Questions for Catholics

This is ridiculous
>2)
This is by far the most important issue. So let's begin:
All the early Church Fathers believed in it
>therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
There is the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
>therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
It's literally all over the Bible(especially John 6, focus on John 6)
>therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

>don't see anything in scripture besides Jesus saying "This is my body/blood,"
Jesus in John 6 tells the masses to eat His flesh and drink His blood like seven times. again see the section on John 6:
>therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

>why is it necessary to take this literally
Jesus was not at all being metaphorical about it; that was how the Jews interpreted at the time and that's why 5000 left, they thought He meant to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, which He never qualifies as a metaphor. So see John 6

>3) You realize that scripture came from tradition right?

>4)
Why not both? Explain to me why it cannot be both. That's a false dichotomy. Too, don't you think saints in Heaven are closer to God than we are? I think they are, it makes perfect sense; they are sinless in Heaven and I am not.

unironically this
>assent of faith

>given how many things in the Bible and even Jesus' teachings are allegorical why is it necessary to take this literally?

Attached: 1519700369610.jpg (210x187, 14K)

Thank you. I forgot to add that the holiness of the saints is one of the reasons why we look to emulate their ability to allow the Holy Spirit to operate and move within us.
I find that my protestant friends seem to understand a little better when I express this point.
We'll pray for you that you may open up your heart to the Lord.
I'm regards to question 3, I just found this:
"In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit."
In case this thread gets deleted, you should come post on /christian/ if you have any questions

sorry if this came off brash too; I just wrote it real quick lol

Not really.
This is from A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years:
>Crucial to this instruction was that the faithful should understand what they were doing when they
received the Eucharist. The council therefore recommended one philosophical explanation for
understanding the miracle of the Mass: it asserted that Christ's 'body and blood are truly contained in
the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed
in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood'. [15] This was the doctrine generally known as
'transubstantiation', although notably the council asserted it rather than provided any detailed analysis,
which meant that a good deal of latitude remained in eucharistic belief down to the Counter-
Reformation.

15 - G. Macy, 'The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages', JEH, 45 (1994), 11-41; see
Tanner, 'Pastoral Care', 29-30.

I direct you to all the links I gave OP.
To give you some benefit of the doubt, it seems transubstantiation was precisely defined later in time. But that does not mean it was not general belief before hand.

an example would be that papal infallibility was defined in the 19th century, but it was in practice and tradition beforehand.

not larping, user
I think you misunderstand sola scriptura. obviously there are some mistakes in translation and copying over the millennia. the key point is, only scripture is believed to originally have divine inspiration. extra-scriptural church tradition may be very useful to the believer, but Protestants don't put it on the same level as the word of God. I've always heard that Catholics believe that traditions are in the same league as scripture, which is why I'm asking.
but if Peter was not the leader of the first church historically speaking, wouldn't this call into doubt Matthew 16:18 being an appointment of him as pope and of the following succession?
will read about the early church fathers, thanks. and by "scripture" I mean the agreed upon canon. for example, church tradition may hold a doctrine not explicitly detailed in scripture. is this seen in Catholicism as an essential issue or no?
I'm sorry but when I hear someone say "this is my body, broken for you" it's not my immediate assumption to assume that he's transforming bread into his literal body rather than speaking metaphorically
thank you. I just have an aversion to putting too much stock in sinful men as inerrant vessels of God, probably from my Protestant raising. also don't immediately see the great advantage of saints being in heaven when Protestants often place emphasis on the believer's personal relationship with God.

what is /christian/? is it a general on Veeky Forums?

here's a guy arguing for the church father's belief in transubstantiation too
>calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/

You make a good point, but we can't know for sure because those examples can easily be interpreted either as metaphorical or literal.
But, when the transubstantiationwas was defined, there was a conscious effort to make it clear that it was literal.

One believes in the scripture and its divine basis because they believe in the Church and its divine basis first, not the opposite. That is, after all, where the scripture comes from.

>for example, church tradition may hold a doctrine not explicitly detailed in scripture. is this seen in Catholicism as an essential issue or no?
We would have to discern whether or not that the tradition is against scripture. Think of this: it was an issue for gentiles on whether or not they had to enter the old covenant to enter the new covenant. There was no Bible nor scripture nor OT scripture nor teachings from Jesus that explicitly states this issue. So how could the apostles answer that question? They had to rely on defining doctrine, there was not scripture for that soon to be tradition.

So see Matthew 18 when Jesus gives the apostles the power to bind and loose on earth, and the same shall be in Heaven(They aren't changing Heaven, they are binding and loosening correctly). This is also the same part where Jesus give the Church authority to deal with issues:

>Mt. 18:14-17:
Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. [15] But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
[16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

>calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/
Interesting, I'll read this later.

I'll retract this point then:

fuck i meant this point:

Yeah man, sounds good

hahah that's what I assumed lol

did the scriptures not come directly from God?
one could argue that Jesus indicated as such when he spoke of being the fulfillment of the law, but I see your point. I guess where Catholics and Protestants differ is that Protestants don't believe that additions to the canon after its initial establishment hold the same divine weight.

thanks for the answers to those of you in here, a few more questions for you that I forgot in the main post:

1) why are priests to remain celibate when Peter and other apostles had a wife?

