Am I the only person who actually DISAGREES with Father Altman's video?

[fides' Jack]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Other than his wealth, Trump strikes me as the average American white person, frankly. 60% of white Americans voted for Trump in 2016. It's not like he is some anomaly that thinks so much worse than the average white person.

Now, if you have problems voting for him, I certainly understand that. Most likely, I will not be voting for him either. But yeah I think the characterizations about him being some sort of extremist when it comes to race are overblown. I think the main difference is that he states out-loud what most politicians choose to keep secret. Many other politicians "dog-whistle" to the same groups that Trump has. They are less obvious about it, but substantively I don't see a whole lot of difference.

Despite some of my other comments here, I'm not a big Trump supporter.  This basically sums up my thoughts on him.

21 hours ago, cutenickname said:

Someone who can't say "I do not want the support of Nazis, ethnonationalists, and white supremacists" is not someone I as a descendant of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and the parent of two melanated children (one of whom is male, a little Afrolatino boy who superman, French fries, dinosaurs, and going "super fast") can support. Donald Trump is comfortable with the support of people who think my body and children's bodies (especially my son's body) are proxies for evil, disorder, and lawlessness. He terrifies me.

And my argument to this would be why you blocked me...  You can block me again if you wish.  My statements are meant as a brotherly correction, and certainly I feel no malice, even if they're strongly worded.

In point of fact, Trump has already denounced nazis and white supremacists more than any other conservative politician in history, but the left media acts like he hasn't, and keeps claiming that he hasn't.  It's a terrible lie.  The only reason I limit that to "conservative" politicians is because these terms for "nazi" and "white supremacists" are being used currently as a meaningless weapon to attack just about all conservatives, unfairly.  Just like the term "racist", which has been misapplied so much that it's almost entirely devoid of meaning now.  If you don't agree with the left, you are a "racist", and they will destroy your life because you don't agree with them.

Anyway, I wish you nothing but peace and happiness, and I sincerely hope you find your way back to the One, True Faith, as I'm sure you would expect from a Catholic.

[cutenickname]

18 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Anyway, I wish you nothing but peace and happiness, and I sincerely hope you find your way back to the One, True Faith, as I'm sure you would expect from a Catholic.

Any Catholic who believes the Catholic Church's claims about herself and is not actively praying that I, my children, and my *husband who are all baptized Catholics find our way back into the embrace of the Catholic Church hates us and is derelict in charity towards us; so I appreciate your concern and take it as intended [that of course is not an invitation to debate my super wicked homofascist marriage]. I am torn between doctrinal disagreements (on Papal Authority and the Moral Teachings) with the Church on the one hand and the very strong sense that even if it meant me having to not receive the sacraments I think my children would be much safer spiritually as Catholics than as Episcopalians where we are one bad priest away from accidental attendance at some kind of Goddess liturgy, so my husband and I have to decide which gnat to strain and which camel to swallow (Matt 23:24).

*(he was baptized Catholic, but raised in a variety of strange Protestantisms, some of which were quite accidentally not even Christian.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

That's not possible.  Abortion will always be more grave than the death penalty, in every way that matters to Catholic morality.  The Church, despite popular (incorrect) opinion, still teaches that the death penalty is sometimes allowable, and it's actually heresy to suggest otherwise.  To head off this argument, the CCC, being a book, was changed by Pope Francis.  But it didn't carry with it a statement of confirmation of Church teaching as the previous entry by Pope St. JPII did, which means all Catholics are still obliged to hold the previous entry as a higher authenticity.  Besides that, even if the Pope did include such a statement, it still wouldn't hold water, because it's a change of teaching of faith or morals on multiple points.  And besides THAT, the verbiage used wouldn't make it binding on the belief of lay Catholics.  And besides all of that, it would still take a second seat to established Tradition.

Nah. Thanks for your opinion though.

[cutenickname]

(Isn't the Catechism part of the Ordinary Magisterium? Which thing infallible or not is to be received with both internal and external submission by non theologians [my understanding is that theologians have a half inch more wiggle room here and only owe submission of the will to a doubtful and non infallible teaching]. If I am wrong here correct me.)

