Skip to comments.12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer
Posted on 01/15/2006 2:37:14 PM PST by NYer
Freedom of speech is a great thing. Unfortunately, it comes at an unavoidable price: When citizens are free to say what they want, theyll sometimes use that freedom to say some pretty silly things. And thats the case with the 12 claims were about to cover.
People use this argument a lot when they disagree with a statement and have no other way to support their idea. After all, if nothing is true for everyone, then they can believe whatever they want and theres nothing you can say to make them change their minds.
But look at that statement again: Theres no such thing as absolute truth. Isnt that, in itself, a statement thats being made absolutely? In other words, it applies some rule or standard to everyone across the board exactly what the relativists say is impossible. They have undone their own argument simply by stating their case.
The other problem with this statement is that no relativist actually believes it. If someone said to you, There is no absolute truth, and you punched him in the stomach, hed probably get upset. But by his own creed, hed have to accept that while punching someone in the stomach may be wrong for him, it might not be wrong for you.
This is when theyll come back with an amendment to the original statement by saying, As long as youre not hurting others, youre free to do and believe what you like. But this is an arbitrary distinction (as well as another absolute statement). Who says I cant hurt others? What constitutes hurt? Where does this rule come from?
If this statement is made based on personal preference, it means nothing for anyone else. Do no harm is in itself an appeal to something greater a sort of universal dignity for the human person. But again, the question is where does this dignity come from?
As you can see, the further you delve into these questions, the closer you come to understanding that our concepts of right and truth are not arbitrary but are based in some greater, universal truth outside ourselves a truth written in the very nature of our being. We may not know it in its entirety, but it cant be denied that this truth exists.
If you havent heard this one a dozen times, you dont get out much. Sadly enough, the person making this claim is often himself a Christian (at least, in name).
The problems with this view are pretty straightforward. Christianity makes a series of claims about God and man: That Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself, and that he died and was resurrected all so that we might be free from our sins. Every other religion in the world denies each of these points. So, if Christianity is correct, then it speaks a vital truth to the world a truth that all other religions reject.
This alone makes Christianity unique.
But it doesnt end there. Recall Jesus statement in Johns Gospel:
I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. In Christianity, we have Gods full revelation to humanity. Its true that all religions contain some measure of truth the amount varying with the religion. Nevertheless, if we earnestly want to follow and worship God, shouldnt we do it in the way He prescribed?
If Jesus is indeed God, then only Christianity contains the fullness of this truth.
3. The Old and New Testaments contradict one another in numerous places. If an omnipotent God inspired the Bible, He would never have allowed these errors.
This is a common claim, one found all over the internet (especially on atheist and free-thought websites). An article on the American Atheists website notes that What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; its that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient God.
Such a statement is generally followed by a list of Biblical contradictions. However, claims of contradictions make a few simple errors. For example, critics fail to read the various books of the Bible in line with the genre in which they were written. The Bible is, after all, a collection of several kinds of writing...history, theology, poetry, apocalyptic material, etc. If we try to read these books in the same wooden way in which we approach a modern newspaper, were going to be awfully confused.
And the list of Bible contradictions bears this out. Take, for example, the first item on the American Atheists list:Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8There! the atheist cries, A clear contradiction. But what the critic neglects to mention is something every Christian knows: When Christ instituted the New Covenant, the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant were fulfilled (and passed away). And so it makes perfect sense that Old Testament ceremonial rules would no longer stand for the people of the New Covenant.
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Romans 14:5
If the critic had understood this simple tenet of Christianity, he wouldnt have fallen into so basic an error.
The next item on the American Atheist list is similarly flawed:...the earth abideth for ever. Ecclesiastes 1:4So, the Old Testament claims that the earth will last forever, while the New says it will eventually be destroyed. How do we harmonize these? Actually, its pretty easy, and it again comes from understanding the genre in which these two books were written.
