The Kitty's Den

[Requiem]

->RCC is a cult!!!: 1) They're just angry cause we're older, bigger, and different. 2) Most cults rely on a charismatic leader; have you seen the current Pope? He looks like Palpatine. I wouldn't be shocked if lightning came out of his fingers. 3) It's harder to get in that it is to leave.

->True Christians: There is no True Christian. We're all just trying to get it right and hoping for the best.

 

Lightning from his fingers fucking awesome lol !!

[agnosticator]

Catholikitty,

 

Thanks for the interesting info you've provided. I mean no disrespect by my posts, as I find humor in just about everything. I've often wondered what my beliefs would be had I not been recruited into fundyville at a tender age. I was raised a very liberal Catholic. My thoughts about religion growing up Catholic were very different than what they became when I was later "born again". Evangelical fundamentalism is a totally wacky mindset that only a literalistic, conservative Catholic could even begin to comprehend. Your posts are refreshing.

[ShackledNoMore]

It's been awhile, but I'll exchange a personal anecdote with you and some of my thoughts on non-belief and nihilism. I could echo every single word of agnosticator's post above. Until early in junior high school, I was raised in a tolerant, soft core catholicism, not exactly like you practice in the details, but close enough in spirit to afford me dramatically more freedom of thought than I had as a fundy. I don't know how this would have gone over if I told a family member or a priest, but now I realize that until I was about 12, I was an agnostic for all intents and purposes, and at least in my young mind (again, I don't know how this would have gone over in the minds of most other catholics), I did not consider this to be incompatible with my being a catholic. I remember thinking about life and having conversations with my friends in which I would contemplate the meaning involved if god existed vs. if he did not. My conclusion was that if god existed and there was eternal life, there was infinite value in our existence. But even if he did not exist and this life was all there was, whatever time we had was of infinitely greater value than if we had never existed at all. I now find the idea of eternal life far fetched, and since we have but a finite time to exist, the time that we have becomes all the more dear and meaningful. I view this today much the same as I did my "if god does not exist" contingency of 7th grade. Moreover, there is meaning to be had beyond our own individual finite existence. We may have spawned children and future generations, and left them with a legacy, good or bad, based on what kind of parents we were. We have at least an opportunity to shape the future world even as individuals, and collectively, we leave quite a mark on our world. The quest to grow and learn and try to leave the world a better place is worthy in and of itself. I may not live forever, but damn it, I will make the best of things as long as I am alive. I'm sure you have encountered a view such as this before, but I thought it would still be worth sharing my take on this.

 

Re: "Saints as demons worship: Laughter. Seriously, I've never heard it spun this way." There are a few out there who see demons everywhere. Be very glad you are not surrounded by them!

 

I wonder if (and if so, how) we will influence your beliefs at this site. I think there is some discerning insight on these pages, and you seem like one to ponder ideas.

[SleeplessGhost]

Just wondering, how do you believe people will be judged? Will acts be given greater weight than blind faith? Will faith be all that matters? Would an apostate be able to get into heaven(However you would define it)? Do you believe the bible to be divinly inspired? If so, why is there a need for interpretation? If not, why believe in it?

[CatholiKitty]

Catholikitty,

 

Thanks for the interesting info you've provided. I mean no disrespect by my posts, as I find humor in just about everything. I've often wondered what my beliefs would be had I not been recruited into fundyville at a tender age. I was raised a very liberal Catholic. My thoughts about religion growing up Catholic were very different than what they became when I was later "born again". Evangelical fundamentalism is a totally wacky mindset that only a literalistic, conservative Catholic could even begin to comprehend. Your posts are refreshing.

 

Agnosticator,

 

I'm glad that you got some enjoyment from my posts. ^^ And don't worry, I picked up on the humor thing. I just have this weird way of humoring sarcasm and the such by acting like I take it completely seriously. It never goes well, lol, but it's what I do. And you are so right about that mindset; I've been trying to understand it for years, but I feel like I'm only scratching the surface. Oh well, keep up the lulz.