2) why no birth control? I've heard the argument about onan spilling his seed, but I've always seen the deadly issue being that he directly disobeyed God, not that he pulled out.

>1) why are priests to remain celibate when Peter and other apostles had a wife?
That is a later tradition; it's just a way for some to devote himself fully more to God. I think their's a verse from Paul that says a man with a wife cannot focus on God as much as a man without a wife can. and too, Jesus was celibate and priests are meant to act in persona Christi. In the end, it's another sacrifice for the purpose of devoting oneself to God more and more.

>2) why no birth control?
It is a blatant blocking of life. Though life is not being destroyed like that of plan-b or abortion, BC is meant to deny life from occurring and it is unnatural. Sex is the greatest physical way to connect with your spouse (pretty cool way of thinking about it, huh?) and it is also designed to bring about life, this is natural.

I've heard that non procreational sex between married couples is only a venial sin; I could be wrong so don't quote me on that.

And NFC, i'm not sure about. It still seems to be under the intention of denying life, though it is by natural means, not artificially denying life like a condom or BC

*NFP: Natural Family Planning

sorry about that!

Yeah, cool, but this is the only board where it actually makes sense. I've proposed a religion board before, and it gets rejected, because philosophy is discussed on lit, even when it's not about a specific book.

So, given that christianity today is pretty much just different interpretations of a book, it makes sense that analysis of those interpretations take place on Veeky Forums. Also, the entire western tradition of literature rests on the bible, and the history of western publishing also rests on the christian tradition. We wouldn't have books if it weren't for Christians trying to make copies of the bible.

catholicism appeals to young straight white men who hate queer people and want to control women's sexuality. Modern intersectional feminism is the dialectical realisation of Marxism/Christianity as defined by their progression towards an ever fuller recognition of humanity.

He means /christian/ on the other chan, probably.

1) if that's the case, then why continue the tradition? why should those who devote themselves to God be unable to have the love and support of a spouse? Paul is pretty clear that his preference for singleness is his own and not God's.
2) let's say there's a couple who can't afford to have children (inb4 they should have faith, God will provide, etc). should they be denied the natural expression of their love? does Song of Solomon not seem to suggest that sex for purely recreational purposes is blessed by God? I don't see how NFP would be an issue, nor birth control really. I don't see the problem with carrying out God's command to be fruitful and multiply when you're ready (not justifying the "we don't want kids because we like having fun" trend).

sorry one more question, can you explain purgatory is? like who goes there and where the scriptural basis is (besides Jesus preaching to the souls in the underworld, something more clear). I personally believe that the souls of unbelievers are eventually destroyed (Jesus says fear him who can destroy the soul and the body, destruction is eternal and thus "eternal punishment," I don't see infinite torment for a finite crime as fitting in God's character of justice), but not set in stone in my belief there.
b8 pls go

>b8 pls go
xe is not wrong though

1) St. Peter was not the only one of the twelve to lead a church as an evangelist, but Jesus himself gave St. Peter the recognition of first among equals. This meant that as the apostles went and preached the word of God, they turned to Peter to help find the solution when they did not always agree on an interpetation. This tradition held, and the Church of Rome was seen for many centuries as basically the tie-breaker at the councils. However, this was also in part due to the fact that the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Constantinople, and the other major churches along the Mediterranean were more developed than Rome. This meant they regarded the Church of Rome as slightly more "away-from-it-all", lending weight to their view based on the fact that they were less concerned with any political ramifications of ecclesiastical decisions. Still, some of these churches still exist today, and they also claim apostolic succession. Had the Church of James survived, it too would have succession. Currently, it is really only Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome. Constantinople and Rome have been in dispute for a millennia now over just what "first among equals" really means, each one excommunicating the other over the difference. Alexandria was excommunicated by both earlier, some would argue over a matter of translation, but they tend to agree with Constantinople, even though they have more recently been on better terms with Rome.

2) The basis for transubstantiation is complicated, and I don't have a full knowledge of it, but for the most part it is based on the specific way that Jesus spoke at the last supper. An oversimplified version is basically that he clearly wasn't saying that bread and wine in general were the body and blood of Jesus, and if the bread and wine are inconsequential, then why was this ritual performed? It is itself a variation of a Passover seder, which has its own strong ritual meaning.

3) It does not. Church teaching and tradition are considered an extension of the scripture, but not teaching or tradition can ever explicitly contradict the scripture. Tradition and teaching has shifted over the centuries. The eastern orthodox churches take some issue with the extent that the Catholic church is willing to change tradition and teaching, but all agree that as times change, as cultures change, the meanings of traditions and teachings can shift. A large part of what priests and theologians do is make sure that everything aligns. When the Church finds that a particular tradition or teaching is against the scripture, it is deemed anathema, meaning it would be heresy for any to preach it.

4) You do not need to pray to saints. In some sense, it can be easier to think of it as praying with the Saints. It follows from the notion that the Saints are Closer to God than we are, and we are closer to the Saints than to God. By considering the Saints, it can be easier for us to understand what God wants from us here and now.

