Religion

Religion


  • Total voters
    117

thekid33

President of the Kevin McDougal Fan Club
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
5,017
My cousin’s grand daughter goes to a place called Little Flower. A Catholic grade school down the street from Scecina (my first HS).

I knew she wasn’t baptized but was surprised that she had never been to Mass. I just assumed she had. Took her to her first Mass last weekend.

She’s all into it now. Wants to be in the choir. Catholic doesn’t just baptize anyone…that’s my next step.
She goes to Catholic grade school and had never been to Mass? Yikes

We had monthly Mass back in my day (90s) and I think they go weekly now.

Good job getting her on track!
 

Notre Dame Joe

Well-known member
Messages
625
Reaction score
354
There is something called parasite stress theory (pathogen stress theory). It notes that areas with higher infectious rates tend to conform to certain traits/psychology. This includes religiosity. I suspect declining religious orientation will reverse for the next decade after the pandemic
Because they are older and live closer together?
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
"Parasite stress theory" ... Lord. So, if a bunch of humans think that death is imminent, they begin thinking more about God and less about the Stock Market or Buffalo wings and TV? BRILLIANT!! My old academic colleagues, bless their cliche-ridden and morally-incompetent brains will make up names to publish anything to get tenure.

The fact that this "theory of scared behavior in morally-retarded adults" has nothing to do with actual spirituality and God and Love and the real meaning of Life and Creation, well?, who cares? Somehow my old academic friends can hide away for another moment ignoring their own masked poverty. I knew so many. HOW they could be so "small" in the mind while so "big" in the brain always stunned me.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,566
Reaction score
3,002
Honestly, fascinating, especially considering the current state of US politics and how the respective positions of both parties are clearly not aligned with the Church. I’ve felt increasingly disenfranchised over the years for this very reason.

Just a disclaimer for those who may need the reminder: The Pope's political views, while important, do not invoke papal infallibility. Please keep that in mind.
 

pumpdog20

Well-known member
Messages
5,479
Reaction score
4,323
I'm glad someone posted in this thread because I have a question (keep in mind, I'm not a religious person but I feel like I'm being pulled in every day)... seems like Pope Leo has recently made two "big" comments against what I and maybe mainstream thinking is on 1) No holy wars - I get maybe his message is that war is bad, and maybe he isn't saying you should never fight a religious war if attacked, but it was odd. 2) The interfaith unity message seems odd to me.

Again, I'm just an idiot who has no clue, but wondered what some of the Catholics on here thought about those recent topics. If this isn't the place, feel free to delete the post.
 

thekid33

President of the Kevin McDougal Fan Club
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
5,017
I'm glad someone posted in this thread because I have a question (keep in mind, I'm not a religious person but I feel like I'm being pulled in every day)... seems like Pope Leo has recently made two "big" comments against what I and maybe mainstream thinking is on 1) No holy wars - I get maybe his message is that war is bad, and maybe he isn't saying you should never fight a religious war if attacked, but it was odd. 2) The interfaith unity message seems odd to me.

Again, I'm just an idiot who has no clue, but wondered what some of the Catholics on here thought about those recent topics. If this isn't the place, feel free to delete the post.
My take on what he said about war is that God doesn't will war and therefore if you claim that you are fighting a war in the name of God/religion you are wrong and going against God's will. Which, I think makes sense. At least from a Catholic/Christian perspective. Obviously, there are religious zealots of every religion that might try to make that claim and there's nothing that he or any Pope can say that's going to prevent that. But, I think it's a good message for the leader of the Catholic Church to spread.

What I don't fully understand is where he/the Church stand anymore on the just war theory. It's been a bedrock of Christian thinking for such a long time now. I know all of the recent Popes have been against all recent wars, but there also hasn't been a war recently that probably checked all of the boxes for being a just war. If there was, what would the Church's stance be? For example, if Canada invaded the United States we would certainly be justified to defend ourselves and fight back. Would the Church not view that as a just war? That part of current teaching is unclear and confusing to me, but I think the confusion predates his papacy.

The interfaith unity thing has been a hallmark of every post-Vatican II Pope. I don't think it's inherently bad; but I also don't think that the Church should be adopting a position that all religions are equally valid, which is what it seems to have become.

