Questions for a Catholic

Post by 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

What is the Catholic view of Dinosaurs?

None. They have nothing to do with Catholic teaching.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I only ask one thing.

Logically prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that God DOES, in fact, exist. As in, give me a hard fact that proves it.

When you can do that, then you'll have successfully lifted my disgustment of people who blindly believe in their religion because it's the "moral" or "right" thing to do.

EDIT: And no I didn't read the rest of the thread, so if someone else already asked this, humor me.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Descartes Ontological proof:

I think, therefore I am.
I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.
There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e., the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea).
I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.
My idea of perfection is the most objectively real idea that I have.
The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance.
Therefore, God must exist.

Explication of premises:

Premises 1 and 2 are incorrigible. That is, they cannot be doubted. Premise number 3 rests upon the principle of sufficient reason. It points out that any cause must have at least as much reality as any effect that it has. If it did not, then the cause would not be sufficient to produce the effect. Another way of saying this is that it is impossible to derive the more perfect from the less perfect. Premise number 4 is Descartes' fourth innate idea. If one denies that one has an idea of perfection, then I can give it to them, though this is misleading. The idea is already there, for it is innate. My pointing it out to someone simply makes the idea discursive. Once perfection is pointed out to someone, then they cannot deny having the idea. Premise number 5 is not quite as easy. The substance doctrine tells us that if there is anything, then that thing has to be either a substance or an attribute of a substance. Attributes are constantly changing and are relative to a perceiver while substances remain numerically one. Given this, my idea of a substance has more objective reality than my idea of an attribute because a substance has more formal reality than an attribute. Likewise, my idea of an infinite substance has more objective reality than my idea of a finite substance, and these are the only possible things that can cause an idea to emerge in my mind. Therefore, my idea of infinite substance must be the most objectively real idea that I have. Premise 6 says that this idea could only have come from God. Since I cannot derive the more perfect from the less perfect, then the idea had to have come from God because everything else in the world is imperfect. So, the idea had to have come from God. If one says that she got the idea from her grandmother, then where did she get if from? We can repeat the question until we find that the ultimate source must be God. Therefore, God exists.

Anselm's Ontological argument:

By "God" we mean "a being than which no greater being can be conceived"
We understand what it means to speak of a being than which no greater can be conceived. We understand what these words mean.
We can conceive of such a being's existing in reality.
If we understand what it means to speak of X, then X exists in the understanding.
"God" exists in the understanding.
Suppose that "God" exists in the understanding but not in reality.
"God" in fact exists in the understanding alone, but he may be conceived to exist in reality as well as in the understanding.
If something exists in the understanding alone, but can be conceived to exist in reality, then that thing can be conceived to be greater than it actually is.
"God" can be conceived to be greater than it actually is.
God exists in reality.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

EDIT 2: Also (and again, humor me if this has already been asked), how do you justify all the blood on Catholic's/Christian's hands? All the wars and crusades carried out in the name of God? As I understand it, there have been more accounted deaths in the name of God than there have been for any other reason in every other war throughout human history. In fact, religion has caused more upheaval alone than land, water, money, politics, etc etc., combined.

You've got to separate Catholic from Catholicism. People are sinful.

Post by Zoltas

I just wanted to know, what are the Catholic Churches teachings on mixed religion marriages?

I only ask one thing.

Logically prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that God DOES, in fact, exist. As in, give me a hard fact that proves it.

Prove God doesn't exist?

Apart from silly arguments like that, my opinion in why people would believe in God, is that there alot of things that are hard to explain, a God like being comforts people who are scared of the unknown. Besides the teachings of the Catholic church are put in place to protect people, and overall are good guidelines to follow throughout your life.

Without a faith in some higher power, what is there to live for? without faith, life is meaningless maybe not that entity that Christians refer to as 'god' but some sort of being that has control over things. Its comforting

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I just wanted to know, what are the Catholic Churches teachings on mixed religion marriages?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) requires even greater circumspection.

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.

1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband." It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith. Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

tl;dr - It is allowable, but only if certain conditions are met.

Post by Zoltas

Thanks very much!

Post by 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I love this teaching- you can only marry the love of your life, who happens to be in a "cult" only if we agree to it.
You're using cult in an equivocal sense of the word. And it makes sense if you actually stop to think about it instead of ridiculing it right off the bat as you're apt to do. If marriage really is total self-giving (as Catholics believe) having different beliefs can cause very serious problems in that self-giving.

