Ask a Catholic


andypg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whoa.  That didn't take me long.  I just googled it.  But I was trying to get a hit from the textbook we used (of course, I can't remember the name of the textbook).

 

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Who-Was-Born-Without-Original-Sin.htm

 

Edit:  Hmm... it also talks about John the Baptist... he must know my religious education teacher!

 

Interesting.

 

I'm somewhat inclined to put this in the "not something that has to be believed" category. I wish the guy in that article quoted something when he made that claim vice just stating it so matter-of-factly :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

I'm somewhat inclined to put this in the "not something that has to be believed" category. I wish the guy in that article quoted something when he made that claim vice just stating it so matter-of-factly :P

 

Yeah, I agree with you.  Now you're making me wonder if this belief is more prevalent in Filipino Catholic Schools than anywhere else.  I wonder if that guy is Filipino...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, I just read that particular chapter at the time so that I could intelligibly comment on it. I've only just finished 1 Nephi.

 

So you have skipped over some pages because you couldn't wait how the story continues...?  Sometimes I read a book from the end forwards. Then I know if it's worth to be read from the begin to the end.

Edited by JimmiGerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have skipped over some pages because you couldn't wait how the story continues...?  Sometimes I read a book from the end forwards. Then I know if it's worth to be read from the begin to the end.

 

I've read many books that wouldn't be any less intelligible if read backwards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have skipped over some pages because you couldn't wait how the story continues...?  Sometimes I read a book from the end forwards. Then I know if it's worth to be read from the begin to the end.

 

I read it because it was referenced in a discussion and I needed to in order to understand the reference. I don't think I butchered it too much since I didn't get any complaints at the time :)

 

I've read many books that wouldn't be any less intelligible if read backwards.  

 

So have I Polar, so have I ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it because it was referenced in a discussion and I needed to in order to understand the reference. I don't think I butchered it too much since I didn't get any complaints at the time :)

 

 

So have I Polar, so have I ;)

 

I once read a book that was #2 of 3.  The main characters had all split up and had nothing to do with each other (like LOTR Two Towers).  I got so annoyed with the jumping between unrelated plot lines that I only read the parts that had to do with character A, skipping the rest.  And the end of the book, I re-read it, this time only the parts that involved character B.  By the time I finished with character D there were no more pages left :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once read a book that was #2 of 3.  The main characters had all split up and had nothing to do with each other (like LOTR Two Towers).  I got so annoyed with the jumping between unrelated plot lines that I only read the parts that had to do with character A, skipping the rest.  And the end of the book, I re-read it, this time only the parts that involved character B.  By the time I finished with character D there were no more pages left :).

 

Sounds like Games of Thrones book.  The author's style is to devote one chapter to a character.  Each character can be from completely different parts of the kingdom.  By the 4th book the "world" got so big with many more characters added that the publishers asked the author to split the book in half.  So... they chose which characters will go on the other book... so you got 2 books running parallel with storylines intertwining with all these characters... There's even a major character that only had two chapters or three in the 2 books combined - so you read 2 books only to wonder, what happened to that girl?  Well, I guess you have to wait for the next book to get published.  Hah hah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Games of Thrones book.  The author's style is to devote one chapter to a character.  Each character can be from completely different parts of the kingdom.  By the 4th book the "world" got so big with many more characters added that the publishers asked the author to split the book in half.  So... they chose which characters will go on the other book... so you got 2 books running parallel with storylines intertwining with all these characters... There's even a major character that only had two chapters or three in the 2 books combined - so you read 2 books only to wonder, what happened to that girl?  Well, I guess you have to wait for the next book to get published.  Hah hah.

 

Sounds maddening!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Claire- 

 

I have an "Ask A Catholic" question. 

 

Do you think sending kids to a Catholic school from first grade-to high school is more of a detriment or positive to their faith? I grew up in Catholic schools, and I'm at the very end of Generation X. Most friends (I am only in touch with a few from childhood, but of course people talk)  who attended Catholic schools have left the faith or are just nominal Catholics. The majority of children whose parents led really hardcore Catholic lives also got pregnant out of wedlock and hardly live catholic lives. Yes, I know my experiences does not equate to a sample size. 

