Ask A Catholic IV

[Agent327]

Ergo Catholics who don't just rock up to Church every Christmas or Easter

You acknowledge then that there are different kinds of Catholics, of which you only represent one.

Then what is your issue. You asked if experiencign God was just another pleasure, when I asserted that departing from wordly pleasures is part of the monastic experience. I replied that it is not a pleasure but rather a joy, a state of blessed felicity as the Church calls it which is quite distinct from the pleasures of flesh or mind.

The issue being that I specifically asked whether the function of Holy Father - to name just one example I mentioned - is, in your opinion, completely devoid of any physical pleasure. To acknowledge your present answer, would you qualify this function as resulting in pure blessed felicity? Wouldn´t that be somewhat unrealistic? ´(And I did not ask if experiencing God was ´just another pleasure´; if you want people to take your thread seriously, please refrain from twisting someone´s words.)

By implication by your use of terms such as doctrinary Catholic and so forth, since that implies a rejection of objective divine authority the only other option is for you, to follow as most do, to the idea of relativism where what passes for truth is dependant on the person, and where the majority popular opinion determines what is right or wrong, what is lawful or unlawful. As to the Church not having infallible teachings, honestly I must laugh at you, anything that has been dogmatically passed down from the apostles, or which the Magisterium of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit has explicitly seen fit to define dogma is infallible and unchangeable teaching.

By implication... I merely deduce from the style of your answers - which rarely reflect any personal view - that you belong to the kind of Catholic that might be termed doctrinary. Your answers reflect simply the cathechismic response - something which one might expect from a Church official -, rather than any personal views you might have on a subject as a member of the Roman Catholic Church (church taken as the collective of believers rather than the mere institution). As I´ve hinted earlier, there are different kinds of Catholics, many of whose voices are rarely heard on this thread.

To laugh at someone´s statement, for instance my mention of the fact that the Catholic Church does not have infallible teachings - which can be easily demonstrated by the existence of such religions as Greek Orthodoxy or Protestantism, not to mention Islam, another world religion derived from Judaism -, reveils a rather contemptuous attitude towards those who do not share your personal views (and to state that the Catholic Church has´infallible teachings´ is such a personal view, a view that isn´t shared by all Catholics).

Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the fact that present day Church teachings, rather than having been ´passed down from the apostles´ (of whom, apart from Paul´s scriptures, little remains), have evolved over the centuries, and have been frequently altered or adapted, depending on circumstances. Hardly ´infallible and unchangeable teaching´, then. It´s all very well to present official Church views ( for views they are), but even a devout Catholic should get his facts straight.

Finally, I do not reject divine authority - objective or otherwise -, but I wish to point out that it is arrogant to presume of any human that he or she might know what even divinity is. You presume a great deal, but presumption is all that it is, unaware of it as you might seem.

If it is merely your goal to present official Church views, that is fine, but the title of this thread than seems rather inaccurate.

 

[Jehoshua]

You acknowledge then that there are different kinds of Catholics, of which you only represent one.

I recognise there are catholics who are catholic in name only and are what could be called practical atheists save for the two main events so to speak. These people bear the name but posess none of the faith.

The issue being that I specifically asked whether the function of Holy Father - to name just one example I mentioned - is, in your opinion, completely devoid of any physical pleasure. To acknowledge your present answer, would you qualify this function as resulting in pure blessed felicity? Wouldn´t that be somewhat unrealistic? ´(And I did not ask if experiencing God was ´just another pleasure´; if you want people to take your thread seriously, please refrain from twisting someone´s words.)

The function of the Holy Father (I presume you mean the pope) would hardly be one for physical pleasures, from all I know about what the pope does its a rather torturous position to be in, indeed a lot of priests refuse to become bishops because that job alone is exceedingly... undesirable for any reasonable person. I could presume that the job may endenger a sense of satisfaction in serving the Lord, but in general its not one I would envy let alone think anyone would desire.

