Questions for a Catholic

Сообщение от 229054

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

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Again, what prompted me to get involved in all of this was the "I literally won't stand by" line of thought. Such an assertive (some might say aggressive) statement leads me to think you'd be willing to translate that into physical activity (if not specifically in this instance, then in others).

Getting laws passed, informing others, and trying to be a good example are my methods of not standing by.

What I meant was, there's nothing in the command that suggests that non-apostles (i.e. the people) are to follow the command as well. In fact, this is precisely what you're arguing below - that the command do this does not apply to the people. So why is the Eucharist a sacrament that all good Catholics must have?
There are two different passages we're talking about. There's the Last Supper, and there's the passage in John where's he's speaking to the people. In the Last Supper, he institutes the act of Consecration. In John 6, he says everyone needs to eat my flesh. That's why the Priests are the only ones to Consecrate, but everyone consumes.

Suppose you were able to teach your brother something new (a new strategy, or a move, or something). If you tell him "This will benefit your whole team; go off and practice it", I would assume that you mean for him to share that strategy or move with the team and for the whole team to practice it, not for him to keep it to himself to win games with.
Yes, there are syntactical structures that can lean one way or another. All my example was there for was to show that it doesn't necessarily have to be addressed to those not present.

I don't go around pulling people's condoms off. That's what I would consider injecting myself into someone's life.

That's a somewhat disturbing mental image :P
I'm gonna haunt your ~~wet dreams~~ nightmares now.

Сообщение от Squishalot

There's the Last Supper, and there's the passage in John where's he's speaking to the people. In the Last Supper, he institutes the act of Consecration. In John 6, he says everyone needs to eat my flesh. That's why the Priests are the only ones to Consecrate, but everyone consumes.

Ah, gotcha, on your page now. Which brings us back to...

Yes, there are syntactical structures that can lean one way or another. All my example was there for was to show that it doesn't necessarily have to be addressed to those not present.

So essentially, what you're saying is that the Catholic Church applied a particular interpretation (which can be reasonably questioned from a Bible study perspective) to form their tradition. Or, essentially:

Q: Why is it that only ordained priests can perform the Consecration, and not lay people?
A: Because the Church said so.

I don't go around pulling people's condoms off. That's what I would consider injecting myself into someone's life.

That's a somewhat disturbing mental image :P
I'm gonna haunt your ~~wet dreams~~ nightmares now.

It's actually worse if you think about what's going on while you're pulling condoms off, and injecting yourself into their lives :P

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

There are several reasons. Fine if you don't think they are "good enough," but again they're the reasons nonetheless.

1. That he chose to reveal the act of Consecration to the 12 as opposed to the masses means something.
2. That is exactly how the Apostles interpreted it, as is evidenced by the appointment of ministers in Acts and continuing through the early Church.
3. There's also 1 Corinthians 11:20-30, but that could probably be interpreted several ways too.

Edit: Regarding Paul, the author of Corinthians, I don't know if he is considered a Bishop or not. That's an interesting thing I should try to find out.

Сообщение от Squishalot

I know. I don't think those reasons stand up to scrutiny, however.

1. The fact he chose to reveal the act of Consecration to the 12 as opposed to any other significant figures may suggest that they (and only they!) were supposed to perform it. The idea that they had any right / ability to pass on that power to others is as questionable as the idea that a lay person should have the right to use that power.

2. The Apostles have interpreted his teachings in some pretty strange ways before. If we were to take to heart what Paul writes to the Corinthians, there would be no Christians alive, as nobody would ever reproduce. I'm not certain that any interpretation can or should be blindly followed (which, of course, begs the question of why any of the Letters that the Apostles wrote were included in the Bible in the first instance, but that's a slightly different topic).

Edit:

3. Reading it, yes, it can be interpreted several different ways. To me, that seems to vouch for saying grace before a meal.

Edit: Regarding Paul, the author of Corinthians, I don't know if he is considered a Bishop or not. That's an interesting thing I should try to find out.

Bah, how did you know I was going to refer to Corinthians as well? :P

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

But being a "valid interpretation" doesn't make it the right interpretation. That is why the Church was given the power infallibility in matters of dogma, so we don't have to deal with erroneous interpretations that lead us into deep error.

