Can An Atheist Be Catholic?

[ST BERNARD]

As far as Phatmass goes, the debate is more than likely already over. :P

 

 

I see, hardly as interesting as I thought it might be then. :|

[Nihil Obstat]

I see, hardly as interesting as I thought it might be then. :|

If a debate gets very heated very quickly, you can sometimes expect it to last for hundreds of posts or more. If it stays relatively calm, it will last a few days and then fade away. :hehe:

[ST BERNARD]

If a debate gets very heated very quickly, you can sometimes expect it to last for hundreds of posts or more. If it stays relatively calm, it will last a few days and then fade away. :hehe:

 

 

I see. so no such thing as intelligent debate just for the sake of an intellectual discussion in this place then? Sad :(

[Nihil Obstat]

I see. so no such thing as intelligent debate just for the sake of an intellectual discussion in this place then? Sad :(

Oh, it happens. But most of the best debators have drifted away or gone much quieter.

[ST BERNARD]

 

Oh, it happens. But most of the best debators have drifted away or gone much quieter.

 

 

Well, you seem very intelligent. Are you intelligent? The one called Era Might seems very intelligent too. Is he intelligent?

 

I really enjoy discussing things with intelligent people who don't get all offended when someone holds a differing point of view, because they know that reasoned discussion is much more likely to get someone to think twice about their position than emotional outbursts or petulant attacks.

 

I don't know that conversation ever really changed a person's opinion, but I know in my case, I often ponder over issues and can consider contradicting ideas at the same time while I assess (or re-assess) my own point of views.

 

Anyway, I might just hang around this phatmass forum for awhile since there does seem to be at least some intelligent life on this planet. :p (do I have to say just kidding or was that evident already?)

[Not A Real Name]

I'll never be the darling of the so-called "City Fathers" who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about "What's to be done with this Homer Simpson?"

Edited January 13, 2015 by Not A Real Name

[ST BERNARD]

:popcorn:

[Ash Wednesday]

There are quite a few intelligent people that have frequented the phorum. There is a particular group on here designated as Church Scholars who have degrees in Theology as well. The place has gotten quiet lately and went through a renovation of sorts, so it's nice to see new blood like yourself, St. Bernard.

 

I reckon a number of intelligents who posted in the past are busy doing cool stuff like going to grad school, getting married and having babies.

 

(Alas, I'm not a scholar or the best with words or debate. But I am an artist and can discuss aesthetics until the kingdom cows come home.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, you seem very intelligent. Are you intelligent?

Depends who you ask.

[Not A Real Name]

[Anomaly]

Well, you seem very intelligent. Are you intelligent? The one called Era Might seems very intelligent too. Is he intelligent?

I really enjoy discussing things with intelligent people who don't get all offended when someone holds a differing point of view, because they know that reasoned discussion is much more likely to get someone to think twice about their position than emotional outbursts or petulant attacks.

I don't know that conversation ever really changed a person's opinion, but I know in my case, I often ponder over issues and can consider contradicting ideas at the same time while I assess (or re-assess) my own point of views.

Anyway, I might just hang around this phatmass forum for awhile since there does seem to be at least some intelligent life on this planet. :p (do I have to say just kidding or was that evident already?)

It's rather difficult to engage in an intelligent conversation for very long in Phatmass. Some get butt hurt and others go off on tangents, then the next thing you know it's a flame war and ponies. Alas, the great days are in the past, if they ever were.

But per original topic, it really boils down to what one codifies to "be" Catholic? Practicing Catholic may mean just following the required behaviors. I think that is most Catholics. I don't think one can really be a Catholic and knowingly disagree with the Fundamental precepts. .

[An Historian]

No, an atheist cannot be Catholic.  However, for those who struggle with their faith, these words from J. R. R. Tolkien to his son, who was struggling with his faith, should bear fruit.

