Questions for a Catholic

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

Gen. 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen. 1:21 – God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves . . .
Gen. 1:27 – God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen. 2:3 – . . . He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Gen. 6:7 – The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land . . .”
Deut. 4:32 – “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you since the day that God created man on the earth . . .”
Ps. 89:12 – The north and the south, You have created them . . .
Ps. 89:47 – Remember what my span of life is; for what vanity You have created all the sons of men!
Isa. 4:5 – . . . then the LORD will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day . . .
Isa. 40:26 – Lift up your eyes on high see who has created these stars . . .
Isa. 40:28 – The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not become weary or tired.
Isa. 41:20 – . . . that the hand of the LORD has done this, and the Holy One of Israel has created it.
Isa. 43:7 – Everyone who is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory . . .
Jer. 31:22 – “How long will you go here and there, O faithless daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth—a woman will encompass a man.”
Mal. 2:10 – Has not one God created us?

Anyways, it's 2:30 here so I'm hitting the sack.

Publication par 165617

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

Publication par Squishalot

Except the Christ was the complete fulfillment of Judaism. There was no breaking away.

Not according to the Jews, he's not. Likewise, the Protestant interpretations of the Bible aren't right, according to Catholicism It's still a fair call.

But they don't mean start and end. Alpha means α and Omega means ω. That is the literal translation.

You're being pedantic now, and missing the point. There is no reasonable reason to translate the majority of the Bible, without translating a couple of letters, or if you believe they have a significant meaning, translating the meaning.

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.

I'll go back to the Bible. Here's a couple of quotes from Revelations:

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

Perhaps I've misinterpreted that, but as I understand, Satan (the beast) will take over anyone 'whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb" (i.e. those not following Jesus). As a result, they will be tormented with burning sulfur... etc.

Could you instead, perhaps, lead me to a document that says you can enter the Kingdom of God, or at least, be spared from Hell, without being Christian?

Because God doesn't need to abide by your rules of logic.

I'm going to stop on this point (sorry if you think it wastes your explanation of transubstantiation, but I did read it), because if you're going to take that view, then it defeats the purpose of discussing it. As you mentioned in another thread, the rational person who receives an unsatisfactory answer will raise a further question to clarify.

But as soon as you pull the "God doesn't need to follow your logic" card, then all (human) rationality goes out the door, and you complete the circle of God's omnipotence and omniscience that we will never humanly fully comprehend, completely defeating the purpose of asking the question in the first place. As soon as you receive an unsatisfactory answer that happens to be the answer to every further question you have, the rational person just has to give up.

Edit: Generally speaking, I'm happy to argue questions of interpretation from a Christian point of view (eg, whether people will go to Hell or not) - as in, I will work from the viewpoint that the Bible is correct, work on generally accepted interpretations of passages, and do 'Bible Study' from there. But when it comes to discussing the validity of Christianity relative to other religions, it's begging the question to come from a presumption of truth.

It was a good discussion while it lasted though :)

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

Not according to the Jews, he's not. Likewise, the Protestant interpretations of the Bible aren't right, according to Catholicism It's still a fair call.
According to the Jews or not, he did fulfill every prophesy about him. But honestly I'm not sure what you're driving at. While we're stuck in generals I can't really say much, it's only the in particular differences between Catholicism and other faiths can I show that it is closer to the truth.

You're being pedantic now, and missing the point. There is no reasonable reason to translate the majority of the Bible, without translating a couple of letters, or if you believe they have a significant meaning, translating the meaning.
Yeah, I'm missing the point...I don't see why you'd want to translate two untranslatable words. The closest you could get is "I am the short a and the long o." But even that's a transliteration, not a translation, because α isn't a and ω isn't o.

I'll go back to the Bible. Here's a couple of quotes from Revelations:

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

Perhaps I've misinterpreted that, but as I understand, Satan (the beast) will take over anyone 'whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb" (i.e. those not following Jesus). As a result, they will be tormented with burning sulfur... etc.

That's different. This is at the end of time when Christ has revealed himself fully to the word. Then, the choice is either him or the beast; there is no middle ground.

The reason people can still go to heaven now is because of ignorance. If someone is truly ignorant of who God really is, but they live a good life anyways, God won't hold that against them. It's the people who know who God is and make an act of the will to turn away from him. Once Christ fully reveals himself on Judgment Day, there won't be any ignorance. So what everyone chooses is a fully informed act of the will, and thus can be punished or rewarded.

Could you instead, perhaps, lead me to a document that says you can enter the Kingdom of God, or at least, be spared from Hell, without being Christian?

"God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." -CCC

Because God doesn't need to abide by your rules of logic.

