Convince me I'm wrong please

[Abbadon]

Playing devils advocate, I think thats the phrase…

Have you considered seeking answers from an alternate world view, perhaps philosphical?

Humanistic, Kantian, Eppicurian… (Ignore Nietzche anything good he stole from Kant)

Or perhaps another religious world view? Bahai, Jainsim and several sects of Bhuddism you may find enlightening…

Keep it open and keep inquiring, good luck

 

[ltravis]

Ryan, I am impressed with the depth and sincerity of your questions. I am equally impressed by the quality of the replies you have received, to the point there isn’t much I can add. I will offer a couple thoughts though. First, on the idea that a gay people are treated unfairly by not being able to marry. Actually, no, there is no unfairness - A gay person, like any other person, has the option to marry a person of the opposite sex. The real question you would have to address is why God would allow the unfairness of someone being born naturally gay, if there is in fact any reality to that.

In any case, you have to consider what’s behind all this. God is love, and love by its nature is constructive, creative. God, as love, created life - us! Now consider he has given us the privelege of sharing that creative nature - by letting us join ouselves in love with him at the center to create life. That’s huge. That’s “meaning of life” stuff right there. I *really *wouldn’t want to be doubting or messing with what God has set up for us.

Finally, I have to address the Eucharist. From your comments, it seems you still believe it is the true presence of Christ. That is good, but even if you had doubts about that as you consider leaving the church I would like to offer a suggestion. Before you go, visit the Blessed Sacrament in adoration. There HE is, having given himself to you in incomprehendable and infinite love. Do you really want to turn your back on him? Even if you question whether its true, just tell youself “What if its true? What if its *really *him?”

LT

 

[elts1956]

I am going to try to answer the question on women’s ordination, but first I am going to give this link: peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

After you have read my answer listen to the audio recording there, because it will introduce some points that go far beyond what I have said and will address what I have said in a way that is probably easier to understand.

When it comes to this issue, the first thing that has to be looked at is the idea of masculinity and feminity. Now in our modern minds, we tend to think of masculinity as being a word used to describe things that are like men, or that share qualities of men, and femininity is a word used to describe things that are like women or that share qualities of women. The problem is that that is the complete opposite of how things really work. Masculinity is simply quality of being, one that is abstract and not based on tangible things. In other words, things aren’t called masculine because masculinity is like men: men are called masculine because they are like masculinity.

In its most fundamental aspect, the quality of masculinity is the quality of transcendance, while in its most fundamental aspect, femininity is the quality of immanence. To be transcendant from a thing is to be beyond and seperate from a thing. To be immanent is to be within and in some way united with a thing. That is why the gender of a species which creates the offspring and then steps back is called the male. The father of a child plays his part in the conception, then he steps back and is seperate and beyond the child. Throughout human history the father has also played in many ways a more transcendent role after birth in that he has been the one beyond the child, the one in a different world, out working and setting rules and so forth. The gender of the species which are immanent with the child are called female. They are feminine. The child is with them for nine months, living inside the mother. The child then feeds directly from the mothers breasts, and throughout human history the mother has been the primary caregiver, the one involved in raising the child. We see this in our language, too. We call ships “she” and “her” instead of “him” and “he” because we are immanent with them - we ride inside them.

Now God is called “He,” He is the “Father,” because He is masculine. He is transcendant - beyond the world, seperate from it. This hits at the very reason we have male priests. We have male priests because the priests are standing in the place of God. The action of sacrificing Christ belongs only and exclusively to Christ Himself - to God. Priests are merely standing in for Him as that sacrifice is offered. Priests have to be male because they have to be masculine because they are standing in for God who is masculine. The act of sacrifice to God is a transcendant act because God Himself is transcendant. By its nature, any act that attempts to offer something to a transcendant God must be itself transcendant, because that act must “leave” the world, it must transcend the world, and go to God who is outside of the world. A transcendant act is by its nature masculine, because transcendance is the funamental quality of masculinity. By definition, feminity is immanent, not transcendant.

