Prayer -- split from Catholic rant

[Empty Hands]

Who cares? It depends on which conclave was valid. You just don't get a bunch of dudes in red hats together and go around electing popes. The idea itself is ridiculous!

Yet, that's exactly what happened. All 3 conclaves were valid IIRC. Indeed, that would be why the Council of Constance was called to resolve the dispute, and did so by making all 3 Popes step down. If only one Pope was clearly valid, then he would not have been asked to step down, yes?

I used "claimant" because it's more accurate to say than to say "three popes" like you did (which is not just false but self-contradictorarily so). It would have been better to say one pope and two claimant, I admit.

Well, that's part of the problem, because no one at the time knew which was the Pope and which were the claimants. Which is how we get into this logical conundrum if you insist that there is only one real Pope, which leads to all sorts of uncomfortable implications because there is no way to tell who it is. The "real" Pope was forced to step down like the rest.

Of course, this is only really a problem because Apostolic Succession is treated like a logic game or a computer program. If there were no Pope or 50 of them, I'm sure the Creator of the Universe would have no trouble assigning that power in a just and reasonable way over the long term. People tend to treat that Creator like a computer program though, which doesn't make much sense if you think of God as a thinking creature. Another reason why Pascal's Wager makes no sense.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You can't say "we don't understand the mechanism of love 100%, therefore God/transubstantiation/whatever exists."

Of course not. But I can note that there are things which exist and cannot be understood.

False, again. It goes beyond love too, many emotional states have been mapped. The limbic system, and particularly the amygdala, are critical structures.

We understand how our constituent components make up neurons, and how those neurons communicate with each other to produce emotional states, thoughts, personality, and all the rest. Again, not 100%, but enough to know that it comes from your physical brain and part of how it works.

You still can't point to the atom that is my consciousness, my 'self'. The fact that you cannot does not prove I don't exist, nor does it prove that a consecrated Host is the body of Christ, but it demonstrates that not all that exists can be identified nor proven to exist or not to exist.

While there remains mysteries, there remain mysteries. I see you are convinced that someday there will be no mysteries. You could be right. But as of this moment, there are things we cannot measure, but which still exist. I can't put God in a test tube, and you can't put me in one either.

 

[chrispillertkd]

It's undeniable that the Church was responsible for a multitude of crimes and irreligious behavior over much of its history. For much of the Middle Ages and Renaissance period, the Church was just another route to power, wealth and influence for ambitious younger sons who wouldn't inherit. From the Magdalene Laundries and the abuses there, to men who had taken the vows living with mistresses in castles, to Julius II waging war for his entire reign, to burning men like William Tyndale for translating the Bible.

Yes, because the Church as an institution is responsible for a man breaking his vow of celebacy. Totally. You've convinced me that despite the Church's teaching on the objective superiority of celebacy to the married state and her preaching that breaking any validly undertaken vow is a sin and that engaging in sex outside of marriage is a sin that she is responsible for every sin that her members commit!

Now, I don't think the Catholic Church was any worse than any other human institution of its size, power and longevity. It may very well have even been better. However, the history of the institution shows clearly that it is a human institution prone to the same sins and problems as any other.

It's not just that she "may well" be better than other institutions her size.

She is, like Christ her head, not only human but also divine (although in a different way than Jesus is, obviously). She is ever being crucified with him for the sins of her members but she is also always rising with him in the holiness of her saints.

That's what bothers people though. Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church also claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth. While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's inevitable that people will look at the Church through this lens. What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy. They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally. Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.

If you'll pardon my French no. The Church is not "visibly responsible" for these sins. More to the point she is often condemning them, like in the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition. You can't condemn something as an abuse and still be responsible for promulgating it. Not in the eyes of those who are intellectually honest.

If you - or anyone - have a problem with the Church being composed of sinners then by all means show me one that is not. The Fall isn't something you get away from that easily. What would concern me more than a Church made up of sinners who still preaches the Gospel (that "Good News," part of which is the need for everybody to repent of their sinfulness) and so appears somewhat hypocritical, but one that doesn't look like it's filled with hypocrits at all. Once you find one of those run like crazy because given human nature what you have found is an institution filled with sociopaths.

But seriously, is this really a problem for people? That the Church looks like she has hypocrits within her? To that I say: yes, and one more won't hurt a bit so I'll see you at Mass on Sunday! Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous. If you're not a sinner we don't have anything for you (because all the Church has to give is her spouse, Jesus).

