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

Post Reply New Topic

Okay try this, take an object and hold it in your hand. Now, if you are holding an object in your hands, there is something that I, and everyone here for that matter, can 100% know for a fact about this object, without the slightest chance of being mistaken. What is this fact I know for absolute certainty about the object in your hand? (Again, provided that you're actually holding an object hand.) I know that the object in your hands exists, both I, everyone here can know that with absolute certainty.

Now, I've just picked up an object and am currently holding it in my own hand as I type this, once again, we can all know with absolute, 100% certainty that this object also exists, everyone here knows with absolute certainty that the object in my hand exists, and the object your hand exists, and yet we can also know with absolute certainty that the object in my hand is not the object your hand. I have an object in my hand that exists, you have an object in your hand that exists, and yet my existing object is not your existing object, even if they are both the same object, namely an iPhone, that's the object I'm holding in my hand at the moment. If we both happen to be both holding iPhones at the moment, (Which may be unlikely as, I'm not even sure if you're online at the moment that I'm typing this.) and even if we were able to make both of these iPhones are identical, these iPhones would still be different iPhones, my iPhone exists, your iPhone if you're holding one exists, both my iPhone, and whatever object your holding in your hand exists, but my existing object is not your existing object, how are they different? Well, my iPhone was made a whole complex series of parts, most of which are made of metal and plastic, if you have a different object from my iPhone, stop and consider how your object was manufactured.

Now consider this, as we ponder how our projects were manufactured, are any of the things that go into the construction of our products, the explanation of their own existence, or the source of their own existence? No, none these things are the explanation of their own existence, or the source of their own existence, all these things received their existence from something else, and can also pass their existence on to something else. These things can not originate their own existence, they must receive their existence from elsewhere, this is called contingency. Contingency refers to something that is, without having to be, none of these things have to exist due to the fact that they are dependent on something else in order to exist, and thus can very easily not be. Now if all things receive their existence from something else, how can anything exist at all? Existence needs to enter into the cosmos in order for things to exist, but nothing in the cosmos can generate its own existence, there needs to be something that can posses existence all on its own, what can the be? Well in the book of Exodus, we have someone saying "I AM that I AM" and later says that He should be called "HE WHO IS" or YHWH, (Y=He HWH=To be) this someone is none other than the God of Israel, and He is the only lead we've got on a being who is necessary, who posses existence in and of Himself, and can give that existence to contingent things.

It depends on what you mean by "clique" and probably what those cliques are. Cliques can be could refer to anything from Eastern rites, to the Anglican Ordinariate, to people liking a certain devotion and spreading it, to some local Catholic cultural custom. The Traditional Catholic movement itself has quite a few "cliques" in it.

Was I too aggressive in that last post, it's hard to tell on these online forums at times. I honestly didn't know what you meant by "clique," I mean suspected you were considering the Traditional Catholic movement, of being a" clique" as I implied in the last bit of my last post but, I really was trying to give you the benefit of a doubt.

Granted, I could just be reading this whole thing wrong, I could have answered what you wanted answered, and you being satisfied, didn't feel the need to respond, I myself, do almost all the time on other forums.

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.