Bay 12 Games Forum

7/10

do you think the Catholic will ever reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox church? its my understanding that the east will only acknowledge the pope if he renounces the primacy over the other patriarchs.

Yes, I think that the Catholic Church will reconcile with the Orthodox Church. It's not merely a problem of primacy but also a problem of the good ol' filioque clause, and the politics.

I'm sure the church does intend to remain consistent as much as possible and do so more so than most institutions. But they do make mistakes / change their mind on important matters.

If the claim was just something like "The church is always correct, and when they change their mind, it's because that was the correct time to change their minds" then fine, I would still be confused about when and how the infallibility kicks in, exactly, etc., but this wouldn't necessarily be internally inconsistent. However, to claim "dogma never changes" is a more stringent claim, and that one just seems to be not true:

Modern catechism:

Quote

1258    The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

vs. the directly contradictory Pope Eugenius, 1441 AD:

Quote

...no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

and

Pope Pius XII 1943:

Quote

Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority.

Pope Innocent III 1215AD, who adds extra qualifiers and very forcefully clarifies that he really is talking about EVERYONE:

Quote

Indeed, there is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.

Pope Boniface VIII, 1302AD, who seems pretty explicit in there not being any loopholes here:

Quote

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Quote

It is shown also that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Bible:

Quote

He will punish those who do not know God… they will be punished with everlasting destruction…
~ 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

Yet now, contradicting all this, in the modern catechism:

Quote

847. "This affirmation [that outside of the church, there is no salvation], is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church

If this is not clear evidence of changing dogmas, then what is it? Again, I wouldn't mind if they changed their dogmas and simply said it was the correct thing to do. But saying they haven't in the first place is something that can be checked prettye asily with evidence and doesn't seem to pan out...

The first two quotes do not contradict, especially if you actually look at the full quote.

"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

The catechism is talking about the baptism of blood, in which one dies for being a Catholic (despite not being baptised. That is to say, a catechumen, a member of the Church). The quote from the Pope says that those outside of the Church cannot be saved. The catechumen who dies for the faith is a member of the Church.

As to extra ecclesiam nulla salus - the Catechism explains this. All salvation comes from Christ the Head, through the Church which is his Body (and the earthly head of this Church, the Roman Pontiff). St Paul wrote: "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Rom 2:14-16)

To sum it up as Lumen Gentium does: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

This is a separate question, that came to me while I was looking into the above quotes, and is not part of the above argument.

Why are there catholic evangelists? In fact, why would you even teach your children about catholicism?

1) The catholic church apparently is saying now that people ignorant of Christ and the Church's teachings will not be punished.
2) Thus, anybody who you don't tell about Catholicism is saved by default through their ignorance which is "no fault of their own"
3) Isn't the obvious conclusion that all good catholics should go out of their way to never tell anybody about catholicism who hasn't already heard?
4) Eventually, if nobody was left alive in the world who remembered the teachings of the Church or Christ, then according to the catechism, since everybody would from there on out be ignorant "through no fault of their own", wouldn't 100% of all people for the rest of time be automatically saved?
5) Thus, it seems like this catechism should be encouraging anti-evangelism. Not only not evangelizing, but actually going around trying to stop other people from evangelizing, because they can't possibly save any additional souls (can't go higher than default 100%), but they can potentially reduce the number of saved souls by removing the protective ignorance...

For your own children, it might be safer to teach them, actually, because if you practice christianity yourself, it's too risky that they accidentally overhear / etc. and lose their ignorance, maybe without you even knowing it (if they don't mention it). But for complete strangers, it is still a decent sounding strategy. Especially strangers in faraway island nations and things that missionaries had to go way the hell out of their way to get to, yes? There was no risk of them accidentally overhearing.

The argument is reduced by the first preposition being incorrect. People ignorant of Christ and the Church's teaching who still obey natural law, written on their hearts by God, may not be punished.

Quote from: Sheb on November 24, 2014, 07:05:22 am

No, it's impossible to prove a negative. We have no evidence that homeopathy is true, but it's possible that we just have failed to detect an effect every single time.

This is correct.

Quote

Or do you also refuse to say you believe fairies and Santa don't exist?

Yes.

Again, you miss the point though and provide poor comparisons, because as Arx pointed out, santa clause and homeopathy have clear claims about the world that they make, which you can test. When you test them and find them repeatedly false, they become less and less likely to be true. Though never zero, they approach zero and for practical purposes can usually be treated as if zero.

