Ask A Catholic IV

[Takhisis]

race=/=racism

In the Middle Ages they hated on infidels

And on the people in the next village as well, especially if they were

nasty Protestants

 

[Jehoshua]

Certain individuals can't understand little jabs at protestantism and always assume the intent is malicious. The context was in reply to a question about how catholics "changed" the 10 commandments (check Ask A Catholic III, pg 49-50) by Timtofly, an occasionly irritating protestant. It was intended as an offside acknowledgement of the fact I was arguing with protestants on the topic.

 

[Takhisis]

It appears certain individuals can't understand little jabs at themselves and always assume the intent is malicious.

 

[Jehoshua]

I know yours wasn't malicious. But I am rather sick and tired of the pm's I got from irritated protestants in regards to that quote so I felt the need to say what I said.

 

[Linkman226]

The Pope is infallible, yes?

 

[NBAfan]

The Pope is infallible, yes?

When he talks to whole Church about morals and dogma, yes he is. But only on those matters.


I would just like to point out that every question you could ask about Catholics in the Catechism of the Church. Everything Catholics should believe is in there.

 

[Ajidica]

race=/=racism

Still doesn't mean everyone before the Enlightenment didn't spend their time hating on everyone else for various reasons.

In the Middle Ages they hated on infidels

In addition to people who were different from them. It seems almost as soon as Europe became exposed to 'love thy neighbor', swords became the preferred method of hugging.

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.

Interesting. I was under the impression it was ditched with Vatican II because my mom remembers going to church pre Vatican II and having to say Hail Marys to "save the unbaptised, heathen, African babies".

 

[MagisterCultuum]

What is your opinion of the new official English translation of the Roman Missal?

 

[NBAfan]

What is your opinion of the new official English translation of the Roman Missal?

I say improved translations are good.

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

Yes

 

[_random_]

In addition to people who were different from them. It seems almost as soon as Europe became exposed to 'love thy neighbor', swords became the preferred method of hugging.

I don't think that was really much of a change.

 

[Jehoshua]

When he talks to whole Church about morals and dogma, yes he is. But only on those matters.

I would add that infallibility only applies when said pronouncements on matters of faith and morals to the whole Church are made Ex Cathedra (from the chair) as well.

What is your opinion of the new official English translation of the Roman Missal?

Its not a perfect translation as it still has some vaugeness and less than accurate translations from the original, but it is exceedingly superior to the crappy translation that used to be used and thus I naturally support it.

Interesting. I was under the impression it was ditched with Vatican II because my mom remembers going to church pre Vatican II and having to say Hail Marys to "save the unbaptised, heathen, African babies".

Thats not necessarily anything to do with Limbo considering the only sure way the Church knows of to salvation is through baptism (which absolves all sin), and thereafter through fidelity to Christ and free reception of divine grace over the course of life. The prayers could easily be a manifestation of the theological opinion that it is possible for them to be saved by the grace of the Lord, and that it is fitting therefore to entrust their souls to the mercy of God.

 

[Linkman226]

Can you explain what Ex Cathedra means?

 

[_random_]

How profficient are you in Latin? (A legitimate question aimed at Jehoshua and company, not a smartass one aimed at Linkman).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Literally, "ex cathedra" is Latin for "from the chair." It does not however mean that the pope must be sitting on his throne, but rather distinguishes that he mist be acting in the role of his office rather than giving his personal opinions.

There is no comprehensive authoritative list of what papal decrees were infallible in the past, but these days the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decides whether to consider any new decree to be ex cathedra.

(I'm not a Catholic, but do speak Latin and remember this question being asked and answered multiple times.)

 

[Jehoshua]

How profficient are you in Latin? (A legitimate question aimed at Jehoshua and company, not a smartass one aimed at Linkman).

I would not say I am fluent in latin, but I am not a complete novice at it either.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

How offensive do you find this Red Bull commercial that just interrupted my online viewing of the Colbert Report?


Link to video.

 

[Jehoshua]

Meh, I won't go bombing the originator of this ads house or starting a riot in the street over it. It just reflects a general attitude in society at large. The attitude is so ubiquitous its hard to get shocked or angry at it, although of course it is totally an incorrect attitude to hold.

 

[Arakhor]

Since you seem to understand Catholic theology better than Dr. Gaillot, Jehoshua, I'd like you to actually answer his question in my signature.

 

[El_Machinae]

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

This is the relevant paragraph

Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes. Thus, animal and vegetable organisms are variously influenced by climate and other natural causes; predatory animals depend for their existence on the destruction of life; nature is subject to storms and convulsions, and its order depends on a system of perpetual decay and renewal due to the interaction of its constituent parts. If animals suffering is excluded, no pain of any kind is caused by the inevitable limitations of nature; and they can only be called evil by analogy, and in a sense quite different from that in which the term is applied to human experience. Clarke, moreover, has aptly remarked (Correspondence with Leibniz, letter ii) that the apparent disorder of nature is really no disorder, since it is part of a definite scheme, and precisely fulfills the intention of the Creator; it may therefore be counted as a relative perfection rather than an imperfection. It is, in fact, only by a transference to irrational objects of the subjective ideals and aspirations of human intelligence, that the "evil of nature" can be called evil in any sense but a merely analogous one. The nature and degree of pain in lower animals is very obscure, and in the necessary absence of data it is difficult to say whether it should rightly be classed with the merely formal evil which belongs to inanimate objects, or with the suffering of human beings. The latter view was generally held in ancient times, and may perhaps he referred to the anthropomorphic tendency of primitive minds which appears in the doctrine of metempsychosis. Thus it has often been supposed that animal suffering, together with many of the imperfections of inanimate nature, was due to the fall of man, with whose welfare, as the chief part of creation, were bound up the fortunes of the rest (see Theoph. Antioch., Ad Autolyc., II; cf. Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians 9). The opposite view is taken by St. Thomas (I, Q. xcvi, a. 1,2). Descartes supposed that animals were merely machines, without sensation or consciousness; he was closely followed by Malebranche and Cartesians generally. Leibniz grants sensation to animals, but considers that mere sense-perception, unaccompanied by reflexion, cannot cause either pain or pleasure; in any case he holds the pain and pleasure of animals to be parable in degree to those resulting from reflex action in man (see also Maher, Psychology, Supp't. A, London, 1903).

The summary seems to be three 'solutions'. (1) is that 'animals don't really suffer'. (2) is that 'God did it according to His plan, ergo it's not evil and (3) the suffering of animals is Biblically explained as being due to the fall of man.

Do these explanations resonate? Do any of these explanations even seem reasonable?

 

[NBAfan]

Since you seem to understand Catholic theology better than Dr. Gaillot, Jehoshua, I'd like you to actually answer his question in my signature

Not marrying in the church people of the same sex is not discriminating. Go get married elsewhere if you so desire.