Theology

[Legacy]

Teachings:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are declared to be protected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”[1]

“Whoever kills a person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of Paradise.”

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.”

“Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers” (60:8, 9).

 

[zelezo vlk]

He's legitimizing the "conquest at the heart of Islam" by pointing out that there's a supposed similar "conquest at the heart of Christianity." I know he's not pro-ISIS, but his equivocation of this tenant of Islam with an analogous one in Christianity distorts the outright evil of groups like ISIS.

It's the old "trains ran on time in Nazi Germany" argument. Even if that's true, you don't use it as an argument in favor of efficient government because it's NAZI GERMANY.

I think you're reading what isn't there. His words do not condone the war of conquest, and if we read carefully, he is saying that the war of conquest is partly influenced by Islam, which I'm shocked isn't causing a scandal itself. I mean, it's no Regensburg address, but it's still stronger words than many say against ISIS.

Stating that we are meant to conquer the world through the spreading of the Gospel is nowhere near "I authoritatively declare that Christianity is also spread through bloody warfare and massacres". It's just a fact. The Kingdom Militant is called such because we are supposed to conquer all for Christ, but in the same way that Christ conquered death for us.

Then why talk about ISIS at all? If you want to talk about evangelization, don't bring up ISIS. And if you want to talk about ISIS, don't talk about the merits of evangelization. Christian evangelism should never be on the same side of an analogy as radical Islamic terrorism.

You mean, why bring up ISIS other than they're relevant to the world right now? The Church is full of people who don't take the idea of evangelization seriously or even think that it applies to them. The juxtaposition is quite stark between how ISIS grows their kingdom and how Christendom is meant to grow. Bringing up the atrocities committed in the name of Islam can remind us that we need to spread the Gospel, but also that we are called to do so in a radically different manner.

 

[wizards8507]

Articles: Catholics and Communists

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Articles: Catholics and Communists

Sent from my Galaxy Note4 using Tapatalk.

Do you have any thoughts that you'd like to share?

I often find myself wanting the bishops to reprimand individual priests who espouse teaching that I would consider heterodox at best and scandalous at worst. However, I don't think the article's argument is very strong. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to miss many of the teaching of the Church. If you'd like, I'll expand in the morning, but if not, I certainly don't deem it necessary.

Speaking of theology, does anybody have any experience with Balthasar or have any advice in where to start?





Also, I'm very happy to share that I am going to Rome on pilgrimage in November. I've been twice before, but never as a Papist, so if anybody has any suggestions/tips I'd be glad to receive them.

 

[BabyIrish]

Also, I'm very happy to share that I am going to Rome on pilgrimage in November. I've been twice before, but never as a Papist, so if anybody has any suggestions/tips I'd be glad to receive them.

Doing a Scavi tour to see the bones of St Peter is one of the most memorable things I've done. It's very limited so I don't know how hard it is to get in but worth trying.

 

[wizards8507]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ByGOhJxn_5Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Judge Nap (Notre Dame Law) says everything I think and way more eloquently.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Judge Nap (Notre Dame Law) says everything I think and way more eloquently.

Serious cognitive dissonance there by Judge Napolitano. No, Jesus was not a libertarian. Ayn Rand despised Christianity, and the Catholic Church in particular. So no, Judge Napolitano, you cannot be both a Randian Objectivist in economics and a good Catholic in everything else. They're incompatible worldviews.

He's spent too long in the Fox News bubble, having bought into the false dichotomy of radical individualism v. totalitarian communism. Yes, there are individualist elements in Catholic theology-- such as the importance of having the liberty to pursue what is Good, True and Beautiful, to develop one's own unique talents to their fullest extent, to grow in discipline, knowledge and virtue, etc. But once attained through liberty, the purpose of that power/agency--the proper telos of human existence--is to give it away, to emulate Jesus by dying to self.

Here's a snippet from a recent article about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand:

The problem with Ayn Rand is the problem with every ideologue, heretic and godless thinker: they come up with a few good ideas that the Catholic Church had to start with and mix it up with a bunch of poisonous things that seem like good ideas. Then the Catholic truth attracts people (as truth always does) and they swallow the rest of the poison with it.

