Reply With QuoteA large number, possibly a majority, of American Catholics - who go to Mass, take the Eucharist, etc - engage in premarital sex and use birth control. Therefore, they are not True Catholics. By definition.Originally Posted by Gratzby
<driveby/>
Mississippi couple say church won't marry them because they're black
I'm pretty sure that's sucking at your religion.
A large number, possibly a majority, of American Catholics - who go to Mass, take the Eucharist, etc - engage in premarital sex and use birth control. Therefore, they are not True Catholics. By definition.
<driveby/>
Classic evasion. Make accusations, can't back them up, and just shift to a new attack.
Not a lot. But I'm sure you'll conduct another drive-by when it suits you.You believe what you want. I disagree. What more needs to be said now?
Since everybody sins (pretty much by definition - Catholicism holds the only sinless person was Christ), nobody is a Catholic - which pretty much suits Gratzy's purposes, I suppose. Not that it's accurate.
Accurate according to the model in your head? Cite something man! Tell me where you're getting your info from, I'm really curious. I have no idea what you mean when you say what I'm telling you isn't accurate, because you haven't said anything about where your idea of what is and isn't doctrine is coming from. I'm beginning to suspect you're getting this from films or something.
As for your point about the only sinless person being Christ you can have fun reading about beatification, grace, and sin and get back to me with your conclusions.
You've used the word 'sin'. What I said was 'not following the teachings of the Church'. If you like, I can now go on to explain how the doctrine of sin, and the various doctrines that deal with penance, absolution, confession, human nature etc, function, and contrast what makes the difference between that and apostasy, and how it's possible to 'sin' and still be accepting the Church's teachings and striving to follow them(spoiler: it involves a lot of Augustine on Grace and free will). But is that going to make a difference? Or are you going to tell me this isn't accurate or something, because that seems not especially worth the effort.
Briefly. Apostasy is rejecting the teachings of the Church, OK? Suppose an apostate commits a sin of some kind. That counts as a sin because it's against eternal law. All instances of acts against eternal law count as sin. So you can sin whether or not you're a Catholic, right? An apostate doesn't recognise the Catholic concept of Sin at all, or their action as a sin, having rejected the Church's teachings. A Catholic understands the general goal of their moral life to strive to be as perfect as they can*, at the same time as knowing that every human, even the most dedicated, is fallible. So when practicing Catholics sin, it's not through rejecting the teachings of the church, but by suffering moments of moral failure, which they are aware of in the moment. It's the difference between giving into temptation, and not caring that something is wrong.
*while perfection is also recognised as impossible, striving for perfection is demanded. I defer to Augustine here, and direct you to the above link on Sin for a full explanation.
I take it by your constant responses to my messages you fail to comprehend what the picture about Troll Spray meant. You are someone who is unflagging at applying intellectual dishonesty, and I don't see a lot of point in attempting any sort of rational discussion with that sort of person. For example, here's what I asked you:
Are you a Catholic? Have you even been a Catholic? Have you studied the catechisms of the Catholic Church? Are these positions you are claiming from your experience, or just because you say so? Do you know what the position is of the Catholic Church on people they have accepted as Catholic (Baptism, Confirmation) but are not adhering to their teachings?
No answer. So, you kind of forfeit any right to demand where I'm getting my information from (but since I often mention those Immaculate Heart Nuns who pounded all that into me, maybe, just maybe, I'm getting it direct from the teachings of the Catholic Church).
And this is how it goes with you, and why I am going back to not directly responding to your messages.
Oh, and violating and rejecting aren't the same thing.
Ding! You're five minutes are up!
Last edited by corsair; 08-05-2012 at 10:59 AM.
I'm getting it from a BA in theology from a decent university, during which I focussed on Catholic theology; there's also the Catholic encyclopaedia hosted at New Advent I've been linking you to, which draws material in turn from the Cathechism. I'm also finishing a paper on Catholic teachings about salvation and non-Catholics for an MA in Catholic philosophy and theology (research for which included a lot about what it is to be a part of a religion).
