The Papists

Yep!

“The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.” CCC 464 (emphasis added)

Original sin was the sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, when they first turned their backs on God. This created a fundamental rupture between God and humanity and deeply marred human nature. All human beings after Adam and Eve are therefore born on the human side of this rift, with a marred nature: a tendency towards sin. So we say that human beings are born with, or in, original sin. All human beings are born with original sin. Personal sin is the sin that is unique to each individual because of the choices they make with their own free will. 

God knew that in order to fix our now flawed human nature and to heal the damaged relationship between Himself and humanity, that humans would have to learn the hard way. So he chose a particular people, the Jews, as a starting place from which to reach out to the whole human race, and a particular bloodline within the Jews to be the forebears of Christ, the Redeemer, who would fix—redeem—the breach between God and Man and give us the opportunity to heal our broken nature.

The laws that the Jews followed in the old testament come from two specific grievous sins they committed as a people: first, after God brought them out of slavery in Egypt to be a free people, His own nation, they turned their backs on him, fashioned a golden calf, and worshipped it, and returned to the iniquitous lifestyle that the Egyptians practiced. After this incident, God gave them the laws found in Leviticus, and they repented of their sin. But the next generation sinned again, in a similar way, after experiencing even more of God’s miracles, and worshipped the false god Baal. After this transgression came the Mosaic law, found in Deuteronomy, often called the Deuteronomic law. This law did not come word for word from God, but was strongly mediated by Moses, hence “Mosaic law.” These are the laws that were specific to the Jews in their time and place, to help them avoid idolatry and the attractive, sinful lifestyles of the pagan nations around them, and which Christians are not obligated to follow. 

In the old testament, sacrifice is a major theme: when the people transgress God’s laws, (and they do that all the time,) the priests offer “sin offerings” to God, as a symbol of their sorrow and repentance. When Jesus Christ, true God and true man, died on the cross for us, because he is God, his sacrifice was more than a symbol: it creates a bridge over that fundamental rupture between God and man (this is redemption) that human beings can now, with God’s grace, cross over, and offered us an efficacious—a truly saving—way to be reunited with God after we inevitably commit our own individual, personal sins (when we choose this, that is salvation.)

This is why infants are baptized: Baptism is the parents offering their child to God, and God reaching out and bringing their flawed nature back into communion with His own. And that is why we have the sacrament of Confession, or Reconciliation: so that after we commit our personal sins, because that tendency towards sin remains in our nature and we use our free will for evil, we can choose to return to Christ and say “yes” once again to his offer of salvation. 

Is there a problem with adopting the pacifist ethos?  I think pacifism, correctly considered can be a legitimate expression of one’s Christian faith.  

That being said, I don’t think the sermon on the mount demands pacificism to the exclusion of a “just war” or self-defense.  It does say “blessed are the peace makers” and it condemns violence and anger.  However, consider a situation where a dictator is committing genocide against one or more groups of people who are unable to stand up to the dictator themselves.  I don’t think Jesus is saying that we ought to let the dictator do that in order to preserve the peace.  The fact of the matter is that in such a situation, the peace is already broken, and in order to make peace again, it can be necessary sometimes to make war.  I think examples like this one shows that self-defense, or defense of another can be a legitimate reason to be violent, and this does not necessarily constitute a violation of the commandment.

On the other hand, one should also note that there are legitimate peaceful responses to the situation.  So, violence should always be a last resort, and proportional to the threat presented and goal intended.  

I hope this helped!  God bless!

Well, at a certain point, it comes down to, “How much of honoring our parents includes obeying them?”  Obviously, when they ask us to do good things and refrain from evil things, we ought to obey them.  Obviously, if they were to ask us for some reason to do something that is wrong, or forbid us from doing something we ought to do, disobeying them honors them more than obeying them. (n.b. I’m talking about if a parent asks you to kill someone for them or something like that.  Please don’t use this as a catch all to justify disobeying your parents in everything.)  

But, what about that grey area where they are forbidding you to do something that is not necessarily wrong?  There are a lot of factors that could go into deciding whether one can make a sincere decision that one can still honour their parents while disobeying them in these matters; age, maturity, are two big ones.  

Ultimately, I think the biggest one is honesty, honesty with your parents and honesty with yourself.  If you want to get a tattoo, and your parents tell you not to, I’m not going to tell you to get it or not.  What I am going to ask though, is that if you choose to get it, before you do so, have a talk with your parents, explain to them why you want to get a tattoo, and explain that even though you are disobeying them, you still love and honor them.  Have that conversation, don’t try to hide it from them, and after that conversation, decide if getting the tattoo is what you want.  The reason for this, is that it should help you sort through your motivations, try to help you understand why your parents don't want you to do so, and really ask the question, how can I honor my parents when I want something for myself different than what they want for me.

