Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[phil19034]

1. Mortal Sin - I agree with the Church that it is possible to lose salvation. However if a person misses church, the Church considers that a mortal sin. Again I don’t know if this pushes it too far, surely God isn’t necessarily going to condemn someone for eternity just because he/she missed church? (Unless of course they were committing a sin such as murder etc)

The mortal sin of missing Church isn’t the fact that they missed Church. It has to do with the reason you miss Church.

Missing Sunday mass because you are sick, taking care of a sick person, taking care of the elderly, need to work, live too far to walk loose your transportation, etc. are all valid reasons to miss mass.

However, skipping mass to sleep in, watch TV, go to a football game, or other leisure is where the sin is.

When you skip mass for leisure, you are putting yourself before God. You are putting football before God, etc. Basically, you are putting “other gods” before the one true God.

Catholics typically have many options for Sunday mass (including Saturday evening). Most people do NOT have a legitimate, unselfish reason for missing mass.

So like birth control, missing Mass is a mortal sin because it is being selfish with your relationship with God. You want God to do things for you, but you don’t want to do things for God.

I pray this helps.

 

[phil19034]

This was created to prevent the family of priests from inheriting church land. There is zero biblical evidence for it. It was created out of pure political convenience for the church.

The inheritance argument was a benefit of celibacy, not a reason for it. And it wasn’t inheriting church land, it was the inheritance of gifts given to priests which were used by the parish (like art, gold chalices, etc.)

But this was NOT a reason for the celibacy. Also, having a celibate priesthood doesn’t remove this 100%. A priest’s family (parents, siblings, etc) could still make such claims.

So again, this is debunked.

And the biblical evidence comes straight from Christ & St. Paul. Check out:

• Eph 5:21-33
• Mt 19:12
• Jer 16:1-4
• 1 Cor 7:8
• 1 Cor 7:32-35
• 1 Tim 5:9-12
• 2 Tim 2:3-4

God Bless

 

[SJacob7]

Probably widowed. The only person mentioned in his family is his mother-in-law. He seems to have her in his care after his wife died–a kindly act on his part. No children are mentioned, either. Indeed, none of the other Apostles are described as having families to care for.

Always find it interesting when people try to explain (without any proof) what they* want *the scriptures to say. Here’s what St Paul says;

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

 

[SJacob7]

But there is also no evidence that his wife was living at the time he became a disciple.

All we know was that he had a mother-in-law.

Sounds to me like he had a wife, and took her along with him!

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

 

[phil19034]

Always find it interesting when people try to explain (without any proof) what they* want *the scriptures to say. Here’s what St Paul says;

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

That’s a modern translation. So it might not mean exactly what you think it does.

KJV
“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Douay-Rheims
“Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Some say Peter’s wife had died, others say she was alive and accompanied him to Rome.

Irregardless, married men have ALWAYS been allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. This has continued for 2000 years in the Eastern Catholic Rites. So if Peter’s wife was still alive, it makes little difference. She would have known Jesus and would have been 110% behind Peter in his ministry.

However, by the 4th century (if not well before) Bishops were chosen from celibate men because the role of Bishop was very taxing on families (much more than that of a priest).

Over time the Latin Rites slowly applied the discipline to the priesthood for reasons people have already stated.

Celibacy is not a hinderance to the priesthood. Unholy priests are. A Holy Priest can always depart wisdom, even if he doesn’t share the same personal experiences as the person whom he is pastorally counseling.

God Bless

 

[Della]

Always find it interesting when people try to explain (without any proof) what they* want *the scriptures to say. Here’s what St Paul says;

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

And it is interesting how some take verses out of their context to try to make them say what they don’t say. St. Paul isn’t talking about having a wife. He is talking about having holy women care for his needs, as they did for Jesus and his Apostles (because Paul is an Apostles he has could claim the same privilege). But he set aside all such privileges so he wouldn’t scandalize the non-Jewish converts who had no tradition of holy women caring for their religious leaders as did the Jewish women who did so for Jesus. It has absolutely nothing to do with being married or not being married.

 

[phil19034]

And it is interesting how some take verses out of their context to try to make them say what they don’t say. St. Paul isn’t talking about having a wife. He is talking about having holy women care for his needs, as they did for Jesus and his Apostles (because Paul is an Apostles he has could claim the same privilege). But he set aside all such privileges so he wouldn’t scandalize the non-Jewish converts who had no tradition of holy women caring for their religious leaders as did the Jewish women who did so for Jesus. It has absolutely nothing to do with being married or not being married.

