Ask A Catholic IV

[Arakhor]

I didn't mention gay marriage, but it's a genuine question. If the church doesn't free people from oppression, what purpose does it serve?

 

[NBAfan]

I didn't mention gay marriage, but it's a genuine question. If the church doesn't free people from oppression, what purpose does it serve?

What does that mean? The Church's purpose is to get people to heaven.

 

[Takhisis]

The Church is not oppressing anyone.

Can someone bother to ask something they ahven't asked in one of the three rpevious threads?
And please, please get a Latin dictionary. It's just stupid to post the same question every five or six weeks.

 

[Jehoshua]

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

Homosexual people have the same right to marriage as everyone else, theres nothing stopping them. Although of course marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Anyways to answer arakhors sigs question, I must say I gree with NBAfan, the primary goal of the Church is the salvation of souls, from that primary service for the good of mankind, flows charity and other works for the temporal wellbeing of people. Love of God comes first, and proceeding from that love of God comes love of neighbour.

-

And I would have to agree with Takhisis, repitition does get irritating and it would be much better for certain individuals to avoid repeating themselves.

 

[timtofly]

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.

What does not kill us, makes us stronger?

I only protest when the Bible is trampled on.

 

[Jehoshua]

Well that was hardly relevant to the context considering every word of the ten commandments, catholic or not is in the bible.

Im more inclined to think that you protest anything that does not happen to agree with your particular interpretation of the bible, one that is, unique, even from the eyes of certain protestants on these forums. Although of course that is to be expected considering the relativism of protestantism encourages a great deal of theological diversity.

Either way, water under the bridge now.

 

[timtofly]

Well that was hardly relevant to the context considering every word of the ten commandments, catholic or not is in the bible.

Im more inclined to think that you protest anything that does not happen to agree with your particular interpretation of the bible, one that is, unique, even from the eyes of certain protestants on these forums. Although of course that is to be expected considering the relativism of protestantism encourages a great deal of theological diversity.

Either way, water under the bridge now.

Or that God did the same when nimrod built the tower of babel?

I tend to protest when there is diversity period, especially if it is interpreted out of context in the Bible. No one can pick and choose what they "feel" like accepting. You either take the Bible as a Whole, or leave it as a Whole. God and the Bible are not "a" religion, nor a denomination. Religion and denomination are human constructs, and they are the results of private interpretations, even if they have a billion followers. Philipians 2: It is obedience to God, not following after men, that makes the difference in one's life.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

What is your opinion of other Christian denominations?

 

[Jehoshua]

What is your opinion of other Christian denominations?

Protestantism = heresy
Eastern Orthodox = Schismatic with some questionable doctrines

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?

It just shows that the particular question is in an area where there is legitimate theological debate which was my point in saying it delves into the murky world of moral theologians. Despite some conceptions the Church does not dogmatise everything and the theologian still has room to debate so long as he doesn't go tossing doctrine out the window. I would add that the 'three solutions' idea you've come up with from the text is pretty simplistic. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, ergo the natural processes that to mankind cause natural evil could very much fit in within the divinely ordained order of the universe, with the suffering (come evil) afflicting human kind only existing as a product of those processes due to the fallen nature of mankind.

To sum up, this area is the province of theological inquiry, and is not a simple matter of summarily looking over doctrine.

Or that God did the same when nimrod built the tower of babel?

I tend to protest when there is diversity period, especially if it is interpreted out of context in the Bible. No one can pick and choose what they "feel" like accepting. You either take the Bible as a Whole, or leave it as a Whole. God and the Bible are not "a" religion, nor a denomination. Religion and denomination are human constructs, and they are the results of private interpretations, even if they have a billion followers. Philipians 2: It is obedience to God, not following after men, that makes the difference in one's life.

I agree with you completely, there is one God, and therefore there must be one truth. Thats one of the main reasons why I am Catholic and not a member of one of the 40 odd thousand protestant sects each with their competing versions of the "truth".