NFP seems to be the norm in young couples from my college, and our diocese is pretty conservative

1) Many heresies have arisen from priests who were not celibate. We also have the quote that those who can make themselves Eunuchs for Christ should do so, not as an encouragement that they should cut their balls off, but that a man with no other obligations can be more clear in their devotion and service as a priest. Introducing romantic love into the priesthood can greatly complicate our ability to trust our teachings and tradition. Does the priest say a thing because it makes his wife happy, or because he has found it to be true? If his wife has a feud with someone, will it be right for him to hear that person's confession. While it may not be necessary in the most absolute sense, one must ask if your motivations are pure in asking for it. Since we don't yet have a need to make this change, nor do we have a good reason to change it (other than the possibility that it might work), why should we change this? The priesthood is not the only way to server Christ.
2)The song of solomon is considered highly figurative, depicting not a relationship women should have for a man, but rather the kind of relationship we should have for God. It does not support sex for pleasure outside the context of a loving marriage open to children. But at the same time, the Church does find sex between a married man and woman to be good, even at a time when conception is unlikely to happen. The key to all of it is finding the right intentions. If you are having sense as a true act of love and devotion to your partner, then it is probably licit. Birth Control however is an outright denial of the possibility of childbirth prior to the act. This inherently means that the sex is at least in part for pleasure, and is therefore made selfish. Selfish love cannot be the kind of sacrificial love you owe your partner.

And who the fuck do you think put the Bible together you evangelical faggot?

>I'm sorry but when I hear someone say "this is my body, broken for you" it's not my immediate assumption to assume that he's transforming bread into his literal body rather than speaking metaphorically
You have now demonstrated perfectly the importance of tradition. By this interpretation, you have left Sola Scriptura. The text itself does not explicitly say the precise meaning. You are going off your assumption. But what is to say your assumption is correct? Why do you assume what you assume? As soon as you consider this, you have come across the great difficulty and danger of isolated interpretation. To what extent does the translation, and your understanding of these words, affect your reading? To what extent do the practices of the time change they way we might understand what is literally happening? With apostolic tradition, we can know how long this teaching is has been in the Church, and we can know how it came about. We have an unbroken chain of understanding to the very men who were present in this dinner. When you engage with tradition, you are engaging with these men and their followers, all the way from the bodily presence of Christ until now. If you are truly going to suggest that this is a misreading, you must do all the work they have done and more to be certain that your interpretation is correct, and not simply a matter of convenience. Instead of throwing your hands up and saying "I never would have considered that!", do the opposite and consider it.

4) I guess that makes more sense than what I've heard before, though it would still rarely occur to me to ask a saint for guidance rather than the all-knowing and all-loving father.

can you explain a bit about Catholicism vs Orthodoxy?

1) I can see the wisdom in being very cautious about taking a wife, but not necessarily in outlawing it altogether.
2) I've heard the argument that Song of Solomon is metaphorical for our relationship with God, but that honestly seems like a bit of a stretch. I get allegory, but it has very obvious meaning (and beauty) as erotic poetry.
>hurr durr le council of nicea durr le da vinci code

1. do you think that a nail in the coffin? I hope not. You can definitely find short videos or articles on why those of the Holy Order are celibate. If you convert to Catholicism, learn about Assent of Faith. Basically means, you trust the teachings of Catholicism, even if you don't understand it yet

2.
>should they be denied the natural expression of their love?
They don't have to have sex either. They ought to be prude, because they clearly cannot raise a child—given you hypothetical. Remember, sex is physical expression of love AND procreation. You cannot, neither should, have either/or
>multiply when you're ready
If you're not ready then don't. If you have sex, you should be willing to have a child when you do it. If you know you cannot afford a child and have sex anyways and get pregnant or your wife, you were clearly being reckless. It's not an act of prudence either

3.)
>one more question, can you explain purgatory is?
Purgatory is where people who are going to Heaven go first. Those who go to Purgatory are those who have died in a state of grace; they died without mortal sin (serious sin like murder, masturbation, sex outside of major, stealing, etc).
Knowing this, think about it: how can an imperfect person who has scars from sin and even(more than likely) venial sin on them? ie) that person can't. They have to be purged of their impurities before they can enter the Holiest state ever. Make sense? Say I died in a state of grace and I had the venial sins of cursing too often. Would I instantly go into Heaven? no I wouldn't. I would need to be cleansed of those smaller impurities.
>besides the evidence you have
cmon man really?
>I personally believe that the souls of unbelievers are eventually destroyed
show me the scriptural basis (see how that works?)

>too
Show me the scriptural evidence that says I have to show you scriptural evidence for a teaching or dogma?
If Jesus taught from the OT and fulfilled it(teaching stuff that was NOT in the OT), would you follow Him? Jesus, I hope so

But seriously. You cannot show me or anyone why something must come explicitly from the scriptures. It's not even in the scriptures. Too, by saying this I do not mean that allows for teachings that go AGAINST scripture. I am clearly in saying that there are true teachings in Catholicism that are OUTSIDE of Scripture and not AGAINST scripture

Too, I go back to the circumcision dilemma with the gentiles and the apostles. They literally had no scripture nor explicit teachings from Jesus regarding that issue. But you have no problem with the idea that gentiles(non-Jews) do not have to first enter the old covenant to enter the new covenant(baptism), as most do. So what is it, do Gentiles have to do that? If you were in the 1st century AD, you could not begin to answer this question given your own theological restriction(that has no scriptural basis either)

the apostles relied on "loosening and binding" on earth, because there was no scripture

There is no need for that kind of language in this thread. It isn't /pol/.