Yes… this is where the tradition of having nuns cook & clean for bishops came from. Granted, this has fallen out of vogue, but for centuries, nuns would help take care of bishops, and sometimes even parish priests at larger parishes with convents.

 

[po18guy]

1. Priests consider celibacy a gift. Do not fall into the trap of being offended or outraged at the conditions others live with until you ask them. They chose celibacy!
2. Contraception was universally a sin in Christianity until the Lambda conference in 1930. Then, all of the major non-Catholic denominations caved in. Did truth change? Did God change? Or did worldly, societal pressure cause the change?
3. Jesus commanded us to “do this, as often as you do it, in memory of me.” We “do this” each week because the Apostles did it each week. To avoid that is to disobey our Lord. If you choose to do something else, that tells God that you love personal pleasure or created goods more than you love him. Love requires sacrifice. Do you love Jesus Christ enough to give up everything else for His sake?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

1. Priests consider celibacy a gift. Do not fall into the trap of being offended or outraged at the conditions others live with until you ask them. They chose celibacy!
2. Contraception was universally a sin in Christianity until the Lambda conference in 1930. Then, all of the major non-Catholic denominations caved in. Did truth change? Did God change? Or did worldly, societal pressure cause the change?
3. Jesus commanded us to “do this, as often as you do it, in memory of me.” We “do this” each week because the Apostles did it each week. To avoid that is to disobey our Lord. If you choose to do something else, that tells God that you love personal pleasure or created goods more than you love him. Love requires sacrifice. Do you love Jesus Christ enough to give up everything else for His sake?

Oh I’m not offended or outraged at Celibacy, I understand that it isn’t forced on them and they choose that life. However regardless of it being a choice for those who wish to become priests, it is still something the Church requires (ie to become a priest you have to be celibate). If the Church is the one Christ established and is the fullness of truth, I would expect ALL of its beliefs/principles/requirements etc to come from God. I know this is what you as Catholics believe but these are the hurdles I’m trying to overcome and the questions I’m asking… are these “requirements” really from God.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I pray this helps.

Thank-you for your very informative posts! Much appreciated.

In terms of Contraception, I don’t think I explained myself very well. I agree with the Church on hormonal birth control such as the pill because of its abortive effect sometimes.

Where I struggle is the methods which cause no harm to a fertilised egg, they just break the “unity” that the Catholic Church speak of so condoms, hysterectomy and vasectemy. I think a hysterectomy is the only fool proof method (I know the church permits them for medical purposes but I’m talking about contraceptive purposes here). If a woman is told that if she ever gets pregnant she will probably die, I can’t understand how she can ever be open to life or why something like a hysterectomy (which doesn’t kill a foetus it just prevents pregnancy permanently) is considered wrong?

 

[ArielRussu]

Thank-you for your very informative posts! Much appreciated.

In terms of Contraception, I don’t think I explained myself very well. I agree with the Church on hormonal birth control such as the pill because of its abortive effect sometimes.

Where I struggle is the methods which cause no harm to a fertilised egg, they just break the “unity” that the Catholic Church speak of so condoms, hysterectomy and vasectemy. I think a hysterectomy is the only fool proof method (I know the church permits them for medical purposes but I’m talking about contraceptive purposes here). If a woman is told that if she ever gets pregnant she will probably die, I can’t understand how she can ever be open to life or why something like a hysterectomy (which doesn’t kill a foetus it just prevents pregnancy permanently) is considered wrong?

The church believes surgery to prevent pregnancy is wrong because you are “butchering” healthy tissue for a non life threatening reason. Catholicism doesn’t consider pregnancy to be a legitimate medical problem aka “not a disease”, in life threatening situations and that is “respectful” to your body to not “butcher” it just so you can prevent a baby from being born, not like that’s going to matter if the mothers uterus bursts or her heart gives out, but hey some people have no problem with risking there life for a trophy child so they can parade them around at church boasting how Gods good and people shouldn’t always follow doctors advice, that is until some push there luck too far and leave there already living children motherless because of there parents lack of good judgment and "Leap of faith ". They also view it as interfering with Gods plan, as if each couple has a list of hypothetical children waiting to be born and believe that any artificial barrier or surgical procedure “frustrates” the marital act by not allowing the procreation aspect, and that only abstinence is “morally permissible” but honestly this is a matter between God and the couple and the couple should pray about it and decide what God is leading them too do. Too those who have told me our emotions and feelings are irrelevant in decision making, how else is God going to lead us, by writing a big neon sign on a wall saying “you should do this …!”

