@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We are at war special military operation.  Doesn't have a ring to it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the part you skipped over has some important context that lay out the bones of his argument.  He put in two chapters to demonstrate that the Pope did have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, if you just skip past the part where he argues this you're ignoring his whole argument.


One of the things you miss is that he summarized the papal claims of Vatican I (page 16):




What we believe about the rights of the Pope is contained
in these four points: (1) The Pope is the chief bishop,
primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.
(2) He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the
Church. (3) To be a member of the Catholic Church a man
must be in communion with the Pope. (4) The providential
guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit
the Church to error in any matter of religion.




The first point he takes as manifestly obvious because the Anglicans of his time would agree with the statement "The Bishop of Rome is the First Bishop of Christendom."  But to back it up he says, "What it comes
to in practice is this: The Bishop of Rome is the right person to
take the lead in any common action of the whole Church;
particularly it is his right to summon a general council, to
preside at it, either himself or by his legate, to confirm its
decisions."  So basically this is demonstrated in Church history through the Pope's authority over councils.  But also demonstrated elsewhere.  St. Vincent says:




Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost




Yes, he goes on to say, "that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads."


If you think this part of St. Vincent shows something different than what Catholics believe you are mistaken.  The Pope can only be infallible to the degree he does not contradict prior Church teaching.  He prunes branches, he doesn't create them.  The Pope didn't make the Assumption a long-standing mystery of the Rosary, that was part of the "sense of the faithful" for ages before a formal declaration was made.


Anyways, he goes on to show the Pope has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.  For example, in the letter of Clement, Clement acts as if he can boss around the Corinthians.  "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger."  The Bishop of Rome steps into a large number of early controversies and commands things. Victor of Rome did the same with the Quartodecimans. St. Ignatius argued against Victor, so maybe that sounds like a case against it, but if you read his letter to Victor all his arguments show he believes Victor has this authority, he's just hoping Victor doesn't use it. And so on and so forth.  Chapter V is pretty rich in examples.


Next he goes into his third point, "To be a member of the Catholic Church a man
must be in communion with the Pope."  This is just the logical inverse of point number 2 - if the Pope has jurisdiction over the whole Church, to be in the Church is to have the Pope as one of your leaders.  Fortescue of course offers various prooftexts but I don't think I need to get into them here.


The fourth point is similarly a logical consequence of the above points.  You say that St. Vincent argues for the infallibility of the Church.  Well said.  Now, what does that infallibility mean for the Pope?  If the Pope is the head of the infallible Church, responsible for every member of the Church, can he lead the whole Church into error?  God forbid!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess where I run into issues is where protestants disagree on matters of necessity.  Joe Heshmeyer (apparently one of my top two apologists) made a good video where he listed out ten doctrines.  For each doctrine, he found two opposing Protestant pastors and theologians who do not just disagree on the doctrine, but who disagree if that same doctrine is essential for salvation or not.


Many Protestant pastors and theologians disagree about what you need to do and believe to be saved.  What doctrines are essential? Disagreement isn't the problem, it's the fact that these people generally all have similar hermenutics and ways of trying to answer the questions, and then all get different answers on matters that impact their salvation.  Is it possible to be saved by just being smart enough?  William Lane Craig is very smart but doesn't see baptism as essential.  Many other smart people think baptism is absolutely essential.


Have you figured out a consistent system that includes everything essential and excludes everything not essential?  If so, good for you and I guess you're better off than myself.  But as for me, I'll stick to Catholicism which on its own provides so much spiritual depth and less anxiety about trying to solve for every intellectual problem myself. (Maybe most protestants don't feel that anxiety but I'm obviously autistic by virtue of being here so I would totally be anxious about not having definitive definitions.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Or do you disagree with my assertion that Munificentissimus Deus and Ineffabilis Deus are the only two uncontested instances of papal infallibility?




Yes, I disagree that those are the only two uncontested instances of papal infallibility.  There's about 200 or so.


