Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Randy Carson]

It's funny really, I actually feel bad responding to you. Not because I feel I'm personally attacking you in any way, I don't think I have at any point, but the fact that you evidently hold these beliefs with such stalwart conviction and yet you can't really effectivley deny what I am saying. I do not believe in what you say Randy, but I take no joy in dismantling beliefs that evidently bring you comfort. Gaging from your reactions it might be best if you back out now, because this isn't going to go anywhere more comfortable.

You have no chance of dismantling any of the arguments of the Catholic Church. We have been dealing with stupidity like yours for 2,000 years.

Still, I could just respond with a tirade of latin buzzwords (ad hominem, ad bla bla bla) but for the sake of completion and the benefit of other readers I will again address each point more fully.

Bring it, sister.

Of course. After baptism, the stain of original sin has been washed away. After confession, one is returned to a state of grace. However, Mary was protected from original sin in the first place, and she never committed a single sin during the course of her earthly life.

So you admit Mary could never have felt lust, could never have felt irritation, could never have felt despair, could never have felt avarice. I don't claim these are always nice feelings, but they are very human emotions. What you're describing is a Stepford Wife, not a human.

Lust (along with the other things you listed) is a sinful desire. Mary knew no sin; consequently, she did not know lust. She could have normal non-sinful desires, of course, as well as temptation. What you are claiming is that in order to be normal, Mary had to be a sinner. But God did not create us to be full of sin; that was a result of the fall.

Mary was born from St. Anne in the normal way, but she did not inherit the sin of Adam from her parents. This is was the Immaculate Conception is all about.

So if a human can be concived in the conventional manner without original sin why bother with the immaculate conception at all? You say yourself it wasn't just to make things more fancy, what actual practical purpose did it serve then?

I already told you. Mary was protected from sin so that she might be a fitting mother for Jesus.

More to the point, if God can just snap his fingers and decide person x will not be born with sin, why bother with this elaborate plan in the first place? It also adds further weight to the claims elsewhere on this forum that the God as described in Catholicism is not Good.

God did "snap his fingers" in the sense that He chose Calvary as the solution to our sin.

Why did Mary Get Married?

The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was "chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord." His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it ties very nicely into the question I asked you previously, which you didn't answer claiming you needed some time, that Catholicism encourages telling lies.

If any other woman did this, this would be a case of the sins of omission, fraud and cohabitation. The Catholic Church claims itself a marriage cannot take place if one party in the marriage is not willing to engage in procreation, indeed if one does not have sex with ones spouse one can obtain an annulment effortlessly because without the consummation without birth control, there can be no marriage.

Mary was married to Joseph under Jewish law. Hello?

Whatever happened to Newmans' Apologia, that it was better for everyone to die in the utmost agony than for a single untruth to be told? I don't deny what Joseph did was good if what you say is correct, but it certainly is not acceptable in any way according to Roman Catholic moral theology and canon law.

To this day, drawing from Old Testament ideas the Catholic Church insists a "rightly ordered" sexual act must occur for a marriage to exist. This is a conerstone argument in official arguments against transexuality, gay marriage and hermaphrodites entering the religious life or marriage.

Joseph and Mary never intended to engage in sexual intercourse because Mary was consecrated to God. There was no need for such a marriage to be consummated.

Because making it fancy was not necessary. You've run out of ideas, haven't you?

I've already demonstrated it was a needless frivolity.

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. You have simply parroted the Protestant/Orthodox objections you were taught (which you don't even believe since you are an atheist.).

Is it your contention that more than the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic? How...unique. No one else thinks so.

Guess again, this is actually this is the official position of the Assyrian Church of the East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament. Flattered as I am by having the idea of this attributed to me you'll find it's been circulating since about 200 AD, that we know of anyway.

So, following the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East, it is your opinion that the NT was written first in Aramaic? Do you have any support for this from Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox scholars?

Most of the NT was written in Greek, most biblical scholars agree with that I don't deny. However, the Q source which almost everyone, even most Catholic theologians agree upon (this is actually another interesting point, a Pontiffical Comission previously declared belief in Q a heresy but about a decade ago the US synod agreed that the Q source theory was correct) was not written in Greek.

Oh. Never mind my previous question. You've answered it.

If you have a copy of Q, we'd all love to see it.  

I'm afraid Catholic Theologians are not the only theologians Randy. They don't even agree with each other nevermind the Catholic leadership unless they're under the direct command of the Vatican which very few non-priests are these days.

No question.

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility has never been proven to be wrong through any example despite the efforts of the best theologians and scholars of all stripes. The feat has surely not been accomplished by you, either.

Randy....I-I would hope you're joking when you say this but sadly I think you are serious. On this forum alone I have demonstrated with the Jews, Usury, Astronomy and Slavery that the Catholic Church has frequently been wrong with its "infallible" rulings.

