Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

Looks like I will have to answer a number of questions

What if the marriage is in a Church, but not a Catholic one? Say a Protestant is married in a Protestant Church and then converts to Catholicism. Do they have to remarry?

No they do not have to remarry, however they do have to have their marriage confirmed by the Church.

So, how does that work? Is it possible that an unrepentent person will be forgiven, that they can repent after death, or are you suggesting something else altogether?

Im afraid Civ_king may be incorrect somewhat here. If one is unrepentant and goes before their particular judgement (the one after you die, compared to the general judgement at the end of time) in unrepentant mortal sin you will go to hell. One can only repent before this time, not after.

However it has been theorised that there is a brief period after natural death and before teh judgement when one can repent, however this is not dogma and is merely the musings of various theologians who are naturally fallible. This teaching is not proclaimed by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.

And another question:

Augustine taught exclusivism (Basically, if you weren't Catholic Christian, no matter the reason, you were condemned, even if you had never heard.)

The modern Catholic Church teaches that non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians can be saved, just that the Catholic Church is the best means for Salvation and basically the only one that's 100% guaranteed to get you there (Correct me if this is off.)

As far as I know, the Catholic beliefs on Salvation is a dogma (Again, correct me if I am wrong) and so Catholics must believe it.

So; how did Augustine get it wrong?

Firstly St Augustine wasn;t the magisterium so he can definitely be wrong. There are many saints who have actually been corrected for erroneous teachings in life.

But in regards to this area Augustine is right in the understanding that even if you hadn;t heard of it you were and are exceedingly likely to commit mortal sin (almost a guarantee that you would do so) as people are naturally inclined to sin. Thus considering this Augustine concluded that no one outside the Church could be saved since they lacked the Church to guide them from their sin and onto the path of sanctification. This was especially so considering hte society he lived in which was basically the collapsing of the roman empire and paganism was still rife amongst a large portion of the population (the vandals conquered North Africa during his time)

This has developed but not changed simply in that it acknowledges that a non-catholic can theoretically be saved if he has not commited any personal mortal sin in his life. However this is quite literally the most extremely unlikely incident that its natural that Augustine considered during his day that no non catholic could be saved, and even then it is said that of a great city theoretically full of catholics only a few hundred would achieve the beatific vision. It doesn't take a Hitler to go to hell.

 

[Jehoshua]

@ Timtofly

I would request that since you are not by any means a Catholic that you stop dictating your dogma here as this is an Ask a CATHOLIC forum, not ask a question and get bombarded with non-catholic teaching forum. If you have genuine questions ask them and then you can get into a legitimate discussion on that topic and bring up your views on that particular issue.

But answering questions on catholic teaching which are not addressed at you is innapropriate considering the purpose of this forum.

 

[Jehoshua]

It looks like mortal sins are defined by the Catholic Church? Why the heck would they rule that failing to follow the Golden Rule wasn't a "grave matter, done without compulsion, and without ignorance"? It seems to be all three!

Inaction is a sin, it is called sin by ommission. Thus if you were to sit by while someone was starving, or to let a murder occur in your presence you would be commiting a sin. Thus failing to follow the Golden rule is a sin as is failing to follow the totality of the Lords commands, however this can both be venial (you insult someone) or mortal (you murder someone) depending on the gravity of the commandment your breaking.

However I would like to re-iterate that mortal sins are not "defined" as such by the Church, rather certain things are considered grave matters which then under certain conditions can be mortal sin (must be aware of the gravity of the act, must be intentional) so that a person who merely accidentally killed someone (say he was using an industrial machine unaware that there was a person in its vicinity and it killed that person) would not be commiting mortal sin, even though the end effect [the guys dead] is the same)

 

[Jehoshua]

I don't believe in Papal primacy, but keep in mind that Sola Scriptura is a uniquely Protestant idea, so you can't ask non-Protestants for Biblical justification for any given doctrine. That being said, the passage Luckymoose cited is often used to support the doctrine, even though it doesn't state it outright.

For Sola Scriptura to be true according to Sola Scriptura it must be written in the bible. However no where in the bible does it dictate that the bible ALONE is to be the sole source of legitimate authority. Thus we have a paradox where Sola Scriptura claims that the bible is the sole source of legitimate, infallible authority but the dogma itself is absent from sacred scripture.

Besides if Christ intended for the bible to be the sole source of authority he would of just written a book.

-

The Catholic Church teaching on authority is that Christ founded a Church (the catholic Church and that through his promise to send hte Holy spirit to teach all truth, and through his promise to always be with the Church that there are three sources of legitimate authority.

