Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General News and Discussion / Re: All kinds of wrong
« Last post by james03 on Today at 11:09:48 PM »
The parents are morons.  Yeah, football is tough on boys and they get their butts kicked.  This is why football players often do well in the real world.  The coach hints at problems with the parents in his statement.  I'm glad I've cut myself off from the N.O.  Freak show.

The US is toast, it is just a matter of time now.
2
The Sacred Sciences / Re: Free will and foreknowledge
« Last post by james03 on Today at 11:01:51 PM »
Quote
That just means Man's perspective is wrong. Two contradictory perspectives can't both be true. If, from God's eyes, all our choices are frozen eternally, then it was never open for us to do otherwise, even if it appears so.

It is not about perspective.  We are two entirely different beings.  We are inside of time.  He is outside of time.
3
General News and Discussion / Re: All kinds of wrong
« Last post by Maximilian on Today at 11:01:51 PM »
Turns out it's not just the priest being attacked by the family. They have also gotten the football coach fired for showing up at the funeral.

Their child commits suicide, and now it's time to lash out and destroy everyone around. Unfortunately, this is the reality of society these days. You're really walking through a minefield.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/bully-coach-shows-funeral-teen-player-committed-suicide-184706352.html

'Bully' football coach fired after showing up to funeral of teen player who committed suicide

Maison Hullibarger, a former football star at Bedford High School in Temperance, Michigan, and a criminal justice student at the University of Toledo, committed suicide on Dec. 4. He was 18, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Jeffrey Wood, Maison’s football coach in high school, went to the funeral on Dec. 8. Linda Hullibarger, Maison’s mother, did not want him there. According to Jeff Hullibarger, Maison’s father, Wood has been bullying kids for years. In fact, four of his sons played for him.

“We knew Maison would not want him at his funeral. He did not treat Maison kindly. So it was our wish that he would not be there,” Linda told the Free Press.

And after one of the couple’s sons asked Wood to leave, Wood went to social media and said this:

“I was just asked to leave a funeral by a family member of a deceased football player. If you need someone to blame, I’m your man, I’m your fall guy. This is how society is when things go not as planned. We blame others for our own shortcomings. This tragedy is not about me or you. It’s about looking in the mirror as a human being and being real and honest with yourself.”

The coach was later fired after posting his comments.

A terrible homily
The Free Press’ report depicts a shocking scene that unfolded at Hullibarger’s funeral.

When Maison’s parent’s looked for comfort from their priest at the funeral, the priest delivered a disturbing homily about suicide.

The parents met with Father Don LaCuesta of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church before the funeral to discuss what they expected to hear in the homily. Linda said they wanted LaCuesta to celebrate Maison’s life, not how he died.

But LaCuesta went against the Hullibarger’s wishes. “It was his time to tell everybody what he thought of suicide, [and] we couldn’t believe what he was saying,” Jeff told the newspaper. Jeff explained how LaCuesta condemned Maison, by calling him a sinner. People told Jeff there was almost a smirk on LaCuesta’s face.

“He wondered if he had repented enough to make it to heaven. He said ‘suicide’ upwards of six times,” Jeff said. The homily was so disturbing that a few young men who were Maison’s age left the church crying,  Jeff mentioned.

Jeff marched to the pulpit and politely asked LaCuesta to stop, but said LaCuesta didn’t oblige. After the service, Jeff and Linda told LaCuesta he wasn’t allowed at Maison’s gravesite burial.  After the funeral, LaCuesta, according to the couple, prevented them from eulogizing their son.

“I had words prepared, but when [the priest] was done, he was going to finish mass without giving anybody else the opportunity to say anything. He had the organist start playing and they were going to roll the casket out — some nerve,” Jeff said.

The Archdiocese of Detroit issued the following statement about the matter:

 “We share the family’s grief at such a profound loss. Our hope is always to bring comfort into situations of great pain, through funeral services centered on the love and healing power of Christ. “Unfortunately, that did not happen in this case. We understand that an unbearable situation was made even more difficult, and we are sorry. “After some reflection, the presider agrees that the family was not served as they should have been served. For the foreseeable future, he will not be preaching at funerals and he will have his other homilies reviewed by a priest mentor. In addition, he has agreed to pursue the assistance he needs in order to become a more effective minister in these difficult situations. “We have been in contact with the family since learning of this situation, and we will continue to offer our support going forward.

