This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Sagramor
If God is infinitely merciful, then couldn't I just sin, and then he'd
have to
forgive me?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If God is infinitely merciful, then couldn't I just sin, and then he'd
have to
forgive me?
He does forgive you.
You just aren't accepting it.
This seems to be a common trend in posts here--people automatically assume the problem is in God, when it's really us.
Post by
Sagramor
No, no, I'm pretty sure anyone who's not a seriously hardcore masochist would accept it easy.
New one, new one; If God is all knowing, then he knows all present, past and future. With that knowledge, why would he create Satan, or even Man, if he knew how it'd turn out in the end?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, no, I'm pretty sure anyone who's not a seriously hardcore masochist would accept it easy.
Pretty sure doesn't mean much.
New one, new one; If God is all knowing, then he knows all present, past and future. With that knowledge, why would he create Satan, or even Man, if he knew how it'd turn out in the end?
"Turn out in the end"--do you know how it all turns out? I sure don't. I don't judge anybody, including God, on things I don't (can't) know.
Post by
Squishalot
Because Passover took place once a year as do most other 'remembrances.'
Passover was the remebrance of a particular date, being the anniversary of the Exodus (approximately). The analogy would be to take communion each Easter, fair enough. What basis is there to take communion more often than that? (Should Jews celebrate Passover more than once per year, weekly?)
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.
And yet, it's important to remember that they are not Christ. What if 'taking communion' in the ritualistic (read: tradition) sense was not a person's calling?
So you're saying Christ didn't say 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood' in the Bible?
Christ did say that, but it's not relevant to the point. Why does the scriptural verse need to be read? Is it not sufficient that the bread and the wine is transubstantiated?
'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.
I disagree that the power to 'bind things on earth' can also give the power of transubstantiation to priests. Could any prophet 'share' their powers with others? The power to bind things is (to my understanding) more to do with, for example, the power to bind two people in marriage, to be bound in heaven as on earth. Or to confirm a child in Christ, likewise. It doesn't represent the power to hand over one's power to someone else.
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.
Touche. Having said that, we'll come back omnibenevolence later, in a sec.
There you have 3 quotes from the Catechism saying forgiveness of sins is possible apart from the Sacrament.
That's good, because that's how I understood it. Which goes back to my very original question of, what's the purpose of the Sacraments if they're not necessary? Moving on...
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.
I disagree that the 'penalty' is just disunion. As an "instrument for the continued salvation of mankind", the 'penalty' is the withholding of the sacraments. That is a true penalty, in the event that a person can believe that the traditions are necessary, but that certain aspects of the Church are contrary to his/her belief. I refer to it as 'penalty', because if the sacraments are not necessary, then there is no loss from being separated from the Church.
I think we're agreeing at cross-purposes here. I can't remember the context of the original point, since it was a while back, so I'm going to let this one drop.
So are you saying no one goes to heaven before the Second Coming?
Yeah, I'm suggesting that's my interpretation. Heaven exists outside of the man-made construct of 'time'. Once you die, there shouldn't be a 'before' or 'after', there only 'is'. The concept of being with God for a period of time, then others joining you to be with God is meaningless when you consider that in Heaven, there can only be a relationship with God and no others. (Consider the predicament of a widow who remarries - if other people were important in Heaven, who would she be with?)
I think that as far as the Second Coming is concerned, that will be the Judgement Day for all those alive at that point in time. But when that day comes, those brought up to be judged will be there, next to everyone else in history, also waiting. But that's my personal interpretation of it, with not much in the way of referencing to back it up.
Knows all: Yes.
This has always been a sticking point for me, and one that I've been hesitant to bring up in this thread, because of the fairly negative reactions I've had in the past to it. So far, I've been discussing Christianity and Catholicism from the point of view of the Believer, taking the Bible as truth, and arguing over interpretations. This point raised is now about the validity of Christianity.
If God knows all, then how can we have 'free will' or 'choice'?
How can mankind make its own destiny and its own choices? If God knew that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, how could it be otherwise?
How is it any different from watching a movie, knowing the ending, but hoping that the characters will do something different this time around?