I appreciate your post - this kind of conversation always interests me.
 

pumpdog20

Well-known member
Messages
5,479
Reaction score
4,323
My take on what he said about war is that God doesn't will war and therefore if you claim that you are fighting a war in the name of God/religion you are wrong and going against God's will. Which, I think makes sense. At least from a Catholic/Christian perspective. Obviously, there are religious zealots of every religion that might try to make that claim and there's nothing that he or any Pope can say that's going to prevent that. But, I think it's a good message for the leader of the Catholic Church to spread.

What I don't fully understand is where he/the Church stand anymore on the just war theory. It's been a bedrock of Christian thinking for such a long time now. I know all of the recent Popes have been against all recent wars, but there also hasn't been a war recently that probably checked all of the boxes for being a just war. If there was, what would the Church's stance be? For example, if Canada invaded the United States we would certainly be justified to defend ourselves and fight back. Would the Church not view that as a just war? That part of current teaching is unclear and confusing to me, but I think the confusion predates his papacy.

The interfaith unity thing has been a hallmark of every post-Vatican II Pope. I don't think it's inherently bad; but I also don't think that the Church should be adopting a position that all religions are equally valid, which is what it seems to have become.

I appreciate your post - this kind of conversation always interests me.
Thanks for this
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,566
Reaction score
3,002
I'm glad someone posted in this thread because I have a question (keep in mind, I'm not a religious person but I feel like I'm being pulled in every day)... seems like Pope Leo has recently made two "big" comments against what I and maybe mainstream thinking is on 1) No holy wars - I get maybe his message is that war is bad, and maybe he isn't saying you should never fight a religious war if attacked, but it was odd. 2) The interfaith unity message seems odd to me.

Again, I'm just an idiot who has no clue, but wondered what some of the Catholics on here thought about those recent topics. If this isn't the place, feel free to delete the post.

Don't fight it!

Happy to help with any questions you might have. I grew up in a non-denominational/evangelical household. Went through a phase of "I'm spiritual but not religious." Always believed in God/Jesus but had a serious lack of support regarding history, Biblical interpretations, science, reason, etc. Ultimately found my way "home" and converted to the Catholic Church two years ago. Best thing that ever happened to me.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
16,349
Reaction score
6,627
Don't fight it!

Happy to help with any questions you might have. I grew up in a non-denominational/evangelical household. Went through a phase of "I'm spiritual but not religious." Always believed in God/Jesus but had a serious lack of support regarding history, Biblical interpretations, science, reason, etc. Ultimately found my way "home" and converted to the Catholic Church two years ago. Best thing that ever happened to me.
Based and trad.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
The Vatican has reiterated that the "Just War" is a reasonable topic for meditation on matters of protection vs imminent threat. There are (I believe) four major criteria that the sitation must clearly meet. Iran meets none of them as has been stated by several Catholic scholars. The term "Holy War" does not relate to "Just War". There is no such thing as a "Holy" war (unless you want to stretch into wild territory like Michael vs Satan. )

Interfaith Unity demands a lot more clarity if a sensible answer is to be framed. The End Design of the Creation is The Interfaith Unity of All peoples in a Loving Earth trending towards The Mystical Body of Christ. So, BIG VISION the desire for UNITY is obviously the answer to what everything is about.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
I might mention one other thing for what it's worth. If one wants to live in an Earth where people actually are neighborly to one another, AND you have FAITH that your spiritual position is a worthy proper one, then you better be open to welcoming all kinds of people or you'll never get anywhere near a neighborly loving community of learning, loving, understanding folks.

This vision of welcoming people who aren't exactly like yourselves doesn't mean that you're giving up on your faith, but rather you're giving everyone a chance to grow and perhaps get a good feeling about what Catholicism is all about. Strictly constricted Catholics never understood the Biblical, Christ-like, philosophy of Pope Francis -- this was a sad case of concrete-walled "catholics" who forgot what Christ clearly said, and were so knee-jerk scared and weak in faith that they didn't even try to understand what Francis was talking about.
 

Bane

Well-known member
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
6,097
The Vatican has reiterated that the "Just War" is a reasonable topic for meditation on matters of protection vs imminent threat. There are (I believe) four major criteria that the sitation must clearly meet. Iran meets none of them as has been stated by several Catholic scholars. The term "Holy War" does not relate to "Just War". There is no such thing as a "Holy" war (unless you want to stretch into wild territory like Michael vs Satan. )

Interfaith Unity demands a lot more clarity if a sensible answer is to be framed. The End Design of the Creation is The Interfaith Unity of All peoples in a Loving Earth trending towards The Mystical Body of Christ. So, BIG VISION the desire for UNITY is obviously the answer to what everything is about.
I don't mean this in an adversarial tone at all, please do not take anything I ask with any amount of malice or hostility. I just want to preface with that because religion is a very personal and deeply meaningful thing, and the internet is an imperfect medium to discuss it because you lack vocal context, facial/nonverbal cues, etc.