Oh and I apologise if "Isn´t experiencing God a form of pleasure?" was misinterpreted

By implication... I merely deduce from the style of your answers - which rarely reflect any personal view - that you belong to the kind of Catholic that might be termed doctrinary. Your answers reflect simply the cathechismic response - something which one might expect from a Church official -, rather than any personal views you might have on a subject as a member of the Roman Catholic Church (church taken as the collective of believers rather than the mere institution). As I´ve hinted earlier, there are different kinds of Catholics, many of whose voices are rarely heard on this thread.

Yes, you have the practical atheists who are Catholic in name only and merely go to Church as a cultural habit, you have liberal heretics who deny fundamental tenets of the faith, you have those catholics who don't realy know anything about the faith and go to Church out of community obligation and of course you have orthodox faithful Catholics. As to the Church being a collective of believers, the Church is indeed that, but at the same time it is also an institution and the mystical body of Christ.

To laugh at someone´s statement, for instance my mention of the fact that the Catholic Church does not have infallible teachings - which can be easily demonstrated by the existence of such religions as Greek Orthodoxy or Protestantism, not to mention Islam, another world religion derived from Judaism -, reveils a rather contemptuous attitude towards those who do not share your personal views (and to state that the Catholic Church has´infallible teachings´ is such a personal view, a view that isn´t shared by all Catholics).

How is the existence of schismatics, heretics and other religions indicative of the existence or non-existence of infallible teachings? That a teaching is infallible, ergo absolutely true and unchangeable does not necessarily mean that some heretic could go off and concoct his own version of the truth, or that some false prophet somewhere could establish his own religion, or that some person somewhere could not believe that those teachings are false. Ergo truth exists independent of the human observor and has its foundation in God.

As to being contemptuous of other religions, sorry for actually believing in my faith as distinct from making it some happy-clappy, all religions are equal paths to God love-fest. Fact is all religions are not equal, and indeed all other religions posess truth insofar only where they agree with the Catholic faith. They are ultimately deficient and erroneous.

Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the fact that present day Church teachings, rather than having been ´passed down from the apostles´ (of whom, apart from Paul´s scriptures, little remains), have evolved over the centuries, and have been frequently altered or adapted, depending on circumstances. Hardly ´infallible and unchangeable teaching´, then. It´s all very well to present official Church views ( for views they are), but even a devout Catholic should get his facts straight.

I am perfectly aware of the development of doctrine. The Church was not passed a complete set of teachings at pentecost. Indeed Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth, and that prosess of deepening revelation continues today. What I am talking about however is dogma, as distinct from the theology surrounding dogma. Dogma includes that which has been passed down from the apostles and preserved and passed down through the ages, in addition to other dogmatic teachings which have been added to the list of dogmas over time via the discernment of the Church and the authority of the Magisterium (the dogma of the immaculate conception being one notable example)

Finally, I do not reject divine authority - objective or otherwise -, but I wish to point out that it is arrogant to presume of any human that he or she might know what even divinity is. You presume a great deal, but presumption is all that it is, unaware of it as you might seem.

Indeed it is, but fortunately for us Christ incarnated and revealed divinity to mankind. Indeed he became man so that he could sanctify humanity and restore it to the divine life, granting us the way to salvation. As to rejecting divine authority, your statements, which clearly indicate a relativistic homocentric view authority and "truth" (which corroborates my earlier thought on the matter) contradict your words.

If it is merely your goal to present official Church views, that is fine, but the title of this thread than seems rather inaccurate.

Hardly. I am a Catholic, one is free to ask me (and any other Catholic on here) questions. The title is thus a perfectly succinct description of the threads mechanic. If the Catholics on here don't concur with your worldview I suggest you instead refrain from suggesting that answers here are somehow invalid because the answers come from a "doctrinary Catholic" and from people who actually uphold what their faith demands, rather than say being cafateria catholics picking and choosing what they want to believe.

