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.

[Metis]

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.

Actually you haven't. You've had Atheists only being able to speak up against you for about two hundred years, you've had socialists for about one hundred and LGBT (without the risk of being beheaded) and child abuse victims for about fifty. Doesn't it speak volumes that in the tiny space of time those four groups have had, all four have made the Catholic Church appear totally incompetent and have led to its influence upon Western Society evaporating?

I think it's not hard to tell which groups have the most compelling case. Even without the chance to fine tune the sophistry as you have it still makes a far more compelling case.

Bring it, sister.

Hold onna dat weave cuz dis gon b gud.

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.

Actually if he is all knowing he did create us to be full of sin, knowing he created Adam and Eve with a flawed natural curiosity to investigate the tree of knowledge itself is adequate proof to indicate we were made knowing the fall would take place. Indeed were Adam and Eve to reproduce in the long term it would actually be necessary.

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

Why? If the idea was that he was to be born as a human like us why skip around things? That's like Queen Elizabeth saying she wants to live like the common people but sleeping in a $4 million queen sized antique bed.

It's not hard to see why God might have chosen a paragon of the ideal woman, but to be born without original sin? It begs why he didn't just cleanse everyone of it and have the world exactly as he wants it. The God of Catholicism clearly does not want us to employ our free will, so why bother with the show? Just get the result he insists upon right there and then.

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

Exactly, a big drama which wasn't necessary if you are correct about Mary. He wouldn't needed to have died at all if he had previously demonstrated which you claim he can remove sin whenever he likes with no provocation or request.

Mary was married to Joseph under Jewish law. Hello?

God doesn't change hello? That and under Jewish law the rules remain the same, it is the sexual act that marries the pair. That's why a rape victim according to levitical law must marry her rapist, not because she needs a protector but because she in their eyes had become one flesh with him.

No sex, no marriage. It was true for the Jews then as it is for Catholics and Orthodox Jews today.

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.

Then she's in the same situation as a divorcee, she's creating scandal by claiming to be in a situation that is not truthfully so.

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.).

Actually no, a few Orthodox don't mind the idea of immaculate conception, they just don't think it should be made a Dogma because there is no tradition backing it up. Anglicans and Methodists (who do also revere Mary) have similar concerns, although theirs stems from the absence of such a doctrine in church history and the bible respectively. Anglicans unlike other Protestants having a great deal of respect for tradition, but not to the same extent as Catholics and Orthodox. As one of my Anglican teachers said "a tradition solely for the sake of tradition with no purpose or reasoning behind it is pointless".

They would actually find many points to object to in what I have written here (largely because I'm not addressing several other things you claim that they would find heretical or simply untrue). Instead I'm agreeing and skimming over for the sake of brevity when the fact is far earlier more basic premises have flaws of their own.

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?

It is my opinion that Matthew was written in Aramaic, as well as the Q source from which Mark, Luke and Matthew all draw (John drawing from the other three synoptic Gospels at a much later date).

Whatever was contained in Q was translated into Greek, and then later translated into the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome of which is what was used in deciding much of Catholic Theology. The decision to revise the original texts is lest we forget a fairly recent innovation in the Catholic Church, in part spurred on by the huge leaps and bounds made by Protestant and Secular biblical scholars in the eighteenth/early nineteenth century.

Certainly you had versions like the Douay-Rheims before then (although still quite late, was it 1582?), but these were not the versions used in the official decision making.

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

Considering that biblical scholarship almost unanimously accepts the existence of Q (most objections coming not from Catholics but Fundamentalists) I think this would be a rather risky move for you to doubt its existence considering even Joseph Ratizinger couldn't concoct a better theory. Instead conceded it was the most widely held theory in biblical scholarship http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...le_en.html

Sure he didn't say he agreed with it then outright, but I don't see anyone questioning the results of higher criticism when applied to the Odyssey or the Illiad, why does a technique that works for every other text known to man and thus far has proven itself to be a very reliable source suddenly become invalid when applied to this one book?

