Im a Catholic AND an American so?

on Feb 01, 2005

Indeed Sabbatismus, but the proponents of the same heresies keep claiming that they are "new" or "lost truths" it is a sad thing to be sure.
On the topic of "marriage of spirit and matter" I e-mailed an other apologist and got this response:

"That Augustine did not know the Catholic answer to a particular question is no objection to the Catholic faith, because the Catholic faith does not teach that any representative, even Doctors of the Church, even its best popes know every single doctrine. To say that a doctrine cannot be Catholic or Christian on the grounds that this or that saint, or even a number of learned saints, didn't know it doesn't discredit the Catholic position in the slightest. Of course Christ knew every doctrine; he knew everything; but none of his human representatives in this world were ever believed to know it all.It would help if I had a full reference to the quote from Augustine contained in your e-mail. I have not done a proper study of this; I have relied on secondary sources which I trust as sources of data. Augustine, like thinkers before and long after him, accepted Aristotle's assertions that man's semen imparts the form (that is, blueprint) of an animal, that the mother supplies only the matter which receives the form, and that the form is imparted from the former to the latter not immediately but gradually. He accepted it on the grounds of a passage in Exodus as conveyed in the Septuagint, because it seemed to him to confirm Aristotle's science on this point. Aristotle added that human males are fully formed 40 days after conception, and females 90 days after. Once the matter is formed according to the blueprint, there is a body that can begin its own life, i.e., only then does it have its own soul. If Augustine said that it is impossible to know when this "marriage of spirit and matter" occurs, then he would seem to have questioned Aristotle's numbers, yet not the basic concept. This goes not only for Augustine, but also for St. Thomas Aquinas.There is another quote of Augustine that I believe he would like us to apply to discussions such as these, and I will give you the reference. "A reply has come from the Apostolic Chair. The case is closed." (Sermon 131:10) Augustine respected the Church's decision, even on what had not been so publically, formally and explicitly declared before. Surely, if he had lived to hear the Church's declaration that a new life begins at conception, he would gladly have consented."

47

Sabbatismus

on Feb 01, 2005

Come on. Augustine didn't know the earth wasn't flat and the earth traveled around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. Neither did the church until Copernicus around 1400 AD. Why would we expect Augustine or the Church to understand microbiology in 300's AD?

48

Dysmas

on Feb 01, 2005

We wouldn't. Im not sure what exaclty you mean by your response.
The point being made was: "...because the Catholic faith does not teach that any representative, even Doctors of the Church, even its best popes know every single doctrine. To say that a doctrine cannot be Catholic or Christian on the grounds that this or that saint, or even a number of learned saints, didn't know it doesn't discredit the Catholic position in the slightest"

So just because a Doctor of the Church said this or that dosent make it correct. Only the Holy See and the Bishiops in union with it can clarify doctrine. Theologians merely speculate.
Based upon your attitude I wonder what your stance is on these "issues".
1. Women Priests
2. Gay marriage
3. Contraception

Where in the RCC spectrum do you live?

49

Sabbatismus

on Feb 02, 2005

I assume you are asking me? What is my stance on

1. Women Priests is an ordination rite of the church, which is the authority . It doesn't make any difference what I think. But, since you asked, my thinking is that just a few very short years ago, the congregations would have never even suggested that females could serve at the altar, as they do today in many churches. I don't personally like the idea of women Priests but I dare say, you wouldn't find anyone who would have agreed to such a thing for 2,000 years, as a female serving at the altar. Let's face it, the church adapted to change. The church has made enormous changes in the past few decades in that area, and that would have likely been scorned and condemned by earlier devout Catholics, likely "doctors" ESPECIALLY AUGUSTINE! Could you possibly imagine the Levitical Priesthood under Moses or the Priests in Christ's day, with females serving at the altar as the do today?

2. Gay Marriage: I don't agree with Gay Marriage because, the word "marriage" infers a sexual union which is opposed to the natural union of a man and wife. I'm okay with civil unions because they don't consist of a sexual union by inference or sanction a sexual union, as does the word "marriage" . I do realize that two people of the same sex may love one another and sitll be pure. I said, "love" not make love. I also realize that two people of the same sex may live together without sexual union, too. In cases of adoption, I would rather two people of the same sex , with no sexual contanct, rear an orphan than leave the child in an orphanage with no parenting. Two people of the opposite sex may live together without sexual union even though they are married. Not because that is the way it is supposed to be, but that is the way it sometimes IS. They still rear children and are capable of giving them good moral and Christian guidance. That is the reality of it.