Edit: note the nuances of difference between this question and Sagramor's question. I'm not asking about it from the perspective of 'why did he do it', I'm asking about the basic underlying principle.
Post by
Sagramor
No, no, I'm pretty sure anyone who's not a seriously hardcore masochist would accept it easy.
Pretty sure doesn't mean much.
New one, new one; If God is all knowing, then he knows all present, past and future. With that knowledge, why would he create Satan, or even Man, if he knew how it'd turn out in the end?
"Turn out in the end"--do you know how it all turns out? I sure don't. I don't judge anybody, including God, on things I don't (can't) know.
Now, this is fun. First, you're ignoring an obvious joke in order to try to make your point seem more valid, and the best thing is; you've yet to give me one answer. I'll still ask though;
If God is everywhere, all the time, why do you need to go to a church, on a specific day, at a specific time to do the routine prayers?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Now, this is fun. First, you're ignoring an obvious joke in order to try to make your point seem more valid, and the best thing is; you've yet to give me one answer.
I don't see any jokes. And if there is one, this really isn't the place for it.
If God is everywhere, all the time, why do you need to go to a church, on a specific day, at a specific time to do the routine prayers?
"If A, then why B" questions only work if A and B really are connected.
A = God is everywhere
B =
We
need practical means to achieve union with God
There is not fault in God. He's everywhere. The fault is in us. We are imperfect and fallible, and I have a difficult time living every moment for God as we should. So God in his infinite Wisdom has provided means for us to accomplish union with him despite our imperfect nature.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sagramor
I don't want to derail your thread, so I'll lay off on the joke discussion.
Anyways, if God has infinite Wisdom, shouldn't he able to find a way let us contact him wherever and whenever? Or why didn't he just make it so we could do that already, without having to plunge as deep into his pool of infinite Wisdom? Also, why a church? What is so special about those completely random buildings at completely random locations that makes those the places to connect with God?
Post by
Sagramor
I'll still ask though;
If God is everywhere, all the time, why do you need to go to a church, on a specific day, at a specific time to do the routine prayers?
Sorry to barge in here, but that (to me) seems like a fairly moot point. Sure, everyone could just pray by themselves in their room whenever they felt like it, but that takes away one of the few appeals I see in religion - The getting together with other people. Sure, on Christmas, you could easily celebrate the whole thing by yourself with a single cracker, a turkey leg and a little plastic tree, but that's no fun. Half to appeal (Again, to me) is being with your family and friends while you celebrate something - I don't see how that would change for praying. I enjoy Christmas celebration thingymerjigs with all my friends, all the singing and carols etc. (Not that I can sing :P)
Just for the record, I'm actually an athiest, but I'm just throwing my point out there.
You don't fraternize much during mass, mostly with the priest (or something of the manner), and with the choir (if there is one). The biggest point of connection
between people
is when they all yell "Amen." together, or sing (if there is that).
Religion isn't about connecting to people, that's what parties and most of the events where you sin a lot are about. Karaoke, for example, has the singing, and the songs are mostly kind of better, too.
Post by
MyTie
I hesitate to post in this thread, because we will never agree... but anyway..
I'm giving the sermon on sunday. It will be recorded. Want a copy?
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
159390
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Passover was the remebrance of a particular date, being the anniversary of the Exodus (approximately). The analogy would be to take communion each Easter, fair enough. What basis is there to take communion more often than that? (Should Jews celebrate Passover more than once per year, weekly?)
Because Jesus didn't say we couldn't do it more often; and being something as holy as it is, why wouldn't you want the opportunity to do it more often?
And yet, it's important to remember that they are not Christ.
Then honestly, you're screwed. We have nothing written by Christ, only things written by Apostles and Disciples. So unless you're receiving some direct revelation and mystical experiences yourself that I don't know about, you don't have much to base your faith on.
Christ did say that, but it's not relevant to the point. Why does the scriptural verse need to be read? Is it not sufficient that the bread and the wine is transubstantiated? To use a common phrase among Protestants: what would Jesus do? Or in this case, what did he do--how did
he
perform the first transubstantiation? He took bread and wine, said this is my body and blood, and gave it to those with him.
