Is poor Catechetics the problem?

[mfbukowski]

I hate to usurp the moderator’s role here but the last few posts have veered away from OP and gone fishing into Mormon territory.

I have no objection to start a new thread, but then we will have to contend with all the yahoos coming out of the woodwork while we are having a nice little conversation over here in the corner. Does it really hurt the other conversation? I thought it was kind of dead anyway, and since I am supposedly a “victim” of poor catechetics (is that a misspelling in the title?) it is SORT OF on topic? Whatever you think! It doesn’t stop you from continuing does it?

 

[mfbukowski]

What I’m getting at, and you may agree with this, is that the CC is extremely cautious, and oftentimes slow, at defining dogma. She believes, as all Catholics should, that she’s been given the responsibility of handing on Gods revelation correctly and that she must do so with great care and humility. So, the fact that Limbo never became dogma while the Church held a tentative acceptance of it as a quasi-satisfactory means of addressing a concern that people had is an exercise of this caution. Sensus fidelium can come into play when, as we’ve come to understand the nature and will of God better over the centuries, the faithful, lay and clergy, begin to question whether this idea really is “Catholic”. I believe there’s a reason why the HS has never allowed this belief to become dogma-and that He never will-maybe I’m wrong.

Not at all, the sensus fidelium is simply the gift of faith itself-the sheep recognizing the Shepard’s voice by the God given “radar” which attunes itself to the truth when heard. God doesn’t leave us without the help of His grace to believe the teachings the Church proposes or understand her way of thinking.

Yes I totally get this. To me it is very Mormon. I have heard it described many times as a “radio” that must be tuned to the right frequency to be heard.
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=0287a6db53dd7010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=radio+spirit&bucket=V7GospelLibrary&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=

 

[mfbukowski]

"God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven."

Yes that’s it exactly! Cool – a voice from my childhood like an old friend that I had forgotten! But it would be interesting to see how the doctrines expressed there have changed. Do you believe that one reason I remembered this is that it never made sense to me even at the age of 7? Who did he want to show forth his goodness to, and why did he want to show it forth? And all this led to a degree and graduate work in philosophy. It is the Baltimore catechism’s fault!!

 

[mfbukowski]

My apologies for being off topic.
mfbukowski, I am not sure what bible you are reading. I am reading the New American Standard Bible.
Your statement: There is absolutely nothing to the notion that we have to be crucified. That is just plain wrong wrong wrong and whoever said that had no understanding of the gospel.

In my opinion your statement is wrong since it is a scriptural proclamation by Jesus Himself. Do mormons believe in Jesus? From what I know, they do.

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

John 1:3 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

I read these verses as: Our flesh(old self, the sinner) is crucified so that we may be born again in Spirit…
Are you saying that Catholics misinterpret these verses? If so how do you explain them? I am just curious and not trying to be argumentive or sarcastic in any way.

Oh come on! I was responding to someone who said that they personally had to have nails pounded through their hands and feet and hung on a cross until they died physically. Give me a break!

Or are you one of these kind of Catholics? I guess that’s a legitimate question if you are asking.
youtube.com/watch?v=P27AKEonIWs&feature=related

 

[RubyT]

Oh come on! I was responding to someone who said that they personally had to have nails pounded through their hands and feet and hung on a cross until they died physically. Give me a break!

Or are you one of these kind of Catholics? I guess that’s a legitimate question if you are asking.
youtube.com/watch?v=P27AKEonIWs&feature=related

I had no idea that this was a response to someone that said you needed to be literally hung on a cross. I was merely responding to your post. I don’t appreciate the tone of your response. I said nothing to make you so defensive. I apologize if I mistook your post as serious. Why don’t you give me a break?

You could have responded with: I was responding to someone who said that they personally had to have nails pounded through their hands and feet and hung on a cross until they died physically.

