I converted to Catholicism after many years deep in the drug culture, AMA

[SKL]

That's very interesting, what you wrote about the liturgy. Thank you, SKL. But if you find the time, could you write an answer to this?

Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?

Sure. I think I touched on it somewhere above, but it might bear some more elaboration. "Keeping people unable to question, etc." I would pretty much characterize as a Protestant canard. Yes, there was significant opposition in the Church to translation of Sacred Scripture into the vernacular, and, to be quite honest, not without good reason, especially in that era. Communication across Christendom was very slow and local power easily consolidated, so heretical sects could readily arise, viz. the Albigensians, based on false interpretations of Scripture, and a central authority was (and still is) needed to interpret Scripture to the layman. Individual interpretation of Scripture lends itself to having as many interpretations of Scriptures as they are individuals, and while this may fit in well with our subjectivist modern ideas about spirituality ("moralistic therapeutic deism" &c.) it is antithetical to the Catholic understanding of our spiritual and sacramental life as being grounded in Sacred Scripture. Now, by no means do I believe that the educated Catholic should be without Scriptural knowledge: much the opposite, but the exegesis had ought to be done under the guidance of the Holy Mother Church.

The Protestant response to this is more or less that the Holy Spirit will guide individual Protestants in forming their own exegesis, but the contrary is rather demonstrated by the history of Protestantism, i.e. ten thousand denominations mutually excommunicating one another and having their own varying interpretations of Scripture, and stepping back from excommunicating one another only in favor of accepting some sort of moral relativism. What's more, after the great break of historical continuity that occurred with Luther but especially with Calvin and his spiritual descendants in the West, it is very hard to define a standard Christianity by these standards. Who is to say that the Seventh Day Adventists, or the Armstrongists, or Watchtower, or perhaps even the Mormons (a religion which bears about as much a relation to Christianity as does Islam, but that is another topic) have not gotten at the truth by virtue of (their claim to) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, if we are not to defer to some sort of Sacred Tradition? And if we do so, why should that Tradition make an abrupt break with a 16th century friar?

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. II Peter i, 20.

So the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is in the hands of the Church, and has been handed down to us in a linear mode since time immemorial. Now, without a doubt, there have been dark periods in the history of the Church where truth would be threatened by falsehood and also the obscurantism to which you refer to above, but nonetheless, as Catholics we believe that. by Divine Providence, Sacred Scripture and Tradition have been preserved from their origins until this very day.

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Mt 24:11-13.

Now, as regards the Latin Mass ...

First of all, this being in contemporary times, when I attend a Mass in the usus antiquior, I bring a Missal that looks something like this:

Such that, while I have a little Latin, I can follow along even when my Latin fails me.

The Scriptural readings and the Homily are always given in the vernacular.

The bits that are in the Latin are probably in the bare textual majority repeated in each (or in the great majority) of Masses, and the Catholic who attends Mass regularly will, with or without an interpretation in the vernacular like the above, if properly catechized, will have a sense of what is going on. The Latin that is recited by the laity at Mass is mostly the same day to day, and forms the structure that is the backbone of the mass. Most of it is intelligible to speakers of European langauges even if they have no Latin proper. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem, for instance. It would have been all the more intelligible to a Mass-goer who was steeped in Christian tradition in pre-Reformation times. The idea that the faithful were unaware of what was going on in the Mass due to not knowing Latin is patently false. They were catechized about the structure and meaning of the Mass, and beliefs around this were ubiquitous as Christian practice was wholly integrated into society at this time. Preaching in the vernacular was a common enough practice, especially with groups like the Dominicans, and while at times local priests were not particularly educated to do so or diligent in discharging this obligation, the Church or local ecclesiastical authorities did from time to time distribute sermons for the less learned clergy to pass on to their parishoners.

Also, above all, the Mass is not about reading the text or even necessarily gaining something from it in an exegetical sense, it is a sacrament with spiritual power imbued within it essentially. One does not need to comprehend the language being spoken in order to partake of the spiritual gifts. I could go to Mass in (say) Japanese, a language of which I have no knowledge, and not only would I be able to recognize what is going on, but in Catholic theological terms, I would reap the same spiritual benefits.

I hope this helps ...

 

[tokezu]

Yes that cleared it up some more for me, thanks. From my point of view it seems as if the

dark periods in the history of the Church where truth would be threatened by falsehood and also the obscurantism to which you refer to above

have tainted these traditions so much, that I feel like it's sending the wrong signal to still uphold them today. But this is obviously because I don't place much value on these traditions in the first place. I have to disagree with your statement, that before the reformation lay people knew exactly what was going on in mass and understood the ideas behind it, but that is a historical debate that doesn't really have a place here.

