Only Catholics and total apostates are consistent on last 1700 years

Eternal love is the greatest possible good according to you and the Church. I do not think it is so possible, and am perfectly happy with plain ol’ love till death do us part.

Question, what things do you consider to be GREATER goods than intimate relationships of intellect and will?

I would hold self-fulfillment at about the same level; however, that fulfillment can easily be in large part due to such intimate relationships.

What do you mean by self-filfillment? Egotistical accomplishments? Physical gratificaiton?

To borrow Abraham Maslow’s terminology, self-actualization: overcoming obstructions, being an individual, aspiring to and achieving greatness. It need not be selfish: one can be great by assisting others. It need not be about materialistic wants, desires, and lusts; ascetics are rightly regarded as people to look up to for their forsaking such things.

In other words, the glory of humanity is that we are human.

This sounds ridiculous.

What is there inherent in the Anglican faith that makes Anglicans unable to fully understand history?

Ah never mind…you attempted to address it…

It still sounds ridiculous though.

maybe I could clarify:

Whether we think some major development was good or bad, in the general sense, depends on our ecclesiology.

All Christians will agree that Islam is bad.

From the Orthodox standpoint, the Schism was actually the West breaking away from truth, and the true faith being retained by the 4 Apostolic Sees. The Protestants will perceive the Orthodox as better than Catholics, seeing as at least, they don’t trust Peter’s successor. They are beginning to save humanity from falsely imposed authority.

For Catholics it is other way around.

For Catholics, the Protestant Rebellion is ultimately something bad, scores of Christians breaking with the Church in a much more serious way, losing five sacraments and the totality of Oral Trad. Most Orthodox would probably also say that Protestants are in a worse spiritual condition than Catholics, seeing as they only trust Scripture, and don’t have Tradition, and that they don’t have valid Bishops.

But Protestants see the Protestant “Reformation” as something good, true Christians being freed from the false imposition of the notion of Bishops and Oral Tradition, and now discovering that the Gospel is much simpler than Rome has made it to be, and that we only need Scripture.

The Enlightenment will be viewed as a bad thing by all Christians, seeing as it utterly rejects all Divine Revelation and Salvation, or Intervention. But the children of the enlightenment will view it as good, in that humanity finally discovers that the notion of DIvine Revelation and Intervention is just fiction, myth, and that, on our merely natural power and intelligence, we can know everything about God that we need to and obey it.

The Secular apostasy is bad for all the aforementioned groups, but the apostates will see all the previous stages as BS. For them, even the notion of natural religion is BS.

There you have it, one can KNOW historical facts, but HOW one views them depends on one’s religion.

Is that clearer?

OK I think I understand…

Since you believe that your denomination is the true church of Jesus Christ and us Protestants are heretics, y’all (being of the true faith and all of that) have an understanding of history that us heretics can not attain to.

Now Edwin (Contrini) on this forum (being a PHD level church historian who has probably forgotten more than I know concerning church history) seems to be a contradiction to this assertion, at least in my feeble mind. If I must say, he seems to understand history even better than y’all. And he’s not even Catholic. Imagine that.

But whatever.

Carry on.

Not saying Contaniri doesn’t KNOW historical facts in much greater detail. I’m talking about UNDERSTANDING the true MEANING of such facts, much less the greater developments.

In sixth grade, kids KNOW that the area of a circle is pi r squared, where pi is irrational and is approximately 3.1416.

But do they understand WHY that is? Much less HOW to compute pi?

This is not a perfect example, but it illustrates that to know WHATS only is less than knowing the WHY’s of the WHATS.

I think your problem is a failure to draw a distinction between FACTS versus their true meaning and what is really going on in a SPIRITUAL sense.

Hence, when one has ERRORS in their spiritual doctrine, they will not fully understand the SPIRITUAL meaning of what is really going ON with the facts. They may know the FACTS, but they will not fully understand how God VIEWS those facts from His point of view.

Case in point: Was the objective spiritual results of the Protestant Rebellion on its victims good or bad?

Well, depends on whether you are Catholic or Protestant.

