Jordan Peterson on Catholicism: ‘That’s as sane as people can get’

LifeSiteNews ^ | May 27, 2019 | John-Henry Westen

[Mrs. Don-o]

May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”

Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.

He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”

“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”

Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:

“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”

See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.

[ealgeone]

It happens that, on a natural level, Clement writes at great length against wine, saying,

“I therefore admire those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire.”

What a contrast: between the Eucharist, which he praises (and calls “the Blood of Jesus” and promises will lead us to eternal life if taken faithfully), and wine, which he calls us to flee from completely. Because, after the Consecration, Clement doesn’t think that the Eucharist is wine! You can’t abstain from wine and still receive the Eucharist, unless the Eucharist isn’t wine.

Have you actually read the whole section??

Do you understand the context??

It's from CHAP. II.—ON DRINKING.

I really don't think you want to use this as an example.

btw....IF Clement is as against wine/alcohol as you suggest...a LOT of Roman Catholics are in a world of hurt!

*******

Giving you a chance to honorably withdraw from the game.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Once again: the Churches who have remained faithful to the Biblical doctrine of Eucharistic realism (Western Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and others) placed Clement of Alexandria in their canons and on their liturgical calendars. And they would not have esteemed Clement as a Father of the Church if he had a divergent teaching on a matter so important as the Body and Blood of Christ.

Reading the selection you present, I can only point out what I said before: Clement returns often to his theme that the Eucharist is a both/and thing, not an either/or thing.

He sees it as symbol/mystery, matter/spirit, metaphor/reality, because it works on many levels at once.

You haven't dealt with the body of his work so that you would see that his method of argumentation is BOTH symbol and True Flesh; BOTH metaphor and Real Blood. Which is what we man by "sacramental."

So, with all due respect, if I have to choose between native-Greek speaking near-contemporaries who saw him as upholding the Orthodox/Catholic Faith, and -- well,you, ealgeone --- it's a safe bet they knew what he was saying, and you perhaps need to spend a few more years with the Greek.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Now I’m off to class, so see you tomorrow -— maybe!

Take care!

[metmom]

So typical: taking a few snippets from someone who wrote extensively, and then "Check" as if this were a game in which one or two lines sums up the thought of a man or a century.

It's superficial.

Just like Catholics do with Scripture.

[metmom]

And I do not see in your attitude ("They don't matter") that love for the Body.

They who and where did you cherry pick that phrase from?

[ealgeone]

Once again: the Churches who have remained faithful to the Biblical doctrine of Eucharistic realism (Western Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and others) placed Clement of Alexandria in their canons and on their liturgical calendars. And they would not have esteemed Clement as a Father of the Church if he had a divergent teaching on a matter so important as the Body and Blood of Christ.

With all due respect, those churches have abandoned the Biblical doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

The writings of fallible men do not carry more weight than inspired Scripture.

You are aware your denomination removed him from martyrology in 1586?

Part of the problem with Clement and other writers in this time period and others is the influence of prevailing Greek thought.

This somewhat clouded their view of Christianity.

Reading the selection you present, I can only point out what I said before: Clement returns often to his theme that the Eucharist is a both/and thing, not an either/or thing. He sees it as symbol/mystery, matter/spirit, metaphor/reality, because it works on many levels at once.

Yet the early NT church in Scripture saw it as a remembrance.

Again, it was not a means of salvation as erroneously taught in Roman Catholicism, but a result of salvation as taught by Christianity.

There is a clear difference.

So, with all due respect, if I have to choose between native-Greek speaking near-contemporaries who saw him as upholding the Orthodox/Catholic Faith, and -- well,you, ealgeone --- it's a safe bet they knew what he was saying, and you perhaps need to spend a few more years with the Greek.

And with all due respect, if I have to choose between inspired Scripture, which does not error nor contradict itself, over fallible men whose writings were not considered part of the NT canon and do contradict themselves, I know who I'm sticking with.

[Mark17]

You guys have some competition.

Yes we do. I guess dreaming up Limericks, beats looking at all the false doctrines that are being pushed by some here on the thread.

[MHGinTN]

You reached checkmate long ago. The poster is just moving around ‘kingless’ pieces thinking she is teaching you from her vast enlightened state. She is clueless, bro, and wants to stay that way so she never doubts her ‘important’ position as teacher in catholiciism. Pride does strange things to those who are perishing.

[boatbums]

Not wanting to go around with mussed hair, please educate me on how I can do it right for next time. Thanks!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"For My Flesh is food indeed."

LOL, ha, not really...

But look, this can so easily descend, or has already descended into futility, to the level of:

"I'm right because I believe the Bible.."