>though it would still rarely occur to me to ask a saint for guidance rather than the all-knowing and all-loving father.
why not both?
>4)
Why not both? Explain to me why it cannot be both. That's a false dichotomy. Too, don't you think saints in Heaven are closer to God than we are? I think they are, it makes perfect sense; they are sinless in Heaven and I am not.

You gotta read all the points these guys make or you'll mis the important objections to important issues

The first two replies are both me.

On the saints, the issue is in properly orienting yourself to God. We never pray to the saints in the sense that they wield any sort of power. When I said with before, I should have said through, which carries over the meaning I had before and adds to it. Let us say you want to ask a favor of a friend, but you do not know who to get a hold of him. You do know someone, though, who can speak to him. If you ask this third person to ask your friend, you are then able to ask your friend. There is no confusion that you are asking this third person for the favor, nor is there confusion that he is asking the favor, nor that your fiend will do the favor to or for this third person. This is not to suggest that God is inaccessible to us. Rather, God is so much bigger and larger and more incredible than anything we can imagine. This can make it difficult for us to approach him, not because of his nature, but because of ours. How does he impact our lives? How can he be involved in the rudimentary tasks of my day? What does it mean to pray to him? We can theologically have easy answers to these questions, but in practice it can pose a challenge. But let us consider Mary, the mother of God. We can think of her life, we can think about the pain she must have suffered seeing her song, the Son of God, nailed to the cross. For her, more than any other, God's sacrifice was most personal. In considering her pain, we can gain a better understanding of the person hood and reality of God. Since we know Mary must be in heaven, we know that she can communicate with God, and that God communicates with her. By praying the Hail Mary, we are respecting her life and the grace God granted her, and also praying to God, for any word Mary hears, God will hear. In this way, the act of prayer becomes clearer for those whom prayer is difficult to understand. In no way does this require you to pray in such a manner. If you can pray directly to God without intercession, then do so. There is no effective difference in the outcome, so you should pray in the way that you can, in the way that is clearest and most readily accessible to your spirit.

For the question of married priests, we have Jesus saying to the apostles, what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. For now, we have bound the act of priests being married (for the most part). The question is not whether it is possible for it to be licit, but should it be licit. Not only has it caused a great many problems, but it creates uncertainty where there should be none. We should not have to question whether our priests are truly preaching the word of God. The extent to which we must do this is already too much. Why should we increase this uncertainty? Unless you can demonstrate a great danger to the church in this practice, the total harm far outweighs any singular and isolated incident where it may be potentially licit.

Why are most single males who convert to Catholicism either fags or losers using religion to feel better about themselves

point taken, I can get behind the early church fathers argument
I'll investigate, though do all the doctrines of Catholicism really have to be all or nothing? one of the things I like about Protestantism is the allowance for discussion about non-salvation-essential issues. sure, only one can actually be the right one but it's ok to have different opinions and discuss them amongst other believers, is it not?

>besides the evidence you have
what do you mean by this?

as for why I believe what I believe:

Matthew 10:28:
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

there are numerous verses that speak of eternal destruction. hell is often described as "separation from God" as well. since God is omnipresent, would not separation from him be eternal destruction after one's sins have been atoned for?

>mortal sin (serious sin like murder, masturbation, sex outside of major, stealing, etc)
wait, masturbation a mortal sin?

also, why is it necessary for us to be "cleansed" before entering heaven? are we not covered already by Christ's atoning sacrifice? are further sacrifices necessary?

I think we can agree that the canon of scripture is the product of divine revelation. it's one thing to extrapolate a belief based on the interpretation of a scripture (i.e. transubstantiation). obviously if Christ were to come and preach purgatory then I would listen. however, I have a hard time accepting a doctrine like that that seems to come entirely from outside scripture. how did the doctrine of purgatory arise? did someone just think it up? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to understand how one can claim absolute certainty about things that haven't been revealed in scripture or directly from God, as in the case of the apostles.
I am reading all their points user

internalized queerphobia is a thing you know. these young white males were raised in a sexually repressed middle class environment that taught them however subtly and liberally to hate their true selves

Very false. Secular philosophy faces a great paradox in trying to consider the ultimate ontological question. In response to the Church, many people have tried to strip the practical teachings of the religion, without solving this fundamental dilemma. To suggest, however that these false teachings are in any way the same when they deny the most central elements is absurd. Marxists have certainly tried to accommodate the radical equality of Christianity into a secular system, but it cannot be done. The postmodernists have tried to steal the radical relativism of Catholicism, but without God in the center and at the origin, the system cannot stand. To replace God with Humanity is to destroy the very essence of Christianity. Even if you can defeat the Marxists and postmodernists without Christian teaching, your system will be as doomed and dangerous as theirs. Unless you can solve the nature of being, suffering will follow in your wake.

Does anyone else see a face/head/man in the thumbnail of the OP pic?

I mean real fags. Perhaps loving the man Jesus is an outlet for their homosexuality.

