I'm Catholic, Ask Me Anything (for non-Catholics)

[goout]

Well, I am going to don my AI hat, and will ask as a respectful AI would. I hope that is acceptable. So for the time being I am just an inquisitive artificial person. If you wish to think of me as an alien from a distant galaxy, who just learned about humanity, that is fine as well. But assume almost total ignorance. The question:

Why was Jesus’ sacrifice necessary? After all God could have simply forgiven humanity’s transgressions. God is omnipotent, so he can do everything - except logically incoherent actions. But unconditional forgiveness is not logically impossible, one does not need anything except a little tolerance. And that is what every loving parent does when their children disobey.

Because power as we understand it is not the same as love.
In God however, power and love do not contradict one another.
So while God has the power to wave a hand, that is the act of a distant impersonalism and it is not in God to be distant.

Love embraces the fullness of the beloved. Human beings are subject to sin and death. In love God con-descends to embrace the full human condition, including sin and death, so that sin and death might be redeemed.

 

[goout]

Reuben_J:

That is wrong definition of justice of God. His justice is always tempered with mercy and love, sometimes which we do not deserve. God is just only in accordance to his justice, not human justice.

Justice is an abstract concept. Its meaning is: “you get what you deserve, either reward or punishment”. There is no “human” justice and a separate “divine” justice. Just like there is no “human” logic and “military” logic, except in the old joke. If justice is tempered with mercy, it ceases to be justice. Just try to go around in your church and present those three definitions. I predict that everyone will joyfully agree with them.

Not so.
Love (which includes mercy) perfects or elevates justice to it’s fullness.

If you’re inclined, a great exposition of this in Romano Guardini’s book on the virtues. He explores justice before God.

 

[Sophia]

Isn’t human justice, and in particular legal justice (in the U.S.) often tempered with mercy as in instances of mitigating circumstances? That is, if the mitigating circumstances (mercy) were disallowed, the so-called justice dispensed might NOT in fact be just but instead excessive punishment. The reverse might also be true in that sometimes punishment is meted out which EXCEEDS the severity of the crime (exacerbating circumstances) for the purpose of setting an example or avoiding a dangerous precedent. This is still regarded as justice, however.

Actually, justice requires to take ALL the circumstances into consideration, both the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances. If either of them is left out, the verdict cannot be just.

 

[guanophore]

Justice is an abstract concept. Its meaning is: “you get what you deserve, either reward or punishment”.

If it is an abstract concept, why should your definition be the only one considered correct? Actually I think your definition better fits “natural consequences”.

There is no “human” justice and a separate “divine” justice.

And by what authority do you assert this “fact”? Can you prove that your concept of justice is the same as God"s?

Just like there is no “human” logic and “military” logic

There is some truth in jokes. But I think you might mean military “intelligence”.

If justice is tempered with mercy, it ceases to be justice.

I am very relieved that you are not God.

 

[Sophia]

I am very relieved that you are not God.

I am happy for you, even though you made a hasty judgment. I don’t want to derail this thread, so I will open another one about this fun subject. I will be glad to see you there and read your opinion.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

That is wrong definition of justice of God. His justice is always tempered with mercy and love, sometimes which we do not deserve. God is just only in accordance to his justice, not human justice.

Justice is an abstract concept. Its meaning is: “you get what you deserve, either reward or punishment”. There is no “human” justice and a separate “divine” justice. Just like there is no “human” logic and “military” logic, except in the old joke. If justice is tempered with mercy, it ceases to be justice. Just try to go around in your church and present those three definitions. I predict that everyone will joyfully agree with them.

I do not wish to prolong this discussion but I believe God’s justice is in the context of His justice, which in many aspects can be different from human justice. Thus you cannot apply the general definition of justice as we know it to God’s justice, because you can get off tangent in doing so.

An example, human justice is an eye for an eye, but God’s justice says, no, you give the other cheek, which definitely does not like justice as we/you know it, but that’s how God operates.

 

[Darryl_B]

When does a thread turn from being “I’m Catholic, Ask Me Anything” to “I’m not Catholic I am fairly certain I can lime it”.

 

[Lia]

Please explain the unleavened/leavened host debate, I have no idea what its about but i hear it a lot from orthodox Christians. Can you explain it, state the Catholic church’s position and say why we are correct. Thanks.

 

[FreeMe]

What makes you believe that Catholics are the true religion? Can you personally prove it.

 

[guanophore]

When does a thread turn from being “I’m Catholic, Ask Me Anything” to “I’m not Catholic I am fairly certain I can lime it”.

