Cradle Catholic questioning if I belong

[St_Francis]

I did and was choosing not to respond because of time, but since you are asking I will.
Forgive me if I don’t quote everything you said, but here are my responses to your comments.

I understand why the Catholic “binder” is bigger. I am only discussing 2 lines in that binder.

No, the binder thing is only what I imagine you are envisioning. Actually everyone’s binder is exactly the same. It’s just that not everyone has their own copy, so we need to share.

Regarding “inheriting a fortune,” I’m not complaining about it, I only think that as Christians we have all inherited the fortune and it is our responsibility to not squander it. It is a matter of Christian opinion whether or not attending a service that is not Catholic is squandering that fortune.

It is not a matter of Christian opinion–it is Church teaching. You can’t pick and choose…

I am not complaining about going to church on Sunday. I am only saying that I believe that there is more than one way to fulfill that obligation. I should not matter if one is “better” than another.

It’s not a question of one thing being, in someone’s opinion, better than another. I like chocolate; Sally prefers vanilla–no big deal. The issue of attending Mass is not like that–tye Catholic Mass is objectively better than non-Catholic services, like eating vegetables is objectively more healthy than eating only candy.

I do not believe that attending the Lutheran church shows disrespect for God. The only thing I think it does is strengthen our relationship with my husbands family.

If you want to attend a Protestant service from time to time for the sake of family unity, that is fine *as long as you also attend Mass. *(And I am assuming you are not receiving anything there.) So, go to church with your in-laws from time to time on Sunday, *just go to a Catholic Mass also. *

Your rather long posts were very well written, and had I been from another faith I may want to now join. However, we are discussing 2 issues I have and you were trying to convince me why it is so wonderful to be a Catholic. I already know.

Well, apparently you don’t as you seem mighty willing to let it slip through your fingers.

In response to the people in the Amazon, you are suggesting that only those who are completely without knowledge that the Catholic church exists are the only ones God excuses from following all of the Catholic beliefs. That simply is not true.

I was trying to illustrate through the most clear example the difference between invincible ignorance and culpable ignorance.

God does not excuse anyone from not fully following Him. He *might *grant mercy to *some *who were ignorant *through no fault of their own. *

This knowledge that technology has given to use has not been around for 2000 years. I’m suggesting that the current, alive, scholars that understand this new knowledge are not expanding on it to update things.

What knowledge do we now have that would change the teaching of the Church regarding the obligation to attend Mass?

As for your other issue, the Church has always taught that what your husband is doing is wrong. It is a denial of his full self to you or a rejection of his full self by you. You may not notice any result of that, just as a child does not notice that he can’t see well, because you don’t have the experience of its not being that way.

And I am not suggesting that things are not more easily dealt with now that we have more conveniences of live, just that in the context of what we are talking about is outdated.

Truth does not become outdated. Do you think that any of this is new to God?

Truth and Reality DO change.

When we thought the earth was flat, was it? No. What *we *“knew” was wrong.

The world use to be flat and the the sun use to revolve around the Earth. We use technology to come closer to the actual truth.

But the truth remained the same, didn’t it?

I don’t know if you read this post, since it wasn’t addressed to you, but it might explain better what is at stake and why this is so important.

 

[Thorolfr]

The issue of attending Mass is not like that–tye Catholic Mass is objectively better than non-Catholic services, like eating vegetables is objectively more healthy than eating only candy.

You mean subjectively better don’t you since there is no way to prove that the Catholic service is better. If there was, most of us Protestants would become Catholics.

 

[St_Francis]

You mean subjectively better don’t you since there is no way to prove that the Catholic service is better. If there was, most of us Protestants would become Catholics.

Of course I meant objectively. I am a Catholic explaining Catholic teaching to another Catholic; I assume Busy Sleeper looks at this differently than a Protestant would.

And I also think that Catholics could explain to Protestants how the Mass is better, but that is a topic for another thread. It would be very nice if most Protestants became Catholic

 

[Busy_sleeper]

Of course I meant objectively. I am a Catholic explaining Catholic teaching to another Catholic; I assume Busy Sleeper looks at this differently than a Protestant would.

And I also think that Catholics could explain to Protestants how the Mass is better, but that is a topic for another thread. It would be very nice if most Protestants became Catholic

No, I think subjectively is a more accurate word to use. Yes, I think that the Catholic church is “better”, but do not think that it is my job to try to convince others that their church is so far “wrong” that, not only doesn’t it not fulfill their Sunday obligation, Christ actually isn’t even present. That’s like me trying to tell you the same thing about the Catholic mass. And continuing to fall back on the Church’s belief that It is infallible, to a Protestant, is like a parent saying to their adult child “because I told you so!”

