/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>By conscience, I feel I can't be Catholic because I cannot bring myself to believe in everything Catholicism holds as a dogma. I find conflicts between Christ and Church.

>Could you give an example?

Some are superficial, as when Christ tells us not to call anyone Father on earth (which I assume not to be something to be taken literally, but to understand the point behind the idea) and some more fundamental, such the idea that the spirit of the law is above the law. Christ will break rules if love dictates it. I don't find that in Catholicism.

>There's no point in being a "good Catholic" if I have zero faith in the religion I chose. The Bible does say that even good deeds are worthless if not done for the right reasons. Intent matters.

>It is also what the church says.

I agree with a whole lot of what the Church says. That's why it was my choice of Church until very recently.

>Submitting to dogma doesn't mean that everything the church does is right. Also dogma can't contradict divine right/will, if it does it is invalid

The way I see it, if dogma can't contradict divine will, but doesn't prevent the Church from having wrong dogmas, then I am not sure what the point is to begin with. I don't understand the need to be required to believe something we can't be sure of. What's wrong with not being sure? It's better than being wrong.

I feel like the submission enjoyed by Catholics is a way to escape responsibility. For monks, it is exactly that, though not presented this way. A Catholic who obeys authority can do no wrong because "it's not his fault". Well, I cannot believe that, because free will is God-given and submission is also a choice, so whatever happens, you choose to obey orders given to you, and if you choose to obey against your own moral conscience, you're responsible.

>>20

>Well, I cannot believe that, because free will is God-given and submission is also a choice, so whatever happens, you choose to obey orders given to you, and if you choose to obey against your own moral conscience, you're responsible.

Could you give an example of something that is immoral the church says must be so?

>Confession for example exists so that you are not tempted to lawyer you out of your sins. There are additional reasons like the priest nows the procedere and the law better

That's interesting because I always felt that this is what confession did: it made people feel exonerated from their sins here on earth by virtue of having told them.

And if it doesn't do that, why confess in the first place?

The whole issue of sin, I feel, is taken by Catholics in a very Old Testament sort of way, as a legalist thing.

[reposting my answer]

>>172 (OP)

>By conscience, I feel I can't be Catholic because I cannot bring myself to believe in everything Catholicism holds as a dogma. I find conflicts between Christ and Church.

Could you give an example?

>who were more concerned intent than laws and rules.

Especially the former jews had been very concerned with the law and which laws they have to follow (see the letters of Paul)

Also the first apostolic council proves that the Catholic church roots a lot of its practices in the early church

>There's no point in being a "good Catholic" if I have zero faith in the religion I chose. The Bible does say that even good deeds are worthless if not done for the right reasons. Intent matters.

It is also what the church says.

> I could no sooner submit to Catholic dogma than I could let down Christ. That's my dilemma.

Submitting to dogma doesn't mean that everything the church does is right. Also dogma can't contradict divine right/will, if it does it is invalid

> I'm just skeptical that rituals are the heart of it all.

Not the heart but a part of it

>There are some that I can't get behind altogether, like confession. I've been told that all these things are made for man, and not man for these things, paraphrasing Christ, and that's a great angle, and very Biblical, but still, I can't get to go Catholic the whole way.

Confession for example exists so that you are not tempted to lawyer you out of your sins. There are additional reasons like the priest nows the procedere and the law better

> I feel bad about praying to Mary due to Protestant input I received as of late.

We dont worship her we pray for her to make intercession

> Dubious Marian apparitions also made me become more skeptical, between hoaxes and potential demonic apparitions, I no longer know who to trust. Rosaries on hold until further notice.

Congregation of the causes of Saints

>These have always been around to help us, not to punish us.

Exactly. Mysticism and law are part of the faith, but there is more to it. More than any dogma could ever describe, it is called Mystery of the Faith and things like the rosary shall help to contemplate over it.

>All input is welcome.

Precise examples of what you have a problem with would help

Regards

wrote in a hurry, sorry if not detailed enough or if it sounds cold

>We dont worship her we pray for her to make intercession

I know, trust me, I used to fight Protestants about this all the time. I'm concerned by Marian apparitions which turned out to be demonic. What if they all are?

What if I'm doing the wrong thing by praying the rosary? I tend to think God won't mind as long as my intention is good, but I don't feel secure enough to actually pray it again.

>>26

>Exactly. Mysticism and law are part of the faith, but there is more to it. More than any dogma could ever describe, it is called Mystery of the Faith and things like the rosary shall help to contemplate over it.

I like this. I have been made to feel like the rules and laws are the heart of it and failure to comply means eternal hell. In some countries, the priest literally tells his flock that So-and-So (who died attempting to steal food for his starving family) is going to Hell because he stole and broke one of the ten commandments. Can you imagine this at a funeral in your country? I can't in mine, but this happens. This sort of thing I cannot think is Christian as I cannot imagine Christ doing this. It helps me understand the atheist rage, though.

Here's a case in point:

>Catholicism states that missing mass is a mortal sin

>a mortal sin condemns you to Hell if not confessed and forgiven by a priest

That alone made me pause and reconsider my choice of Catholicism. I cannot imagine why mass has to be held weekly and mandatorily. Orthodox have it less, for instance, and I am not aware of Christ suggesting a right number of repetitions across the year. Who's to say communion isn't intended to happen only once? Christ said to do it to remember Him, but to suggest that you must do it weekly, short of eternal doom, seems unchristlike.

It's too systematic. I can't imagine Christ saying, "You will do this to remember me, every Sunday, and if you miss one, you're going to Hell forever, unless you speak to a priest."

>>14

>Some are superficial, as when Christ tells us not to call anyone Father on earth (which I assume not to be something to be taken literally, but to understand the point behind the idea)

I call my literal father also father for example.

But I understand your intention here. Obviously priests are faliable human beings so you don't have to follow them or any other authority if it contradicts god´s law

Also you did find it in Catholicism. :^)

You found it in the bible,a book that we have thanks to the church preserving it

>>20

> What's wrong with not being sure? It's better than being wrong.

That is the point of dogma. These things arent taken lightly by the church. For something to become dogma the church has to be VERY sure of it.

>but doesn't prevent the Church from having wrong dogmas

Imagine it like an annullated marriage. If your marriage is annullated you are not divorced, you have never been married at all

>A Catholic who obeys authority can do no wrong because "it's not his fault".

Oh he can. It is your duty to disobey those who contradict the divine law and if you don't you are guilty.

There are no excuses in front of him who will judge the hearts of people

>>23

This

>>25

> it made people feel exonerated from their sins here on earth by virtue of having told them.

In order for absolution to take place you have to repent and make your wrong right (giving back stolen goods etc) and you also get a task to show that you are cleansed usually

>>25

>The whole issue of sin, I feel, is taken by Catholics in a very Old Testament sort of way, as a legalist thing.

What do you propose instead? Isn't every sin a offense to god´s law?

More generally, my problem with denominations which indulge in extreme strictness in everything is that I feel they are not fueled by faith as much as by other things. Mortification of the flesh, in its many shades, for instance, strikes me as odd, as I cannot find its roots in Christ, apart from fasting, which, however, has positive health effects and we certainly could do more fasting (which brings me to obese men of God, who will call you a pervert for any number of things, but they can't even see that they're sinning with food).

There are people out there who can only believe in something if it has a dark side, if it costs them. That reminds me of a man in a bed shop; this guy didn't want a matress because it was too cheap. The saleswoman told him he could pay more if he wanted to, if that'd make the matress look more appealing. It seems to be the same logic.

I don't function that way so this logic doesn't work for me. Christ doesn't seem more real to me if I force myself to sleep on the bare floor or whip my back. I have a violent past in terms of self-mortification, so I am not scared about doing such things, but I don't think they are a Christian thing to do at all.

Self-control, when pushed to extremes, seems arrogant to me.

>>34

>Also you did find it in Catholicism. :^)

>You found it in the bible,a book that we have thanks to the church preserving it

Yes, I've also been baptised by the Catholic Church. And for the past 8 years or so, I imagined myself a Catholic.

As to the Bible, I never had to doubt it as much as I had to doubt some Catholic choices. I don't believe that the Bible is a document dictated by God, flawlessly perfect, and I don't think anyone can believe that. Catholics don't believe that, a priest stated as much (although others might disagree).

The people who constituted the Church (which was "both" Catholic and Orthodox back then) is not the same people as it is today or was 1000 years ago. That's why this never was much of an argument to me. The Great Schism occurred after the Bible was put together, so the Orthodox could say the same as you say, maybe even more so, because the Orthodox Bible has more books than the Catholics, who have more books than the Protestants, each cutting some books as it sees fit.