Sacred Tradition which is the oral teaching passed down through the ages from teh apostles

Sacred Scripture which emerged from the Tradition (the NT) which records the words of Christ and the Apostles and

Sacred Magisterium, the legitimate teaching authority of the church which is the infallible interpretor of sacred tradition and sacred scripture: This is supported in both tradition and scripture bu the promises of Christ to preserve the Church from error, and the words of Christ to Peter (keys to the kingdom of heaven, gates of hell will not prevail, binding and loosing).

-

ON PETER

Peter was the head of the apostles and thus his successors are considered to be the head of the Church, and as he was the bishop of Rome and was martyred there his successors as bishop are considered the heads of the Church, ie the pope. His immediate succesors were Linus, Anacletus and Clement I (who is the author of the oldest christian document apart from the NT {first epistle of Clement {1 Clement} [he reigned from 92 to 99 A.D])

 

[Jehoshua]

Doesn't abstinence do the same?

No because you are not actually commiting the act.

Under your logic one would have to have sex constantly as that would otherwise be sinful. Abstinence does not come under ommision. (its hard to explain but its not like your watching a sin before your eyes and not doing anything, it is simply what it says, abstaining from an otherwise acceptable and praiseworthy act [sex within marriage conducted properly] without on the other hand condoning sin or commiting something that in and of itself is sinful)

However abstinence in marriage with the intention being contraceptive is sinful. Its the same in natural family planning, there is the right mentality, ie you cant afford to support more children {and by afford I don't mean you suddenly wont be able to sustain your rich western lifestyle} and so you try to circumvent conception while still remaining open to it if it should occurs by using NFP. The wrong mentality is you simply don;t want children and you use this method with the full contraceptive mentality, which is sinful because even though you remain open to life your mentality and intention is still sinful and greedy in and of itself.

 

[SG-17]

So what did you think of how the Papacy was portrayed in Assassin's Creed II?

 

[Jehoshua]

Its a game and its content is fictional. Why should I concern myself with the fictions of a game designer?

-

(besides Urban VI Alexander VI was an immoral and unscrupulous man, his succesor as pope refused to permit masses for his soul saying "It s blasphemous to pray for the damned" such was his reputation for corruption. Thank God for the Lord and his promises, for by them no doctrinal error was introduced in the reign of this most immoral of popes)

 

[SG-17]

Its a game and its content is fictional. Why should I concern myself with the fictions of a game designer?

-

(besides Urban VI was an immoral and unscrupulous man, his succesor as pope refused to permit masses for his soul saying "It s blasphemous to pray for the damned" such was his reputation for corruption. Thank God for the Lord and his promises, for by them no doctrinal error was introduced in the reign of this most immoral of popes)

Well the main character is in your avatar, so I assumed that the game had some significance to you.

Anyway the Pope in the game is the Borgia Pope.

 

[Jehoshua]

I put that character as my avatar because in a group game ( CoTE civV ) my clan was planning on assasinating a bunch of people and so I put the picture as my avatar to see if anyone would get the hint... they didn't

I haven't bothered to change it, but I now will to something more appropriate

-

Urban VI Alexander VI = Rodrigo Borgia.

 

[Luckymoose]

He's didn't stay around for much longer to appoint all the later popes, did he? So the catholic church has a system of government and claims universal jurisdiction supposedly based on a rock metaphor by a carpenter's son with messianic delusions. Is there any real theological justification for it? The way it broke apart when secular power withdrew its alliance to it in the 16th century suggests to me that there isn't

Why not admit that it was always, has always been, just a power grab, and drop the flimsy mythical excuse? Lost of old institutions don't even attempt to have such excuses.

Because you have no idea how the church actually works, and while power grabs have happened you need to read the bible and understand the concept of the papal position.

 

[SG-17]

I put that character as my avatar because in a group game ( CoTE civV ) my clan was planning on assasinating a bunch of people and so I put the picture as my avatar to see if anyone would get the hint... they didn't

I haven't bothered to change it, but I now will to something more appropriate

-

Urban VI = Rodrigo Borgia.

Alexander VI actually.

 

[timtofly]

@ Timtofly

I would request that since you are not by any means a Catholic that you stop dictating your dogma here as this is an Ask a CATHOLIC forum, not ask a question and get bombarded with non-catholic teaching forum. If you have genuine questions ask them and then you can get into a legitimate discussion on that topic and bring up your views on that particular issue.

But answering questions on catholic teaching which are not addressed at you is innapropriate considering the purpose of this forum.

