On assenting to the Church

On the question of how far one must one assent to the Church.

It has always been rather simple for me. Precisely because I am not an expert in the vastness of what encompasses our faith (as I’m sure none of us are), is one good reason why we must assent. At the very least passively should be the default.

On many occasions I've noticed the people (of the traditionalist flavor typically) that rehash this issue in what they term as false obedience seems to be entangled with the idea of how they view the Church and authority. Specifically in the need of always knowing who exactly is in the visible Church and who is not; particularly with clergy.

I like to think of assent to some of the lower levels of Church teaching as something rather practical in the real world. Say for example you are about to enter a restaurant and have concerns of COVID so you ask politely if they have taken any measures to make the place safe. The place isn't dirty or shiny necessarily but in your mind, you expected laboratory-style clean room and are a bit suspect but give assent anyway because quite frankly the task of knowing for certain is daunting. If in some rare chance you do get COVID after practical precautions were taken, then you may die, but chances are very low for the majority of people.

This correlates nicely in my opinion with how we assent to the lower level teachings of the Church; with the glaring difference being that if you do assent in Church teaching, you will not die. This part right here is often missed by some of my more Traditionalist leaning friends. We are held more accountable for obedience than we are understanding.

As a note, those who push this false obedience narrative open a can of worms because they themselves disagree with each other on when is proper to disobey. It quickly becomes a cancer that they cannot cure. No mechanism exists in such a scenario to cure it; and they know it.

Imagine your kids having that conversation? On when it is appropriate to disobey and creating entire theological points on that exact topic. It is not incomprehensible to imagine a situation where one can question or ask for clarification while still assenting to the Church.

See the different levels of teaching authority:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=4

 

 

 

On the Eucharist being Physical

The below is a more nuanced explanation of what occurs during the Eucharist: 

I'm going to attempt to explain the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist with a bit of hesitation. Some of this gets a bit abstract and unless you have a bit of training in aristotlean-thomistic philosophy can go over people's head but here goes for those interested.

This is only an attempt at explain what it is and not what relationship we should have with Him. For if Catholics are right, the type of relationship we should have..........should be obvious.

First off, it's important to clarify this first, there is no tangible test (weight, chemical composition or properties) that can detect a difference before and after the consecration (the act of turning it into body and blood). The only exception to this is Eucharistic miracles.

There is however a "material" change in the sense that what was once bread and wine ceases to be bread and wine. There is what the common mind thinks of as "physical" and "material," and then there is what a philosopher means by them. Both the matter and form of the bread and wine are no longer there in transubstantiation (once again, what you call communion); they are replaced with the matter and form of Christ. So it would not be proper to say wheat, carbon, and the entirety of what makes up bread and wine or anything of that sort is still there. The accidents, however, remain (the bread and wine). When the accidents disappear (whether through eating) the real presence ceases. What exactly happens after that is open to discussion and has never been settled by catholic thinkers.

By accident, we do not mean material parts. It’s a language limitation with the English. Modern men use physical and material interchangeably. By accidents we mean anything which exists only in something, and unable to exist outside of it. Like color or size, etc. You cannot have blue existing by itself, there must be something that is blue. And so on.

To expand further; Christ's proper place, as we all know is heaven. His body is physically present there. If He were to be physically present here with us, it would mean that all 6’-0” 175 lbs (just a guess) of Him taking up that space here on earth is right here and not in heaven. It does not quite work that way.

Rather, it means (as noted above) that the matter and form of bread become His body (but not physically in that He does not subsume the physical accidents of the bread nor does He move from heaven). Rather, His body and His body alone are made present by the force of the sacrament and, since they are necessarily joined to His Body, His soul, divinity, blood, etc is present with it. But not His accidents as those are separable.

I know this gets abstract, but I didn’t know how else to talk about it without getting philosophical.

Old Testament Violence

The following is an excerpt from a conversation I was involved in with regard to OT violence. This was written by a user named "Doom":

As far as the violence in the Bible. All of the violence in the Bible can be fit into one of four categories:

1. Stories where God kills someone (and violence is thus seen as a positive thing)

2. Stories where God asks human beings to kill someone for him (and violence is thus seen as a positive thing)

3. Stories where a horrific atrocity of some kind is committed, but where no direct moral judgment is passed by the author.

