Why I love Catholicism

[Zeno]

The follow quotes are from Apologia pro Vita Sua (1864) by John Henry Newman (1801-1890) English Cardinal.



"By Liberalism I mean the false liberity of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and therefore is out of place. Among such matters are first principles of any kind: and of these the most scared and momentous are especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation."


"There are but two ways, the way of Rome and the way of athesim."



"The Catholic Church claims, not only to judge infallibly on religious questions, but to animadvert on opinions in secular matters which bear upon religion, on matters of philosophy, of science, of literature, of history, and it demands our submission to her claim."


It is implied in the second quote that all Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy believers are Atheists, or at least Damned. A rathering interesting premise. Of couse, the written context may change that interpretation but I somehow doubt it.

Soli Deo gloria!


-Zeno

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It is implied in the second quote that all Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy believers are Atheists, or at least Damned. A rathering interesting premise. Of couse, the written context may change that interpretation but I somehow doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't imply that, and you are merely using the fundamentalist method of making a literal interpretation out of context. The context in this case is the entire teaching of the church on this matter, which this statement by one bishop doesn't give.

[ QUOTE ]
Soli Deo gloria!

[/ QUOTE ]

The only correct thing you said.

[Peter666]

Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who are knowlegable about Catholicism are damned not because they are Atheist, but because they are heretics.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who are knowlegable about Catholicism are damned not because they are Atheist, but because they are heretics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lest my remarks be misunderstood, let me first assert that I am not a Christian (at least, not in the typical sense;-)).

That said, I now pose three questions:

1. If the above "heretics" follow the prescription for salvation as laid out by Jesus in the Gospels, why would they be damned?

2. Is not Jesus > the Pope ?

3. Are not the Words/Teachings of Jesus in the Gospels > Catholic Doctrine ?

[Peter666]

To answer your three questions:

1. If the "heretics" follow the prescription of salvation as laid out in the gospels, they would not be damned, as they would be Catholics. The problem is they DO NOT follow the prescription as laid out in the Gospel due to self interpretation of the Gospel text.

2. Yes, Jesus is greater than the Pope. And as such, we should obey Jesus when he made the Papacy the Church's highest authority on Earth.

3. The words and teachings in the Gospels are Catholic doctrine, not greater than.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If the "heretics" follow the prescription of salvation as laid out in the gospels, they would not be damned, as they would be Catholics. The problem is they DO NOT follow the prescription as laid out in the Gospel due to self interpretation of the Gospel text.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so, if you don't mind elaborating? (Also, I'm primarily talking about the four Gospels and especially the red letter text within them as it deals with the issues of salvation and instruction, not the rest of the New Testament).

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Jesus is greater than the Pope. And as such, we should obey Jesus when he made the Papacy the Church's highest authority on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny since you've said you belong to SSPX, a sect that has separated itself from *full* communion with Rome and thus obedience to the pope. Thus while SSPX is not yet heretical it is schismatic.

[Peter666]

If you can be more specific with certain examples I will be able to answer you better.

Perhaps when Jesus ordered his Apostles to go out and preach the gospels, making them what are today known as bishops. Catholic Bishops have a direct, unbroken link with this command.

[K C]

By opening their minds they would be allowing the possibility that their beliefs at least in part are mistaken, and no religion wants to do that less their pretentions get shaken /images/graemlins/smile.gif

KC

[Peter666]

Not that anybody else in this thread knows what we are talking about, but the SSPX is not schismatic as the consecration of bishops can never be a schismatic act leading to automatic excommunication. It would have been schismatic if episcopal jurisdiction was given to them. But as it was not, no schism exists. This is a precept both of Canon law and moral theology.

Any Archbishop at any time can validly consecrate bishops just like a defrocked priest can validly administer the sacraments, and is obligated to do so in certain situations.

[Peter666]

The reason we open our minds to begin with is to close it on something certain.