Protestantism through Sola Scriptura emphasises man over God by presuming man of his own flawed and individual intellect has the authority to interpret scripture and produce doctrine from what fundamentally is his personal opinion, protestantism thus fundamentally is a collection of man-made religions and as such it is false. Anything that is truth within protestantism is true because it retains it from the Catholic Faith from which its originators on the basis of their personal opinions departed from. For anything that departs from the Catholic Faith one iota is deception, deciet and error.

 

[Ajidica]

Eastern Orthodox = Schismatic

I was under the impression JP2 had a reconcilliation with them, specificaly the Greek Church IIRC.

I would also like to point out the Bishop of Rome broke with the Patriarch of Constantinople, so technicaly the Bishop of Rome would be the schismatic as Constantinople was held to be the senior of the patriarchates and bishoporics.

 

[Jehoshua]

I was under the impression JP2 had a reconcilliation with them, specificaly the Greek Church IIRC.

I would also like to point out the Bishop of Rome broke with the Patriarch of Constantinople, so technicaly the Bishop of Rome would be the schismatic as Constantinople was held to be the senior of the patriarchates and bishoporics.

Actually the Bishop of Rome was held to be senior in rank to the Patriarchate of Constantinople (which was second in precedence) and the split was fairly mutual, the popes delegates in hazy circumstances excommunicated the patriarch and then the mutual excommunications followed, with the occasional restoration of unity until around the 15th century and the fall of constantinople to the ottomans. To this day though the Eastern Orthodox recognise the primacy of the see of Rome, and note that if ecclesiastical union was to be achieved that it would have precedence over Constantinople (although they disagree on what papal primacy means in practice (First among equals [primacy of honour] vs papal supremacy)

Oh and irrespective of an improvement of relations they are not Catholic and are therefore schismatic regardless of whether they hold doctrinal error or not.

 

[El_Machinae]

To sum up, this area is the province of theological inquiry, and is not a simple matter of summarily looking over doctrine.

When you call it a province of inquiry, does this mean that there's hope of some explanation ever being discovered?

And, since there's no dogmatic reasoning given, then I'd be happy for Catholics just to answer with their personal thinking. What's the cause/timeline of natural evils (the text calls them metaphysical evils; I mean suffering imposed upon organisms by the nature of their surrounding) before the appearance of man? Does this correlate with the appearance of the Satan?

 

[Jehoshua]

The fact that the topic is an area of legitimate theological discussion would perhaps mean that a definite conclusion and determination that is universally accepted by the Church is not likely to be found any time soon. Although saying that, perhaps the Church through the agency of the Holy Spirit will in a few thousand years or at some indefinite period from this time forth guide the Church to the truth of the matter. That said though this really is a peripheral topic, its not really of concern to ones salvation, and thus I don't really see a need for the Church to dogmatise a particular position on this topic.

As to my personal thinking on the topic (note that it is personal thinking, and I am no expert in this particular area of enquiry) is that metaphysical evil is evil only by analogy in that the certain natural processes that are the source of metaphysicial evil thwart the aspirations and interests of human beings. An earthquake for example cannot be called evil in and of itself, its the products of that earthquake in the form of suffering and the harm of human interests that is the natural evil. Thus in this consideration I would think that this evil exists not distinct from the human condition, but rather as a product of original sin and the subsequent fallen nature of man (in particular the loss of the preternatural gifts).

 

[civ2]

Jehoshua
"Forum exchange program".
Considering there's only ONE Truth, what is your opinion on why there are at least 3 "religions" that worship the SAME One (and Only) G-d, yet consider each other heresy???
Not to mention YOU calling Protestants heretics just a few post above - but they DO worship the SAME G-d as you do.
Sorry, this was more of a "technical" question - don't take it personal.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's a pretty important question for Salvation, because part of Salvation is wrapped up in the concept of loving God! And then there's the question of how I could possibly love a being that caused an incredible number of my ancestors to be tortured to death for no discernible reason. One of the solutions to 'the Problem of Evil' is "God is not good". Surely, not having a reason to think that God is good is going to stand in the way of Salvation!

