Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Metis]

Your views on transexuality?

She's a troll Doomed, but I can answer that question for you.

The Vatican originally in a subsecratum (that's a "secret teaching", one that it not publicly advertised and is only shared amongst higher clergy and the individuals it concerns) stated that transexuality is a legitimate condition and in some cases a sec change operation might be allowed. Because they couldn't procreate they could never marry or date, but they would be permitted to undertake life as the sex they identify with. There is one convent in Canada(?) I believe that has accepted a male-to-female nun on this.

Since the Same Sex Marriage movement really picked up pace? The Catholic Church is ever increasingly anti Transexual, it's an abomination and an insult to God. He designed you physically as a man, you're a man. Change it and you're a pervert. As always, on a lay level Catholics may be more supportive, perhaps in the west even a majority but the leadership is very much against it.

I don't believe they have actually described it as a moral disorder or diabolically inspired yet as they have done with same sex attractions, but at the very best and most popular interpretation at the moment is that it is a mental disorder that needs to be repressed until a cure is developed.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Hold up wait...

Did you not see me specify INDIAN rhinoceros? What part of "the latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros Unicornis" is untrue?

Oh for fuck sake. Are you really trying to prove unicorns exist by some lame technicality like this? Get a fucking life Huggy.

Ghosts, spirits, demons, angels with two, four, and six wings, and zombies exist but we're drawing the line at those damn cute unicorns!

[Randy Carson]

Wow. That's not even close to true.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Where does it say in the bible in reference to Mary (or anyone actually for that matter) "born without sin".

I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

Many saints have been filled or blessed with grace, but they were all still born with original sin according to Catholic theology.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You've missed the core problem Randy, the one of which Anglicans particularly have with this Dogma. Mary was born without sin so as to not "taint" Jesus in some way, childbirth having the connentations of impurity and sin.

Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

For Mary to be born without sin, she would have to be born under the same conditions, and her mother, and her mother....If we're all decended from Eve (which the Catholic Church actually insists is absolute infallible truth, Evolution might be a thing but Adam and Eve is too) this just doesn't work.

Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

I don't doubt you can construe meanings out of scriptures that have gone through at very least four different translations by the time they reach you, but they don't have any foundation within tradition or the earliest readings of scripture.

Nope. Just Greek to English.

I turn to the Orthodox and Copts again here who also have very strong Mariological scholarship traditions, and while they too revere Mary even they agree this one just came out of nowhere.

That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

We could actually turn this problem into what it means for the nature of Christ, how can he be fully human when his birth and nature was so inhuman, but that would be too technical, too far off topic and quite frankly the above example demonstrates the logical inconsistencies well enough by itself.

Rubbish. All you managed to do was to repeat the errors of the Protestants and Orthodox with whom you have studied. Big whoop.

Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies?

One person. Two natures. Two wills. He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

[Randy Carson]

Your views on transexuality?

She's a troll Doomed, but I can answer that question for you.

The Vatican originally in a subsecratum (that's a "secret teaching", one that it not publicly advertised and is only shared amongst higher clergy and the individuals it concerns) stated that transexuality is a legitimate condition and in some cases a sec change operation might be allowed. Because they couldn't procreate they could never marry or date, but they would be permitted to undertake life as the sex they identify with. There is one convent in Canada(?) I believe that has accepted a male-to-female nun on this.

Since the Same Sex Marriage movement really picked up pace? The Catholic Church is ever increasingly anti Transexual, it's an abomination and an insult to God. He designed you physically as a man, you're a man. Change it and you're a pervert. As always, on a lay level Catholics may be more supportive, perhaps in the west even a majority but the leadership is very much against it.

I don't believe they have actually described it as a moral disorder or diabolically inspired yet as they have done with same sex attractions, but at the very best and most popular interpretation at the moment is that it is a mental disorder that needs to be repressed until a cure is developed.

Source please?

If it is a secret document, how is it that you - a non-Catholic, atheist - have had access to it?

[Metis]

I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You are in a state of grace after you attend confession yes? One can be in grace yet also previously have been in sin.

Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

An Ark that came out of a womb tainted by sin. St Anne wasn't Immaculately concieved was she? I'm afraid that's being touched.

Not to mention the cohabitation, considering marriage is based upon the willingness and capability to engage in coitus, which you claim she didn't.

Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

But not so big as to require an immaculate conception. Why stop at Mary? Why not make it even more fancy?

Nope. Just Greek to English.