At the gravesite burial, Jeff and Lina “gave our own blessing of Maison, with everybody who loved him,” Jeff said.

Jeff and Linda thanked those who donated money to a GoFundMe site that would help with funeral expenses. Without the donations, “this would’ve been financially devastating for us,” Jeff said.

The couple later said they will never return to Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church. Linda said, “No, no, no!”
4
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Theory about The Crisis and the chaos
« Last post by james03 on Today at 10:33:59 PM »
Quote
Learning how to obey authority is indeed the most important thing - for a five year old.  However, good parents help their children make good decisions on their own over time, as the children gain more maturity and ability to do so - and not only the bare fact of making good decisions, but internalizing the reasons why they are good.  If they don't, the children don't grow up, and disaster (usually) ensues when they leave home and haven't had any practice of making decisions without parents looking over their shoulder.  Moreover, even before leaving the house, the only thing that matters is getting on the parents' good side or being on their bad side - and thus, the motive for good actions is "appeasing parental wrath".  But how would a parent react if he knew a child was acting like that, thinking about "paying off a parental debt" rather than making good decisions because they are good?

I agree teaching kids is important.  And I'm on record for complaining about Trad schools that stop at Algebra II in math as one small example.

At the same time authority, and following authority is important.  You learn that if you have to lead men.  I have a saying I live by: "When you are in charge, you have the right to be wrong."  That's how important it is to have authority maintained in a group.  That is masculine.  Feminine "collaboration" management is destroying this country.  It is gutting out our industries.

Quote
Therefore the focus is on "assuaging God's wrath", which what Satisfaction/Reparation theology basically is about, instead of doing good because it is good.
  I have not been following this thread recently, so I don't know the context.  The Wrath of God is real.  Just read the account of God wiping out a bunch of Israel because David banged a married woman.  I agree the focus of our life should be on virtue, however I reject your apparent false dichotomy.  Do both, with the focus on virtue primarily.

Come to think about it, your first point is another false dichotomy.  So a man can't teach obedience on one hand, and at the same time teach skills?  Really?
5
The Bookstore / Re: RULE/MARTYROLOGY THREAD
« Last post by OmniaInstaurareInChristo on Today at 10:19:03 PM »

The reading appointed from the Rule of St. Benedict for December 17:


CHAPTER LXII
Of the Priests of the Monastery


If any Abbot desire to have a priest or deacon ordained for his Monastery, let him choose from among his monks one who is worthy to fulfil the priestly office. And let him that is ordained beware of arrogance and pride, and presume to do nothing that is not commanded him by the Abbot, knowing that he is now all the more subject to regular discipline. Let him not, by reason of his priesthood, become forgetful of the obedience and discipline of the Rule, but advance ever more and more in godliness. Let him always keep the place due to him according to his entrance into the Monastery, except with regard to his office at the altar, or unless the choice of the community and the will of the Abbot should raise him to a higher place for the merit of his life. Nevertheless, let him know that he must observe the rules prescribed by the deans or Prior. Should he presume to do otherwise, he shall be judged, not as a priest, but as a rebel; and if after frequent warning he do not correct himself, let recourse be had to the intervention of the Bishop.* If even then he will not amend, and his guilt is clearly shewn, let him be cast forth from the Monastery, provided his contumacy be such that he will not submit nor obey the Rule.




Martyrology-December 18th
Roman Martyrology-December 18th-on this date in various years-


At Philippi in Macedonia, the birthday of the holy martyrs Rufus and Zosimus, who were of the number of disciples by whom the primitive church was founded among the Jews and the Greeks. Their happy martyrdom is mentioned by St. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians.


At Laodicea in Syria, the martyrdom of the Saints Theotimus and Basilian.


In Africa, the holy martyrs Quinctus, Simplicius, and others who suffered in the persecution of Decius and Valerian.


In the same country, St. Moses, martyr.


Also in Africa, the holy martyrs Victurus, Victor, Victorinus, Adjutor, Quartus, and thirty others.