Also, you should talk to your priest and see what he thinks.

I hope this helps!  

Hi Anonymous,

First of all, let me say I’m sorry for your loss.  It’s hard to lose a father.

Regarding your question, there is no problem for a Catholic with tattoos or piercings unless:

1. They would inhibit the function of that part of the body in some way.  (Not usually a big problem with tattoos or piercings, (unless they are seriously big piercings) but some body modifications inhibit certain functions of parts of the body.  These would be mutilations and would be wrong.)

2. They are sinful or demonic in nature.  A pretty obvious one, but if for example you wanted to get a “hail satan” tattoo, that would be wrong.

3.  If the tattoo is done to spite one’s parents or society.  For example, if my parents told me, don’t get a tattoo and I got one anyway, that would be considered wrong.  (Not necessarily because its a tattoo, but because I disobeyed my parents.)  Also, if I got something that would be obviously offensive to a lot of society, like say tattooed a hand with a raised middle finger on my chest, that would be wrong.  

4.  If the tattoo is otherwise irreconcilable with Catholicism, a Catholic should not get it.  (Or if one gets one before becoming Catholic, they ought to cover it up, or maybe hide it behind another tattoo which is acceptable.)  The best example of this would be if a Hindu had a tattoo of one of the Hindu gods, but then converted to Catholicism, obviously it would be best for them to either remove the tattoo, keep it hidden, or somehow hide it behind another tattoo.

It doesn’t sound like your tattoos and piercings fall under these categories, so you’re fine.  I hope this helped,

In Christ,

Well, there are different ways this can be interpreted.  I think the easiest way to understand it is that we understand the Jews and the Muslims to worship the same God as us because they accept the monotheistic God who’s essence is existence. 

However, we recognize that their understanding of God is incorrect because (among other things) they reject the trinity.  Because our understanding of each person of God is shaped by each other person, one who fails to accept the trinity, has a mistaken understanding of God as creator.  Thus, because they deny the Son, (and Holy Spirit) they do not understand God the Father as He is.  It’s like, if you know someone, but do not know they have kids, and how their relationship with their kid affects them, you will misinterpret the way the parent acts.  Thus, the Jews and Muslims worship the same God as us, but we believe they have a mistaken understanding of Him.

Another interpretation of that verse, is that rather than referring to our understanding of God, it could refer to how we practice the faith.  The idea is that one who acts and treats God and others as Jesus taught will obey the commands of God the Father as well.  However, one who does not act as Jesus taught, though he may strive to love God the Father, will ultimately fall short.  Thus, we ought to live as Christ lived, for doing so will be to live as God desires us to live, and those who do not live as Christ lived do not live as God desired us to live.

I hope this helped,  God bless!

Well, there are really two options that I’m aware of in a situation where you can’t find a priest who speaks your language for confession.  

1) If you know someone who speaks English and the language of the priest, and you are comfortable with it, (and it’s okay not to be,) that person can act as a translator for you.  This person would be bound by the seal of confession just like the priest is.  (That a translator can be used in confession is made clear in Can. 990: No one is prohibited from confessing throughan interpreter as long as abuses and   scandals are avoided andwithout prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 983, §2.)

 2)  The other option is to simply go in there, and do your best using your English and hand gestures to try to help the priest understand as much as possible. Remember, if the priest gives you absolution, and you are sorry for your sins, then the sacrament is valid and your sins are forgiven.  That stuff is lost in translation doesn’t change that.  (Of course, if you truly cannot understand this priest or vice-versa, it would be best, if you have the ability, to find a regular confessor who’s English skills are stronger, so that you can receive spiritual direction about your specific sins.)

Something that might help, is if you google translate some of the more important words in your confession so if need be, you can use those words in the priest’s language to help him understand.  

Other than that, continue practicing the sacrament of confession regularly.  Aim for once a month at minimum, and if possible go more often, even once a week if possible, and you will be amazed how much your spiritual life grows!  

God bless! 

Well, there are two points to your question, first, it regards the nature of the state, second, it asks why the Church is concerned with civil marriage. 

First of all, we have to ask, is the state an ideological body or is it merely a structure which secures the rights of the individuals in the state to secure their own ”self-actualization” (for lack of a better term) according to their own ideologies?  Essentially, are we going to live in a state that proscribes a particular way (or ways) of life, to the exclusion of others, or are we going to live in a state that allows for the pursuit of any way of life without promoting any of them, (so long as the way of life does not infringe on someone else’s freedom to choose their way of life.) 

If it’s the first, then the government seeks to promote a certain way(s) of life because they believe those are for the good of the people.  The government can promote unions it finds “valuable” to promote, including same-sex unions.  However, that also means that all citizens in the state can petition the government to support or reject forms of life that the citizens consider worthy of support or rejecting based on whether they believe those ways of life to be good or bad for society.  Catholics believe same-sex marriage is not only wrong, but harmful for society.  Therefore, Catholics would petition, and have a right to petition the government to outlaw same-sex unions.  Thus, the state has the right to define marriage as it pleases, but if Catholics (or other people who oppose same-sex marriage) make up a majority of the people, or otherwise wield deciding political power, then they as the state have the right to outlaw same-sex marriage. 

If on the other hand, we choose to live in a libertarian, “agent-neutral” society, where we seek to give individuals the right to decide what is good or bad for themselves, then it would be wrong of the government to promote marriage at all.  Thus, civil marriages, both same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages would have to be done away with.  The government would still allow people to get together to raise a family, live together, and everything else married couples do, and religious institutions would be allowed to marry people according to their own rules, but these people would not be considered married by the state, because the state wouldn’t consider marriage at all. 

Thus, if we live in an “ideological” state, where “state craft is soul craft” then the Church, which believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, has a responsibility to seek legislation which opposes same-sex marriage.  If on the other hand we live in a libertarian state, then it would be wrong of the government to promote any kind of marriage, since that would be promoting one lifestyle over another.  Thus, no matter which political theory one adheres to, one has to concede the Church the right to oppose government sponsored gay marriage.

Just tell your friends that you are joining the Catholic Church because you feel that is where God is calling you to join.  If they ask, you can choose to give other reasons for why your joining the Catholic Church, or not, and instead just say that that’s where you are called.  I am sure your Orthodox friends will understand.  You can also remind them that even though we are separated brethren, we are still brothers and sisters in faith, and that you still hold them in high regard.  You just have a duty to follow what your conscience tells you God’s will is, and if that is to join the Catholic Church, then that is what you must do.  I would also recommend you talking to a priest you know personally.  They can often give better advice than we can over the web.  I hope this answered your question! God bless, and good luck! 

In Christ,

Great question!

The Catechism says, quoting St. Paul:

When [will the dead rise]? Definitively ‘at the last last day,” “at the end of the world.” Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia [coming]: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1001)

And also:

At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the univeral judgment, the righteous will reign forever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself be renewed. … Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, “new heavens and a new hearth.” It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head “all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth. In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.” (1042-1044)

Let’s take a closer look at Paul’s two epistles to the Thessalonians, which describe Christ’s parousia.

In 1 Thess 4:13-5:11, Paul writes that “the dead will rise first,” and then the then-living will also be caught up to judgment. Importantly, he reminds them, “But as to the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. … But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a thief.” Paul goes back to Christ’s parables about watchfully, faithfully watching for the coming of the Kingdom (think of the virgins and their lamp oil; or even how the apostles failed to stay awake during His agony in the Garden) to comfort the Thessalonians, who had many fears and anxieties about death and judgment. He says, you are living uprightly and keeping in the Lord; therefore, don’t “grieve” (about your dead) “as others do who have no hope,” and don’t be afraid about judgment—when Christ comes, it will be in glory, magnificently from the heavens, and we will enter eternal happiness together with our beloved who have passed away.

In 2 Thess 1:5-12, Paul addresses the issue again. Now not only is Christ described as coming down from the clouds and raising the dead with mighty angels’ trumpet blasts, but there will be “mighty angels flaming in fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”

I think this is part of where some Protestants derive the false notion of the “rapture,” that the just will be caught up to heaven while the guilty are left on earth to suffer. However, the idea of the “rapture” depends on a strict literalist interpretation of the verses, without consideration for their place in the whole of Scripture of the wider tradition they were written in.

It’s important to note that Paul was writing to the Thessalonians as a persecuted church. He described the Second Coming as a relief from that suffering. It is an exhortation to remain faithful in the face of extreme hardship. “According to Paul in chapter 1 [1 Thess], it is the certainty of Jesus’ future parousia [coming], with the judgment and salvation it will entail, that makes enduring persecution worthwhile.” (See Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord.) Remember that the early Christians thought Christ might return in their lifetimes. So not only is his parousia certain, it’s imminently possible. Today we’ve gotten in the habit of thinking that while, sure, it could happen tomorrow, it’s not particularly likely. 

Gorman also makes clear that Paul is writing to clarify against error: this particular message of judgment is the Christianized version of vaguer “day of the Lord” prophecies that are part of Jewish tradition. He is also arguing against the idea that the “day of the Lord” is already here, and therefore if you’re suffering, you’re part of the damned. Rather, Paul says, you are suffering for Christ because you are with Christ, and you will receive glory when the Lord truly comes, when the dead are raised and we all go to heaven.

Gorman also says, and I think this is worth quoting at length:

"Paul draws heavily on various apocalyptic traditions to inform the Thessalonians that two things must occur before the parousia: 1) the "rebellion" or better, "apostasy", and the revelation of the "lawless one" or "man of lawlessness" [2 Thess 2.] About the apostasy Paul says nothing more. In many apocalyptic traditions in the New Testament and elsewhere, an expectation of faithlessness in tribulation and/or departure from the truth appears… and that is likely what is envisioned here. … the failure of any Thessalonian thus far to apostatize is proof that the day has not yet arrived. 

Quite fully developed is the picture of the “lawless one.” This figure has parallels elsewhere in the New Testament in the perpetrator of the “desolatin sacrilege” and false messiahs of the synoptic tradition, the beast of Revelation 13, and the “antichrist” of the Johannine letters. According to Paul, the lawless one:

has preliminary influence in the world already, though his impact is lessened by some restraining agent or force

will be revealed, i.e., will have a coming

will exalt himself above all deities, take a seat in the temple of God, and declare himself God

is an agent of Satan, who by nature is a deceiver who successfully traps nonbelievers and (it seems) attempts also to deceive believers

will (and perhaps already does) deceive people with miracles

will be destroyed by Jesus—specifically by the “breath of his mouth” as his (Jesus’) own parousia

The identity of this restraining force or person has been much debated, but Paul’s intention … eludes us. ….

Paul seems to have instructed the Thessalonians about this matter. … It is equally clear, however, that Paul’s major concern here is not some dogmatic stance about the ‘antichrist,’ and even far less about this figure’s actual identity. … His overriding concern is pastoral—to stress the futurity of the parousia and to encourage faithfulness to the Lord.

Now, Revelations: the Book of Revelation does have “prophetic” elements in the way we usually think of that term, but interestingly enough, what Revelation actually describes is the Mass—the heavenly Liturgy which earthly masses are a participation in, in fact the whole drama of salvation, with Christ appearing in many of his symbols and types (a slain lamb, the lion of Judah,) the role of Mary revealed in its glory—it’s all there. 

John’s writing there is also in line with Judaic prophetic tradition: the purpose is not primarily to predict the future, but to call the people to repentance by describing, sometimes in signs and figures (and Revelations is nothing if not full of symbolism,) the spiritual consequences of abandoning God.

Since this post is already way too long, I’m going to direct you to this article for a detailed exploration of Revelation (and incidentally a refutation of Left Behind eschatology.) The exploration of Church teaching begins with the section “Where the Church Stands,” but the previous sections are a necessary review of what the Protestant positions are and the confusing terminology associated with end-times prophecy. 

Obligatory Sunday Mass—the year-round holy day of obligation—stems from God’s commandment to keep holy the Sabbath. The Christian “Sabbath” moved naturally from the Jewish-observed Saturday to Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, the “eighth day,” “outside time,” that celebrates our salvation and anticipates our final happiness, union with God in heaven. 

Strictly speaking, the Sunday obligation is a discipline of the Church (see here.) Moreover, the obligation is dispensed with if you are, for example, in a situation where it is well and truly impossible for you to attend mass. For example, in earlier times (or still today in certain parts of the world) where there is no Mass near you and/or there is no transportation to get to the Mass. 

Other holy days of obligation follow a similar logic. Apart from the commandment to keep holy the Lord’s Day, these imposed obligations carry the weight of the authority of the Vicar of Christ: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” The obligations exist for the good of souls: to engage us in the life of the Church and the liturgical year, to give us a tug forward by the hand when attachment to sin or spiritual weariness might see us ready to abandon our daily taking up of our cross and following Christ.

Catholic Answers notes, “The precepts of the Church are not opposed to, nor are they outside of, the Commandments of God. They are within those Commandments and are intended to help keep the faithful within the Commandments.” [x]

There is a good short article about feast days/holy days of obligation at the Catholic Encyclopedia.

You may also be interested in:

What are the holy days of obligation? Worship the Way God Commanded 

Msgr. Jose Vilaplana, Bishop of Santander, Spain, issued this statement which confirms that “All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].*”

In other words, this is not an approved apparition and it would be wise for the faithful to refrain from placing their hope or faith in it. 

I don’t know, and I couldn’t find any information online on this question.  

I would guess that if no other table can be found, and it were to be used for the purpose of prayer, and nothing profane, God would desire it to be used as such.  However, it should only be a last resort, and only used in this matter for the purpose of prayer.  The reason for this is because the credence table is a part of the "physical structure" of the mass, and part of the sacredness of the mass is recognizing that we need to keep it "separate" or "set apart" from the rest of our daily life. However, if its going to be used for prayer, and no other options are available, the credence table is still fulfilling its purpose as facilitating the relationship between God and man through prayer.  But perhaps Fr. Angel, at Fatherangel.tumblr.com would be a better source of answers for you.  Hope this helps!

In Christ,