[Xerces]

Why'd you put a pope hat on your cat? I would've shat in your laundry if I was your cat.

[CatholiKitty]

Re: "Saints as demons worship: Laughter. Seriously, I've never heard it spun this way." There are a few out there who see demons everywhere. Be very glad you are not surrounded by them!

 

I wonder if (and if so, how) we will influence your beliefs at this site. I think there is some discerning insight on these pages, and you seem like one to ponder ideas.

 

"Everyone hates Catholics until they need an exorcism." Haha. Seriously though, I am glad that most of the people around me know the difference between things like mental illness and demonic possession.

 

They has certainly been an influence; one of the reasons I like this place is that ya'll know the right questions to ask and are more than eager to ask them. At least once a week I find something I've never given serious thought to. I think about it for a bit, go look through the RCC doctrine on the subject, and then think on it some more. It requires even more contemplation if I then write a post about it, because I have to have a clear, definite opinion to be able to put it into words. I don't feel like I'm going to be giving up the faith anytime soon, but being here is definitely refining my beliefs and cutting out the obvious-if-you-think-about-it BS.

 

And thank you for sharing our thoughts on non-belief. ^^ My view wouldn't be identical, but it would certainly be similar. Again, thank you for your thoughts and questions.

[CatholiKitty]

Why'd you put a pope hat on your cat? I would've shat in your laundry if I was your cat.

 

Not my cat. It's an internet pic.

[agnosticator]

And you are so right about that mindset; I've been trying to understand it for years, but I feel like I'm only scratching the surface. Oh well, keep up the lulz.

 

Don't look too deeply into that mindset. You might fall in!

[ShackledNoMore]

And you are so right about that mindset; I've been trying to understand it for years, but I feel like I'm only scratching the surface. Oh well, keep up the lulz.

 

Don't look too deeply into that mindset. You might fall in!

 

[CatholiKitty]

So... Thanksgiving and Skyrim derailed me for a bit, but I feel like I'm fully back now. Sorry for the significant delay.

 

First off, Lesson time. Because the post quoted below touches on one of the things I wanted to clear up some misconceptions about.

 

The RRC gets its doctrine from three sources. These are called Sacred Scripture (bible), Sacred Tradition (teachings and stuff handed down from the early days that didn't get stated in the bible), and Magisterium (what the bishops and the popes interpret from Scripture and Tradition.). Papal Infallibility falls under Magesterium and has very specific rules on when it applies. It's only been used on maybe a dozen doctrines, and in all but one of those instances it was applied retroactively.

 

Sacred Tradition is interesting to me. It's most obvious effect is that it holds back progressive changes because it's based on actions defined two-thousand years ago, but the RCC holds that Faith and our understanding of it develops over time (while staying essentially the same. There's some parable about a tree that explains it.). It's a frustrating constraint, but it still allows for new ideas, ideologies, and perspectives to trickle into the Church over time.

It's because of this effect that I often see protestant faiths as originally-well-meaning hares and the Catholic Church as a ponderous-but-onward-moving tortoise.

 

In my journey, I was attracted to the Catholic Church because of the historical roots (searching for the one, true, original church) as well as the more fundamentalist aspects of it. The more liberal and progressive moves of the church seem reasonable for our modern society, but coming from an evangelical Protestant background it was exactly these moves that make the Church seem less biblical to me.

 

The basic problem for me with Catholicism is that they want to be relevant in today's world, yet they are also holding on to historical dogmas borne out of middle ages infallibility that are neither biblical nor reasonable in the modern age. It seems a mashed up doctrine of ideas, some of which in the "sacred tradition" have no biblical bearing except that somewhere along the line a pope declared them from the infallible seat of Peter and the church is stuck with them today. I don't like Benedict, but he is a great mind and scholar and much more consistent with history...and that's why he's unpopular. Don't you think?

 

With that said, I'm a HUGE Dan Simmons fan as well.

 

I'm still not sure what you mean by "relevance," but I'll hazard a few guesses.

