Ask A Catholic IV

[civ_king]

Is it normal that, when I am at the bottom and suffering from long term unemployment, that I am constantly asking God for strength to function each day without going insane? Eventhough I turned my back on him years ago.

Normal? What the Hell is normal? Everyone is different, but God is the same. Sometimes it takes bad things to happen to realize how much we need God in our lives

 

[Jehoshua]

I suppose you know my next question: What is the donatist heresy?

Magistercultuum explores the political component fairly well, although I would argue that Constantine didn;t hand back the traditores their authority, rather the end of persecution enabled them to go back to hence they came so to speak to the ire of a number of those who remained faithful throughout. However the main problem is that the donatists believed that the state of grace of the administrator of a sacrament affected its validity, ergo if you were a sinful priest any sacrament administered by you to the donatists would be invalid. Their vision of the Church was one of living saints, rather than the Church as a hospital for sinners.

Secondly, there is Biblical evidence that those who commit certain sins shouldn't preach, even if repentant, from your least favorite chapter (The one that also affirms sola scriptura later on)

Nowhere in the bible is Sola Scriptura affirmed. You can read into your personal interpretation of a perfectly clear passage on divine inspiration all you want, but the fact remains that nowhere does the bible say that the bible (the canon of which it does not specify either) contains all that is necessary for salvation.

As to the quote in question, where does that say a repentant sinner cannot preach? It seems to me to be the requirements for ordination to begin with, and indeed candidates to the priesthood (who indeed go through the diaconate first) must fulfil certain requirements.

[On the consumption of blood]I asked this in the evangelical thread and never got an answer. Thought I'd try it out here.

Honestly I am not an jew from the era when the command was laid out so its not within my faculties to speculate as to whether it was merely a response to the imbibing of blood in pagan rituals. As to its present significance, I would presume the directive was given at the time for reasons of physical wellbeing, blood not naturally being the best thing for ones diet. Also purity could also be a factor, fortunately though it does not really require introspection on my part considering I don't consume blood products as a matter of course.

Sorry if that doesn't fill all the boxes, but at least its an answer I will be the first to admit that the area of dietary laws in relation to christianity is not my forte. I try though to make sure to answer every question directly instead of avoiding difficult questions and diverting topics. In fact (digressing ) when I was in a protestant high school I got told by the school captain no less that when talking on matters religious "at least you answer our questions, {school chaplain} just avoids questions". Meh I suppose it happens if you have some indefensible errors, you must either admit falsehood or avoid the question. Protestantism posesses many such errors.

If the Catholic church was founded on a man, was Peter the rejected cornerstone?

Christ is the ultimate foundation of our faith, without the incarnation of God the Son there would be not christianity. Christ is indeed the stone rejected by the architects which became the cornerstone. However this allegorical reference to Christ is distinct from appointment of Peter to head the Church. One that is very clear bibically.

You are Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church and not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it, to you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,

It is linguistically impossible in the english and the greek for Christ to address Peter, (who's name Cephas in aramaic, Petros in greek means rock (although the greek word for rock is Petra, which naturally had to be changed to the masculine form Petros)), digress referring to himself as the rock, and hten continue in granting Peter the powers of binding and loosing. The entire structure is Christ addressing Perter and thus the allegory of rock is as the foundational head of his Church from which it would be built up. Christ is the cornerstone of our salvation and the founder of the Church, Peter is the rock on which the founder built up that which he had established and bound upon himself. The allegories both use the petrolithic terminology, but they are distinct allegories.

From your "debate", it seems that obvously the Word by your definition it not.

is not what?

You keep trouncing the Scriptures like it was some football to be kicked around. Do you not agree that the Bible is the Word of God? Is it just some book the Jews and Catholics put together for the fun of it?

The bible is sacred scripture, it is not the word of God. The term Word of God firstly refers to the Logos, to God the Son, to Christ; secondly it refers to anything God has said to someone directly. Calling the bible the word of God is erroneous, it is inspired scripture, it is exceedingly important, the Church compiled inspired scripture into the bible precisely because it is important as a source of teaching and authority (scripture is useful for all teaching!) but it is most definitely not some God-written book which fell from heaven complete and entire, and it is most definitely not some incarnation of Christ!

Indeed if it was God manifested on earth then why don't you worship your bible, it IS the Word according to your belief and as such if you truly believe what you say you should be down on your knees in adoration of your God! Indeed to do not would be a grave disrepect to be sacrilegious, well it would be at least according to your (erroneous) belief that the bible is the Word embodied and manifest.