I'm going to stop on this point (sorry if you think it wastes your explanation of transubstantiation, but I did read it), because if you're going to take that view, then it defeats the purpose of discussing it. As you mentioned in another thread, the rational person who receives an unsatisfactory answer will raise a further question to clarify.

But as soon as you pull the "God doesn't need to follow your logic" card, then all (human) rationality goes out the door, and you complete the circle of God's omnipotence and omniscience that we will never humanly fully comprehend, completely defeating the purpose of asking the question in the first place. As soon as you receive an unsatisfactory answer that happens to be the answer to every further question you have, the rational person just has to give up.

Note I said "your logic" not "logic." Your logic states that God cannot embed layers of meaning throughout Scripture...and no, God is not bound by what you think he can do or not do.

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

So because the word is used a lot, then that means the correct translation is correct?
No idea what you're referring to. Alpha and Omega? If so "the Alpha and the Omega" is the only correct translation of "τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ."

Furthermore, prior to Vatican II the Catholic Church has said that if you were not Catholic you would in fact go to Hell.
Provide evidence...you should know this by now.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church now has a very odd way of saying, you must be Catholic. They say that you should be Catholic and non-Catholics are extremely handicapped (almost impossible to overcome).
Not having the fullness of revealed truth is a handicap, yes.

Furthermore, they for the most part say that the only way to truly get around this is that you are truly ignorant.
FYI ignorance is a bad thing...not sure what you're driving at.

However, the CCC says that since few people are truly ignorant of the Church's existence, than this excuse is going by the wayside.
We're talking ignorance of God. How does know whether the Catholic Church exists affect anything?

Finally, can you please go into more depth of my previous question about why God created the Earth when he did?
I can't. I explained it as fully as I am able. Ask more particular questions if you want more.

Publication par Squishalot

Once Christ fully reveals himself on Judgment Day, there won't be any ignorance. So what everyone chooses is a fully informed act of the will, and thus can be punished or rewarded.

Where does it suggest, in dogma and/or in the Bible, that everyone gets a final choice when Christ reveals himself on Judgement Day?

Note I said "your logic" not "logic." Your logic states that God cannot embed layers of meaning throughout Scripture...and no, God is not bound by what you think he can do or not do.

Then the appropriate response is "Your logic is false/incorrect", not that "God isn't bound by your logic". The former implies that you believe my logic is irrational and should be reviewed. The latter implies begging the question. However, I do believe that at the end of the day, you're relying on the latter to some extent, so as I said, it was a good discussion while it lasted.

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

Publication par Squishalot

Once Christ fully reveals himself on Judgment Day, there won't be any ignorance. So what everyone chooses is a fully informed act of the will, and thus can be punished or rewarded.

Where does it suggest, in dogma and/or in the Bible, that everyone gets a final choice when Christ reveals himself on Judgement Day?

Because that's implicit in the very nature of coming to know. Either you accept it or you reject it--there is no middle ground. Fully informed, willing rejection of God is what gets you to hell. (Note we're talking about people alive at the second coming.)

Not really, I realise that you can either fully accept or fully reject it. My question is, where does it suggest that the choice remains open right up until *after* Christ returns? As opposed to, prior to one's physical death?

After all, it's fairly safe to say that if/when Judgement Day occurs, most athiests (except the really die-hard ones) will sort of acknowledge that something's going down ;)

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

Not really, I realise that you can either fully accept or fully reject it. My question is, where does it suggest that the choice remains open right up until *after* Christ returns? As opposed to, prior to one's physical death?

After all, it's fairly safe to say that if/when Judgement Day occurs, most athiests (except the really die-hard ones) will sort of acknowledge that something's going down ;)

Because like I said we're talking about people alive at the second coming.

People who already died already had their chance. Those who willingly rejected God go to hell, those who willingly accepted God go to heaven. And those who didn't accept God out of ignorance and those that only accepted him partially go to purgatory to be purified before going to heaven.

Now fast forward to the Second Coming. It's the end of time--so there can't be purgatory any more (which is in time). So, that means that all chips are in; you're either for him or against him. Now God wouldn't force someone to make that choice without fully informing them, which is why he reveals himself.

Read Revelation it only well into Judgment day that the multitude is marked.

Publication par Squishalot

People who already died already had their chance. Those who willingly rejected God go to hell, those who willingly accepted God go to heaven.

There you have it then, people who've rejected God will go to hell. And conversely, people who accept God will go to heaven.

Going back to 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."

So what this is saying, essentially, is that either:

a) Not absolving someone will damn them to hell (in which case, it goes against the idea that accepting God is enough); or

b) Irrespective of absolution by a priest, somone can still enter heaven (in which case, it defeats the purpose of the 'penalty' of excommunication).

I personally believe the correct interpretation is the latter (reading from a Biblical perspective), which, going back to the original point, is why I question the necessity of a lot of the Catholic rituals.

