Paradoxes of Christianity

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

God is three persons of one essence.

Christ is fully man and fully God.

He is both a lion and a lamb.

The humble are exalted.

The weak are strong.

Slaves are free.

The covetous, no matter how powerful, are slaves.

Poverty and persecution are both blessed, yet it is the Christian's duty to do everything in his power to relieve them.

The Church is holy, yet always in need of purification.

Christians are to hate sin, but love sinners.

Man is free, but history is foreordained.

[Edited by Fear_nam_Beanntan on 4th August 2003 at 23:34]

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Ooh, another good one:

The Church is both Christ's body and His bride.

[Scottie_Brooke]

Hey that stuff's cool and totally true.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22)

"but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)

As you can see, the Catholic focus on the Church is entirely biblical. Salvation is a collective effort.

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
To my mind, leaving the Church and leaving the Faith are two different things.

It is certainly possible to remain a Christian after leaving the Catholic Church. However, since Christ himself established it, rejecting the Catholic Church does indeed entail a rejection of part of the Gospel. Switching to Eastern Orthodoxy only involves rejecting a tiny portion of it, but on the other hand, switching to a denomination that believes in justification by faith alone, sola scriptua, eternal security, or imputed righteousness involves the rejection of the clear teaching of the Bible.

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
Christianity is supposed to be a spiritual dimension, but Catholicism is distracted by political and social dimensions of the Church.

The spiritual, the political, and the social are indelibly intertwined. In fact, it is impossible to be a truly spiritual Christian without taking action for the betterment of the world. "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?" (James 2:20)

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
Being Catholic means being obedient to the Church, and depending on the Church for forgiveness (in other words, the whims of other men).

Jesus indended forgiveness to be exercised through the ministration of men. "And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'" (John 20:22-23)

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
The Vatican once declared that Freemasonry is not allowed for Catholics. Well, on what grounds?

Possibly because the Freemasons believed things which were contrary to the Gospel. That would be my first guess.

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
And in this case, being Catholic would, by definition, mean obeying the Vatican, even on 'current' issues that are not to do with the Bible.

Moral issues have everything to do with the Bible.

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
Membership is usually important, but a man can be a Christian without going to Church. A man can disagree with the Church, and still be Christian.

True, but deprving oneslelf of the sacraments involves depriving oneself of a great deal of sanctifying grace.

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
The Church, after all, is only a body of men.

Maybe so, but it is also the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23)

originally posted by Tom Sawyer
It is not as if the Church has always been the same. If anything, the Church is an abstraction.

The Church has recieved the full deposit of public revelation, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. She has grown in her understanding of this revelation throughout the centuries, but has never contradicted it or changed it. The Catholic Church of today is the same Church which recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by TomSawyer
1. I do not see how the Church is always the same. The Church, at bottom, is a body of men, and most men are products of their time, and time itself changes.

But as St. Paul beautifully expresses in Ephesians, the Church has a profound, mystical dimension in addition to being a visible assembly of mortal men. The Church which Christ established upon Peter serves as the guardian of the truth, she is guided by the Holy Spirit, and by her very nature cannot change in any fundamental way. What the Catholic Church defines as dogma can never be retracted or contradicted. Of course, the liturgy may change, the Church may reject ideas which had previously been popular, and she can accomodate diverse cultures and traditions, but once soemthing is dogma, it is set in stone.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
2. To my knowledge, there is nothing incompatible between Christianity and Freemasonry. The persecution of the Masons, at the hands of the Church, cannot be defended. When 'speculative' masonry became popular in Europe, the Church felt competition. As a result, they went after the Masons. Yet, the Masons never persecuted Catholics. That's the difference.

Well, there have been many sinful, power hungry Catholics throughout the ages. I have never said that the Church militant is perfect; that's only the Church triumphant.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
3. Helping the word does not always mean 'political' help. Being a good person, and raising good children, can be enough for some.

Well, the Catholic Church doesn't expect every member to be a politician. But she can and does use her power and influence for the betterment of the world, which is an essential part of the Gospel. It would be a greivous sin to sit on top of so much political capital and not use it to fight abortion, secularism, tyranny, and the like.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
4. When Jesus tells other to forgive sins, He refers to the Holy Spirit. But I find it hard to believe that some priest, who does not know me, is of 'the Holy Spirit' and can, himself, forgive me my sins.