4. The vindictive passages, where one asks God to curse an enemy, or to avenge himself on an enemy or some such thing.

About the stories in category 1 and 2:

Okay, on the question of all the stories in the Bible where God kills people, or asks others to do it for him.

God, being the one who gives life, has the right to take life whenever he likes, and if he wishes to ask human beings to do the killing for him, then he has the right to do that as well.

But, you may ask 'doesn't this mean that man has the right to kill arbitrarily?'

The answer is 'no', and here is why: life is a gift from God. Man does not give life, God does. Hence, God can take life, but man cannot. (At least he can't unless he is given a direct order from God to do so.)

I would like to also make the point that since God is omnipotent; ultimately every life form that has ever died in the whole history of the universe has died because God willed that it die.

Therefore God is, whether directly or indirectly, responsible for the death of every living thing that has ever died.

I would also add, about the various laws in the book of Leviticus and elsewhere that demand death for things like sorcery, homosexuality and blasphemy, that the traditional Christian (as well as Jewish) view is that these laws are valid ONLY IN the context of ancient Israel. Keep in mind that ancient Israel was a theocracy, which was ruled by priest-kings who made all of their major decisions by directly consulting God by means of the Urim and Thumin and by other means. (Now, you don't have to concede that any of this was anything more than superstition in order to understand that this is what the ancient Israelites believed, whether true or false.) Since ancient Israel was established by God and ruled directly by God, therefore the rules were rather strict, because God lived in the temple, he was thus present in Israel in a way that he was not present anywhere else on the Earth.

But ancient Israel is dead, there is not a single government on this Earth that was established by God, not a single government on earth that is ruled directly by God, God does not dwell in any single place on earth, not Rome, not Jerusalem, not Mecca, there is nowhere on this Earth that God abides in a deeper way than he does anywhere else. Therefore those laws are no longer in effect.

Moreover, both Christians and Jews believe that this will not change except by the direct intervention of God. The modern state of Israel cannot be in any way identified with ancient Israel, because it is a secular state, founded by men, and not God. Both Christians and Jews believe that this will change only at the end of the age, when God intervenes directly in human affairs and sets things right. For Jews, this is the coming of the messiah, for Christians it is the second coming of Christ. In either case, this is not something that human beings can bring about, only God can make it happen.

Category 3:

Stories about horrible atrocities, but the Biblical author doesn't seem to comment one way or the other.

I simply wish to point out that not every story in the entire Bible is told from a standpoint of approval. If the Bible records a story of someone making a human sacrifice, this does not mean that the author approves of human sacrifice.

The argument 'X happened in the Bible, therefore the Biblical author must have approved of X' is not a valid argument.

Many of the stories in the Bible are told as warnings 'DON'T do this!', many others are told simply because the author is trying to record exactly what really happened and it would be wrong to try to whitewash history.

One of the books of the Bible that is most frequently criticized for its violence is the book of Judges. When reading Judges for the first time, it can seem rather monotonous. The book of Judges is just one horrible atrocity after another, there are stories of elaborate assassination plots, brutal violence, even what has to be one of the first recorded incidents of deliberate genocide, when the other 11 Israelite tribes try to exterminate the tribe of Benjamin.

It is easy to wonder 'what exactly is the point of this vast litany of brutality?'

The point is actually explained in the very last verse of the book of Judges which reads:

'In that time, Israel did not have a king, and everyone did what he himself felt was best in his own eyes."

You may wonder 'so what, Israel didn't have a king? who cares?', but if you think about it for a few seconds, it will quickly become clear what the author means. What he is saying is 'see, see how bad things were before Israel had a king? It was just violence and brutality all the day long, it was anarchy, it was chaos, thank God that we finally got a king, who was able to establish peace, order and tranquility in the kingdom, and bring an end to all this senseless slaughter!'

So, the book of Judges doesn't record all that senseless brutality in order to approve of it, but rather the opposite.

My point is that context matters.

Okay, category #4

What to do with the various 'vindictive' passages of the Bible, where someone is expressing violent rage and demanding revenge?

There are many such passages, but the most famous is from Psalm 136 (or 137 in the Hebrew) so let us quote the passage for maximum effect:

1 By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. 2 On the willows there we hung up our lyres. 3 For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" 4 How shall we sing the LORD's song in a foreign land? 5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!