Aramaic to Greek to English these days, historically when these dogmas were being devised it was more like Aramaic > Greek > Latin > French > English.

That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

The Anglicans don't care much for infalliability, they think it presumptuous for any mortal to claim to be infallible as well as proven wrong several times throughout history (as I actually demonstrated with my case about historical Catholic anti-semitism in another thread).

The Orthodox however do claim infallible teachings, however they claim infallibility comes into effect when the Church as a whole comes together. When the Bishops and the Church as a whole speaks with one voice one knows it is infallible, and this is how they too claim infallibility but they don't have so many awkward situations with it. While the Holy Office was declaring belief in Uranus (then the "Gregorian Star" to be a heresy there was usually at least one Orthodox Bishop with enough sense to know that was beyond his scope to comment upon.

Rubbish. All you managed to do was to repeat the errors of the Protestants and Orthodox with whom you have studied. Big whoop.

Pointing out the holes in your post more like, which you haven't patched up.

Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

Considering Adam and Eve according to your own infallible teaching were designed to be immortal, feel no pain in childbirth and had no capacity to recognise between good and evil as represented in the tree of knowledge than no, how could they have been? At best they were robots, albeit knowingly flawed ones apparently again also according to your teachings.

And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies. Therefore, He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

Of course I know what Arianism is, but I am pointing out the paradox that to be human one must be able to experience the full emotional range to be human and yet if the teachings of immaculate conception are to be believed neither Mary or Jesus could have.

Let's take lust for example. It's a biological hardwired reaction that when ones eyes fall onto a member of your preferred sex one feels lust. One can turn away and resist, one can sit drooling over them. That doesn't matter, lust itself is a very human emotion...But it is also a sin.

For Mary to be sinless she couldn't ever experience lust, but if she couldn't experience lust she can't understand the human condition and thus cannot be fully human. She may have theoretical second hand knowledge of lust but no experiential capacity at all.

I'm not drawing from Orthodoxy or Anglicanism for this one, just basic rationalism.

[Metis]

[Randy Carson]

I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You are in a state of grace after you attend confession yes? One can be in grace yet also previously have been in sin.

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.

Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

An Ark that came out of a womb tainted by sin. St Anne wasn't Immaculately concieved was she? I'm afraid that's being touched.

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.

Not to mention the cohabitation, considering marriage is based upon the willingness and capability to engage in coitus, which you claim she didn't.

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.

Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

But not so big as to require an immaculate conception. Why stop at Mary? Why not make it even more fancy?

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

Nope. Just Greek to English.

Aramaic to Greek to English these days, historically when these dogmas were being devised it was more like Aramaic > Greek > Latin > French > English.

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

That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

The Anglicans don't care much for infalliability, they think it presumptuous for any mortal to claim to be infallible as well as proven wrong several times throughout history (as I actually demonstrated with my case about historical Catholic anti-semitism in another thread).

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.

Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

Considering Adam and Eve according to your own infallible teaching were designed to be immortal, feel no pain in childbirth and had no capacity to recognise between good and evil as represented in the tree of knowledge than no, how could they have been? At best they were robots, albeit knowingly flawed ones apparently again also according to your teachings.

IOW, you have not clue. Your education was wasted.

And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies. Therefore, He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

Of course I know what Arianism is, but I am pointing out the paradox that to be human one must be able to experience the full emotional range to be human and yet if the teachings of immaculate conception are to be believed neither Mary or Jesus could have.

Let's take lust for example. It's a biological hardwired reaction that when ones eyes fall onto a member of your preferred sex one feels lust. One can turn away and resist, one can sit drooling over them. That doesn't matter, lust itself is a very human emotion...But it is also a sin.

For Mary to be sinless she couldn't ever experience lust, but if she couldn't experience lust she can't understand the human condition and thus cannot be fully human. She may have theoretical second hand knowledge of lust but no experiential capacity at all.

I'm not drawing from Orthodoxy or Anglicanism for this one, just basic rationalism.

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?

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

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

[Randy Carson]

[Napoléon]

Ghosts, spirits, demons, angels with two, four, and six wings, and zombies exist but we're drawing the line at those damn cute unicorns!

It's not so much drawing the line at unicorns. It's more that you often hear people trying to justify demons, spirits and the rest. Not so much with unicorns. Not so much with Harry Potter, or the Orcs of Middle Earth. It's bad enough we have to indulge arguments with this 'popular' brand of bullshit, it's that much worse when some troll brings up another mystical pile of shite that by all accounts even the nutjobs agree is mythical.

[Metis]