This is why, for instance, when you had the ancient pagan religions that worshipped idols, they had priestesses. An idol was a statue that was not believed to represent a god, but to literally be a god. An idol was a god that was literally in the world. Any act of sacrifice to an idol would be immanent, because it would stay in the world. The god was right there - there was nothing to transcend. God, however, is outside of the world, so to reach to Him is to transcend the world. That is why, as Dr. Kreeft says, having priestesses is not a matter of deciding how we should worship in our religion - it is literally and actually a completely different religion. The differences between priests and priestesses is the difference between a God who is not in the world, who is beyond it, above it - who created it, and having a God who is in the world - who is part of the world, and by nature of being in the world cannot have created it, or else He would have created Himself, which obviously makes no sense.

If we believe that God created the world, then by definition, by nature, inevitably, we must have masculine priests. We must have priests that sacrifice transcendently, that the sacrifice may transcend our world and reach to God who is outside of and beyond the world - who created it. If we have priestesses, then we have immanent sacrifices which by definition, by nature, inevitably remain in the world, and therefore what we sacrifice to must be in the world, and cannot have created it.

That’s why we don’t have female priests.

Hi Lazerlike, I have a question about your statement:

Now God is called “He,” He is the “Father,” because He is masculine. He is transcendant - beyond the world, seperate from it. This hits at the very reason we have male priests. We have male priests because the priests are standing in the place of God. The action of sacrificing Christ belongs only and exclusively to Christ Himself - to God. Priests are merely standing in for Him as that sacrifice is offered. Priests have to be male because they have to be masculine because they are standing in for God who is masculine. The act of sacrifice to God is a transcendant act because God Himself is transcendant. By its nature, any act that attempts to offer something to a transcendant God must be itself transcendant, because that act must “leave” the world, it must transcend the world, and go to God who is outside of the world. A transcendant act is by its nature masculine, because transcendance is the funamental quality of masculinity. By definition, feminity is immanent, not transcendant.

God has always been called HE by humans, I think, mainly because MAN/HE expresses strength while WOMAN/SHE expresses softness, caring,. In the early days of the prophets and today in some churches, God continues to have only the partriarchal aspect. One reason we Catholics have continued this tradition is because of our tradtion and love of our Blessed Mother. I love our Blessed Lady and am so happy to be able to talk to her, but once again, the female is in the passenger seat and the male continues to be the driver.

I was raised a Traditional Catholic, so the following concept is hard for me to wrap my brain around too, but really wouldn’t Almighty God, if given complete human form, emotions etc. by US, be both male and female? In reality He is probably neither as S/He is spirit. God/Christ came to us in the male form because at the time He lived, His society continued to be partriarchal. God is pretty bright and would know what would have happened if S/He had sent His Only Begotten Daughter. I would hate to imagine.

After all, wouldn’t God have to have a feminine side to understand we women? I have always heard we are a mystery to the male side of the human race.

 

[elts1956]

I am going to try to answer the question on women’s ordination, but first I am going to give this link: peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

After you have read my answer listen to the audio recording there, because it will introduce some points that go far beyond what I have said and will address what I have said in a way that is probably easier to understand.

When it comes to this issue, the first thing that has to be looked at is the idea of masculinity and feminity. Now in our modern minds, we tend to think of masculinity as being a word used to describe things that are like men, or that share qualities of men, and femininity is a word used to describe things that are like women or that share qualities of women. The problem is that that is the complete opposite of how things really work. Masculinity is simply quality of being, one that is abstract and not based on tangible things. In other words, things aren’t called masculine because masculinity is like men: men are called masculine because they are like masculinity.