[fides' Jack]

17 hours ago, cutenickname said:

(Isn't the Catechism part of the Ordinary Magisterium? Which thing infallible or not is to be received with both internal and external submission by non theologians [my understanding is that theologians have a half inch more wiggle room here and only owe submission of the will to a doubtful and non infallible teaching]. If I am wrong here correct me.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a book.  The teachings in it were part of the Ordinary Magisterium when they were accompanied by the papal pronouncement defining them that way.  Any change that is not accompanied with another pronouncement do not carry the same weight.  And any change that is accompanied with another pronouncement that differ from established Church teaching on faith or morals is to be flatly rejected by the faithful.

To be a theologian it is not necessary to have any kind of degree or acknowledgement from the Church.  And having one in this age is probably more of an indication that you're not in line with the Church than otherwise.

But ordinarily, yes, I think this is correct.  Unless you have reason not to do so (which we certainly do on this matter), if a spiritual superior is teaching a matter of faith or morals that's not contrary to established Church teaching, you are obliged to believe.  The problem is that just about everything is very clearly defined at this point, so it should be super easy to confirm anything they say.  (I say 'should' because there's just as much misinformation out there as solid Catholic teaching, and if you're not solid in your understanding you will likely be led astray - and if you are solid there won't be much you'll have to look up, anyway)

Also, the idea that just because a bishop says something, or the pope adds something to the Catechism, or in an encyclical, that it is to be believed by all Catholics is a heresy, and anyone who holds to this idea will certainly not keep the faith for long in these times.

On the specific subject of the death penalty, it's pretty easy to see what the Church taught in the past.  And since it is a matter of morals that the established Church teaching is that the death penalty is acceptable in the right circumstances, then it's actually a heresy for a priest or bishop to declare otherwise (i.e. that it's never ok).

All that being said, I should probably learn from you and keep my silence more.  Clearly I wrote too much here...  There isn't much I would want to remove, though...

1 minute ago, fides' Jack said:

(I say 'should' because there's just as much misinformation out there as solid Catholic teaching, and if you're not solid in your understanding you will likely be led astray - and if you are solid there won't be much you'll have to look up, anyway)

Just to head off an argument here, I'm not saying that if you're solid you already know everything or even a significant portion of the deposit of faith.  I'm saying that since many priests and bishops are not solid, it's pretty easy to see when they're wrong, because they're not going to delve too deeply into authentic Church teaching.

18 hours ago, Peace said:

Nah. Thanks for your opinion though.

It's only my opinion because that's the position of the Church.  Otherwise my opinion would be different.

[Peace]

18 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a book.  The teachings in it were part of the Ordinary Magisterium when they were accompanied by the papal pronouncement defining them that way.  Any change that is not accompanied with another pronouncement do not carry the same weight.  And any change that is accompanied with another pronouncement that differ from established Church teaching on faith or morals is to be flatly rejected by the faithful.

To be a theologian it is not necessary to have any kind of degree or acknowledgement from the Church.  And having one in this age is probably more of an indication that you're not in line with the Church than otherwise.

But ordinarily, yes, I think this is correct.  Unless you have reason not to do so (which we certainly do on this matter), if a spiritual superior is teaching a matter of faith or morals that's not contrary to established Church teaching, you are obliged to believe.  The problem is that just about everything is very clearly defined at this point, so it should be super easy to confirm anything they say.  (I say 'should' because there's just as much misinformation out there as solid Catholic teaching, and if you're not solid in your understanding you will likely be led astray - and if you are solid there won't be much you'll have to look up, anyway)

Also, the idea that just because a bishop says something, or the pope adds something to the Catechism, or in an encyclical, that it is to be believed by all Catholics is a heresy, and anyone who holds to this idea will certainly not keep the faith for long in these times.

On the specific subject of the death penalty, it's pretty easy to see what the Church taught in the past.  And since it is a matter of morals that the established Church teaching is that the death penalty is acceptable in the right circumstances, then it's actually a heresy for a priest or bishop to declare otherwise (i.e. that it's never ok).

All that being said, I should probably learn from you and keep my silence more.  Clearly I wrote too much here...  There isn't much I would want to remove, though...