It is clear you don’t want to have genuine dialog as I was actually trying to understand the Mormon perspective on this. Instead of giving me a true answer, you responded with aspersion. I guess I will have to keep wondering what the Mormon perspective on being crucified in order to be reborn actually is??

 

[Chancellare]

I have no objection to start a new thread, but then we will have to contend with all the yahoos coming out of the woodwork while we are having a nice little conversation over here in the corner. Does it really hurt the other conversation? I thought it was kind of dead anyway, and since I am supposedly a “victim” of poor catechetics (is that a misspelling in the title?) it is SORT OF on topic? Whatever you think! It doesn’t stop you from continuing does it?

It seems that you have a very strong argument to push for. Hoewever, in the interest of respecting this site’s rules, may I insist that you open another thread on this matter? I don’t think the ‘yahoos coming from the woodworks’ will lessen the energy level of that thread, if ever.

 

[RubyT]

Oh come on! I was responding to someone who said that they personally had to have nails pounded through their hands and feet and hung on a cross until they died physically. Give me a break!

Or are you one of these kind of Catholics? I guess that’s a legitimate question if you are asking.
youtube.com/watch?v=P27AKEonIWs&feature=related

bukowski, please accept my apologies, I went back and reread post 177 I definitely misunderstood your reply to the post. :bowdown2:

I still felt I had a valid question and that your response was uncharitable but I do admit to my misconception. I really was just trying to get a better perspective on Mormon beliefs.

 

[fhansen]

Yes that’s it exactly! Cool – a voice from my childhood like an old friend that I had forgotten! But it would be interesting to see how the doctrines expressed there have changed. Do you believe that one reason I remembered this is that it never made sense to me even at the age of 7? Who did he want to show forth his goodness to, and why did he want to show it forth? And all this led to a degree and graduate work in philosophy. It is the Baltimore catechism’s fault!!

Well, this gets back to the issue of the OP. Are poor catechetics the reason that it “never made sense” to you or is part of the problem, at least in this case, that the afterlife-that God-is simply ineffable in spite of our desires to understand.

**“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him” 1Cor 2:9
**
God gives us faith and asks us to trust Him patiently-that all will be well beyond our wildest dreams in the end.

The Baltimore Catechism was quite concise while the new Catechism is a much richer source of information on the Church’s teachings- and where they come from. The CC will continue to improve at explaining the faith but this will never be a simple task because the hearer needs to be receptive to the message. When her message is delivered well and people are open to hearing it, they find that there never was an apostasy-at least on her part-and that there never was a reason to leave the Church that God established for our salvation.

 

[mfbukowski]

I had no idea that this was a response to someone that said you needed to be literally hung on a cross. I was merely responding to your post. I don’t appreciate the tone of your response. I said nothing to make you so defensive. I apologize if I mistook your post as serious. Why don’t you give me a break?

You could have responded with: I was responding to someone who said that they personally had to have nails pounded through their hands and feet and hung on a cross until they died physically.

It is clear you don’t want to have genuine dialog as I was actually trying to understand the Mormon perspective on this. Instead of giving me a true answer, you responded with aspersion. I guess I will have to keep wondering what the Mormon perspective on being crucified in order to be reborn actually is??

It is a customary practice to read the thread before responding. You have been somewhat crtical of Mormonism in the past, so I had no idea what you were saying.

 

[mfbukowski]

bukowski, please accept my apologies, I went back and reread post 177 I definitely misunderstood your reply to the post. :bowdown2:

I still felt I had a valid question and that your response was uncharitable but I do admit to my misconception. I really was just trying to get a better perspective on Mormon beliefs.

Ok no problem- it’s fine. Even I have been known to make a mistake. HMMMM I think 1996 was the last one!

 

[fhansen]

Who did he want to show forth his goodness to, and why did he want to show it forth?