 

[Agent327]

It seems pretty straightforward from your postings here that indeed you are a Catholic of the doctrinary persuasion.

I recognise there are catholics who are catholic in name only and are what could be called practical atheists save for the two main events so to speak. These people bear the name but posess none of the faith.

How do you know this? Simply because they do not share your particluar brand of Catholicism? Again, I cannot help but find this rather presumptuous.

The function of the Holy Father (I presume you mean the pope) would hardly be one for physical pleasures, from all I know about what the pope does its a rather torturous position to be in, indeed a lot of priests refuse to become bishops because that job alone is exceedingly... undesirable for any reasonable person. I could presume that the job may endenger a sense of satisfaction in serving the Lord, but in general its not one I would envy let alone think anyone would desire.

Oh and I apologise if "Isn´t experiencing God a form of pleasure?" was misinterpreted

Yes, ´pope´ and ´father´ derive from the same word. So it is your contention that holding the holy office precludes any joys. So noted.

Yes, you have the practical atheists who are Catholic in name only and merely go to Church as a cultural habit, you have liberal heretics who deny fundamental tenets of the faith, you have those catholics who don't realy know anything about the faith and go to Church out of community obligation and of course you have orthodox faithful Catholics. As to the Church being a collective of believers, the Church is indeed that, but at the same time it is also an institution and the mystical body of Christ.

Orthodox and Catholic somewhat preclude one another, I´m sure you know. And I fail to see how this answers anything. You merely repeat your already well-known views.

How is the existence of schismatics, heretics and other religions indicative of the existence or non-existence of infallible teachings? That a teaching is infallible, ergo absolutely true and unchangeable does not necessarily mean that some heretic could go off and concoct his own version of the truth, or that some false prophet somewhere could establish his own religion, or that some person somewhere could not believe that those teachings are false. Ergo truth exists independent of the human observor and has its foundation in God.

As to being contemptuous of other religions, sorry for actually believing in my faith as distinct from making it some happy-clappy, all religions are equal paths to God love-fest. Fact is all religions are not equal, and indeed all other religions posess truth insofar only where they agree with the Catholic faith. They are ultimately deficient and erroneous.

The mere existence of other world religions suggests that the Catholic faith is not infallible. That it is your opinion that it is, does not make it so. The same view may be held by all other religions: ´They are ultimately deficient and erroneous.´ Which would be my point. But I appreciate your apology for being contemptuous.

I am perfectly aware of the development of doctrine. The Church was not passed a complete set of teachings at pentecost. Indeed Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth, and that prosess of deepening revelation continues today. What I am talking about however is dogma, as distinct from the theology surrounding dogma. Dogma includes that which has been passed down from the apostles and preserved and passed down through the ages, in addition to other dogmatic teachings which have been added to the list of dogmas over time via the discernment of the Church and the authority of the Magisterium (the dogma of the immaculate conception being one notable example)

Once again, dogma was not ´handed down´ from Christ and the Apostles to posterity. Catholic dogmas evolved over time. And yes, theology was very much involved in this process. The dogma of the immaculate conception is a perfect example of this, as it did not exist yet at the time of the Apostles.

Indeed it is, but fortunately for us Christ incarnated and revealed divinity to mankind. Indeed he became man so that he could sanctify humanity and restore it to the divine life, granting us the way to salvation. As to rejecting divine authority, your statements, which clearly indicate a relativistic homocentric view authority and "truth" (which corroborates my earlier thought on the matter) contradict your words.

This again is mere presumption on your part - in addition to misreading. I already stated I do not reject divine authority. Furthermore, I do not have a ´relativistic homocentric view´ - I´m not sure how you then would be able to deduce that I have... again, your labelling it thus does not make it so.

Hardly. I am a Catholic, one is free to ask me (and any other Catholic on here) questions. The title is thus a perfectly succinct description of the threads mechanic. If the Catholics on here don't concur with your worldview I suggest you instead refrain from suggesting that answers here are somehow invalid because the answers come from a "doctrinary Catholic" and from people who actually uphold what their faith demands, rather than say being cafateria catholics picking and choosing what they want to believe.