Ok Hyper I have a new one for ya-
What is the point of intelligent design, why would God create everything, wait roughly 13 billion years, just for humans?
Why did God not just make Earth, the laws of physics, chemistry and so on roughly 6,000 years ago? What was the point of all that downtime if we are his final product?

I'd ask you the opposite question: why not? God created the laws of physics. By those very laws, it would take x billion years for a suitable planet to appear. God doesn't work against nature, he works with it.
Secondly, no dinosaurs/prehistoric life = no fossil fuels. No time = no starlight. Etc. Yes, God could have "pulled some stings" to work that into a 6k year plan, but that doesn't make sense--why would he create a system just to break it?

Post by Lecks

Without a faith in some higher power, what is there to live for? without faith, life is meaningless maybe not that entity that Christians refer to as 'god' but some sort of being that has control over things. Its comforting

Differing views, I suppose. The thought of an omnipotent being is anything but comforting to me, besides being paradoxical it's also scary as f***.
As far as I'm concerned the reason to keep going is to simply make it to the next day, procreate, raise your offspring and then die in the knowledge that your genes have been passed down to the next generation.
Anything that happens aside those things are a bonus or obstacles that need to be overcome.

A simplistic view, I know, but comforting to me.

Post by Squishalot

God created the laws of physics. By those very laws, it would take x billion years for a suitable planet to appear. God doesn't work against nature, he works with it.

By those laws, there can't possibly have been a 'first' mover. God, by definition, has to exist outside of our physical universe and beyond human conception. So perceiving physics to continue ad infinitum isn't really that much of a stretch, relative to perceiving a single being who isn't bound by the laws of physics.

Anyway, here's a few for you to ponder - and for the record, I'm agnostic but went to a Protestant church when I was younger, my girlfriend's Catholic, and my best friend and his wife are Anglican, so I've had a lot of Bible study time in the past :)

1) Why does the Catholic Church take different interpretations of the Bible from other Christian denominations, and on what basis? (The same question could be applied to any other denomination, granted, but you're opening yourself up, so...)

2) Following on, what makes the Catholic interpretation any more 'right' than any other denomination?

3) What is the purpose of the numerous Catholic rituals, when they're not prescribed by the Bible? Again, what makes them any more 'right' or 'necessary', relative to other denominations who might not follow such rituals? (Think, taking of Holy Communion, or any of the Sacraments for that matter, the very prescribed format of a Catholic church service)

4) Often, when it comes to relationships between Christians and non-Christians (slightly more general question), people who disagree with the notion quote the following passage from 2 Corinthians 14-17:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."

Why shouldn't this be interpreted as 'Christians should remove themselves from non-Christians and have absolutely no dealings with them whatsoever'?

5) Are teachings of the Disciples treated as Gospel? (Well, yes they are, but should they be followed to the same strictness as, for example, teachings by Jesus?)

6) Revelations 1:8 reads:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

In the Latin version, it reads as capital Alpha and capital Omega, which represent the first and last letters of the Latin alphabet. When the Catholic Church translated the Bible, why wasn't this translated as A and Z when converted to English? Especially seeing as the original Hebrew version actually refers to the 'start' and the 'end' (after translating)

Ok, that's enough for now. I really should get some work done today. Randomness is all too addictive :P

Edit: 1 more quick one.

7) I've got a Catholic friend who's married to a staunch athiest. She asked me the following question some time ago before they got engaged, when she was concerned about the long-term'ness of their relationship:

"How do I tell my kids in the future that Daddy is going to go to Hell?"

Post by 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

I'd ask you the opposite question: why not? God created the laws of physics. By those very laws, it would take x billion years for a suitable planet to appear. God doesn't work against nature, he works with it.
Secondly, no dinosaurs/prehistoric life = no fossil fuels. No time = no starlight. Etc. Yes, God could have "pulled some stings" to work that into a 6k year plan, but that doesn't make sense--why would he create a system just to break it?

If you do not mind, can you go into more depth on this, I promise I will not argue anything you have to mention so long as you behave and not try to tempt me, but I think you were too vague here. Thanks.

I agree with lostguide in this respect.

God, as you say, set things in motion. At that point in time, everything that currently exists, existed back then (laws of physics prohibiting destruction of matter). Everything would have had a velocity at that point in time, including light travelling through space.

