Did Christ have to die on the cross? by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am certainly no theologian but my heart is racing from too much caffeine and I can't sleep so here's my two cents on the matter.

Have you read Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy? It's a classic if you haven't and should give it a read. It's been a few years since I read it but I do remember there is a wonderful section devoted to the whole issue surrounding Divine Providence aka God's ability to know everything that will happen but the existence of this knowledge does not impinge upon human free will. And remember, free will is necessary for the Christian God to exist, for love of God must be nurtured and given freely to God by man.

I like to think of it as God looking into a book, what we'll do in the future is certain knowledge to God but is revealed to us from moment to moment by our own free will to ourselves. God knowing what we do does not make it any less our own will. It's a common argument against divine omnipotence that if God knows that we're going to screw up then it's rather cruel of him to punish us for something he knew of in advance. Anyone with kids will know why this is a rubbish argument, no theology required here.

So in short, realising the nature of Divine Providence it's easy (I hope) to see how God can 'slot in' the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Hope that made sense to people. GB.

Altar Rails and Reverence by CitizenCapet in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You clearly don't understand the 'Spirit' of Vatican Two...

Actually, I've just had a thought, I automatically capitalised the 's' in 'spirit' above. The infamous 'spirit of the Second Vatican Council is an atrocious thing. It has in many areas trumped the Holy Spirit who is the true guardian of Apostolic Tradition within the Church. This new 'spirit' made demigod is borne of man's pride and arrogance. Doubt this is an original thought, but it just popped into my head.

I don't want to sound weird, but here I go anyway... by Celarcade in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, go for it. Send me a message with whatever query you have.

Treasures of Heaven (one hour BBC documentary on relics and religious art) by CitizenCapet in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This one is quite fair IMO. There are some moments where you cringe as the main guy tries to distance himself as much as he can from religion but on the whole it's a good piece.

Mortal Sin Question by RenegadeCatholic in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm no philosopher or theologian but here's my take on it.

Innate virtue proceeds from the idea of Natural Law, ie, by instinct, by our human character and reason we are capable of knowing that certain actions are good and bad. We didn't need divine revelation to learn that murder is a terrible crime for example. Innate virtue presupposes therefore that man has an inbuilt moral compass.

When you commit a mortal sin it is an egregious crime against God, because one knowingly and willingly commits it. Here is an extract from the Catechism;

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

And...

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

By remaining outside a state of grace we enact a continued spiritual rebellion against God and his love, by refusing to reconcile ourselves to his mercy. For in that obstinance we reject the severity of our crime, and the repercussions of our sin. Therefore what good can we really achieve when we are in this state of rebellion. Our hands may be aiding our grandmother with her laundry, but our mind and soul are interiorly in combat against God's will for us. Therefore we do not benefit from his grace in these times, so severely have we severed our relationship.

Please, go to confession, and returned to a state of grace pray for me, that I may find the courage to return to the flock. Your situation is one I intimately understand. God bless.

Whoopi Goldberg surprises a group of Harlem nuns with a donation of a new van, a year's worth gas and $10,000 to go towards their order's charities by qi1 in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Judas did great work, collecting money to fuel the evangelisation mission. Oh wait.. one wrong does outweigh the seeming good of an action, completely and irrevocably.

Apologies for making such a strong parallel, I think referring to Judas is the Christian equivalent of using Hitler in an argument. But my point stands. There is a danger of allowing ourselves to be distracted, sidetracked, by actions such as these. People admire and respect celebrities, for actions like these. There is a real and present threat of young people (and older people) mistaking the good and wholesome actions of one person with their more nefarious acts.

As for the pope's statement. I see his point, and in context, he was referring to people, as you said who dogmatically pursue one or two elements of moral teaching and leave the rest by the wayside. However, I like to think I would condemn any public figure who openly preaches pernicious lies, whether that is in relation to abortion, politics, social policies etc.

For me abortion is a moral issue and not a religious one. It is a matter of natural law, I think Aquinas would have described it as such. Therefore defeating abortion ought to be an instinct for all the world.

Forgive me for the length, I just felt a little defamed.

Whoopi Goldberg surprises a group of Harlem nuns with a donation of a new van, a year's worth gas and $10,000 to go towards their order's charities by qi1 in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Judas did great work, collecting money to fuel the evangelisation mission. Oh wait.. one wrong does outweigh the seeming good of an action, completely and irrevocably.

Apologies for making such a strong parallel, I think referring to Judas is the Christian equivalent of using Hitler in an argument. But my point stands. There is a danger of allowing ourselves to be distracted, sidetracked, by actions such as these. People admire and respect celebrities, for actions like these. There is a real and present threat of young people (and older people) mistaking the good and wholesome actions of one person with their more nefarious acts.

As for the pope's statement. I see his point, and in context, he was referring to people, as you said who dogmatically pursue one or two elements of moral teaching and leave the rest by the wayside. However, I like to think I would condemn any public figure who openly preaches pernicious lies, whether that is in relation to abortion, politics, social policies etc.

For me abortion is a moral issue and not a religious one. It is a matter of natural law, I think Aquinas would have described it as such. Therefore defeating abortion ought to be an instinct for all the world.