7 Remember, O LORD, against the E'domites the day of Jerusalem, how they said, "Rase it, rase it! Down to its foundations!" 8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! 9 Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

The really disturbing passage is the last one, which I have happily put in bold for maximum attention.

What a disgusting, disturbing thought! What is that doing in the Bible?

How have Christians and Jews, throughout history, interpreted this passage?

Well, Saint Augustine, in the 4th century AD, interpreted it allegorically, saying that the 'little ones' are our sins, and that we are to smash our sins against the rock in order to become holy.

That is not the most literal interpretation, but my point in mentioning it is that pretty much NO major Christian or Jewish commentator in the last 2,500 years or so has interpreted this to mean that it morally permissible to take babies and smash them against rocks.

Pretty much no one uses this passage as a justification for violence.

So what are we to make of this?

Let me explain it to you this way....

Sometimes in life, something bad happens to you, and it is not one of those things that you can just write off as 'nobody's fault' either, rather someone does something that deliberately hurts you, he kills your son, he rapes your daughter, he flies an airplane into the World Trade Center and kills 3,000 innocent people.....

Sometimes people do horrible things to you, not by accident, by purely out of hatred, malice and spite. Worse than this, it seems that they gets away with it to. They escape justice.

Sometimes your anger is so intense, that it builds up into a violent rage, and you want justice, you want to grab that gun and walk up to the courtroom as he is walking out, and shoot him in the head! You are so angry, you don't know if you can control yourself.

So what do you do? Where's the answer? Where's the relief?

The answer is, you pray, and you ask God, 'please lord, I have endured a horrible injustice, please, somehow, some way, set it right. Put right what once went wrong. Fix this, PLEASE!'

And so you ask God to punish the one who hurt you. You ask for justice.

And you say things like 'blessed be the one who takes your little ones and smashes them upon the rock!' You vent all of those angry feelings, those horrible sentiments, and just give it up to God, and ask him to make it all right somehow.

You don't go out and perform the deed yourself, you ask God to do it for you. You pray, 'please God, don't let me lose control, please help me to stay calm, and please set it right somehow.'

And then somehow you choke down your rage, and your hurt, and you try to forgive the one who hurt you, content that God will set it right somehow, in his own time, you try to turn all those negatives in a positive, and you try to go on with your life.

That's what you do.

And that is what those vindictive Bible passages are all about.

On God wanting me to be Protestant first

I used to believe this. Or rather, I should say I still do but it was poorly worded and needs quite a bit of clarification because people can get the wrong idea and defer from going to the Catholic Church until they are ready. That's not how it works.

One should not say it this way. God does not will anyone to be protestant, Moslem, Jewish, atheist, etc. To will this would indeed be contradictory and contrary to both reason and the faith handed down to the Church. Such a contradiction is heretical [and or] schismatic and would be akin to worshiping a false view of God. And there is no doubt that it is sinful to hold heresy, to be schismatic, to be a sectarian, to worship false gods, etc.

Now, that isn't to say that every or even most protestants (or whatever religion) are subjectively guilty of heresy, schism. They may err in good faith (at worst it might by a venial sin and one would still be in a relationship with God). But protestantism (in its various forms) is a matter of heresy. Hence, even if a person is not culpable, still there is an evil in the thing itself which God cannot be said to desire. How could he?

Nonetheless, it may be true that God moves us to......say recognize Him and because we are not perfect beings we may recognize Him, but then proceed to be protestant rather than atheist (or whatever faith). It is possible to say that one's time as a protestant was on the road to their being Catholic, as they were moved to accept the truth more and more. But insofar as one in fact accepts protestantism as such, with its errors, no, God could not be said to desire that.

It would be like God giving you nudges to go in a straight line but you keep swerving (this is where you go toward protestantism for reasons only know to you and God) but still heading in the same general direction (like a drunk man). God does not will you to swerve, but does will you to go in that general direction (which is the Catholic Church).

Now there is that question of what happens if one swerves so much that it's not heading in the same direction and away from Catholicism. Well that would be like leaving protestantism and becoming an atheist. I won't presume to know what will happen to such a person but chances don't look good. Only God knows.