If you are a single male at these churches people will think you are gay usually.

homosexuality is not a real sexual proclivity its a mental illness people spiral into, that its genetic is no more significant than schizophrenia being genetically influenced, you can be predisposed to either without spiraling into them, that someone does do this is a sign of weakness. caths aren’t closet gays as much as they’re failed males who can’t make friends or attain lovers without a shtick that exalts them above their fitness levels, they socially cheat by beautifying themselves with religious ideology, and get automatic kinship with others this way as well

But the early church fathers taught many priests, the wisest of whom rose to take the place of the Church Fathers, with the blessing of the Church Fathers. Those men in turn did the same thing. This is the apostolic tradition. The pope is elected from among a select group of men who have all been granted the privilege by those who came before them and received that same privilege. A bishop can only be named a bishop by another bishop. In this way, there is a passing down of tradition all the way back to the beginning. Given the implications of naming someone a Bishop, it is not done lightly. This does not mean they are all perfect, but the weight of this tradition is heavy.

I'm turning in for the night frens. thanks for discussing and remember that despite our differences we're all brothers in Christ.

Can you explain how Catholicism is relativism

try this dude:
go on Youtube and go to Catholic Answers
They more than likely have answers to all the questions you have.
you can usually go to the youtube search bar type "[question here] catholic" and they'll pop up

>also, why is it necessary for us to be "cleansed" before entering heaven?
nothing unholy can go into Heaven.
>are we not covered already by Christ's atoning sacrifice?
If you accept it, it is. Is sinning accepting the fruits of His sacrifice? Jesus Christ never imposes salvation. He made it possible and essentially freed us from sins. But He cannot do anything if you don't let Him.

>I think we can agree that the canon of scripture is the product of divine revelation.
That's literally relying on outside sources other than scripture.

You need to seriously think about the circumcision dilemma user. I think it is a very important dilemma that you have to answer given this "sola scriptura" mindset.

>I have a hard time accepting a doctrine like that that seems to come entirely from outside scripture.
Trinitarian Doctrine are extra-biblical, baptismal regeneration is extra-biblical, creation of canon is extra-biblical.
You can say that scripture supports these extra-biblical ideas but look:
1.) They are extra-biblical regardless
2.) The same scripture can be used to argue for different teachings.
an example of 2.) is Arius. Arius used the same scripture to argue a different view than how most view the Trinity. How is he wrong? Do you infallibly know he is incorrect?
this example goes to show that the Trinity is extra-biblical and under your thought, you ought to disregard it. Too, under your thought, why don't you believe Arius's interpretation? His position can be deduced quite well. But still, you have not infallible way to say your view of the Trinity is undeniably correct.

>what you should leave with:
1.) Look up those Church Father teachings on the Eucharist. These guys were contemporaries of the apostles and if anyone actually knew real Christianity, they would.
2.) Think about that circumcision dilemma. If you were in the 1st century where there was literally no scripture that dealt with the issue, how could you solve the problem with 100% certainty.
3.) Where in scripture does it say you must find the scriptural basis for a non-contradictory extra-biblical teaching or any Christian belief for that matter?
4.)Go on Youtube and search you questions with "Catholic" right after. And watch a lot of Catholic Answer's videos and you can watch some Fr. Mike Schmitz videos too.

God bless, user.

nah, you need to see this
You have frustrated me too much to not see this. lol, I'm glad you're asking questions man. Definitely leave with what I suggested.

again, God bless

As you judge, so shall you be judged.
What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. What you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar.
Let he who is blameless cast the first stone.

All things exist only in their relationship to God. God is that which is. The one being which wills itself into being, out of its own being and with its own being. There is no thing or way that is righteous and perfect across all time. There are not absolutes but God, and God is beyond absolute.

really nigga

Attached: costanza.jpg (600x600, 34K)

I'm not sure if I belong here, but I will let you all judge:
>grew up in a house with divided faith, my mom was catholic and my dad from a small local Christian sect)
>the best school in the city is a Catholic school, so that's where I was sent
>for 9 years I studied there, and grew to detest Catholicism
>partly because it allowed backwards social conventions to propagate and seeped into science/politics, partly bc I had to hear Mass very early and it annoyed me
>been 6 years since I left, I'm now 20
>read Augustine, Aquinas, and Eusebius in uni
>study poli sci, and see how atheist nations suffer from a lack of social cohesion (china, and canada to a lesser degree)
>slowly growing to respect the Catholic tradition, however I know I can never truly, sincerely believe in God, though I realize it's important in society

What am I?

Attached: image_2.jpg (634x845, 105K)

You are yourself. Why do you need to identify with Catholicism in any way if you don't believe in it

>did the scripture not come directly from God?
No, this isn't the Qur'an.

>partly because it allowed backwards social conventions to propagate and seeped into science/politics
Explain

A cultural catholic. You recognize that people need a telos that imposes the requirement of works in order to feel like their lives have meaning and their society is worth preserving.

You are a member of the Body of Christ, if you were baptized. Come home, man. I'm a convert to the faith. I'm 20, grew up in a secular home and became an atheist when I was 15-17 (surprise surprise).

>however I know I can never truly, sincerely believe in God.
But you know you can truly, sincerely believe in other things? C'mon man. You can't be that sure for the biggest question of life, lol.

You should look up these miracles:
>Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
The original scientific article is in Italian but here's the link anyways:
mediafire.com/file/2j2j8qalrmcrlb4/Lanciano Article 16-45-35.pdf
>Our Lady of Guadalupe
youtube.com/watch?v=_I-3CJUraCE&t=85s
virginmotherofguadalupe.com/our-lady-of-guadalupe-image/message-symbols
youtube.com/watch?v=Ds7nD_QNeKA&t=4s
>Our Lady of Lourdes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau#Notable_cases
>Our Lady of Fatima
Don't have any good link; research it anyways. That sun miracle is like none other.

I suggest you reread Aquinas proofs too.
If you don't sincerely believe in God, you gotta explain this miracles. Either deduce why they are bunk or induce why they are more likely than not miraculous (It's gotta be a very strong, very high probability that they are not miraculous).

God bless.

Orthodoxy is a better alternative to Catholicism in almost every way. Study church history and realize that western Christianity was brainlet Christianity for most of its existence, and then in some weird twist of fate became entirely beholden to academics and scientists.

I don't have an issue with the head of the church per se, but I don't know how to reconcile man's fallibility with the idea that there's a man who make papally infallible assertions.

The understanding is that the Pope is only infallible when he makes a proclamation "ex cathedra". Therefore, it is not the man from which the authority and infallibility proceeds, but from his divine office.

It does not particularly matter whether you find my answer satisfactory. What I shared is the teaching of Christ, the teaching of the Torah, and the teaching of the Church. Put forward a question or criticism, and I will happily debate it with you, but with a specific issue raised, I can give you no further explanation.

What's the backing for transubstantiation? I don't see anything in scripture besides Jesus saying "This is my body/blood," but given how many things in the Bible and even Jesus' teachings are allegorical why is it necessary to take this literally?

Consider that before the Protestant Reformation, no Christians anywhere took Christ's words at the last supper as allegorical (we are excluding gnostics and other such sects here, of course.)

Christians have always believed that in speaking those words, Jesus was establishing the sacrament.

>3) Does Catholicism put church teaching and tradition on the same level as scripture?

Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: not always.

But consider that the Church has understood that the Holy Spirit has guided and instructed the Church throughout the ages. Therefore the life of the Church and the Holy Spirit are not limited to the Scriptures. Traditionally, the faith of a Christian is not in an historical document, but in a Person, Jesus Christ.

Fucking christcucks get off my board

I speak from experience, I grew up in the Philippines (80% catholic) and though religion is constitutionally separate from state, it isn't in practice. Bishops have worked to repeatedly block a bill that would give poor families access to contraception and safe sex knowledge. Not to mention divorce, abortion, homo marriage are all illegal (not an sjw, but nothing wrong with gays marrying).

Religious affiliation also heavily influences elections

>4) Why do I need to pray to saints rather than directly to God? If, as the writer of Hebrews says, we can approach the throne of God with boldness and confidence, why shouldn't I do that in favor of going through another person?

The Judeochristian school has always demonstrated the principle of intersession. God, for whatever reason, has chosen to work with us, and through us.

In the Old Testament, there were judges and 'messiahs' and finally a messianic King in the person of David whom God appointed to rule and interceed for His people.

The priesthood of the Leviites was established to stand before God and to atone for the sins of all of Israel on the day of Atonement.

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." All of the saints are alive and present with God in heaven. Therefore is God is accessible to us, so are they.

The word prayer simply means "request." If you ask your friend for help, you are saying, "pray help me." Since the Mother of God and the saints are alive and accessible, we can ask them for help, too. We can also pray for our own departed.

How can I? I love reading philosophy and although I respect thinkers like Aquinas and Kierkegaard, the answer to this cosmic chaos can't be God. I am not arrogantly claiming I know the answer, but God as the end of all ends just doesnt satisfy me.

And how can you attest to the veracity of those miracles? Wasn't Aquinas' miracle about salmon becoming pike or something?

To elaborate on this point, this only applies to matters of dogma, and a later Pope has the theoretical ability to contravene an earlier ex cathedra. This extends from the Pope's role as head of the church. His responsibility is not simply to determine the practical/logistical matters of where to send priests, but to determine the proper course of the Church through the seas of history. By being Pope, even in his human fallibility, his determination on certain matters cannot, as a matter of their very nature, cannot be wrong. He cannot therefore make licit for himself a wife, or an abortion, or any human deed. Rather, his proclamation, when designated as such, has the weight of God behind it. If this power is not granted, then the very essence of the Church has been denied. It would not matter how sinful or illogical the Pope, if the bodily church is still in communion with the heavenly Church, the the Pope's discernment on certain issues of faith are beyond the qualification of correct or incorrect, but are rather inherently right due to his role as the head of the bodily Church and sole determinant of what is or is not licit under his governance. Even if we think the decision will have a negative earthly effect, it can only be seen as necessarily true.

go back to /pol/

>Bishops have worked to repeatedly block a bill
Do you mean to say that the bishops are in parliament and voted against the bill? Because that's not allowed by the Church. Ordained priests are not meant to hold positions of political power.
However if you mean that the bishops at Sunday mass talk about the issue and explain why people should vote against it, I struggle to see why this is different from you making a Facebook post explaining to your friends why they should vote for it.
>but nothing wrong with gays marrying
Unless you're talking about some very real corruption, such as bishops paying politicians to vote a certain way, I think you're just upset that the voters in your country don't agree with you.

