The Confusion of Catholicism

[guanophore]

I think we can all agree that sin occurs in unknowing and ignorance.

No, we cannot. This may be a view that OneSheep must embrace because it is essential to his personal growth, but it is only a partial understanding of what the Church teaches. Yes, there is sin that emanates from unknowing and ignorance, but there is also sin commited willingliy and knowingly, in open rebellion against God.

Yes missing the mark, not quite able to become Christ like, because we aren’t divine.

This position seems to overlook that we have been made able, through grace, to hit the mark.

This doesn’t mean that one person who hits the target is more catholic than one who misses the mark. We are all one body, all suffering.

I agree with this, but then it goes back to the roots of the sin. Persons who deliberatly reject the teachings of the Church, and thus separate themselves from perfect communion, have lost Catholicity. For example, Protestants are made members of the One Body through Baptism, but the unity is imperfect because the Teachings of Christ infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit are rejected willingly and knowingly.

Many people find peace within/without and they do not practice our faith, they have their own, why does it seem that some faiths work for others, individual I mean, that some find inner peace, God etc in another faith, when the Catholic faith is the true one way of uniting with God.

The Church teaches that God has revealed Himself in many ways to many people God gives peace to those who follow their conscience.

People can't be unknowing/ignorant if they have prayed researched etc and found a different path.

Why not? Human ability to discern and to study is limited. Some people do the best they can, but still miss the mark. Look at Saul of Tarsus. He was passionate and full of zeal, but all of his prayer and study could not lead Him to Christ. He had to have an experience of the presence of the risen Christ. This is what I see missing with Pumpkin Cookie, along with many others who reject the Catholic faith. They have never experienced the divine presence, and limited to their human faculties, are unable to reach Him.

 

[guanophore]

I love “both/and”, as you must know by now.

If this were true, OS, you would be able to receive that the God that made man and declared him “good” is the same God that became sorry He made them.

If this were true, you would be able to accept that sometimes people willingily and knowingly reject God.

If this were true, you would be able to accept that those who reject Christ are condemned, and this is part of God’s perfection.

 Remember, we both love God, and both love our Church.

I am not sure this is true, OS. It seems to me that what you love is your own private mental/emotiona/ spirtual construction of what is Jesus’ Church. You deny so many basic elements of Christianity and Catholicism that it is possible what you are loving is not the same “church”. It may be the Church of One Sheep, of which I am not a part.

Maybe you can enlighten me on something I do not know.

I think not, OS. One important element of such constructions is that they must reject any evidence or ideas that are contrary in order to preserve themselves.

We can see this in the postings of Pumkin Cookie, who must reject anything that cannot be verified by his god of scientific inquiry. In the same way, you must reject any information or point of view that does not support your construction.

Concerning “real Catholicism”, I think guanophore stated this well:
Originally Posted by guanophore People embrace what makes sense, and works for them.

So, some people use different words to describe their journeys.

Indeed they do. But this is not 'real Catholicism". Creating one’s own set of beliefs according to what makes sense and works for them is diametrically opposed to receiving what Jesus says is good for them.

When the University of Notre Dame invited President Obama come to speak, which is a tradition of the University, about 60 out of 290 bishops protested. This may seem like division, but they were united by deeper bonds. Both the Bishops who protested and those who did not undoubtedly fulfilled Pope Benedict XV’s of “quite enough”.

Supporting and endorsing those who have embraced evil makes on party to the evil.

However, you will find an occasional Catholic who will still "consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith".

It is not a matter of whether someone agrees with anyone’s persona ideas. Contrary to what Pumpkin and you may believe, the One Faith is defined and described by Christ Himself. It was solid and complete before any of us in this generation were born, and will continue to be solid and complete when we are all gone.

 However, they are still expressing "what works for them", and it is charitable to hear their words in this way.  They do not intend to divide the Church, nor drive people away, they are expressing what works for them, and inviting us to see our faith the way that they do.

Your formulation seems to deny that there is a Catholic faith that is above and beyond all of us. You seem to believe, as Pumkin does, that the Catholic faith is a matter of personal opinion, experience, and “ideas”. This would be a significant departure from what Jesus taught.

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, Brother!

… Catholics who disagree with some of the Church’s doctrines?.. So isn’t what really matters not the head, but the heart? We are one body only as much as we at least include all those who profess Christ. Isn’t the attitude of inclusion what is strived for? … Is your statement a shove? I stand firm. I stand with open arms! Do you run away praying?

This post seems to indicate that you believe I am working to create separation in the body.

I do not believe it an either/or with the head and heart. If one’s heart cleaves to Christ, then one’s mind will be conformed to HIs Teachings.

A person who rejects His Teachings rejects Him, there is no separation between the two. He is Truth, and teaches the Truth.

