This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Such anger...
Couple things.
If something bad happens, it's sin - something you're not responsible for.
1. You are very responsible for sin. At least research the people you're flaming.
you cannot accept that you are responsible for everything, good or bad, that you do. If something good happens, it's God's blessing.
So if the day is beautiful outside when you need to be outside all day... you're responsible for that? I see it as a blessing for God myself. However, you are under the assumption that God randomly blesses people, and thus if something good happens, it is because it is one of God's whims. This is incorrect. You have to work for your blessings.
As a religious person, you throw away that part of your self-awareness, if not always, then much more than others. That makes you lacking compared to atheists.
A flawed premise will gain a flawed answer.
I, as an atheist, have something you lack.
Absolute
bucketloads
of pride and $%^&*!
You, as a religious person, have pushed away a part of what makes you self-aware, and therefore you are less human than me, and as a result, closer to an animal with no self-awareness..
You, as an atheist, have pushed away the wonder that is God, and have such cut away an integral part of yourself, and another part of being self-aware - realizing that you are not responsible for everything that happens. You may see it as chance, I see some as chance and some as God. It matters not.
You lose self awareness if you don't realize that you aren't responsible for everything that happens around you.
Post by
pelf
Doesn't salting the earth make it infertile?
"Of the earth" isn't modifying salt
qua
salt but salt
qua
man. You are the salt (that which preserves and brings flavor) of the earth (all that
to
the earth).
If that's not lost in translation to English, I'm not sure what is.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
@ Pyreanor - your arguments are inflammatory and generally full of rhetoric rather than logic. In your latest substantial post, you make a number of false statements about Christians, then follow it up with an attack on the person, not the argument. It's no wonder Hyper isn't interested in talking with you, with a closed mind like that.
I hope you realise that self-awareness isn't anything special. Theory of mind is what really separates us from other animals, and we don't really develop that until about 3-5 years old.
My girlfriend has told me that my apartment is a pigsty, and that my apartment is too small. One's literal, the other's figurative. That one is literal has no bearing on how the other should be taken, and vice versa.
Yes, I get that. So, in the spirit of this thread, please explain to me why you believe the statements about the Eucharist are literal, but the statements about being the salt and the light of the world are figurative. My view since the start of my statements on the Eucharist (way back in 2009) was that it's figurative or metaphoric, and that's where the conversation sort of ended.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If that's not lost in translation to English, I'm not sure what is.
The Greek (and also Latin) genitive has multiple uses beyond the usual translation
of
, but
of
can also be a problem word in English, e.g. "love of his mother" can either mean the love which the mother possesses or the love which the "he" has for his mother. Prepositions are usually the hardest part of another language to use and understand correctly.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So, in the spirit of this thread, please explain to me why you believe the statements about the Eucharist are literal, but the statements about being the salt and the light of the world are figurative.
Because of the context and repeated emphasis of the idea, and what the early Church passed down in tradition. I guess one of the key passages is John 6:35-65. Jesus begins preaching, only implying the idea indirectly in passing. But then Jews start grumbling about that, so he tells them to stop and repeats and reemphasizes the idea directly this time. At that point the Jews start arguing among themselves because they understand the literal ramifications (or at least think they do). So Jesus cuts in and repeats it again with even more direct clarity to the point where some of his disciples leave (which he notices and comments on).
I don't know about you, but I were making an analogy, and someone was going to up and leave because they took it literally, I'd be the first to jump up and tell them that it's just an analogy.
Post by
pezz
<snip>
Without getting too deep into specifics, the idea that fetuses have the full right to life that the rest of us do is a fairly novel idea in human history. The Romans didn't consider babies fully human until they were two years old, so one good way to identify ancient Roman brothels is to look for mass infant graves. As recently as the 1800s there were foundling hospitals with revolving doors specifically designed to push a baby through without revealing your identity. They were understood to be, by both those running them and those depositing their babies there, basically deathtraps. Mortality rates were 80 or 90% for these babies.