A Literal Adam

I guess even the best can be wrong (Forward to 5:52-6:04):

It bummed me out to hear Fr. Barron get it wrong on Adam not being a literal figure. Maybe it was a slip up? Perhaps, but it's hard to interpret otherwise and I hope Fr. Robert Barron comes out publicly to correct himself or clarify what he meant; if he meant something other then what many seem to be interpreting out of it (even another priest in his own webiste corrected him).

Dave Armstrong references to a good article on this topic:

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple, by Catholic Philosopher, Dr. Dennis Bonnette

Veiling and Head Converings

I wish I would have paid closer attention eight years ago when a Church of Christ pastor tried to dupe me by asking why catholic women no longer veil themselves. I guess I took his questions as a clear attempt to be trollish and go on his usual anti-catholic rant. However, he wasn't completely wrong. I came across a blog that did a great job at explaining head covering for both men and women:

Veiling or Head Covering Explained

Intolerance from the tolerant

I can’t recount the number of times I’ve been called intolerant for believing and holding as beautiful certain truths of the Holy Catholic Church. Perhaps on par or even worse then say the Aryan Nation or some extremist Islamic group. In fact, I’m almost inclined to say that I’d be better off being from the Aryan Nation or some Islamic group. For in their eyes, I’m much more of a threat to their everyday lives then some Norse community of skin heads living in the mountains. Apparently any belief or opinion differing from their own is viewed as intolerant; hostility need not be a part of it anymore. It’s quite ironic that such intolerance of opposing views comes from those whom title themselves “the tolerant ones”. Gooooooo tolerance!

Children are the problem

We got a close to midnight knock at the door. It was my boys little friend and he wanted to play with them. The very sound of his knock was just odd to us. I told him they had spent the night at their grandma and grandpa’s house. It was as if he didn’t hear me because he continued by saying “I just want to play with them in front of the door where you can see us”. I asked him “do you know what time it is?”……he put his head down and said “ just for a little while” ………….”But they aren’t here”….I repeated. “Does your mom know you are out here?”….I asked……”Well, she’s the one that told me to leave.” Shocking or surprising didn’t automatically come to mind; more like deeply saddened. I didn't get a chance to invite him in.

In that instant I was inundated with images and voices of all those people who would look upon me and my wife as if we had committed blasphemy to dare have five children. Perhaps out of concern for the well being of our children? In the same way that I felt for this boy? I was overwhelmed with disgust on the reality that people actually believe that if that boy simply didn’t exist (had his mom simply not have reproduced), somehow it would fix all the problems pertaining to broken homes. It would be akin to saying that if we only didn’t have women, rape wouldn’t exist (well not completely but I won’t go there). Feminist groups would be tempted to stone me and all other women would raise a brow; justly so. No rational animal would even think of such a solution. Yet we do it with children all the time. Selfishness, immaturity, abuse, etc. they are simply symptoms of the problem. If we could only limit the amount of children or not have any children at all, that is sure to fix things.
I’m not saying we should reproduce like bunnies either ; each according to their situation and what God wills. It’s just this resonating anti-child attitude that irks me to no end. Even worse to hear it from Catholics. God be with us.

Religious Climate by me

Jennifer made me ponder over the religious climate of where I live; particularly in my county. So I dug up some links of religious centers/churches that I have either visited or have driven by or visited. I’d visit all of them if it didn’t drive my wife bonkers that as soon as I see a religious center/church, I want to pull over and poke my head in. So here they are (I will be adding more in time):

Pao Fa Buddhist Temple
http://www.paofatemple.org/

-The surronding area of this temple (along with the Temple) is amazing.

Gayatri Consciousness Center
http://www.indiajournal.com/pages/event.php?id=11810

-The word "Consciousness" literally made me pull over and check out the facility. It is a real beautiful building. Fairly small in size compared to other religious centers but it's nice to see the pyramid looking structure in the front. It drives my wife crazy everytime I stop and do this...

Roman Catholic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Orange

-Fairly obvious. I've been to atleast 15 or so different parishes. The diocese is up in the hills and I've been there as well.

Saddleback Church (Baptist) – Rick Warren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddleback_Church

Calvary Chapel (Evangelical) – Chuck Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary_Chapel

-I love Chuck! Used to listen to him on the radio and even attended Calvary Chapel for some time. Orange County is the Mecca for this denomination.