...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Ecclesiastes, for example, contrasts secular and religious worldviews and most of it is written from a secular viewpoint. Thats why we find lines like, Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Ecclesiastes 10:19)
However, at the end of the book, the writer throws us a twist, dispensing with all the wisdom hed offered and telling us to Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. (12:13)
If a reader stops before the end, hell be as confused as the critic at American Atheists. However, since the viewpoint that gave birth to the notion of an eternal earth is rejected in the last lines of the book, theres obviously no contradiction with what was later revealed in the New Testament. (And this is just one way to answer this alleged discrepancy.)
The other contradictions between the Old and New Testaments can be answered similarly. Almost to an item, the critics who use them confuse context, ignore genre, and refuse to allow room for reasonable interpretation.
No thinking Christian should be disturbed by these lists.
This argument is used often, and is pretty disingenuous. When someone says hes a good person, what he really means is that hes not a bad person bad people being those who murder, rape, and steal. Most people dont have to extend a lot of effort to avoid these sins, and thats the idea: We want to do the least amount of work necessary just to get us by. Not very Christ-like, is it?
But that mentality aside, theres a much more important reason why Catholics go to Church other than just as an exercise in going the extra mile. Mass is the cornerstone of our faith life because of what lies at its heart: the Eucharist. Its the source of all life for Catholics, who believe that bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ. Its not just a symbol of God, but God made physically present to us in a way we dont experience through prayer alone.
Jesus said, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:53-54). Were honoring Jesus command and trusting in that promise every time we go to Mass.
Whats more, the Eucharist along with all the other Sacraments is only available to those in the Church. As members of the Church, Christs visible body here on earth, our lives are intimately tied up with the lives of others in that Church. Our personal relationship with God is vital, but we also have a responsibility to live as faithful members of Christs body. Just being a good person isnt enough.
As a former Baptist minister, I can understand the Protestant objection to confession (they have a different understanding of priesthood). But for a Catholic to say something like this...its disappointing. I suspect that, human nature being what it is, people just dont like telling other people their sins, and so they come up with justifications for not doing so.
The Sacrament of Confession has been with us from the beginning, coming from the words of Christ Himself:
Jesus said to them again, Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (John 20:21-23)
Notice that Jesus gives His apostles the power to forgive sins. Of course, they wouldnt know which sins to forgive if they werent told what sins were involved.
The practice of confession is also evident in the Letter Of James:Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. (James 5:14-16)Its interesting that nowhere does James (or Jesus) tell us to confess our sins to God alone. Rather, they seem to think that forgiveness comes through some means of public confession.
And its not difficult to understand why. You see, when we sin, we rupture our relationship not just with God, but with His Body, the Church (since all Catholics are interconnected as children of a common Father). So when we apologize, we need to do so to all parties involved God and the Church.
Think of it this way. Imagine you walk into a store and steal some of their merchandise. Later, you feel remorse and regret the sinful act. Now, you can pray to God to forgive you for breaking His commandment. But theres still another party involved; youll need to return the merchandise and make restitution for your action.
Its the same way with the Church. In the confessional, the priest represents God and the Church, since weve sinned against both. And when he pronounces the words of absolution, our forgiveness is complete.
6. If the Church truly followed Jesus, theyd sell their lavish art, property, and architecture, and give the money to the poor.
When some people think of Vatican City, what they immediately picture is something like a wealthy kingdom, complete with palatial living accommodations for the pope and chests of gold tucked away in every corner, not to mention the fabulous collection of priceless art and artifacts. Looking at it that way, its easy to see how some people would become indignant at what they think is an ostentatious and wasteful show of wealth.
But the truth is something quite different. While the main buildings are called the Vatican Palace, it wasnt built to be the lavish living quarters of the pope. In fact, the residential part of the Vatican is relatively small. The greater portion of the Vatican is given over to purposes of art and science, administration of the Churchs official business, and management of the Palace in general. Quite a number of Church and administrative officials live in the Vatican with the pope, making it more like the Churchs main headquarters.
As for the impressive art collection, truly one of the finest in the world, the Vatican views it as an irreplaceable treasure, but not in monetary terms. The pope doesnt own these works of art and couldnt sell them if he wanted to; theyre merely in the care of the Holy See. The art doesnt even provide the Church with wealth; actually, its just the opposite. The Holy See invests quite a bit of its resources into the upkeep of the collection.
The truth of the matter is that the See has a fairly tight financial budget. So why keep the art? It goes back to a belief in the Churchs mission (one of many) as a civilizing force in the world. Just like the medieval monks who carefully transcribed ancient texts so they would be available to future generations texts that otherwise would have been lost forever the Church continues to care for the arts so they will not be forgotten over time. In todays culture of death where the term civilization can only be used loosely, the Churchs civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was.
You might hear this argument a lot today, especially in the wake of the abuse scandal in the Church. Everyone wants to find a solution to the problem, and in doing so some people are advocating ideas that are outside the pale of our Catholic faith (i.e., women priests, being open to homosexuality, etc). A lot of people blame the Church for being too rigid in its beliefs and not wanting to try anything new.
The truth is, a lot of the ideas for reform that are floating around today arent new. Theyve been around for a while, and the Church has already considered them. In fact, the Church has spent its entire life carefully examining ideas and determining which ones are in line with Gods law and which arent. It has discarded heresy after heresy while carefully building up the tenets of the Faith. It should come as no surprise that there are thousands of other Christian churches in existence today all of them had new ideas at one point that the Church had decided were outside the deposit of faith.
The Church has an important responsibility in protecting the integrity of our Faith. It never rejects ideas out of hand, as some dissenters would claim, but has two thousand years of prayer and study behind the beliefs it holds to be true.
This doesnt mean that we can never disagree on anything. Theres always room to discuss how best to deepen our understanding of the truth for example, how we can improve our seminaries or clergy/lay interactions all within the guidelines of our Faith.
As homosexual activity gains greater acceptance in our culture, therell be more pressure among Christians to explain away the Bibles clear prohibition against it. Its now the standard liberal party line to claim that the Bible when understood correctly doesnt disallow homosexual activity.
But this claim flies in the face of clear passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The first, of course, is the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you recall, two angels were sent by God to Sodom to visit Lot:But before [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them. Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof. But they said, Stand back! And they said, This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them. Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. (Genesis 19:4-10)The message of this passage is pretty clear. The men of Sodom were homosexuals who wanted to have relations with the men inside the house. Lot offered them his daughters, but they werent interested. Shortly thereafter, Sodom was destroyed by God in payment for the sins of its people namely, their homosexual acts. This fact is confirmed in the New Testament:Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)But these certainly arent the only passages in the Bible that condemn gay activity. The Old Testament contains another unambiguous condemnation: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22).
And these statements arent reserved to the Old Testament alone.For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)Its awfully hard for a liberal Christian to explain this away. Theres simply no mention here merely of gay promiscuity or rape; rather, Paul is weighing against any homosexual relations (which he describes as unnatural, shameless and dishonorable).
Liberal Christians are in a bind. How, after all, does one harmonize homosexuality with the Bible? Their solution, it appears, is to strip the Bible of its moral power, and run in rhetorical circles trying to escape its clear message.
Its true the Catechism says quite plainly, Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters (1782). This teaching is at the heart of what it means to have free will.
But that doesnt mean that our conscience is free from all responsibility or can be ignorant of Gods law. This is what the Catechism refers to as having a well-formed conscience.
The Catechism assigns great responsibility to a persons conscience:
Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil.... It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking (1777).
In other words, our conscience isnt just what we feel is right; its what we judge to be right based on what we know of the teachings of God and the Church. And in order to make that judgment, we have a responsibility to study and pray over these teachings very carefully. The Catechism has a section dedicated entirely to the careful formation of our conscience thats how important it is in making right decisions.
