hmm, just a few posts ago someone was chastizing ME for being smart-aleky. I guess you are “allowed” to be smart-aleky if you are Catholic. After all eating god gives you MOJO! I read it in a post so it must be true!**
You know, I’m not currently a “practicing” Catholic, but I still find your comments EXTREMELY offensive.
:mad:
Okay, since it’s an ‘Ask the Catholic Guy’ thread, I’m game.
It is official RC doctrine that Mary, mother of Jesus, was assumed into heaven physically and corporeally.
Q1. Do you really believe this?
Q2. Where do you imagine her body is now?
It is official RC doctrine that Mary gave birth while remaining a virgin.
Q3. Where did Jesus (as a true man) get his Y chromosome?
Q4. Do you accept the findings, from all relevant research, that our chromosomes, and all our genetic material, contains much that is imperfect ‘junk’ DNA?
Q5. Does God create imperfect junk?
It is official RC doctrine that at the moment of consecration, the Eucharist is the actual presence of Jesus Christ (not a symbol or representation) under the guise of bread and wine.
Q6. As a thinking adult, do you not find anything remotely risible about this suggestion?
Q7. Do you honestly believe you are eating and digesting and excreting a Judean man’s body each time you take Holy Communion?
It is official RC doctrine that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was needed to atone for the sins of all mankind and cleanse us of original sin.
Q8. In what way does this suggestion make any kind of sense? If God wants to forgive us, or cleanse us from Original Sin, why is anyone’s crucifixion necessarily involved? And why does the death of a guy on a cross make any difference, given that the person being crucified is not the person (or group) alleged to have transgressed?
It is official RC doctrine that Jesus was tempted 3 times by Satan on the mountain.
Q9. Even if this we true, how would we know? Only Jesus and Satan were present, the Gospels do not offer this story in reported speech, and Jesus left no account of his activities behind.
I look forward to your answers.
I did not start this thread and I suspect that Catholic theology is larger and deeper than anyone here can answer in a short breath. I will, however, take a shot at answering these questions in the sprirt in which they were asked.
Q1. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about this one way or another.
Q2. Since heaven is not a physical reality, I suspect that the whole notion of ascensions and assumptions is a way to deal with an event that was not fully understood by those present.
Q3. Jesus got his Y chromosome from the action of God. You want a miracle? That works. You want a one-time mutation? That seems pretty miraculous, also, but then, that is what miracles are about, isn’t it?
Q4. Sure there is non-useful DNA that we call, in a casual way “junk.” This question is rather silly, in that there is no Catholic doctrine “endangered” by this phenomenon.
Q5. God created a world that works in an imperfect fashion. There haven’t been any Catholic theologians that talked about the “pefection” of God’s creation in a long time–certainly prior to the efforts of Mendel. In fact, it is generally not Catholic theology that demands perfection in nature since it is assumed that the creation will not be as perfect as the creator.
Q6. Sure I find it “remotely risible.” God’s got a good sense of humor. He also speaks to people “where they are.” The fact that various cultures have developed the notion that they drew direct nourishment from a god lends this concept a resonance with people that God could easily tap into by actually enacting this story that appears in so many legends.
Q7. Not as you have phrased it. The teaching is that the bread and wine become the body and blood, but there is no specific expression of how that works. The official teachings of the RCC follow the Aristotelian/Thomistic concepts of Substance and Accident, in which an object’s true “Substance” may be radically different than the “Accidents” of its appearance and chemical composition. Under this philosophy, even our current physical bodies are merely the “Accidents” through which we act and under which we are perceived, so worrying about the physical body of Jesus–lungs, liver, kidneys, etc.–is easily reconciled. Of course, if one does not accept Scholastic philosophy, one has to come up with a different explanation. I generally limit myself to saying that Jesus is “physically present” in the bread and wine and let people who want to worry over how this occurs to their own devices.
Q8. The death of Jesus is not for forgiveness, but for atonement. A rather different concept that what you laid out.