In its most fundamental aspect, the quality of masculinity is the quality of transcendance, while in its most fundamental aspect, femininity is the quality of immanence. To be transcendant from a thing is to be beyond and seperate from a thing. To be immanent is to be within and in some way united with a thing. That is why the gender of a species which creates the offspring and then steps back is called the male. The father of a child plays his part in the conception, then he steps back and is seperate and beyond the child. Throughout human history the father has also played in many ways a more transcendent role after birth in that he has been the one beyond the child, the one in a different world, out working and setting rules and so forth. The gender of the species which are immanent with the child are called female. They are feminine. The child is with them for nine months, living inside the mother. The child then feeds directly from the mothers breasts, and throughout human history the mother has been the primary caregiver, the one involved in raising the child. We see this in our language, too. We call ships “she” and “her” instead of “him” and “he” because we are immanent with them - we ride inside them.

Now God is called “He,” He is the “Father,” because He is masculine. He is transcendant - beyond the world, seperate from it. This hits at the very reason we have male priests. We have male priests because the priests are standing in the place of God. The action of sacrificing Christ belongs only and exclusively to Christ Himself - to God. Priests are merely standing in for Him as that sacrifice is offered. Priests have to be male because they have to be masculine because they are standing in for God who is masculine. The act of sacrifice to God is a transcendant act because God Himself is transcendant. By its nature, any act that attempts to offer something to a transcendant God must be itself transcendant, because that act must “leave” the world, it must transcend the world, and go to God who is outside of the world. A transcendant act is by its nature masculine, because transcendance is the funamental quality of masculinity. By definition, feminity is immanent, not transcendant.

This is why, for instance, when you had the ancient pagan religions that worshipped idols, they had priestesses. An idol was a statue that was not believed to represent a god, but to literally be a god. An idol was a god that was literally in the world. Any act of sacrifice to an idol would be immanent, because it would stay in the world. The god was right there - there was nothing to transcend. God, however, is outside of the world, so to reach to Him is to transcend the world. That is why, as Dr. Kreeft says, having priestesses is not a matter of deciding how we should worship in our religion - it is literally and actually a completely different religion. The differences between priests and priestesses is the difference between a God who is not in the world, who is beyond it, above it - who created it, and having a God who is in the world - who is part of the world, and by nature of being in the world cannot have created it, or else He would have created Himself, which obviously makes no sense.

If we believe that God created the world, then by definition, by nature, inevitably, we must have masculine priests. We must have priests that sacrifice transcendently, that the sacrifice may transcend our world and reach to God who is outside of and beyond the world - who created it. If we have priestesses, then we have immanent sacrifices which by definition, by nature, inevitably remain in the world, and therefore what we sacrifice to must be in the world, and cannot have created it.

That’s why we don’t have female priests.

Hi Lazerlike, I have a question/statements about your statement:

“Now God is called “He,” He is the “Father,” because He is masculine. He is transcendant - beyond the world, seperate from it. This hits at the very reason we have male priests. We have male priests because the priests are standing in the place of God. The action of sacrificing Christ belongs only and exclusively to Christ Himself - to God. Priests are merely standing in for Him as that sacrifice is offered. Priests have to be male because they have to be masculine because they are standing in for God who is masculine. The act of sacrifice to God is a transcendant act because God Himself is transcendant. By its nature, any act that attempts to offer something to a transcendant God must be itself transcendant, because that act must “leave” the world, it must transcend the world, and go to God who is outside of the world. A transcendant act is by its nature masculine, because transcendance is the funamental quality of masculinity. By definition, feminity is immanent, not transcendant.”

God has always been called HE by humans, I think, mainly because MAN/HE expresses strength while WOMAN/SHE expresses softness, caring,. In the early days of the prophets and today in some churches, God continues to have only the partriarchal aspect. One reason we Catholics have continued this tradition is because of our tradtion and love of our Blessed Mother. I love our Blessed Lady and am so happy to be able to talk to her, but once again, the female is in the passenger seat and the male continues to be the driver.

I was raised a Traditional Catholic, so the following concept is hard for me to wrap my brain around too, but really wouldn’t Almighty God, if given complete human form, emotions etc. by US, be both male and female? In reality He is probably neither as S/He is spirit. God/Christ came to us in the male form because at the time He lived, His society continued to be partriarchal. God is pretty bright and would know what would have happened if S/He had sent His Only Begotten Daughter. I would hate to imagine.

