Author Topic: Former Catholics trolling the forum  (Read 3236 times)

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3941
  • Thanked: 2030 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2020, 10:04:15 AM »
So Pon, you will not be explaining what value is there in abhorring and shunning what you call "base" and "animalistic" for the sake of these mere words and the glorification of your abstract "aesthetics".

Ars gratia artis.  "That life may be good to look at, its play must be well-acted; but for that good actors are needed."  A life lived for virtue and purity is beautiful.  It has a transcendent value—or do only believers have a monopoly on the word "ineffable"?  Even separated from its religious content and motivations, the life of someone like St. Rose of Lima has exceptional beauty and value.  It resonates within our soul because it calls us to something higher than the base and the ordinary.

When you call the sexual act "ugly", you're necessarily de-sexualising beauty.

No.  These two statements are not contradictory: "beauty can be sexual" and "sex is rarely beautiful."

I'm the ultimate arbiter of what I believe.

As are we all.  Everything ends in subjectivism.  But when I make mention of your tendency to brusquely correct people, please take it as constructive criticism.  Maybe I'm only reading an inaccurate sampling of your posts, but I get a sense of your overall tone as "constipated and irritable."  Granted, it's hard to get a good read from text on a screen, but posters like Xavier and myself seem to get your goat and rile you up more than is warranted.  I mean, you just spent what I will assume to be ten or fifteen minutes of your day dissecting my post and responding to it almost sentence-for-sentence.  It's possible that you're a dextrous typist and I'm over-estimating things, but no one is worth responding to so thoroughly and negatively.  Offer up a paragraph or two of compelling alternative.  Xavier's posts sometimes get derided as "pious poopie," but at least he is making some effort to convert, not just condemn.  Isn't there a via Kreuzrittera that you can elucidate for us, if the goal is to encounter Christ and walk in light?  What are the fruits of this encounter that will separate us from the typical netizen getting bogged down in endless disputations?  Heaven knows, I could use deliverance from all this.  I suspect you could as well.
"The sneakiness of prigs, the conventicle secrecy, gloomy concepts like hell, like sacrifice of the guiltless, like unio mystica in drinking blood; above all, the slowly fanned fire of revenge, of chandala revenge—all that is what became master over Rome."

Rome sank to whoredom and became a stew
The Caesars became beasts, and God—a Jew!
 

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2020, 05:08:38 PM »
Name one Pope, Bishop, priest, theologian, baker or farmer before 20th century that disagrees with St Augustine on morals.

To be fair to the other side, I think it would be wrong to frame this as an issue of morals.  It's more about the value assigned to sex.  There were later theologians after Augustine and Jerome who diverged from them and began to gush over the gooey "unitive" aspect of the marital union, raising it up to where it become a close second to, and sometimes indistinguishable from, the procreative aspect. 

It seems to me that the Church, pragmatically speaking, had to lighten up on certain things if she hoped to take in the population of an entire continent.  Sex is such a powerful thing that the religions which eschew it, or take too negative a view for most people's comfort, are almost always doomed.  The Priscillians, the Gnostics, the Cathars, and the Shakers have all been tossed into in the dustbin of history.  Buddhism is similar to Christianity in that its earlier forms were more ascetic and world-denying than the ones which successfully evolved and spread.  I think a certain degree of compromise with the world must be necessary for missionary religions.

I don't think it is necessary to condemn sex as, at best, ugly and base, but legitimate, in order to hold the view that virginity is the higher calling. I am happy to accept that virginity is the higher calling. As a married women, especially with the children that come along with the job, I can tell you that I know virginity is the higher calling. Now obviously "higher calling" simply implies that it is the vocation in which the highest degree of unity to The Bridegroom is possible. It does not mean that every nun is holier than ever wife/mother. That would be absurd. But on the scales, with no other motives or consideration, it is absolutely a higher calling.

I am not sure where you get the idea that the Catholic church has compromised so much in terms of sex. It is not like there is a free-for-all. There is chastity in marriage, and there are very strict guidelines. The church in her wisdom has never said "oh, well we want to be popular so we'll just let people think/do whatever they want."

 
 

Offline Chestertonian

  • The Stephen Hawking of SD
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12640
  • Thanked: 5561 times
  • Eternal Gadfly
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #62 on: January 24, 2020, 05:09:36 PM »
Feeling uncomfortably caught in the middle as you do, it's not the people who "shake the dust from their feet" that you envy, but those who have real faith.