) Why do I need to pray to saints rather than directly to God? If, as the writer of Hebrews says, we can approach the throne of God with boldness and confidence, why shouldn't I do that in favor of going through another person?

One more point: You could just as well ask, "why did God send his Son to interceed for us in the first place? Of course He could have saved us any other way if He had chosen."

Of course there's really no answer to this.

This very passage that you are quoting is describing Jesus as "the High Priest" who interceeds for us.

I don't know man. Have you been attending Mass? Maybe start going to Mass regularly (obviously don't take communion, but you already knew that). You could always speak with a catechist; most are converts and good in the apologetics arena.

Aquinas' miracle? Idk about that.
But the scientific analyses of the miracle are quite perplexing (regarding the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano and especially the Tilma[Our Lady of Guadalupe]). fr, go to those links right now.

>Our Lady of Guadalupe
The Tilma is made of cactus fibers and should deteriorated after 20 years but it's still intact after 500 years. There's no under-sketch for the image, there are no known earthly pigments that could create its color(remember if it was fake, it would've been a painter in the 1500's, he would've had no synthetic colors). The reflections in the image's eyes match that if human eyes; there 4 people in the pupil's reflections and there are 13 figures(apparently that matches the science of how we see; there are like 13 different reflections that happen in our eyes. There's a good book about the science behind the Tilma. idk if you can buy it anywhere now, but I bet your public library might have it. it's called:
The Image of Guadalupe: Myth or Miracle?
by Jody Brant Smith

>On the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
The most astounding scientific fact about this is(it's in that link. Idk about any good books on the miracle.): "In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood."
So this piece of flesh that supposedly turned from bread to flesh is 1000 years old and in the study, the scientist found that the piece of flesh, 1000 years later, had the same proportion of certain proteins as would freshly drawn blood would. Pretty crazy huh?

All the info I told you in is though links. Hope you learn from em

You are confused about the meaning of separation of Church and State. It follows naturally that anyone who believes in any ideology, let alone a religion, would make decisions based upon those beliefs. These beliefs necessarily impact any political consideration. To suggest that people must not consider their religious beliefs in the slightest for any political matter is to deny the freedom of religion. The concept of the separation of church and state was and is strictly clerical. That is, the functions of government cannot be decided via any religious authority, and vice versa. The president has no authority over who is or can be a pope, or priest. Nor can any government official make any ruling about the dogma of the church. It's meaning is strictly in practice. The two arenas will inevitably influence each other. The separation does not prevent any de facto relationship, but only de jure. This of course gives rise to the question of how any defacto relationship could occur. If for example the person elected president is always the person who the leader of a church wants to be president, there has not been a breech in the separation of church and state; however, if this was accomplished by bribes, or blackmail, or some other illegal means, then all parties involved would be culpable under the law for their crimes. It is equally possible, especially in a country that is very homogeneous, that the person who aligns the most with the teachings of the given church will almost always be elected. One partial exception to this is in the case of open political action by a church. For example, if the pope explicitly told people to vote for a particular politician, and used his authority as Pope to do so, he would no longer be acting as pope, but rather as an overt political agent. This would violate the separation. Likewise, if a politician used his official office to evangelize for any particular religion, he would be violating the separation.

I take your point: no, they dont actively make political decisions, but the interrelatedness of church and state makes it so that the will of the church has very real political outcomes. I'm not claiming they're corrupt, they act within their reach. For example, the bishops excommunicated the president for allowing the bill to pass. This bill is particularly offensive because the unwashed masses are the ones suffering, and opposition to such a bill would only allow more suffering. A diocese that can act that way with a clear conscience is something I can't place my faith in.

I have not attended Mass in 4 years, friend. I appreciate your zeal, but I fear I am not making my point: seeing the mind-bogglingly complex world we live in, such described by natural scientists, quantum physicists, etc, how can you reconcile your desire for truth and symmetrical understanding with the acceptance of God as the ultimate telos? I'm asking you personally. Even if I put my skepticism aside and take those miracles as facts, how do I ignore all the other evils on earth that defy the will of God in the Scriptures?

It would cause more suffering in your view, but not in the view of the Church. The church was well within their rights to excommunicate the President. Excommunication has no legal meaning for the government; it only has meaning for those who follow the faith. The president had to make a choice with moral implications. The Church, as is their right, decided that his choice violated their moral principles. The government has no authority over such matters.

Yes, but what I am questioning is the ethical decision by an organ of the Church to use ecclesiastical power to influence, however indirectly you would like to believe, a political act that would provide basic aid. A family in poverty is not sitting around pondering the theological implications of using contraceptives with their 9 malnourished kids. The religious consideration is not being done by those affected, only by the higher-ups whose decisions directly impact the quality of life of thousands.

All well and good that the Church is acting within the authority granted to them, but there is something fundamentally wrong that a body concerned with the application of God's word - the highest morality on earth - actively imposes poverty on the masses. The Church seems blind to matters outside of the Scriptures.

