Ask A Catholic IV

[El_Machinae]

That has nothing to do with creationism whatsoever... The natural law in its self has nothing to do with the doctrine of original sin. Indeed the origins of humanity have nothing to do with creationism either.

I'm confused! So, what is the source of natural evils? Why did they appear millions of years ago, and what the justification for their existence for tens of millions of years before humans appeared?

 

[Ajidica]

Doesn't the fact the popemobile is armoured demonstrate a fatal lack of faith?

Serious question: Do you agree with the removal of limbo from Catholic teachings, along with the whole host of changes brought on by Vatican II?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Wasn't Karl Benz protestant, why didn't the pope pick a Italian mobile or French?

 

[Takhisis]

If he did, you lot would be complaining about discrimination.

And it's not a machine gun, it's a device for spraying the ungodly with holy water.

 

[-Perceval-]

I am catholic myself but i just don't understand the use of such treads:

-why does a lot of catholics(and atheist militant also but it is ot the subject) try to convince people of their convictions instead of using the religion(or their convictions) to "ameliorate" themselves first?

Why does some catholics are very fatalist?

In my opinion, catholicism is a way to become more open-minded cause jesus way of thinking is for me the only doctrine that responsabilise(empowers) people instead of saying them "this is not your fault guys gods are not happy today, your horoscope is not good, the cards tell me you should stay at home, this is cause of the crisis dude" ect...)

-why does so many catholics(and other religion) use religion exactly like a culture or and ethnic group? Example: Middle east (catholic, orthodox, muslim suni, sia ect...), Ireland (Catholic, protestant) ect... Can we still call them Catholics if there is absolutely no spirituality in them?

I still think that a "religious discrimination"(like in middle age) is ""better"" than a racial discrimination(antiquity, renaissance) cause you always can change your religion but not your skin color!

 

[Takhisis]

I am catholic myself but i just don't understand the use of such treads:

-why does a lot of catholics(and atheist militant also but it is ot the subject) try to convince people of their convictions instead of using the religion(or their convictions) to "ameliorate" themselves first?

Because that's the militant believers.

Why does some catholics are very fatalist?

In my opinion, catholicism is a way to become more open-minded cause jesus way of thinking is for me the only doctrine that responsabilise(empowers) people instead of saying them "this is not your fault guys gods are not happy today, your horoscope is not good, the cards tell me you should stay at home, this is cause of the crisis dude" ect...)

Some people believe in fate/destiny and that it is set.

-why does so many catholics(and other religion) use religion exactly like a culture or and ethnic group? Example: Middle east (catholic, orthodox, muslim suni, sia ect...), Ireland (Catholic, protestant) ect... Can we still call them Catholics if there is absolutely no spirituality in them?

I still think that a "religious discrimination"(like in middle age) is ""better"" than a racial discrimination(antiquity, renaissance) cause you always can change your religion but not your skin color!

Because people used to organise and divide by their religion, since every religion/sect was an essential part of each tribe/clan/nation's identity.

 

[timtofly]

But it is the sole type of beginning that has relevance to one duty to ones fellow man. A human being comes into existence at conception, from that time forth until his natural death the obligations one has to his fellow humans apply to that person.

-

I am saying that the fundamental nature of human persons as distinct from other animals (which lack souls) derive from the fact that mankind has a soul, ergo his 'humanity' (in the sense of the differentiation from other animals) is a product of the fact that he has a soul. I was using sapience as an example of a fundamental aspect.

-

No I am not a creationist and do not believe in a seven earth-day creation of the universe. biblical hyperliteralism is primarily a protestant phenomenon and one that is fairly novel in christian theology, St Augustine for example held that the days in genesis are categorisation of didactic reasons within a singular instantaneous creation. Thus the creation account, fairly consistently amongst Catholic Christian theologians has been held non-literally, especially in the consideration that the act of creation itself is fundamentally a mystery of God, something that is unknowable to mankind save some divine revelation. (indeed to this day no one knows of the creation, we can only know theoretically what happened from a few seconds after it)

Oh and you might like to know that the idea of the big bang and the genesis of the dominant scientific theory as to the early history of the universe have their origin with a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître.