“we are one body only as much as we include all those who profess Christ”?!?!

So the Mormons who come to my door professing Christ should be included with me in Eucharist?

Recognizing that all who “profess” Christ are not actually “in Christ” is not an exclusive attitude, nor does it imply “runnning away” from them.

We are called to “be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect”. If our Father condemns people, then condemnation must be perfection.

You seem to see the condemnation that comes from rejecting Christ as unloving or short of perfection, but this is not the case.

... (I am speaking in terms of condemnation as feeling negatively toward someone).

The condemnation spoken of by Christ is not based upon “feeling negatively about someone”. It is an eternal consequence of rejecting Him.

  ... you might have your eyes opened to the broadness of spirituality in our great Church.

You seem to believe that my belief that not all who profess Christ are actually “in Christ” as some form of exclusivity, closed mindedness, or lack of acceptance of the “broadness of spirituality in our great Church”. Rejection of the teachings of Christ damages our relationship with Christ and His Church. It is not an acceptable variation of spiritual practice of which I must be “inclusive” or be accused of “running away praying”.

… but it too can enslave us when we hold a grudge.

Recognizing that people have separated themselves from God by sin does not equate to holding a “grudge” against them.

QUOTE=OneSheep;13658026] Yes, but condemnation by God? That would be one view acceptable in the Church. The other view would be that God loves and forgives unconditionally, just as shown in the Pope’s tweet you left out. I shall put it in again, in case you have forgotten it:

Pope Francis Verified account
?@Pontifex

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

March 19, 2015

You are creating false dichtomies, OS. The fact that people are condemed when they reject Christ does not negate that He is always ready to forgive an to receive us.

And if you shut people off, discontinue conversation, tell people they are taking a position contrary to Catholic faith, are you in right relationship with Christ? Is this what Christ asks of us? No, guanophore,

As a matter of form, I don’t really see a difference between making an “accusation” and posing a question then answering yoursefl.

What communicates to me here is that

1. You seem to believe that my recognition that people approach the Eucharist sacriligiously is equivalent to me “shutting them off” or “discontinuing conversation”.
2. telling people they are taking a position contrary to Catholic faith removes me from being in right relationship with Christ
3. Christ does not ask us to tell people they are taking a position contrary to His Teachings.

And from previous statements, if I do any of these things, then I am not “inclusive” but “exclusive” and rejecting or ostracizing of others.

Are you accepting me as part of the Body or are you shutting yourself out?

This seems to be a conflation between a spiritual and an emotional reality. People become separated through sin. When a person sins against God, then approaches Eucharist in that state, the matter is compounded. All of this is between the
soul of the person and his Maker. Sin is what shuts people out, not the presence or absence of handshaking.

Shutting out a fellow Catholic, guanophore, based on difference of opinion is a *promotion* of indifference.

continued

So I am sinning against my fellow Catholics if I clearly espouse and communicate the whole Gospel (not just the warm fuzzy part)?

If I assert that the rejection of His Teachings is a rejection of His person, I am promoting division based upon “difference of opinion”.

I don’t think you realize the implications of these positions, OS.

 

[OneSheep]

I have also come to understand that you need to believe this in order to preserve and promote your spiritual progress.

A little lesson in charity, guanophore:

You can check the CAF guidelines again:
It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

Now, I am mostly certain that you do not intend to belittle me or imply that I have some kind of emotional disorder, but let’s turn it around a little and see how you feel about being at the receiving end:

Let me pretend to say this: “Guanophore, I have come to understand that you need to believe in the depravity of mankind because you hold an underlying grudge against all people.” How do you feel when you read those words, guanophore? Do you get the impression that I respect you with those words, that your faith is sincere? This is why this particular guideline is there, it is a guide to respectful ways of considering the thoughts of others.

Here is a way of stating the observations that makes no pretense of knowing the mind of the other:

“guanophore’s image of man is one where the human is rightfully condemned for his actions, just as God condemned and punished man in the story of Noah.”

"onesheep’s image of man is such that man only behaves badly when the individual person does not know what he is doing, which he sees as a basis for forgiveness, just as Jesus did from the Cross.

“Both of these images are manifestations of the experiences that each has had in the world, and their own encounter with what they find as truth.”

Here are some more accurate observations:

“Guanophore’s image of God is that He only forgives people if they repent.”

“OneSheep’s image of God is that God forgives unconditionally.”

Now, if I were to add to the former, … “because guanophore has an unnatural, warped, view of mankind rooted in an abusive childhood.” This would run contrary to the guideline.

Or if I were to add to the latter: “because OneSheep needs to see God this way for his own spiritual progress”, this also runs contrary to the guideline because it may imply a fabrication on the part of OneSheep for his (poor) psychological health.