And in the end, whether right or wrong, were still held accountable for our actions: Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed (1781). When properly formed, it helps us to see when weve done wrong and require forgiveness of our sins.
By seeking a fully-formed conscience, we actually experience great freedom, because were drawing closer to Gods infinite Truth. Its not a burden or something that keeps us from doing what we want; its a guide to help us do what is right. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart (1784).
10. Natural Family Planning is just the Catholic version of birth control.
Natural Family Planning (NFP) has enemies on all sides. Some believe that its an unrealistic alternative to birth control (which they dont think is sinful anyway) while others think that its just as bad as birth control. NFP has had to walk a fine line between both extremes.
First of all, the main problem with birth control is that it works against the nature of our bodies and nature in general. It aims to sever the act (sex) from its consequence (pregnancy), basically reducing the sacredness of sex to the mere pursuit of pleasure.
NFP, when used for the right reason, is more of a tool used for discerning whether a couple has the means (whether financially, physically, or emotionally) to accept a child into their lives. It involves understanding your own body, taking careful stock of your situation in life, discussing the issue with your spouse, and, above all, prayer. Rather than cutting yourself off from the full reality of sex, you are entering into it with a better understanding of all aspects involved.
People who favor birth control point to those people who cant afford more children, or whose health might be at risk from further pregnancies. But these are perfectly legitimate reasons to use NFP situations where it would be perfectly effective and the Church allows its use.
Other people think that taking any sort of control over the size of your family is like playing God, rather than letting Him provide for us as He sees fit. Its true that we must trust God and always accept the lives He sends us, but we dont need to be completely hands-off in that regard.
For example, rather than throwing money around and saying that God will provide, families carefully budget their finances and try not to overextend their means. NFP is like that budget, helping us prayerfully consider our situation in life and act accordingly. Its part of our nature as humans to understand ourselves and use our intellect and free will, rather than passively expecting God to take care of everything. Were called to be good stewards of the gifts were given; we must be careful never to treat those gifts carelessly.
While this may be one of the most common myths Catholics hold regarding their faith, its also one of the most easily dispelled. The Catechism minces no words when talking about abortion: Its listed with homicide under crimes against the fifth commandment, Thou shalt not kill.
The following passages make this clear: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception (2270). Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable (2271). Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life (2272).
It cant be stated more plainly than that. Some people might argue, however, that being pro-choice doesnt mean being in favor of abortion; lots of people think abortion is wrong but dont want to force that opinion on others.
Theres that whats true for you might not be true for me argument again. The Church has an answer to that, too: The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin (2273).
The sanctity of life is a universal truth that can never be ignored. Advising someone to get an abortion, or even voting for a politician who would advance the cause of abortion, is a grave sin, because it leads others to mortal sin what the Catechism calls giving scandal (2284).
The Church stands forcefully and clearly against abortion, and we as Catholics must take our stand as well.
As society becomes increasingly fascinated with the paranormal, we can expect to see claims of past life memories increase. Indeed, there are now organizations who will help take you through your previous lives using hypnosis.
While this may be convincing to some, it certainly isnt to anyone familiar with the mechanics of hypnosis. Almost since the beginning, researchers have noted that patients in deep hypnosis frequently weave elaborate stories and memories, which later turn out to be utterly untrue. Reputable therapists are well aware of this phenomenon, and weigh carefully what the patient says under hypnosis.
Sadly, though, this isnt the case with those interested in finding proof for reincarnation. Perhaps the greatest example of this carelessness is the famous Bridey Murphy case. If youre not familiar with it, heres a quick outline: In 1952, a Colorado housewife named Virginia Tighe was put under hypnosis. She began speaking in an Irish brogue and claimed to once have been a woman named Bridey Murphy who had lived in Cork, Ireland.
