Catholic Q/A

[Katholish]

Follower Of Jesus,

Its agreed that Mary is full of Grace. Grace is undeserving mercy from the Lord. Are we not full of grace as well? I love Mary being the mother of Jesus. The argument for intercession is rather weak,just man doesn't include afterdeath. Are we still men afterdeath?

I would define Grace more as a participation in the Life of God, but would agree that it is not deserved. All that are justified and sanctified in Christ through Baptism and have not turned away from Sanctifying Grace by Mortal Sin indeed have Grace in them. But it is that very point which sort of argues in favor of the Immaculate Conception if you do not mind me saying so. How was Mary given this Grace if she was some sinful unjustified person? To say that she was full of grace, indicates that something had occured before the angel's greeting to put her in that state because not every person at the time was full of grace.

Yes, we are still men after death. Our nature isn't replaced nor do we change species. At the General Ressurection, we will receive the same bodies that we have now back, though if we are saved they will be glorified.

Why do you think that death would be an impediment for intercession?

*Sorry, I will have to answer the questions in the rest of your post tomarrow.*

[RGR]

Matthew 16 is the most often quoted as it presents Peter being chosen as head of the Church and also being giving the power of infallibility(emphasis mine_ ("whatsoever thou shalt bond on earth...")

Also after the Resurrection, Peter's Primacy is affirmed. The angel in the tomb specifically charged the women to tell Peter by name.

Thus because the Pope is the head of the Church on earth, he is responsible for the exercise of the Church's Teaching Authority, and this Magisterial authority cannot be used in opposition to him.

So if the Pope (and Peter being the first one by Catholic standards) is infallible, please explain the following:

Galatains 2:11

But when Cephas (Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Duoay-Rheims)

So, Peter being infallible, made a mistake? Let's look at commentary on this verse from Darby:

When Peter came to Antioch, he withstood him to the face, because he was to blamed. He was not, as to Paul, as a superior before whom his subordinates must maintain a respectful silence. Although God had wrought mightily in Peter, yet his companion in apostleship (faithful to Him who had called him) could not allow the gospel to be falsified, which had been committed to his own care by the Lord Himself. Ardent as he was, poor Peter always cared too much about the opinion of others.

If Peter was infallible, why did Paul rebuke him?

[Katholish]

Follower Of Jesus,

We have one father in heaven. Why are priests called 'father'?

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.( Matthew 23 In context: Matthew 23:8-10)

Christ admonishes men not to attribute paternity to those who do not legitimately have it, but more specifically not to lose sight of the fact that men are called fathers in relation to the Fatherhood of God and when a person attributes fatherhood to a person on earth without acknowledgement of the pre-eminent fatherhood of God, they do so in error.

The Scriptures categorically prove that there is a legitimate relation of spiritual fatherhood, and that it is appropriate to call some men spiritual fathers as St. Paul tells us.

1 Corinthians 4:

14 I write not these things to confound you: but I admonish you as my dearest children.

15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

16 Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ.

17 For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord. Who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus: as I teach every where in every church.

Some priests have commited mortal sin w/ the act of child molesting.Why did the church authority cover up these crimes?

You are right when you say that these priests have committed mortal sin. I would further say though that the some of the bishops in the United States that seem to be aware that these priests were harming children also commited mortal sin by failing to take measures to prevent their crimes. Why did some bishops merely move priests around? I think that some did not understand the problem, I think that it is possible that a few didn't care enough and hence are even more guilty.

Because it is mortal sin, and has been defined as such by the Church, the Church certainly does not approve of such acts, and just as an offender failed greviously to be a good role model of the Church, so some bishops seem to have failed in the same light, they were not acting in accord with the Church, which in past ages would punish priests for even seemingly minor faults. The priests of the Church are held to higher standards, and their sin is even more serious because of the dignity of the office they hold.

[dwinkjr]

Kath,

Forgive me if you have already stated this, but why do you confess to your priests?

God Bless,

Dave

[Katholish]

Shadow2be,

I will rephrase your comments against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in the form of a question but will address the points that you brought up about being a first-born and Christ's brothers.

Why does the Catholic Church believe that Mary was a virgin for her whole life?