I'm definitely not advancing so trite an argument as 'well everyone else is doing it' for so serious an issue as abortion, but I think our current heavy reliance on genetics-style definitions is obfuscating more essentially human descriptions of life in favor of an easy oversimplification.
Post by
Perkocet
That it's the killing of a defenseless human life for the sake of some sort of lesser comfort.
What if the girl is raped?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That question was
just asked
and answered.
Post by
Squishalot
Because of the context and repeated emphasis of the idea, and what the early Church passed down in tradition. I guess one of the key passages is John 6:35-65. Jesus begins preaching, only implying the idea indirectly in passing. But then Jews start grumbling about that, so he tells them to stop and repeats and reemphasizes the idea directly this time. At that point the Jews start arguing among themselves because they understand the literal ramifications (or at least think they do). So Jesus cuts in and repeats it again with even more direct clarity to the point where some of his disciples leave (which he notices and comments on).
I don't know about you, but I were making an analogy, and someone was going to up and leave because they took it literally, I'd be the first to jump up and tell them that it's just an analogy.
Considering that John 6:63 states that "The spirit gives life;
the flesh counts for nothing
," after the others left, it's questionable that he really meant it literally. Test of faith, perhaps?
Having said that, that's a reverse of the Eucharist. Jesus is saying that his flesh is the bread of life. With the Eucharist, the bread is the flesh of Jesus. The symbolism makes sense, if it were metaphoric. But there's still no hard basis for assuming that Jesus was talking literally when he picked up a piece of bread (not flesh) and said that it was his flesh.
E: I acknowledge that it's been passed down in Church tradition, but you well know that tradition is not a valid logical argument.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Considering that John 6:63 states that "The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing," after the others left, it's questionable that he really meant it literally. Test of faith, perhaps?
And I take that to mean that it's not eating the flesh
per se
that does all this that he promised, but that it is his spirit, the spirit of the godhead, that is present (as we say of the Eucharist: it is the "body, blood,
soul and divinity
of Christ) in the Eucharist. We're not worshiping a piece of meat that happens to be Christ's anymore than we're worshiping a piece of bread. It's Christ fully presents, and
that
is our sustenance.
Having said that, that's a reverse of the Eucharist. Jesus is saying that his flesh is the bread of life. With the Eucharist, the bread is the flesh of Jesus. The symbolism makes sense, if it were metaphoric. But there's still no hard basis for assuming that Jesus was talking literally when he picked up a piece of bread (not flesh) and said that it was his flesh.
And there's no hard basis for assuming that he's not talking literally. If you're looking for "hard bases" to defend Catholic Dogma, then your looking for the wrong thing.
E: I acknowledge that it's been passed down in Church tradition, but you well know that tradition is not a valid logical argument.This has never been a logical argument. I'd laugh if you ask me to logically argue for one man, Christ, having two fully distinct natures.
You want to know the "hard" reason I (any all good Catholics) believe in the Eucharist? Because the Church said so, and the Church is infallible. And that's probably the worst logical argument you could make.
Post by
Perkocet
Yeah, but that was a dumb answer.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And your post is a dumb response to that post. I guess we're even.
Post by
Squishalot
Heh, and you wonder why people take issues with it :P
Going back to what we were discussing a year and a bit ago, the topic of the Eucharist came up in relation to non-Catholic churches.
Going on the assumption that the transmutation of the bread to flesh and wine to blood actually occurs, it brings up another point - why is it that only an Catholic-appointed priest can perform it?
I'll understand if the answer is simply that the Church said so, but I'll still be frowning, because you could essentially give that answer to just about every question in this thread that's asking 'why do Catholics believe / do this?'
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Heh, and you wonder why people take issues with it :P
With Catholicism? I don't wonder. It's generally a lack of Faith. The Eucharist is just one among many mysteries.
why is it that only an Catholic-appointed priest can perform it?