 

[Jehoshua]

@Civ2

Well technically Catholics don;t consider judaism heresy, its sort of in the special "anachronistic adherence to the old covenant that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of the cross" category. Its sort of difficult to be a heresy if your not of the same religion to begin with.

As to my opinion of differing religions worshipping the same God, it is not really problematic. Afterall Christ himself foretold that error would come to pass through human deviations, which is only natural since the first sin was disobedience to God. Other religions do worship God yes, but they worship God only imperfectly in that they do not posess the fullness of the truth. Instead they posess the truth only in what they (to a lesser or greater degree ) hold in common with the Catholic Church for indeed anything that deviates from the divine and Catholic faith even one iota is deceit, deception and error.

I think it's a pretty important question for Salvation, because part of Salvation is wrapped up in the concept of loving God! And then there's the question of how I could possibly love a being that caused an incredible number of my ancestors to be tortured to death for no discernible reason. One of the solutions to 'the Problem of Evil' is "God is not good". Surely, not having a reason to think that God is good is going to stand in the way of Salvation!

Not really I would think. Evil exists and that is a fact, we also know through the constant and divinely guarded faith of the Church that God is omnibenevolent and thus metaphysical evil is not attributable to any malevolance from God. Thus the question is of finding the precise nature of metaphysical evil within these theological truths that we already have certainty about (rather than secondguessing them). Thus matters of salvation in terms of doctrine and dogma is not really dependant on pondering the particulars of the nature of natural evil (thus why its the province of theological discourse rather than simple dogma) rather than on the consequences of its existence within the process of achieving salvation for individual souls. Thus the Church should and does focus on the means to achieve salvation, and on that which is necessary to that regard.

---

AND SOME QUESTIONS I MISSED

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

To inform people of the Catholic Faith, to evangelise, to correct and rebuke error.

-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?

The fundamental purpose of Christianity is the salvation of souls, and thus it is imperative on the christian (most especially the catholic) to work for that end, especially since we believe we have the means of salvation. However this outward manifestation of faith for the good of souls must correspond to an interior conversion to Christ and thus in practice not be bible bashing from the street box, but rather it must be mutual support as fellow travellers on the path of holiness. Indeed I think the words of St Francis are most apt

"Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words"

Why does some catholics are very fatalist?

Because human nature is fundamentally fallen and sinful and in acknowledgment of that it is quite easy to fall into a manner of resignation. However ultimately depression and nihilism are traps for the unwary as we must be constantly be mindful that the victory is won, and that our redemption in Christ our Saviour is near at hand.

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?

Because religion like culture and ethnicity is a defining identity. Indeed for me I fundamentally identify not as an Australian, but as Catholic. As to calling people Catholics if they lack the essence of the faith (ergo cultural catholics, and CINO's), we can call them Catholic in the loosest possible term (they are baptised members of the Catholic Church), but in any fundamental, interior and substantial way when it comes to the attitude of such people and their approach to the faith, perhaps you are questionable. Definitely you are less Catholic and impair your catholicity if for you the spring of faith flows only weakly and you deny (or ignore) certain truths of the faith.

 

[civ2]

Jehoshua
I have a few links that I'd like to hear your opinion on them.
Again, this is NOT personal, I'm using your thread the same way mine is used: "Ask a..." means exactly that.
If you would like to NOT respond, just say so - no problem.
Here:
Chosen People
Satan
Sin and Atonement
G-d is One
Messiah
More on Messiah
Mistranslations
Manufacturing verses
Isaiah 53
Isaiah again
Proof-texting
Psalm 110
Daniel 9
AGAIN, this is for purely technical opinion, don't take it personal, PLEASE!

 

[Jehoshua]

I am not really one who likes answering walls of texts or responding to links without any correspending question that expresses the questioners intent. Thus if you don't mind could you perhaps ask questions individually instead of giving me 13 links with no contextual question that expresses what precisely you want answered.

One question at a time please.

