The Papists

Why, at the beginning of course. I’m just kidding, I know what you mean.  The word “catholic” can be used in two ways.  The first is lowercase, and the second is uppercase.

1.  catholic means universal, comprehensive, or all-encompassing.  It comes from the Greek word, katholikos, which comes from the phrase kath’ holou, meaning “about” (kata) “the whole” (holos).

2.  Catholic refers to the Catholic Church and its members.  It comes from the idea that the Catholic Church is the universal Church.  When used in this case, it is capitalized.

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

- Niko

Not having read St. Louis de Montfort I can’t know for sure what he meant.  As Catholics however, we have a slightly different idea of predestination than the average Calvinist.  The Catholic believes that God “predestines” everyone to heaven and so gives every man and woman “sufficient” grace that they may choose to follow His will and thus earn eternal life.  (Note, this does not mean that He gives everyone an equal amount of grace, some may get more than others, but everyone gets enough to be able to choose to follow His will.)  This does not mean everyone goes to heaven though, for even with God’s gift of grace, some choose to reject God, and so they do not enter into paradise. 

So, the Catholic believes that despite man’s predestination to heaven, his life choices may condemn him to hell, which is very different from certain Calvinists who may believe that some are assuredly bound for heaven and others for hell, and their life choices are a reflection of where they are going. 

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

-Niko

Anon,

I’d say at face value, they’re not lustful. Lust is a desire to use the other person for our own sexual gain or pleasure, and butterflies are simply feelings we get when we encounter someone to whom we’re attracted. I think that if you, as you say, turn the experience of those feelings into an “unhealthy infatuation,” then it could turn into lust. If you do encounter someone who’s really attractive, thank God for their attractiveness, tell Him He did a good job, and move on. As a guy, I can tell you this is really important and effective in making sure we respect and love women rather than using and lusting after them. Hope this helps.

Your friend,

Olivier

Anon,

Forgive me for assuming, but it seems like you might not have a real grasp of why the Church teaches against IVF methods. BadCatholic offers a nicer explanation than I could ever give, so I suggest you take a look at what he has to say. I just got a feeling that you saying “If it wasn’t against Catholic teaching…” might mean that you don’t know why the Church teaches against IVF. And that’s okay, of course. I myself have a long way to go when it comes to Church teaching.

Now, onto your question. In terms of concrete acts, I would highly recommend your friend to chart her cycles/start looking at NFP methods. Natural fertility methods are surprisingly good at helping women conceive children. Q or anyone else who’s familiar with NFP, would you want to offer a comment?

Finally, good on you for praying for her, Anon. Pray that whatever the circumstance, you and your friend will give glory to God. 

Your friend,

Olivier

approximatelyinfinity:

rebelling-against-the-rebels replied to your post: Hanging out in both lungs of the Church today!

I’ve always wondered what the difference between Orthodox and Catholic were. I know that Orthodox don’t recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but is there anything else?

Great question! There are a handful of differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catechism paragraph 838 says that non-Catholic Christians who have been “properly baptized” are in a “certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.’ ” In other words, we’re really freaking close. :)

As far as the actual differences, some are theological and some are liturgical choices.

• The Pope. While the West teaches papal supremacy (meaning he has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church), the East considers the Pope to be a “first among equals.”
• The “filioque” controversy, in which the West added the words “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed without the consent or consultation of the East. This reflects some differences in the understanding of the Holy Trinity. (Too complicated to get into right now)
• Slightly different views of original sin. Both say it exists, but the West says everyone inherits the sin of Adam and the East says we inherit the sin of Adam AND everyone else who came before us.
• The Immaculate Conception (rejected by the Orthodox)
• Teachings on purgatory, which the East generally rejects, although some believe in a form of purification after death…
• The use of leavened vs. unleavened bread
• Celibacy of parish priests (which is a tradition, not a hardfast rule in the West)

These differences are important, but often they are blown out of proportion by both sides. Historically, there has been a lot of conflict between the East and West about these things, and both can still be “bitter” about it. (It seems to me that the East is a little more bitter than the West, but I don’t blame them. That whole sacking of Constantinople thing…) (Sometimes it reminds me of two feuding families that have been going at it for so long that they can’t remember why they’re arguing anymore.) Fortunately, in recent years a lot of progress has been made in terms of reconciliation between the two Churches. 

Honestly, in today’s world, we’re fighting against the same things. I saw a book in the Orthodox Church’s bookstore that was like, “Criticism of Protestantism” or something like that, and I’m sure it’s nearly identical to what the Catholic Church says about Protestantism! 

So anyways, that’s a long-winded answer that really only touches the surface. In brief, there are some differences, listed above, but honestly a lot of the conflict is historical rather than theological. And we’re making progress so we can be friends again. :)

I figured I’d reblog this here to make it visible to more people. Hope it’s informative!

Because, the Church believes in truth.  Because gay marriage is impossible, just like a square circle is impossible, the government’s claim that it is, is a lie.  It is the Church’s duty to oppose governments which lie to their people, and to preserve the truth.

Also, it’s not true that civil acceptance of gay marriage will not force it on the Church.  Already, the Church has been forced to close orphanages and other organizations because they refused to allow gay couples to adopt.  So, in some ways, it is forced on the Church.

PSA: Tumblr ate that last ask regarding confession, mortal sin, and pre-marital sex.

Send it again, perhaps?

Check out this video, it’s a little long but very interesting. The video goes into much of what Catholics believe about Mary.

Peace and Happy Easter :)

-Javi 

Anon,

Consider Acts 10:9-15:

The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat. But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.” The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

God has given us the right to eat meat. I hope this answers your question.

Your friend,

Olivier

I thought I was confessing adequately but when I told a word, an adjective for that matter, I realized that it had two meanings afterward I said it. Then I felt the need to tell the priest what I meant by that word but I didn’t bother to since I thought that God knew what I meant. Help? I am scrupulous < same anon :)

So, this is my answer to your question, but I think you might want to get a second opinion from FatherAngel or FatherShane.  They have the benefit of having actually given the sacrament.  But, I’ll take a stab at it.

I would think that if the two meanings are radically different, and the priest clearly misunderstood which meaning you meant, it might be better to clarify it.  I don’t think it would invalidate the entire confession, though if you purposely used the double meaning to hide the severity of one of your sins, (which is not what appears happened,) then you might want to consider reconfessing it correctly. 

I think it’s good to remember that God is not trying to trip us up in confession.  While we have a responsibility to confess our sins completely and honestly to the priest, we should not worry too much about whether the confession was licit or invalid etc.  That’s more the priest’s responsibility.

So, I guess what I’m saying is that in this case you need to make the call, if you truly think you might have had an intent to deceive, you should probably revisit the confessional at your next opportunity, if not, just try to be clearer next time. 

Does this answer your question? God bless!

-Niko