Besides, I would be scared my brain would ooze out of my ears if I began to open my mind to a "bable" thumping televangelist redneck. Not that there is anything wrong with rednecks.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't imply that, and you are merely using the fundamentalist method of making a literal interpretation out of context. The context in this case is the entire teaching of the church on this matter, which this statement by one bishop doesn't give.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it does imply some important manichaesim type of thinking. You ignored my quailifications to make points that I had already hinted at. And John Henry Newman was made a Cardinal in 1879.

[ QUOTE ]
The only correct thing you said.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bulk of my post was quotes from John Newman. So unless you wish to dispute the quotes, your statement is hyperbole.

The great east-west schism is of great interest and reveals much about theology and religious orthodoxy as practiced. It is most instructive to review this split and its causes.

The Great Schism (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/East-West_Schism)

Some of the theological technicalities are arcane and rest on wording in the Nicene Creed Filioque Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause)

Manichaeism, Mani, a prophet from Persia (http://www.crystalinks.com/manichaeism.html), theology played a roll in the development of Christain theology. Before St. Augustine had his marvelous conversion he was a devout follower of Manichaeism and this undertone is laced throughout his writings. Once he did convert to Christainity I suppose he final was forgiven for stealing those pears.

For the moment, I am assuming that all Eastern Orthodox and Protestant believers are destined to go to Hell, according to Roman Doctrine. But I am willing to here evidence that this is not so. I already know that I am damned - I just want to know who is going to be joining me in Hell.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who are knowlegable about Catholicism are damned not because they are Atheist, but because they are heretics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take your word for it that that is the official position of the Catholic Church, I will it look it up just for fun anyway. I just found Newman's statement to be interesting for a variety of reasons. The main one being the either/or thinking illustrated by the statement. Reflective of certain passages in the Four Gospels.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

The same book can be interpreted differently to suit the mindset of the interpreter.

Note that the Catholics and Protestants went through a terrorist war relatively recently.

Sound familiar?

[BluffTHIS!]

Peter, I'm not intentding to start a debate about what as you said most people here won't get and don't care about. However, I would refer you to the 1996 excommunication by Bishop Bruskewitz of the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska of the members of 12 groups if they did not sever their ties from same within 2 months. SSPX was 1 of the named groups. There was a canonical appeal of this excommincation to Rome but the bishop's action was upheld. Since every pope since John XXIII has affirmed the statements of Vatican II, which was not a dogmatic council, and all the liturgical changes made by it, then your rejection of same indicates a lack of communion with the see of Peter. If you are intellectually honest you will admit this.

[BluffTHIS!]

My point was that you are taking a statement out of context to mean something which while literally true does not give all the nuances of the situation. Non-catholics/christians can be given salvation and I have already made these points in other religious threads and am not going to revisit them here except to say briefly that to say there is no salvation outside the church which the redemption of Christ achieved for it, is not to say that one must be in the church to receive it.

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to know who is going to be joining me in Hell.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Names like Hitler, Stalin, Bundy and Dahmer come to mind. Plus legions of murdering drug runners and pedophiles. Hope you like the company.

Holier than thou Olympics (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/cranley/931/race.htm)

[Peter666]

The foundation of the excommunication rests on Ecclesia Dei, which in itself is a heretical document. Naturally, the modernist canonists will reject any appeal made to Rome, as the very head of the Church, JP2, issued the excommunication to begin with. So it is good that the SSPX is not in communion with Modernist Rome, unlike the poor Fraternity of SP who have collapsed due to their illogical obedience.

It does not alter the fact that the whole excommunication is baseless, and that the predominant powers that be in Rome are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Besides, there are canonists amongst the hierarchy who disagree with the legal basis or the excommunication, and 1983 Canon laws in themselves exonerate the Archbishop! The intellectual dishonesty comes from the hierarchy who are contradicting their very own laws! It is ridiculous. See Canons 1321, 1370.