Now,
1. How is the idea that the power had to be passed on questionable? If Jesus said everyone needs to consume his body, why would he only give one generation the means to do it?
2. I don't see anything wrong with the passage you linked. The "marital duty" he's referring to is to "be fruitful and multiply," and he cautioning against sex becoming the central part of the marriage. Then, those that feel that they can remain celibate should take that as their vocation; there you have the priesthood and religious life, that unfortunately is in a dwindling state in this day and age, not the other way around.
You'll also notice how he separates his guidance from what the Lord commands.

3. I can see that if you skip over practically every other sentence, which seems a poor way to interpret to me.

Сообщение от Squishalot

But being a "valid interpretation" doesn't make it the right interpretation. That is why the Church was given the power infallibility in matters of dogma, so we don't have to deal with erroneous interpretations that lead us into deep error.

And who, precisely, gave that power to the Church, and what evidence is there for that provision of power? :P

Actually, for all intents and purposes, practicing Catholics assign their power of interpretation to the Church. They can choose to retain their power of interpretation, but in doing so, renounce their right to call themselves a legitimate Catholic. But in essence, the idea that the Church is infallible in matters of dogma is a self-prescribed power.

1. You can argue it the same way: If Jesus said everyone needs to consume his body, why would he only give one group of people the means to do it? My point is that there is little to suggest that the power of Consecration was vested specifically in the Apostles (firstly), and even if it was, that they have the ability to vest that power in anyone else.

2. I did notice that. As a result, I can only presume that where he doesn't separate his guidance from the Lord's, he is providing his interpretation of the Lord's directions, throughout both 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Having said that, I believe I've lost my train of thought from why I linked that particular passage. There was something in 'sexual immorality' from the previous two passages that didn't seem to stack up, but I can't find it anymore. I'll let you know when I do.

3. Ah, I see, you didn't refer to 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, which is what gives it context :P (Serves me right for trying to respond to you while I'm working.)

Having said that, it's difficult to interpret that in the context of the Eucharist. People are eating too much bread and drinking too much wine? It doesn't sound like that they were practicing it in the specified manner (i.e. a priest giving out the bread) in the first place. That would seem to suggest that it's not necessarily the case that there has to be an ordained priest conducting it.

Anyway, work to do get to, so I need to be off. Talk to you later.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

And who, precisely, gave that power to the Church, and what evidence is there for that provision of power? :P
Mat 16:18-19
1 Tim 3:15

Actually, for all intents and purposes, practicing Catholics assign their power of interpretation to the Church.
No they don't. The Church allows many interpretations. For instance, a Catholic is perfectly free to interpret the 7 days of creation as 7 actual days or as 7 indefinite time periods. What the Church does is look at Scripture, Tradition, and the state of the Faith, and decides if an infallible statement is needed. It's hard to say for sure the exact number of dogma, but this is a good list here: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm All those followed by "De fide" are dogma.

1. You can argue it the same way: If Jesus said everyone needs to consume his body, why would he only give one group of people the means to do it?
For the exact reasons set out in 1 Corinthians 11:20-30. You get a pretty messy situation is "the Lord's Supper" is just a free for all.

My point is that there is little to suggest that the power of Consecration was vested specifically in the Apostles (firstly), and even if it was, that they have the ability to vest that power in anyone else.
And again, the second part is a non-issue. If we are to take him at his word that consuming his flesh is necessary, then there must be a way for subsequent generations to obtain it. If he gave the power to everyone, then everyone can do it; but if he gave the power to the Apostles, then they would have to pass it down. Either way, it's not an issue if you take what he's saying in John 6 (which I think we're assuming at this point).

3. Ah, I see, you didn't refer to 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, which is what gives it context :P (Serves me right for trying to respond to you while I'm working.)

Having said that, it's difficult to interpret that in the context of the Eucharist.
How does him describing the Last Supper fail to give it that context?

People are eating too much bread and drinking too much wine? It doesn't sound like that they were practicing it in the specified manner (i.e. a priest giving out the bread) in the first place. That would seem to suggest that it's not necessarily the case that there has to be an ordained priest conducting it.
That's exactly the point. You had people gathering together for meals and calling it "Church" or "the Lord's Supper" and then proceeding to get drunk and eat too much. He's saying no, just eating the bread isn't enough. He then goes to describe the Eucharistic formula.

Сообщение от pelf

I thought this was funny:
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/02/08/2258234/Confession-Theres-an-iPhone-App-For-That

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

I thought this was funny:
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/02/08/2258234/Confession-Theres-an-iPhone-App-For-That

Confession booklets like that have existed forever. Getting it in a digital format isn't that big of a leap.

Сообщение от pelf

You flip to the second app page and tap the icon for Confession. The application opens and you're presented with an elegant scene depicting angels reaching down to a man struggling in a field behind an ox. There is one button on the screen, and it is labeled . You tap the button.

How long has it been since your last confession?

> 4 days, sry

Go ahead, my son.

> I had inpure thoughts about my friends gf

I'm just imagining this application like a choose-your-own-adventure book except this time it's adventures in sin classification and penance.

Сообщение от 120504

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

Сообщение от 479779

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

Сообщение от Magnerz

No idea if these has already been asked, but as I don't have the time right now to read all 30 pages and i'd like to know...

1. Do Catholics believe in genesis? (and if so seen as 'real' or metaphorical?)

2. Has has the pope not condemned any clergy member who is guilty of child molestation or any variant of? (If not - why!)

3. When and how was the Catholic Church actually formed?

4. Is Catholicism ever mentioned in the bible (a book I really will have to get round to reading at some point)

5. The church has evolved over time, and gone through various practises (some might call them brutal, inhumane, genocidal even - burning heretics, the Crusades, torture) - Are any of these practises ever condemned by the Church?

6. Are all non-Catholics (specifically non-Catholic Christians) deemed unworthy of going to heaven?

7. If the Church is designed to help the sick/poor, why do they need such grand and magnificent Cathedrals/churches - complete with expensive metals (silver/gold) ?

Sorry for the longish list, seemed to just have more questions pop into mind as I was writing.

p.s. None of these questions are supposed to be inflamatory, I would like an honest explanation for them. Thanks.

Сообщение от 149406

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

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
The world created for the Glorification of God.
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
God has created a good world.
The world had a beginning in time.
God alone created the World.

As long as one holds to these beliefs, he may interpret the creation story in any logical way (assuming it doesn't further contradict other dogmas also). So was the world created in 7 days? I don't believe so, but I'm free to believe either way without contradicting my Faith.

2. It's God's place to condemn, not man's. Now, I assume you don't quite mean condemn in that sense, so here's a more complete answer.

While the pope has authority in matters of faith and morals and is the head of the Church in many regards, he is still a Bishop. As such he generally will not interfere with other Bishops' running of their diocese.
For actual number, you can look here. As you can see, even in the case of unsubstantial allegations, in most cases some sort of action was taken by the Church.

3. The Christian Faith as a unit was founded with the ministry of Christ. The Catholic Church was formed as an organized entity in the years after Christ's death and resurrection. The individual Christian denominations were formed at various times, essentially starting around the time of Luther, and continuing to the present day.

4. It depends on what you mean by "Catholicism." "The Church" is mentioned quite a bit, and the Catholic Church is what rose out of that in the early First Century.

5. Any acts like that are acts of an individual person (or people) who happen to be members of the Church. But the Church has apologized for all the atrocities done in its name. On that note, I don't believe the Crusades were any of those things you mentioned, at least in essence. It was a war pure and simple.

6. As I said above, it is not the place of man to condemn. Only God in his justice or mercy can make that decision.

7. The Church "was designed" (to put it bluntly) help people on their pilgrimage to heaven. Does this involve helping the poor and sick live better lives so that they can more fully live and work and worship? Of course. But that's not the only thing. Art, beauty, music, knowledge -- these are all things that aid us on our search for God.

Сообщение от pezz

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

4. It depends on what you mean by "Catholicism." "The Church" is mentioned quite a bit, and the Catholic Church is what rose out of that in the early First Century.

References to "The Church" in the bible are translations of the Koine Greek word ekklesia, which simply means 'gathering.' It's usually just a reference to a group of people gathering to talk about Jesus. There wasn't one official church until there was only one major group left, as a result of everyone calling everyone heretics.

"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" and "The Church of the Living God"

There are just two examples off the top of my head. The Church was very much alive in the early years.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

That's still not inconsistent with what pezz is saying though.

Then what he said is not inconsistent what I said. So either his reply added nothing or he actually meant something other then what you think. Either way, my answer supports my original claim.

Questions for a Catholic

Ответить