You yourself are the clearest indication that you are indeed a Catholic. But you differ very much from the Catholics I know. It is all very well to ´allow´ other Catholics to answer questions, but, as I already noted, there´s little indication that many Catholics even follow this thread. Which is hardly surprising, considering your contempt for anyone who doesn´t share your personal idea of Catholicism, or share your worldview.

 

[Jehoshua]

How do you know this? Simply because they do not share your particluar brand of Catholicism? Again, I cannot help but find this rather presumptuous.

a good number of my family are of the persuasion I so inclined. Ergo go to Church on special occasions and in the meantime live in practical atheism.

Orthodox and Catholic somewhat preclude one another, I´m sure you know. And I fail to see how this answers anything. You merely repeat your already well-known views.

No you really have made me laugh. orthodox means right belief, the word Catholic means universal, although more specifically the word ALSO indicates a completeness of faith. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses the term Orthodox in their name, however in the eyes of the Catholic faith they are anything but orthodox. In general parlance I might add a capitalised Orthodox indicates the EOC, and the lower case indicates its usage in terms of correct belief and absence of heresy.

The mere existence of other world religions suggests that the Catholic faith is not infallible. That it is your opinion that it is, does not make it so. The same view may be held by all other religions: ´They are ultimately deficient and erroneous.´ Which would be my point. But I appreciate your apology for being contemptuous.

The mere existence of other religions prooves nothing of the sort. If anything the history of mankind has been a seething pot of differing ideas, many of which are quantifiably false. The existence of other religions hardly nullifies the claim of the Catholic faith thats its fundamental tenets, ergo dogma, are infallible and unchangeable teachings.

Once again, dogma was not ´handed down´ from Christ and the Apostles to posterity. Catholic dogmas evolved over time. And yes, theology was very much involved in this process. The dogma of the immaculate conception is a perfect example of this, as it did not exist yet at the time of the Apostles.

As I said, I am not saying that the complete "book of dogma" was thrown down from heaven complete and entire and that the faith since then has been unchanged. I am saying that the fundamental teachings of the apostles have been passed down, and that they have not been changed, while from that revelation there has been theological development and a deepening of understanding of said revelation over time in accordance with the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth, which has resulted in a development of the faith which has subtracted or changed nothing dogmatic, and indeed preserved all that is true.

This again is mere presumption on your part - in addition to misreading. I already stated I do not reject divine authority. Furthermore, I do not have a ´relativistic homocentric view´ - I´m not sure how you then would be able to deduce that I have... again, your labelling it thus does not make it so.

Your positions seem to me to advocate the very things you deny. But I digress perhaps for the sake of clarity you could expound your position as distinct from counterpoints to my statements. That should hopefully clear up any confusions.

You yourself are the clearest indication that you are indeed a Catholic. But you differ very much from the Catholics I know. It is all very well to ´allow´ other Catholics to answer questions, but, as I already noted, there´s little indication that many Catholics even follow this thread. Which is hardly surprising, considering your contempt for anyone who doesn´t share your personal idea of Catholicism, or share your worldview.

I'll be honest enough, I have nothing but disgust for heresy, and have a special dislike for the phenomenon of people proclaiming catholicity on the one hand, and spewing heresy from the other. Middle of the road, cultural and otherwise lukewarm catholics I understand and have little issue with, the willful advocation of certain individuals of heresy from within the Church... well, I won't list the litany grudges now. Either way IRL I usually make sure to keep disgust of the sin apart from the love due the sinner, God knows I would have to cut a huge proportion of my acquantances and friends if I did.