Why do modern men have a problem with Moses? Did God lie about creation? Did Moses lie about what God said? If Adam was not the first and Christ the Second, then is the New Covenant also not needed? Why is there a Church? Is religion good?

Do all Catholics hold to the answers of the above questions?

 

[Takhisis]

Which 'modern men' and which 'problem' with Moses?

 

[timtofly]

Which 'modern men' and which 'problem' with Moses?

biblical hyperliteralism is primarily a protestant phenomenon and one that is fairly novel in christian theology

People who take the Bible at face value. Did Moses exist?

 

[Takhisis]

I guess he did, but hyperliteralists are, as you say, mostly Protestants and they also add a lot of things they infer to have come from the Bible. Ask in Dommy's thread.

 

[timtofly]

I guess he did, but hyperliteralists are, as you say, mostly Protestants and they also add a lot of things they infer to have come from the Bible. Ask in Dommy's thread.

I asked Jehoshua, but probably will never get an answer.

 

[Ajidica]

you always can change your religion but not your skin color!

Skin color can be changed. Just as Michael Jackson's ghost!

 

[civ_king]

I am catholic myself but i just don't understand the use of such treads:

-why does a lot of catholics(and atheist militant also but it is ot the subject) try to convince people of their convictions instead of using the religion(or their convictions) to "ameliorate" themselves first?

Why does some catholics are very fatalist?

In my opinion, catholicism is a way to become more open-minded cause jesus way of thinking is for me the only doctrine that responsabilise(empowers) people instead of saying them "this is not your fault guys gods are not happy today, your horoscope is not good, the cards tell me you should stay at home, this is cause of the crisis dude" ect...)

-why does so many catholics(and other religion) use religion exactly like a culture or and ethnic group? Example: Middle east (catholic, orthodox, muslim suni, sia ect...), Ireland (Catholic, protestant) ect... Can we still call them Catholics if there is absolutely no spirituality in them?

I still think that a "religious discrimination"(like in middle age) is ""better"" than a racial discrimination(antiquity, renaissance) cause you always can change your religion but not your skin color!

The concept of race is an Enlightenment idea

 

[Smellincoffee]

The concept of race is an Enlightenment idea

Oh, horse pucky! Don't dare blame the same men who were writing about the Brotherhood of Man with humanity's prejudices. Racism is based on primitive instinct, not rationality.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Does the bread and wine in communion actually turn into the body and blood of Christ.

 

[_random_]

]
Perhaps, but the fact remains in my mind that such a thread would be sort of pointless as it would simply reflect the ideological spread of society in general on moral points. In effect a person could go to that thread on moral issues, and pick and choose a "christian" answer for his problem based exactly on what he already believes, thus making the thread sort of redundant in getting people to consider why they hold their own views, and to contemplate others. In fact I am worried that such a thread would almost be an example of religious indifferentism, which is why my support for such a thread is only tentative, and not very favourable.

Well, the questions wouldn't be exclusively moral to begin with, and I don't really see anybody using the thread for purposes like you described. Even if people did use it just to affirm their own views, it's not like that would be any change for the worse. It would present a good place to draw all the various permutations of the Problem of Evil and strawman criticisms of Christianity not based in Catholicism in particular, and for me to answer questions like Celticempire's, which is one of the aspects of Catholic theology even Family Guy managed to get right (although I don't get why they were serving the Eucharist during the homily.)

 

[Ajidica]

Does the bread and wine in communion actually turn into the body and blood of Christ.

During Confirmation, it was explained to me in a very long and convoluted process that I am able to sum up in one sentence:
"Yes, no, sometimes, not really, sort of, *mumble something about trinity*, accept it!"\

The concept of race is an Enlightenment idea

Hating on people based on where they are from has been around since the dawn of time. The Philosophes simply had the decency to give it a name.