He wants to show it forth to all creation. Why wouldn’t Goodness itself want to show forth goodness-for *our *good? The point of our faith is that God always knew better than man what was good for him-and what will bring him unending happiness.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:
How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.604

II. THE DESIRE FOR HAPPINESS

1718 The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:
We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated.13
How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you.14
God alone satisfies.15
1719 The Beatitudes reveal the goal of human existence, the ultimate end of human acts: God calls us to his own beatitude. This vocation is addressed to each individual personally, but also to the Church as a whole, the new people made up of those who have accepted the promise and live from it in faith.

III. CHRISTIAN BEATITUDE

1720 The New Testament uses several expressions to characterize the beatitude to which God calls man:

• the coming of the Kingdom of God;16 - the vision of God: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"17
• entering into the joy of the Lord;18
• entering into God’s rest:19
  There we shall rest and see, we shall see and love, we shall love and praise. Behold what will be at the end without end. For what other end do we have, if not to reach the kingdom which has no end?20
  1721 God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise. Beatitude makes us “partakers of the divine nature” and of eternal life.21 With beatitude, man enters into the glory of Christ22 and into the joy of the Trinitarian life.
  1722 Such beatitude surpasses the understanding and powers of man. It comes from an entirely free gift of God: whence it is called supernatural, as is the grace that disposes man to enter into the divine joy.
  “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” It is true, because of the greatness and inexpressible glory of God, that “man shall not see me and live,” for the Father cannot be grasped. But because of God’s love and goodness toward us, and because he can do all things, he goes so far as to grant those who love him the privilege of seeing him. . . . For "what is impossible for men is possible for God."23
  1723 The beatitude we are promised confronts us with decisive moral choices. It invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love:
  All bow down before wealth. Wealth is that to which the multitude of men pay an instinctive homage. They measure happiness by wealth; and by wealth they measure respectability. . . . It is a homage resulting from a profound faith . . . that with wealth he may do all things. Wealth is one idol of the day and notoriety is a second. . . . Notoriety, or the making of a noise in the world - it may be called “newspaper fame” - has come to be considered a great good in itself, and a ground of veneration.24

2548 Desire for true happiness frees man from his immoderate attachment to the goods of this world so that he can find his fulfillment in the vision and beatitude of God. "The promise [of seeing God] surpasses all beatitude. . . . In Scripture, to see is to possess. . . . Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive."344
**

 

[mfbukowski]

He wants to show it forth to all creation. Why wouldn’t Goodness itself want to show forth goodness-for *our *good? The point of our faith is that God always knew better than man what was good for him-and what will bring him unending happiness.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:
How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.604

II. THE DESIRE FOR HAPPINESS

1718 The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:
We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated.13
How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you.14
God alone satisfies.15
1719 The Beatitudes reveal the goal of human existence, the ultimate end of human acts: God calls us to his own beatitude. This vocation is addressed to each individual personally, but also to the Church as a whole, the new people made up of those who have accepted the promise and live from it in faith.

III. CHRISTIAN BEATITUDE

1720 The New Testament uses several expressions to characterize the beatitude to which God calls man:

• the coming of the Kingdom of God;16 - the vision of God: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"17
• entering into the joy of the Lord;18
• entering into God’s rest:19
  There we shall rest and see, we shall see and love, we shall love and praise. Behold what will be at the end without end. For what other end do we have, if not to reach the kingdom which has no end?20
  1721 God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise. Beatitude makes us “partakers of the divine nature” and of eternal life.21 With beatitude, man enters into the glory of Christ22 and into the joy of the Trinitarian life.
  1722 Such beatitude surpasses the understanding and powers of man. It comes from an entirely free gift of God: whence it is called supernatural, as is the grace that disposes man to enter into the divine joy.
  “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” It is true, because of the greatness and inexpressible glory of God, that “man shall not see me and live,” for the Father cannot be grasped. But because of God’s love and goodness toward us, and because he can do all things, he goes so far as to grant those who love him the privilege of seeing him. . . . For "what is impossible for men is possible for God."23
  1723 The beatitude we are promised confronts us with decisive moral choices. It invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love:
  All bow down before wealth. Wealth is that to which the multitude of men pay an instinctive homage. They measure happiness by wealth; and by wealth they measure respectability. . . . It is a homage resulting from a profound faith . . . that with wealth he may do all things. Wealth is one idol of the day and notoriety is a second. . . . Notoriety, or the making of a noise in the world - it may be called “newspaper fame” - has come to be considered a great good in itself, and a ground of veneration.24