 

[St_Francis]

No, I think subjectively is a more accurate word to use. Yes, I think that the Catholic church is “better”, but do not think that it is my job to try to **convince **others

I do not think it is our job to “convince” either–but it is our job to be able to explain (1 St Peter 3:15). We leave the convincing up to the Holy Spirit.

(Note: the verse says this: “But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy *every one that asketh you *a reason of that hope which is in you,” ie, we are not obliged to tell absolutely everyone; we are obliged only to be ready to explain to *those who ask. *Discussing this with others who do not ask is up to our prudential judgement.)

that their church is so far “wrong” that, not only doesn’t it not fulfill their Sunday obligation,

The Catholic Church requires the precepts only for Catholics; thus, non-Catholics are not under the same obligation that Catholics are.

Christ actually isn’t even present.

Of course, in any gathering in Christ’s Name, He is present in one sense, but I am talking about His Real Presence as the result of transubstantiation. Either He is there or He is not, irrespective of what we believe.

That’s like me trying to tell you the same thing about the Catholic mass. And continuing to fall back on the Church’s belief that It is infallible, to a Protestant, is like a parent saying to their adult child “because I told you so!”

Well, I didn’t actually use that argument, did I?

And there is reasoning behind a parent’s saying “because I told you so,” and there is reasoning behind the Church teaching of infallibility. (Here is a good, quick explanation.)

It’s not like some random people suddenly stood up and said, We are starting a Church and everything *we *teach is true and so you have to believe us." Instead, Christ Himself taught the Apostles, revealed to them knowledge which was far beyond what people can figure out for themselves, and it is this knowledge which the Church teaches.

As a parent can explain the reason for bedtime to a child and have the child reject the explanation, resulting in the parent’s saying, Go to bed because I told you so, so the Church can teach and explain, but not to the satisfaction of someone who, like the child, really really really just wants to stay up late.

The child will then complain that the parent is bossy and only says because I told you so.

It’s not like the Church is hiding anything from us, Busy Sleeper. The explanations are all around. Your rejection of them does not make them insufficient.

 

[Busy_sleeper]

I said “adult child.” I am still the child of my parents even though I am an adult and capable of comprehending the “big picture” which a young child is not.

That reasoning has be brought up many times on this post. That is the argument that people are using.

 

[Busy_sleeper]

The Catholic church requiring this of only Catholics is my point. Why, having my religion chosen for me by my parents, am I now required to attend the Mass, and those of another religion are not? Because “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” in the eyes of the Church is not helping me have confidence in the infallibility of the Church.

 

[OurLadysServant]

No, I think subjectively is a more accurate word to use. Yes, I think that the Catholic church is “better”, but do not think that it is my job to try to convince others that their church is so far “wrong” that, not only doesn’t it not fulfill their Sunday obligation, Christ actually isn’t even present. That’s like me trying to tell you the same thing about the Catholic mass. And continuing to fall back on the Church’s belief that It is infallible, to a Protestant, is like a parent saying to their adult child “because I told you so!”

Christ is not present in any protestant church physically, Body Blood Soul and Divinity because you do not believe He is present.

You believe in the Eucharist, Hence you know Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Roman Catholic Church. Is it too much for God to ask you to visit Him in a RC Church weekly because His birth and Crucifixion are relived in every sacrafice of the mass where He is truly present in the Eucharist?

Yes, Christ is less present in any other christian churches because they only believe He is present in Spirit.

Is God Himself infallible? yes!
Is God infallible on moral issues through His vicars on earth the Popes? Yes! Is the RC church in doctrine infallible under Jesus guidance since 2015 yrs ago? Yes.

 

[OurLadysServant]

The Catholic church requiring this of only Catholics is my point. Why, having my religion chosen for me by my parents, am I now required to attend the Mass, and those of another religion are not? Because “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” in the eyes of the Church is not helping me have confidence in the infallibility of the Church.

You are thinking, this is a catholic person making a rule for another catholic.person.

What about God?
It.is.God Himself who has transmitted these rules to the Roman Catholic Church in the person of Jesus Christ Himself 2015 yrs ago, and through His saints to today. Have you ever read of the.catholic saints? They had visions of God, miracles, could converse.with.Him directly -the Apostles themselves were spoken to by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, the saints were often given messages to the Popes themselves, -God Himself gave these rules.

Your problem is not with a catholic person’s rule, but.with.God’s Law.

