Hi there, Arandur! ;-)

In another thread, Arandur writes, “However, I also believe that while all religions have some truth, the Church Christ established also has those truths and in fact ALL Truth can be found in it. Not that we understand it all yet, but if the Holy Spirit truly is guiding the Church into ALL Truth, then yes, the divine institution of the Church does have access to it all.” Interesting thought. So we should reason that the Church is already in possession of the Truth that shapes its core doctrine.

Having said that, there has been something about Christian doctrine I’ve found unsatisfactory as an explanation of Truth. Now bear in mind that I am at least roughly familiar with the [Catholic] Church, and have attended a number of services there over the years. Even so, my primary experience with Christianity has been through the United Methodist Church and through the “Pentecostal” denominations which fairly can be called Protestant. (Although many of them vehemently deny the term.) Thus I can say that I’ve found Protestant explanations of this to be unsatisfactory.

The question is this: Why do we need Christ? Yes, I know the whole theology surrounding Romans 3:23 (“For all have sinned…”), but that’s not what I’m getting at here. I suppose the question might be rephrased: Why does God need Christ? Why would—and how could—an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God create a world in which “free will” runs amok, and in which the sinful state of man is ultimately beyond the experience and toleration of a supposedly infinite God? To use a nifty Latin phrase, Qui Deo magnimus per homo minimus—how is God, infinite in nature, magnified by removing that which is present in man?

Because Protestantism assumes this question a priori, Protestant explanations are unsatisfactory. I’m hoping that the Church has this answer, and that Protestants have simply ignored the question all these years.

If I understand the question properly, then yes, I’ve heard many answers all supporting each other in the Church. I’ll keep this thread on my radar until I can respond properly, but in the meantime I have some clarifying questions:

“Why does God need Christ? Why would—and how could—an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God create a world in which “free will” runs amok, and in which the sinful state of man is ultimately beyond the experience and toleration of a supposedly infinite God?”

God doesn’t “need” Christ, Christ is simply a part of the Triune God, on God three persons. As such, the sinful state of man isn’t beyond the experience and toleration of God, because that is exactly what Christ is for, and Christ is God.

As for free will running amok, does it make more sense if we understand free will as simply God creating other wills apart from His own, with the freedom to choose what they wish, but since they aren’t God, it is possible for them to choose things contrary to His will (which is by definition not good). So if free will exists at all, it has the potential to “run amok,” even though it reaches its fullest expression when acting in harmony with God’s will.

Oh and: “So we should reason that the Church is already in possession of the Truth that shapes its core doctrine.” Yes, that’s what I was saying.

Some questions have come up about Catholic beliefs before in this forum. Before I just respond arbitrarily, did anyone have any in particular they wanted to discuss?

I remember limbo/purgatory being part of it, the immaculate conception and papal infallibility being questioned, and Catholic beliefs on contraception…any of these still spark interest? Any others?

My extended family are all catholic… i used to hate going to church with them when i was a child.

my knees would always get so sore… haha

Go for it all, Arandur! ;-)

By the way, as the topic progresses, you might find me taking your side on a lot of the issues. I find many of the objections post-Protestants throw at Catholics to be baseless, at best.

I’d welcome not being the only one, Swiss. I’ve got 2,000 years of history and incredible wisdom and intelligence from many millions of Catholics that I’ll never be able to catch up on, so all I can give really is basic explanations that hardly scratch the peak of the mountain of Catholic knowledge and belief.

I know i’m a non-beleiver.. but i was a protest-ant at one point.
I think there was a few ideas that always struck me odd. Praying to saints and the mother mary. Why not pray to God? and don’t get me started on the pope.. haha

I find your lack of faith disturbing..

vey funny muadib…lol

I’ve seen some other good pics: Pope Benedict Makes First Change
http://www.familiasierra.com/img/german_pope.jpg

Now that I’m back from vacation, I’ll gear up for this thread more. Here’s some quick descriptions of some of the beliefs mentioned.

Limbo: more a concept devised by the faithful grappling with what happened to babies who die unbaptized. Never confirmed by the Church; in fact denounced by the Church.

Purgatory: God is all-merciful, but since He is also all Just, and since sin has consequences, Purgatory is a state of being wherein we recover from those consequences; the soul is healed and made holy and prepared for heaven. It’s like washing up before the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (spoken of in Revelation). This belief stems from Jewish beliefs in life after death (spoken about in Maccabees and in the rich man who neglected Lazarus), from NT passages about being deeds being “tested in fire,” and from the nature of God. After all, nothing unclean or not holy can exist in His direct presence, so the cleansing and purification we undergo is “purging” these things we die with on our soul (how many, before they die, have achieved a state of such holiness that they no longer would sin?).