Q9. I have no idea whether the temptation of Jesus was a physical event or a story designed to show that Jesus suffered the same temptations as everyone else. Your argument is rather specious, however. While Jesus may not have left a written record, nothing prevented him from relating this story to his disciples, either before his death or after his resurrection.
With the caveat that this is the kind of church teaching that does not really impact my faith life on a regular basis…Q1-sure Q2-heaven, I suppose
Do I sense a haploid joke coming up here soon? 
The miracle nature of the conception of Jesus itself seems to render concerns about the source of a y-chromosome secondary to my curiosity…IOW, I don’t know…and it’s not really something I speculate much about.
Q4- I’m not up on current genetic research, as pertains to junk composition…but I’ll accept the premise of your question. Q5- sure…I mean have you ever really LOOKED at a wildebeast? :eek:
Well a substantial portion of the practice of Christianity is built on faith…I can laugh about my faith, and the nature of humanity…I don’t find the particular teaching of real presence to be risible.
No. Roman Catholics believe that Christ’s body is substantially present in a “supernatural”, as opposed to natural form. The key word being form. Catholics believe that the form (or elements) of the eucharist (bread and wine) remains the same.
(note: your phrasing suggests that this teaching is exclusive to RC doctrine…of course it is not) Not to cop out…but the redemptive nature of Christ’s death is a bit deep to answer in one glib paragraph or so. For Catholics, there is an element of mystery for the act…much like there is for transubstantiation…or the Trinity…or the Immaculate Conception…or the virgin birth etc…
One discussion (a bit dated) is here
Entire books, sermons and courses are built around the redemptive mystery of Christ and the passion. Do a Google search if you’re unfamiliar.
The Gospels don’t offer the story in reported speech? You may wish to dust off Luke 4:1-13
There are several accounts of an encounter Jesus and one other person…this account is not unique in that regard.
.
OK, here’s another question: it says in the catechism that children are required to obey their parents as long as they live at home; once they move out, they still have to respect their parents, but obedience isn’t, strictly speaking, required. So how does this apply to college students, who are in a sort of transitional period – for the most part they don’t live at home and are legally adults, but are generally still supported by their parents?
FWIW…the text Katisha is referring to comes from here (section 2217)
" As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey his parents in all that they ask of him when it is for his good or that of the family. "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."22 Children should also obey the reasonable directions of their teachers and all to whom their parents have entrusted them. But if a child is convinced in conscience that it would be morally wrong to obey a particular order, he must not do so.
As they grow up, children should continue to respect their parents. They should anticipate their wishes, willingly seek their advice, and accept their just admonitions. Obedience toward parents ceases with the emancipation of the children; not so respect, which is always owed to them. This respect has its roots in the fear of God, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. "
I guess if one were to be strictly concerned about the definitions laid out in this passage (and, for me…I’m more tuned in to the basic “Honor Thy Parents” notion…then a specific “how to”)…the key word seems to be “emancipation”. Strictly speaking…if you’re under your parent’s roof (literally or metaphorically)…I would suspect that this suggests that basic rules of conduct flow from mom and dad.
My reality sense suggests to me that the writers of the catechism were not specifically suggesting that freshman Fred call up his parents about every kegger he goes to.
I am back from my weekend retreat at St. Mary’s. I know all you fellow dopers have missed me terribly so here i am.
I have a question fr all you Lutheran/Protestants out there. THis lady at the retreat told us a story of how her friend, her best friend, was a Lutheran, and while they did not talk about their religion, this ladyhelped her friend set up for the service on sunday, because the best Friends mother was involved in the church. Anyway, one day, the Golden candlesticks weren’t out, so this lady went out to grab them, and as she was reaching, her best friend yelled ot, “Don’t you DARE touch those!”, and when this lady asked why, she said, “just don’t, allright?!”
They did not talk about it again and remain friends, but this lady, who had no idea why this happened, was told by some Protestant friends that a superstition of some Protestant’s was that if a Catholic toched gold, it would trn Black.