Crystal Cathedral (Reformed Church) - Robert H. Schuller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Cathedral

-It's in downtown and it's a building that is hard to miss. Beautiful building...

Association of Vineyard Churches (Charismatic Protestant) – John Wimber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vineyard_Christian_Fellowship

-For some reason I tend to see these churches close to the mall.

Family International (Apocalyptic Christians, Hippie movement) – David Berg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_International

-Either close to the beaches or in the woods. I don't know if that has anything to do with it being hippy or not?

Islam Centers/Mosques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Society_of_Orange_County

-The newest built 5 years ago and it makes an effort to invite the outside world.

Jewish Centers/Synagogues

http://www.jewishorangecounty.org/page.aspx?id=98774

http://www.ocjewish.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/63599/jewish/Who-We-Are.htm

-I've only seen one synogogue. The others are in places that I would normally never visit.

Coptic Christians in Egypt

I pass a Coptic Catholic Church a couple miles from my house from time to time and it made me think of the recent protests in Egypt. I know very little about Copts other then they came from a very ancient Christian culture that probably predates Roman Christians. Since coming back into full communion with Rome in the early 1800’s they have lived a persecuted and fairly isolated life in Egypt. Many of them choosing to leave and immigrate to other countries or simply flee the large cities.



And then I get knee jerk reactions in forums when I dare call the protestors “Muslim”. As if I had said the protestors were “Black” or something. However, me calling the crowd Muslim was nothing more then a calculated guess. It’s not like I wasn’t aware that Egypt wasn't predominantly Muslim and that Coptic Christians, Episcopalian, and other denominational Christians are a minority in Egypt (5-10 percent). Just this Sunday in Tahrir Square Christians held a special Mass in support of the protest. Considering all that Copts have gone through in Egypt:

Kosheh Massacre

Nag Hammadi Massacre

Alexandria Bombing

……to name a few……I naturally thought most Christians were going to stay in doors. It was a nice surprise to see that Mass in the center of it all. But one shouldn’t mistake what they see with how badly Christians are normally treated. Prayers for our fellow Coptic brothers and sisters.

Laura Ingraham and Pimp Parenthood

Pimps going to Planned Parenthood for assistance:

Those PP workers looked real concerned for the children working as sex slaves for the pimp eh? I'm sure these are isolated incidents? (wink wink) Maybe she is right; this was all put together by a right wing pro-life group to stop the healthcare bill. Somehow that is supposed to make her argument less nauseating and ridiculous. Are you freakin kidding me! The guy is trafficking little girls as sex slaves and all she can say is that some right wing group put all this together? Words fail me.

Thoughts on Mormons

What do you think about Mormons?

Love em. They were probably the stepping stone to me being religious in the first place. I was young, so I mostly remember how kind they were to me. I didn't really go too deep into their doctrines, but I had a basic grasp of it. Looking back at it, it's a simplified form of Chrisitianity; taking most of the "mystery" out of it. Have a problem with the Trinity? Not a problem. Have a problem with Hell? Not a problem. If you read real close into men like Josepth Smith, Martin Luther, etc. you will find a profound struggle within them that lead to their shift from Orthodoxy. It's much easier to come up with your own conclusion then to call it a mystery or work to understand it over time. But as far as my personal experiences with them, I have nothing but good things to say. I'd even go so far as to say that they treated me better then Catholics do......=] If it were only about how I was treated, I probably would have remained Mormon.

Peaceful Coexistance - Theology and Science

I do hope for it and do think it is possible but people need to understand that the discussion has taken shape into something else. It’s not being fought in the scientific or religious realm, but rather, somewhere in the middle.

This particular topic is of great interest to me. Over the last two decades there has been a great push to unite the epistemological world with that of the scientific one. Men like Sam Harris are on the forefront of this push and its gaining ground. You’ll find particle physicist Victor Stenger making such bold claims as:

-The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue.

-The universe and life look exactly as they can be expected to look if there is no God.

Colorado.edu - Philosophy Division

Follow the scientific method to disprove something doesn't exist?

A legitimate scientific issue?

I will however say that some atheist scientists such as David Sloan Wilson are critical of his colleagues who promote such thinking.

