Celibacy, who else is practicing it?

BalconyBoy · July 5, 2010, 8:01am

Video game or role playing. Big whoop! Both a waste.

I wasn’t completely incorrect in my assertions. And they were changes. And your claim as an absolutist was about you NOT the Catholic church and it’s doctrines. So claiming you are an absolutist and being OK with the changes in the Catholic church doesn’t line up. Maybe it does ASOF but not in the real world.

pramirez184 · July 5, 2010, 12:36pm

I grew up Catholic and agree with just about everything BalconyBoy has said. You can’t say I don’t know what the Church teaches (and the recent changes in its teachings) because I went to 14 years of Catholic school and have been to Mass more times than I can count. I have gone through a good portion of Catechisms of the Catholic Church, so I know what I am talking about.

Baelor, you are arguing over technicalities instead of what is actually going on and sometimes you are explicitly wrong. The limbo of infants is a perfect example. According to St. Augustine, a medieval theologian whose ideas were endorsed by a council of bishops, stated that because infants have not been cleansed of original sin, they will be involved in the “mildest damnation of all.” This teaching was endorsed at the Council of Carthage and reaffirmed at the Council of Florence.

On April 22, 2007, the International Theological Commission published a document that was originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II and later authorized by Pope Benedict XVI that explicitly states that infants who have not been baptized are able to receive eternal salvation.

This is a clear example of changes in the Church’s teaching.

Another example is sex. In Medieval times, the Church taught sex should only be used for procreation and married couples should remain chaste otherwise. Now the Church teaches that couples are free to engage in sex so long as it is within a marriage and no contraception is used. They prefer to practice what they call “natural family planning.”

The Church sometimes introduces new dogmas as well. For example, The Immaculate Conception was not considered dogma until 1854 where Pope Pius XI declared that it was. Scriptures said this was the case, but it was not introduced as dogma until 1854. Another example is the Assumption of Mary was not introduced as dogma until 1950 when Pope Pius XII did so. The belief had been around since her lifetime, but it wasn’t an infallible teaching until 1950.

The Church has changed its teachings throughout history, and that is a fact.

I see the change of the Mass going from Latin to the vernacular as more a procedural matter and not that important in the grand scheme of things. Yes, you can go to a Latin mass, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

BalconyBoy · July 5, 2010, 3:16pm

Curt, cruel response???

I saw what you posted. Thanks but until Baelor actually states his/her response, everything else is speculation.

Baelor · July 5, 2010, 3:26pm

There is no “norm.” The norm is the Ordinary Form. It can be in any language, including Latin.

I don’t care about what the Masses are. I care about codified changes because THAT is the basis for statements like “The Catholic Church changed…” If everyone murdered other people, the law would still be that murder is illegal.

Hardly, because those technicalities actually constitute what the Church teaches.

I’ve been to Masses in English, German, Spanish, French, and Latin. So, yes. There are Tridentine Mass communities out there as well, so some people NEVER go to a Mass not in Latin. Other communities have OF Masses in Latin.

Again, I am not concerned with what people do. I am concerned with what is codified procedure because the “Catholic Church” includes codified procedure.

Let’s take an analogy. Say that every congressman openly stated that abortion was evil and also illegal. Does that changed the fact that abortion is still legal? No. Not at all.

In the same way, what people do at Mass doesn’t change what IS the case on a “legal” level.

In other words, as a Catholic, I do care about the technicalities of documents.

I am Catholic. Do you understand that?

I don’t care what I use to prove myself correct. I am correct. You are wrong. It is that simple. I even posted the links, so that everyone now knows that you are wallowing in your own inaccuracy.

Books. You do read, don’t you?

Actually, this statement is idiotic. This has been addressed. I suggest you read the previous posts. My absolutism extends to belief in Church correctness, including changes to that correctness. It’s in fact possibly the highest form of absolutism possible.

Not on a level that would make it doctrine. That is to say, the Church doctrine on limbo never changed because it was never doctrinal. Look it up: <a href=“Web Exclusives | Daily Writings From Our Top Writers | First Things”>Web Exclusives | Daily Writings From Our Top Writers | First Things, on top of all of my sources previously listed.

Of course. But it was striking down the possibility of limbo becoming doctrinal rather than changing the doctrine of limbo, which of course would be impossible.

Fair statement. There really isn’t a good place to mention this, but I would love have you respond to my other posts, which all address the alleged changes in the Church and shoot them down. You say that you agree with BalconyBoy’s post, which means that you must disagree with mine. Could you clarify where I err?

I never claimed differently. I only objected to the factual inaccuracies in BalconyBoy’s posts.

Yet another important change was the formulation of Papal Infallibility at V1.

But for those not Catholic, it is better to understand these changes in the context of refining and discovering more of God’s plan, rather than reneging on past beliefs. I think that that is a fair statement.

In other words, pramirez, I agree with you (except on limbo). My claim was never that the Church never changes, because it has to and should. Only that BalconyBoy’s “changes” were in fact not changes at all.

BalconyBoy · July 5, 2010, 7:39pm

That is not what you stated you stated “I am an absolutist, not a relativist.” as a stand alone statement about yourself. And absolutist by definition does not endorse change therefore you are no more an absolutist than I am.

Yes I read but not the kind of stuff that has Baelor in it. Interesting that you read this type of material and are such a staunch Catholic.

The changes I posted are accurate. I have also attended Sunday services in other languages but in the USA, the norm is now English WHICH IS A CHANGE.

Going to church on a normal Saturday (not the Saturday before Easter) NEVER counted as going to church on Sunday UNTIL IT WAS CHANGED!

Taking communion was always by the mouth and now it is OK to take communion by receiving the host in your hand! CHANGE!

Facts! Not fiction!

Baelor · July 6, 2010, 1:53am

I’m sorry, now I realize what the problem is. You don’t understand absolutism. Absolutism is the belief that something is true regardless of situation.

I said this already. If I believe X absolutely, wake up tomorrow and believe Y which is contrary to X absolutely, I am still an absolutist. Merely one whose beliefs on a particular issue have changed.

Absolutist =/= unchanging. Absolutist = situation-independent.

In other words, you’re a relativist because all people named BalconyBoy are relativist. See how I can just claim an arbitrary trait to be a prerequisite for a completely unrelated categorization?

That was somewhat long-winded. Here’s a shorter version:

Your argument = pile of ********.

You mean, fiction? OMG.

We must alert the Church elders! Heresy! All fantasy novels shall be banned! I will be enjoying some nice Austen after I finish up Tad Williams’ masterpiece, though.

No. Let us revisit your ignorance.

The norm is not English. English does not take a codified preference over Latin in such a simple manner. Liturgical guidelines and documents call for vernacular where appropriate. There would be nothing wrong with a Mass entirely in Latin, if that fit the community. There is also nothing wrong with (and in fact the practice is institutionally encouraged) of incorporating Latin into all Masses of the OF.

So, yes, the Mass is frequently in English. Vernacular is allowed: that is the change. Compare that to what you posted:

That statement is totally false. Latin Mass can be said at anytime, and the Tridentine Mass can essentially be said at any time. We did not “change” from Latin to English because the Latin is still there, and no liturgical document calls for “English” to be used.

Perhaps the spirit of what you are writing is correct, but what you wrote is factually not.

That was the change. Now consider what you posted:

That is also false. You cannot just go to any Mass on Saturday. You must go to a Sunday Mass on Saturday. I’m sorry that you’re not precise enough, but that’s not my problem.

NOTE: My subsequent explanation of the allowance of Saturday Masses contains facts that are still up for clarification; read posts for discussion (and links).

That’s not what you wrote. Let’s revisit your moronic statement:

This is false, and not what you just posted. You cannot changed “from” something “to” something else if both are still allowed.

Communion may still be received on the tongue, and therefore your statement is inaccurate even in the narrow sense.

As an aside, Pope Benedict encourages reception of the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.

Your statements were wrong. As noted before, your reformulations thereof are indeed (in some cases) correct. But originally, they were not. My one-word responses were, and of course still are, completely correct.

BalconyBoy · July 6, 2010, 7:08am

absolutism - noun - any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable. By your definition you are a relativist.

Seems to state change isn’t an option.

Split all the hairs you want, Baelor. Maybe that’s the way things work in fantasy novels, which I don’t read. In the real world it’s a little different. Your constant backpedaling is tiresome. And BTW, there are Catholic churches that count a mass as early as noon on Saturday for Sunday. And regardless of what you state, a mass at ANY TIME on Saturday is a mass on Saturday, not Sunday. Stating it’s a Sunday mass is like stating the Toyota I own is a Nissan!

The church I attended as a boy changed their daily and Sunday masses from Latin to English decades ago. Sure every now and then there is a Latin mass, but most churches now have the majority of their masses in English.

Your over the top comments are actually funny! I never said anything about notifying the church because you read fantasy novels and your handle on this board is a character in fantasy novels. I merely stated it was interesting.

And there you go again calling things moronic! Have I ever referred to anything you posted as stupid or moronic or anything like that? Your style, as I see it, is slam 'em until they shut up then I win! Wonderful way for a staunch Catholic like yourself to act! Beat 'em until the stop! Sorry but I don’t stop and I won’t stoop to your style of banter. It is beneath me.

Baelor · July 6, 2010, 10:32am

Yes, if applying that wrong definition, opposition to change is required. The “changeable” is in the context of the belief at the time it is held. In other words, A applies absolutely, and B is always wrong. Tomorrow morning one could wake up believing that B applies absolutely and that person would still be absolutist.

Sorry, this one is over. And also, this is irrelevant because my absolutism doesn’t extend to the beliefs, only the Church.

Thus even if one were to accept that absolutists could never change opinion, I would STILL be absolutist because I don’t have moral opinions on individual issues, but on the Church as a whole.

Recap: At no point is your argument correct in any way imaginable.

Maybe you should.

Honey, leave the patronizing to those with a point and capable of executing it well.

What a delightful Protestant idea, caring what individual churches do. Unfortunately, that holds no weight in this discussion about Catholicism.

Furthermore, this statement is still wrong:

No it’s not. Because it literally is a Sunday Mass on Saturday. That is to say, you cannot tell by the Mass itself what day it is on. Because Saturday Masses are Daily Masses, and Sunday Masses on Saturday are Sunday Masses.

If you cannot grasp this concept, keep pushing. It just makes me look more correct because I am.

Again, dump the Protestantism disguised as Catholicism. My only concern is Magisterial teaching, which does not require vernacular. So your statement is still wrong in every conceivable interpretation.

I don’t think anyone cares what you find interesting relating to my reading ability and your lack thereof. And I’m sorry, the pathetic attempt at condescending speech with “staunch Catholic” just makes you look all the more incapable of posting intelligently. Why would a “staunch” anything have a problem with a genre of literature? I would love to hear a rational answer here.

I don’t care.

Yes, that is correct.

Yes, that is correct.

You actually did, silly. Look at this paragraph again. You demeaned me by appealing to my “Catholicism” and how my posts are not in line with my religion, thereby making moral judgments about me and deigning to talk about things about which you clearly have no idea.

So, yes, you ARE that low, by your own admission.

Sithis · July 6, 2010, 10:54am

Oh Baelor, you are a gift to these forums. A true gift.

BalconyBoy · July 6, 2010, 11:12am

No Baelor I have never stooped to your methods. I don’t call anyone names. Keep up the your relative absolutist thinking.

Mass on Saturday is mass on Saturday.

Keep splitting hairs to fit your absolutist changing needs.

Baelor · July 6, 2010, 11:19am

You have questioned the religious conviction of other posters, claimed to be more knowledgable about their mindset than they, and attacked their moral integrity. Your methods make mine look kind.

It’s absolutist. Your inability to grasp that is no concern of mine.

That’s right. And Sunday Mass on Saturday counts for Sunday Mass. Mass on Saturday is not specific enough.

I’m sorry that your standards for clarity and precision are so low that pointing out glaring issues with your extremely ambiguous to the point of incorrect statements counts to you as splitting hairs.

HarveyLewis · July 6, 2010, 11:46am

I lawl at BB.

BalconyBoy · July 6, 2010, 11:51am

I have never questioned anyone’s religious conviction or claimed to be more knowledgeable. I have never attacked their moral integrity. Show me where in this thread I did these things.

Mass on Saturday is still mass on Saturday regardless of what it counts for.

My standards are not low nor are my posts inaccurate. I just don’t spin things the way you do, Baelor.

nks123 · July 6, 2010, 1:42pm

Edit: Removed myself

peter_parker_1 · July 6, 2010, 2:20pm

I’m embarrassed I even posted in this thread. It’s devolved into debating the most obscure minutiae that’s barely even relevant to the OP anymore.

pramirez184 · July 6, 2010, 3:33pm

Yes, I believe it is time for these two to play nice.

Baelor · July 6, 2010, 4:43pm

Here:

Here, ridiculing something you find ridiculous:

Here, you claim you know my philosophy better than I:

Absolutism does not endorse relativism. Relativism does not mean “supporting change.” Absolutism does not mean “rejecting change.” It means enforcing a particular belief held at a particular time over everyone. We’ve been through this.

Here:

Here:

Here (again):

And then we have statements like these:

Yes, yes, you ARE the bastion of righteousness that you claim you are. Anyway, those quotations speak for themselves. That was the basis for my explanation; I’m not interested in your excuses, nor will I respond to them, because I could be the most despicable being in the entire world, and my statements would still be correct because they involve lifting quotations from books, something that you are clearly incapable of doing yourself.

What type of Mass, exactly? There are two types of Mass on Saturday. I’m confused about which you mean. Please help me.

Your standards for factual accuracy must be very, very low, otherwise you are simply a liar, because your posts are empirically false. Again, the choice is yours.

@pramirez: Never answered; would appreciate clarification:

BalconyBoy · July 6, 2010, 10:19pm

None of what you quoted ever questioned anyone’s religious conviction. Actually, referring to you as a staunch Catholic is a compliment. And what other posters are you referring to?

By stating I have never stooped to your methods means I don’t call people names like you do.

Do you know what empirically means?

I meant any Saturday mass. Any mass held on Saturday is a Saturday mass.

Baelor · July 6, 2010, 10:42pm

Actually, it did – think about the implications of the statements I quoted. But again, this tangent is irrelevant, so I’m done.

I’ll need this pointed out. I don’t know to what you are referring.

No, you just insult them blatantly without calling them names. You’re right, that IS much better.

Yes: “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic”

So if your claims are demonstrably false using nothing but things accessible to the senses, they are empirically false. Which is exactly what they are.

No. It’s a Mass on Saturday. That distinction is absolutely necessary because there is such a thing as a “Saturday Mass” and it does NOT count for the “Sunday Mass” requirements.

So when you are referring to Saturday Mass, you are referring to the Daily Mass on Saturday, period.

PlattsburghLoser · July 6, 2010, 10:44pm

This has gone from amusing to borderline pathetic.

Celibacy, who else is practicing it?

CONNECT WITH US