After all, wouldn’t God have to have a feminine side to understand we women? I have always heard we are a mystery to the male side of the human race.

 

[elts1956]

Hi Lazerlike, I have a question/statements about your statement:

“Now God is called “He,” He is the “Father,” because He is masculine. He is transcendant - beyond the world, seperate from it. This hits at the very reason we have male priests. We have male priests because the priests are standing in the place of God. The action of sacrificing Christ belongs only and exclusively to Christ Himself - to God. Priests are merely standing in for Him as that sacrifice is offered. Priests have to be male because they have to be masculine because they are standing in for God who is masculine. The act of sacrifice to God is a transcendant act because God Himself is transcendant. By its nature, any act that attempts to offer something to a transcendant God must be itself transcendant, because that act must “leave” the world, it must transcend the world, and go to God who is outside of the world. A transcendant act is by its nature masculine, because transcendance is the funamental quality of masculinity. By definition, feminity is immanent, not transcendant.”

God has always been called HE by humans, I think, mainly because MAN/HE expresses strength while WOMAN/SHE expresses softness, caring,. In the early days of the prophets and today in some churches, God continues to have only the partriarchal aspect. One reason we Catholics have continued this tradition is because of our tradtion and love of our Blessed Mother. I love our Blessed Lady and am so happy to be able to talk to her, but once again, the female is in the passenger seat and the male continues to be the driver.

I was raised a Traditional Catholic, so the following concept is hard for me to wrap my brain around too, but really wouldn’t Almighty God, if given complete human form, emotions etc. by US, be both male and female? In reality He is probably neither as S/He is spirit. God/Christ came to us in the male form because at the time He lived, His society continued to be partriarchal. God is pretty bright and would know what would have happened if S/He had sent His Only Begotten Daughter. I would hate to imagine.

After all, wouldn’t God have to have a feminine side to understand we women? I have always heard we are a mystery to the male side of the human race.

 

[catharina]

I’ll start off by saying my name is Ryan, I’m 15 and I’ve been going to Catholic school my entire life. Suddenly I’ve hit this critical stage of my religion though and I just can’t get past some of my problems with it so I came here for some answers. Here are my questions:

-If God created everyone equal then why do we say gays shouldn’t marry…doesn’t that imply they’re not equal?
-Same question as above but this time for female priests.
-Howcome if I do something bad it’s my fault but if I do something good then “God helped me”?
-Why do we trust people with our faith when they can’t even seem to agree on something as simple as who was King when Jesus was born (Gospels)
-Why can’t God just show himself, wouldn’t that help us make good decisions if we actually saw him right before an immoral act?

I have more but would like these questions answered first. PLEASE don’t take these questions the wrong way and get angry, I’m right on the verge of leaving Catholocism even though I’ve lead a very moral (according to the church) life so far. Thanks a lot

Hi Ryan. I like your questions. I’m older now but when I was your age, I remember that suddenly I wondered why I should believe in God at all - not to mention the laws and rules and all of that. So I went to see the priest-counselor at my high school and told him about my dilemma. Wise man. He asked me if I believed in George Washington, the federal govt, etc… I said Yes. He asked why. I said because I’ve studied history. The priest led me straight back to God’s use of revelation - the Bible, Tradition, Church History and STUDY. It made perfect sense to me. I don’t NEED to understand every nuance. Faith leads us to where we should go.

As St. Paul said: “All depends on faith. Everything is grace.”

The lessons here? Cherish your faith. Build it. Guard it. Be thankful for it.

 

[lak611]

This thread is almost two years old, and the OP has not posted again. The thread should probably be closed.

 

[elts1956]

Hi Ryan. I like your questions. I’m older now but when I was your age, I remember that suddenly I wondered why I should believe in God at all - not to mention the laws and rules and all of that. So I went to see the priest-counselor at my high school and told him about my dilemma. Wise man. He asked me if I believed in George Washington, the federal govt, etc… I said Yes. He asked why. I said because I’ve studied history. The priest led me straight back to God’s use of revelation - the Bible, Tradition, Church History and STUDY. It made perfect sense to me. I don’t NEED to understand every nuance. Faith leads us to where we should go.