3. Contraception As you admit, the church is constantly growing in "understanding" and doctrine continues to "develop". Where it once stood, is no guarantee that it will continue to stand. Contraception isn't practiced in the church whether the church consents or not, among most. It isn't practiced because the people believe the Clergy is out of touch with reality. The church discredited itself by misusing the scripture. Consequently, the doctrine has little affect among the general flock. Contraception, as in "pulling out" or other means of actually preventing conception will likely die on the vine. Some of the the so-called contraceptives that are actually abortion pills will and should be addressed as sinful. Contraception, other than that, is scaresly spoken of any more by the Priests in the United States because they know it's not popular. The Clergy made serious errors stating that the sexual union was only for the purpose of pro-creation. In doing so, it undermined the marriage bond and the union between husband and wife. The doctrine of contraception which should have been taught in a more balanced fashion. I totally agree that any pills and morning after means are not the will of God in the matter.

Frankly, the changes of the church in the past decades, since Vatican 2, haven't necessarily reinforced the doctrines. The flock is left to feel that anything may change at anytime. Things that were a mortal sin years ago, like eating meat on Fridays are now only venial sins or less. The once sacred holy days are being moved to Sunday to make it convenient and because people just didn't or couldn't attend on the sanctioned day. I'm not opposed to that but it does leave the flock in a flux. Not that I disagree with the decision, but the decision are not without the affects.

In the RCC spectrum, I'm a participant and spectator. Though, I'm not one who is eating popcorn and drinking beer, not taking notice of what is occurring before me. In many ways the church has held to the teachings of the Apostles, for that I'm very grateful. In some ways, it has gone (IMHO) too far to the right. Example: The Eucharist which was made to be blessed, offered and eaten, in scripture has recently become next to an object of worship if not directly. I'm opposed to the left which desires to make wholesale changes in Contraception, the Priesthood and Gay Marriage and Abortion. I'm also opposed to the right, that goes to far in protecting a doctrine or belief.

50

Dysmas

on Feb 03, 2005

Could you possibly imagine the Levitical Priesthood under Moses or the Priests in Christ's day, with females serving at the altar as the do today?

Lol, no I couldn't imagine it. It would have caused a MUCH greater problem than it is today. But I feel that as long as the truth remains,(that women cannot be ordained) there is not a big deal with female altar servers..

Women Priests is an ordination rite of the church, which is the authority

Im not sure what you mean. Holy Orders is a Sacrament conducted by the Church but it is not a man-made decision such as the Married Clergy issue.

Gay Marriage

In general I agree with your position upon Gay "marriage"

The church discredited itself by misusing the scripture

The Church does not "misuse" Scripture. If you believe so I would like for you to give me an example of actual "misuse" not misunderstanding.

Things that were a mortal sin years ago, like eating meat on Fridays are now only venial sins or less

As for no meat of fridays, it isnt a sin at all and there is no sin less than venial. ( "only venial sins or less")
American Catholics are only obliged to abstain from meat and fast on specific days altough it is encouraged to maintain a "meatless Friday" devotion.

The Eucharist which was made to be blessed, offered and eaten, in scripture has recently become next to an object of worship if not directly

True, but it is helpful to note that as Catholics we belive that the Euchorist IS LITTERALY the Body and Blood of Christ. So He really is present. But I agree there is much to be explained on proper Euchoristic Adoration.

I'm also opposed to the right, that goes to far in protecting a doctrine or belief.

The only way someone can go "to far" in protecting the dogmas or doctrines of the Faith is by commiting a mortal sin in defending them. Other than that everything should be done to protect "everything Mother Church Proposesfor our belief."-[ quote from the CCC defination of Faith.]

All in all I am very sad at the apparent erosion of Catholic Identity. Many of the things that distinguished us from other Christian Faiths are, or have, fallen away or into disuse. Thankfully there is a massive call for return to some "classic" Catholic pratices.