So, to finish tonight’s lesson, I suggest following this other guideline:

Questions are a better approach than assertions

So, in this case, it would be more appropriate to ask, "OneSheep, do you perhaps believe this because you need to? Do you perhaps believe this not because you know it to be True, but because it fulfills a psychological need?

And now that I asked that question for you, would you like me to answer it?

Oh, BTW, if this post seems really demeaning, I am sorry. You have made such great improvement on not making accusations and not questioning people’s sincerity (for the most part) it seems that you might respond to a little more coaching. If you would have rather received this by PM, let me know.

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

This post seems to indicate that you believe I am working to create separation in the body.

I’m sorry, that was not the implication meant at all. You are working to protect doctrine, the words that describe and promote faith. (I know, that definition of “doctrine” falls short, but I am saying that I have the impression that your intent is not in divide).

I do not believe it an either/or with the head and heart. If one’s heart cleaves to Christ, then one’s mind will be conformed to HIs…

I’m not sure why you are bringing forth these old posts, guanophore. You have already responded to them once before. If you would actually like to stand up for your beliefs and practices, you could respond to post 751, or you could respond to this directly, which you have yet to do:

Allow me to present this: Two men who disagree with each other meet in the street. One man says, “hey, we disagree, but we are both human, and God loves both of us, and we both love God.” he extends his hand to the other and says, “let’s shake hands”. The other man refuses, and continues to argue. Which of these people has an "unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words"1Tim6:4 ? Which of these people is excluding himself, in a very, very basic sense?

So, I did not respond to a bunch of stuff you just wrote, but you did not respond to these earlier posts of mine. “Fair is fair”, right? (I know, that sounds a little silly). I’ll tell you what, you respond to the “two men scenario” above and post 751, and then we can continue with the rest of the very interesting issues. Deal? I would very much like to keep these things charitable.

I would really like to respond to the rest of what you posted tonight, I really would! But please, let’s continue with the “right foot forward”.

Thanks, and good evening!

 

[guanophore]

A little lesson in charity, guanophore:

It is curious that you would receive my “gift of understanding” as lacking in charity.

You can check the CAF guidelines again:
It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

Absolutely. Contrary to making any assumptions, I have carefully and prayerfully read all of your posts (some of them more than once) and applied the “gift of understanding” that you keep promoting. In charity I have accepted that this perspective is something very important to you. It is also clear that you are not in a position to relinquish it, since it is foundation stone of your spiritual development.

I am surprised that you find this acceptance on my part as “uncharitable” or including some sort of assumptions.

Now, I am mostly certain that you do not intend to belittle me or imply that I have some kind of emotional disorder, but let’s turn it around a little and see how you feel about being at the receiving end:

]

Disorder is a loaded word. Your posts have made it clear that you have progressed from a condition of holding resentments to one in which you are able to forgive everyone. To me that sounds like moving from a condition of ill health to positive health.

Let me pretend to say this: “Guanophore, I have come to understand that you need to believe in the depravity of mankind because you hold an underlying grudge against all people.” How do you feel when you read those words, guanophore?

On the depravity part, I feel sad, because such a statement reflects that you do not understand my positon.

On the grudge part, you have already implied this several times, along with Pumpkin, who imagines that Catholics need to be hateful toward others in order to embrace the faith.
It is just so far off my personal experience as to leave me feeling alienated from both of you.

Do you get the impression that I respect you with those words, that your faith is sincere? This is why this particular guideline is there, it is a guide to respectful ways of considering the thoughts of others.

I don’t see how you can respect that which you do not understand (or clearly misunderstand). As far as sincerity, I think that is an unrelated issue. You and Pumpkin both would probably affrim that I am most sincere in holding grudges. You have illustrated several times that people “know not what they do”.

There is a way of stating the observations that makes no pretense of knowing the mind of the other:

I agree. I can only know your mind based on what you have posted.

“guanophore’s image of man is one where the human is rightfully condemned for his actions, just as God condemned and punished man in the story of Noah.”

"onesheep’s image of man is such that man only behaves badly when the individual person does not know what he is doing, which he sees as a basis for forgiveness, just as Jesus did from the Cross.

“Both of these images are manifestations of the experiences that each has had in the world, and their own encounter with what they find as truth.”

Not entirely, OS. I am able to hold both views, because I have a both/and approach. I also believe that our personal experiences are like grains of sand in comparison to what God has revealed about Himself to humankind. God has revealed that those who reject Him are “condemned already”. For me, since I can accept both as Truth, this does not negate that God is always ready to forgive and heal us.

Here are some more accurate observations:

“Guanophore’s image of God is that He only forgives people if they repent.”

“OneSheep’s image of God is that God forgives unconditionally.”

What evidence do you have to support this claim as accurate? What have I posted that leads you to believe I reject what the Scriptures say? Did not Jesus forgive those who crucified them before they repented (if they ever did)?

