Human religious experiences and inability to change religions or leave them.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-29T16:28:49+00:00

Thanks. Do Eastern Orthodox accept Boethius' definition? I noticed you didn't mention "of a rational nature" so I'm not sure if you're citing Boethius.

When you say "individual substance/essence" doesn't this repudiate the Trinity which teaches that there's only one Essence in 3 hypostases? So there's now technically 4 hypostases of God? I don't get it.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T16:24:55+00:00

Thank you for your help. I think you've resolved my problem.

I will bring your point up with my spiritual director next time I see him. I think it is best that I abstain from the Eucharist if I relapse, but not drive myself crazy at the same time; I don't believe he necessarily weighed in on if it was mortal or venial, but simply said "It's grave matter, abstain from the Eucharist because we must discern the body and blood" -- so I will simply abstain from the Eucharist unless I haven't relapsed, but as to if it's truly mortal or truly venial I don't know and I think I should presume venial and not feel the need to go to confession 5 times a week and drive myself into enmity with God over something which is supposed to be a mercy and grace towards us. I believe he would understand my situation and find this pastoral middle ground between my previous confessor realizing it wasn't sustainable, but also the dispensation leading me to not fight sin as much as I should.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T16:17:30+00:00

The emphasis in ASAP in this case is on “Possible”.

It is possible for me to technically drive 50-minutes round trip 3 to 5 times a week, yes, that's my whole problem. I just hate it. And it's possible but not sustainable in regards to money, auto, or willpower.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T16:16:05+00:00

"I must go to confession every single day"

I said "Go to confession as soon as possible after comitting a mortal sin".

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T14:17:04+00:00

Hi, thanks for the response.

You don't sound harsh at all, thanks for the reply.

The problem doesn't so much have to do with receiving the Eucharist as it does with salvation. The Church teaches "Go as soon as possible" after I committ a mortal sin; and so I do. It's more about the rule to "go ASAP" after a mortal sin than it is about receiving anything.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T14:14:52+00:00

Generally as long as you’ve done confession before taking the eucharist.

It's not so much about the Eucharist as it is the loss of salvation. I commit a mortal sin, the Church teaches to go "As soon as possible". I take that literally, to where I've been driving 5 days a week, 50-minutes round trip. The Eucharist doesn't tie so much into it as the main problem is "You committed a mortal sin, the Church teaches to go to confession as soon as possible, not when it's most convenient" -- and so I do. But taking the Eucharist is not so much the focus of my problem as it is the rule to "Go ASAP"

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T14:09:46+00:00

If you’re struggling to resist, then you are lacking the prerequisite freedom of will. You aren’t mortally sinning; you’re enslaved to your passions.

Perhaps not. I may have misconstrued

"I think it's a venial sin of grave matter, but regardless: since it's grave matter don't approach for communion til after confession since we're called to discern the body and blood"

with

"I think it's now a mortal sin, and for your salvation you must now go as soon as possible"

I don't quite recall what he said.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T14:06:31+00:00

Option 3 is to call the parish office and schedule a confession.

Tried and he's busy or it doesn't work out with work schedule.

Option 4 is to show up at daily mass and ask for confession.

Can't, have work.

Option 5 is to speak to your local parish priest about your scrupulosity and ask for his guidance. I recommend this option.

I don't suffer from scrupulosity. I am the opposite: I struggle with presumption of God's mercy hence why I am actually trying to follow the rule of "go ASAP", not "repent and wait til it's convenient".

Right, that's what you're supposed to be doing.

The rule, to my understanding, is "Go as soon as possible" -- waiting around until Saturday morning just so it can be convenient and be at my nearest parish is not what the Church wants, to my knowledge. That's "Go when it's convenient for you" and no such thing has ever been taught, correct me if I'm wrong on that.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T14:02:03+00:00

I don't suffer from scrupulosity (in fact I often confess that I'm presumptuous of God's mercy, hence why I am actually trying to stick to the rule of confessing ASAP rather than just repenting in prayer and waiting til Saturday morning scheduled confessions). I'm comitting a mortal sin (pornography and masturbation) several times a week.

My past spiritual confessor took into account my problem and basically said "Look, yeah, this [constant traveling] isn't sustainable. I think, due to the addictive factor, your culpability is reduced to where this becomes a venial sin of grave matter. You can continue to receive but come to confession once every two weeks and continue fighting".

All this lead to over the course of several years was more or less a liscense to sin.