My first guess would be the youth movement like I've seen at my church. We have a high school youth group that meets once a month after 5:30 mass. That's the same mass that plays the new Christian music; some of it was actually good music-wise, but those songs have gone away in the past few years. The Church is definitely worried about holding onto members, especially the younger ones, but I feel that the appeals to emotion that youth ministry ultimately falls back on are more hazardous.

My other guess would be the recent progressivism and attempts to promote certain social and political ideas. Many of the ideas I agree with, but those aren't the ones that many people talk about. I wouldn't call this a relevance thing, though; I think that the Church finally accepted the Age of Enlightenment into its "shell" and is acting on a new social sense.

 

The Pope. Again, I'm not sure what "more consistent with history" exactly applies to. Possibly it’s some aspect of Popeyness I've not been concerned about. Everyone that I know personally that doesn't like Benedict (and that's most of the people I know) doesn't like him because he set back the progressive movement and focused on promoting the more conservative agendas. I imagine that others don't like him because he's the Catholic Pope, and the traditionalists don't like him because he's still too modernist and "not a real pope anyways".

[Kaiser01]

you really do intrest me Catholikitty and i like some of your belifes becuase their respecting of others.

 

im jsut curious what compells you to do this? to come here and start this topic becuase i find it very respectable and i find you a very respectable person. also does your concept of god differ from the origional chatholic church in anyway? as in do you see god as some kind of king or almost like a deity in idea form?

 

i have got alot of difrent perspective of the chatholic church latley especialy about how catholics acept evolution (mostly) and i find that very mature and i think it is cool you have a observatory in the vatican.

[CatholiKitty]

you really do intrest me Catholikitty and i like some of your belifes becuase their respecting of others.

 

im jsut curious what compells you to do this? to come here and start this topic becuase i find it very respectable and i find you a very respectable person. also does your concept of god differ from the origional chatholic church in anyway? as in do you see god as some kind of king or almost like a deity in idea form?

 

i have got alot of difrent perspective of the chatholic church latley especialy about how catholics acept evolution (mostly) and i find that very mature and i think it is cool you have a observatory in the vatican.

 

Will probably answer some time tomorrow... drunk right now and have another post to respond to first....

[ShackledNoMore]

First off, Lesson time. Because the post quoted below touches on one of the things I wanted to clear up some misconceptions about.

 

The RRC gets its doctrine from three sources. These are called Sacred Scripture (bible), Sacred Tradition (teachings and stuff handed down from the early days that didn't get stated in the bible), and Magisterium (what the bishops and the popes interpret from Scripture and Tradition.). Papal Infallibility falls under Magesterium and has very specific rules on when it applies. It's only been used on maybe a dozen doctrines, and in all but one of those instances it was applied retroactively.

 

I knew about the three sources, but I did not know that papal infallibility was so narrowly constrained. Once it is applied, is it considered inviolable? If it were, it would be pretty embarrassing 500 or 1000 years down the road if things were different, and the RCC realized it needed to backpedal on its position. I suppose the magisterium would have a daunting task of tweaking and "interpreting" it. I could just google it, but I would be interested in hearing a bit about the rules for when papal infallibility applies, and perhaps which doctrines fall into that category.

[CatholiKitty]

I may or may not have spent the last four days power-gaming through 96% of Saints Row 3. With all the explosions, who can say what really happened?

Just wondering, how do you believe people will be judged? Will acts be given greater weight than blind faith? Will faith be all that matters? Would an apostate be able to get into heaven(However you would define it)? Do you believe the bible to be divinly inspired? If so, why is there a need for interpretation? If not, why believe in it?

I hope you don't mind, Sleepless, but I'm going to present both my views and the Church's views on these questions.

 

->If there is going to be some sort of judgment, then I would believe that acts will be what's important.