Her story was turned into a bestselling book, The Search For Bridey Murphy, and received much popular attention. Journalists combed Ireland, looking for any person or detail that might confirm the truth of this past-life regression. While nothing ever turned up, the case of Bridey Murphy continues to be used to buttress claims of reincarnation.
Thats a shame, since Virginia Tighe was exposed as a fraud decades ago. Consider: Virginias childhood friends recalled her active imagination, and ability to concoct complex stories (often centered around the imitation brogue she had perfected). Not only that, but she had a great fondness for Ireland, due in part to a friendship with an Irish woman whose maiden name was you guessed it Bridie.
Whats more, Virginia filled her hypnosis narratives with numerous elements from her own life (without revealing the parallels to the hypnotist). For example, Bridey described an Uncle Plazz, which eager researchers took to be a corruption of the Gaelic, Uncle Blaise. Their enthusiasm ran out though when it was discovered that Virginia had a childhood friend she called "Uncle Plazz."
When a hypnotized Virginia began dancing an Irish jig, researchers were astounded. How, after all, would a Colorado housewife have learned the jig? The mystery was solved when it was revealed that Virginia learned the dance as a child.
As the Bridey Murphy case shows, the claims of past-life regression are always more impressive than the reality. To this day, not a single verifiable example exists of a person being regressed to a former life. Certainly, many tales have been told under the control of a hypnotist, but nevertheless, evidence for reincarnation (like that for the Tooth Fairy) continues to elude us.
Copyright © 2003 Deal Hudson
I'm bookmarking this thread, thanks.
The example used of the contradictions between Exodus 20 (The Sabbath Day Instituted) and Romans 14:5 is erroneous and makes no sense.
In Romans 14:5 the subject is vegetarianism and fasting. The Sabbath is not mentioned once. The original Greek says [One judges a day to be above a day; Another judges every day to be alike. Each in his own mind let be fully assured.]
The Apostle Paul was attempting to settle a dispute between those who ate meat and vegetables and those who ate only vegetables. Verse 6 says [He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; And he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. He is also trying to settle the matter of a particular fasting day.
The early Christians in Rome were sometimes afraid to eat meat because it may have been sacrificed in the pagan temples to the Romans gods before it got to the market.
In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul explains the "Eating Food Sacrificed To Idols" problem and tells the folks not to judge anyone for doing that.....in other words, idols are nothing, so what's the big deal. Do what you want, (my interpretation). Still there were people who felt uncomfortable about eating that food...and not knowing if it had been sacrificed, chose to eat only vegetables. Paul said "That's fine too".
In Luke 18:12 Jesus spoke of a Pharisee who claimed to fast twice a week and give 10% of all he got. In Matthew 6:16 Jesus says, [When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.] So.....fasting among the Jews and early Christians, sometimes twice a week, was very common. It was also, according to the Apostle, a disputable matter, [Romans 14:1]
You can go through the entire chapter in the original Greek and not find mention of the word Sabbath. Paul is telling them if they want to fast this day.... or that day, it is up to them. If they want to eat only vegetables.... that is fine too.
Yes -I have dealt with and opposed all twelve at one time or another -even here on FR.
Why would someone set up this strawman?
These arguments are no help to anyone of faith.
It is like establishing a set of arguments against a 6 year old.
**Yes -I have dealt with and opposed all twelve at one time or another -even here on FR.**
So amazing to do it here on FR too!
Personally I'm looking for a more detailed response to 5. Just got asked this by a non Catholic.
Dang, Diego, can't any of these ever be short?
That sure doesn't sound like "confess your sins to us so that we can pay off families and victims to keep our sins hidden."
"Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed."
So does your priest confess his sins to you also?
Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD " and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah
Confession has helped me on more than one occasion to turn from sin
"I could not image what it must be like to have to someday confess my sins to God."
Why wait till "someday", what's preventing you from doing so now?
What I was attempting to explain is that to sit down and tell the priest the sins I have committed is a very difficult task. As difficult as it is, can you image what it is going to be like on the final judgment when you have to tell those sins to God.
