existential propositions must be synthetic” , and therefore an observed instance of God would be required to validate the ontological claim. Kant’s refutation is fatal to the ontological argument, as it demonstrates the impossibility of proving God’s existence through reason alone.

“But this is not the worst of Kant’s mistakes. Much worse is his view about synthetic judgments a priori. A synthetic judgment is not trifling and uninstructive. It does not depend upon an arbitrary definition of terms. It is the kind of judgment that Hume regarded as a truth about matters of fact or real existence. In every such case, the opposite of what is asserted is possible–thinkable, conceivable. .” (IBID)

Kant’s second objection to Descartes was that ‘exists’ is not a predicate, …

We covered this fallacy in the response to the first post.
Kant wrongly “psychologizes” philosophy throwing metaphysics into the dustbin. Kant substituted idealism for realism. Reality for Kant is not independent of our minds but rather dependent. Kant would (could?) only deal with empirical concepts, concepts derived from sense experience. The idea of God is not a concept from sense experience but a theoretical construct initiated by reason and illuminated by revelation.

 

[guanophore]

I got it, your willingness to create harmony with me is contingent upon my adherence to your interpretation of Church teachings.  Isn't this the formula for division, guanophore?

No, One Sheep, you are not “getting it”. “Harmony”, along with “inclusion” and all the other warm, fuzzy, affectionate and other standards to which you cling do not eqate to unity in the Spirit (communion). Communion occurs when people are “in Christ”. It is not created by human willingness toward others, but by each person being in right relationship with Chrsit.

You are right that those who reject the Teachings of Christ infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit do create divisions. No amount of human “harmony” or “inclsion” can substitute for the condition of being “in Christ”. Plenty of people are in harmony and inclusion with one another, yet separated from some part of the Teachings of Christ. We generally call them Protestants.

Remember where I started:

223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

I guess you have determined that I have not “put on Christ”? If you have not made such a determination, then tell me how we are to triumph over human division if you begin by telling me that I have rejected essential teachings, and that my views are heretical?

And you are thinking that you are not being judgmental, even as you have judged that I "reject" and my views are "heretical" while I have only presented a different interpretation than your own.  Indeed, guanophore, it is you who are refusing communion with me, not me with you.  My hand is still there.  Go ahead and spit on it, it will still be there.

It is necessary for us to exercise discernment. We can do that with the content of posts, though I will agree it leaves us limited. What you have written here indicates that you have embraced views that contradict the teaching of the Church. Perhaps you are only role playing?

It has nothing to do with individual interpretation. The Teaching of Christ in the Church is the standard, the foundation. It is One Faith. We are not free to pick and choose the parts we don’t want to accept. When people do this, they become Protestant, whether they realize it or not.

Neither of us has the power to “refuse communion”. You seem to believe that communion is something individuals can will and effect between one another, but this is not the case. Those who have read the passages you posted above from the CCC can clearlyl see (even if you cannot) that communion is based upon Eucharist. It is rooted in each of us being in right relationship with Him.

Now, here is what I wrote:

Yes, while our human institution excommunicates, God always waits for us, understands, and forgives.

Indeed you did, reflecting a view of the Church that contradicts the teaching of Christ. the Church is not merely a “human institution”, One Sheep. Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible, not the humans who are a part of her. You have also created yet another false dichotomy. Excommunication is an expression of God’s desire that we repent and return to His grace. Excommunication does not imply there is a lack of forgiveness.

So, again, I was quoting the Holy Father when I said “God always waits for us, understands, and forgives.” So, are you also saying that Pope Francis is also saying that Scripture is untrue? Wow, guanophore, you have a pretty stiff criteria for adherence! How many people do you find do not have “heretical views”?

I find quite a few on CAF, including people that call themselves Catholics. But no, I do not find any expressions of Pope Francis that depart from the One Faith of which God has made him servant and custodian. I can also promise you that He does not create a false dichotomy with regard to communion.

Who, guanophore, would you have “held bound” in terms of excommunication from the Father? Anyone? The Pope? Me? The lukewarm?

I am not in a position to hold anyone in such a state. Most people excommunicate themselves by rejecting the teachings of the Church. Some of them still present themselves to the sacrament, not even realizing that they have separeated themselves from Christ by rejecting His TEachings.