The RCC mostly agrees. There is a document called the Lumen Gentium; from what I've read of it, it describes the Roman Catholic Church along with charity and grace in though, word, and deed as necessary for salvation, but after that comes a section of exceptions. I'm going to post some of it because I've always liked this part:

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)

Other Christians are mentioned in section 15. I'm sure that many here will find the above to be condescending at best, but in the context of a religious organization like the RCC, I find it to be rather accepting. The important thing, it seems to say, is to strive to be good. If I was in a strictly dogmatic debate, I would argue that "those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" applies to almost, if not absolutely, everyone here. A combination of circumstance, moral/logical contradictions within faith, and a lack of evidence has disallowed acceptance of said explicit knowledge.

 

->I've got no problems with apostates, but then I don't have the responsibility of continuing the existence of a belief system. People are all just people, and honestly striving to live a good life is what is important.

The RCC disagrees on this point. Somewhere in the Lumen Gentium (I think. It's a long document) is a part that mentions those that accept the RCC as the true path of salvation then choose to leave it. These people have given up salvation in the Church's eyes. I have to wonder just how often does someone do both of these at the same time. I did have a friend in high school that just wasn't afraid of hell, and I suppose someone could believe in a plurality of Gods (not the Mormon version), but I feel like these are rare cases.

 

->Yes and yes for divinely inspired

 

->For both: The ideas and concepts are divinely inspired, but the words are human words. Cultural meanings, typos, and translation errors must all be taken into account to get a full picture of the message.

Just me: More significance needs to be placed on the specific people each part of the bible was written for. For instance, the first few books of the OT (I don't know the later books with the prophets all that well) read just like an ancient tribe's survival guide. It's got creation myths, myths to explain events and natural phenomenon, health and hygiene rules, rules for society and order, and justifications for brutal military campaigns. It's what those people needed at that particular time, but it stayed a part of their culture after they moved past it. There's still good messages in there even if the only one is "Humanity has progressed past this point; never do this sh-t again." It's a progressive revelation, and I don't see the bible as the final word. It's a terrible hubris to think that we at this very day have everything as it should be.

[CatholiKitty]

you really do intrest me Catholikitty and i like some of your belifes becuase their respecting of others. im jsut curious what compells you to do this? to come here and start this topic becuase i find it very respectable and i find you a very respectable person. also does your concept of god differ from the origional chatholic church in anyway? as in do you see god as some kind of king or almost like a deity in idea form? i have got alot of difrent perspective of the chatholic church latley especialy about how catholics acept evolution (mostly) and i find that very mature and i think it is cool you have a observatory in the vatican.

Thank you for the compliments. "Don't be a dick" had been a categorical imperative of mine for a time, and I still try to hold myself to that in most cases.

 

I've been wondering about why I'm doing this since before I started this topic, and I think there are a few things that brought me to do it:

->I like talking about myself and discussing theology, but none of my friends are interested in religion talk.

->I'm curious about what people will find important enough to ask me and what my responses are going to be.

->People here know how to ask good questions, and having to write down responses forces me to scrutinize and define what I believe.

->I'm not trying to advertise my faith (or at least I'm trying not to), but I do want to clear up misconceptions for the sake of knowledge.

->I do want to advertise the RCC a bit, but I try to keep objective. I hope that, if I present things as they are, others might see, as I do, the Church's potential for great good as a political and social entity. If people here end up seeing it, then I will feel validated and relieved. If not, I'll continue on regardless.

 

I'm not certain what the general/official concept of god is for Catholics, but I remember my concept from before I started doing my own thing. This was more of a feeling than a solid concept though: Back then, god was the big, old, bearded guy lounging on a throne elsewhere, looking down onto Earth and the rest of the universe. He was also everywhere and saw everything, but it felt like he was mostly concentrated in heaven. He interfered subtly or not at all, Jesus was beside him just biding time, and the holy spirit made its presence felt through graces.

These days I don't really have many beliefs about the nature of god; it's too unknowable and probably wouldn't have much effect on my morals, so I don't concern myself with it too much. If I had to go with something, then there are two theories that intrigue me right now:

->God withdrew his presence from the universe to create it as it is now. God is still the outside observer in this one, but he's no longer a king. Mystic occurrences are possible but rare. The best analogy I can think of is that the universe is kind of like an egg, closed off to the outside but still cared after as a whole by the big guy until it hatches.