"I have suffered grievously in my life from stupid, tired, dimmed, and even bad priests; but I now know enough about myself to be aware that I should not leave the Church (which for me would mean leaving the allegiance of Our Lord) for any such reasons: I should leave because I did not believe, and should not believe any more, even if I had never met any one in orders who was not both wise and saintly. I should deny the Blessed Sacrament, that is: call Our Lord a fraud to His face.... I find it for myself difficult to believe that anyone who has ever been to Communion, even once, with at least right intention, can ever again reject Him without grave blame. (however, He alone knows each unique soul and its circumstances.) The only cure for sagging or fainting faith is communion. Though always Itself, perfect and complete and inviolate, the Blessed Sacrament does not operate completely and once for all in any of us. Like the act of Faith it must be continuous and grow by excercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals"

 

To willfully doubt is sinful.  To doubt, to struggle with that temptation and that unsurety, is a great cross God has given you, and it will only bear fruit by acts of faith, and Holy Communion is indeed the greatest act of faith.  Sometimes you're just going through the motions, sometimes you can't construct a coherent thought in your head.  We as people obsess over the details.  We all too often slip into pelagianism.  There are no secret combination of words to unlock the secrets of the mysteries of God.

 

You just have to dive in a try.

[Amppax]

But it is not confined to that. That would be Pelagianism.

 

On an unrelated note: 

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw[/media]

[Era Might]

I think that is most Catholics. I don't think one can really be a Catholic and knowingly disagree with the Fundamental precepts. .

 

I guess I take a more poetic view of Catholicism. To quote Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

Not sure if you're familiar with Simone Weil, she was a sort of mystic/tortured soul who also refused to be baptized in the church, which she explains in a famous autobiographical letter to a priest. Kenneth Rexroth wrote an article about her, and comments:

 

Fr. Perrin and M. Thibon may have been wise men in their generation, but they both fell into the trap of her dialectic of agony. They took her seriously — in the wrong way. They lacked the vulgar but holy frivolity of common sense of the unsophisticated parish priest who would have told her, “Come, come, my child, what you need is to get baptized, obey the Ten Commandments, go to Mass on Sundays, make your Easter duties, forget about religion, put some meat on your bones, and get a husband.” Simone Weil knew the type, and she avoided them as a criminal avoids the police, and probably secretly disdained them as much.

 

That kind of practical Catholicism, unconcerned with theology or existential agony, has always been part of the church's spiritual tradition. The truly wise in the church aren't zealots who want to get rid of that, but work with it, believing in a deeper level of redemption that doesn't begin and end with theological formula.

[An Historian]

I guess I take a more poetic view of Catholicism. To quote Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

Not sure if you're familiar with Simone Weil, she was a sort of mystic/tortured soul who also refused to be baptized in the church, which she explains in a famous autobiographical letter to a priest. Kenneth Rexroth wrote an article about her, and comments:

 

 

That kind of practical Catholicism, unconcerned with theology or existential agony, has always been part of the church's spiritual tradition. The truly wise in the church aren't zealots who want to get rid of that, but work with it, believing in a deeper level of redemption that doesn't begin and end with theological formula.

 

Whilst I can appreciate those sentiments on practical Catholicism, it is a little too simplified.  There is a bit more depth to the matter.  Our religion cannot be too esoteric, but neither can it be so vulgar.  With modern communications technology and the wide availablity of the works like Saint John of the Cross, it seems everyone's sitting around waiting for their own little Dark Night of the Soul, or they're trying to count the rooms in their interior castles as they debate such and such a spiritual or theological issue.

 

The most advantageous Catholicism, the truly genuine Catholicism, is, in my view, the Catholicism of Father Faber combined with the liturgical spirituality of the Benedictine tradition.  If you have not already done so,  heartily, heartily recommend you read Father Faber's works.  They're all available online now.  He was a favourite of Good Pope John who read him every night, and was highly revered by Dom Paul Delatte (Abbot of Solesmes).  And, if I may be forgiven the expression, he was just that damned good.