u/Manu_Aedo

I have no problem with the excommunication of the SSPX, I indeed think it is just. They didn't necessitate to consecrate new bishops, they did it anyway, this is a clear schismatic act and excommunication latae sententiae is the right answer.
In the meanwhile, German bishops and other bishops that support progressive stances as female priesthood, homosexual sacramental marriage, permitting contraception and pretending sin and devils are overpassed concepts, all in the name of "the spirit of Vatican II" (though Vatican II never contradicted tradition about those topics) are doing the exact opposite: SSPX acted schismatic while being theologically orthodox; progressive bishops keep obeying to the Church while professing heresies, which is a form of schism. Both are unacceptable positions, but the Vatican only excommunicated SSPX. I am not to say to the pope what he should do or not, but this is my humble opinion.

My questions are:

1. If Scripture is the sole infallible source of doctrine, and other authoritative sources are fallible, and many authoritative sources strongly disagree even on important issues (such as nature and necessity of Baptism and the meaning of the sacrifice if Christ), then why did God leave to us such a vague source of doctrine as the sole infallible one, and not any other source that could clarify?
2. Were the Catholic and Orthodox Churches true Churches of Christ when the Protestant Reformation came?
3. If they were true Churches of Christ, then why did we need a Reformation, given that truth is just one and it can't be that both Apostolic and Protestant Churches are right on doctrine, seeing how much their theological frameworks differ from each other? But, if they weren't then why did God disrespect His own promise to guide His Church with the Holy Spirit in such an evident way, without keeping safe anything, be it doctrine, ecclesiastical structure or biblical interpretation?

Ormai mancano solo pochissimi giorni al fatidico momento in cui la Fraternità consacrerà nuovi vescovi senza il consenso del papa. Cosa ne pensate? E cosa pensate della sua mossa di inviare al Vaticano una dichiarazione di fede? Per quanto mi riguarda, la mia opinione è che hanno dottrinalmente ragione su parecchi argomenti... ma la scelta di consacrare vescovi da sé rovina tutti i loro buoni propositi, li rende scismatici non meno dei Protestanti, dei Vecchi Cattolici e dei Sedevacantisti.

Hi, I am Catholic and I am looking for a Protestant with whom I can dialogue (I am not looking for a "debate" where someone wins and the other one loses, but for a friendly theological dialogue).
I would simply like to friendly discuss theology with a Protestant.

Per contesto, diversi studi di università americane tendono ad affermare un rapporto negativo tra quoziente intellettivo e religiosità, di un valore che si aggira tra -0.1 e -0.3, quindi molto leggero ma reale. Di seguito elenco in riassunto essenziale le ragioni per cui ciò non conta praticamente nulla:

- i paesi occidentali sono contemporaneamente quelli che più investono nell'educazione e i più secolarizzati, e in particolare le scuole sono ambiente tra i culturalmente più lontani dalla religione, motivo per cui chi si istruisce di più e ha più modo di accrescere il proprio quoziente intellettivo è anche molto più esposto a una situazione sociale e culturale che allontana dalla fede (penso che questa cosa possa essere testimoniata da qualsiasi studente adolescente molto devoto come me: la scuola e la civiltà secolarizzata in generale sono quasi incompatibili con molte fedi e perfette per l'ateismo);

- il quoziente intellettivo misura esclusivamente pensiero analitico e astratto e memoria, senza considerare altri tipi di intelligenza come la saggezza morale o pratica, la creatività, la capacità intuitiva;

- la "religiosità" è un valore difficilmente misurabile, soprattutto se si mettono insieme infinite tradizioni religiose diverse, ciascuna delle quali dà per natura stessa un diverso peso alla religione e quindi l'appartenenza stessa a una religione piuttosto che a un'altra influenza il livello di religiosità;

- alcuni studi, sebbene più piccoli, mostrano una correlazione positiva tra religiosità e un insieme di cose che comprende rendimento scolastico, serenità, astinenza da droghe e uso eccessivo di alcol e fumo, relazioni sane;

- esistono atei con scarse capacità cognitive e religiosi molto devoti con alte capacità cognitive, le deviazioni dalla media sono infatti parecchie.

Tali sono le ragioni per cui se un ateo in un dibattito vi tira fuori tali consistenti studi voi potete rispondere serenamente.

Sto intrattenendo una chat con un ateo dove dialoghiamo riguardo a qualsiasi argomento. Lui è fortemente ateo e anticlericale, ha qualche anno in più di me ed è leggermente più colto della media di quelli che sono solito dibattere. Consigli su come parlare per non sembrare un ingenuo ma anzi invogliarlo alla fede, se possibile?

Premise: my opinion is different from the traditional interpretation of those texts, often done by people who were more intelligent, educated and divinely inspired than how I am, therefore I do not propose this opinion of mine as reliable, I just want to share it with someone. I do recognise I have no authority, as long as I anyway recognise that the Church never established an official magisterial interpretation of those texts.

For context, from the New American Bible:

- Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

- Luke 13:23-24: "Someone asked him, "Lord, will only a few people be saved?" He answered them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough."

Now, to be clear, usually scholars and doctors of the Church interpreted those passage as a literal sign that only few people will be saved and the vast majority of humanity will be damned. This happened mostly after the Middle Ages and the Catholic Reformation.

Anyway, I think there are some points that suggest that those passages do not give real information about how much people, in human parameters, will be saved.

Therefore, here is my thesis: not that many will be saved and few damned, but that those passages do not provide an eschatological prevision which says that only few (in human parameters) will be saved and many (in human parameters) will be damned. After this, that in those two passages our Lord wanted to urge us not to underestimate the real possibility of damnation and the difficulty of salvation.

Now, here is why I think this thesis could have some foundation, though it is not sure nor reliable for I am not a scholar nor a doctor of the Church or a saint, nor did I receive the sacrament of Holy Order:

- Other passages in the Bible seem to suggest a vast multitude of people to be saved: there are specifically two passages that speak about a "multitude" of saved people: the first is just few verses after one of the two I quoted here above: in Luke 13:29-30, "And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.". The other one is Revelation 7:9: "After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.". Also, the Bible is quite disseminated by passages that speak in universal terms, far more than how it is by "exclusivist" (not a proper term) passages (they are so much, therefore I will not quote their text but just them as verses): Genesis 12:3, 22:18; Psalm 22:27-29; Psalm 65:2; Psalm 86:9; Psalm 145:9; Isaiah 45:22-23, 49:6, 52:10, 66:23; Lamentations 3:31-33; Daniel 7:14; John 1:29, 3:17, 4:42, 6:33, 12:32; Romans 5:12-19; 1Timothy 2:1-4, 4:10; Colossians 1:19-20; 1Corinthians 15:22-28; Philippians 2:10-11; Titus 2:11; 1John 2:2, 4:14; 2Peter 3:9; Revelation 5:13, 21:24-26, 22:2.
I am NOT cherrypicking them in order to say "see, God will save all", I am pointing out that if the Holy Spirit inspired such way to speak about salvation in sacred writers, this COULD be a sign that not "few" as we mean it will be saved.

- Details in the quoted passages: I am referring to a little detail in Luke 13:24: because after someone explicitly asks to Jesus "if those who are saved are "few", He answers indirectly, shifting the attention from the number to the responsibility. He indeed doesn't say "those who are saved are few, therefore strive to enter through the narrow gate", but "strive [...] for many will attempt, but will not be strong enough". Let's read what comes next: in Luke 13:25-27 there's written: "After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, 'Lord, open the door for us.' He will say to you in reply, 'I do not know where you are from.' And you will say, 'We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.' Then he will say to you, 'I do not know where (you) are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers.". It seems to me that Jesus is talking more about hypocritical people who don't live the faith sincerely than real numbers, because He refers to people that expect them to be in heaven and say "we drank in your company and you taught in our streets", so people that believed to know Him, people that probably lived faith as external practice without an internal conversion.

- Exhortation and hyperbole: Jesus often uses hyperbolic images in order to make His exhortations stronger, this was a common rhetorical method for teachers at that time: He indeed commands us to "tear out and throw away our eye or cut off our hand or foot if they constitute a scandal for us" (Matthew 5:29-30, 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-48). He says that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25) (given that for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle is materially impossible, shall we say that it is impossible for any rich to enter the Kingdom of heaven, just for being rich?). He said to "turn the other cheek, not resister to those who do evil and to hand our cloak to those who want our tunic" (Matthew 5:38-42; Luke 6:29).
This does NOT make SURE that also those two passages are hyperbolic exhortations, but it makes that plausible and possible. They are NOT evidently hyperbolic because we can't know how much people will be saved, only God knows how much and who.

- The meaning of "few" and "many": This is my last argument, and I want to start from a fact, which is very clearly stated by the Scripture: God wants everyone to be saved and to reach truth (1Timothy 2:1-4). Given this fact, and considering the very important detail that Jesus is not just a human: He's God, I think that "few" and "many" can still be considered literal, but if we change perspective, and look at the situation by God's point of view. If God wants everyone to be saved, but everyone except just one person would he saved, I think we could say that for Him everyone except that one is "few", compared to His will of salvation. And, on the other hand, if just one single person that God loves infinitely is damned, I think we could say that in His view this is a very huge loss, much more than how He would have desired, for every single human is worthy much more than any else creature, created at the image of God.
By saying this, I do NOT mean that "few" will be dammed and "many" will be saved, but that "few" and "many" said by Jesus means nothing for us.

So, in conclusion, I am NOT suggesting any eschatological prevision, it could actually be that the majority of humanity will be damned. We just don't know. What I am saying is that the Bible never actually teaches this, but Jesus teaches indeed that damnation is a real possibility and we MUST strive in order to cooperate with His grace and mercy, that we must fight against evil and temptation, that we can't be indifferent to evil because without interior conversion we will be part of those who will say "we drank with you and you taught in our streets" when He will answer "I don't know you". Again, this is just my opinion and I could very well be wrong.

It feels like sometimes we forget the spiritual and philosophical beauty of the Trinity, the mystery that describes to finite minds the infinite God. The doctrine that shows to us how God isn't just loving, He is Love, He is a relationship, and He mirrors how we should ourselves live our human relationships.
- God is the Father, who is the fundament of reality itself, the principle of everything, the source of omnipotence, divinity and eternity.
- God is the Son, the eternally generated Word of God, generated to willingly, freely and totally act the will of the Father, who became flesh, Jesus Christ, assumed the human nature in the divinity, became human so that humans could participate to divine life. It didn't erase the consequences of our free Original Sin, we still struggle, but were the sin abounded the grace overflowed. He went through the darkness we generated in order to resurrect, He who is life, and so win over the darkness.
- God is the Holy Spirit, the breath of the perfect Love between the Father and the Son, which acts in the world and guides the Church and the hearts to righteousness. The Love of God guides the good part of the world.
So it is that God is two Persons and the love between them, so real and absolute He is a Person as well. Three distinct Persons, co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal, sharing one will and one eternal nature in total harmony and communion. Not that they are the same, but that they love each other. And in the same way that relationship is two Persons and the Spirit of Love among them, we as human can live holy relationship if lived in three: me, the other person, and God, who's Love, between us, to link us, to guide us.
God Triune and Only may bless you all.

Solo a me dà immenso fastidio chi si definisce così? Cioè, mi verrebbe da attaccargli un discorso di 20 minuti e passa in modo da istruirlo, se non sapessi che probabilmente non ascolterebbe. Perché, non per essere offensivo verso costoro, ma ciò denota una grande ignoranza o una profonda mala fede. Come puoi credere che Dio esista, abbia mandato Cristo a redimere il mondo, Cristo abbia fondato una Chiesa guidata dallo Spirito Santo, la quale ti dice che devi come precetto (quindi obbligo) andare a messa ogni domenica e ogni festa di precetto, e fregartene totalmente? Non solo non andare a messa, ma se non pratichi vuol dire che non preghi a meno che non ti serva qualcosa, come se fossimo dei pagani e ragionassimo secondo il concetto del do ut des, che non rispetti i precetti di digiuno della quaresima e che non studi la Bibbia e il Catechismo. No, se non pratichi, non sei cattolico, al massimo puoi definirti "teista agnostico che crede in Gesù". Ma ci crede come nozione, perché qui di fede intesa anche e soprattutto come rapporto personale, fiducia e affidamento ce n'è ben poca. Poi, non mi riferisco a nessuno in particolare perché da fuori non si può giudicare il cuore di una persona, ma queste persone esistono e lo sappiamo tutti. Magari vengono a messa a Natale se va bene, anche a Pasqua è un premium, e prendono pure la particola senza sapere che aver saltato la messa è un peccato grave contro il terzo comandamento. O magari sono quelli originali che dicono "credo in Dio ma non nella Chiesa" oppure ancora peggio "sono cattolico, ma su certe cose la Chiesa è rimasta indietro" e prendono posizioni originali su ciò che gli fa comodo (tipicamente fornicazione, sodomia, contraccezione e aborto).

Invito chiunque sia interessato a parteciparvi