>>34

>That is the point of dogma. These things arent taken lightly by the church. For something to become dogma the church has to be VERY sure of it.

But then, when it turns out that the dogma was wrong, I stop caring about dogmas as a certainty anymore. Falter once and infallibility ceases to exist. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

>Imagine it like an annullated marriage. If your marriage is annullated you are not divorced, you have never been married at all

I understand that, and that is fine, but what of things I believe to be wrong dogmas, but are held as true by the Church? Is there any way for me to be part of the Church while holding some of its dogmas for untruths? I'm told that this is not possible. I would understand this readily. I can't quite take the Catholic Eucharist knowing I disagree with the Church.

>>34

>Oh he can. It is your duty to disobey those who contradict the divine law and if you don't you are guilty.

>There are no excuses in front of him who will judge the hearts of people

Let's take an example: Sister Lucia of Fatima. She was told to reveal her secret in 1960, by Mary. However, her direct boss told her not to. She found herself having to disobey one or the other. She chose to obey the Church over Mary, rather than her own conscience, because as a sister, that's what you do. You obey your superiors in all things, because they are the Church, as such, they are the authority of God directly, or so Catholics believe.

If the Church is infallible, then yes, any order given from it is an order from God, even when they contradict each other, which I find untenable. How could God contradict Himself?

>>45

The church and individuals are different, so an individual bishop who gives an order of administration (you shall not speak about this thing) seems to be an act of someone who was wrong and not showing that the church is bad.

>>27

>I'm concerned by Marian apparitions which turned out to be demonic

We don't know if they are. We can't we can just believe or not believe.

I know what you are talking about, we talked about this in the Akita thread

>>32

>I have been made to feel like the rules and laws are the heart of it and failure to comply means eternal hell.

No one knows that. We know the law that is true, but no one on earth can know the judgement for sure. We only know that everyone will receive what he deserves.

>but to suggest that you must do it weekly, short of eternal doom, seems unchristlike.

honouring the day of the lord? Seems reasonable to make mass then to me.

>It's too systematic.

Be aware that we are talking about an institution here. About the biggest on earth. It has to be systematic.

See it like this: The church has to make sure that doing what the church says is always right, that is why it seems so strict some times.

>>37

>More generally, my problem with denominations which indulge in extreme strictness

They have a responsibility for their flock. They have to be 100% sure that they dont allow anyting bad

>>37

>I don't function that way so this logic doesn't work for me. Christ doesn't seem more real to me if I force myself to sleep on the bare floor or whip my back. I have a violent past in terms of self-mortification, so I am not scared about doing such things, but I don't think they are a Christian thing to do at all.

There are different ways for each one to live his faith. What does not work for you is completely fine for others.

> I don't believe that the Bible is a document dictated by God, flawlessly perfect

You agree with the church againI see

>The people who constituted the Church (which was "both" Catholic and Orthodox back then) is not the same people as it is today or was 1000 years ago. That's why this never was much of an argument to me. The Great Schism occurred after the Bible was put together, so the Orthodox could say the same as you say, maybe even more so, because the Orthodox Bible has more books than the Catholics, who have more books than the Protestants, each cutting some books as it sees fit.

We are both apostolic so the argument I brought up works for both yes.

That is why we don't view them as heretics/heathens or something but as schismatic. They are part of the church

>when it turns out that the dogma was wrong

Name a "wrong" dogma pls

>Let's take an example

I don't know what would have been right. God knows and he will judge not me

>If the Church is infallible

the church is not infaliable and the appearations also tell us so as you know

>>52

>honouring the day of the lord? Seems reasonable to make mass then to me.

Indeed.

But mandatory under penalty of eternal doom?

>>52

>Be aware that we are talking about an institution here. About the biggest on earth. It has to be systematic.

>See it like this: The church has to make sure that doing what the church says is always right, that is why it seems so strict some times.

I understand that, but doesn't it kill the original spirit? It doesn't even seem that most Catholics follow their own rules.

>>59

>They have to be 100% sure that they dont allow anyting bad

That does nothing to guarantee it, though. It's often done the contrary. Faith in God should make one feel more secure, not less.

>>59

>There are different ways for each one to live his faith.

Catholicism doesn't leave me much room.

>You agree with the church againI see

It depends what you hear by "divinely inspired" as the definition ranges from literally just "inspired" to "being able to flawlessly write down what God wants".

But again, I agree with the Church on plenty of things. I said so before. It's just that the small percentage of things I don't agree with are a complete block to Catholicism.

>We are both apostolic so the argument I brought up works for both yes.

I'd put stock in the apostolic heritage if priests had the powers that come with it: healing and other divine gifts, but I don't see that.

>That is why we don't view them as heretics/heathens or something but as schismatic. They are part of the church

How do you see Protestants, then?

>>59

>Name a "wrong" dogma pls

I'm looking at the list. I can bring up one if you one.

In the meantime, heliocentrism. The Church was into geocentrism, and it was wrong, despite the Holy Spirit and all. Because of this, why should I assume the Church can never be wrong?

I'll get to some actual dogmas if you want. I don't know if and when geocentrism was removed from the list.

>>100

>I'll get to some actual dogmas if you want.

Please do.

This one:

121. God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.

I thought that was Protestant stuff to believe in predestination? I personally believe God doesn't know the future as part of us having free will and Him remaining absolutely good and perfect. If someone is free and if free will isn't logic like dominos, you can't guess the future that hasn't happened yet because it doesn't exist. Imposing our understanding of time on God is generally a bad idea, but I know I'm in the minority, again.

Do you agree with this dogma?

>>85

>But mandatory under penalty of eternal doom?

The commandments were given by god and the church can't suspend his will

>>86

>but doesn't it kill the original spirit?

What was the original spirit?

>>94

There is no certainty in believing

>>97

>Catholicism doesn't leave me much room.

What do you want that Catholicism does not allow? You can go among people as a mmissionary, or live in the mountains as monk, or be a family father, etc

> It's just that the small percentage of things I don't agree with are a complete block to Catholicism.

Please name them I can't read your mind :^)

>I'd put stock in the apostolic heritage if priests had the powers that come with it: healing and other divine gifts, but I don't see that.

Miracles still take place. Also every healthy flock is a proof for the work of the spirit

>How do you see Protestants, then?

Heretics, potential part of the church

>>100

>why should I assume the Church can never be wrong?

You shouldn't it is a wrong assumption

Also geocentrism was never a dogma.

>>102

this

126. Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.

This one wouldn't work on plenty of people in the Bible. The thief on the cross couldn't do anything more than have faith before dying. I doubt Christ would go against a dogma.

134. The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous [mortal, serious] sin.

Missing mass counts as a mortal sin. Drugs also, unless it's alcohol, though it isn't explained why a drug is a drug and another drug is not a drug.

Mortal sins don't seem to matter much to Christ. It's a new concept for all I know.

147. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

So when the Pope says geocentrism is correct and heliocentrism is heresy, then what?

All we need is one dogma to be busted and a shadow of doubt is cast over all other dogmas.

I make a huge difference between matters of faith and the rest. If you're wrong on faith, we'll never know, but if you're wrong on more factual matters, then it'll show.

>>104

>Do you agree with this dogma?

Yes. The fact that there is free will and god being omniscient/already knowing the future is a mystery of faith to me

>>108

If possible. You can only demand what people can provide. If the thief on the cross had survived but hadn't stopped stealing / didn't follow the commandments how righteous would that have been?

Faith expresses itself through the deeds of a man. How could a faithful man turn away a brother in need?

>>109

I am not well read enough on mortal sin, sorry

>>110

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-papacy-and-galileo.html

Quoting from the article.

Second, the Catholic Church has never defined — nor could it ever define — any theory of physical science as a matter of faith. There never was any "dogma" which said the earth was the center of the universe or the solar system. The next time people claim Galileo bravely challenged such a "dogma," ask them to identify its official name, the name of the pope who defined it, and the date it was defined. If they can't provide you with this basic information, demand that they cite the source of their "facts."

Although Galileo's heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, it wasn't just with the Church that he found himself at odds. His ideas were contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought, which was accepted by virtually all contemporary scientists. The ideas he pushed had been challenged by such notable thinkers as Michel de Montaigne (d. 1592), Blaise Pascal (d. 1662), and Alessandro Tassoni (d. 1635), who said, "Stand in the middle of a room and look out at the sun through a window opening toward the south. Now, if the sun stands still and the window moves so quickly [referring to the speed at which Galileo theorized the earth rotated], the sun will instantly disappear from your vision."

174. Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.

But Saint John the Baptist did it before Christ, and even baptised Christ. How is this not wrong? I'm confused.