The church doesn't just have an answer for what happens if you sin because it depends on what the sin was, who committed, and why they committed it. Sometimes it's easily absolved, sometimes it takes great effort to absolve, sometimes it ends in excommunication, and lots of other circumstances. This particular, narrow question seems to be about whether someone who took the sacraments at a young age, but then willingly sinned repeatedly, over an extended period of time, on this scale, is still a Catholic in a state of sin, or doesn't meet the requirements for that. I'm interested in how the phrase 'bad Catholic should be applied', as part of that, especially because of the teachings on the inevitability of sin. If most people sin, are most people bad Catholics even though they follow the teaching about confession etc? Or is it 'Catholic' to sin reluctantly, through moral weakness, and confess immediately and desire not to do so again. If the latter, what makes a bad Catholic?
I genuinely want to have a dialogue with you. I'm sorry for seeming intellectually dishonest. Early on you were using 'Christian' in this way alongside talking about Catholicism that made it necessary to switch between criticising your uses of 'Christian', and your (as I'm understanding them) wrong claims about Catholicism. If we stick to the question of Hitler as Catholic rather than as Christian that would save a lot of time. If you'd rather do this over email or PM, and take more time with responses there I'd be fine with that. There has to be evidence that supports an answer one way or the other and I'm interested in finding it.
Right, violating and rejecting aren't the same thing. You either violate because you've rejected it, which makes you an apostate, or you violate because of human fallibility, and you pay penance. If someone violates the church teachings and doesn't pay penance or show signs of wanting to (so far as we'll ever have evidence of that attitude to confirm one way or the other), surely we should say that this is the kind of violating that means rejecting?
Since this is a reasonable post, I'll try again and hope we don't descend into strident combat again. You are correct in that the idea is that you gave into weakness, understand what is expected of you (or at least seek guidance in what you should or should not be doing), and at least eventually repent of your actions with the intent not to give into weakness again. Practice is always something else. But even in the extreme case of excommunication, you're still considered a Catholic - just a bad Catholic bared from Communion and expected to attend mass, etc. Though at the time of Hitler, I believe the two-step shunned and tolerated status were still used. If excommunicated is still Catholic, then I think that represents the Church maintains that there are such things as bad Catholics (even extremely bad Catholics).
It would narrow the discussion to a more manageable level, but reduces it to minor relevancy to the main point that Hitler's philosophies had a basis within certain outlooks and practices within Christianity (Catholic and Protestant). And I've also noted that Hitler himself probably did not consider himself a Catholic (beyond cynical advantage). An important point that I don't know, is if Hitler officially listed a religion for himself (it seems like one of those things that an ordered Germany would do). The importance is not so much for Hitler, but the perception he is projecting and the reaction of various religious organizations because of it.If we stick to the question of Hitler as Catholic rather than as Christian that would save a lot of time.
And...looks at clock....that's all I have time for now.
And that, the bolded text, has been my point all along.
Your point isn't exclusionary to my point, so as shocking as it may be, it's actually safe for us to agree. Next, you'll be declaring that my favorite painting is also yours! (just a few damn blocks from Starry Night for nine days and I never got a chance to go see it).
If you didn't see it how do you know that it's not your favorite as well?
And the Bach. Do you like the Toccata and Fugue in d Minor? Maybe it's not your favorite, since it's a trope by now. But out of the milieu of standard horror movies you could possibly admit it's a fine piece. Perhaps we have more in common than you might think.
Last edited by RichVR; 08-06-2012 at 09:37 PM.
Do you mean if I didn't see it (in person), how do I know it's my favorite? Because you got it backwards the way you wrote it. (see, there's the problem right there!) :-0
Esa-Peka Salonen conducting the L.A. Philharmonic in a performance of Stravinsky's Firebird is my absolute favorite.And the Bach. Do you like the Toccata and Fugue in d Minor? Maybe it's not your favorite, since it's a trope by now. But out of the milieu of standard horror movies you could possibly admit it's a fine piece. Perhaps we have more in common than you might think.