I struggled with this too but eventually concluded that options are there so, use them, (especially in cases NFP doesn’t work which CAN happen as permanent abstinence has marital disfunction and potential for spousal resentment written all over it!), don’t play with fire and get yourself killed, after all "God helps those who help themselves ".

 

[LethalMouse]

Not to derail the thread but I wanted to point this out, as the original poster is discerning the Catholic Church and may not know.

Going to a restaurant on Sunday is not sinful. In fact, many families participate in leisure activities on Sundays (restaurants, movies, amusement parks, camping, hotels, professional sports, golf) that require the labor of others. The most important part of a Sunday I believe is that we go to Mass and set aside time for God. Many people have embraced the lifestyle that you have, which can be very lovely! However it is not required by the church. and is not in disobedience of the commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic church is clear. As an aside I know restaurant owners that count on their Sunday business, it is their busiest day of the week and they (and their staff) count on that income for their livelihood. the Catholic owners and staff attend Mass on Saturday vigil. God bless.

I go to my son’s favorite restaurant post mass every sunday. He adores the waitress we get everytime who is working but also enjoys chatting and such.

My son during in session CCD usually brings the waitress gifts from the things he makes in CCD.

I think depending on the business (this is a more local place and not a bastion of miserable souls) leisure businesses are often not quite as laborious…

I personally worked in the service industry for years and I never really minded working holidays/weekends etc. it was more akin to being a party host than a slave labor. Granted it would be best to have no responsibility…but then we would only be able to have functions at private homes and never meet strangers

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Not even sure why this would be a big deal unless you wanted to be a priest… you can be a married Deacon or go Eastern Catholic and be a married priest. Other than than wanting a position… I really don’t care about it

It’s not a big deal but if the Church is the one Christ founded, I would expect all of its beliefs/practises to be truth and that they are indeed expected by God. If a church holds a belief which is against God or man-made even if it doesn’t directly concern me, that would point to the Church not being what it claimed to be. Does that make sense?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Some people will then say “well NFP” prevents the birth… yes, but it doesn’t prevent God from sending us a child. If God sends a child to a couple practicing NFP, the child will be born. However, if God sends a child to a couple practicing birth control, that child will be rejected by the couple unless the birth control is faulty.

.

This is where I start confusing myself. Isn’t this putting human constraints onto God and us deciding what is His will as opposed to us exercising our free will?

With birth control, if God willed a child, surely he could make it so? By making the control faulty?

Similarly with NFP, why is it Gods will and not us exercising our free will by having intercourse when we shouldn’t on fertile days (at least if trying to avoid?)

Surely if God wants a child to be sent, He can do in ALL situations? Nothing would prevent that child?

 

[1ke]

This is where I start confusing myself. Isn’t this putting human constraints onto God and us deciding what is His will as opposed to us exercising our free will?

With birth control, if God willed a child, surely he could make it so? By making the control faulty?

Similarly with NFP, why is it Gods will and not us exercising our free will by having intercourse when we shouldn’t on fertile days (at least if trying to avoid?)

Surely if God wants a child to be sent, He can do in ALL situations? Nothing would prevent that child?

Yes, and none of that is the reason contraception is wrong and abstaining from sex when you need to space children is OK. (many people will try to explain it that way, but it is off base).

Because again, it isn’t any of the consequences or things surrounding the act, it is the act itself.

Whenever we engage in intercourse, we must respect God’s design and plan for intercourse. The decision is whether or not to engage in intercourse, not to engage in it and alter the act.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

This is where I start confusing myself. Isn’t this putting human constraints onto God and us deciding what is His will as opposed to us exercising our free will?

With birth control, if God willed a child, surely he could make it so? By making the control faulty?

Similarly with NFP, why is it Gods will and not us exercising our free will by having intercourse when we shouldn’t on fertile days (at least if trying to avoid?)

Surely if God wants a child to be sent, He can do in ALL situations? Nothing would prevent that child?

Aside from the specific moral guidance that applies to interrupting the marital act, the problem with this line of thinking in general is it leads us to the abandonment of reason, given by God, in favor of testing the Lord.

I could argue that there is no harm in laying down on the double yellow line in traffic, for if God wanted to save me, He’d ensure each car missed me. That, or I could simply get up and avoid traffic.

It reminds me of the old story I hear every once in awhile:

*A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately.

A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”

The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”

As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.”