Just to head off an argument here, I'm not saying that if you're solid you already know everything or even a significant portion of the deposit of faith.  I'm saying that since many priests and bishops are not solid, it's pretty easy to see when they're wrong, because they're not going to delve too deeply into authentic Church teaching.

It's only my opinion because that's the position of the Church.  Otherwise my opinion would be different.

Yes, Yes. We should just all ignore the pope, our bishops, the Catechism, and turn to you to teach us the one true Catholic faith.

[cutenickname]

Please delete my account or ban me.

If you do not simply comply with the request I will have to take disruptive and objectively un-Christian measures to make you do so.

God bless.

I understand your desire to not actually delete accounts so as not to interfere with the flow of conversation, so banning without deleting is fine.

@dUSt

[fides' Jack]

I guess defending Trump gets people riled up.  Well, I already knew that.

8 hours ago, Peace said:

Yes, Yes. We should just all ignore the pope, our bishops, the Catechism, and turn to you to teach us the one true Catholic faith.

That's a bit of a straw man...

It does sound bad when you say it like that.  It really puts the truth into perspective - that a normal Catholic can't possibly stay Catholic in this world unless they get extraordinary grace to look deeper to understand the Church's true position.

Truly, though, you don't have to ignore all of the bishops, or the Catechism.  You just have to know which bishops are worth listening to and how to properly digest the Catechism.

Although, Sacred Scripture told us this would happen to the Church, so we really shouldn't be surprised...

Edited October 4, 2020 by fides' Jack
Saw another post and wanted to respond more fully.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I guess defending Trump gets people riled up.  Well, I already knew that.

That's a bit of a straw man...

It does sound bad when you say it like that.  It really puts the truth into perspective - that a normal Catholic can't possibly stay Catholic in this world unless they get extraordinary grace to look deeper to understand the Church's true position.

Truly, though, you don't have to ignore all of the bishops, or the Catechism.  You just have to know which bishops are worth listening to and how to properly digest the Catechism.

Although, Sacred Scripture told us this would happen to the Church, so we really shouldn't be surprised...

LOL. Yes man I know that is not exactly what you meant, but it does start to sound that way to me sometimes.

I and others have had the same debate on this site in the past. Like, if Pope Francis stood up one day and said "Rape is a good thing. Please go out and rape" my response would be, "Well, the pope has gone mad, and that certainly cannot be reconciled with Christianity, so I will ignore those words and adhere to what the Church has taught in the past." I think that is essentially what you are doing, although with different statements by the pope.

But I think there can be a slippery slope back into Protestantism with that, where essentially each man interprets Scripture and tradition for himself, wherein essentially God ordained authorities in the church become nothing more than "Yes men." If they agree with your own personal conclusion on issue X, then we are to follow them. If they disagree with your own personal conclusion on issue X, then they are to be ignored. If that is what we are doing all the time we are essentially Protestants.

So if you are 100% clear in your own mind that that pope is wrong on issue X, I guess you have to follow your conscience and reject the teaching. I am 100% clear that rape is wrong, so I would have to reject that teaching.

But if we have a situation where we are like "Well I am 99% certain that the pope is wrong, but there is a 1% chance that he could be correct" I think our duty as Catholics is to assent to the teaching. I think that we can have faith, that in the long run, the bishops will sort any errors out among themselves and correct the teaching. I don't think it is up for individual laity to take it upon themselves to correct the clergy all the time. I view our role as following what the living clergy teaches, and finding various ways to engage in the life in the church through good works, and engaging with the secular world.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

But I think there can be a slippery slope back into Protestantism with that, where essentially each man interprets Scripture and tradition for himself, wherein essentially God ordained authorities in the church become nothing more than "Yes men." If they agree with your own personal conclusion on issue X, then we are to follow them. If they disagree with your own personal conclusion on issue X, then they are to be ignored. If that is what we are doing all the time we are essentially Protestants.

So if you are 100% clear in your own mind that that pope is wrong on issue X, I guess you have to follow your conscience and reject the teaching. I am 100% clear that rape is wrong, so I would have to reject that teaching.