With that said, how do you square this with basically the prior 1900 years or so of Roman Catholic history? Really, prior to about the 1950s or so I do not think you could find a Pontiff who would speak so ecumenically about other faiths, in fact it would seem to be quite the opposite. Pope Leo says there is no such thing as a holy war, but does that not seem to be a very modern interpretation and in fact a direct contradiction to the words and actions of many other popes in the past? Same with the last few popes stances on the death penalty. For an institution that claims an unchanging infallibility, I sense a lot of change over the past 60 or so years coming out of Rome.

For context, I was once Catholic but now have a rather complicated relationship to it. One the one hand, I find much I just simply do not agree with and cannot abide in it, but on the other hand I'm very much haunted by it and find myself continually drawn in by much of its art, aesthetics, and even elements of its theology. For what its worth, I am very compelled by the figure of the Blessed Virgin and on occasion will still throw an Ave Maria her way.

I add that only so you know I ask my questions because they are things that I myself have struggled with and have yet to come to satisfactory answers on.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
Well, I'm a very flawed bit of God's Creation, so what do I really have to say? But my view is that all Catholics --- including ALL those popes --- were and are Works-in-Progress and make unChrist-like errors. Some Popes were not worthy of the title that's certain --- look at the Middle Ages when the second sons of nobility were forced upon the Church. Some of those "popes" were flat wrong.

That doesn't mean that the general Beatitudes-oriented Church is some huge mistake. The Church is mainly the saintly working grass-roots who bring love to everyone they are privileged to work with.

As far as Popes go, it is good to remember that the Pope almost NEVER speaks infallibly. There's a ritual for that --- called speaking ex Cathedra. THAT has been done only TWICE in the entirety of history (both associated with theology involving the Blessed Virgin Mary.)

You don't have to think that utterances of The Pope are requirements of your belief ... but IF he speaks, our duty is to take it seriously and deeply meditate upon how it affects our actions. I take it seriously but have come down on different sides (with readings and prayers) on many recent Papal things. (I tended to disagree a lot with Benedict, and agree a lot with Francis. Regardless, the dialogue between myself and The Holy Spirit needed to be as deep as possible and as honest.)

Popes have been really wrong on political decisions. ... and sometimes correct, when repeating what Jesus said.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,566
Reaction score
3,002
I don't mean this in an adversarial tone at all, please do not take anything I ask with any amount of malice or hostility. I just want to preface with that because religion is a very personal and deeply meaningful thing, and the internet is an imperfect medium to discuss it because you lack vocal context, facial/nonverbal cues, etc.

With that said, how do you square this with basically the prior 1900 years or so of Roman Catholic history? Really, prior to about the 1950s or so I do not think you could find a Pontiff who would speak so ecumenically about other faiths, in fact it would seem to be quite the opposite. Pope Leo says there is no such thing as a holy war, but does that not seem to be a very modern interpretation and in fact a direct contradiction to the words and actions of many other popes in the past? Same with the last few popes stances on the death penalty. For an institution that claims an unchanging infallibility, I sense a lot of change over the past 60 or so years coming out of Rome.

For context, I was once Catholic but now have a rather complicated relationship to it. One the one hand, I find much I just simply do not agree with and cannot abide in it, but on the other hand I'm very much haunted by it and find myself continually drawn in by much of its art, aesthetics, and even elements of its theology. For what its worth, I am very compelled by the figure of the Blessed Virgin and on occasion will still throw an Ave Maria her way.

I add that only so you know I ask my questions because they are things that I myself have struggled with and have yet to come to satisfactory answers on.

The Church does not claim “unchanging infallibility” in all statements, positions, practices, or actions. Papal infallibility is only under a very specific set of circumstances and it is rare.

Also, the development of doctrine etc is in fact a historical detail of the Church. A change doesn’t automatically suggest contradiction. A new dogma doesn’t mean an invention, etc.

Lastly, the change in tone and posture following Vatican II was intentional. The Council deliberately sought a different approach to engaging the modern world, other Christian communities, and non-Christian religions. That, too, doesn’t automatically suggest a contradiction. There’s a difference between changing how the Church communicates and engages with the world and changing what the Church fundamentally teaches. Vatican II represented a significant pastoral shift, but it did not abandon the central claims of Catholicism, nor did it contradict them.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
32,664
Reaction score
19,431


Thought this was neat. Still crazy to me that we have an American Pope.