Immaculate Conception: This is the belief that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, receiving Christ’s saving Grace (normally given in Baptism) from the moment of her conception as part of her predestined role as Ark of the New Covenant and as the New Eve (both roles explained through rich symbolism in the NT).

Papal Infallibility: There are many misunderstandings of this very nuanced belief. It’s an extension, really, of the Church’s Teaching Authority. When speaking ex cathedra (from the seat of Peter), the Holy Spirit preserves his pronouncements on faith and morals only from error. This is not the same as Divine Inspiration (as the writers of Scripture had) for it is not that the Pope is told what to say or speaks with God’s voice, but instead it is a lesser gift, merely ensuring that under very specific conditions, the faithful can trust what he says and follow his leadership. It must be borne out by the Magisterium (Teaching Office of the Church as represented by the bishops, who bear the apostolic office) and the Sense of the Faithful, meaning that the Holy Spirit works through all of these bodies and if they are all in agreement, we can be sure that He has guided us into Truth.

This belief has many foundations. I have talked about the inerrancy of the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in other forums, which is that whole three-part system I just mentioned. The pope’s part, specifically, comes from him being the successor of Peter, leader of the apostles. Peter was given the Keys of Heaven, a symbol from the Davidic Kingdom of his status as what we would call the Prime Minister, with the power to bind and loose what the other ministers (the apostles) bind and loose. The King must have a single minister who acts as his primary representative. Jesus also speaks to his disciples to obey the Jewish leaders because they sit on Moses’ seat; this was an imperfect establishment of the office that would be fulfilled by the pope after Christ established his kingdom and Church and sent the Holy Spirit. In Church history (borne out in Tradition), Peter and his successors held the office of essentially providing the tie-breaking vote, or making the final binding decision on an issue.

Mary and the Saints: Truly “saint” applies to any Believer in Christ. Applying it with a capital “S” and as a title is an honorific given essentially to great examples and heroes of the faith. We also don’t pray “to” Mary and the Saints like we pray to God. Our “prayer” is the same as asking any other Christian to pray for us to God. Because Christ brought about the resurrection of man after death, he established the full communion of saints on earth and in heaven (we are still connected to them in community, even after their death). In his heavenly kingdom, the saints have roles and duties. We do not truly know what those are, but we do know from Revelation that they offer up the prayers of the saints of earth to God in heaven. Thus we ask them to do so. Also, we use their life stories to learn better how to follow Christ, and we often assign them “patronage” over some thing to remember some aspect of their life and to remember to speak with them through prayer, recognizing their continuing role in the heavenly Kingdom of God. Mary is just the “first” among saints. She is given special honor. None are “worshipped” in the modern sense of the word, for that is reserved for God alone.

Contraception: (again, the short version, but I do need some space just because this is so counter-cultural) The Church is opposed to any form of artificial contraception. Sex is intended as the union of two persons, man and woman, uniting them and love and creating new life out of that love. Sex is at least as much a procreative act as an act of love or pleasure, for biologically procreation cannot be separated from sex unless man intentionally forms a barrier of some kind. To use contraception is to try to take from sex its procreative purpose, to deny it and to degrade it as unwanted. It is an attempt to use sex for pleasure and deny its consequences. Attempting to steal the purpose of sex from itself is to use it in a way that God does not want us to, since He creates things with good purposes. Degrading sex by using contraception is therefore evil.

It is not a loving act, because sex is supposed to be a complete giving of oneself to the other, a total physical and spiritual commitment. If you hold something back, as through contraception you are holding back your fertility, the desire and possibility of creating new life with another, you turning sex into a more selfish act. Abstinence, instead, is loving, because it doesn’t corrupt sex, but shows a mutual choice to not corrupt sex by using it when you are not ready for its consequences or ready to love each other completely during this act.

There is a huge difference between contraception and natural family planning (NOT the rhythm method; natural family planning [NFP] has been for decades the sympto-thermal method, accurately identifying the woman’s fertile periods and abstaining from sex during those times). NFP has been many times clinically proven to be at least as effective (and often moreso) than the most effective forms of contraception, including the pill. To illustrate the difference, I like an analogy I heard first from Christopher West, a Catholic speaker on this topic. Imagine inviting someone to your wedding that you don’t expect to come. If that person comes, are you going to be mad, or would you be surprised but welcome them happily? NFP users who don’t expect to have a child when they have non-contraceptive sex are in the same boat; their attitude does make a difference on whether or not its sinful, because if they refuse to have a baby they should still abstain entirely, but if they are willing to accept a baby even when they hadn’t planned for one, then they are being responsible and loving.