The doctrine of papal infallibility is not an innovation.  The four definitions put out by Vatican 1 were present in the early Church, see https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971&view=1up&seq=1 for an argument for this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


For instance, my understanding is that Nicaea 2 anathematizes iconoclasts




Anathematizisation is not Excommunication.  You have to go to the specific document that is anathematizing, but every one I've seen is a big list saying at the end, "Some of these are heresy, some of these are impious, some of these might cause scandal.  I'm not going to say which is which, just don't do them."


The Church does not "claim that [our] denomination is the only path to salvation."  We say that outside the Church there is no salvation, that all who are saved will be saved through the Church Jesus established, including many people who are surprised to discover that this Church was the Catholic Church all along.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are cases of ecumenical councils erring and Pope's preventing the error. The biggest one happened during the rise of Arianism:


If it were up to a majoritarian vote, we would not teach that Jesus was "God from God, Begotten not made." Council of Rimini in 359 had over 400 bishops in attendance. This council produced and agreed to the Arian formulas that, "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures" and "the Son is not a creature like other creatures." (but still a creature) Pope Liberius recognized this as an attempt from Arians to lead to statements that Jesus is not God Begotten and rejected the council. Many who signed the council documents then repudiated it. In view of the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it had no universal authority. We see Papal Authority win out over Concilliar Authority.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I didn't say they were claims to infallibility, I said they are examples of infallible statements we see in the past, given the definitions of Vatican I.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


papal infallibility is actually a very recent idea, going back to the late 19th century at the earliest, and there are only two undisputed cases of its use (ironically, both of which I think are probably false).




I would disagree here.  Papal infallibility was limited and circumscribed at Vatican I. The definition of infallible doctrine (the Pope, speaking as the leader of the people of God, declaring a doctrine relating to faith or morals, for the promulgation of all the faithful) retroactively helps Catholics understand prior Church documents and identify which items inside contain infallible statements.


Here are some examples of papal ex cathedra declarations before Vatican I:


We confirm by the authority of the Apostolic See your confession, in which… you explain that correct faith in Christ and the beginning of all good will, according to Catholic truth, is inspired in the minds of individuals by the preceding [or "prevenient"] grace of God.



--Pope Boniface II, Per filium nostrum, 531 AD


...by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned. [...] “the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth.”



--Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864


https://www.academia.edu/36244015/St_Robert_Bellarmine_on_the_Infallibility_of_General_Councils_of_the_Church is a good paper on the topic if you like.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not arguing to convince anyone about the Assumption of Mary, so of course my "arguments" are weak.


I'm exploring the logic of what Olive said - The Church Teaches X, I don't find evidence of X before the fifth century, therefore I cannot believe in X and therefore I cannot believe in the Church.


I don't think that this is logical, because something can be not taught for a period of time and still remain true.  Our earliest records of Alexander the Great start in the 1st century BC, centuries after his death, but belief in Alexander is still pretty common and uncontroversial.


If you have another reason to believe the Church can issue dogmatic teachings, then it's not a contradiction to have a period of silence.  There's just a piece of supporting evidence we'd like to have but which is missing.


No one converts to Catholicism because they find the arguments for the Assumption of Mary just that convincing.  They are converted on other grounds and then eventually accept the Church's authority to teach this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I might still have issues with the Catholic Church's insistence that it has the right to declare dogmas in this way, but at least the dogma itself would be removed from contention.




I think it really comes down to the Papacy. Mary is a fun battling ground, but there's nothing about her that is the crux of the issue.  I believe in principle that the Pope could promulgate a truth that might have hints in scripture but not be made manifestly obvious through scripture. You do not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Pretty sure I said the exact opposite (and in agreement with you)?




I think I couldn't tell where you and Barron differ then?  Because what I said is something +Barron would also say.   +Barron would not put Logic above God but rather views Logic as subsisting in His essence. Logic is what it is because God is who/what He is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I can easily say "Bug-her"


"I don't want to bugher too much, she's really getting stretched thin."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Make sure your reflective vest is long enough to cover your fanny."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What phrases are mostly innocent in the US but innuendo in the UK?  Have some colleagues in the UK and would like to make things funny from time to time.  I have no idea what they mean by "you alwight" and I want revenge.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
After the Resurrection of the Dead, we will no longer have weakened wills, darkened minds, and rebellious bodies.  Frankly, they are just not going to act the way you fear.  You will discover to your surprise that there is a goodness inherent in their nature that was marred by original sin.  That these weaknesses were caused by original sin and God will remove these impediments.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Perhaps I am being overly autistic, but I will not say those words unless they are true. And they are not.