This is true.  Having known the consolation which faith provides, I do envy those who have it.  Although in my case (as with any apostate), my faith may not have been true faith since, as QMR and Vetus Ordo have both averred, true faith cannot result in apostasy.  An apostate, in this view, was never really a believer to begin with.  This is a minority opinion, of course.
sounds like something a fundagelicostal would say
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"
 

Offline Gardener

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9179
  • Thanked: 7096 times
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #63 on: January 24, 2020, 06:05:58 PM »
True faith does not result in apostasy anymore than true chastity results in adultery. But that doesn’t mean someone with true faith cannot become an apostate through gradually or even suddenly losing the faith through sin (especially those subject to too much intellectual pride), and subsequently throwing in the towel. 

It would be ridiculous to say that true faith = never become apostate, since we clearly know of cases where those baptized as infants became apostates. If we are to say they never had true faith, then we are calling into question the very Sacraments and their ability to impart grace, faith, etc. This itself is material for apostasy, ironically.

Vetus is basically a Calvinist and QMR was/is too smart and philosophical for his own good. He was great at tearing things down but never once do I recall him offering anything coherent in the rubble’s place. That’s not a mark of smarts, but being smart enough to be an idiot and not realize it.




 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3941
  • Thanked: 2030 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #64 on: January 24, 2020, 07:56:50 PM »
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Catholic church has compromised so much in terms of sex.

Well, that is odd, because I gave my reasons in the post you quoted and the post I made before it.  We have already seen that both St. Augustine and St. Jerome (among others) took a negative view of sex.  If you can cite theologians who exalted sex either before or contemporaneous with these two Fathers, then that would be interesting.  As it stands, the obvious assumption to make is that the theological views on sex became more relaxed as time went on and the Church absorbed more members.  Nominal pagans became nominal Christians.  This happens with almost every movement.  The integrity and principle of a small and committed group gets progressively watered down as more people come on board.  Especially with missionary movements.  People will naturally want to know two things: "what's in it for me?" and "what is the cost?"  If the cost is too high, your product becomes prohibitive.

It's like the legend about Prince Vladimir of Kiev.  He decided he wanted monotheism for his kingdom, so he requested emissaries from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to come to his court.  A rabbi came and told him about the sacred covenant of circumcision, and Vladimir, aghast, sent him away immediately.  Then an imam came and told him how alcohol was haram.  Vladimir said, "sorry, but we Russians love our vodka too much."  Finally a Christian missionary came from Constantinople.  Vladimir asked him, "is there genital mutilation involved?"  "No," came the answer.  "May we drink alcohol?"  "Of course."  Thus did Russia become Christianized.
"The sneakiness of prigs, the conventicle secrecy, gloomy concepts like hell, like sacrifice of the guiltless, like unio mystica in drinking blood; above all, the slowly fanned fire of revenge, of chandala revenge—all that is what became master over Rome."

Rome sank to whoredom and became a stew
The Caesars became beasts, and God—a Jew!
 

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2020, 06:04:00 AM »
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Catholic church has compromised so much in terms of sex.

Well, that is odd, because I gave my reasons in the post you quoted and the post I made before it.  We have already seen that both St. Augustine and St. Jerome (among others) took a negative view of sex.  If you can cite theologians who exalted sex either before or contemporaneous with these two Fathers, then that would be interesting.  As it stands, the obvious assumption to make is that the theological views on sex became more relaxed as time went on and the Church absorbed more members.  Nominal pagans became nominal Christians.  This happens with almost every movement.  The integrity and principle of a small and committed group gets progressively watered down as more people come on board.  Especially with missionary movements.  People will naturally want to know two things: "what's in it for me?" and "what is the cost?"  If the cost is too high, your product becomes prohibitive.

It's like the legend about Prince Vladimir of Kiev.  He decided he wanted monotheism for his kingdom, so he requested emissaries from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to come to his court.  A rabbi came and told him about the sacred covenant of circumcision, and Vladimir, aghast, sent him away immediately.  Then an imam came and told him how alcohol was haram.  Vladimir said, "sorry, but we Russians love our vodka too much."  Finally a Christian missionary came from Constantinople.  Vladimir asked him, "is there genital mutilation involved?"  "No," came the answer.  "May we drink alcohol?"  "Of course."  Thus did Russia become Christianized.

So now Augustine and Jerome are "The Church." I think you are confused about how dogma and tradition work. Neither of them were even apostles. For crying out loud. Next you are going to say that the church compromised on Our Lady's Immaculate Conception because Aquinas didn't think it was so. Aquinas wasn't the pope. He is allowed to have opinions, at least one of which were later proven incorrect. I am beginning to think your research in this area is shoddy.
 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3941
  • Thanked: 2030 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2020, 07:28:37 AM »
So now Augustine and Jerome are "The Church." I think you are confused about how dogma and tradition work. Neither of them were even apostles. For crying out loud.