At Mopsuestia in Cilicia, St. Auxentius, bishop, who, being at first a soldier under Licinius, preferred to surrender his military insignia rather than offer grapes to Bacchus. Having been made a bishop, he was renowned for his merit, and died in peace.


At Tours in France, St. Gratian, appointed first bishop of that city by Pope St. Fabian. Celebrated for many miracles, he calmly went to his repose in the Lord.


And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.
6
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Theory about The Crisis and the chaos
« Last post by Arvinger on Today at 09:12:53 PM »
Learning how to obey authority is indeed the most important thing - for a five year old.  However, good parents help their children make good decisions on their own over time, as the children gain more maturity and ability to do so - and not only the bare fact of making good decisions, but internalizing the reasons why they are good.  If they don't, the children don't grow up, and disaster (usually) ensues when they leave home and haven't had any practice of making decisions without parents looking over their shoulder.  Moreover, even before leaving the house, the only thing that matters is getting on the parents' good side or being on their bad side - and thus, the motive for good actions is "appeasing parental wrath".  But how would a parent react if he knew a child was acting like that, thinking about "paying off a parental debt" rather than making good decisions because they are good?

Now Michael Wilson claimed that an "angry God" is not part of Catholicism but the very words used in Catechisms and in popular speech in the West contradict him, for sin means that God is "offended" and He will therefore punish, not in the sense that a good parent would punish to correct bad behavior, but to get vengeance.  Therefore the focus is on "assuaging God's wrath", which what Satisfaction/Reparation theology basically is about, instead of doing good because it is good.

Number of problems here:
1) Not everyone is God's child. Only baptized Catholics are God's children, others are in dominion of the devil. Also, a child can decide to runaway from the parent (as baptized Catholics do by commiting mortal sin) and die on its own - it does not mean its parent's fault. Or, if a child runs away and commits a crime, a parent can provide evidence so his child is punished by the state, as justice requires that. 
2) False equalization between parental love of a human and God's parental love, which reveals a very anthropocentric worldview. God loves us and set up the plan of salvation primarily for his own self-glorification. Once you reject anthropocentrism and take a theocentric view of God's plan, there is no contradiction nor problem.
3) Notice that when speaking about judgment and what is God's purpose for us, St. Paul compares us not to children, but to pots made by the potter, rhetoricaly asking how can the pot complain to the potter.
7
The Sacred Sciences / Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Last post by Arvinger on Today at 08:47:49 PM »
The idea that epistemology must rely upon outside infallible authority, or else it is only private judgment and therefore only opinion and not knowledge, is a false dichotomy, and makes faith essentially irrational.  In fact it makes man essentially irrational.  And, just as with the attempt to deny the law of non-contradiction, it is self-refuting - one has to assume there are certain conclusions of reason that are not mere opinions and yet do not rely on outside infallible authority even to get the argument off the ground.

If you don't have infallible authority, it necessarily means that every claim is fallible and could be wrong, which relegates it to the level of private interpretation/opinion, which cannot be epistemological basis for knowledge.

And yes, we all have presuppositions - I presuppose truthfulness of the Catholic Church, an atheist making truth claims must presupposes that his cognitive faculties are reliable, that the past in fact happened, that inductive reasoning is reliable, etc. Some presuppositions are always necessary, without them there is infinite regress of verifying authorities.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Why listen to the "infallible authority" in the first place?  You have to use reason and logic to see that it should be followed.  Otherwise, you have to simply say that you listen to the infallible authority because it says to be listened to, which sets you off on an infinite regress.

But then, your "final infallible authority" isn't really the first step in the epistemological chain - it is the realization that it is a fundamental presupposition to be taken axiomatically and thus not to be submit it to further verification.  And how do you come to that knowledge, if you do not already have it?  And also, you need to know what your "final infallible authority" is actually authoritatively saying in order to submit to it, but if your only basis for knowledge of that is the authority itself, you end up in an infinite regress or having to resort to "private judgment" somewhere along the way.