>>110

>then what?

then the council would tell him that this doesn't affect theology

Ex Cathedra the pope talks only about theology/stuf fthat affects the whole church

> but if you're wrong on more factual matters, then it'll show.

but dogma doesn't touch this

>>113

John did receive this blessing from the Spirit and we did from Christ

>>112

I understand that very well, but the dogma challenged here is the infallibility of the Pope. The Pope said geocentrism was true, and that was not true, therefore the Pope is not infallible, therefore this dogma is not true, therefore other dogmas may be wrong too. If an infallible pope can be wrong about physical matters, how much more wrong can he be about matters unseen?

That's all I'm saying.

>>114

>then the council would tell him that this doesn't affect theology

It does. It affects the authority of the Church. If such authority can be wrong, it does affect a theology in which there is the belief that the Church cannot be wrong by virtue of the Holy Spirit.

Same thing with the Great Schism: how does a Church led by God faulters so badly?

>>115

>The Pope said geocentrism was true, and that was not true,

but he is only infallible Ex Cathedra and is Ex Cathedra only talking about matters of the faith

> therefore this dogma is not true

geocentrism still never had been dogma

>>115

>The Pope said geocentrism was true, and that was not true, therefore the Pope is not infallible, therefore this dogma is not true, therefore other dogmas may be wrong too. If an infallible pope can be wrong about physical matters, how much more wrong can he be about matters unseen?

Papal infallibility does not mean "the Pope is always right", that belief is a form of heresy in itself. Papal infallibility means that the Pope is right "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

Science is not dogma or morality and what a Pope thought about the Sun and Earth has no bearing on church teaching.

>>116

>in which there is the belief that the Church cannot be wrong

but the church can be wrong

>>116

>Same thing with the Great Schism: how does a Church led by God faulters so badly?

Why did Peter become pope after he denied Christ? Because we are fallible humans and he has known it

243. From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.

Christ acknowledges divorce, in the Bible, put together by the early Church. I never could get out of this contradiction.

245. In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin.

Do you honestly believe this? You think the reason we humans die is because of Adam's sin? You don't think we die because that's how our biology works?

Did animals sin?

I'm sorry, I can't believe there was a point where human beings existed and were immortal. I just can't. I've even heard priests tell me not to read Genesis literally, so why should human immortality before the Fall be a dogma at all?

250. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.

Keep in mind that grievous here means "mortal". Missing mass counts as that too. I do not believe that missing mass leads to Hell, I just can't believe in that based on everything the Bible and Christ taught me.

>>121

>Do you honestly believe this? You think the reason we humans die is because of Adam's sin?

Yes

>You don't think we die because that's how our biology works?

You don't think that god´s will is the reason that biology works at all?

>Did animals sin?

Have they been created in the image of god?

>>117

>>118

So, if I understand correctly, the Pope is never wrong, except when he is. He is infallible, but only when he is telling the truth, not when he is wrong.

I'm sure you understand why I'm skeptical about this one. If that's how it is, why even make this a dogma? The pope is a regular man who is right when right and wrong when wrong.

If you mean to tell me he is always right when he speaks about things that cannot change (and cannot be proven), why bother? That's like saying a vegetarian cannot eat meat or else he ceases to be one, just like a pope speaking heresies ceases to be pope.

>>119

>but the church can be wrong

I know that, but the Church professes that it cannot. That's where my issue is.

>Why did Peter become pope after he denied Christ? Because we are fallible humans and he has known it

But did he become pope? Does anyone treat Peter like an authority after Christ's death? Orthodox think Peter just became a bishop and there'd be many bishops, all equal in authority. Why did Paul act as an authority if Peter was the Pope?

>>123

But if man was not supposed to die, how could he go to Heaven?

Who's better of: humans who accept Christ and go to Heaven or an unfallen Adam who remains in Eden for ever until the universe dies, unless you believe also that the universe not being forever is because of Adam's sin.

God designed biology, sure, but that's evolution, and that largely decides how long a species live as a general rule.

It's a long shot for me to believe humans were immortal.

As to animals, since we descend from them, I guess they are in some degree created in His image, just like we are. Animals have consciousness in varying degrees, like us. The point is they die. The species we come from died too, long before we were humans, so I cannot believe our ancestors were mortal, then we became humans and became immortal for some reason, then mortal again.

I don't read Genesis literally nor does the Church.

251. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity

/christian/ hates on my ancient Greek, but the words used by Christ do not mean "eternal punishment", but "lengthy correction". Lengthy is not eternal.

Such things force me to choose between Christ and the Church. I choose Christ. I'm sorry.

If anyone has more info on this "lengthy correction" deal, I'm all ears.

>>124

The Pope is only infallible "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

He is not infallible when he speaks on anything else. This does not mean he can only be right under those circumstances but what it means is he does not carry infallible power in that case.

>just like a pope speaking heresies ceases to be pope.

As far as I am aware a Pope can be a heretic (There have been heretical Popes before as far as I am aware), they are still the Pope unless they are removed in some way.

And one more before I leave: how do Catholics know that there's a double procession in the Holy Trinity? The original Creed doesn't have it, the Orthodox still don't believe in it.

How do we even get to the conclusion that the Father begets the Son and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both? What does it even mean?

>>124

>So, if I understand correctly, the Pope is never wrong, except when he is. He is infallible, but only when he is telling the truth, not when he is wrong.

No his infallibility does only affect matters of the faith and only when Ex Cathedra

>>126

>I know that, but the Church professes that it cannot. That's where my issue is.

No that is a misconception

>>129

>But if man was not supposed to die, how could he go to Heaven?

he did not need to this world was already paradise

>As to animals, since we descend from them, I guess they are in some degree created in His image

Why are we so different from EVERY animal if we descend from them? Evolution poses more questions than it gives answers

>>131

>correction

there is lengthy correction and it is called purgatory

there is the 2nd death and it is called hell

>>134

Are really questions that go so much into detail the reason you don't want to be part of the church?

It looks to me like you are looking for an excuse

>>134

I am not knowledgeable enough on this to give an answer.

>>137

>No his infallibility does only affect matters of the faith and only when Ex Cathedra

Matters of the faith that anyway cannot change? And what is the exact definition of "ex cathedra" in this context?

>No that is a misconception

Then I am guilty of that. I still don't know where I went wrong, though.

>he did not need to this world was already paradise

I assume there's a big difference between Paradise and Heaven. Did the idea of getting humans to heaven come about as an afterthought? Did we even have souls in Paradise? (Assuming the Unfallen World was more than just Adam and Eve before the Fall.)

>Why are we so different from EVERY animal if we descend from them? Evolution poses more questions than it gives answers

I've read Chesterton's Everlasting Man, but I am still unsure about the whole thing. The idea that evolution, given enough time, always ends up with some form of humanoid isn't a problem to me; the idea that God directly controls biology and evolution, as in an intervening fashion, I have more of a problem with that. Not completely closed to the idea, but that's something I'd struggle with for a while. I'm not learned enough in biology to make a sound judgement either way, on top of that.

>there is lengthy correction and it is called purgatory

I don't think Christ mentioned Purgatory by name, though.

>there is the 2nd death and it is called hell

So is it forever or a second death? Some Christians think Christ did mean an actual death of the soul, not eternal torment.

>Are really questions that go so much into detail the reason you don't want to be part of the church?

Absolutely not. Whether there's double procession or not makes little difference to me since I can't conceive of either to any degree. That's not the reason.

Very generally, there are issues I cannot agree with, so I would not feel right being part of the Church officially, as I cannot imagine myself telling my confessor that I can't confess to this and that because I cannot think they are sins; I can't join a Church I doubt, especially since joining requires absolute trust in the Church.

That's more the reason.

I don't need excuses for anything.

>>166

Because it makes Christianity look like a to-do list.

How do you find time and room for God in the midst of so many rules?

Christ was against the rule of rules, in my understanding, so I am surprised to find His Church writing up more rules than Leviticus.

>>169

>And what is the exact definition of "ex cathedra" in this context?

>>132

> "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

>Then I am guilty of that. I still don't know where I went wrong, though.

The church doesnt claim to be never wrong.

>I assume there's a big difference between Paradise and Heaven. Did the idea of getting humans to heaven come about as an afterthought? Did we even have souls in Paradise? (Assuming the Unfallen World was more than just Adam and Eve before the Fall.)

Humans did have a soul at all times. I guess we can't be sure about the rest

>the idea that God directly controls biology and evolution, as in an intervening fashion, I have more of a problem with that.

Why ? it all follows the axioms that the universe is built upon and these very axioms are god´s manifested will

>I don't think Christ mentioned Purgatory by name, though.

No. He also never mentioned a "trinity" though

>So is it forever or a second death?