As St. Paul said: “All depends on faith. Everything is grace.”

The lessons here? Cherish your faith. Build it. Guard it. Be thankful for it.

Very much to the point and clear. Good job Catharina.

 

[elts1956]

Hi Ryan. I like your questions. I’m older now but when I was your age, I remember that suddenly I wondered why I should believe in God at all - not to mention the laws and rules and all of that. So I went to see the priest-counselor at my high school and told him about my dilemma. Wise man. He asked me if I believed in George Washington, the federal govt, etc… I said Yes. He asked why. I said because I’ve studied history. The priest led me straight back to God’s use of revelation - the Bible, Tradition, Church History and STUDY. It made perfect sense to me. I don’t NEED to understand every nuance. Faith leads us to where we should go.

As St. Paul said: “All depends on faith. Everything is grace.”

The lessons here? Cherish your faith. Build it. Guard it. Be thankful for it.

This thread is almost two years old, and the OP has not posted again. The thread should probably be closed.

Hi there. As usual, I didn’t look at dates. I did get a notice in my email that something had been answered, so off I went. I have also question the mentors about old threads and was told they are not usually closed unless someone reports something objectionable in them.

 

[catharina]

Very much to the point and clear. Good job Catharina.

Thank you! Hope young Ryan checks back in some day.



(I didn’t notice dates either.
This thread popped up on my “suscribed” threads.)

 

[cominghome]

Ryan,

I am sure that you have already made up your mind about Catholicism. It has been quite a while since you posted.

My reply is fairly simple – Please continue to question everything that you know about religion and Catholicism. Don’t allow anyone to tell you that “all you have to do is have faith.”

You may find that Catholicism is the one true religion or you may decide that all religions are man-made. However, you have enough intelligence to make that decision for yourself.

BTW - I am a practicing Catholic and have made my decision but would never assume to tell you that what I believe is what you should.

 

[Ismael]

I’ll start off by saying my name is Ryan, I’m 15 and I’ve been going to Catholic school my entire life. Suddenly I’ve hit this critical stage of my religion though and I just can’t get past some of my problems with it so I came here for some answers. Here are my questions:

-If God created everyone equal then why do we say gays shouldn’t marry…doesn’t that imply they’re not equal?

Equal in dignity, not in everything. I am a man, not a woman. I cannot give birth.

Also I will never win the gold medal at the Olimpics for rythmic gymnastics… I just do not have the talents.

A person born blind can never see… etc…

So we are equal in dignity, but we all have our talents and lackings.

Homosexual marriage is something against Natural Law. Homosexuals are NOT less than heterosexual when it comes to dignity and value. The problem is what some homosexuals demand, that is against Natural Law…

Also whay if I wanted to marry a goat, or my right hand? After all there are also people who claim to ‘love animals’ (sexually) and desire to marry one…

Evidently desires and tendencies CAN be disordered and wrong. This does not necessarely imply the person is evil or bad, but it does not mean we ought to give in to any desire we have.

-Same question as above but this time for female priests.

There are two kinds of pristhood. Universal and sacramental priesthood.

We ALL are priests when we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism and confirmation, belonging to the universal priesthood (yes even women, and that is why women can baptize other people and I think even perform marriages).

There is also the sacramental priesthood. And just as nature decides woman was to be the one who can experience motherhood, Jesus decided that men ought to be priests.

This does NOT mean that women are inferior.

people are putting too much enfasis on priesthood like it’s some position of power, like begin a manager or CEO. It’s WRONG to think like that.

Priesthood is a calling and a life of servitude. Women and lay persons in general che do MUCH for the Church without being ordained.

It is wrong and foolish to think only ordained people matter

-Howcome if I do something bad it’s my fault but if I do something good then “God helped me”?

Well that is the way YOU see it.

If you do something bad consciously and willingly, then it IS your fault, obviously.