I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.

Perhaps. But more often than not I have seen such outrage used more for a cover for anti-Catholic bias (especially from people from the UK and who belong to certain fundamentalist Christian sects). Anti-Catholicism is the one last acceptable prejudice (to quote non-Catholic sociologist Philip Jenkins.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

But the Church remains the Church, given it's authority over me by God, in my belief. Others may think that's a terrible thing; but I cannot order God to take back what I believe was His authority.

I understand all that quite well, logically. Logically, hypocrisy has absolutely no bearing on the truth of what you might say. Human beings though just don't work that way, so I'm trying to explore why I think the Church is reacted to like it is.

My Grandfather left the Church after the scandals. The Church preached the same before and after, but he couldn't tolerate them after. It's just how people react.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I understand all that quite well, logically. Logically, hypocrisy has absolutely no bearing on the truth of what you might say. Human beings though just don't work that way, so I'm trying to explore why I think the Church is reacted to like it is.

My Grandfather left the Church after the scandals. The Church preached the same before and after, but he couldn't tolerate them after. It's just how people react.

I think that's perfectly understandable. I've considered leaving as well.

I do not leave because of what I described as my understanding of the situation. In my belief, God gave the Church authority. The fact that I don't like what the Church is doing does not change what God has done, nor can it. But everyone has to make up their own minds.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I have found it somewhat difficult to test for the presence of love in a laboratory. I called a chemical supply house, they said they don't have it. I think everyone would admit it exists, but apparently you can't pour out a cup of it.

Strange. Things which exist and are self-evident to the person who has it, yet which cannot be measured by science. Must not exist then.

Likewise, I am chemically and atomically identical to my constituent components; the atoms and molecules of which I am made can be piled up and tested as discrete items, and the machines which test them cannot discern which of them is 'me'. Yet I exist, or at least I think I do.

If I understand the science correctly, eventually all of the components (cells, molecules, even atoms) of which I am made will be removed from me by one means or another and replaced by other things, which were not me until they became part of my body, and which are now apparently imbued with the attribute of 'me', which cannot be tested for either.

Although I admit I would be interested in seeing the element 'Bill Mattocks' which a scientist could write a paper about and sell photos of. Probably made of donutium.

And someday, "I" will no longer be present in the physical word, and the things which made up my body will have no attribute in them that is 'me'. That won't be detectable either.

Perhaps I do not exist. Nor you. Nor anyone. Which explains a lot, actually.

Love... does not exist. It is an emotion. A group of brainwaves between my neurons and synapses which enables me to 'sort' or define my attraction to someone. Love has a lot to do with hormones, body chemicals and compatibility. Can we identify love? Not really. But we can identify brain waves and the area in which they reside. Love is measurable despite not being a tangible item.

Same for personality. We may not fully understand the brain, but we do know how it physically interconnects with itself. It can be measured, and defined by the various electrochemical properties. 'you' are measurable, even though we have no real means yet to understand that knowledge. Kinda like looking at a tv image not with a tv but with an oscilloscope. We can't make out the meaning but we do see the signals.

Otoh, there is nothing we can do to discern a transmutated piece of bread from the regular kind.

The comparison with love, identity or life are not valid, because all 3 are measurable and identifiable, even though we cannot fully comprehend what we see. I know perfectly well what is me: my brain and the electrochemical processes within.

 

[yorkshirelad]

That's what bothers people though. Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church also claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth. While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's inevitable that people will look at the Church through this lens. What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy. They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally. Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.

I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.

I understand that some people commit despicable acts and sometimes these people are connected to various orgainzations. It is only when the organizational heads protect these villains and relocate them to posts that allow them to continue offending that I get pissed.
Then again the churched has plundered, pillaged, torture and raped its way to the maintenance of power for over a millenia. Pity the "faithful" cannot see it.

 

[Empty Hands]

In my belief, God gave the Church authority. The fact that I don't like what the Church is doing does not change what God has done, nor can it.

God made an eternal promise to Abraham. However, God also withdrew his favor and authority from his people from time to time when their sins grew too great. What makes you think God couldn't or wouldn't do the same to the Church? Is he, again, a computer program required to follow directions? Or is he a thinking being?

 

[Bruno@MT]

I think that's perfectly understandable. I've considered leaving as well.

I do not leave because of what I described as my understanding of the situation. In my belief, God gave the Church authority. The fact that I don't like what the Church is doing does not change what God has done, nor can it. But everyone has to make up their own minds.

Yeah... The church say that they got that authority. And they convinced you. They have no proof and you don't actually agree with them, so how did you come to follow the RCC instead of the protestant church or the mormons?

That said -and this discussion if getting wildly off topic so let's not let that stand in the way of a good argument- what about the people who claim God talked to them. You know, people ritualistically killing someone else because God told them to do so. If you believe the RCC, why don't believe them? And if it is God's will, why be mad about it?

Likewise, suppose God told you to ritualistically kill your oldest daughter or son and make her a burnt offering, would you do it? Or would you seek medical help on the assumption that -despite the clear biblical precedent- that sort of thing doesn't 'really' happen?

I'm not trying to provoke angry reaction btw. So far this discussion is going just fine and I am seizing the opportunity to try and understand real believers, since that is a foreign concept to me. I don't get how you can be convinced that you are right and the rest is wrong. The graveyard is full of real believers who were wrong despite the fact that they believed with all their heart, just like you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Love... does not exist. It is an emotion. A group of brainwaves between my neurons and synapses which enables me to 'sort' or define my attraction to someone. Love has a lot to do with hormones, body chemicals and compatibility. Can we identify love? Not really. But we can identify brain waves and the area in which they reside. Love is measurable despite not being a tangible item.

You told me it didn't exist, then that it did and can be understood (you can't understand something which does not exist) and then that you don't fully understand it.

I guess I have to take it on faith that love doesn't exist, but can be understood, even though we can't understand it now?

I'm little fuzzy on all that.

Same for personality. We may not fully understand the brain, but we do know how it physically interconnects with itself. It can be measured, and defined by the various electrochemical properties. 'you' are measurable, even though we have no real means yet to understand that knowledge. Kinda like looking at a tv image not with a tv but with an oscilloscope. We can't make out the meaning but we do see the signals.

We don't understand it fully, but we have a rough idea. So that's that, then. I still want to see you pour out a cup of me. Not any old personality, but me, specifically. Let me know when you can do that.

Otoh, there is nothing we can do to discern a transmutated piece of bread from the regular kind.

As opposed to the nothing you can do to identify and synthesize the personality that is me. I get it. I have to accept that you *can* do the love and personality thing, but you can't do it now, and you can't do the 'god in the wafer' thing no matter how long you try.

And I'm supposed to believe that?

The comparison with love, identity or life are not valid, because all 3 are measurable and identifiable, even though we cannot fully comprehend what we see. I know perfectly well what is me: my brain and the electrochemical processes within.

You just said you could not fully identify or understand them, but because you have parts of the puzzle, that's good enough.

I think the comparison is quite valid. Things exist which have no measurable attributes. You can't pour out a cup of love, nor a cup of me, but you claim you can - someday. Except for the love thing, which doesn't exist while still somehow existing.

On a more serious note; you dismissed love as a 'thing' because it is an emotion. Emotions are real, even if they do not possess the attribute of physicality. They are an artifact of consciousness. If God is present in a consecrated wafer and that reality is entirely contained within my consciousness, it is no less real than love.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Perhaps. But more often than not I have seen such outrage used more for a cover for anti-Catholic bias (especially from people from the UK and who belong to certain fundamentalist Christian sects). Anti-Catholicism is the one last acceptable prejudice (to quote non-Catholic sociologist Philip Jenkins.

Pax,

Chris

Funnily enough, I am from the UK and am by no means a christian. I'm a theist. I believe in a God a some kind, but not the bloke on a cloud with a white beard. Who knows, maybe my belief is a result of conditioning, but I believe non the less.

There may have been an historical Jesus. Then again there were many messianic figures at that time. I don't see Jesus as any more worthy of veneration than I do David Blaine or Chris Angel. At least with the latter two, I can see the miracles before my eyes.

 

[Bruno@MT]

God made an eternal promise to Abraham. However, God also withdrew his favor and authority from his people from time to time when their sins grew too great. What makes you think God couldn't or wouldn't do the same to the Church? Is he, again, a computer program required to follow directions? Or is he a thinking being?

Given the history of the RCC (which is no blame to current believers obviously) I would be greatly surprised if God hadn't withdrawn his favor and authority from the RCC somewhere around the dark ages with the inquisition, the crusades and the witch burning.

Interesting question.

 

[Empty Hands]

The Church is not "visibly responsible" for these sins. More to the point she is often condemning them, like in the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition. You can't condemn something as an abuse and still be responsible for promulgating it. Not in the eyes of those who are intellectually honest.

The Church condemned fornication, yet tolerated widespread fornication at the highest levels of its leadership. The Church preached mercy and justice, and also burned men like Tyndale at the stake for translating the Bible. The Church preached peace, yet Popes like Julius II waged war. Of course the Church can be visibly responsible for that which it condemns, hence hypocrisy. To have you deny that this occurred at points in Church history is mind boggling, especially considering your obvious religious historical education.

If the Church is not visibly responsible for the widespread actions of its leadership because the dogma says otherwise, then the US government can never be responsible for injustice because the Constitution promises fairness and freedom. Spurious logic.

But seriously, is this really a problem for people? That the Church looks like she has hypocrits within her?

Yes, and I've explained why. It should be pretty obvious to you too. After all, you yourself said that the criminal actions of the priests were worse than tying a millstone around their necks and throwing themselves into the sea. Because they are corrupting the message with their actions. So, you know, you already get it, but for some reason are being incredulous now.

 

[Empty Hands]

I don't see Jesus as any more worthy of veneration than I do David Blaine or Chris Angel. At least with the latter two, I can see the miracles before my eyes.

However, Jesus has the advantage of not being a colossal douchebag. Point: Jesus.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the Church is not visibly responsible for the widespread actions of its leadership because the dogma says otherwise, then the US government can never be responsible for injustice because the Constitution promises fairness and freedom. Spurious logic.

I was not aware that we prosecute 'The US government' for crimes. I thought we went after individual elected officials and employees of the government for wrong-doing.

The US government is not responsible for injustice. But the people who are responsible for it can certainly be prosecuted for the crimes they commit.

Seems like the same philosophy could be applied to the RCC.

 

[Bruno@MT]

You told me it didn't exist, then that it did and can be understood (you can't understand something which does not exist) and then that you don't fully understand it.

I guess I have to take it on faith that love doesn't exist, but can be understood, even though we can't understand it now?

I'm little fuzzy on all that.

O come on Bill. You are a technical person. Are you telling me you did not understand me?
Love exists in the same way a computer program exists in a CPU. Not in a physical sense, but as a collection of signals that process information.

Not made up of atoms, but electromagnetism and chemical processes.

We don't understand it fully, but we have a rough idea. So that's that, then. I still want to see you pour out a cup of me. Not any old personality, but me, specifically. Let me know when you can do that.

Please Bill. That does not change anything. We are talking about observable processes. We don't yet understand them, but we can observe them

On a more serious note; you dismissed love as a 'thing' because it is an emotion. Emotions are real, even if they do not possess the attribute of physicality. They are an artifact of consciousness. If God is present in a consecrated wafer and that reality is entirely contained within my consciousness, it is no less real than love.

We can observe all those things I mentioned via the 4 laws of nature. Gravity, EM, and the nuclear forces. The fact that we don't comrehend the knowledge does not invalidate the fact that we can measure it: personality, love, and identity. Fairly well even. On an MRI you can see brain functions activate, triggered by specific emtions. We cannot interpret, but we can see it is there.

The consecrated wafer has NO such properties. Therefore it is different from love, personalit and identity because we can observe them.

 

[Empty Hands]

I was not aware that we prosecute 'The US government' for crimes. I thought we went after individual elected officials and employees of the government for wrong-doing.

The US government is not responsible for injustice. But the people who are responsible for it can certainly be prosecuted for the crimes they commit.

No, the US government does not stand in court to answer for itself. However, the institution as a whole is still responsible for it's actions, which is demonstrated by both how others describe and react to the institution, and how the institution itself reacts. For instance, the US Senate apologized for slavery in 2009 despite the fact that no one alive today was alive then. The government has a credit rating, agreements, and disputes with other nations and peoples, and all with the "US Government", not "John Boehner" or "Barack Obama". If others don't like the actions of the US government, they dispute with or declare war on the US government and people, not "Barack Obama" or even "Bill Mattocks."

It's the same with other institutions. Corporations can be fined or even have their charter revoked for illegal activity, while their officers may or may not be held liable (depends on the crimes and circumstances).