2548 Desire for true happiness frees man from his immoderate attachment to the goods of this world so that he can find his fulfillment in the vision and beatitude of God. "The promise [of seeing God] surpasses all beatitude. . . . In Scripture, to see is to possess. . . . Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive."344
**

There is nothing here I disagree with at all-- it’s “good stuff”.

Maybe if we went after the Baltimore Cathechism we would have an excuse to stay here. Sounds like it was poorly written at best. So if the catechism changes, does that mean the doctrine changes?

I’m looking up the baltimore right now on limbo. That will be interesting.

 

[fhansen]

There is nothing here I disagree with at all-- it’s “good stuff”.

Maybe if we went after the Baltimore Cathechism we would have an excuse to stay here. Sounds like it was poorly written at best. So if the catechism changes, does that mean the doctrine changes?

I’m looking up the baltimore right now on limbo. That will be interesting.

Particularly with Vat II, we see that the Church has recognized the need for improvement in the very things this thread addresses. Without need to change doctrine, she determined that the faith ought to be proclaimed to the world with more clarity and with more love. It will take generations to work out all the details as to how best to accomplish this and set it in motion-there’s been some abuses of the councils’ intentions made in the past 40 years-but the need for renewal and improvement is an ongoing process which the Church is keenly aware of. One of the results of Vat II was the new Catholic Catechism. Its purpose was not to change doctrine but rather to present it more clearly and thoroughly.

 

[mfbukowski]

Well I think I will just post this as it is and see if you have any comments. All these are still doctrinally correct?

Baltimore Catechism, 1891 edition

catholicprimer.org/vatican_docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf

1. Q. Where did Christ’s soul go after His death?
   A. After Christ’s death His soul descended into hell.
   28
2. Q. Did Christ’s soul descend into the hell of the damned?
   A. The hell into which Christ’s soul descended was not the hell of the damned, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
3. Q. Why did Christ descend into Limbo?
   A. Christ descended into Limbo to preach to the souls who were in prison-that is, to announce to them the joyful tidings of their redemption.
4. Q. Where was Christ’s body while His soul was in Limbo?
   A. While Christ’s soul was in Limbo His body was in the holy sepulchre

Indulgences

Q. 853. How does the Church by means of Indulgences remit the temporal punishment due to sin?
A. The Church, by means of Indulgences, remits the temporal punishment due to sin by applying to us the merits of Jesus Christ, and the superabundant satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints; which merits and satisfactions are its spiritual treasury.
Q. 854. What do we mean by the “superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints”?
A. By the superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, we mean all the satisfaction over and above what was necessary to satisfy for their own sins. As their good works were many and their sins few – the Blessed Virgin being sinless – the satisfaction not needed for themselves is kept by the Church in a spiritual treasury to be used for our benefit.

Q. 860. How and why should we make a general intention to gain all possible Indulgences each day?
A. We should make a general intention at our morning prayers to gain all possible Indulgences each day, because several of the prayers we say and good works we perform may have Indulgences attached to them, though we are not aware of it.

Q. 863. What does an Indulgence of forty days mean?
A. An Indulgence of forty days means that for the prayer or work to which an Indulgence of forty days is attached, God remits as much of our temporal punishment as He remitted for forty days’ canonical penance. We do not know just how much temporal punishment God remitted for forty days’ public penance, but whatever it was, He remits the same now when we gain an Indulgence of forty days. The same rule applies to Indulgences of a year or any length of time.