Unlike yourself, OS, I receive the Holy Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God. I don’t just pick and choose which parts are convenient to believe because they support my constructs.

Or if I were to add to the latter: “because OneSheep needs to see God this way for his own spiritual progress”, this also runs contrary to the guideline because it may imply a fabrication on the part of OneSheep for his (poor) psychological health.

It might, except that your posts explained it.

So, to finish tonight’s lesson, I suggest following this other guideline:

Do I detect a condescenting tone?

Questions are a better approach than assertions

So, in this case, it would be more appropriate to ask, "OneSheep, do you perhaps believe this because you need to? Do you perhaps believe this not because you know it to be True, but because it fulfills a psychological need?

I agree, except that your posts have already declared this, so there is no need to ask it. I woudl make the adjustment here that you believe it to be true because it makes sense and works for you (fulfills your psychological need).

Your motives are your own for what you have embraced and why you have done so. Your posts are a public declaration of them.

I have chosen to accept that this perspective you have adopted meets your needs (makes sense and works for you).

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, Brother!
… Catholics who disagree with some of the Church’s doctrines?

Catholics who disagree with what Jesus taugth are not “in Christ”. They have separated themselves from communion with Him. Jesus’ person is not separated from HIs message. Those who love Him will keep His commandments.

As you know, I disagree with your construct that people dont’ willingly and knowingly reject Christ.

We are one body only as much as we at least include all those who profess Christ. Isn’t the attitude of inclusion what is strived for?

You asked why I was responding to old posts. This is an example of what grannymh was referencing when she mentioned the sweet talk. It sounds so “right” to talk about inclusion and having this attide of acceptance. But this is not Catholic. In fact, it can be understood as quite antiCatholic.

it is a blantant falsehood to claim that " we are only one body as much as we at least include all those who profess Christ". It is false because what makes us a Body is not we ourselves, and our attitudes, but what has occurred by the grace of God on the spiritual plane. You refused to answer when I asked if those Mormons who profess Christ who come to my door should be invited to Eucharist. Perhaps you realize this is a preposterous idea.

…21"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ Matt. 7:22

Jesus is speaking here of those who claim they profess Him. He is clear that He never knew them. There are many that claim to be “profess Christ” but do not bear the fruit that demonstrates.

So no, in answer to your question, those who are “in Christ” are not striving for an “attitude of inclusion” where we embrace all those who profess Christ, even when their actions demonstrate otherwise. On the contrary, our attitude shoud be one of being included with Christ, and bearing fruits that befit repentence,

Yes, we can be protective of doctrine, but do you see the difference between finding a lost sheep and shoving that sheep out of the flock? Is your statement a shove?

Here is a false dichotomy. Jesus is not separated from His teaching. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. He came into the world to bear witness to the Truth. All that He did and taught is a reflecton of His being. Being “protective of doctrine” is not separated from being protective of Christ. If one claims to be “in Christ” then one will obey His teachings.

…23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; John 14:24

I equate love for Jesus=being in Christ = following His Word.

For me it is all about relationship. You seem to want to excise the teachings of Jesus from a relationship with Him.

You seem to experience my equating these with “shoving” people away.

I think this might be why your posts are perceived as trying to draw Catholics away from their faith.

Do you run away praying?

Absolutely. It is quite appropriate to run away from those who try to influence us to separate Jesus from His Word/Teaching. There is no dichotomy or division between loving Him, and keeping His commandments. I should pray for myself that I may not fall into the error of thinking doctrinal distinctives are acceptable, and I should pray fervently for the souls of those who try to separate Christ from his teaching.

Your posts suggest you believe I am working to create separation in the body, failing to be “inclusive”, "running away’, “giving a shove”. These are all hostile perceptions of my faith. Pumpkin also perceives the Catholic faith as hostile and aggressive. Your stance is just couched in more subtle terms.

 

[guanophore]

And now that I asked that question for you, would you like me to answer it?

You have chastized me for making statements that sound like “accusations”. Yet you frame your statements as questions to me, then answer them with your own opinion. From a practical point of view, I cannot see difference.

Oh, BTW, if this post seems really demeaning, I am sorry. You have made such great improvement on not making accusations and not questioning people’s sincerity (for the most part) it seems that you might respond to a little more coaching. If you would have rather received this by PM, let me know.

Thanks

I want your demeaning posts and attitude to be public, so that others who are reading the thread can see the pattern. I think this pedantic condescending tone is a great reflection of the shadow side that develops when a person clings to a myopic approach.

.  You are working to protect doctrine, the words that describe and promote faith.  (I know, that definition of "doctrine" falls short...).

Indeed it does. Christ is not separated from His teachings. Protecting what He taught is protecting HIm.
OneSheep;13707942:

  If you would actually like to stand up for your beliefs and practices, you could .....