Well, it sounds like you have read up and found out that there isn't a clear written tradition before the fifth century that the Assumption happened.  But there likewise isn't a clear written tradition that makes it clear the Assumption didn't happen.   If Mary showed up later on in a vision and consistently told people, "I am assumed into Heaven" like she did to St. Brigid, it might be true but not known until later.


Mary's final resting place is left mysterious, just like the Ark of the Covenant.  What happened to her?  It is notable that there are relics galore of so many saints but none of Mary.  People have all these stories passed on about this thigh bone belonging to that apostle, and nothing for Mary.  And that silence says something.  It doesn't get straight to the Assumption, but it does highlight that there is something worth mediating on here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But reality increasingly seems to be pointing me in a direction that some races are pit bulls and have very little ability to morally reasoning on their own. So either my perception of the world is wrong or there is an important theological question without an answer.




And a Catholic would answer, if that was the case, such people would be the Baby's Breath of God's bouquet.  They are not immediately damned, but will be judged according to their abilities and if they pass they will be the least in Heaven - but still in Heaven and more glorious than the greatest among us now.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


From a theological perspective what’s a good argument that human races have much different rates of grave sin? You can deal with sin at the individual level thru a need for free-will, but to say God created some humans that like to sin more feels very bad.




I don't know how you can determine if other races are actually committing a disproportionate amount of mortal sins, in the sense that do they actually know what they are doing is gravely wrong and do it anyways with their will?  You cannot really examine any one else's conscience but your own.


Catholicism has a "For those whom much is given, much is expected" attitude.  If there is a group of people who really do have a greater understanding of right and wrong and a greater self-control, then they will be judged by that.  And if there is a group that is opposite, they will be judged by that.


Why does God create such variety?  Those who are in Heaven do not all possess equal glory. When St. Therese of Lisieux puzzled on how this could be and yet all be perfectly happy in Heaven, her sister gave her two cups, a small and a large.  Each were filled to the brim with water. The sister asked, "Which is more full?"  The answer of course is neither. In another section of her diary, St. Therese mentioned how the saints were like a bouquet, the whole is more beautiful because the big flowers are mixed in with small flowers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I expected to disagree on Mary (perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, assumption) and the Pope (infallibility); and I still do (though I was surprised how recently these have become "dogma": I would have found it much easier to be a Catholic in 1800 than today).




I'd like to note that while these have only recently been formally codified, veneration of Mary, belief in perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and her assumption into Heaven has existed for ages - these are all present in Orthodox Christianity which split off a thousand years ago, and veneration of Mary present in Oriental Orthodoxy which split off long before that.  Vatican I actually put a hard limit on Papal Infallibility by officially defining it, before then Catholics were generally more Papist.


Making a formal dogmatic declaration is significant.  I heard someone speculate that the timing existed to preserve veneration of Mary against a Protestant world that was increasingly dismissive of her.  Meaning, without these formal dogmatic declarations, Protestants might have converted into Catholicism without gaining respect for her, bringing in their own "the mother of our Lord is just a woman," attitudes and eventually reducing Catholic devotion to her.




This also could be seen as a constraint on God and limit his radical freedom. Both these potential concepts of God’s will and freedom (of which I’m sure there are hundreds of alternative concepts) seem to be operating at a level above how Barron conceptualizes God’s freedom. Put crassly, Barron seems to be hinting that God could not "make a triangle a square", that is, that God is constrained by logical impossibilities.




There are no external constraints on God.  I think you are assuming here that Logic and God are different essences, and God's being is constrained by Logic.  But instead, Logic is God's unchanging will.  Logic is what it is because of God's Being being what it is.


But like, could God be something else?  Could God want something else?  What would that entail? Assuming God already wants what is best, Him changing His mind would mean he's picking a lesser good.  God's freedom does not look like our freedom.  God is the supreme good, He has perfect freedom to pick the best good at all times without external constraints imposed on Him.


