Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

For the eucharist to be performed the celebrant must have apostolic succession and thus be party to the authority of the apostles passed down through the ages. Thus in regards to the eucharist the Catholic Church recognises as valid and effective the sacraments only of those Churches with apostolic succession.

This includes in addition to the Catholic Church the schismatic eastern communions of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox who have valid orders and thus effective sacraments and are schismatic. The eucharistic sacrament in their divine liturgies is valid even if their communion is impaired by their separation from the Catholic Church founded by Christ.

As to protestants they lack apostolic succession and thus their communion is inneffective and merely the consumption of bread and wine surrounded by ritual. Due to the absence of apostolic authority and in addition to that the beliefs of some communities it is impossible for protestant communion services to actually make effective the real presence of Christ. This is the reason why it is forbidden for a Catholic to take communion at a protestant church (in addition to implying communion in the sense of acceptance and belonging with that community, whereas in certain exceptional situations it is legitimate for a catholic to take communion at an eastern Church)

As to bringing judgement as those communities who lack apostolic succession do not have the means to effect the eucharistic sacrament they cannot in partaking of their own communities bring judgement on themselves as they are not consuming the sacrament to begin with but merely bread and wine alone. As to the eastern Churches it would depend on the disposition of the individual, however institutionally they, as all the ancient Churches do, recognise the presence of Christ in the eucharist.

OK good, no more spamcrap on here. Good night, I'll be back tomorrow to address your points

I look forward to adressing your questions in regards to the one, true faith

 

[Takhisis]

We should sprinkle Dom with holy water and see if he survives…

 

[Jehoshua]

I think he would survive. I helped out at a bake sale once at my university and we used holy water in the recipe for the various food items for sale, contrary to our expectations not a single person burst into flame .

I suppose though that holy water might help him in some manner

 

[GhostWriter16]

I look forward to adressing your questions in regards to the one, true faith

I can think of several cases that the Catholic faith, even the more Orthodox Catholics, Do not follow the Bible. I'll list several of these later because I'm curious as to how you would defend them.

That said, the communion being the literal bread and wine (This was a spiritual change correect? Catholics don't actually believe they are eating man-flesh I assume, but that God's precense is spiritually in the elements. Correct me if I'm wrong) is pretty low on my list of grievances against the RCC. I've heard another Protestant claim that the reason Catholics hold that doctrine is because they wish to recreate the sacrifice of Christ, but somehow I know they aren't that blasphamous.

However, I have another question, why is "Catholicism" the "One true Faith?" I mean, I've never heard anyone say the Baptists are the one true faith or even that the Protestants are the one true faith. We would say Christianity is the one true faith. Why do Catholics insist that Catholicism is the "One true faith?" (I know your comment was in jest somewhat, but it is also something Catholics do claim.)

Also, how do you personally think of Protestants: Good Christians who get a few things wrong, heretics who have destroyed the meaning of the gospel, or somewhere in between?

We should sprinkle Dom with holy water and see if he survives…

What is Holy Water supposed to do?

 

[Jehoshua]

I can think of several cases that the Catholic faith, even the more Orthodox Catholics, Do not follow the Bible. I'll list several of these later because I'm curious as to how you would defend them.

That said, the communion being the literal bread and wine (This was a spiritual change correect? Catholics don't actually believe they are eating man-flesh I assume, but that God's precense is spiritually in the elements. Correct me if I'm wrong) is pretty low on my list of grievances against the RCC. I've heard another Protestant claim that the reason Catholics hold that doctrine is because they wish to recreate the sacrifice of Christ, but somehow I know they aren't that blasphamous.

Catholics believe that upon the consecration what was mere bread and wine becomes substantially the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ whole and entire under each species under the accidents (physical appearance and attributes) of bread and wine. This was later called transubstantiation by Thomistic scholars co-opting a term from aristotelian thought to describe a pre-existing christian idea in response to the emergence of protestant ideas rejecting the real presence (and thus establishing the neccessity for a definition).

When we say that that Christ is really present we mean that the very essence, the ultimate intrinsic reality of the bread and wine is changed totally into the fullness of Christ in person, we do not believe that it is literally a piece of material flesh in its material form but that its true essence or reality has been changed and the true essence of bread and wine is now totally absent. When this happens the one, eternal and timeless sacrifice of Christ on the cross is RE-presented, literally made present now once again in its entirety so that the communicant partakes of Christ the sacrificial lamb of God described in revelation and through that union of man and God is sanctified in union with Him who is saviour to the sinner and who became incarnate as the son of man.

Thus we do not re-create the sacrifice, we make the one sacrifice present again. This is why we call Christ the one Sacerdos, the one priest in the original sacrificial sense who's sacrificial action as pre-concieved in the jewish temple sacrifices is made effective to the congregation through his ministers, the presbyters, commonly called priests in common parlance as they make effective the eucharistic sacrifice.