You have chastized me for making assumptions about what you need, yet at the same time, you are giving me instructions on how to live my faith.

Perhaps you do not agree with how I defend my beliefs, and here you are instructing me on how to do it better/different.

Which of these people is excluding himself, in a very, very basic sense?..

We seem to be back to the inclusion/exclusion thing again…

I would very much like to keep these things charitable.

Perhaps if I can only respond approriately to your instruction and spiritual direction, you will be able to maintain charity? If I will defend my beliefs according to your criteria? If I will accept your “coaching” then I can be the grateful recipient of your charity?

But please, let's continue with the "right foot forward".

I understand that the right foot forward is the foot that is placed where you wish it to be, and following in the footsteps of “inclusion”.

 I do not believe it an either/or with the head and heart.  If one's heart cleaves to Christ, then one's mind will be conformed to HIs Teachings.

A person who rejects His Teachings rejects Him, there is no separation between the two. He is Truth, and teaches the Truth.

The condemnation spoken of by Christ is not based upon “feeling negatively about someone”. It is an eternal consequence of rejecting Him.

You seem to perceive my belief that not all who profess Christ are actually “in Christ” as some form of exclusivity, closed mindedness, or lack of acceptance of the “broadness of spirituality in our great Church”.

This demonstrates that your lovey dovey attitude of forgiving others because they know not what they do does not go very deep.

If I disagree with your constructs of inclusivity, and separating a relationship with Christ from doctrine, then I am exclusive, closed minded, and “shoving” others out. So having a different perception is not acceptable after all, but rather, a cause for correction from you. Perhaps I need more “lessons”? Maybe another demeaning post full of “coaching” will get me on the right track?

I trust you will nurse me through my difficulties?

 

[paziego]

According to the principle of adequacy an explanation should be in terms of the highest aspect of reality. Pascal made the point succinctly:

It is unreasonable to believe reason has emerged from processes which know nothing…

Hi tonyrey.
Sorry for the late response, I hope you are still around.

By the principle of adequacy, which you are so keen to apply, God would also have to be corporeal, since creation is material. As far as I know Catholicism does not teach this. But you can always convert to Mormonism or Salafi Islam, which do. Does this make Catholicism unreasonable, according to your judgment?

 

[paziego]

What happens when we apply laws of logic to the heavens? Are the heavens rationally structured?
YES

I agree with you entirely.

If they are then they can either be rationally structured in the same way as our world, or in in a different - perhaps higher - way, with their own logic and metaphysics?
EXPANDED

Our logical sense of reasoning is determined by our experiences in space and time. Common sense is simply the agreement about relationships of various observations of phenomena by the many.

Space: But some have now experienced the quantum scale. Observations in that framework seem to defy our present laws of logic. Given more time, our laws of logic will expand – not change – to make common sense of the observations in the quantum scale.

Time: In the framework of eternity, our laws of logic will expand – not change – to make common sense of observations in eternity. The reality of the relationships of the Persons in the Trinity is logical but our present time and space limited experiences have not allowed the expansion of our laws of logic to include this – the ultimate Phenomena.

Look, if you are saying that our logic is faulty then you are undermining the whole of what we know. This does not work to save the trinity.
The challenges to logic you refer to have to do with very complicated observations about the physical universe. It is not the same as the rules of identity - I am not sure logicians are going to start doubting whether “A = A” is really true or not. And if they do it does not bode well for anyone who wants to affirm something meaningful about revelation, or about anything at all, for that matter.

Even is there is a remote possibility that our understanding of the rules of identity may evolve, by itself this does not give us grounds to say that the trinity is definitely true and not logically contradictory. The rules of identity are not controversial and seem unlikely to experience the revolution necessary to make the trinity workable. And jettisoning our current understanding of logic altogether does nothing to strengthen anyone’s position in a debate. If anything it should be cause for us to abandon all certainty.

 

[paziego]

When I was learning early Catholic history in high school, it looked like the only reason a major council was convened was because the level of disagreements had gone so high that a decision one way or another had to be made.

The protocol for a major council includes extensive preparation. Basically, every document, writing, poetry, letter, homily, Holy Scripture, and so on, which was connected to the disagreement was examined by future council participants. Being a Catholic endeavor, prayers and more prayers were said. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was important, just like it is today. People came together to write proposals for defining the doctrine which would settle what was Divine Revelation. Often, those proposals were debated even before the council took place. If I may say this – the Holy Spirit was swamped with all the ideas going around.

Eventually, the wisdom of the Holy Spirit brought a sense of peace as people were working hard to define the truth. When the major church council finally began, there were still debates as proposals were studied. Yet, there was a difference because being guided by the Holy Spirit, various participants could reach deep into the truth. Actually, the Holy Spirit guided those who debated before the council so that both objections and solutions would be included.