I don't know if this video from +Barron helps show him clarify his position: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc?si=_47urSM6NRvgHOXX


That said, I would like to pause and say that +Barron is presenting a very common Catholic philosophy but this isn't the only way of looking at things.  Franciscan Voluntarism is probably a more familiar way of looking at it and it is equally Catholic.  This also might be an interesting little web-book for you: https://www.absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/introduction/


The biggest thing I would like to impart, even if all else I say is nonsense, is that there are many valid theological opinions a Catholic can hold.  The Church is able to define limits to what can be believed, and usually does in response to controversy. But until the Church says "This is outside the bounds of our teachings," there is room for a large diversity of thought.  Bishop Barron has a very specific way of talking about God - through Thomism and a mix of more recent philosophers.  But that's not the only way a Catholic can talk about God.


RE: Atonement - I think it's really a mystery.  I really liked Cur Deus Homo which felt very logical, but even that is just one facet of many.  The problem we face is that God really could have just snapped His fingers and forgave everything.  Jesus' sacrifice is for us, to cure some deficiency in us.  It was the best possible way to do it because of our weakness in a way that perhaps we really cannot grasp.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think some of the indictments we see out of this administration are not for the purpose of getting a verdict, or even for the purpose of wasting time/money, but to get stuff out of the dark and into the air.  The SPLC was spending money to support the leaders of organizations they claim to oppose.  There's now a document with a summary of the FBI's investigations on a government website for everyone to reference.  Information that once would have been a conspiracy theory is now as public as possible.


I think, if donators to SPLC knew ahead of time that their money would be going to "The Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America" or towards coordinating transportation to the "Unite the Right" rally, they probably would not have made that donation.  SPLC characterized these people as informants, but many seem very highly placed.  So highly placed, that they are in charge of the organization instead of informing on the organization.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for April 22, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Knitting/crochet has been good for me.  There's something satisfying about making something tangible that you plan out, execute, and then use.  I can knit without anything else going on, and it becomes somewhat meditative.  Or I can put on a podcast and it's like listening to a friend talk while working on something.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm reminded of the tale of the anarchist newspaper in which every one of the dozens of editors, employees and writers was an intelligence agent or informant for a different government.




The Man Who Was Thursday?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The important thing is to realize that the IRGC and the Iran’s conventional army, the Artesh, are two different things, the IRGC and the Iranian government are two different things, and the IRGC is making its own moves contrary to the wishes of its political leadership.


This has an interesting graphic: https://x.com/TheIranWatcher/status/2042717802637766685


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Even though I make an effort not to say anything, sometimes I will move my foot to where the brake would be if I were driving and push down with my foot, every time my husband isn't coming to a stop at the same deceleration I would have employed.  My husband talks more than myself, and my 'backseat driving' is often more in the form of gestures, flinches, and gasps.


There is an element where I do think my husband is a more dangerous driver but he has said he likes driving and if I tried to become the primary driver it would be insulting.


He's gotten into four accidents that have required body work since we've been together, each one he has been found not at fault, each one I was not in the car with him.  My record is 0 accidents.  He drives about twice as many miles as I do. He readily admitted that he was spared a fifth accident because a rental company got him a Tesla and it did some nifty accident avoidance on him when he was about to crash someone in the highway.


This is a specific instance, but the data also seems to indicate men are more aggressive drivers.  Perhaps you all deserve some backseat driving?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've posted here often enough and have been honest and genuine.  Sometimes the weird niche forum really does attract the upper class investor, two doctors, and other crazy weirdos like the weird gal who talks too much about parenthood and has been on more than the average number of long road trips and all that comes from that.  I posed on here a few months ago that I would have loved to be a truck driver, so an anecdote about a road tip is pretty on brand for me.


I also verified just now that my husband remembers it the same as I do, that he does also think I saved our lives that one time which is why he's trying to be patient for all the other times.


I can't show absolute proof though so whatever.  For what it's worth, I don't think my comment "contradicts the generalization."  I openly admit that I have interrupted my husband on many more occasions where it wasn't so helpful.