Am I a Catholic?

[twb1621]

continued from p revious post;

Translation and Interpretation- Ancient Languages
Assoc, Prof.John F. Petruccione, Prof.Sarah Brown Ferrario, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prof. William E. Klingshirn, Virgilio Elizondo, Assoc. Prof. William J. McCarthy, Paul Bradshaw, Prof. Frank A. C. Mantello, David Burrell, early interpretations and transitions of ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages, and so on…

Henri de Lubac, S.J., PH.D, doctorate in theology specialized and teaching in the history of religions, studies on atheism, Buddhism, medieval biblical exegesis, ecclesiology, and the sacramental nature of Catholicism.

Josef Pieper Professor, author and lecturer in philosophy with emphasis in the study of law and sociology. Researcher of the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Brian E. Daley, S.J., Professor, and historical theologian, specializing in the study of the early Church, particularly the development of Christian doctrine from the fourth to the eighth centuries. Researcher of the works of the sixth-century Greek theologian Leontius of Byzantium, and authored a number of articles for scholarly journals on ancient Christology, Trinitarian theology and eschatology.

Mary Rose D’Angelo, Associate Professor of Theology, scholar and researcher of the origins of Christianity, Judaism in Roman antiquity and Greek and Roman religion.

Lawrence S. Cunningham, Professor of Theology (John A. O’Brien) Historical and theological investigative researcher, systematic theology and culture, Christian spirituality, and the history of Christian spirituality…

Blake Leyerle, C.S.C., Associate Professor of Theology (John Cardinal O’Hara) specialization lies in the social and cultural history of early Christianity.

Robert A. Krieg, Professor of Theology specializing in historical-systematic theology, especially in Christology and German Catholic theology.

Robert M. Gimello, Research Professor of Theology,historian of Buddhism with special interests also in the Theology of Religions and in Comparative Mysticism.

and so on.

Do you understand my point my brother?

 

[PJM]

=twb1621;6252356]Major Tom, I for one appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Let me respond to a few things you mentioned here;

It is a misconception to think the teachings of the Church are policies. Such a personal designation can misguide you from the start. If you do have an objection or difficulty understanding a teaching of the Church, (which is human) it is better to seek guidance to better understand the reasons or teachings of Christ in order to see how the Church derives its laws and doctrines. There is nothing taught in the Catholic Faith that is not supported by Scripture and or Apostolic Tradition through Apostolic Succession. Further, the authority to establish dogma and other teachings come from Christ Himself through the power of the keys which is supported through the Old Testament verifying Christ’s intentions for the assignment of “the Keys”.

As far as what you “have to obey” is concerned, just provide any credible passage from the Bible that says you can choose to obey what you can but do not have to obey all the teachings of Christ. What you have actually said here is you selectively choose the teachings of Christ based on what you can believe, rather than believing in the teachings of Christ as they are. This is the most common reason for a Catholic converting to another Christian Faith.

As far as understanding everything or being condemned to Hell, that is your own misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church. No one can understand everything of the faith. That is where faith comes in. It is accepting the Word of God and the teachings of His Bride, the Church regardless of whether you fully understand or not.
Example; When Christ spoke of those who must “eat His Body and Drink His Blood”, many walked away for failing to understand Him. When He asked the remaining Apostles if they also would leave Him, Peter assured Jesus they would not, recognizing Jesus for who He was. But notice that the apostles, although they did not understand any better than those who walked away, they remained faithful and accepted Jesus Word and teachings. They were not condemned.

As far as “cowing people into submission” is concerned, Jesus said “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me.” He also said;

John CH12; 46 I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. 48 Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, 49 because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.

And assigning the 72 who He was sending out to preach His teachings, He said;
Luke CH10; 16 Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

So is it that Jesus Himself is attempting to cower people into submission or is it that the Catholic Church is teaching the Truth in Christ but those such as yourself (and I at one time) refuse to accept all of it because they don’t know the full teachings or refuse to accept what they do not understand? And if you only accept what you understand, where is the faith in that? Where proof exists, faith is mute.
As far as how you teach your child, if you live on a busy street, is the outcome not “black and white” if you fail to teach your child the dangers of playing in the street? Would you not teach your child they could be seriously injured or killed if they play in the street? The Catholic Church has been left with the responsibility of teaching the Word of God that all may reach salvation. To fall short of God’s will in this regard, is self condemnation.
Continued next post……

Well done Tom; THANKS!

