Questions From Guests

[badatusernames]

That actually brings me to my next questions...

Why is natural law so often presented in such a way that it comes as unfalsifiable? In other words, How do you know God's way is your way even when others, at least appear, have better morals? What I mean by that is that I've seen Catholics use phrases like "seared conscience", "hardened heart", "Satan's deception", or some other term in blogs, writings, discussions, debates etc when someone brings up a good argument against the Catholic position, especially when it comes up to how their conscience leads them elsewhere to thinking the argument against whatever position is the right one. For example, I once read an article one time that called pro-choice (for the record, I'm pro-life) individuals as having a "seared conscience" because essentially had been convinced by pro-choice arguments. It essentially sounds to me like when phrases and terms like that are used that it's presenting and arguing natural law like it is unfalsifiable.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

St. Paul (Romans 1:24-27)
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

St. Jude (Jude 1:5-7)
"Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor′rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

 

[LivingWordUnity]

 

[Michie]

Catholics may struggle with Church teaching but part of being Catholic is following what the Church teaches as a matter of faith and not advocating for things it teaches against.

 

[badatusernames]

Catholics may struggle with Church teaching but part of being Catholic is following what the Church teaches as a matter of faith and not advocating for things it teaches against.

So, you're telling me that Catholics are not allowed to to advocate for things that the Church teaches against? Going back to my question on page 3, How do you know God's way is your way even when others, at least appear, have better morals? Catholic morality, most notably natural law is so often presented in such a way that it comes across that it cannot be disproven, or that Catholics do not believe it can be disproven. What I mean by that is that I've seen Catholics use phrases like "seared conscience", "hardened heart", "Satan's deception", or some other term in blogs, writings, discussions, debates etc when someone brings up a good argument against the Catholic position, especially when it comes up to how their conscience leads them elsewhere to thinking the argument against whatever position is the right one. For example, I once read an article one time that called pro-choice (for the record, this is just an example, I have no desire to go down that rabbit whole) individuals as having a "seared conscience" because essentially had been convinced by pro-choice arguments. It essentially sounds to me like when phrases and terms like that are used that it's presenting and arguing natural law like it is unfalsifiable. Why is it presented like that?

 

[Michie]

The well formed conscience is formed according to Church teaching. Even if we're proven that homosexuality was a genetic thing, the Church would not suddenly say that homosexual sex is no longer a sin. Here is the thing, and this is probably why your RCIA instructor got so frustrated with you, conversion is an act of faith when one feels led by the Holy Spirit that the Church is where you should go. Everyone struggles with the teachings of the Church but the convert believes that the Church is correct in her dogmatic teachings. So the convert acts in faith to follow those teaching even if they are not fully understood. You cannot advocate for abortion, homosexual "marriage" in the Church. You cannot advocate for adultery, fornication, whatever it is the Church teaches against. Either you believe what the Church says about herself it you don't. RCIA is a class to present what the Church teaches to those led there. If you were eating up all the time every week planting these seeds in front of other converts for a long philosophical discussion of why you can't accept Church teaching then you should of had private appointments with a priest. [Staff edit].

So, you're telling me that Catholics are not allowed to to advocate for things that the Church teaches against? Going back to my question on page 3, How do you know God's way is your way even when others, at least appear, have better morals? Catholic morality, most notably natural law is so often presented in such a way that it comes across that it cannot be disproven, or that Catholics do not believe it can be disproven. What I mean by that is that I've seen Catholics use phrases like "seared conscience", "hardened heart", "Satan's deception", or some other term in blogs, writings, discussions, debates etc when someone brings up a good argument against the Catholic position, especially when it comes up to how their conscience leads them elsewhere to thinking the argument against whatever position is the right one. For example, I once read an article one time that called pro-choice (for the record, this is just an example, I have no desire to go down that rabbit whole) individuals as having a "seared conscience" because essentially had been convinced by pro-choice arguments. It essentially sounds to me like when phrases and terms like that are used that it's presenting and arguing natural law like it is unfalsifiable. Why is it presented like that?

 

[badatusernames]

The well formed conscience is formed according to Church teaching. Even if we're proven that homosexuality was a genetic thing, the Church would nkt suddenly say that homosexual sex us no longer a sin. Here is the thing, and this is probably why your RCIA instructor got so frustrated with you, conversion is an act of faith when o e feels Lef by the Holy Spirit that the Church is where you should go. Everyone struggles with the teachings of the Church but the convert believes that the Church is correct in her dogmatic teachings. So the convert acts in faith to follow those teaching even if they are not fully understood. You cannot advocate for abortion, homosexual "marriage" in the Church. You cannot advocate for adultery, fornication, whatever it is the Church teaches against. Either you believe what the Church says about herself it you don't. RCIA is a class to present what the Church teaches to those led there. If you were eating up all the time every week planting these seeds in front of other converts for a long philosophical discussion of why you can't accept Church teaching then you should of had private appointments with a priest.

First off, my concerns had nothing to do with whether or not homosexual sex is a sin, I believe it is a sin. However, that does not mean that I also have to believe that it is somehow unnatural. My question is more "If you were proven that homosexual is something entirely natural, would you still consider to be 'intrinsically disordered?". Do you see the difference?

No, I wasn't eating up time every week with long philosophical discussions, what happened is what I said happened earlier in the thread, nothing more.

How do I not seem like I am interested in understanding? I'm not debating and haven't presented any arguments. All I've done is ask questions. Why do I need to call a priest? I don't think I'm asking any complex questions.