I'm going to petition Pope Leo to revert the 2011 changes to the mass and the Nicene Creed. I have yet to recover. Still feels weird as fuck to hear my pastor say:
"The Lord be with you."
And we respond.
"And with your spirit."

It's like some Gen Z theologian took the most literal translations from Latin and screwed everything up.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,566
Reaction score
3,002
I'm going to petition Pope Leo to revert the 2011 changes to the mass and the Nicene Creed. I have yet to recover. Still feels weird as fuck to hear my pastor say:
"The Lord be with you."
And we respond.
"And with your spirit."

It's like some Gen Z theologian took the most literal translations from Latin and screwed everything up.
Can you explain this to a newb. I’ve heard something along these lines multiple times regarding the salutation, and I’m not sure I follow. Especially since it’s a literal translation. Granted, I’ve never been to a TLM, but it seems like if you’re gonna nitpick the NO, there are other beefs. Just curious why so many people mention this specifically.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
Question not addressed to me so "none of my business", but in case it helps: The Vatican and almost the entire Church decided that it was a good idea to return the words used in the Mass to words respecting ancient Church traditions. As part of that, the Cardinals/Bishops/Pope changed the Mass phrase "and also with you" to "and with your Spirit." The main stated reason was a return to tradition.

Now, what does this particular set of words mean? The "Intro" (The Lord be with you) by the priest has an obvious meaning. The community responds in a way ONLY to be directed towards a priest. This is a big clue. The "Spiritu" is the Spirit of Special Grace that the Priest when he received the Sacrament of his ordination. The people's statement wishes/prays for THAT Spiritual Grace to remain strong in him and aid him in his priestly duties.

I do not know why the Church doesn't do a better job of explaining these things, but some of it is that the American mentality doesn't bother to read Church statements and do our part of the educational process. We need to admit that living in the noise and abundant materialism of the US makes being a spiritual God-oriented person so much more difficult. But a bunch of this is OUR responsibility.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,784
Reaction score
6,148
The interfaith unity thing has been a hallmark of every post-Vatican II Pope. I don't think it's inherently bad; but I also don't think that the Church should be adopting a position that all religions are equally valid, which is what it seems to have become.
Equally Valid in what sense? People are equally valid or their path is a valid path? I’m not tracking with this statement and I feel like it’s a big statement.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,566
Reaction score
3,002
Question not addressed to me so "none of my business", but in case it helps: The Vatican and almost the entire Church decided that it was a good idea to return the words used in the Mass to words respecting ancient Church traditions. As part of that, the Cardinals/Bishops/Pope changed the Mass phrase "and also with you" to "and with your Spirit." The main stated reason was a return to tradition.

Now, what does this particular set of words mean? The "Intro" (The Lord be with you) by the priest has an obvious meaning. The community responds in a way ONLY to be directed towards a priest. This is a big clue. The "Spiritu" is the Spirit of Special Grace that the Priest when he received the Sacrament of his ordination. The people's statement wishes/prays for THAT Spiritual Grace to remain strong in him and aid him in his priestly duties.

I do not know why the Church doesn't do a better job of explaining these things, but some of it is that the American mentality doesn't bother to read Church statements and do our part of the educational process. We need to admit that living in the noise and abundant materialism of the US makes being a spiritual God-oriented person so much more difficult. But a bunch of this is OUR responsibility.
Thanks, OMM.

The bolded was specifically taught in my OCIA classes. Which is kind of why I was questioning ulikinatme’s post. I’d assume any traditionalist would gladly take what they can get in terms of a return to the ancient ways.
 

thekid33

President of the Kevin McDougal Fan Club
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
5,017
Equally Valid in what sense? People are equally valid or their path is a valid path? I’m not tracking with this statement and I feel like it’s a big statement.
Valid path. I guess we don't explicitly say that they aren't an equally valid path but we also don't really explicitly say that they are not either.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
32,664
Reaction score
19,431
Can you explain this to a newb. I’ve heard something along these lines multiple times regarding the salutation, and I’m not sure I follow. Especially since it’s a literal translation. Granted, I’ve never been to a TLM, but it seems like if you’re gonna nitpick the NO, there are other beefs. Just curious why so many people mention this specifically.