 

[flyingfish]

I think you bring up good points but I have an analogy for the child that fits the situation a bit better, I think.

You tell your children about drugs --they’re illegal, they’re dangerous, etc.

Your child --with the full knowledge that you have given him, decides to take drugs. Furthermore, he keeps on taking them. Despite your providing him with rehab over and over, he still takes drugs. He gets ‘clean and sober’, then the minute your back is turned robs you blind and buys more drugs. Not only that, he is in with a wild crowd and they’re trying to get the other children in the family to take drugs. Your whole family is in grave physical and emotional danger when this ‘child’ is around.

Now, is there ever going to be a situation where your child can be around the rest of you without being a danger to himself and others? No. And the longer he is on drugs etc. the more tolerance he has built, the more he steals, the worse his behavior gets. Finally it is to the point where he comes and stands outside your door with a knife threatening that the minute somebody lets him in he will kill you all.

THAT is what a person in mortal sin is like. And the only way he can ‘change’ is if God would forcibly ‘wipe out his will’. And this is just what God will never do for He will never ‘force Himself’ upon us. That would make a mockery of His death and resurrection, for instead of us choosing to obey Him, He’d say, “and if you don’t, I’ll have to ‘make you’ obey.” Why die for us, then, if we’re not free to reject Him?

This person will stay like this, not just for a week, a month, a year, but for eternity (which we are not going to experience as ‘time’. I think you’re imagining that after say 7 million years or so a person might ‘weaken’ or ‘repent’. But that doesn’t happen. Once we’re dead we’re out of ‘time’. We have ‘crystalized’ ourselves into an eternal ‘now’ --and we have had the opportunity all our lives to make the right choice. If we do, we have the eternal ‘now’ of that good choice in heaven; if not, the eternal ‘now’ of the bad choice. There is no weakening.

And it isn’t God --or you the parent–who ‘made’ the child take drugs. Time and again, every possible ‘help’ was given. At any point the child could have ‘stuck to’ the choice, stayed clean, etc. But the child didn’t. . .and Heaven is not going to be ‘tyranized’ by Hell.

See, God isn’t **punishing you. **God is offering you salvation, but respecting you enough to let you make the informed and **free choice. **And He has made it so that all your life long to the moment of your death you are free to choose **life.

**if you don’t, it’s not Him ‘punishing you’; it is you freely rejecting Him.

I hope that might help make it clear. It’s not that I’m putting a limit on God–He is very merciful!–but God’s nature is such that He cannot ‘contradict Himself’ --and to permit evil (which is what he would do if he allowed those who rejected him to 'go to heaven anyway) is what he would never do. Also, if we have freely chosen evil, it would likewise be a contradiction for God to forcibly ‘erase’ the evil and ‘make’ us choose good.

I think the problem with this analogy is that people in mortal sin here on earth can still be very happy, can enjoy live, can even be very good people in other areas of their life. (Say, someone using birth control, someone divorced and remarried, a practicing homosexual, can all be generous people who sacrifice for others.)

Even if you say God withdraws himself and that is why it hurts, and even if you say that God withdraws himself because the person refuses Heaven, there is no reason why Hell has to be any more painful than earth. In fact, it can be better than Earth, with plentiful resources, natural pleasures, and so on. That is my issue with hell. However you describe it, if it is more painful than the best life a person in mortal sin can be on earth, then it is a punishment and God is deciding to do it to the human being.

This is not even mentioning that people don’t always quite choose to sin. Someone who experiences homosexual attraction for example, and falls in love with a person of the same sex would find it very difficult and painful to have to give that up and be celibate. So one has to ask why God created us such that some 2% of us would desire homosexual relations and then make that a grave sin.

 

[Major_Tom]

You are searching for the truth, which is good. But you fail to realize every person with a personal opinion and there are thousands as you probably know, their opinions are of one source, scripture. Where did scripture come from… the Catholic Church. The best you can do for yourself is to research the lineage of the teachings of Christ. If you then believe someone today who disagrees with that lineage has the most accurate interpretation, you are denying 2000 years of Christ’s teachings from the original source forward. Reading a variety of adverse opinions when you as of yet do not have the truth in understanding the lineage of scripture is self defeating and all you are going to come out with is an adopted opinion from someone who says something you can accept rather than what is factual.