 

[civ_king]

Oh, horse pucky! Don't dare blame the same men who were writing about the Brotherhood of Man with humanity's prejudices. Racism is based on primitive instinct, not rationality.

race=/=racism

During Confirmation, it was explained to me in a very long and convoluted process that I am able to sum up in one sentence:
"Yes, no, sometimes, not really, sort of, *mumble something about trinity*, accept it!"\


Hating on people based on where they are from has been around since the dawn of time. The Philosophes simply had the decency to give it a name.

In the Middle Ages they hated on infidels

 

[Jehoshua]

I'm confused! So, what is the source of natural evils? Why did they appear millions of years ago, and what the justification for their existence for tens of millions of years before humans appeared?

Ah I see what your talking about. This question sort of delves into the murky world of the moral theologian and as such it would perhaps be difficult to answer your question without raising more questions.

As to opinions on the topic in regards to natural evil, one opinion is that the limitations of the natural world, via disaster or deficiency cannot truly be called evil apart from the subjective aspirations and desires of fallen humanity, and thus "natural evil" is evil only in a sort of analogous way as a product of human desires and intentions, and of original sin and the sinful nature of mankind. This is also taken into consideration that the mechanics of creation fit into a scheme and that apparent disorder in fact fits into a grand design to so speak, a sort of order within what on the surface appears to be disorder, fitting into the intent of God.

Heres the article of evil on the Catholic Encyclopedia which might help you more than I can.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

Doesn't the fact the popemobile is armoured demonstrate a fatal lack of faith?

Serious question: Do you agree with the removal of limbo from Catholic teachings, along with the whole host of changes brought on by Vatican II?

The popemobiles armour only came about when Pope John Paul II got shot, he survived but presumably his security was having a fit at their lapse and decided to cover all bases.

-

Limbo never was Catholic dogma, it was and remains a theological opinion which is in fact still a legitimate theological position in the Church. Now of course it is not at the present time a dominant theological opinion but the fact is it remains a legitimate if unpopular position.

-

As to a whole host of changes that came with Vatican II, I am not opposed to Vatican II, it is a legitimate ecumenical council. What I am opposed too are the whole host of deviations from what the council actually said by certain clerics and "theologians", and the abuses that have henceforth occured throughout in particular the Church in the west. Particularly I am opposed to liturgical abuses in the mass, and to those who create scandal by espousing from the clerical state heretical teachings all in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II" which is anything but.

Wasn't Karl Benz protestant, why didn't the pope pick a Italian mobile or French?

He's German, so he got a german company to fix up his ride

Why do modern men have a problem with Moses? Did God lie about creation? Did Moses lie about what God said? If Adam was not the first and Christ the Second, then is the New Covenant also not needed? Why is there a Church? Is religion good?

Do all Catholics hold to the answers of the above questions?

Whats your point about the prophet Moses and what actually is your fundamental question... your just giving me a list of thinly related questions with little to do with what I said and you quoted.

All I am saying is that is fallacious to read the bible literally in every instance. If you did that then you would be living in perpetual fear of a multi-headed dragon emerging from the ocean for example. Incidentally this is why Scripture Alone is fundamentally problematic (in addition to the logical fallacy that its nowhere written in the bible...), to understand scripture you need to look at it in the context of sacred tradition and through the sacred magisterium of the Church. Otherwise you will have as many interpretations as there are people, and the shattering of the Church, as we very well see in protestantism.

Does the bread and wine in communion actually turn into the body and blood of Christ.

Yes.

The eucharistic species at the consecration change substantially (the fundamental substance or essence) from bread and wine, to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ whole and entire under the accidents (appearances) of bread and wine, which are henceforth substantially absent.

 

[Jehoshua]

Well, the questions wouldn't be exclusively moral to begin with, and I don't really see anybody using the thread for purposes like you described. Even if people did use it just to affirm their own views, it's not like that would be any change for the worse. It would present a good place to draw all the various permutations of the Problem of Evil and strawman criticisms of Christianity not based in Catholicism in particular, and for me to answer questions like Celticempire's, which is one of the aspects of Catholic theology even Family Guy managed to get right (although I don't get why they were serving the Eucharist during the homily.)

I suppose so, I guess I am just automatically wary of "ecumenical" things. If you want to start an "Ask a Christian" thread then go ahead.