I am a Catholic as much as anyone here. Now if this is ask a RCC, I have no right. If this were ask an Orthodox, I have no right. I understand that the RCC "claims" what they do, about Peter is the "truth", however the RCC holds that and not the Church Fathers who were also considered the Catholic Church. I am not dictating my dogma. My position is firmly held by many of the Catholic fathers, and by their words and the power of The Word, I can proclaim my post as being true Catholic doctrine. Paul states that first comes The Word of Wisdom, then knowledge, and then belief. I think we agree on what is the Word of Wisdom, and possibly the knowledge, but what we "believe" to be true may differ. Thus dismissal on grounds of ones belief without proper dismissal by knowledge or the Truth of God's Word, then no one has a right to post anything. Now this post is out of "spirit" with normal CFC postings, so it probably should have been through PM. The Word of Widom the Word of God the Holy Scriptures the Logos is not blasphemy nor to be taken lightly. This is what forms the unchangeable doctrines held by the Catholic Church. Knowledge is the ability for frail humanity to comprehend the "mystery" of the Divine. Belief is the faith that we can take God at His Word, even if we do not have the knowledge or wisdom to do so.

Now it is ok if you want to think that Man has to keep error out of the Church, but may one not be thwarting the knowledge and wisdom of God through doing so? We are commanded to search the scriptures to find knowledge and wisdom and then prove ourselves by declaring the truths found therein. As iron sharpening iron we are to go to one another in this pursuit. The Bishop is the head of the local church to keep in line from those heresies which would corrupt or dilute the Truth. The Presbyter were those who strengthen the Bishop and the deacons were to assist the flock in every day needs. This simple plan was put forth through the Apostles and after the NT was canonized, there was no more Divine Revelation. The Church was supposed to remain local and simple and the Bible was the sole authority. This was done so that no human philosophy would add or subtract from the established Truth.

God gave the Law to Moses and by the time Christ appeared there were hundreds of additions added by the Lawyers of Jesus' time. So it seems adding stipulations here and stipulations there have over the years deemed it neccesary to establish a "governmental" body to keep track of it all? Now the RCC has it's beliefs, which I will not touch with a ten foot pole, and the Orthodox, which as a westerner, I know little about, but as a part of the body of Christ the Universal "Catholic" Church, I do know and am able to anwser as a Catholic. Now if one can deny Peter as the first Pope, I will gladly keep silence, neither will I answer in a RCC thread.

 

[civ_king]

I am a Catholic as much as anyone here. Now if this is ask a RCC, I have no right. If this were ask an Orthodox, I have no right. I understand that the RCC "claims" what they do, about Peter is the "truth", however the RCC holds that and not the Church Fathers who were also considered the Catholic Church. I am not dictating my dogma. My position is firmly held by many of the Catholic fathers, and by their words and the power of The Word, I can proclaim my post as being true Catholic doctrine. Paul states that first comes The Word of Wisdom, then knowledge, and then belief. I think we agree on what is the Word of Wisdom, and possibly the knowledge, but what we "believe" to be true may differ. Thus dismissal on grounds of ones belief without proper dismissal by knowledge or the Truth of God's Word, then no one has a right to post anything. Now this post is out of "spirit" with normal CFC postings, so it probably should have been through PM. The Word of Widom the Word of God the Holy Scriptures the Logos is not blasphemy nor to be taken lightly. This is what forms the unchangeable doctrines held by the Catholic Church. Knowledge is the ability for frail humanity to comprehend the "mystery" of the Divine. Belief is the faith that we can take God at His Word, even if we do not have the knowledge or wisdom to do so.

Now it is ok if you want to think that Man has to keep error out of the Church, but may one not be thwarting the knowledge and wisdom of God through doing so? We are commanded to search the scriptures to find knowledge and wisdom and then prove ourselves by declaring the truths found therein. As iron sharpening iron we are to go to one another in this pursuit. The Bishop is the head of the local church to keep in line from those heresies which would corrupt or dilute the Truth. The Presbyter were those who strengthen the Bishop and the deacons were to assist the flock in every day needs. This simple plan was put forth through the Apostles and after the NT was canonized, there was no more Divine Revelation. The Church was supposed to remain local and simple and the Bible was the sole authority. This was done so that no human philosophy would add or subtract from the established Truth.

God gave the Law to Moses and by the time Christ appeared there were hundreds of additions added by the Lawyers of Jesus' time. So it seems adding stipulations here and stipulations there have over the years deemed it neccesary to establish a "governmental" body to keep track of it all? Now the RCC has it's beliefs, which I will not touch with a ten foot pole, and the Orthodox, which as a westerner, I know little about, but as a part of the body of Christ the Universal "Catholic" Church, I do know and am able to anwser as a Catholic. Now if one can deny Peter as the first Pope, I will gladly keep silence, neither will I answer in a RCC thread.