I think that time is a concept that does not aplly to eternity

>Very generally, there are issues I cannot agree with

Are there any beside the dogma? If you just couldn't agree with that you had to become an Orthodox and everything was fine

>>177

>Because it makes Christianity look like a to-do list.

There is no salvation by fulfilling the law. Salvation is a grace bestowed by god

>Christ was against the rule of rules

"I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"

>>183

>I feel like you're the one getting too bogged down in the letter of the law, and not allowing yourself to be open to the Spirit to which it points, but that's just my impression.

It could be, but apart from Christ and Paul, everyone tells me to check the rules and respect them to a T, even when I think they contradict Christ and Paul.

Sometimes I just want to close my eyes and pray. I haven't prayed in weeks because I cannot feel whether God hates me or not. I have my intuition, but since my intuition goes the way everyone says is heretical, I am careful about it.

And the result is I can't pray anymore. I feel unworthy and confused.

I need things to be clear to a certain degree. For instance, when Paul says men must not have long hair, I assume this was not a timeless rule, since we represent Christ with long hair and don't imply any contradictions. There are rules I consider the same way that other Christians consider timeless.

It's hard to let go when you're not sure. I don't suppose I could just leave it all to God, though that's what I want to do.

>>185

>but apart from Christ and Paul, everyone tells me to check the rules and respect them to a T,

>>184

>"I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"

> I cannot feel whether God hates me or not

He does not. He loves you

>>185

>I haven't prayed in weeks because I cannot feel whether God hates me or not. I have my intuition, but since my intuition goes the way everyone says is heretical, I am careful about it.

You do not have to get everything right to know that God loves you. Loving God is a choice, you either choose to accept his love or not. God knows we are not perfect so don't make not being perfect your reason for not accepting his love.

>>187

>so don't make not being perfect your reason for not accepting his love.

That involves rejecting Catholicism. Because anything short of perfection gets you hell, which I find very Old Testament-like in logic: do as you're told, or else…

I crave God and have for years now. There's no question of rejecting His love. I just don't know who to trust; doing research tends to disprove a number of beliefs held by official Churches, or at least challenge them.

I still don't feel ready to pray again. This makes me a sad panda.

>>188

>anything short of perfection gets you hell

This is not Catholic teaching, you are either lying or you have been sorely misled.

>>188

>That involves rejecting Catholicism. Because anything short of perfection gets you hel

NO. Put your trust in Jesus and there will be a way

>>188

Abandoning prayer is not a solution and not being perfect does not get you hell. The last thing you want to do in a situation like this is stop praying.

>>193

this

>>188

There is no good reason not to pray. Nothing in Catholic teaching implies this and, even when people have been rude to you. no one has actually told you this over your months of posting on /christian/, to my knowledge. This is all projection.

>>191

>NO. Put your trust in Jesus and there will be a way

That's all I can do, since I am not getting out of the legalist mess I find every Church to be in.

Bear with me until I find more answers.

>>193

I hear you, but I don't have the heart to pray. I cannot pray if I feel there is either no God or that my faith is a mockery of wishful thinking.

I don't have much faith, so when complications arise, the little I have is endangered readily.

Keep in mind that I come from really, really far away, in spiritual terms. It was most unlikely that I ever got to Christ.

>>197

I didn't mean to say that anybody told me not to pray. I never said that. All I am saying is that I can't pray.

I'm not projecting anything, but it may help to have some context. I'm a person who was literally unable to pray some years ago, simply because I had never prayed in my life, and nobody prays around me, ever. Nothing could be more exotic and retarded than praying, and it took me a long time to pray honestly. I followed Lewis' advice and "faked it till I made it". My first prayers were horrible, I felt stupid. I'd always start with "God, if you exist" to deaden the retardation I felt. Eventually, I figured that unless I thought God might exist, I shouldn't pray at all, so I dropped the first line and from then on praying became more normal. But it was work. I started from less than scratch, since I started as a Christianity-hating atheist. I hope this explains why praying isn't a reflex to me. Nothing Christian is a reflex to me. I was not raised in the faith. I'm doing it all on my own (as far as humans are concerned, I mean).

>>205

>faked it till I made it

I was an agnostic and my first prayers were shit. I might be able to help you. Can you come on IRC, soon, please?

>>184

>Are there any beside the dogma? If you just couldn't agree with that you had to become an Orthodox and everything was fine

There's a lot more. Summed up, it amounts to this: there seems to be a divide between Christ and Church, regarding certain topics. Anything to do with the body strikes me as odd in current tradition and hardly to be found in Scripture; things like self-mortification and general dislike of the body. It's virtually Gnostic heresy in my opinion, the idea that Creation is evil.

>No. He also never mentioned a "trinity" though

Indeed.

>There is no salvation by fulfilling the law. Salvation is a grace bestowed by god

All Christians agree; it's in the details that things change. Catholics will say that, but then, not doing this or that makes you literally "fall out of grace" and your status changes based solely on your deeds.

Protestants also have to dance around on their position.

>"I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"

By giving the law its true meaning. Christ broke many rules of old, so obviously, He didn't come to maintain the laws. Fulfilling seems to have a different meaning here. If He had come to change nothing, He wouldn't have come.

>>288

It was 2:26 am for me at the time, I was already worrying myself sick in bed. I get up at 5:45.

Also, to my great shame, I've never used IRC.

My problem with praying is God. In detail, if I feel like God is not a believable concept, then I can't pray. If I cannot trust what I feel inside, then I cannot pray either, and what I feel inside often conflicts with organised Churches and official dogma, although, so far, it never conflicts with Christ from the Bible.

I appreciate your offer, though. Thank you.

>>320

Why shouldn't there be tension and discomfort in trying to live a more perfect life in God? That seems perfectly believable and reasonable to me.

Likewise why wouldn't the precepts of the True Religion impinge on sexual morality (which I mention because that seems to be your main hang-up) and seek to turn sexuality outwards toward love and unity (marriage and procreation) instead of inwards toward self-service (masturbation and sodomy)?

What is it about any of this that seems unreasonable or difficult to swallow, or conflicts with Christ or the Bible in any inherent way?

>>330

>There is no dislike of the body.

Uh… Let me illustrate:

>hiding bodies

>hurting the body

>demonising the body's functions

>no focus on the body for prayers

I could list more, but this be enough to suggest the Catholic Church and others have a strong dislike of the body. Why would you hide the image of God in which we are made? Why would you want to inflict pain on it, of your own will, not as endured pains from a third party?

I am not familiar with Catholics' bodily methods for anything in terms of prayer or meditation, if there are any, but I certainly know none from the Bible. Other religions have a huge focus on the body, breathing, health, etc, and I find none of that in Catholicism. Orthodox have developed physical exercises to do as they pray the Jesus Prayer, but I am not familiar with what it is they do exactly.

You can't tell me there's no dislike of the body in Catholicism. Consider Lent, and the reason why you're not supposed to eat meat: meat is the result of reproduction. I've never heard that from Christ either, but that's what it is. Meat is perceived as sinful simply for being the result of sexual reproduction. That's a pretty wary attitude towards the carnal world, to say the least.

>>330

>Creation itself is not evil. But it is the devil who rules this world for now.

To what degree, though? Is it the devil who makes beautiful sunsets and waterfalls? Is it limited to humans?

I feel the idea of a Fallen World is taken to extreme considerations. I'm not a naive optimist, but the world could be much, much worse than it is. Consider your everyday life and tell me if it is a total nightmare.

>If you never conflict with your god then you probably made him up, he is an illusion.

I'm not sure how valid a comment this is. Did Christ conflict with God? Yes and no. As I mentioned, I once was an angry atheist, so that was major conflict. For now, I conflict more with intereptations of God than God Himself.

It remains to be seen why my understanding would be an illusion and yours an accurate portrayal of God.

>Lawyering yourself around the scripture and "interpretation" for yourself in your favour. It is called idolatry.

Sorry to burst that bubble but there's no shortcut by which anyone skips intepretation. You resort to someone else's interpretation, but that doesn't make it "the truth", it just spares you doubts and questions, perhaps.

I don't see how you have access to the pure and original text while everyone else has just "their interpretation". I've presented the case that the original tongues often conflict with modern translations. In this case, you are the one "lawyering yourself around the scripture", not me.

>in your favour

Possibly unlike you, I came to Christ not because I thought He was God, but because I thought He was good. I first read the Bible as an atheist, giving Christ zero credit on the face of it; in fact, Christ had negative credit with me originally. Yet His words and deeds had an impact on me, due solely to themselves. When I realised what I had in me matched what He had, I started changing my mind.

as to idolatry, I only know one meaning to this word: making objects which are then worshipped as gods/god. Not like gods, but as gods, as in, the item is thought to be God Himself.