Anyways as to differing from Catholics you know, thats not surprising, the vast majority of catholics in the west due to poor catechesis for a couple of generations now, and due to superabundant exposure to abuses in every manner imaginable from within the Church (and from without as well) have whittled down the number of people who really deserve the name "faithful Catholic". In the USA for example I think something between 10 - 20% of catholics actually regularly go to mass every Sunday, and of that I would hazard a guess you could whittle away a fair portion who go out of habit or who are less than orthodox when it comes to upholding the Catholic faith.

 

[Takhisis]

Shut it, both of you. Can we get back to what the thread is supposed to be about?

 

[civ_king]

Do the communion offerings become consecrated during the Anamnesis or the Epiclesis?

 

[Jehoshua]

Shut it, both of you. Can we get back to what the thread is supposed to be about?

Looks like Takhisis is the only person with good sense on this thread at the moment. Im an irritable bugger who likes to argue too much . Indeed as such we should get back to the point of the thread.

Anyways as to the consecration, the actual change of the gifts to the Body and Blood of our Lord is believed to occur at the words of institution if that is what you are asking.

 

[civ_king]

Why did God become man?

 

[El_Machinae]

Is there a messiah for angels?

 

[_random_]

Why did God become man?

God became man so that men might become gods.

Are non-Catholics permitted to answer with Patristic quotes?

 

[Takhisis]

They're not even allowed to answer unless they're really helpful and/or experts on the matter such as, for example, a Theologian.

As for the 'men becoming gods' bit… 'To redeem ourselves from the Original sin and preach a new faith' would eb a better answer. Men are not deities and we are not meant to be, we are meant to join God in Heaven which isn't the same.

 

[_random_]

They're not even allowed to answer unless they're really helpful and/or experts on the matter such as, for example, a Theologian.

I thought there might be an exception since I didn't answer the question with my own words, but with those of an individual you'd consider to be part of the Catholic Church who was indeed an expert of sorts on the matter.

As for the 'men becoming gods' bit… 'To redeem ourselves from the Original sin and preach a new faith' would eb a better answer. Men are not deities and we are not meant to be, we are meant to join God in Heaven which isn't the same.

I don't think Athanasius was referring to a Mormon-style "we get to rule over our own universe" type deal, but the language he uses isn't foreign to the Scriptures (Psalm 82:6, 2 Peter 1:4). I'll leave further interpretation to a Catholic.

 

[Takhisis]

I know, I know, it wasn't an answer of whatever you think Catholicism to be like some peopleve done in the past.

I was just trying to give you the right interpretation, men cannot become gods.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, they can. _random_ cited a patristic text, and the early church fathers can hardly have been unaware of the custom to deify a ´good´ emperor: a good emperor was made into a god after death. Being revived after death, as Jesus promised his followers, is a fairly accurate description of ´men becoming gods´.

a good number of my family are of the persuasion I so inclined. Ergo go to Church on special occasions and in the meantime live in practical atheism.

Lets just say I´m glad you´re not the pope - who has to deal with all these ´practical atheists´, as you call them...

No you really have made me laugh. orthodox means right belief, the word Catholic means universal, although more specifically the word ALSO indicates a completeness of faith. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses the term Orthodox in their name, however in the eyes of the Catholic faith they are anything but orthodox. In general parlance I might add a capitalised Orthodox indicates the EOC, and the lower case indicates its usage in terms of correct belief and absence of heresy.

Here´s that contempt again... As is clear from the quote you´re ´commenting´ on I used Catholic and Orthodox as intended, and the rest of your comment reveals nothing I didn´t know.

The mere existence of other religions prooves nothing of the sort. If anything the history of mankind has been a seething pot of differing ideas, many of which are quantifiably false. The existence of other religions hardly nullifies the claim of the Catholic faith thats its fundamental tenets, ergo dogma, are infallible and unchangeable teachings.

Statement, yes, fact, no. If you read read your own comment below, Catholic fundamental tenets have changed, ergo aren´t unchangeable. As for infallibility, applying such a claim to anything human seems rather inappropriate to me - if not blasphemic; God may be infallible (although the Bible seems to indicate otherwise), humans most certainly are not. I´m sure you can surmise the implication.

