The Catholic Church thread

NoMoreTO

Pelican
redbeard said:
Reminder that God listens to everyone, no matter what your current state

I have struggled understanding this one. As of now I follow a simple rule:

- In a State of Grace: Pray for others, pray for the Church. For example we petition in the Rosary quite often, if I am in a state of grace I pray more for others.

- In a State of Mortal Sin: Pray for Yourself, pray only in worship, be contrite. When in a state of mortal sin praying the Rosary I try to be a focus exlcusively on my own faults as a penitent, petitioning to God for help.
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
Peter Helland is great. Most know him as EMJs' sidekick, but lately I have been enjoying his content more. He puts out about 1 video per month, doing a deep dive on a specific topic.

This time he does a deep dive on evolution and the how unclear Vatican 2 theology allowing for evolution & Notre Dame have failed so many Catholics. He also tells an interesting story of himself as a young University student in a theologial argument with Southern Prots over evolution.

I like his synopsis of Evolution:
'You can believe in evolution and be a Christian, if you have a degree in theology.' (paraphrased)

 

Easy_C

Crow
The rejection of strict biblical literalism is one thing I like about Catholicism. It makes absolutely no sense to take a book rife with symbolism, allegory, and parable than insist every word is true only in the most literal sense of a flawed English translation.


Personally I don’t believe in atheist style “evolution” but let’s just say that my current assessment doesn’t put much weight in six days creationism. That’s a much harder to swallow redpill that the forum isn’t ready for until further info is “re-veiled” leading into the 2022-2024 timeframe.
 
Easy_C said:
Personally I don’t believe in atheist style “evolution” but let’s just say that my current assessment doesn’t put much weight in six days creationism. That’s a much harder to swallow redpill that the forum isn’t ready for until further info is “re-veiled” leading into the 2022-2024 timeframe.
Can you elaborate on that? Sounds very interesting. Are there any believable and convincing explanations for six days creationism?
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
Easy_C said:
The rejection of strict biblical literalism is one thing I like about Catholicism. It makes absolutely no sense to take a book rife with symbolism, allegory, and parable than insist every word is true only in the most literal sense of a flawed English translation.


Personally I don’t believe in atheist style “evolution” but let’s just say that my current assessment doesn’t put much weight in six days creationism. That’s a much harder to swallow redpill that the forum isn’t ready for until further info is “re-veiled” leading into the 2022-2024 timeframe.
Even Protestants are coming around to the Symbolic worldview and allegory. After retreating into the safety of literalism as a result of attacks by the atheistic, naturalistic worldview.

I think they brought into the underlying empiricism of the anti-Christian forces at the time.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
I think it was Roosh who initially tweeted this link out; I wouldn't have given it the time of day if it was anyone else.

Interesting if true.

I, likewise, tend to find that most people are too ignorant of both evolution and what the Bible says for a conversation to be profitable on those topics. I also don't find the how of life to be particularly relevant to my salvation.
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
So much of evolution comes down to 'who you listen to'.

Myself, I see we are surrounded by evolutionary science, mindset. Even listening to people talk about how a conversation 'evolved' shows that it is deeply implanted in our minds. Much of this I took on myself, even having reservations, the halo of evolution effects us.

I still don't believe in evolution. I could try and counter this with 6 day science knowledge, counter evolutionary arguments, but to me it isn't necessary to justify.
 

Easy_C

Crow
I think one thing Catholics have a hard time accepting is that anything could exist outside the realm of the Catholic church.

If you think about it there's a lot we don't know. We're warned against numerous types of occultist activities but not WHY. At most you'll get someone saying that attracts demons (they don't need that to show up).

I like to use the allegory of looking at a statue. You could study one in extreme detail from the front, but you're never going to understand the actual shape unless you walk around and look at it from the side.

What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of things completely unaddressed by the church. Among them the exact nature and type of any physical or metaphysical entities that may exist besides humans and creatures from heaven/hell. It doesn't get into dimensional/holographic aspects of reality and we have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not there's some nasty shit out there related to those aspects of reality or even more mundane things like whether or not extraterrestrial life exists within the boundaries of our three dimensions + time-space.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Moderator
What are you guys planning on doing for Lent?

I'm trying to follow the 1962 dietary disciplines. But, it seems extremely difficult to live off of one (and a half?) meal/meals for forty days, especially when there's no meat involved.

I'm also considering what to "give up for Lent." The biggest thing to give up for me is porn and masturbation, which I'm already fighting, so I'm not sure if I should take on another cross as well.
 

bucky

Pelican
Making the communion bread with my Catholic wife as I write. First time for both of us, hoping it comes out right. Pray for us!
 
redbeard said:
I'm trying to follow the 1962 dietary disciplines. But, it seems extremely difficult to live off of one (and a half?) meal/meals for forty days, especially when there's no meat involved.
Here's a few thoughts.
- If you're in the habit of eating several times a day, keeping the fast in the traditional manner (only 1 meal, eaten after 3pm) is a lot to jump straight into. The medieval Europeans, like the Romans before them, usually only ate twice a day. The rule of fasting that they developed meant skipping one meal. If you're eating 4 times a day, cutting down to 3 is the obvious starting point, etc., until you can handle just one feeding.
Also being in the habit of fasting will make it much easier. If you keep the Friday fasts and the Ember days, you'll be prepared when Lent comes.