'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.
It doesn't represent the power to hand over one's power to someone else.
So you believe the priesthood died with the death of John, the last Apostle? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of establishing it to begin with?
That's good, because that's how I understood it. Which goes back to my very original question of, what's the purpose of the Sacraments if they're not necessary?
No one said anything about them not being necessary. You can't get rid of original sin without Baptism. You can't stand in the place of Christ in the community without ordination. You can't receive sanctifying grace without Confession (unless of course you've never committed a mortal sin---kudos to you then).
This is much the same point as I was trying to make to Sagramor. Everything God does is for us; he's already perfect, our worship of him affects him
in no way
. God didn't give us confession because he needs to hear our sins. He gave it to us...
for us
.
I disagree that the 'penalty' is just disunion. As an "instrument for the continued salvation of mankind", the 'penalty' is the withholding of the sacraments.
Actually, the sacraments wouldn't be valid anyways. Let's say you're a senator who publicly supports abortion and have been excommunicated. You've committed a mortal sin, so you receive no grace from the Eucharist. If you go to confession but still refuse to publicly retract your statements, you are willingly not repentant for the sin and thus receive no grace from Confession. I could go on with all the Sacraments, but I think you get the point.
So what the Church is doing, is saying this person has willingly rejected both God and the Church. Since he no longer recognizes us, we will not desecrate the sacraments by offering them to him.
I refer to it as 'penalty', because if the sacraments are not necessary, then there is no loss from being separated from the Church.
Again. Nothing is necessary for God. But we as imperfect, fallible creatures cannot hope to accomplish certain things without certain aids. The excommunicant has stated by word or action that they can do it without the aid of the Church. So be it.
Yeah, I'm suggesting that's my interpretation. Heaven exists outside of the man-made construct of 'time'.
Time isn't man-made (our particular measure of it
is
), but your point is correct--heaven is outside of time.
Once you die, there shouldn't be a 'before' or 'after', there only 'is'.
Correct, but with a qualification. Purgatory exists in time (whether it is the same species of time we exist in now is questionable).
The concept of being with God for a period of time, then others joining you to be with God is meaningless when you consider that in Heaven, there can only be a relationship with God and no others.
Where do you get the idea that we have no relation with others in heaven? It's called the
Communion of Saints
for a reason. The fact that there is no marriage in heaven just means that we will be fully in communion with every human in heaven, not just one.
If God knows all, then how can we have 'free will' or 'choice'?
Knowledge and act are two different things. Catholic Teleology paints it something like this: knowledge (leads to) -> inclination -> desire -> motion -> end. The passive will is in the third step (desire) while the active will is in the fourth step (motion). So, to say God knowing all things eternally has any bearing on whether certain things were done freely doesn't make much sense.
Look at it this way. We look back in the past and see things. Does that make those acts any less free? The future has no bearing on the past.
If God knew that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, how could it be otherwise?
Try phrasing it like this--If Adam and Eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit, how could God have known otherwise?
It's kind of asking, what came first? Only this 'first' is analogical because 1 of the two is outside of time.
How is it any different from watching a movie, knowing the ending, but hoping that the characters will do something different this time around?
Does our watching of the movie all of a sudden make the choices the directer made no longer free?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Whoa whoa whoa, there's been a lot of activity while I've been typing my last response. I'll get to everyone, but it might take a while.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I don't want to derail your thread, so I'll lay off on the joke discussion.
Anyways, if God has infinite Wisdom, shouldn't he able to find a way let us contact him wherever and whenever?
He does: we call it prayer.
Or why didn't he just make it so we could do that already, without having to plunge as deep into his pool of infinite Wisdom?
Adam and Eve talked with God. He did make us that way.
Also, why a church? What is so special about those completely random buildings at completely random locations that makes those the places to connect with God?
Because as humans, certain things help us achieve a better union with God. One of those is community, thus the need for a large area. Another is beauty, hence the...well...beauty. Etc.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.