Q. 865. To what things may Indulgences be attached?
A. Plenary or Partial Indulgences may be attached to prayers and solid articles of devotion; to places such as churches, altars, shrines, etc., to be visited; and by a special privilege they are sometimes attached to the good works of certain persons.
Q. 866. When do things lose the Indulgences attached to them?
A. Things lose the Indulgences attached to them:
(1) When they are so changed at once as to be no longer what they were;
(2) When they are sold.
Rosaries and other indulgenced articles do not lose their indulgences, when they are loaned or given away, for the indulgence is not personal but attached to the article itself.

Q. 867. Will a weekly Confession suffice to gain during the week all Indulgences to which Confession is enjoined as one of the works?
A Weekly confession will suffice to gain during the week all Indulgences to which confession is enjoined as one of the works, provided we continue in a state of grace, perform the other works enjoined and have the intention of gaining these Indulgences.

To be continued…

 

[mfbukowski]

Continuation of Baltimore Catechism Quote

Q. 868. How and when may we apply Indulgences for the benefit of the souls in Purgatory?
A. We may apply Indulgences for the benefit of the souls in Purgatory by way of intercession; whenever this application is mentioned and permitted by the Church in granting the Indulgence; that is, when the Church declares that the Indulgence granted is applicable to the souls of the living or the souls in Purgatory; so that we may gain it for the benefit of either.

Eucharist

Q. 877. How do we prove the Real Presence, that is, that Our Lord is really and truly present in the Holy Eucharist?
A. We prove the Real Presence – that is, that Our Lord is really and truly present in the Holy Eucharist:
(1) By showing that it is possible to change one substance into another;
(2) By showing that Christ did change the substance of bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood;
(3) By showing that He gave this power also to His Apostles and to the priests of His Church.
Q. 878. How do we know that it is possible to change one substance into another?
A. We know that it is possible to change one substance into another, because:
(1) God changed water into blood during the plagues of Egypt.
(2) Christ changed water into wine at the marriage of Cana.
(3) Our own food is daily changed into the substance of our flesh and blood; and what God does gradually, He can also do instantly by an act of His will.
212
Q. 879. Are these changes exactly the same as the changes that take place in the Holy Eucharist?
A. These changes are not exactly the same as the changes that take place in the Holy Eucharist, for in these changes the appearance also is changed, but in the Holy Eucharist only the substance is changed while the appearance remains the same.

Q. 886. What is this change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord called?
A. This change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord is called Transubstantiation.

Simony

Q. 930. Is it not simony, or the buying of a sacred thing, to offer the priest money for saying Mass for your intention?
A. It is not simony, or the buying of a sacred thing, to offer the priest money for saying Mass for our intention, because the priest does not take the money for the Mass itself, but for the purpose of supplying the things necessary for Mass and for his own support.

The reasons I selected the text I did was because this is some of the stuff I really had problems with. I am not making comments deliberately to be nice, but perhaps you will see some contradictions, if not, I will try to charitably point them out. One is the explanation of simony – it seems contradictory to say that the priest “does not take the money for the mass itself” (but)… for his own support".

That’s like saying if you paid a lawyer to draft a contract, you wouldn’t be paying for the contract, but for the lawyer’s support. Or buying a public office-- it wasn’t for buying the office but for the polititian’s support. A little iffy if you ask me! And of course, the sale of indulgences had been prohibited by 1891 so that question is prominantly displayed. Too bad there wasn’t an earlier catechism where maybe there were rules on which could be sold and which couldn’t?

Do you guys still believe in indulgences that come from a spiritual treasury?
Or is this now categorized as a “matter of discipline” and therefore not doctrine? Kind of like Pluto not being a planet anymore. Just change the definition and the contradictions disappear. ? Just asking! That’s how it looks to me. Or is this whole catechism just badly written? (Had to say that to keep on topic)

Just remember this is the way I was taught 50 years ago-- can you see why I think there are changes?