Now, since you and your accurate and real God have conflicts, please share these conflicts, that I may know what a real relationship with God looks like.

>>356

>From the gospels and pauline epistles: the spirit of the law is above the law.

Those are Catholic sources :^)

>From the Catholic Church: I am the law.

Source pls

>>357

>Uh… Let me illustrate:

>hiding bodies

Not because they are bad or ugly or something but because they are too good :^)

>>hurting the body

Suffering leads to patience and helps you understanding the sacrifice of the cross. You do not have to do this but you mmay if you wish.

It is also not done because the body was bad or something, it is done to understand

>demonising the body's functions

No. Some of them are so highly regarded and sacred that you shouldn't belittle them by abusing them.

>>no focus on the body for prayers

What do you mean? Kneeing, making a cross, covering your head, lent etc all involves the body? Also flagella and the likes involve the body.

>Why would you hide the image of God in which we are made?

Decency

>Why would you want to inflict pain on it,

To widen your horizon/understand the suffering/repent

>>358

>To what degree, though?

to any degree that the lord allows

>Is it the devil who makes beautiful sunsets and waterfalls?

No. the devil is not an evil god but a disobidient servant. He cannot create he can only corrupt

> Is it limited to humans?

I… don't know

>>358

>I'm not sure how valid a comment this is

That is the point. We cannot be sure about the stuff we perceive or interpret for ourselves.

> For now, I conflict more with intereptations of God than God Himself.

You interpret the scripture and the nature of god in a way that is convenient to you. Coincidence?

>It remains to be seen why my understanding would be an illusion and yours an accurate portrayal of God.

Because I do not make something up/interpret it myself but put trust in the church which got the authority to do so.

>You resort to someone else's interpretation, but that doesn't make it "the truth"

If "someone else" is the church that got its authority by the lord, then yes, it makes it the truth.

> I've presented the case that the original tongues often conflict with modern translations. In this case, you are the one "lawyering yourself around the scripture", not me.

I am not a linguist so I can't really contribute here

>as to idolatry, I only know one meaning to this word

That is the problem.

Idolatry means that you worship a different god then the one that revealed himself through the prophets and the incarnation.

This can mean worshipping statues etc. Usually it is exactly what I was talking about, lawyering yourself around a topic and interpreting the scriptures in your own favour (which is why we should not do that)

IE a gay that claims that god is ok with pederasty committs idolatry. He does not worshipp the god of the bible who despises gay sex but a god that he made up for himself.

>Now, since you and your accurate and real God have conflicts, please share these conflicts, that I may know what a real relationship with God looks like.

Noted. But I need some time to think about this first. This may take a couple of days or a week or something.

>>370

>Those are Catholic sources :^)

>catholic

>Catholic

The Orthodox would say these are Orthodox sources. Catholicism, to me, just like Orthodox"ism", begins at the Great Schism. Before that, there was only one Church and it was arguable as Catholic as it was Orthodox, potentially more Orthodox than Catholic, for better or worse.

It doesn't matter in my argument, however.

>Source pls

Pic was the source.

>Not because they are bad or ugly or something but because they are too good :^)

I kekked a little.

>Suffering leads to patience and helps you understanding the sacrifice of the cross. You do not have to do this but you mmay if you wish.

I have over 50 scars on my forearm from troubled days. I am not sure I learned patience from them. I learned that physical suffering was nothing compared to the torments of my mind, and that self-harm (or self-mortification) only served to prove to myself that invisible problems were more serious problems than physical pain. Because of this, I am not thoroughly impressed by self-whipping Catholics, though flagellants are another story, though even worse in my opinion. Christ let it be done to Him so you wouldn't.

I understand your point, and it is likely possible that Catholic art does portray the body in its sensuality and not in a bad light. I just fine the line very thin between sacredness and hatred.

>No. Some of them are so highly regarded and sacred that you shouldn't belittle them by abusing them.

The thin pink line.

>What do you mean? Kneeing, making a cross, covering your head, lent etc all involves the body?

This is true, but it's all symbolical, meaning the principles that dictate these gesture are not based on the body as, say, fitness would be. You don't kneel because it has a bodily function that helps breathing or such.

>Decency

Adam and Eve needed no decency. I'm not advocating naturism, however, which I hate above all.

>To widen your horizon/understand the suffering/repent

Maybe I've suffered enough already and don't realise that some may feel like they have something to gain from self-inflicted pain. Pains of the body are weak in my opinion.

>>373

>You interpret the scripture and the nature of god in a way that is convenient to you. Coincidence?

Actually, yes. It's called the "good news", coincidence? Why would the "good news" be that most people are going to Hell? That's a hell of a good news!

More seriously, I believe I am lucid and critical enough not to believe in some interpretation rather than another simply because it suits me better. If anything, it is quite the contrary: I tend to give more credit to the stuff that annoys me, the same way negative criticism of myself will be heavier than positive criticism. Same thing here. What I argue for and what I personally believe aren't always the same thing.

My interpretation isn't based on my wishes, however. That's not a very serious way to analyse anything.

>Because I do not make something up/interpret it myself but put trust in the church which got the authority to do so.

The thing is, the people whose interpretation you trust are human beings. I am a human being too. I could ask how you choose which expert to trust, but we both know the answer: you choose those whose conclusions are convenient to you. Coincidence?

I do not believe in authority that merely means being selected by people who have no expertise in the domain for which they selected someone. Who does the research matters little compared to what the research is about, how it was done, and what the results are. That's what matters.

>If "someone else" is the church that got its authority by the lord, then yes, it makes it the truth.

That's where I can't follow Catholicism. Being led by the Holy Spirit doesn't teach you Aramaic.

>I am not a linguist so I can't really contribute here

I am.

>Idolatry means that you worship a different god then the one that revealed himself through the prophets and the incarnation.

I'm suspicious of this definition. Not one of us has exactly the same God in your sense. Nobody imagines God the same way, and we all fall short of what He really is like: does that make all of us idolaters? Of course not. We're spiritually short-sighted, but our focus is on the same thing, like a bunch of moles staring at the sun.

>Usually it is exactly what I was talking about, lawyering yourself around a topic and interpreting the scriptures in your own favour (which is why we should not do that)

Some Protestants will tell me the same thing to say Mary isn't special and shouldn't be prayed too. The problem here is that you take your interpretation as certain and reject everything else. Your interpretation, even if it was given to you by the Church, remains an interpretation. Maybe more learned people developed it, but it remains an interpretation, and you chose it, due to your own interpretation of what to trust. I put value in the brain God gave me and I am unashamed to go against any academics out there, being one myself.

>He does not worshipp the god of the bible who despises gay sex but a god that he made up for himself.

Arguable. The God who hates shellfish, etc. One must be careful about laws, especially Old Testament laws.

>Noted. But I need some time to think about this first. This may take a couple of days or a week or something.

Sounds like your relationship with God isn't all that conflicted. Or maybe it's overly conflicted? Either way, I'm a patient man and I'll read whatever you have to say about your relationship with God.

>>424

>Did you build that strawman yourself or did you get help?

That was more of a joke. I did respond to your questions, though. Maybe not the second one. I'll do it now.

>Why shouldn't there be tension and discomfort in trying to live a more perfect life in God?

>Matthew 11:30

>For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.

I don't assume automatically that finding God suddenly makes your life a battlefield. As I said in other places, some people like to substitute God with efforts and pain; the very discipline becomes the religion, and God is barely needed anymore. It's like a fitness freak who gets up at 5 every morning, only eats what he has chosen from a list, and thus feels the burden of his choice and derives great satisfaction from it, as a man who climbs over the Everest would. The sheer pain of the accomplishment is a trophy in itself.

>Likewise why wouldn't the precepts of the True Religion impinge on sexual morality

It would, as it does on everything else, though not primarily, and it remains to be seen what sexual immorality even is.

>(which I mention because that seems to be your main hang-up)

I must have posted 30 threads, not one of them was about that, yet you and many others keep thinking this was my favourite topic. Not my fault if Trinitarian theology and linguistics keep your attention less than this one topic.

>and seek to turn sexuality outwards toward love and unity (marriage and procreation)

Only you make these mutually exclusive.

>instead of inwards toward self-service (masturbation and sodomy)?

Extremely arguable for a variety of reasons. Playing chess against a computer is also self-service as it does nothing but satisfy my intellect. Watching movies, same, surfing, same, anything you enjoy, same.

>What is it about any of this that seems unreasonable or difficult to swallow, or conflicts with Christ or the Bible in any inherent way?

The fact that Christ mentions none of it, does not have sermons about it, that everything I ever heard about it came from humans long afterwards. Abusive interpretations, while not necessarily proving an opposite view, are not something I trust blindly.

