What role should the Church have?

[YinYangMom]

Okay. If we can agree upon the maxim of greatest good for greatest number of people and can agree upon other moderating rules to an otherwise unchecked utilitarian system, then we can arrive at what is laudable and what is acceptable by our defined standards.

We cannot agree on that maxim.

Christ spoke clearly about that. That is not why He became man. He came to lead us to our Father and he told us the path would be narrow. He told us we would be scorned and persecuted for following His path.

Now does that sound like the maxim you present: the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

We don’t have to define the standards that God already set forth for us. To even attempt to do so would be presumptuous.

Immaterial in that God has no material manifestations and therefore exists only in concept. I didn’t mean immaterial as in irrelevant.

What part of “For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” do you not understand?

 

[1ke]

No, I don’t believe that. .

Then who, or what, do you believe God to be? And, why do you call yourself Catholic if you do not acknowledge the existence of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do you just lie every week professing the faith through the Nicene Creed?

With Vatican II came a new one said non-Catholics could attain salvation if they’ve lived a good life, something not previously taught.

Vatican II did not change any prior teaching on Salvation, inside or outside the Church.

And, speaking of Salvation. What exactly do you believe Salvation to be-- and how is it achieved-- if you do not believe in the Trinity? Do you believe in the immortality of our souls and the Beatific Vision?

 

[el_gaucho]

When you define something as axiomatic, does that necessitate that it is actually true? Y or N, please.

N

& I never claimed it had a basis in “truth.”

Is morality materialistic and scientifically and empirically verifiable? Y or N, please

no

(& i never claimed it was)

Please give an example of a negative liberty which leads to happiness.

Being able to engage in homosexual activity.
Philthy;2506862:

Is reason materialistic? When you appeal to “it”, do you appeal to it in a particular individual (ie yourself) or to another? On what basis do you make this selection?

No.
I’m appeal to a general ability to reason among people.

 

[YinYangMom]

They’re not in any way factual.

Tell that to the people who share their stories. I know of several personally and there are others available online and through CDs.

And there are many people who live lifestyles devoted to God who feel just as empty.

That’s called going through the motions and missing the forest for the trees. Even Jesus spoke against this to the Pharisees. We can follow the letter of the law and still be condemned. We are called to love God with all our heart, our mind and our soul. We must seek, establish, and maintain a personal relationship with Jesus in order to achieve this.

To give money out of obligation and not out of love will not bring happiness (an example of living the lifestyle ‘devoted’ to God but not really living it as intended by God).

Why are lust and love mutually exclusive?

Lust is a result of the fall of man. It is a disordered view of our sexuality. When men and women lust after each other the source is carnal selfish pleasure.

Love is a gift of sharing and giving oneself completely to the other for that person’s well being, not one’s own.

Happiness in this world is finite. Of course I knew that.

The point is happiness in this world is not the end goal we should be seeking to meet. Happiness in the next life is the prize, as Paul states so frequently.

 

[el_gaucho]

Then who, or what, do you believe God to be?

A concept.

And, why do you call yourself Catholic if you do not acknowledge the existence of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Becuase I’m sure I’m not singular in this respect. Many people who profess Catholicism don’t accept every teaching.

Do you just lie every week professing the faith through the Nicene Creed?

I do not attend mass.

Vatican II did not change any prior teaching on Salvation, inside or outside the Church.

I’ve read otherwise.

And, speaking of Salvation. What exactly do you believe Salvation to be-- and how is it achieved-- if you do not believe in the Trinity? Do you believe in the immortality of our souls and the Beatific Vision?

I don’t believe in souls as I am a materialist. I think salvation is something to be attained right here on Earth.

 

[el_gaucho]

Tell that to the people who share their stories. I know of several personally and there are others available online and through CDs.

They’re not universal, so they mean nothing. I could find examples of people whose experiences with Christianity and Catholicism are terrible. Tell what you’re saying to a group of gay people who have endured way more persecution than any modern Christians have endured.

Lust is a result of the fall of man. It is a disordered view of our sexuality. When men and women lust after each other the source is carnal selfish pleasure.

Lust is a harmless human emotion that is pretty well associated with love.

Love is a gift of sharing and giving oneself completely to the other for that person’s well being, not my own.

I don’t think that’s incompatible with lust.

 

[YinYangMom]

A concept.

Because I’m sure I’m not singular in this respect. Many people who profess Catholicism don’t accept every teaching.

I do not attend mass.

I’ve read otherwise.

I don’t believe in souls as I am a materialist. I think salvation is something to be attained right here on Earth.

wow. You really do have your work cut out for you.
Thank goodness you’re only 17! I will certainly keep you in my prayers while you are on your journey.

Start reading the catechism and the bible. Right now you are filling your mind with secular and protestant (name removed by moderator)ut. That’s not wrong in and of itself, but to use only those sources to deny even the basic Truth of the trinity, the incarnation, the ten commandments, the beatitudes and the new covenant is just plain irresponsible on your part.You need to expose yourself to the other side of the coin so that you can reach a conclusion fow which you’d be be willing to lay down your life.
Remember that thousands of people died because they would not deny Jesus was God who became flesh, died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and remains present on this earth in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

 

[1ke]

Well, now that the OP has cleared up that he does not believe God exists, does not attend Mass, does not believe *any *teaching of the Catholic Church-- and yet believes it still OK to claim to *be *Catholic-- I see no need to post further.

OP, I really hope you grow out of this and begin to think critically and seriously about your origin (creation of God) and intended destiny (unity with God).

Please begin reading more on the Faith, I suggest Frand Sheed’s Theology For Beginners, and of course as previously mentioned the Catechism and the Bible.

 

[el_gaucho]

wow. You really do have your work cut out for you.
Thank goodness you’re only 17! I will certainly keep you in my prayers while you are on your journey.
YinYangMom;2506986:

Start reading the catechism and the bible.

I’ve already read the totality of the NT at least 5 times over. I have a lot of thing I’m interested in reading, and they’re quite wide-ranging. But the catechism is not one of them.

Right now you are filling your mind with secular and protestant (name removed by moderator)ut.

lol. As opposed to filling my mind with only Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut?

That’s not wrong in and of itself, but to use only those sources to deny even the basic Truth of the trinity, the incarnation, the ten commandments, the beatitudes and the new covenant is just plain irresponsible on your part.

“Basic Truth”? I beg to differ.

You need to expose yourself to the other side of the coin

lol.

so that you can reach a conclusion fow which you’d be be willing to lay down your life.

I don’t reach those types of conclusions.

Remember that thousands of people died because they would not deny Jesus was God who became flesh, died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and remains present on this earth in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

And even more died because they denied those very things.

 

[YinYangMom]

They’re not universal, so they mean nothing.

Well, heck, with **that **reasoning then all of your stories mean nothing either so why are we even having this discussion? NOTHING is universal by those standards.

Lust is a harmless human emotion that is pretty well associated with love.

That is your definition and your limited understanding, but that is not the Truth. I suggest listening to Christopher West’s "Marriage and the Eucharist" available for free from the Mary Foundation

I don’t think that’s incompatible with lust.

A wife is busy in the home cleaning, doing laundry, preparing dinner, working with the kids on their homework, worrying about paying bills and such. The husband gets home from a hard day at work, sees his wife folding clothes, finds himself aroused by her beauty. He doesn’t help her finish the folding of the clothes, he doesn’t round up the kids to get their baths done and tuck them into bed early. He approaches her from behind and pretty much ‘takes her’ despite her protestations and then goes off to watch television or whatever else he usually does to ‘unwind’, leaving the wife to still finish the clothes, bathe the children, put them to bed and so forth.

The husband fulfilled his carnal desire for immediate sexual gratification without taking into consideration his wife’s feelings. That is lust within marriage and it not compatible with a happy marriage.

 

[fix]

When the Bible quotes Jesus, do you believe those are his actual words?

As I said I accept the bible on the authority of the Church and She interprets it.

No; certain acts tend toward good or evil. And good and evil are measured by the good or harm they bring about. It’s actually less arbitrary than deferring to any dogmatic work for an absolute morality system.

Huh? How do you define good and harm? If you self define them, as you appear to, how is that anything but arbitrary?

Yes. Happiness is a product of the material sensations in the mind that produce it. In this way happiness objectively exists in the same way as these sensations exist.

Yes, that sensation exists. I do not doubt it. But the sensation is not good or bad. The action that produces it may be good or bad.

I see no problem with this reasoning, and in fact this contradicts nothing I said. If the antecedent action produces suffering in another person, then it is evil, as this emotion objectively exists in the same way happiness does.

But what is suffering? If you say hello to me and I claim I am suffering is the action of greeting me bad? Are emotions an objective means to determine what is right and wrong?

Forgive me if I don’t simply take your word for it.

