Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism - America's National Religion - Discuss
I am not familiar with that part of the teachings from Fatima, and it runs counter to the official Church doctrine. Since the Church has never declared anyone to be in Hell (the canonized Saints are declared to be in Heaven) the official stance is that hell might be empty of human souls and that's the reality we pray for.
Sorry for the late response, I read this a few days ago and forgot to pick it back up.
When the three seers were shown the people in hell, in the literal pit of fire screaming in eternal agony, Mary told the children that most people, and most Catholics, go there for sins of the flesh and immodest fashions.
The Catholic Church most certainly has taught, and in some areas still does, teach there are specific individuals in hell. At the lower end, it can be infered from those who are denied communion for being sinners. The morality of their sinfulness aside, anyone who is not in communion and full submission to the Roman Pontiff is going to hell. So while they don't explicitly say "Fred is going to hell", it is obvious enough if he dies before submitting.
On the second front part of the reason the Catholic Church forbade burial (not just Catholic funeral Mass) for suicides is because there could be no doubt whatsoever they were in hell. Some sins you could feasibly argue they repented at the last moment, but a suicides last moments were in the act of self murder; so there was no dispute they were in hell.
Catholicism has developed an awareness of mental health since, so this isn't as common in the west but it does still happen. I appreciate today that is not a universal teaching, but it was for centuries.
It makes sense now. The Church has recently found declaring people to be in heaven as well to be very problematic, it's hard to dispute the moral character of a man who lived centuries ago with poor records but Mother Teresa and John Paul II are remarkably well documented, as are their controversies (alleged crimes, Teresas' decades/perhaps even life long dark night of the soul/atheism).
I hope this doesn't come off as criticism. I genuinely don't care if people have a faith or not, I only care when it becomes a public nuisance and threat like Islamism and at the moment Catholicism generally isn't.
I'm genuinely not sure where you got this. The Fatima visions were relayed by Sister Lucia, the only one of the three children to survive. Here's her entire revelation in three secrets.
1. Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.
2. You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
3. The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fátima, on 13 July 1917.
I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.
After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God, something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it, a Bishop dressed in White. We had the impression that it was the Holy Father. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.
Now the third secret was published much much later than the first two and it has some controversy around it but that's okay because our discussion is more relevant to the first two secrets as they are the ones that mention Hell.
The first secret is simply a description of the vision of Hell. Nothing is stated about the nature of who is there, just that they saw human souls. No specific individuals are named.
The second secret only addresses them as "poor sinners" it does not say "most people" or "most Catholics" or anything about sins of the flesh or immodest fashions. Simply poor sinners, moreover ones that still have the potential to be saved. I've read some context that implies these poor sinners are there because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them, but that's not part of the vision.
The Catholic Church most certainly has taught, and in some areas still does, teach there are specific individuals in hell. At the lower end, it can be infered from those who are denied communion for being sinners. The morality of their sinfulness aside, anyone who is not in communion and full submission to the Roman Pontiff is going to hell. So while they don't explicitly say "Fred is going to hell", it is obvious enough if he dies before submitting.
A common misconception. Yes, we do teach that there is no salvation outside the Church, but we also teach that God has the final say. See here from there Catechism.
On the second front part of the reason the Catholic Church forbade burial (not just Catholic funeral Mass) for suicides is because there could be no doubt whatsoever they were in hell. Some sins you could feasibly argue they repented at the last moment, but a suicides last moments were in the act of self murder; so there was no dispute they were in hell.
This is largely undiscussed but the Church is essentially in a perpetual state of reformation. Officially the Church as its own entity is the Sinless Bride of Christ, but that sinless quality by no means extends to the men who make up the clergy. Throughout history there are plenty of examples of bad clergy and its very easy to conflate the actions of bad clergy with the Church itself. That isn't necessarily to say that the people teaching that about suicide were bad clergy, its also worth noting that our understanding of the faith has grown too.
1 Corinthians 13:12 says: We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.
It makes sense now. The Church has recently found declaring people to be in heaven as well to be very problematic, it's hard to dispute the moral character of a man who lived centuries ago with poor records but Mother Teresa and John Paul II are remarkably well documented, as are their controversies (alleged crimes, Teresas' decades/perhaps even life long dark night of the soul/atheism).
I won't get into the weeds on Mother Teresa or St. Pope JPII, that's a discussion for another time. For now all I'll say about them is that every Saint is a sinner, none are good but God alone. In other words you do not need to be perfect to be a Saint.
What I will address is the notion that canonizing Saints (how we declare someone to be in Heaven) is considered problematic in anyway.
Since becoming Pope in 2013, Francis alone has canonized over 900 Saints. Granted most of those were the Martyrs of Otranto canonized en masse (as is tradition for large scale martyring), but that still leaves about 100 individual Saints who have been canonized or who's canonization has been approved but not enacted yet. (these things take time)
The most recent of these is (soon to be St.) Carlo Acutis, who died at the age of 15. You can read about him here.
I find it amusing that Christians thought there was ever a point when the majority of their peers actually held complex theological opinions and didn’t just believe what you’ve just laid out. It’s pulling teeth to get people just to read the book itself, not to mention the autistic amount of dissertation and further reading of fan fiction required to reach the conclusions/theological opinions that most denominations hold.
I find it amusing that Christians thought there was ever a point when the majority of their peers actually held complex theological opinions and didn’t just believe what you’ve just laid out. It’s pulling teeth to get people just to read the book itself, not to mention the autistic amount of dissertation and further reading of fan fiction required to reach the conclusions/theological opinions that most denominations hold.
You could always try Orthodoxy if reading puts you off. More than any other Church, I find it really encourages you to try and experience what a life in Christ is actually like outside of just going to services.
It helps that a lot of the holiest saints the Orthodox Church has are essentially illiterate peasants from farming communities who were just blessed with heavenly gifts because they exemplified the spirit of Christian simplicity, such as St Silouan and St Spyridon the Wonderworker.
I've had talks on religion from people in the most irreligious place on Earth, Estonia. And they still thought there is "something" out there. Like an energy or force. And I think in a vacuum some people will at bare minimum probably believe in "something".
On the other hand MTD doesn't feel like a natural religious belief but the result of a cultural zeitgeist. "If a god were to exist he would be like god from Family Guy."
I don't think people actually believe in it. I'm gonna sound really gay and try hardy. But I think they resonate with the idea but don't actually subscribe to it, believe it, understand it and definitely don't internalize it.
I think there is an air gap between what people believe and what people understand they need to say when asked about what they believe. In this context to be specific.
And the reason to me it doesn't feel like a real religion is that nothing is ventured and as such nothing is gained. Looking at religion from a mechanical point of view is that it involves a cost/sacrifice at some level regardless of that religion. It can be something minor as just having to dedicate part of your time to praying. And also there is risk involved. MTD has no real risk besides "Don't be a dickhead". You don't really have skin in the game because it's hard for someone to see themselves as wrong.
The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
I'd love to know on what basis the Pope or whoever decides someone is in Heaven.
Like, does God tell the Pope? He comes down and personally reveals it to him?
Or is it all really just an assumption that this person seems like they'd go to Heaven, so we're just going to speak on behalf of God Almighty.
Imagine the extreme arrogance it would take to do that.
God do I wish that Catholicism had been exterminated.
I'd love to know on what basis the Pope or whoever decides someone is in Heaven.
Like, does God tell the Pope? He comes down and personally reveals it to him?
Or is it all really just an assumption that this person seems like they'd go to Heaven, so we're just going to speak on behalf of God Almighty.
Somebody prays for ther intercession of a soon-to-be saint for a miracle, miracle happens, person tells their priest/bishop and the case for canonization starts (this step is a bit fuzzy but thats the basic idea). If it happens multiple times, go to the next step:
Holding a court case weighing the evidence whether what happened was a miracle or not. If it was just mundane eveeyday shit that could be explained by every day phenomena, the canonization of the individual is typically stopped here until more evidence is gathered. If it is a genuine miracle (like with Edith Stein and how Fr. McKinney's 10 year old daughter literally managed to survive despite ingesting some highly toxic medicince), then that person is clearly a saint interceding for us here on Earth.
It's almost the exact same process the Orthodox Churches use to canonize saints, meaning this is probably an ancient process the Early Church used to canonize saints albeit with more refinements and whatnot. Don't blame Catholicism or Orthodoxy for Protestantism theologically bankrupting itself amd excluding itself from historic Church Traditions more than even Islam did. That'a the end result of apostasy.
I always thought it meant when the East and Western Churches were still in regular communion with each other and before the age of the Patristics (so from 33 AD - ~300/400 AD).
I always thought it meant when the East and Western Churches were still in regular communion with each other and before the age of the Patristics (so from 33 AD - ~300/400 AD).
That is what the Orthodox and most protestants say in an effort to delegitimize the Catholic Church's exclusive claim on the apostolic line of St. Peter by which the Pope's authority is derived.
Americans tend to believe vaguely in heaven and hell, and some sense of teleological justice or progress "the arc of history". They also tend to believe God if He exists accepts their choices and behaviors unless they hurt someone.
This is a view that is shared by normie shitlibs "haha homophobes going to hell" to more nominally christian trump voters.
One doesn't need to even really believe in the supernatural-just the notion of immanent progress and some degree of moral realism.
I'd argue this therapeutic deism suits the American national character like a glove on a hand-a secularizing nation with a deeply religious history even to recent times, a broad mass of atomized individuals with no ethnic or national identities, and no particular morality outside of a general libertarianism in one's personal life with self improvement through therapy or some other psycho-corrective measure being the ladder on which to become te idealized version of oneself.
This line of thought is how you bar yourself from receiving the Holy Spirit and the grace of God, through which you begin to attain Theosis and, with effort to maintain this grace, eventually join our Lord in Paradise. It's for the best if you just ignore it completely and seek the Lord's help.
There is no way to The Father except through The Son. I find it fascinating how many people living in Western civilization are so wholly ignorant about the basis of our civilization. Ignorant atheists will be the very first to say that it isn't Christianity! Or whatever but it is just intellectually bankrupt.
The Western legal systems for example. They are all formulated on the basis of equality in the eyes of God and the Law. As in Heaven so shall it be on Earth and other axioms we have. These all evolved from the prior legal system of (Roman) antiquity and were deemed wanting. As Roman law revolved around settling disputes between classes of people, of which there were many. This is just one small example.
Goes without saying but there are no greater examples to follow than Christ. Many people seem to forget that or make odd allusions to Oden or some other thing. Christ accepts all comers.
I’d argue that this therapeutic deism is basically just a secular evolution of American Protestant norms in a secular and multi cultural country.
Instead of “God helps those who help themselves” or “God has chosen us to carry out his mission”-you get God just wants you to be the best version of yourself. It offends no one, and anyone can be included.
Jews, Muslims, ex Catholics, agnostics, etc… it also doesn’t demand anything. There is no hard doctrine of salvation or damnation, it doesn’t require penance or any sort of work.
Basically, it suits the country America has become.
That is what the Orthodox and most protestants say in an effort to delegitimize the Catholic Church's exclusive claim on the apostolic line of St. Peter by which the Pope's authority is derived.
I’d argue that this therapeutic deism is basically just a secular evolution of American Protestant norms in a secular and multi cultural country.
Instead of “God helps those who help themselves” or “God has chosen us to carry out his mission”-you get God just wants you to be the best version of yourself. It offends no one, and anyone can be included.
Jews, Muslims, ex Catholics, agnostics, etc… it also doesn’t demand anything. There is no hard doctrine of salvation or damnation, it doesn’t require penance or any sort of work.
Basically, it suits the country America has become.
Can't help but agree. As American protestantism developed throughout the 19th and early 20th century it basically became about 99% missionary work and maybe 1% everything else. Charitable organizations are great and all, but there's more to christianity than soup kitchens. After the second great awakening and the infusion of Methodism into most mainline denominations, it became more and more about promoting the "saving cause" of the month than promoting right-belief. In the mid 19th-century it was abolitionism, after that it was temperance, and then immigrant welfare, then civil rights, then social justice. What killed the "charity-church" cult was government welfare programs making them redundant, thus making future social workers go into NGOs rather than church organizations. There were plenty of bible-believing Christians of various stripes in the United States throughout all of this, of course, but the mainline denominations held so much cultural clout and wealth that there was basically nothing to fill in the hole when they imploded. Catholicism went through a major identity crisis, Orthodoxy was practically non existent until fairly recently, and low-church protestants collectively started throating anti-intellectualism and never bothered assembling any kind of opposition to secularization because of their poorly-schooled pastors embracing gnosticism and dismissing the need to care about the world outside their walls, effectively taking the opposite extreme. I will give baptists some credit, in that they are the only denomination that seems to regularly get out and try to convert people, but their lack of structure or hierarchy means they don't really build a strong system for keeping people in the faith, thus undermining what little they are able to achieve.
The other side of the coin is "self help" Joel Osteen and prosperity gospel stuff. God wants black people to have equality and God wants you to have a big house, get a promotion and be happy with your life.
In both cases-God is presumed to directly favor material or social metrics for human flourishing as the broader culture defines these terms.
I'd argue that a few main things caused american secularization.
Higher criticism-this was absolutely disastrous when it was imported from Europe, the notion the Old Testament was composed a millennium after the events it described and notions that the NT was basically fabricated legends, shattered the prestige of the more established denominations, like episcopalians and lutherans. Who basically accepted it without even a fight and became the rainbow flag waving women priests God is a transwoman monstrosities you see today.
The Scopes Monkey trial-effectively this convinced the educated classes genuine religiosity was dumb and low status, and thus no one wanted to be associated with it.
I'd argue the American elite were already functionally atheists and disinterested in religion by the fifties-they understood its significance for the population, but did not really believe it. This trickled down over time, as even billy graham and the like ran up against elite institutions and personnel that simply as group rejected religion. (Even if they made occasional converts).
Functionally-the idea of God in this secularizing country where you don't want any restrictions on yourself or your aspirations and you don't have anything in common with your neighbors has evolved in tandem. "God wants you to basically satisfy all your wants"-no need for any parochial theology or worse requirements. And even better if it makes you feel good.
I'd argue the American elite were already functionally atheists and disinterested in religion by the fifties-they understood its significance for the population, but did not really believe it. This trickled down over time, as even billy graham and the like ran up against elite institutions and personnel that simply as group rejected religion. (Even if they made occasional converts).
It wasn't even just the elite by the 50s, as when you read about those two Soviets who took a road trip of America back in the 30s they mention with an almost alarming tone the lack of genuine piety among the "average" Americans in the small towns they'd visit. Russia was an atheist state, so there was no longer a social advantage to feigning religiosity, but in America there very much was. Americans despised atheism but openly practiced it in every way besides naming it themselves. Piety had been supplanted with having the "correct" moral opinions and showing up every sunday with your family at the correct time in the correct church. No different than the baptists you catch in the liquor store hiding their Pabst in a black grocery bag today. Atheism was synonymous with Marxism and other social contagions, so it was effectively blacklisted from discussion, which only delayed the inevitable cratering of church attendance once that taboo was removed. In other words, the laissez-faire attitude toward actually following the rules was already there, and only got worse after the embarrassment of prohibition. The invention of antibiotics and the pill causing sexual mores to loosen a LOT, and the "future is now, burn all relics of the past" mentality of the 60s just served to be the final nail in the coffin. Baby Boomers will still, to an extent, follow their parents' leads of pretending to be in a church to appease some non-existent spectator, but younger generations no longer feel the need to do so, hence why church enrollment has plummeted in addition to attendance.
I agree yeah-in the south and midwest, church attendance was basically a way to signal one's character and pro social dispositions. (It still is, or was even in the deep south until maybe the last generation or so).
Not attending church or openly saying you think God isn't real, marked one out as a social pariah-you were likely a communist or some other outside troublemaker if you expressed such opinions or didn't follow the ritual of church attendance.
One could probably trace elements of this back to the 19th century, the fact you have these 'awakenings" where people do come to Jesus and church attendance rises, suggests the baseline wasn't a particularly pious society. Only one where religious institutions were respected as a matter of course
I'd say this relationship with religion has always defined America-puritans land in New England, but in Virginia, its tobacco growers who could care less, within a few generations said puritans grandsons are more interested in making money than attending church(and the hardcore calvinism burned itself out). To the point you have books like the Scarlett Letter in the 19th century that basically make fun of their puritan ancestors(which is what hawthorne was doing).
Take even the idea of "God helps those who help themselves"-this idea every colonist crossing the Appalachians and the great plains believed, is not a particularly biblical idea at all. But it is adaptive and fits with what those colonists needed religion for.
But yeah, I'd say church attendance rates were probably reaching Europe levels in the nineties and 2000s-but there was some residual sense of shame so people lied to polls.
You also have the people that show up only on holidays. As a sort of obligation.
But eventually well-they realize any obligation is purely in their heads, and that no one seems to care, so they stop with the pretense.