As to the one topic - my monomiani, as you guys would have it - I think it is highly important because I find it a sinful shame to keep so many people from Christ because of a belief that may not even have its basis in Christ, but human psychology and human traditions. That is the heart of it to me and the reason why I care about it. The fact that it tends to make Christians focus their faith on the wrong axis intended is also important to me. I'm tired of Christians believing that their faith is measured by the number of days they spent without rubbing one out.

I hope this explanation satisfies you.

>>551

>I don't see that the Catholic Church does this or expects this of the laity though.

Agreed. Truth be told, I am not very familiar with actual Catholics, despite being around them a lot. I am not sure they all go to mass every Sunday, and I doubt they always confess before the Eucharist. Either way, I'm thinking of the more extreme ones.

>>551

>I believe in Natural Law so I think morality is objective and comprehensible and extends to sexual intercourse as much as any other department of human action. I don't obsess over it, as people like to accuse conservative Catholics, I just take it as a matter of fact and principle.

So do I, yet we arrive at very different conclusions.

>My apologies. Going way back this seemed to be the main thing that kept you from accepting Catholicism, and appears to still be.

It's more of a prominent issue within the same sort of framework. Reading the CCC, it was what stood out as something I could not accept, intellectually, spiritually, even scripturally. It remains so today. It's not that I'm obsessed with that topic, it's that, since it keeps me from full commitment, I do focus on the obstacle. When I focus less on it, as I do nowadays, it means I am less interested in joining the Church. Interest in the obstacle is truly an interest in the destination that obstacle keeps me from. It saddened me a lot that nobody on /christian/ understood that and kept shitting on me for trying to understand, as if they were ever so proud of not falling for what they consider a sin I fall to, whereas they should have encouraged me to follow their path, if they thought it was truly the right one. Some people got capslock mad; I have never seen anyone get this pissed off at anyone else on the chans, and that's saying something.

>While I admire your interest and dedicated study of Christianity, all the theology books and scholarship in the world are just a hill of beans if they don't lead you to actual spiritual growth.

I fully agree. This used to make me despair quite a lot, seeing as books are mostly my only resource. People prove less reliable. How do you improve spiritually without books? What else is there?

>Demonstrate how unitive love in Catholic marriage is mutually exclusive with procreation.

I'm not sure that is what I meant, since I have no idea how to respond to this. I think I meant that human sexual behaviour within marriage doesn't have to be solely for procreation purposes; it is one part of it but not the whole purpose of it. It is natural for humans to have sexual needs, and in today's age, you can't just pop out baby after baby. You could in the days of the Bible, but were we to do so day, it wouldn't work, for many reasons.

This topic is one of the most ludicrous I've come across from Catholics.

>Masturbation is ipso facto an abrogation of the natural end of the sexual faculty for the sole end of self-service, this is inherent to the act.

Again, you assume sex's only purpose is procreation, when it has many others, procreation being one of them. God's biological designs make good use of as many things as possible: female mammaries serve not only to feed the baby but also, before that, to attract a male, for instance. So with sex. I tend to believe sins are not healthy.

>I would agree that monomania about sex is unhealthy, but I don't think the Church does that.

To be blunt, were I to follow the Church's doctrine to a T, my faith would become a sexual monomania of lunatic proportions. I'd end up seeing tits and asses in every cloud and my whole mental life would be nothing but lust. All concerns for God would be pushed out by imagined titties and legs and flat bellies. I understand we are not all "tempted" the same way, but I don't want to become a slave to sex, one way or the other: either by becoming dependent on it, or by putting my whole spiritual life around the act of not yielding to sex. Both extremes are negative in my opinion, as neither gets you closer to God. Perfect moderation is better than absolute abstinence in this case, says I.

>As I've said elsewhere, chastity is one of those things you actually have to try to experience in order to fully understand. I can't explain it satisfactorily in a forum post and at some point we have to just put down our books and try these things. I'm glad that you enjoy studying and discussing religion, but I hope you work up the ability one day to actually live a spiritual life instead of just reading about it, you can do it.

There's a real argument to be made as to whether sex can never be spiritual, but I won't go into this lightly. Maybe we should have a thread about this, although I'd rather not get into it too soon. It's the risky zone and I'd rather not anger the whole board again.

I appreciate that we can discuss these things, though, that is precious to me and the reason why I'm here. I don't mind that we disagree. It's healthy. It means we don't stagnate.

>>573

>Because it means that not all go to hell

Would you cheer up at that? "Not all of you are going to suffer for all eternity!

I'd raise and frown my eyebrows at the same time, and get very concerned that I or my friends or family might be tortured forever. That is no good news for me. Also, it was never implied that prior to Christ, everyone went to Hell. Since this wasn't the common belief, a news that actually brings it about isn't good news at all.

>I didn't "choose" certain dogmas or interpretations I follow, I chose the Church because it islegitimately the true church.

I am suggesting that this is an interpretation. Protestants have another interpretation, for instance. You could argue Mother Mary also has another interpretation, if her apparitions are really her.

Sometimes I wonder what the Church's status really is, because I can see how legitimacy can come in two ways: either you are the Church because you do God's work, or you are de facto because you have the title.

>What languages?

Linguistics. I only speak two languages on a native level, but I have studied linguistics for years. The mechanics of language, if you want, how we make it work and the differences between them, how they evolve, how we use them. Pragmatism, sociolinguistics, etc. It wasn't a primary field of study for me but I studied for 8 years, so I have a good general knowledge of the field. I can explain why irregular verbs exist, for example.

>I simply have to because there can only be one truth in the end

So do I, this is the nature of truth. I never blamed Catholics for being categorical about truth and non-truths, as I believe a relativist approach to truth undoes truth and makes it irrelevant. I just don't get to the same truth in the end.

>I simply can't help it. I can only do the best I actually can do, so if I'm wrongI can't really be hold accountable to choosing wrongly, do I?

Indeed. Please realise that I could say exactly the same thing, and in fact, it's what I say to. I tend to believe we're both OK because Christ did not ask us to study and find the truth ourselves, but to have faith and answer the call we feel in our hearts. Christ didn't say, "Get thee to a school and understand all things until you know I spoke the truth." He said to have faith in Him and to love God. We both do this, and our monkey brains differ in other things. I'm still questioning things, and I change my mind often. I evolve, for better or worse. What matters, I hope, is that my intention behind all this is to get closer to God and do His will, trusting that His will is the best anyone could want.

>Shellfish was forbidden because of hygienic reasons and I am sure that you are perfectly aware of that.

Absolutely. My point is that some rules are situational: for a place and a time, and others are for all places and all time. Shellfish is the former, loving your neighbour is the latter.

There are rules some Christians think are for all places and all time even if they're nowhere in the Bible THE GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE that I think are situational. Paul's condemnation of long hair, for instance, is situational. Shellfish is a good example of a rule in the Bible that Christians shouldn't feel bound to. It helps when Paul makes it clearer, but Paul does go quite a bit into the idea that if you reach the same goal beyond the laws, you can drop all of them, or something not very far from that.

(cont.)

>>573

>I know a certain book that makes a statement regarding that :^)

I believe Christ very vaguely states that all the old laws regarding that should be maintained. reminder that THE GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE is not in the list. The way Christ responds to it without giving it further emphasis seems to suggest He doesn't think the stuff is worth spending too much time over. It remains to tell which law was situational and which wasn't, covetting your neighbour's wife was very much more situational than it'd be today, for reasons I could get into at a later time.

>Because it is mentioned in the OT and Jesus validated this again?

Not the GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE.

>If someone is "kept away" from the faith by the fact that we acknowledge that masturbation isn't good then he is a false believer to start with.

It remains very arguable whether this is a sin to begin with. And that is my whole point. Such emphasis on such a vague notion shouldn't prevent people from coming to God. It is much worse, I believe, that people should drop the whole Christian religion based on such a loose notion.

Everyone says I'm obsessed with this GHASTLY YADDA YADDA, but look at /christian/: they have whole threads about it! There's even one about admitting when you fall for that particular sin. I've never made a thread about it, I've mentioned it a shitload of times because in 80% of the cases, I was responding to someone who mentioned it first.

Fapping shouldn't stand between man and God, that is why I believe, especially when actual basis for this belief is rather thin. It should be no surprise that I think humans have a natural fear and disdain for their own sexuality (too often blamed on religion), since even doctors a century ago thought THE GHASTLY SELF-ABUSE could lead to illnesses and even death. Nothing religious in there, yet actual scientists believed this nonsense. I think it comes from humans' arrogance, not faith or religion, but I also believe it made its way into organised religion. That is why I argue about this: I think the origin of this notion are not of God, so I argue against it like the heresy I think it is. Anything that keeps humans from God is a thing to look upon with suspicion.

Humans don't need any help to feel bad about their sex lives. I can testify in court that I felt the guilt without even being religious, at a time when I didn't even think of God at all, and was completely neutral in my Godlessness.

>>664

>Practice contemplative practices and regular prayer.

That sounds simple, but I never really get the sense that praying makes me improve in anything. If anything, it's like a break from living.

>Look into Lectio Divina and pray the Rosary every day. Even if you have intellectual difficulty or blocks in doing so, just do it anyway. Read Catholic spiritual authors like Garrigou-Lagrange, Meister Eckhart, and St. John of the Cross.

Shame to say, but I don't know all the required prayers for the rosary, just Our Father and Hail Mary. Nothing I can't work on, though.

I have a book by Eckhart, but from what I gathered, he's about as heretical as I am, isn't he?

> don't see that just because I view sex as finding natural meaning in procreation, I therefore must deny the validity and licitness of other subordinate ends and meanings that it may acquire in seeking this end. What is so ludicrous about that?

My point is that if sex's only purpose is procreation, then one-night stands are OK if a babby is maed, and we both don't think so. Sex is for couples to enjoy, and couples are for babies. Sex is one element that keeps a couple together, along with other things, and the result of a good couple is a family. That is how I view the whole thing. Don't be shocked, but if I tried the Catholic way with my partner, we would have tremendous problems and our relationship would not survive (fun fact: she was raised Catholic, the hardcore sort - she frowns at me like I'm a witch when I suggest Protestants have some good points). We both want a huge family and she wants all the kids baptised, to which I have no objection (so far). I like to think of a couple as a way to get everyone's needs fulfilled, the way God promised us they would be, pointing out that birds had what they needed and all that.

If humans had a mating-season and only felt sexual desire then, I would agree with you, but it so happens that we are not animals. Or very special animals.

(cont)

>>664

>I addressed this above but I don't deny that sex can acquire other purposes and effects, just that procreation is the primary one to which it is naturally directed and achieves fullness of meaning and fullness of participation in God.

The idea that every time I feel like having sex, I should be thinking of babies bothers me on more than one level. I do want children, but that thought is a million miles away from my sexual thoughts, and I don't know a single person who combines the two, or even animals. One act leads, sometimes, to the other, but one thought certainly doesn't lead to the other!

>To be blunt, you don't know that because you haven't even tried, or seem not to have anyway.

I have tried. It's what happens.

> but the whole point was that they relied on God through every failure and attributed to God every success. *That* is what living as a Catholic is supposed to be about, and what Catholic teaching and doctrine direct us towards.

So whenever you fail, it's your fault, and whenever you succeed, it's God's grace. I understand how you think this is a good thing, but I personally feel it is not. If we are responsible for our acts, we are responsible for both good and bad, even if God is the inspiration for good. What's wrong with being proud of your own success? I feel this is necessary for being a good person, to have a modicum of self-esteem. Nothing very good comes from hating yourself or thinking bad things of yourself (love your neighbour like you love yourself).

>>735

>I never really get the sense that praying makes me improve in anything.

Which is why I recommended contemplative practices like Lectio Divina. Dialectical oral prayer is good and we all ought to do it, but it is not the only dimension of prayer. I recommend this for you since you seem to have an interest in mysticism.

>I have a book by Eckhart, but from what I gathered, he's about as heretical as I am, isn't he?

I'll be honest and say I've read more about him than I have by him, but to the best of my knowledge he was investigated by the Inquisition and was not convicted of heresy, in spite of the fact that the Franciscan inquisitors had a vested interest in doing so.

I have stuff to do this afternoon so I gotta go. I'll try to respond at more length when I return.

>>664

>When I decided to become a Catholic I decided I would swallow the whole pill

Because, for all I know, you can't have it any other way, as per Church doctrine.

>even the parts that grated against my intellect and intuition to some degree, and I don't regret it.

I'd be very interested in knowing which.

>For me personally the big difficulty was reconciling Semitic OT conceptions of God with the patristic and scholastic theology that I found so beautiful and convincing.

OK.

How did you resolve it? I resolved it by assuming OT stories are mostly stories, sometimes fiction, sometimes projections (one story has God killing people, another version of the same story has Satan doing it).

>I'm just asking you to do the same or at least try to do the same, howsoever your circumstances may differ from mine.

And I am trying, it just so happens that my path is different because my findings aren't the same and my reflection isn't the same either.

I really wish you'd get a trip, because I recognise you from the images. I'll remember you more easily with a name.

Thanks for responding to all these.

>>737

An addendum re: Eckhart.

He did die before the inquisitorial verdict could be made, but if he was in fact a heretic he would have been posthumously been declared one, as was the case for Pope Honorius and Origen.

As I said, I'll try to respond to the rest of your points when I have time. God bless.

>>737

>Which is why I recommended contemplative practices like Lectio Divina. Dialectical oral prayer is good and we all ought to do it, but it is not the only dimension of prayer. I recommend this for you since you seem to have an interest in mysticism.

Is that when you read the Bible slowly as in meditation? I confess this doesn't attract me at all, since I wouldn't even know which translation to do this with. I like mysticism, but I can't get my head or heart behind this particular practice.

>I have stuff to do this afternoon so I gotta go. I'll try to respond at more length when I return.

Thanks, whenever you want. I consult the board daily.

I may not pray too often, but I spend hours a day conversing with Christians: that has to count for something!

>>735

>Sex is for couples to enjoy, and couples are for babies. Sex is one element that keeps a couple together, along with other things, and the result of a good couple is a family. That is how I view the whole thing.

Fine, explain to me how Catholic teaching on sex contradicts this understanding of yours, because I'm not seeing it.

As I've been at pains to state, procreation being the *primary* end of sex does not negate any and every other possible positive effect or purpose. Have you even been reading my posts?

>The idea that every time I feel like having sex, I should be thinking of babies bothers me on more than one level.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is why people get upset with you. Catholic doctrine nowhere states or even mildly implies that you are to "think of babies" when you have sex. Seriously, what the fuck man?

It's like you're intentionally trying to interpret every sentence in the Catechism in the most absurd and ridiculous manner possible.

You are to be open to procreation, and not intentionally obstruct it, whenever you have sex with your spouse. That's the Catholic position as best I understand it. Nothing about that implies that you have to associate babies with sexual arousal.

For fuck's sake man.

I felt like responding at least to this point of yours, I'll get around to the rest if you're really interested, but I have to entertain family this evening.

>>891

>Fine, explain to me how Catholic teaching on sex contradicts this understanding of yours, because I'm not seeing it.

Catholicism forbids any sexual act that doesn't end in a baby. This is an untenable position if one were to act strictly upon it (are hugs OK? are unfinished BJ's OK? etc.).

>Catholic doctrine nowhere states or even mildly implies that you are to "think of babies" when you have sex. Seriously, what the fuck man?

You obviously missed the point. A Catholic person is supposed to only have an orgasm when trying to make a baby. That is what I meant, not som sick pedo shit.

>You are to be open to procreation, and not intentionally obstruct it, whenever you have sex with your spouse. That's the Catholic position as best I understand it. Nothing about that implies that you have to associate babies with sexual arousal.

It kinda does, since babies are the only reason why you should be having sex for Catholicism as defined by the CCC. I'm not suggesting some occult pedophile dark shit where you're supposed to get aroused thinking about babies in a sexual way. I'm only saying we are at a level of technology and society that we can separate marital sex and procreation. You can have either without the other.

>I felt like responding at least to this point of yours, I'll get around to the rest if you're really interested, but I have to entertain family this evening.

I'm always interested!

Sorry that I made you upset. It wasn't my intention and I apologise for wording my questions and remarks in ways that are easily misunderstood.

reminder that we need to stop secularism and have to reintroduce the church to state matters and responsibility.

http://www.opusdei.org/en-us/article/topic-15-the-church-and-the-state/

>The Church’s mission in this area is not limited to setting forth ethical guidelines. Rather it entails making clear the implications of the Gospel for social life, in accord with the integral truth about man, and the conduct this entails, while urging people to make it a reality in the world.

I never thought I'd see the day that I'd come rushing to the side of a trip fag, one that I stood opposed to in the past as well. But here we are.

Oolf, I think what you are running into is something that I have, myself also ran into. The simple problem is: church doctrine seems run head smack into a wall in so many places.

I fancy myself a philosopher (Granted, professionally, I'm a scientist, but that isn't my passion), and funny enough, my pursuit of philosophy lead me smack dab into Christ in college. I experienced the same thing I imagine so many Greeks or scholars of the ancient world, where you are seeking out Truth in the most meaningful way you can, and then you are exposed to the Gospel, and you just go "Wow…this is it. This is what I have been waiting for. This is what everyone has been waiting for." Every line just resonates with potency. That there is truth dripping from it. Reading the words causes an incredible spiritual awakening. This is it. Christ is it. He is the answer.