Oh, I am not claiming authority. I was referring to Church teaching.

Yes, I’m a follower of all three of those.

Then you are a relativist. That would mean you basically live my opinions and emotions. That system leads to rigidity.

Who said there is proof? I know I didn’t.

So, you believe in things without proof? I thought you were a materialist?

 

[YinYangMom]

I’ve already read the totality of the NT at least 5 times over. I have a lot of thing I’m interested in reading, and they’re quite wide-ranging. But the catechism is not one of them.

How can you reject Catholicism if you don’t know what it means?
I think you are afraid of the Truth you will find in the pages.

lol. As opposed to filling my mind with only Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut?

No, I’m speaking about balance. To reach a valid conclusion one must take in all the facts available to him. You have considered the prosecution’s evidence but are denying the defense to present their case thus any judgement you will come to will not be just or accurate.

“Basic Truth”? I beg to differ.

Then present the reasons for your differences. What evidence do you present to refute the Trinity and the incarnation, the resurrection and the ascension, especially since you’ve read the NT five times over? Jesus is the one who revealed the Trinity to us.

I don’t reach those types of conclusions.

So you laugh at the teaching of Christ that there is no greater gift than for a man to lay down his life for another? And there is nothing on this earth you hold dear enough to you that you’d die in defense of it?

You are a young one, indeed.

And even more died because they denied those very things.

Probably true. Whose teachings are you willing to die for if it came to that?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Oops, my mouse clicked too quick and I voted one when I meant to vote 4. I am not a Traditionalist in terms of clinging to pre-Vatican 2 and the Latin Mass only, but in terms of the absolute correctness of the Church in all that it teaches and does.

 

[Philthy]

Hi. This is my first post. I would like to…ascertain the general sentiments about the role of the Church changing its salient role as society progresses into a more advanced stage of modernity.

If you want to start another thread which addresses all the extraneous garbage you have dragged into this thread(materialism, societal progress, etc) I highly recommend it.
I’ll simply answer this OP and be done with it.
I believe the role of the Church is to uphold the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The accomplishment of this task will *necessarily *change as mankind changes. In particular, often as a result of scientific knowledge, political changes and technological advances, the articulation of the Truth will necessarily be modified to include the aforementioned changes and to reconcile potential areas of confusion which naturally arise when new information is presented. This will never alter the essential Truth, but will merely serve to clarify it in greater detail as it relates to the current level of knowledge in an ever-changing society. The dynamic nature of knowledge and the static nature of Truth necessitate that the Church, in upholding the Truth and presenting it for all, will, from time to time, need to develop further and articulate more precisely how the Truth applies to new situations. An example of such development would be the Church uniting the Truth of God as the author of life with the theory of evolution. It embraces science, including evolutionary theory, yet also maintains the limits of evolutionary theory as it applies to the Truth of the human being. You seem to think that such clarifications represent a contradiction between the Church’s prior “teachings” and current ones when, in fact, they are not contradictions at all. The new teachings compliment and build upon the old teachings, but they never contradict them.
That is my understanding of the salient role of the Church as society passes through history (“progresses” carries too much baggage).

One thing I dont understand is why you claim to be "Catholic"when you clearly are not. You dont believe in the Church, the Trinity or anything required of a Catholic. This assessment is based upon the objective measures most widely accepted as what is reasonable in determining Catholicity. In other words what you might, in your theology, call “Gods Truth”.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I think your poll is wholly inaccurate. Therefore impossible to answer.

And after reading your responses have come to the realization that no matter how you lay out those big words and try to sound intelligent; your youth still has managed to shine through. Therefore I hope that you open that wonderful young mind of yours and hear what these fine folks are trying to reveal to you.

God Bless you are in my prayers

 

[Ani_Ibi]

el gaucho:

And that would indeed be a false dichotomy under normal circumstances; but I did not entertain that notion. It would be a true dichotomy, as indicated by the principle of excluded middle, that either Church teaching can change or it can’t.

The problem is with your premise. You define Church teaching monolithically. It is not monolithic. There is infallible teaching and prudential teaching. Infallible teaching cannot change.

So your choices are a false dichotomy.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

el gaucho:

lol. As opposed to filling my mind with only Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut?

Do you believe it is good practice for a person to comment on something he/she knows little about? For you to comment credibly on Catholicism you would have to know what it is. To know what it is, you would have to read about it, listen to those with authoritative points of view, experience it or observe others experiencing it, and so on. Are you interested in doing any of the above?