I am interested in starting a friendly discussion about the similarities and differences between Protestant doctrine and Catholic doctrine; I also hope to clear up any misconceptions about the Catholic Church, along the way. My purpose here is not to talk anyone into becoming Catholic, to attack anyone's faith, or to engage in any conversation that isn't educational in nature. For the record, I believe any person who has a personal relationship with Christ and is in agreement with the Nicene Creed is a Christian - so please do not ask me if you have to be Catholic to be Christian.
It is also important to let you know that I reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church about 6 years ago after about 15 years as a born again Christian in a Protestant tradition.
Finally, I am hardly the last word on Catholicism, if you are Catholic please feel free to answer any questions, enter into dialog, or add to any of my comments. In the end, the Catholic Catechism is the best way to find accurate information on all Catholic teachings.
blessings
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
My question is this... What is the definition of a Roman Catholic?
Looking over the faith I understand the arguments against sola scriptura which are foundational to Protestant belief. I know that oral tradition and the idea of apostolic succession are also foundational. Looking over Roman Catholicism what seems critical to me the final authority of the Pope in all doctrinal matters.
What I don't understand is many Roman Catholics themselves don't necessarily submit to the authority of the church or the Pope... such as the use of birth control by many of the practitioners. Are these folks "Protestant" in some way? Are they still considered within the RCC fold, or are they looked at much the same way as Protestant groups are looked at?
My biggest problem with RCC is historical... I just think the empirical evidence against the Holy Spirit leading the church in some special way is too great.
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 23:53:44
I am assuming that Catholicism is considered to be Christian doctrine based on rule #6. As we all know, the Nicene Creed was written and approved by a Catholic Council. If I am wrong about this point moderators please let me know your reasoning before locking my thread - thank you :)
Just a quick note to let you know that yes, Catholicism is considered a Christian doctrine by the rules of this board. I'd actually like to state this emphatically, not because I have no disagreements with Catholicism, but because this has been called into question recently. Catholicism is to be treated as a Christian belief rather than as a non-Christian belief.
If any other moderators would like to elaborate or modify this, please do.
Thank you.
In the RCC is the Word the final authority?
If not why?
FTL
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian. She was open to my questions and very nicely informed me that Catholics are Christians and then gave me a few books to read. I devoured the books - I was thrilled to see that I had been misinformed about the Catholic Church. I continued my own research into the Catechism / Church Fathers / Church history / disagreements between Catholics and Protestants and after about 1 year and a half I signed up for RCIA, which is a 6-8 month program which prepares adults to join the RC. I remember my wife was initially horrified - she was raised in an independent fundamentalist church and felt she was already compromising by attending a Presbyterian Church - it took her a bit more time, but after reading Scott Hahn and a lot of church history she decided to join, as well. I also have to say that a professor at my Presbyterian college really prepared me for my reconciliation with the RC.
: Barabbas Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 11:29:20
My question is this... What is the definition of a Roman Catholic?
Looking over the faith I understand the arguments against sola scriptura which are foundational to Protestant belief. I know that oral tradition and the idea of apostolic succession are also foundational. Looking over Roman Catholicism what seems critical to me the final authority of the Pope in all doctrinal matters.
What I don't understand is many Roman Catholics themselves don't necessarily submit to the authority of the church or the Pope... such as the use of birth control by many of the practitioners. Are these folks "Protestant" in some way? Are they still considered within the RCC fold, or are they looked at much the same way as Protestant groups are looked at?
My biggest problem with RCC is historical... I just think the empirical evidence against the Holy Spirit leading the church in some special way is too great.
My definition of a Roman Catholic is a person who is engaged in a saving, sanctifying relationship with Christ; believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and accepts the Bible and Tradition as equal authority in their lives.
I agree with you that the institution of the Papacy is certainly an area of disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants; not to mention, people in the Orthodox faith.
I see the office of Pope as a necessary safeguard of Tradition. Yes, there have been many nasty Popes throughout history, as well as some great ones, but the office of the Pope is what is truly important. In my experience without the office of the Pope people with good intentions tend to drift toward other authorities - Orthodox churches believe God ordained government to be authorities over them; Protestants claim that scripture interprets scripture and the Holy Spirit should be our guide - which I believe is a noble idea, but ends up opening the door for private interpretation of the scriptures, denominations, radical individualism and ultimately, relativism - of course I am taking my line of thought to the extreme in order to illustrate my point. I have come to believe that God instituted the office of the Pope (Matt 16:18) and sent His Holy Spirit to save guard His church.
It is interesting to me that history repelled you from the RC; while it actually attracted me to it. I agree that the Crusades and the Inquisition and the bad Popes are all sinful parts of RC history, however I look to the Creeds, the Canonization of scripture, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Doctrine of the Incarnation as evidence of the leading of the Holy Spirit.
blessings
: marc Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 13:00:01
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 23:53:44
I am assuming that Catholicism is considered to be Christian doctrine based on rule #6. As we all know, the Nicene Creed was written and approved by a Catholic Council. If I am wrong about this point moderators please let me know your reasoning before locking my thread - thank you :)
Just a quick note to let you know that yes, Catholicism is considered a Christian doctrine by the rules of this board. I'd actually like to state this emphatically, not because I have no disagreements with Catholicism, but because this has been called into question recently. Catholicism is to be treated as a Christian belief rather than as a non-Christian belief.
If any other moderators would like to elaborate or modify this, please do.
Thank you.
Thanks Marc, I appreciate your feedback.
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 16:30:14
: Barabbas Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 11:29:20
My question is this... What is the definition of a Roman Catholic?
Looking over the faith I understand the arguments against sola scriptura which are foundational to Protestant belief. I know that oral tradition and the idea of apostolic succession are also foundational. Looking over Roman Catholicism what seems critical to me the final authority of the Pope in all doctrinal matters.
What I don't understand is many Roman Catholics themselves don't necessarily submit to the authority of the church or the Pope... such as the use of birth control by many of the practitioners. Are these folks "Protestant" in some way? Are they still considered within the RCC fold, or are they looked at much the same way as Protestant groups are looked at?
My biggest problem with RCC is historical... I just think the empirical evidence against the Holy Spirit leading the church in some special way is too great.
My definition of a Roman Catholic is a person who is engaged in a saving, sanctifying relationship with Christ; believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and accepts the Bible and Tradition as equal authority in their lives.
I agree with you that the institution of the Papacy is certainly an area of disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants; not to mention, people in the Orthodox faith.
I see the office of Pope as a necessary safeguard of Tradition. Yes, there have been many nasty Popes throughout history, as well as some great ones, but the office of the Pope is what is truly important. In my experience without the office of the Pope people with good intentions tend to drift toward other authorities - Orthodox churches believe God ordained government to be authorities over them; Protestants claim that scripture interprets scripture and the Holy Spirit should be our guide - which I believe is a noble idea, but ends up opening the door for private interpretation of the scriptures, denominations, radical individualism and ultimately, relativism - of course I am taking my line of thought to the extreme in order to illustrate my point. I have come to believe that God instituted the office of the Pope (Matt 16:18) and sent His Holy Spirit to save guard His church.
It is interesting to me that history repelled you from the RC; while it actually attracted me to it. I agree that the Crusades and the Inquisition and the bad Popes are all sinful parts of RC history, however I look to the Creeds, the Canonization of scripture, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Doctrine of the Incarnation as evidence of the leading of the Holy Spirit.
blessings
Gotcha. I understand how history might have attracted you. I find it much more attractive to think that the church has always existed instead of had to be "Restored" in some way. I just happen to interpret the church in much broader terms than just the RCC - but I do respect the tradition. You won't get any traditional Catholic bashing from me. ::tippinghat::
: Harold Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 14:32:19
In the RCC is the Word the final authority?
If not why?
FTL
Hello Harold,
The Scriptures and Tradition (Catholic dogma) are considered to be equally authoritative by the RC. Briefly, the Catholic Church recognizes that many ideas that lie outside scripture, but do not contradict scripture are inspired by God. A good example is the canonization of the scriptures; the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit determined the order and the content of the Bible. Another example is the Doctrine of the Trinity - yes the Bible supports the Doctrine of the Trinity, but the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, developed the doctrine.
Finally, Luther's concept of Sola Scriptura is not support by the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus tells us that the Church is authoritative:
Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Paul also tells us that the Church has authority:
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.
1 Corinthians 6:4
Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
Colossians 1:28
We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.
The one verse that Protestants rely on to support the teaching of sola scriptura is Tim. 3:16-17
6All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Unfortunately, the fact that scripture is God-breathed and useful doesn't mean that it is exclusively so. Here is an awkward analogy - Safeway is useful for suppling groceries, but their are other groceries stories that are just as useful.
blessings
I have a question. I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind. Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this? Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group? I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?
ravenlorre,
During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all? Did you ever consider their side of the schism?
And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?
Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts. ::tippinghat::
: ConnieLard Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:00:08
I have a question. I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind. Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this? Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group? I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?
You didn't ask me, but it is my impression that Merton groups do not particularly care whether you're Catholic or not. The thrust of various groups can change in that some are more contemplative, and others focus on social action. Then there are those in between.
While most folks that know about Merton are likely Catholics, not all Catholics like Merton (there was some hubbub recently about him being removed from an official tome that described Catholics to model).
Anyway, Merton groups are normally Merton groups, even if they are predominantly Catholic.
: ConnieLard Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:00:08
I have a question. I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind. Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this? Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group? I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?
Hi Connie,
I love Thomas Merton! Unfortunately, you may have to dig a little to find groups that meet together in the Catholic Church - Protestants are the best at organizing small groups in my opinion - Catholics need to catch up.
The good news is that groups do exist - I am an oblate at a monastery in Oregon, for example. I would recommend reading "A Cloistered Walk" by Kathleen Norris is you haven't already - she is a Presbyterian who decided to become an oblate (without becoming Catholic) and she does a nice job of explaining the process and what exactly an oblate is. If you are interested I can give you more information, as well. In general, monasteries are a great place to go to for personal retreats and spiritual renewal - I can give you more information about how to find one in your area if you would like.
Also, I am apart of a dynamic group in my church (you do not have to be catholic to join) that is focused on merging social service and faith - it is called Just Faith - you can look it up on the web if you are interested.
Finally, have you heard about Lectio Divina? It is a method of prayer that focuses around the scriptures - many Catholic Churches has groups that meet together to pray through specific scripture.
blessings
: DCR Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:03:22
ravenlorre,
During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all? Did you ever consider their side of the schism?
And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?
Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts. ::tippinghat::
I really only investigated the Orthodox Tradition briefly after I joined the RC. I am sure I have much to learn about their faith and doctrines. Although, I have read a lot of writings from early Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil and St Gregory - I really admire their tradition of monasticism and contemplative prayer.
I believe that the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican / Episcopalian Churches are so close to Roman Catholicism that I only distinguish between the traditions if it might offend someone if I didn't - I hope that makes sense.
I believe in the supremacy of Peter - that Jesus set him apart from the other apostles as the first Pope. I acknowledge that the office of the Pope has developed over the past 2000 years in order to lead a world wide church, but it was there in the beginning as well.
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 16:07:02
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian. She was open to my questions and very nicely informed me that Catholics are Christians and then gave me a few books to read. I devoured the books - I was thrilled to see that I had been misinformed about the Catholic Church. I continued my own research into the Catechism / Church Fathers / Church history / disagreements between Catholics and Protestants and after about 1 year and a half I signed up for RCIA, which is a 6-8 month program which prepares adults to join the RC. I remember my wife was initially horrified - she was raised in an independent fundamentalist church and felt she was already compromising by attending a Presbyterian Church - it took her a bit more time, but after reading Scott Hahn and a lot of church history she decided to join, as well. I also have to say that a professor at my Presbyterian college really prepared me for my reconciliation with the RC.
Let me see if I understand.
You were led to catholicism by another catholic. You researched some catholic books and decided to become a catholic. Soon after you led your wife from a fundamentalist church down the same path.
Did you have any children you also brought to this faith?
For the record, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe our family led to the Church by God :)
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 19:25:28
We have two daughters and we are raising them Catholic. Although our oldest attends a Protestant youth group, as well as Mass. Also, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe we were lead to the Church by God :)
blessings
Have you ever considered you were on the narrow path, but have been led onto the wide path?
For the record, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe our family led to the Church by God :)
blessings
Have you ever considered you were on the narrow path, but have been led onto the wide path?
Of course. I didn't make this decision lightly. As I wrote earlier, I spent years researching and praying before I actually became Catholic. I am now convinced that I was misinformed about Catholicism by my religious leaders.
blessings
I am glad and impressed that this thread has been civil and extremely enlightening. Ravenlorre, I also joined the Catholic Church recently...this past Easter. My experience mirrors yours to a degree. My journey lasted for about 10 years. I too was attracted to RC as a history major. Ultimately, I came to the same conclusions as you did. It took some time.
My wife also grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist background. Most of her family attended Bob Jones Academy, which is attached to the Bob Jones University in South Carolina. I was shocked that she wanted to explore Catholicism. She made it very clear when I met her that if I continued to explore it, then I could forget about a longterm relationship. I wasn't sure if Catholicism was for me at the time, and I didn't want to sacrifice a potential mate, so I backed off. I continued to study Catholicism and work out my problems with the faith. Ironically, it was the authority of the Papacy that was the last remaining obstacle for me. I firmly believed that if God wanted me to take this path, then He would provide the opportunity.
After being married for about three years, my wife shocked me when she told me that she wanted to explore Catholicism. No doubt that it was God who opened the door. I thought that it would never be a possibility. We attended RCIA classes and a year and half later, we both entered the Church.
Ravenlorre, thanks for sharing your experience and insights.
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:24:47
: DCR Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:03:22
ravenlorre,
During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all? Did you ever consider their side of the schism?
And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?
Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts. ::tippinghat::
I really only investigated the Orthodox Tradition briefly after I joined the RC. I am sure I have much to learn about their faith and doctrines. Although, I have read a lot of writings from early Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil and St Gregory - I really admire their tradition of monasticism and contemplative prayer.
I believe that the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican / Episcopalian Churches are so close to Roman Catholicism that I only distinguish between the traditions if it might offend someone if I didn't - I hope that makes sense.
I believe in the supremacy of Peter - that Jesus set him apart from the other apostles as the first Pope. I acknowledge that the office of the Pope has developed over the past 2000 years in order to lead a world wide church, but it was there in the beginning as well.
blessings
If I were seriously exploring what I suspected to be the continuous apostolic church, then the RCC/EOC question would have to be clearly resolved in my mind before I would consider going there. To be honest, from the outside looking in, the scales are weighed slightly in favor of the Orthodox, in my opinion... just in reading what led up to the schism and how things evolved afterwards and so forth. We have had some Orthodox posters on this forum before. One poster, CDHealy, was fairly prolific and eager to give a defense of Orthodoxy. He was still in the catechumen process (or whatever they call it), but left the board when he and his family were officially inducted into the Orthodox Church (Antiochian Orthodox, I believe) earlier this year. Anyway, I thought I would ask you whether you ever investigated this (and, the question is open to other Catholic converts as well).
Where the Papacy is concerned, and particularly the "supremacy of Peter," does that mean that Peter had authority above the other apostles? If so, when looking at the New Testament scriptures empirically, I find problems with that. In the first few chapters of Acts, I do see Peter having a prominent role. However, as time goes on, Peter seems to fade into the background, and we see people like James apparently having a more authoritative role. Notice in the epistle to the Galatians that the apostle Paul calls attention to a time when Peter/Cephas was said to be in the wrong (Galatians 2:11). So, I'm missing where Peter and his "successors" were said to have a single authoritative role over the Church. Furthermore, in the first century, the church seemed to be centered in Jerusalem. As time went on, Antioch and then the Asia Minor area (modern-day Turkey) seemed to be where the Church was concentrated. Rome was just a "mission" (if you will) in the beginning. A central headquarters in Rome seemed to come much later. And, the power of the Bishop of Rome seemed to evolve much later.
Anyway, I'm just rambling through things I've pondered before. Thanks for your insight.
: broach972 Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 22:58:11
I am glad and impressed that this thread has been civil and extremely enlightening. Ravenlorre, I also joined the Catholic Church recently...this past Easter. My experience mirrors yours to a degree. My journey lasted for about 10 years. I too was attracted to RC as a history major. Ultimately, I came to the same conclusions as you did. It took some time.
My wife also grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist background. Most of her family attended Bob Jones Academy, which is attached to the Bob Jones University in South Carolina. I was shocked that she wanted to explore Catholicism. She made it very clear when I met her that if I continued to explore it, then I could forget about a longterm relationship. I wasn't sure if Catholicism was for me at the time, and I didn't want to sacrifice a potential mate, so I backed off. I continued to study Catholicism and work out my problems with the faith. Ironically, it was the authority of the Papacy that was the last remaining obstacle for me. I firmly believed that if God wanted me to take this path, then He would provide the opportunity.
After being married for about three years, my wife shocked me when she told me that she wanted to explore Catholicism. No doubt that it was God who opened the door. I thought that it would never be a possibility. We attended RCIA classes and a year and half later, we both entered the Church.
Ravenlorre, thanks for sharing your experience and insights.
What an interesting story! Thanks for sharing it......my wife is quite familiar with Bob Jones University - it was highly admired at the church she grew up in.
I followed a link in your profile that lead me to a Traditional Catholic ministry - are you Traditional Catholic?
blessings
I've also been following this thread with interest, as I was raised in the Church of Christ and became Catholic after trying to convert my Catholic friend to the CoC, lol. (He's now my husband. ;-)
Anyway, I thought I would ask you whether you ever investigated this (and, the question is open to other Catholic converts as well).
I did not initially investigate Orthodoxy, personally, simply because my focus was on Catholicism (as I was trying to convert someone from Catholicism). After seeing all my misconceptions, and reading a lot of books about Catholicism and history, and the history of the papacy (especially Steve Ray's
Upon This Rock), I was thoroughly convinced of the necessity of the papacy, and honestly just wasn't all that aware of Orthodoxy to begin with. But having grown up in a church where split upon split happened constantly, and where every person claimed equal authority to decide such things, I can tell you...the idea of one final authority on Earth just basically made a lot of sense.
A couple years after I converted, I was on a board with a lot of fellow Catholic ladies, but we had some protestants too (it was an NFP board, anyone was welcome though it was mostly Catholics). One protestant lady about my age was beginning to look into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. She was very thorough about her research, and she shared with us as she went along. For a while it looked like she was leaning towards Orthodoxy, but then after doing more research she came to the conclusion that to be truly "One" (one of the four marks of the Church), the papacy was necessary. I found her journey to be fascinating and enlightening, I learned a lot.
Then there was an Orthodox lady on our board (who had converted from protestantism), and I struck up an email discussion with her. I was very interested in learning more about what she saw as the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It seemed to me, though, that the things she would explain were either misunderstandings of Catholicism, or else very similar to Catholicism in which case I'd say, "Oh! Well we believe that too," but she didn't seem to believe me. It's almost like she didn't WANT to hear that Catholics believed the same things. I tried my best to explain how what we believed was similar, and to ask for clarification if I was misunderstanding Orthodox beliefs, but just when I thought we were getting somewhere, she told me her spiritual director had said she needed to stop engaging in apologetics, and she left the board and stopped emailing me. :-/
I've done research here and there on my own several times since, and each time it seems to come down to the same semantics arguments, when it seems the majority of the beliefs are the same (save the papacy of course), and on one side you have the Orthodox people saying "No! It's not the same, it's very different," and you have Catholic people saying, "Um...but what you just explained is exactly what we believe...what's the difference?" ??? On most issues, I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how different the beliefs are, or else that the differences are all that significant.
As for the papacy, I do believe that Peter was first among equals, certainly the papacy has developed over time into what you see today, but I do believe even at the beginning Jesus gave a special role to Peter and did so for a reason.
As for the Great Schism, there were certainly wrongs done on both sides. I pray that one day the two lungs of the Church may be reunited again. ::priest::
Could you explain about the "no birth control" doctrine?
The moderators have noticed we are having a massive increase in the amount of bantering back and forth between Catholics and Protestants here at Grace Centered Forums. As the discussions intensify, which I am sure they will, remember that we are free to discuss doctrine. We are free to discuss why we think a certain belief is true or why we believe a certain belief is not true according to the scriptures. However we are not free to call other posters heretics, cultists, or any other derogatory name. Keep the posts focused on the topic of discussion at hand and off of personal attacks and we will be able to have civil, intelligent discussions with one another.
There have already been some posters on both sides who have overstepped their bounds in this area on a few recent threads. Remember to speak the truth in love. Remember to keep the royal law according to the scriptures. Remember to love your neighbor as yourself. After you have finished a post, read over it a second time to make sure all personal attacks have been edited out. Then, and only then, hit the post button.
For those who are not thick skinned, please remember if someone is explaining why they think a belief you cherish deeply is false according to the scriptures, they are not necessarily attacking you. Instead they may just be trying to let you know how their understanding of a certain scripture differs from yours. But if you feel like someone is attacking you and calling you a heretic or a cultist, please report that to the moderators - we don't catch everything.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Before I continue posting on this board, I want to respond to this post from the moderators. I am really glad to see that the leadership of this site is concerned with how it's members are treated. I have posted on many boards where agendas or doctrines are more important than people and not only do people get hurt - learning is replaced by partisanship.
I am here because I like to discuss theology and I enjoy talking with people who may or may not agree with me. I am not concerned about pushing my choice of church membership on anyone, however I do agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church and I am sure I probably come across as having strong opinions on the subject. I am more than willing to apologize for my presentation if it has offended anyone, but I am not willing to apologize for my beliefs. Also, I believe that my opinion on any ministry that uses deception, hate, or coercion as means to justify an end, are will known and I will try not to express them again.
Once again, I am in total agreement with the leadership of this site; the definition of an orthodox Christian is a person who agrees with the Nicene Creed and I would add; is engaged in an authentic, growing, sanctifying relationship with Christ. If you tell me that you are a Christian, I will believe you. Please notice that my definition of a Christian includes millions of people who are not members of the Catholic Church and include the majority of the people who post on this site.
So please remember, if I happen to get swept away in the passion of a heated conversation and offend you, I am sorry and will apologize on the spot.
One last thing - I realize that I never defined a term that I have used in my posts - pseudo-Protestant. What I mean by this term is all churches that retain Protestant-based theology, but are no longer orthodox - Jehovah's Witnesses, for example retain Protestant roots, but no longer adhere to the Nicene Creed, and therefore lie outside orthodox teachings. There are also pseudo-Catholic churches - although they may not be as well known to people who are not Catholic - the Society of Pius X is one such church that broke away from the Catholic Church. Do Christians exist in these churches - of course, but the churches' doctrines are not orthodox.
blessings
: Quinn Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 08:35:52
Could you explain about the "no birth control" doctrine?
Yes. The Catholic Churches stance on the issue of birth control is consistent with it's teachings on all issues concerning the value of human life, for example; euthanasia, the death penalty, just war and abortion. The Catholic Church teaches that human life must be defended and protected whenever possible; birth control like abortion, restricts life and therefore is inconsistent with the Churches teachings.
It is interesting to note that the majority of Protestant Churches were against birth control before 1930, as well.
blessings
The Pill, in practical terms, has been both a blessing and a curse. Protecting a young family still getting to know each other and giving a false license to sexual freedom in others - too often chunking committed relationship out the window (perhaps a lifetime habit not easily reversed and passed on to the kids?). In terms of scriptural pros and cons, I suspect there ain't much. What were the methods of birth control before 1930?
: zoonance Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 12:26:34
The Pill, in practical terms, has been both a blessing and a curse. Protecting a young family still getting to know each other and giving a false license to sexual freedom in others - too often chunking committed relationship out the window (perhaps a lifetime habit not easily reversed and passed on to the kids?). In terms of scriptural pros and cons, I suspect there ain't much. What were the methods of birth control before 1930?
Birth control has been used for centuries, but was never very effective before the 1960's, I think. I am not really sure about the methods.
blessings
I think at least some type of intrauterine device was used. I recall something about nomads using rocks or something in camels to keep them from breeding centuries ago. Perhaps a version of the rhythm method, chastity belt!, folklore remedies? abortion? kill the undesired sex?
Until the reproductive cycle was worked out, the methods were still far less effective than "just say no" :)
In my family growing up, we had a few catholics in the wood shed, and the rhythm method was very popular, along with condoms.
FTL
: ravenlorre Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 11:24:00
Yes. The Catholic Church's stance on the issue of birth control is consistent with its teachings on all issues concerning the value of human life, for example; euthanasia, the death penalty, just war and abortion. The Catholic Church teaches that human life must be defended and protected whenever possible; birth control like abortion, restricts life and therefore is inconsistent with the Churches teachings.
Thank you. Just to clarify, does the Catholic Church believe that the only purpose of sexual relations is for procreation?
As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group --
You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.
Then you'll get two or three different answers from actual thoughtful Catholics in teaching positions -- people whose job it is, as a priest or a catechism teacher or whatever, to interpret the church's stance from "official" publications and documents, to "real life" understanding and use by regular Catholics.
Then you'll get crazy Aunt Mary's answer -- you know, the dear sweet lady who burns lots and lots of candles for you and prays to everyone in the pantheon of saints for you and who buried a statue of St. Anthony on his little head in her yard when she wanted to sell her house.
No. Sex for procreation only is an idea put forth by Augustine - Protestant Reformers and Catholic theologians have both tried to promote this idea during various points in history.
blessings
: janine Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 15:25:13
As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group --
You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.
Then you'll get two or three different answers from actual thoughtful Catholics in teaching positions -- people whose job it is, as a priest or a catechism teacher or whatever, to interpret the church's stance from "official" publications and documents, to "real life" understanding and use by regular Catholics.
Then you'll get crazy Aunt Mary's answer -- you know, the dear sweet lady who burns lots and lots of candles for you and prays to everyone in the pantheon of saints for you and who buried a statue of St. Anthony on his little head in her yard when she wanted to sell her house.
I agree. There are a lot of opinions out there from laypersons and clergy alike, but the Catholic Catechism is an accurate summary of the doctrines of the Church. I use it as a final authority on Church teachings.
blessings
: janine Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 15:25:13
As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group -- You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.
Yes, I know. That's why I asked ravenlorre. From what I've seen, he's intelligent, even-handed, and straightforward. (I don't post much, but I'm a prodigious lurker...)
ravenlorre:
If you'll indulge me a little more, could you explain the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" methods of birth control? For example, can you tell me why the "rhythm" method is acceptable, but the Pill is not? (Since they both have the same goal.)
: Quinn Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 16:47:07
: janine Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 15:25:13
As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group -- You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.
Yes, I know. That's why I asked ravenlorre. From what I've seen, he's intelligent, even-handed, and straightforward. (I don't post much, but I'm a prodigious lurker...)
ravenlorre:
If you'll indulge me a little more, could you explain the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" methods of birth control? For example, can you tell me why the "rhythm" method is acceptable, but the Pill is not? (Since they both have the same goal.)
Thanks for the compliments - it is really hard to know how one comes across online ::smile::
Yeah - I can try. I should tell you that although I admire the Church for being consistent on the issue of valuing life - I am not a big fan of it's stance on birth control.
From the Church's point of view, the rhythm method plans for a family, but it does not actually block a potential life. The Pill and condoms, on the other hand, block the egg or the sperm from meeting.
For me, it is splitting hairs, but I know many Catholics who really believe in the benefits of family planning. I also have a good friend who is a conservative, fundamentalist Christian, with whom I still engage friendly dialog; seriously investigated Catholicism and discovered reasons for not joining; however, adopted the practice of rejecting all birth control accept for the rhythm method.
blessings
No group is free from scandal and the recent poor press concerning priests is a tragedy that hurts all of us. This and the unfortunate monestary births history records do suggest that human beings have a hard time with legitimate sexual expression for procreation only and that this expression has occasionally led to disasterous and unfair characterizations of the rest. Hope these comments do not come across in anyway as accusatory. Sexual indiscretions are no stranger to any group. Even without catechisms for church doctrine, scripture also gives us doctrine on sexuality that is way too often ignored to the absolute shame of the church.
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:15:37
: ConnieLard Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 17:00:08
I have a question. I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind. Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this? Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group? I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?
Hi Connie,
I love Thomas Merton! Unfortunately, you may have to dig a little to find groups that meet together in the Catholic Church - Protestants are the best at organizing small groups in my opinion - Catholics need to catch up.
The good news is that groups do exist - I am an oblate at a monastery in Oregon, for example. I would recommend reading "A Cloistered Walk" by Kathleen Norris is you haven't already - she is a Presbyterian who decided to become an oblate (without becoming Catholic) and she does a nice job of explaining the process and what exactly an oblate is. If you are interested I can give you more information, as well. In general, monasteries are a great place to go to for personal retreats and spiritual renewal - I can give you more information about how to find one in your area if you would like.
Also, I am apart of a dynamic group in my church (you do not have to be catholic to join) that is focused on merging social service and faith - it is called Just Faith - you can look it up on the web if you are interested.
Finally, have you heard about Lectio Divina? It is a method of prayer that focuses around the scriptures - many Catholic Churches has groups that meet together to pray through specific scripture.
blessings
I have read "A Cloistered Walk" as well as "Amazing Grace". Loved both. I guess I just need to explore a little to find out what is available in my area. I have heard/ read about Lectio Divina, but didn't know there were groups formed for the purpose of doing this. I will check out Just Faith on the web as you suggested. Thanks for all the suggestions. I have long suspected that I would feel more at home in the Catholic Church or at least a more liturgical church than the one I was born into and still worship with.
I have read "A Cloistered Walk" as well as "Amazing Grace". Loved both. I guess I just need to explore a little to find out what is available in my area. I have heard/ read about Lectio Divina, but didn't know there were groups formed for the purpose of doing this. I will check out Just Faith on the web as you suggested. Thanks for all the suggestions. I have long suspected that I would feel more at home in the Catholic Church or at least a more liturgical church than the one I was born into and still worship with.
Well, I will love hearing about you experience, whatever group you decide to get involved with.
blessings
: ravenlorre Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 17:10:51
From the Church's point of view, the rhythm method plans for a family, but it does not actually block a potential life. The Pill and condoms, on the other hand, block the egg or the sperm from meeting.
I'm confused. The rhythm method involves refraining from relations at certain times, right? So isn't that also blocking the egg and sperm from meeting?
: ravenlorre Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 17:10:51
Yeah - I can try. I should tell you that although I admire the Church for being consistent on the issue of valuing life - I am not a big fan of its stance on birth control.
For me, it is splitting hairs
So what I hear you saying (please correct me if I misunderstand) is that you comprehend the Church's viewpoint, but do not necessarily share that viewpoint?
BTW, I guess I should tell you that I am not asking idly. My 19 year old daughter has been dating a sweet Catholic boy for a couple of years. Marriage has not yet been put on the table (I hope they realize they're too young just now!) but it might well be someday. So I have a kind of vested interest. I appreciate all that I'm learning from you.
: Quinn Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 18:27:52
: ravenlorre Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 17:10:51
From the Church's point of view, the rhythm method plans for a family, but it does not actually block a potential life. The Pill and condoms, on the other hand, block the egg or the sperm from meeting.
I'm confused. The rhythm method involves refraining from relations at certain times, right? So isn't that also blocking the egg and sperm from meeting?
If I may, I think I'll interject myself into this friendly discussion and add a bit of my own understanding!
First, one teensy distinction...the rhythm method was one that assumed a woman ovulated on day 14, and encouraged couples to time things accordingly...which was great if a woman happened to always ovulate on or around day 14.
Modern natural family planning is much more accurate, as it doesn't rely on a "day", but on signs of fertility. The couple learns to discern the signs that point to ovulation, whether that's on day 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, etc. It's the signs that matter, not the day upon which it falls.
With that said, Catholics believe that God designed the marital embrace a certain way, we say that it must be "ordered" properly. Tied up with intercourse, naturally, is procreation and unity. Now, God designed the woman to have cycles of fertility and infertility each month. To work "with" this design, we belive, is not contrary to nature or God's plan, it is simply using what God already gave us to prudently plan family size. Each sexual act must be "ordered" properly, that is it must be open to life. If I may speak bluntly, this means that with each sexual act, a man's seed must end up in the proper place, and a woman's body mustn't have been artificially rendered infertile. This is called being "open to life," or "properly ordered towards procreation." Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean each act must be an attempt at procreation specifically, or that each eact must end in procreation. It just needs to be properly ordered towards it.
To try and rip intercourse apart from its proper order, we believe, turns what is supposed to be an act of total self-giving, into one of potential selfishness. It becomes easy to seek intercourse for one's own pleasure, and not to give oneself wholly to one's spouse, because you're holding a very intimate part of yourself back (potential fertility). There is a barrier between the couple when they hold their fertility back artificially which, we believe, prevents total unity between spouses and God.
Now, to work WITH the fertile and infertile periods of time that God Himself designed is not seen as wrong, because
each act is ordered properly. Nothing artificial is blocking fertility, neither spouse is holding anything back.
So, when a husband and wife decide that this month they need to avoid pregnancy, they must decide to abstain from sexual relations during the window of fertility. This involves self-sacrifice...they're not so focused on seeking pleasure that they're willing to frustrate God's design and have intercourse in a disordered way. They'd rather work with God's design, practice self-control and decide for a time, together, to abstain. When the window of fertility closes, they may come together again, in the properly ordered way and still prudently avoid children if that is what they have discerned is best at the time.
Let me provide an analogy that might help. Say we have two people who want to lose weight.
One of them decides to watch their diet, to abstain from overindulging in food when they know they can't afford the calories, to exercise, and to lose weight in a healthy manner. It's not always easy, it involves self sacrifice, but it works with the body's natural functions.
The other decides they just like the pleasure of eating so much, that they're not going to stop overindulging, but instead they'll just eat what they want and then purposely throw up afterwards. In this way, they're getting the pleasure of indulging in overeating, but they're not holding themselves accountable for the consequences...the calories and weight gain. They're frustrating the natural design of the body, and trying to work around it in order to "have their cake and eat it too." They could just stop overindulging, and practice self sacrifice, but they simply don't want to.
We could say, "But isn't it the same in the end? They both want to lose weight, what's the difference?" Clearly, the difference is that one way is healthier, mentally and physically. (As with all analogies, this is certainly not a perfect one, but I hope it helps explain why having the same end does not mean the means to get to that end are unimportant.)
This is how the Church sees the issue of natural methods of family planning vs. artificial birth control.
Not to mention all the related health risks. It's interesting that "the pill" is the only "medicine" a woman takes that is intended to temporarily "break" something that is actually working properly.
And don't get me started on the laziness of doctors who prescribe it as a bandaid for symptoms rather than actually attempting to get to the root of the problem and fixing it. It's a bit of a hot button issue for me, as I firmly believe, all morality aside, many women aren't getting the treatment they need.
But I'll stop there, lol. I hope that helps a bit.
: zoonance Sat Aug 25, 2007 - 12:26:34
What were the methods of birth control before 1930?
I imagine something like this:
Looks like it wouldn't be prudent to risk adding to our family at this time...well, abstinence it is!A bit of a shock to our modern ears, isn't it? This probably resulted in needing much more "serious" reasons for avoiding another pregnancy than we often have today, though. I think, also, that providentialism was likely much more common. (Whatever happens, happens...we'll just take 'em as they come.)
For better or for worse.
If I may, I think I'll interject myself into this friendly discussion and add a bit of my own understanding!
Thanks for your impute - you really added to the discussion.
blessings
Stephanie, thank you for your interpretation of your Church's stance on this issue. I wonder, would the Church ever consider an exception to the "natural
(Isn't there an Ask-A-Catholic place to go on the Internet, live chat, just like the Ask-A-Rabbi thingy?
And do you think the answers would be any different from an Italian cardinal, a South American Jesuit and a middle-aged CYO sponsor from Poughkeepsie?)
