For Catholics

[sbaii]

As a good Catholic child I learned all my prayers and catechism without ever questioning what the hell I was memorizing. Recently, I was reading an article which mentioned that early Xians did not talk about any soul. So I looked up the Apostle's Creed which lists what Catholics believe, and darned if there is no mention of a soul. The belief is about "the resurrection of the body". So why then does the church talk so much about "the immortal soul" today when the early Xians didn't bother with it?

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html

[sharon45]

Also the supposed assumption of mary. That belief is nowhere in the NT.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The rosary, papal infallibility, veneration of saints, mass, the exact number of 7 secraments, etc...

But a Catholic will respond that the Holy Spirit is still in the Church inspiring, just as it did when it Revealed to Peter that they should not discriminate gentiles and should evangelize them too. So the new stuff is just another sign of the Holy Spirit's guidance today.

Aha! How will you dismantle that beauty, eh?

We should have an antitheist disputation championship on IIDB. That would be an interesting thread.

[Chili]

Also the supposed assumption of mary. That belief is nowhere in the NT.

That is one of the "greater things" Jesus said we would do. You must remember here that Jesus brought heaven down to earth and so Mary must be crowned queen of heaven and earth as bride of the lamb.

[Chili]

The resurrection of the body is contingent upon the immortality of our soul which is not immortal until we take up residence in our soul. Our soul is called the upper room in the Gospels, which itself may be good to have but is no good to us if we never get there.

[angela2]

The resurrection of the body is contingent upon the immortality of our soul which is not immortal until we take up residence in our soul. Our soul is called the upper room in the Gospels, which itself may be good to have but is no good to us if we never get there.
Where is the reference that calls our souls the upper room?

[sharon45]

That is one of the "greater things" Jesus said we would do. You must remember here that Jesus brought heaven down to earth and so Mary must be crowned queen of heaven and earth as bride of the lamb.Like I said, the belief is found nowhere in the NT.

[Chili]

Like I said, the belief is found nowhere in the NT.

It is kind of hard to believe but without an existence of being the body of Mary is easily assumed. She was, after all, the dowry of man upon his return to Eden and betrothed to Joseph in the divine marriage of true minds to be just that.

[EthnAlln]

As a good Catholic child I learned all my prayers and catechism without ever questioning what the hell I was memorizing. Recently, I was reading an article which mentioned that early Xians did not talk about any soul. So I looked up the Apostle's Creed which lists what Catholics believe, and darned if there is no mention of a soul. The belief is about "the resurrection of the body". So why then does the church talk so much about "the immortal soul" today when the early Xians didn't bother with it?

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html

As I recall, this got settled when Platonism infiltrated the basically Jewish metaphysics of the early church. Tertullian, I believe, subscribed to the view of a human being as a nefesh, which (I'm told) denotes any living animal. That view is easier to reconcile with the view that "in my flesh shall I see God" and the resurrection of the body. Platonism reigned supreme until the eleventh century. Early in that century, it was forbidden to teach Aristotle at the University of Paris; within a generation, it became compulsory, and of course the Franciscan Schoolmen made Aristotle practically into a Catholic. Sometime in the nineteenth century, the Church ordered its universities to teach Aristotelian philosophy as the Truth. A great pity, since his notion of substance and accidents is, as Bertrand Russell described it, "hopelessly muddle-headed, incapable of precision."

Well, who cares? Philosophy is incapable of precision. Whenever it becomes precise, it ceases to be philosophy.

My daughter (an Episcopal priest), who has of course been to seminary, tells me that the creeds begin with "pisteuomen" ("WE believe"). That strikes me as wrong-headed from the outset. "We" do not constitute a body that can believe. Only "I" can do that. If I and someone else happen to believe the same thing, that is a remarkable coincidence. Like you, I'm an ex-Catholic, who still retains some respect for the Church and especially for the sensitivities of the faithful. But honesty compels me to say, I don't believe any of it.

[EthnAlln]

Also the supposed assumption of mary. That belief is nowhere in the NT.

True, but not relevant to a Catholic, who believes in at least four sources of knowledge about divine matters: scripture, the teachings of the Church, individual revelation, and reason.