->The universe, every part of it, comes from god's essence in some kind of lowed/transformed state. This gives the universe a natural tendency to return to the pure state, and sentient life arose in part because of this tendency.

In both cases, God isn't defined by much more than "mystic entity". I also entertain the possibility that god is just a normal being for some more complex reality and that nothing is as it seems because "who knows?"

 

Vatican has an observatory? Sweet.

[CatholiKitty]

First off, Lesson time. Because the post quoted below touches on one of the things I wanted to clear up some misconceptions about. The RRC gets its doctrine from three sources. These are called Sacred Scripture (bible), Sacred Tradition (teachings and stuff handed down from the early days that didn't get stated in the bible), and Magisterium (what the bishops and the popes interpret from Scripture and Tradition.). Papal Infallibility falls under Magesterium and has very specific rules on when it applies. It's only been used on maybe a dozen doctrines, and in all but one of those instances it was applied retroactively.

I knew about the three sources, but I did not know that papal infallibility was so narrowly constrained. Once it is applied, is it considered inviolable? If it were, it would be pretty embarrassing 500 or 1000 years down the road if things were different, and the RCC realized it needed to backpedal on its position. I suppose the magisterium would have a daunting task of tweaking and "interpreting" it. I could just google it, but I would be interested in hearing a bit about the rules for when papal infallibility applies, and perhaps which doctrines fall into that category.

 

It's like you've read my mind. I am not a fan of infallibility. From the definition of infallible, without error or fail, one would assume an infallible teaching to be inviolable. However, Catholics technically say that the act of teaching a doctrine is infallible; I could see that being twisted around if needed. Like, it was the right thing to teach at the time, but we know now that the doctrine it spoke of is not true.

There has been a pope that was declared an heretic and anathema when some documents or something were revealed decades after his death. If something infallible had to be repealed, they could possibly find heresy in the pope's teachings; then he'd be a heretic, which means excommunication, which means he wouldn't have been a real pope at the time. It's an unlikely scenario, though, giving the restraints for an infallible statement:

 

1) He has to be speaking ex cathedra. This means that he has to be speaking through his role as the spiritual head of the Church. Also, he has to announce the doctrine publicly so that it can spread to all Catholics

2) It can only be a doctrine about faith or morals

3) The doctrine can go against neither Sacred Scripture nor Sacred Tradition. In fact, it has to be something that Catholics already believe; no making up new stuff.

4) It has to be fairly explicit that the pope intends for all Catholics to be bound by the new doctrine. Addresses to specific churches or countries are not enough, even if modern media allows everyone to hear it.

5) The pope has to make the statement himself; the authority cannot be delegated to anyone else

6) It must be fairly explicit that the pope intends the doctrine to be absolutely final and irrevocable.

7) It says nothing about the character or sinfulness of the pope. Popes are not automatically holy men, but they do have powers and responsibilities passed down from Peter.

 

The justification from this comes from a promise made to Peter about him being the rock of the church, which the gates of hell will not prevail against. There are other verses and some S. Tradition from the early days, but this one is used to claim that God, specifically the Holy Spirit, won't let the Church declare something infallible if it will end up sending believers to hell. I hope they're right.

 

Examples! The first two are the most obvious uses of papal infallibility and the two that most Catholics should be aware of:

-> The Immaculate Conception of Mary: This was declared before Vatican I, the council that defined infallibility, but it was made by the same pope that presided over the council, so this one is definitely an infallible statement.

-> The Assumption of Mary: declared after Vatican I

-> Denouncing of various heresies: A lot of these are about the specific nature of Christ. Every now and then, especially in the early days, some competing Christian theology would spring up. If it became a problem, the pope would eventually have to declare that Catholics believe x-y-z. These statements generally fulfill the requirements and get ret-conned as infallible.