 

[Busy_sleeper]

You are thinking, this is a catholic person making a rule for another catholic.person.

What about God?
It.is.God Himself who has transmitted these rules to the Roman Catholic Church in the person of Jesus Christ Himself 2015 yrs ago, and through His saints to today. Have you ever read of the.catholic saints? They had visions of God, miracles, could converse.with.Him directly -the Apostles themselves were spoken to by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, the saints were often given messages to the Popes themselves, -God Himself gave these rules.

Your problem is not with a catholic person’s rule, but.with.God’s Law.

If it is God’s law then why is it not the obligation for those of other faiths? I believe they are also following God’s law.

 

[Busy_sleeper]

Christ is not present in any protestant church physically, Body Blood Soul and Divinity because you do not believe He is present.

You believe in the Eucharist, Hence you know Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Roman Catholic Church. Is it too much for God to ask you to visit Him in a RC Church weekly because His birth and Crucifixion are relived in every sacrafice of the mass where He is truly present in the Eucharist?

Yes, Christ is less present in any other christian churches because they only believe He is present in Spirit.

Is God Himself infallible? yes!
Is God infallible on moral issues through His vicars on earth the Popes? Yes! Is the RC church in doctrine infallible under Jesus guidance since 2015 yrs ago? Yes.

I am not saying that it is too much to ask. I can do it. I am trying to comprehend why it is a rule, that if broken, is so grave that it prevents me from receiving communion untill I have made a “full” confession. Which is not possible for me to do since I do not believe it is wrong. That is why I am wondering if I belong. But eveyone keeps telling me that no matter what church I attend or religion I call myself I will alway be bound by the Catholic beliefs.

 

[St_Francis]

I said “adult child.” I am still the child of my parents even though I am an adult and capable of comprehending the “big picture” which a young child is not.

That reasoning has be brought up many times on this post. That is the argument that people are using.

I think maybe you do not understand the nature of authority. The fact that you are an adult in relation to your parents does not mitigate the fact that in relation to God, we are all just newborn babies. There is a picture even bigger than the one we can clearly see, and God can see that enormous picture, and we cannot.

Think of a 14-year-old in relation to her parents. It is easy for us to see that she needs the love and guidance and protection of her parents, isn’t it? Even tho she thinks she’s all grown up and ready to go, right?

Now think of us adults in relation to God. The difference is profoundly greater between God an an adult than between a parent and a 14-year-old or even a parent and a one-year-old. God understands many things that we do not understand, just as the parents understand many things the child does not understand.

So what did God do? He sent His Son to teach us, but He also set up the Church to continue the love, guidance, and protection we need.

There are all kinds of times when adults accept the authority of others. When my mechanic tells me my car isn’t safe, I don’t argue with his explanation and say this and that–I accept his authority which comes from a greater knowledge of and experience with cars.

Any example of authority that we can come up can be compared to God’s love and care for us in the exercise of His authority through the Church.

 

[St_Francis]

The Catholic church requiring this of only Catholics is my point. Why, having my religion chosen for me by my parents, am I now required to attend the Mass, and those of another religion are not?

Remember I said that everyone’s binder is the same size? *Everyone *is required in justice to worship God in the manner and time which God decrees. He has given us each life, He has created the world for us, He keeps us in existence through His care for us. In return, we owe Him at a minimum gratitude, and one of the ways this gratitude is to be expressed is through worshipping Him as He requires on Sundays in community with others.

The Church excuses those who are not *fully *bound to the Church *out of consideration for the states of their souls. *Were the Church to bind them in this matter, then they would be negatively affected by their lack of attendance, so the Church is kindly *excusing *them from the obligation.

You, however, have been given the wonderful gift of the Catholic Faith, and in gratitude, in justice, you remain under this obligation.

(The really interesting thing is that whenever you do something under obedience to a legitimate authority, it gains even greater merit and grace So if you had a spiritual director who told you you were too sick to go to Mass, you would gain greater grace through your obedience than you would were you to attend the Mass disobediently.)

Because “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” in the eyes of the Church is not helping me have confidence in the infallibility of the Church.

How does Once a Catholic… reduce your confidence?

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes, Christ is less present in any other christian churches because they only believe He is present in Spirit.

Lutherans and many Anglicans also believe in the Real Presence in their Eucharist, so it’s not just a spiritual presence for them.

 

[St_Francis]

Lutherans and many Anglicans also believe in the Real Presence in their Eucharist, so **it’s not just a spiritual presence for them. **

No, this is not the case. *Either *Christ is in some sense really present in the liturgies of Anglicans and/or Lutherans, *or *He is not.

