Ask a Traditional Catholic, ask me [almost] anything!

Post Reply New Topic

I thought that he meant "cligues" like in a high school lunchroom... among folks within the congregation of a single church. . Cliques that a church congregation in any denomination might have (or a synagogue or mosque or Hindu temple,or whatever might have).

Okay, I can see how that works. At my current parish in fact, people lump together the parishioners from my town's Portuguese population along with Traditional Catholics and a couple groups to form one "faction" as they call it. That can be, and is, quite problematic for a number of obvious reasons.

Is this a purely theological or philosophical argument, or has that been examined by a physicist? Is the spontaneous generation and annihilation of particles expected by quantum physics a problem?

I really wanted to ask about souls. I understand the church's objection to abortion is based on the assumption that the soul enters at the moment of fertilisation, and that therefore any interference after that moment is murder. Is that correct? If yes, then:
1) When a zygote splits and makes identical twins, does the soul split like an amoeba, or does only one of the twins have a soul?
2) When two separate zygotes merge to make a genetical chimera, do the souls merge, or is one discarded? What would happen to a discarded soul? How would a merged soul differ from a singular soul?
3) Are abstinence and the rhythm method still the only birth control measures approved by the church? Because the rhythm method doesn't work entirely by preventing conception. It also works by either egg or sperm being so old that the fetus is not viable, and spontaneously aborts, possibly even before the next period is due, so the woman never notices. That would mean that one of the approved contraceptive methods increases abortions. Why is that not a problem?
4) Is it true that the objection to other contraceptive methods is based on the bible verse about Onan practicing coitus interruptus? The text in the New International Version implies that Onan's economical motive for not providing his brother's widow with an heir was the deadly sin:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan
If this verse is the basis for the "every sperm is sacred" attitude, that seems pretty thin grounds for a policy that increases abortions.

As a Catholic, which English translation of the Bible do you prefer?

It's ironic----but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the King James Version.

I once heard a Catholic say that God gave the divine inspiration to correctly interpret the Bible only to Catholic theologians. I don't think King James scholars would fall into this group.

I don't know what the Catholic's opinions on the KJV are but I know certain Lutherans who absolutely hate it.

I don't think Catholics would be into the Good News Bible.

If this were any time other than the 20th-21st centuries, they would probably prefer a Latin version, or a version in the original languages.

You didn't answer my question, but then again, I wasn't expecting you to. Quoting text from a collection of stories written by man is not proof, sorry.

You are correct on that, concerning us Lutherans.

So which English translation do you Lutherans prefer?

NIV.

It's a philosophical argument, which is why I presented the argument the way I did. The claim that particles spontaneous generate and annihilate is false, particles do not flash in and out of of existence, they exist in a wavelike superposition and then appear as particles at certain point in that wave when measured.



The soul the life principle of a creature, it is the totality of the material body, and the immaterial mind and will.

Reply to 1: Yes the soul does "split like an amoeba" because the human zygote has split like an amoeba, there are now two identical twins with there own bodies, minds, and wills.

Reply to 2: This one is a bit difficult, but I'll venture to say yes, the souls do merge, due to the fact that the two zygotes have merged and have become a human genetical chimera. This merged soul would differ only so much as to the fact that body has the genes of a chimera.

Reply to 3: Natural Family Planning is a poorly understood practice of the Catholic Church, it so poorly understood that even many Catholics themselves, misunderstand it. I, myself don't fully understand exactly how it works and what the rules are, which is I why I won't be answering this part of your question(s) just yet, I need to take a closer look at this. I will say this though, if a Catholic couple overuses NFP, that would actually be considered sinful, that much I do know.

Reply to 4: Yes and no, Onan's sin is but one of many reasons why the Catholic Church recognizes contraception as sinful, the main reason being the Natural Law, the purpose of sexual-intercourse is to procreate new life. Setting aside the fact that you're using a Protestant translation of the Bible, the fact that Onan was using coitus interruptus for the malicious intent of not providing his brother's household with an heir, actually reinforces the fact that contraception is harmful. Economies, and civilizations as a whole for that matter, run on people, not big government, not big business, and no, not technology, people! If human beings are not raising up the next generation to support and inherit civilization, our civilization is going to collapse. (And if you're going to bring up the celibate religious and clerical, these are actually exceptions that prove the rule because right now in the Church, we're actually experiencing a vocation crisis because so many lay Catholics are using contraception in disobedience of the Church's teaching, and failing to provide potential priests and religious) If you're going to continue debating me on this, I highly, highly recommend you first read the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Blessed Pope Paul VI (who may be canonized a Saint soon) in which he reiterates why contraception is wrong and warns of the serious consequences that may arise if contraception is widely used. Humanae Vitae was published in 1968, as you read it, ask yourself if any of the things Blessed Pope Paul VI has predicted in this encyclical have come to pass.

The Knox version, the Douay-Rheims version, and the RSV-CE in that order of preference. I also heard that the New Catholic Bible is pretty a good, I might check that version out one day.

Both Knox version and the Douay-Rheims are translations of the Latin Vulgate, which is still considered the authoritative Biblical text of the Catholic Church, though forget exactly how magisterially, and also it's a specific version of the Vulgate, I forget what is called. The Knox version however uses and compares the various Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available at the time it was written, which is I why I like it more the Douay-Rheims version.

One funny thing about the Douay-Rheims version is that, it was such a strict, literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, that some of the verses actually come out as a form of Latin Engrish or Anglish as I like to call it.

I just gave you a long philosophical argument as proof of the existence of God, and you dismiss me of using the Bible which I didn't do, not even one single verse, I just said "here's what the ancient Israelites believed, compare it with what I just showed you, and think about it."

Please read my argument again.

Do you believe Saint Peter was the first Pope?