The belief is mostly taken from Sacred Tradition, but finds support from the fact that no other children where known to be had by Mary, and that it would be fitting for Joseph to have protected her and not had relations with her, as it was known that the child she bore was of the Holy Spirit, and that thus in a mystical sense, she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

An objection is brought against this teaching that Mary did have other children, namely James, and the other "brothers" of Christ mentioned in the Gospel account. However, the term brothers is from brethen and can included extended family as well as immediate. In fact one of the earliest Church Fathers who was a disciple of the Apostle John and companion of St. Polycarp explained the familial relations of these men to Christ.

Papias, Fragment X:

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands. 

You also brought up the passage from Scripture which states that Christ was the first-born and make the claim from this that this necessarily means that there were subsequent sons, however not only does this defy reason, but it defies the Scriptures as well as St. Jerome proved in the 4th Century.

St. Jerome, Against Helvidius (383AD):

11. An ample reply has now been given to what he advanced respecting the words before they came together, and he knew her not till she had brought forth a son. I must now proceed, if my reply is to follow the order of his argument, to the third point. He will have it that Mary bore other sons, and he quotes the passage,[2] "And Joseph also went up to the city of David to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son." From this he endeavours to show that the term first-born is inapplicable except to a person who has brothers, just as he is called only begotten who is the only son of his parents.

12. Our position is this: Every only begotten son is a first-born son, but not every first-born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no predecessor.[3] "Everything," says the Lord to Aaron, "that openeth the womb of all flesh which they offer unto the Lord, both of man and beast, shall be thine: nevertheless the first born of man shall thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem." The word of God defines first-born as everything that openeth the womb. Otherwise, if the title belongs to such only as have younger brothers, the priests cannot claim the firstlings until their successors have been begotten, lest, perchance, in case there were no subsequent delivery it should prove to be the first-born but not merely the only begotten.[4] "And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy." The word of God compels me to dedicate to God everything that openeth the womb if it be the firstling of clean beasts: if of unclean beasts, I must redeem it, and give the value to the priest. I might reply and say, Why do you tie me down to the short space of a month? Why do you speak of the first-born, when I cannot tell whether there are brothers to follow? Wait until the second is born. I owe nothing to the priest, unless the birth of a second should make the one I previously had the first-born. Will not the very points of the letters cry out against me and convict me of my folly, and declare that first-born is a title of him who opens the womb, and is not to be restricted to him who has brothers? And, then, to take the case of John: we are agreed that he was an only begotten son: I want to know if he was not also a first-born son, and whether he was not absolutely amenable to the law. There can be no doubt in the matter. At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour,[1] "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons." If this law relates only to the first-born, and there can be no first-born unless there are successors, no one ought to be bound by the law of the first-born who cannot tell whether there will be successors. But inasmuch as he who i has no younger brothers is bound by the law of the first-born, we gather that he is called the first-born who opens the womb and who has been preceded by none, not he whose birth is followed by that of a younger brother. Moses writes in Exodus,[2] "And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon: And all the first-born of cattle." Tell me, were they who then perished by the destroyer, only your first-born, or, something more, did they include the only begotten? If only they who have brothers are called first-born, the only begotten were saved from death. And if it be the fact that the only begotten were slain, it was contrary to the sentence pronounced, for the only begotten to die as well as the first-born. You must either release the only begotten from the penalty, and in that case you become ridiculous: or, if you allow that they were slain, we gain our point, though we have not to thank you for it, that only begotten sons also are called first-born.

[Lekcit]

I just have one question for clarification:

How is saying that there are other children because someone is referred to as "firstborn" defy reason?

I am the firstborn of my father and mother which means that my parents had other children or else I am not technically the firstborn because there is no second. It's like when you are writing an outline. If you have a "I" you must have a "II". If you have an "A" you must have a "B", an so forth. And likewise, if you have a "firstborn" there must be a "secondborn".

Please clarify.

[Katholish]

Ronald,

Perhaps you can answer a question for me-Lent. What is the basis for the celebration of it? It's something I never thought about until at work, during Lent, we were having pizza and my Catholic co-worker requested a veggie pizza since Catholics don't eat meat during Lent. Thanks.

Lent is a period of fasting before Easter. In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, it is forty days in duration. While all Catholics are supposed to adopt a regime of their choosing, all Catholics (who are physcially able to do so) are to give up meat products on Friday in honor of the Passion, and on Ash Wednesday (First Day of Lent) and Good Friday are only supposed to have one meatless meal for the day.

Lent is an excellent way to prepare for the great feast of Easter and particular emphasis is placed on Fasting, Prayer, and Alms Giving, during this time, though of course these are things that Catholics should be doing throughout the whole year as well.

The "Catena Aurea" is something like a compilation of commentaries on the Gospels from the Church Fathers, and for the Gospel of Matthew, it has some information on Lent from two of the Church Fathers of the 5th and 6th Century, St. Augustine and Pope St. Gregory the Great which might help explain the Biblical roots of Lent better than I could.

I put in bold one of my favorite parts.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea:

Matthew 4:

1. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil.

2. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterward an hungred.

Gregory the Great., Hom. in Ev., 16, 5: The Creator of all things took no food whatever during forty days. We also, at the season of Lent as much as in us lies afflict our flesh by abstinence. The number forty is preserved, because the virtue of the decalogue is fulfilled in the books of the holy Gospel; and ten taken four times amounts to forty.

Or, because in this mortal body we consist of four elements by the delights of which we go against the Lord's precepts received by the decalogue. And as we transgress the decalogue through the lusts of this flesh, it is fitting that we afflict the flesh forty-fold.

Or, as by the Law we offer the tenth of our goods, so we strive to offer the tenth of our time. And from the first Sunday of Lent to the rejoicing of the paschal festival is a space of six weeks, or forty-two days, subtracting from which the six Sundays which are not kept there remain thirty-six. Now as the year [p. 120] consists of three hundred and sixty-five, by the affliction of these thirty-six we give the tenth of our year to God.

Augustine., Lib. 83. Quest. q. 81: Otherwise; The sum of all wisdom is to be acquainted with the Creator and the creature. The Creator is the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the creature is partly invisible, - as the soul to which we assign a threefold nature, (as in the command to love God with the whole heart, mind, and soul,) - partly visible as the body, which we divide into four elements; the hot, the cold, the liquid, the solid. The number ten then, which stands for the whole law of life, taken four times, that is, multiplied by that number which we assign for the body, because by the body the law is obeyed or disobeyed, makes the number forty. All the aliquot parts in this number, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 20, taken together make up the number 50. Hence the time of our sorrow and affliction is fixed at forty days; the state of blessed joy which shall be hereafter is figured in the quinquagesimal festival, i.e. the fifty days from Easter to Pentecost.

I know that my answer isn't really comprehensive, and if you have any follow up questions please go ahead and ask.

[Katholish]

Charlie,

How do I pray to my guardian angel? I know and understand now the "hail Mary", it's from Luke, but what do you say to a guardian angel. When do you decide to pray directly to Jesus and when to pray to someone, saint, angel, lower down on the heavenly totum pole? I know I have a guardian angel, the Bible says we do..

...

I want to know HOW? As a protestant I wouldn't know where to begin without instruction.

Please understand, that I cannot really give a technical for this question, so my "answer" will be more my own understanding and advice as opposed to dogmatic Church teachings.

I would pray to your guardian angel just as you might ask a very good friend to pray for you. For instance, when I have a special prayer intention, I might ask my guardian angel to pray for the specific intention and to do whatever he is able to to help (without fully knowing what that might be). It is pious tradition (small "t") that the angels are not invasive to ones mental privacy and would probably not know a person's thoughts as God does, so whereas my prayer to God might be mental, if I wish to ask my guardian angel (or any angel like St. Michael) something, I make it a verbal prayer.

When does a person decide to directly pray to God or ask the intercession of a particular saint or angel? Unless the request for intercession is specific to something about that saint or angel, I would usually do both, so that the prayers of the saints might be added to my own prayers to God. However, if I am trying to write a research paper on the Existance of God, I might then specifically ask for the intercession of St. Thomas Aquinas because he wrote the Summa Theologica which has perhaps the best known proofs of the Existance of God.

I hope that helps some.

[Katholish]

JesusSaves,

WE were given the awesome priviledge of going into the holy of holies when the veil was torn at calvary. Now, we can go right into the presence of the Heavenly Father and in Jesus name ask what we will. Jesus gave us His name! That wonderful signant ring that bears witness we have authority in His name to be His ambassadors, to be called the children of God! What a wonderful joy that is!! The only One that Jesus ever, ever, told us to go to in prayer was our Heavenly Father. Jesus is the only intercessor seated at the right hand of the Father. If you are talking to Mary, or any other dead saint, your prayer isn't getting any higher than your own breath.

If you interpret Christ as the only intercessor, how can you justify the Scriptures asking people to intercede for on another?

James 5:

16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

As for the saints and intercessory prayer, I had previously posted a detailed reasoning, could you be more specific in your objection that I may understand it, and which part of my arguement you do not agree with?

It is my claim, and that of the Church, that there is no impediment to prohibit this asking of intercession from continuing among the saints in Heaven after they die. There are three arguements presented against it though, sometimes acting alone or in concert.

1) The saints in Heaven cannot pray.

2) The saints in Heaven do not care about the faithful on earth.

3) The saints in Heaven cannot be aware of our request for intercession.

If none of these objections are valid, then it is clear that the saints in Heaven retain their ability and desire to pray for us on Earth and can hear and respond to our requests for intercession. For there is enough Scriptural evidence to show that the righteous can intercede for us, this does not need to be proven, thus further evidence, either from Scripture or Sacred Tradition is not needed to support the doctrine, for it is clearly stated in Scripture provided that death provides no barrier to its continuance.

1) Can the saints in Heaven pray? Clearly prayer includeds praise and thanksgiving, two things which clearly are proper for a saint in Heaven. Saints offer constant praise to God in Heaven for they behold Him face to face. Intercession is also a part of prayer, and they would certainly be capable of this part as well as thanksgiving and praise, but the question arises whether or not they would use this ability, and that brings us to objection #2.

2) The saints in Heaven are clearly capable of helping the faithful on Earth, for as the Scripture states: the "prayer of a just man availeth much", and the saints in Heaven are certainly just and can pray. Would they exercise their ability to help us though? I think that the answer is clearly yes. All of the faithful in Christ make up one Body as the Scripture states:

Ephesians 4:

16 From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity.

Thus the Body of Christ is united in charity, each of the parts care for the others. Is the arm indifferent to the health of the foot? No, but both are concerned with the health of the whole. Thus the saints in Heaven do care about and would help the faithful on Earth if they had the ability, which they do as argued in response to objection #1. For the saints are conformed to Christ, and has Christ loves all men and wishes them to be saved, for He, being the Good Shepard would leave the 99 behind and search after the one that is lost. So the saints care for Christ's flock because Christ cares for it. The saints would pray for us then even if they cannot hear us, because they know that we are in need of prayers and that their own prayers availeth much before the throne of God.

3) Can the saints in Heaven hear the petitions of the faithful on Earth? The arguement is that the saints are not omniscient and therefore cannot hear all of the prayers or indeed any of the prayers and petitions of the faithful asking them to intercede for them. Firstly, let us turn aside for a moment and look at the angels. The angels and the saints in Heaven both lack omniscience, for indeed only God Himself has that attribute. However, the angels can hear the prayers of the faithful on Earth, and the Scriptures even record instances when the faithful have addressed the angels and have spoken with them.

Psalm 102:

19 The lord hath prepared his throne in heaven: and his kingdom shall rule over all.

20 Bless the Lord, all ye his angels: you that are mighty in strength, and execute his word, hearkening to the voice of his orders.

21 Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts: you ministers of his that do his will.

22 Bless the Lord, all his works: in every place of his dominion, O my soul, bless thou the Lord.

Matthew 18:

10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Revelation 8:

3 And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God.

4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

If the angels can hear the prayers and petitions of the faithful, why not the saints in Heaven? Neither are omniscient, both spiritual, and both in communion with God, serving before His Almighty throne. It is also fitting for their happiness to have news and knowledge of the fate of their loved ones, for the love that they bore for them on Earth, surely shall not cease when they are in Heaven, but has St. Monica loved her son St. Augustine on Earth, she will continue to love him in Heaven.

Truly the saints in Heaven can pray for the faithful on Earth. Truly they desire to do so. Truly just as the angels, the saints can hear our petitions and present them before the Throne of God. That is why Catholics pray to Mary and the saints.

[dwinkjr]

Katholish,

Thank you for taking your time to answer everyones questions on Catholism, it is a mighty nice thing for you to do.

God Bless,

Dave