You’re very welcome Bro. But I have already been hit with the 2 X 4 God swings and I have reached my home with no doubts, an excellent guide, and all the reassurances I could ever desire. But my past profession enabled me to do my research where as most people do not have that going for them.
Again, it is the lineage of the teachings of scripture that prove the true faith, and the true meaning. The contents of every Bible in every Christian faith are from the Catholic Bible, the Catholic Faith, and the Catholic Church. If you want to know the truth regarding Jesus and His teachings, start at the original source 2000 years ago and follow the teachings through history. If you need guidance, by all means seek that also. There are many here including myself who are capable and available to offer direction and help those seeking answers find the answers to their questions if answers exist. You think because you have weakness or doubts that the Church says you are condemned but if that were true, mother Teresa would be condemned as well. Ask your questions and consider the answers you receive. You’ll get there as long as you don’t choose your faith by what you can believe.

Well stated, and thank you for the thoughtful reply, but we just disagree. This suggests that, by wanting to solicit opinions from non-Catholics is tantamount to… can’t think of a good analogy… putting a gun to my head? Regardless, I just don’t accept that premise. Thanks again…

 

[MariaG]

I cannot believe that 55.81 percent voted that this person is stiil Catholic even though they do not believe in what the church teaches. I question wether or not you people are Catholic or even Christians for that matter.

The person may be a heretic or even apostate, but that does not mean that the indelible mark on their soul is gone. They will always remain part of those who are baptized.

From the catechism of the Catholic Church
1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible, it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders, holding them in respect and affection. Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church

And maybe this link would help you to understand.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Student09]

Even if you say God withdraws himself and that is why it hurts, and even if you say that God withdraws himself because the person refuses Heaven, there is no reason why Hell has to be any more painful than earth. In fact, it can be better than Earth, with plentiful resources, natural pleasures, and so on.

Actually, there is a reason. Natural pleasures, the beautiful things of earth, and natural goodness, are all from God. Everything that is good is from God - when there is good mixed with bad or with evil, the evil is not from God, but the good is.

God is patient with us. He allows us to experience His goodness in the things of earth, and probably in many other ways we aren’t even aware of, even while we ignore Him, reject Him, despise Him, refuse Him. But death is the final test. If we persist in rejecting God until death, then that is our choice; we have had a lifetime to choose, and even if our life has been short, God has given us every grace needed for us to choose Him, so we have only ourselves to blame if we don’t. When we reject God so fully that we reject Him even in death, we necessarily reject all the good things that He was giving us before - everything from natural beauty, laughter, and pleasure, to the natural goodness in ourselves. It is a mistake to think of these things as separate from God.

 

[flyingfish]

Actually, there is a reason. Natural pleasures, the beautiful things of earth, and natural goodness, are all from God. Everything that is good is from God - when there is good mixed with bad or with evil, the evil is not from God, but the good is.

God is patient with us. He allows us to experience His goodness in the things of earth, and probably in many other ways we aren’t even aware of, even while we ignore Him, reject Him, despise Him, refuse Him. But death is the final test. If we persist in rejecting God until death, then that is our choice; we have had a lifetime to choose, and even if our life has been short, God has given us every grace needed for us to choose Him, so we have only ourselves to blame if we don’t. When we reject God so fully that we reject Him even in death, we necessarily reject all the good things that He was giving us before - everything from natural beauty, laughter, and pleasure, to the natural goodness in ourselves. It is a mistake to think of these things as separate from God.

It might be our choice to “reject” God even in death, but it is God’s choice to make hell excruciatingly painful, there is no reason why God couldn’t allow those who reject him in death to be able to experience the same level of happiness as those who live in mortal sin on earth.

I think you would be hardpressed to find anyone who really wants to “reject” all the natural goods of the earth even if they want to reject the things required by the Christian God of those who are in heaven.

People who are in mortal sin have rejected God, and yet the natural pleasures do not disappear. Even if people reject God, God doesn’t have to go away (and he can’t, if they continue existing), and could still save them from eternal torture.

There is no reason why God has to make death different, that is entirely up to God. He could have made reincarnation back to earth for those people, could have made nonexistence rather than hell, could have made hell like earth with a bus that comes every once in a while to take people who want to go to heaven ala CS Lewis.

It doesn’t make sense to think that God is completely gone from hell anyway, because that would suggest that beings can exist and sustain themselves entirely separate from God. God has to be sustaining hell anyway, like he has to be sustaining everythign that exists.

 

[Student09]

It might be our choice to “reject” God even in death, but it is God’s choice to make hell excruciatingly painful, there is no reason why God couldn’t allow those who reject him in death to be able to experience the same level of happiness as those who live in mortal sin on earth.