Some believe this and others that. And that is our choice, to feel how we wish. All I know is that at the end of the day each one of us has to answer to the Lord. I honestly belive that if you truely feel you have done His will to the best of your ability that things will work out just fine. Christ wants his Church to be one. I pray for the unity He desieres. I am happy at the recent Ecumenical moves the RCC has made ( in response, by and large, to the example set by the Holy Father.).

No one is perfect and everyone Catholic should have things he or she is unsure of or even disapproves of. The important thing is to obey. (granted that one obeys only a legitimate Church law).

For the record:Things I have a problem with ( But I still obey and respect the Church's position and authority on these issues.)
1) Married Clergy.[ I am in favor of a Roman Rite change back to having married clergy(again I respect and must obey the Church's authority on this). The Easter Rite has married clergy AND converted Epsicopalian and Lutheran Priests, who were married at the time of their conversion, were granted a Papal Indult allowing them to remain married AND be ordained a Catholic Priest.
2) Contraception- Im not really sure where I draw the line. I know that the Church, thank God, has retracted its long standing position that marriage and sex is for procreation only. However, I think that some of the more "extenuating circumstances" regarding birth controll should be addressed. ( obviously not any abortificant product.) Examples- Young couple with with children and if they had more it could put them into poverty thus preventing the parents from supporting their children properly...just things like that. But as I said im not really sure where I stand on this. If i HAD to chose I would say that I abstain from the use of condoms ONLY because current Church Law forbids it, not because I agree or like it. ( my wife and I have 3 children and at our age that is PLENTY lol)

Just some of my thoughts.
Also I would ask everyone who reads this article(regardless of their faith) to pray for Pope John Paul II.
Thank you in advance.

51

Sabbatismus

on Feb 03, 2005

D: "But I feel that as long as the truth remains,(that women cannot be ordained) there is not a big deal with female altar servers.."

I guess that's my point. Only a few years ago, the same thing would have been said about women severing at the altar. Of course, only the Vatican can make that decision.

D: "The Church does not "misuse" Scripture. If you believe so I would like for you to give me an example of actual "misuse" not misunderstanding."

Well, I disagree with that one, especially the use of the sin of Onan. There is no genius needed to figure out that one. They vastly stretched the meaning. Afterall, Judah thought he was went unto a prostitute. He did that for reasons. Hint , Hint. There was no condemnation for Judah.

D: "As for no meat of fridays, it isnt a sin at all and there is no sin less than venial. ( "only venial sins or less")
American Catholics are only obliged to abstain from meat and fast on specific days altough it is encouraged to maintain a "meatless Friday" devotion."

I think you missed my point. Until recently, it was a "mortal" sin to eat meat on Fridays. And yes, I know that there is no lesser sin than Venial. But to go from mortal to no sin. Wow!

D: "True, but it is helpful to note that as Catholics we belive that the Euchorist IS LITTERALY the Body and Blood of Christ. So He really is present. But I agree there is much to be explained on proper Euchoristic Adoration."

That is the problem, this kind of thing is done and promoted without much explanation. It is a long way from blessing, offering, eating to.....woshiping. When contrasted with the Corinthians in 1Cor.11, you see the other end of the pendulem. They treated the Eucharist as if it were mere bread, (far left). However, the far right of the other side of that is worshiping the Eucharist. You can see both ends of the pendulem.

I share your concerns for the church, it is tending to be a bit undulant at this time. Though, in the end we know it will get it sorted out. Thanks for the earnest replies. We share a lot in common. We are all praying for the Pope and for the Church and all those who love Christ and hope in His coming.