As I said, I am not saying that the complete "book of dogma" was thrown down from heaven complete and entire and that the faith since then has been unchanged. I am saying that the fundamental teachings of the apostles have been passed down, and that they have not been changed, while from that revelation there has been theological development and a deepening of understanding of said revelation over time in accordance with the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth, which has resulted in a development of the faith which has subtracted or changed nothing dogmatic, and indeed preserved all that is true.

Some comments: the apostles did not leave any writings, and the writings that do survive do not reveal ´the fundamental teachings of the apostles´; could you direct me to the quote where Jesus promises ´to send the Holy Spiri to reveal all truth´? I don´t seem to recall it from my bible readings or any of the sermons I´ve heard. (Again, this seems more like another of your catechismic answers that do not really answer any question. If I want to check the catechism on any particular question, I can just google it.)

Your positions seem to me to advocate the very things you deny. But I digress perhaps for the sake of clarity you could expound your position as distinct from counterpoints to my statements. That should hopefully clear up any confusions.

Well, unlike you I do not like to divulge on the Divine. I consider such things private.

I'll be honest enough, I have nothing but disgust for heresy, and have a special dislike for the phenomenon of people proclaiming catholicity on the one hand, and spewing heresy from the other. Middle of the road, cultural and otherwise lukewarm catholics I understand and have little issue with, the willful advocation of certain individuals of heresy from within the Church... well, I won't list the litany grudges now. Either way IRL I usually make sure to keep disgust of the sin apart from the love due the sinner, God knows I would have to cut a huge proportion of my acquantances and friends if I did.

Have you ever considered that the way you treat ´heretics´, that is, in effect, fellow Christians, is very unchristian. Your claim to love ´the sinner´, but talk evil behind his back. Not something I remember Jesus ever doing; he stood up for those considered ´sinners´ by his fellow believers. More to the point, you cannot love people who disgust you.

Anyways as to differing from Catholics you know, thats not surprising, the vast majority of catholics in the west due to poor catechesis for a couple of generations now, and due to superabundant exposure to abuses in every manner imaginable from within the Church (and from without as well) have whittled down the number of people who really deserve the name "faithful Catholic". In the USA for example I think something between 10 - 20% of catholics actually regularly go to mass every Sunday, and of that I would hazard a guess you could whittle away a fair portion who go out of habit or who are less than orthodox when it comes to upholding the Catholic faith.

You seem to forget that the majority of Christians lives outside Western countries. And I don´t think it´s up to you to decide whether other people are heretics; that is up to the Church. As long as the Church does not consider them heretics, they are not. And since the Church, in its infinite wisdom, does not, both these ´heretics´ and you are Catholics. (You may not be aware of this, but your personal view here actually differs from the Church. Following your reasoning, the Church then has the right to declare you a heretic. But, contrary to you, the Church does not do so.)

 

[shadowplay]

Do the same rules with regards to being in a state of grace prior to receiving communion apply to adoration as well?

 

[civ_king]

Are non-Catholics permitted to answer with Patristic quotes?

Intriguing quote, could I have context for that? (It's obviously not polytheistic, but I don't know exactly what it means.) I suppose teachings from the EO would work too.

Considering the type of question I'd say it's open to any Apostolic Church

Do the same rules with regards to being in a state of grace prior to receiving communion apply to adoration as well?

No, because you are not actually recieving the Blessed Sacrament into yourself, however it is as always recommend to be in a state of grace as you should never not be in a state of grace (and thus always be in a state of grace, but it happens...)

 

[Takhisis]

Mr. JEELEN, how many times do we have to remind readers that this is not a 'tell Catholics what you think of them and their religion and how they should be' thread but just an 'ask Catholics questions' thread?

 

[Ajidica]

@Catholics: If you were unable to be Catholic, what religion would you be?

 

[shadowplay]

Orthodox Christian.

 

[civ_king]

Orthodox Christian.

What he said