And here's what Ryan had to say about Rand:

“I reject her philosophy. … It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview.” He said, “I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them. … They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman. … If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. … Don’t give me Ayn Rand.””

 

[wizards8507]

Serious cognitive dissonance there by Judge Napolitano. No, Jesus was not a libertarian. Ayn Rand despised Christianity, and the Catholic Church in particular. So no, Judge Napolitano, you cannot be both a Randian Objectivist in economics and a good Catholic in everything else. They're incompatible worldviews.

You're arguing against a strawman version of libertarianism just like you always do. I don't think you're doing it to be dishonest, I just really think you misunderstand what libertarianism is at its core. Libertarianism is primacy of the individual over the state. That's it. For some reason, you insist that libertarian rejection of state authority means the libertarian must reject all authority, and that's crap. Libertarianism does not have to be an all-encompassing worldview. It's just a political framework.

He's spent too long in the Fox News bubble, having bought into the false dichotomy of radical individualism v. totalitarian communism. Yes, there are individualist elements in Catholic theology-- such as the importance of having the liberty to pursue what is Good, True and Beautiful, to develop one's own unique talents to their fullest extent, to grow in discipline, knowledge and virtue, etc. But once attained through liberty, the purpose of that power/agency--the proper telos of human existence--is to give it away, to emulate Jesus by dying to self.

Here's a snippet from a recent article about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand:

And here's what Ryan had to say about Rand:

I'm sure you can supply the formal Latin term for the logical fallacy you're using here, Ayn Rand being an atheist does not mean her political philosophy is incompatible with Christianity. If a murderer says "the grass is green," it doesn't mean a good Christian has to reject the truth of his statement just because Christianity is anti-murder.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You're arguing against a strawman version of libertarianism just like you always do. I don't think you're doing it to be dishonest, I just really think you misunderstand what libertarianism is at its core.

I'm well read when it comes to libertarian philosophy (I used to identify as one, and I was a Poli Sci major). It's Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Peter Singer etc.

Libertarianism is primacy of the individual over the state. That's it.

It's more than that. Libertarianism is a complete philosophy which, if adopted consistently, has moral implications for every sphere of human life. And while libertarianism is consistent with certain aspects of Catholic doctrine, like the importance of liberty, it mistakes a secondary good for a primary one, and purports to justify some very antisocial ends as a result. If you want to get really theological about it, one can draw a straight line from the Protestant theory of private judgment to libertarian philosophy, but that's beyond the scope of this post.

For some reason, you insist that libertarian rejection of state authority means the libertarian must reject all authority, and that's crap. Libertarianism does not have to be an all-encompassing worldview. It's just a political framework.

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge, is foundational to both Catholic doctrine and the scientific method. Regarding the latter, if a theory only "works" within very narrow parameters, it's not a very good theory, and will be discarded in favor of a more comprehensive one that works under a broader set of parameters. Similarly , if libertarianism only "works" (and what does that even mean?) economically, it's not a very good theory, and should be discarded in favor of one that more accurately promotes human flourishing.

A couple weeks ago I posted an article by Will Wilkinson which argues that classical liberalism is demonstrably the most effective economic system we've discovered for innovating and generating wealth. He goes on to argue that we should defend it on that basis alone, because social justice can only be achieved in societies that are secure and prosperous. I think that's a defensible position, but only if one addresses social justices issues seriously; and for the reason described below, libertarians do not take that crucial second step.

I think libertarians see the undeniable historical success of classical liberal economics, draw the wrong conclusions about why it works (negative liberty made us rich!), and then apply those wrong conclusions to all other spheres of human life (negative liberty is the only way to bring about a just society!). The principles of classical liberal economics made us rich by encouraging innovation and inclusivity on unprecedented scales; but if you applied that conclusion to all other spheres of human life, you'd get something much closer to Catholic social thought than libertarianism.