I use reason only to arrive to the knowledge about infallible authority, but from that point on I take it as a fundamental presupposition and no longer base it on my reasoning. Although my interpretation of Scripture and Church history lead me to Catholicism, the reason why I'm a Catholic is not because I believe my interpretation of Scripture is correct and it does not rely upon it, as that would subject Catholic Church to my interpretation of Scripture as a higher authority (as you correctly point out). So, if somebody makes a conuter-argument based on Church history or interpretation of Scripture (the means I used to arrive to conclusion that Catholicism is true) that I am unable to refute, that does not affect my position of truthfulness of Catholicism, since from the moment I arrived to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is true, it becomes a fundamental presupposition, truthfulness of which no longer relies upon the means I arrived to it (otherwise it would not be the final authority, these means and my judgment of them would be). 

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
The notion that epistemological presuppositions need no justification is the very definition of irrationality and makes of faith a farce.  The Muslim likewise assumes that the truth of the holy Quran is the final infallible authority and any arguments against it are ipso facto invalid.  Therefore, his conversion is impossible.

1) It does not make it irrational, because I can still make rational arguments indicating truthfulness of these presuppositions. However, these arguments are not the basis for faith.
2) In case of a Muslim, yes - at the end of the day everyone has some presuppositions, without any presuppositions we would face an infintie regress of verifying authorities and knowledge would be impossible. For example, someone claiming the world around us is a hologram could say "an atheist assumes that the world around him is real and his cognitive faculties are reliable, and any argument agaist this is ipso facto invalid." When we arrive to the level of authority which someone holds as final, we can only hope to provide arguments indicating that he made an incorrect presupposition and chose wrong final authority. If he believes that any such argument is ipso facto invalid, there is indeed nothing that can be done, epistemologically speaking of course.
3) Some presuppositions account for a worldview, other don't. Catholic do - explaining where knowledge, logic, morality, reliability of cognitive faculties etc. come from and how can we know them, atheistic don't.

Quote from: Quareperepulisti
That is gratuitously asserted so it will be gratuitously denied.
You use the term "self-evident" to describe claims which are, epistemologically speaking, your interpretations and fallible private judgments, therefore it is perfectly fine to point out that your use of this term is an epistemological cop-out which you use when it suits you.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
That is merely argument by assertion.  And it is fallacious: You confuse knowledge with the ability to provide a satisfactory epistemological justification.  It's one thing to say an atheist can't provide a satisfactory epistemological justification for his worldview or what he claims to know; quite another to say he knows nothing whatsoever at all.
No, you confuse knowledge with truth. You can say something that is objectively true, but it is a different thing than knowing it - knowledge requires epistemological justification. So, an atheist can hold positions and make claims which are objectively true, but if he cannot provide epistemological justification for this claim, he does not know it.

For example, I can claim that St. Paul wrote the Letter to Hebrews. That claim might be objectively true, but I cannot say I know it, because I lack epistemological justification for this claim. Likewise, an atheist cannot. 

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Even Scripture, when blaming him for his atheism, says precisely that he is to blame due to other knowledge he has (e.g. the light of things which are made).  Now, since you see Scripture as an infallible authority, you are contradicting the very authority you hold up as infallible.

Yes, but he has this knowledge because God exists and He is the foundation and necessary precondition for knowledge. If there was no God no knowledge would be possible (since we would be left with our cognitive faculties, reliability of which is impossible to verify).

Quote from: Quareperemulisti
If you are right, it would be impossible for an atheist to come to knowledge of God.  Cosmological arguments are out of bounds, for he does not and cannot know their premises are true.  He cannot even know that he does not have a proper epistemological justification for his viewpoint.  He can't even know that you are telling him that he needs God as a fundamental presupposition, and can't make any kind of logical argument, since his cognitive faculties might be unreliable.
God exists, thus his existence provides epistemological justification for these things. What you wrote actually explains perfectly why existence of God must be taken as a fundamental presupposition rather than merely result of one's reasoning (which does not mean that rational arguments to support the existence of God can't be made, as Vatican I teaches - arguments of Aristotle or Aquinas can still be used, and you can use them to arrive to the point when you make existence of God a presupposition which no longer relies upon these arguments).