However, I have another question, why is "Catholicism" the "One true Faith?" I mean, I've never heard anyone say the Baptists are the one true faith or even that the Protestants are the one true faith. We would say Christianity is the one true faith. Why do Catholics insist that Catholicism is the "One true faith?" (I know your comment was in jest somewhat, but it is also something Catholics do claim.)

It is the one true faith as it is the Church founded by Christ and which as per according to his promises is divinely protected by God from doctrinal error. Only it is the creation of divine revelation from Christ himself and it is the only Church that contains the fullness of the truth passed down in an unbroken lineage from Christ and the apostles to their successors today in the Universal and ordinary magisterium. All other faiths are products of error and manafactured by the opinions of mortal men.

Furthermore the Church has only ever developed its doctrine through constant deepening of understanding in a process of constant conversion to Christ as according to Christs promise to send the Holy Spirit to reveal ALL truth and never changed anything revealed by God. Any other faith only contains truth insofar as a particular doctrine concurs with what the Church teaches.

Thus how could the Church not be the one true faith if it is founded by God the Son and secured by the promises of Christ. All protestantism has is the varying opiinions of men which change over time and fracture into sects in stark contradiction to eachover.

Also, how do you personally think of Protestants: Good Christians who get a few things wrong, heretics who have destroyed the meaning of the gospel, or somewhere in between?

Depends on the protestant. For example I think of you differently than I think of Timtofly.

What is Holy Water supposed to do?

It is a blessed sacramental (Not a sacrament, they are separate) and as it has been sanctified and blessed it is held to have effect against evil. Thus making the sign of the cross with Holy water upon entering or leaving a Church has the triple purpose of reminding one of their baptism, reminding the believer of the Holy Trinity who's sanctuary they are entering or leaving, and warding off evil by the impartation of a blessing combined with the faith of the believer in its efficacy. Incidentally it is often used in exorcisms.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Depends on the protestant. For example I think of you differently than I think of Timtofly.

Can you clarify more? (I'll respond to the rest later, but this bit was separate and really easy to do. I'll reply to the rest when I have time.)

 

[Jehoshua]

Can you clarify more? (I'll respond to the rest later, but this bit was separate and really easy to do. I'll reply to the rest when I have time.)

To ascribe an opinion in regards to protestants (as compared to protestantism) generally is fundamentally flawed as each individual is unique and has their own set of attributes. Thus a general characterisation is inherently flawed as it automatically presumes that all protestants are alike, which naturally is not the case.

Thus I refuse to generalise all protestants preferring to make a judgement of character on an individual basis.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This could go in any of the two threads, it's more of an Ask A Christian question.

Do you believe God has put inherent moral values in all of us? For instance, tribes in the Amazonian have moral structures which at the base are not all that different from ours.

Do you believe we need the Bible for moral guidance? Do we read from the Bible the morals which appeal to us and ignore those which aren't, or do those morals appeal to us because the Bible only has moral truths.

 

[Jehoshua]

This could go in any of the two threads, it's more of an Ask A Christian question.

Do you believe God has put inherent moral values in all of us? For instance, tribes in the Amazonian have moral structures which at the base are not all that different from ours.

Do you believe we need the Bible for moral guidance? Do we read from the Bible the morals which appeal to us and ignore those which aren't, or do those morals appeal to us because the Bible only has moral truths.

The Church adheres to the principle of natural law. That is that inscribed in the being of every human person is an inherent morality natural to the human person which is the temporal knowledge of the eternal law in the being of each person. The Church holds that the state has the responsibility to uphold this natural law in all circumstances as due to the consequence of humanities fallen sinful nature the person is inclined to veer away from the divine morality and into ever greater sin which leads to a dulling of the human intellect and ultimately a descent away from humanity towards something more like an animal enslaved to physical desires and popular opinion. (Thus why the Truth sets one free, for it casts asides the chains of sin)

As to the bible for moral guidance, it is useful for all teaching, particularly so in regards to morality as it transcribes the moral law and the teachings of Christ. However I would say that from a Catholic perspective that one requires the Church and its unchanging divinely inspired teachings in its entirety for fully effective moral guidance as compared to a sole reliance on scripture (which itself is a part of the Church's deposit of faith) as with its firm guidance one is given passage on God's ship through the stormy seas of ever-changing relativism (which is why picking and choosing what appeals to you is a bad idea) and popular opinion, and against the omnipresent temptation of sin.

Of course one could get moral guidance elsewhere and it may even be good but it would be inherently defective as it lacks the divine guarantee of the Church.

 

[kochman]

This could go in any of the two threads, it's more of an Ask A Christian question.

Do you believe God has put inherent moral values in all of us? For instance, tribes in the Amazonian have moral structures which at the base are not all that different from ours.