Now, she wasn't E. Power Biggs, but the organist at St. Maria Goretti Catholic Church growing up was the only thing that made the interminably boring services (ave imperator, boritori tae salutant) livable. She loved her Bach, and Toccata and Fugue in D Minor would shake the walls and crack the floors. I always recognized it because my mother took me to see Fantasia at Graham's Chinese when I was six, and I remembered that.
Well did you? See it in person, I mean. It is fabulous.
And let's go another way here. A book. A tale. The Inferno. The first book of the Divine Comedy. Which translation do you prefer? I prefer the Ciardi translation because he keeps the rhyme and scansion of the original Italian. As well as the curse words. His curses are better than any other I have read. Do you prefer another?
I find it strange that so many could be so Batshit crazy quoting scripture and other nonsense. It's not complicated, treat others as you expect to be treated. Keep your religion personal, it's not a bragging right. Don't fud people into your beliefs, and yes I will stand by my belief, or lack thereof, despite the threat of eternity in hell. It's common sense, and you're severely lacking
Starry Night? NO!!!!!!!!! Seen a fair number of Van Goghs, but still not Starry Night. Harrumph. A crime to be in New York for nine damn days and not see anything but the Javitts Center. I even had the route from my hotel to the museum plotted out in the vain hopes I'd get some sort of break. If I even had a chance to run in, look at that one painting, and run back out I'd have done it.
Translation? Dang, I mostly look at the pictures. Gustave Dore illustrations, though I suppose I should make a ranking of the steel engravers, since some of them are sublime, and others kind of mechanical. Very dependent on the individual engravers execution of the drawing.And let's go another way here. A book. A tale. The Inferno. The first book of the Divine Comedy. Which translation do you prefer? I prefer the Ciardi translation because he keeps the rhyme and scansion of the original Italian. As well as the curse words. His curses are better than any other I have read. Do you prefer another?
I suppose you don't count Niven and Pournelle as a proper translation....
No but it's a great modern retelling. And it has the same basic message of the possibility of redemption. Even in Hell, you can find Heaven. You just have to strive for it. The people they skewer are modern versions of the people that Alighieri fucks with in his books. And honestly that was what it was about, wasn't it? Fucking with the powers that be without getting locked up or 'put to the question', as they said then. Back then that was torture. You know the phrase 'put his feet to the fire'? They actually did that.
You might want to download a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum. It is an exhaustive detailing of how and why you would put a witch on trial. Up to and including how to torture them into a confession.
And speaking of that, that's a seminal study on how to suck at your religion.
When I took over from Billy Joel back in the 80s, Catholic girls started getting fucked a lot earlier on average. Except ugly ones, their average stayed the same.
Backspaces over scene with Adolf, Eva (Catholic girl!), JMJ, the assembled Hitler Youth, tight leather Nazi uniforms, a shetland pony, and three tons of Cool Whip....even QT3 is not ready for that.
But it did involve sucking at your religion...
Corsair. I find myself almost unable to argue with you now. We agree on several things. I recently ordered a pen and ink that you recommended in another thread. What do we do now?
Can I have a big hug? And I mean a hug that does not do the arm clutch at the chest to avoid contact kind of hug. I mean the full on arms around the back and clutch each other to the full body hug.
What do you say, man?
Forget about it. I always do. I don't remember who I had an argument with a few months down the line. Well, maybe if I have two or three, but generally I just move on and write off that discussion as one particular discussion. I believe in second chances.
Full tilt chest bump followed by 24 ounce schooners of Gordon Biersch Marzan. until one of us drops.Can I have a big hug? And I mean a hug that does not do the arm clutch at the chest to avoid contact kind of hug. I mean the full on arms around the back and clutch each other to the full body hug.
What do you say, man?