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Yes, it does mean precisely that, for it means the existence of God must be presupposed before any rational arguments can even be made for His existence, which means it is impossible for someone who does not already know the existence of God to attain to that knowledge.
The fact that God is a necessary foundation for knowledge is in itself a rational argument, as it points out that without God obtaining any knowledge is impossible. But an atheist believes that knowledge can be obtained, therefore it can be pointed out to him that his claim that knowledge can be obtained can be justified only in case God exists, which is a rational argument for the existence of God. Evidence presupposes truth, truth presupposes God.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
But you don't know that.  No infallible authority told you that (2) denies teaching of the Church. Nor did any infallible authority tell you your implications stemming from that.
Yes, it is my private judgment of your words. But the burden is on you, since you make the claims in regarding to the teaching of the Church. As long as these claims are a private judgment (which they are), they cannot possibly constitute evidence against what the Church teaches.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Wait, how do you know it is epistemologically prior?  Which infallible authority told you so?  And how do you know you even hold to Church teaching on Indefectibility?  Which infallible authority told you that?
The Church, I do not subject Church teaching to my external judgment, I submit to it. Also, I can use my private judgment in certain situations, because existence of God provides justification for my worldview and its presuppositions (an athest doesn't have such justification), and the Catholic Church has not defined every fact of reality dogmatically. However, I can't use private judgment to deny teaching of the Church.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Wait, how do you know I reject it?  Which infallible authority told you so?
If you don't reject it, there is no reason to debate because none of us two questions the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church and we agree on it. If you reject it, you are wrong, because you do it on the basis of your private judgment. Either way, the doctrine stands.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Which infallible authority told you what I explicitly said?
Again,
1) if I misinterpreted your words (however unlikely that is) and you hold to indefectibility of the Church, the doctrine stands. If you reject it, it also stands since you reject it on the basis of your private judgment.
2) The Church does not teach what QMR explicitly said (therefore I can use my private judgment here), but does teach indefectibility (so I can't use my private judgment to evaluate it).

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Pope Francis' teachings on the death penalty are empirical fact.

But the implications you draw from this teaching is not an empirical fact, merely your private judgment as to what this teaching means for the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Quote
...it is merely your private interpretation of events in the Church which you use to reject Church's teaching, therefore elevating your judgment over the Magisterium.

Because Church's teaching has epistemological primacy, I know a priori that whatever happened and will happen in the future, it cannot and does not constitute A.

Only if you're willing to throw logic overboard.

Now you smuggle your private interpretation of events in the Church and their implications for the doctrine of indefectibility as "logic", while it is nothing else than your personal judgment which cannot trump teaching of the Church.

As I said on another thread, your epistemology is not Catholic at all, it is Protestant - for you to accept a dogma, it must first pass a test of verification through your private judgment (indefectibiltiy evidently did not make it through this verification), making your private judgment the higher authority that the Church. This is exactly how Protestantism was born - Luther judged that the Catholic doctrine is wrong on the basis of his private judgment, you do the same.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
If Pope Francis is right, then the Church not only permitted but positively supported a "cruel" and "inhumane" practice for centuries - certainly, "cruel" and "inhumane" practices are intrinsically evil.
If Pope Francis is wrong, then Church teaching does not have epistemological primacy - you have to submit it to your own judgment to conclude it is wrong.

Take your pick.

You can, of course, choose a different version of virtue ethics than the Thomistic version, adopt some sort of situation ethics and abandon the notion of "intrinsic evil" or something like that, and conclude that both Pope Francis and the earlier Church were correct.  But you're still abandoning the traditional understanding of things.