 

 I mean NO offense to anyone at all (a caveat you must use when talking about religion) but I've noticed that LDS kids are more likely to stay LDS than Catholics. Yes, just an observation and I could be wrong. 

 

Thanks for the thoughts! 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claire- 

 

I have an "Ask A Catholic" question. 

 

Do you think sending kids to a Catholic school from first grade-to high school is more of a detriment or positive to their faith? I grew up in Catholic schools, and I'm at the very end of Generation X. Most friends (I am only in touch with a few from childhood, but of course people talk)  who attended Catholic schools have left the faith or are just nominal Catholics. The majority of children whose parents led really hardcore Catholic lives also got pregnant out of wedlock and hardly live catholic lives. Yes, I know my experiences does not equate to a sample size. 

 

 I mean NO offense to anyone at all (a caveat you must use when talking about religion) but I've noticed that LDS kids are more likely to stay LDS than Catholics. Yes, just an observation and I could be wrong. 

 

Thanks for the thoughts! 

 

I should probably start out with the caveat that you likely have as much experience with Catholic schools as I do. I grew up an atheist in public schools, so I neither attended a Catholic school nor knew anybody who did growing up.

 

If I had to formulate an opinion, it would basically be "it depends on the school." I do think that a good school that integrates the faith well into its curriculum would probably be beneficial. I'm not sure how many Catholic schools actually accomplish that. I know that there's one in my city, and that I would NOT send my kids there. Let's put it like this, the religion teacher there has a degree in music and has a "the rules don't matter if you believe in Jesus" approach to religion. It's like an LDS seminarian teacher saying that you don't need to obey the Word of Wisdom or attend sacrament meetings as long as you love Jesus.

 

I think the most important thing as far as engendering the faith in children goes is ensuring that it is present in the home. I teach a class at my Church for kids who aren't in the local Catholic schools, and most of the kids I have only step foot in the Church for those classes and maybe Easter and Christmas. I try to get across the importance of it to them, but if they go home and spend the bulk of their week watching their parents not care, then I don't know that there's a whole lot I can really do.

 

I do think that would be why LDS probably are "better" at retention. I think that there are a lot of Catholic kids, both in secular and Catholic schools, who simply aren't actually raised Catholic.

 

Again, I grew up an atheist. In no way am I speaking from experience here, just observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

 

 

Again, I grew up an atheist. In no way am I speaking from experience here, just observations.

One, thank you for your post and not taking what I said as a personal affront against Catholics.  Seriously, thank you again. 

Two, while I was never an open atheist I struggled with doubt for years as well. 

 

Three, I totally understand speaking from experience and observations. I was doing the same, not claiming any scientific data or anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask how you came into the Catholic faith? (if you don't mind)

 

I eventually came to the realization that there were a lot of smart people who were no biased than me who held to one religion or another. That had to mean, in my estimate, that there was at least some possibility that I could be wrong due to either error, insufficient data, or unperceived bias.

 

That was important, because if you're an atheist, there really isn't any hope. You live, you die, and that's the end. Ultimately, then, it made more sense to me to trust in an unlikely hope than a probable futility. From there, it was just a very long (as in over a year) period of research on various philosophies and religions to find which seemed most probable to me. Ultimately Catholicism won out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was important, because if you're an atheist, there really isn't any hope. You live, you die, and that's the end. Ultimately, then, it made more sense to me to trust in an unlikely hope than a probable futility. From there, it was just a very long (as in over a year) period of research on various philosophies and religions to find which seemed most probable to me. Ultimately Catholicism won out.

 

I've never been able to separate atheism from nihilism.  I understand that many atheists claim they can build their own meaning, but they have no way to prove that their opinion of meaning is not a delusion.  Ultimately I found God, but I'm still not convinced that God is a noun.  (That doesn't mean I think that God is a preposition or something... just that the final realities of existence are not obligated to fit into humans' grammar boxes.)

 

In any case, Claire, I have really enjoyed your posts and those of CatholicLady.  Thank you both for the time to take to write down your thoughts.

 

Have you heard of Leah Libresco?  She writes about religion on Patheos and describes herself as an "argumentative atheist" who converted to Catholicism.  Her first book, Arriving at Amen, will be published in a few months.  She's speaking Monday night at a nearby Catholic church, and I want to attend.  Will write a trip report here if I go.  