Ordained, not appointed. All Catholic priests are ordained by Bishops who in turn were ordained by Bishops, and they can all trace their individual lines back to one of the Apostles (who were present at the Last supper and received the command to "do this in memory of me"). Many, if not all (it's a bit of a complicated issue) Anglican Bishops are recognozed as valid (but not legitimate) Bishops. And thus any valid ordinations they perform would result in a valid (but again not legitimate) priest who could validly perform the Consecration. The same holds true for all the Orthodox and other rites that have broken away from the Roman Catholic Church, but kept their line of Apostolic succession in-tact. It's the majority of protestants that have not kept the line in-tact, and thus could not ordain priests.
I'll understand if the answer is simply that the Church said so, but I'll still be frowning, because you could essentially give that answer to just about every question in this thread that's asking 'why do Catholics believe / do this?'
But I have given you other answers. They're just not scientific, but they're reasons nonetheless.
Post by
Squishalot
With Catholicism? I don't wonder. It's generally a lack of Faith. The Eucharist is just one among many mysteries.
No, with factual claims about the truth of religion made by Catholics (and Christians generally, and any other religious group).
Many, if not all (it's a bit of a complicated issue) Anglican Bishops are recognozed as valid (but not legitimate) Bishops. And thus any valid ordinations they perform would result in a valid (but again not legitimate) priest who could validly perform the Consecration.
So, to get this straight - they would be valid insofar as performing the Consecration, but they're not legitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church - am I right?
With that in mind - what makes the ordainment of a bishop or priest important, with respect to the validity?
But I have given you other answers. They're just not scientific, but they're reasons nonetheless.
I know. I was just hoping for a scientific answer from a scientifically minded Catholic :P I've never really understood how you can apply great scrutiny to the rest of the world, but take on religion (as in, Christianity generally) with such faith, and moreover, take a religion with such rigid traditions (as in, Catholicism) on faith.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So, to get this straight - they would be valid insofar as performing the Consecration, but they're not legitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church - am I right?
Valid refers to the form and matter of the sacrament being in place (in the case of the Eucharist for example, the matter is bread and wine and the form is the statement of Consecration -- "This is my Body" -- being said by a validly ordained priest). When a sacrament is valid, that means that it did in fact take place. It that sense, it is recognized by the Catholic Church.
Legitimacy, on the otherhand, has to do with obeying the rules and norms of the Church. One such rule is that a Bishop should not be consecrated without the Pope's permission. An illegitimate sacrament is one done outside of the Church.
With that in mind - what makes the ordainment of a bishop or priest important, with respect to the validity?
Christ chose his 12 Apostles, his chosen ministers, to be with him when he gave them the "do this in memory of me" command. As the Church grew and spread out and the Apostles started getting older and being executed, they began ordaining other ministers (the first deacons and priests) and then later new Bishops to replace them.
Post by
Squishalot
Christ chose his 12 Apostles, his chosen ministers, to be with him when he gave them the "do this in memory of me" command. As the Church grew and spread out and the Apostles started getting older and being executed, they began ordaining other ministers (the first deacons and priests) and then later new Bishops to replace them.
That still doesn't suggest why a lay person couldn't conduct their own Eucharist.
The wording of 'do this in memory of me', even taken literally and not figuratively, could mean two things - to consume bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ, or to conduct this ceremony.
In either case, if
only the Apostles
are being charged to either consume and/or conduct the ceremony, then there
would
should be no requirement for Catholics to participate (other than tradition), and it would be a symbolic thing only.
Presumably, the 'do this in memory of me' command was a general command (i.e. not intended to be directed solely at the Apostles) to consume the body and blood of Christ, as reinforced by your reference to John 6. But with that said, looking back at the possible meanings of the command, it stands to reason that any Catholic should be able to conduct the Sacrament.
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Why are religious people (and it seems to be Catholics who are particularly guilty of this, so we'll say Catholics for the sake of the thread) so certain that their perceptions of life are the correct ones and state it so forcefully (and in some cases, evangelize it even when others ask to be left alone)?
Atheists do exactly the same thing.
Just saying.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.