"No way, my bamboozled brother, because *I'm* the one who believea the Bible..."

"You can't be serious, silly sister, you're clearly Scripturally substandard.."

You're wrong, and its as clear as the nose on your Biblically illiterate face..."

"You're proud as a pit-hag!"

"You're a scabrous limb of Satan!"

"You're a &$%$^&#@..."

Well, it hasn't quite come to that, yet, but you can see how it's trending.

I just came in from class, and I'm going to bed. Let's get off the Jordan Peterson thread, because nobody has even alluded to the original topic for the past 750 replies. God bless you, and have a good night.

[ealgeone]

>>"For My Flesh is food indeed."<<

LOL, ha, not really...

Yet, not believed in the early church as espoused in Roman Catholicism some 1200 or so years later.

I just came in from class, and I'm going to bed. Let's get off the Jordan Peterson thread, because nobody has even alluded to the original topic for the past 750 replies. God bless you, and have a good night.

I'm good with that.

It's always good to know when to withdraw from the game when you're in checkmate.

[boatbums]

It's not. It is happening eternally in Heaven. And we are praying with Heaven in the Divine Liturgy. Use your concordance and check out the use of the word "altar" in Revelation. And what does an Eternal High Priest do on an Eternal Altar? An Eternal Sacrifice. Once in time; and eternally when you are beyond time... It's that cut and dry.

Maybe what is cut and dried is that the RESULT of the once-for-all sacrifice is what the altar in heaven represents. So, rather than the sacrifice being eternally offered by the eternal high priest, it is the benefit of it for all time for all those who are redeemed by it that is eternal. Scripture clearly teaches when Jesus offered His blood upon the mercy seat in heaven and it was accepted, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High. He is a completely different Priest so His sacrifice is different, also:

Now there have been many other priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office. But because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest truly befits us—One who is holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer daily sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people; He sacrificed for sin once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:23-28)

For Christ did not enter a man-made copy of the true sanctuary, but He entered heaven itself, now to appear on our behalf in the presence of God. Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him. (Hebrews 9:24-28)

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm sorry, -- I'll not accuse you of making this up, so I assume you must have been reading some really tendentious and distorted "fake news" source of history.

I certainly haven't withdrawn in view of having been "checkmated", as you think.

You've fallen into the hands (or pages) of people who don't know much about Catholicism. I do feel sorry that you've somehow gotten stuck where you are.

However, no hard feelings. If we continue in each other's prayers, I am satisfied that the Good Shepherd knows how to handle His contentious, bleating, head-butting lambs.

[ealgeone]

You've fallen into the hands (or pages) of people who don't know much about Catholicism. I do feel sorry that you've somehow gotten stuck where you are.

I have quoted extensively from Roman Catholic sources in this discussion.

In fact, the majority of my sources have either been Roman Catholic or Scripture. Granted, Scripture is the only inspired source.

Transubstantiation was dogmatized in 1215. No?

You have been shown Scripture, in context, on this issue which is in contradiction of "tradition".

I have even resorted to "tradition" and shown where some writers call the bread and wine symbols.

You have been unable to show a writer who says the bread and wine are in fact changed into His flesh and blood.

You have been shown not one, but two, RC priests who say Christ is brought back down from Heaven to be offered up again and again and again as the victim....one of which you flippantly dismissed.

I have offered scholarly works showing the early church denied the charge of cannibalism, that is eating flesh and drinking blood, against them. Why would they deny this? Because it was not true.

The clear teaching of Scripture, which is the only inspired set of writings we agree upon, at least in the NT, are the only writings of antiquity that can make that claim.

Every Christian teaching can be pointed to in Scripture. Roman Catholicism, by using RC documents, cannot make that statement. And please, don't make me post them again.

I leave the discussion with this.

He said "do this in remembrance of Me."

The Lord's Supper is not a means of salvation, but a result of salvation.

I bid you a good evening.

[ealgeone]

+1

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You do know this poster is tone deaf to certain frequencies?

[ealgeone]

Just wanted to recap what the discussion had been about for the record.

We can pray it is received by the intended audience, but probably more for the casual reader of these threads.

[Elsie]

She is not divine, but he is in Heaven, where she also (like the angels and all the saints, who now live in that heavenly realm)

You can believe this if you wish.

I do not.

---

Just WHO are the Dead In Christ?

1 Thessalonians 4:16

[Elsie]

-- and the priesthood of Melchizedek ---

Now I know where the Mormons get it from...

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek_priesthood_(Latter_Day_Saints)

[Elsie]

He is offering Himself to the Father --- one and the same Sacrifice.

 

 

AGAIN?