His presence is not “there for them because they believe it is,” either they are correct in believing that He is or they are wrong in believing that He is.

Now, it is my understanding that some Anglicsn bishops have had themselves consecrated by Orthodox bishops. Since the Orthodox bishops did not break the line of succession as the Anglicans did, when they or their priests consecrate, His Real Presence is transubstatiated, all else being equal.

I (obviously ) don’t know about the Lutherans.

 

[Busy_sleeper]

The Church excuses those who are not fully bound to the Church out of consideration for the states of their souls. Were the Church to bind them in this matter, then they would be negatively affected by their lack of attendance, so the Church is kindly excusing them from the obligation.

You, however, have been given the wonderful gift of the Catholic Faith, and in gratitude, in justice, you remain under this obligation.

So say there is a “family” tradition that, at a certain age, you give your child the gift of a dog, that will never die and they can never get rid of or give away. They will have that dog till they die and based on how well they cared for and loved that dog, they go to heaven or not. Other families don’t have this tradition, they are only judged on how much they loved animals in general. My parents loved their dog and had no problem giving me this “gift.” And without understanding everything there is to know about caring for this dog I was happy to accept. Now, I love my dog, she is a great dog, but I wonder why I, having a dog, am obligated to keep it and then give my children one, so that they can be judged on the same thing. Why can’t we all be judged the same, for how much we love animals, or have a choice as to whether or not we want to be judged on how well we cared for our dog.
There are people out there who don’t like dogs, and prefer cats, why should they be force to get a dog.

 

[Thorolfr]

No, this is not the case. *Either *Christ is in some sense really present in the liturgies of Anglicans and/or Lutherans, *or *He is not.

His presence is not “there for them because they believe it is,” either they are correct in believing that He is or they are wrong in believing that He is.

Your argument makes no sense. The same thing could be said about the Catholic Eucharist. Either Christ is really present or Catholics are wrong in believing he is really present and it is nothing more than plain bread and wine. Catholics can’t prove that Christ is really present and the bread and the wine become the body and blood through something called transubstantiation in their Eucharist any more than they can prove that his body and blood are not really present with the bread and the wine in the Eucharist of Lutherans and Anglicans. It is all a matter of faith in both cases.

 

[St_Francis]

Your argument makes no sense. The same thing could be said about the Catholic Eucharist. Either Christ is really present or Catholics are wrong in believing he is really present and it is nothing more than plain bread and wine. Catholics can’t prove that Christ is really present and the bread and the wine become the body and blood through something called transubstantiation in their Eucharist any more than they can prove that his body and blood are not really present with the bread and the wine in the Eucharist of Lutherans and Anglicans. It is all a matter of faith in both cases.

You are correct. Transubstantiation, consubstantiation are not provable in the scientific sense; it is a matter of faith which we believe.

However, not all can be correct, so we must consider the lines of reasoning which lead to the various conclusions.

 

[OurLadysServant]

. Catholics can’t prove that Christ is really present and the bread and the wine become the body and blood through something called transubstantiation in their Eucharist .

Eucharistic Miracle
Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy
In 1263 a German priest, Peter of Prague, stopped at Bolsena while on a pilgrimage to Rome. He is described as being a pious priest, but one who found it difficult to believe that Christ was actually present in the consecrated Host. While celebrating Holy Mass above the tomb of St. Christina (located in the church named for this martyr), he had barely spoken the words of Consecration when blood started to seep from the consecrated Host and trickle over his hands onto the altar and the corporal.
The priest was immediately confused. At first he attempted to hide the blood, but then he interrupted the Mass and asked to be taken to the neighboring city of Orvieto, the city where Pope Ur ban IV was then residing.
The Pope listened to the priest’s account and absolved him. He then sent emissaries for an immediate investigation. When all the facts were ascertained, he ordered the Bishop of the diocese to bring to Orvieto the Host and the linen cloth bearing the stains of blood. With archbishops, cardinals and other Church dignitaries in attendance, the Pope met the procession and, amid great pomp, had the relics placed in the cathedral. The linen corporal bearing the spots of blood is still reverently enshrined and exhibited in the Cathedral of Orvieto.
It is said that Pope Urban IV was prompted by this miracle to commission St. Thomas Aquinas to compose the Proper for a Mass and an Office honoring the Holy Eucharist as the Body of Christ. One year after the miracle, in August of 1264, Pope Urban IV introduced the saint’s composition, and by means of a papal bull instituted the feast of Corpus Christi.
After visiting the Cathedral of Orvieto, many pilgrims and tourists journey to St. Christina’s Church in Bolsena to see for themselves the place where the miracle occurred. From the north aisle of the church one can enter the Chapel of the Miracle, where the stains on the paved floor are said to have been made by the blood from the miraculous Host. The altar of the miracle, which is surmounted by a 9th- century canopy, is now situated in the grotto of St. Christina. A reclining statue of the saint is nearby.
In August of 1964, on the 700th anniversary of the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi, Pope Paul VI celebrated Holy Mass at the altar where the holy corporal is kept in its golden shrine in the Cathedral of Orvieto. (His Holiness had journeyed to Orvieto by helicopter; he was the first pope in history to use such a means of transportation).
Twelve years later, the same pontiff visited Bolsena and spoke from there via television to the 41st International Eucharistic Congress, then concluding its activities in Philadelphia. During his address Pope Paul Vl spoke of the Eucharist as being “. . . a mystery great and inexhaustible.”