The point of the story is that a lot of the problems people have with Catholics are misunderstandings, and we should try and always set things straight in a reasonable fashion. But as i have NEVER heard this before, I am puzzled. Is that really a Superstition held by some people? How can they believe that if a Catholic touches Gold, it will turn Black, or is it only within a church or something? Is it common? and lastly, has Jack Chick heard about it?Is there a tract called, “Black Gold” anywhere?
Dear Catholics:
I understand that the anti-jew subject is not to be broached on these boards, so will not go there.
but…
Is it Doctrine that I, who know of Catholicism, but choose not to accept it, am damned?
And how does de-cannonization work? Think St./Mr. Christofer (sp?)?
thanks!
Dave
I wasn’t aware that the “anti-jew” subject (whatever that is) is taboo on the boards.
No…although rooting against Notre Dame pisses God off like you wouldn’t believe
Try here for a basic outline of canonization…and a discussion of “Christopher” (who is not recogized as an historical saint by the church)
No. The RCC holds that God wants to save all people and that He does not put up arbitrary obstacles or shibboleths to prevent anyone’s salvation.
Check out the Catechism, Article 9, section 3 and scroll down to the sections that start at number 836, including 839 and on to 848.
In 846, the Catechism quotes from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church from the first session of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, (Light of the Peoples), from 1964:
This is not a statement that anyone who does not join the RCC is damned. It is a statement that anyone who recognized the validity of the RCC and chose to not join is damned.
I suspect that very few people who choose not to become Catholic “know” that the church was “founded as necessary by God”. Most would doubt that there is any truth to or reality behind such a statement. The condemnation is of people who choose to turn away from salvation, not those who do not believe that the church is an instrument of salvation, to begin with.
As to Christopher and his buddies:
The RCC has not actually de-canonized anyone. Reviews of the early lists of saints that were compiled have turned up the information that some of those people were legendary and nothing is known about them–sometimes with the suspicion that they may have been invented as inspirational stories that later compilers mistakenly thought were true.
Christopher is a good example of that. His story is that he was a rough-and-ready, brawling porter at a river, ferrying people and goods across, but not behaving any better than he had to. One night a terrible storm was raging and a small child asked to be carried across the rain-swollen river. Christopher started to refuse, gave in, and carried the child across. The child seemed to become heavier at every step and the porter had great difficulty forcing his way through the torrent. When he got across (or, in some stories, while in mid-river), he asked the child how the child had become so heavy and the child replied that he was carrying all the sins of the world, at which point the porter realized that he had ferried or carried (pherein) the Christ across the river, after which he is known as Christ-bearer or Christopher.
Nice story if you’re into such things, but there is no other information about this purported Christopher.
When the liturgical reforms were instituted around 30 years ago, the RCC decided to drop such folks out of the liturgical calendar. This did not mean that they were no longer saints (provided that they had ever actually existed), but that the church would no longer set aside a day on which to ask for their prayers to God to intercede for us.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**
Tom is correct. I gave a sloppy answer…as the link I posted suggested, the “act” by the church was dropping Christopher from the calendar…not necessarily “de-canonizing” anyone. It’s a recognition that the historical evidence for the existence of him was slim to none.
Tomn, Dave -
Thanks -
I must confess the Vatican II document was a bit of a struggle - scary flashbacks of PoliSci class…
IIRC, in short, Vatican II (somewhere in there) came up with the following rules (and, MY, what a political document that is!):
‘fish on Friday’ was no longer required.
Mass is to be performed in the local language.
Jews were no longer ‘personally’ responsible for the Crucifixion - only as a group.
Christopher, et. al. were demoted.
Correct?
and I didn’t know:
the Catholic and Protestant Bibles differed as to included Books.