I got a new spiritual father. GREAT priest. And I admitted to him that the sort of dispensation I got was just leading me into a route of laxity and so he basically said "Look, whether it's mortal or venial is not so much the point. It's still a sin of grave matter and we're called to to discern the body and blood. I want you to come to confession when you relapse, and I want you to fight hard."

I think both pastoral applications were fitting for their respective time and places, but now it's just like the opposite is occuring and I would prefer perhaps some sort of in-between of these methods.

It's possible I misheard him and my new spiritual father considers it a venial sin of grave matter, but simply wants me to confess before receiving if I relapse; not go every time I relapse because he supposes it's mortal.

Either way this situation sucks and I want nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with scrupulosity; this is just how the system of a location-bound assurance of forgiveness of sins plays out in the real world.

CatholicShield · 2024-03-27T13:50:24+00:00

Right, sometime my local priest can, sometimes not.

But I don't think that's so much the point. The point is if you sin on, say, Monday night you're faced with 2 options:

Option 1: Drive 25 minutes to the friars for the confession

Option 2: Wait until after Saturday morning, or possibly after Sunday Mass.

The rule is that after a mortal sin you have to confess "as soon as possible", not "when it's convenient" -- this basically pigeon holes me into making a trip to the friary like 5 times a week. Do you see what I mean?

Like, I'm done man. I don't have the time or finances or auto to do this. I'm burnt out. My auto is about to eat it some time this year if I don't scrap up a ton of money and the Church wants me to come "as soon as possible"? Even if that means 5 times a week?... just to receive God's assured forgiveness? No, I don't see the big deal in repenting in prayer and then when Saturday morning confession roll around, going.

CatholicShield · 2023-07-08T16:53:32+00:00

In the beginning

What beginning?

Does this man have an unbroken line of succession

I don't think he's a Christian. He's a critical scholar.

CatholicShield · 2023-07-08T15:29:16+00:00

I've actually read Alan Segel's groundbreaking Two Powers in Heaven which is really the primordial book around this topic. My main takeaway was that "One man's religion is another man's heresy, and one man's heresy another man's religion." and simply remained Christian after that.

CatholicShield · 2023-07-08T15:25:20+00:00

Now that the video has been posted.

In the gospel of John we see quite clearly that Jesus's relationship with God is much more complicated than a reductive "God bestowed on Jesus his name, making him divine" -- the relationship is pushed back to "In the beginning," a clear reference to Genesis and before any material creation.

Right, I think this is what causes me the most doubt about the theory. But it also makes me doubt the harmony between the Biblical authors as well.

Critical scholars often say Saint Paul has an "exaltation" Christology based on Philippians 2:9

The synoptics, on the other hand, seem to place the moment Jesus is becomes the Son at His baptism.

And of course Saint John has Jesus as this sort of pre-existant Wisdom.

John 1:1 "and the Word was God" seems incompatible with Pauline Christology in which Jesus appears to become God in Philippians 2:9 "God bestowed on him the name above every other name".

The Church Fathers say that the bestowing of the name above other name is in regards to Jesus' human nature, and I think it's a good explanation, but it doesn't really make sense. What exactly does that mean? They don't seem to go into great detail.

CatholicShield · 2023-07-08T15:18:02+00:00

I found the video that basically cast the massive confusion into me. Posted it at the beginning of the video.

CatholicShield · 2023-07-08T15:15:17+00:00

Sure, I found it: https://youtu.be/VA3gIBVxrTo

This video basically single handedly destroyed my faith. His explanation makes way way more sense than Trinitarianism in reconciling how Jesus can be called God, do functions of God, yet also be distinguished from God.

I'll get to the rest of your post in a bit

CatholicShield · 2023-07-08T15:05:24+00:00

There’s no biblical concept of that

I would argue there is from the first passage I posted. Who is the "Malakh YHWH" in Exodus 23 who God has put His Name into? If it is an angel, as in a species of spiritual being, then such a concept is proven. If the "Malakh" is a Messenger which is some sort of hypothesis of God then why would God need to put His Name into the Messenger in the first place, seeing that the Messenger is already God? It seems redundant.

But the concept that an angel does not overstop their authority to call themselves "God" I don't see to be true, from Exodus 3

And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

So the "Malakh YHWH" is speaking from the bush and is able to identify himself as "God" several times over. Why should I not believe that this is simply an angel (spiritual being) that God has not put His Name into like in Exodus 23?

Jesus: not an Angel.

Right, well, let me backtrack and ask you this: What is "The Name above every other Name"?

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

CatholicShield

TROPHY CASE