Although I find it very hard to wrap my head around some of these concepts (e.g. the purpose of the mass as a sacrament and not to bring across important content), I very much appreciate you taking the time and energy to answer all these questions. I really like discussing stuff like this, but every Christian (even theologians) I have spoken with about this seemed to subscribe to what you called "moralistic therapeutic deism" and pretty soon retreated to a position of "In the end it's really just about doing what feels right for you." whenever difficult questions arose, which I always found very frustrating.

Edit: Almost forgot... Fixed that for you

based on imho false interpretations of Scripture

 

[pinkbuffalo91]

From drugs to a dogmatic religion is pretty normal. Especially when is sounds as if lock up was involved, that gives you a chance to view your mortality in an exaggerated extent.

 

[sigmond]

Do you feel accepted by your fellow Catholics?

 

[socko]

...
Also, above all, the Mass is not about reading the text or even necessarily gaining something from it in an exegetical sense, it is a sacrament with spiritual power imbued within it essentially. One does not need to comprehend the language being spoken in order to partake of the spiritual gifts. I could go to Mass in (say) Japanese, a language of which I have no knowledge, and not only would I be able to recognize what is going on, but in Catholic theological terms, I would reap the same spiritual benefits.

I hope this helps ...

It's interesting you say that. What is it about the mass that you feel and experience? I'm not a Christian, but I went to Mass this evening and felt something very uplifting about it. It was very contemplative. It makes you want to "Ascend" if that is possible.I only listened and tried to follow along, but could not understand much. It was in Latin and the location was Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris because that is very close to my flat. On one hand, the ceremony itself as well as the art and architecture is uplifting, but there is more to it than that. You could find a visit to a museum or listening to a symphony uplifting as well, but in a different way.

 

[SKL]

Do you feel accepted by your fellow Catholics?

Interesting question. Given my history with drugs and crime and suchlike, I feel pretty alienated from much of society. Alot of what I've done and what I've experienced I feel very difficult to share with people who haven't been in that world. As far as other parishioners at services or what not, I do feel a certain difficulty in relating as my lived experience has been so dramatically different. However, in terms of sacraments, I know that the church is not a place for perfect beings but a hospital for the spiritually sick and the sinner. In the confessional any priest has probably heard worse. At Mass, we remind ourselves that we have sinned and we are the greatest of sinners. The acceptance of God, rather than our peers, is what is important, and that comes through prayer, confession, and contrition.

It's interesting you say that. What is it about the mass that you feel and experience? I'm not a Christian, but I went to Mass this evening and felt something very uplifting about it. It was very contemplative. It makes you want to "Ascend" if that is possible.I only listened and tried to follow along, but could not understand much. It was in Latin and the location was Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris because that is very close to my flat. On one hand, the ceremony itself as well as the art and architecture is uplifting, but there is more to it than that. You could find a visit to a museum or listening to a symphony uplifting as well, but in a different way.

Why did you have a subjective experience that is uplifting in the Mass, even if you are not a practicing Catholic?

Catholic answer: you were in the presence of the Real Presence of Christ in the form of the transubstantiated bread and wine, which exerts it's powerful presence even to the unbeliever.

Secular answer: you were in a place and participating in a ceremony who's origin which connects you, even subconsciously, with a hundred generations of your forefathers, which cannot but have a psychological impact upon you, whether you are a believer or not.

Both are important IMO. As a (relatively) secular (but nominally Christian) individual before my conversion, it was the latter part, the history and the continuity with the history of my forefathers that really attracted me to Christianity, the hermeneutic of continuity as Benedict XVI put it ... from that I drew my interest in the Catholic faith or the Catholic exegesis of Scripture, tradition and Tradition.

 

[noone1]

I'm still interested to see what your answer is to the "historicity" of Catholicism. It's a fact that what we have are copies of copies of copies altered by scribes through both accident and bias. Not even getting into the council of nicea and how so many texts where expunged and chosen.

If this was all directed by God then what does history have to do with it? You're still basing things on faith not logic and reason.

 

[ForcePower8]

I don't know if you want to continue this thread or not, but one question that did come to mind is one of prayer. Oftentimes when people are confused about religion they pray to "whoever or whatever is listening" and not to the specific god of any religion. In Catholic theology, when someone prays like that (basically sending out a signal to see if anyone responds) does the Christian god hear that prayer and respond or does the prayer have to be directed specifically at Jesus or Yahweh to be valid?

 

[sigmond]

Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? What do you think about Lewis's trilemma?

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma

 

[Xorkoth]

I fail to see the logic in that argument. What makes it impossible for him to be a great human teacher and not something beyond that? Does the author think that humans are incapable of great insight and wisdom, and that any appearance of such is either madness, evil, or else god?

 

[Damien]

I fail to see the logic in that argument. What makes it impossible for him to be a great human teacher and not something beyond that? Does the author think that humans are incapable of great insight and wisdom, and that any appearance of such is either madness, evil, or else god?