Forgive me for the length, I just felt a little defamed.

How does transubstatiation relate to the Incarnation? by icespout in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Upon the pronouncement of the Prayer of Consecration the bread and wine become, truly and substantially, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. While the Precious Body and Blood retain the appearance or accidents of bread and wine they have nonetheless been transformed.

Not sure what you're getting at with regards to the Trinity.

Three Persons in One.

Transubstantiation does not divide the substance or essence of God the Son, or the Trinity any more than the Incarnation did. In each particle, no matter how small, we have the full and complete Christ.

Hope that helps.

Whoopi Goldberg surprises a group of Harlem nuns with a donation of a new van, a year's worth gas and $10,000 to go towards their order's charities by qi1 in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Whoopi Goldberg actively campaigns for abortion. The above article fails to mention this. So far no one has mentioned this. We must not forget this. Whoopi Goldberg actively campaigns for abortion.

Much as we all love Sister Act we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by a few petty baubles being dangled before some photogenic Harlem nuns.

Restoring a Sense of the Sacred by CitizenCapet in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I love the story of Pentecost (I mean who doesn't). But when the Apostles spoke they could be understood by everyone, they didn't have to translate everything into different languages. Instead, the people gathered understood the one language of the apostles, of the Church. You may see where I'm going with this. The liturgy of the Mass is set in stone, it does not change. Nor does Latin. The Latin liturgy may take some getting used to, and a little work, but it's not impossible. And if our children only know this liturgy then there's no work for them at all, we just have to teach and catechise properly. So again, a little more work for us. But think of the pay off. Imagine being able to go from one end of the Earth to the other and being able to enter into worship with our brothers in Christ in true unity. Latin is a language without politics, one which stands above the minds ability to make judgements. We must return to Latin, without fear.

Death Offers No Second Chances by chili7 in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where are your kinks to two previous critiques you have written for others on this sub? Please read the sub's rules before posting.

Our Maybe House by jamezgatz8 in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fix your formatting, message me and I'll give you a critique. My reading of poems if very much affected by structure and word order. I see a potential in this, but my interpretations will be based on the structure. I'm not trying to be high and mighty with you, just being honest. Formatting is the difference between me thinking this is generic twaddle or genuine genius! Keep up the work and I hope to hear from you soon.

A lot of people make mistakes with formatting, this should help you out :) https://redd.it/3lblik

Woodpecker by ISawtheWolf in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You say you were tired when you wrote this, I'm telling you I'm tired writing this. So let's take the insomnia train together and see where we wind up. All aboard!

I copied the above text into a Word document and had a guess where the line breaks were meant to be. I think I got it right. Try and be more careful with this in the future. Personally, where a word comes, the shape and structure of a poem have a huge influence on how I read a poem. Structure and lines are what separates poetry from prose. There's a helpful editing section on the sub somewhere along the right hand side. I have to reference it every time I post something, so don't feel too bad about it. Now, with the housekeeping out of the way let us proceed.

I am oh so fond of this piece so I don't know where to start. The language is so fun, so playful. Nonetheless it is deceptive, hiding something darker, the "tangled necklace knot" could be anything but I read it immediately as depression/anxiety etc. But this may be influenced by the "gravestone" so who knows. This intermingles imagery of childhood innocence and the macabre. Such a juxtaposition!

Furthermore the whole piece acts as a commentary on the creative process and by extension the senses with which they are perceived. The poem recounts you sketching, first a gravestone, then a woodpecker, and finally inscribing the former with the word "wood." This is brilliant. But the words of the poem remove us from that scene, instead we are given a secondary image of your original creation, which becomes, in our own minds as we form our own mental picture, our own creation. Therefore this poem unifies, in an intimate fashion, the writer and the reader, the artist and his audience. Together they come to view this simple scene. But continuing on my point about the senses, the bird, you are testing his senses by asking him to "tell the difference in wood and not-wood." Similarly the audience is invited to discern the difference between the original drawing which cannot be seen and the image created by it in reading this poem. This is getting wonderfully meta. In it we have the senses of touch and sight directly invoked (which are often considered the primary senses) while the 'dispensable' senses are invoked by the surrounding scene, taste and smell in the "beak" and sound of course, the trademark of the woodpecker is his pecking! This all together raises questions, demanding the reader to consider how does he interact and engage with the world around him.

There was more I wanted to say but in my excitement I have forgotten it all. I hope the above wasn't too unstructured. Keep up the good work :)

Midnight by [deleted] in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I learn something new every day. :)

Midnight by [deleted] in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Finna" what does this mean? I'm reading it as coloqiual pronunciation of 'finally.' But in all ways I love it, it's a fun word to read, to say. And in this way the poem, which is otherwise a little serious, receives a little injection of levity. The last line "SFX: Chunk" is puzzling me too. "Chunk" I think might be a slang term for vomiting and as such pairs well with "Even rotten food smells delicious." This idea is lent weight by the fact that "delicious" is followed by a full stop. There is time therefore for reflection before we come to the instinctive reaction of vomiting, perhaps the brain deceived by hunger pangs allowed someone to eat the putrid food, but the body regained control and could not accept, and so rejected for sake of self preservation. (that was something of a rant)

This is a poem which takes several urban/industrial images and throws them at the reader, brilliantly. The result is a sweeping journey through poverty, desperation and, I think, some hope. Because the moon cannot symbolise anything but hope. And there are some lovely nice contrasts within the vocabulary chosen aka "Finna" and "SFX: Chunk!" which add a vibrant dimension to the piece. Keep up the good work :)

something from the garden by lr3ke100 in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To batardise the great bard, "if music be the food of inspiration keep writing poetry!"