1. Any and all Vatican II Catholic posters on CFC are welcome to contribute - I know there are a fairly good number who popped in to say hi on the last few, I would encourage them to contribute this time as well.

As per OP

 

[Jehoshua]

I am a Catholic as much as anyone here. Now if this is ask a RCC, I have no right. If this were ask an Orthodox, I have no right. I understand that the RCC "claims" what they do, about Peter is the "truth", however the RCC holds that and not the Church Fathers who were also considered the Catholic Church. I am not dictating my dogma. My position is firmly held by many of the Catholic fathers, and by their words and the power of The Word, I can proclaim my post as being true Catholic doctrine. Paul states that first comes The Word of Wisdom, then knowledge, and then belief. I think we agree on what is the Word of Wisdom, and possibly the knowledge, but what we "believe" to be true may differ. Thus dismissal on grounds of ones belief without proper dismissal by knowledge or the Truth of God's Word, then no one has a right to post anything. Now this post is out of "spirit" with normal CFC postings, so it probably should have been through PM. The Word of Widom the Word of God the Holy Scriptures the Logos is not blasphemy nor to be taken lightly. This is what forms the unchangeable doctrines held by the Catholic Church. Knowledge is the ability for frail humanity to comprehend the "mystery" of the Divine. Belief is the faith that we can take God at His Word, even if we do not have the knowledge or wisdom to do so.

Now it is ok if you want to think that Man has to keep error out of the Church, but may one not be thwarting the knowledge and wisdom of God through doing so? We are commanded to search the scriptures to find knowledge and wisdom and then prove ourselves by declaring the truths found therein. As iron sharpening iron we are to go to one another in this pursuit. The Bishop is the head of the local church to keep in line from those heresies which would corrupt or dilute the Truth. The Presbyter were those who strengthen the Bishop and the deacons were to assist the flock in every day needs. This simple plan was put forth through the Apostles and after the NT was canonized, there was no more Divine Revelation. The Church was supposed to remain local and simple and the Bible was the sole authority. This was done so that no human philosophy would add or subtract from the established Truth.

God gave the Law to Moses and by the time Christ appeared there were hundreds of additions added by the Lawyers of Jesus' time. So it seems adding stipulations here and stipulations there have over the years deemed it neccesary to establish a "governmental" body to keep track of it all? Now the RCC has it's beliefs, which I will not touch with a ten foot pole, and the Orthodox, which as a westerner, I know little about, but as a part of the body of Christ the Universal "Catholic" Church, I do know and am able to anwser as a Catholic. Now if one can deny Peter as the first Pope, I will gladly keep silence, neither will I answer in a RCC thread.

The Catholic Church (there are 23 sui iuris particular churches within the Catholic Church of which the Roman Catholic Church or Latin Church is but one [the other 22 are the various Eastern Catholic Churches) has an established set of dogma, to answer based on your own opinion of what the word "Catholic" is and declaring such dogma to be wrong and saying our own personal dogma is catholic is innapropriate. Either way your posts suggest you have little idea of what teh Church actually teaches. To date you have held and answered that the soul is biological phenomenon, that mortal sin is a heresy, that papal primacy is false and may other erroneous teachings. Even in this post I am replying to, there are contained errors.

It is simply misleading and deceptive of you to erroneously and incorrectly answer questions on this thread with your own personal opinions when our likely not Catholic (as in a member of any of those 23 particular churches) to begin with, claiming you actually are somehow Catholic because you yourself claim to be so from your own personal understanding of the term.

If you wish to contribute at least have the grace to do it under the understainding of whatever group you happen to be in. Whether that be JW, anglican or whatever. At least then I can actually gain some level of repsect of you for being honest and for engaging in a proper dialogue, like domination3000 or some of the other protestant posters here.

If not then I thank you for having the decency to leave this discussion.

 

[Leoreth]

What was the purpose of the sella stercoraria?

 

[Jehoshua]

The object to which you are referring is a myth and never existed.

 

[Jehoshua]

Alexander VI actually.

Theres so many even a catholic is to get confused you are correct it is Alexander VI.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, this might help you sort them out.

 

[Jehoshua]

That only lists some of the early ones, and the later immoral ones. Hardly comprehensive when theres been 265 popes.

 

[civ_king]

Well, this might help you sort them out.

Very funny, but there are far more Popes than that