It can have to do with the perspective with which one approaches religion.
If you approach religion with a primarily positivist/rational perspective -- that is, primarily viewing tenets and things like that at face value -- you can run into the issue you've identified.
If you approach it with a more "mystical" (for lack of a better word) perspective, some of these kinds of tensions and limitations can be alleviated, or relaxed, in practice because while these claims are not denied, they are understood through a mystical lens which tends to be more flexible in practice. The advantage of this is that it remains somewhat moored to the "traditional" faith while at the same time remaining much more open (often radically so) to the kinds of insights which can come from a mystical praxis and understanding.
The latter is unfortunately not for everyone. For many it feels too unmoored from a more plainly rational approach (it's more supra-rational in practice). And it isn't just a question of mindset, but of praxis: that is, it tends to arise from certain practices (certain kinds of prayer, in particular) which then give rise to a shift in perspective and emphasis interiorly, rather than trying to do that only mentally -- the mental shift tends to arise from spiritual praxis rather than the reverse. The key shift is towards an emphasis on the praxis and spiritual growth, which then informs a more flexible understanding of doctrines and the like (while retaining formal "orthodoxy" in these areas), rather than an emphasis on the nitty-gritty of "official" teaching, rules and so on.
Of course, you can also get completely unmoored, especially if you try to embark on that without any guide -- either personal/living (best) or written. And you may just not be of the proper mental mindset for this approach to be fruitful, as noted. I do think, though, that if you approach religion of any sort -- whether Christian or otherwise -- in 2025 and beyond with a conventional focus on the rational/face value aspect of them, it can be very difficult to sustain without some degree of double-talk at some stage.
What's the problem? Jesus worked miracles. He made blind people see and cripples walk and deaf people speak and cured leprosy--and raised people from the dead. He could walk on water (suspending the laws of physics) and make St. Peter walk on water. Christ levitated into the skies (Ascension) and presumably disappeared into thin air, only to appear again bodily to the Apostles. St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross would levitate during prayer on occasion. St. Teresa didn't like it and asked her nuns to try to kneel on her habit to stop the levitating but they gave up (I guess her clothes were about to rend, but I wasn't there.) (If I'd been in her company, I would have flat out refused to kneel on her garments to hold her down during prayer, because I would have figured that's not what God wanted.) Can the devil levitate people? Yes, I've read of exorcists who encounter levitation of the penitent, but I don't think they try to counteract it by touch, they pray the person down from the ceiling, etc. (See "The Exocist" movie, which was based on a true case of possession, or listen to all the youtubes by various exorcists like Father Chad Ripperger, Monsignor Stephen Rossetti, Fr. Dan Rehill, Fr. Carlos Martins or Fr. Vincent Lampert).
Padre Pio could read minds. One would go into confession and Padre Pio could tell you the sins you left out. Padre Pio could also sense impenitence and sometimes he'd throw the impenitent confessor out of the closet. He hardly ate his entire life but had normal weight (same for other saints of blesseds). What about incorruptibles? How is that happening? God, suspending the laws of science. Padre Pio could bilocate, including into the air (directing pilots in WW2 according to some US pilot testimony). He would come to people in their dreams (Padre Pio). If there are interdimensional creatures, what's the problem? We don't know exactly what that means ("interdimentional"). We can fit everything into the Christian paradigm, which is "God made everything that is". Multiverse? God made it. I don't think I'm in another universe doing something different, however. No one can convince me of that.
Catholics believe in lots of weird things, but they're absolutely fantastic about excluding from the realm of possibility any weird things that don't fit within their idea of orthodoxy.
Do you know how many times I've been accused of substituting some kind of "cosmic UFO religion" for my Catholic faith?
It's not a religion. It's an interest based on data and testimony. But that doesn't matter, because the idea that there could be some other race (or races) of intelligent being in the universe that doesn't fit within narrowly circumscribed soteriological views is so damned offensive to these pearl clutching prisses, I get raked across the coals for even finding it interesting.
Catholicism is why I avoided psychological help for so long, because Freud was a degenerate and psychology sought to replace the true therapeutic value of confession.
Catholicism is why I avoided accupuncture, because God forbid some form eastern practice that deals with lifeforce energy healing be anything but demonic new age.
Catholicism is why people like my wife are told that they're inviting possession by doing yoga stretches.
Catholicism is so busy telling everyone what they can and can't think, it has no room for new information.
And yet it never has an actual, workable answer to any problem that actually helps. And it certainly can't entertain new data that challenges its stranglehold on knowing everything about everything -- even though it actually doesn't.
I've absolutely had it with Catholicism's overflowing cup.
I'm a believing Catholic, and I've undergone acupuncture (although it did no good), am currently on medication for mental health, and if we find sentient beings on other planets, we'll figure it out somehow. If my back starts acting up again, I'll go to a yoga class and avoid the "omms". Plus, I'm a scientific researcher at a major state university. None of this violates Catholic teaching. Honestly, as a Catholic, I don't know what I'm _not_ supposed to believe, other than some of the crazy stuff that passes for morality these days.
Steve, I've never travelled in Trad circles, although I admire Trad Catholics and want them left alone instead of treated like outlaws. I want the Latin mass preserved for those who want it.
So I have no problem with UFOs, aliens (Jesus said he had other flocks we don't know about), yoga (but I only stretch (don't think about Hindu gods or do the breathing, and I do my stretches in private; I want nothing to do with Hindu gods), I do every stretch I can think of that doesn't start popping sounds in my joints or sharp pains, don't even know if it's yoga, but it has preserved my frame--I can move most body parts most days and get up if I fall down (though it's getting harder) without assistance. Try to stand on one leg for an extended period--it improves balance. My balance is getting worse, however, in spite of these efforts.
I have gone to therapists, family counseling (we finally figured out how to do our own family counseling), my son got accupunture (and he's not sure it helped), we didn't know there were spiritual aspects to it (accupunture). There are Christian therapists, I avoid Freud though, because he's obssessed with sex.
In other words, I think you have a Trad problem. You don't like Trad. Okay, but then you find that the Novus Ordo feels inauthentic and like a mix between a TED talk and a rock concert or Mr. Rogers neighborhood. Then shop around. The churches I go to are full of devout people that love God. They just want Jesus. But I have found Novus Ordos I didn't like myself, so I get where you're coming from. If the priest is extremely effiminate, I find it distracting. If I come to know the priest is sexually active (hetero or otherwise), I'd be distracted.
I thought you wrote you found Novus Ordo masses inauthentic, I. E., unsatisfactory. The nontrad priests aren't as "strict" as the "trad". They will baptise infants, say, of unmarried parents. Go after Jesus, church or no. That's what I tell everyone. And if I were shopping churches, any church, any religion, I think I'd just take the wife or go alone. Because fighting the family, foot dragging kids, could affect your impression. I often attend church solo now and in the past. It was too much of a production to get everyone in motion and presentable. So how did the kids get religion? Well, we always preached, and later I told them they have to attend mass if they are living under our roof. They aren't ardent, but they came to believe.
I think you’re really not wrong about a lot of this, but I suspect that if you were to think about it a little differently, you’d likely come to some different conclusions.
It seems pretty clear to me that the church has a tradition of openness to different cosmological frameworks, or at least did until the counter-reformation era. I have kind of a lot of thoughts about this… if I sent you an email on it, would you read it?
Not trying to be rude and interrupt, but I've heard that the Catholic Church did go through some sweeping changes due to the reformation. I can't remember where or who I heard that from, but I would be curious to see the info on that. Could you direct me to a source or book? Thank you.
I’m not aware of a single book which tells the whole story. Can I email you some thoughts/observations on the topic? Probably a lot easier than banging it out in a comment…
It can have to do with the perspective with which one approaches religion.
If you approach religion with a primarily positivist/rational perspective -- that is, primarily viewing tenets and things like that at face value -- you can run into the issue you've identified.
If you approach it with a more "mystical" (for lack of a better word) perspective, some of these kinds of tensions and limitations can be alleviated, or relaxed, in practice because while these claims are not denied, they are understood through a mystical lens which tends to be more flexible in practice. The advantage of this is that it remains somewhat moored to the "traditional" faith while at the same time remaining much more open (often radically so) to the kinds of insights which can come from a mystical praxis and understanding.
The latter is unfortunately not for everyone. For many it feels too unmoored from a more plainly rational approach (it's more supra-rational in practice). And it isn't just a question of mindset, but of praxis: that is, it tends to arise from certain practices (certain kinds of prayer, in particular) which then give rise to a shift in perspective and emphasis interiorly, rather than trying to do that only mentally -- the mental shift tends to arise from spiritual praxis rather than the reverse. The key shift is towards an emphasis on the praxis and spiritual growth, which then informs a more flexible understanding of doctrines and the like (while retaining formal "orthodoxy" in these areas), rather than an emphasis on the nitty-gritty of "official" teaching, rules and so on.
Of course, you can also get completely unmoored, especially if you try to embark on that without any guide -- either personal/living (best) or written. And you may just not be of the proper mental mindset for this approach to be fruitful, as noted. I do think, though, that if you approach religion of any sort -- whether Christian or otherwise -- in 2025 and beyond with a conventional focus on the rational/face value aspect of them, it can be very difficult to sustain without some degree of double-talk at some stage.
What's the problem? Jesus worked miracles. He made blind people see and cripples walk and deaf people speak and cured leprosy--and raised people from the dead. He could walk on water (suspending the laws of physics) and make St. Peter walk on water. Christ levitated into the skies (Ascension) and presumably disappeared into thin air, only to appear again bodily to the Apostles. St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross would levitate during prayer on occasion. St. Teresa didn't like it and asked her nuns to try to kneel on her habit to stop the levitating but they gave up (I guess her clothes were about to rend, but I wasn't there.) (If I'd been in her company, I would have flat out refused to kneel on her garments to hold her down during prayer, because I would have figured that's not what God wanted.) Can the devil levitate people? Yes, I've read of exorcists who encounter levitation of the penitent, but I don't think they try to counteract it by touch, they pray the person down from the ceiling, etc. (See "The Exocist" movie, which was based on a true case of possession, or listen to all the youtubes by various exorcists like Father Chad Ripperger, Monsignor Stephen Rossetti, Fr. Dan Rehill, Fr. Carlos Martins or Fr. Vincent Lampert).
Padre Pio could read minds. One would go into confession and Padre Pio could tell you the sins you left out. Padre Pio could also sense impenitence and sometimes he'd throw the impenitent confessor out of the closet. He hardly ate his entire life but had normal weight (same for other saints of blesseds). What about incorruptibles? How is that happening? God, suspending the laws of science. Padre Pio could bilocate, including into the air (directing pilots in WW2 according to some US pilot testimony). He would come to people in their dreams (Padre Pio). If there are interdimensional creatures, what's the problem? We don't know exactly what that means ("interdimentional"). We can fit everything into the Christian paradigm, which is "God made everything that is". Multiverse? God made it. I don't think I'm in another universe doing something different, however. No one can convince me of that.
Catholics believe in lots of weird things, but they're absolutely fantastic about excluding from the realm of possibility any weird things that don't fit within their idea of orthodoxy.
Do you know how many times I've been accused of substituting some kind of "cosmic UFO religion" for my Catholic faith?
It's not a religion. It's an interest based on data and testimony. But that doesn't matter, because the idea that there could be some other race (or races) of intelligent being in the universe that doesn't fit within narrowly circumscribed soteriological views is so damned offensive to these pearl clutching prisses, I get raked across the coals for even finding it interesting.
Catholicism is why I avoided psychological help for so long, because Freud was a degenerate and psychology sought to replace the true therapeutic value of confession.
Catholicism is why I avoided accupuncture, because God forbid some form eastern practice that deals with lifeforce energy healing be anything but demonic new age.
Catholicism is why people like my wife are told that they're inviting possession by doing yoga stretches.
Catholicism is so busy telling everyone what they can and can't think, it has no room for new information.
And yet it never has an actual, workable answer to any problem that actually helps. And it certainly can't entertain new data that challenges its stranglehold on knowing everything about everything -- even though it actually doesn't.
I've absolutely had it with Catholicism's overflowing cup.
I'm a believing Catholic, and I've undergone acupuncture (although it did no good), am currently on medication for mental health, and if we find sentient beings on other planets, we'll figure it out somehow. If my back starts acting up again, I'll go to a yoga class and avoid the "omms". Plus, I'm a scientific researcher at a major state university. None of this violates Catholic teaching. Honestly, as a Catholic, I don't know what I'm _not_ supposed to believe, other than some of the crazy stuff that passes for morality these days.
Steve, I've never travelled in Trad circles, although I admire Trad Catholics and want them left alone instead of treated like outlaws. I want the Latin mass preserved for those who want it.
So I have no problem with UFOs, aliens (Jesus said he had other flocks we don't know about), yoga (but I only stretch (don't think about Hindu gods or do the breathing, and I do my stretches in private; I want nothing to do with Hindu gods), I do every stretch I can think of that doesn't start popping sounds in my joints or sharp pains, don't even know if it's yoga, but it has preserved my frame--I can move most body parts most days and get up if I fall down (though it's getting harder) without assistance. Try to stand on one leg for an extended period--it improves balance. My balance is getting worse, however, in spite of these efforts.
I have gone to therapists, family counseling (we finally figured out how to do our own family counseling), my son got accupunture (and he's not sure it helped), we didn't know there were spiritual aspects to it (accupunture). There are Christian therapists, I avoid Freud though, because he's obssessed with sex.
In other words, I think you have a Trad problem. You don't like Trad. Okay, but then you find that the Novus Ordo feels inauthentic and like a mix between a TED talk and a rock concert or Mr. Rogers neighborhood. Then shop around. The churches I go to are full of devout people that love God. They just want Jesus. But I have found Novus Ordos I didn't like myself, so I get where you're coming from. If the priest is extremely effiminate, I find it distracting. If I come to know the priest is sexually active (hetero or otherwise), I'd be distracted.
I didn’t grow up trad. I don’t see much difference.
I thought you wrote you found Novus Ordo masses inauthentic, I. E., unsatisfactory. The nontrad priests aren't as "strict" as the "trad". They will baptise infants, say, of unmarried parents. Go after Jesus, church or no. That's what I tell everyone. And if I were shopping churches, any church, any religion, I think I'd just take the wife or go alone. Because fighting the family, foot dragging kids, could affect your impression. I often attend church solo now and in the past. It was too much of a production to get everyone in motion and presentable. So how did the kids get religion? Well, we always preached, and later I told them they have to attend mass if they are living under our roof. They aren't ardent, but they came to believe.
I think you’re really not wrong about a lot of this, but I suspect that if you were to think about it a little differently, you’d likely come to some different conclusions.
It seems pretty clear to me that the church has a tradition of openness to different cosmological frameworks, or at least did until the counter-reformation era. I have kind of a lot of thoughts about this… if I sent you an email on it, would you read it?
Not trying to be rude and interrupt, but I've heard that the Catholic Church did go through some sweeping changes due to the reformation. I can't remember where or who I heard that from, but I would be curious to see the info on that. Could you direct me to a source or book? Thank you.
I’m not aware of a single book which tells the whole story. Can I email you some thoughts/observations on the topic? Probably a lot easier than banging it out in a comment…
Sure, I wouldn't mind taking a look at it if it's not a burden for you. Um, what's the best way to give you my email without broadcasting it ?
Disregard, I figured it out.
eh. I think you are overstating things. You should really listen to Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World (mysterious.fm).
100%! Jimmy does a great job exploring these mysteries. The Universe is quite incredible!