For one, a Protestant would say the Protestants were not victims but redeemed from a false hierarchy. Catholics would say they meant well but suffered spiritual damage, namely, they lost five sacraments and the Tradition that would help them understand the Scriptures they sincerely wanted to understand. Hence, the Church would say the confusion in Protestantism that ensued is simply the intrinsic fruit of losing trust in the Church hierarchy, even though, admittedly, given the scandal, it was understandable.

Ok I understand.

Still, I will trust Edwin’s understanding of history over anybody else’s understanding of history on this forum until that person can demonstrate an equivalent understanding of historical facts as Edwin has.

After all…“meaning” has to have a factual basis. If your facts are wrong, you have no meaning…

In fact isn’t “meaning” separate from facts just another word for “opinion”.

Carry on.

Edwin can know facts of history, but because he is a heretic, he cannot fully understand. In fact, because of his religious affiliation, some things he considers to be true will in fact be wrong.

For one, since Edwin is Episcopalian, he will consider himself Catholic in the proper sense, which he is not, he is a heretic, hopefully only materially.

Hence, whereas he may “think” that he has all seven sacraments, OBJECTIVELY, the fact is that he only has two, Baptism and Marriage. He has no Eucharist, nor Confession, nor Confirmation, nor Holy Orders, nor the Annointing of the Sick. Or worse, he may claim that the only Sacraments Christ instituted are Baptism and Communion, which is false.

Thirdly, he may assert that he is in union with Peter but he is not. If he asserts that Peter’s Successor is not the Supreme TEacher of the Faith on Earth, he is wrong. If He asserts that any Catholic Dogma that has been promulageted over the last 1700 years is not true, then he is in “fact” wrong.

What Edwin CAN say is, “The Catholic Church claimed that the Virgin was conceived without sin”, which IS a fact. But is the CLAIM true? Most Protestants and some Orthodox will say that CLAIM is false teaching. Hence, from an unbiased standpoint, all a person can say about a religious doctrine is, “Such and such a religious person CLAIMED something to be true.” And that would be REPORTING a historical FACT.

But how do we determine whether the CLAIM ITSELF is true?

That is a judgement that Edwin will not always be correct on precisely BECAUSE he is a heretic, although hopefully just an innocent one.

One may understand without agreeing.

Aside…one thing that has and continues to totally irritate me is the use of the word “heretic” to mean someone that disagrees with me and my denomination.

If Edwin (and myself) were real heretics, you should reject us after a couple of warnings because we are perverted, sinning, and self-condemned (Titus 3:10-11)…

For grins and giggles someday check out what St. Iranaeus thought of and how he treated heretics sometime. Then check out how heretics were burnt and drowned by both the Catholics and the reformed throughout history. Then you might understand why the indiscriminate use of this word really ruffles my feathers.

Technically, you have to first be Catholic before you can qualify as a heretic. The Docetae for example, were Gnostics that pre-date Christianity, and are incorrectly labeled heretics. The Apostles John and Paul, and St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote against Gnostic ideas that must have lingered in certain communities, or they were trying to infiltrate the Church. Catholics who were seduced by Gnosticism rejected the Real Presence and were labeled as heretics as early as 90 A.D.

A Catholic in obstinate denial of a revealed truth is a heretic.
A non-Catholic who is invincibly ignorant of a revealed truth was simply born in a different place and family and doesn’t know any better,
and is definitely not a heretic.

Actually, they may understand what the Church teaches but not agree, in which case I should modify what I am saying. He may understand indeed how the Church would interpret the history, without agreeing with that interpretation.

Just as I can understand, from an intellectual standpoint, the Protestant nominalistic and merely forensic doctrine of a merely imputed righteousness, while not agreeing with it.

Agreed.

But if the Catholic Church is true, then what they disagree with is actually the truth. And analogically the other way if the Catholic Church is not fully correct (or even correct at all).

BTW, I apologize for insinuating that an agnostic would only care about lust and pleasures and egoistical accomplishment.