No question.

But you only seem to consider them Theologians when they say what you want to hear.

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.

Moneylending had in medieval Europe been grounds for an excomunication, that's why the Jews were so heavily relied upon for it.

Now today the Vatican owns a bank and is one of the biggest players on the stock market. It's staring you right in the face.

Having a Jew as a neighbour was grounds for punishment for yourself unless you helped drive them out of town, today Jews live in neighbourhoods with everyone else.

To read Descartes was to be excomminicated, today one can buy it from most booksellers. Shall we keep going on Catholic U turns?

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.

I don't really know much about James White's personal life because honestly it was never of any interest to me. The fact he no longer talks to his sister is sad (and proof to me of what a negative impact religion can have) but considering what he himself believes about Catholicism it really doesn't surprise me too much. I can't say I like his beliefs but like the SSPX and the Orthodox Church some of the objections they raise do have some merit.

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 Fr. Hans Kung had preached error, he would have been excommunicated. He never has been.

This to me says a great deal. To be excommiicated for heresy, Fr. Kung would have to be proven to be in error. The Catholic Church has had ample time to present a case he is in error as it claimed to do with Fr. Feeney but curiously...It remains silent.

The Catholic Church does not want to question Fr. Kung any further because they cannot prove him mistaken, and were a tribunal ever brought against him he could prove very easily why he is right as he has numerous time around the world against an assortment of Papalist Catholic apologists.

I have an adequate supply of "good Catholic books" Randy, in fact I go to great pains to seek out ones that Catholics such as Jimmy Akin or Ratzinger recommended. The latest one I am reading through is a overview originally designed for high school students (I'm looking for material for revision sheets for some of my undergraduate students) called "Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine" by Archbishop Sheehan https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=52. Prior to this I was reading Chestertons "Everlasting Man" and "Heretics" (I am also teaching a course on Thomastic theology and am looking for extra works to add to the basic materials).

Do you find this choice of reading material disagreeable? I'm well aware of what "good Catholic books" constitute to members of the Catholic Answers apostolate, again I find too many reasons to disagree with them.

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.

Have I said anything untrue about your faith Randy? I've asked several questions you've simply refused to answer. I would assume that you would have Googled them and would have accused me of lying if I was mistaken.

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.

You know it might actually be, one can only make real money if one works for oneself. Perhaps it might be a future buisness idea for me, I daresay reading through what I do on a daily basis would eventually drive me mad if I did it for too long.

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.

If God is all knowing he made us knowing how we would be. He has demonstrated through Mary he could change this design any time he wanted, but has declined to.

This makes our design intentional.

Read some Catholic theology. Seriously.

I'm having to these days, of course I already have a fairly strong grasp of Thomistic theology as well as that of Newman and Belloc but alas...Have I said anything regarding your faith that is untrue? All I have done is come to a different conclusion using exactly the same materials provided.

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

Of course, I would not claim I did if no such thing existed. http://www.vatican.va/resources/resource...62_en.html

Read the first bit about instruction...Secret teachings are evidently most certainly a thing.

[Randy Carson]

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.

Actually you haven't. You've had Atheists only being able to speak up against you for about two hundred years, you've had socialists for about one hundred and LGBT (without the risk of being beheaded) and child abuse victims for about fifty. Doesn't it speak volumes that in the tiny space of time those four groups have had, all four have made the Catholic Church appear totally incompetent and have led to its influence upon Western Society evaporating?

I think it's not hard to tell which groups have the most compelling case. Even without the chance to fine tune the sophistry as you have it still makes a far more compelling case.

Rather than respond to ALL of the nonsense in your post, I'm going to direct you to a great article by Tim Staples which not only corrects your numerous errors regarding Mary and Joseph but utterly destroys James White at the same time.

Kind of a two-fer for me.

When Were Joseph and Mary Married?
By Tim Staples
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples...ry-married

[Metis]

Rather than respond to ALL of the nonsense in your post, I'm going to direct you to a great article by Tim Staples which not only corrects your numerous errors regarding Mary and Joseph but utterly destroys James White at the same time.