Catholics believe in the ‘elect’ - I thought that was a Calvin thing…
and…
did I read that document correctly - does it call on the laity to promote the Church and its beliefs in the secular world (i.e., amongst the non-believers)? If so, a rather bold assertion, given the noise generated by JFK’s campaign…
thanks again
dave
Even the “only as a group” has to be seen as part of the group that includes all humanity. What passage were you looking at that ascribed any special guilt to the Jews? In the past 40 years, the church has apologized (however lamely) for past claims that the Jews were “responsible” for the death of Jesus and has condemned statements that repeated that old tale.
Same word being used differently. Calvin took the notion of the elect and turned it into a claim that only a limited number of people were predestined to enjoy heaven.
In Catholic theology, elect (chosen) is used more as “the chosen people” is used to refer to Jews: those people chosen by God to share his message in the world.
This is simply the extension of Jesus’s command to “Go and teach all nations.” It is not a directive to take orders from the Vatican to be implemented among the various nations of the world that can be coerced or co-opted to go along with RCC politics.
Yep. The Catholics have everything the Protestants have, plus a couple that Martin Luther threw out. The Orthodox have everything that the Catholics have, plus a couple that the RCC never got around to accepting. They tend to be inspirational books written between about 200 BCE and 100 CE.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**
Yes, ever since 1946, the RCC has been backing off that one - anyone interested in pre-1946 dogma, see the 1931 ‘Dracula’ (Bela Lugosi, Universal) and watch closely.
And…
for the biggie - SINS!
what is the difference between Venial and Mortal?
is it possible for an observant Catholic to screw up to the point that his/her soul goes straight to Hell (the Purgutory theory does sound like an exception made for one’s buddies…)- no amount of penance, absolution, etc. can save it?
From the catechism again:
IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
…
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
If the sinner is truly repentent and requesting of forgiveness…no.
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
OK, I took a look at the Catechism - MY, but that is a LARGE document.
I knew I shouldn’t have:
1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. …fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like…
hell, those are some of my reasons for living!
Back to subject - what does ex-communication do to your soul’s destination?
Can anyone OTHER than Catholics enter Heaven?
Suppose:
a. a devout Hindu who has never heard of Jesus
b. a devout Protestant (aware of the RCC)
c. a simple heathen
OK, another one of my stupid questions: I’m a big sci-fi dork and, as such, am apt to do dorky fannish things – in this specific case, I’m working on a fanfic parody (yeah, I know, I’m a big geek ;)). Now, technically fanfic uses copyrighted characters, but some authors/franchises are OK with it (this is the case for all the fandoms I’m active in, actually – usually it’s because it’s positive publicity, or the author finds it flattering or whatever). Anyway, I was involved in an online discussion with someone else who’s opposed to the entire concept on grounds that it’s unfair and disrespectful to authors – and, since he referred to it, although he’s not (AFAIK) devoutly religious, as “bearing false witness,” it triggered my guilt reflex. (Not, I admit, difficult to do, though the sin in question, seeing as how it deals with copyright issues, is more likely to be theft.)
Now, the creators of both properties involved condone the writing of fanfic, and if they do that it’s not really theft – so am I overreacting to feel a bit guilty? (And I think it’s the kind of guilt over possibly breaking rules, rather than over potentially hurting people.)
Sorry to keep dumping these sorts of questions on you. One of these days, I’ll get my issues worked out, really… 
I don’t see how it’s “theft”-it’s more using your imagination-it’s only “theft”, I believe, if you’re using it for profit.
Most companies allow fan fiction-but they are forbidden to read it themselves and won’t accept fan stories.
Only God has a say in what happens to your soul.
We can safely conclude, however, that being cut off from the sacraments is not a way to help you into Heaven. If your excommunication arose from an act for which you remain unrepentant, I’d say you have trouble. But it’s not the excommunication itself that’s causing the trouble, but whatever act occasioned the excommunication.
The Catholic Church represents the fullness of Christian doctrine. So someone trying to get into Heaven won’t be helped by not embracing the Church.
But again - only God determines this, not man. There is no doctrinal reason that any of the three could not enter Heaven. Even the unbaptized Hindu, by virtue of his desire, can benefit by a doctrine the Church has discussed as “baptism by desire”.
- Rick