In the early history of Catholic theology, further discussion following a defined doctrine was encouraged. That means that all aspects of a particular Divine Revelation were not always formally proclaimed in the first particular Council. Enough aspects were formally proclaimed so as to resolve the immediate questions. Being part of the human species, we rarely close discussions. When it comes to the multiple suggestions, these are closed when the specific doctrine is properly declared. In other words, there is a specific final Catholic doctrine which, because of the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit, is declared Divine Revelation which does not change.

Note: While multiple suggestions for the wording of a particular doctrine are closed, that does not prevent the human species to keep suggesting. Some of these suggestions are occasionally seen on CAF.

Questions on this part of early Catholic Theology?

But the answers are only compromises between factions or the enforcement of a view popular with the most powerful party. In some cases the councils are formed at the behest of state authorities rather than the church’s own initiative. This was the case with Nicaea, precisely because the faith was so ambiguous. Thank Constantine, not the holy spirit. And thank his centurions, who kept the bishops from killing each other in a communal boxing match.

The answers given by councils are not informative in the slightest. As we can see they can even be self-contradictory. What happens is that these are endorsed by the authority and are then supposed to be treated as brute facts by the believers. This means that critical thinking is forbidden on closed questions, especially when the answers are not satisfactory to reason. There has often been a heavy penalty associated with going against these “answers”, and any further development of doctrine has nothing to do with re-evaluating the coherence and adequacy of previous answers. As with all lies, you can go forwards but not backwards.

This is completely unlike Plato’s dialogues. He shows the process of his reasoning, and you are always free to reject and question his conclusions. He never declares something to be true purely from authority. If what he says is true it is because the arguments stand on their own. It does not matter if Plato, Socrates, or whoever said it, what matters is the argument itself. When we look at what Jesus said, anything that was not an appeal to authority or the declaration of something as brute fact was a mere platitude, or an idea that was already common at the time within Hellenistic philosophy. Appeals to authority, as o_mlly rightly said, are not valid arguments. They do about as much work to resolve ambiguity as platitudes do.

The most ambiguous element of the faith is the church’s authority in the first place. Their authority has to be presupposed in order to buy their explanations.

 

[o_mlly]

Look, if you are saying that our logic is faulty then you are undermining the whole of what we know. This does not work to save the trinity.

You should study the rules of logic. See below.

The challenges to logic you refer to have to do with very complicated observations about the physical universe.

The “very complicated observations about the physical universe” are child’s play compared to the interior life of God.

It is not the same as the rules of identity - I am not sure logicians are going to start doubting whether “A = A” is really true or not. And if they do it does not bode well for anyone who wants to affirm something meaningful about revelation, or about anything at all, for that matter.

You have misquoted the rule.

And jettisoning our current understanding of logic altogether does nothing to strengthen anyone’s position in a debate. If anything it should be cause for us to abandon all certainty.

The rules will not change as stated but they will be expanded.

The rules of logic are time and space bound. For example, “contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality.” theodora.com/encyclopedia/c2/principle_of_contradiction.html

If A and B and C exist outside time, the present laws of logic do not apply.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The “very complicated observations about the physical universe” are child’s play compared to the interior life of God.

You have misquoted the rule.

If A and B and C exist outside time, the present laws of logic do not apply.

1. Your first sentence presupposes you have intimate knowledge of the workings of the physical universe, the interior life of a divine being(s) outside of the universe, and the relation between the two. The sheer scope of what you claim to know is mind-blowing. I don’t believe you, prove it.
2. The law of identity is very obvious, and the stated A=A is a perfectly acceptable expression of it. plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/
3. To make your third claim, you would need a holistic understanding of the “laws of logic” and direct knowledge of the realm “outside of time.” Again, the scope of this claim is truly shocking. Again, I don’t believe you.

 

[Aloysium]

Could you explain that some more. If people are not participating in the Eucharist, know nothing of mortal sin, confession etc, how are they attaining holiness?

Thanks

The question appears to reflect a black and white way of looking at things.

God calls all of us to join Him in paradise, to be loving persons participating in the glory and joy of His creation.

There are many people in different cultures and different spiritual orientations who live their lives focussed on the Transcendent. Some are like John the Baptist shirking the world to be free of its seductions. Some seek intellectual truth, hoping to capture Reality. Others beauty, in nature, art, music, literature and the sciences. There are people living life to its fullest, hoping to grasp the eternity of every moment. Prayer, meditation, contemplation of shared revealed or realized truth to be found in sacred scriptures is universal among those seeking relationship with the Ground of their being.

Since God is love, any and all of these endeavours will fail to attain their end without love. Failure and a falling from grace is universal because among the motivations in this search there is pride, a desire for pleasure, power, fame and other worldly finite goods. It is very, very hard to reach the heavens and even trying together, without God the Tower we construct will crumble.