But you are still separating happiness from God. Let’s replace the word “happiness” in your sentence with “God” :

“There is no reason why God couldn’t allow those who reject him in death to be able to experience the same level of God as those who live in mortal sin on earth.”

See the problem?

People who are in mortal sin have rejected God, and yet the natural pleasures do not disappear. Even if people reject God, God doesn’t have to go away (and he can’t, if they continue existing), and could still save them from eternal torture.

It doesn’t make sense to think that God is completely gone from hell anyway, because that would suggest that beings can exist and sustain themselves entirely separate from God. God has to be sustaining hell anyway, like he has to be sustaining everythign that exists.

They have not yet rejected God with finality. He is waiting for them, trying to draw them back to Himself. He doesn’t completely go away - Aquinas says that He is still present in hell with respect to His power, but not with respect to His Essence. (Essence in Thomistic terms is Who God Is.) So God is still sustaining the existence of the souls He has created, and existence is objectively good; but existence is now a torment to those souls, because they have rejected the source of existence, the source of good, they have rejected love. His infinite love becomes their great torment.

 

[twb1621]

Well stated, and thank you for the thoughtful reply, but we just disagree. This suggests that, by wanting to solicit opinions from non-Catholics is tantamount to… can’t think of a good analogy… putting a gun to my head? Regardless, I just don’t accept that premise. Thanks again…

Peace and guidence of the Holy Spirit my brother…

 

[ATL_Granny]

FlyingFish~

You have been on my mind a lot, for I used to be like you when I was younger. I’ve prayed for you incessantly and hope that there will be a droplet of faith remaining in you that will enkindle a child-like yearning to know God. Not just know about Him, but fall in love with Him.

I am constantly bombarded by the wonder of God and just last week was sent a You Tube video from a friend regarding the artifacts found at the site believed to be that of the Red Sea crossing where Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. You can go into You Tube and search under “Red Sea Crossing” to see them.

Then, this morning, another friend led me to a website which has many archaelogical sites linked to the Bible, which I again found fascinating. You can see them on www.WyattMuseum.com.

I share these simply because they give me such joy and I would hope that they may do the same for you. God is real.

You started this thread asking if you were still Catholic, but then said you doubted a personal God existed at all. I pray that you find Him.

 

[michaeldaniels]

There is a difference between being a Catholic and a practicing Catholic…by nature of the OP’s baptism, they are Catholic and will always be Catholic…however, that doesn’t mean they are a practicing Catholic…the OP, along with a great deal of Catholics, are “fallen away” Catholics who fail/refuse to live the faith.

I cannot believe that 55.81 percent voted that this person is stiil Catholic even though they do not believe in what the church teaches. I question wether or not you people are Catholic or even Christians for that matter.

 

[twb1621]

…

It might be our choice to “reject” God even in death, but it is God’s choice to make hell excruciatingly painful, there is no reason why God couldn’t allow those who reject him in death to be able to experience the same level of happiness as those who live in mortal sin on earth.

What do you think mortal sin is? Mortal sin in one way or another is the result of actions or behavior one willingly chooses to perform against themselves or more frequently against others. What kind of God would we have if not one who is just as well as loving? Would it be just for God to offer pleasures to the non-remorseful man who raped and killed your neighbor or your daughter? Or if a person takes money from a pension fund you invested in and relied on for your retirement, should God offer him eternal pleasure? Here are the choices; one can enjoy the pleasures of this life as God created for us which are beautiful and plentiful and which in our appreciation are a form of praise to God until we join Him in our eternal, inherited life, or one can seek to enjoy each of the short lived “sinful pleasures” which are nothing more than brief experiences that never completely satisfy but only temporarily feed the ego until we begin looking for the next “thing”.

**You can go to Disney World and ride the rides in enjoyment but if you lived in the park and did it every day for eternity would you still enjoy it all? After all, it is a serious goal of many people to vacation there and certainly offers pleasures (temporary), temporary pleasure from a new car, temporary pleasure from a new house, new job, new cloths, new boat, raise in income and so on. How long does any of these pleasures offer total satisfaction if at all. So what is it that would be so fulfilling for a man to choose this life over the offer of eternal pleasure and joy that has no limits and no man made values placed on them? **