: Quinn Mon Aug 27, 2007 - 04:11:26
Stephanie, thank you for your interpretation of your Church's stance on this issue. I wonder, would the Church ever consider an exception to the "natural
: mllevaleur Mon Aug 27, 2007 - 13:30:51
If we aren't blessed with children in the future, we hope to adopt.
My wife has told me before about some of the various folks we know that tried to have children of their own, don't seem to be able to, adopt, and then the wife all of sudden gets pregnant. Have you noticed it? Is there really something to that or is it just a coincidence?
I have a couple of questions for any Catholics that might want to answer. Some may have been asked earlier, but I tend to skip real long posts.
1. When I eat and drink the communion with others, I often think of what I think I understand Catholic teaching to be about the bread and wine (or grape juice). Is it an actual Catholic belief that it is the genuine body and blood of Christ, the exact same body and blood that walked around over there around Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?
2. If it is, how does it get back down here from heaven?
3. I've seen reports and pictures that some Catholic congregations are starting to baptize folks by immersion. Is that becoming pretty widespread?
Thanks.
1. When I eat and drink the communion with others, I often think of what I think I understand Catholic teaching to be about the bread and wine (or grape juice). Is it an actual Catholic belief that it is the genuine body and blood of Christ, the exact same body and blood that walked around over there around Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?
Catholics believe that the actual Blood and Body of Christ is present in the form of the bread and the wine in a special way. It is a mystery. The idea behind it is that the sacrifice of Christ is available for all people during all time periods - during the Mass the Church participates in His one sacrifice.
2. If it is, how does it get back down here from heaven?
Jesus is all-present and His sacrifice is timeless.
3. I've seen reports and pictures that some Catholic congregations are starting to baptize folks by immersion. Is that becoming pretty widespread?
The Catholic Church has always approved of baptism by full immersion and baptism by sprinkling. Now that clean water is plentiful, new churches being built, install full baptismals.
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 01:52:34
1. When I eat and drink the communion with others, I often think of what I think I understand Catholic teaching to be about the bread and wine (or grape juice). Is it an actual Catholic belief that it is the genuine body and blood of Christ, the exact same body and blood that walked around over there around Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?
Catholics believe that the actual Blood and Body of Christ is present in the form of the bread and the wine in a special way. It is a mystery. The idea behind it is that the sacrifice of Christ is available for all people during all time periods - during the Mass the Church participates in His one sacrifice.
So if my protestant congregation practices the Lords Supper, would this same presence be found in the bread and fruit of the vine?
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 01:52:34
3. I've seen reports and pictures that some Catholic congregations are starting to baptize folks by immersion. Is that becoming pretty widespread?
The Catholic Church has always approved of baptism by full immersion and baptism by sprinkling. Now that clean water is plentiful, new churches being built, install full baptismals.
blessings
Theres been clean water in America for a long time, I've never heard clean water being the issue with full immersion baptism with catholics.
Why did the Pope kiss the Koran?
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 16:07:02
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.
Hope she told you Catholic is Christian!!!!!
: Mere Nick Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 00:27:41
: mllevaleur Mon Aug 27, 2007 - 13:30:51
If we aren't blessed with children in the future, we hope to adopt.
My wife has told me before about some of the various folks we know that tried to have children of their own, don't seem to be able to, adopt, and then the wife all of sudden gets pregnant. Have you noticed it? Is there really something to that or is it just a coincidence?
I belong to an offshoot of the NFP board I mentioned above that is specifically for women dealing with infertility. I can count, right off the top of my head, about 7 or 8 couples that this happened to. It's really astounding!
: Gary Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 07:26:07
Why did the Pope kiss the Koran?
This (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html) might help answer that question as best we can. (JPII isn't exactly around to answer it himself anymore, so we can only speculate! Certainly, though, we know it isn't because he viewed Islam as equal to Christianity or just as true. We know this because he said so elsewhere.)
Catholics believe that the actual Blood and Body of Christ is present in the form of the bread and the wine in a special way. It is a mystery. The idea behind it is that the sacrifice of Christ is available for all people during all time periods - during the Mass the Church participates in His one sacrifice.
So if my protestant congregation practices the Lords Supper, would this same presence be found in the bread and fruit of the vine?
Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case). Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD. Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper. Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way. Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
Theres been clean water in America for a long time, I've never heard clean water being the issue with full immersion baptism with catholics.
Hmm,,,,well considering that America is not a Catholic nation and has only been around for 250 years, let alone the fact that clean running water has only been available to the masses for the past 70 or so years; and the Catholic Church has been around for 2000+; not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has never opposed baptism by full-immersion; I think my point is quite plausible - you can read an entire article on the subject at newadvent.com.
I was baptized by sprinkling as a baby in the Presbyterian Church and then after being put on a guilt trip by a church that I wanted to join as an adolescent (ended up being a quasi-cult - the minister did not stop large groups of congregates from actually worshiping him), I succumbed to their demands that I be baptized by immersion. I was later excommunicated and shunned after choosing to attend a college that the minister didn't approve of.
Anyway, I refused to get baptized ever again after that experience and I told my concerns and position to the Catholic Church and was relieved to learn that they only believe in one baptism - sprinkled or immersed.
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:37:06Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case). Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD. Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper. Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way. Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
Without getting into all this divisveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?
: Gary Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 07:26:07
Why did the Pope kiss the Koran?
Well, I can only guess, because I am not him.
John Paul the II believed in focusing on the similarities between religions, rather than on the beliefs that divide us; he also believed as CS Lewis did, that other religions contain partial truth - they are almost right in a lot of areas - they are simply missing the most important part - Christ; therefore they have a great deal to offer us.
I believe the Pope was showing respect for the similarities between Islam and Christianity and attempting to reach out to his neighbors in love.
This goes along with the post I wrote about the importance of knowing yourself well enough that you can see the world from another's perspective without taking on their belief system. The Pope was not threatened by Islam because he knows himself and his faith in Christianity well enough that he was able to take on another perspective without agreeing with it. He was exercising empathy and love for his neighbor.
blessings
: ann Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 12:27:55
: ravenlorre Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 16:07:02
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.
Hope she told you Catholic is Christian!!!!!
LOL - yeah she told me a lot of things I didn't want to hear at the time, but I am thankful that I stuck around to listen to her and continued to investigate the Catholic Church on my own. I've been Catholic for about 7 years now and it has been a wonderful Christian experience.
blessings
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:47:37
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:37:06Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case). Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD. Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper. Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way. Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
Without getting into all this divisiveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?
I think you better tell me where I have been divisive first, so that I do not do it again in my explanation of Holy Orders
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:59:17
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:47:37
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:37:06Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case). Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD. Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper. Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way. Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
Without getting into all this divisiveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?
I think you better tell me where I have been divisive first, so that I do not do it again in my explanation of Holy Orders
blessings
My question wasn't about protestant divisons, rejection of the apostolic order, or other reformers, it was about the practice of the table. You started addressing things I don't really see as relevant to the question. It was a yes or no thing.
So if my protestant congregation practices the Lords Supper, would this same presence be found in the bread and fruit of the vine?
No.
Without getting into all this divisiveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?
Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 1, Heading 2
1142: 12 Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church. 13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an "icon" of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.
Holy Orders is the authority of the Keys, given by Christ to Peter, to continue ordaining priests and bishops in the succession of the Apostolic Church. The Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican Churches retain Holy Orders today The Priesthood is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist.
My question wasn't about protestant divisons, rejection of the apostolic order, or other reformers, it was about the practice of the table. You started addressing things I don't really see as relevant to the question. It was a yes or no thing.
Sorry I gave you some history and context - I will try to be as concrete and literal in my answers as possible in the future. Of course, if that is really what you are looking for - why ask me? You can always find pure Catholic doctrine in a number of online Catechisms?
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 16:31:55Of course, if that is really what you are looking for - why ask me? You can always find pure Catholic doctrine in a number of online Catechisms?
If your not interested in discussing these topics with me, I understand.
: ravenlorre
Holy Orders is the authority of the Keys, given by Christ to Peter, to continue ordaining priests and bishops in the succession of the Apostolic Church. The Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican Churches retain Holy Orders today The Priesthood is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist.
Actually, due to changes in their rite of ordination and core beliefs, Anglican Orders are no longer considered valid or apostolic by the Catholic Church.
There's a pretty good summary of why that is and more about Anglican Orders (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm) on New Advent. ::tippinghat::
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:47:37
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:37:06Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case). Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD. Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper. Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way. Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
Without getting into all this divisveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?
Catholics believe that in order for a valid sacrament to occur, a validly ordained priest must perform the consecration of the Eucharist.
: mllevaleur Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 17:41:39
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:47:37
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 15:37:06Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case). Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD. Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper. Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way. Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.
Without getting into all this divisveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?
Catholics believe that in order for a valid sacrament to occur, a validly ordained priest must perform the consecration of the Eucharist.
I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)
If your not interested in discussing these topics with me, I understand.
I am interested in our conversation; I simply want to make sure that you are receiving the information you require. If Stephanie and I are not providing them, please refer to the Catholic Catechism.
blessings
Actually, due to changes in their rite of ordination and core beliefs, Anglican Orders are no longer considered valid or apostolic by the Catholic Church.
There's a pretty good summary of why that is and more about Anglican Orders (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm) on New Advent. ::tippinghat::
Wow that is new to me - thanks M
blessings
I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).
We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 19:26:26
I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).
We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.
blessings
I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 22:39:59
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 19:26:26
I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).
We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.
blessings
I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.
If the Bible doesn't contradict it and Tradition supports it; the teaching passes the muster.
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 22:57:26
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 22:39:59
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 19:26:26
I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).
We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God’s faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church ‘a kingdom, priests for his God and Father’" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the ‘common priesthood of all the faithful.’ Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God’s people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.
blessings
I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.
If the Bible doesn't contradict it and Tradition supports it; the teaching passes the muster.
blessings
Sounds like the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-13.
Mellevar... (SP)
You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.
Quote from: CSloan on August 27, 2007, 03:47:05 PM
Catholic rosary always reminded me of buddhists prayer beads.
They both practices have uncanny similarities. The buddhists count beads and chant mantras, while the catholics count beads and repeat prayers.
This post is from another thread, but it didn't fit the topic, so I thought I would continue the conversation over here.
Yes, on the surface the practice of praying the Rosary and the practice of Buddhist meditation, using beads, does look similar; however, after you understand the two types of prayer, it is easy to see the difference.
Praying the Rosary involves praying to Mary in order to ask her to pray for us / repeating the Lord's prayer / meditating on the life of Christ and our hope for resurrection. The Rosary is mostly based on verses from the Bible. The purpose of the Rosary is the same as all Christian prayer - to spend time with God / make requests / share our fears and failures / adoration of God / requests for Him to interact in our lives in a powerful way / etc.
Praying as a Buddhist involves focusing on emptiness; attempting to empty yourself of emotions and desires that impede your progress to Nirvana. It is the opposite goal - meditation for the purpose of emptying yourself and being absorb into the great nothingness. Conversely, Christian prayer is asking God to fill us up with His love and presence.
So, I suppose the use of beads in prayer is one practice Catholics share with Buddhists, Muslims, and Jewish mystics. Since we are looking at surface similarities - the Christian practice of worshiping in a building has a lot in common with Muslims, Buddhists and Jewish followers, as well.
Finally, since when does repeating a prayer constitute repeating a mantra? Does this apply to the repetition of praise songs during Evangelical worship services? Some of the services I have attended required the congregation to repeat the same verse of the worship song for 20 minutes - the average Rosary prayer takes about 15 minutes at most.
blessings
: CSloan Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 01:14:02
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 22:57:26
: CSloan Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 22:39:59
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 28, 2007 - 19:26:26
I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).
We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.
blessings
I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.
If the Bible doesn't contradict it and Tradition supports it; the teaching passes the muster.
blessings
Sounds like the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-13.
Hmm....sounds to me like you are trying to fit Catholicism into the same category as the Pharisees. It is easy to label a person or organization when you only rely on your preconceived notions - I was there too, so I understand - I just pray that you become truly educated about the Catholic Church before you choose to criticize it. I challenge you to go and talk with a priest or read some material that isn't written for the purpose of bashing the church. The Catholic Catechism is always a great source - so is "Catholicism" by McBrien.
When I wanted to understand Mormonism, for example - I went right to the source - I read all the scripture, talked to as many knowledgeable Mormons as I possible could, and avoided bias authors/materials like The Godmakers and James White's ministries. After my own research I felt equipped to form an informed, measured opinion about the LDS Church.
blessings
: kensington Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 01:16:47
Mellevar... (SP)
You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.
Who says?
Whether you see the thousands of years of added, un-inspired men's traditions as something nice -- like the many glowing layers that build up to make a pearl --
Or as something neutral, or even as something nasty -- encrusted dung, anyone? --
The thing is, it's added, it's of Man and not of God. Some of us will be glad to look at tradition in the same useful light as any other cultural, historical factor -- but it does not in any way hold the weight of Scripture.
Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...
I have to ask... why not go straight to the source? Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself? It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is. It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).
And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us. If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you." But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).
If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself. So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?
And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us. But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.
: DCR Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 07:57:24
Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...
I have to ask... why not go straight to the source? Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself? It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is. It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).
And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us. If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you." But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).
If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself. So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?
And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us. But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.
Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?
: CSloan Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 09:10:59Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?
Maybe... which is another reason why I'm uncomfortable contacting them, even if we are asking them to pray for us.
: janine Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 07:03:48
Whether you see the thousands of years of added, un-inspired men's traditions as something nice -- like the many glowing layers that build up to make a pearl --
Or as something neutral, or even as something nasty -- encrusted dung, anyone? --
The thing is, it's added, it's of Man and not of God. Some of us will be glad to look at tradition in the same useful light as any other cultural, historical factor -- but it does not in any way hold the weight of Scripture.
Well, if the best thing you can say about sacred Tradition, inspired by God; is that it is "nice" at best and un-inspired "man-dung" at worst - I am not sure we really have much to talk about.
Here are a few question for you - where did the Church go between the death of the last Apostle and the Reformation? Where did the NT come from? Why is it so easy for Protestants to believe in an infallible book, written by thousands of men or thousands of years, but not a Church that defended Christianity from heresies like the Arian, Gnostic, Montanisn, Cathar, and Jainism movement for the past 2,000 years, and development doctrine all Christians use to day like the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation? It is a real mystery to me.
blessings
: kensington Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 01:16:47
Mellevar... (SP)
You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.
Mm...no, that's incorrect.
Now, they may have
already consecrated hosts in which they won't have a mass, but a "communion service," and a layperson can lead the communion service and distribute communion, usually they'll have some prayers as well, etc.
But no one but a priest can actually consecrate the host (that is, perform the sacrament needed for the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood).
: DCR Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 07:57:24
Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...
I have to ask... why not go straight to the source?
Oh don't misunderstand, we don't pray to saints INSTEAD of praying directly to the source. We do it IN ADDITION to praying directly to the source. The more people praying for us, the better!
And even more, scriptures tell us that the prayers of a righteous person avails much. Scripture also tells us that no unclean thing can enter heaven, so those in heaven have been cleansed and purified and are about as righteous and holy as you're going to find. Therefore, asking those righteous people in heaven to pray for us avails much.
Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself?
See above.
It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is.
We believe that God allows departed Christians to hear the prayers of those on Earth. So it's not that they have power in and of themselves, it's that God gave them the ability to hear and see Christians on earth. They are outside of time and space, after all, so it's not really all that big of a deal.
It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).
No, whether or not
you agree that it's the same as asking someone on earth to pray for you, the fact is, for us it
is the same. You ask a saint to pray for you for the same reason you would ask friends and family to pray for you, in addition to praying to God yourself. If that's asking friends and family to "tap God on the shoulder" as some kind of insurance in case God doesn't hear your prayers, then so is asking saints to pray for us.
And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us. If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you." But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).
Well that's completely understandable! The thing is, though, there's a chain of faith here that Catholics have which others are missing. We have faith saints can hear us because the Church says so, and we have faith the Church is correct because we believe Christ promised His Church that He would guide her into all truth, and so we trust that the Holy Spirit has guided His Church into truth on this matter as well. I agree, it does take faith, but so do many other teachings of Christ.
If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself. So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?
As I said before, it's not the either/or type situation you seem to imply here. I
both pray to God,
and ask others (on earth and in heaven) to pray for me.
And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us. But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.
Indeed!
: DCR Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 07:57:24
Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...
I have to ask... why not go straight to the source? Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself? It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is. It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).
And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us. If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you." But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).
If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself. So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?
And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us. But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.
1. Catholics usually pray straight to God. We also pray with the Body - this includes those who are not separated from God by death - the saints. It is often times comforting to pray in a group, rather than praying alone.
2. I do not believe that God is more likely to hear a saints prayer than my own, but I do believe fully sanctified saints have a perfect relationship with Him and I am a work in progress.
3. I think we are unable to conceive of Heavenly things with our created brains - who knows how saints can hear us or manage or prayers - all I know is that death does not separate us from them - we are all still part of the Body of Christ.
4. Yes, it takes faith to believe that saints can hear us, but we are supposed to be people of faith and it takes faith to believe in God / Heaven / Hell / the Resurrection of Christ / and life after death so it kind of comes with the territory. It also takes faith to trust that your friend really will pray for you, no matter what he or she tells you - I could ask you the same question, why not cut out the middle man and go right to the sorce?
5. Revelation speaks of the prayers of the saints:
5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
8:3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.
6. I think praying to the saints is a minor point - even for Catholics so I have no problem agreeing to disagree.
Thanks for the discussion.
blessings
: DCR Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 09:16:54
: CSloan Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 09:10:59Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?
Maybe... which is another reason why I'm uncomfortable contacting them, even if we are asking them to pray for us.
Nope, big difference.
With necromancy, you're trying to summon spirits to communicate (as in a 2-way communication) with the dead.
We don't expect spirits to start coming down and talking to us when we ask a saint to pray for us.
For that matter, Jesus is a human being who died as well...if simply "talking" to a dead person (without expecting a spirit to come talk back or do your bidding) is considered necromancy, then talking to Jesus would be the same.
Now, if you want to tell the grieving daughter that her little "chats" with her recently deceased mother while staring at her picture is considered necromancy, go right ahead. But I believe there's a world of difference between "talking to" someone who has died, and expecting them to come back and talk to you.
: CSloan Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 09:10:59
: DCR Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 07:57:24
Regarding "praying to the dead" to ask them to pray for us...
I have to ask... why not go straight to the source? Do we feel that the departed saints are more likely to hear us than God Himself? It seems to imply that the dead saints are "omnipresent"... able to hear all and see all of the affairs of men, as God Himself is. It's like some kind of insurance... in case God doesn't hear my prayers, I'll ask the late St. Susie to tap God on the shoulder to let Him know about my situation (sorry if that cheapens it or is offensive in any way... but, that's the idea that comes to my mind).
And, regardless of the comparison, it's not the same as asking a living person to pray for us. If I ask a living, breathing, person to pray for me, I can get back a response, "Yes, I'll pray for you." But, in order to pray to a departed saint, I have to have some kind of "faith" that they are even able to hear me... and, that's the difficulty... when I have no particular reason to think that they can (yet, we can't know that for certain).
If I'm going to have any faith that anyone at all can hear my prayers, it's God Himself. So, why not cut out the middle man and pray directly to God?
And, again, before anyone says it, it's not the same as asking others here still with us to pray for us. But, perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point.
Speaking to the dead, isn't that like necromancy?
Catholics pray to the living - it is nothing like conjuring the dead to ask them to tell us our fortunes. You could ask Jesus the same thing during His Transfiguration:
Matthew 17:3
3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
blessings
: mllevaleur Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 10:13:27
: kensington Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 01:16:47
Mellevar... (SP)
You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.
Mm...no, that's incorrect.
Now, they may have already consecrated hosts in which they won't have a mass, but a "communion service," and a layperson can lead the communion service and distribute communion, usually they'll have some prayers as well, etc.
But no one but a priest can actually consecrate the host (that is, perform the sacrament needed for the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood).
Nope.. My husband was the protestant layleader for the Chaplain's office of the Atlantic fleet for four years, He met often with the Chaplain of the Atlantic fleet, (A Rabbi) and the Catholic layleader who was under him on the ship. We together have gone to get the things they needed, and when they are underway, the layleader does not have a priest available.
The Catholic layleader on a ship does everything a priest does, except marry. There is no priest on a ship that has a layleader, because the ship is too small to warrant having its own chaplain, they fall under the authority of the Chaplain of the fleet. And he was a Rabbi.
Makes for a good joke.. AAYY?? The Rabbi, the Catholic, and the Protestant, went to the religious shop to buy wafers? But, it's true.
So kensington, you're saying your husband has at times passed off bread, that no priest had been able to get at, as if it had been consecrated by a priest? Doesn't he know he's not part of the Apostolic Succession? Hmmm...
So, ravenlorre and mllevaleur, you're saying it's OK to pray to dead people because they are not really dead?
Or is it OK because they are really alive, even though they are dead, because they are with God... as in "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"... So pray to dead people all you want. Just so long as they do not answer you.
But dead people who were really alive came to talk back to Jesus at the Transfiguration... So it must be OK to have two-way conversations with dead people. Excuse me, alive people. Who have been dead. But not really.
But only do it up on a hillside with disciples watching and making silly observations about building shelters for the dead visitors. If you go to some cave in Endor to talk to dead people who may or may not sort of be somewhat dead but really more or less alive actually -- that's when you get in trouble. Yes?
Hmm.. Janine... maybe this is some kind of OT/NT thing, where communication with the dead (one-way or two-way ::shrug:: ) was only prohibited under the Law of Moses. But, in the New Testament age, maybe we now have the liberty to do it? ::pondering::
Could that be? ::idea::
I've stood at my grandmother's grave and spoken to her, as if she were there. I know--and I don't need anyone else's validation or invalidation--that she hears me. I've done the same many times at my grandfather's grave.
To me, that is the same as speaking to the saints who have passed on and asking them to pray for me. You must have an understanding of the Communion of Saints in order to adequately participate in a discussion on intercession. It's clear that understanding is lacking here.
It's not necromancy. If you don't know the correct definition of necromancy, look it up. We really shouldn't use big words to make false accusations when we obviously don't even know what the words mean, should we?
Comparisons to Pharisees? Oh, you mean legalists? I know plenty of legalists, and none of them are Catholic. Give me a break. I continue to be amazed at the depths some folks will go to in order to discredit something they don't like.
"So kensington, you're saying your husband has at times passed off bread, that no priest had been able to get at, as if it had been consecrated by a priest? Doesn't he know he's not part of the Apostolic Succession? Hmmm"
No Janine, read again... My husband was the PROTESTANT Layleader, he didn't do anything in the Mass on the ship. But, He was the Head layleader and oversaw all the religions on the SHIP, and worked with and helped the Catholic layleader to train and prepare to be the Catholic Layleader on the ship. BOTH worked under the authority of the Head CHaplain's office, and He was a Rabbi.
No my husband didn't give Communion to Catholics, the Catholic Layleader did. But, my husabnd says having a priest involved was not required.
I even asked him last night, after posting that to make sure I was being accurate as to what I know he had told me before. This is His 3rd time as the Head Layleader a ship. He actually is in on the deciding process to choose who will be the Catholic layleader. He himself was chosen by the Head Chaplain with the Fleet.
: kensington Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 03:14:29
: mllevaleur Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 10:13:27
: kensington Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 01:16:47
Mellevar... (SP)
You said that an ordained priest has to consecrate the communion. But, that is not exactly correct. In the military, on ships, and in places away... a "layleader" can do it.
Mm...no, that's incorrect.
Now, they may have already consecrated hosts in which they won't have a mass, but a "communion service," and a layperson can lead the communion service and distribute communion, usually they'll have some prayers as well, etc.
But no one but a priest can actually consecrate the host (that is, perform the sacrament needed for the bread and wine to become truly the body and blood).
Nope.. My husband was the protestant layleader for the Chaplain's office of the Atlantic fleet for four years, He met often with the Chaplain of the Atlantic fleet, (A Rabbi) and the Catholic layleader who was under him on the ship. We together have gone to get the things they needed, and when they are underway, the layleader does not have a priest available.
The Catholic layleader on a ship does everything a priest does, except marry. There is no priest on a ship that has a layleader, because the ship is too small to warrant having its own chaplain, they fall under the authority of the Chaplain of the fleet. And he was a Rabbi.
Makes for a good joke.. AAYY?? The Rabbi, the Catholic, and the Protestant, went to the religious shop to buy wafers? But, it's true.
Ok then, I don't doubt that what you said happened, but according to official Church teaching, that is not a valid (nor licit) Eucharist. There simply must be a priest involved. If laypeople just decided to do it themselves (which basically seems this is what is happening in this case) then it still isn't valid. Perhaps the rabbi who was in charge and the layperson who did the "consecrating" weren't aware of that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.
I asked a Catholic friend whose husband was in the navy, and she said he was in charge of the Eucharist himself. He took already consecrated hosts on board, kept them safe, and distributed them. But he never did any consecrating himself. That's what I've heard is most common. If someone is trying to consecrate hosts himself, according to Church teaching, nothing happens to the hosts, they don't become consecrated, and it's simply invalid.
Also, the definition of a "lay leader" (from About.com (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermsl/g/l3584.htm?terms=lay+leader), obviously not an authoritative source but it's what first popped up) says:
Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.
Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.
This is just what I said. They are not paid, they volunteer, but are chosen by the command. Anyone can volunteer, but a layperson and the Fleet Chaplain will reccommened to the command after the interviews as to who to pick. Its a collateral duty. Extra. They are appointed on ships that are too small to have a command chaplain of their own. And the Fleet Chaplain is the overseer to them. He trains them, and boards the ship to ride with them during the deployments to guide them if they need it. It is a layperson. I knew all of that. My husband has done that, and been the head layperson who oversees all the religions for the Chaplains office. None of that is new to me.
And I said, they do everything except marry people. So that part is not new either.
But, in times when there is no "consecrated" bread. Like in a war zone? You are saying there is no communion of the LORD then?
Scenario... Ship goes out, takes supplies for mass for three weeks, by permission and is allowed. Then, War is declared. The ship is out in a no mail or contact zone for 90 days, missles flying and guns ongoing. The commuion runs out. Or in the case of someone dying who requests communion. No priest there.
My husband says they can bless it, that is what the Eucharist Layleader does. They pray over it, and GOD changes it. NOT the priest or the man doing the praying.
But, they still can't marry anyone.
Nevermind... I'll go ask Brother Bruce (Parish Priest) I suppose, we have discussed things like this before.
He told my husband.. "I like her attitude, she is a joy to talk to, she is not afraid of the WORD." LOL.
I asked him what I may call him, since I am not Catholic, and I can't in clear conscience call him "Father"... My sil, insisted.. "His name is "FATHER BRUCE"... He just smiled, "You can call me Bruce."
I call him brother Bruce. LOL. He'll give me the answer to what I am asking. Thanks anyway.
: don has a plan Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 14:37:49
I've stood at my grandmother's grave and spoken to her, as if she were there. I know--and I don't need anyone else's validation or invalidation--that she hears me. I've done the same many times at my grandfather's grave.
To me, that is the same as speaking to the saints who have passed on and asking them to pray for me. You must have an understanding of the Communion of Saints in order to adequately participate in a discussion on intercession. It's clear that understanding is lacking here.
It's not necromancy. If you don't know the correct definition of necromancy, look it up. We really shouldn't use big words to make false accusations when we obviously don't even know what the words mean, should we?
Comparisons to Pharisees? Oh, you mean legalists? I know plenty of legalists, and none of them are Catholic. Give me a break. I continue to be amazed at the depths some folks will go to in order to discredit something they don't like.
Nobody says you need any permission or validation to go talk to your loved ones at the graveyard. But I don't think they are there.
And it's a tongue-in-cheek thing to call it necromancy when you're talking to Great-Aunt Martha and asking her to please ask Jesus to see what He can do about your problem(s).
: kensington Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 23:32:01
Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.
This is just what I said. They are not paid, they volunteer, but are chosen by the command. Anyone can volunteer, but a layperson and the Fleet Chaplain will reccommened to the command after the interviews as to who to pick. Its a collateral duty. Extra. They are appointed on ships that are too small to have a command chaplain of their own. And the Fleet Chaplain is the overseer to them. He trains them, and boards the ship to ride with them during the deployments to guide them if they need it. It is a layperson. I knew all of that. My husband has done that, and been the head layperson who oversees all the religions for the Chaplains office. None of that is new to me.
And I said, they do everything except marry people. So that part is not new either.
But, in times when there is no "consecrated" bread. Like in a war zone? You are saying there is no communion of the LORD then?
Scenario... Ship goes out, takes supplies for mass for three weeks, by permission and is allowed. Then, War is declared. The ship is out in a no mail or contact zone for 90 days, missles flying and guns ongoing. The commuion runs out. Or in the case of someone dying who requests communion. No priest there.
My husband says they can bless it, that is what the Eucharist Layleader does. They pray over it, and GOD changes it. NOT the priest or the man doing the praying.
But, they still can't marry anyone.
There is only one way to settle this debate--Canon Law. I shall do some research. However, I believe that Mllevaleur is right...only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist.
According to Canon Law:
Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.
With that said, there is a section on Chaplains, and military chaplains are governed by special laws. However, I cannot see that a layperson would be allowed to consecrate the bread and the wine and it be a valid Eucharist.
: kensington Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 23:32:01
Definition: (DOD) A volunteer ("lay leader" in Army and Air Force; "lay reader" in Navy and Marine Corps) appointed by the commanding officer and supervised and trained by the command chaplain to serve for a period of time to meet the needs of a particular religious faith group when their military chaplains are not available. The lay leader or lay reader may conduct services, but may not exercise any other activities usually reserved for the ordained clergy.
This is just what I said. They are not paid, they volunteer, but are chosen by the command. Anyone can volunteer, but a layperson and the Fleet Chaplain will reccommened to the command after the interviews as to who to pick. Its a collateral duty. Extra. They are appointed on ships that are too small to have a command chaplain of their own. And the Fleet Chaplain is the overseer to them. He trains them, and boards the ship to ride with them during the deployments to guide them if they need it. It is a layperson. I knew all of that. My husband has done that, and been the head layperson who oversees all the religions for the Chaplains office. None of that is new to me.
And I said, they do everything except marry people. So that part is not new either.
Perhaps there is a miscommunication because of the Catholic understanding that certain things, besides just marriage, are reserved for the ordained clergy. Under the bolded part above, under the title of "other activities" we would include consecrating the Eucharist, as well as the sacrament of reconciliation (confession), as well as confirmation, and sacraments such as these. These are reserved for the ordained clergy according to Church teaching. So as a Catholic, when I read that, I see a statement saying, a lay leader may not (indeed, according to canon law, CAN not) consecrate the Eucharist. And that's what I was attempting to point out in the definition.
But, in times when there is no "consecrated" bread. Like in a war zone? You are saying there is no communion of the LORD then?
Scenario... Ship goes out, takes supplies for mass for three weeks, by permission and is allowed. Then, War is declared. The ship is out in a no mail or contact zone for 90 days, missles flying and guns ongoing. The commuion runs out. Or in the case of someone dying who requests communion. No priest there.
My husband says they can bless it, that is what the Eucharist Layleader does. They pray over it, and GOD changes it. NOT the priest or the man doing the praying.
But, they still can't marry anyone.
If there aren't any already consecrated hosts left, and there are no priests to consecrate them, then no, there simply won't be any Eucharist. Christ will surely be with them in spirit if they desire the Eucharist, but no lay person can validly consecrate the host.
No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...
Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce. Leave it at that.
: kensington Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 12:12:37
No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...
Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce. Leave it at that.
I'm glad you'll be asking a priest, I was simply trying to explain what I was saying as there was obviously some miscommunication.
: kensington Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 12:12:37
No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...
Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce. Leave it at that.
And, just so we're clear, I don't think they're saying that a priest has to be
present in order for the Eucharist to be valid. It's just that the elements had to have been consecrated by a priest.
So, a "layleader" or non-ordained chaplain apparently may be able to administer communion, as long as the elements being given were consecrated beforehand... if I understand what our Catholic posters are saying.
: DCR Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 12:38:53
: kensington Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 12:12:37
No communion with the LORD if there is no Priest...
Like I said, I'll ask Brother Bruce. Leave it at that.
And, just so we're clear, I don't think they're saying that a priest has to be present in order for the Eucharist to be valid. It's just that the elements had to have been consecrated by a priest.
So, a "layleader" or non-ordained chaplain apparently may be able to administer communion, as long as the elements being given were consecrated beforehand... if I understand what our Catholic posters are saying.
Yep, you've got it! ::nodding::
According to 1 Peter 2, then, it looks like any Christian do it since Christians are priests. "Royal" priests, actually.
: Mere Nick Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:48:59
According to 1 Peter 2, then, it looks like any Christian do it since Christians are priests. "Royal" priests, actually.
Is this a question? There wasn't a question mark...I'll pretend there was.
I'm talking about the ministerial priesthood, the one that requires the sacrament of Holy Orders.
I do believe we've covered this topic in this very thread already, though...and indeed we have! Why don't you take a look (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=19955.msg411756#msg411756) to gain a better understanding of how Catholics see the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood.
I'll add a quote (source here (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp)) that might explain a bit more as well:
What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25). We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1). Rather than varying from the biblical model of priesthood, the Catholic understanding copies it exactly.Thanks for your question about how Catholics view the priesthood, hope that explains it. ::smile::
: mllevaleur Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 19:01:59
: Mere Nick Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:48:59
According to 1 Peter 2, then, it looks like any Christian do it since Christians are priests. "Royal" priests, actually.
Is this a question? There wasn't a question mark...I'll pretend there was.
I'm talking about the ministerial priesthood, the one that requires the sacrament of Holy Orders.
I do believe we've covered this topic in this very thread already, though...and indeed we have! Why don't you take a look (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=19955.msg411756#msg411756) to gain a better understanding of how Catholics see the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood.
I'll add a quote (source here (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp)) that might explain a bit more as well:
What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25). We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1). Rather than varying from the biblical model of priesthood, the Catholic understanding copies it exactly.
Thanks for your question about how Catholics view the priesthood, hope that explains it. ::smile::
Thanks for trying to explain it, though I don't see what Paul's ministry, as described in Romans 15:14-16 has to do with whether or not there is a priesthood of all believers and some sort of super dooper level above that. Paul wasn't there with them in Rome when he wrote the letter to them and it seems the folks there could handle all aspects of communion without Paul having to be around.
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.
It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. ::tippinghat::
: mllevaleur Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 03:31:19
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.
It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. ::tippinghat::
You're the one who brought up Romans 15. I was the one effectively asking you to "assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it."
I agree that there were other priests around because there were Christians around, but all were priests.
I don't know, but it seems that your shins must be a little bruised for you to go and write of me as an antagonist.
I have been away from the board for a couple of days and I was disappointed to see a certain topic (which will remained nameless) concerning the tyranny of the Catholic Church. I am not interested in re-visiting the topic, but I have to say how impressed I was to read many of the comments from Catholics and Protestants in response to the conspiracy-minded and flaming nature of that thread. Thank you to the majority of you who responded with level- heads and loving hearts.
A comment that really stuck out to me - and I am paraphrasing here - was that Christ should always be the focus of our conversations. We may be coming from different backgrounds and traditions, but He alone should be exalted, rather than our egos or conspiracies.
Thank you also to the administrators who shutdown the thread.
blessings
Shouldn't the scripture be open to private intepretaiton? Is that not why God gave us free will? We are to follow after no man, but Christ himself. I don't claim to understand the Catholic faith, so please don't intepret this as a slam. What little experience I have had with Catholic services ( I have attended) seems to put Christ back behind the vail God tore down at the crucifixtion by anyone being refused to take communion.
I also do not understand the worship of false idols ( in any faith), since this is a discussion on catholicism, I will stick to the beliefs of that church.