Only on CAF!

 

[Reuben_J]

What makes you believe that Catholics are the true religion? Can you personally prove it.

The answer for this is the answer that you can see everywhere when you ask a Catholic. She is the Church that can trace her source right up to Jesus and the apostles without any interruption. There are few Christian Churches that can claim this tangibly.

If Christianity is a religion of apostolic witnesses, which it is, where would we find this in the Christian Churches if not the Catholic Church?

There is no way to prove a religion per se but one we point to the nearest one as to where it came from. Again the answer is the Catholic Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

Please explain the unleavened/leavened host debate, I have no idea what its about but i hear it a lot from orthodox Christians. Can you explain it, state the Catholic church’s position and say why we are correct. Thanks.

“Redemptionis Sacramentum,” No. 48 which states:

"[48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.

Although this document is written primarily for the Latin Church, what it says about the requirements for the validity of Eucharistic species also serves for the Eastern Churches, but not necessarily what refers to licit matter which may vary among Churches.

The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.

The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist’s licit celebration.

Most Eastern Churches traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist and this would be a requirement for the licit celebration of the Eucharist in those Churches.

It must be observed, however, that one or two movements or associations of faithful within the Latin Church have received permission to use leavened bread within the context of Mass celebrated exclusively for members of the group or association.

 

[FreeMe]

Reuben_J

This means that the Catholic truth is based on apostolic witnesses in the last 2,000 years, until today no one includes the Church who can produce the truth that Jesus was truly raised from the dead and then ascended to Heaven without previous apostolic witnesses.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J

This means that the Catholic truth is based on apostolic witnesses in the last 2,000 years, until today no one includes the Church who can produce the truth that Jesus was truly raised from the dead and then ascended to Heaven without previous apostolic witnesses.

Hi. I am trying understand your post but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that there was information about Jesus before the apostolic witness.

That is not the correct premises as the apostles (thus apostolic witnesses) were the group of disciples who were with Jesus and saw/heard/touched everything that happened therein.

Jesus did not write any books. The information we had today was based on the witnesses of the apostles, and that’s what we hold unto since 2000 years ago.

The Church is actually the apostles. However, of course, she has grown from a handful of people then until she is what she is today.

 

[mhmtas63]

Could you point some sources and evidences from scriptures but not philosophical interpretations?

 

[Francis]

@FreeMe @mhmtas63

@Reuben_J has give excellent points to be considered i would just add.No, the Truth is in the Church and also in the scripture, there where more than 500 witnesses which is in the scriptures

1 Corinthians 15:1-8-Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters,of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

 

[gazelam]

How does the Catholic Church reconcile the catechism statement (CCC 969) that Mary is a Mediatrix (of salvation, I assume), with scripture 1 Tim. 2:5 which states that Christ is our one Mediator with the Father

CCC 969 This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human

Thanks in advance…

 

[Reuben_J]

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62):
… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.
This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…"

There is only one mediator: 1 Tim 2:5.

We agree that there are many ways in which Christ is the only mediator between God and man.

1. There is only one mediator who is such by very nature, being both true God and true man.
2. There is only one mediator whose work is necessary, without whom, in God’s plan, there could be no salvation.
3. There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.

Mary differs on all three counts.

1. Mary only a creature, but it was appropriate that God be freely choose her as Mediatrix because he had made her Mother of the God-man, the Redeemer–it was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God’s plan of salvation by proclaiming herself the handmaid of the Lord.
2. Her role was not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. Rather, Mary was associated with her Son by the free decision of the Father, a decision which we cannot ignore.
3. Her whole ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son, and hence we are not contradicting Lumen gentium # 62 which says no creature can be ever counted together with Him.

Really, the Father did not need her at all, except that if He decreed the incarnation, He necessarily decreed a Mother: she was and is that Mother. But everything else in which He has employed her is not needed.

 

[mcq72]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“Whoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire”

“Think of me (Mary) and i will help you secure eternal life”

“…a mark that they have dedicated themselves in Her service”

Understand this is for a baptized Catholic, and not for a unbaptized person or a wayward spirit.

Still, seems like a bit of superstition that riddled the practice of Christianity in medieval times.

Am also jealous for the Holy Spirit , even Christ Himself , who also vie for time and space in a Christian’s walk.

Also , if this true promise , even defended, why would not every single believer wear this ?

 

[Fauken]

Did you accidentally press the post button before you typed out your question?