 

Best, PV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claire- 

 

I have an "Ask A Catholic" question. 

 

Do you think sending kids to a Catholic school from first grade-to high school is more of a detriment or positive to their faith? I grew up in Catholic schools, and I'm at the very end of Generation X. Most friends (I am only in touch with a few from childhood, but of course people talk)  who attended Catholic schools have left the faith or are just nominal Catholics. The majority of children whose parents led really hardcore Catholic lives also got pregnant out of wedlock and hardly live catholic lives. Yes, I know my experiences does not equate to a sample size. 

 

 I mean NO offense to anyone at all (a caveat you must use when talking about religion) but I've noticed that LDS kids are more likely to stay LDS than Catholics. Yes, just an observation and I could be wrong. 

 

Thanks for the thoughts! 

 

Most of my family grew up in Catholic Schools.  I, myself, attended Catholic Schools from Kindergarten all the way until I got my Bachelor's Degree in Engineering.  But, this is in the Philippines.

 

The scenarios you mentioned are probably more a product of culture than religion.  For example - getting pregnant out of wedlock outside the main cities of the Philippines can be a very difficult life to live.  Divorce is illegal there, therefore, people tend to be very very selective of their future spouses... so kids are more careful to not jeopardize their future.  Also, the culture is clannish - you get a woman pregnant out of wedlock, you can start a clan war.  Etc.

 

But, as far as Catholic instruction in Catholic schools - I truly believe it is great.  The CCD classes (once a week) is great, but, like LDS Sunday School - it only touches on the main gospel principles needed for salvation and doesn't delve deeper into gospel stuff.  And it's mainly designed for children to prepare them for the sacraments of penance, holy eucharist, and confirmation.  And then they don't have to go anymore.

 

Catholic schools go into a lot of theology and Catholic history - including the crud of the early Church, the life of Saints, the schisms, the major shift in the Elizabethan era, etc. etc., all difficult, faith-shaking subjects when tackled outside a spiritual setting once you get into High School (past the confirmation).

 

Catholic College is even more intense.  But religious ed is only required for the first 4 semesters unless you want to be a priest.

 

But this doesn't even touch on the benefits of being in the "village"... where most kids around you share the same values and you're free to express your religious devotion.  And, as far as my experience (Texas, Ohio, California, Florida besides the Philippines), the Catholic Schools have a high standard of education especially with the Inter-Catholic programs and competitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been able to separate atheism from nihilism.  I understand that many atheists claim they can build their own meaning, but they have no way to prove that their opinion of meaning is not a delusion.  Ultimately I found God, but I'm still not convinced that God is a noun.  (That doesn't mean I think that God is a preposition or something... just that the final realities of existence are not obligated to fit into humans' grammar boxes.)

 

In any case, Claire, I have really enjoyed your posts and those of CatholicLady.  Thank you both for the time to take to write down your thoughts.

 

Have you heard of Leah Libresco?  She writes about religion on Patheos and describes herself as an "argumentative atheist" who converted to Catholicism.  Her first book, Arriving at Amen, will be published in a few months.  She's speaking Monday night at a nearby Catholic church, and I want to attend.  Will write a trip report here if I go.  

 

Best, PV

 

To give atheism a fair shake, I the best argument I've ever heard against equating it with nihilism came from Nietchze, who pointed out that nihilism, the belief in nothing, is still a belief that one needs to purge. From there he goes on to say pretty much what you did about creating your own meaning. The thing is, even if I can define my own meaning, so long as I am mortal I'm still ultimately going to lose that meaning (once I die the foundation of my meaning is gone).

 

I am somewhat aware of Leah Libresco. I remember several blogs I follow commenting on her conversion some time back, and I read her blog post explaining her decision, but that's about it.

 

I look forward to the possible trip report :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot of Catholics, some hardcore, many not so much. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my perception is that once a Catholic always a Catholic. (barring conversion to another religion) even then they don't recognize any other baptism.  At least that's been my perception.

 

When they do things that are not in line with the religion like some of the previously mentioned items.  In our LDS view point we all see that as a falling away from the religion. Most Catholics would disagree. They are and always will be Catholic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question: Can you explain to me the fully God/fully man doctrine of Jesus? How does that play out with something like the temptation in the wilderness?