Where did I say Augustine and Jerome were the Church?  I said nothing of the sort.  I think you are misreading me, whether willfully or mistakenly, I don't know.  As I said earlier, I think you and I are having some difficulty here, and are going around in circles.  It's probably best to just let this die, but you don't seem to want to.  So I'll bow out of the thread altogether.  This subject was a tangent in the first place.  Peace to all.
"The sneakiness of prigs, the conventicle secrecy, gloomy concepts like hell, like sacrifice of the guiltless, like unio mystica in drinking blood; above all, the slowly fanned fire of revenge, of chandala revenge—all that is what became master over Rome."

Rome sank to whoredom and became a stew
The Caesars became beasts, and God—a Jew!
 

Offline bigbadtrad

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
  • Thanked: 861 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2020, 03:24:58 PM »
But on the subject of sex, I think it's best to understand Augustine and Jerome in the context of the greater Patristic consensus, wherein they can be better understood.  If the consensus on sex were distilled to two points, it would be:

1.  Virginity is superior to the married state, and virginity is to be praised and encouraged.
2.  Sex is to be confined to marriage, as an allowance for concupiscence and for the purpose of begetting children.

In this context, Augustine and Jerome were offering commentary on the aesthetic and spiritual value of sex.  Their views don't contradict at all with the two overarching points of the consensus.  If anything, they were essentially just reformulating the line, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Agreed, but I don't think that was the argument. I think it was the view that sex was shameful, passions are foul and not fitting until after the Fall. That was my contention as I agree with what you said above. I don't think there is consensus for example passion was only after the fall.

As to that there is no Patristic consensus on my points of contention. As to what you said I don't disagree. The Latin fathers had that propensity to make those extreme arguments, but not as easily in the East. Most likely because of the married priesthood, and while there are a few quotes to the contrary to my claim, there is no vast consensus as to my points in the East. Most of the Eastern Fathers would have just repeated what you summarized above, and went no further.

A few examples would be the idea that sex didn't occur in the Garden. And the belief that sex must be shameful as one would not do that in public is ridiculous as birth is not done in public either. Almost all mammals naturally chose seclusion in the act of giving birth. Animals feel no shame but understand the intimacy given by God to protect their progeny.

Also, the logic doesn't follow that what shameful in public is shameful in private. I've spoken only of issues most intimately with my father only in private, I'm not ashamed. The public = good and private = shameful thingy doesn't work for me.

His view that sexual passion was only caused by the fall is not followed by most of his own time, and no theologian believes that for a millennia, namely, that sexual passion was only from the Fall and not an act of disorder.. Passions were made by God and are good, the disordered passion was from the Fall. This is an anomaly found only in certain Latin Patristics. Passion was to be controlled by reason, he asserts it didn't exist at all, that it's "foul". These are my points of contention, not your statements above, in which I'm in agreement.


Quote
I don't think Augustine or Jerome any other Father has a singular authority, but unless a Father's opinion on something contradicts established Church teaching, he can at least be appealed to in a discussion of an unresolved or controversial point—or he can be diverged from, if there is an alternative view.  I fully concede, for this discussion, that there were later theologians who went against Augustine and Jerome.  In terms of myself, I suppose that for a non-Catholic, things can be taken purely à la carte on the basis of nothing other than personal preference.

I admire honesty. Thank you for that.
"God has proved his love to us by laying down his life for our sakes; we too must be ready to lay down our lives for the sake of our brethren." 1 John 3:16
 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay

Offline nmoerbeek

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1831
  • Thanked: 1115 times
    • Alleluia Audio Books
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Former Catholics trolling the forum
« Reply #68 on: February 04, 2020, 02:22:42 PM »
One of the audiobooks that I recorded dealt with the authority of the Fathers if anyone is interested
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/catholic-audiobook-the-authority-of-the-fathers/

If you don't like the sound of my voice this is the book which I took a large excerpt from:
https://archive.org/details/manualofpatrolog00schmuoft

If you are interested in a good summary of the history of thought on Catholic Sexuality take a look at the heavily foot noted: Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation & Defense, I have the 3rd edition.    It does have a chapter called "Sex and Catholic Tradition" which is a good outline of how the Church developed its teaching from the Earliest Fathers to modern times.  It does have a few holes in it if I recall (for example I don't think it makes mention of the Shepherd of Hermes or Pope Innocent III's LIBER DE QUADRIPARTITA SPECIE NUPTIARUM (which shows that certain ideas are older than the 16th or 17th century).


 

"Let me, however, beg of Your Beatitude...
not to think so much of what I have written, as of my good and kind intentions. Please look for the truths of which I speak rather than for beauty of expression. Where I do not come up to your expectations, pardon me, and put my shortcomings down, please, to lack of time and stress of business." St. Bonaventure, From the Preface of Holiness of Life.

Apostolate:
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Contributor:
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/
Lay Association:
http://www.militiatempli.net/
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne