Why Am I Catholic?

Veritas ^ | C. Therese Benoit

[papertyger]

Non sequitur only applies to arguments, not claims.

Are syllogisms not known as "arguments?"

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: I find the Catholic comportment toward Mary to be "adoration" while that toward God to be "fear and reverence."

But in what way? Please specify with examples so I can see where your objection is.

I think one source of incomprehension, maybe, is that we as 21st century people, and espcially as Americans, have very little imagination of courtly relationships.

Take any pf the great artists, East or West, who portrayed Heaven, and you'll see a vast and crowded scene with a throng of holy personages, heirarchically assembled: Angels, Archangels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Emperors, Kings, Bishops, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, etc. etc., deployed as a pyramid with the Trinity at the top, or in a circle with the Trinity in the center.

There was a fairly intricate sense of how they related to each other, and of the degrees of honor suitable to each, based on a kind of exuberant expansion of the protocols and the splendor of earthly courts.

The use of Imperial images, poetry, and diction to convey Heaven realities is firmly rooted n Scripture, as well as being inevitable in the artistic imagination of Medieval and Renaissance Europe, Russia, Byzantium. That's where a lot of the more traditional and fervent devotions get their vocabulary from, and why it doesn't make instant sense to us, secular, egalitarian, democratic, and culturally deracinated as we are.

[adiaireton8]

And I guess I can't make you understand that what is not a direct quote is not a direct quote. Nor was what you said what was intended in the original statement. You misconstrued the original statement, and then falsely claimed that your misconstrual was a direct quote.

-A8

[It's me]

Why am I Catholic?

[adiaireton8]

Syllogisms are arguments. But a claim is not a syllogism.

-A8

[x_plus_one]

Nice post but isn't there a jewish looking Jesus picture anywhere? Too many blue eyed, aryan light brown haired Jesus's are everywhere.

[papertyger]

You make an interesting point. It may be true a modern American mind set isn't appropriately trained to make the correct distinctions, but that just puts us back to the position of a "weak" brother as in 1 Corinthians. It does not fix the problem.

As for your inability to appreciate my discomfort, I would think praying my life and my hope to anyone but God would be fairly self evident.

[Nihil Obstat]

beautiful

[TankerKC]

I love Bosco, it's full of TNT
Mommy puts it in my milk to try and poison me.

I fooled Mommy, I put it in her tea;
now I have no Mommy to try and poison me!

[papertyger]

And I guess I can't make you understand that what is not a direct quote is not a direct quote. Nor was what you said what was intended in the original statement. You misconstrued the original statement, and then falsely claimed that your misconstrual was a direct quote.

... how many times do you tell your spouse or your children that you love them more than life, that they are the most adorable, sweetest man (or little girl, or little boy) in the world? You're not worshipping them, you're just expressing your love. In the same way, when I call Mary "my life, my sweetness, and my hope" I am expressing my love and devotion to her...

[NYer]

Thank!! I love that video :-) Highly motivational.

[papertyger]

how about giving me the condensed version?

Because it's true

Syllogisms are arguments. But a claim is not a syllogism.

"Because" implies at least one other term (unstated) to go along with the conclusion "it's true."

As the only other statement provided is my own request, the conclusion does not follow.

[adiaireton8]

"Because" implies at least one other term (unstated) to go along with the conclusion "it's true."

As the only other statement provided is my own request, the conclusion does not follow.

You are mistaking a reason for believing a statement for a conclusion following from that premise. The reason we should be Catholic is because Catholicism is true. "Because" is not the same as "therefore". If someone had claimed: "We should be Catholic. Therefore Catholicism is true.", that would be a non sequitur. But if someone claims "We should be Catholic because Catholicism is true.", that is *not* a non sequitur. That conclusion [we should be Catholic] *does* follow from the premise [Catholicism is true]. And that is because we should believe whatever is true.

-A8

[AnAmericanMother]

Precisely. You linked what I was talking about (the degrees or hierarchies in who you introduce to whom) to the tradition of the Church.

Thanks!

[ladyinred]

Gotta admit Catholic Heaven looked more fun, but then it was meant to I suppose! You do know this is a cartoon? LOL!

[papertyger]

You are mistaking a reason for believing a statement for a conclusion following from that premise.

And you are caviling.

I have no time for pettifogging.

Consider this my concession, and your "win."

[adiaireton8]

And you are caviling.

That's an ad hominem. I teach logic, and mistaking evidence for a premise as a conclusion of that premise is a serious logical error.

-A8

[FourtySeven]

In what country do they call it "Coke Lite"

I think Australia.

[papertyger]

I teach logic, and mistaking evidence for a premise as a conclusion of that premise is a serious logical error.

So what is mistaking a gratuitous assertion for "evidence."