**I don’t know if you are in an intimate relationship or not, nor do I know if you have the blessed experience to choose to have and did have a child, but if you have, consider this; If you love someone deeply and enter into a fully loving relationship with that person and they turn away from you ending that relationship, do you still expect to have the pleasures and joy you experienced in that relationship to continue? And if you have chosen to have children and they mature and take on a life against the principles you raised them with rejecting you in the process because they did not want to hear what you have to say, is it they who chose their path and brought your sorrow, or you for having them? They chose to turn from you. Therefore, they do not receive the love and joy you wish to share with them. **

**Anything this world has to offer as we have made it is based solely on materialism and man’s own industry and it all deteriorates and/or posses a threat to man and the environment God created for us over time. The only value an object has is what man decides he will place on it (through commercialism) at that time. But what is the true value of gold or a diamond for instance? If you take away what the person who sells it claims it is, it is nothing more than a pretty stone from the ground. **
**Any pleasures we receive from the natural world as God offered us is praise to Him. Wildlife, forests, mountains, oceans, and everything in between give pleasure to us through there beauty and our appreciation praises God. **

**The pleasure one can receive from materialism is short lived and never satisfying as is proven by man’s consistent life long desire to find pleasure from one thing to the next but nothing ever “being enough”. And the only people who would choose the “pleasures” of this world over eternal life are those who live in a superficial consciousness with no faith or belief there is an eternal life offered. Who would in proper awareness, choose the temporary short term pleasures during a period of 70 or 80 or 90 years of mortality in stead of eternal joy with our beloved? But this realization can only be made by those who have been blessed with that awareness or who can step back and look at the whole picture. Through ego fed pride, commercialism and materialism cloud man’s view of what is true joy and satisfaction. Once one becomes aware of the truth, he seeks to gain it and eagerly anticipates his inherited eternal life. **

I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who really wants to “reject” all the natural goods of the earth even if they want to reject the things required by the Christian God of those who are in heaven.

**Why would you have to “reject the natural goods of the earth” as you put it? That which is of the earth when enjoyed in its intended natural way is meant to be enjoyed and its appreciation is praise to God. **

continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who really wants to “reject” all the natural goods of the earth even if they want to reject the things required by the Christian God of those who are in heaven.

**Why would you have to “reject the natural goods of the earth” as you put it? That which is of the earth when enjoyed in its intended natural way is meant to be enjoyed and its appreciation is praise to God. **

People who are in mortal sin have rejected God, and yet the natural pleasures do not disappear. Even if people reject God, God doesn’t have to go away (and he can’t, if they continue existing), and could still save them from eternal torture.

Natural pleasures never go away nor does God. Truly natural pleasures are a gift from God. It is the individual who chooses to turn away from Him and it is the individual who appreciates the true natural pleasures to the extent they realize how much of a gift of God they are. But then are you not referring to “natural pleasures” perhaps experienced in a manner they were not intended to be experienced? I could be wrong….

There is no reason why God has to make death different, that is entirely up to God.

**Mortal death is nothing more than growth to eternal life which God did not take away from us. Remember I spoke of ego and pride before… that was the goal of our first parents who chose to partake in something they were told outright would bring death. Their choice was the first real expression of our freedom of will to choose which must exist for any person to freely offer their love and trust and faith in someone to enter into a relationship with them; including a relationship with God. That freedom of choice on the part our parent’s was made in awareness of the result of eventual death which was traded off for the knowledge of good and evil through pride. **
He could have made reincarnation back to earth for those people, could have made nonexistence rather than hell, could have made hell like earth with a bus that comes every once in a while to take people who want to go to heaven ala CS Lewis.

**Question: did God create Hell, or satan? Was there a hell before satan? Or was hell a place that became existent when satan was banished from heaven and who made hell what it is what ever that might be? And why would God send people who lived by His love back to earth from eternal life and joy? And why, if sin is a violation either against our self or others would God want to send them back to sin yet again? And Non-Existent? Can the knowledge of one you loved who died ever become nonexistent? **

It doesn’t make sense to think that God is completely gone from hell anyway, because that would suggest that beings can exist and sustain themselves entirely separate from God. God has to be sustaining hell anyway, like he has to be sustaining everythign that exists.

Knowing one can never enter heaven and the awareness of God and perhaps in ways the “seeing” of Him in the pleasures of Heaven may be the worst punishment of hell, as some believe. There is heaven and hell, God and satan. Who do you choose to spend eternal life with? The only death of a soul, spirit or of an angel once a part of the eternal world is the death of choice. One can not make non-existent a person they loved no matter how hurt they may be by that person’s choices. It is further evidence God loves every one of us.