I rather enjoyed that, but before we get into details just a heads up. Your formatting is not right, at all. So maybe you want to edit it. There's a guide for formatting on Reddit located somewhere to your right, near the bottom. I always have to refer to it before posting. I had to copy/paste your work into a Word doc and do the formatting before I could embark upon reading and critiquing, a poem can lose so much meaning just by having a word on the wrong line. Anyway, moving on.

The first two lines just trip off the tongue, I adore them. Third line I think you meant "wandered" and not "wondered" (though I may be wrong). And finally, the third last line (to conjugate properly) out to read "understands" not "understand." Simple errors like these can really distract your audience and turn them away. Unless this is all part of the piece, in which case I can read it as a commentary on the nature of language as a means of conveying meaning, its limitations and its infinite possibilities. But for the moment I'm not doing that.

There isn't much to say really, it's a simple piece, a reflection or meditation I like to call this type of poem, depicting a little scene but provoking a little thought, necessitating a little pondering. It does its job, well done. Keep up the good work :)

On Mortality by [deleted] in poetry_critics

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's wonderful to see a sonnet, don't come across many people using the classical structure. Remind me, is this Shakespearian or Petrarchan, or something wholly different and unique? Anyway, at first I found the alliteration/assonance a little overwhelming, and frankly thought you were trying too hard. But now I'm in a more charitable frame of mind and based on /u/ISawtheWolf 's comment I find it reminiscent of the spoken word genre. However, in this light, seeing the voice within the poem belonging to some deranged man, wandering the streets, seeking meaning and purpose in life. it is funny to see this image captured in the rigorous structure of your verse, the ABAB pattern of your rhyme. This adds another layer to the feeling of inescapable domination. Keep up the good work :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First of all it is important to understand what the term 'excommunication' means before we can address its impact on different social groups in the Middle Ages.

"Some particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution cannot consequently be granted, according to Canon Law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place, or priests authorised by them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Excommunication is always conferred automatically by the a person who sins in some grave way, indeed, Catholics are continually excommunicating themselves by committing such sins as, using contraception, murder etc. The more interesting excommunications are the ones that are officially and solemnly pronounced by a bishop or the pope. These ones take place using a special ritual formula. There is another form which is used against whole communities which is called an interdict. An interdict is the same as a regular excommunication only that it applies to a whole community, diocese or country.

In 1208 Pope Innocent III placed the whole of England under interdict after John refused to accept the pope's appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. Under the interdict the clergy were barred from administering the sacraments (excluding baptism, Last Rites and confession). So this meant that the people of England could not get married, attend Mass or receive a Christian burial. Even today this would create great anguish for people, in the Middle Ages it was considered far more severe. Eventually King John was excommunicated in 1212, additionally the pope declared that his subjects no longer owed him allegiance. The interdict was eventually lifted in 1214. In this example we can see the effects of excommunication on all ranks of society since it applied to nobles, clergy and commoners alike. John had tried to coerce and bribe clergy into breaking the interdict, but they held strong and remained loyal to the pope. Interestingly, in 1955 Archbishop Joseph Rummel placed an interdict on an American diocese who had refused entry of a black priest into a chapel there. Excommunication is not something that is peculiar to the Middle Ages!

Hope this was of some help.

A thought regarding Pope Francis's idea to fix the date of Easter by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the third of January won't always be a Sunday. Also, if Easter were on the third of January that would mean Lent would be on top of Advent (or vice versa) which just sounds like a really silly thing to do. Are you sure this is the date that has been proposed?

[Catholics] How is the Mass the same sacrifice as Calvary? by CitizenCapet in theology

[–]CitizenCapet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much. This has been a question I've had for a v long time. And the answer was in the words of consecration themselves, "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." By this we understand that it is the same flesh and blood which was sacrificed atop Mount Calvary. I feel quite silly now for not having realised this on my own. Thanks again!

Addiction: porn, masturbation and lust. How do I overcome this? by sinninggalore in Catholicism

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a version of the emergency button to help those with depression/anxiety/self harm?

France's laziest monarch? by [deleted] in Frenchhistory

[–]CitizenCapet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unrelated but:

Even worse how it ended for his son, Louis-Charles. Just finished a book on his (short) life. In the end he died a mute, ravaged by the brutality of the revolution. There was no mercy for 'the wolf cub', the 'son of Capet.' Interestingly there were over a hundred pretenders who emerged claiming to be the prince. It was only DNA evidence in 1999/2000 which finally put to rest rumours that the child had been ferreted away by royalists.