C’mon, guanophore, please, lighten up a bit. Try to understand.

I actually understand humanism better than you may realize.

 

[guanophore]

Even the Hadiths do not have the iron-clad imprimatur Catholicism grants to the most speculative and fanciful doctrines.

The real puzzle to me, paziego, is why you identify yourself as Catholic if you believe such things. Why associate yourself this way?

 

[guanophore]

Have you considered that the reason they defy logic is because they are actually man-made and false?

Yes, of course! Does not everyone need to do this?

It seems like a strange conclusion to reach: “this does not make sense, therefore it must be true”.

I agree entirely.

There are aspects of what God has revealed about himself that are beyond the capacity of human logic. They can be acceped because we can trust the Source.

How do you believe it if you cannot make sense of it? What actually is it that you are believing, an empty verbal formulation?

I am not limited to accepting as true only those things that my linited powers of logic can parse. For me, it is an unfathomable mystery that Christ should make Himself present through the bread and the wine, yet He has done so.

Since I do trust the Source, I can have confidence that it is not an “empty verbal formulation”. Though I do accept your point. For those who reject the person of Christ, it would be empty. It causes one to have curiosity about why you put the word “Catholic” in your affiliation field.

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, guanophore!
Not at all, the hand is still there, inviting you to grasp it!

I am so relieved! I would not want you to become wearly in well doing.

Disagreement is way over-rated.  Opinions are based in experiences, and experiences are as varied as the stars.  :)

I suppose that depends upon with whom the disagreement exists and which experiences.

“For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, became companions with the Holy Spirit, tasted God’s good word and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.” Heb. 6:4

The Apostles taught that, once a person “experienced” communion with Christ through the Church, separation (excommunicating oneself) results in a state that is much worse that the first.

Are you saying that everything “taught” on Catholic radio is “Church teaching”.? Since when does Catholic radio have a blanket imprimatur?

Of course not! One of the apologists happened to make a reply that resonated with what is covered by the infallible teaching of the church.

I do not assert without qualification that no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God, guanophore, it is an observation I have made, and I can support my conclusion with a great deal of evidence. I invite others to provide a counterexample.

I will agree to disagree with you, One Sheep. Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?

That was quite a slippery slope there to coming to the conclusion that I said Jesus was a liar, guanophore.

Is it? When you contradict what He has said, and delcare that it is untrue? There are several on this thread that have openly declared that the Scriptures are not the inerrant Word of God. They seem to be proud of such a stance. Should you be exempted from such pride?

I apologize for continuing to bring this forth, but this section is very important in terms of rectifying "the confusion of Catholicism".  It has to do with unity, and how that unity is formed.  Here it is again:

223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Both of us were baptized into Christ and have put on Christ!

Most Catholics experience this joining to the Body in infancy. As one grows older, one reaches the age of reason, and needs to choose for themselves whether they will renew their baptismal vows, and embrace the faith into which they were baptized.

Note, I have not “divided” myself from you, claiming that you have “rejected His teachings” or express “heretical views” saying that “such level of communion cannot exist between us”. All of those words you wrote exhibit a human division, guanophore.

I believe that you do not consider your positions are against those of the Church.

No, One Sheep, they are not “human divisions”. Jesus created the Church. It is He who has the only authority to define what is taught. Every human person has the responsibility to align themselves with what God has revealed about Himself. It is not a matter of personal opinion or “interpretation” as you continually claim.

Again, how are we to "triumph"?  How can we create the "unity" if you are so set on upholding a division based on opinion?

For some reason you seem to be seeking some form of “triumph” that you can achieve by converting ill informed Catholics to you humanist position. I have no doubt that you have been able to “triumph” in converting some, as people do crave for the warm fuzzies and the “inclusion” you a

re preaching.

“We” cannot create unity, because unity is formed by the Holy Spirit between those who are in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Because I observe that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God, I am against Christ?

Your position is contrary to his Teachings. I am fully pursuaded that you believe otherwise.

I am one with you, guanophore, we are part of the same body, even if you think I am wrong about everything I say. What about you? Are you one with me in Christ Jesus?

I do not disagree with everything you have said. I disagree with the assertions you have made that contradict what God has revealed to the Church. Anyone who has been validly baptized is a member of the Body of Christ. There exists an imperfect unity when members reject parts of His Teaching. Only God can judge the hearts of people. People can only make discernments based on what we can see. Your posts indicate that you reject some of His teachings, in favor of your own “observations”.

Name one thing I wrote that declares I do not embrace apostolic teaching, guanophore. You will not find anything. I have a different opinion than you do on certain issues. Name one denial of the doctrine of faith, just one!

I am sure you believe that you embrace the Aposotlic Faith. You have redefined it in terms that are meaningful for yourself, and have configured it to fit with your humanistic perspectives.

As for: “I have no way of grasping who is or is not in communion. Only God knows the hearts of His flock.”

On the contrary, you said “such level of communion cannot exist between us”, which indicates that you do know. Do you have the humility to change your mind about this?

I can change the way I express it so that it is more accurate. Communion between the members of the body is wounded, broken, and torn when those members depart from the One Faith.

Church teachings allow for some differences, guanophore.

Yes, but that does not include departing from the once for all divine deposit of faith. We are not at liberty to change any of that which was committed to the Church.

On the other hand, Jesus forgave the unrepentant from the cross, so repentance and belief are not a condition of forgiveness, in another

Perhaps they were inviciblly ignorant?

I agree, forgiveness must be extended by each of us when we are legitimate view.

My dear OneSheep. Persons who have a “legitimate view” are not in need of any forgiveness!

It is irrelevant, though. My forgiveness of those who have departed from the One Faith does not restore them to right relationship with God, or the Church. Communion is not restored. I will not be held bound by the poison of resentment, and can freely acknowledge and affirm that every human person has the freedom to depart from God.

I rejected none of them. What I would do is ask questions, and people were usually unwilling to continue with the investigation. Yes, people make assertions, and they are unwilling to back them up with the facts. I do not rule out the possibility that I have drawn the wrong conclusion, guanophore. If you can think of one example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, bring it forth and we can discuss it.

It is against the forum rules to jump threads. These examples were offered to you in the other thread. You clearly found no merit in any of the examples. For you, as for Pumpkin, what is written in Scripture does not constitute “facts”. Your statements make it clear that you do not respect what is written in Scripture as the inspired and inerrant Wod of God, as the Catholic Church teaches. Instead, you believe that human opinions are represented there.

Indeed, guanophore, I understand where you are coming from, and I do not find your views "heretical" or "rejecting" of the Gospel. Do you understand my views? Please try, without first assuming that I am rejecting Church teaching. It is a simple request."

To be fair, my views are heretical in the Church of One Sheep. I reject your definition of communion as occuring on the basis of human hand shaking. I have not assumed anything about your views, and have only found that what you have written departs from the Teachings of the church after studying your posts. Are you not willing to be responsible for your own expressions?

 

[guanophore]

Well, I think you are actually trying.  I defended my view with the words of Pope Francis, though, and you are saying I live in a "fantasy world".

It is possible to defend all kinds of views using scripture as well as words of the pope, the fathers, theologians, etc. I am sure you can find plenty of sources to defend yourself. It is quite customary for those who are rejecting certain Teachings of the Church to use portions of scripture (while rejecting the rest) to bolster ones heterodox views. This has been going on since the first century.

Well, perhaps we are all living in "fantasy worlds" to some degree.  None of us truly knows the workings of the universe.  Unless, of course, you mean to say that you are in full knowledge of the Truth, and have no illusions at all.

You are right, there is much we don’t know, and cannot yet know, about the universe in which we live. However, we can know with confidence what God has revealed about HImself to us.

Please do not shy away, guanophore. If you think that my conclusion that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God is a fantasy, then it seems to me that is important for you to prove to me the truth as you see it.

It is curious that you would consider it must be important for me to provide proofs against your fabrications. On the contrary, I affirm your right to create and maintain them. Furthermore, I strongly believe that certain people NEED such creations to maintain a sense of balance and well being. When a person needs some sort of equipment for balancing, it is inappropriate to kick it from beneath them.

  On the other hand, maybe you are open to the possibility that regardless of our views of whether anyone ever K&W rejects God, we are still fully part of the body.

No, OneSheep. Those who reject the teachings of Christ, though they are baptized members of hte body, are imperfectly joined. This does not reflect the fullness that Christ intends for us.

"If anyone teaches other doctrine and does not agree with the sound teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the teaching that promotes godliness,4he is conceited, understanding nothing, but has a sick interest in disputes and arguments over words. From these come envy, quarreling, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant disagreement among people whose minds are depraved and deprived of the truth, who imagine that godliness is a way to material gain.I Tim. 6

Does this sound to you like different doctrine and disagreement with the once for all deposit of faith is a good idea?

 

[paziego]

No harm, no foul.

But the claim is that God is Existence. One could not make such a claim for any contingent being.
"A black dog exists " and “A black dog is existence” are two different claims; the former true and the latter false.

I am not sure you could treat “existence” as the definition of a being. You can say of a being that it exists, but to say “existence” is itself a being seems similar to saying solidity is a being. Even then, existence is not a property in the same way solidity is. To say an object is solid is informative of the concept, to say it exists is not. Furthermore, “it exists” can only be properly applied to individual instances, so with “God is existence” you would end up saying nothing more than “God is the individual instances of things which have individual instances”. And to me that just seems like a really weird way of expressing pantheism.

I know you can say of general things that they exist (e.g. dog’s exist). But this means that there is at least one instance of a dog. It can also be used as a catch-all for all the individual instances of dog’s existing.

God is a concept, an idea, that is GENERAL . Since the category has but one instance, all that is PARTICULAR to God is also GENERAL. Therefore, your use of the term “proposition” as something that may apply in one instance but not in all instances would not apply to the concept of God.

I am not sure “God” is a general concept in the Abrahamic tradition. When you and I talk about God we have a specific being in mind, not a class of beings. Miss Universe 2016 may sound general but by definition it is a single individual.

The question is whether existence can be part of something’s definition. If it is, what about my “realunicorn”?

Since the claim is that God is Existence, and not that God is a synonym for existence, I do no see how pantheism follows.

Because of the kind of thing “existence” is, those two statements are the same. If you say God is existence you are saying the term “God” is synonymous with existence.

You are treating existence as a property for things but as a nature for God, and it has to be either one or the other if you are to be consistent. You cannot make an argument where you change the meaning of the terms mid-sentence. If it is a property then God is merely a property in abstraction, and what you are saying is as absurd as saying that solidity is a being. If it is a nature then anything which exists has this nature, and is God. If you then want to say, “but other things are contingent”, all you are really saying it that they are parts of God that could have not been. But you are still committed to pantheism if you say that God is existence.

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments. “How anyone in the twentieth century can take Kant’s transcendental philosophy seriously is baffling, …(” Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Mortimer Adler, 1985)

I can’t believe a Catholic is saying you cannot appeal to authority. That is the basis of your religion - apostolic authority.

Anyway, I was showing Kant’s arguments from something I copied and pasted. I thought it would be useful to include it, for reference.

But where does all this leave us in regards to the trinity. Even if you want to say God is existence you still don’t have something that individuates the three persons. What we are dealing with here is an argument for the existence of God. And I am not even sure the Church teaches that God is existence. I only said that because that is what Aquinas seemed to be saying in that particular extract, though I don’t believe he intended to say that.

 

[paziego]

There are aspects of what God has revealed about himself that are beyond the capacity of human logic. They can be acceped because we can trust the Source.

Ok, great. And on what basis do you deem this source trustworthy?

I Have Catholic on the ID because I used to be one and I haven’t got round to changing it it yet. However, my baptism has left an indelible mark on my soul, and as such I will always be a member of the church. It is just that I will be a bad one.

Another reason I keep it is that I do not have a proper alternative yet, and if I was to put something down it would shape perceptions of me. I don’t want to come across as someone who has always been an outsider to the church.

 

[OneSheep]

Your position is contrary to his Teachings.

Yes, you keep saying this, but you have yet to come up with an example supported by “Church teachings”. You bring up things I said, and then say “this is contrary to church teachings”, but your assertions do not make them so, guanophore. I have stated nothing that goes against Catholic doctrine. Sure, what you hear on the radio may be different than what I am saying. It’s a big Church, guanophore.

Are you trying to be charitable?

 

[OneSheep]

"If anyone teaches other doctrine and does not agree with the sound teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the teaching that promotes godliness,4he is conceited, understanding nothing, but has a sick interest in disputes and arguments over words. From these come envy, quarreling, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant disagreement among people whose minds are depraved and deprived of the truth, who imagine that godliness is a way to material gain.I Tim. 6

Does this sound to you like different doctrine and disagreement with the once for all deposit of faith is a good idea?

Wow, guanophore, what a great passage!

Yes, as I have said from the beginning, we do not have to agree over words! Disagreements over words do lead to quarreling, slander, evil suspicions, etc! Indeed, you have accused me of rejecting chuch teachings, of "fabrications, and you have suspected me of “humanism” and other such things. Have I ever said the same of you, guanophore, have I? No, guanophore, I have held my hand to you the entire time, ready and willing to say that all these disagreements are only words, and that communion has to do with our willingness to embrace each other as the body, and actively seeking unity.

(Sigh), I am guilty of arguing and quarreling.

I would say that neither of us are out for “material gain”, so the passage does not really apply to you or me. But do you see the Spirit of the passage, guanophore? Let go of the words for a moment and shake my hand as a fellow part of the body! After all, we share the same table, we eat together every week. Can you do your part to make unity triumph over division, or must you hold onto your own interpretation of “the words” so tightly that your will is closed to including me?

Let’s shake on it, guanophore, adherence to “sound teachings of our Lord” does not lead to disputes over words. Here are some “sound teachings” we can agree on: Love God. Love one another. Have mercy. Welcome strangers, everyone! Be charitable. Be merciful. Recognize that we who are baptized and have committed themselves to Christ are part of the body. Believe in the Creed.

Aren’t those “words” enough? Or would you rather continue the argument?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Poor Pumpkin. It seems that your method of reasoning must be such a terrible burden. Sometimes reading your texts is so painful! I wonder how anyone with such thought processes can experience any peace of mind.

Yes, reason can be quite demanding! I’ll tell you how I have peace of mind: I realize that I can’t be held responsible for being right about everything or having true beliefs about everything. That’s an unreasonable and impossible demand, and so I don’t feel obligated to “get to the bottom” of absolutely everything. I do believe I have gotten as far down with Catholicism as I care to go. I was looking for diamonds and gold, but I’ve found only some mud and coal down here my friend.

Although this seems on the surface perfectly logical…[snip]…No, Pumpkin. None of these examples you have listed here “die in mortal sin”. You seem to have a deficient understanding of the meaning of mortal sin, and you are conflating it somehow with original sin.

I meant “original” sin in that quote you responded to last. My mistake, typo. Although there does seem to be a conflation in the terms in some catechisms:

Q. 256. What evil befell us on account of the disobedience of our first parents?

A. On account of the disobedience of our first parents, we all share in their sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had remained faithful.

Q. 257. Is it not unjust to punish us for the sin of our first parents?

A. It is not unjust to punish us for the sin of our first parents, because their punishment consisted in being deprived of a free gift of God; that is, of the gift of original justice to which they had no strict right and which they willfully forfeited by their act of disobedience.

Q. 258. But how did the loss of the gift of original justice leave our first parents and us in mortal sin?

A. The loss of the gift of original justice left our first parents and us in mortal sin because it deprived them of the Grace of God, and to be without this gift of Grace which they should have had was to be in mortal sin. As all their children are deprived of the same gift, they, too, come into the world in a state of mortal sin.

Q. 259. What other effects followed from the sin of our first parents?

A. Our nature was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, which darkened our understanding, weakened our will, and left in us a strong inclination to evil.

The internet is a goldmine of this stuff. Can you see why it is easy to conflate “original sin” with “mortal sin?” I perfectly understand the distinctions set forth in the 1993 catechism, but what of this from the Baltimore Catechism? Are they not real Catholics? Who is right, the authors of the Baltimore Catechism or the pontifical council arranged to answer the question about the status of children who have died without baptism? Or, are their views not contradictory? How can I know? How do I know that you know?

You sound very angry and cynical, Pumpkin.

Catholics do not kneel before the 'men" but before the Living Christ, who is present in the Mass. We do not believe He is present because the priest tells us so, but because Jesus tells us so.

For us, that “object” is the Living Christ. Is there some reason you would expect us not to kneel before our Lord and Maker?