-> Canonization of saints: This isn't really doctrine, but it fills the requirements.

There's no specific list, but these are generally recognized as infallible.

 

Not too bad right? ...unfortunately, there's more.

There are two other kinds of infallibility, ecumenical infallibility and "ordinary and universal magesterium".

 

Ecumenical Infallibility

I can't find all the information that I'd like for this, but it seems that some declarations from the councils will be infallible and some will be opinions of the council. For a council to be valid, "enough" of the bishops must attend, but I can't find how many votes are required for something to be approved. I do know that, for a doctrine to be declared infallible through this, it must be approved by the pope, intended for all Catholics, and be a doctrine about faith or morals.

Given the discussion required and the number of church leaders involved, I find this to be more valid than Papal infallibility.

 

Ordinary and Universal Magesterium

This one is weak... Essentially, if there is a teaching that all the bishops (including the pope) are certain is true, then it is infallible without a solemn definition. This most likely applies to the majority of infallible dogma. The best example I know of for certain is the doctrine that Catholics don't ordain women as priests. Resurrection and transubstantiation should also fall under this unless one of the councils made a formal ruling on them.

 

The language this stuff is in is starting to wear me out, so I hope I've provided enough information.

[Denyoz]

Dear CatholiKitty,

 

I was intrigued by this thread. I don't know if you still answer questions since your last post is over two months old. I just read the whole thing and now I am intrigued by you.

 

I noticed many things we have in common: knowledge of Catholicism, Agnostic, Patron to this website, love of cats, gender, Skyrim, dancing, Baton Rouge (French? Jimmy Swaggart?), Brothers of the Sacred Heart, actuary-in-training (keeping records for an old institution?), drunk (LOL)

 

I have questions:

 

Do you believe that God is love?

If so, then does God presently love humans?

If so, then how does he manifest his love nowadays?

Do you think/feel/believe that you have a personal relationship with God?

What would you say to an ex-christian to give him hope?

 

I would appreciate if you could give me the Catholic Church's answer to these questions and also your personal answers. No obligation of course.

 

Thanks,

 

Denyoz

[♦ ficino ♦]

Just saying "meow" from an ex-Catholic. Rock on!

[SairB]

I admire, respect, and completely agree with Matthew Fox, et al. and I knew others in the church, including clergy, who felt the same way. However, while I was still attending church (last attended early/mid 1990's), I began to see that "wiggle-room" eroding. From what I can tell now, with Ratz totally in charge, unfortunately there is no "wiggle room" anymore.

 

Ratzinger is temporary, a step back in an overall upward movement. Then again, I was born and raised towards the end of the JP2 era, so I might be a bit more hopeful than realistic. Except from individual church attenders, I haven't really experienced fundie Catholicism. Even at my straight-laced conservative-culture high school, run by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart, we were taught about (at least some of) the bad parts of church history and the bible. We even covered the Babylonian flood myth. (My sophomore year religion teacher was one of the most amazing people I've met. He's a Brother and a vegetarian and strong enough to through a student across the room; he wouldn't, though, because he deeply respects Buddhism and even led us in meditation a few times. He's also bald and taught the bible studies course, and his favorite story to teach is the one where she-bears tore apart the children that made fun of the bald prophet.) I think that Zoroastrianism was mentioned at the beginning of the church history course, but sadly, I don't remember it being expounded upon to any extent.

 

Your sophomore religion teacher sounds like an amazing individual. Every so often, we're met with really inspiring people, and I think it does us good to absorb that inspiration, regardless of what we end up believing in terms of religious faith. People who can and do explore alternatives to their own beliefs without fear and apprehension are particularly valuable. I remember a parish priest who always made his homilies an intellectual exercise and a lesson in history - I never enjoyed mass more than when he was presiding!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hello Catholikitty,

 