Contraception is like sending someone a dis invitation to your wedding. How insulting. Contraception sends a disinvitation to God. It says “We want sex just for us; you stay out! We don’t want a child, we just want our pleasure and intimacy with no consequences, and we don’t care about the fruitfulness you intended for marital love.” For a Christian, then, it is sinful.

It must be ever more difficult to sell the idea of sex just for procreation in the world…especially the West…Human beings want to have sex for various reasons…

It’s not “just for procreation.” It is just wrong to try to completely refuse and force out the procreative aspect of sex.

Seriously doubt that the procreation aspect of sex will be lost…at least until “grow-a-kid” reaches the franchise level…

I would find the Catholic Church’s abhorrence of artificial birth-control more acceptable if a man and a woman did not have billions/millions of sperm cells, and ovum. Or even if it only applied to the unwed promiscuous, but to the married whom want to be responsible in their childrearing and to use wisdom? Are we to believe that GOD cannot accept a means of contraception outside of the realm of primitive methods?

A woman doesn’t even have the capacity to birth all of the ova that her ovaries contain, and will not even dispense all the ovum they contain in her life time. A man’s sperm is regenerative. Producing and reproducing more sperm throughout his reproductive years.

If there were a limitation to the amount of children that individuals could possibly conceive, or that if the release of ova was only released during sex – then we could surmise that sexual relations were specifically for procreation and that if sex was done without caution and with contraception, there would be a possibility of never having children if you expended all your ovum, or for the man to have expended all of his sperm prior to when they had planned their family.

I believe that GOD gives us intelligence and discernment to know when we our ready or not ready to become parents. That we have responsibility for our actions, and our bodies.

I have had 6 known pregnancies. Each of them difficult, 3 leading to my hemorrhaging, and one, almost to my death and the death of one of my children. Each time up until my last child, the [Catholic] hospital denied a tubal ligation even though I was told [by their doctors] that if I became pregnant again that it would be life-threatening and not to become pregnant again.

I am thankful for each of my children. I am also sickened that a hospital would deny a person a medical procedure that would ultimately save this person’s life, just because they believe that interfering with childbirth in any manner is wrong and in their authority to do so because of their religious basis.

Marriage, in the most original definition from Creation, and Biblical definition is when one man and woman are joined in the flesh. Meaning sexual intercourse. The New Testament specifies that we become married not to burn with lust. Not specifically PROCREATION, but for expression of love and receipt of the pleasure [within the commitment of (monogamous) marriage].

_________________
Genesis 2:24

_________________
1 Corinthians 7:4-5

Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire.
_________________

This has been an age old question, and it has been answered in Scripture Itself. Who are we, meaning specifically any religious denomination to tell men and women that sexual relations is only for the “consequence” of conception?

Is there anywhere in Scripture where GOD demands anyone to have a child/dren? When God gave the admonishment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…I believe the earth has been filled, and is being regenerated by those thoughtfully, lovingly, and willfully having children. Children are to be received as gifts from GOD, what if the ones capable of conceiving knowing in their own hearts they are incapable of honoring GOD’s gift?

If artificial contraception is considered interference with GOD’s creation and plan for us, wouldn’t medical interference with the deaf, mute, and those born with birth defects, be as well? The Bible was written in a time where modern innovations did not exist, so why is a denomination of Christianity deciding whom may use what innovation in accordance to the quality and quantity of life, and conception?

I’ll respond more fully in the future (it might be tomorrow), but I want to clear up one thing that I tried to already with RB.

“Who are we, meaning specifically any religious denomination to tell men and women that sexual relations is only for the “consequence” of conception?”
I never said that, and neither does the Church. Sex is also for loving intimacy and sharing the pleasure of that loving intimacy and expression of sexual self. It has both this aspect and the procreative aspect inherent in its nature; that doesn’t mean that every act should result in pregnancy, and indeed most, naturally and without interference, will not and in some cases cannot. It is the position of the Church, though, that every act (and marriage in general) must be open to the possibility of children to be fully good, and not the subject of willful interference because of a lack of that openness.

I’ll also point out that it used to be that just about every Christian denomination was against contraception into the first few decades of the 20th century, and that contraception has been around for thousands of years (oh, and the sympto-thermal method is hardly primitive and more effective than even most forms of the pill, and works by the very Biblical principle you cited in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5). Christian opposition to it had been consistent and pretty unanimous; the Catholic Church just doesn’t believe it can change something it believes our unchanging, all-loving God has established.

Vasectomy is a good idea…only have the children one wants and can care for…

Ratboy,

It always seems that women are given the complete responsibility…Thanks for the shift of responsibility.