>How can we claim that Peter represents unbroken apostolic succession back to Christ when James the brother of our Lord was the head of the Church of Jerusalem? (Indicated in some of Paul's writings and mentioned by contemporary historians) I don't have an issue with the head of the church per se, but I don't know how to reconcile man's fallibility with the idea that there's a man who make papally infallible assertions.
Because Jesus said so. Read the Bible.
>What's the backing for transubstantiation? I don't see anything in scripture besides Jesus saying "This is my body/blood," but given how many things in the Bible and even Jesus' teachings are allegorical why is it necessary to take this literally?
Because Jesus said so. Read the Bible.
>Does Catholicism put church teaching and tradition on the same level as scripture? This ties back to the first one, of all the Protestant theology I've studied I gravitate most toward sola scriptura.
Catholic tradition and teaching comes from scripture. You should think about reading it sometime.

You must also consider the unique circumstance of the country where Church decisions have real political repercussions. Suffering is not relative. The decision to excommunicate him was done to directly influence a political decision, not merely to communicate a violation of faith. Though they can do this, the dilemma is whether or not they should.

For me, I've learned that faith is supra-rational and that there are transcendental truths in this world. I mean, I'm a theoretical mathematics major. Logic, math, and love, among other forces, are transcendental to me

For math, to put it simply, there are true statements in mathematics that we know are true but cannot prove. It's either that or that two contradictory statements are true at the same time (1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are true). I am under the impression that we can formalize the physical world in terms of mathematics. Even if we could do that, there would still be true but unprovable statements. To me that points towards a God. And the inductive argument for mathematical platonism, it being a transcendental reality, and not just a concept made up by humans is unbelievably strong. Mathematics is too perfect, it is unreasonably effective in describing the world. Granted math is amazing, it is only descriptive. 2+2=4, but that never put 4 bucks in my pocket

Regarding Love. We can describe how it works and what it is, but we certainly cannot explain why. Science adheres to only the how's and why's. Genuinely, I think that if love were only chemicals we would be living in vain. If there is no God, the only viable telos for man would be committing suicide; death is the only ultimate end for man if there is no god. I'm serious when I say that. Escaping nihilism is an old wive's tale

in regard to the sciences, I genuinely see that as God's work. Even the big bang theory is incomplete; it fits seamlessly with God as the first non-contigent cause though. An example of intelligent design/fine tuning too: in the 70's scientists described a cell as a small factory of organelles. think of trillions of Ford factories condensed into microscopic form. That is breath-taking. But now scientists are more comfortable with describing cells as small towns instead. So condense trillions of towns and allow that to make up a single body. I find it disingenuous to call that chance desu. If you found a perfectly round purple sphere in a forest, would you not question where it came from or who made it? I know I would

>how do I ignore all the other evils on earth that defy the will of God in the Scriptures?
Tolkien says something like this:
A divine punishment is a divine gift

I mean dude, if you're so concerned with the analytics of the problem, why appeal to pathos regarding the "problem" of evil?
Besides an evil God doesn't disprove a supreme creator. But I will say this, don't you think that if any good could come from the allowance of evil, that it could only be God that could do it? Fuck, it's tough to believe, especially when the evil has happened to us.
I would add this too:
Tell a little girl with heart disease that God awaits her company will always be louder and more sincere than the silence of an atheist by her bedside.

It's not easy stuff... But again, this is the most important question to answer

That's only a fraction of how I see it too

>Science adheres to only the how's and why's
*Science adheres to only the how's and what's
>what not why
sorry about that.

Shitty answer, bro

Church fathers write about he bishop of Rome having primacy from around 130AD. The earliest complete canons arise around 150AD. Scripture without the Holy See is a contradiction.

Also, papal infallibility is only when speaking ex cathedra(which is very rare). It’s happened twice in the past 200 years. The rest of the time the Pope is simply someone else with an opinion(otherwise we’d be in big trouble). It’s also worth pointing out that what the church defines is much narrower than most think(check the catechism).

Fucking christcucks get off my board

Your board is /pol/. I suggest you go home now.

This is my board. I am home. Now get out.

trips speaketh

>Not to mention divorce, abortion, homo marriage are all illegal
But that's a great thing user

>Bcuz Jesus said so
Christianity in a nutshell

>>ur teachings come from god
>christianity in a nutshell

why the frustration m8?

>suffering is not relative
Then what is suffering? Define it without calling upon any comparison, and which will not require further definition of other things.

Just because it is your opinion that they are doing so doesn't make you right.

1) There's the verses about "on this rock I will build my church", as well as (at least arguably) his leadership in the Council of Jerusalem- his proclamation is authoritative, it's he rather than James speaking for God. Also, as mentioned, the early acceptance with the fathers of bishop of Rome as preeminent.
2) The verses about "eat my flesh and drink my blood" are hard to take allegorically. People leave Him over that in number, as it's never explained as allegorical to them.
3) Authority of the Church is set above scripture- which is understood as divinely inspired, but ultimately the canon was selected by the Church centuries after Christ, it can't be prior to it. Also see Chrysostom's first homily on Matthew for a bit more on Church v Book.
4) You don't. Really only a major issue with Catholic tradition there, not doctrine. Though as many have said, there is good basis for requesting their wisdom and intercession.