Admittedly, an atheist could work to save children from starvation, and such actions would indeed by good. But, since done by a person who does not acknowledge the existence of God, they are necessarily done with at most assitance from mere creatures, and can never be anything but NATURALLY good, as opposed to SUPERNATURALLY good, which requires grace, which implies a belief in Deity who helps and actively seeking that help.

well, but to clarify, the objective religious condition of such a person is still a heretic, but an innocent one, that is, a material one. The other form, that is culpable, is a FORMAL heretic. But, your earlier statment must be clarifeid: In fact, there can be many persons who today who were raised Catholic and left for an Evangelical community, but they are not necessarily formal heretics. Many times, they leave a faith they do not know and suffer psychological wounds from a parish and parents that failed to teach them correctly and sufficiently. Hence, we can never be the judge of who is formal and who is a material heretic. We always hope, pray that the persons we dialogue with are not fully culpable for their errors, and are friends of God.

I sincerely hope and pray this for Contaniri and Mozart-250, and even Midrath. We never know what pain and suffering a person has experienced that has wounded their heart. Consequently, perhaps I should refrain from using such harsh language and simply call them our separated brothers and sisters.

:gopray: :o

Quite so. Which then leaves us at the Single Biggest Problem when it comes to comparative religion: how do we determine which (if any) is correct? Each religion, each denomination, each cult, has itself and only itself as an authority on the subject of why it has authority.

Every believer’s understanding is filtered through the lens of his or her faith: it is not only God, but history too that they see as through a glass darkly. The Christian sees the captivity of the Jews in Babylon as foreshadowing the coming of the Christ to redeem humanity; the Jew sees it as God testing his chosen people; the Babylonians who worshiped Marduk probably thanked him for the loot and slaves.

BTW, I apologize for insinuating that an agnostic would only care about lust and pleasures and egoistical accomplishment.

Apology accepted :slight_smile:

Admittedly, an atheist could work to save children from starvation, and such actions would indeed by good. But, since done by a person who does not acknowledge the existence of God, they are necessarily done with at most assitance from mere creatures, and can never be anything but NATURALLY good, as opposed to SUPERNATURALLY good, which requires grace, which implies a belief in Deity who helps and actively seeking that help.

Which requires grace, and also requires the supernatural – and being that that will likely forever remain a point of contention, natural good is good enough.

And if your God is truly benevolent, I would like to think that he would smile upon the honest efforts of the unbelievers and perhaps give a little nudge in the right direction for someone who does not know where to look for such a thing – for does he not make his sun rise on the bad and the good, his rain fall on the just and the unjust?

I sincerely hope and pray this for Contaniri and Mozart-250, and even Midrath. We never know what pain and suffering a person has experienced that has wounded their heart. Consequently, perhaps I should refrain from using such harsh language and simply call them our separated brothers and sisters.

Thank you for the prayers, and the change in tone :slight_smile:

I am not a heretic but an apostate: I do not claim to be Catholic and hold to false doctrine, but instead have rejected the religion entirely. Not by choice, I should add: I did not reject God, but looked and could not find him. Although so many people seem to be able to hope in the unseen, I am not so equipped.

And so we are separated, and by a wide gulf at that; but who knows what might lie ahead?

Oh no, God does give grace to unbelievers. That you are here means God is giving you grace already. If you didn’t care about any of this, why would you be here? God is already giving you grace to move you to show he loves you and can give meaning to your sufferings. And that He wants to be with you forever. I don’t blame you for struggling. Before I found God, I hated him and denied him. Been there, done that. But I perhaps have never suffered like you have suffered. I pray that you are able to know you are loved, by me first, and by others, and by God, at least the God I believe in.

Sincerely,
Scott

:gopray::slight_smile:

BTW, you are my brother, Midrath, because you are human being, and all human beings are brothers, for all men are called to everlasting love and created with immeasurable dignity.

I am very sorry for the bad references.

And thank you for accepting my apology.

:o

Not sure about that.

One can only misunderstand a truth if one does not agree with the asserted truth. He cannot “understand”. If he understood, he’d agree.

You cannot understand that a fire truck is red and disagree with it. If you disagree with it, your understanding is faulty.

I think I just confused myself…:eek:

I am going to guess you have already read it, but may I suggest to you the chapter called “Comparative Religion” in the book “Everlasing Man” by G.K.Chesterton?

Possibly he can shed some light on the subject.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.