Although it is we ourselves as individual persons who journey on this Road with the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are too tied to this world to grasp what is deepest within, overarching and beyond it. We hear God’s message through one another. Our capacity to go beyond the veil, to see the obvious is limited by our circumstances, internal and external.

While the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has redeemed and saved all mankind, He established His Church to make the journey possible for all. Through partaking of the Eucharist we incorporate Jesus into the totality of our being and like praying to be a more loving person, the grace that flows allows us to be more Christ-like. Recalling the parable of the sower, the Church provides us with fertile soil, shoos away the birds and cuts through the brambles that faith can grow.

I fear my words fall short. Your question deals with the relationship between God and humanity. It is rather abstract and generalized, while dealing with the most personal and intimate of subjects. The important issue is how are you and I to grow closer to the eternal loving Source of our being. There is a also a hint of skepticism that I find a barrier in communication.

 

[simpleas]

No, we cannot. This may be a view that OneSheep must embrace because it is essential to his personal growth, but it is only a partial understanding of what the Church teaches. Yes, there is sin that emanates from unknowing and ignorance, but there is also sin commited willingliy and knowingly, in open rebellion against God.

This position seems to overlook that we have been made able, through grace, to hit the mark.

I agree with this, but then it goes back to the roots of the sin. Persons who deliberatly reject the teachings of the Church, and thus separate themselves from perfect communion, have lost Catholicity. For example, Protestants are made members of the One Body through Baptism, but the unity is imperfect because the Teachings of Christ infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit are rejected willingly and knowingly.

The Church teaches that God has revealed Himself in many ways to many people God gives peace to those who follow their conscience.

Why not? Human ability to discern and to study is limited. Some people do the best they can, but still miss the mark. Look at Saul of Tarsus. He was passionate and full of zeal, but all of his prayer and study could not lead Him to Christ. He had to have an experience of the presence of the risen Christ. This is what I see missing with Pumpkin Cookie, along with many others who reject the Catholic faith. They have never experienced the divine presence, and limited to their human faculties, are unable to reach Him.

Sorry it maybe me who cannot read correctly what you say, but it sounds like you say on the one hand God gives grace enough for us to hit the target, (and I’ll assume that is all of the human race) yet as humans we are limited in our knowledge and so can miss the mark. God doesn’t give all of us that divine revelation like Saul and many others in the bible stories had the pleasure of experiencing. We normally travel in the direction that makes sense to us.

The Church teaches that God has revealed Himself in many ways to many people God gives peace to those who follow their conscience.

If this is true, how could anyone who is made a catholic by birth ever be called a dissenter, if they are following their conscience and do find peace outside of Catholicism. Everyone has that choice, no longer are people forced to accept faith or be cast out of the family, not here anyway.
So we can respect all opinions, doesn’t mean we have to believe anyone else, we can only know what is deep within us.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think not, OS. One important element of such constructions is that they must reject any evidence or ideas that are contrary in order to preserve themselves.

We can see this in the postings of Pumkin Cookie, who must reject anything that cannot be verified by his god of scientific inquiry. In the same way, you must reject any information or point of view that does not support your construction.

You continue to allege that I am capable and/or willing to believe only scientifically verifiable propositions. Why are you doing this?

I would be willing to believe in a virgin birth, for instance, because it is logically possible. It could happen via a miracle or a freak of nature. I don’t believe in Jesus’ virgin birth, however, because the prior probability is astronomically low and the “evidence” consisting solely of anonymous accounts seems likely to be pious fabrication long after the fact by deeply biased sources. My disbelief is based on weighing the evidence.

I cannot believe 3=1 no matter the evidence because it is inherently unintelligible. It’s not that I won’t believe, but that no one is actually able to believe this.

By, “scientific fundamentalist” do you mean I am unwilling to claim certainty about things that have not been demonstrated or are not “analytic” or logically necessary? Broadening our uncertainty seems like the opposite of fundamentalism to me!

 

[simpleas]

The question appears to reflect a black and white way of looking at things.

God calls all of us to join Him in paradise, to be loving persons participating in the glory and joy of His creation.

There are many people in different cultures and different spiritual orientations who live their lives focussed on the Transcendent. Some are like John the Baptist shirking the world to be free of its seductions. Some seek intellectual truth, hoping to capture Reality. Others beauty, in nature, art, music, literature and the sciences. There are people living life to its fullest, hoping to grasp the eternity of every moment. Prayer, meditation, contemplation of shared revealed or realized truth to be found in sacred scriptures is universal among those seeking relationship with the Ground of their being.