The Holy Spirit works through the priest. The priest does not, in and of himself, possess the power to forgive sins. He is just a mortal man, after all, and only God can forgive sins. But Christ wanted this power to be exercised through the ministration of men, for very obvious reasons, and so He instituted Confession as a Sacrament.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
After all, priests were men who could read the Bible and, presumably, understand it, as opposed to the many more people who could not. They were, in effect, teachers. But times have changed. Bibles are available almost everywhere and can be read on one's own. Thus, to my mind, priests are now archaic. Certainly they are helpful, but they are not needed. I do not need a middle man between myself and God.

But then again, the Bible is not the only source of revelation. The majority of Christ's teachings were not recorded in the pages of Scripture, as St. John admits at the end of his Gospel; they were passed on orally within His body, the Church, and therefore the early Church had a much better understanding of the Gospel than anyone could hope to gain today simply by studying the Bible. Since the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of succession going all the way back to this same early Church, she possesses this understanding as well, and the absolute fullness of truth can be found only in her.

And preists will not be obsolete until Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Until then, we will need preists to receive Confession, annoint the sick (James 5), and pray the Mass, the pure offering predicted by Malachi 1:11, wherein we truly recieve the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
5. I do not think that rejection of the Church means a partial rejection of the Bible. Theoretically, there could be a Church still full of bad people, and therefore rejecting their company would not be unChristian.

If Christ's Church were invaded by heresy and evil, it would indeed be unChristian to abandon her. There was a time when the Arian heresy threatened to wipe out Christian orthodoxy, but it is because of great men like St. Athanasius that it lives on today.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
6. You have said that moral issues have everything to do with the Bible. Well, yes, that may be true, but current things are open to interpretation. The Bible cannot, directly, comment on Al Queda or Americans in Iraq. These things are up to us, and we must not tolerate a Church telling us what to do.

Can't tolerate a Church telling us what to do? What is the power to bind and loose if it is not the power to tell people what to do?

Originally posted by TomSawyer
After all, when the Pope says one thing, we are expected to believe it, a priori, when in reality he is simply making a kind of moral guess, like we do all the time, concerning something which might be a shade of grey. How is his 'opinion' any more Divine than our own?

The Pope is an authoritative teacher who has devoted his entire life to studying such things. He most likley prays quite a bit more often than you do, so you would do well to heed his words. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong, of course. He is only infallible when he proclaims a doctrine.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
7. Lewis said it best. Being Catholic means going along with the Church, at any point in history, which implies change. But Christianity is changeless and does not need reworking or modification. Remember that it was only recently that Galileo was pardoned.

No, Lewis was wrong here. He wisened up in his later years. Being Catholic means believing in what has been enshrined as infallible dogma through the various ecumenical councils and ex cathedra decrees, which can never be changed. It does not mean being a flatterer or agreeing with everyting the Church says and does. Great Catholics like St. Catherine of Sienna have stood up to the Pope, and become canonized for it. Catholics should love the Church enough to criticise her and demand reforms. As Lewis said, "love, by its very nature demands the perfection of the beloved."

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

It baffles me as to how you can simultaneously be a Christian and think there's nothing wrong with premarital sex, as the Bible repeatedly lists it as a damnable offense, alongside idolatry and adultery (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 15:19, Acts 21:25)

God requires perfection. This means we cannot be attached to material pleasures. And since we live in a secular society, we have to continually resist them. Things like masturbation and pre-marital sex severely weaken our capacity to resist; they serve only to tighten our bondage to sin, whereas Christ wants to set us free.

And Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament. The man is joined to the woman, and the two become one flesh. It is deeply holy. If homosexuals want to have civil unions with all the legal rights and priveleges of marriage, tht is fine, but marriage is by nature between a man and a woman.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by TomSawyer
I would even go so far as to say that celebicy has a psychological breaking point and can lead to neurotic behaviour.

Well, Jesus and Paul were both celibate, and they both reccomended it. For example:

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:27-34).

Some people are called to devote their entire lives to the kingdom, i.e. give up sex. Christianity is strange like that; it makes the most extraordinary demands.

"Be perfect."
"Go and sin no more."
"Give all of your money to the poor."
"Love your enemy."
"If anyone sues you for your tunic, give him your cloak as well."

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Telling people not to have sex until marriage can, for some, lead to bad socialization, awkwardness, and low esteem.

Or it can take a lot of tension out of the air.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Considers virgins whose virginity is not due to the Church, but to their own shyness.

What would this case have to do with the discussion at hand if his vrginity was not due to the Church?

Originally posted by TomSawyer
What if a girl wants to make love to him, and in refusing to, the man hurts her feelings and their relationship is damaged? I see complications in all this.

Waah, waah, poor girl. If she can't handle it, I guess she'll just have to go to a corner and cry.