Kind of a two-fer for me.  

When Were Joseph and Mary Married?
By Tim Staples
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples...ry-married

Seems a bit of a cop out to me Randy, you ignore almost all of what I write and instead decide to zoom in on one point and provide a link instead of an explanation. I might be willing to trawl through the text to find your points, in this case ones I already knew, but many of the members are viewing this on smartphones and other devices this is very inconvenient to do on. You'll get a far better response if you can condense it into readable chunks. Part of being an apologist is adapting your evangelistic techniques to the environment right?

Anyway...I find a few faults with this.

1. As someone who can read Koine Greek, the entire babble there about the reading of apolusai is quite misleading, more points with which to furnish my claim that Catholicisim encourages deception. I can't stand this in Christian apologetics between denominations, unless you're debating an Greek Orthodox Hieromonk Mystic most of your debating partners are not going to be able to check these points and will either have to defer or ask someone else, usually someone strongly aligned to a specific denomination and interpretation, to give their version. Even the clergy who go in for Masters in divinity don't always learn Koine Greek, they often do what amounts to a crash course in depth comparable to learning how to order soup in French(most non-Greek Orthodox M.Div students I know usually choose Latin or Hebrew instead for their primary language if it is part of their program), it's such a specialist debating point and actually irrelevant in this context. Smoke and mirrors to detract focus.

Let me give you a comparison. In Victorian England the Betrothal was a legal contract, one which if the man reneged upon his promise he would face retribution and punishment from the legal system. There were no inheritance rights in a betrothal, but there was certainly financial and provisional obligations.

To "send away", apolusai, refers to that, to back out before sealing the pact of marriage fully. I suppose it could be construed in the right sentence to mean divorce but this article you share insists it means this in all cases, which it simply does not. I wouldn't mind so much if it admitted this was a potential interpretation, but not saying "this is all it can mean". It's like saying "that's rubbish" can only ever refer to a literal pile of trash.

2. The guy who wrote this clearly has not read Leviticus, "ratified the marriage"? In Rabbinical post-temple Judaism to a degree this may have some truth, but it was all about the physical act under the temple Mosaic law.

3. This is not something a Christian apologist would raise, but I find the focus upon the tense of the exchange between Gabriel and Mary interesting. The Gospels are not a videotape of what happened, they are accounts of things that had occurred in the already distant (I'll be very generous and say between 50-150+ years to cover all the Gospels) past. Supposing the claims of the synoptic gospels actually being penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are true, which almost all modern biblical scholarship rejects,...but just supposing they were, these men were babies or not yet even conceived when Mary had this conversation.

Focusing on the tense used by someone in a conversation that occurred at very least fifty years ago, and possibly before you were even born? Now if this was the Gospel according to Mary I would be more inclined to consider this point, but it's the Gospel according to Luke.

Are you going to answer all my points, or just hope I forget about them while reading another one of these tracts?

I'm not sure why you think I would care about James White being destroyed; he makes a few valid points on a few theological topics, I still think he's wrong about the bigger picture. I actually have seen James White being put into a difficult corner in a live debate myself, but this tract was far from that. Talk about cherry picking quotes.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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

Jesus died so that we can eat shellfish and tuna sandwiches?  What a swell guy.

[Fake Messiah]

Isn't practically everything under catholic religion a sin? Even if you are reading this post you are committing a sin of omission because instead you could be helping impoverished people on the street and you're wasting your money on electricity to run your device that could buy food for hungry people. Not to mention watching TV, buying more then two peaces of cloth, playing games, reading, sleeping more then 7 hours a day etc. you get what I'm aiming - it's all sin of omission, all that wasted time and money that could be used for the poor.

[vorlon13]

(this is a big thread to go over, if asked and answered, just cite page #, thanx)

Could Mary have been a Christian prior to Jesus turning 30 and starting his ministry ?