Ask A Catholic IV

[timtofly]

It seems that the Jews wanted a Monarchy. They are still looking for a Monarchy. Why did Constantine decide that a Monarchy and a Central Location in Rome should be desired? Why did the church need a Pope? It seems to me that God can be God without a human in charge. Does setting up a human government or hierarchy distract from the intent of "knowing God"?

Judaism has survived without a "central" "authority". Would the church also have survived without Rome? Would the sciences be any different, if they had developed without constraint from the church?

I have some thoughts on America, but will wait till later.

 

[_random_]

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

That's good. What exactly is the justification for the continued use of Latin as a liturgical language? I get that old traditions die hard, but I don't see why Latin is considered so special or why it's still considered preferable even after the Church has acknowledged the acceptability of vernacular languages.

 

[NBAfan]

That's good. What exactly is the justification for the continued use of Latin as a liturgical language? I get that old traditions die hard, but I don't see why Latin is considered so special or why it's still considered preferable even after the Church has acknowledged the acceptability of vernacular languages.

I think Latin's main purpose is the symbology of everyone being united when worshiping by using same language.

 

[Ajidica]

So everyone is united by using a dead language?

 

[Jehoshua]

The most alive dead language

The thing is latin is a language that belongs to everyone in the Church, thus as a language that belongs to everyone it expresses the universality of the Church compared to say the vernacular in which you use your local language which is a marker of local identity and perhaps detracts from the reality of the universality of the Church (so you get spanish group in your parish, an english group, a polish group etc etc, each with their own masses, in their respectice vernaculars not interacting with each other). The univesal worship in latin (until the widespread adoption of the vernacular), means that if I was to go to india, then I would of attended exactly the same mass, with the same language (excluding the sermon) that I would have attended at my parish back home.

One other thing that is important to add. The Church also 'thinks' in latin, the latin language is the language in which Catholic doctrine and theology is expressed and as such the language is perfectly suited to worship in regards to expressing what the Church believes, as to say compared the less than accurate exposition of teaching that occurs in the (soon to be replaced with a better translation) vernacular form of the english language.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I know Latin, but wouldn't be able to speak it easily, it's kind of a hard language to learn, and I can't imagine anyone still thinking in Latin.

oh, and why did the Roman bishop (or whatever he was called back then) become the most powerful?

 

[Jehoshua]

I know Latin, but wouldn't be able to speak it easily, it's kind of a hard language to learn, and I can't imagine anyone still thinking in Latin.

Tell it to the Church , either way I could say the same thing about Chinese, yet a billion people still think in that exceedingly difficult language.

oh, and why did the Roman bishop (or whatever he was called back then) become the most powerful?

Well the roman see is the see of St Peter, who was Bishop of Rome and was martyred in the city. The bishops of Rome are as such the successors of St Peter who had a special role in the early Church (You are peter etc etc: matthew 16:18). However as to why Rome as an episcopal see became important, well it was the capital of the empire, it was only natural that it would become an important city in terms of ecclesiastical governance as the largest and most powerful city in the Empire. Indeed the city attracted christians early on presumably because of its nature as the centre of the known world of the time.

 

[_random_]

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"- St. Gregory the Great
Why was he so confident on this point?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Well the roman see is the see of St Peter, who was Bishop of Rome and was martyred in the city. The bishops of Rome are as such the successors of St Peter who had a special role in the early Church (You are peter etc etc: matthew 16:18). However as to why Rome as an episcopal see became important, well it was the capital of the empire, it was only natural that it would become an important city in terms of ecclesiastical governance as the largest and most powerful city in the Empire. Indeed the city attracted christians early on presumably because of its nature as the centre of the known world of the time.

My history teacher mentioned something about a dead Pope getting dug up and then put on trial and excommunicated. Is this true?

 

[Jehoshua]

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"- St. Gregory the Great
Why was he so confident on this point?

By universal bishop he probably means the hypothetical person who claims episcopal jurisdiction over everyone, as the sole bishop of the world so to speak. The pope is not some universal bishop, he has a role as guardian of the Church and in its governance but fundamentally the other bishops are sovereign in their dioceses as autonomous particular Churches within the one Catholic Church, and the pope can;t just go kick them out at will. Contrary to popular opinion the pope cannot do anything possible at a word. Thats why you hardly ever see a bishop removed from his diocese no matter how bad, and even then it is almost always a "voluntary retirement' occuring after years or decades of discussions with an erring bishop. Even that only happens if the bishop is clearly very bad, such as massively heretical.

As to why he was so confident. presumably because such a monolithic authority, one bishop over every person, would prefigure the universal reign temporally over the world of the antichrist himself. Not to mention it would be a departure from the modus operandi the Church has had since the beginning and generally not be a good thing (one bishop = absolute power).

My history teacher mentioned something about a dead Pope getting dug up and then put on trial and excommunicated. Is this true?

The Cadaver Synod, yes that did actually happen. The time period was one of great political instability.

 

[_random_]

Doesn't the doctrine of Papal supremacy claim that the pope has universal jurisdiction?

 

[Cynovolans]

My history teacher mentioned something about a dead Pope getting dug up and then put on trial and excommunicated. Is this true?

Yes, and Plotinus even has a history article on him.

 

[Jehoshua]

Doesn't the doctrine of Papal supremacy claim that the pope has universal jurisdiction?

The pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal power as vicar of Christ in the care of souls over the whole Church yes. But that is not universal episcopal jurisdiction such as that Pope Gregory the great so feared, his power over the whole Church is of a different nature than that a bishop enjoys in his diocese to this regard.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

have you ever played Medieval II total war?

 

[Jehoshua]

I have heard of it, but no.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I have heard of it, but no.

I was wondering, because it involves a lot of politicking to get your Cardinal to become Pope, including bribery, and often Popes are corrupt.

 

[Jehoshua]

There have been periods in history where such things have occured. Notably the Borgia popes. No one says the popes are impeccable (without sin) or that the Church cannot be corrupt. But even through the failings of mortal man we know that Christ has guaranteed its protection from theological error, and indeed even the most corrupt popes have not even attempted to change one iota of dogmatic teaching. As we say, the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints.

On the side I heard there was a jewish convert in one of the periods of most corruption in the Church, to the Catholic faith, he went to Rome and when he came back he requested to be baptised because (paraphrasing) "Nothing that corrupt could still be standing if it was only a human institution".

 

[civ_king]

If your going to use natural law their is no point obfuscating the fact your using it as a philosophical grounding for your argument. Just go right ahead and use it. Although might I suggest you familiarise yourself with the principles if you do use it.

Here are some sources

: http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

A point I think is going to be difficult when dealing with them. Our school is next to a farm, until a few years ago there were two male dogs who were always together and somewhat "intimate" (not for lack of females, there were a number there). Also when one dog was killed by a car the other never left his side, indeed the dog refused food and drink thus dying by his companion. How in blazes will I respond to them bringing that up?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Animals constantly violate the natural law.

 

[Jehoshua]

A point I think is going to be difficult when dealing with them. Our school is next to a farm, until a few years ago there were two male dogs who were always together and somewhat "intimate" (not for lack of females, there were a number there). Also when one dog was killed by a car the other never left his side, indeed the dog refused food and drink thus dying by his companion. How in blazes will I respond to them bringing that up?

what Lone Wolf said , not to mention they might not even bring the issue of the two dogs up.