I have attended bible studies at the home of friends who are catholic. As we were all reading the bible (KJV), their bibles(catholic) were missing several verses. Even the hosts were mystified by this. How do you explain the discrepancy? Is God's word not the same yesterday, tomorrow, and forever? For every one?
Luke 22:19-20 says AND HE TOOK BREAD, AND GAVE THANKS AND BRAKE IT, AND GAVE UNTO THEM, SAYING, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU: THIS DO IN REMEBRANCE OF ME. LIKE WISE ALSO THE CUP IS THE NEW TESTEMENT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.
Christ died to give us all authority over darkness, that we may all reign with us in heaven. In his instruction He says "do this in remembrance of me." That is an instuction to EVERYONE, not just an elect few.
Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone or their faith. If we all can not come to discussion of the Word of God, we are lost indeed.
: susan Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 20:08:38
Shouldn't the scripture be open to private intepretaiton?
Ummm no, 2 Peter 1:20.
: Mere Nick Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 08:08:32
: mllevaleur Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 03:31:19
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.
It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. ::tippinghat::
You're the one who brought up Romans 15. I was the one effectively asking you to "assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it."
Aah, but I never assumed otherwise, or implied otherwise.
*Points up to the title of this thread* See that? "Ask-A-Catholic."
The purpose of this thread is to clarify and explain Catholic teaching, as there are lots of misconception and misunderstandings out there about it. The Catholics were doing this, when you felt the need to point out a certain verse. It seems your point was to imply that Catholics don't seem to be taking into account the verse you posted. My response was an attempt to explain our view as Catholics, and to show how we do indeed take the verse into account (along with other verses that we believe support our view), since that's kind of the purpose of this thread - to "Ask-A-Catholic" about their viewpoint.
As you can see, whether or not you agree with
how we take the verse you posted into account, we do, indeed, have an understanding of it that fits in with our theology. It is not forgotton or ignored by us.
Seeing as most of the Catholics here are actually converts from protestantism, we're quite aware that there are other views of that verse. It's just a common scenario for us to run into people who assume we're "ignoring scripture" or don't know it, and who point out verses as if we're not aware of them already. I was simply pointing out that assuming this isn't very charitable.
Perhaps I should ask you, when you wandered into the "Ask-A-Catholic" thread and posted that verse, did you not do so because you felt we were overlooking it? If so, I'm saying, perhaps in the future you can
ask us if we have some other understanding of the verse than you do, rather than first assuming we're overlooking it, and posting it as if it alone proves your point. Then we will feel as if you actually have enough respect for us as fellow Christians to assume we respect the Written Word enough to have taken the time to consider this verse in light of our Catholic beliefs. Make sense?
I'm just looking for some understanding, not agreement. ::smile::
: susan Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 20:08:38
Shouldn't the scripture be open to private intepretaiton? Is that not why God gave us free will? We are to follow after no man, but Christ himself. I don't claim to understand the Catholic faith, so please don't intepret this as a slam. What little experience I have had with Catholic services ( I have attended) seems to put Christ back behind the vail God tore down at the crucifixtion by anyone being refused to take communion.
I also do not understand the worship of false idols ( in any faith), since this is a discussion on catholicism, I will stick to the beliefs of that church.
I have attended bible studies at the home of friends who are catholic. As we were all reading the bible (KJV), their bibles(catholic) were missing several verses. Even the hosts were mystified by this. How do you explain the discrepancy? Is God's word not the same yesterday, tomorrow, and forever? For every one?
Luke 22:19-20 says AND HE TOOK BREAD, AND GAVE THANKS AND BRAKE IT, AND GAVE UNTO THEM, SAYING, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU: THIS DO IN REMEBRANCE OF ME. LIKE WISE ALSO THE CUP IS THE NEW TESTEMENT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.
Christ died to give us all authority over darkness, that we may all reign with us in heaven. In his instruction He says "do this in remembrance of me." That is an instuction to EVERYONE, not just an elect few.
Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone or their faith. If we all can not come to discussion of the Word of God, we are lost indeed.
CSloan correctly stated that the Bible is not open to private interpretation - Christianity relies on a belief in absolute truth and private interpretation does not support this world view. In this case, one cannot believe that the Bible is absolutely truth AND that it can mean anything that one wants to read into it.
However, there is room in the world view for private revelation. God can speak to us through the Bible in a manner that speaks only to the individual, and is situation specific. Here is an example involving Peter starting to slip under the waves while he is walking on water in John 6; a person might read it and realize that God is opening their eyes to a situation in their own lives where they are "drowning" because they have taken their eyes off of Him. In this example, the meaning of the verse - the public revelation - is not affected by the private revelation.
I am not sure what you mean by "Catholic services I have attended seems to put Christ back behind the veil God tore down at the crucifixion by anyone being refused to take communion", but I am going to guess that you disagree with the Catholic practice of refusing the Eucharist to nonCatholic Christians. The simple answer to your question is that Catholics believe that the wine and bread turn into the actual blood and body of Christ - so taking the Eucharist in the Catholic church is an act of worship. If you are a Christian who doesn't believe in Transubstantiation, taking the Eucharist is act of idolatry; therefore the Catholic Church is attempting to save those who do not believe this most Holy teaching from a terrible sin.
Catholics do not worship statues. Yes, there are statues in the Catholic Church and they are used as tools to worship God, but they are never worship by educated Catholics. The use of statues in worship is seen throughout the Bible - from the Jews carving angels on the Ark of the Covenant to bowing down to the serpent on a pole in order to be healed from a plague, due to their disobedience; to the modern day use of crosses in churches. The fact is we are a people who use symbols in worship. The warning against worshiping a symbol - a statue or the Bible - is important because people are often tempted to reduce God to something we can control, like an object - this is the true sin of idolatry.
No offense, but if the leaders of the Bible study that you attended didn't understand why different translations of the Bible do not have the same numbering system, they should become more educated before they commit to leading a Bible study. Verse and chapter numbers within the Bible are not part of the inspired text. They were added centuries later so that the Bible would be easier to learn. Different Bible scholars determine different ways of translating the ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew text; therefore the translations contain different verse numbers. Joseph Smith (self-proclaimed prophet of the Mormon Church) claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient manuscript written in 500 BC, but modern scholars know that this cannot be true because the verse numbers in Isaiah and Mathew (included in the Book of Mormon) match the KJV of the Bible which was not written until 1500 years in the future. Once again verse numbers, chapters, and the order (canon) of the Bible are not part of the inspired text of the Bible.
blessings
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 01:29:55If you are a Christian who doesn't believe in Transubstantiation, taking the Eucharist is act of idolatry; therefore the Catholic Church is attempting to save those who do not believe this most Holy teaching from a terrible sin.
I'm not sure I understand the connection with "idolatry." It seems that a Christian who doesn't subscribe to Transubstantiation would simply partake of the elements with the same thoughts as he normally would have if it was communion back at his own church.
However, many non-Catholics would have a conscience issue against partaking anyway, if they believe that the church they are in the presence of is in error or if the communion/"Eucharist" itself is in error because of the way it is done and/or the beliefs regarding it (such as Transubstantiation).
EDIT to add...
On reading further in your post, I think I may have a better understanding of your point:
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 01:29:55The warning against worshiping a symbol - a statue or the Bible - is important because people are often tempted to reduce God to something we can control, like an object - this is the true sin of idolatry.
So, you mean that the RCC wishes to protect non-Catholic Christians from, in their perception, reducing God to an object... like the elements of the Eucharist?
That's interesting to me that they at least make that concession, regarding the non-Catholic point of view. ::pondering::
It's been my understanding that it wasn't to protect Protestants, but it is sacrilege for one who does not share the belief of the real presence to participate. That's certianly the view of the RCC in our town (it's printed in their worship materials).
"Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid."
"These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases. That is because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive 'communion' in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of orders." --JPII
First, Thanks to everyone for responding. It is good I think, to share what we believe without contempt. Again please understand I do not wish to offend anyone. I am simply curious to understand different views. As well as clear up any misconceptions I may have. I do not wish to "change" anyone or attempt to make them share my beliefs.
That said, as far as private interpretation of the scripture, I see 2 Peter 1:20 as saying the bible was not written by random men seeking their own glory, but Holy men of God. 2 Peter 1:21 FOR THE PROPEHCY CAME NOT IN OLD TIME BY THE WILL OF MAN: BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST.
This tells me that God was in charge. I don't take it to say that we do not have the right to intepret God's word individually. If we are truly seeking God, He will direct our paths and show us the truth. I have also come to learn, we can rarely take one verse of scripture and apply it, as God created a continuous living word for us to live by.
As far as what I meant by christ being put back behind the veil, Christ died for all of us. I don't believe we need the intervention of any mortal man to worship or take communion.
Our spiritual walk is our own, not to say we can not fellowship or seek the council of others. We should do those things. Yet, when we start believing one man has more of an annointing than another, we are in trouble. God gives no man preferance over another. He created us all equally and Christ died for the sins of EVERY man. He does not need help in forgiving sins. He accomplished that at His death, burial, and resurrection.
As for idols, anything that takes our focus off of God is considered an idol. God used the snake and things like that withthe Israelites because of their hardheartedness. He used them as tools to get their focus back on Him, they were never intended to be held in high esteem.
First, Thanks to everyone for responding. It is good I think, to share what we believe without contempt. Again please understand I do not wish to offend anyone. I am simply curious to understand different views. As well as clear up any misconceptions I may have. I do not wish to "change" anyone or attempt to make them share my beliefs.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss your beliefs; I to, hope that we can continue talking without contempt.
That said, as far as private interpretation of the scripture, I see 2 Peter 1:20 as saying the bible was not written by random men seeking their own glory, but Holy men of God. 2 Peter 1:21 FOR THE PROPHECY CAME NOT IN OLD TIME BY THE WILL OF MAN: BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST.
This tells me that God was in charge. I don't take it to say that we do not have the right to interpret God's word individually. If we are truly seeking God, He will direct our paths and show us the truth. I have also come to learn, we can rarely take one verse of scripture and apply it, as God created a continuous living word for us to live by.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. As I mentioned before, I do believe God speaks to us individually through the scripture; however it doesn't change the public revelation (underlying truth found in the scriptures) of the verse. If private interpretation of the scriptures was a valid way to read the Bible than Mormons would be perfectly correct in their reading of
John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
as applying to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon (and to their church) instead of the Gentiles of the NT and today. David Keresh would have been correct that Waco was the fulfillment of the Apocalypse in Revelation. Do you see my point?
As far as what I meant by christ being put back behind the veil, Christ died for all of us. I don't believe we need the intervention of any mortal man to worship or take communion.
Through God's grace, mortal man has been used by God to accomplish a lot of great things like leading the Israelites out of Egypt, securing the Promise Land, spreading the gospel, writing the inspired Bible, etc. God does not rely on humans, He allows us to participate in special ways according to His plan.
Our spiritual walk is our own, not to say we can not fellowship or seek the council of others. We should do those things. Yet, when we start believing one man has more of an anointing than another, we are in trouble. God gives no man preference over another. He created us all equally and Christ died for the sins of EVERY man. He does not need help in forgiving sins. He accomplished that at His death, burial, and resurrection.
I agree that God does not need humans - we are totally in His care; however, He has chosen to befriend individuals and groups of people in a special way throughout the Bible and today. Also, Christ's sacrifice is the only reason we have access to His forgiveness, but He allows us to participate in that forgiveness - in the Great Commission Jesus sends out his Disciples to preach the gospel, heal the people and to forgive sins.
As for idols, anything that takes our focus off of God is considered an idol. God used the snake and things like that with the Israelites because of their hardheartedness. He used them as tools to get their focus back on Him, they were never intended to be held in high esteem.
Well, I did mention that the Catholic Church does not worship statues - I not sure why you believe Jewish people were using statues correctly and Catholics are not?
blessings
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --
Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism? Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?
: janine Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 15:41:53
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --
Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism? Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?
I am not an authority on Catholic doctrine - I am simply a Catholic who likes to discuss theology. I am just as qualified to be here as anyone, I suppose. Hopefully, I have directed people who are interested in learning more about Catholicism to read the Catholic Catechism; if I have not, please do.
blessings
You have a perfect right to express whatever you will re: the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong in that. It's certainly useful for people who are not Catholic or who have no contact with Catholics to be able to ask you things in a context like this.
Thinking in terms of just one area of interest, what I am wondering involves this: when millions of people functionally, apparently attach such great adulation and reverence to objects, or to non-Deity dead people -- and when it looks and smells and sounds and moves like worship, to the observer --
If anyone questions aspects of that phenomenon, up will come a Catholic poster (not necessarily you, and not necessarily on this thread -- I'm speaking in general re: these forums), who will try to explain it all away with comments like "but those were bad Catholics you saw/met/spoke to".
We in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader. Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.
You OTOH have a hierarchy above you, as a Catholic, and people charged with and trusted with much more authority than you have, as a simple Catholic, to speak "for the church".
Our excuse, when one of us does something that looks spiritually off-the-wall, is the fact that --
Beyond the local dynamics of living and serving in a group of Christians, where we may have put ourselves in some ways under authority of a group of elders --
Our excuse for the excesses and weirdnesses of such Christians is that they have to "work out", to express, their "own salvation in fear and trembling". They have their Bible and their ability to understand it, whatever amount of understanding they can get out of it, as their model for Christian living.
If one of us tries to answer a question "for the church", to interpret the actions and teachings of the church for the church as a whole, the whole Body of Christ still walking this Earth -- well, we have no ground to stand on but God's Word. We may or may not be able to deny or defend, in a discussion about something the whole church appears to teach, when an outsider wonders about things.
So -- when you answer questions or discuss principles, etc., as a Catholic, on an "ask-A-Catholic" type thread -- questions about how or why the Catholic Church as a whole does or says or states something --
By what authority do you speak?
All I can say when I answer a question is "This is what I understand from what's recorded in the Bible, in light of what history tells us about the time and place of the people involved". And I can say "It may be that XYZ group does this, or says that, because they understand and apply these Scriptures this way".
How do you explain things? You may or may not call on some incident or principle in Scripture; you may or may not call upon the traditional teachings that have built up and layered themselves onto the Word; what are you drawing upon for your answers?
: janine Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 16:13:49
You have a perfect right to express whatever you will re: the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong in that. It's certainly useful for people who are not Catholic or who have no contact with Catholics to be able to ask you things in a context like this.
Thinking in terms of just one area of interest, what I am wondering involves this: when millions of people functionally, apparently attach such great adulation and reverence to objects, or to non-Deity dead people -- and when it looks and smells and sounds and moves like worship, to the observer --
If anyone questions aspects of that phenomenon, up will come a Catholic poster (not necessarily you, and not necessarily on this thread -- I'm speaking in general re: these forums), who will try to explain it all away with comments like "but those were bad Catholics you saw/met/spoke to".
We in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader. Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.
You OTOH have a hierarchy above you, as a Catholic, and people charged with and trusted with much more authority than you have, as a simple Catholic, to speak "for the church".
Our excuse, when one of us does something that looks spiritually off-the-wall, is the fact that --
Beyond the local dynamics of living and serving in a group of Christians, where we may have put ourselves in some ways under authority of a group of elders --
Our excuse for the excesses and weirdnesses of such Christians is that they have to "work out", to express, their "own salvation in fear and trembling". They have their Bible and their ability to understand it, whatever amount of understanding they can get out of it, as their model for Christian living.
If one of us tries to answer a question "for the church", to interpret the actions and teachings of the church for the church as a whole, the whole Body of Christ still walking this Earth -- well, we have no ground to stand on but God's Word. We may or may not be able to deny or defend, in a discussion about something the whole church appears to teach, when an outsider wonders about things.
So -- when you answer questions or discuss principles, etc., as a Catholic, on an "ask-A-Catholic" type thread -- questions about how or why the Catholic Church as a whole does or says or states something --
By what authority do you speak?
All I can say when I answer a question is "This is what I understand from what's recorded in the Bible, in light of what history tells us about the time and place of the people involved". And I can say "It may be that XYZ group does this, or says that, because they understand and apply these Scriptures this way".
How do you explain things? You may or may not call on some incident or principle in Scripture; you may or may not call upon the traditional teachings that have built up and layered themselves onto the Word; what are you drawing upon for your answers?
I think that Ravenlorre has done a wonderful thing by providing this thread. Janine, I am not sure what you are aiming for here. The purpose of this thread, Ravenlorre can correct me if I am wrong, is to provide an explanation on Catholic doctrines and teachings. There are many misconceptions as to what Catholics do believe. As Mllevaleur has pointed out, it is important for people to see the Catholic POV.
Catholics have three things to guide them: Scripture, Tradition, and the Teachings of the Church, all guided by the Holy Spirit. None of these work against each other nor do they contradict one another. There are no secrets as to what Catholics belive in. Anyone can pick up a Catholic catechism and it is all there for the world to see. Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.
: broach972 Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.
You have got to be kidding me.
You have a perfect right to express whatever you will re: the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong in that. It's certainly useful for people who are not Catholic or who have no contact with Catholics to be able to ask you things in a context like this.
Thank you.
Thinking in terms of just one area of interest, what I am wondering involves this: when millions of people functionally, apparently attach such great adulation and reverence to objects, or to non-Deity dead people -- and when it looks and smells and sounds and moves like worship, to the observer --
We (Catholics) do not believe that we are praying to dead people. It is still a bit shocking to me how much I used to believe that death divided us - the fact is Christ conquered death on the Cross - it no longer has the power to divide us from our brothers and sisters in Christ.
I think you may need to remember that Catholicism looks strange to Americans because it is a different culture. Protestant churches have the advantage of looking more "normal" or comfortable to Americans because it grew alongside our country. It would seem that some of your misinterpretation of Catholic worship may be do to a cultural difference - once you understand the culture from the inside, it appears quite differently.
If anyone questions aspects of that phenomenon, up will come a Catholic poster (not necessarily you, and not necessarily on this thread -- I'm speaking in general re: these forums), who will try to explain it all away with comments like "but those were bad Catholics you saw/met/spoke to".
Yeah, I have noticed that it is a tendency for a minority group to become defensive at times. I apologize if I have fallen into this temptation. On the other hand, it is important for you to see the position Catholics are in; we tend to have to explain the behavior of uneducated Catholic brothers and sisters from every nation on Earth - including the rain forests of Peru all the way to downtown Manhattan; all Protestants have to do when handling a misinformed follower is apply a formula (usually based on their denomination's / favorite theologians idea of what a Christian is) and quickly dismiss the supposed heretic as not born again or not really Christian; while distancing themselves as fast as possible. The poor behavior of American evangelists is a perfect example - they are quickly dismissed as lose cannons or backsliders; while every born-again, evangelical has a statue-worshiping Catholic aunt they can pull up out of the closet whenever they need a spokesman for Catholicism.
We in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader. Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.
Great. Your denomination must have a Creed or list of requirements for being included within the fold of the Church of Christ - or else all Christian churches would be considered Church of Christ by your denomination. What is the document that churches must comply with to be considered Church of Christ?
You OTOH have a hierarchy above you, as a Catholic, and people charged with and trusted with much more authority than you have, as a simple Catholic, to speak "for the church".
Priests are quite educated - they have the equivalent of a Ph.D in theology so I think they are more qualified than me to comment on Church dogma / doctrine.
Our excuse, when one of us does something that looks spiritually off-the-wall, is the fact that -- Beyond the local dynamics of living and serving in a group of Christians, where we may have put ourselves in some ways under authority of a group of elders --Our excuse for the excesses and weirdnesses of such Christians is that they have to "work out", to express, their "own salvation in fear and trembling". They have their Bible and their ability to understand it, whatever amount of understanding they can get out of it, as their model for Christian living.
Ok. I have seen this to be true. I guess we all have excuses for our pew-setters and off-the-mark members.
If one of us tries to answer a question "for the church", to interpret the actions and teachings of the church for the church as a whole, the whole Body of Christ still walking this Earth -- well, we have no ground to stand on but God's Word. We may or may not be able to deny or defend, in a discussion about something the whole church appears to teach, when an outsider wonders about things.
Actually, it depends on your denomination - Presbyterians rely on the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith to help them sort out the sheep and the goats.
So -- when you answer questions or discuss principles, etc., as a Catholic, on an "ask-A-Catholic" type thread -- questions about how or why the Catholic Church as a whole does or says or states something -- By what authority do you speak?
I rely on the Bible and the Catholic Catechism - which is a paraphrase of Catholic dogma.
All I can say when I answer a question is "This is what I understand from what's recorded in the Bible, in light of what history tells us about the time and place of the people involved". And I can say "It may be that XYZ group does this, or says that, because they understand and apply these Scriptures this way"
I agree and I try do the same thing.
How do you explain things? You may or may not call on some incident or principle in Scripture; you may or may not call upon the traditional teachings that have built up and layered themselves onto the Word; what are you drawing upon for your answers?
I rely on my understanding of the Bible and the Catholic Catechism - since I am not infallible, I may get things wrong from time to time, but I do my best. I also believe that using my experience to relate scripture / dogma to others helps them to understand difficult concepts more easily.
blessings
: Gary Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:37:25
: broach972 Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.
You have got to be kidding me.
Well, it does appear that the Catholics that post on this board agree which each other; while the Protestants here seem to disagree quite a bit.
blessings
: mllevaleur Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 00:20:43
: Mere Nick Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 08:08:32
: mllevaleur Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 03:31:19
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.
It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. ::tippinghat::
You're the one who brought up Romans 15. I was the one effectively asking you to "assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it."
Aah, but I never assumed otherwise, or implied otherwise.
*Points up to the title of this thread* See that? "Ask-A-Catholic."
The purpose of this thread is to clarify and explain Catholic teaching, as there are lots of misconception and misunderstandings out there about it. The Catholics were doing this, when you felt the need to point out a certain verse. It seems your point was to imply that Catholics don't seem to be taking into account the verse you posted. My response was an attempt to explain our view as Catholics, and to show how we do indeed take the verse into account (along with other verses that we believe support our view), since that's kind of the purpose of this thread - to "Ask-A-Catholic" about their viewpoint.
As you can see, whether or not you agree with how we take the verse you posted into account, we do, indeed, have an understanding of it that fits in with our theology. It is not forgotton or ignored by us.
Seeing as most of the Catholics here are actually converts from protestantism, we're quite aware that there are other views of that verse. It's just a common scenario for us to run into people who assume we're "ignoring scripture" or don't know it, and who point out verses as if we're not aware of them already. I was simply pointing out that assuming this isn't very charitable.
Perhaps I should ask you, when you wandered into the "Ask-A-Catholic" thread and posted that verse, did you not do so because you felt we were overlooking it? If so, I'm saying, perhaps in the future you can ask us if we have some other understanding of the verse than you do, rather than first assuming we're overlooking it, and posting it as if it alone proves your point. Then we will feel as if you actually have enough respect for us as fellow Christians to assume we respect the Written Word enough to have taken the time to consider this verse in light of our Catholic beliefs. Make sense?
I'm just looking for some understanding, not agreement. ::smile::
No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it, but what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it. It's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.
: janine Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 15:41:53
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --
Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism? Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?
The beauty of being Catholic is that official Catholic answers are pretty easy to find. ::smile:: We can look to the catechism, canon law, Church documents, etc, for answers and thorough explanations, since the Church doesn't expect us to make up our own understanding of doctrine. So all we have to do is find an official source that explains our understanding, point to that, and we're good to go!
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 21:47:06
We in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader. Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.
Great. Your denomination must have a Creed or list of requirements for being included within the fold of the Church of Christ - or else all Christian churches would be considered Church of Christ by your denomination. What is the document that churches must comply with to be considered Church of Christ?
(http://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gif) You must not be all that familiar with the Churches of Christ, lol. Denominations and creeds are big no-nos!! ;-) "No creed but the bible!!" is a common battle cry, and they don't consider themselves a denomination.
Of course, it gets sticky when there are lots of different understandings of the bible....that's one thing I loved about becoming Catholic, there was finally very clear, plain, easy to access documents that explained Church teaching, without resorting to cryptic "just read the bible and figure it out" type messages.
: Mere Nick Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:11:07
No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it,
Oh good! So was there some other reason why you posted it?
but what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.
I'm interested in what any kind of Catholic has to say about it...Byzantine Catholic, Melkite Catholic. ::noworries:: Ok, lol, sorry that was a little Catholic humor. ;-)
In this thread, admittedly, no I didn't post here in order to learn what Protestants believe. I was one before I was Catholic, so usually (not always, but usually) I already know the typical protestant objections. More often, others don't know the Catholic POV, though, hence the thread.
It's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.
Um..well, in a thread called "Ask-A-Catholic," where the idea is to explain our POV (not to try to convince people we're right), yeah, that's kind of the idea. You can certainly question the answer, if there's something you don't understand about it. But if you disagree with it, then we can just agree to disagree, no one is expecting everyone to agree with us. (At least, not that I'm aware of.) Perhaps that's where there is some confusion. My goal is to explain the Catholic POV, not convince others that it is correct. If you understand it, but disagree, then in my mind, my job is pretty much done! ::smile::
You can be sure that I won't be in an "Ask-a-Protestant" type thread trying to challenge an answer, when protestants are merely trying to explain their viewpoint (not convince me that they're right). If I wanted to challenge an answer and argue about it, with the intent of trying to change someone's mind or prove them wrong, I'd take it to another thread myself. Of course, I tend not to do that kind of thing anyway, as usually when people set out to convince someone they're wrong they don't end up getting very far most of the time! ::smile::
God Bless!
: mllevaleur Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:34:53
: Mere Nick Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:11:07
No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it,
Oh good! So was there some other reason why you posted it?
but what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.
In this thread, admittedly, no I didn't post here in order to learn what Protestants believe. I was one before I was Catholic, so usually (not always, but usually) I already know the typical protestant objections. More often, others don't know the Catholic POV, though, hence the thread.
It's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.
Um..well,
It would probably be best, then, for the both of us if I just talk to my RC friend Steve. He is more interested in dialogue and lacks even the slightest taint of condescension.
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 21:54:48
: Gary Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:37:25
: broach972 Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.
You have got to be kidding me.
Well, it does appear that the Catholics that post on this board agree which each other; while the Protestants here seem to disagree quite a bit.
blessings
That hardly proves objectivity.
: Mere Nick Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:55:15
: mllevaleur Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:34:53
: Mere Nick Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:11:07
No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it,
Oh good! So was there some other reason why you posted it?
but what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.
In this thread, admittedly, no I didn't post here in order to learn what Protestants believe. I was one before I was Catholic, so usually (not always, but usually) I already know the typical protestant objections. More often, others don't know the Catholic POV, though, hence the thread.
It's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.
Um..well,
It would probably be best, then, for the both of us if I just talk to my RC friend Steve. He is more interested in dialogue and lacks even the slightest taint of condescension.
I'm so glad you have a Catholic friend to dialogue with, that's lovely! ::smile::
God Bless!
: Gary Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:55:50
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 21:54:48
: Gary Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:37:25
: broach972 Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.
You have got to be kidding me.
Well, it does appear that the Catholics that post on this board agree which each other; while the Protestants here seem to disagree quite a bit.
blessings
That hardly proves objectivity.
Hmm, I wonder if we're using the terms in a similar manner or not?
The fact is, the Catholic Church very clearly states (in documents accessible to all) what it is Catholics are to believe. This is why it is "objective" and not "subjective," because it's not up to the individuals to interpret scripture or decide what to believe, it's not dependent upon personal experience or understanding, etc. Therefore, when several Catholics (as we have here) get together, even if they've never met or talked before, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree, because Church teaching is clearly stated elsewhere, externally, objectively, and they simply each present this same objective teaching.
Protestants, on the other hand, are more likely to read the bible with their own personal ideas in mind and come away with different interpretations, since there is no official external interpretor. That's not to say they are any less sincere in their desire to serve God faithfully and study His Word, certainly not! But since protestantism largely leaves biblical interpretation up to the reader, it makes sense that protestant beliefs will, therefore, by the very nature of their understanding of how scripture works, be more subjective than Catholicism. They will be more personal, more individual, because there is not one objective interpretation agreed upon by all of them.
I'm not even saying this is a good or bad thing at this point, it just...is! Some may certainly argue that the protestant way is the better way, because people are allowed to decide for themselves and aren't bound to what some external source tells them. Others, of course, would argue differently.
But the bottom line is, Catholics rely on an exterior source to know Catholic teaching (which may or may not be correct), thus it's objective. Protestants, by and large, rely on their own understanding of scripture and Christianity for their teaching (which may or may not be correct), thus it's subjective. At least, that's how I'm understanding the usage of the terms in this thread! Not meant to be offensive or belittling, just stating the reality of the situation.
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.
It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:21:38
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.
It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.
Oh certainly! That's why I said,
if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree. The difference lies in the fact that I can easily point to an external Church document accessible to all and say very clearly, "That person who identifies himself as Catholic is not actually in agreement with Catholic teaching on this matter."
It's much harder for a protestant to do the same, as there is no external source to point to, and various teachings tend to be based on personal and individual understandings rather than external official sources.
But I wasn't claiming that, therefore, all Catholics are always in agreement. Just that it's clear and easy to see when an individual Catholic is holding a dissident view since there is an external, objective source to compare it to in the first place.
Hope that makes sense!
Lady, exactly what am I supposed to be protesting? Y'all toss around that "Protestant" label the way the Bible-time Jews used "Gentile".
It's so nice to know, as a Catholic, that I could simply look up some nice catechism or hit the Vatican website, and thus be relieved of the need to think.
: janine Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 14:04:10
Lady, exactly what am I supposed to be protesting? Y'all toss around that "Protestant" label the way the Bible-time Jews used "Gentile".
My apologies, I didn't mean it in an offensive way.
I'll try to remember to stick to "non-Catholics" if that's better.
It's so nice to know, as a Catholic, that I could simply look up some nice catechism or hit the Vatican website, and thus be relieved of the need to think.
Oh certainly not, I haven't done more thinking than after I became Catholic, there is SO much deep theology to study and understand and devour. I quite enjoy it! ::smile::
It is nice, though, to be free of the doubts about which biblical interpretation is correct and constant questions without definitive answers I had growing up. I admit that this is one of the reasons I like the idea that Our Father provided us with an earthly authority guided by the Holy Spirit to go for answers! ::nodding::
Lord, have mercy.
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:33:30
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:21:38
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.
It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.
Oh certainly! That's why I said, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree. The difference lies in the fact that I can easily point to an external Church document accessible to all and say very clearly, "That person who identifies himself as Catholic is not actually in agreement with Catholic teaching on this matter."
It's much harder for a protestant to do the same, as there is no external source to point to, and various teachings tend to be based on personal and individual understandings rather than external official sources.
But I wasn't claiming that, therefore, all Catholics are always in agreement. Just that it's clear and easy to see when an individual Catholic is holding a dissident view since there is an external, objective source to compare it to in the first place.
Hope that makes sense!
OK, so are the disidents Catholics? With what must one disagree in order to not be Catholic?
Actually, since Protestants, generally, claim the Bible as sufficient, what else would they need? If Catholics can be Catholics and not see Catholicism in the same way, why can't Protestants not see the Bible the same way and still be 'kosher?'
We won't go into the churches that claim apostolic succession and yet don't do the Pope thing.
: mllevaleur Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:14:18
: janine Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 15:41:53
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --
Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism? Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?
The beauty of being Catholic is that official Catholic answers are pretty easy to find. ::smile:: We can look to the catechism, canon law, Church documents, etc, for answers and thorough explanations, since the Church doesn't expect us to make up our own understanding of doctrine. So all we have to do is find an official source that explains our understanding, point to that, and we're good to go!
I can appreciate the advantages of having the doctrine clear and spelled out. In fact, that is a major responsibility of teachers according to Paul and really much of each of our own understanding of doctrine has been passed on to us as well. I am not convinced however that the pursuit of doctrine (or the resting in knowing one does not have to pursue doctrine themself), in and of itself, is the mark of a true disciple.
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:40:57
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:33:30
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:21:38
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.
It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.
Oh certainly! That's why I said, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree. The difference lies in the fact that I can easily point to an external Church document accessible to all and say very clearly, "That person who identifies himself as Catholic is not actually in agreement with Catholic teaching on this matter."
It's much harder for a protestant to do the same, as there is no external source to point to, and various teachings tend to be based on personal and individual understandings rather than external official sources.
But I wasn't claiming that, therefore, all Catholics are always in agreement. Just that it's clear and easy to see when an individual Catholic is holding a dissident view since there is an external, objective source to compare it to in the first place.
Hope that makes sense!
OK, so are the disidents Catholics? With what must one disagree in order to not be Catholic?
Well certainly the dissenting Catholics are still Catholic, but that doesn't mean they're not in error. We believe the Church has wheat and chaff like Christ said, so you'll have those who agree with Church teaching, and those who disagree with Church teaching. Among those who agree, all of them will fail to live up to Church teaching, lol, as none of us are perfect, but we'll keep trying. Among those who disagree with Church teaching, you have those who obey anyway out of submission to Christ (which I think it a great testament to their faith), and those who choose to dissent, they disagree and choose to actively disobey. That doesn't make them not Catholic, as it's baptism that makes one Catholic/Christian or not. I don't stop being a Christian when I sin, they don't stop being Catholic when they dissent. I mean, in one way, no matter what a Christian will always be a Christian, by virtue of his baptism, even if he decided to become an atheist. But since we don't see being Christian/Catholic as necessarily "being saved," then it's possible to be dissenting but still be Catholic.
Now, depending on one's action and beliefs, they may be an actively dissenting Catholic, or a Catholic that holds to heresy (knowingly or unkowingly), or any number of things. I would say that in our everyday view, one who rejected the Catholic Church as a whole, rejected the sacraments, the magisterium and Sacred Tradition, etc, would probably be considered "not Catholic" anymore, although in one way he would remain so forever because of the indelible mark of baptism on his soul.
Sorry...I know that's kind of confusing! Suffice it to say, most Catholics I know don't tend to spend much time worrying about who is Catholic enough to be considered Catholic! They just consider anyone who identifies himself as Catholic as such. Whether they're dissenting or not is a separate issue.
Actually, since Protestants, generally, claim the Bible as sufficient, what else would they need? If Catholics can be Catholics and not see Catholicism in the same way, why can't Protestants not see the Bible the same way and still be 'kosher?'
Well...I think they can! I mean, I would never say that someone isn't a Protestant because, for instance, they don't hold to the doctrine of OSAS.
But as I said, being a dissenting Catholic doesn't mean you're not in error. So likewise, someone may hold to some doctrine as a Protestant/Non-Catholic, but still be in error, and yet still be protestant/non-Catholic.
It's just that, when it comes to the Bible, there are obviously many different interpretations, all by good hearted and sincere and God-loving people. Who's to say which is correct? Sometimes looking at the original language helps people figure it out, sometimes looking at other passages in the bible helps people to figure it out, but sometimes it's just kind of a mystery and people do the best they can, and you'll end up with lots of different understandings of the same thing, with no place that says "this is the right way, and this is the wrong way."
With Catholic teaching, very precise language is usually used to be very clear about what is being said. You may have a dissenting Catholic, but most dissenting Catholics won't say, for instance, "Oh, I don't think the Church says abortion is wrong...I think they're ok with it in some circumstances." It's not an issue of disagreement about interpretation. Instead, what they'll say is, "I know the Church is against abortion in all circumstances, but I just disagree with them." This is because the Church is VERY clear about their stance on abortion, and unless someone had their head in the sand, lol, it would be pretty hard to not be aware of it!
Now, likewise in a Protestant/non-Catholic group, you don't usually have people just blatantly saying, "I know the bible says xyz, I just disagree with it." Usually, the issue is that people disagree about what the bible actually says.
Make sense?
So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?
I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 17:35:16
So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?
I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.
Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.
Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.
And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 18:01:08
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 17:35:16
So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?
I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.
Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.
Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.
And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."
Yeah, I've heard that. I remain a bit confused how I can be all three of these:
--in the church
--be separated
--have to cross my arms across my chest if I approach the officiant during communion (which I therefore would not receive)
Can you help me out here?
Oh, "good enough:" I'm gonna be in Heaven.
The following is my favorite quote from a Catholic:
Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I'm not Him. - Father Cavanaugh
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 19:49:48
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 18:01:08
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 17:35:16
So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?
I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.
Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.
Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.
And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."
Yeah, I've heard that. I remain a bit confused how I can be all three of these:
--in the church
--be separated
--have to cross my arms across my chest if I approach the officiant during communion (which I therefore would not receive)
Can you help me out here?
I'll do my best!
Because there is only One Church, anyone baptized as a Christian becomes, by virtue of their baptism, a member of Christ's body, His Church. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that brands them as Christians, forever. However, this does not mean that they will have a proper understanding of the teachings, or have access to what we call "the fullness of the faith," or agree with it. To have true unity, we believe it is necessary to agree and submit to the fullness of the faith once baptized.
In the Catholic view, many non-Catholics are missing parts of the faith, especially the sacraments.
This is the reality of the situation. We can not be truly and fully unified if we disagree on such fundamental issues. So, we're separated by disagreement on a belief-level. To overlook that and act as if we're unified when we're not is not considered a productive way to deal with the real divisions that exist. We WANT to be unified in truth.
We believe Christ's Church holds the deposit of faith, Christ's revelation to us...she holds truth. People are being added spiritually, if you will, to the Church, they are being marked as Christian, but they're not in a full unity because they're holding back agreement with Church teaching.
It's kind of like if I registered myself as a Republican, so that I was "branded" republican, but then disagreed with many republican ideals. If we imagine that there was a clear standard of official republican ideals (lol!), I would not be unified in belief if I didn't hold to them all, although I would technically belong to the party. Does that make sense?
As for communion, one of the requirements is that the person receiving the Eucharist must affirm all that the Church teaches (which we do by saying "Amen" before receiving), because otherwise to partake of something as a sign of unity, when we're not in fact united, is simply fraudulent. It's a lie.
So, we all claim the same father, and the same savior, but in many beliefs we are divided, and cannot call ourselves "one" or act as if we are one (through communion) unless and until we really are. Otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves and perpetrating lies (albeit with nothing but good intentions.)
I hope that explains the Catholic outlook somewhat!
Oh, "good enough:" I'm gonna be in Heaven.
Oh I see. Well technically the Church doesn't say anyone will definitely go to Heaven (not even Catholics.) She teaches, and has taught, that all grace and salvation comes from Christ, who always works through His Church, though in many instances outside its visible boundaries. And it's not just Benedict who said this, but the Church in general and for quite some time. ::smile::
Stephanie,
You have really contributed some clear and thoughtful posts lately; I appreciate your willingness to participate on this thread. I totally agree with you about how much thinking, pondering, contemplation there is for Catholics who look for it, in the Church. I could spent a lifetime studying the Bible and Tradition and still have so much to learn.
I also agree with you that the purpose of this thread is not to strong-arm or manipulate or seduce anyone into the Catholic Church. We are merely stating our POV and clearing up misconceptions.
I hope to continue learning from all the Catholics and nonCatholics on this board.
I do have a question for several people who have either stated or implied that Stephanie's posts are "condescending" - I am just not seeing it. I think we share the same intention for this thread and we think quite highly of the majority of noncatholic Christians on this board.
blessings
HRoberson...
My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church. He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.
He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts. That one is done on a foundation of Jesus.
: kensington Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 01:49:30
HRoberson...
My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church. He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.
He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts. That one is done on a foundation of Jesus.
I got baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church and then was convinced that it didn't count by a conservative, nondenominational church and was manipulated into being baptized again - just so we could all make sure it "took". Instead, of just trusting that God had chosen me and started my justification through baptism - I allowed myself to be led into the sin of re-baptism.
Boy, I was sure glad when I became Catholic and didn't have different authorities telling me different things, everywhere I turned. Today, I am securely grounded in the Word and Tradition - no matter who (Catholic / Protestant / Anabaptist / Ba'hai / Sufi / Buddhist, etc) tells me what God requires of me. If I am ever in doubt, I can flip open the Bible and Catechism.
I am glad your husband found Christ - I am sorry that it took the drastic measure of him having to leave the Church Christ established on Peter, to do so.
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 02:29:14
: kensington Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 01:49:30
HRoberson...
My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church. He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.
He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts. That one is done on a foundation of Jesus.
I got baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church as an infant and then was convinced that it didn't count by a conservative, nondenominational church and was manipulated into being baptized again - just so we could all be sure it "took". Instead, of just trusting that God had chosen me as an infant and started my justification through baptism - I allowed myself to be lead into the sin of re-baptism.
Boy, I was sure glad when I became Catholic and didn't have different authorities telling me different things, everywhere I turned. Today, I am securely grounded in the Word and Tradition - no matter who (Catholic / Protestant / Anabaptist / Ba'hai / Sufi / Buddhist, etc) tells me what God requires of me. If I am ever in doubt, I can flip open the Bible and Catechism.
I am glad your husband found Christ - I am sorry that it took the drastic measure of him having to leave the Church Christ established on Peter, to do so.
blessings
I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.
Anyways, I think you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up Catholic and found Christ
outside the Catholic Church.
I know quite a few from my congregation fit that bill. They may have been baptized as infants, but they didn't know Christ in the Catholic Church.
: ravenlorre Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 01:39:18
Stephanie,
You have really contributed some clear and thoughtful posts lately; I appreciate your willingness to participate on this thread. I totally agree with you about how much thinking, pondering, contemplation there is for Catholics who look for it, in the Church. I could spent a lifetime studying the Bible and Tradition and still have so much to learn.
I also agree with you that the purpose of this thread is not to strong-arm or manipulate or seduce anyone into the Catholic Church. We are merely stating our POV and clearing up misconceptions.
I hope to continue learning from all the Catholics and nonCatholics on this board.
I do have a question for several people who have either stated or implied that Stephanie's posts are "condescending" - I am just not seeing it. I think we share the same intention for this thread and we think quite highly of the majority of noncatholic Christians on this board.
blessings
Ravenlorre,
I must echo this as well. I have been extremely impressed with Stephanie's posts and positive approach to the issues. As a Catholic myself, I am still learning so much about the faith, and this has been a positive experience to that end.
In the discussion on communion, I would add that the Eucharist is viewed very differently by Catholics and non-Catholics. Also, in order for Catholics to receive communion, one must be in a "state of grace." Again, another principle comes into play here--the concept of mortal sin, which many non-Catholics reject. Catholics who exist in a state of mortal sin cannot receive communion. Another sacrament, the sacrament of Reconciliation(Confession), restores a person to the "state of grace" required to receive communion. I can only imagine that I am opening up a new can of worms by stating this principles but it is necessary to expound further as to why non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, may not receive communion at any given time.
Why are not some Catholic politicians who defy the will of the Catholic Church denied communion?
: Gary Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:27:08
Anyways, I think you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up Catholic and found Christ outside the Catholic Church.
And you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up non-Catholic who have found Christ and a "fullness of the faith" inside the Catholic Church. I am one of them. A trend that is currently growing. Ironically, the two priests at my church grew up Baptist.
: Gary Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:27:08
I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.
Historically, this is true. To deny it is to deny that people like Ireneous, Ignatious, and Justin Martyr were Christians. They were early church fathers. The church at that time was called the Catholic Church.
However, please let me interupt this thread to say today's Catholic Church is not the only one making the claim to be the church established by Christ in Matt 16:18. In fact, the early church was called the Catholic Church (without the word Roman) and the faith was the Orthodox faith. That is how we got Catholic and Orthodox as the names of the largest churches of those times.
trifecta
(the original ask-a poster--see my blog)
: broach972 Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:38:35
: ravenlorre Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 01:39:18
Stephanie,
You have really contributed some clear and thoughtful posts lately; I appreciate your willingness to participate on this thread. I totally agree with you about how much thinking, pondering, contemplation there is for Catholics who look for it, in the Church. I could spent a lifetime studying the Bible and Tradition and still have so much to learn.
I also agree with you that the purpose of this thread is not to strong-arm or manipulate or seduce anyone into the Catholic Church. We are merely stating our POV and clearing up misconceptions.
I hope to continue learning from all the Catholics and nonCatholics on this board.
I do have a question for several people who have either stated or implied that Stephanie's posts are "condescending" - I am just not seeing it. I think we share the same intention for this thread and we think quite highly of the majority of noncatholic Christians on this board.
blessings
Ravenlorre,
I must echo this as well. I have been extremely impressed with Stephanie's posts and positive approach to the issues. As a Catholic myself, I am still learning so much about the faith, and this has been a positive experience to that end.
Why thank you both! ::blushing::
: trifecta Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 08:59:32
: Gary Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:27:08
I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.
Historically, this is true. To deny it is to deny that people like Ireneous, Ignatious, and Justin Martyr were not Christians. They were early church fathers. The church at that time was called the Catholic Church.
However, please let me interupt this thread to say today's Catholic Church is not the only one making the claim to be the church established by Christ in Matt 16:18. In fact, the early church was called the Catholic Church (without the word Roman) and the faith was the Orthodox faith. That is how we got Catholic and Orthodox as the names of the largest churches of those times.
trifecta
(the original ask-a poster--see my blog)
Indeed, the Catholic Church today is still properly called the "Catholic Church" without the Roman.
It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when non-Catholics refer to the whole Catholic Church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, as this is a misnomer. Technically, the "Roman" Catholic Church only refers to the Latin Rite of the Church, and there are many other rites, Western and Eastern, that are all Catholic.
Actually, I have to disagree. The western and eastern rite churches are under the authority of Rome, so, they should be considered part of the Roman Catholic Church,
even if Roman is not in their name.
IMHO, Roman Catholic is appropriate because it is under the See of Rome, one of five original patriarchates.
While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.
trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)
: trifecta Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 10:50:39
Actually, I have to disagree. The western and eastern rite churches are under the authority of Rome, so, they should be considered part of the Roman Catholic Church,
even if Roman is not in their name.
IMHO, Roman Catholic is appropriate because it is under the See of Roman, one of five original patriarchate.
Well, I find it proper to call a group by the name they call themselves. I call the Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, although I disagree that they are completely orthodox. It's just common courtesy. ::smile::
In Church documents, and anywhere you go in the world, we are called the "Catholic Church." If you walk up to a Byzantine Catholic, and proceed to tell him he is Roman Catholic, he will be very confused! lol We are not all Roman, we are Universal, encompassing all cultures, which can be seen by the different rites who, though they may have different ethnical (small t) traditions, all hold to the same One Faith. Now I understand that YOU may consider him Roman because he is in submission to the pope, but this is not how WE use the term "Roman," the fact that the Pope resides in Rome has nothing to do with our catholicity.
There was a recent explosion on this very topic (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/two-new-rules.html#comments) on a Catholic blog I frequent. There is some good food for thought in the comments, and in the follow up post (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/09/a-church-by-any.html). This, from the comments, explains what I mean well:
There is nothing wrong with the term "Roman Catholic Church" when properly used to refer to the Latin Church of the Catholic communion, in contradistinction to the 21 other particular Churches of the Catholic communion, including the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian and Chaldean Catholic Churches.
All of these are fully Catholic and in communion with the successor to St. Peter, but they are not Latin or Roman and thus are not Roman Catholic. When referring to the entire communion of all Catholic Churches in communion with the bishop of Rome, the correct term is "Catholic Church," not "Roman Catholic Church," which devalues and mislabels the non-Latin Catholic Churches.
The magisterium is the teaching authority of the universal Catholic Church, and does not pertain specially to any particular Church such as the Latin Church. It comprises the bishop of Rome and all bishops of all particular Churches in communion with him. The magisterium is established by Jesus Christ, and belongs to the whole Catholic communion. (There is thus no such thing as a "Roman Catholic magisterium.") Now obviously, you aren't going to agree with the "established by Jesus Christ" part, but nevertheless that doesn't mean it's correct to refer to the whole Catholic Church as Roman, since that is not how we refer to ourselves.
There was another discussion in the comments here (http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=24994&id=79324322), which discussed who gets to decide what name is used. The consensus is that the person or group being referred to is the one who gets to decide what they are called. An example being used was American Indians:
The clear implication is that it is American Indians, more than others, who get to decide whether they can be called American Indians or not...
This is precisely why the pejorative and objectionable "Romanist/Romanism," and to a lesser degree the less problematic but still incorrect term "Roman Catholic/ism," are not acceptable terms for the Catholic Church and her members (except those who actually do belong to the Roman or Latin Church). In this case, the body that gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable is the Holy See, which speaks for the Catholic Church. In official Church teaching documents, "Roman Catholic" always refers specifically to the Latin Church, and the entire communion of Churches united under the Bishop of Rome is always called "the Catholic Church."
"Roman Catholic" as a way of referring to the entire Catholic Church is contrary to the Church's self-designation, self-understanding, and usage, and should therefore be avoided. Theological caveats regarding the applicability of the term are no excuse for misuse of terms as proper names. So, in my opinion, it's simply incorrect to call the whole Catholic Church Roman, because the Catholic Church herself does not call herself Roman Catholic, that's all. It would be like insisting on calling all the Orthodox churches Russian, regardless of what they actually were. I tend to think of it as simple Christian charity to have enough respect for others to call them the name by which they self-indentify. :-)
Sorry that was so long, it's been a hot topic recently so there was a lot of relevant stuff to share!
While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.
trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)
I'm sorry...I'm not sure what you mean? Would you say that the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are not unified because of their different traditions? The different rites are simply different ethnical traditions, but we all hold to the same beliefs, and we all clearly submit to One Church, and are therefore unified. Not sure what else needs to be done to have more unity than that? ???
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 23:43:19
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 19:49:48
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 18:01:08
: HRoberson Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 17:35:16
So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?
I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.
Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.
Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.
And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."
Yeah, I've heard that. I remain a bit confused how I can be all three of these:
--in the church
--be separated
--have to cross my arms across my chest if I approach the officiant during communion (which I therefore would not receive)
Can you help me out here?
I'll do my best!
Because there is only One Church, anyone baptized as a Christian becomes, by virtue of their baptism, a member of Christ's body, His Church. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that brands them as Christians, forever. However, this does not mean that they will have a proper understanding of the teachings, or have access to what we call "the fullness of the faith," or agree with it. To have true unity, we believe it is necessary to agree and submit to the fullness of the faith once baptized.
In the Catholic view, many non-Catholics are missing parts of the faith, especially the sacraments.
This is the reality of the situation. We can not be truly and fully unified if we disagree on such fundamental issues. So, we're separated by disagreement on a belief-level. To overlook that and act as if we're unified when we're not is not considered a productive way to deal with the real divisions that exist. We WANT to be unified in truth.
We believe Christ's Church holds the deposit of faith, Christ's revelation to us...she holds truth. People are being added spiritually, if you will, to the Church, they are being marked as Christian, but they're not in a full unity because they're holding back agreement with Church teaching.
It's kind of like if I registered myself as a Republican, so that I was "branded" republican, but then disagreed with many republican ideals. If we imagine that there was a clear standard of official republican ideals (lol!), I would not be unified in belief if I didn't hold to them all, although I would technically belong to the party. Does that make sense?
As for communion, one of the requirements is that the person receiving the Eucharist must affirm all that the Church teaches (which we do by saying "Amen" before receiving), because otherwise to partake of something as a sign of unity, when we're not in fact united, is simply fraudulent. It's a lie.
So, we all claim the same father, and the same savior, but in many beliefs we are divided, and cannot call ourselves "one" or act as if we are one (through communion) unless and until we really are. Otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves and perpetrating lies (albeit with nothing but good intentions.)
I hope that explains the Catholic outlook somewhat!
Oh, "good enough:" I'm gonna be in Heaven.
Oh I see. Well technically the Church doesn't say anyone will definitely go to Heaven (not even Catholics.) She teaches, and has taught, that all grace and salvation comes from Christ, who always works through His Church, though in many instances outside its visible boundaries. And it's not just Benedict who said this, but the Church in general and for quite some time. ::smile::
OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?
Yeah, I don't know that everyone who is baptized is going to Heaven either. I'm assuming for our discussion that one who is baptized and follows God as best she can, will receive the grace of God, and be allowed into His presence.
OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?
No, that's incorrect. An actively dissenting Catholic (that is, one who doesn't agree with Church teaching, and who therefore defies Church teaching in his actions), will likely be in grave sin, and may not take communion. Likewise, to approach the Eucharist, and to proclaim "Amen," that is to say, "I believe and affirm all that the Church teaches" would therefore be a lie for this person, compounding sin upon sin. As the other Catholics mentioned above, even Catholics have to be in a proper state to receive communion. A Catholic in the state of mortal sin may not receive.
A good rule of thumb in general is probably, to be considered a Catholic and part of the visible Catholic Church, one would need to be confirmed Catholic, or have the intention of being confirmed Catholic (in the case of those who have not yet been confirmed.) There is no, "how Catholic can I be without being Catholic," because...well, what's the point of that?
Those who are baptized Christian elsewhere are loosely united to the Church through their baptism, but they're missing all the other sacraments, and a lot of Christian Teaching. The closer in teaching a Christian is to the Catholic Church, the more united. (There's a spectrum of closeness in teaching from bible-alone type Christians, all the way to Orthodox Christians, who are about as close as you can get w/out actually being Catholic.) But until one is fully united, it would be a lie to say that we are "one" by the action of all receiving the Eucharist together as an act of unity. (Not to mention the very important distinction between the different views of the Real Presence in the Eucharist...the "Amen" is also signifying that one believes Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, so again someone affirming this who doesn't believe it would be stating a lie.)
There is a distinction in my mind between saying, "That person is baptized and is therefore a part of the Church," and saying "That person is Catholic." It's like the difference between saying this person is baptized and a part of the Church, but he is an atheist. We don't consider someone Catholic or in unity with the Catholic Church if their actions and beliefs are not Catholic, even if they are "a part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism. Does that make sense?
Now in the case of dissenting Catholics, usually the great majority of their beliefs are Catholic, they have partaken of the sacraments, they have lived the Catholic faith for the most part. Where is the line where they are "no longer Catholic" because their beliefs are so far removed from Church teaching? Well, I couldn't say, I don't think that's really for me to decide. If they have any integrity, at some point if they have so many disagreements with the Catholic Church, I would think they would choose to no longer be Catholic. And anyway, I don't really think the "how far can we get before we cross the line" type questioning is all that helpful. Someone shouldn't be looking at how far away he can go before being considered Catholic or not, if one believes the Catholic Church is the authority God gave us on earth, he should want to submit to it entirely.
Let me know if there's anything I need to clarify about the above!
Yeah, I don't know that everyone who is baptized is going to Heaven either. I'm assuming for our discussion that one who is baptized and follows God as best she can, will receive the grace of God, and be allowed into His presence.
Gotcha! ::nodding::
I'm at my wits end so; what is a Catholic?
FTL
In Church documents, and anywhere you go in the world, we are called the "Catholic Church." If you walk up to a Byzantine Catholic, and proceed to tell him he is Roman Catholic, he will be very confused! lol We are not all Roman, we are Universal, encompassing all cultures, which can be seen by the different rites who, though they may have different ethnical (small t) traditions, all hold to the same One Faith. Now I understand that YOU may consider him Roman because he is in submission to the pope, but this is not how WE use the term "Roman," the fact that the Pope resides in Rome has nothing to do with our catholicity.
I call the Catholic Church the 'Roman Catholic Church,' and I have no hesitation in doing so. The whole church of Christ--of which the RCC is only part--is the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
IIRC, btw, in most RCC documents, the RCC is referred to simply as the Christian Church. I would never call it such, as it is but one component of the Christian Church. Would you reserve the term 'Christian Church' for the RCC just because it is what RCC documents clearly indicate the RCC wants to be called?
I understand wanting to be called a particular something -- Many Baptists and church of Christ folks have complained for years at being labeled 'Protestants' by RCC and other folks. (Baptists and coc-ers are Protestants, of course, but still what's good for the goose should be good for gander. If they want to be called something different, and if we hold to the 'Please call the RCC just the CC' doctrine, then we should have no problem reclassifying Baptists and coc-ers as non-Protestants, right?)
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:12:38
OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?
No, that's incorrect. An actively dissenting Catholic (that is, one who doesn't agree with Church teaching, and who therefore defies Church teaching in his actions), will likely be in grave sin, and may not take communion. Likewise, to approach the Eucharist, and to proclaim "Amen," that is to say, "I believe and affirm all that the Church teaches" would therefore be a lie for this person, compounding sin upon sin. As the other Catholics mentioned above, even Catholics have to be in a proper state to receive communion. A Catholic in the state of mortal sin may not receive.
So, Catholics who don't buy into the contraception arguments shouldn't be allowed to take communion. But they are, by apostolically-appointed bishops and priests. So, what's the problem here? Or is disagreeing with Catholic dogma a mortal sin in and of itself?
Those who are baptized Christian elsewhere are loosely united to the Church through their baptism, but they're missing all the other sacraments, and a lot of Christian Teaching. The closer in teaching a Christian is to the Catholic Church, the more united. (There's a spectrum of closeness in teaching from bible-alone type Christians, all the way to Orthodox Christians, who are about as close as you can get w/out actually being Catholic.) But until one is fully united, it would be a lie to say that we are "one" by the action of all receiving the Eucharist together as an act of unity. (Not to mention the very important distinction between the different views of the Real Presence in the Eucharist...the "Amen" is also signifying that one believes Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, so again someone affirming this who doesn't believe it would be stating a lie.)
Wouldn't this closeness be dependent on salvation issues? If not, why not? I believe Catholics are Christians and are acceptable to God even if I think they've got some ego (institutionally speaking) issues with form and precedence. And so, I can say 'amen' rather easily to my union with Catholics, just as I can with Baptists and a host of other believers. If a Catholic can take (be given) communion and disagree with Catholic teachings (and they can; it happens every day), why not a Protestant?
There is a distinction in my mind between saying, "That person is baptized and is therefore a part of the Church," and saying "That person is Catholic." It's like the difference between saying this person is baptized and a part of the Church, but he is an atheist.
I'm not sure that non-Catholics are atheists, or that Catholic dissenters are either. A more accurate comparison would be 'Can a Baptist believe that baptism is necessary, and still be Baptist?' Or perhaps, 'Can a Church of Christ bubba not see instrumental music as wrong, and still be a Church of Christ bubba?'
We don't consider someone Catholic or in unity with the Catholic Church if their actions and beliefs are not Catholic, even if they are "a part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism. Does that make sense?
Not really. If I'm part of the church, and the RC is the church, how can I not be part of it?
Now in the case of dissenting Catholics, usually the great majority of their beliefs are Catholic, they have partaken of the sacraments, they have lived the Catholic faith for the most part. Where is the line where they are "no longer Catholic" because their beliefs are so far removed from Church teaching? Well, I couldn't say, I don't think that's really for me to decide. If they have any integrity, at some point if they have so many disagreements with the Catholic Church, I would think they would choose to no longer be Catholic. And anyway, I don't really think the "how far can we get before we cross the line" type questioning is all that helpful. Someone shouldn't be looking at how far away he can go before being considered Catholic or not, if one believes the Catholic Church is the authority God gave us on earth, he should want to submit to it entirely.
Well, I agree with you that our intent is not to see how far we can go, but in this discussion about who and what the Catholic church accepts as 'brothers,' it is important to ask 'what makes a Catholic,' and 'what makes a Catholic not a Catholic?'
The reasons I ask these questions is my own history. I'm a Church of Christ bubba from long back. I understand pretty well the coc views of things (although there are usually always some niche group somewhere who will argue that if the cup gets spilled, we have to start communion all over), but I also have views that aren't in-line with those older mainline views (completely). Little things like, I think Catholics are Christians; many of my compatriots from a couple decades ago would argue that point. And so I find myself in a faith community that has its definitions, and yet I am willing to let Catholics take communion with me. Or Baptists, or Unitarians, or whoever feels like we're in this thing together. And so I am curious why the Catholic church holds the views it does, and at the same time seems to contradict itself in its behavior.
I guess that if I don't buy the Pope thing, or Mariology, or transubstantiation, I can't be Catholic. OK, I understand the Pope thing (sort of, since there seems to be quite a few other groups that Rome recognizes to some extent that don't quite buy it either), but the Mariology and transubstantiation make me wonder 'what's up with that?'
I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point, I suppose.
Anyways, I think you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up Catholic and found Christ outside the Catholic Church.
I believe people need to go where they can find Christ. If it takes leaving the Catholic Church to see God standing right in front of them; sadly I have to say - so be it.
As you are aware, all Christian Churches have a steady flow of people exiting our doors for the Mormon Church, in recent years; just because you are convinced that leaving a church is the right thing to do, doesn't mean you have found truth.
I know quite a few from my congregation fit that bill. They may have been baptized as infants, but they didn't know Christ in the Catholic Church.
This is my own speculation - it seems to me, churches that focus on helping Christian adults mature by providing structure for the sanctification process - Presbyterians, Methodist, Anglicans, all forms of Catholicism, tend to be lacking in the youth/children's ministry department. The Catholic Church ministers to adults very well - better than any place I have ever been (and I have been to a lot of churches), but they are not very good at meeting children where they are at - for example, teaching the Catechism to a junior high kid is not an effective way to teach him about a personal relationship with Christ. It is almost like the Church is caught back in the Victorian days when kids were viewed as mini-adults. So, it doesn't surprise me that a person who grew up in the Catholic Church, enduring Catechism classes, not understanding the Mass; squirming in their seat until church was over; feels suddenly alive in Christ in a charismatic or evangelical environment. The problem is not the subject matter taught; it is the method in which it is taught.
I've seen the reverse happen in conservative, charismatic, fundamentalist, church circles. They are great at focusing on recruiting the new believer and great at ministering to them and their children for the first couple of years of their Christian lives. But, as time goes on, and the initial excitement of being a new Christian starts to fade, and most of the Bible has been read 2 or three times, Bible studies seem to turn from discovery into self-congratulatory, pep-rallies (called encouragement) sessions - filled with Christian buzz-words that are supposed to help you feel like you belong, and you've endured your last alter call, along with the guilt feeling of "may be I am not
really saved?! - for churches that preach once saved always saved there sure is a lot of doubt raised about members salvation eeeeeeesh; anyway, many, many people start looking around an asking themselves "is this it?". The conservative churches (I attended 4; joined 1) had a turn over rate of about three years.
One thing that I noticed as I move through the ranks of the Protestant churches - conservative churches are brimming with young people and young families; as I moved up the chain to Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal, the congregation got markedly older. At first I thought, well, these mainline churches just sing old hymns and aren't really concerned about Jesus - it is all academic with them - they are just here because their families go back generations in these churches; then I started asking some of my friends in the congregations - most of them (60%) started out conservative Protestants and needed more growth. All of them said that they had reached a ceiling in their Christian faith and were looking for a church that taught about a bigger version of God with a real plan for their lives and a genuine interest in impacting the world.
It was at this point that I moved to the Catholic Church - 8 members of my RCIA group (membership class) were Presbyterians, 5 were nonreligious, and 9 were conservative Protestant. We were all looking for a deeper relationship with Christ (with the exception of 2 people who were joining because of pressure from their fiancee)
My point is, all churches have strengths and weakness and definite blind spots. I can see the blind spots of my Protestant past, but I certainly do not tout my personal experiences as reason for why Protestant churches are not really Christian. I am grateful for my church upbringing - I was grounded in the Bible and received an enthusiasm about Christ and church - a thirst for knowledge that is missing in some of my Catholic brothers and sisters that were raised in the Church.
blessings
: don has a plan Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:38:54
In Church documents, and anywhere you go in the world, we are called the "Catholic Church." If you walk up to a Byzantine Catholic, and proceed to tell him he is Roman Catholic, he will be very confused! lol We are not all Roman, we are Universal, encompassing all cultures, which can be seen by the different rites who, though they may have different ethnical (small t) traditions, all hold to the same One Faith. Now I understand that YOU may consider him Roman because he is in submission to the pope, but this is not how WE use the term "Roman," the fact that the Pope resides in Rome has nothing to do with our catholicity.
I call the Catholic Church the 'Roman Catholic Church,' and I have no hesitation in doing so. The whole church of Christ--of which the RCC is only part--is the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
IIRC, btw, in most RCC documents, the RCC is referred to simply as the Christian Church. I would never call it such, as it is but one component of the Christian Church. Would you reserve the term 'Christian Church' for the RCC just because it is what RCC documents clearly indicate the RCC wants to be called?
I understand wanting to be called a particular something -- Many Baptists and church of Christ folks have complained for years at being labeled 'Protestants' by RCC and other folks. (Baptists and coc-ers are Protestants, of course, but still what's good for the goose should be good for gander. If they want to be called something different, and if we hold to the 'Please call the RCC just the CC' doctrine, then we should have no problem reclassifying Baptists and coc-ers as non-Protestants, right?)
Well, right! That was pretty much my point. ::nodding::
If someone requests that they not be called a protestant, I will happily concede (as I did earlier in this very thread.) I continue to call the Church of Christ by its proper name, although I don't believe it is THE Church of Christ.
I'm secure enough in my beliefs not to be bothered by a name that I might regard as theologically inaccurate, and to use it as a sign of charity and respect regardless. I'm not worried that someone will think I agree with the tenants of a faith because I use the name they have given themselves. I think most people are smart enough to figure out that usage of a name doesn't imply agreement with belief! ::smile::
: HRoberson Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:48:01
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 14:12:38
OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?
No, that's incorrect. An actively dissenting Catholic (that is, one who doesn't agree with Church teaching, and who therefore defies Church teaching in his actions), will likely be in grave sin, and may not take communion. Likewise, to approach the Eucharist, and to proclaim "Amen," that is to say, "I believe and affirm all that the Church teaches" would therefore be a lie for this person, compounding sin upon sin. As the other Catholics mentioned above, even Catholics have to be in a proper state to receive communion. A Catholic in the state of mortal sin may not receive.
So, Catholics who don't buy into the contraception arguments shouldn't be allowed to take communion. But they are, by apostolically-appointed bishops and priests.
Some are, yes. This is an abuse, it is wrong. Of course there's no way a priest is going to know if each and every person receiving communion is lying or not when they say their "Amen," that's why it's up to us to be honest and refrain from receiving if we should. Some don't realize it's wrong, of course, and therefore their culpability is lessened, but some do and unfortunately don't care and partake anyway. Scripture tells us that they'll have to answer for partaking of Christ's body unworthily.
So, what's the problem here?
The problem is often ignorance of Church teaching on the matter, sometimes combined with disobedience (knowingly or not).
Or is disagreeing with Catholic dogma a mortal sin in and of itself?
No of course not. I know some who disagree or don't completely understand, but still obey. It is acting on the disagreement that constitutes grave matter, and of course full knowledge and consent have to be in play in order for it to be mortal.
Those who are baptized Christian elsewhere are loosely united to the Church through their baptism, but they're missing all the other sacraments, and a lot of Christian Teaching. The closer in teaching a Christian is to the Catholic Church, the more united. (There's a spectrum of closeness in teaching from bible-alone type Christians, all the way to Orthodox Christians, who are about as close as you can get w/out actually being Catholic.) But until one is fully united, it would be a lie to say that we are "one" by the action of all receiving the Eucharist together as an act of unity. (Not to mention the very important distinction between the different views of the Real Presence in the Eucharist...the "Amen" is also signifying that one believes Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, so again someone affirming this who doesn't believe it would be stating a lie.)
Wouldn't this closeness be dependent on salvation issues? If not, why not?
Well the problem is, who is to say what is and isn't a salvation issue? It is wonderful to acknowledge the things we do agree on, and to try and build on those. But again, to ignore that there are major disagreements and commune as if we are one in belief is seen as, very simply, a lie. Granted, Catholics are idealists in this regard, who trust and believe that God in His omnipotence can bring about TRUE and COMPLETE unity, without sacrificing any of our long-held tenants.
I believe Catholics are Christians and are acceptable to God even if I think they've got some ego (institutionally speaking) issues with form and precedence. And so, I can say 'amen' rather easily to my union with Catholics, just as I can with Baptists and a host of other believers.
Ah, but the Church doesn't ask you to say "Amen, sure I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ." The "amen" that is required is one that affirms the truth of all the teachings of the Catholic Church, including the Real Presence. If someone cannot affirm that they submit fully to the teachings of the Church (all of them), then any "sign of unity" is simply fraudulent, because there is not, in reality, a complete unity.
If a Catholic can take (be given) communion and disagree with Catholic teachings (and they can; it happens every day), why not a Protestant?
You may be right, it can and does happen. That doesn't make it right, though. And as wrong as an actively dissenting Catholic is for ignoring the requirements for reception of the Eucharist, a Protestant will likely be even further removed from true unity because of even more diverse beliefs.
There is a distinction in my mind between saying, "That person is baptized and is therefore a part of the Church," and saying "That person is Catholic." It's like the difference between saying this person is baptized and a part of the Church, but he is an atheist.
I'm not sure that non-Catholics are atheists, or that Catholic dissenters are either.
I'm sorry I don't quite follow...what I meant to say was, we consider even an atheist technically "part of the Church" by virtue of his baptism, but obviously he is no longer a Catholic if he denies Christ and the Church.
A more accurate comparison would be 'Can a Baptist believe that baptism is necessary, and still be Baptist?' Or perhaps, 'Can a Church of Christ bubba not see instrumental music as wrong, and still be a Church of Christ bubba?'
Well, this makes things difficult because, in my mind, there is only One Church. I have to think on different levels, if you will...in some sense, all Christians are part of the same One Church of Christ if they are baptized into Christ. However, whether or not they are ontologically unified with the Church is a separate question. If they do not accept all the tenents of the One Faith, they are not in a true unity with the Church, although they are part of the Church.
We don't consider someone Catholic or in unity with the Catholic Church if their actions and beliefs are not Catholic, even if they are "a part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism. Does that make sense?
Not really. If I'm part of the church, and the RC is the church, how can I not be part of it?
We distinguish between being "a part of something," and being "in unity with something."
Back to my Republican example, I may be a card carrying republican (or democrat, whichever), but I may not be united in belief with them. For true unity to occur, we would not only need to both be officially republican, but we would need to both act as republicans, and believe as republicans. To call oneself republican and then denounce the standards upon which they stand would be seen as dishonest by most, I think.
Now in the case of dissenting Catholics, usually the great majority of their beliefs are Catholic, they have partaken of the sacraments, they have lived the Catholic faith for the most part. Where is the line where they are "no longer Catholic" because their beliefs are so far removed from Church teaching? Well, I couldn't say, I don't think that's really for me to decide. If they have any integrity, at some point if they have so many disagreements with the Catholic Church, I would think they would choose to no longer be Catholic. And anyway, I don't really think the "how far can we get before we cross the line" type questioning is all that helpful. Someone shouldn't be looking at how far away he can go before being considered Catholic or not, if one believes the Catholic Church is the authority God gave us on earth, he should want to submit to it entirely.
Well, I agree with you that our intent is not to see how far we can go, but in this discussion about who and what the Catholic church accepts as 'brothers,' it is important to ask 'what makes a Catholic,' and 'what makes a Catholic not a Catholic?'
Of course, I do hope you know, we have no problem calling someone our brother while maintaning that they are not Catholic.
The reasons I ask these questions is my own history. I'm a Church of Christ bubba from long back. I understand pretty well the coc views of things (although there are usually always some niche group somewhere who will argue that if the cup gets spilled, we have to start communion all over), but I also have views that aren't in-line with those older mainline views (completely). Little things like, I think Catholics are Christians; many of my compatriots from a couple decades ago would argue that point.
Indeed, this is the flavor of the CoC I came from myself. ;-)
And so I find myself in a faith community that has its definitions, and yet I am willing to let Catholics take communion with me. Or Baptists, or Unitarians, or whoever feels like we're in this thing together. And so I am curious why the Catholic church holds the views it does, and at the same time seems to contradict itself in its behavior.
I see, this helps me understand where you're coming from, thanks!
Catholics see ecumenism as acknowledging what we have in common, and building on that, while at the same time acknowledging our differences and discussing them. What we do not see as ecumenism is the idea that we can overlook our differences completely and just focus on the similarities.
Communion in the Catholic Church is an extremely important sacrament. So important, that even Catholics must have a proper understanding and be in a proper state to receive it. It is a sign of our unity...not unity just on the things we agree on while overlooking the rest, but a sign of FULL and complete unity, on all teachings handed down to us in the deposit of faith. Since those who disagree with many of the teachings are not in reality unified with us, we find it a bit misleading to act as if they are.
But this is a different issue to us than whether or not they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. If one is baptized, then he is, but we are separated by disunity in belief.
It's just like a physical family...you may have a brother or sister who is and always will be your brother and sister, but that doesn't mean you are automatically united in belief with each other, that's a different issue.
I like how Dave Armstrong says it here (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-are-non-catholic-christians.html).
[Communion] is a symbol of unity (doctrinal and relational), and as...mentioned above, such oneness is currently lacking in the Body of Christ. For us to offer communion to anyone without requiring doctrinal consent would be dishonest for us and in our opinion a corruption of communion as a symbol of unity in the Body. It's not a matter of "looking down" upon our "separated brethren" but of simple honesty and seeking to be true to what we feel is Christ's teaching.I guess that if I don't buy the Pope thing, or Mariology, or transubstantiation, I can't be Catholic. OK, I understand the Pope thing (sort of, since there seems to be quite a few other groups that Rome recognizes to some extent that don't quite buy it either), but the Mariology and transubstantiation make me wonder 'what's up with that?'
Well first I'd say, this is a prime example of why going only with "essential doctrines" or "salvation issues" won't work, because we'll never agree what is central or not!
The Eucharist, to Catholics, is about the most central doctrine there is...it is the height and purpose of every mass, the Most Blessed Sacrament. Other Christians don't have quite the same view, so that alone causes a problem with communion.
But in answer to your question, "What's up with that?" I'd say this: For us, there is but one doctrine, and one accepts it in its entirety or not. If not, they are not considered to be in full communion, and to act otherwise is seen as dishonest. We don't look down on them, it's just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation! We're very happy to acknowledge the areas where we agree, but we don't see complete unity as something that can be partial, it's all or nothing, really, and so to welcome them to communion when we're not really in complete union just doesn't make sense to us.
Hope that explains why we have a closed communion!
OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?
FTL
: ravenlorre Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 02:29:14
: kensington Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 01:49:30
HRoberson...
My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church. He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.
He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts. That one is done on a foundation of Jesus.
I got baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church and then was convinced that it didn't count by a conservative, nondenominational church and was manipulated into being baptized again - just so we could all make sure it "took". Instead, of just trusting that God had chosen me and started my justification through baptism - I allowed myself to be led into the sin of re-baptism.
Boy, I was sure glad when I became Catholic and didn't have different authorities telling me different things, everywhere I turned. Today, I am securely grounded in the Word and Tradition - no matter who (Catholic / Protestant / Anabaptist / Ba'hai / Sufi / Buddhist, etc) tells me what God requires of me. If I am ever in doubt, I can flip open the Bible and Catechism.
I am glad your husband found Christ - I am sorry that it took the drastic measure of him having to leave the Church Christ established on Peter, to do so.
blessings
We are never bound to a committment, promise or pledge we did not make of our own free will, with full knowledge, such as an infant baptism.
In that alone, my husband deserved to have a choice on where he served God. And I agree with him. He found Christ outside of the Catholic church... He found it in the Body of Christ, the true believers, who are saved by grace through faith in JESUS CHRIST... not a religion. He is a member of the Blood bought church of the LIVING GOD... that CHRIST started.
Peter didn't die for him naked and beated in the rain, Peter is not seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for him. Peter won't step out and call the body home. And Peter won't open the Lamb's Book of Life. Peter won't rule and reign for all eternity either.
: Harold Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:28:43
OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?
FTL
Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!
I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 12:14:20
Well, I find it proper to call a group by the name they call themselves. I call the Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, although I disagree that they are completely orthodox. It's just common courtesy. ::smile::
Fair enough. I'll be happy to call you a Catholic or Catholic Christian. ::smile:: One of my pet peeves is that when I tell people I plan in converting to Orthodoxy, they say "So, your becoming Greek (or Russian) Orthodox." No, I'm an American and I will be an American Orthodox, thank you. In fact, I prefer to be known as just Orthodox or an Orthodox Christian. So, I guess I can relate.
While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.
trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)
I'm sorry...I'm not sure what you mean? Would you say that the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are not unified because of their different traditions? The different rites are simply different ethnical traditions, but we all hold to the same beliefs, and we all clearly submit to One Church, and are therefore unified. Not sure what else needs to be done to have more unity than that? ???
I wasn't very clear. The problem I see in all the Rite churches, is it does not follow the one church model. The early church fathers established that one bishop would oversee a geographical area. The Rite churches are under a different bishop than the RCC bishop, causing IMHO unnecessary division within a single geographical area. We have the same problem, frankly, in the Orthodox Church in America. I hope they fix it soon.
: trifecta Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 06:20:03
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 12:14:20
Well, I find it proper to call a group by the name they call themselves. I call the Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, although I disagree that they are completely orthodox. It's just common courtesy. ::smile::
Fair enough. I'll be happy to call you a Catholic or Catholic Christian. ::smile:: One of my pet peeves is that when I tell people I plan in converting to Orthodoxy, they say "So, your becoming Greek (or Russian) Orthodox." No, I'm an American and I will be an American Orthodox, thank you. In fact, I prefer to be known as just Orthodox or an Orthodox Christian. So, I guess I can relate.
::tippinghat:: Thanks!
While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.
trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)
I'm sorry...I'm not sure what you mean? Would you say that the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are not unified because of their different traditions? The different rites are simply different ethnical traditions, but we all hold to the same beliefs, and we all clearly submit to One Church, and are therefore unified. Not sure what else needs to be done to have more unity than that? ???
I wasn't very clear. The problem I see in all the Rite churches, is it does not follow the one church model. The early church fathers established that one bishop would oversee a geographical area. The Rite churches are under a different bishop than the RCC bishop, causing IMHO unnecessary division within a single geographical area. We have the same problem, frankly, in the Orthodox Church in America. I hope they fix it soon.
Oh I see! I was confused because we kind of see it differently...I hadn't really thought about the geographical area thing. I just think of it as all the bishops united under one. But I can see your point about being divided by rites in the same areas. Guess that's kind of hard to manage when you have a melting pot type place like America, huh? ::smile::
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 23:00:23
: Harold Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:28:43
OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?
FTL
Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!
I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.
As in the Universal Church of Christ?
FTL
: Harold Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 14:12:23
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 23:00:23
: Harold Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:28:43
OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?
FTL
Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!
I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.
As in the Universal Church of Christ?
FTL
As in, the visible and clear teachings of the visible Catholic Church.
: mllevaleur Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 15:32:33
: Harold Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 14:12:23
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 23:00:23
: Harold Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 18:28:43
OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?
FTL
Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!
I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.
As in the Universal Church of Christ?
FTL
As in, the visible and clear teachings of the visible Catholic Church.
Catholic means universal, Church body of Christ. I thought that would mean Universal Church of Christ. But the point is we have much in common.
FTL
2Cr 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
: CSloan Thu Sep 06, 2007 - 19:37:10
2Cr 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And your point.....
: broach972 Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 06:05:23
And your point.....
2Cr 6:17-18
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
: CSloan Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 09:32:34
: broach972 Fri Sep 07, 2007 - 06:05:23
And your point.....
2Cr 6:17-18
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Still looking for that point...
and by the way, I take a shower every morning...cannot stand to feel unclean ::smile::
As in, the visible and clear teachings of the visible Catholic Church.
Stephanie mentioned an important point when she used the word "visible" to describe Christ's Church. Catholics maintain the belief that Christ's Church is full of light and contrary to gnosticism; visible.
Matthew 5:13-16
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Matthew 24:27
For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
John 9:5
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Acts 13:47
For this is what the Lord has commanded us: " 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' "
Ephesians 5:13
But everything exposed by the light becomes visible
So where is the evidence from scripture for Luther's idea of an invisible church?
blessings
As in the Universal Church of Christ?
FTL
The Early Christian Church was one or "Catholic" until 1054 AD. Believe me, I sympathize with the Orthodox Churches and the Reformation - both movements arose for good reasons - I simply hope that we can all reconcile one day, before Christ returns.
blessings
: Gary Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:42:04
Why are not some Catholic politicians who defy the will of the Catholic Church denied communion?
It depends on the condition of their heart / conscious - only the person and God can really know. Many politicians believe that the law includes Christians and nonChristians and should protect the rights of all people; only God knows if this is the correct mindset.
It is true that there are some vocal priests that refuse to serve the Eucharist to politicians that publicly support policies that are not inline with the Catholic Church; however, the Vatican has been clear about individuals, ultimately being responsible for their own actions so it is a dicey subject.
I tend to believe that people are responsible for their own decisions and whether or not their heart is in the proper place to receive the Eucharist.
blessings
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:36:56
The Early Christian Church was one or "Catholic" until 1054 AD. Believe me, I sympathize with the Orthodox Churches and the Reformation - both movements arose for good reasons - I simply hope that we can all reconcile one day, before Christ returns.
blessings
I appreciate your viewpoint. ::smile::
It seems to me that the unity of Christians, which I also pray will occur-- and I am hoping for it in my lifetime, depends mainly on the Pope.
I believe John Paul II said he too hopes for Christian unity, but it would have to be under him. More recently, Pope Benedict said that 1) Protestant assembliages cannot be called churches (I agree with him there) 2) Orthodox churches, which he said are churches, are "defective" because they do not submit to the authority of the Pope.
So, to Catholics, Christian unity depends on submission to the Bishop of Rome. Orthodox did not buy into this 1000 years ago, they are not likely to buy into it now. On the other hand, the "Vicar of Christ" can bring Christian unity very quickly if he would renounce his claim for universal authority. If he did, the RCC church would be in unity with the Orthodox churches, and many of our Protestant friends would want to join one of the five patriarchates.
I appreciate your viewpoint. ::smile::
It seems to me that the unity of Christians, which I also pray will occur-- and I am hoping for it in my lifetime, depends mainly on the Pope.
I believe John Paul II said he too hopes for Christian unity, but it would have to be under him. More recently, Pope Benedict said that 1) Protestant assemblages cannot be called churches (I agree with him there) 2) Orthodox churches, which he said are churches, are "defective" because they do not submit to the authority of the Pope.
So, to Catholics, Christian unity depends on submission to the Bishop of Rome. Orthodox did not buy into this 1000 years ago, they are not likely to buy into it now. On the other hand, the "Vicar of Christ" can bring Christian unity very quickly if he would renounce his claim for universal authority. If he did, the RCC church would be in unity with the Orthodox churches, and many of our Protestant friends would want to join one of the five patriarchates.
I understand that the divide seems wide, but I still pray that Christ will unite us - I think there is pride involved in all three camps.
My main problems with the Pope renouncing the chair of Peter; and the church moving toward patriarchal authority (beyond the obvious fact that I am Roman Catholic) is the lack of agreement between the patriarchs and their habit of submitting to secular leaders. The last time all the patriarchs agreed on a council was under the leadership of the Pope; it is a myth to believe that agreement will occur with less centralized authority. Also, The Russian patriarch is hardly the only church authority to consistently submit to his respective secular government - he is only the most notorious.
So I also appreciate your point of view, but don't you think that there is a bit more to the whole divide then the supposed pride of the Pope?
blessings
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:52:24
: Gary Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:42:04
Why are not some Catholic politicians who defy the will of the Catholic Church denied communion?
It depends on the condition of their heart / conscious - only the person and God can really know. Many politicians believe that the law includes Christians and nonChristians and should protect the rights of all people; only God knows if this is the correct mindset.
It is true that there are some vocal priests that refuse to serve the Eucharist to politicians that publicly support policies that are not inline with the Catholic Church; however, the Vatican has been clear about individuals, ultimately being responsible for their own actions so it is a dicey subject.
I tend to believe that people are responsible for their own decisions and whether or not their heart is in the proper place to receive the Eucharist.
blessings
Hasn't Benedict said something about those who support abortion being denied communion?
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:29:50Catholics maintain the belief that Christ's Church is full of light and contrary to gnosticism; visible.
.
.
.
So where is the evidence from scripture for Luther's idea of an invisible church?
I would like to respond to this. I recall being perplexed the first time I heard a Catholic or Orthodox make the statement that Protestants and "Post-Protestants" (may not be a real term... but, since some descended from the Protestant movement take exception to being labeled "Protestant") believe in an "invisible church." I have never thought that.
Perhaps Luther, Calvin, and others (as has been suggested) did proclaim an idea of "the invisible church"... but, that's neither here nor there for me.
I believe the church is just as visible and "in the flesh" (if you will) as Catholics and Orthodox do. The church is just divided.
Yet, an autonomous church that has elders, deacons, ministers, active lay members, that functions in this world as an entity that strives to bring the Gospel of Christ to the world... is just as visible and just as much in the flesh (as opposed to Gnostic notions) as a Catholic or Orthodox parish.
I believe the Church is visible but divided.
And, I realize that goes against the Catholic/Orthodox notion that the Church is kept free from division and error within itself. But, I must disagree with that point.
That's not to say that division is an acceptable thing. But, it's a fact of life, unfortunately.
JMO ::tippinghat::
: DCR Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 09:10:03
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:29:50Catholics maintain the belief that Christ's Church is full of light and contrary to gnosticism; visible.
.
.
.
So where is the evidence from scripture for Luther's idea of an invisible church?
I would like to respond to this. I recall being perplexed the first time I heard a Catholic or Orthodox make the statement that Protestants and "Post-Protestants" (may not be a real term... but, since some descended from the Protestant movement take exception to being labeled "Protestant") believe in an "invisible church." I have never thought that.
Perhaps Luther, Calvin, and others (as has been suggested) did proclaim an idea of "the invisible church"... but, that's neither here nor there for me.
I believe the church is just as visible and "in the flesh" (if you will) as Catholics and Orthodox do. The church is just divided.
Yet, an autonomous church that has elders, deacons, ministers, active lay members, that functions in this world as an entity that strives to bring the Gospel of Christ to the world... is just as visible and just as much in the flesh (as opposed to Gnostic notions) as a Catholic or Orthodox parish.
I believe the Church is visible but divided.
And, I realize that goes against the Catholic/Orthodox notion that the Church is kept free from division and error within itself. But, I must disagree with that point.
That's not to say that division is an acceptable thing. But, it's a fact of life, unfortunately.
JMO ::tippinghat::
The Catholic Church maintains that the Church is free from division and error within itself? Why were most of the books of the NT written? Council of Trent anyone?
: Gary Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 09:13:35The Catholic Church maintains that the Church is free from division and error within itself? Why were most of the books of the NT written? Council of Trent anyone?
I don't want to speak for them if that isn't accurate. But, I at least remember CDHealy epressing that from the Orthodox perspective, and I assume that it may be true of the Catholic Church as well, but I could be wrong.
There was once discussion about this, and I think it was Ken (the Catholic convert... "s1n-"<something> was his handle) who said, if I recall, that one can only divide "away from" the Church. According to this belief, it is not possible for schism to happen within the Church, and both parts still be considered the "Church."
But, this is a good question to put to the Catholics for clarification.
: DCR Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 09:10:03
Perhaps Luther, Calvin, and others (as has been suggested) did proclaim an idea of "the invisible church"... but, that's neither here nor there for me.
I believe the church is just as visible and "in the flesh" (if you will) as Catholics and Orthodox do. The church is just divided.
Yet, an autonomous church that has elders, deacons, ministers, active lay members, that functions in this world as an entity that strives to bring the Gospel of Christ to the world... is just as visible and just as much in the flesh (as opposed to Gnostic notions) as a Catholic or Orthodox parish.
Thank you for making this distinction. The church must be physical as well as spiritual.
I believe the Church is visible but divided.
And, I realize that goes against the Catholic/Orthodox notion that the Church is kept free from division and error within itself. But, I must disagree with that point.
That's not to say that division is an acceptable thing. But, it's a fact of life, unfortunately.
JMO ::tippinghat::
The problem here is that if the church is the Bride of Christ and the body of Christ, it cannot be divided. just as Christ cannot be divided.
Now, believers can be divided but the church cannot be.
If you are right, then there is more than one true church. (You might say there is
one church, but it is divided. That seems like more than one to me).
If Luther is right, there is one church, but it is not a physical one (thus the invisible church).
Respectfully submitted,
trifecta
And, I think this is the real core issue to be pondered.
Of course, Christ cannot be divided.
But, to go one step further with the conclusion, "therefore His Body, the Church, cannot be divided." is, well, going one step further. And, I can neither prove nor disprove that conclusion. I just have no compelling reason to necessarily agree with it.
By the way, if you separate out the "believers" from the Church, saying that they can be divided while the Church cannot be, aren't the believers the only "visible" component of the Church? (just to go back to the visible/invisible discussion)
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
: DCR Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 10:19:48
And, I think this is the real core issue to be pondered.
Of course, Christ cannot be divided.
But, to go one step further with the conclusion, "therefore His Body, the Church, cannot be divided." is, well, going one step further. And, I can neither prove nor disprove that conclusion. I just have no compelling reason to necessarily agree with it.
Good question. Believers, though, have free will and therefore, can divide.
Not my best answer, but the best one I can think of. ::blushing::
By the way, if you separate out the "believers" from the Church, saying that they can be divided while the Church cannot be, aren't the believers the only "visible" component of the Church? (just to go back to the visible/invisible discussion)
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
I guess that bricks, mortar, and icons would be left would be visibly left! Of course, there would still be Jesus, the Holy Spirit, truth, the saints, but they would not be visible.
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
If you removed all the believers - the Church or Tradition would still remain. It is the same with the Bible, even if there was no one around to believe in it, God's Word would still remain because it is truth.
blessings
: DCR Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 10:19:48
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
History. The past. The church is gone. bye bye.
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:16:07
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
If you removed all the believers - the Church or Tradition would still remain. It is the same with the Bible, even if their was no one around to believe in it, God's Word would still remain because it is truth.
Blesssings
That's an interesting response. In such a catastrophic scenario, you would still define that believerless Church and tradition as the visible, physical Church?
What of the apostolic succession? (I know we're getting carried away with hypotheticals now.)
Could some pagan in the distant future uncover the ruins of such a Church, find the Bible, decide he believes, and then pick up where the Church left off? Up until that point, the Church had become history, a memory, without living members to physically carry on the traditions... an
invisible Church, if you will? ::lookaround::
Sounds like what some would term, a "restoration." ::nodding::
Now, I'm rambling. Thanks for the thoughts; these are things to ponder. ::pondering::
: Gary Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:17:37
: DCR Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 10:19:48
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
History. The past. The church is gone. bye bye.
And what about the Bible?
: DCR Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:37:54
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:16:07
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?
If you removed all the believers - the Church or Tradition would still remain. It is the same with the Bible, even if their was no one around to believe in it, God's Word would still remain because it is truth.
Blesssings
That's an interesting response. In such a catastrophic scenario, you would still define that believerless Church and tradition as the visible, physical Church?
What of the apostolic succession? (I know we're getting carried away with hypotheticals now.)
Could some pagan in the distant future uncover the ruins of such a Church, find the Bible, decide he believes, and then pick up where the Church left off? Up until that point, the Church had become history, a memory, without living members to physically carry on the traditions... an invisible Church, if you will? ::lookaround::
Sounds like kind of a "restoration." ::nodding::
Now, I'm rambling. Thanks for the thoughts; these are things to ponder. ::pondering::
I agree that this conversation is getting way out there, but if the pagan converts to Christianity and chooses to follow Holy Orders he would pick up where the last Pope left off.
blessings
Wait a minute... are you saying that if ALL the believers of any kind disappeared off the earth... the next man who read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believed it, would automatically be a Catholic, and deemed head of the Church in the Vatican?
(Taking up where the last Pope left off??) ::headscratch::
That is a stretch. But, maybe I am too tired to think. It's been a very long day. Good night. ::tippinghat::
"Doubting the Catholic Church is Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human"
I have to say... I don't have any doubts that many Catholics are Christians, but I do very much have doubts about whether or not the "CHURCH" system is.
: kensington Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 00:01:03
"Doubting the Catholic Church is Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human"
I have to say... I don't have any doubts that many Catholics are Christians, but I do very much have doubts about whether or not the "CHURCH" system is.
I thought that signature was interesting too, because it implies to doubt Catholic Church is to doubt the Word of God.
That was an absolutely amazingly nutty concept up there.
If you somehow remove all the believers, you still have the church?
Mmm-hmm.
Of course there are those who are safe with the Lord, who would make up part of the church, if you want to think of it that way. All of God's people who ever were, you know.
But as far as people still here in the flesh --
So, suppose you could wipe out every believer? What if a massive plague got them?
How would the church continue?
: kensington Sun Sep 09, 2007 - 02:16:42
Wait a minute... are you saying that if ALL the believers of any kind disappeared off the earth... the next man who read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believed it, would automatically be a Catholic, and deemed head of the Church in the Vatican?
(Taking up where the last Pope left off??) ::headscratch::
That is a stretch. But, maybe I am too tired to think. It's been a very long day. Good night. ::tippinghat::
No - but the next man who read the Bible and Tradition and was led by the Holy Spirit to carry on the Church that Jesus set up upon Peter could theoretically, continue the Holy Orders and continue the Apostolic succession that started in the Early Church. Understandably, this an impossible situation because their will always be Catholic Christians on Earth.
I am trying to get the point across that following the Tradition of Holy Orders (followed by the Latin Rite churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches), which allows a priest to serve the Eucharist; is the primary qualifier for a Church to be considered Apostolic.
blessings
That was an absolutely amazingly nutty concept up there.
It is only "nutty" in light of the Reformation - before Luther, the Church was viewed as completely visible by all Christians. The fact is, before the Reformation, you were considered a heretic if you did not hold Tradition and the Bible as your authority. As early as the 2nd century - Confession and adherence to the Apostle's Creed (Tradition) and Baptism by full immersion or sprinkling (Bible / Tradition), defined a person as a Christian.
Of course there are those who are safe with the Lord, who would make up part of the church, if you want to think of it that way. All of God's people who ever were, you know.
I am glad that you recognize people who have passed away in Christ as still apart of the Body - I agree that they would still make up part of the Church.
But as far as people still here in the flesh -- So, suppose you could wipe out every believer? What if a massive plague got them? How would the church continue?
Same way it continues today - adherence to the Bible and Tradition. Again, the situation is impossible - the day that all Christians are in Heaven is the day the World ends IMO.
blessings
I thought that signature was interesting too, because it implies to doubt Catholic Church is to doubt the Word of God.
If I am being too subtle, I apologize; my quote is not intended to imply anything; I thought I was being perfectly clear.
blessings
I'm trying to imagine the Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of Heaven and Earth and everything in between, founding and building His church upon Peter.
Aye. Yup.
Okay.
How could the Apostolic Succession thing be passed on, so that the hypothetical Last Guy On Earth who supposedly read his Bible and became the Last Priest On Earth, could actually perform the incantations and make the bread and wine into the body & blood? Seems like some who hold to the necessity of Apostolic Succession would be a little dismayed if there were no bishop around to lay hands on the man.
I contend this --
If no one were around to inform that Last Dude about all those lovely traditions that seem every bit as important and weighty as the Word of God to you guys --
If all he did was read the Bibles he found lying about the echoing empty places he wandered --
What he'd be after he committed to Christ would look a lot more like a fellow in one of our Sunday morning pews, than in one of yours.
I'm trying to imagine the Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of Heaven and Earth and everything in between, founding and building His church upon Peter.
Anymore impossible / unreasonable than God bringing his Son into the world through a virgin, peasant girl?
"Aye. Yup. Okay."
How could the Apostolic Succession thing be passed on, so that the hypothetical Last Guy On Earth who supposedly read his Bible and became the Last Priest On Earth, could actually perform the incantations and make the bread and wine into the body & blood? Seems like some who hold to the necessity of Apostolic Succession would be a little dismayed if there were no bishop around to lay hands on the man.
Yup - you're right! The last guy on Earth situation is impossible - after all, the guy won't even be baptized. Yet, the Bible and Tradition will never pass away. Besides the fact that no man can change bread and wine into the blood and body of Christ even using the most creative incantations - a true priest has to rely on God to do that.
If no one were around to inform that Last Dude about all those lovely traditions that seem every bit as important and weighty as the Word of God to you guys --
I guess he would have to be able to read in order to understand church dogma and the Bible ::wink::
If all he did was read the Bibles he found lying about the echoing empty places he wandered -- What he'd be after he committed to Christ would look a lot more like a fellow in one of our Sunday morning pews, than in one of yours.
History does not agree with you on this point and neither do I, but I appreciated reading your opinion ::tippinghat::
How lovely of you.
(Perhaps invocation fits better than incantation.)
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 02:27:11
: kensington Sun Sep 09, 2007 - 02:16:42
Wait a minute... are you saying that if ALL the believers of any kind disappeared off the earth... the next man who read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believed it, would automatically be a Catholic, and deemed head of the Church in the Vatican?
(Taking up where the last Pope left off??) ::headscratch::
That is a stretch. But, maybe I am too tired to think. It's been a very long day. Good night. ::tippinghat::
No - but the next man who read the Bible and Tradition and was led by the Holy Spirit to carry on the Church that Jesus set up upon Peter could theoretically, continue the Holy Orders and continue the Apostolic succession that started in the Early Church. Understandably, this an impossible situation because their will always be Catholic Christians on Earth.
I am trying to get the point across that following the Tradition of Holy Orders (followed by the Latin Rite churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches), which allows a priest to serve the Eucharist; is the primary qualifier for a Church to be considered Apostolic.
blessings
Why did the RCC and the EOC leave the first and only apostolic church, the Coptic Church?
If this question has been answered, I'm sorry, but I did not have time to look at all the pages this morning.
What is the Roman Catholic Church's teaching about the return of Christ? Is it premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial?
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 02:45:07
I thought that signature was interesting too, because it implies to doubt Catholic Church is to doubt the Word of God.
If I am being too subtle, I apologize; my quote is not intended to imply anything; I thought I was being perfectly clear.
blessings
The only thing thats clear to me is its wrong.
Would it make us feel better if the statement was this:
"Doubting non-Catholic Christian Churches to be Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human."
::pondering::
CSloan, I think you might be misunderstanding the analogy there. I don't see an implication about denying the Word of God. It's a simple analogy that, from ravenlorre's point of view, the Catholic Church is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.
It would be like saying that your congregation is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.
So, to doubt that your church is Christian is akin to denying that Adam and Even were human.
: DCR Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 09:18:33
Would it make us feel better if the statement was this:
"Doubting non-Catholic Christian Churches to be Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human."
::pondering::
CSloan, I think you might be misunderstanding the analogy there. I don't see an implication about denying the Word of God. It's a simple analogy that, from ravenlorre's point of view, the Catholic Church is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.
It would be like saying that your congregation is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.
So, to doubt that your church is Christian is akin to denying that Adam and Even were human.
When I talked to James, he saw his signature as a violation of the forum rules. I find it offensive and divisive.
: DCR Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 09:18:33
Would it make us feel better if the statement was this:
"Doubting non-Catholic Christian Churches to be Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human."
::pondering::
CSloan, I think you might be misunderstanding the analogy there. I don't see an implication about denying the Word of God. It's a simple analogy that, from ravenlorre's point of view, the Catholic Church is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.
It would be like saying that your congregation is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.
So, to doubt that your church is Christian is akin to denying that Adam and Even were human.
Thank you for explaining my quote, DCR - you are exactly right. The only way you could understand my quote in the manner in which cslaon chooses to understand it - as denying God's Word, is if you believed the Catholic Church is not Christian. Since csloan has made no bones about his belief that the Catholic Church is a nonChristian cult - and he knows that Adam and Eve were human - he has no other choice, but to incorrectly conclude that I must be denying the Bible.
Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy. Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).
blessings
: janine Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 04:34:40
How lovely of you.
(Perhaps invocation fits better than incantation.)
Thank you for clarifying. A comparison would be declaring that you meet each week for Sabbot instead of Sunday fellowship and worship.
blessings
When I talked to James, he saw his signature as a violation of the forum rules. I find it offensive and divisive.
Who is James?
blessings
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 11:37:15Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy. Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).
Sorry if I disappointed you in rebuking false doctrine on your catholic thread, but I thought I would allow you the space of speaking your own.
By the way, James is another moderator on this forum.
: CSloan Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 12:11:05
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 11:37:15Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy. Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).
Sorry if I disappointed you in rebuking false doctrine on your catholic thread, but I thought I would allow you the space of speaking your own.
By the way, James is another moderator on this forum.
It seems as if you want something from me csloan; what is it that I can do for you?
blessings
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 12:17:33
: CSloan Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 12:11:05
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 11:37:15Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy. Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).
Sorry if I disappointed you in rebuking false doctrine on your catholic thread, but I thought I would allow you the space of speaking your own.
By the way, James is another moderator on this forum.
It seems as if you want something from me csloan; what is it that I can do for you?
blessings
I'm surprised you've come to that conclusion, since honestly I have been trying to do my best to avoid you on the forums. But since you ask, I would have you repent of your idolatry and surrender your life to Jesus alone.
You asked.
For the sake of interrupting all the fun,
Here's a quote I found in an old copy of Luther's Little Catchism, edited by a fella named Stump:
The Various Churches
While the Church, in the strict sense of the word, is the "communion of saints" and therefore one, yet outwardly it has become divided, in the course of time, into many different churches, denominiations, and sects. It contains Four Great Branches: The Greek Catholic Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Evangelical Lutheran Church; and The Reformed Churches, comprising a great number of denominations and sects. The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Churches are called Protestant."(italics in the original)
There is an accompanying diagram that indicates the beginning of the RCC as after, or perhaps as a result of, the Reformation. Under Reformed Churches, the diagram includes The German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist/Dunkards, Disciples/Adventists, and all other sects.
There is a footnote that reads like this:
Since a particular Church is no older than her distinctive congession, the Lutheran Church is more than thirty years older than the Roman Catholic Church; for the Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530, while the Cannon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are the Confession of the Roman Catholic Church, were not completed until 1563. The ecumenical creeds are accepted by both Churches, and therefore prove nothing as regards their relative age.
I find this interesting since churches of Christ have often claimed to have been started on Pentacost, and trace their heritage by some reason to the beginning of the Church. Additionally, the diagram lists the Disciples in the same minor branch with Adventists, of the Reformed Churches.
I'm surprised you've come to that conclusion, since honestly I have been trying to do my best to avoid you on the forums. But since you ask, I would have you repent of your idolatry and surrender your life to Jesus alone.
You asked.
I appreciate your concern. Jesus' sacrifice is the answer to all of our sins and the narrow gate to our salvation - I look forward to worshiping with you in Heaven someday, and maybe sharing a small laugh over our past conversations.
blessings
: HRoberson Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 12:43:37
For the sake of interrupting all the fun,
Here's a quote I found in an old copy of Luther's Little Catchism, edited by a fella named Stump:
The Various Churches
While the Church, in the strict sense of the word, is the "communion of saints" and therefore one, yet outwardly it has become divided, in the course of time, into many different churches, denominiations, and sects. It contains Four Great Branches: The Greek Catholic Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Evangelical Lutheran Church; and The Reformed Churches, comprising a great number of denominations and sects. The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Churches are called Protestant."(italics in the original)
There is an accompanying diagram that indicates the beginning of the RCC as after, or perhaps as a result of, the Reformation. Under Reformed Churches, the diagram includes The German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist/Dunkards, Disciples/Adventists, and all other sects.
There is a footnote that reads like this:
Since a particular Church is no older than her distinctive congession, the Lutheran Church is more than thirty years older than the Roman Catholic Church; for the Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530, while the Cannon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are the Confession of the Roman Catholic Church, were not completed until 1563. The ecumenical creeds are accepted by both Churches, and therefore prove nothing as regards their relative age.
I find this interesting since churches of Christ have often claimed to have been started on Pentacost, and trace their heritage by some reason to the beginning of the Church. Additionally, the diagram lists the Disciples in the same minor branch with Adventists, of the Reformed Churches.
How can anyone take a document that claims the Roman Catholic Church occurred as a result of the Reformation, as truth on any level - haha; did we discover America as a result of landing on the Moon?
blessings
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 12:50:40
: HRoberson Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 12:43:37
For the sake of interrupting all the fun,
Here's a quote I found in an old copy of Luther's Little Catchism, edited by a fella named Stump:
The Various Churches
While the Church, in the strict sense of the word, is the "communion of saints" and therefore one, yet outwardly it has become divided, in the course of time, into many different churches, denominiations, and sects. It contains Four Great Branches: The Greek Catholic Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Evangelical Lutheran Church; and The Reformed Churches, comprising a great number of denominations and sects. The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Churches are called Protestant."(italics in the original)
There is an accompanying diagram that indicates the beginning of the RCC as after, or perhaps as a result of, the Reformation. Under Reformed Churches, the diagram includes The German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Baptist/Dunkards, Disciples/Adventists, and all other sects.
There is a footnote that reads like this:
Since a particular Church is no older than her distinctive congession, the Lutheran Church is more than thirty years older than the Roman Catholic Church; for the Augsburg Confession was adopted in 1530, while the Cannon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which are the Confession of the Roman Catholic Church, were not completed until 1563. The ecumenical creeds are accepted by both Churches, and therefore prove nothing as regards their relative age.
I find this interesting since churches of Christ have often claimed to have been started on Pentacost, and trace their heritage by some reason to the beginning of the Church. Additionally, the diagram lists the Disciples in the same minor branch with Adventists, of the Reformed Churches.
How can anyone take a document that claims the Roman Catholic Church occurred as a result of the Reformation, as truth on any level - haha; did we discover America as a result of landing on the Moon?
blessings
Yeah. I thought Luther was a Catholic monk, which would tend to argue that the Catholic church existed first. But the author's point of departure is based on what he considers the dates of the respective 'confessions,' a legal argument of establishing a church. The author's point follows along the idea that the church existed, but that it was largely corrupted by the leaders of the RCC, and Luther, et. al., sought to correct the (impure) modifications that had crept into the church. The view would be that the separation became apparent at the Reformation, but it makes no difference that the greater sized, corrupted church carries the common name. What matters, is who is closer to the original intent. The assumption of course, is that the true church is that which remains as pure as possible, regardless of size.
Much like The Purple Billboard Society, started to popularize purple billboards. It matters not if the leaders decide that yellow billboards are acceptable, the minority that remains true to purple ideal are the true disciples, not the majority purple/yellow society.
Yeah. I thought Luther was a Catholic monk, which would tend to argue that the Catholic church existed first. But the author's point of departure is based on what he considers the dates of the respective 'confessions,' a legal argument of establishing a church. The author's point follows along the idea that the church existed, but that it was largely corrupted by the leaders of the RCC, and Luther, et. al., sought to correct the (impure) modifications that had crept into the church. The view would be that the separation became apparent at the Reformation, but it makes no difference that the greater sized, corrupted church carries the common name. What matters, is who is closer to the original intent. The assumption of course, is that the true church is that which remains as pure as possible, regardless of size.
Much like The Purple Billboard Society, started to popularize purple billboards. It matters not if the leaders decide that yellow billboards are acceptable, the minority that remains true to purple ideal are the true disciples, not the majority purple/yellow society.
Well, the problem with the author's premise that confession defines
new belief is that no church operates in this manner. All Churches are reactionary institutions - they clarify belief in response to the heresy they encounter at the moment. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was defined or confessed in response to the popular heresies of the time period; just as the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. Both beliefs were held since the beginning of the Christian Church, but were only declared when heretics started challenging them. Protestants had the advantage of 1500 years of Christian history to either agree with or reject - Catholics had to define doctrine as they went alone with only Tradition and the Bible to light their path.
Unlike many Catholics, I agree with the Luther that the Medieval Church contain a lot of corrupt people - right up to the top; but I also believe that God protected Tradition / doctrine / dogma from corruption. I am a bit of a fan of Luther; yes he was obviously a tortured soul and extremely obsessive compulsive, but he was sincere and correct on several points. He was also looking to reform the church, not break away from it - he was a theologian not a revolutionary.
I also agree with you that the size of the institution or the majority of believers involved has no bearing on the truth of a belief system; however this not only applies to the large, majority Catholic Church; it applies to the small, minority Protestant groups as well. You cannot claim that the Catholic Church hides behind its' established hierarchy as justification for its' doctrine; without recognizing that Protestant leaders may have relied on their minority status and a persecution complex to justify their own doctrines.
blessings
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 13:24:30
Yeah. I thought Luther was a Catholic monk, which would tend to argue that the Catholic church existed first. But the author's point of departure is based on what he considers the dates of the respective 'confessions,' a legal argument of establishing a church. The author's point follows along the idea that the church existed, but that it was largely corrupted by the leaders of the RCC, and Luther, et. al., sought to correct the (impure) modifications that had crept into the church. The view would be that the separation became apparent at the Reformation, but it makes no difference that the greater sized, corrupted church carries the common name. What matters, is who is closer to the original intent. The assumption of course, is that the true church is that which remains as pure as possible, regardless of size.
Much like The Purple Billboard Society, started to popularize purple billboards. It matters not if the leaders decide that yellow billboards are acceptable, the minority that remains true to purple ideal are the true disciples, not the majority purple/yellow society.
Well, the problem with the author's premise that confession defines new belief is that no church operates in this manner. All Churches are reactionary institutions - they clarify belief in response to the heresy they encounter at the moment. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was defined or confessed in response to the popular heresies of the time period; just as the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. Both beliefs were held since the beginning of the Christian Church, but were only declared when heretics started challenging them. Protestants had the advantage of 1500 years of Christian history to either agree with or reject - Catholics had to define doctrine as they went alone with only Tradition and the Bible to light their path.
Unlike many Catholics, I agree with the Luther that the Medieval Church contain a lot of corrupt people - right up to the top; but I also believe that God protected Tradition / doctrine / dogma from corruption. I am a bit of a fan of Luther; yes he was obviously a tortured soul and extremely obsessive compulsive, but he was sincere and correct on several points. He was also looking to reform the church, not break away from it - he was a theologian not a revolutionary.
I also agree with you that the size of the institution or the majority of believers involved has no bearing on the truth of a belief system; however this not only applies to the large, majority Catholic Church; it applies to the small, minority Protestant groups as well. You cannot claim that the Catholic Church hides behind its' established hierarchy as justification for its' doctrine; without recognizing that Protestant leaders may have relied on their minority status and a persecution complex to justify their own doctrines.
blessings
The author didn't say confessions define new beliefs, just that they draw lines. His premise is that, since the Lutheran church drew its lines first, it's older. My assumption is that the author would simply say that the RCC was and continued to be a muddle of orginal orthodoxy and Romish adulterations.
I have looked at all the pages now. I have not found an answer to my question, so I'll ask again.
What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the return of Christ? Is is premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial?
If no one knows, that's okay. I'm curious, though, because I have never heard a Catholic discuss it.
: tjclaud Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 16:14:18
I have looked at all the pages now. I have not found an answer to my question, so I'll ask again.
What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the return of Christ? Is is premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial?
If no one knows, that's okay. I'm curious, though, because I have never heard a Catholic discuss it.
Sorry, must have missed it.
The Catholic Church does not teach dispensationalism, which originated with Darby in the 19th century - so we do not believe in the "Left Behind" type scenario.
The Catholic Church has not defined it's teachings on the book of Revelation because it is so symbolic and therefore speculative. One unofficial idea is that the tribulation already occurred during the reign of Nero and the 1000 years started with the reign of Constantine and continues until Christ returns.
I am not really into speculating about the end-times - I think we are in them and Christ's return is eminent and that is about it.
A Catholic author named Richard Curry does a nice job of explaining Catholic ideas about the end times in his book called "Rapture".
I hope another Catholic will help me out on this issue and correct me if I have misrepresented anything.
blessings
I am not a Catholic, but I found the following:
AMILLENNIALISM:
The amillennialist does not accept the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. The thousand years is figurative, and shouldn't be taken literally. The millennium is a spiritual representation of the church age, in which we are now living. This view holds that Satan was bound at the first coming of Christ. The good in the world comprises the kingdom of Christ, and the evil in the world is part of Satan's kingdom. The kingdom of Christ is the church itself. This view was first proposed by St. Augustine in the fourth century, and has been the favored position of the Roman Catholic church ever since. It is also a view that is common among reform protestant denominations. The amillennialist holds that Christ will reign through his church until His second coming, which will mark – not the millennial reign – but the beginning of eternity for believers.
http://www.contenderministries.org/prophecy/millenial.php
Here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on Eschatology:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htm
Here's a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on Christology:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm
Neither mention much, if anything about Christ's return from a doctrinal perspective. Some of the references might, but the article does not mention the return as a separate, important event.
I appreciate the help and the links - I admit, eschatology is not my area.
blessings
The Catholic Encyclopedia does mention eschatology and the return when dealing with specific texts. Here is the link to the Encyclopedia's discussion of 2 Thessalonians.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14629d.htm
Thanks for the answers. I had wondered about it, because it seems that most early Christians held to the classic premillenial position (not the popular "Left Behind" type of today) until Augustine popularized amillenialism. I did not know which way the Roman Catholic Church leaned in eschatology.
If Augustine affected the views of the Roman Catholic Church in this issue, then I have to wonder which way the Orthodox go on this (since Augustine is said to have had more influence on Western theology than he did on Eastern, I believe).
As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."
The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?
* links removed due to violations of forum rules *
: David Ben-Ariel Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:18:18
As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."
The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?
* links removed due to violations of forum rules *
How do you define idolatry?
* links removed due to violations of forum rules *
"We must warn with judicious boldness those who are inclined towards the errors of Rome; we must instruct the young in gospel truth, and tell them of the black doings of Popery in the olden times. We must aid in spreading the light more thoroughly through the land, for priests, like owls, hate daylight. Are we doing all we can for Jesus and the gospel? If not, our negligence plays into the hands of priestcraft. What are we doing to spread the Bible, which is the Pope's bane and poison? Are we casting abroad good, sound gospel writings?"
* links removed due to violations of forum rules *
And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the scriptures of God
-The National Covenant. [Scotland]
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:20:02
: David Ben-Ariel Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:18:18
As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."
The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?
* links removed due to violations of forum rules *
How do you define idolatry?
In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.
1 John 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
This shows that the Gentile converts were still seduced by former superstitions, had a hard time breaking their addiction to idolatry, and John was telling them in a gentle but firm way to stay free from idols.
Revelation 9:20
But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk.
So...you refuse to define idolatry and you refuse to ask a question about Catholicism. Hmm... I am not sure what you want from me. Quoting Jack Chick gets you nowhere - in case you are wondering.
blessings
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:53:56
So...you refuse to define idolatry...
Well, in his defense, he sorta did...
: David Ben-Ariel Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:25:25
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:20:02
How do you define idolatry?
In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.
Now, whether or not you agree with his definition, is up to you! ::smile::
As mentioned several times before, the Roman Catholic Church is official amillennial...
However, its role in creating the Futurist/Premillenialist scenario is quite fascinating.
For those interested in the development of the doctrine, be sure to Google the names of two Jesuits: Emmanuel Lacunza (1731-1801) and Francisco Ribera (1537-1591).
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:53:56
So...you refuse to define idolatry and you refuse to ask a question about Catholicism. Hmm... I am not sure what you want from me.
blessings
Actually, he did .... In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.
: David Ben-Ariel Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:25:25
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:20:02
: David Ben-Ariel Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:18:18
As a former Hindu I recognize idolatry when I see it, no matter what others might choose to call it. Even Hindus deny they're worshiping idols, they say, "they're not idols, they're deities."
The Roman Catholic Church, with its Gentilized Jesus and pagan holidays dressed in Christian drag, is filled with idolatry with all their accursed statues (like the Greek Orthodox have their icons). How can you deny it?
FORSAKE HINDUISM (http://armstrongherbert.blogspot.com/2006/11/forsake-hinduism.html)
How do you define idolatry?
In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.
It seems to me that idolatry is worshipping something other than God. To use an aid in devotion, prayer, or worship does not equate to idolatry. It may be something else, but idolatry cannot exist unless we worship something other than God.
: kensington link=topic=19955.msg416792#msg416792
Actually, he did ....color=red]In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.[/color]
This is not idolatry. Idolatry is the worship of a physical object as a god. The use of "aids" do not constitute idolatry. Now that we have that cleared up...
As far as bowing is concerned....I doubt that those that bow as a sign of respect or greeting in some cultures are worshipping those they are bowing to. I cite the following:
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn't worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it. If people would just use a little common sense when discussing these issues, then they would understand that Catholicism is not a religion of idolatry.
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 13:24:30
Unlike many Catholics, I agree with the Luther that the Medieval Church contain a lot of corrupt people - right up to the top; but I also believe that God protected Tradition / doctrine / dogma from corruption. I am a bit of a fan of Luther; yes he was obviously a tortured soul and extremely obsessive compulsive, but he was sincere and correct on several points. He was also looking to reform the church, not break away from it - he was a theologian not a revolutionary.
Interesting...I certainly agree that Luther was sincere, and that there were some abuses that needed correcting, and that he started out with the best of intentions (although I think he suffered from scrupulosity which resulted in some of his heretical beliefs about justification/sanctification, etc). But, I do think he was a Revolutionary. I think he didn't intend to start out that way...but at one point I think he chose that path, from what I've read at least.
I mean, you know, there comes a point where demanding that the Church bow to your new interpretation is not exactly seen as wanting to stay true to Catholic teaching or stay within the Church, lol.
Do you ever read Dave Armstrong's site? He's a Catholic bible genius, and writes great articles! He has a very large section on Luther and Lutheranism (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html) (some articles defending him, some articles showing where he was in error, etc.) This one is called "Luther was Not a Revolutionary? Huh??" (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/luther-was-not-revolutionary-huh.html), lol.
Anyway, that article popped into my head, just thought I'd share. ::smile::
: tjclaud Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 16:14:18
I have looked at all the pages now. I have not found an answer to my question, so I'll ask again.
What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about the return of Christ? Is is premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial?
If no one knows, that's okay. I'm curious, though, because I have never heard a Catholic discuss it.
You probably don't hear a lot of Catholics talk about it, because we're not very into all that kind of stuff, lol.
There's a good article about what we believe here (http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp) This is the first line:
Are you Pre, Mid, or Post? If you don't know how to answer that question, you're probably a Catholic.
::noworries::
Here's what Catholics believe:
What's the Catholic Position?
As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.
With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word "rapture" to refer to this event.
: mllevaleur Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 17:04:20Interesting...I certainly agree that Luther was sincere, and that there were some abuses that needed correcting, and that he started out with the best of intentions (although I think he suffered from scrupulosity which resulted in some of his heretical beliefs about justification/sanctification, etc).
I had to Google that word "scrupulosity" (as I was not familiar with the term), and this is what came up in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity):
Scrupulosity is obsessive concern with one's personal sins, including "sinful" acts or thoughts usually considered minor or trivial within their religious tradition. The term is derived from the Latin scrupulus, a sharp stone, implying a stabbing pain on the conscience.
In modern times, scrupulosity is often considered to be a religious expression of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or the unrelated obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. The scrupulous person lacks a balanced religious outlook, veering to the extreme. Often the person has a morbid feeling that they are rejected by God and doomed to damnation despite rigid adherence to rituals or rules of conduct. The over-scrupulous person may refuse to acknowledge the verdict of otherwise accepted religious authorities that he or she is being excessively concerned with moot religious points.
In Catholicism, scrupulosity in itself is not considered to be sinful; some well-known saints, including Ignatius Loyola, and Alphonsus Liguori. Some Catholic scholars have speculated that Martin Luther, whose ideas and writings helped give rise to the Protestant Reformation, suffered from scrupulosity and broke with the Catholic Church because he could not accept Catholic assurances of grace in the face of his feelings of sinfulness.
Protestants are likely to disagree that scrupulosity was the basis for Luther's actions, but some agree that he suffered from scrupulosity. Some Protestants also find traces of scrupulosity in the writings of the 17th century Puritan pastor and author John Bunyan.
In overcoming scrupulosity, medical treatment for OCD may be used alongside religious counseling, wherein a member of the clergy will counsel the subject to focus on positive, objective messages of religious faith rather than subjective feelings of sinfulness and objection; he or she may also advise the person to avoid typical scrupulous behaviors, which can include repeating past confessions or constant bathing.
Interesting. ::pondering::
Interesting indeed!
Yes, see Catholics believe that God's grace is ontic grace, it actually and in a very real way cleanses us and makes us pure and literally justifies and sanctifies us. Now...we often go, mess up again, and need more of God's grace, but Luther came up with the "snow covered dung hill" idea. That we're not actually ever cleaned, we're just covered by the grace of Christ, so that underneath we're still sinful and unpure, but that's ok because God covers us. We disagree with this Protestant/Lutheran notion of forensic or extrensic justification.
To Catholics, that seems kind of....dishonest of God. If He calls someone righteous, we reason, it must not just be an appearance of righteousness, it must be actual righteousness (because of His grace.) If the scriptures say no unclean thing can enter Heaven, we reason, God must actually make us purely and wholly clean, not just make us appear so or overlook our impurity and look at Christ instead, etc.
Since srupulous people tend to always feel "dirty" or sinful, and see sin in places where there is none, and go overboard with obsessing about it, it makes sense that Luther would, based on his feelings, think that we're never actually made righteous, but just covered with Christ's righteousness instead. It would be quite a load off, in his mind, not to have to worry about "getting clean" anymore.
Of course, we believe the problem was his scrupulosity, not the teachings.
Thanks for the insights.
Yes indeed. Your explanation gives great insight and even makes sense and I can see why there would be tension with some of the doctrines of grace presented in noncatholic pulpits.
And yet... you don't mention have a problem with St. Ignatious Scrupulosity? Would that be due to the fact that he remained Catholic and Luther did not? Why is that?
Scrupulosity is not a new phenomenon. It has been frequently discussed by religious writers over the past 500 years. One of the most well-known persons who suffered with scruples was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. Ignatius was afflicted by doubts about whether he was truly cleansed of sin, beginning with his conversion in 1522 (Van Ornum). The harder Ignatius tried to confess all his sins, the more he doubted he had, and the more he became disgusted with himself. As Kolvenbach (1996) writes, Ignatius' struggles with scrupulosity "exemplifies how the healthy sense of sin...can degenerate into an unhealthy sense of guilt, a morbid preoccupation with sin, a pathology" (p. 8). Ignatius was eventually saved by relying completely on the direction of his confessor, and following the direction to not confess his sins anymore. Spiritual advisors have profited from guidelines in Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises in counseling persons suffering from scrupulosity. Ignatius emphasized journal writing, listing sins, substituting new habits for old one, and opening up one's imagination to envision a loving God (Ciarrocchi). He favored such ideas as "a happy medium" and "everything in moderation".
: DCR Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 08:10:42
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:53:56
So...you refuse to define idolatry...
Well, in his defense, he sorta did...
: David Ben-Ariel Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:25:25
: ravenlorre Tue Sep 11, 2007 - 00:20:02
How do you define idolatry?
In this instance, specifically, permitting any mental image or picture of an alleged Jesus or God or saint to interfere with the worship of the invisible God, clearly against His commandments; statutes or icons or crucifixes some superstitious folks bow before or use as "aids" in their devotions.
Now, whether or not you agree with his definition, is up to you! ::smile::
Thank you. I agree I did define it and I agree it's her prerogative to agree with it or not (and if not, to give us her definition).
: kensington Wed Sep 12, 2007 - 23:08:34
And yet... you don't mention have a problem with St. Ignatious Scrupulosity? Would that be due to the fact that he remained Catholic and Luther did not? Why is that?
Scrupulosity is not a new phenomenon. It has been frequently discussed by religious writers over the past 500 years. One of the most well-known persons who suffered with scruples was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. Ignatius was afflicted by doubts about whether he was truly cleansed of sin, beginning with his conversion in 1522 (Van Ornum). The harder Ignatius tried to confess all his sins, the more he doubted he had, and the more he became disgusted with himself. As Kolvenbach (1996) writes, Ignatius' struggles with scrupulosity "exemplifies how the healthy sense of sin...can degenerate into an unhealthy sense of guilt, a morbid preoccupation with sin, a pathology" (p. 8). Ignatius was eventually saved by relying completely on the direction of his confessor, and following the direction to not confess his sins anymore. Spiritual advisors have profited from guidelines in Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises in counseling persons suffering from scrupulosity. Ignatius emphasized journal writing, listing sins, substituting new habits for old one, and opening up one's imagination to envision a loving God (Ciarrocchi). He favored such ideas as "a happy medium" and "everything in moderation".
Um...we weren't discussing St. Ignatius, which is why I didn't mention him? ???
Scrupulosity is not a good thing in anyone...the question is, what do you do about it? As your quote above shows, St. Ignatius went to a spiritual director who helped him sort through it. This is good. Luther, on the other hand, did not deal with it head on and it drove him to heresy (from the Catholic POV).
It's like any vice...take, for example, getting angry. Well plenty of people get angry, but some of them know they need to deal with their anger and face it head on and work hard at controlling it, and others end up letting their anger control them and they do bad things because of it. It's not the fact that one gets angry that is the test of their character, it's how they handle the anger. Same with scrupulosity. We all have our demons and issues to work through, the question isn't whether we have them or not, it's whether we attempt to work through them or not. St. Ignatius did just that...it seems to us that Luther didn't, instead he ran away from the problem and started his own church and made up a new theology to assuage his feelings of guilt.
So, I'm not sure what your point is? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/mllevaleur/Forums/Idunno.gif)
There is just one problem with that comment about Luther starting his own church with "New Theology"... I was not new. It was in the BIBLE all along. He tried and tried to show the Catholic church it was there, but they were blind, so in order to walk out his faith, he had no choice.
But, his beliefs were not that much different than St. Ig... Since both thought the issue was sin. It's just that both also stopped confessing sin to priests. Luther went on to confess to Christ alone, where the other just stopped confessing. But, confessing an obligation? How can you be a catholic and just not confess your sins any more?
What was an acceptable compromise for one man in the church, was called heresy in another. Both men stopped confessing to the priests... Luther was thrown out of the church for it, while the other has everything from Statues to Schools named for him.
: kensington Thu Sep 13, 2007 - 01:51:39
There is just one problem with that comment about Luther starting his own church with "New Theology"... I was not new. It was in the BIBLE all along. He tried and tried to show the Catholic church it was there, but they were blind, so in order to walk out his faith, he had no choice.
Well of course, I disagree with that, but that's no surprise. ::smile::
But, his beliefs were not that much different than St. Ig... Since both thought the issue was sin. It's just that both also stopped confessing sin to priests. Luther went on to confess to Christ alone, where the other just stopped confessing. But, confessing an obligation? How can you be a catholic and just not confess your sins any more?
No I think you're misunderstanding.
Luther was scrupulous (and I will add, this is speculation based on his writings), and because of this he reformed his thinking about how grace works. He began to believe that it didn't actually cleanse him, (because he never "felt" cleansed) but only covered him, and decided on his own to leave after the Church wouldn't change what had been taught for the last 1400 years.
Ignatius was scrupulous, and went to a trusted confessor to help him with it. He didn't change his understanding of how grace worked, he followed the advice of his confessor, and prayed to God to help him get rid of the scruples, while still "holding fast to the traditions which he was taught" concerning grace.
By the way, I'm not sure that he was told to "stop confessing," as in forever. I've looked around at several different sources, and it seems his problem was that he kept confessing the same past sins, because he felt he hadn't been sorry enough for them, and didn't feel he was being truly forgiven. So he was told to stop confessing the
same past sins, not to stop confessing completely.
Here are some excerpts from his autobiography about his dealings with scruples:
But at this time he had much to suffer from scruples. Although the general confession he had made at Montserrat had been entirely written out and made carefully enough, there still remained some things which from time to time he thought he had not confessed. This caused him a good deal of worry, for even though he had confessed it, his mind was never at rest. He began, therefore, to look for some spiritual man who would cure him of his scruples, but without success. Finally a doctor of the Cathedral Church, a very spiritual man who preached there, told him one day in confession to write out all he could remember. He did so. But after confessing it his scruples returned, each time becoming more minute, so that he became quite upset, and although he knew that these scruples were doing him much harm and that it would be good to be rid of them, he could not shake them off. Sometimes he thought the cure would be for the confessor to tell him in the name of Jesus Christ never to mention anything of the past, and he wished that his confessor would so direct him, but he did not dare tell the confessor so.
But without his having said a word to him, his confessor told him not to confess anything of his past life unless it was absolutely clear. As he thought that everything was quite clear, this direction was of no use to him and he remained always with his trouble. At this time he was in a small room which the Dominicans had given him in their monastery, where he continued with seven hours of prayer on his knees, rising faithfully every midnight, and performing all the other exercises already mentioned. But none of them provided him with a cure for his scruples, although it was now some months that they had been afflicting him. One day, when he was especially tormented, he began to pray and to call aloud to God, crying out in his fervor: "Help me, O Lord, since I find no help from men or from any creature. No trial would be too great for me to bear if I thought there was any hope of finding that help. Do you, Lord, show me where I can find it, and even though I should have to follow a little dog to find it, I would do so.
This might have been asked already but did not feel up to reading the whole thread.
Why do men from your church call themselve Father when God said not to call anyone that but him?
No answer?
: bvaug Sun Sep 16, 2007 - 20:44:02
No answer?
Sorry about that...been a long time since I visitied the board. I think that this link will provide a solid explanation. Again, common sense can go a long way in addressing these types of questions. Why anti-Catholics like to pounce on this one is beyond me. Bvaug, hopefully this link helps. If you have any other qeustions, just pose them.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
In a nutshell, one must look at the context of the passage. Would this be used to deny a child to call her dad "father?" One must view these types of titles in the context of what it suggests--a title of respect and nothing more.
: bvaug Fri Sep 14, 2007 - 21:05:21
This might have been asked already but did not feel up to reading the whole thread.
Why do men from your church call themselve Father when God said not to call anyone that but him?
Sorry bvaug
I am a bit overwhelmed with graduate school at the moment. Thank you Broach for providing the link There is nothing wrong with calling a person father - earthly father / biological father - just like there is nothing wrong with calling a person teacher - like a technical or educational teacher. The Bible condemns both practices only if you are likely to deify the person fulfilling one of these roles.
The Trinity is our ultimate Teacher and Father - we need to remember that always.
blessings
I think it is funny that so many people feel the need to start "Ask......" threads - many of them are extremely helpful; unfortunately many more are ridiculous. Please remember that this thread is focused on questions regarding Catholicism, rather than a magnet for attention seekers.
blessings
What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?
blessings
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:11:50
What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?
blessings
For me, it would probably be a toss-up between the power of the Pope and what I view as excessive attention given to departed saints, particularly toward Mary, the mother of Jesus.
For me, it would probably be a toss-up between the power of the Pope and what I view as excessive attention given to departed saints, particularly toward Mary, the mother of Jesus.
As a former non Catholic - I think your disagreement is legitimate. Can you elaborate concerning "the power of the Pope".
As far as saints are concerned - I think Catholics have placed too much emphasis on saints in the past - this is no longer the case. Also, I think it is important for you to differentiate between the devotion of educated Catholics and non-educated Catholics. I am sure it would not be an accurate assessment of Protestant dogma if I relied on pew-sitting Protestants to explain the beliefs of the denomination they belonged to.
blessings
The author didn't say confessions define new beliefs, just that they draw lines. His premise is that, since the Lutheran church drew its lines first, it's older. My assumption is that the author would simply say that the RCC was and continued to be a muddle of orginal orthodoxy and Romish adulterations.
Well, my position is that the author is not consistent regarding his definition of orthodoxy - if he really believes that doctrine is defined based on the party who decides to define it first - the Arian view of the nature of God would be considered orthodox, instead of the Trinitarian doctrine accepted by Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Also, the Gnostics were the first to declare that evil and good were a necessary balance in the Universe - it was the Catholic Church that later defined the orthodox viewpoint, accepted by Christians today - that evil is the absence of good - that God is the Absolute Good and anything compared to God is less good. Good is not dependent on evil.
The fact is, all churches - including the Lutheran Church use opposition to define their doctrines and boundaries.
blessings.
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:11:50
What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?
blessings
That from the Catholic POV every group but them are heretics. I don't look at Catholics that way.
FTL
: Harold Tue Sep 18, 2007 - 15:35:42
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:11:50
What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?
blessings
That from the Catholic POV every group but them are heretics. I don't look at Catholics that way.
FTL
Roman Catholics believe all Trinitarian believers to be Catholic - part of the universal church and body of Christ. However, Protestant brothers and sisters are viewed as separated brethren - believers who are not completely correct in their doctrine - heretics are not considered to be Christian at all.
blessings
What does FTL mean? I've always wondered
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:02:38
I think it is funny that so many people feel the need to start "Ask......" threads - many of them are extremely helpful; unfortunately many more are ridiculous. Please remember that this thread is focused on questions regarding Catholicism, rather than a magnet for attention seekers.
blessings
It seems you started quite a trend! rofl
: Harold Tue Sep 18, 2007 - 15:35:42
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:11:50
What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?
blessings
That from the Catholic POV every group but them are heretics. I don't look at Catholics that way.
FTL
Actually, in order to be a formal heretic, one must actually be or have been Catholic (or hold to the Catholic beliefs in some way). The Church doesn't expect those who do not claim to follow the Church or who don't believe they should, to follow the Church. A heretic is one who claims to do so and believes he should, but then obstinately holds a belief that is contrary to Church teaching.
So, basically, we see non-Catholic Christians as erronious in some of their doctrine, but not necessarily "heretics" in the technical sense of the term, and they are certainly still Christians.
Here's something from Catholic Answers that explains what I mean:
Protestants are "brethren" because they're fellow Christians. They're "separated" because we believe they're missing elements of the full Christian faith and aren't in communion with the divinely established teaching authority of the Church--the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church.
Are they heretics? It depends on what you mean. The Church distinguishes between material and formal heresy. Material heresy exists when a Christian, due to invincible ignorance, believes the wrong thing, either by asserting something as so which isn't true or by denying something which is. Catholics as well as Protestants can fall into this.
Formal heresy involves a Christian who obstinately and culpably denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. A formal heretic knows he ought to accept the truth he rejects, but still refuses to do so.
Most Protestants aren't formal heretics. They believe what they do because of their upbringing or because they believe the Bible teaches Protestant tenets. There's no conscious desire on their part to reject God's Word or the divinely appointed custodian of it. So, certainly we believe Protestants are mistaken on some things, just as they believe we're mistaken on some things. This could be considered "material heresy," but that's basically just a fancy name for thinking they're mistaken, albeit sincere and well meaning. ::smile::
It was stated on this thread that Luther is a heretic from the Catholic POV, I just thought that would make all protestants heretics. You are very gracious in the face of stiff confrontations.
All for now.
FOR THE LORD
: Harold Wed Sep 19, 2007 - 16:36:05
It was stated on this thread that Luther is a heretic from the Catholic POV, I just thought that would make all protestants heretics. You are very gracious in the face of stiff confrontations.
All for now.
FOR THE LORD
Well Luther is considered one, since he was a Catholic who obstinately denied parts of the Catholic faith, and then left. But obviously, someone who grows up already separated and being taught the Catholic Church is in error is going to be in a bit of a different situation. ::nodding::
God Bless!
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 19, 2007 - 23:29:59
: Harold Wed Sep 19, 2007 - 16:36:05
It was stated on this thread that Luther is a heretic from the Catholic POV, I just thought that would make all protestants heretics. You are very gracious in the face of stiff confrontations.
All for now.
FOR THE LORD
Well Luther is considered one, since he was a Catholic who obstinately denied parts of the Catholic faith, and then left. But obviously, someone who grows up already separated and being taught the Catholic Church is in error is going to be in a bit of a different situation. ::nodding::
God Bless!
this will sound scary at first but bare with me, I think I might start to get it if I listen long enough. Thanks.
FTL
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 19, 2007 - 12:53:24
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:02:38
I think it is funny that so many people feel the need to start "Ask......" threads - many of them are extremely helpful; unfortunately many more are ridiculous. Please remember that this thread is focused on questions regarding Catholicism, rather than a magnet for attention seekers.
blessings
It seems you started quite a trend! rofl
Hey there Stephanie,
I visited your blog - I love it.
We have a lot in common.
blessings
: ravenlorre Sat Sep 29, 2007 - 01:45:56
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 19, 2007 - 12:53:24
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:02:38
I think it is funny that so many people feel the need to start "Ask......" threads - many of them are extremely helpful; unfortunately many more are ridiculous. Please remember that this thread is focused on questions regarding Catholicism, rather than a magnet for attention seekers.
blessings
It seems you started quite a trend! rofl
Hey there Stephanie,
I visited your blog - I love it.
We have a lot in common.
blessings
Thanks! ::cheers::
: mllevaleur Wed Sep 19, 2007 - 12:57:48
: Harold Tue Sep 18, 2007 - 15:35:42
: ravenlorre Mon Sep 17, 2007 - 23:11:50
What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?
blessings
That from the Catholic POV every group but them are heretics. I don't look at Catholics that way.
FTL
Actually, in order to be a formal heretic, one must actually be or have been Catholic (or hold to the Catholic beliefs in some way). The Church doesn't expect those who do not claim to follow the Church or who don't believe they should, to follow the Church. A heretic is one who claims to do so and believes he should, but then obstinately holds a belief that is contrary to Church teaching.
So, basically, we see non-Catholic Christians as erronious in some of their doctrine, but not necessarily "heretics" in the technical sense of the term, and they are certainly still Christians.
Here's something from Catholic Answers that explains what I mean:
Protestants are "brethren" because they're fellow Christians. They're "separated" because we believe they're missing elements of the full Christian faith and aren't in communion with the divinely established teaching authority of the Church--the Pope and the bishops of the Catholic Church.
Are they heretics? It depends on what you mean. The Church distinguishes between material and formal heresy. Material heresy exists when a Christian, due to invincible ignorance, believes the wrong thing, either by asserting something as so which isn't true or by denying something which is. Catholics as well as Protestants can fall into this.
Formal heresy involves a Christian who obstinately and culpably denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. A formal heretic knows he ought to accept the truth he rejects, but still refuses to do so.
Most Protestants aren't formal heretics. They believe what they do because of their upbringing or because they believe the Bible teaches Protestant tenets. There's no conscious desire on their part to reject God's Word or the divinely appointed custodian of it.
So, certainly we believe Protestants are mistaken on some things, just as they believe we're mistaken on some things. This could be considered "material heresy," but that's basically just a fancy name for thinking they're mistaken, albeit sincere and well meaning. ::smile::
This isn't way off from what I would experience if viewed as an ex member of the church of Christ. Probably heavy on being seen as willfully "rejecting the truth"
Whats up with purgatory?
Who goes to purgatory? Who doesn't go to purgatory?
Purgatory is there to finish perfecting people, right? So is everyone who goes to purgatory eventually saved?
Also, does the Catholic church believe that believers will reign with Jesus on earth, or that they will all go to heaven, or is it a mix somewhere in the middle?
Blessings
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Oct 19, 2007 - 22:18:17
Whats up with purgatory?
Who goes to purgatory? Who doesn't go to purgatory?
Purgatory is there to finish perfecting people, right? So is everyone who goes to purgatory eventually saved?
Also, does the Catholic church believe that believers will reign with Jesus on earth, or that they will all go to heaven, or is it a mix somewhere in the middle?
Blessings
Purgatory is a belief that is rooted in the Early Christian Church. Evidence for the belief can be found on the walls of the catacombs in Rome. There are two primary scripture sources for Purgatory - one is found in 2 Maccabees 12:43-45
and the other is found in 1 Cor. 3:12-17.
Everyone that has committed venal sins and has asked for forgiveness, but has not offered retribution to God for the sins will go to Purgatory.
Purgatory is a place or process of cleansing a soul of the residue of sin. Jesus forgives all of our sins, but we are left with a personal responsibility for offering up the sin to God. A temporal example could be a case of a murderer - God forgives him of his sin, but he still has to go to jail.
Everyone in Purgatory is saved - they simply have to go through a cleansing process before entering Heaven - as described in 1 Corinthians.
The Vatican has never defined exactly what comprises Purgatory - we only know what the Bible tells us and what the Early Church taught to be true.
blessings
So that stuff I heard about the latest big important Catholic stance on Purgatory being that it doesn't exist, wasn't true?
[43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
[44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
[45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
I don't get it. This seems to support the practice of prayer for the dead, but I don't see the purgatory connection. I understand the 1Cor reference, though I don't interpret those verses that way.
So what is the timing on purgatory? Does one go there immediately, or after resurrection? In or out of the flesh? I'm guessing out?
Also, do Catholics believe that the saved dead go to heaven immediately after death/purgatory, or that is there a "holding area" / paradise. Or do you believe that there is no consciousness after death but before resurrection?
Thanks for your answers. Your straightforward demeanor is refreshing.
: janine Sun Oct 21, 2007 - 00:25:17
So that stuff I heard about the latest big important Catholic stance on Purgatory being that it doesn't exist, wasn't true?
I am not sure what you heard - if it was the statement from the Vatican that Limbo does not exist - that is different then Purgatory. Limbo was a popular belief among Catholics during the Middle Ages; many believed that there was a place for unbaptized babies, which was neither Hell nor Purgatory - the Vatican never confirmed or denied the belief until a couple months ago.
blessings
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sun Oct 21, 2007 - 03:54:47
[43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
[44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
[45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
I don't get it. This seems to support the practice of prayer for the dead, but I don't see the purgatory connection. I understand the 1Cor reference, though I don't interpret those verses that way.
So what is the timing on purgatory? Does one go there immediately, or after resurrection? In or out of the flesh? I'm guessing out?
Also, do Catholics believe that the saved dead go to heaven immediately after death/purgatory, or that is there a "holding area" / paradise. Or do you believe that there is no consciousness after death but before resurrection?
Thanks for your answers. Your straightforward demeanor is refreshing.
Yes, I understand why you may not see the connection between the modern belief in Purgatory based only on scripture - the Catholic Church believes that Tradition (Church doctrine) and the Bible together are authoritative. Also, the Catholic Church teaches that doctrine develops - so it may not look quite the same as when the belief was first defined.
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches we are all destined for:
Heaven (no mortal sin - due to asking for forgiveness from Christ's sacrifice; and no venial sins - due to asking for forgiveness from Christ's sacrifice and our willingness to offer retribution for our sins)
Purgatory (no mortal sin - due to asking for forgiveness from Christ's sacrifice; and no venial sins - due to asking for forgiveness from Christ's sacrifice, but incomplete retribution for our sins)
Both Heaven and Purgatory contain souls that are saved through Christ's sacrifice
Hell (mortal and venial sin)
It is my understanding that we will be in the presence of the Lord as soon as we die - after death comes judgment.