Do you believe we need the Bible for moral guidance? Do we read from the Bible the morals which appeal to us and ignore those which aren't, or do those morals appeal to us because the Bible only has moral truths.

I believe God's rules are written in everyone's heart.
Do we need the Bible? Not everyone does... but it's helpful to most. It helps clarify the best route, like a map would... even if you already had a vague idea how to get where you were going.

 

[timtofly]

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” - St. Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD

I am sorry, but I have read these writings and it seems to me that this was changed later and was not intended by Ignatius. I already told you, that if I am not considered a Catholic by virtue of Vatican II, then you cannot use Ignatius. Ignatius refers to those people as "those who do not respect the sacrament", not the "issue of Eucherist".

 

[Takhisis]

If you are not a Catholic, then just stop butting in.

 

[GhostWriter16]

To ascribe an opinion in regards to protestants (as compared to protestantism) generally is fundamentally flawed as each individual is unique and has their own set of attributes. Thus a general characterisation is inherently flawed as it automatically presumes that all protestants are alike, which naturally is not the case.

Thus I refuse to generalise all protestants preferring to make a judgement of character on an individual basis.

OK that makes sense. Do you know any Protestants who you believe have a good chance of being saved?

Depends on the protestant. For example I think of you differently than I think of Timtofly.

And for curiosity, how DO you think of me?

If you are not a Catholic, then just stop butting in.

Well, I think he'd argue that he is a catholic since he's Christian. But this thread is for answers from Vatican II.

That said, this one was specifically addressed to all Christians, so I think I can provide an answer:

This could go in any of the two threads, it's more of an Ask A Christian question.

Do you believe God has put inherent moral values in all of us? For instance, tribes in the Amazonian have moral structures which at the base are not all that different from ours.

Do you believe we need the Bible for moral guidance? Do we read from the Bible the morals which appeal to us and ignore those which aren't, or do those morals appeal to us because the Bible only has moral truths.

I think all men have a conscience, and so they have some picture of right and wrong, but it is distorted and not 100% perfect, so yeah, we need the Bible.

You can't be saved without Jesus Christ, so of course we need it. But can we have some morals without it? Obviously.

 

[Jehoshua]

I am sorry, but I have read these writings and it seems to me that this was changed later and was not intended by Ignatius. I already told you, that if I am not considered a Catholic by virtue of Vatican II, then you cannot use Ignatius. Ignatius refers to those people as "those who do not respect the sacrament", not the "issue of Eucherist".

some evidence would be good for your blatant claims that his writings were corrupted. Otherwise the assumption is that because they don't agree with your ideology you are simply claiming they were corrupted because they contradict you. This being even more likely since a pluraility of ancient sources confirm the real presence as a universal doctrine since the early Church. Incidentally the same denial of evidence happens with the Muslims, they say the Bible is corrupted from its original script but somehow I think you would hold as much stock to these unsupported claims as I do to yours regarding the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch.

Well, I think he'd argue that he is a catholic since he's Christian. But this thread is for answers from Vatican II.

Well then he has the wrong idea. By VII this thread means catholics in good standing and in full communion with the roman pontiff and who hold to everything taught by the Church and proclaimed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium. The reference to VII is simply to circumvent sedevacantists and groups that are canonically irregular who reject VII.

Thus if Timtofly is not confirmed in the Catholic Church or otherwise in communion with the pope and faithful to the teachings of the Church then he is not catholic and has no place for giving any authoritative response in this thread. Effectively its the equivalent of me posting in the protestant thread saying I am a perfectly good protestant because I am protesting against protestantism.

And for curiosity, how DO you think of me?

I have respect for you since you honestly are engaging in dialogue with what seems to be a genuine desire to know more. This being compared to various people who just attack the Church, get their question answered and then either deny rejecting any and all of what I have said and any evidence I have put up, or alternatively ignoring it and then proceed onto another baseless attack disguised or not under the veneer of a question.

incidentally you might like to address sometime soon my post regarding the real presence and the fact that the Catholic Church is the One True Faith, as you previously mentioned you would. (just reminding you since that would be to do that 'ignore the answer' thing various people here and elsewhere often do to circumvent a question troubling to them. (once was discussing contradictions in the Quran with a Muslim. After bringing three passages out and explaining simply how they are contradictory his answer was.... to copy the suras and state "there is no contradiction in the Quran". Needless to say after a systematic and extensive explanation of how they contradicted he refrained from further discussing the question.)

OK that makes sense. Do you know any Protestants who you believe have a good chance of being saved?