If you do something good you also have merit. Saying ‘God helped you’ does not mean he intervened directly and miraculously as if you are an “incompetented moron”.

Rather God ‘helped you’ by giving you the talents and strengts you possess. You do good by using these talents correctly and you have merit for that.

Sure some protestants do not see it that way (as they claim mankind cannot have any true merirt), but the Catholic Church does.

-Why do we trust people with our faith when they can’t even seem to agree on something as simple as who was King when Jesus was born (Gospels)

What do you mean. Herod the Great was King of Jerusalem an Augustus was emperor of Rome.

Jesus was born between 7 and 4 aC (some claim even in 1 dC as well, but that is another discussion).

Sure there might be some minority that disputes this fact, but most historians agree with this.

-Why can’t God just show himself, wouldn’t that help us make good decisions if we actually saw him right before an immoral act?

Read Luke 16: 19-31. The parable of the poor man and the rich man. The parable ends like this:

He (the Rich man condemned in hell) answered, ‘Then I beg you, father (Abraham), send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

So even if God appeared to someone it does not mean he would change his wicked ways.

Some atheists might dismiss even the greatest miracle and God appearing to them as ‘allucinations’ even if they witnessed them

God does not want to coherce us. We are free to chose to do good and believe.

---

 

[Ismael]

On the “pray, confess, eucharist etc” points…that’s what I used to do. I’ve even gone to a couple of retreats but I just can’t get myself to believe. At communion last Sunday I had this sudden urge to spit out the wine all of a sudden because I didn’t feel like I was in a position to be taking it. Of course I didn’t because that’s about the worst thing I could do.

Like math and sports, Faith requires serious practice. People should not be ‘backseat drivers’.

It’s normal to have doubts. Saints had doubts.

What made them saints is PERSEVERANCE. Or do you quit just because things get a bit tough?

Jesus says it all in Matthew 13, the parable of the farmer sowing his seed…

This is my core issue with the Church. It seems so saturated…infected I guess one might say with bad things/people to the point that it seems fake to me sometimes

The media shows and tells only about the bad things. The relatively very small number of priests who abused kids… but they do NOT tell about the relatively large number of priests who:

• give their life to help the poor and the sick
• who die to fight injustice (like some priests in sicily who died preaching against the Mafia)
  -who live good lives

etc…

You are seeing the Church like a person watching Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda propaganda sees the USA.

Sure some Americans are bad and some of the US decisions might be questionable, but does this mean the USA is ‘the root of all evil’? That all americans are evil and deserve to die in a terrorist attack?

I think not (and I am not American)

As an outsider, I personally believe that the Roman Catholic Church could benefit from having more dissenters within its ranks. There are quite a few (naughty) Catholics who believe that women should be ordained, and some who believe that homosexual people should be allowed to marry. You are not the only one to disagree.

Yes that’s like sayong more people should be like Judas and betray the Faith and Truth for their own personal selfishness.

Dissent is always wrong. Different opinions are not.

The difference is that dissent is something that goes against the truth, while opinions regard things that are uncertain or that there is liberty to believe different things.

Heresy is a form of dissent.

Believing that the virgin Mary died (and resurrected by the power of Christ) before being taken up to heaven or was taken up without physical death is open to different opinions (the dogma says only ‘at the end of her natural life’ which can be read both ways).

Dissent creates disharmony, litigations and breaks the unity Jesus urges us to have as a Church. (John 17:11)

As St. Augustine puts it: In important matters unity, in secondary matters freedom, in all things: charity.

There are quite a few (naughty) Catholics who believe that women should be ordained, and some who believe that homosexual people should be allowed to marry. You are not the only one to disagree.

There are also people who think the Earth is 6000 years old… this does not mean that theri ‘naughty opinion’ is right.

That sort of thing is what afflicts those of us who are Protestant: every time someone disagrees with his/her pastor, s/he leaves and creates a new church. This removes all accountability of behaviour.

That starts with dissent.

Cathlics often disagree because they do not understand correctly the teachings of the Church or forsake them for some ‘modernist ideology’; that is ofren against Gospel teachings…