I think it's crude and naive when people expect God to show up through physical evidence. I think by now we can all pretty much say that whatever it is we do have, isn’t cutting it.

Evidence for God that would probably convince some skeptics (of the Spinoza brand perhaps) isn't going to be in the form of a footprint……nope……It’s going to come in the form of metaphysical evidence -- ontological, epistemic, teleological, or whatever evidence that demonstrates the necessity or even probable existence of such a being.

Other than that kind of stuff deities aren't in the empirical arena. Science is limited to that, so it's never going to say squat about the supernatural -- that is, unless of course said supernatural events are tied to empirical events such as…causing a worldwide flood…and even those events are subject to interpretation in the Holy Scriptures. At best, it would cast doubt into a minority of protestant Christians.

So yeah, I do hold some hope…but it’s fairly small as I feel like a conspiracy theorist with foil on my head at times. Often hearing “well the religious folks are pushing just as hard”. True, but they aren’t remotely in the same place as those scientists who push from within it's walls.

Changing for the better

Those within proximity of having met me long enough to spark up a conversation can see how much of an open book I can be. I can talk about myself (flaws and everything) without angst or discomfort. It just comes so easy and naturally to me that I do it without much thought. I’ve never had a reason to bring this attribute of mine into question and probably would never imagine anything that would lead me to question it. Nevertheless, you never know how your life is going to unfold and in all things I intend to move toward good and anything that will help others move toward it as well.

In short, my openness and goofy attributes will be downsized and replaced with a more serious and businesslike approach. Everyone likes the goofy down to earth guy, right? But does anyone take them serious? Is he the one you go to when you need help? Most people don’t. I’m at a point in my life where people are more apt to looking at me for guidance and comfort; I’ve never been there before (or at least I’ve never felt it this strong). I don’t know what the end product will look like, but I hope I can still remain myself and still have people take me serious.

Eastern Orthodoxy - Our differences

There was a time when I did quite a bit of research into the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. It was a very informative and enriching experience to dialogue with EO’s (Eastern Orthodox) whom at least spoke a very similar theological lingo. Never did I have to dig so deep for answers. The East is so rich in liturgy, icons, and over all aesthetics that it is an experience I’d recommend for all Catholics. Mysticism is also another dimension to EO that intrigued me. It brought to surface just how legalistic we tend to be in the west. Hopefully I can reignite my neurons and cover the underlying difference between us in as short of post that I can. This will be the beginning of perhaps a serious of posts on EO and our differences.

A small but perhaps important note is that some (dare I say many?) in Eastern Orthodoxy are quick to correct you if you use the term - “Catholic Church”; to them, it is more proper to identify it as the “Roman Catholic Church”. It might not seem like a big deal to most of us within the walls of the Church but to them it makes a world of difference. Adding “Roman” gives it more of an autonomous feel to it. Since this is precisely how the Fifteen autonomous Orthodox churches operate; it is of great comfort to them that they see us in the same manner and most importantly they see the early Church operating this way as well. There was no central authority like what you see now in Rome; no Pope with authority as you see it now. It was just a bunch of mega-churches who gathered together and held councils.

The consensus is that the Pope is the primary difference; however you could point to something even broader then the pope that would nail down why we differ. Off I go…

I think the difficulties that some Eastern Orthodox have with Catholic doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Papal Infallibility, purgatory, the two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and in fact, even some other teachings, stem from a profound incomprehension of the development of dogma that has taken place in the history of the Church. In the numerous dialogues I've had and reading on this matter, Eastern Orthodox have a habit of interpreting the immutability of Christian dogma in the sense that every defined dogma or traditional doctrine of the Church must have been explicitly believed as such by the faithful from the beginning of its history.

It is true that every dogma proclaimed by the Church for belief is true, always has been true, and its meaning can not be altered or changed so that it bears a different meaning than that held by the Church in previous times. But it is not true that every dogma or doctrine contained in the “deposit of faith” confided to the Apostles has been the object of explicit belief in every age, and only subject to new technical language in the definitions of Ecumenical Councils.

Those who deny doctrinal evolution in the life of the Church only manifest once again their adherence to a non-historical orthodoxy. For an authentic development of doctrine has taken place in the life of the Church (almost no scholars denies this), and it involves not only new philosophical/theological expression for the revealed truths that were always explicitly believed (say, the divinity of Christ) but also the folding aspects of our doctrines (e.g., the canon of Scripture, the number of the sacraments, the hypostatic union, the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, the particular judgement, et.) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading the faithful to a greater understanding of the supernatural mysteries revealed in Jesus Christ.