In my case at least it is an incentive to try harder not to commit those sins again.
Though I have one question--is the Church's position on Abortion clearly infallible?
BTW: Wasn't Deal fired from Crisis due to flirting a little too much with female staffers?
As to the stance on abortion: Yes, it is to be held by all the faithful. I'm not sure where exaclty you would find the first explicit condemnation of abortion, but it's something that has always been believed by the Church.
To give you an idea of how the Church considers abortion:
"Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the cononical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life..." (CCC, sect 2272)
But thank you for the information nonetheless.
#13 While here at the school, your child will be nearly forced into taking accordion lessons.
Hey, it happened to me anyway!
Umm paa paa my @$$.
You: "I know how the Church condemns abortion--I was just wondering whether or not it is clearly held to be an infallible teaching."
Me (earlier): "Yes, it is to be held by all the faithful."
Sorry: I was not quite clear. "it is to be held by all the faithful" is Catholic-high-falutin-talk for "infallible." You will usually see the longer phrase in an official document, like "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (JPII) or "Munificentissimus Deus" (Pius XII) where neither Pope, if I remember correctly, uses the word "infallible," but proclaims "infallibly."
Its not that I don't buy it, I do but generally those brought up that 'confessing your sins to a man is some sort of evil pagan idea' I sort of need a brunt evidence.
Many people never hesitate to pay hundreds of dollars to tell their 'sins' to a psychotherapist ... and not receive absolution :-). For us to hear the priest say: "I absolve you of your sins" - what an awesome and beautiful Sacrament.
You have to go back to the Jews wandering in the desert. It's one of the 10 commandments: - "Thou shall not kill!"
Priests confess to other priests. When you are behind the screen, a priest generally doesn't know who you are.
Bless you! For those of us who remember pre-VCII days and have watched in shock awe as tradition was stripped from the Latin Mass, only to be replaced with 'novelties', 40 years feels like such a long time. Yet, as you pointed out, it was 'tradition', locked for 500 years, that hindered the flow of fresh air into the Roman Church. In the span of 2000 years, 40 is no more than a drop in the bucket.
No. The point to the Romans 14 passage is primarily about people who are "weak in faith" and the obligation of the Christian not to welcome such a person just to have an occasion for "disputes over opinions," as is plain from verse 1. One example about such contentiousness involves dietary concerns, as you have said. But he gives a second example about the dispute over the Lord's Day in verses 5 and 6. At the time, the dispute between the Hebrew Christians and Gentile Christians over which day was to be observed as the Lord's Day was still ongoing. Sure, the Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned, but it is clear enough that that is what is referred to in vv. 5 & 6. St. Paul didn't have to even mention the Sabbath by name, as ALL of his hearers knew quite well what he was talking about.
The answer to #1 doesn't jive with special relativity.
I was in an RCIA class, last Tuesday when the leaders of the class said that all religions are pathways for salvation. Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever. Not only that, a sponsor of one of the catechumens spoke up and expressed that all of the other religions are equally valid as far as holding God's truth. I can't begin to express my disappointment. Thank God, that the person I'm sponsoring had done his homework and wrote these people off as sadly misinformed and, in one case, a crank.
"You have to go back to the Jews wandering in the desert. It's one of the 10 commandments: - 'Thou shall not kill!'"
Of course....how could I forget that one! Thanks :)
I was refering to the Church Fathers though. The Didache, a fairly early text, does specifically mention it. (The Didache, at the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm).
BTW, that is a great cartoon. The sad thing is some people want "something more progressive."
We all know that you're Orthodox. Don't you confess your sins to the priest before the icon of Christ at the iconostasis? Certainly that's what we all did when I was attending the Melkite liturgy for years before I returned to my "roots" at the indult Tridentine Mass. It's my understanding that the Orthodox use John 20:23 in their theology of the sacrament just as the Catholics do. So nothing could be less "pagan," no?