I know there is a range among Catholics of how literally they believe the Bible. I don't think there are many literalists as there are among Protestant fundies. Can you talk about what Catholics commit themselves to if they are "orthodox" about Scripture? Bible contradictions are worrisome to fundies, but Catholics seem to shrug them off because they get their beliefs from the church's magisterium, not directly from the Bible. Still, it seems to me that contradictions on matters of fact in the bible should be a concern to Catholics, since a) the church holds that the bible is inerrant in some sense, right? and if the bible can err in some assertions, then it can err in others, and ultimately where does the individual believer draw the line? Just saying "Rome has spoken, the topic is closed" is really no more satisfying than saying "the bible says it, I believe, that settles it." Or is it? Stuff like Ray Brown's books about the infancy narratives go pretty far down the path of genre argumentation, so maybe that's an "out" for enlightened, scholarly Catholics who still want to adhere to all the church's teachings.

[CatholiKitty]

The topic is alive again! ALIVE! ...ahem..Just wanted you all to know that I am always up for answering questions, but I tend to think over each post for a day or more, so the answers will come slowly. Also, I have plans on being busy and drunk again tonight and possibly hungover the next day. I will get to answering things as soon as I have the time and mental capacity to do so.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Rock on!

[Paine]

If anyone has a question about Catholic beliefs/practices/doctrine, I'll do my best to answer them. Questions about my personal beliefs and experiences are acceptable, but I may not answer some.

 

Being that this is in the Lion's Den, it's fine to post comments, rants, accusations, etc,. Please don't expect a reply unless there's an explicit question(s) at the end of post.

 

I suppose that, to a large degree, I'm doing this out of curiosity. I'm interested in knowing what people will ask and comment on regarding the subject. I also hope to clear up a misconception or two I've noticed while browsing the forum; I think everyone here agrees that knowledge is better than ignorance.

 

Yeah...saw the funniest photo the other day of the Pope with his huge miter and HUGE GOLD CROSS staff deal. The caption read....

 

"YOU PRAY FOR ALL THE STARVING CHILDREN AND I'LL HOLD THIS HUGE GOLD CROSS."

 

I almost wet my drawers!!!!

 

So the question at the end of my post is this...... WHY WOULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND GIVE A FUCKING FARTHING TO A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS THAT TRAFFICS IN LITTLE BOYS ASSES AND HANDMADE RED ITALIAN LOAFERS ALL THE WHILE REASSURING THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE ON THE PATH TO "HEAVEN"?

 

*** Former Southern Baptist turned Catholic when mom married a Papist, then saw the light about Catholics on a trip to visit The Daughter's of St. Paul during college, but continued on, deluded as a "real Christian" until about six months ago when the LIGHT came on, and here I am***

[CatholiKitty]

Dear CatholiKitty,

 

I was intrigued by this thread. I don't know if you still answer questions since your last post is over two months old. I just read the whole thing and now I am intrigued by you.

 

I noticed many things we have in common: knowledge of Catholicism, Agnostic, Patron to this website, love of cats, gender, Skyrim, dancing, Baton Rouge (French? Jimmy Swaggart?), Brothers of the Sacred Heart, actuary-in-training (keeping records for an old institution?), drunk (LOL)

 

I have questions:

 

Do you believe that God is love?

If so, then does God presently love humans?

If so, then how does he manifest his love nowadays?

Do you think/feel/believe that you have a personal relationship with God?

What would you say to an ex-christian to give him hope?

 

I would appreciate if you could give me the Catholic Church's answer to these questions and also your personal answers. No obligation of course.

 

Thanks,

 

Denyoz

 

I'm back in this after two months and you hit me with some difficult ones; well played, Sir. Thank you for reading the whole topic. I wasn't sure if anyone had seen the last few posts, and even I forgot exactly what I had written.

Wow, we do have a good deal in common. I'm not French nor have I taken French, and I had to Google Jimmy Swaggart (only to find out that I had looked him up on Wikipedia before), but we still have a lot.

 

I'm going to answer the questions first with my personal views. I'll have to do some research to satisfactorily answer them for the RCC, so I'll do that in a later post.

 

 

1) Do you believe that God is love?