Returning from a period of post-deadline catatonia...
RE: your second paragraph, can we move to that wider point once we're clear about Hitler's actual position in the eyes of the Catholic church? We can sort this out and then move onto that, and hopefully keep things clearer.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you saying that in practice no one is expected to repent and try not to sin again? In my experience at least I've known a lot of Catholics who take their obligations to repenting, confessing, paying penance etc quite seriously. But I'm not sure I'm reading you right, sorry.
I'd love a source that helps explain what you mean here.But even in the extreme case of excommunication, you're still considered a Catholic - just a bad Catholic bared from Communion and expected to attend mass, etc. Though at the time of Hitler, I believe the two-step shunned and tolerated status were still used. If excommunicated is still Catholic, then I think that represents the Church maintains that there are such things as bad Catholics (even extremely bad Catholics).
To quote New Advent on excommunication again;
"If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived."
So is being removed from Christian (which for the Church means Catholic, because of their belief in the one church etc etc) enough to stop someone being a Catholic? I'd say yes, because of what I've said repeatedly so far about how consistency in practice defines being Catholic.
I wonder if the confusion here might be because of a misunderstanding of the permanent effects of baptism. Baptism as a sacrament has some permanent effects. It permanently absolves one of original sin, for example. It also permanently makes one a candidate for salvation / the receiving of grace. These aren't effects specifically associated with the Catholic church itself though; they're achievable in other ways, like through the so-called baptism of desire (like the anonymous Christian theology I mentioned earlier). Baptism introduces one to Christian society, but this isn't a permanent effect; cf, excommunication.
Appendix
Here are three statuses with regards to the Church one can have; apostasy, heresy, and being faithful. Working with terms like this would also help me understand what you've been taught.
Heresy is claiming to be Catholic but ignoring one or more of the teachings of the church. So if I go around saying that I'm a Catholic and also that it's OK to use contraception despite what the church says, that's a kind of heresy because I'm contradicting the church's teachings.
Sin is involuntarily voluntarily denying the church's teaching. By that I mean not resisting temptation, and a failing of the will in a way that's human. I think we agree on that, right?
Apostasy is voluntarily rejecting the church, or its teachings. So if I decide privately that I'm going to reject the teachings on, e.g., contraception, by which I mean voluntarily reject those teachings, absent any temptation that coerces me, then I am an apostate.
Apostasy is contrasted with being faithful, which is accepting the teachings of the church.
Sounds to me like Catholicism is just rules lawyering.
It does. It says one thing and acts another. Roger Cardinal Mahoney (Archbishop of Los Angeles - something of a right winger in comparison to his predessor Timothy Cardinal Manning) made the classic mistake of deciding he was going to put one Catholic politician on notice for her support of abortion, and it predictably and entirely backfired. The woman said that the Catholic Church could not dictate her politics to her, and if they wanted to denounce her, it just proved her independence. She instantly shot up in the polls. Mahoney shut his mouth and went back to approving child molestation. What they claim is their position and what it works out to be in reality ends up just as political as it is with politicians.
Goddamn computer ate my reply to Gratz - sorry, I'm not sure I have the energy for it again when I get home (it was a lengthy reply). The short form from New Advent:
The excommunicated person it is true, does not cease to be a Christian
So, the official Catholic position is, a (very) bad Christian, but still a Christian (keep in mind that when they are saying Christian, they mean Catholic).
And honestly, how does that make Catholicism and different than any other religion? I am a lapsed Catholic. My parents were as well. But it works for any religion. The Bible is supposed to be the unerring word of god. But the Bible has more contradictory shit in the first few hundred pages than one might believe. The problem is that nobody reads the fucking Bible. The people that actually read it, cover to cover (assuming that they don't just fall asleep from the crappy prose) become atheists.
Some religions are less interested in rules and more in palaver. But as a holy man once put it, "Any way you slice it, it's still baloney."
Bingo.
Posting Permissions