God, on the other hand, doesn't claim in the bible that he will show up at 1357 Maple avenue every Wednesday at 3:00. There is no clear, testable claim about God that you can repeatedly evaluate over and over. Therefore, UNLIKE homeopathy or santa claus, there is no reason to continue to doubt God's likelihood more and more over time. The likelihood does NOT approach zero over time. It just sits there.

Instead, over time, zero evidence piles up for him. BUT zero hard evidence also piles up against him. So whatever your initial bias is, it simply stays that way over time, from a scientific perspective.



Fairies, as Arx also pointed out, are the better of the three comparisons. And as he pointed out, it's totally possible even at a practical level, that fairies exist. Why would you say otherwise?

While I am not a scientist, I am reliably informed that cosmology today suggests there is more likely to be a Creator.

Now, I have to go to bed, because I'm waking in about four hours. I'm sorry if I haven't answered your questions sufficiently, but they will have to wait. Goodnight, and God bless.

Tough, but have to go with a 3/10.

I had this interaction with a catholic the other day, which was very confusing. Clearly he is being an idiot somewhere along the line, but it is unclear where exactly. I.e. which of these multiple inconsistent things are him being wrong about things, and which are actually the church's positions that his other wrong things contradict, etc. Perhaps you can clarify which of these claims is actually correct?

Guy: "here are some bible quotes that suggest you are incorrect about the church's position [about animal rights]"
Me: "But those could pretty clearly just be interpreted as allegories and not literally about animals."
Guy: "It is not our place to interpret the bible, the church is qualified to do that."
Me: "But you started out quoting bible verses, why is your interpretation more right? Do you have catechisms or something to back that up?"
Guy: "If you're looking for a line by line 'here's what it means' the church doesn't really work like that. But here's a couple catechisms that may be relevant."
Me: "Those aren't very relevant."
Guy: "Here are some bible verses that may help instead."
Me: "But we aren't supposed to interpret the bible...?"
Guy: "The bible is one source of revelation written by the Catholic church, so it's fine."

Me: *mentally slaps guy through computer monitor*

Okay. Well, this guy is a bit of a piece of work, God love him, but I think what he's saying is pretty much nonsense.

How it works is this. Bible is written by people. Church belief is that it is inspired Scripture (so the authors were writing with God's inspiration. This happens differently for each book on the practical side. Jeremiah, for example, says he was told to write exactly what he wrote) but that it requires knowledge to understand it. (This is from the Bible itself. Can't remember the verse off-hand but I think St Paul tells Timothy that people misinterpret the scriptures.)

The Church says that, because Jesus said that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church, God isn't going to let the Church interpret something and teach something /wrong/. So if all the bishops got together and said to each other 'Let's tell everyone that Jesus is actually adopted', and tried to say that, somehow they would not be able to. There's a bit more to this, but it's mostly off-topic. The idea is that we aren't to interpret the Bible privately, because it's pretty difficult to navigate in some places (Genesis, for example, has two floods and two creation stories, how do you understand that?) and in other places, easy to twist.

As for a 'line by line', check out the Commentaries. St Thomas Aquinas did (well, kinda) a really good one called the Golden Chain for the four gospels, and there are plenty of other good ones. If you want a Catholic understanding, check for an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat (which are basically the approvals that it is not gravely wrong).

Catechisms vary, but the CCC is the current one, and is usually easy to navigate, having multiple indices, a contents, and I think even a concordance (which is a word search). And you can get it for free online at the Vatican web page, if you can tolerate the parchment background.

Quote from: Dsarker on November 23, 2014, 02:21:16 am

Why not cite the Apocrypha? The only reason it's called the 'Apocrypha' was because it was written in Greek rather than Hebrew, and that's relatively arbitrary. Maccabees talks about Purgatory often.

I ask you to avoid citing the Apocrypha because:
1. It is not inspired Scripture.
2. Using it to argue that a doctrine contained within is related to Christianity is equivalent to if a Mormon were to defend his beliefs using only the Book of Mormon and none of the Bible.

Quote from: Dsarker on November 23, 2014, 02:21:16 am

But ignoring the Apocrypha for now, check out 1 Corinthians 3:11–15. That's St Paul talking about a purging.

It sounds to me that St. Paul is writing of fire to represent the Holy Ghost.

My problems with the idea of Purgatory are as enumerated:
1. Out of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, Purgatory is the one afterlife with the least amount of biblical reference and justification. There are maybe two verses in the New Testament that are used to justify it, and then the Apocrypha.
2. The implication that some need punishment after death to burn away their excess sin implies that Christ's sacrifice has not cleansed all sin from His believers, only some of it.
3. Alongside the second point of mine, the doctrine implies that the Grace of Jesus Christ is not enough for Salvation, for if one were to escape damnation, he would need to be Christian. Why then, would he have to endure Purgatory?