Edit:
Read Revelation it only well into Judgment day that the multitude is marked.

I actually interpreted the multitude as all people from all times, in a metaphorical sense, as in, all souls are coming to be judged. Those people who have died in the past aren't in Heaven yet, because Christ hasn't been around to bring them in.

Publication par Skyfire

What do you think of this article?

First of all, assuming her translation is true, she still make a logical error: she claims that because the Bible doesn't say God created heaven and earth, therefore he didn't. No, it just means that whoever wrote Genesis didn't see that part in the vision (or however he found out).

I was afraid you might rationalize, rather than actually giving your honest opinion on the article. If that is your honest opinion, then your interpretation of the Bible is out of line with the Bible itself: you don't simply get to say "oh, that's just wrong, because this is what I've learned/been drilled with/my own unprofessional opinion came up".

/shrug.

Secondly, the word בָּרָא is used 53 times in the Old Testament, and every time it means create, not separate. Here are some:

Because that's the translation you learned of the Hebrew/Greek (whichever you are more learned in) and not because of anything else. I could easily swap in "separate" for "create" and most of those examples would make sense. For the others, I will echo lostguide this once: there is no reason for it to be consistent that many times if all you have to back it up is "oh, that's because she translated it incorrectly". The article notes that she took the whole Bible into context while writing her thesis, so I very much doubt she forgot about these.

Sorry, but you're reply is unsatisfactory. Just because interpretation says it is so, doesn't make it so in your case. And that's an issue with religion in general... but I'll leave that argument to lie. Try again, and give your honest opinion of the article itself.

Publication par Squishalot

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).

Just rereading this thread to look up something to quote, and re-ran across this.

I didn't give this point sufficient attention at the time, for whatever reason. Let me quote Luke 22:19:

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."

1) How is this to say that this ritual needs to be performed on a weekly or regular basis? Many non-Catholic Christians take communion and go to confession once a year at Easter, or twice a year at Christmas as well. Why is it done more often than that? And not as often as daily?

2) Why should it be interpreted as an ongoing task, and not one that he instructed his disciples to do at that point in time in order to remember him? (Akin to "one last hug to remember me by")

3) Communion (in a Catholic sense) requires a very specific ritual whereby the wafer is converted into the body of Christ, and the wine converted into the blood of Christ. Whereupon is this ritual mentioned in any passage?

4) Following on from points (1) and (3), shouldn't the taking of bread and wine be something that Joe Bloggs can do at home in rememberance of Christ, much the same way as many other prescribed things to do? (eg, praying generally, grace before meals, etc)

Anyway, not expecting a response, just a few thoughts that crossed my mind while reading.

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

1) How is this to say that this ritual needs to be performed on a weekly or regular basis? Many non-Catholic Christians take communion and go to confession once a year at Easter, or twice a year at Christmas as well. Why is it done more often than that? And not as often as daily?
There is no requirement to receive communion once a week. The Church does require that you do receive once a year, but it earnestly recommends weekly and daily reception. Now, there is a requirement to go to mass every week (which is based in the Third Commandment--4th if you use the protestant numbering--along with tradition stretching back to Judaism.).
CCC 1389: "The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily."

2) Why should it be interpreted as an ongoing task, and not one that he instructed his disciples to do at that point in time in order to remember him? (Akin to "one last hug to remember me by")
Because the disciples, as the ones commanded, did not take it that way. There are references throughout the epistles of the Eucharist being celebrated.

3) Communion (in a Catholic sense) requires a very specific ritual whereby the wafer is converted into the body of Christ, and the wine converted into the blood of Christ. Whereupon is this ritual mentioned in any passage?
It needs to be bread. It needs to be wine. The scriptural verse needs to be read.
That's all that's needed for a valid Eucharist.

4) Following on from points (1) and (3), shouldn't the taking of bread and wine be something that Joe Bloggs can do at home in rememberance of Christ, much the same way as many other prescribed things to do? (eg, praying generally, grace before meals, etc)
You yourself pointed out that he is telling this to his Apostles. He gives them the power to 'do this in memory of me.' You'll note when he speaks to the crowds earlier in his ministry, he mentioned eating his body, but he does not give them the power to transubstantiate it.

Also, for some reason I never notice the two comments above yours...I'll get to those in a bit.

Publication par 327953

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

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

is there a god?

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand, you have failed."-Augustine

"I do not believe in God, for that implies an effort of the will - I see God everywhere!"-Jean Favre

"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?"-Art Hoppe

Publication par Squishalot

There is no requirement to receive communion once a week. The Church does require that you do receive once a year, but it earnestly recommends weekly and daily reception. Now, there is a requirement to go to mass every week (which is based in the Third Commandment--4th if you use the protestant numbering--along with tradition stretching back to Judaism.).
CCC 1389: "The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily."