- Abstinence from meat is where cheating becomes part of the game. You used to be able to have the abstinence rules relaxed a bit for you by donating to the Church. And if you dig through the history of fasting and diet in the middle ages, people made every imaginable exception to the no meat rule. Fish? Not meat. Otter? They live in the water. Chickens? This is why the fasting rules sometimes specified no meat or poultry; since obviously only red meat is meat. Abbots of monasteries would send healthy monks to eat in the infirmary, since meat was allowed in the infirmary even during Lent. You get the idea.
In medieval Europe, eating before lunchtime even outside of Lent made you a pussy, and people actually did keep the fast. But people saw no shame in sidestepping the abstinence in any technically legal manner possible.

redbeard said:
I'm also considering what to "give up for Lent." The biggest thing to give up for me is porn and masturbation, which I'm already fighting, so I'm not sure if I should take on another cross as well.
Many church fathers saw a clear connection between keeping the fast and being delivered from lust, and between breaking the fast and giving into sexual sin. But that's something to discuss with your confessor.
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
Emperor Constantine said:
redbeard said:
I'm trying to follow the 1962 dietary disciplines. But, it seems extremely difficult to live off of one (and a half?) meal/meals for forty days, especially when there's no meat involved.
Here's a few thoughts.
- If you're in the habit of eating several times a day, keeping the fast in the traditional manner (only 1 meal, eaten after 3pm) is a lot to jump straight into. The medieval Europeans, like the Romans before them, usually only ate twice a day. The rule of fasting that they developed meant skipping one meal. If you're eating 4 times a day, cutting down to 3 is the obvious starting point, etc., until you can handle just one feeding.
Also being in the habit of fasting will make it much easier. If you keep the Friday fasts and the Ember days, you'll be prepared when Lent comes.
I would like to do this traditional Fast. I used to intermittent fast for secular reasons and you can definitely do it. Start by eating 2 meals (or more) within an 8 hour window, (11AM to 7PM), then shrink it to 6 Hours, then 4hours. Once you get to a small window you can do 1

redbeard said:
I'm also considering what to "give up for Lent." The biggest thing to give up for me is porn and masturbation, which I'm already fighting, so I'm not sure if I should take on another cross as well.
I am considering trying going to Daily Mass as a positive step.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Moderator
I've been doing intermittent fasting for about 5 years now. Lunch at noon and dinner at 7, like clockwork. It's been a great routine for me. But, I'm not sure if I can cut back to one meal, especially if it can't contain meat.

Maybe I can figure out a way to do a small, protein-dense lunch and then a big dinner. The guidelines I have say that "one full meal permitted and two other meals may be taken which, when combined, are less than a full meal."
 

NoMoreTO

Pelican
redbeard said:
I've been doing intermittent fasting for about 5 years now. Lunch at noon and dinner at 7, like clockwork. It's been a great routine for me. But, I'm not sure if I can cut back to one meal, especially if it can't contain meat.

Maybe I can figure out a way to do a small, protein-dense lunch and then a big dinner. The guidelines I have say that "one full meal permitted and two other meals may be taken which, when combined, are less than a full meal."
So is it no meat every day? Or no meat on specific days? It'll be my first go round too.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Moderator
OK I did some research.

Historically, the guidelines are all over the place. They've changed a handful of times and (of course) have softened up the past 60 years.

My takeaway is that whatever you do, it should be difficult and it should be challenging. Therefore, we should all organize our 40 days of penance in advance. Whatever you decide to "give up"...plan it out, write it down, and commit to doing it. And make sure it's not easy.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do. Right now I'm considering doing:

Food - no eating before 3 PM
Prayer - make a nightly examination of conscience and pray an act of contrition before bed each night

Here's an article with plenty of ideas:
Your 40 Ideas for Lent, by Dr Taylor Marshall

And a video:
 
Emperor Constantine said:
And if you dig through the history of fasting and diet in the middle ages, people made every imaginable exception to the no meat rule.
Apparently, this spirit of awesomeness has not entirely disappeared. According to this article the Archbishop of New Orleans approved eating alligator during the Lenten abstinence. As an Orthodox Christian I must say I'm jealous.
 

kel

Pelican
I was looking into Orthodox fasting rules, thinking I'd try fasting (I used to do IF and have fasted before, but I mean on a regular basis). It seemed silly to me to try to lawyer my way around things, though. I was thinking I'd fast almost completely, but have some bone broth. You're not supposed to have bone broth, though, since that counts as "meat", but oysters are supposedly okay. Still, which of those sounds more like a "fast" to you?
 
Top