The government, any institution, is the sum of the people in it, but their collective activity over time can be and usually is attributed to the institution as a whole. If one director of a company commits murder on his own, the company is not responsible. If the company as a whole commits widespread and consistent crimes (think Enron or United Fruit), then the entire company is described as such.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

O come on Bill. You are a technical person. Are you telling me you did not understand me?
Love exists in the same way a computer program exists in a CPU. Not in a physical sense, but as a collection of signals that process information.

Hmmm. So there are things that exist which are not physical? I thought I said that.

We can observe all those things I mentioned via the 4 laws of nature. Gravity, EM, and the nuclear forces. The fact that we don't comrehend the knowledge does not invalidate the fact that we can measure it: personality, love, and identity. Fairly well even. On an MRI you can see brain functions activate, triggered by specific emtions. We cannot interpret, but we can see it is there.

So you can tell me when a person feels love versus when they do not? You can tell my personality from any other personality?

The consecrated wafer has NO such properties. Therefore it is different from love, personalit and identity because we can observe them.

So if something has no properties that you can observe, it does not have those properties? I wonder what atoms did for fun before we could observe them, since they didn't exist and all.

 

[Empty Hands]

Hmmm. So there are things that exist which are not physical? I thought I said that.

Emotions, like all thoughts, are physical, and the product of a physical brain. The action potential and synaptic transmission are the basis of all neural communication, with well defined chemical and electrical properties. Thus, entirely physical (sodium ions, channels, neurotransmitters, the whole shebang). Block the action potential (i.e. tetrodotoxin, the blowfish toxin) and you block thought.

So you can tell me when a person feels love versus when they do not? You can tell my personality from any other personality?

I can tell your personality from other personalities very distinctly, and I don't even need any fancy equipment.

So if something has no properties that you can observe, it does not have those properties? I wonder what atoms did for fun before we could observe them, since they didn't exist and all.

Atoms always had observable properties, we simply did not have the required means to observe them. Actually, some properties can be observed with the naked eye, we just did not know how to tie those observations to atoms until recently. Even though the idea of atoms is millenia old.

If I am understanding the theology here correctly, transubstantiated wafer and wine have no observable properties, under any definition or set of conditions. Very different things.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Atoms always had observable properties, we simply did not have the required means to observe them. Actually, some properties can be observed with the naked eye, we just did not know how to tie those observations to atoms until recently. Even though the idea of atoms is millenia old.

Right. So they still had those properties before we could observe them. They existed regardless of our perceptions.

And if we once could not observe characteristics we now can observe, then it stands to reason that there are characteristics we cannot observe, but we might someday.

They, likewise, exist despite the fact that we can't observe them.

Q.E.D.

If I am understanding the theology here correctly, transubstantiated wafer and wine have no observable properties, under any definition or set of conditions. Very different things.

But we have stated that things which exist still exist even when we cannot observe them.

So if something exists, whether we cannot observe it today but perhaps someday we will, or whether we cannot ever observe it due to some other law we cannot grasp, if it exists, it exists.

Just making it clear, I am not playing mere word games here.

• Things which exist, exist whether or not we can observe them. If we can observe them, we can prove they exist, but they exist nonetheless.
• Things which exist, existed in the past even if we could not observe them at that time (or did not know what we were looking at, to be precise).
• Things which exist that we cannot (yet) observe exist even before we can observe them.
• Things which exist which we will never be able to observe exist even though we will never observe them.

All of the above statements exist along a continuum of faith. We can speak with the authority of fact when we speak of things which exist and we can observe. We cannot speak with the authority of fact of things which we reasonably believe to exist, but which we cannot yet observe. We cannot speak with any authority of things which some believe to exist, but which believers claim can never be observed. One end is science, the other end is faith. And yet, that which exists, exists. Its existence is not predicated on being observed, as you've stated yourself. Observing something which exists merely moves it down the continuum of faith towards the side of science, it does not change the existence of the thing in question.

It is also true that things which do not exist cannot be observed. When dealing with faith, one must make a choice. But regardless of the choice made, if the thing being described exists, it exists. If it does not exist, it does not exist. Faith in or lack of faith in it does not affect that.

So, getting back to the original question on the nature of the consecrated Host. I believe it is the Body of Christ. Either it is or it is not. But it remains either one or the other independent of scientific observation.