Oh and its pretty difficult to offend me so long as questions are made in the appropriate manner, in fact im usually the one who goes out of their way to ignore political correctness so its not like I find confrontation to be problematic. (such shafting of political correctness included calling the chaplain in my protestant high school a heretic and inquiring into certain protestant fallacies to him in front of the religion class, and lecturing a lapsed Catholic teacher in the same school on certain points of Catholic teaching they had issue with: this being a while ago now ofc)

 

[civ2]

Ok, sorry.
(Though I read the entire thing in maybe 5 minutes - each link is only half a page big mostly.)
There are few questions I wanna hear your opinion on (you can answer them in any order you'd like, I'm leaving until tomorrow evening - for OBVIOUS reasons):
1. According to Torah, there's no such thing as "new" covenant. (Link "chosen")
Q. How come Christians fail to see it?
2. "Oneness" of G-d. (Next 3 links)
Q. How come Christians speak of 3-in-1???
3. According to Jewish sources, J. wasn't even close to be a Messiah. (Last links)
Q. How come Christians say he was one, and even "upgrade" him to divinity?
Q. Why do they need to lie to back up their claims?

Q. Do you consider my questions as pointless attacks (not my intention), or actually useful infos (that is my intention)?

Thanks for you attention.

 

[Jehoshua]

1:New Covenant

The Torah doesn't speak of the new covenant because it is fundamentally the exposition of the old covenant (and the various laws particular to the jewish people such as the levitical code), the covenant had just been given to the jewish people, it was sort of necessary to work on the relevant covenant in the then and now. Not to mention the new covenant was not revealed to moses (the old covenant was).

That said however the old covenant is anticipatory, it looks forward to the new covenant and thus the new covenant is prefigured in its actions. Thus we see Christs sacrifice prefigured in the passover and at Yom Kippur, with both anticipating the final, eternal and expiatory sacrifice of Christ. Also I might like to add the Tanakh however does deal with the new covenant (Jeremias 31:31) in which God promised to Israel the fulfilment of the old law to its completion. Ergo God in his time revealed the existence of the future new covenant to the prophets.

As to failing to see it, rather its the jews through obstinancy that is common to mankind that fail to see the directional focus of the old covenant, and fail to see its fulfillment in Christ the saviour.

-

2:The trinity

The whole idea is somewhat confusing, which is to be expected considering God is incomprehensible to us puny mortals . However what I can say is that the trinity is not some idea of three gods (like mormonism). Rather its the belief that the one God ultimately subsists in three hypostases who mutually indwell, are co-substantial and co-eternal, with the hypostases interacting in perfect love through an everlasting and harmonious communion. Furthermore it is fallacious to say that each hypostases is distinct from another, The Father cannot be separated from the son and so forth. They are not "parts" of God. Also on another note one view has said that God could not have loved apart from the trinity, for from the harmonious communion between the hypostases the benevolence of God which moved Him to create is generated, a thing which would be absent in a monarchic God as in judaism. This being because God is complete in his perfection, and thus a monarchic God would have no need or necessity for love for God is complete. In the trinity God generates love through the communion of the persons, which then manifests in the desire to create in order to share that love.

addendum: Also I recall you have a panentheistic view of God where human beings are within God (you used a finger metaphor). How then is this different then having a multiplicity of personages withing God? Afterall each human being has a single personage and thus to say they are within God means that tacitly your saying that the single God has a plural nature, even more so than the christian view of the self-contained trinity.

3: Jesus as Messiah

That would be according to jewish sources thats hardly an objective basis of inquiry. Now of course if you look as scripture as the foundation from which ones determination on Christ as the messiah is formed you have a differentiation of opinion, with well established arguments for either case. Since such arguments are well established, would take up a lot of time and be beating on a very dead horse (in consideration of history) I do wish to go through them all here (especially since they are generically christian and since it is 1 in the morning my time atm )

As to why we say he is God the Son, second person of the trinity, the messiah and the saviour of mankind. Thats quite simple, because we believe he is and because that revelation has been passed down in the deposit of faith from Christ and the apostles.

As to lieing now that is simply a pointless attack. Furthermore it is simply a foolish and ignorant dismissal of an opponents point by arguing that it simply isn't true. Hate to break it to you, but just because you say something is false (or a lie) doesn't mean it is.