[Staff edit].

Why can God not reveal Truth through methods outside of the Church or why does God not? To be honest, that seems like circular logic "The Church's teachings are true because they come from Christ because the Churches teachings are true". Does that not bother you? I left Evangelicalism because I couldn't stand the circular reasoning and learned that God does reveal truth outside of The Bible because Truth cannot Truth.

 

[Michie]

I didn't say your concerns were about homosexuality. It was an example among others.The Church recognizes truth outside her walls. Even the CCC states that. But the Church holds the fullness of truth when it comes to the faith. It's natural to have sex. People do it. But the Church teaches that it should only be done in the confines of marriage. It is natural that there is birth defects and handicaps in the natural world in many forms. But that does not mean that it is the way God intended.

[Staff edit].

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

 

[badatusernames]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

I apologize if this seems offensive or a bit strawman-ish, but do you believe Catechism is basically ordained word-for-word by God like how many fundamentalists view The Bible? It just seems odd to me why you posted this again when I've tried to move on twice now.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I apologize if this seems offensive or a bit strawman-ish, but do you believe Catechism is basically ordained word-for-word by God like how many fundamentalists view The Bible? It just seems odd to me why you posted this again when I've tried to move on twice now.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is what the name suggests.

It's the teaching of the Catholic Church. The word "catechism" means teaching.

 

[Michie]

[Staff edit].

See if this helps:
Development of Catholic Doctrine: A Primer

[Staff edit].

 

[LivingWordUnity]

On the Magisterium:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

Pope St. John Paul II on the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!"

 

[Rhamiel]

I made this thread so people could ask questions, since every other thread people ask stuff in they get accused of getting off topic
so please, do not discourage people from asking questions

 

[Root of Jesse]

I apologize if this seems offensive or a bit strawman-ish, but do you believe Catechism is basically ordained word-for-word by God like how many fundamentalists view The Bible? It just seems odd to me why you posted this again when I've tried to move on twice now.

You should see the footnotes. All Biblical or by Saints and Doctors of the Church...I'm not talking about homosexuality here...

 

[Open Heart]

Yeah, actually almost all of our RCIA class were Protestant converts.

True, but most of these were very average Protestants who don't know much of anything, much like your average Catholic. They just maybe attend church, don't really listen to the sermon all that much. Now they want to marry a Catholic (or some other silly reason for seeking conversion). But though they come in for the wrong reasons, they go through with their baptisms /confirmations for the right reasons.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
Folks, if you start a thread inviting non-Catholics to ask questions,
it's best not to attack them when they do ask questions and discuss the answers.​

Please try to be courteous and respectful hosts to your guests.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Mary7]

Question:
Salvation came to us by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross (without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins)
I am reading in Catholic articles that you believe salvation comes thru baptism.
To me, that takes away from the necessity of the crucifixion

Also if saved via baptism then all baptized children are going to heaven without any understanding?
I am not here to argue, I have been studying RCC with interest and good intentions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Question:
Salvation came to us by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on the cross (without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins)
I am reading in Catholic articles that you believe salvation comes thru baptism.
To me, that takes away from the necessity of the crucifixion

Also if saved via baptism then all baptized children are going to heaven without any understanding?
I am not here to argue, I have been studying RCC with interest and good intentions.

Well, the Bible does say that we are saved through baptism. Right there in 1 Peter 3:21. The Bible does tell the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, AND TO BAPTIZE THEM. That is at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. In the Gospel of John it tells us we must be born again, of water and the Spirit. That's baptism. And Paul, in Romans 6 asks, "Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life".

So, if baptism saves a person, is it in contradiction to the passion and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? If that were so, we would not expect Catholics and the Orthodox to make a huge big deal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But we do. It is the passion and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that powers all of the sacraments, including baptism. Baptism would be nothing without the crucifixion. Whoever taught you that baptism is against the crucifixion, and thus not necessary for salvation, got it wrong. Baptism is the normal way we come to be saved. God provided one counterexample, that of the thief on the cross, to show that if you are really stuck and cannot for good reason be baptized you can still be saved, but the New Testament norm IS baptism as the way that the work of Jesus Christ in dying and resurrecting is applied to you.

Here's how Dwight Longenecker explains it. He was an Evangelical, educated at Bob Jones University, who became a Catholic priest: Baptism Saves You | Catholic Answers

As to baptized children going to heaven without understanding, the other option would be them going to hell without understanding. What does the soul of a child know? Are they to be denied the grace of baptism because of mental deficit? The answer of the Church from the beginning has been that they may be baptized, and this was found in the New Testament when whole households would be baptized. It didn't say 'whole households except the children' but 'whole households'.

Thanks for asking a good question. We don't see baptism in opposition to the crucifixion, but as how the fruits of the passion and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are normally applied.

 

[Mary7]

I did not mean that baptism was against the Crucifixion. To me, baptism is done after the person believes. It is showing that the person is now a believer in the death and Resurrection of Jesus. I think the proof that it itself does not save is shown with the thief on the cross.
I am not saying we should not be baptized, I just see it as an act after salvation and not the cause of salvation itself.
Many people can just go get baptized and think they are going to heaven with no heart belief in Jesus's atonement on the cross. For me, the cross is where it takes place.

edit:
Very good article.. it explained some things, however , in going over the verses he gave I remain in the conviction that 1st. You repent and believe 2nd You show that you have done so by baptism.. immediately if possible.
I liked what he said about baptisms of blood and desire.