I keep saying that the church is a local body of believers who filled with the Spirit read and study the Bible and practice Godliness. Yet every verse I give that points to the Scriptures/Word as the embodiment of a physical God on earth you just

Mostly because you haven't brought up a single piece of scripture that says "scripture is the physical manifestation of God on earth", all you bring up is scripture that means something completely different, or scripture which only the wildest imagination could think means scripture = God (such absurdities being why the Church doesn't hold to sola scriptura [in addition to it being abiblical and anathema to the tradition passed down from the apostles]). In the context of our Sola Scriptura discussion for you to say what you say about scripture being a manifestation of God (itself wildly heterodox and heretical even to most protestants) such an assertion of yours is rendered absurd by its lack of biblical basis and indeed I note in your post here that you have not included one biblical quotation to support your views despite the fact I requested as much on a number of digressions you brought up on the Ask an Evangelical thread in regards to our original discussion on sola scriptura (and in regards to Sola Scriptura itself).

Is today's Catholicism that much removed from the Apostles?

Of course the Church is not exactly the same as it was then, the Church has deeper understanding of revelation now than it had then (Christ promised to send the Holy spirit to reveal all truth) as the deepening of understanding of divine revelation through the Holy Spirits agency in the Church continues as always. However fundamentally the traditions passed on from the apostles and held by the Church are the same now as then since nothing is altered or changed from what the apostles passed down to their successors, we believe the same things the difference is that understanding of those same things has deepened over time.

 

[Jehoshua]

Is it normal that, when I am at the bottom and suffering from long term unemployment, that I am constantly asking God for strength to function each day without going insane? Eventhough I turned my back on him years ago.

God permits suffering both as a test of faith, and also as a way of helping people become closer to him. You are having trouble materially, the comforts of worldly life are being restricted through your circumstances, but through these trials you are gaining spiritually. Where before you were blind to God, your suffering has opened your eyes.

From this trial something good has emerged should you take the opportunity to grasp it with both hands, and indeed you have been led towards something better than mere material gain, for ultimately material things are worth nothing, you can take nothing with you when you die...

 

[shadowplay]

What's the procedure for spilled communion wine?

 

[Takhisis]

Ten-second rule! Get a straw!

 

[GhostWriter16]

I smell rust from Jehoshua's axe

 

[civ_king]

What's the procedure for spilled communion wine?

280. If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently; and if any of the Precious Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy.

(General Instruction Roman Missal)

 

[Takhisis]

The water poured into the sacrarium? I'm sure something's missing.

 

[El_Machinae]

God permits suffering both as a test of faith, and also as a way of helping people become closer to him. You are having trouble materially, the comforts of worldly life are being restricted through your circumstances, but through these trials you are gaining spiritually. Where before you were blind to God, your suffering has opened your eyes.

From this trial something good has emerged should you take the opportunity to grasp it with both hands, and indeed you have been led towards something better than mere material gain, for ultimately material things are worth nothing, you can take nothing with you when you die...

Did you just describe suffering as a way of God talking to people? Not just describe, but justify? It seems akin to saying "I beat my wife because I love her SO MUCH."

To describe "something good emerging" from someone's suffering is to completely undermine the idea of it being wrong to hurt others. And to describe someone who punches in Morse Code to communicate as 'loving' also undermines the idea of love.

You're a pretty faithful Catholic, so it doesn't surprise me to see you spreading such ideas. What I cannot understand is why other Catholics don't spit Coke when they read your post.

 

[Lone Wolf]

To describe "something good emerging" from someone's suffering is to completely undermine the idea of it being wrong to hurt others.

Think of it this way: if you completely accept that idea of a permanently good afterlife for believers, permanently bad afterlife for non-believers, then a suffering that leads to believing is good from an utilitarian point of view. Of course, it all hands on that "if".

 

[timtofly]

Did you just describe suffering as a way of God talking to people? Not just describe, but justify? It seems akin to saying "I beat my wife because I love her SO MUCH."

To describe "something good emerging" from someone's suffering is to completely undermine the idea of it being wrong to hurt others. And to describe someone who punches in Morse Code to communicate as 'loving' also undermines the idea of love.

You're a pretty faithful Catholic, so it doesn't surprise me to see you spreading such ideas. What I cannot understand is why other Catholics don't spit Coke when they read your post.

I think that it is kind of hard to argue against God PERMITTING and God communicating as being the same thing. When God "kicked" man out of the garden, I think that it spoke volumes that God would no longer associate with man, but would let men have a "go" on their own. The temptation was that they would be as God, or even god's themselves. While it seems that God is more concerned with His highest Angel more than He is with mankind, God has given both an opportunity to repent and worship Him. One is still free to worship themselves or God, but one cannot change creation nor even the end of creation.

I am surprised that as a parent one cannot see that even though, they love a child, they cannot keep that child in a bubble. That child would never be able to face the dangers of this world on their own, but would forever be in a bubble next to their parent their whole life. If anything is out of sort, then God should not have put satan in charge of the earth. I am pretty sure that God knew what the outcome would be. Obviously someone who is in charge of a perfect world and messes it up, should never be in charge of a messed up world. That would be too much responsability.