Regardless, the further away from communion with the modernists the better. Trying to accuse Lefebvre of schism is merely a cover up to hide their own heresies or at least heretical tendencies.

Also, Bishop Bruskewitz has held several ecumenical services, so I really don't give a damn about his opinion anyway.

[Zeno]

I take from your statement that belonging to the Catholic Church is not a requirement for salvation. I was searching the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent)for claraification on this point but so far was unable to come up with a clear answer. I will accept your statement on faith.

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to know who is going to be joining me in Hell.

-Zeno



Names like Hitler, Stalin, Bundy and Dahmer come to mind. Plus legions of murdering drug runners and pedophiles. Hope you like the company.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sense a vindictive and revengefulness spirit to your statement. You obviously do not appreciate my flippant attitude about Hell and that is understandable. But you also do a disservice to your faith and creed by responding in such a manner, even if you feel it was provoked.

I had thought better of you.

-Zeno

[BluffTHIS!]

Sarcasm begets more of the same.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So it is good that the SSPX is not in communion with Modernist Rome

[/ QUOTE ]

I admire your intellectual honesty then.

[ QUOTE ]
The intellectual dishonesty comes from the hierarchy who are contradicting their very own laws!

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the pope is canonically the supreme legislator in a code based law, having the power to dispense with any such law as long as it does not violate the tenets of the faith, then the upholding of the excommunication by his authority was in no way contradictory. And since you admit to not being in communion with Rome, then it is pointless for you to make any arguements regarding its exercise of canonical authority anyway, as it would be similar to either one of us commenting on the internal laws of a protestant denomination in which we were not involved.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Sarcasm begets more of the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a poor excuse and you know it.

But I forgive you.

-Zeno

[David Sklansky]

"The foundation of the excommunication rests on Ecclesia Dei, which in itself is a heretical document. Naturally, the modernist canonists will reject any appeal made to Rome, as the very head of the Church, JP2, issued the excommunication to begin with. So it is good that the SSPX is not in communion with Modernist Rome, unlike the poor Fraternity of SP who have collapsed due to their illogical obedience.

It does not alter the fact that the whole excommunication is baseless, and that the predominant powers that be in Rome are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Besides, there are canonists amongst the hierarchy who disagree with the legal basis or the excommunication, and 1983 Canon laws in themselves exonerate the Archbishop! The intellectual dishonesty comes from the hierarchy who are contradicting their very own laws! It is ridiculous. See Canons 1321, 1370.

Regardless, the further away from communion with the modernists the better. Trying to accuse Lefebvre of schism is merely a cover up to hide their own heresies or at least heretical tendencies.

Also, Bishop Bruskewitz has held several ecumenical services, so I really don't give a damn about his opinion anyway."

Does everybody realize how sad all this stuff is? I quoted Peter's post but I could have just as well quoted one from BluffTHIS, Bossjj, or Not Ready. Not their generic theistic posts (which made a lot of sense until about a hundred and years ago and are still reasonable, especially if a personal God is not part of it.) I'm talking the ones that are more specific.

They remind me of a bunch of craps fanatics arguing about and going into intricate detail about the dice betting systems they are sure will beat the casino. They debate which one does the best. The arguments are well thought out, precisely calculated, and explained admirably. Only thing is they are all blind to the fact that the mathmeticians can easily show that NO dice system works. Of course the analogy isn't perfect because religious "systems" can't be 100% mathematically disproven. They can only be shown to be farfetched.

On the other hand there is an aspect to the religious system purveyors that make them much weirder than the dice system purveyors. Because dice system advocates need not claim that the other systems don't win. Their claim is simply that their system wins the most. Religion system advocates, for the most part, have to disprove the other systems since only one can really win, in their minds.