The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”

The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop.

A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, “Grab my hand and I will pull you up!” But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”

Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.

When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”

And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?” *

 

[1ke]

The church believes surgery to prevent pregnancy is wrong because you are “butchering” healthy tissue for a non life threatening reason. Catholicism doesn’t consider pregnancy to be a legitimate medical problem aka “not a disease”, in life threatening situations and that is “respectful” to your body to not “butcher” it just so you can prevent a baby from being born, not like that’s going to matter if the mothers uterus bursts or her heart gives out, but hey some people have no problem with risking there life for a trophy child so they can parade them around at church boasting how Gods good and people shouldn’t always follow doctors advice, that is until some push there luck too far and leave there already living children motherless because of there parents lack of good judgment and "Leap of faith ". They also view it as interfering with Gods plan, as if each couple has a list of hypothetical children waiting to be born and believe that any artificial barrier or surgical procedure “frustrates” the marital act by not allowing the procreation aspect, and that only abstinence is “morally permissible” but honestly this is a matter between God and the couple and the couple should pray about it and decide what God is leading them too do. Too those who have told me our emotions and feelings are irrelevant in decision making, how else is God going to lead us, by writing a big neon sign on a wall saying “you should do this …!”

I struggled with this too but eventually concluded that options are there so, use them, (especially in cases NFP doesn’t work which CAN happen as permanent abstinence has marital disfunction and potential for spousal resentment written all over it!), don’t play with fire and get yourself killed, after all "God helps those who help themselves ".

Please get therapy for your issues. These sorts of bitter outbursts against the church are inappropriate on a Catholic forum.

You are ascribing motives to people (a.k.a. “trophy child” to “parade” around) that are truly offensive.

The things you post simply are not accurate.

 

[1ke]

If the Church is the one Christ established and is the fullness of truth, I would expect ALL of its beliefs/principles/requirements etc to come from God.

Why?

God gave the Church the authority to bind and loose. God gave the authority to the Apostles (and their successor bishops) to govern the Church. To decide non-doctrinal matters and how they believe the Church is best administered. And God gave them the authority to explain, teach, and bind on doctrinal matters.

I know this is what you as Catholics believe but these are the hurdles I’m trying to overcome and the questions I’m asking… are these “requirements” really from God.

Why do they have to be? I guess I don’t understand.

The disciplines of the Church aren’t in opposition to God. They are the way in which the legitimate authority of the Church believes it best to govern and live out the mission.

You can see in Scripture where Paul asserts his own authority over the communities he established. In one of his letters he says “this is not from God but from me”. So, yes, even in the very beginning, the Apostles were indeed making governing decisions on the authority given to them. See 1 Corinthians 7.

 

[LethalMouse]

It’s not a big deal but if the Church is the one Christ founded, I would expect all of its beliefs/practises to be truth and that they are indeed expected by God. If a church holds a belief which is against God or man-made even if it doesn’t directly concern me, that would point to the Church not being what it claimed to be. Does that make sense?

It makes sense

But the issue is when it is not claimed ina certain way.

Fullness of truth for salvation, kind of like how you are allowed to ascribe to evolution or not, young or old earth etc…

These things are not necessarily necessary for salvation…

Since the other issue is a practice of obedience as a paraphrase bible quote:

“The Lordd does not care about outcome but obedience”

So if you want to be a married priest be eastern catholuc and follow the rules. If you want to be a Roman Catholic priest then the obedience is more important than what to… assuming it does not actually condradict God.

So if it does not condradict, then the “side rule” is not important unto itself persay so much as one following it is.

 

[Della]

It’s not a big deal but if the Church is the one Christ founded, I would expect all of its beliefs/practises to be truth and that they are indeed expected by God. If a church holds a belief which is against God or man-made even if it doesn’t directly concern me, that would point to the Church not being what it claimed to be. Does that make sense?

You are confusing and conflating doctrine with discipline–both are from God in that God gave the Church the authority to rule in both matters, but disciplines are not always binding on everyone everywhere, while doctrines and morals are.

A doctrine is a matter of faith and morals–such as the Ten Commandments. Disciplines are temporal rules which bind or loose certain things for certain persons. Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:19, 18:18). Remember, the Church is both eternal and temporal. Disciplines have to do with the temporal governance of the Church, not doctrines or morals, which are never changing.

So, celibacy is a discipline within the Roman Rite. The very fact that the Eastern Rites are in union with Rome but maintain their own disciplines shows that it is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine.