What Catholic teaching or doctrine do you find most challenging or difficult to understand and why?

Apologetics
123

Soul,
re: “You’re the one who first presented a hypothetical scenario that you believed involved an ancient Jew using the idiom ‘three days and three nights’…”

I didn’t do that. I asked if an ancient Jew said he would be working one day and one night would anyone think that at least a portion of the daytime or at least a portion of the night time didn’t have to be involved? I asked because I don’t see how the logic there is any different if three days and three nights was substituted for one day and one night.

re: “In reply, I told you to put forth a hypothetical of an ancient Jew using the idiom “three days and three nights” correctly.”

Just take my hypothetical of one day and one night and substitute three days and three nights. The question would be the same.

re: “As for me, I’ve already pointed to actual examples in Scripture where the idiom ‘three days and three nights’ was used.”

But, with the possible exception of the Esther account - and that is dependent on if “three days, night or day” is the same thing as “three days and three nights” - your other three offerings do not show where at least a portion of each one of three daytimes or at least a portion of each one of three night times couldn’t be involved.

126

EVERYTHING! From it’s teaching of the Trinity, the Immortal Soul, Death, etc.

agag
agag334×300 27 KB

127

Soul,
re: “One day and one night is literal and specific; the idiom ‘three days and three nights’ is symbolic, emphasizing the crossing of multiple day/night boundaries, not necessarily 72 literal hours.”

If at least a portion of one daytime and at least a portion of one night time has to be literal, I don’t see why at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three night times doesn’t have to be literal. You seem to be saying that it was common usage to not be literal.

Oh, and I haven’t said anything about the need for 72 hours.

131

Soul,
re: “I said that the use of the idiom ‘three days and three nights’ was common in ancient Judaism.”

But where was it common to say “three days and three nights” would be involved with an event when at least a portion of each one of three daytimes and at least a portion of each one of three nights times couldn’t be involved?

134

Soul,

You have a question directed to you in post #120.

136

Soul,
re: “It’s an incoherent question, and it indicates that you still don’t understand what the Hebrew idiom ‘three days and three nights’ means.”

I don’t see what’s incoherent about it. You said that three days and three nights was common usage in ancient Judaism.

I am simply asking you for some of the examples that you have to support your comment of commonality. How is that incoherent?

139

[quote="Soul,
"…which meant that Jesus had only been lifeless in total for 38 hours not 72 hours, but still considered lifeless for three days.
[/quote]

If someone said they would be in town 1 day and 1 night, would anyone think that at least a portion of 1 daytime and at least a portion of 1 night time didn’t have to be involved because any part of a calendar day was considered to be a whole calendar day? I don’t think they would. So, how is that any different from what the Messiah said?

141

but conscience is the Holy Spirit talking to us and if they think that that was their conscience telling them that then it wasn’t their conscience to begin with it was either their own understanding or a demon not conscience catechism teaches to rely on conscience because we believe that the conscience is The Holy Spirit if the ‘‘conscience’’ tells you or makes you feel like to do something bad then you may think it is your conscience but it is not because the Holy Spirit wouldnt do that in the first place

1 Like
146

There is a distinction between God’s active will (when God intervenes) and God’s permissive will (that which He allows to happen). If God allows something to happen, it does not mean that He loves us any less.

A loving father may talk to each of his children differently, based on their personality. Some children may be more sensitive, while others may be more rebellious.

The way Jesus spoke to the lowly vs. how He spoke to those who viewed themselves as self-important, was very different.

God humbles the self-righteous and lifts up those who are in need.

In Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal son, I often see myself as the older brother, who felt it was unfair that his Father would treat his way-ward brother so well upon his return, while the older brother had not been so reckless and dishonorable.

It isn’t that the Father loves the younger son more or the older son less. It is that he loves them differently and that may seem unjust or unfair.

My brother was a good student in school. It was rare for him not to make the honor roll. For me, not so much. If I got a “B” my parents would celebrate and act as though I had gotten all A’s, and my brother would get encouragement if he ever got a “B,” because they knew he was capable of an “A.” Was this wrong? It as definitely a different standard of judgement, expectation, and reward, that I would agree with.