But if we have a situation where we are like "Well I am 99% certain that the pope is wrong, but there is a 1% chance that he could be correct" I think our duty as Catholics is to assent to the teaching. I think that we can have faith, that in the long run, the bishops will sort any errors out among themselves and correct the teaching. I don't think it is up for individual laity to take it upon themselves to correct the clergy all the time. I view our role as following what the living clergy teaches, and finding various ways to engage in the life in the church through good works, and engaging with the secular world.

I get what you're saying, and I agree with the sentiment.  I think the difference lies where we would draw that line.

I'm 100% certain that the Church has always taught that the death penalty is allowed is some circumstances.  That's Church teaching, not my opinion. 

My opinion is that it should probably be used much, much more, but I will defer on that point to Pope St. JPII and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who both seemed to think that in the 1st world, there should be no need for it.  But again, that's clearly a matter of opinion.

As for correcting the clergy, I used to be of the same opinion, but I'm starting to wonder if part of the current crisis in the Church is because people have been too afraid to speak up due to a false understanding of politeness.  The few bishops who are speaking up and are speaking out in protection of life and liberty are also saying that it's the role of the laity to correct their bishops when their bishops go astray.  I'm not 100% on that, though, so I'm a little weary of doing it myself, still.  I pray God has mercy on me if that's something He wants me to do and I'm not doing it.

[HumilityAndPatience]

On 9/29/2020 at 3:11 PM, phatcatholic said:

I strongly disagree w/ Fr. Altman's video. I outline my reasons here: https://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2020/09/response-to-fr-james-altmans-video-you.html

This view (which we share) is in a  significant minority.. to the point where it is a strange phenomenon. What do you make of it?

[MeteorShower]

It's been a while since this thread was updated and I'm not interested in debating, but I just wanted to say that I strongly disagree with Fr. Altman. It's nice to know that I am not completely alone in that. It is because of people like Fr. Altman why I no longer openly or actively practice Catholicism. Anyway, I'm Canadian so it's a moot point. No one's told me that I'm going to hell for being Catholic and NDP or Catholic and Liberal.

Edited November 5, 2020 by MeteorShower

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, MeteorShower said:

It's been a while since this thread was updated and I'm not interested in debating, but I just wanted to say that I strongly disagree with Fr. Altman. It's nice to know that I am not completely alone in that. It is because of people like Fr. Altman why I no longer openly or actively practice Catholicism. 

If that is true, that is weak. Think better of yourself. 

Although I understand the impulse, as I am not a traditionalist specifically because of "people." However if I were convinced in conscience traditionalism were required to practice true religion, I like to think I am good enough, I would not scorn God for "people." I would hold my nose and learn the Latin mass and so on.  I am glad it is not required.  

Btw, I did not listen to Fr Altman and don't care to; a priest opining at length in this way is embarrassing and repellant, especially at Mass, and risky to himself personally as far as salvation is concerned.  

 

 

 

[MeteorShower]

38 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

If that is true, that is weak. Think better of yourself. 

Although I understand the impulse, as I am not a traditionalist specifically because of "people." However if I were convinced in conscience traditionalism were required to practice true religion, I like to think I am good enough, I would not scorn God for "people." I would hold my nose and learn the Latin mass and so on.  I am glad it is not required.  

 

 

 

 

I'm sure your intentions were good but I don't consider myself weak and I HIGHLY resent being called that. Nor have I ever purposely intended to "scorn" God, but my beliefs are just different now. Anyway, I clearly shouldn't have commented in the first place so I apologise. 

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, MeteorShower said:

I'm sure your intentions were good but I don't consider myself weak and I HIGHLY resent being called that. Nor have I ever purposely intended to "scorn" God, but my beliefs are just different now. Anyway, I clearly shouldn't have commented in the first place so I apologise. 

LOL. I dunno if her intentions were good. Don't give her that much credit!

Well, if what you meant was that you don't openly or actively practice Catholicism simply because of people like Fr. Altman, I would consider that to be pretty weak reason too. It's all good though. We all call each other out like that here. Heck, I am practically beholden to Satan according to @fides' Jack. But we still get along.

Probably what you meant was something more like "People like Fr. Altman make it more difficult for me to openly practice my faith" but you didn't phrase it quite the right way?