But the weirdest part is this. In their quest to disprove the other religions, they often use quite lovely, logical arguments! Sometimes ones that would make an atheist proud. And none of them are immune. So how is it possible that they are all capable of formulating these nice arguments while simultaneously being so dumb (or blind) when similar arguments are used against them? How come they never say to themselves "These ten religions I am arguing against are so clearly wrong, yet their advocates seem reasonably intelligent. They must have some psychological block that makes them blind. But wait a second. Each of those other guys are saying the same thing . Including about me. But psychology isn't making me blind. Or is it?"

But they don't say it. And it is sad.

[Peter666]

I agree with what you said. Even if a Pope is heretical his legal pronouncements are binding. But as a result, what JP2 did was to actually change the definition of schism. When he was in authority, schism was changed to mean any disobedience that the Pope sees fit to arbitrarily announce as schism. While legally it may be binding, morally and theologically it is not.

[Peter666]

Your reasoning and logic is impeccable, and I would agree with everything you have to say, but for one problem and incredible disadvantage you have:

You do not have the grace of Faith.

This is a totally arbitrary and unmerited favour bestowed by a higher power that allows us to believe and somewhat understand things above ordinary natural reasoning. The beauty of it is that it never contradicts natural reasoning, and allows us to maintain our logic in all affairs, spiritual and temporal.

What you think are the players fighting over the craps table are actually the owners of the casino fighting over the craps table. We may be wrong about the craps, but we always win.

Unfortunately, there is no way to argue this point against us, because you have to convince us that what we have is not faith, but some sort of strange emotional or psychotic disposition. But unless you have it to begin with, it is impossible to understand and argue against. We are in a totally elitist position, the ultimate good old boys.

I have no idea whether you will ever join us or not. We do not send out the invitations. That is what makes us sad.

[Peter666]

I doubt the company of Hitler and serial killers will be as annoying as the Jehovah Witnesses.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

The more you think about it Faith is simply an excuse for people not to accept the true odds of an event. It pretty genius, since not only can they ignore the true odds, they make people who cite them fools. What a drug.

[David Sklansky]

"Unfortunately, there is no way to argue this point against us, because you have to convince us that what we have is not faith, but some sort of strange emotional or psychotic disposition"

But if you concede that they have faith as you do, why use argumentation to try to sway them, (since you know it wouldn't work against you regardless of its cleverness)?

[Peter666]

Simply because Faith is not the only requirement for salvation, it is merely the first step that is purely arbitrary on God's part. One also needs the graces of hope and charity which can be merited unlike faith. It is the responsibility of the person of Faith to cooperate with God's grace to merit these additional necessities of salvation.

The reason one will try to convince others about the necessity of Faith and the Church, is to merit more grace for themselves. He who has the most merits and grace will attain to the highest happiness in Heaven (just as he who sins more will suffer more in Hell). It is all a dual hierarchy of pleasure and pain. By helping others to serve God better, they will all be rewarded more.

[dink]

[ QUOTE ]
The same book can be interpreted differently to suit the mindset of the interpreter.

Note that the Catholics and Protestants went through a terrorist war relatively recently.

Sound familiar?

[/ QUOTE ]

This terrorist war had very little to do with religion or interpretation of the same book.

[Peter666]

What Cardinal Newman asserts, and which I completely agree with, is that for the intelligent, logical, thinking person only two ends are possible. For those with the grace of Faith, the only absolutely logical and rational religion is Catholicism. There are so many logical and irrational flaws in other religions that an intelligent person who studies the matter could never consent to them.

For a person who is logical and intelligent, but without the arbitrary grace of Faith, there can be no final conclusion except for atheism. Everything else has logical fallacies. So when Sklansky in a previous thread said that the most intelligent people in the world (mainly mathematicians) do not believe in God, he is right, insofar as these people do not have the arbitrary grace of Faith.

People who are in between these two positions have some sort of error in their reasoning.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Only thing is they are all blind to the fact that the mathmeticians can easily show that NO dice system works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the Martingale with unlimited bankroll and infinite trials.