Question not addressed to me so "none of my business", but in case it helps: The Vatican and almost the entire Church decided that it was a good idea to return the words used in the Mass to words respecting ancient Church traditions. As part of that, the Cardinals/Bishops/Pope changed the Mass phrase "and also with you" to "and with your Spirit." The main stated reason was a return to tradition.

Now, what does this particular set of words mean? The "Intro" (The Lord be with you) by the priest has an obvious meaning. The community responds in a way ONLY to be directed towards a priest. This is a big clue. The "Spiritu" is the Spirit of Special Grace that the Priest when he received the Sacrament of his ordination. The people's statement wishes/prays for THAT Spiritual Grace to remain strong in him and aid him in his priestly duties.

I do not know why the Church doesn't do a better job of explaining these things, but some of it is that the American mentality doesn't bother to read Church statements and do our part of the educational process. We need to admit that living in the noise and abundant materialism of the US makes being a spiritual God-oriented person so much more difficult. But a bunch of this is OUR responsibility.

Thanks, OMM.

The bolded was specifically taught in my OCIA classes. Which is kind of why I was questioning ulikinatme’s post. I’d assume any traditionalist would gladly take what they can get in terms of a return to the ancient ways.

I've touched on this before, but it goes beyond the response "And with your spirit." Nobody says such a thing in this country, it feels bizarre and like a poor contextual translation. I've read that the new translation is supposed to be closer to the original text, but realistically has the meaning really changed by swapping some synonyms for some odder phrases? When the priest says "The Lord be with you." the original response was "And also with you." When it was changed to "And with your spirit" it's supposed to be the translation from the Latin "et cum spiritu tuo." It's basically a 1 for 1 translation, but that doesn't mean the context remains perfectly the same or it makes complete sense. It's supposed to be referencing the special ceremony when a priest receives the Holy Spirit when they are ordained. The Holy Spirit is also God though, 3 in 1, so in reality it's not incorrect by responding to a priest's "The Lord be with you" by saying "And also with you." It's natural, while the other response feels like poorly dubbed Japanese media.

I've listed a lot of changes from the Nicene Creed in the past as well, but my favorite is is this line. The current version:
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

The Ecumenical version from 1970-2011:
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one Being with the Father.
through him all things were made.

Consubstantial. The word means having the same substance, essence, or nature. The original Latin form originated in 325 AD to describe the relationship of Jesus as being one with the Father...which is the exact simplified translation that we have in the Ecumenical version from 1970. The problem is at least 90% of the congregation has absolutely no real idea what the hell "consubstantial" means, and therein lies a problem. If people are just blindly responding with words that they can't comprehend, then all meaning is lost and it becomes rote regurgitation. Saying "of one Being with the Father" is no different than saying "Consubstantial" and yet even children can understand the first saying. Maybe the new version is a more literal translation, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to say it. There's a lot of these changes in the Nicene Creed that are supposed to be "better" but nearly every change ends up conveying the same meaning while making for poor phrasing. That's why I said it feels like some young theologian just did a literal translation and thought his version was correct without deeper consideration.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
Well, to my experience, almost everyone is OK with "and with your spirit", and nobody likes "consubstantial."

I'm really not sure what that level of "irritation" has to do with what should be my happiness with my Church helping me to grow more spiritually in the profundity of my relationship with Jesus and GOD. ... I don't get the festering "problem" in such a matter. If the word "consubstantial" comes into my ears during Mass, I can just look at the Statue of Jesus and think "Wow, I'm glad of that."
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
32,664
Reaction score
19,431
Well, to my experience, almost everyone is OK with "and with your spirit", and nobody likes "consubstantial."

I'm really not sure what that level of "irritation" has to do with what should be my happiness with my Church helping me to grow more spiritually in the profundity of my relationship with Jesus and GOD. ... I don't get the festering "problem" in such a matter. If the word "consubstantial" comes into my ears during Mass, I can just look at the Statue of Jesus and think "Wow, I'm glad of that."

It's a personal preference obviously. You are free to enjoy your mass as is, but I thought the 2011 changes were silly and did nothing to enhance the Nicene prayer or facilitate meaningful change to the mass. Fundamentally all the word swaps didn't change any real meaning, and yet they gave us awkward phrases and literal translations that don't fit with modern English vernacular.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
7,322
I can respect that the changes were somehow significant to you, but that sort of thing is not bothersome to me. Fortunately The Church attracts very different people and if we pay attention to Christ's Big Message, we can all sit in the same seats.
 
Top