Interesting! I did not realize you once attended the Melkite Church. We have several Melkite families in our Maronite parish. I'm the one who comes from Indult Tridentine roots :-). We even have a Greek Orthodox family that occasionally celebrates our liturgy because the wife is from Jordan. One big "catholic" family.
Thanks for the help!
(After I posted the first one, I did some research and found the Didache at the Catholic Encyclopedia; see post 38. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a whole host of Patristic texts; you should check it out sometime.)
In my OCA Parish there is an Icon of Christ on a podium on the left near the Iconostasis, during confession the priest stands there, and you confess your sins.
In one ROCOR church I went to it was a little different. The priest was sitting behind an icon on the right side and there is an open bible and a cross. You kiss both before confession. The other ROCOR church I've been to it was the same scenerio but off to the left.
I generally find that when defending universal apostolic beleifs, such as confession, that the Catholic church has a more detailed answer for protestants than I can find searching only Orthodox sites, so that's why I asked. :)
That's a nice cartoon. Now explain why Rome erased the Second Commandment.
"and this was last used by Pius XII and the dogma on the Virgin Mary."
That is an interesting point. It appears that Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, pulled out the big guns on the issue of women's ordination. In the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" on 22 May, 1994, he wrote:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html It's not a long letter.)
The language he uses bears all the hallmarks of infallibility; it is actually quite similar to the language of Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissumus Deus," wherein he formalized as dogma the doctrine of the Assumption. However, I think there is a slight difference in the way infallibility was used. Pius XII settled the issue for once and all; previously most people had believed it, but the belief was not formalized. With John Paul II it seems that the issue at hand was more "re-settled." By this I mean that the Church had always, always taught that only men could be priests as a matter of fact; it seems that JPII wrote the Letter to re-emphasize the point to combat the happy-dappy liberal notion that all (women, non-Catholics, ham sandwiches, etc) have an intrinsic right to priestly ordination. So, it seems (to me) that your assertion that the last pope to use infall. to define a doctrine was Pius XII is true, with some qualifications.
The above are just my observations, and if I have misinterpreted anything, am incorrect, not precise, etc, please correct me.
Not that this has anything to do with the thread at hand, but I thought it was interesting....thanks for listening.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. If you read the Greek you will find no reference made to the Sabbath....or "the Lord's day". Not a hint....or implication.
My comment was based on the quote, which was the number one item in the list. The truth is singular and unique. Even in the case of duals, because the same truth is represented. Alternative truths don't exist.
I was a "refugee" from massive liturgical abuse in my home parish that began in the 70's, and attended the Melkite cathedral from 1980 to early 1990. When the indult Tridentine Mass was allowed into the Archdiocese of Boston at that time, I felt it was important to return to my ancestral roots, so to speak (though, born in 1957, I had to learn the rite from scratch, just like I did with the Melkites!). I have been back to the Melkite cathedral a few times since then, and I'm still on friendly terms with Bishop John, the deacon and many parishioners. This is easy to do, since my wife is half-Syrian in ancestry and we know lots of Melkites socially. Funny, though, while I was hanging with the Melkites, we weren't married yet, and we seldom attended there together.
If the Latin Mass dies in Boston because of the intended closing of the church we're at, and the new site doesn't work out (it won't, for many reasons, a few of which are simply logistical), my family may be slinking back to the Melkites yet! ;-)
Aha! I knew I left out something ;)
Though I'm wondering where the infallibility of abortion shows up with respect to the early Church.
Please. Don't patronize. I had to read the text before I responded, didn't I? I know perfectly well that the word "Sabbath" isn't there. Though the implication of the Sabbath certainly is. Context fills in the gap. Just like it does when treating, for example, issues concerning the Trinity, a word not found in Scripture *at all*. If he wasn't talking about the Sabbath, what was the controversy over "this day or that"?