 

The only difference between the fully God/fully man doctrine of Jesus in the Trinity and fully God/fully man doctrine of the Godhead is the "What makes them God".  In Trinitarian - it is ousia, in Godhead - it is Will.  The God ousia has the power to proceed a distinct and unique Person... in the same way that Jesus in the Godhead is a distinct and unique Person... fully human.

 

So the Person that is Jesus and the Person that is The Father and the Person that is the Holy Ghost is identical to the persons in the LDS Godhead - how they are fully human and fully God at the exact same time.  So, how does that play out with something like the temptation in the wilderness?  The exact same way it plays out in LDS teaching.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess mentioned the Greek word "ousia", which in English is generally rendered as "substance." I need to open with a bit of Aristotelian metaphysics to make sense of what exactly that is.

 

First, there's two "principles" present in (almost) all things, prime matter and substantial form. You can kind of think of prime matter as the raw material, and the ordering principle of prime matter. In other words, if you had a hunk of prime matter and applied to substantial form of "cat" to it, the form would order the matter to become a cat. Same goes for, well, everything else in the universe. The combination of prime matter and substantial form is a substance. Incidentally, the reason the word "principle" is used to describe prime matter and substantial form by themselves is that they cannot exist independently of one another, so they are inextricably bound. Everything has both prime matter and substantial form and neither can exist without the other.

 

So, there is also another sort of form known as an "accident." Accidents are basically a trait that a thing can have without changing what the thing is. In other words, let's go back to the cat from earlier. The cat can be red, black, white, for purple and it would still be a cat, meaning that its color is an accident.

 

So, back to the question at hand. We say that Christ broke the mold a bit and actually has two substances, one fully human and one fully divine. There are a lot of scriptural and rational reasons for confessing this exception, though over the years many of tried to alternative theories. For example, gnostics would argue that Christ was fully 'god' (their understanding of God was a bit different) and that he only appeared to become human. This obviously doesn't work with accounts of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection since it would involve God not really becoming human, not really suffering or dieing, and not really rising from the dead.

 

Arianism, meanwhile, held up Christ as a sort of "super human," who was God's greatest creation but wasn't really God. This doesn't really work because, first and foremost, scripture doesn't really back it up (John 1:1). Also, it seems to undermine God's role in salvation if salvation could be won through a creature. If Christ could obtain salvation through his works, why can't we?

 

This leaves us with the possibility of a sort of hybrid who is part human and part God. Off the bat, the idea of being "part God" already has issues since God is indivisible, so that just leaves the possibility of being part man. If he's part man, though, then you have to try to define which human characteristics were assumed. The problem is, no matter what human characteristics you choose, you don't end up with a human but with God taking on accidents that are typically associated with humans. In other words, if you only took on a human body (but not a human mind or soul), then he's not a human but God with the accident of a human body. Ultimately, you need the whole human soul (the word soul meaning the substantial form of a living thing) in order for him actually to have been human.

 

There were a number of dissenting views over the years, and ultimately the issue was settled at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Chalcedonian Creed declared the following:

 

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

 

As far as being tempted in the desert goes, there's a concept known as the "communication of idioms." Basically if the scriptures, or anything else for that matter, says something about Christ, then that could be referring to either his humanit or his divinity, but not necessarily both. In other words, if I say "Christ is a man," then it is a true statement since his human gender is male, even though God as such doesn't necessarily have a gender. In the desert, Christ's humanity was tempted by the devil, even though his divinity was beyond temptation.

 

As a side note, my (LDS) boyfriend has a somewhat funny joke about this:

 

"Jesus asked his disciples, 'who do you say that I am?"

 

Peter answered, 'You are the second person of the blessed Trinity, fully God and fully man. You are consubstantial with the Father with regards to your divinity, and consubstantial with us with regards to your humanity, both natures being acknowledged inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably."

 

And Jesus replied, 'Huh?'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claire, I've noticed you're really fond of quoting Aristotelian philosophy.  Why is that?  

 

I'm a fan of philosophy, but it seems strange answer religious questions by quoting a non-religious person.

 

I'm not Claire (in case there was any confusion on that point), but I believe the reason is that Catholic doctrine is founded on Aristotelian and neoPlatonic philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share