Do you think that Catholocism is logically deducible to be correct? That is, suppose someone has a super-intelligent baby, who we raise in a Skinnerian Box with no exposure to the outside world, but given every possible piece of information and training in all the varying intellectual pursuits such as philosophy and logic and so forth, but done without actually mentioning the idea of God, or the idea of there NOT being a God, etc. Someone with maximum intelligence and logic, and information about the nature of the universe as we understand it (ie, he knows that he’s in a box on a planet full of people, knows about science without being indoctrinated, etc.) but a total blank slate as to beliefs.
Then, we let the person out of the box, and let him/her examine all evidence and arguments made by all proponents of all philosophical and religious and ethical positions, with no bias or prejudice for or against any of them, and let that person take years and years to think and study and converse with learned people…
Do you believe that that person would be more likely to become Catholic, or to decide that the beliefs of Catholicism are true, than any other religion/belief system? Even if that person never had any particular personal experiences of the sort that Liberal and Bricker have both described having? (Or do you believe that person WOULD, likely, have such experiences?)
(I mean, obviously there are zillions of reasons why the precise experiment I proposed wouldn’t work, but feel free to substitute “super-intelligent-AI” or “Spock, fresh from Vulcan, but with his memory erased”.)
I think it’s unlikely for such a person to reach the decision that Catholicism is the right faith. If we expand to include the Orthodox churches as well, it’s more likely… but still not likely.
That’s a really good question. Without such a personal experience in the mix, I don’t know how someone weighing things logically could attain faith. I just don’t see it.
So – would such a person be likely to have such an experience?
I so wish I knew the answer to this. I don’t know why, after several years of considering myself an agnostic and rejecting the Church, it happened to me. I wish I knew. Was I somehow worthy of that grace, and others aren’t? Was I supposed to do something with that faith, when I regained it? I try to do everything I’m supposed to do. Why was that saving grace directed my way? I wish I knew.
I was specifically thinking of lay cardinals, which I see no longer exist, as of 1918 (I really need to get some books from this century!).
As for priests, Canon 351 states: “The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.”
So according to law, they all have to be Bishops. On the other hand, Avery Dulles is not a Bishop because he “successfully petitioned the Pope for a dispensation from episcopal consecration due to advanced age” (and he was already over 80 anyway).
Outside of Catholicism, my current interest is autism spectrum disorders. My past interests include, but are not limited to, evolutionary biology, constitutional law, the Revolutionary War, various minor presidential candidates, Yu Yu Hakusho, Sailor Moon, and insects.
I think that I will post in more topics not related to Catholicism in the future.
Very confusing translation;Jesus was sitting at the table when he is quoted to say “this is my body and this is my blood”. I think it is possible that the Apostles felt he meant, that we need food and drink to live and since Jesus didn’t give each one a bite of Himself it was symbolic. As in truth it was not his body or blood they ate. Starnge as it may seem the Egyptian religion of OSIRIS also had a bread and wind ceremony and I believe that the idea first came from there.
As far as the Universe goes, you can search the internet or ask your science teacher for some reading recommendations. Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos might be a start. My only worry is that he presents some wildly speculative ideas as if they were fact.
I suppose that you could always object that, given theory X about the origin of the universe, there has to be something that explains how the pre-conditions for X arose. What caused the big bang, in other words. But it seems to me there’s a limit to human knowledge and the only proper response at this time isn’t “God,” but rather “We don’t know.”
ETA: I don’t know if you really want a debate about these points. I’m not really qualified to speak about the physics. In any event I’m prbably going to bow out of the thread rather than hijack it with a tangential debate.
Right – this is precisely in line with what I was saying. There are no lay cardinals; all members of the college of cardinals under age 80 may vote in a conclave. No more than 120 under age 80 may exist at any time. They are almost always bishops, but it’s not an absolute requirement.
I was extremely familiar with both canon law and the dispensation that the Pope has provided for that requirement, and it’s why I posted what I did.
A number of Jesuit theologian priests in the mold of Cardinal Dulles… Fr. Roberto Tucci was created a cardinal the same year as Avery Dulles, and he also refused episcopal ordination and was granted the dispensation by the Pontiff.
The very first time I remember this happening was with Henri-Marie de Lubac, in 1982ish. Paolo Dezza was a Jesuit priest created cardinal deacon in the consistory of June 1991. Another was Alois Grillmeir, who was elevated in 1994, IIRC.
After Dulles, there was Fr. Tomas Spidlik, in 2003.
All of these were Jesuit priests who were created cardinals and received a dispensation from episcopal ordination – and that’s just from memory. I’m pretty confident I haven’t missed anyone recent, but there are undoubtedly examples from before I started paying attention to these things in the early 80s…
I should probably mention that I have a licentiate in canon law, so being able to rattle off this isn’t exactly as crazily obsessive as it might appear.
So, there are three vocations as part of Catholicism: married life, single life, and religious life. The last refers to individuals who take vows to live as part of a religious order, in community (though not always living with others in the order), usually following a particular order. The Benedictines, for example, follow the Rule written by Saint Benedict. “Religious” can be sisters, brothers, monks, priests… The sacrament of Holy Orders is the creation of a priest; brothers and sisters have their own ceremonies where they profess increasingly permanent vows over time, but they are not sacraments like Holy Orders.
People following the vocation of a single person can also be involved with religious orders as a associate or oblate, meaning they will at times pray with the religious community, try to incorporate the rule or spiritual sense of the community into their own life, etc.
And of course, there are secular orders, or tertiaries. The members live in the world, and do not take vows, but are considered members of what is known in most cases of “Third Orders” (First Orders are regular male monastics and priests, Second Orders are nuns). Interestingly, the Franciscan Friars of the Third Order Regular (who are full priests) started out as a typical secular third order and morphed into a regular order of full religious.
Traditional_Catholic, can I ask whether your faith leaves any room for doubt? This is a particularly interesting question for me because you suggested that you chose this particular religion rather than being born to it. Do you ever doubt its truth or correctness? I ask this even if you are convinced each time - the questioning is what I’m interested in.
Also, do you see a possibility that you might one day move away from this faith as you moved towards it?