This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Look, that’s nice(ne) and all, but it doesn’t actually make you to do anything. One can “believe” all the correct things, but when pressed, choose the wrong action. Such is sin.
The question is what is the oath.
There is a fundamental difference between sin and not believing in the church.
Right. I’m saying that professing the creed, even wholehearted belief in it, is not the same as an oath to the Pope.
Professing a belief in the Catholic Church (that you believe in their teachings) where the Pope has Papal Primacy and the legitimacy of the Church is based on a direct lineage from Peter isn’t the same as an oath to the pope?
Words have meaning.
In a religious context, an oath is a statement about one's future intentions coupled with a prayer requesting divine punishment on yourself if you don't follow through. In the modern Christian context, the prayer and penalty are abbreviated as "so help me God". (The Oath of Office for the US President prescribed in the Constitution omits this, but this is exceptional and most Christian presidents added "so help me God" voluntarily. This was probably a drafting error because all the other oaths of office prescribed by the 1st Congress did include it). But in classical antiquity, or in dubiously Christian contexts like Masonic oaths, the penalties can get quite specific.
As usual, Brett Devereaux provides more detail.
But critically to this thread, the clerics who wrote the creeds (and, more importantly, the professions of faith and such like which form part of the Confirmation ritual, which is where you would have put an oath if you wanted one, and do in fact look more oath-like) could have made them oaths by adding "I swear" and "so help me God", and chose not to. So they are not oaths.
The creeds are pure statements of current belief, made in solemn form to encourage taking them seriously. There is (at least in mainstream Christianity) no suggestion that someone changes their mind and ceases to believe in the creed calls any special divine wrath on themselves beyond the general damnation of unbelievers.
There is no practical difference here in what you are trying to say which I think is “it’s just a believe the Church is really special” and “ I pledge an oath to the Church”. The former in many ways is much stronger because it’s believing in something versus an oath you just sign and get punished or something if you violate it.
There is a practical difference if gods are real and that the prayer for self-imposed punishment forming part of an oath is likely to be granted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. History is littered with Catholics who did something against the interests of the Pope. If they rationalized it, if they continued to attend Mass and believe and so on, I think it’s appropriate to keep calling them Catholics.
“Interests is vague”. It’s really with respect to the Church interests that matters. And certainly things you can’t contradict.
So I disagree. Those are not practicing Catholics.
Whether you want to get in semantics I guess you can call them Catholics but they are not practicing Catholics. Which is why they can get elected to US office at high levels.
I feel like you are making trademark law style arguments. If the Catholic Church doesn’t excommunicate everyone tightly then they lose the right to ever have standards and therefore Catholic becomes a meaningless descriptor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link