And I studied the Gospel intently. To this day, I still comb through them, reading several translations, looking for the most I can discern. It blows away any and all things ever written. It's like a puzzle box that keeps shifting, revealing new things every time you hold it.

And I learned, very early on, and to this day is the one thing that I cannot deny, and find trouble with anyone who does deny, that Christ = Truth. In every meaningful way. In fact I find it exactly equal. So much, that if you discover something to be true, it will be reflected in Christ. I have never been disappointed on this. And I believe I never will be.

But I found, as I applied things I learned, I came to conclusions that put me (often violently so) at odds with institutions. Mostly Catholicism (No, I do not think a work can ever justify you before God. The most grand thing ever made by human hand is nothing but dust and rock, a facsimile of form that time will erode away, and likewise the greatest thing you can do for your fellow man can never affect them beyond the temporary, except for perhaps sharing the Gospel. But even then, thinking this would excuse you is profane in itself, hence why I take affront with the idea of "issued penance", rather than a concept I call "emergent penance", a protestant would call it the "grieving of the Holy Spirit", but we can get to that later). And it bothered me tremendously. I do find myself in a position that a Baptist might find themselves in, but even that runs into problems.

One thing that is a direct corollary of Christ as perfect Truth, is that He is eternal, and his commands are found to all humans, anywhere, now and as to be seen. That any edict then, must be able to be arrived at, and accomplished, at any time. This was the first thing that made me hesitant with Catholicism. The rituals. What if I was a man in the arctic who discovered a Bible, never to be able to set foot within a Catholic church. What does the Catholic Church say? I get a shrug and a "Well I guess you're fucked." because you could not attend mass. And apparently mortal sin (another thing I cannot stand, considering Christ seemed pretty clear on this one) has an expiration limit (I was told a year more or less. Where did this time frame come from?).

I can never accept a situation where you can contrive someone to just go "Well gee, I guess you are all fucked now." Claims of necessity seem dangerous. What if a man meets a woman and they cannot reach a Catholic institution, or any institution, for that matter? I call this the "problem of being stuck in the arctic". Any doctoral claim must pass it (specifically doctoral claim, by any church). But that too is another subject for another time.

>>2700

I am sure someone will tell me I'm wrong in interpretation of doctrine, and I may be. But the problem is, the lack of necessity has a word, it's called "arbitrary". To what end then, do I take part in something that is arbitrary? Why do it at all in that case except for some benefit of convenience or temporarility? Which I don't think is bad at all (the problem comes from when it is claimed this is necessary, something Christ specifically warned against, religious institutions making impossible demands and trying to slam the door of heaven in the face of believers). This might sound strange, but I do believe in transubstantiation fully, along with other Catholic beliefs. How? That is another discussion for another time.

At this point, I am probably knee deep in heresy. Which is what puts me so far into odds with others. Even though some of these very ideas I gleaned from Catholic theologians and philosophers .

The other problem for me came from the sheer inconstancy (I used to call it "two faced-ness", but I don't want to ascribe malice to it) I ran into with other Catholics. They loved my explanations (apologetics, as it's called) when fielded to crush atheist inquiries or others who doubted Christ. But then, once on the inside, suddenly doctrine no longer had to be held to the exact standards I just used to disprove ideas held against it! Christ put it so perfectly (as He only can) in the single phrase Live by the sword, die by the sword. You cannot hold something as true to disprove an opposing idea, then ignore it to prove the truth of the idea you just defended it with. I am sure I cannot explain that any clearer as to why that is a huge problem.

This is the tip of the iceberg with this, as I have no doubt, you too understand. I see how much you have written. I now realize I too am writing much.

It's funny how you bring up sexuality. I too fully agree with many of your assessments in terms of the intent behind it. I am sure the mechanics are different for us in conclusions. That said, at one point you put it perfectly, "You cannot just let out so many kids in the modern world." People cannot support themselves right now in this economy, now you expect them to just start cranking a kid out every year? The kids will die of starvation or neglect. This can't possibly be the correct conclusion.

If we are to say then, "Well, then just don't have sex." The practicality of that is not "low", not even "miniscule". It does not exist with the great population. The answer is "none". So we come to a situation, "Well you can seek penance for it when they mess up." But now we are anticipating it. We expect it. So then what? Do we tell them "Just feel bad about it later" ? In that case we call into question if we view it as sin at all if we tacitly expect it! If we they counter with "Well Christ said it was going to be hard to follow him", then what are all these churches for? Why do we keep allowing everyone to join up, without first telling them "just so you know, you have almost no hope, you are fucked and will never succeed at our impossible demands." (Digression: this is what is already mentioned, Matthew 23:4, reading that rocked me). Do we do it because we like the collection plate money? It would be easy to fix. If the interpretation of scripture justifying apostolic succession is true, then they can let loose these requirements and they will be let loose in heaven. Why don't they then? And here again we see an example of the sort of inconsistency "two faced-ness". Something justifies one thing but then doesn't justify another. Even more digression, I use these as examples of conflicting views, not that they are incorrect views. I firmly believe none of us are capable at all of our own salvation through non-sinning, only by the infinite love of Christ. Hence why I said, protestant in that regard

>>2701

It's funny how much you bring up masturbation, because it's dismissed as such a little thing, but I think in this tiny example, it is the perfect microcosm of the entire issue of everything else. If you can resolve that one issue, you can resolve every other issue brought up. To which I find the same exact sentiment you stated at one point. Right now the entirety of the truth of Christ is put off to people because they can't wrap their head around why they might as well pack it up and never even try because they are screwed for rubbing one out. Or as the previous example, the Catholic population would cease to populate in a single generation if everyone followed the doctrine to the letter. Catholicism would disappear in western nations instantaneously (because no one would be reproducing at all). Since that is where it's anchored, you could argue disappear all together.

I could go on and on and on, as you have somewhat. But I think you see my point. What I want to transmit to you right now, is that you are not alone, but the opposite. Do you know where the title for C.S. Lewis book "Mere Christianity" came from? Because he wanted to explain what it meant to be "merely a Christian".

It was this fundamental belief, this fundamental fact, of Christ as the perfect and ultimate Truth that I feel leads you here. The proof for me was in how you can prove everything written in the Gospels as attribute to Christ, without any appeal to further scripture. It is my life mission at this point. This is another thing: apologetics can ONLY be done as long as you accept this fact. Of Christ as Truth. Every single thing, including the need of Christ Himself, can be demonstrated without an appeal to scripture. And live by the sword, die by the sword. I cannot abide by doctrine which fails these same test that prove Christ.

And to close it out, I wanted to say one last thing, a confession of sorts. In the past I have been violently aggressive towards you. Why? I am not really sure, I cannot remember. Maybe because it's a tripcode, or maybe we disagreed with something, I don't know. But I don't like that it happened. The hardest thing in my life has been stopping aggression towards others. I no doubt said unfair or unjust things to you, for which I apologize sincerely. Consider this long, ridiculously long and poorly edited, post proof of my contrition. Agree or not, a sign that I care enough to spend the last few hours belting it out.

Pray the Holy Spirit guides you, well…us, and that we are lead down the path Christ desires most for us, whatever path and whatever Church that may be, either a visible one that is established or of the invisible Church of all believers. Go in peace, brother.

also, check those sweet dubs on my first post

>ctrl+f

>no conclavist, sede, sspx, vatican 2 discussion

vital issues are vital

>>2369

Thanks, I missed this when it was originally posted.

>>3042

You are free to either discuss them here or open a new thread for each.

Sedes are schismatic, SSPX is part of the Church, Vat II is valid.

I'm not sure if it was said before, but do the Catholics here believe in ex cathedra? (Which is when a pope speaks with the authority of a pope, as opposed to simply giving his opinions.)

If the pope says, "Enabling homosexual marriage is ex cathedra," is the entire church obligated to switch positions and support the pope?

>>5148

He'd cause a schism, also he cannot change Dogma. This is impossible

>>5148

>I'm not sure if it was said before, but do the Catholics here believe in ex cathedra? (Which is when a pope speaks with the authority of a pope, as opposed to simply giving his opinions.)

You have to if you are a Catholic. What you are talking about is called papal infallibility and here's our thread about it:

>>1561

>If the pope says, "Enabling homosexual marriage is ex cathedra," is the entire church obligated to switch positions and support the pope?

No. The pope is not able to change dogma. If he did he would commit heresy, a pope commiting heresy ceases to be pope, the announcement is invalid and a proper pope elected.