I'm sure you can supply the formal Latin term for the logical fallacy you're using here, Ayn Rand being an atheist does not mean her political philosophy is incompatible with Christianity. If a murderer says "the grass is green," it doesn't mean a good Christian has to reject the truth of his statement just because Christianity is anti-murder.

I wasn't attempting to invalidate Rand's philosophy based solely on her religious beliefs. But her very public hostility to Christianity should give any thoughtful Catholic pause before endorsing her philosophy.

 

[greyhammer90]

Not going to be the deepest thing posted on this thread, but one of my most respected video game reviewers just had an well-written video about a Witcher III expansion and its take on the Faustian legend. Thought his throwaway comments on what makes this version more "modern" as well as what the community has decided the "good" ending is were interesting from an individualistic/theological perspective, if not particularly surprising. I'll likely pick this up for the story alone

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pQHsmiFJqJc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[wizards8507]

Consilience, or the unity of knowledge, is foundational to both Catholic doctrine and the scientific method. Regarding the latter, if a theory only "works" within very narrow parameters, it's not a very good theory, and will be discarded in favor of a more comprehensive one that works under a broader set of parameters. Similarly , if libertarianism only "works" (and what does that even mean?) economically, it's not a very good theory, and should be discarded in favor of one that more accurately promotes human flourishing.

That makes absolutely no sense, and it's the kind of sophistry that makes people hate lawyers. I'm not saying "libertarianism fails when applied to disciplines outside of its purview and that's okay," I'm saying "libertarianism qua libertarianism neither fails nor succeeds outside of its purview because it simply isn't applicable."

You're essentially saying "punting on fourth-and-17 is a poor strategy because it doesn't work in baseball."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That makes absolutely no sense, and it's the kind of sophistry that makes people hate lawyers.

You're the one who posted a video of someone arguing that Jesus was a libertarian and Ayn Rand is compatible with Catholicism... yet I'm the sophist?

I'm not saying "libertarianism fails when applied to disciplines outside of its purview and that's okay," I'm saying "libertarianism qua libertarianism neither fails nor succeeds outside of its purview because it simply isn't applicable."

And I'm saying that you don't understand libertarianism. It's a comprehensive philosophy. It would be completely nonsensical to say, "I'm an economic libertarian, a political Marxist, and a cultural reactionary," because those stances are all strongly incompatible with one another. Similarly, it's nonsensical to say, "I'm an economic libertarian, but a Catholic for everything else." The latter quite explicitly tells you that everything you have is a completely gratuitous gift from God, that private property carries a "social mortgage" on it, and that you do not have the right to abandon the poor (on the pain of damnation) simply because they've made bad decisions.

You're essentially saying "punting on fourth-and-17 is a poor strategy because it doesn't work in baseball."

I was anticipating a counter-argument from you and attempting to address it preemptively. Yes, classical economic liberalism has been very successful at generating wealth and innovation. No, it's not because negative liberty is the only sort secured by a just government. Since libertarianism is wrong in almost all areas that aren't economic, I'm not inclined to give it much credit in that sphere either. If an algorithm gives you the wrong answer on 19/20 problems, then it's a sh!tty algorithm, and should be discarded. The success of classical liberal economics can be better explained by other factors.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I love Bishop Barron's offerings and gobble them up every week. This is a good reminder just how strange Christianity truly is. Chesterton's works do a good job with that as well.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rBpvNs2g9G4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[wizards8507]

Vatican sex ed ‘surrenders’ to sexual revolution: Life and family leaders react

 

[zelezo vlk]

So it looks to me that the main complaint is that the program was not written for primary use by the parents. However, that does not preclude the parents from teaching the material to their children.

I see the response as an overreaction, though I do find it useful. It is of the utmost importance that parents teach their children about sexual morality, especially by encouraging chastity. Even though I do not agree with the article's tone, if it can convince more mothers and fathers to be proactive in their children's education, then it has done its part.

ETA: The "sex ed program" is not compulsory and I'm really wondering if we'll ever see it.

 

[wizards8507]

Pope Francis creates commission to study female deacons - CNN.com

 

[zelezo vlk]

It shouldn't take all that long to find St John Paul II's authoritative exhortation that they cannot happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

It shouldn't take all that long to find St John Paul II's authoritative exhortation that they cannot happen.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I won't hold my breath.

So you think that it'll tell the Pope to ignore a definitive declaration of dogma by the most beloved figure in Catholicism from the last century? I don't think so. I think that the commission will ask the Pope to find a role for women in the Church, which will be assumed to mean ordination, but probably will be something like women's outreach.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[IrishLion]

I've long wondered why women wouldn't be allowed to become Deacons in the Church.

I'm not an expert, and don't feel super strongly about it, but wouldn't it be a great thing for the Church to widen their net at the base level of the clergy's hierarchy? Why can't they reexamine things and ask themselves, "what's the harm in allowing women to guide others in a spiritual sense?"

For all four years of my time at a small Catholic high school, we heard over-and-over that "the Church needs more priests!"

Rethinking the position on what is preventing women from helping out at even the most shallow level of the clergy seems like something that would be reasonable.

 

[wizards8507]

So you think that it'll tell the Pope to ignore a definitive declaration of dogma by the most beloved figure in Catholicism from the last century? I don't think so. I think that the commission will ask the Pope to find a role for women in the Church, which will be assumed to mean ordination, but probably will be something like women's outreach.

I'm sure Francis is aware of JP2's declarations on the matter. If it were that simple, he wouldn't have started the commission in the first place.

 

[Rack Em]

Pope Francis creates commission to study female deacons - CNN.com

Great. We let them vote and all hell breaks loose 96 years later.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I'm sure Francis is aware of JP2's declarations on the matter. If it were that simple, he wouldn't have started the commission in the first place.

The issue is that people continue to ask the question because they don't like the answer. Part of this is poor catechesis and the rest is pure pride. His Holiness, in an attempt to approach the question in a pastoral manner, has asked the commission to examine the issue.

Serious question, not an attack, how was your catechesis while growing up? How many people did you meet who actually wanted to learn Truth?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[woolybug25]

I've long wondered why women wouldn't be allowed to become Deacons in the Church.

I'm not an expert, and don't feel super strongly about it, but wouldn't it be a great thing for the Church to widen their net at the base level of the clergy's hierarchy? Why can't they reexamine things and ask themselves, "what's the harm in allowing women to guide others in a spiritual sense?"

For all four years of my time at a small Catholic high school, we heard over-and-over that "the Church needs more priests!"

Rethinking the position on what is preventing women from helping out at even the most shallow level of the clergy seems like something that would be reasonable.

As a non-Catholic, I'm also interested in Lion's question above. Can one you scholars give us some insight into why specifically women are left out of the priesthood? I'm assuming there is a specific reason, correct?

 

[zelezo vlk]

As a non-Catholic, I'm also interested in Lion's question above. Can one you scholars give us some insight into why specifically women are left out of the priesthood? I'm assuming there is a specific reason, correct?

What are you, some filthy Byzantine?

I'll try to address this later when not on mobile.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

Serious question, not an attack, how was your catechesis while growing up? How many people did you meet who actually wanted to learn Truth?

Pretty shitty until I got to South Bend.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

https://bible.org/seriespage/9-what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15

This is a lengthy explanation and may have some of your questions answered.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Pretty shitty until I got to South Bend.

Yeah. That's part of the problem. My experience was pretty much the same, though all of my friends were Protestant due to my upbringing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[ACamp1900]

Yeah. That's part of the problem. My experience was pretty much the same, though all of my friends were Protestant due to my upbringing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I'm sorry zelezo, I have to ask, all of your friends were Protestant DUE to YOUR upbringing??

 

[woolybug25]

https://bible.org/seriespage/9-what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15

This is a lengthy explanation and may have some of your questions answered.

In other words... Wimminz... Y'all betta' shut the **** up and make me a sammich...

(8)I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. (9)I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, (10)but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (11)A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. (12)I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (13)For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (14)And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (15)But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Seems legit.