 

[Jehoshua]

Did you just describe suffering as a way of God talking to people? Not just describe, but justify? It seems akin to saying "I beat my wife because I love her SO MUCH."

To describe "something good emerging" from someone's suffering is to completely undermine the idea of it being wrong to hurt others. And to describe someone who punches in Morse Code to communicate as 'loving' also undermines the idea of love.

You're a pretty faithful Catholic, so it doesn't surprise me to see you spreading such ideas. What I cannot understand is why other Catholics don't spit Coke when they read your post.

I am not talking about God causing suffering as a way of talking to people, I am saying God permits suffering (which is a product of mankinds original sin to begin with) and from it can bring about a greater good from the outwardly bad.

To point out a specific aspect of this, and the one I was thinking of in my original post, God permits suffering to exist also because through the restriction of material comfort, of pleasure, of what are due to our nature effectively distractions from God one can grow spiritually closer to God. An example of this would be the eremitical monks who go out in the desert. They live on a meager diet, live in isolation in uncomfortable conditions and through a strict routine, this being all day everyday with no breaks. This sort of thing is incomprehensible to most people, all these things cause one to suffer materially!, yet by separating themselves from the world and through the denial of worldy comforts they grow spiritually as a benefit for all mankind, they let go of the attachment to the material and turn towards the perfect goodness of God. Thus although they suffer materially, this material something through the grace of God is transformed into something good, not just for the monk, but for all mankind.

-

Addendum: Timtofly, this is Ask A Catholic, refrain from replying to questions, especially ones directed specifically at me. Feel free to ask questions though , Oh and Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Arakhor]

So God allows widespread millions to die of hunger, poverty and disease, just so a few ascetics can become closer to God??

 

[Jehoshua]

umm no, I used a specific example of how suffering can be turned into something good and used it as an example within a greater reason (not "the" reason) as to why suffering is permitted (which is something completely distinct from WHY suffering exists to begin with). As to your statement, last I checked (about five minutes ago) I did not say that the prospect of monastic enlightenment is the whole reason why God permits suffering, that was merely an example to a point. I suggest you refrain from putting words into my mouth to support whatever points you try to make.

Anyways as to the reason suffering, and evil itself, exists to begin with, it is because of original sin and the fallen nature of mankind. Mankind lost the preternatural gifts it was originally endowed with and thus became subject to suffering amongst other things. But your comment goes back to the problem of evil, which I have addressed before on multiple occasions, and which is another topic alltogether.

 

[Takhisis]

Did you just describe suffering as a way of God talking to people? Not just describe, but justify? It seems akin to saying "I beat my wife because I love her SO MUCH."

To describe "something good emerging" from someone's suffering is to completely undermine the idea of it being wrong to hurt others. And to describe someone who punches in Morse Code to communicate as 'loving' also undermines the idea of love.

You're a pretty faithful Catholic, so it doesn't surprise me to see you spreading such ideas. What I cannot understand is why other Catholics don't spit Coke when they read your post.

His post is misunderstandable.

So God allows widespread millions to die of hunger, poverty and disease, just so a few ascetics can become closer to God??

No, no, no. He allows this to happen. Full stop. And he urges us to fix it.

 

[Agent327]

To point out a specific aspect of this, and the one I was thinking of in my original post, God permits suffering to exist also because through the restriction of material comfort, of pleasure, of what are due to our nature effectively distractions from God one can grow spiritually closer to God.

Isn´t experiencing God a form of pleasure? Indeed the supreme form of pleasure? Or is, in your view, even this a distraction from God, and therefore something ascetics should refrain from? How about the pleasure of being, say, Holy Father? Or perhaps, in your view, there is no positive feeling at all in being supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic church? Is perhaps, in your view, any good feeling a distraction from divinity?

umm no, I used a specific example of how suffering can be turned into something good and used it as an example within a greater reason (not "the" reason) as to why suffering is permitted (which is something completely distinct from WHY suffering exists to begin with). As to your statement, last I checked (about five minutes ago) I did not say that the prospect of monastic enlightenment is the whole reason why God permits suffering, that was merely an example to a point. I suggest you refrain from putting words into my mouth to support whatever points you try to make.

Anyways as to the reason suffering, and evil itself, exists to begin with, it is because of original sin and the fallen nature of mankind.

Evil exists because we are all sinners. So it´s human nature to sin. So there will always be evil. Fair enough.

I am not talking about God causing suffering as a way of talking to people, I am saying God permits suffering (which is a product of mankinds original sin to begin with) and from it can bring about a greater good from the outwardly bad.