Or there is another solution, like the Chair of Peter being vacant, Siri theory, or some solution we did not come up with yet. The bottom line is - I don't have to know the explanation to know that it exists. The fact that the Church teaches X means that any arguments against X have to be wrong and there is some solution to this difficulty, even if I dont know it.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Quote
Your epistemological take on this issue is no different from that of a Protestant who interprets the Bible and claims that his interpretation falsifies teaching of the Catholic Church, only that you interpret events in the Church and claim they falsify teaching of the Church. In both cases the error lies is in subjecting Church's teaching to external verification through private judgment rather than recognizing its epistemological primacy.
There is a difference, you know, between private judgment/interpretation and rigorous logical argument.
Epistemologically, none. Protestants can also claim that their arguments against Catholic teaching are "logical and rigorous", or an atheist can say that by "logical and rigorous argumentation" he proved contradictions in the Bible. But we know that the Bible is inerrant, therefore whatever argument he makes must be wrong, which you agreed with on another thread earlier. How do you know the argument is logical and rigorous? Your private judgment.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
If a Protestant could prove, by rigorous logical argumentation, that teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the Bible, then Catholicism (or at least that teaching) would in fact be falsified.  But instead, Protestants pick one of several possible interpretations of Scripture passages and use that as "proof" of the falsity of Catholicism.  But that is not logically rigorous - other interpretations of those passages are compatible with Catholic teaching. The Protestant is picking what is only possibly true as an argument.
Hypothetically he could, but since we know the Catholic Church is true (a fundamental presupposition), it is practically impossible and such situation will never happen. Therefore, we can know a priori that Protestant's argument does not falsify truthfulness of Catholicism before he even opens his mouth. To say otherwise if to subject Catholic Church to a higher authority.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
However, I can prove by rigorous logical argumentation that Pope Francis' teachings are not compatible with the traditional understanding of Indefectibility and morality.  I am using what is certainly true as an argument.

But you don't do just that, you draw a further conclusion that the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church is false, which is a private judgment. I, on the other hand, know that since the Church teaches indefectibility, Francis' teaching on death penalty cannot constitute or prove defection of the Church and an explanation must exist.

As I said, it is the same as with alleged errors in the Bible. You admitted on another thread that when an atheist points to alleged errors in the Bible, we know he is wrong because Scripture is inerrant. Same here - we know that arguments against indefectibiltiy are wrong because this doctrine is taught by the Church and thus is true.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Your claim that that is mere "private judgment" is a bare assertion devoid of truth.  If you think 2 + 2 = 4 is merely matter of "private judgment" then you have simply abandoned rationality, and good luck with that.

Without God it is absolutely a private judgment - rules of logic and mathematics need epistemological justification as well, they are not a given. How do you know that an alternative reality with another system of mathematics or logic does not exist? Thus, an atheist cannot appeal to logic or mathematics, because he has no epistemological justification for them.
8
I swear, is it by Divine Providence that Quare makes an argument that Satisfaction theology and an overtly extreme emphasis of authority above any other aspect of a Christian spiritual life leads to broken people abdicating their own flaws and responsibilities in a childlike fashion, and then three users proceed to act like children in ways that I've never seen in YouTube comments?

I mean, even the Pharisees were able to conceal their brokenness by wearing masks of public humility - why has your mask fallen off?

I noticed that and was too distracted to comment at the time.

Is Satisfaction theology similar to Reparation theology? I've been arguing that an over emphasis on Reparation theology has induced passivity in Catholics, particularly Trads.   The emphasis is constantly on suffering, making sacrifices, making reparation for all the insults and blasphemies etc, but never on taking action, or on doing anything.  In fact, taking action is positively discouraged.

The modern Marian apparitions have played a part in this.

Yes.  All this, more than anything else, in my opinion, why the West is seriously sick and has been for some time, in fact well before Vatican II.

Learning how to obey authority is indeed the most important thing - for a five year old.  However, good parents help their children make good decisions on their own over time, as the children gain more maturity and ability to do so - and not only the bare fact of making good decisions, but internalizing the reasons why they are good.  If they don't, the children don't grow up, and disaster (usually) ensues when they leave home and haven't had any practice of making decisions without parents looking over their shoulder.  Moreover, even before leaving the house, the only thing that matters is getting on the parents' good side or being on their bad side - and thus, the motive for good actions is "appeasing parental wrath".  But how would a parent react if he knew a child was acting like that, thinking about "paying off a parental debt" rather than making good decisions because they are good?

Now Michael Wilson claimed that an "angry God" is not part of Catholicism but the very words used in Catechisms and in popular speech in the West contradict him, for sin means that God is "offended" and He will therefore punish, not in the sense that a good parent would punish to correct bad behavior, but to get vengeance.  Therefore the focus is on "assuaging God's wrath", which what Satisfaction/Reparation theology basically is about, instead of doing good because it is good.




9
The Sacred Sciences / Re: What if Theistic Evolution were true?
« Last post by Arvinger on Today at 07:21:50 PM »
Sacred Scripture and conclusions based on its exegesis are evidence, which you dismiss because you put greater weight on what scientists say.