So why would God choose 13million years ago, as opposed to 6 thousand years ago, as opposed to 25 million years ago? He shouldn't have a preference for any particular point in time. The arbitrary number just happens to fit nicely with what science tells us about the universe, helping the theories to coexist.

When you start a game of Sim City, do you start with an empty map, or one that's been populated already?

Edit: In case it wasn't clear enough, this is an argument and explanation, in one.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

By those laws, there can't possibly have been a 'first' mover. God, by definition, has to exist outside of our physical universe and beyond human conception. So perceiving physics to continue ad infinitum isn't really that much of a stretch, relative to perceiving a single being who isn't bound by the laws of physics.

True, you can't prove the the universe isn't infinite in time or space (philosophically). However, first-mover and that whole proof is not dependent on time. Think of it this way--my finger is pushing down the 'f' key, electronic pulses are pushing the finger, the locomotive part of my brain is pushing that, etc. None of that is over time necessarily (it can take place over time). There still has to be a first-mover of that motion, or else the action couldn't have taken place.

Not sure if you were actually commenting on the first-mover proof or not, but that's the short of it.

1) Why does the Catholic Church take different interpretations of the Bible from other Christian denominations, and on what basis? (The same question could be applied to any other denomination, granted, but you're opening yourself up, so...)
This is going to sound biased, but bear with me. The Catholic Church is in full communion with Christ. The Protestant Churches are in partial communion. So while they retain a large amount of the truth, they don't have the fullness of truth. That's the best explanation I can give without addressing individual passages.

2) Following on, what makes the Catholic interpretation any more 'right' than any other denomination?
Again, because we retain the fullness of revealed truth. I can give you concrete reasons if you give me a specific passage.

3) What is the purpose of the numerous Catholic rituals, when they're not prescribed by the Bible? Again, what makes them any more 'right' or 'necessary', relative to other denominations who might not follow such rituals? (Think, taking of Holy Communion, or any of the Sacraments for that matter, the very prescribed format of a Catholic church service)
You have to make a couple of distinctions. First between dogma and Canon law. Dogma is an unchanging truth: eg the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Canon law is not doctrine, but rather is an internal ecclesiastical law within the Catholic Church (essentially the religious version of a legal system).

As with any legal system, it can change to suit the needs of the time. One example would be priest celibacy. That is not a dogma/doctrine but rather a Canon norm. There was a time (and there still are places) where priests are allowed to marry.

Secondly, there is no one prescribed format for the Mass. In fact there are dozens (called rites). Those are all matters of Canon law.

So to get back to your question. Every sacrament has a matter and form that must be present. In the case of the Eucharist, the matter is bread and wine, and the form are the words of consecration. Those are dogmatic, and cannot change. The rest falls under Canon law.

4) Often, when it comes to relationships between Christians and non-Christians (slightly more general question), people who disagree with the notion quote the following passage from 2 Corinthians 6:14-17:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."

Why shouldn't this be interpreted as 'Christians should remove themselves from non-Christians and have absolutely no dealings with them whatsoever'?

Actually the Greek ἑτεροζυγοῦντες (unequally yoked) is a reference to the marriage laws on the Old Testament. It's funny that you bring this up in light of the earlier question that I answered.
So I would tell those Christians who throw that verse around to ward off unbelievers to read their bibles a little closer next time.

5) Are teachings of the Disciples treated as Gospel? (Well, yes they are, but should they be followed to the same strictness as, for example, teachings by Jesus?)
If you think about it, nest to none of what is attributed to Jesus in the Bible is word for word. The gospels were written many years after his ministry. So technically the whole of the New Testament are the teachings of the Apostles. However as Catholics we believe that God watched over them as they wrote, inspiring them and protecting them from theological error.
So, in short, yes. It's all the inspired word of God.

6) Revelations 1:8 reads:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

In the Latin version, it reads as capital Alpha and capital Omega, which represent the first and last letters of the ~~Latin~~ Greek alphabet. When the Catholic Church translated the Bible, why wasn't this translated as A and Z when converted to English? Especially seeing as the original Hebrew version actually refers to the 'start' and the 'end' (after translating)

Well it's actually Greek, not Latin. The reason is twofold. Firstly Alpha and Omega were spelled out in the Greek, they weren't just written as the letters. I think that in and of itself is reason enough to keep them as it.
Secondly, the phrase "Alpha and Omega" had a meaning that modern "A and Z" doesn't have: as you noted, "the beginning and the end." So in order to preserve the meaning, it's best left in Greek.
Lastly, Revelation was written in Greek, not Hebrew. So there is no 'original Hebrew' version.

7) I've got a Catholic friend who's married to a staunch atheist. She asked me the following question some time ago before they got engaged, when she was concerned about the long-term'ness of their relationship:

"How do I tell my kids in the future that Daddy is going to go to Hell?"
The Catholic Church has not and never will condemn anyone to hell. Rather than dwell on something like that, she should be doing what every Catholic should be doing in marriage: direct herself towards the salvation of the other. That's a far cry from condemning him to hell.

Post by Squishalot

This is going to sound biased, but bear with me. The Catholic Church is in full communion with Christ. The Protestant Churches are in partial communion. So while they retain a large amount of the truth, they don't have the fullness of truth. That's the best explanation I can give without addressing individual passages.

It's very biased :) It's essentially a circular argument - "I'm the closest to Christ, because I defined it as much, and you can trust me on that because I'm the closest to Christ." Going back to the Bible each time is really the only way you're going to get the closest message to what God prescribed, but there are other denominations that shadow the Bible a lot closer than Catholicism does.

So to get back to your question. Every sacrament has a matter and form that must be present. In the case of the Eucharist, the matter is bread and wine, and the form are the words of consecration. Those are dogmatic, and cannot change. The rest falls under Canon law.

That still doesn't answer the question of why it's done, when it's not prescribed in the Bible? And there are a number of things that are being laxed, such as priest celibacy, that are addressed in the Bible, that are being reviewed.

If we link it back to the Constitution argument, the Bible is essentially the Church's Constitution, and Canon law forms the law surrounding it. But all things considered, the law shouldn't be changed in such a way that circumvents the original purpose of the constitution (Bible). And likewise, all the additional laws that go beyond what the constitution prescribes aren't necessary. So why place so much importance on it?

Actually the Greek ἑτεροζυγοῦντες (unequally yoked) is a reference to the marriage laws on the Old Testament. It's funny that you bring this up in light of the earlier question that I answered.
So I would tell those Christians who throw that verse around to ward off unbelievers to read their bibles a little closer next time.

Awesomeness :) I'll send an email to Hillsong right away ;)

So technically the whole of the New Testament are the teachings of the Apostles.

I ask, because Disciples like John instructed people to remain celibate and unmarried. So should we be taking that to mean that the most 'holy' place to be is to remain unmarried? And what does that suggest for our married priests now?

There are others, but I'm at work, and we'll be here for ages if we go through passage by passage.

Well it's actually Greek, not Latin.

Yes, I'm just tired and running off precious little sleep, in between full time work, part time work and an honours thesis =__=;; Ok, carrying on...

Secondly, the phrase "Alpha and Omega" had a meaning that modern "A and Z" doesn't have: as you noted, "the beginning and the end." So in order to preserve the meaning, it's best left in Greek.

One would have imagined then, to preserve the meaning, one would leave the whole New Testament in Greek then? Where's the logic behind translating part, but not all, of the Bible? Follow on question later. And my bad on the Hebrew bit - I thought the Greek was translated from Hebrew, not vice versa.

The Catholic Church has not and never will condemn anyone to hell. Rather than dwell on something like that, she should be doing what every Catholic should be doing in marriage: direct herself towards the salvation of the other. That's a far cry from condemning him to hell.

Well..... yes and no. Excommunication was generally condemning someone to be forever apart from God, which is as good as Hell as it gets, really. But realistically speaking, you're not going to explain to an 8 year old the semantics of "going to Hell" and "not being with God". White and black, people don't teach kids shades of grey until they're old enough to understand. And they're going to pop the question about Daddy long before they understand.

At this point in time, I would be calling upon the other passage from Corinthians that you quoted earlier.

Anyway, here's the other question I had, in response to your earlier reply:

8) The principle of inerrancy - how can the Catholic Church claim that the Bible is without error on certain matters, but permitted to contain errors on others? "My textbook is the whole truth, except when you prove it wrong, but even though you prove part of it wrong, the rest is still true and you can trust that."

Furthermore, if the Latin Vulgate is treated by the Catholic Church as the 'inerrant' copy of the Bible, why would God have preserved the text up until the gathering of the documents, but not preserved it since then? (It obviously hasn't been preserved, since there are countless different versions of the Bible now, with fairly significant deviations in interpretation.)

Finally, if the Bible is truly inerrant, and without contradiction, then how can there be contradiction between the Old and New Testaments?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

It's very biased :) It's essentially a circular argument - "I'm the closest to Christ, because I defined it as much, and you can trust me on that because I'm the closest to Christ." Going back to the Bible each time is really the only way you're going to get the closest message to what God prescribed, but there are other denominations that shadow the Bible a lot closer than Catholicism does.
Biased, yes, but it's actually not circular. As I explained earlier in the thread, Catholicism is not a sola scriptura faith, we believe in Scripture and Tradition. John 21:25 states pretty clearly that there was more to Jesus' earthy ministry than was written many years after his death.
And btw, we're not the ones who defined ourselves as closest to Christ. It's a historical fact that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by the Apostles. The protestants broke away from the Catholic Church not he other way around.

That still doesn't answer the question of why it's done, when it's not prescribed in the Bible? And there are a number of things that are being laxed, such as priest celibacy, that are addressed in the Bible, that are being reviewed.
It is prescribed in the Bible (Luke 22:19 is just one of many).
And I'm not sure what your point with priestly celibacy is. Are you saying the Bible does say you have to be married? If so, where?

If we link it back to the Constitution argument, the Bible is essentially the Church's Constitution, and Canon law forms the law surrounding it.
Not quite. The constitution was made by the states, and thus can be changed by the states. The bible was inspired directly by God, so it cannot be changed as such. And that view of Canon law isn't quite right either. Canon law is there for the purpose of structuring the Church. The Church has decided that it is in everyone's best interests that priests be required to be celibate. As Catholics were are required to follow it (it's Canon law after all).
Try this analogy instead. Think of the Catholic Church as a club that was founded in the United States. The club has a charter (it might only allow in men ages 20-40 , and require them to pay 10 bucks a month). Those club rules are what Canon law is--they are man-made and can be changed to fit the needs of the time, but they do serve the higher cause of the club itself. The bible would be more like the actual laws of the US (where the club is located). The actions of the club (including it's own rules) can only be done within the context of the greater US law.
That analogy work for you?

But all things considered, the law shouldn't be changed in such a way that circumvents the original purpose of the constitution (Bible). And likewise, all the additional laws that go beyond what the constitution prescribes aren't necessary. So why place so much importance on it?
I think these points are answered in the analogy above.

So technically the whole of the New Testament are the teachings of the Apostles.

I ask, because Disciples like John instructed people to remain celibate and unmarried. So should we be taking that to mean that the most 'holy' place to be is to remain unmarried? And what does that suggest for our married priests now?
Celibacy is a higher calling the married life...there is no question. It is a calling to rise above human emotion and desire and to aim that all completely at God--it's a supernatural calling. However it's just that, a calling (vocation), not everyone is called to that (for obvious reasons lol).

One would have imagined then, to preserve the meaning, one would leave the whole New Testament in Greek then? Where's the logic behind translating part, but not all, of the Bible? Follow on question later.
Because then no one would understand it lol...and that defeats the purpose. First of all, there is no one translation...I could list off 20 or so different Catholic versions. Secondly, just because it's translated into your language does not mean you should forget about the original. That's why you'll see me quoting the Greek, Latin (not an original biblical language, but it's a lot closer than English), and Hebrew. If there is any dispute over meaning, always go to the original. Translations are meant to help those who can't take the time to learn fluent Greek/Hebrew understand what is being written.

Well..... yes and no. Excommunication was generally condemning someone to be forever apart from God, which is as good as Hell as it gets, really.
Wrong actually. Here's the official doctrine:
"Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication."

Notice hell, nor God, is mentioned even once. Excommunication is a statement by the Church that it no longer recognizes the person as a member of it's fold (due to the fact that the person in question is publicly dissenting from the Church).

8) The principle of inerrancy - how can the Catholic Church claim that the Bible is without error on certain matters, but permitted to contain errors on others? "My textbook is the whole truth, except when you prove it wrong, but even though you prove part of it wrong, the rest is still true and you can trust that."
I explained this earlier in the thread also. There is a fourfold method of interpreting scripture: literal, analogical, anagogical, and moral. All sense are taken as true unless they can be rationally proven to be false. Just to help you understand this I'll give you a rough interpretation of one passage:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Literal - God created light with his word. He looked at it. It was good. Light and darkness were separated. Light was called day, darkness night. The end of day one passed, then came day two.

Now there are a couple of this that rationally don't make literal sense. God does not have a mouth therefore he can't speak. God does not have eyes therefore he cannot see. Light by it's very nature is "not-dark" so it's literally impossible to separate the two being as they would never be together. Lastly, there cant' be days because the sun hadn't been created yet.
So we're left with the literal meaning being: God created light and it was good.

Analogical - God created light in a way analogous to a man creating a word; he knew it, and from that knowing, "spoke" it forth. Once it was created, God knew it qua creature and then compared that to his knowing it qua his perfect plan, and he saw that they corresponded and thus was good. The naming and separating is just a further extention of the "word" analogy as stated above. The "day" is just analogous for a period of creation.

This is a perfectly fine analogous interpretation to start out, but as you begin to study Theology and understand more and more what God is and what it mean for him to act, you might be able to modify this interpretation slightly. I happened to pick one of the harder passages by chance, some are a lot easier to find analogous interpretations.

Anagogical - The light signifies the angels, They were good in their very nature. But some fell and he had to separate the dark ones from the light ones. The evening and morning signify the angelic coming-to-know, taking the knowledge into themselves to contemplate (evening) then radiating the truth that it leads them towards (morning).

There is nothing rationally wrong with this interpretation of scripture. It fits with the rest of scripture (the angels had to be created at some point).

Moral - N/A

As far as I can tell, this passage has no moral layer (because moral deals with our ascent towards God, and man isn't even mentioned yet).

Furthermore, if the Latin Vulgate is treated by the Catholic Church as the 'inerrant' copy of the Bible, why would God have preserved the text up until the gathering of the documents, but not preserved it since then? (It obviously hasn't been preserved, since there are countless different versions of the Bible now, with fairly significant deviations in interpretation.)
Not sure what you mean by inerrant...does my explanation above cover this?
All these 'versions' you are talking about are translations. We have very few 'versions' of the original Greek manuscripts, but what we do have is 99.99% consistent.

Finally, if the Bible is truly inerrant, and without contradiction, then how can there be contradiction between the Old and New Testaments?
See the 4 layers of scripture above.

.
.
.
Wow that was a serious mental work out!

Post by Squishalot

Mental workout indeed! Seeing as I'm pressed on time, I'll only call you up on a couple of the points:

And btw, we're not the ones who defined ourselves as closest to Christ. It's a historical fact that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by the Apostles. The protestants broke away from the Catholic Church not he other way around.

Yes, the protestants did indeed. But by that logic, Christians broke away from the Jews, so you could argue that the Jews are closer to God than Christians are.

Because then no one would understand it lol...and that defeats the purpose.

But unless you know Greek, or you were taught as much, you wouldn't know what 'alpha' or 'omega' means either. Surely it would have been a relatively simple task to translate it as 'start' and 'end' without any loss of meaning? Why wouldn't you leave other Greek words scattered through the Bible to add extra emphasis in the same way? Just seems inconsistent.

Notice hell, nor God, is mentioned even once. Excommunication is a statement by the Church that it no longer recognizes the person as a member of it's fold (due to the fact that the person in question is publicly dissenting from the Church).

Yes. But precisely what happens to people who don't belong to the Church? Revelations is fairly descriptive about that, if I'm not mistaken.

There is a fourfold method of interpreting scripture: literal, analogical, anagogical, and moral. All sense are taken as true unless they can be rationally proven to be false.

This doesn't pass logical fairness. Essentially, you're saying that as long as you can find a rational interpretation using one of the above four methods, it's alright, applying that methodology to the rest of the Bible. Additionally, even the interpretation can be somewhat spurious:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Literal: Jesus took a piece of bread, gave thanks, broke it, turned it into pieces of Jesus flesh, and gave it to his disciples to eat.

Analogous: Jesus took a piece of bread, gave thanks and broke it (literally), and gave it to his disciples as an analogy to represent that he would always be a part of them.

Anagogical: ... no, not sure about this one.

Moral: <cynicism> Cannablism is ok? Eating Jesus is alright, because he becomes a part of you? Cannablism is only ok, if you give thanks beforehand? </cynicism>

If I'm not mistaken, the official Catholic message about the Eucharist is that the bread and wine physically transforms into the flesh and blood of Christ, and essentially takes a literal interpretation. Can this rationally be proven to be false?

Other Christians and some Catholics take the view that it the bread and wine merely represents the physical sacrifice that Christ made, the flesh and blood of Him, and this takes an analogous interpretation. Can this rationally be proven to be false?

If they can't both rationally be proven to be false, must they both be true simultaneously?

What I'm questioning is, if you can rationally prove one part to be false, that casts doubt over other parts which have previously been taken to be true. Somebody gives you a hundred pieces of information and says "These are all true." (You do note that a lot of those pieces of information go towards verifying the identity of the person giving you the information, and how reliable and good they are.) You later demonstrate that one of the pieces is false and/or inconsistent. Are you going to blindly accept that the other 99 are true, 'knowing' you've picked out the only one that's wrong, or will you worry that they may not be reliable?

(Bit of formatting included so it's not just a giant wall of text. I'll read and try to understand the bit about canon afterwards when I get more time.)

Post by Skyfire

What do you think of this article?

Post by Squishalot

For what it's worth, I think the article is nothing special, I think the thesis is a good concept - you need to be challenged every now and then, to keep you on the right track.

And obviously, I don't know enough Hebrew to comment on the validity of the claims :)

The comments are amusing though xD

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Yes, the protestants did indeed. But by that logic, Christians broke away from the Jews, so you could argue that the Jews are closer to God than Christians are.
Except the Christ was the complete fulfillment of Judaism. There was no breaking away.

But unless you know Greek, or you were taught as much, you wouldn't know what 'alpha' or 'omega' means either. Surely it would have been a relatively simple task to translate it as 'start' and 'end' without any loss of meaning? Why wouldn't you leave other Greek words scattered through the Bible to add extra emphasis in the same way? Just seems inconsistent.
But they don't mean start and end. Alpha means α and Omega means ω. That is the literal translation.

Yes. But precisely what happens to people who don't belong to the Church? Revelations is fairly descriptive about that, if I'm not mistaken.
Give me one Church document that states that people who don't belong to the Church go to Hell. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any.

This doesn't pass logical fairness. Essentially, you're saying that as long as you can find a rational interpretation using one of the above four methods, it's alright, applying that methodology to the rest of the Bible.
Because God doesn't need to abide by your rules of logic. And yes, that's what I'm saying.

Literal: Jesus took a piece of bread, gave thanks, broke it, turned it into pieces of Jesus flesh, and gave it to his disciples to eat.
Does the bible actually literally state that he did turn it into flesh? No. So that part doesn't go under literal. But Jesus said that it was his flesh, and assuming he never lies then it is his flesh. So we take his words literally, but we also need to be aware of the context. I'd enter into a lengthy discussion of Transubstantiation, but you can look that up yourself.

Analogous: Jesus took a piece of bread, gave thanks and broke it (literally), and gave it to his disciples as an analogy to represent that he would always be a part of them.
That would be anagoge actually. The analogy is that this passage is analogous of Melchizedek offering bread and wine in the Old Testament.

Moral: <cynicism> Cannibalism is ok? Eating Jesus is alright, because he becomes a part of you? Cannibalism is only ok, if you give thanks beforehand? </cynicism>
This however doesn't rationally follow, if you consider anthropology. Man is not just soul, man is not just body; he's both. So to eat the person's body is to eat them, which is a derision of the human person.

If I'm not mistaken, the official Catholic message about the Eucharist is that the bread and wine physically transforms into the flesh and blood of Christ, and essentially takes a literal interpretation. Can this rationally be proven to be false?
Oh I guess I am going to have to get into Transubstantiation lol.

From the Council of Trent:
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

Now substance is being used in an Aristotelian way (cf Categories), to distinguish it from accidents (quality, quantity, relation, etc.). The accidents of the bread remain, while the substance becomes the Body of Christ. So, no, it's not physical, it's substantial.

Other Christians and some Catholics take the view that it the bread and wine merely represents the physical sacrifice that Christ made, the flesh and blood of Him, and this takes an analogous interpretation. Can this rationally be proven to be false?
Christ said "This is my Body." I don't think you need much more.

What I'm questioning is, if you can rationally prove one part to be false, that casts doubt over other parts which have previously been taken to be true. Somebody gives you a hundred pieces of information and says "These are all true." (You do note that a lot of those pieces of information go towards verifying the identity of the person giving you the information, and how reliable and good they are.) You later demonstrate that one of the pieces is false and/or inconsistent. Are you going to blindly accept that the other 99 are true, knowing you've picked out the only one that's wrong, or will you worry that they may not be reliable?
If it was from God, then no I wouldn't have any worries at all.

Questions for a Catholic

Post Reply