Ask a Catholic

[CatholicCrusader]

Yes.  This forum needs to be exorcised!  ;)

[PickelledEggs]

Yes.  This forum needs to be exorcised!

But seriously...

Sent from your mom

[CatholicCrusader]

Yes I do. 

[CatholicCrusader]

the song is both the intuition and the experience of the search for the unique beyond every veil. He too is likewise fascinated searrching for him or her whom he has chosen - one who is all for him and irreplaceable, this discovery of Yahweh, the fierce God as the spouse, is not entirely new in the Bible. The prophets relied on their conjugal experience to speak about the covenant of God with his people (Hos 1:2) Rather, they used the words of human love to express their special relationship with God. One day, this relationship was to be offered to all Israel.

'(Christian Community Bible, Catholic Pastoral edition, p.1051)

Because this has just come to mind, I actually have a question for you...

...how does the RCC, which is mildly sexually puritan and repressive in thought (though to be fair, less so than certain other sects) deal with the themes presented in the Song of Solomon? Is poetry erotica in the Bible not considered at all out of place or do they adopt the view that it is all allegory?

And assuming it is allegory (as many churches I know do)... does the church not find the thought of describing Christ/God's love for the Church/His People in such bluntly, though beautiful, sexual themes a bit... interesting... for a God that was so restrictive on sex for anything other than reproduction or business?

How do you reconcile a book of the bible going all into the details of sex (or more accurately, erotic love) and yet at the same time the RCC is all about trying to keep people from having premarital sex? It's like saying, "Here is the greatest thing in the world... I want you to never enjoy it until we give you the command!"... to me that just seems cruel and quite improbable to work.

Didn't mean to make this so long, but I kept on adding thoughts as I was writing.

The Church views the song of Solomon also as the language of the heart and Gods relationship with our souls.  Ill answer your question further later if I can hopefully.

[SGOS]

'(Christian Community Bible, Catholic Pastoral edition, p.1051)
The Church views the song of Solomon also as the language of the heart and Gods relationship with our souls.  Ill answer your question further later if I can hopefully.

What everyone here really wants to know is how often to you crap and fart?

[CatholicCrusader]

I think on average I have two successful bowel movements a day.   I'm guessing very roughly an average between five to ten farts.

(If this answer is sufficient, please press the red  like switch located in the lower lefthand corner.  Gratias tibi ago)

[SGOS]

I think on average I have two successful bowel movements a day.   I'm guessing very roughly an average between five to ten farts.

You finally said something that is believable.

[CatholicCrusader]

The founding Fathers knew better than to leave a constitution without an interpreter. They set up a Supreme Court for that purpose. And do you think that the all-wise God would be less careful in a matter of even greater importance where the salvation of millions of immortal souls is at stake?

Most assuredly not. He, too, set up a "Supreme Court," to guide and teach His people, and to interpret the law for them. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to deliver His people, the Israelites, from the Egyptians, and to rule over them during their 40 years of wandering in the desert towards the promised land.

In the Book of Numbers, Chap. 27, verses 12-23, as the time of his death approaches, Moses asks God to "provide a man that may be over this multitude and may lead them out, or bring them in: lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd. And the Lord said to him: Take Joshua- a man in whom is the Spirit - and put thy hand upon him ... that all the congregation of the children of Israel may hear him... he and all the children of Israel with him,And in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses was repeating and expounding to the Israelites the ordinances given on Mt. Sinai, with other precepts not expressed before...And thou shall come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time.

And thou shalt ask of them. And they shall shew thee the truth of the judgment. "And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee, according to His law.

And thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God (i.e., the high priest), and the decree of the judge: that man shall die . . ." --GodAnd the footnote, Douay Bible, to this Ordinance states: "Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the church guides of the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal, all controversies relating to the law, promising that they should not err therein; and surely he has not done less for the church guides of the New Testament."quote author=Hakurei Reimu

k=topic=5718.msg1032203#msg1032203 date=1405826736]

[Why do you think that you're any more qualified to answer questions about catholicism than the infamous catholic idiot with the user-name 'Eve' was?

What made the Catholic church qualified to choose the first biblical canon?

Why should a protestant trust a papal definitive and summary pronouncement of scripture over any live, evolving scholarly discussion of said scripture?

Maybe I'm not qualified and you know more about it than me.  If if that is the case then how much more lucky am I that I get to learn more.

We believe the Catholic Church chose the correct Canon because we believe that the Holy Spirit Guides the ecumenical councils.  God set up a supreme court.

[GSOgymrat]

I could never be Catholic because I don't have an ingrained sense of guilt. Many Catholics seem to feel guilty about everything and I get the impression they see suffering as noble or admirable. When you look at the saints they are all canonized for keeping their faith while experiencing suffering or a horrific demise. I had a Catholic friend tell me when everything was going well and he had a sense of joy it was followed by guilt because deep down he felt that he didn't deserve happiness and how could he be happy when there are so many people suffering in the world. I can tell you such a thought has never entered my brain.