[ELECTROGOD]

True, but not relevant to a Catholic, who believes in at least four sources of knowledge about divine matters: scripture, the teachings of the Church, individual revelation, and reason.
...and reason................yeahhhhhhhh, that word looks good on a resume but do they really know to use it?

[Agnostic]

...and reason................yeahhhhhhhh, that word looks good on a resume but do they really know to use it?

It's not really using reason, rather more like justifying the reasoning, that's the crux for me. 2 different people can come to 2 different conclusions on a particular matter with perfect reasoning - only the justifications matter in the end.

[Chili]

True, but not relevant to a Catholic, who believes in at least four sources of knowledge about divine matters: scripture, the teachings of the Church, individual revelation, and reason.

And I think that scripture is the least of these.

The Rock of faith for the Catholic Church is the insigth of Peter and not the faith of Peter who was stipped naked when all doubt was removed from Thomas who is the flip side of Peter in faith and doubt. In other words, when all doubt was removed there can be no faith left, which left Peter naked on the post resurrection fishing trip of Jn. 21 without even a 'bite' all night until he put on his cloak of faith and started pulling big fish from the other side of his mind where Jesus said they would be big.

This kind of makes Catholicism an inspired religion that is built upon individual revelation when it complies with pure reason that is divine.

[Chili]

My daughter (an Episcopal priest), who has of course been to seminary, tells me that the creeds begin with "pisteuomen" ("WE believe"). That strikes me as wrong-headed from the outset. "We" do not constitute a body that can believe. Only "I" can do that.


No, it is "we believe" as a form of indoctrination that must connect to lead us back to Eden after religion is abandonned. Our doctrine of faith is the ark that must float us to the other side of life when the great storm of life comes our way.

[Chili]

No, it is "we believe" as a form of indoctrination that must connect to lead us back to Eden after religion is abandoned. Our doctrine of faith is the ark that must float us to the other side of life when the great storm of life comes our way.

In others words, what the individual believes means nothing if our faith must be left behind when we enter our life-house boat in purgatory. The only thing that prevents us from reaching the other side is the idea that we are already saved and worship that idol like a graven image in our mind . . . which would be why Catholics do not claim to be saved.

This would be the difference between a harmless icon and a harmful phantasm. Is it not fun to see protestants do everything just backwards?

[Chili]

Where is the reference that calls our souls the upper room?


Sorry angela, I missed this question earlier.

It doesn't exactly say that, I don't think, but that would be left for us to infer by induction. I am not a bible reader and actually think that contemplating icons is much better for us. At least they won't send us in the wrong direction.

[sharon45]

And I think that scripture is the least of these.Yes, I would think so.

[angela2]

Sorry angela, I missed this question earlier.

It doesn't exactly say that, I don't think, but that would be left for us to infer by induction. I am not a bible reader and actually think that contemplating icons is much better for us. At least they won't send us in the wrong direction.
Thanks. Your comment about icons is interesting. I'm glad it works for you. :wave:

[Chili]

Where is the reference that calls our souls the upper room?

If only for the record angela, it is not true that our soul is the upper room but it is true our soul is contained in the upper room. Our soul is the water that we must learn to walk on, it also is called the celestial sea, the city of God as in "Rome sweet home" for Catholics just as it was the New Jerusalem in Judaism. It contains our very own thousand year reign to which Jesus referred with "the reign of God is already in your midst." It also is why the heavens were created in the plural so the depth of our soul can span many generations as it did for Methuselah and others.

Eternity exists in our soul because time-as-such is not known in our right brain, and so, to become eternal we must take up residence in the upper room and once we are there our soul will be no longer. Rev. 21:1 tells us that in the New Heaven and New Earth the sea was no longer" which means that the celestial sea is our soul (where the fishing is good if we can walk on that water and go by it).

[john_v_h]

Well, thank goodness we have straightened out the record. Our soul is not the upper room; it's merely contained in the upper room. And by the way, the owls are not what they seem.

[Chili]

Well, thank goodness we have straightened out the record. Our soul is not the upper room; it's merely contained in the upper room. And by the way, the owls are not what they seem.

Well it would be wrong to call a senator the senate, would it not? The Senate is the upper house but a senator is not.

[john_v_h]

Yes, just as it would be wrong to call the owls "owls."