This is the crux of our differences and it all stems from this misunderstanding.

Further reflection on souls...

My previous encounter with a certain individual inspired me to expand on the Catholic view on souls.

It is catholic belief that all living things have souls (plants, animals, and us), by definition, in the proper sense of the word.

See:
New Advent on Souls

An animal does not have a spiritual soul though. That is, its soul cannot exist without it's body. So when a cat, say, dies, not only does the cat cease to be, but so too its soul ceases to be. (Let's just say a soul is "the form of a naturally organised body having life potentially", or more or less, that in virtue of which this substance is what it is as a living substance).

When a man dies, the man also ceases to be. St. Thomas goes so far as to say that when he dies he will not be. The man is not his soul, nor his body, but the composite of both, the soul being the form of his body. But what distinguishes him from a dog, is that man's soul will continue to exist without a body.

So whereas for man, as such, to have eternal life he needs his soul to be reunited with his body, (bet you didn't know that... ) and therefore for himself to become a man again, a dog would have to be re-created, both matter and form. Could God, in the end, re-create certain animals? He's God, He can do whatever He wants that isn't against His nature.

But even if He did, they would not be in heaven, not essentially anyhow. They would not share, nor could they share, in the heavenly society. If they were re-created it would have to be only to have another secondary object for the blessed to reflect God's glory in.

Animals are my friends

I got into a dialogue with a Native American (only relevant for context purposes) about the value of animals. He was annoyed that I didn't see animal morality (if you want to call it that) on par with human morality. As if anyone that doesn't see animals on par with humans is an anti-PETA right wing nut that goes hunting for fun. That animals were scum and indespensible. It just about floored me how zealous his feelings were toward people that didn't see animals on par with humans. It makes me think what this guy would do if I lived in his apartment complex and a fire broke out. He'd get his cat, the neighbors mouse, and snails before he even thought of me.

Something is wrong with that picture.

I told him: "I believe animals have spirits. I believe they should be treated with the upmost respect. I believe these things and I am a person of faith. However, believing these things does not necessitate humans and animals being equal."

It didn't matter.

Removal of Christian Flag

Here we go again:

Removal of Christian Flag

Nothing new.

I don't care anymore if religious symbols of any kind are taken down (although I don't hear of many Buddhist, Asatru, etc. being taken down...I've seen them and have never once thought "take it down"). I still have a place to worship and I'm happy with that. It just really irks and concerns me that some live in fantastic dread that somewhere, somehow, no matter how small or benign, a public display of the religious faith will be made; and who, upon being exposed to it, reflexively attaches, without thought, the most evil and vile intentions to those making the display.

Now, I will say that I wouldn't at all be surprised that the very same people angry about the flag coming down; were perhaps of like mind to those wanting no mosque at ground zero. What if it was just an Islamic flag? Probably same reaction. This is probably good reason for some to justify to get rid of them all together; and like I've said, I don't care either way. In fact, I'm even getting to the point where people's reflexive responses toward religious symbols (in a negative connotation) is less weighing on me.

What I can't however let go is that originally "seperation of church and state" had a anti-clerical connotation to it. That soon evolved to an anti-religious (dare I say anti-Christian and anti-Muslim?) connotaion to it. This in essense gave rise (or perhaps the begining) to a more extreme interpretation which tries to rid any religiousity out of any public display or any hints of it in law. This is almost always accompanied by a deep seated anti-religious expressions. Such a phenomenon is very real in our society IMO.

Call me crazy.

Sounds of the Mouth

This is simply cool! He uses mostly his God-given talent to produce the sounds you hear.

Burqa's as a threat

I don't recall a spree of burqa wearing female hoodlums posing any threat anywhere. Is this a problem in the UK?......Is this really out of concern for the public? They must be robbing banks. We give into this, what's next? Most disturbing is the extent to which Islamophobia is glamorized as a campaign for freedom and equality for all women. Some may actually believe this, but dig down deep enough and one discovers that the real issue is a perceived security threat.

Most Brits back face veil ban