How about this: I’ll videotape you at Mass and then show the video to people who are unfamiliar with Catholicism. I’ll translate the spoken words to their language and ask them what is happening in the video. I am certain they would affirm you are in fact literally kneeling before at least one man who is holding up an object while claiming it to be “the lamb of God” while everyone else says “amen.” Do you see what I mean? You imagine and/or believe that you are worshiping God, but the uninitiated will find my description more accurate and obvious.

Oh, Jesus told you? What does he look like? Where does he live? How has he managed to hide so well? Why doesn’t he tell everyone the same things? How did you know it was him if you didn’t know what he looked like before?

Yes. Our inablity to reach out and grasp it…[snip]…It is also important for Catholics to know the rich history of their religion, and its reason.

I have no good reason to suppose you are delusional, I merely disagree with you and don’t believe your testimony. I think it is fine for you to believe what you believe, but I have not been presented with enough 1) reason and 2) evidence to share your beliefs. That’s OK (with me). I also do not think the billions of humans who have different beliefs than I do are delusional LOL. I just so happen to disagree with them because I apparently don’t have access to the evidence and reason they do.

However, doesn’t your faith obligate you to believe that other religions are the result of demonic or satanic influence? Wasn’t that a popular theory among the architects of your religious tradition? I know that theory isn’t popular anymore, but why do you think the early church fathers would have this opinion?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is a good example of confirmation bias. You are reading the article with prejudice, and find evidence to confirm your presuppostions.

The article is clear that the 'professional church ladies" caught his faking, and that he had been on the unauthorizied list for years. People did recognize he was not the real deal. The fact that he was able to fly below the radar and continue to take advantage is regrettable but clearly they knew the sacrament was not ordered properly as soon as it occurred.

Why did they recognize him as a fraud? Was it because they were aware of “defective” sacraments, or because he was a shady guy who was conspicuously robbing them?

How were they finally able to determine he was not a real priest? He didn’t have the right papers. LOL. Official paperwork is how we can tell the difference between a real priest and a fake one.

How can we tell if a sacrament is “real” or not? Ultimately…paperwork.

 

[simpleas]

Is it disrespectful to disagree?

Not at all. But we must understand that people see/believe things differently, even within our church, and it doesn’t make them any less Catholic.
We each have our own personal belief about our faith, about God etc.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments. “How anyone in the twentieth century can take Kant’s transcendental philosophy seriously is baffling, …(” Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Mortimer Adler, 1985)

“But this is not the worst of Kant’s mistakes. Much worse is his view about synthetic judgments a priori. A synthetic judgment is not trifling and uninstructive. It does not depend upon an arbitrary definition of terms. It is the kind of judgment that Hume regarded as a truth about matters of fact or real existence. In every such case, the opposite of what is asserted is possible–thinkable, conceivable. .” (IBID)

LOL. Paziego is not appealing to Kant as an authority, he is attributing the argument to the appropriate source. There is widespread consensus among philosophers of religion that various “ontological” arguments are logically bankrupt. I have a ton of respect for Plantinga, but those who have pointed out that his modal version is also a failure are correct, in my opinion. Ontological arguments are an attempt to get everything from nothing, and as believers in God we should be the first to reject this reasoning.

How anyone can take scholasticism seriously in the 21st century is baffling.

 

[Aloysium]

LOL. Paziego is not appealing to Kant as an authority, he is attributing the argument to the appropriate source. There is widespread consensus among philosophers of religion that various “ontological” arguments are logically bankrupt. I have a ton of respect for Plantinga, but those who have pointed out that his modal version is also a failure are correct, in my opinion. Ontological arguments are an attempt to get everything from nothing, and as believers in God we should be the first to reject this reasoning.

How anyone can take scholasticism seriously in the 21st century is baffling.

How anyone can take the 21st century seriously is baffling.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Is it? When you contradict what He has said, and delcare that it is untrue? There are several on this thread that have openly declared that the Scriptures are not the inerrant Word of God. They seem to be proud of such a stance. Should you be exempted from such pride?

Do you accept the Qu’ran as the inerrant Word of God? Of course not. You reject it, right? Are you “proud” of your stance? I doubt it! I think more likely you just don’t care about it. I think you’ll find this reaction to religious texts is quite common. I bet you feel this way about all of them, except yours. I think others feel this way about yours too. OK?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How anyone can take the 21st century seriously is baffling.

LOL I was echoing Mr. Adler quoted above. It’s a snitty little remark isn’t it? Tell that to Adler!