I...I...I hope you have an opportunity to study the matter more closely. Despite the DEEPEST desires of Protestant controversialists, no doctrine of the Catholic Church has ever been proven to have been reversed. EVER. The doctrine of infallibility - properly defined and applied - is unshaken and unassailable.

There are men like Hans Kung (a Catholic Priest, still in good standing because from 1978 to date nobody has been able to prove him wrong) and James White (A protestant theologian) who have dedicated several years of their lives proving what complete and total bullshit the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is Kung's "Infallible". http://www.amazon.com/Infallible-An-inqu...0385184832 I would urge you to read it if you desire a full scholarly discourse from arguably one of the greatest theologians of the mordern age, so much so he alongside Joseph Ratiznger was one of the theological experts at Vatican II.

I am quite familiar with James White, his sham PhD from a diploma mill, and his vehemently anti-Catholic efforts. I've listened to Catholics destroy him in debates and in print. Did you know that his sister, Patti, converted to Catholicism? Did you know that there are allegations of sexual abuse in their home when they were kids? Did you know that James has not spoken to his sister since her conversion?

Is that an ad hominem? Sure. And one that is well-justified.

If the Vatican has had thirty seven years and still can't prove one old man wrong, I think that just shows its been made to look foolish. It has done a mighty good cover up though I can't deny, I think this book is actually still banned in Italy, Portugal and Ireland.

Books can be banned to prevent the spread of error...not just because the Church is "afraid" that the truth will get out. Given your previous assertions concerning "secret Vatican teachings" regarding transgender issues, I would recommend you spend less time on the web filling your mind with stupid conspiracy theories and more time reading good Catholic books.

If you're going to argue against Catholicism, at least argue against TRUE Catholic doctrine and not what you merely want to think we believe.

IOW, you have no clue. Your education was wasted.

I suppose that's true, I could have studied something with some actual worth to society like medicine but instead because I happened to come from a low income family my only route into education was to take a free scholarship in bullshit and fairy tales instead. Still, we can't have everything now.

I can't say it's been a total waste however, it comes in considerable use whenever I get hellfire preachers like my boyfreinds family giving me trouble.

Based on what I'm seeing in these posts, the time could have been more profitably spent working in a diner for all the good it has done you.

So, in order to be fully human, one has to have experienced sin or at least temptation because we ordinary humans do? Wouldn't that be about the same as saying that in order to be fully recognized as a piece of fine crystal, a water goblet has to have a flaw in it?

The difference is a water goblet does not have to be made of crystal to be a water goblet. To be fully human we must have all that entails, emotions, biological impulses, desire for companionship etc. If what you are saying is true Mary lacked these things which make us human.

Nope. Mary did have emotions, biological impulses, the desire for companionship, etc. What Mary did not have was the desire for sin, but that is not a requirement for being fully human. That's just YOUR experience of being human but not what God intended when He created us.

WE are the ones who do not know what it means to be fully human because we are captivated by concupiscence and sin.

No Randy, I understand what being human is. I cannot say I am the best placedto understand, there a philosophers who have spent their entire lives examining the human condition whereas I am still young. It is these teachings created by men who lived in an age of repression (sexually as well, but not what I'm thinking about) and misconception.

About one hundred and twenty years ago many doctors thought that the Female Orgasm was an actual mental disorder called Hysteria. Today we know this is a natural aspect of what it is to be female and enjoy physical stimulation.

In short, I'm saying you've got it wrong. Were this a Psychological theory we'd have tossed it out the window years ago, but because we tarted it up with gold leaf and called it "religious" (which really can mean just about anything) people feel compelled to cling to it.

Read some Catholic theology. Seriously.

Further, as you surely know from your illustrious studies, Jesus was tempted. He just said no. The same was true for Mary.

Unless you want to claim Mary was also a God you're avoiding the problem you yourself have raised.

Nope.

Are you really reduced now to quoting alleged secret documents found on the Interweb? Sheesh. I can find documents on the web, too. This one is taken from the blog of a transgender Catholic

Uh huh, so you doubt a Catholic Paper can actually tell what was created by the Catholic Church. It was real enough that a leading Catholic tabloid reported on it until it was told to shut up.

Even if we ignore the transgender subsecratum, you don't deny that Crimen was and remained an offical teaching of the Catholic Church until 2001 when Benedict pulled the plug on it. Or rather he said he did, but considering how subsecratum work who the hell actually knows?

This is ridiculous...."One must question Nortons motivation for exposing the secret". Uuuuh...Because it's pretty damned important to a lot of people who are very, very uncomfortable about the Catholic Church keeping secrets once we all heard about Crimen  and ten year old boys thinking their going to hell if they tell mommy they got the priests cock up their ass?

If you have a link to the document on the Vatican's website, let me know.