uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:34 pm
Alizia wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:34 pmTo a Catholic there is a whole other range of information that enters into the picture. Yes, scripture has high relevance. But 'we' have a whole other information-set (unsure how to express it) and that is 'tradition'.
Actually, 'tradition' expresses it very well, being the word the Vatican uses itself. It is no coincidence that the Mafia calls itself 'cosa nostra' - 'our thing'. The church and the Medici had their things, both of which exploited the disenfranchised, some of whom decided to be as corrupt and violent as religion and politics. The whole point of Protestantism was to break with 'tradition' and give control of scripture to individuals. People liked the idea that Jesus could save them, but they wanted salvation on their own terms. The only authority was 'sola scriptura'. The Bible was printed in the vernacular and anyone could interpret it as they saw fit. So now there is a denomination to suit most tastes. If you can't find one that fits, just make up your own, accuse anyone that challenges you of heresy and condemn them to eternal torture, if that pleases you. Which is exactly what Mr Can and his type have done.
Now, now!
I thought of making a few comments but I do not perceive that you are interested in the topic, except if it involves condemnation. I do not say that I blame you necessarily for operating from a perspective of condemnation. But I suppose that to be frank -- that is, if you were frank -- you would (likely?) say that you are a complete atheist and do not value nor respect the 'traditions' referred to, nor do you find much value in the essence of Christian belief (obviously, as an atheist does not believe in such essences, and thus is an atheist!)
My question is rather different. I want to discover what those essences really are, and how and why they were perceived as fundamental truths, and also why the persisted (and persist), and then also how these persistent truths have moulded people, ideas, literature, values, and meaning. Though I respect your choice (which seems to me one of total rejection)(?) I would find that choice quite improper. I would say that it is 'unfair' if I were charitable, and
non-intelligent if I were in a bad mood. (Yet I could never and would never say that you are non-intelligent. Indeed you seem quite the opposite).
Some days I feel *like the smile of the Cheshire Cat*. It hangs there in the air, unsupported by reason, rather unbelievable -- impossible! -- and I note that the supporting ground for the belief in
the smile has been completely removed, undermined, and yet I still a) believe in it, or b) insist on believing what is unbelievable as a perverse act of an erring will!
But in truth I am spiritually weak. Or perhaps my problem is something else, something I can't see and recognize? Though I am technically Catholic I must say that the liturgy of the (
present) Catholic Church is horrifying to me in many ways. (The
old liturgies, for example in the Breviary or in the Missal and definitely in the Psaltery are rich and to me amazing).
This might be something you are unfamiliar with: the changes in Catholic liturgy that resulted from the 'revolution' in the Church in the post-Vatican ll era. And since there are no traditional (Latin) masses anywhere nearby I just don't attend church. I can't bear the noise of it (and I think Mass should be silent as one 'hears' it and engages with it). I exist in my own 'little world of belief' and only try to be sincere with myself while at the same time trying to be sincere with God. Frankly, and though I admire Catholic theology and find it really quite well thought-out and value-rich, I sort of experience envy of the more 'immediate' relationship that some Evangelicals have. Catholicism can sometimes seem like an array of 'layers' established between the person (the soul if you will) and God. Well, that will result after 1500 years of laden history.