52

Dysmas

on Feb 03, 2005

Thank you. I am glad to see that we can agree on some issues and disagree on others in a polite manner. It is nice to have a good diolague with someone.
As I've said before, I am no expert on Scriptures nor am I a Theologian, just a man who attempts to expalin why Cathoics and other Christians in general feel the way they do and why we believe what we do.
A bit of history:
I was born and "Baptised Catholic". I was initally raised in the Church and, becuase of my grandfather and CCD, I developed a good foundation in our Faith.
My mother divorced my biological father and got remarried, so to speak, and then divorced my second father as well. She then moved around quite a bit, from the west coast to the east coast and back.
She belived, sort of, in the Catholic Faith, but did not pratice it nor let me attend Religious Education.
I fell away from the Church in my mid teens. I wanted to find a "better" religion. I studied paganism (general and specificly Druidism). I attended and learned about various main stream Protestant faiths. (my biological grandfather is a Protestant Minister). Then I decided to study and research WHY I was supposed to belive in this or that Catholic teaching. You know, how did these teachings and beliefs develop.
I went to various anti-Catholic web sites and copied all of the primary complaints and accusations against the Church and checked them out, obviously from an objctive stand point ( I was not sure what to belive at that time). I found not a single instance where those accusations were correct.
I studied further and deepr. All the while praying ( to God whom I did not know really) for guidance. Eventually I decided, based upon the facts I uncovered, to become a "born again Catholic."
Of course I still did not pratice what I belived, a hypocrite for sure. Then my first son was born. My wife begain to attend Mass with him and said "I dont care if YOU go with us but we are going anyway." So my pride as a man said to me "to hell with that, if she is going with my son then so the hell am I"
And I did. From then on out I have grown more and more mature in my faith.
( this all started six years ago)
Now I am more happy and content in who I am and what I believe. Firmly confident that I have found the Truth.
That is why I aspire to become an Apologist.
To learn and grow more in my faith, and to help others who may feel like I did at one point in time.

53

Dysmas

on Feb 03, 2005

Thank you. I am glad to see that we can agree on some issues and disagree on others in a polite manner. It is nice to have a good diolague with someone.
As I've said before, I am no expert on Scriptures nor am I a Theologian, just a man who attempts to expalin why Cathoics and other Christians in general feel the way they do and why we believe what we do.
A bit of history:
I was born and "Baptised Catholic". I was initally raised in the Church and, becuase of my grandfather and CCD, I developed a good foundation in our Faith.
My mother divorced my biological father and got remarried, so to speak, and then divorced my second father as well. She then moved around quite a bit, from the west coast to the east coast and back.
She belived, sort of, in the Catholic Faith, but did not pratice it nor let me attend Religious Education.
I fell away from the Church in my mid teens. I wanted to find a "better" religion. I studied paganism (general and specificly Druidism). I attended and learned about various main stream Protestant faiths. (my biological grandfather is a Protestant Minister). Then I decided to study and research WHY I was supposed to belive in this or that Catholic teaching. You know, how did these teachings and beliefs develop.
I went to various anti-Catholic web sites and copied all of the primary complaints and accusations against the Church and checked them out, obviously from an objctive stand point ( I was not sure what to belive at that time). I found not a single instance where those accusations were correct.
I studied further and deepr. All the while praying ( to God whom I did not know really) for guidance. Eventually I decided, based upon the facts I uncovered, to become a "born again Catholic."
Of course I still did not pratice what I belived, a hypocrite for sure. Then my first son was born. My wife begain to attend Mass with him and said "I dont care if YOU go with us but we are going anyway." So my pride as a man said to me "to hell with that, if she is going with my son then so the hell am I"
And I did. From then on out I have grown more and more mature in my faith.
( this all started six years ago)
Now I am more happy and content in who I am and what I believe. Firmly confident that I have found the Truth.
That is why I aspire to become an Apologist.
To learn and grow more in my faith, and to help others who may feel like I did at one point in time.

54

Dysmas

on Feb 03, 2005

Thank you. I am glad to see that we can agree on some issues and disagree on others in a polite manner. It is nice to have a good diolague with someone.
As I've said before, I am no expert on Scriptures nor am I a Theologian, just a man who attempts to expalin why Cathoics and other Christians in general feel the way they do and why we believe what we do.
A bit of history:
I was born and "Baptised Catholic". I was initally raised in the Church and, becuase of my grandfather and CCD, I developed a good foundation in our Faith.
My mother divorced my biological father and got remarried, so to speak, and then divorced my second father as well. She then moved around quite a bit, from the west coast to the east coast and back.
She belived, sort of, in the Catholic Faith, but did not pratice it nor let me attend Religious Education.
I fell away from the Church in my mid teens. I wanted to find a "better" religion. I studied paganism (general and specificly Druidism). I attended and learned about various main stream Protestant faiths. (my biological grandfather is a Protestant Minister). Then I decided to study and research WHY I was supposed to belive in this or that Catholic teaching. You know, how did these teachings and beliefs develop.
I went to various anti-Catholic web sites and copied all of the primary complaints and accusations against the Church and checked them out, obviously from an objctive stand point ( I was not sure what to belive at that time). I found not a single instance where those accusations were correct.
I studied further and deepr. All the while praying ( to God whom I did not know really) for guidance. Eventually I decided, based upon the facts I uncovered, to become a "born again Catholic."
Of course I still did not pratice what I belived, a hypocrite for sure. Then my first son was born. My wife begain to attend Mass with him and said "I dont care if YOU go with us but we are going anyway." So my pride as a man said to me "to hell with that, if she is going with my son then so the hell am I"
And I did. From then on out I have grown more and more mature in my faith.
( this all started six years ago)
Now I am more happy and content in who I am and what I believe. Firmly confident that I have found the Truth.
That is why I aspire to become an Apologist.
To learn and grow more in my faith, and to help others who may feel like I did at one point in time.