But if we are all sinners, where does this ´good´come from? If we are all sinners, aren´t we all evil?

So God allows widespread millions to die of hunger, poverty and disease, just so a few ascetics can become closer to God??

You forget that these ascetics are still sinners. We are all doomed in Catholicism. Luckily Catholicism forgives anything, even paedophilia. But not condoms. They are evil. Lucky for us, we are all sinners and will use condoms. Or not. Whichever is the most appealing sinful act.

Addendum: Timtofly, this is Ask A Catholic, refrain from replying to questions, especially ones directed specifically at me. Feel free to ask questions though , Oh and Merry Christmas everyone!

I sincerely apologize for taking this thread serious and answering a question.

You're a pretty faithful Catholic, so it doesn't surprise me to see you spreading such ideas. What I cannot understand is why other Catholics don't spit Coke when they read your post.

I´d say Jehoshua is a rather doctrinary Catholic. As I mentioned earlier, he can hardly be called mainstream, as a Catholic, that is. And I doubt many other Catholics follow this thread...

 

[Jehoshua]

Isn´t experiencing God a form of pleasure? Indeed the supreme form of pleasure? Or is, in your view, even this a distraction from God, and therefore something ascetics should refrain from? How about the pleasure of being, say, Holy Father? Or perhaps, in your view, there is no positive feeling at all in being supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic church? Is perhaps, in your view, any good feeling a distraction from divinity?

Experiencing God is a joy. there is a difference between pleasure and true joy, they are not simply the same thing in christian thought. Pleasure is something subjective and comes from engagement with the material world, joy however is a grace from God.

But if we are all sinners, where does this ´good´come from? If we are all sinners, aren´t we all evil?

Because humanity is not completely corrupted and still contains the spark, the potential for good thus giving it the ability, with the grace of God, to turn away for its inclinations to sin.

You forget that these ascetics are still sinners. We are all doomed in Catholicism. Luckily Catholicism forgives anything, even paedophilia. But not condoms. They are evil. Lucky for us, we are all sinners and will use condoms. Or not. Whichever is the most appealing sinful act.

Actually we are not doomed, we have been offered salvation by Jesus Christ, it merely requires us to walk through the door. As to forgiveness God is willing to forgive everything save the unforgivable sin, that is in sacred scripture, God is merciful, and even the most appaling sinner, if he repents with a contrite heart and confesses his sin to God through the sacrament of penance (or if he is perfectly contrite) has available to him God's absolution and clemency. However absolution does not negate temporal punishment due to sins, indeed part of being repentant is to face the consequences of ones sin and also to depart from it. Unfortunately a great number of individuals in all walks forget that. As to ascetics yes they are still sinners, as are we all.

I sincerely apologize for taking this thread serious and answering a question.

Its ask a Catholic, non-catholics ask questions and Catholics answer. non catholic can then debate on his question.

I´d say Jehoshua is a rather doctrinary Catholic. As I mentioned earlier, he can hardly be called mainstream, as a Catholic, that is. And I doubt many other Catholics follow this thread...

And you presume truth is based on popular opinion. Ergo if most Catholics do something its perfectly fine. The reality however is that the Church has teachings that are infallible and are to be held definitively as true by all the faithful, if someone doesn't believe in those, they depart from the Catholic faith.

As a certain blessed once said. Whats wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and whats right is right even if no one is doing it.

 

[NBAfan]

I´d say Jehoshua is a rather doctrinary Catholic. As I mentioned earlier, he can hardly be called mainstream, as a Catholic, that is. And I doubt many other Catholics follow this thread...

Most serious Catholics believe the same thing as Jehoshua is saying.

 

[Agent327]

The crux being most serious Catholics.

Experiencing God is a joy. there is a difference between pleasure and true joy, they are not simply the same thing in christian thought. Pleasure is something subjective and comes from engagement with the material world, joy however is a grace from God.

Such gracious words, and yet you dodge the issue I raised.

And you presume truth is based on popular opinion. Ergo if most Catholics do something its perfectly fine. The reality however is that the Church has teachings that are infallible and are to be held definitively as true by all the faithful, if someone doesn't believe in those, they depart from the Catholic faith.

How do you know I presume truth is based on popular opinion? Isn´t that rather presumptuous of you? I certainly haven´t provided any example of it.

And I really must correct you again: the Church does not have infallible teachings. And I note again you do not really address the issue.

 

[Jehoshua]

The crux being most serious Catholics.

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

Such gracious words, and yet you dodge the issue I raised.

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.

How do you know I presume truth is based on popular opinion? Isn´t that rather presumptuous of you? I certainly haven´t provided any example of it.

And I really must correct you again: the Church does not have infallible teachings. And I note again you do not really address the issue.

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.