 

[Stephen168]

The Baltimore Catechism was quite concise while the new Catechism is a much richer source of information on the Church’s teachings- and where they come from. The CC will continue to improve at explaining the faith but this will never be a simple task because the hearer needs to be receptive to the message. When her message is delivered well and people are open to hearing it, they find that there never was an apostasy-at least on her part-and that there never was a reason to leave the Church that God established for our salvation.

You gave an excellent summary. The Catholic Church has such a deep philosophy, theology, and history; I don’t believe it is possible to be properly catechized unless one has a desire to understand it. And there is SO much to learn, I don’t think it is possible to learn it before adulthood. I’ve already raised my children and I’m still learning.

 

[jmcrae]

There is nothing here I disagree with at all-- it’s “good stuff”.

Maybe if we went after the Baltimore Cathechism we would have an excuse to stay here. Sounds like it was poorly written at best. So if the catechism changes, does that mean the doctrine changes?

No, of course not. Also. please keep in mind that the Baltimore Catechism (unlike the Universal Catechism) is not a Vatican document - it was put out by the Bishop of Baltimore for use in his own Diocese; not by the Pope.

 

[jmcrae]

Continuation of Baltimore Catechism Quote

The reasons I selected the text I did was because this is some of the stuff I really had problems with. I am not making comments deliberately to be nice, but perhaps you will see some contradictions, if not, I will try to charitably point them out. One is the explanation of simony – it seems contradictory to say that the priest “does not take the money for the mass itself” (but)… for his own support".

It’s like when you buy those candy bars from homeless kids on the street. Obviously, you could go to the corner store and buy better candy much more cheaply, but the money you give the kid in exchange for the candy bar isn’t for the candy, but for the support of homeless children.

It’s the same thing when you make a donation for a Mass - the money isn’t for the Mass, but for the support of the priest who says it. After all, you can go to Mass for free, pretty much any day of the week, and offer up any intentions you want. Making a donation to have a Mass said isn’t for your own sake, or to get some kind of market value, but for the support of the priest, who doesn’t ordinarily have a means of earning a living - although I do know priests who work in private practice as lawyers and psychologists, or who take jobs as school teachers - but this is quite rare - most priests live on what they receive in donations.

That’s like saying if you paid a lawyer to draft a contract, you wouldn’t be paying for the contract, but for the lawyer’s support.

Not really, no, since you are expecting to pay fair market value, in that case. (If you think you are being overcharged, perhaps you need to contact your lawye … oh, wait … :ehh: uch: - I see what you mean … :dts: )

Or buying a public office-- it wasn’t for buying the office but for the polititian’s support.

I’ve never heard of an indigent politician, and I doubt I’d be inclined to buy an office from him - a bar of candy, or a newspaper, perhaps, but not an office.

Do you guys still believe in indulgences that come from a spiritual treasury?

Yes.

 

[fhansen]

Well I think I will just post this as it is and see if you have any comments. All these are still doctrinally correct?

**Maybe it would be best for you to also read from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church: **scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

**Jesus’ descent into hell or limbo is addressed beginning in para. 631, indulgences in para. 1471, the Eucharist in para. 1322- as well as in John Chap 6 which we take literally-and simony in para 2118.
**

Do you guys still believe in indulgences that come from a spiritual treasury?

To answer this I’ll defer to jmcraes’ elegant reflection on the same question in post #198.

 

[mfbukowski]

**Maybe it would be best for you to also read from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church: **scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

**Jesus’ descent into hell or limbo is addressed beginning in para. 631, indulgences in para. 1471, the Eucharist in para. 1322- as well as in John Chap 6 which we take literally-and simony in para 2118.
**

To answer this I’ll defer to jmcraes’ elegant reflection on the same question in post #198.

I kind of don’t know what to say. To me, this is prima facie false and could not be true for so many reasons it almost is pointless to discuss. But I suppose you feel the same about my religion.