It has to do with Jesus' message in particular; that he is the Son of God, that we should follow him, and that apart from him we can do nothing. The point is that a lot of people like to remember certain things Jesus said while leaving other stuff on the table. Check out Matthew chapter 10, in particular verses 34-39 for and example.

 

[Xorkoth]

I think that particular message was distorted for social control purposes. My belief is that Jesus was saying that we're all god and all we need to do is treat each other right and work together and we can have paradise. Of course I don't really know that. It just seems to me, from reading the NT through multiple times when I was much younger and struggling with the whole concept of Christianity, that the messages are too contradictory. Then when I found out that they were written well after his death, as much as one hundred or more years, and that many books were omitted (including ones written closer to his life that have quite a different tone), I just stopped believing that the words in the NT are actually the unadulterated words of the actual person.

 

[Damien]

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[sigmond]

I fail to see the logic in that argument. What makes it impossible for him to be a great human teacher and not something beyond that? Does the author think that humans are incapable of great insight and wisdom, and that any appearance of such is either madness, evil, or else god?

The argument does not deny that Jesus was a great moral teacher the issue is that he claimed to be the "Son of God". There were many great moral teachers who lived before Jesus but what makes Jesus unique is his birth, crucifixion, resurrection and his claim to be the son of god.

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God'.

I think that particular message was distorted for social control purposes. My belief is that Jesus was saying that we're all god and all we need to do is treat each other right and work together and we can have paradise. Of course I don't really know that. It just seems to me, from reading the NT through multiple times when I was much younger and struggling with the whole concept of Christianity, that the messages are too contradictory. Then when I found out that they were written well after his death, as much as one hundred or more years, and that many books were omitted (including ones written closer to his life that have quite a different tone), I just stopped believing that the words in the NT are actually the unadulterated words of the actual person.

I believe they consider this "The argument from history".

 

[Jabberwocky]

Ken Wilber upset a lot of people with his desire to create order out of human development, but he definitely said some things that make a lot of sense to me personally. This quote of his from "The Translucent Revolution" sums it up for me.

If you are in an ethnocentric stage of development and you have a unity-state experience of being one with everything, you might interpret that as an experience of oneness with Jesus and conclude that nobody can be saved unless they accept Jesus as their personal savior. If you are at an egocentric stage and have the same experience, you might believe that you yourself are Jesus. If you are at an integral stage you are likely to conclude that you and all sentient beings without exception are one in the spirit.

I like to believe Jesus taught the integral version

 

[sigmond]

The accepting Christ as lord and savior has been an issue for me. I am inclined and have a desire to believe in God although my rational self is sort of on the fence. The antecedent of accepting Jesus as lord and savior makes believing more difficult.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Yeah, it would be for me too if accepting Jesus as lord and savior had an everyday meaning of one specific individual. I just want to be clear that I never even read the bible but Jesus is in my consciousness a lot. Guess it helps to have a face and name to go along with a message, but I don't think personally it's about idolizing the messenger. I studied his channelled teachings in A course in miracles so can only speak to that.

traditional Christianity teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for our sins and reopened the gates of Heaven. God then raised him from the dead as proof that Jesus was the Son of God, and that his sacrifice bridged the gap that occurred between God and His children when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden. The Gospel account tells of the resurrection of the body and establishes that fact as a fundamental belief for many Christian sects.

That viewpoint isn't how I look at it and contradicts what I learned about it

 

[sigmond]

My last comments were mainly in the context of Christianity. I have been entertaining the idea of identifying as a Christian however would not want to do so in 'bad faith'. I do want to take a leap of faith in some direction rather than living as a nihilist.

 

[Damien]

The accepting Christ as lord and savior has been an issue for me. I am inclined and have a desire to believe in God although my rational self is sort of on the fence. The antecedent of accepting Jesus as lord and savior makes believing more difficult.

I think you find a theistic God with reason but I think that belief in Jesus' divinity takes faith. You should look into classic theism. Check out people like Edward Feser or David Bently Hart.

 

[drug_mentor]

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

This is a fairly text book example of a false dilemma. Lewis asserts without argument that these are the only three possibilities, and it seems pretty clear that there are numerous other things Jesus might have been instead. He may have been a benevolent liar, for example.

Even if one was to buy into the fallacy that Jesus could have only been one of these three things, is there any real evidence that he wasn't a lunatic? I mean, last I checked (admittedly some time ago) there was some credible disagreement over whether Jesus ever even existed at all. My point is that very little is known about him, much of what is "known" was written by people who did not know him personally. We aren't talking concrete evidence here, it doesn't seem reasonable to take a strong position on the state of his mental health.

The argument does not deny that Jesus was a great moral teacher the issue is that he claimed to be the "Son of God". There were many great moral teachers who lived before Jesus but what makes Jesus unique is his birth, crucifixion, resurrection and his claim to be the son of god.

The problem is that none of the things which make Jesus unique entail that he has to be either a God, a madman or the Devil.

Lewis's trilemma is an objectively terrible argument.