I think this perspective on life is a major difference between Christians and me. Christians believe in original sin, that people are inherently flawed, that life in the physical world is essentially corrupting and only through accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can people be truly content. I don't believe that at all, in the core of what I am I don't believe that. I don't believe people are inherently flawed, I don't believe the world is essentially bad, I don't believe life is a pass/fail test followed by a punishment or reward and if people need to be saved it is other people who should do the saving. It is a value difference that cannot be reconciled and is why I will never have "Christian values."

[CatholicCrusader]

I could never be Catholic because I don't have an ingrained sense of guilt. Many Catholics seem to feel guilty about everything and I get the impression they see suffering as noble or admirable. When you look at the saints they are all canonized for keeping their faith while experiencing suffering or a horrific demise. I had a Catholic friend tell me when everything was going well and he had a sense of joy it was followed by guilt because deep down he felt that he didn't deserve happiness and how could he be happy when there are so many people suffering in the world. I can tell you such a thought has never entered my brain.

I think this perspective on life is a major difference between Christians and me. Christians believe in original sin, that people are inherently flawed, that life in the physical world is essentially corrupting and only through accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can people be truly content. I don't believe that at all, in the core of what I am I don't believe that. I don't believe people are inherently flawed, I don't believe the world is essentially bad, I don't believe life is a pass/fail test followed by a punishment or reward and if people need to be saved it is other people who should do the saving. It is a value difference that cannot be reconciled and is why I will never have "Christian values."

I don't believe in Selfflagellation  or seeking out suffering.  But I do believe no pain no gain.  To become an Olympic gymnast or any type of Olympic athlete requires much suffering and self discipline.

The most important lessons I have learned in life took place through suffering.  If it weren't for all of my flaws and suffering , I wouldn't be as a compassionate or understanding towards other people that are going through similar grief or trials.

Life is full of suffering and disappointments and in the end you get sick,  you fall apart, you lose loved ones and relationships that you treasure, and your die.  Since there is so much suffering in the world, the people who have a positive attitude about suffering are going to be the most strongest to the end and and have the best health provided that they aren't seeking out suffering  or inflicting it intentionally upon themselves but accepting it when it comes.

[Bibliofagus]

Hi. I have a question.

[GSOgymrat]

But I do believe no pain no gain.  To become an Olympic gymnast or any type of Olympic athlete requires much suffering and self discipline.

The most important lessons I have learned in life took place through suffering.  If it weren't for all of my flaws and suffering , I wouldn't be as a compassionate or understanding towards other people that are going through similar grief or trials.

Life is full of suffering and disappointments and in the end you get sick,  you fall apart, you lose loved ones and relationships that you treasure, and your die.  Since there is so much suffering in the world, the people who have a positive attitude about suffering are going to be the most strongest to the end and and have the best health provided that they aren't seeking out suffering  or inflicting it intentionally upon themselves but accepting it when it comes.

I agree.

[leo]

The Pope is probably the most influential leader in the world.  Not only is he considered the shepherd of over a billion people but even those who  are not Catholic listen to him when he admonishes the evil in our world.  I can't tell you how often I go to open my yahoo account, and Yahoo is not a Catholic website, and how often there is a quote from the Pope there.

The Pope is the leader of 1.3 billion catholics . 1.3 billion out of the total world population of 7 billion. In Asia close to 4 billion people don't give a shit of what the Pope says. In Europe most people don't give a shit about the Pope either. Catholism is a dead religion in Europe. Most baptized catholics( in catholic countries ) in Europe  don't give a shit about their native religion. Catholicism is a minority in USA . The only area that catholicism is still influential is latin America. The Pope is pretty famous in the world , I give you that. Influential ? Only in your dreams. Worldwide most people don't give a shit what the Pope says or they don't  take him seriously. Face it kid. Catholicism is a dying religion.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Most of what people think is extremely Unchristian (Satanic) about the Church like Mariology, confession of sin to a priest, the sacrifice of the mass, seven sacraments, communion of Saints, Holy images etc. was practiced by the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches......so if those practices are Satanic and therefore not Christian as many claim, that would mean that every Christian Church on the face of the earth was propagating Satanic practices and therefore, there was not a Christian Church the earth before the 16th Century.if you follow that philosophy

Although I disagree with their hypothesis, the Baptists do have a belief that they use to counter that Catholic claim.  Many subscribe to a belief called Landmarkism, which posts an unbroken chain through various historical "heretical" sects back to before the founding of the Catholic Church.

They use this to say that the whole time the Catholic Church was dominant, there were still "true Christians" in existence, persecuted by your church.

Of course I find their claims specious, especially given the variety of sects they trace their lineage through (and the fact that the Waldenses still exist and claim no connection to the Baptists) as many of those sects had a great variety of interesting beliefs.  Although the Catholics did consider "denying the Pope and the Church" to be heresy,  there is more heresy than that out there and the other heresies were also punishes.

If you want to reach out to Protestants, you might want to consider looking into the idea of Landmarkism, you will eventually have to develop counter-arguments to it.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I actually have another question, why are so many catholics less aware of protestant beliefs than protestants are of catholics

For example, i at least k what mass is but my catholic friend thought i worshipped in a temple and this friend didnt k that protestants are also christians