Just kidding David. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[David Sklansky]

"What Cardinal Newman asserts, and which I completely agree with, is that for the intelligent, logical, thinking person only two ends are possible. For those with the grace of Faith, the only absolutely logical and rational religion is Catholicism. There are so many logical and irrational flaws in other religions that an intelligent person who studies the matter could never consent to them.

For a person who is logical and intelligent, but without the arbitrary grace of Faith, there can be no final conclusion except for atheism. Everything else has logical fallacies. So when Sklansky in a previous thread said that the most intelligent people in the world (mainly mathematicians) do not believe in God, he is right, insofar as these people do not have the arbitrary grace of Faith.

People who are in between these two positions have some sort of error in their reasoning."

What do you guys say to this? BluffTHIS, vulturesrow and Pair The Board should feel free to chime in too.

[MMMMMM]

I say he is not considering (or probably even aware of) all possibilities.

[BeerMoney]

Who cares?

[Peter666]

Also, to make the matter clear, I will define Atheist as someone who demands immediate, demonstrable, non-analogous proof of God. This is what the scientists and mathematicians want.

It is certain that people can conceive of a supreme being in an analogous and imperfect way through nature and the imperfection of creatures. I will not get into a debate of people who try to deny reality itself, as they are crazy.

[Peter666]

Any rational creature cares.

[Zeno]

An interesting post, and a well-done interpretation of Cardinal Newman’s provocative statement.

It may answer, at least in part, something that has puzzled me for years. My advisor in graduate school was a Catholic. When I first leaned this I could not really believe it or understand it (he never spoke of it and I respected his private beliefs) – he was, and still is, a top-notch Scientist and he later switched schools and became the head of a large science department in the SUNY system. I never did learn his reasoning behind his belief, but I suspect that Cardinal Newman’s concepts were partly behind it. But I also have another hypothesis that I think may explain this particular phenomenon. But it is under a bushel and will stay that way.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
We are in a totally elitist position, the ultimate good old boys.


[/ QUOTE ]

Shades of Cardinal Newman? The second quote I posted seems to have become lost in all the discussion. Good to have handy and useful:

[ QUOTE ]
"The Catholic Church claims, not only to judge infallibly on religious questions, but to animadvert on opinions in secular matters which bear upon religion, on matters of philosophy, of science, of literature, of history, and it demands our submission to her claim."



[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a bold statement. Almost as good as the first quote in my OP:

[ QUOTE ]
"By Liberalism I mean the false liberity of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and therefore is out of place. Among such matters are first principles of any kind: and of these the most scared and momentous are especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation."


[/ QUOTE ]

There are, apparently, no arguments against 'the truths of Revelation" or of faith. Thus a wall is erected and, seemingly, all future discourse is a futile effort to surmount this obstacle.

-Zeno

[BluffTHIS!]

David, I have already made clear in my other posts that I concede that the evidence for my religion being true, would not necessarily be persuasive to outside evidence evaluators and that what gets that level of evidence upto the threshold of believability for myself is both faith and my personal experiences of it. I have also made clear, unlike some of the proponents of other religions, that my church teaches that non-believers do have the *possibility* of being saved, and that believers in other religions are not automatically assumed to be unreasonable in their beliefs or to have bad motives for same. BossJJ has also said this applies to Judaism's view of non-believers as well if I have understood him correctly. You will note, if you haven't already figured it out, that Peter666 is a catholic version of NotReady in his views of the exreme unlikelihood, if not outright impossibility, of non-believers being saved.

[Peter666]

God - Do you want answers?
Sklansky - I think I'm entitled.
God - Do YOU want answers?
Sklansky - I want the TRUTH!
God - You can't handle the TRUTH!

Yes, an insurmountable wall is created as God demands total submission through faith. It is an either/or proposition.

The whole point of discourse is to draw definite conclusions, but some people would be satisfied just by continually having a discourse, and thus attempt to justify themselves by not having any convictions. God refuses to play that kind of game. As Christ said in the Gospels - you are either with Me, or against Me. There is no middle ground.