Quote from: Dsarker on November 23, 2014, 02:21:16 am

Way to get to heaven? Jesus. Pure and simple.

Glad to hear this; my time in Catholic high school theology class had me worried.

Referring to the Apocrypha...

Maccabees is canonical scripture within the Catholic Church. So it is, indeed, inspired Scripture. I can't comment as to Mormonism, as I am not a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

As to the other references to Purgatory...

1. Three in the New Testament, at least. Jesus refers to it a minimum of twice.

Matthew 12

"31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

This implies that forgiveness comes both in this world and after. But we know that forgiveness cannot come in Hell (the story of Lazarus and Dives tells us that). Therefore there must come a time after death but before the final judgement where one can be forgiven of sins.

Matthew 5

"25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

This is during the Sermon on the Mount, when he is talking about the difficulty of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Again, it implies a time of punishment that removes sin.

2. No. Jesus' death is what provides the mercy that allows them to be reconciled with God. That merely happens in different ways for different people. (That's one explanation)
No. This is just temporal punishment due to sin. We are forgiven our sins, because God is merciful. But God is also just, and we go into purgatory to be purified properly. (Again, another)
No. This is just a purification. Even if one is forgiven all sin, that person may still have attachments to sin (see Adam, who was without sin and yet committed sin). Purgatory is a preparation for heaven by removing all our attachment and desire to sin. (Another)
No. Because we have sinned, even though we are forgiven by God, that after-effect of sin still hurts us. In Purgatory, we are experiencing the love of God, and because we are still harmed by sin, it hurts us to feel that cleaning. CS Lewis' 'The Great Divorce' explains it in this way. (That's all I've got for now.)

3. Well, no. God is a loving God, and there are plenty of people in the world today, and before, who have not and will /never/ hear the word of God. Does God create them in vain? Are they to die and suffer eternally? No. The Catholic belief is that those who have never had the chance to hear the Gospel may still be saved by God in his infinite mercies. In the ordinary manner, though, if you have heard the Gospel, you must believe in it to be saved. Salvation itself doesn't have that much to do with purgatory.


As to Catholic High School Theology classes...

Jesus is the way to heaven. He made the Church for our sake, to help us get to heaven. It's pretty easy to fall away from Jesus if you are alone, but having another with you...

9Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: 10If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! 11Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? 12Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

Quote from: Dsarker on November 23, 2014, 12:37:05 am

The real question here, as I see it, is about prayer. That's really covered in the Bible. The Parable of the Unjust Judge and the one about the man whose friend was visiting.

The parable of the Unjust Judge says 'If you could get an unjust judge to give you good things by pestering, how much more your loving Heavenly Father?'

The other one.

"He said to them, "Which of you, if you go to a friend at midnight, and tell him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him,' and he from within will answer and say, 'Don't bother me. The door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give it to you'? I tell you, although he will not rise and give it to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence, he will get up and give him as many as he needs."

So we're just supposed to keep praying until God gives in and does something?  I guess that's internally consistent with the way Christianity is generally presented, but still feels strange to me.  God's going to do what He wants to do in the end either way.  I guess maybe it could be taken as a learning experience in persistence for the person praying, but as I've mentioned in the other Christianity thread I have problems with that in general.  Not sure it's worth a derail.

Quote

That one is more about the saints. It refers to the relationship between God and the Saints and You. Take an earthly example. If you want the President to do something for you, do you ask him straight, or do you ask his friends (who happen to be your friends) to ask him?

Sure, but there are very important differences between the two cases.  The president doesn't have an infinite amount of attention and time and doesn't know me.  God does presumably have infinite attention and time to give and knows more about me than I do.  It doesn't seem to make any sense that He'd care to hear someone else's opinion or need their help in filtering out incoming prayers.

Thomas Aquinas explains prayer a heck of a lot better than I ever could. As to your first question, in the Summa, www.newadvent.org/summa/3083.htm

It kinda answers the second one, too.

"Reply to Objection 1. The saints in heaven, since they are blessed, have no lack of bliss, save that of the body's glory, and for this they pray. But they pray for us who lack the ultimate perfection of bliss: and their prayers are efficacious in impetrating through their previous merits and through God's acceptance. "

Quote from: Dsarker on November 23, 2014, 12:28:41 am

The person in there is a common image, basically referring to 'good Catholic men'.

I like how your image of a good Catholic man has unfocused eyes.

Well, I have eye problems too, it makes me feel better