Just so we're clear.  Because I think we have a drastically different way of understanding the issue, and until and unless this is resolved our discussion will lead nowhere.

According to you, exegesis need not take into account empirical data nor need it be consistent with empirical data.  If anyone claims a certain exegesis is wrong because it doesn't accord with empirical data (data not perhaps available when the exegesis was constructed, but available today), his arguments are to be dismissed out of hand unless he can present strictly exegetical arguments, and his claim of disaccord with empirical data is to be rejected out of hand as mere "interpretation" and putting greater weight on what others say.

That is a misrepresenation of my position. I never said that empirical data should not be taken into account or that exegesis can be inconsistent with empirical data. Rather, our understanding of empirical data should be informed by Sacred Scripture (where relevant), so that interpretations of empirical data which are inconsistent with solid exegesis of Scripture are most likely wrong (and for sure wrong in case results of this exegesis constitute infallible teaching of the Church) and we need to look for other explanations - that does not mean disregarding empirical data and observation, but rather interpreting it in a manner which does not contradict the content of God's Revelation.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
According to me, exegesis must take into account empirical data and must be consistent with empirical data.

Correct exegesis will always be consistent with empirical data, because there is no contradiction between Scripture and empirical truth. However, your "empirical data" in reality means "empirical data and their interpretation" - there is no such thing as "empirical data alone", much like Protestants don't believe "Bible alone", but "Bible and my interpretation of it". For example, you have geological formations and their datings - this is empirical data. However, a claim that these datings mean that world is billions of years old is your personal interpretation of this data. If such interpretation is inconsistent with solid exgesis of Scripture, it is strong evidence that it is wrong.

So, if tomorrow a Pope (hypothetically speaking, leaving the current claimants to the Papacy and the sede vacante issue out of it) defined dogmatically that Earth is 6000 years old it would be a decisive evidence that all interpretations of data pointing towards billions of years old earth are wrong (since dogma and empirical data cannot contradict). That does not mean disregardng empirical data - rather, a necessity to re-examine it to find a solution consistent with the dogma (such solution would have to exist, since the dogma is for sure true, therefore correct interpretation of empirical data cannot contradict it). 

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
If it does not, and if that exegesis is followed, the claim of Scripture as Divine revelation is not credible, every bit as much as if we had sworn testimony from hundreds of witnesses present at the wedding at Cana who claimed the wine actually did run out and there was no more to be had, and Catholicism demands that the claim of Divine revelation be credible.

Again, you illustrate the problem. You would rather believe testimonies of fallible people and your interpretation of it ("these people say X, I think they are credible, and I think it constitutes evidence refuting Scriptural claim" is interpretation) over infallible Word of God. So, you subject the Word of God and the Magisterium (like you did with indefectibility of the Church) to your external verification through your reasoning, empirical data and your private interpretation of data, rather than subjecting these and verifying them through the Word of God and the Magisterium.

Your epistemology (Scripture and Magisterium must be interpreted in a manner consistent with my personal interpretation of empirical data, rather than my interpretation of empirical data having to be consistent with Scripture and Magisterium) is not Catholic at all. We believe in order to understand, not understand in order to believe, as St. Augustine and Anselm of Canterbury rightly said.

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Ancillary issues are:

If you admit the possibility of an old earth, then this entails some sort of progressive creationism or theistic evolution (although not necessarily evolution by means of "random" mutation, but programmed evolution as ID theorists have it), or (as I think) some combination of the two.

And old-earthers have made plenty of exegetical arguments.  You can go to the biologos website for examples.

Yes, I am fine with progressive creationism and Old Earth. I don't believe it is the strongest position exegetically, but it is within the realm of possibility.
10
Coffee and Donuts / Re: Hello All
« Last post by Michael Wilson on Today at 06:55:02 PM »
Live in SW, too. I am worse than you.

Welcome.  :cheeseheadbeer:

Well this doesn't bode well for me then...

Live in SW, too. I am worse than you.

Welcome.  :cheeseheadbeer:
Maybe, but does he lift as well as you?

I lift worse than Heinrich.
Who don't?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10