Why once a year? From the biblical text, where can you (or the church) identify a 'once a year' requirement? Or is this 'Catholic Church requirement' (as opposed to biblically defined requirement), along with recommended 'Sundays and feast days'?

Because the disciples, as the ones commanded, did not take it that way. There are references throughout the epistles of the Eucharist being celebrated.

That doesn't make it any more 'required' for all to do. Paul regularly claims that people should remain celibate, but it's certainly not a requirement.

It needs to be bread. It needs to be wine. The scriptural verse needs to be read.
That's all that's needed for a valid Eucharist.

Again, why? Point in bold. That the scriptural verse needs to be read appears to be a Catholic Church-defined action/tradition, rather than a biblical requirement.

You yourself pointed out that he is telling this to his Apostles. He gives them the power to 'do this in memory of me.' You'll note when he speaks to the crowds earlier in his ministry, he mentioned eating his body, but he does not give them the power to transubstantiate it.

So who exactly did he give the power to transubstantiate it? And can such power really be handed down and appointed by fallible Man (through the act of ordaining a priest/father/etc)?

Also, for some reason I never notice the two comments above yours...I'll get to those in a bit.

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned it in another thread that you hadn't responded. But all good, here it is then.

Publication par 374287

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

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

Why once a year? From the biblical text, where can you (or the church) identify a 'once a year' requirement? Or is this 'Catholic Church requirement' (as opposed to biblically defined requirement), along with recommended 'Sundays and feast days'?
Because Passover took place once a year as do most other 'remembrances.'

That doesn't make it any more 'required' for all to do. Paul regularly claims that people should remain celibate, but it's certainly not a requirement.
And that they should. Celibacy is a higher state of life than the married life; however, not everyone has that calling.

That's where Catholics differ from Protestants: Tradition. The Apostles lived and worked with Christ, they're in a much better position to make judgments than we are. The second generation of Christians lived and worked with the first generation; they're in a much better position to make judgments than we are. Etc.

It needs to be bread. It needs to be wine. The scriptural verse needs to be read.
That's all that's needed for a valid Eucharist.

Again, why? Point in bold. That the scriptural verse needs to be read appears to be a Catholic Church-defined action/tradition, rather than a biblical requirement.
So you're saying Christ didn't say 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood' in the Bible?

You yourself pointed out that he is telling this to his Apostles. He gives them the power to 'do this in memory of me.' You'll note when he speaks to the crowds earlier in his ministry, he mentioned eating his body, but he does not give them the power to transubstantiate it.

So who exactly did he give the power to transubstantiate it?
'Do this in memory of me.' 'This' of course referring to what he just did--consecrate the bread with the words 'this is my body.' Only the Apostles were present, so he gave the power to the bishops. But he also gave them the power to bind things on earth, so when congregations began to become too big for a bishop to celebrate the Eucharist too, they ordained priests also.

And can such power really be handed down and appointed by fallible Man (through the act of ordaining a priest/father/etc)?
God's self-giving is infinite. He didn't just put himself at the mercy of human will at Calvary, he continues to do it.

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

Is God perfect? Is it believed he can truly see all, do all, know all?

Perfect: Yes.
Sees all: Yes.
Can do all: Qualified Yes.
Knows all: Yes.

Publication par Hyperspacerebel

"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."

So what this is saying, essentially, is that either:

a) Not absolving someone will damn them to hell (in which case, it goes against the idea that accepting God is enough);

"The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one's neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one's neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."

"Reading Sacred Scripture, praying the Liturgy of the Hours and the Our Father - every sincere act of worship or devotion revives the spirit of conversion and repentance within us and contributes to the forgiveness of our sins. "

"When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called 'perfect' (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible."

There you have 3 quotes from the Catechism saying forgiveness of sins is possible apart from the Sacrament.

b) Irrespective of absolution by a priest, someone can still enter heaven (in which case, it defeats the purpose of the 'penalty' of excommunication)
The 'penalty' is disunion with the Church. The Church is Christ's instrument for the continued salvation of mankind and the sure road to him. Now I don't know why you put 'penalty' in quotes, but I did because it's not a penalty in the normal sense of the word. If a person performs an act willfully contrary to the Church and refuses to repent of it, they have already separated themselves from the Church. Excommunication is the Church officially declaring that it did happen.

Read Revelation it only well into Judgment day that the multitude is marked.

I actually interpreted the multitude as all people from all times, in a metaphorical sense, as in, all souls are coming to be judged. Those people who have died in the past aren't in Heaven yet, because Christ hasn't been around to bring them in.

So are you saying no one goes to heaven before the Second Coming?

Questions for a Catholic

Répondre