Since God is love, any and all of these endeavours will fail to attain their end without love. Failure and a falling from grace is universal because among the motivations in this search there is pride, a desire for pleasure, power, fame and other worldly finite goods. It is very, very hard to reach the heavens and even trying together, without God the Tower we construct will crumble.

Although it is we ourselves as individual persons who journey on this Road with the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are too tied to this world to grasp what is deepest within, overarching and beyond it. We hear God’s message through one another. Our capacity to go beyond the veil, to see the obvious is limited by our circumstances, internal and external.

While the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has redeemed and saved all mankind, He established His Church to make the journey possible for all. Through partaking of the Eucharist we incorporate Jesus into the totality of our being and like praying to be a more loving person, the grace that flows allows us to be more Christ-like. Recalling the parable of the sower, the Church provides us with fertile soil, shoos away the birds and cuts through the brambles that faith can grow.

I fear my words fall short. Your question deals with the relationship between God and humanity. It is rather abstract and generalized, while dealing with the most personal and intimate of subjects. The important issue is how are you and I to grow closer to the eternal loving Source of our being. There is a also a hint of skepticism that I find a barrier in communication.

I agree it is a personal and intimate subject and I don’t have a problem with anything you said above.
But when reading what some have to say on how we should practice our faith, they seem to suggest that unless you are following each and every teaching of the One True Church then you are not a Catholic, one can’t possible be a True Catholic.
Yet you said you see holy people who are not Catholic, they do not participate in the Eucharist to become more Christ-like as we do, yet they find another way of attaining this.

Sometimes Catholicism can sound like a trap, once you’re in there is no escape, if you do leave you are a dissenter, yet other people can be seen as good and holy.
It sounds a bit mad what I just wrote, that is why I said about giving each other a break, it’s God’s decision after all, not mine, or anyone elses.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry it maybe me who cannot read correctly what you say, but it sounds like you say on the one hand God gives grace enough for us to hit the target, (and I’ll assume that is all of the human race) yet as humans we are limited in our knowledge and so can miss the mark. God doesn’t give all of us that divine revelation like Saul and many others in the bible stories had the pleasure of experiencing. We normally travel in the direction that makes sense to us.

Yes I think you understood my point well. Of course I agree that not everyone has the level of revelation that God gave to Paul. My point was that, despite all his study and fervent zeal, he still did not “get it”. We can predispose ourselves, but God must reveal Himself.

We do normally travel in the direction that makes sense to us. What we have as an advantage, though that Pumkin does not, is the Church to guide us. She is the custodial of His revelation.

If this is true, how could anyone who is made a catholic by birth ever be called a dissenter, if they are following their conscience and do find peace outside of Catholicism.

No one is made Catholic by birth.

We all have an obligation to avail ourselves of what God has revealed. Most persons who have been baptized Catholic become “dissenters” without taking the time and effort to learn what the Church teaches, and why. I can personally attest to this, because I used to be one of them.

Everyone has that choice, no longer are people forced to accept faith or be cast out of the family, not here anyway.

Perhaps not to the degree they were in the past, but I just was reading a thread by a person that wants to become Catholic, and fears he will be disowned by his evangelical family. The pressures are real.

v

So we can respect all opinions, doesn’t mean we have to believe anyone else, we can only know what is deep within us.

Of course, but there is an objective reality here. That which is defined as Catholic teaching is not a matter of opinion, but of what has been revealed by God, and preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

Observing that a certain behavior or attitude is not Catholic is part of what we must to do apply discernment to our lives. The “gift of understanding” was not given by God to the faithful so that departure from the Truth can be justified.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I cannot believe 3=1 no matter the evidence because it is inherently unintelligible. It’s not that I won’t believe, but that no one is actually able to believe this. . . .

You’ve now said something that makes sense.

Neither do I believe what you write above.

That’s not what is meant by the Trinity.

I’m not sure how to help you.
Actually, I tend toward the belief that you do not want help.
Yet you continue to come here.
Curiouser and curiouser.

There’s the Catechism as a great resource.

As just another internet idiot, I’d suggest you try to enter into the mystery of participating in creation.
Is there some way to conceptualize the wholeness of that reality?
Once you have some sense of what is entailed in being in the world it may lead you to an understanding of the Source of which your being is a reflection.

That may get you nowhere because what is essential to God is love.
The primary connection to everything would be loving were it not for our fallen state.
When you understand love, Charitas specifically, you will understand God and His Triune nature.

I’m pretty sure this makes no sense to you.
Just be true to yourself is all I would recommend.
Keep trying but consider alternative means.
We’re rooting for you.

 

[OneSheep]

What evidence do you have to support this claim as accurate? What have I posted that leads you to believe I reject what the Scriptures say? Did not Jesus forgive those who crucified them before they repented (if they ever did)?

God only forgives the sins of those who repent. We have the choice to die in our sins.