What is love? (Oh baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more.) Obligatory joke aside, this is a bit of a tricky one. Love has so many meanings for different people and even at different times for any individual. For these questions, I'm going to define Love as "the unselfish, loyal, and benevolent concern for the good of another". (from Wikipedia)

What does it mean to be Love? I can't wrap my head around the general case, but for God being love, I'm going to say that it means that it is part of his essence, part of what defines his entire being. Being Love means that God's every action and will is driven be Love.

Defined as above, the answer is yes, I do believe that God is Love. This is a belief only as I don't have any proof about such a far-out unknown such as God's attributes. I believe it nonetheless because if God is not unselfish and loyal and benevolent then bugger all; there would be no way of knowing with any certainty what, if anything, we can do to get on his good side and get our cookie.

 

 

2) If so, then does God presently love humans?

If God is Love, then he would have to love humans. To go into more detail, I think that humans are loved more than the rest of the universe (or creation, whichever you prefer). This isn't because humans are his favorite pet but because human's higher, more complex consciousness enable more love to be directed towards them.

Say a dog has a soul. It dies and the eternal consciousness goes on to heaven. It will be happy (blissful?), but it will still be essentially a dog and do things a disembodied dog would do. The fact of its continued existence would be more-or-less loss on it.

Now say a human has a soul. Death, heaven, happiness. The human was keenly aware of its mortality while alive and is able to appreciate the fact that it still exists. The human is capable of a deeper, more profound joy than the dog. Not the best example, but I trust that you'll understand what I'm getting at.

 

 

3) If so, then how does he manifest his love nowadays?

If God acts in the physical world in modern times, his actions are so subtle and/or unpredictable that I see no reason to claim that he does act. If he acted in the past, then the proof is lost to time. This universe seems to operate (and operate well, at that) as if there is no God. I just assume that the divine process requires something of a "no touching" rule.

Love then, would be shown in the afterlife where absolutely everyone gets to go to Heaven for eternity and genuinely like being there. I suppose that people can opt out of heaven, deciding that it isn't their cup of tea and willing allowing themselves to be sent elsewhere or obliviated. No, this doesn't do anyone any good right now, but it can be seen in a positive light. We're all given an indefinite amount of uninterfered time to do the best we can do to be the best we can be, and after each of our times is over, we each get to enjoy perfect peace.

Some would say that if everyone gets the reward, then the system is unjust. I respond that, in my beliefs, God is not just. Justice is an attempt to impose order onto imperfection by evening things out, reforming bad behavior, deterring and preventing unfairness, and, in its lowest form, punishing wrongdoers so we can say that at least we did something. God lacks nothing and can give infinite of everything to everybody. No one gains from God withholding Love and joy and that stuff, so there is no reason for him to do so.

 

 

4) Do you think/feel/believe that you have a personal relationship with God?

Absolutely not / not really / no

The God I believe in is impersonal, more of a willful force than anything else I can describe simply. I also believe that he is either inactive or at most subtly present in the physical world. There is no real communication, no back-and-forth. How can someone even have a relationship with an immutable being? You can choose to do or not to do what it wants you to, but nothing you do can affect it. You will never make it happy, proud, sad, or even angry. Then again, the immutability thing is entirely debatable.

You (Actually speaking to you, Denyoz, this time as opposed to the impersonal "you" used above) read all my posts, so do you remember my theories about the nature of the universe? One had God withdrawing to make creation, and the other had God creating everything out of some of his own essence. I'm leaning now more towards the essence theory. If that one is true, then it could be possible to do some Buddhist stuff and meditate to contemplate and draw closer to one’s inner divine spark.

 

 

5) What would you say to an ex-christian to give him hope?

Oh my... For what are you looking for hope? I'm going to assume this is asking what is there for ex-christians if my beliefs turn out to be true. Well, humanity will eventually get things right and fix the universe so that life stops being unfair. If you die before then, you get eternal peace/joy/bliss/cookies because you, at some point in time, are/were a person. In short, it will get better.