No

-

consider this answer first and see if you understand why the answer is as it is, It is hardly a simplistic argument that ipso facto protestants are damned. Either way I'm not going to clarify why I answered no until you reflect on the answer, after that then I will clarify if you are incorrect in your conclusions of my intent.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well then he has the wrong idea. By VII this thread means catholics in good standing and in full communion with the roman pontiff and who hold to everything taught by the Church and proclaimed infallibly by the universal and ordinary magisterium. The reference to VII is simply to circumvent sedevacantists and groups that are canonically irregular who reject VII.

Thus if Timtofly is not confirmed in the Catholic Church or otherwise in communion with the pope and faithful to the teachings of the Church then he is not catholic and has no place for giving any authoritative response in this thread. Effectively its the equivalent of me posting in the protestant thread saying I am a perfectly good protestant because I am protesting against protestantism.

The thing is, he's appealing to the Historical definition. But its unnecessary. Its obvious what this thread is for (To get answers on Vatican II.)

And I'll get to your post about communion in a second.

No

-

consider this answer first and see if you understand why the answer is as it is, It is hardly a simplistic argument that ipso facto protestants are damned. Either way I'm not going to clarify why I answered no until you reflect on the answer, after that then I will claridy if you are incorrect in your conclusions of my intent.

Well, first of all, my apologies for not knowing Latin, but what does "Ipso Facto," mean?

That said, you did say Protestants were Christians. You also said at one point that Protestants could be saved. Now you say they are basically damned. Can you please clarify this to me? I know to you it probably makes sense, but remember, everything I really know about Catholicism has come from you and Civ_King

That said, I know the logical answer, mortal sin. However, are you suggesting there are no Protestants that you know of who genuinely love God and try to stay out of sin? It seems to me that if both of those things are true, one would have very little chance of being damned. If your love for God is genuine, you can repent via perfect contrition, and if you are trying not to sin mortally, its pretty difficult to do so from my understanding (You'd have to actually know you were doing it.)

If any of this is incorrect, please enlighten me.

That said, if Catholicism IS the one true faith, then I'm pretty sure at least three members of my immediate family are three of the very few Protestants who are saved, just by the ways I've seen God work in our family its undeniable.

Comments on the Church Fathers coming...

 

[GhostWriter16]

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” - St. Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD

There's no way of knowing Ignatius was being literal here, and even if he was, he could be wrong.

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes…so too, as we have been taught the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” - St. Justin Martyr 150 AD

Again, there's no way of knowing this is literal.

Also, a question: Does the wine and bread change to the blood and body when communion is taken in a non-Catholic Church or not?

 

[Jehoshua]

A faulty historical definition redefined by protestant scholars to justify their existence. A Catholic would say that the only logic to that definition was that in the early Church all Christians were part of the Catholic Church to begin with, prior to the advent of various heresies.

-

Ipso Facto means "By that very fact"

-

As to the final point let me extend my answer to say that I don't know ANYONE who I can say has a good chance at being saved. We must realise that everyone falls short before the perfection of God and that everyone is dependant on God's grace to attain the beatific vision. No man of his own merits can gain heaven, faith, works or otherwise it is solely through grace that this occurs. Thus considering this and the impossibility to know the state of someones soul, and with the knowledge of the inclination to sin of every human person and the depraved nature of man I cannot say anyone has a good chance of being saved.

Even John Paul II when he was ill he was told by a cardinal concerned for his health that "I am concerned for His Holiness {a title like your majesty}" he responded in kind "Likewise I am concerned for my holiness". No one is guaranteed heaven and considering the gate is narrow and the universal acknowledgement of the fewness of the saved I must automatically assume no one has a good chance and continue to exhort myself and others to continue in the process of conversion to Christ and increase in holiness trusting in God's mercy, our salvation.

 

[Takhisis]

[wiki]Ipso facto[/wiki]. There you go.

Edit: x-post! Wiki definition still helps.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, by that logic, Protestants wouldn't even have ANY chance of Salvation. According to Jehoshua and Civ_King, they have a small chance. Therefore:

@Jehoshua- Care to explain why the use of the term makes sense?

 

[Jehoshua]

There's no way of knowing Ignatius was being literal here, and even if he was, he could be wrong.

Nice joke. Hardly wrong when they are simply expounding the universal teaching of the Church from the beginning furthermore to interpret that as metaphorical would be equivalent to saying that pigs actually can fly. Need I mention again St Ignatius was a student of St John the Apostle himself. Someone who knew Christ personally.

Also, a question: Does the wine and bread change to the blood and body when communion is taken in a non-Catholic Church or not?

read my previous response on the topic, i've already answered that question. Its in post #725

Wait, by that logic, Protestants wouldn't even have ANY chance of Salvation. According to Jehoshua and Civ_King, they have a small chance. Therefore:

@Jehoshua- Care to explain why the use of the term makes sense?

read my post again. I was simply saying that why my answer was no was hardly (ie its not) a simplistic argument that all protestants are damned by the very fact they are protestant.