Luke 12:48 says, “But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

I am also reminded of the account of the woman who only gave two small coins, while wealthier ones gave a lot (Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4). The ones giving a lot was great! AND the one who gave all that she had was greater. We live in a world that like to pit two things against one another. It isn’t here that one is bad and the other is good. Both are good. We didn’t hear about the ones who gave nothing.

I hope this helps a little. I’m not saying we have to like it : )

147

Soul,
re: “Inclusive reckoning applies to counting units (like days, years, or people) in a sequence or group, not to a single continuous duration, such as 1 day and 1 night.”

What is your source for saying that - i.e., that 1 day and 1 night has to mean that at least a part of 1 daytime and at least a part of 1 night time has to be involved, but that 2 days and 2 nights doesn’t have to mean that at least a part of 2 daytimes and at least a part of 2 night times doesn’t have to be involved?

148

A Catholic teaching that I use to struggle understanding was, how am I suppose to love Jesus?

I just couldn’t understand or figure that out for some reason. No one ever taught me the HOW part, but rather we’re suppose to “love Jesus” as a command.

I’d see and read all types of stuff where people said they loved Jesus. And I’d ask myself, HOW do they love Jesus? Why can’t I too feel this “love” for Jesus?

:slight_smile: As I discovered, eventually and very slowly, the Catholic Church in teaching about the meaning of “charity”, or love, isn’t something we necessarily “feel”. But rather it’s something we DO, in both our words and actions. We can love others by our actions, even to those people who are unlovable. We can be kind to others in response with words of mercy and grace and gentleness.

But after I caught on to the “love Jesus” thing, I came across something Jesus said, as reported to us in one of the Gospels: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” :heart: John 14:15

BINGO! That answered the HOW part I questioned all those years. And not just to keep those commandments which I picked and chose (cafeteria Christianity), but ALL the commandments which He chose. I wasn’t able to “do” all that Jesus commanded immediately, but rather over time I grew and progressed in loving God and neighbor. The bigger the sinner I was, the more work I had to do.

Thank you for posting up this question @jcs . +

1 Like
149

In the Annulment process by the Church, She looks at what we bring to the table of evidence to an an Impediment investigation. Meaning that there were conditions which impeded the marriage from being valid (or Lawful).

:glowing_star: An Annulment is not the same as divorce. An annulment says “there was no valid marriage.” A divorce says “your marriage was valid” but is being dissolved. The Church doesn’t grant divorces, period.

According to Canon Law (1083 -1094), there are various impediments which can invalidate (or impede) a lawful Marriage:

  • Lack of the required age (age impediment)
  • Prior and still-existing marriage bond (i.e., one party is already married)
  • Disparity of cult (one party is baptized and the other is not baptized)
  • Sacred Orders (a person who has received sacred ordination)
  • A public perpetual vow of chastity (in a religious institute; the details matter for dispensation)
  • Impotence to have marital intercourse (if certain conditions are met)
  • Abduction / unlawful detention of a woman with a view to marriage
  • Crime (e.g., the kinds of marital-related delicts defined in the Code)
  • Consanguinity (blood relationship)
  • Affinity (relationship arising from marriage)
  • Adoption (in the forms recognized by canon law)
  • Spiritual relationship (arising from certain religious acts like baptism/godparenthood)

I hope this has been helpful, in some way. +

P.S. I’m currently separated, but am seeking an annulment based upon an impediment by declaring that there exists a Disparity of Cult. When I first consulted my parish priest about getting married, he scheduled a counseling Session with both of us present which he asked many questions. One of those answers he received was that my fiancée is not baptized, and has no intention of becoming Baptized. I was already Catholic, she was not. At that time, the priest advised me that this will be a problem and strongly advised me not to proceed with marriage until she becomes Baptized. But she refused, and we got married anyhow on the condition that our offspring would be raised Catholic. Today I very much regret not following the priests recommendations, because what he predicted would happen as has countless other marriages such as this, did actually happen. For me, a lawful Marriage was not in place at that time, and the Marriage is most likely invalid due to Disparity of Cult.

1 Like
150

Tommy, thanks for this.

I think I am beginning to get the idea.

My best wishes for you

2 Likes