Do the christian churches have EucharistIc miracles?
No. Because Christ is not Truly Physically Present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in their church eucharists, nor do they believe He is.

 

[OurLadysServant]

. Catholics can’t prove that Christ is really present and the bread and the wine become the body and blood through something called transubstantiation in their Eucharist .

Scientifically proven Eucharistic Miracle

. The most recent Eucharistic miracle recognized by the Church authorities occurred in 1996 in the capital of Argentina–Buenos Aires.
A consecrated Host becomes flesh and blood

At seven o’clock in the evening on August 18, 1996, Fr. Alejandro Pezet was saying Holy Mass at a Catholic church in the commercial center of Buenos Aires. As he was finishing distributing Holy Communion, a woman came up to tell him that she had found a discarded host on a candleholder at the back of the church. On going to the spot indicated, Fr. Alejandro saw the defiled Host. Since he was unable to consume it, he placed it in a container of water and put it away in the tabernacle of the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament.
On Monday, August 26, upon opening the tabernacle, he saw to his amazement that the Host had turned into a bloody substance. He informed Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who gave instructions that the Host be professionally photographed. The photos were taken on September 6. They clearly show that the Host, which had become a fragment of bloodied flesh, had grown significantly in size. For several years the Host remained in the tabernacle, the whole affair being kept a strict secret. Since the Host suffered no visible decomposition, Cardinal Bergoglio decided to have it scientifically analyzed.
On October 5, 1999, in the presence of the Cardinal’s representatives, Dr. Castanon took a sample of the bloody fragment and sent it to New York for analysis. Since he did not wish to prejudice the study, he purposely did not inform the team of scientists of its provenance. One of these scientists was Dr. Frederic Zugiba, the well-known cardiologist and forensic pathologist. He determined that the analyzed substance was real flesh and blood containing human DNA. Zugiba testified that, “the analyzed material is a fragment of the heart muscle found in the wall of the left ventricle close to the valves. This muscle is responsible for the contraction of the heart. It should be borne in mind that the left cardiac ventricle pumps blood to all parts of the body. The heart muscle is in an inflammatory condition and contains a large number of white blood cells. This indicates that the heart was alive at the time the sample was taken. It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism. They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”
Two Australians, journalist Mike Willesee and lawyer Ron Tesoriero, witnessed these tests. Knowing where sample had come from, they were dumbfounded by Dr. Zugiba’s testimony. Mike Willesee asked the scientist how long the white blood cells would have remained alive if they had come from a piece of human tissue, which had been kept in water. They would have ceased to exist in a matter of minutes, Dr. Zugiba replied. The journalist then told the doctor that the source of the sample had first been kept in ordinary water for a month and then for another three years in a container of distilled water; only then had the sample been taken for analysis. Dr. Zugiba’s was at a loss to account for this fact. There was no way of explaining it scientifically, he stated. Only then did Mike Willesee inform Dr. Zugiba that the analyzed sample came from a consecrated Host (white, unleavened bread) that had mysteriously turned into bloody human flesh. Amazed by this information, Dr. Zugiba replied, “How and why a consecrated Host would change its character and become living human flesh and blood will remain an inexplicable mystery to science—a mystery totally beyond her competence.”
Only faith in the extraordinary action of a God provides the reasonable answer—faith in a God, who wants to make us aware that He is truly present in the mystery of the Eucharist.

Do the christian churches have EucharistIc miracles?
No. Because Christ is not Truly Physically Present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in their church eucharists, nor do they believe He is.