55

Sabbatismus

on Feb 03, 2005

Dysmas, In some ways we have a similar background. I was reared Catholic though my mom had married a Protestant. She was from the south, my dad from the north. Opposites attract but opposites attack too. They didn't get along very well. My dad became a major anti-Catholic. My mom remained Catholic. They divorced after 25 years. My mother did send me to a Catholic schools through the eighth grade. It was a great education. Though, around the house the religious bickering got a bit rough sometimes. Anyway, In college I looked around at the eastern religions, studied some but found them pretty empty. I married a Baptist and attended there for a while before becoming involved with the Armstrongs in the 1970's .

A few years of that, I got a periferal view of the scriptures. Enough, to know, they were out, far out. My wife and I and family left that group and became Presbyterians. During the next 20 years I studied a great deal of church history and the scripture, I mean a lot. Like you, I became a Catholic apologist. I read all of the Ante-Niciene Fathers along with intense bible study. I decided that for certain, the Catholic Church most favorably worshiped like the first century Christians. They held to all the same doctrines, except that the Church had embellished or matured in a fuller manner to make a more systematic theology. Having been a strong Catholic apologist for now 15-17 years, I can say I have a very strong understanding of Catholic Beliefs and Biblical reasons for their belief and creeds.

It's interesting, we both feel compelled to help others understand Catholic beliefs. I do because, "back in the day" as they say, there were very few Catholic Apologist. The internet was not available and finding books on the subjects were very difficult, especially in the south. Consequently, I have an overflowing library of both Catholic , Baptist and other books where I had to sort through scores of doctrinal beliefs and find out what the essential truth was. Thus, I arrived at the first church and the only one which was from the first century until now, holding the same beliefs. During the history of the church, it has at times gone to extremes. Gradually, it comes out of them. I try to avoid the extremes and stay close to stay within the hash marks. Obviously, I'm fairly unbias. I tell people what I believe, but I don't defend what cannot be truly defended in clear conscience. I love all Chrisitanity in general but do despise those cults that rip off the unlearned. I truly believe the core doctrines of the church, not only because the church says I should but because I know from my own learning they are rooted in the scripture and in the teachings of the church from the first century. That being said, I don't care for the superstition that has sometimes developed by some and things that get too far from the middle hash marks. As you can see, I don't mind saying so, either.

I've had several articles published on Catholic websites and I plan to do some here. I think you'll find some of them a bit interesting and unique. I hope to do one on purgatory that should be an eyeopener for my non-Catholic readers. Not because it is something new, but because it is refreshingly realistic. Likewise, with the sacrifce and prayers for the dead. Good writing and corresponding with you.

56

NJforever

on Feb 04, 2005

I have a question about the Holy Trinity. According to the Trinity, Jesus is God. And it is also said that God cannot take the form of anything he created. How, then, can Jesus be God if he took the form of a human?

57

Sabbatismus

on Feb 05, 2005

JN, would you please quote the scripture where it says, "God cannot take the form of anything He created"?

58

NJforever

on Feb 05, 2005

I am afraid I don't know where it is in the scripture, I was tought this in CCD. Perhaps He can. It was just something I had pondered since I heard it.

59

Sabbatismus

on Feb 05, 2005

I understand, that scripture would have been a new one on me, NJ.. But, thanks anyway.

60

Dysmas

on Feb 08, 2005

Reminds me of the old question "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"