No one knows how long the process of Purgatory lasts - the Catholic Church has traditionally taught that Purgatory lasts a certain period of time and that our prayers can affect the amount of time a soul spends in Purgatory. I tend to believe that Purgatory is a quick process.
blessings
Wow what a great thread Ravenlore...Scott Hahn is awesome! Helped to bring my wife back home. ::amen!::
: Tyson Tue Oct 23, 2007 - 15:11:04
Wow what a great thread Ravenlore...Scott Hahn is awesome! Helped to bring my wife back home. ::amen!::
Awesome, Tyson! I still consider myself to be a neophyte - so much to learn!!! Scott Hahn was instrumental in helping my wife reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church - she was raised in a Independent Fundamentalist Church. I was Presbyterian so it was a bit easier for me to follow my natural attraction :)
Please contribute to the thread when ever you like.
blessings
Does the Pope meet with Satan for his daily briefing in person, or is there a telepathic link?
(humor everyone--humor. Or a feeble attempt, at least.)
: ravenlorre Tue Oct 23, 2007 - 21:52:06
: Tyson Tue Oct 23, 2007 - 15:11:04
Wow what a great thread Ravenlore...Scott Hahn is awesome! Helped to bring my wife back home. ::amen!::
Awesome, Tyson! I still consider myself to be a neophyte - so much to learn!!! Scott Hahn was instrumental in helping my wife reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church - she was raised in a Independent Fundamentalist Church. I was Presbyterian so it was a bit easier for me to follow my natural attraction :)
Please contribute to the thread when ever you like.
blessings
What was the brand name of the "Independent Fundamentalist Church?" I am curious as that is my background.
: marc Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:31:27
Does the Pope meet with Satan for his daily briefing in person, or is there a telepathic link?
Oh, they communicate by owl, of course.
blessings
What was the brand name of the "Independent Fundamentalist Church?" I am curious as that is my background.
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
blessings
: ravenlorre Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:43:44
What was the brand name of the "Independent Fundamentalist Church?" I am curious as that is my background.
Independent Fundamental Churches of America
blessings
My background exactly.
: ravenlorre Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:40:05
: marc Sun Oct 28, 2007 - 19:31:27
Does the Pope meet with Satan for his daily briefing in person, or is there a telepathic link?
Oh, they communicate by owl, of course.
blessings
rofl
I was impressed to see this thread still going...I just got back from a trip to France. We visited Lourdes while we were there and even did the baths! It was quite an experience. ::nodding::
I was impressed to see this thread still going...I just got back from a trip to France. We visited Lourdes while we were there and even did the baths! It was quite an experience. ::nodding::
Yeah, I am glad that people are still interested - it has really helped me sort out my own ideas about Catholicism and my faith.
I enjoyed reading about your trip to France on your blog - isn't the Catholic life sublime! What a time you must of had - revisiting the church you got married in and Lourdes! Wow. I am glad I got to read about it, at least.
blessings
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sun Oct 21, 2007 - 03:54:47
[43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
[44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
[45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
I don't get it. This seems to support the practice of prayer for the dead, but I don't see the purgatory connection. I understand the 1Cor reference, though I don't interpret those verses that way.
So what is the timing on purgatory? Does one go there immediately, or after resurrection? In or out of the flesh? I'm guessing out?
Also, do Catholics believe that the saved dead go to heaven immediately after death/purgatory, or that is there a "holding area" / paradise. Or do you believe that there is no consciousness after death but before resurrection?
Thanks for your answers. Your straightforward demeanor is refreshing.
I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this Ravenlorre...
The whole idea of purgatory gets lost with the divisiveness of its name to many Protestants in my estimation. This is true with a lot of Catholic/ Protestant dialogue. Let's face it, we define terms differently and certain labels invoke emotions.
With Purgatory, one has to look, in my view, to the nature of God. He is pure Justice and pure love ontologically, and therefore, He cannot lie. In this Christ made some pretty stark statements about Salvation and eschatology. He called for us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) and emphasized that that you will not be released until you paid your last penny, for example (Mt: 5:26).
There are many more Scriptures that begin to build a solid case for the need for a final purgation by virtue of our need to be perfect but none, in my opinion, strikes at my heart then Rev 21:27 where it is emphatically stated that nothing unclean can enter Heaven, period. Unfortunately, since Luther threw out the Septuagint in 1519, the most clear case for Purgatory was lost to most Protestants with (2Macc 12: 44-46) where the soldiers atoned for the dead to free them from sin. This is incidentally the premise for Protestantism to adopt the Palestinian/ Hebrew Bible of which I get into on another thread.
Keeping with the concept that God is pure Justice and love coupled with what Christ Himself taught on perfection, it makes sense that we need a final purification to be before Truth itself in God. In this, let's face it, who is perfect at death and how can a lie stand before Truth and not be exposed by it? In this, Catholics believe that Christ's death paid our price on the grounds of Justifying us before God, but Sanctification involves our own free ascent to do Gods will by cooperating with his grace. (See Eph: 2:20)
I probably didn't really answer your question well, but the whole idea of purgatory to me sends shrills up my spine at how loving a Just God can be that He gives us the opportunity for the cleansing that is necessary to be before Him in eternity. Purgatory, from the Catholic perspective, is perhaps Gods greatest act of mercy next to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not a punishment but a gift in love. Without it, to look upon the burning light of God would be more painful than to look into the mid-day sun without proper eye protection. His Truth would expose every fault and we would only run from Him in hiding like Adam of old if His mercy did not give us the opportunity shed the broken ego and selfish baggage inherited, learned and indulged from a lifetime in fallen world. God is great!!!
I hope this helps you understand a little that the idea of purgatory to a Catholic is not a negative but a proof of Gods love.
In Christ
Bill
Bill!!!
You are always welcome here! Thanks for the contribution.
blessings
: billinjackson Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 20:31:50
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Sun Oct 21, 2007 - 03:54:47
[43] And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
[44] For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
[45] And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
I don't get it. This seems to support the practice of prayer for the dead, but I don't see the purgatory connection. I understand the 1Cor reference, though I don't interpret those verses that way.
So what is the timing on purgatory? Does one go there immediately, or after resurrection? In or out of the flesh? I'm guessing out?
Also, do Catholics believe that the saved dead go to heaven immediately after death/purgatory, or that is there a "holding area" / paradise. Or do you believe that there is no consciousness after death but before resurrection?
Thanks for your answers. Your straightforward demeanor is refreshing.
I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this Ravenlorre...
The whole idea of purgatory gets lost with the divisiveness of its name to many Protestants in my estimation. This is true with a lot of Catholic/ Protestant dialogue. Let's face it, we define terms differently and certain labels invoke emotions.
With Purgatory, one has to look, in my view, to the nature of God. He is pure Justice and pure love ontologically, and therefore, He cannot lie. In this Christ made some pretty stark statements about Salvation and eschatology. He called for us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) and emphasized that that you will not be released until you paid your last penny, for example (Mt: 5:26).
There are many more Scriptures that begin to build a solid case for the need for a final purgation by virtue of our need to be perfect but none, in my opinion, strikes at my heart then Rev 21:27 where it is emphatically stated that nothing unclean can enter Heaven, period. Unfortunately, since Luther threw out the Septuagint in 1519, the most clear case for Purgatory was lost to most Protestants with (2Macc 12: 44-46) where the soldiers atoned for the dead to free them from sin. This is incidentally the premise for Protestantism to adopt the Palestinian/ Hebrew Bible of which I get into on another thread.
Keeping with the concept that God is pure Justice and love coupled with what Christ Himself taught on perfection, it makes sense that we need a final purification to be before Truth itself in God. In this, let's face it, who is perfect at death and how can a lie stand before Truth and not be exposed by it? In this, Catholics believe that Christ's death paid our price on the grounds of Justifying us before God, but Sanctification involves our own free ascent to do Gods will by cooperating with his grace. (See Eph: 2:20)
I probably didn't really answer your question well, but the whole idea of purgatory to me sends shrills up my spine at how loving a Just God can be that He gives us the opportunity for the cleansing that is necessary to be before Him in eternity. Purgatory, from the Catholic perspective, is perhaps Gods greatest act of mercy next to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not a punishment but a gift in love. Without it, to look upon the burning light of God would be more painful than to look into the mid-day sun without proper eye protection. His Truth would expose every fault and we would only run from Him in hiding like Adam of old if His mercy did not give us the opportunity shed the broken ego and selfish baggage inherited, learned and indulged from a lifetime in fallen world. God is great!!!
I hope this helps you understand a little that the idea of purgatory to a Catholic is not a negative but a proof of Gods love.
In Christ
Bill
Very nice Bill....well done!!
: billinjackson Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 20:31:50
I hope you don't mind me taking a stab at this Ravenlorre...
The whole idea of purgatory gets lost with the divisiveness of its name to many Protestants in my estimation. This is true with a lot of Catholic/ Protestant dialogue. Let's face it, we define terms differently and certain labels invoke emotions.
::shrug:: There's nothing in my past that evokes a negative association with the idea of purgatory. I don't think most Protestants could tell you what purgatory is, much less argue about it.
My interest in it was piqued when I heard the early church referred to as "one big purgatorial society." Can't remember where I read that...an encyclopedia? A history?
With Purgatory, one has to look, in my view, to the nature of God. He is pure Justice and pure love ontologically, and therefore, He cannot lie. In this Christ made some pretty stark statements about Salvation and eschatology. He called for us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Mt 5:48) and emphasized that that you will not be released until you paid your last penny, for example (Mt: 5:26).
There are many more Scriptures that begin to build a solid case for the need for a final purgation by virtue of our need to be perfect but none, in my opinion, strikes at my heart then Rev 21:27 where it is emphatically stated that nothing unclean can enter Heaven, period. Unfortunately, since Luther threw out the Septuagint in 1519, the most clear case for Purgatory was lost to most Protestants with (2Macc 12: 44-46) where the soldiers atoned for the dead to free them from sin. This is incidentally the premise for Protestantism to adopt the Palestinian/ Hebrew Bible of which I get into on another thread.
Keeping with the concept that God is pure Justice and love coupled with what Christ Himself taught on perfection, it makes sense that we need a final purification to be before Truth itself in God. In this, let's face it, who is perfect at death and how can a lie stand before Truth and not be exposed by it? In this, Catholics believe that Christ's death paid our price on the grounds of Justifying us before God, but Sanctification involves our own free ascent to do Gods will by cooperating with his grace. (See Eph: 2:20)
I probably didn't really answer your question well, but the whole idea of purgatory to me sends shrills up my spine at how loving a Just God can be that He gives us the opportunity for the cleansing that is necessary to be before Him in eternity. Purgatory, from the Catholic perspective, is perhaps Gods greatest act of mercy next to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not a punishment but a gift in love. Without it, to look upon the burning light of God would be more painful than to look into the mid-day sun without proper eye protection. His Truth would expose every fault and we would only run from Him in hiding like Adam of old if His mercy did not give us the opportunity shed the broken ego and selfish baggage inherited, learned and indulged from a lifetime in fallen world. God is great!!!
I hope this helps you understand a little that the idea of purgatory to a Catholic is not a negative but a proof of Gods love.
Thanks for indulging my Sola Scriptura roots, I do finally understand the Maccabees reference, as well. I don't know that I'm persuaded, but it's a good starting point for a study.
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual. Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.
Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.
Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.
Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?
The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.
I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.
blessings
: ravenlorre Thu Nov 29, 2007 - 01:19:47
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual. Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.
Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.
Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.
Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?
The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.
I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.
blessings
Well said, I agree completely!
I'd also add that sometimes, when we're not feeling the love in our hearts, but desire to, just going through the mechanics can help those feelings come. It's that whole "fake it till you make it" idea. You know how if you're feeling grouchy, but decide to be kind to people anyway and put on a smile, you'll often end up feeling better anyway! Deciding to go through the motions even when you don't feel like it is an Act of Faith, and is rewarded with grace, and often the special added bonus of feelings to match.
Catholic Christianity is, like Christ Himself, Incarnational. Spirit and Matter are joined together, and this is a good thing, just as God becoming man (spirit joining with and becoming matter) was a good thing. To think that we should avoid "ritual" or external type mechanics because they people somehow think they are opposed to the spiritual is a gnostic idea. The Christian idea is that spirit and matter join together, and all we do is incarnational. Our love, a non physical thing, is incarnated in good works. Grace is incarnated in the sacraments. I really think this is what many well meaning protestants are missing, as they often focus on the whole "faith vs works" false dichotomy, when they should realize that works are the incarnation of faith.
: mllevaleur Wed Dec 05, 2007 - 11:27:02
: ravenlorre Thu Nov 29, 2007 - 01:19:47
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual. Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.
Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.
Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.
Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?
The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.
I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.
blessings
Well said, I agree completely!
I'd also add that sometimes, when we're not feeling the love in our hearts, but desire to, just going through the mechanics can help those feelings come. It's that whole "fake it till you make it" idea. You know how if you're feeling grouchy, but decide to be kind to people anyway and put on a smile, you'll often end up feeling better anyway! Deciding to go through the motions even when you don't feel like it is an Act of Faith, and is rewarded with grace, and often the special added bonus of feelings to match.
Catholic Christianity is, like Christ Himself, Incarnational. Spirit and Matter are joined together, and this is a good thing, just as God becoming man (spirit joining with and becoming matter) was a good thing. To think that we should avoid "ritual" or external type mechanics because they people somehow think they are opposed to the spiritual is a gnostic idea. The Christian idea is that spirit and matter join together, and all we do is incarnational. Our love, a non physical thing, is incarnated in good works. Grace is incarnated in the sacraments. I really think this is what many well meaning protestants are missing, as they often focus on the whole "faith vs works" false dichotomy, when they should realize that works are the incarnation of faith.
Absolutely brilliant...
I would just like to add that many of my favorite authors are former protestants, such as Scott Hahn. Scott Hahn's line of books on Doubleday are fantastic.
I have a few questions that I was always curious about.
First, on what basis does the catholic church find the apocryphal books canonical. I'm familiar with the Council of Carthage and the Protestant Canon, and even the means of canonization (authorship by apostles or close associates, alignment with previous revelations, and written within the first century.) It would seem that most of the books in the apocrypha do not meet these three piece of criteria. Furthermore, they do not align with the views expressed by Paul or the author apostles to the best of my knowledge. So my first question is what are the grounds for including these books in the canon?
Secondly, what is the orthodox view of salvation in the RCC. I always hear that is works, whereas the protestant view is obviously by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ who justified us on the cross. However, when I read some catholic literature it seems that there is a relationship with Christ, but it just not explicity highlighted. So it would seem that these are "relative terms." Meaning they both have faith at the root, but differing definitions, what are your thoughts on this?
Thirdly (and finally) where does this idea of the divinity of Mary come from? I have read the Bible several times (not including the apocrypha as of yet) and I know the narratives and so forth. However, after studying the Bible a little more in-depth (in college, in my spare time, and so on) I would argue that the apostles did not hold this view. Paul's view was very much centered on Christ and His resurrection, and so forth. This idea of the divinity of the mother Mary did not come until a later time from Church Fathers (I speculate)? Where did the idea of this divinity come from, and if it is not from the apostles views why should it be considered Orthodox?
Thanks for your responses!
: Arreat Wed Mar 12, 2008 - 22:53:19
I have a few questions that I was always curious about.
First, on what basis does the catholic church find the apocryphal books canonical. I'm familiar with the Council of Carthage and the Protestant Canon, and even the means of canonization (authorship by apostles or close associates, alignment with previous revelations, and written within the first century.) It would seem that most of the books in the apocrypha do not meet these three piece of criteria. Furthermore, they do not align with the views expressed by Paul or the author apostles to the best of my knowledge. So my first question is what are the grounds for including these books in the canon?
Secondly, what is the orthodox view of salvation in the RCC. I always hear that is works, whereas the protestant view is obviously by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ who justified us on the cross. However, when I read some catholic literature it seems that there is a relationship with Christ, but it just not explicity highlighted. So it would seem that these are "relative terms." Meaning they both have faith at the root, but differing definitions, what are your thoughts on this?
Thirdly (and finally) where does this idea of the divinity of Mary come from? I have read the Bible several times (not including the apocrypha as of yet) and I know the narratives and so forth. However, after studying the Bible a little more in-depth (in college, in my spare time, and so on) I would argue that the apostles did not hold this view. Paul's view was very much centered on Christ and His resurrection, and so forth. This idea of the divinity of the mother Mary did not come until a later time from Church Fathers (I speculate)? Where did the idea of this divinity come from, and if it is not from the apostles views why should it be considered Orthodox?
Thanks for your responses!
Wow. I can't type a whole book. But here is the short of it:
1) The Septuigent - the Greek version of the Old Testament - completed around 200 BC, contained the Deuterocanonicals and is the Old Testament we use. And, by the way, it is the Old Testament the Apostles use. Scholars know this by comparing the language in Old Testament quotes contained withing the NT. So, the books were in there before Christ was born and before the Church came to be. The only reason Trent "officialy" defined the canon in the 16th century was in response to Luther removing the books from his Bible.
For more info, read this article:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm
2) We believe we are saved by Grace Alone. That is Catholic Dogma. The faith that saves is a working faith, as Paul says in Galatians 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love...."
For more info, go here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/salvation.asp
3) This is easy. We do not worship Mary. She is a human being, not a deity. We worship God alone: To worship a created being is blasphemy.
Read the info here for a better understanding of Marian teachings:
http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp
Interesting... I will certainly have to read into this more. I appreciate the links.
: mllevaleur Wed Dec 05, 2007 - 11:27:02
: ravenlorre Thu Nov 29, 2007 - 01:19:47
I am interested in the Protestant aversion to ritual. Recently, I have explained the Roman Catholic stance on liturgy and ritual and I thought I would repost it for comment.
Lets compare marriage to a personal relationship with Christ. It is common to talk about 'marriage' and our 'relationship with Christ', but we rarely define the terms.
Marriage is the relationship between a man and a women - the legal definition does not take into account the quality of the relationship; the moral definition is primarily concerned with the quality of the relationship. So what does a good marriage look like? Actually, it looks quite a bit like a bad marriage on the outside - people live together and perform the mechanics of the relationship, however in a good marriage the mechanics of the marriage are symbolic of something much deeper. The very mechanics demonstrate caring and love for the other person in the relationship - they in fact define the relationship. In a good marriage the "work' is necessary, seems easy most of the time, and acts as a vehicle for the love that holds two people together. In a bad marriage, partners act out most of the same mechanics, but they end up containing no meaning and eventually many partners end up splitting up and wrongly criticizing the institution of marriage, rather than their inability to connect with their partner on a heart level.
Catholics view the mechanics of their religion in the same way. From the outside, the mechanical aspects of the Mass may look cold and uninviting, but to someone who is in love with Christ, the mechanics act as a vehicle for the love that we feel and actually define the relationship. Sure, you can go to Mass and run through the liturgy without investing your heart and it may look exactly the same from the outside as a person who is in love with Christ, but it is all meaningless. Should the person in the unsatisfying relationship blame the mechanics of the relationship? Or should they simply admit that for some reason they were unable to connect on a heart level?
The mechanics of marriage and the mechanics of religion are not the problem - although this idea appears to be ingrained in the heart of every Protestant out there - especially American Protestants. Instead, we need to realize that God requires our full selves in the relationship - the mechanics are an expression of the love. The ironic part of all this is that Protestants / Evangelicals rebelled against the Catholic Mass and liturgy because they were afraid that the mechanics were the reason for people engaging in an external form of religion. However, soon after they left the Catholic Church and tried to separate the mechanics from the love of God, they ended up merely replacing Catholic mechanics with Protestant / Evangelical mechanics - and there is nothing wrong with that because we simply cannot relate to Christ without the mechanics! It would be like starring into your spouses eyes for the rest of your life without going through the mechanics of living. Unfortunately, P/Es have been running from the mechanics (which the incorrectly view as man-made traditions) ever since - and I would argue that it is that main reason for denominational splits today - chasing after the reductionistic ideal image of the Apostolic Church is like chasing rainbows.
I hope I am making sense here - I feel quite strongly about this and I am really trying to get my point across. After all this writing - my point is you cannot separate the mechanics from the love in any relationship - in your marriage with your spouse or with Christ.
blessings
Well said, I agree completely!
I'd also add that sometimes, when we're not feeling the love in our hearts, but desire to, just going through the mechanics can help those feelings come. It's that whole "fake it till you make it" idea. You know how if you're feeling grouchy, but decide to be kind to people anyway and put on a smile, you'll often end up feeling better anyway! Deciding to go through the motions even when you don't feel like it is an Act of Faith, and is rewarded with grace, and often the special added bonus of feelings to match.
Catholic Christianity is, like Christ Himself, Incarnational. Spirit and Matter are joined together, and this is a good thing, just as God becoming man (spirit joining with and becoming matter) was a good thing. To think that we should avoid "ritual" or external type mechanics because they people somehow think they are opposed to the spiritual is a gnostic idea. The Christian idea is that spirit and matter join together, and all we do is incarnational. Our love, a non physical thing, is incarnated in good works. Grace is incarnated in the sacraments. I really think this is what many well meaning protestants are missing, as they often focus on the whole "faith vs works" false dichotomy, when they should realize that works are the incarnation of faith.
I apologize for stumbling in my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ during the past few months. To clarify, I am fully committed to my marriage and my relationship to Christ. My wife is struggling, but she is an an honest women and someone who is doing the best she knows how - please pray for us.
I am looking forward to continuing to contribute to this thread and believe it or not - Charles Sloan has been the most helpful is in my current struggle - thank you Charles!
Ravenlorre
: ravenlorre Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 22:51:33
I apologize for stumbling in my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ during the past few months. To clarify, I am fully committed to my marriage and my relationship to Christ. My wife is struggling, but she is an honest and women who is doing the best she knows how - please pray for us.
I am looking forward to continuing to contribute to this thread and believe it or not - Charles Sloan has been the most helpful is in my current struggle - thank you Charles!
Ravenlorre
You owe no one an apology my friend. I am glad your marriage if on the rocks or struggling, is still a marriage. God can and does work wonders with what we often believed was irreparable, glory be to his name. I know this to be true only because I have experienced it myself. I am also glad that you have recognized your relationship with Christ was lacking, since that is the way he draws us. I pray you will continue to draw nearer to the Son of God.
I am grateful that I could be of service in anyway, but praise belongs to God.
: Charles Sloan Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 23:11:52
: ravenlorre Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 22:51:33
I apologize for stumbling in my relationship with my wife and my relationship with Christ during the past few months. To clarify, I am fully committed to my marriage and my relationship to Christ. My wife is struggling, but she is an honest and women who is doing the best she knows how - please pray for us.
I am looking forward to continuing to contribute to this thread and believe it or not - Charles Sloan has been the most helpful is in my current struggle - thank you Charles!
Ravenlorre
You owe no one an apology my friend. I am glad your marriage if on the rocks or struggling, is still a marriage. God can and does work wonders with what we often believed was irreparable, glory be to his name. I know this to be true only because I have experienced it myself. I am also glad that you have recognized your relationship with Christ was lacking, since that is the way he draws us. I pray you will continue to draw nearer to the Son of God.
I am grateful that I could be of service in anyway, but praise belongs to God.
Well said, Charles (I am sure everyone posting here will agree that their relationship with Christ could be improved),
Now, back to the issues:
Recently, to my dismay, I found a Chick tract, in my pew during a Mass - undoubtedly placed by a well intentioned, yet ignorant Protestant in order to save my soul. Unfortunately - as most Chick tracks communicate, the verses used were completely (and blantly) displayed out of context for the purpose of leading under-educated Catholics away from the Church that Jesus set upon Peter, the Rock. How unfortunate!
So my question is - does the end justify the means!!!!!
Simply; is it okay to misrepresent the Christian Church / message; in order to lead Mormons / Jehovah's Witnesses / Catholics (many Protestants like to dismiss the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded their Church, and even claim that Catholics are not Christian), in order to lead members to the true understanding (Protestant) of a saving relationship with Christ, and therefore salvation?
Blessings,
Ravenlorre
What are you saying... that protestants are sneaking in and out of your parish between mass to put tracks in the pew... that would be kind of a trick, since Mass is observed on the hour all day on Sunday's.
Wouldn't someone spot them? Running about in and out of pews, leaving tracks and catch on to what they are up to?
To tell you the truth, I think when you do into a Catholic church's for mass or track passing, they can spot a protestant a mile away... they know who are catholics and who are not.
: kensington Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 03:32:02
What are you saying... that protestants are sneaking in and out of your parish between mass to put tracks in the pew... that would be kind of a trick, since Mass is observed on the hour all day on Sunday's.
Wouldn't someone spot them? Running abo'ut in and out of pews, leaving tracks and catch on to what they are up to?
To tell you the truth, I think when you do into a Catholic church's for mass or track passing, they can spot a protestant a mile away... they know who are catholics and who are not.
Let me be clear,
My parish offers the Mass twice a day - everyday. How are we supposed to "spot" tract placing Protestants - lol.
All I am saying is; I found a Chick Tract called "Last Rites" in my pew when I was worshiping during Lent. All the verses cited were used out of context and appeared to place Catholics in the most unintelligent light possible - it was as if Catholic scholars had never bothered to open the Bible for 2000 years.
The fact is Jack Chick preys on the uninformed pew sitting Catholic and pretends that he points th way to the truth, despite his track record of anti-intellectual, end-justifies-the-means, transparent hermenuetic garbage that he continues to spew forth in infantile cartoon format.
So may question stands - does the end justify the mean?
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 04:41:02
: kensington Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 03:32:02
What are you saying... that protestants are sneaking in and out of your parish between mass to put tracks in the pew... that would be kind of a trick, since Mass is observed on the hour all day on Sunday's.
Wouldn't someone spot them? Running abo'ut in and out of pews, leaving tracks and catch on to what they are up to?
To tell you the truth, I think when you do into a Catholic church's for mass or track passing, they can spot a protestant a mile away... they know who are catholics and who are not.
Let me be clear,
My parish offers the Mass twice a day - everyday. How are we supposed to "spot" tract placing Protestants - lol.
All I am saying is; I found a Chick Tract called "Last Rites" in my pew when I was worshiping during Lent. All the verses cited were used out of context and appeared to place Catholics in the most unintelligent light possible - it was as if Catholic scholars had never bothered to open the Bible for 2000 years.
The fact is, Jack Chick preys on the uninformed pew sitting Catholic, while pretending he points the way to the truth, despite his track record of the anti-intellectual, end-justifies-the-means, transparent hermenuetic garbage that he continues to spew forth in infantile cartoon format.
Anyone who has studied Church history or the Bible can see through Jack from a mile away.......
So may question stands - does the end justify the mean?
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 04:41:02
All I am saying is; I found a Chick Tract called "Last Rites" in my pew when I was worshiping during Lent. All the verses cited were used out of context and appeared to place Catholics in the most unintelligent light possible - it was as if Catholic scholars had never bothered to open the Bible for 2000 years.
The fact is Jack Chick preys on the uninformed pew sitting Catholic and pretends that he points th way to the truth, despite his track record of anti-intellectual, end-justifies-the-means, transparent hermenuetic garbage that he continues to spew forth in infantile cartoon format.
So may question stands - does the end justify the mean?
I don't think it is right to to this to ANY church.....regardless. If the only way a person has to feel more holy about their own faith is by putting someone else's down....they have some serious problems. It's great to 'discuss' differences because it opens the door to learning and knowledge.....but this isn't the same as invading someone else's sacred choice of worship.
I'm not a Catholic....but in reading around on this site....I've learned a whole lot in my understanding of where they are coming from. Some things that sounded 'silly' to me in the way I originally heard it ...now make sense to me as to why Catholics believe and worship in the way they do. We should all grow from one another....not feel the need to convert one another.
So 'manna' to the Catholics from this Charismatic. ::smile::
: ravenlorre Wed Mar 19, 2008 - 01:40:14So my question is - does the end justify the means!!!!!
Simply; is it okay to misrepresent the Christian Church / message; in order to lead Mormons / Jehovah's Witnesses / Catholics (many Protestants like to dismiss the fact that the Catholic Church proceeded their Church, and even claim that Catholics are not Christian), in order to lead members to the true understanding (Protestant) of a saving relationship with Christ, and therefore salvation?
Let me just say this, firstly we have had this exact conversation before. Over the same subject and I plan on using the same verses that I used before. But before I do remember this has less to do with the Witnesses, Mormons, or Catholics more about your disagreements with someone voicing their disagreements in evangelistic efforts to lead people to Christ. Where as I can agree that this isn't the most effective method for reaching the lost by preaching against errors of others, it is still effective.
I personally prefer to leave denominationalism out of my presentation the Gospel, and labor to keep the message focused on the breaking of God's law and the meaning of the cross. But there is a place for speaking about someones personal convictions about the errors of others. And Jack has chosen his forum, his publishing company.
Now I will repeat what I have said before:
The ends do justify the means according to the Apostle Paul when Christ is preached.
Phl 1:15-18 "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=19820.msg409666#msg409666
There is only one way to deal with Jack Chick tracts...ignore them and throw them away. Any educated individual with common sense, either Protestant or Catholic, can see his work for the garbage that it is. He is a disgrace to the faith.
: broach972 Thu Mar 20, 2008 - 09:59:31
There is only one way to deal with Jack Chick tracts...ignore them and throw them away. Any educated individual with common sense, either Protestant or Catholic, can see his work for the garbage that it is. He is a disgrace to the faith.
So do you consider all of Jack's tracts garbage, or just the ones you disagree with? For example what part of the tract 'Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp)' or 'This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp)' is garbage? I don't see how these could be considered garbage by anyone who is a Christian.
Possibly because of their comic-book style. A Jack Chick tract leaves a bad taste in my mouth even when I can point out some truth in every page. It's a style thing.
And some of them are just plain tripe. So it will be with any un-inspired writer. (Un-Bible-type-inspired, I mean. Me included, undoubtedly, although of course I think every word I write is absolute gold.)
: Charles Sloan Wed Mar 26, 2008 - 21:21:38
So do you consider all of Jack's tracts garbage, or just the ones you disagree with? For example what part of the tract 'Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp)' or 'This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp)' is garbage? I don't see how these could be considered garbage by anyone who is a Christian.
I found one lying on the floor of the men's room in a Walmart the other day. I'm pretty sure it was garbage.
So neither of you can point out what is garbage in these two tracts, you will just sentence them as garbage because they are animated (which there are children Bibles animated, and I don't hear anyone calling them trash), because they give a bad taste (without explanation other than disliking their "style"), or because someone threw one on the ground at wal-mart. Now I'm sure people have found hundred dollar bills on the ground at wal-mart that were just as valuable as they were before they picked them up.
Seems to me people are just prejudiced against these for absolutely no good reason.
But I asked particularly what was trash in these two tracts: Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp) and This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp). So if you can point out something other than your own personal prejudices or the locations you have seen them (like something actually in the tracts...), I would be interested to hear your comments.
: Charles Sloan Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 22:57:07
So neither of you can point out what is garbage in these two tracts, you will just sentence them as garbage because they are animated (which there are children Bibles animated, and I don't hear anyone calling them trash), because they give a bad taste (without explanation other than disliking their "style"), or because someone threw one on the ground at wal-mart. Now I'm sure people have found hundred dollar bills on the ground at wal-mart that were just as valuable as they were before they picked them up.
Seems to me people are just prejudiced against these for absolutely no good reason.
But I asked particularly what was trash in these two tracts: Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp) and This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp). So if you can point out something other than your own personal prejudices or the locations you have seen them (like something actually in the tracts...), I would be interested to hear your comments.
The Tract is Titled "Last Rites"
"I am the only one who can forgive sins!!!" [says God]
[supporting verse] See Mark 2:7 - 'Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but GOD ONLY."
LOL - as we all know, this statement was uttered by a pharisee who was disputing the divinity of Christ.
Later, Jesus told his disciples that they have the power and obligation to forgive sins.
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Jack Chick is willing to leave Biblical accuracy in the dust in favor of his anti-catholic rhetoric - sad
-R
Ravenlore,
Notice, I didn't ask about the tracts that disagree with your catholic theology. I asked about two tracts which you even quoted me specifying, but either failed to read or simply ignored. I think everyone knows that you are catholic by now, and we all might understand why you might dislike the tract 'Last Rites'. But if your rejection of Jack Chick is simply because you disagree with his views of catholics, then your reasoning is nothing more then your own personal prejudices and intolerance for opposing points of view.
But if you have some substantial reasoning for rejecting all of Mr. Chicks tracts, please point out what is inaccurate or offensive to the gospel in Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp) and This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp).
: Charles Sloan Thu Mar 27, 2008 - 22:57:07
So neither of you can point out what is garbage in these two tracts, you will just sentence them as garbage because they are animated (which there are children Bibles animated, and I don't hear anyone calling them trash), because they give a bad taste (without explanation other than disliking their "style"), or because someone threw one on the ground at wal-mart. Now I'm sure people have found hundred dollar bills on the ground at wal-mart that were just as valuable as they were before they picked them up.
Seems to me people are just prejudiced against these for absolutely no good reason.
But I asked particularly what was trash in these two tracts: Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp) and This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp). So if you can point out something other than your own personal prejudices or the locations you have seen them (like something actually in the tracts...), I would be interested to hear your comments.
In particular, I have nothing against Jack Chick tracts. In fairness, I'm not Catholic, and I don't know who Jack Chick is, but I do know what tracts you're talking about by the names.
But I'm still pretty certain the one I found the other day was trash. It was soggy and the ink was running, and it didn't appear to be water it was wet with.
Notice, I didn't ask about the tracts that disagree with your catholic theology.
Nice wording :) No admission that Chick misuses the verse I quoted from "Last Rite" - only that it disagrees with 'my' catholic theology - clever.
I asked about two tracts which you even quoted me specifying, but either failed to read or simply ignored.
I didn't bother to read those tacts - it is not necessary. Chick has proven his inaccuracy in the tract I referenced - why should I read further? Do you suggest that I read every publication from Jack Chick before I comment on any of his literature? If so, are you required to read 2000 years of Catholic Dogma before commenting on any one idea? Also - do the parts of Catholic Dogma that happen to fall in line with your belief system excuse the parts that disagree?
Actually, I am rather shocked that you are not as outraged as I am by his reckless use of God's Word.
I think everyone knows that you are catholic by now, and we all might understand why you might dislike the tract 'Last Rites'. But if your rejection of Jack Chick is simply because you disagree with his views of catholics, then your reasoning is nothing more then your own personal prejudices and intolerance for opposing points of view.
I think I have been as clear about my reasoning for rejecting Jack Chick as I have been about proclaiming my church affiliation. I produced an example of a misuse of scripture in a publication produced by Jack Chick - yes the publication happens to be anti-catholic, but that is not my reasoning for rejecting Chick's ministry. I reject him because he appears to be willing to twist scripture in order to promote his views on Christianity - in short, the end justify the means.
But if you have some substantial reasoning for rejecting all of Mr. Chicks tracts, please point out what is inaccurate or offensive to the gospel in Empty Tomb (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0295/0295_01.asp) and This Was Your Life (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp).
Again, I reject Jack Chick because he is reckless with his use of scripture - there is no need to muck through every single publication in order to find an example of the proper use of scripture because even if it is present, it hardly excuses his reckless use of scripture in "The Last Rite".
blessings
New Question: What do you think about Bishop Fulton Sheen? I've always enjoyed watching him, and always wonder how prominent figures such as him are regarded among their own.
: marc Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 22:06:05
New Question: What do you think about Bishop Fulton Sheen? I've always enjoyed watching him, and always wonder how prominent figures such as him are regarded among their own.
You know, I am actually not very familiar with Bishop Sheen. I know that many people who were raised in the Catholic Church, pre-Vatican II really enjoy him. I have appreciated the small amount of information I have heard from him. Broach might be able to comment further.
blessings
I tried to find that.... Last Rites Tract....
Is this what you mean?
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_37.asp
I think this guy makes some very good points on the topic.
Hey.... when I was a kid, I used to get "chick tracts" all the time in my trick or treat bag... I'd sit up all night reading them!
: kensington Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 03:39:40
I tried to find that.... Last Rites Tract....
Is this what you mean?
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_37.asp
I think this guy makes some very good points on the topic.
I am not surprised that you agree with many of the points in the tract. Do you often pick the good points out of religious materials that you disagree with, as well as material you happen to agree with? Then in an inconsistent manner, do you turn around and reject all the information from authors that attack your world view - even when they might be presenting a few facts?
For example, Joseph Smith provided some great points about religion during the 19th century - he even answered a burning question that seemed to be on everyone's mind at the time - where did the Native America's come from? So, how do we as Christians handle Joseph Smith? Do we view him as a creditable source and therefore accept the true that we can glean from his teachings? or do we consider Smith to be lacking character and credibility and therefore reject all of his ideas regardless of whether or not he happens to stumble on the truth from time to time?
It is my opinion that most people make the mistake of excusing the faults of the people that defend their ideals and world views - people operate this way both in religion and in politics. However, if the same people run across a politician or religious leader that speaks out against their political or religious viewpoint; rather than giving the leader the benefit of the doubt the person will reject everything they have to say based on the issue of character.
I believe that the only intellectually honest way to operate is to choose one path or the other - it is dishonest to reject a leader outright if we disagree with what he is saying based on character issues or our beliefs about his/her intentions, yet turn around and advocate for people who display character flaws, but happen to agree and support our world view. Christians are often viewed as hypocritical because we promote a culture that values this method of operating in the world - the end justifying the means.
I choose to reject Jack Chick's material not because it is so offensive or because he dumbs down complicated issues in the most condescending, mocking tone possible - I reject him because he has proven himself to be reckless with scripture - he has no problem twisting it whenever it is necessary to support his cause. I reject Joseph Smith's writings for the same reason.
blessings
Here is a post I wrote several years ago and decided to re-post after recently encountering a rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian. Once again, here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.
After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.
2. Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion: If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken). BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)
3. Do not give an inch: If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation! In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.
4. Make your opponent work harder: Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong. If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit. Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.
5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent: After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning. Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.
6. Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.
blessings
After seeing a few posts of our ex-member "Catholic Crusader", that list could have been written about him.
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 14:23:25
After seeing a few posts of our ex-member "Catholic Crusader", that list could have been written about him.
I've never claimed that Catholics are immune from engaging in this sort of behavior. However, I am speaking from my experience.
blessings
: ravenlorre Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 14:37:30
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 14:23:25
After seeing a few posts of our ex-member "Catholic Crusader", that list could have been written about him.
I've never claimed that Catholics are immune from engaging in this sort of behavior.
blessings
I just wanted to point out this behavior can occur on both sides of
any argument.
Its not limited to the "Fundamentalist Christian".
So I was in the Orthodox thread trying to learn what they believe about sacraments, which led to a comparison to the RCC. Then, it occurred to me that a bunch of non-Catholics might not be the best source of knowledge about RCC doctrine.
So - is this a fair statement?
My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer. Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation. And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not. Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.
How would you fix it? And since you're at it, could you talk a little about exactly what that "grace" mentioned above is?
Thanks,
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 13:18:23
So I was in the Orthodox thread trying to learn what they believe about sacraments, which led to a comparison to the RCC. Then, it occurred to me that a bunch of non-Catholics might not be the best source of knowledge about RCC doctrine.
So - is this a fair statement?
My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer. Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation. And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not. Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.
How would you fix it? And since you're at it, could you talk a little about exactly what that "grace" mentioned above is?
Thanks,
Jarrod
I'll do my best. Your understanding of the sacramental system in the RCC sounds a bit mechanical to me. For one, God's grace is everywhere in the World, not just in the sacraments, although the sacraments do provide us with a unique opportunity to participate in His grace. I tend to think of participation in the sacraments as part of my santification process - it is one of the methods God is using to perpare me for Heaven.
Secondly, viewing the receiving of the Eucharist as a way of building up grace, and sins as killing that grace rings hollow to me. God's grace is fluid, unaffected by any sin I can commit (except my refusal to accept it), and is not a commodity that I can save up in order to cancel out personal sins. I think it is more in line with RCC teachings to say that sin damages a person's relationship with God, while obedience stregthens it. Participating in the sacraments is to obey God.
I have been reading the Orthodox thread from time to time and I think they are sincere and fairminded about the differences in our teachings. The only thing I would like to clarify is that I think we are closer in our beliefs regarding the Eucharist then the Orthodox thread seems to communicate.
blessings
: ravenlorre Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 13:57:32
I'll do my best. Your understanding of the sacramental system in the RCC sounds a bit mechanical to me. For one, God's grace is everywhere in the World, not just in the sacraments, although the sacraments do provide us with a unique opportunity to participate in His grace. I tend to think of participation in the sacraments as part of my santification process - it is one of the methods God is using to prepare me for Heaven.
Secondly, viewing the receiving of the Eucharist as a way of building up grace, and sins as killing that grace rings hollow to me. God's grace is fluid, unaffected by any sin I can commit (except my refusal to accept it), and is not a commodity that I can save up in order to cancel out personal sins. I think it is more in line with RCC teachings to say that sin damages a person's relationship with God, while obedience stregthens it. Participating in the sacraments is to obey God.
I have been reading the Orthodox thread from time to time and I think they are sincere and fairminded about the differences in our teachings. The only thing I would like to clarify is that I think we are closer in our beliefs regarding the Eucharist then the Orthodox thread seems to communicate.
blessings
Thanks. ::smile::
Can I have a follow-up question?
Could you explain mortal vs. venial sins? I thought I had a handle on it, but your previous answer seems to indicate that I'm missing something.
Thanks,
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 14:18:12
: ravenlorre Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 13:57:32
I'll do my best. Your understanding of the sacramental system in the RCC sounds a bit mechanical to me. For one, God's grace is everywhere in the World, not just in the sacraments, although the sacraments do provide us with a unique opportunity to participate in His grace. I tend to think of participation in the sacraments as part of my santification process - it is one of the methods God is using to prepare me for Heaven.
Secondly, viewing the receiving of the Eucharist as a way of building up grace, and sins as killing that grace rings hollow to me. God's grace is fluid, unaffected by any sin I can commit (except my refusal to accept it), and is not a commodity that I can save up in order to cancel out personal sins. I think it is more in line with RCC teachings to say that sin damages a person's relationship with God, while obedience stregthens it. Participating in the sacraments is to obey God.
I have been reading the Orthodox thread from time to time and I think they are sincere and fairminded about the differences in our teachings. The only thing I would like to clarify is that I think we are closer in our beliefs regarding the Eucharist then the Orthodox thread seems to communicate.
blessings
Thanks. ::smile::
Can I have a follow-up question?
Could you explain mortal vs. venial sins? I thought I had a handle on it, but your previous answer seems to indicate that I'm missing something.
Thanks,
Jarrod
Sure. Think of mortal and venial sins in the context of a marriage relationship. A relationship between a husband and wife can survive minor injuries like white lies, etc, because they do not impact how the couple view each other or themselves. Affairs, abuse, and substance abuse however, affect how both people in the relationship view each other and themselves; all must be resolved if the relationship is going to continue as it once did.
Adam and Eve commited a mortal sin in the Garden - in their case, they could no longer remain in fellowship with God because their view of God and themselves became so damaged that it was beyond repair without God's intervention. Since God gave us His Son, we are now able to go to Him and reconcille all of our mortal and venial sins through His sacrifice.
Venial sins must be resolved as well, but they do not change the way we view ourselves or how we view God. In the RCC we are taught to go to God and ask for forgiveness from Him and then go to a priest for confession. The reason we go to a priest is to hear the comformation of God's forgiveness, and to ask forgiveness from the members of the church body, represented by a priest.
All sin has temporal and etenal consequences. Since mortal sin damages your view of yourself and your relationship with God so much that without reconcilliation, you will be eternally separated from Him - Hell. In the case of venial sins a person must ask for forgiveness while alive (personal prayer. confession, last rites), but will still have to face temporal punishment for those sins if the person was not held accountable for the sins while they were alive. Purgatory is the place for people who are saved, but are still impure because of their venial sins that never received temporal correction.
So, mortal sin damages who a person is - the BTK killer for example, is so damaged by his crimes that he has lost the capacity to have a relationship with anyone, including God. The only way he will get through his state of mortal sin is a direct intervention from God and a sincere confession. Venial sins are not good, but they do not damage who we are or our ability to relate to others.
blessings
: ravenlorre Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 14:52:30
Sure. Think of mortal and venial sins in the context of a marriage relationship. A relationship between a husband and wife can survive minor injuries like white lies, etc, because they do not impact how the couple view each other or themselves. Affairs, abuse, and substance abuse however, affect how both people in the relationship view each other and themselves; all must be resolved if the relationship is going to continue as it once did.
Adam and Eve commited a mortal sin in the Garden - in their case, they could no longer remain in fellowship with God because their view of God and themselves became so damaged that it was beyond repair without God's intervention. Since God gave us His Son, we are now able to go to Him and reconcille all of our mortal and venial sins through His sacrifice.
Venial sins must be resolved as well, but they do not change the way we view ourselves or how we view God. In the RCC we are taught to go to God and ask for forgiveness from Him and then go to a priest for confession. The reason we go to a priest is to hear the comformation of God's forgiveness, and to ask forgiveness from the members of the church body, represented by a priest.
All sin has temporal and etenal consequences. Since mortal sin damages your view of yourself and your relationship with God so much that without reconcilliation, you will be eternally separated from Him - Hell. In the case of venial sins a person must ask for forgiveness while alive (personal prayer. confession, last rites), but will still have to face temporal punishment for those sins if the person was not held accountable for the sins while they were alive. Purgatory is the place for people who are saved, but are still impure because of their venial sins that never received temporal correction.
So, mortal sin damages who a person is - the BTK killer for example, is so damaged by his crimes that he has lost the capacity to have a relationship with anyone, including God. The only way he will get through his state of mortal sin is a direct intervention from God and a sincere confession. Venial sins are not good, but they do not damage who we are or our ability to relate to others.
blessings
Again, thank you. That's a bunch to chew on.
Can I ask a related question?
It would seem to follow that RCC doctrine states that if a Christian dies with an unconfessed mortal sin, then he will go to hell. No chance of purgatory. Is that correct?
: mike Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 06:54:25
Can I ask a related question?
It would seem to follow that RCC doctrine states that if a Christian dies with an unconfessed mortal sin, then he will go to hell. No chance of purgatory. Is that correct?
Yes.
I've only been here for a couple of days, and in that time period, I have spent most of time reading. Kensington, have you noticed that a lot of people have had a problem with the way you deliver your message? Is that ok with you? You have been corrected many, many times regarding your ignorance associated with Catholicism, yet you persist in your lies and distortions regarding the RCC. I am wondering why?
Kensington is not the only person - just the person that reminds me of Ann Coulter the most. It is sad to me that a board that claims to welcome all people who accept the Nicene Creed, yet allows members to attack people who are not in the Reformed tradition.
I think I have seen enough. Thank you CD and the silent majority of decent Christians that have not chosen to attack.
Please cancel my membership.
Ravenlorre, here,
I am thankful for all of the dialog I have had the privilege of participate in on this thread. I plan to no longer contribute to any of the threads on this board.
blessings
: ConsideringCatholicism Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 20:13:35
I've only been here for a couple of days, and in that time period, I have spent most of time reading. Kensington, have you noticed that a lot of people have had a problem with the way you deliver your message? Is that ok with you? You have been corrected many, many times regarding your ignorance associated with Catholicism, yet you persist in your lies and distortions regarding the RCC. I am wondering why?
Kensington is not the only person - just the person that reminds me of Ann Coulter the most. It is sad to me that a board that claims to welcome all people who accept the Nicene Creed, yet allows members to attack people who are not in the Reformed tradition.
I think I have seen enough. Thank you CD and the silent majority of decent Christians that have not chosen to attack.
Please cancel my membership.
I'm not sure why you thought you needed to pull me in here.... I've posted two different occasions in this topic since SEPTEMBER>... now that is a while.
If you mean in the Religious discussions, that is where our thoughts and opinions are supposed to go. Ann Coulter aaaayy? I don't think I'll ever have her kind of money though. Dagnabbit! ::frustrated::
: ravenloreI Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 01:46:07
Ravenlorre, here,
I am thankful for all of the dialog I have had the privilege of participate in on this thread. I plan to no longer contribute to any of the threads on this board.
blessings
Ravenlorre has left the building? Say it isn't so!!
i have read all the posts for this thread and i have found them interesting. like the person who started this thread I am also a Catholic. Those of you who have asked questions about the Catholic Church have very good questions.
Ravenlorre, or anyone,
I figured someone here could answer a question...
Could someone expound on the nine consecutive first Fridays that if you receive communion -"something" is "promised" by ? The Virgin Mary?.
I even remember this from High School - I know practicing Catholics must know the history of this ---Thanks alot. I think I asked before but no one got back to me.
Thanks again, Elaine :)
I'm no Catholic, but here's a Catholic reference...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11141b.htm
jmgIII,
Thank you, what a great resource for my questions!
And if anyone else is reading this and wants to comment on their personal experience doing 9 First Fridays pls - feel free.
For the record I'm not a practicing Catholic -but was raised one. :)
Peace Elaine
There is one thing I don't agree on about the Catholics and I have a question about it. Why do Catholic's pray to the Virgin Mary or to a dead Priest to look for inspiration? Jesus said "I am the truth the way and the life", Jesus Christ is the only way and we should pray in his name alone.
When Jesus was being crucified he said "Woman behold your son, son behold your mother" He said woman, he didn't say holy virgin mother or even mother. No doubt Mary was a virgin and did conceive the Lord, Jesus and was his mother, Jesus was the son of David son of Abraham, but I don't believe there is anything sacred about Mary, She was just blessed beyond all women and conceived Christ, but why do catholic's believe they should pray to Mary or even to a dead priest for inspiration? They can't answer your prayers only God can in the name of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, why do Catholics feel the urge to confess their sins to a priest, a mere man and not go directly to God?
If you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, then you don't believe in dead people. All are alive to God, some living in this mortal life, some living in the post-mortal life, but none are dead.
As per the book of Revelation and Hebrews 12, we know that those in heaven are aware of what goes on here on earth and pray for those on earth.
Since we asking Christians living in this mortal life to pray for us, we also ask Christians living in the post-mortal life to pray for us.
We confess our sins because James 5 tells us to confess our sins to one another, and reconciliation after sinning is something handled by the leaders of the Church (as per Matthew 18). In the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches the priest functions like the New Testament elder (in fact, the English word "priest" comes etymologically from the Greek word "presbyteros").
: Galjtx1986 Sat Oct 18, 2008 - 09:58:44
There is one thing I don't agree on about the Catholics and I have a question about it. Why do Catholic's pray to the Virgin Mary or to a dead Priest to look for inspiration? Jesus said "I am the truth the way and the life", Jesus Christ is the only way and we should pray in his name alone.
When Jesus was being crucified he said "Woman behold your son, son behold your mother" He said woman, he didn't say holy virgin mother or even mother. No doubt Mary was a virgin and did conceive the Lord, Jesus and was his mother, Jesus was the son of David son of Abraham, but I don't believe there is anything sacred about Mary, She was just blessed beyond all women and conceived Christ, but why do catholic's believe they should pray to Mary or even to a dead priest for inspiration? They can't answer your prayers only God can in the name of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, why do Catholics feel the urge to confess their sins to a priest, a mere man and not go directly to God?
These are such great questions and have been asked by many. I'm not a presently practicing Catholic but played one in my youth. :)
Though the praying to saints and Mary is very sweet, I too, go directly to the Father in Jesus' Name . I praise and worship Jesus in prayer formally or with a wink and a smile all throughout the day.( Which dead priest are you referring to, btw?)
I read James 5 and the interpretation could be made in different ways, for sure.
Confession is usually held only on Sat afternoons here --which means technically I can't receive communion on Fridays when I'd like to at my neighborhood church if I can't make it the week before ---according to their
rules. My Aunt who married a divorced (Cath) man attended church everyday of her life, yet couldn't receive communion, according to their
rules. So many of these
rules would not be sanctioned by Jesus, imho.
I think He would look upon them as He did the Pharisees'
rules and rituals.
Don't you?
I'm sorry but, the Catholic Church is a tough one for me - filled with
rules and regulations and so many set up by a bunch of men in the 4th c.
controlling peasant masses --I don't know why people stay with it.
A direct, intimate, personal relationship with the Creator, Father, Sustainer, Lord Almighty, Ever-present, Omniscient, Eternal Being without the
rules for me is the way of an advanced spirit. Again, imho.
( Oh boy, 'advanced spirit' sounds so egotistical - it's just that I don't think sheep are what we were meant to be - maybe it will bring up another topic for us to all discuss though)
To dive into and dissect every single, solitary word of Jesus' is the study of my life. I don't think He's 100% pleased with the Catholic Church as it is today and all of it's
rules. Imho. For what it's worth ...
But, I respect my Catholic friends and see they have alot to offer to the table and have much wisdom in many ways and much devotion depending upon the person. I watch EWTN alot. But end up turning to my Evangelical teachers more often on the other Christian TV stations -sorry.
And why does Matthew, first thing, try to tell us of Joseph's lineage when he's not supposed to be Jesus' biological father.
There are many questions --I presently bought The Lost Scriptures. There are many hidden things kept from us by the
Church. I can't trust it 100%.
I'm surprised so many do.
Trust Jesus. Always learn and study more and more - grow and blossom more and more in your understanding of deep truths. Is my philosophy.
God bless,
Elaine
Yea, who needs rules? Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well? Point made.
: broach972 Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:52:38
Yea, who needs rules? Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well?
Not all of them, just the second one.
: Charles Sloan Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:59:35
: broach972 Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:52:38
Yea, who needs rules? Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well?
Not all of them, just the second one.
I'm shocked, Charles, that you would advocate worshipping some other God!
Actually, I wasn't talking about me...
Oh, well you aren't talking about Catholics or Orthodox, so who *are* you talking about?
: broach972 Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:52:38
Yea, who needs rules? Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well? Point made.
Dear Broach,
I have no intention of throwing them out - you can if you'd like.
We may have a case of apples and oranges. And, sorry, I'm not competitive, certainly about matters of the Lord - so you can have all the points you'd like. I'm not a debater, nor a defender of any faith. These are my perceptions or thoughts and you certainly don't have to go along with them. I don't want to make you mad or feel threatened and I will be more careful in the future.
Apples~~Commandments directly from God to Moses.(Man)
Oranges~~ rules laid out by man that can change dramatically if another meeting is held.
John1:17
Mt 22:37-40 Are great reads, btw.
When one follows the greater commandment of Love the 10 Commandments come naturally. Jesus trumps the Old Covenant Law in my book.
You probably like rules. You may need rules. There was a certain point I
personally reached where
for me it was obvious there was something much more important and much higher going on than following rules. Rules that are not in the Bible.
Who came up with that someone can't partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus, because they haven't been able to make it to confession, anyway? - or because they had an apple 15 minutes before communion. Or that it is ok to accost me, truly accost me because I want to hold the Eucharist for a few more feet and hold it at my seat and pray before I eat it. (Jesus)
Rules, rules, rules -- some make as much sense to me as not saving your animal if it went astray on the sabbath as it did to Jesus or not healing someone because it was on the sabbath as it did Jesus or any number of rule breakers that Jesus committed - why? to snap them out of their rules and wake them up to the new way of Love He was their to show them.
Legalism is not my thing. Jesus came with grace. We are under grace. It's a New Covenant and I thank God.
If it's workin' for you - great. It was not the right fit for me. And I shouldn't be posting here. My apologies.
God bless,
Elaine
Elaine,
By all means continue to post here. My time is very limited these days (ah, the joys of a new school year and fatherhood). I wish that I could go into greater depth on these matters, and I do miss debating these matters on a daily basis.
I would offer this suggestion though...instead of focusing on the "rules" themselves, perhaps focus on why these "rules" exist in the first place. Instead of thinking in terms of "apples" and "oranges," think of a smoothie instead.
I am a convert to the Catholic faith and it is definitely working for me...I wish that I had done it much earlier in my life.
God bless.
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen
I've got a question, when are you Catholics going to let those CofC'ers realize that their singing is a style invented by Catholics?
That's right, Gary. We Orthodox were acapella long before the CoC was even a sparkle in the Campbell's eyes.
Uh oh... in that case, as you can see, Gary, maybe the Roman Catholic Church didn't invent a capella singing... if the Orthodox were doing it before that. ::whistle::
I bet even the Copts of old had a capella.
A tradition that goes all the way back to the New Testament ChurchTM.
All humor aside, DCR, a capella singing does go all the way back.
: CDHealy Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 22:05:18
All humor aside, DCR, a capella singing does go all the way back.
Four part harmony, CofC style a capella goes all the way back?
Not sure about the four-part harmony. That may have been a recent innovation. But the lack of instruments . . . well, how the heck would you cart an organ around the Middle East?
Hi Broach,
I understand.
I really understand the purity of someone's experience, for example, that would make them say years ago that we should -women- should wear a scarf over our heads --for example. I feel such reverence and also feel what "someone" did back in the day. I feel "naked" with out a covering on my head. In reverence and humilty.
That is just a small, simple example. I do understand why our tummies should be empty for an hr to receive Jesus. I understand the logic of man actually ---but it's that some are now rigid rules - is just not "normal or right" for me.
Suggestions I can except - encouragements -I can except. What they would like, I can except. But when I get chased down the aisle by a big heavy guy because I'm taking the Eucharist to my nearby seat to hold and to be blocked by him is militaristic and way overboard. This is just an example. What would he have done if I said I had had an apple before coming? I'm not quite sure!!! Scary. It was more of - I had an apple before I decided I had time to make mass. Do I not go and not receive Communion bec I didn't anticipate coming? See what I mean? Too many rules for me.
("He" didn't make me leave the church ---he was just a symptom that reminded me why I did leave. And I had to comfort him after because he realized esp - after seeing my innocence that he was being overreactive. But, in talking with him he continued to be dogmatic and out of sync with just plain happiness and the Holy Spirit - that I was sure feeling:)
Even the priest at my aunt's funeral talked about how he never knew a more devout person ---yet she hadn't had Communion for what? 55 yrs!
(newbie's because she married a divorcee.)
These things would make anyone question. (Sorry, not you) I too converted to RC when I was a freshman in High School. I was confirmed by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen and will never forget him and his eyes, smile and soft hands.
I'm a born again Christian now and the Catholic Church is just not for me --but Communion is down the block at 8:20am MWF- it's hard to not go because of some rules by men.
Go ahead try to convince me -but I don't see much hope in coming back to the RC. It works for you - great.
God bless,
Elaine
: Gary Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 18:22:26
I've got a question, when are you Catholics going to let those CofC'ers realize that their singing is a style invented by Catholics?
It was, actually, invented by Jews.
Assuming of course that synagogue singing was non-instrumental, as distinct from Temple worship......
Touche!
: HRoberson Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 16:23:28
: Gary Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 18:22:26
I've got a question, when are you Catholics going to let those CofC'ers realize that their singing is a style invented by Catholics?
It was, actually, invented by Jews.
Assuming of course that synagogue singing was non-instrumental, as distinct from Temple worship......
HRoberson,
Hi, What are all the letters after your name - I think I know a couple.
Thanks, Elaine
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
I converted after attending over 18 diferent "bible churches (and other denoms of protestantism).
I converted because of the seemingly schizophrenic interpretations from church to church on the same topic of doctrine. I finally asked God to show me his true church and went on to study the early church(first four centuries) and found that pretty much everyone was catholic. I was shocked at this, since no one told me these things and I was very anti Catholic, as I was taught to be by my brothers and sisters in Christ. I found that they had many misconceptions of the teaching in the church and once I read the teachings for myself, it was very clear that the Church was correct on all issues pertaining to faith and morals.
: papist1 Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 17:44:49
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
I converted after attending over 18 diferent "bible churches (and other denoms of protestantism).
I converted because of the seemingly schizophrenic interpretations from church to church on the same topic of doctrine. I finally asked God to show me his true church and went on to study the early church(first four centuries) and found that pretty much everyone was catholic. I was shocked at this, since no one told me these things and I was very anti Catholic, as I was taught to be by my brothers and sisters in Christ. I found that they had many misconceptions of the teaching in the church and once I read the teachings for myself, it was very clear that the Church was correct on all issues pertaining to faith and morals.
Whoa, "demons of protestantism" - those may be fightin' words for some here. I'm basically a pacifist- so I'm ok with your feelings.
I agree the 'schizo interpretations from church to church.' In fact I just heard my pastor on his 6 am TV prog. say - he used to go to Denver to find a church preaching the Word - and all he got was a speeding ticket. You are correct - I know someone that said it took her 30 years to find a church !! I'm still lol.
I say - great you found a place you love. Catholics are beautifully devout people. I have my own issues with the Church itself - but I should be quiet -I'm just learning some eye-opening things.
My connection is to Jesus, The Father and Holy Spirit, with the help of the Bible.
It's
me and my Creator all the way, not me, a church, a priest,a pastor, Creflo, rosaries, Max's books, Joyce's CD's and
then God all the way. That's just me. But, I love all of the above, don't get me wrong.:)
Pretty soon Catholics may be able to pray to Bishop Fulton J. Sheen bec of the campaign to canonize him. ( Again, he confirmed me) I'm going right to God and Jesus.
Great thread, thanks to all, Elaine
: papist1 Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 17:44:49
: CSloan Wed Aug 22, 2007 - 09:03:38
Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?
I converted after attending over 18 diferent "bible churches (and other denoms of protestantism).
I converted because of the seemingly schizophrenic interpretations from church to church on the same topic of doctrine. I finally asked God to show me his true church and went on to study the early church(first four centuries) and found that pretty much everyone was catholic. I was shocked at this, since no one told me these things and I was very anti Catholic, as I was taught to be by my brothers and sisters in Christ. I found that they had many misconceptions of the teaching in the church and once I read the teachings for myself, it was very clear that the Church was correct on all issues pertaining to faith and morals.
Then you missed it... for the TRUE Church are those who's names are "Written in the Lamb's Book of Life"... Of whom only Jesus Christ is worthy to open... not those who are sitting or kneeling in any pew.
No religion or church or denomination holds the "ROLL" on who is and is not the Church, the body of Christ, those saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. If they say the do, they lie.
I have a question: why so many Catholics think God needed Mary's egg to create Jesus in her womb? We already know from the story of Adam's creation He needs no such thing?
love,
Sopranette
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 06:12:22
I have a question: why so many Catholics think God needed Mary's egg to create Jesus in her womb? We already know from the story of Adam's creation He needs no such thing?
love,
Sopranette
I think you may have answered your own question. Why use Mary at all? Why didn't Jesus just simply "appear" on earth as a grown man? Why enter this world through a virgin birth? I think it is important to note that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. I guess it is right to assume that Jesus developed in the way any normal child would develop--from an egg.
I believe this is the first miracle Jesus performed, being born of a virgin. Also, it continued His lineage back to King David. However, I don't believe lineage is passed on through the egg of the mother, just being naturally born through her is enough.
love,
Sopranette
Jesus was formed from Mary's egg, because it was the only way he could be human like us: he got his humanity from us. If God had created Jesus' humanity de novo, Jesus wouldn't have been human like us, but something else altogether.
And if Jesus isn't fully human like us, excepting sin alone, then we cannot be saved.
So Adam was not human like us? We are formed in God's image, not in eachother's.
love,
Sopranette
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:48:02
So Adam was not human like us? We are formed in God's image, not in eachother's.
love,
Sopranette
Forgive me, I thought it would be clearer to you.
Yes, Adam was/is fully human, but for Jesus to be human like us (including the effects of the Fall of Adam), he had to take on our fallen human nature. And since the fall the only way to come into existence as a human is to do so biologically (i.e., be conceived, gestated and birthed), not by special creation as was Adam and Eve.
Jesus, as the epistle to the Hebrews points out again and again, had to have all the human things we have, excepting sin, including the ability to die. The only way to be fully human was to be born. And the only way that could happen was to have a woman's egg fertilized.
But the one thing unlike us is that Jesus was fully divine. And so Mary's egg was fertilized not by human sperm but by miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit. Only in this way could Jesus be both *fully* human and *fully*divine.
If Jesus wasn't/isn't human like us, then we aren't saved. Period.
I understand why Jesus needed to have a real flesh and blood body, why He was born through the body of Mary, that He was both human and divine. I just don't understand why God would need anything from Mary to accomplish this. Since the creation of Adam and Eve, true, the only way for the rest of us to come into existence is to be conceived using sperm and egg, but if God chooses to make a flesh and blood body, He does not need either of these two things. Sin nature is not carried by the egg and sperm per say, but through our flesh.
love,
Sopranette
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 08:48:02
So Adam was not human like us? We are formed in God's image, not in eachother's.
love,
Sopranette
For what it's worth, Genesis 5:3 suggests that Seth was born in Adam's image. Of course, given that Adam was made in God's image, it follows that anyone made in Adam's image would also be in God's image.
Hmmm, maybe there are verses where it says our sin nature is passed on through the seed. I don't know. Anyone?
love,
Sopranette
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:21:38Sin nature
Now, you're opening a whole other can of worms. ::noworries::
: CDHealy Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:12:36
If Jesus wasn't/isn't human like us, then we aren't saved. Period.
Hey, I can agree with that. ::nodding::
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:28:57
Hmmm, maybe there are verses where it says our sin nature is passed on through the seed. I don't know. Anyone?
love,
Sopranette
I don't agree with the concept of the "sin nature," and it isn't something that is "passed down." We're sinful only because we sin... not because of a nature we inherited. If we had a "sin nature," then it would be because God created us with it, since we are His creation. That would make God the author of sin, if He created us with a "sin nature."
I agree, but that is a Catholic term, so I'm going along with it for now.
love,
Sopranette
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:35:01
I agree, but that is a Catholic term, so I'm going along with it for now.
love,
Sopranette
I see. Actually, this is the reason behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I think Roman Catholics believe that
Mary's birth was miraculous, in that she was supernaturally born free from sin (according to the inherited sin nature)... so that she would be sin-free when Jesus was born. As CDHealy will probably point out, I believe the Orthodox disagree with Catholics on this particular doctrine.
There is no such thing as a "sin nature." Humans have only one nature, created by God: human nature.
Human nature has been disfigured, but it is still the image of God in us.
The disfigurement of our human nature means we are born with an inclination (not an irresistible inclination, we are not irresistibly compelled to sin by anyone or anything) to sin. We can resist that inclination, of course, since we have free will. But the mortality that we inherit from Adam weakens us and our ability to resist sin.
DCR is right: we only sin because we each choose to. Due to our fallen (not sin or sinful) nature, it is easier for us to choose to sin (just as it is easier to run downhill than up), but it is still our choice (just as we can still run uphill of we choose to).
And yes, DCR is correct, Orthodox have a slightly different (but significant in impact) understanding of "original" (or as some prefer "ancestral") sin. Catholics understand the impact of original sin to be the inheritence of moral (or personal) guilt as well as of mortality. Orthodox understand the impact to be of mortality but not the imputation of moral (or personal) guilt.
Because of the Roman Catholic understanding of original sin, it logically follows that they have to do something with Mary, since she would transmit moral (or personal) guilt to Jesus if such were inherently part of fallen human nature. So Mary becomes the great exception to original sin. (This creates other problems, but I won't go into that.)
Orthodox, however, since we reject the imputation of moral (or personal) guilty from original sin, do not need to posit anything different for Mary. We teach that redemption has two components: the salvation from mortality (death), and the salvation from personal sin.
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:21:38Sin nature is not carried by the egg and sperm per say, but through our flesh.
I agree with you. I think it's horrible theology to locate sin, or just mere fallenness, in the egg or sperm. But we do not get our flesh apart from a fertilized egg.
Of course, when we start talking about "fertilized eggs," we've now entered a modern clinical discussion. I'm not sure folks had even a sufficient understanding of this for our modern scientific assertions to make sense in times past.
But, I do think this verse is significant in that regard:
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.
This may be the first Messianic prophecy... notice the allusion to Jesus as "her seed." So, I believe that it is reasonable and important to understand that Jesus was genetically Mary's Son.
: sopranette Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 09:28:57
Hmmm, maybe there are verses where it says our sin nature is passed on through the seed. I don't know. Anyone?
love,
Sopranette
The phrase "sin nature" is not even found in any translation that I know of except the NIV. That translation has a preconceived theology all wrapped up in it. No other translation presents the sin nature as passed on through the seed. It is another of those interpretations that gets wired in, not because of what the Bible says, but because what some group of theologians believe preconceptually.
Jimmy, I couldn't agree with you more. The NIV mistranslation of sarx as "sinful nature" is heretical.
: DCR Thu Oct 30, 2008 - 10:46:28
Of course, when we start talking about "fertilized eggs," we've now entered a modern clinical discussion. I'm not sure folks had even a sufficient understanding of this for our modern scientific assertions to make sense in times past.
But, I do think this verse is significant in that regard:
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.
This may be the first Messianic prophecy... notice the allusion to Jesus as "her seed." So, I believe that it is reasonable and important to understand that Jesus was genetically Mary's Son.
It is the first Messianic prophecy, and your conclusion is sound!
Okay, that's good enough for me. Thanks, everyone!
love,
Sopranette
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 23:53:44
I am interested in starting a friendly discussion about the similarities and differences between Protestant doctrine and Catholic doctrine; I also hope to clear up any misconceptions about the Catholic Church, along the way. My purpose here is not to talk anyone into becoming Catholic, to attack anyone's faith, or to engage in any conversation that isn't educational in nature. For the record, I believe any person who has a personal relationship with Christ and is in agreement with the Nicene Creed is a Christian - so please do not ask me if you have to be Catholic to be Christian.
It is also important to let you know that I reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church about 6 years ago after about 15 years as a born again Christian in a Protestant tradition.
Finally, I am hardly the last word on Catholicism, if you are Catholic please feel free to answer any questions, enter into dialog, or add to any of my comments. In the end, the Catholic Catechism is the best way to find accurate information on all Catholic teachings.
blessings
Plead the incredible tome and #1 bestseller,
1491http://www.charlesmann.org/Book-index.htm
In Archeology and Anthropology alone, it is prolix in finding the Catholic regime is the absolute darkest belief foistered by terror and wholesale murder upon the human race, and it is anything but remotely Christian.
But, it is a triumph throughout Latin America and where I traffic there is the grandest dissent and defection away from this dark creed over to the Christ Based belief system of the Bible than ever before.
Behold this wonder of fact, against the apologist of such darkness.
Robert
Never mind the number of lives the Catholic church has saved with its strong anti-abortion stance. ::rollingeyes::
love,
Sopranette
But, it is a triumph throughout Latin America and where I traffic there is the grandest dissent and defection away from this dark creed over to the Christ Based belief system of the Bible ...
Robert, I couldn't really understand this sentence very well. Could you explain what you mean - I really need things spelled out in simple terms.
Sometimes I'd like to ask people to think of me as a high schooler or something - the simpler the better for my mind to grasp.
Then if there is a typo I'm really lost - -I'm sure above you meant Read the tome - not Plead the tome --right? I'm not sure.
Thanks my brother, :)
::eatingpopcorn:
: sopranette Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 07:20:07
Never mind the number of lives the Catholic church has saved with its strong anti-abortion stance. ::rollingeyes::
love,
Sopranette
I believe the Jehovah's Witness and Mormons also oppose abortion.
: Charles Sloan Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 10:17:16: sopranette Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 07:20:07Never mind the number of lives the Catholic church has saved with its strong anti-abortion stance. ::rollingeyes::love,Sopranette
I believe the Jehovah's Witness and Mormons also oppose abortion.
I am hoping to introduce a balance concerning Catholics here. If Protestants are going to witness to Catholics, and lead some to Christ (if, in fact, they are lost to begin with ::pondering::), they need to put aside some of their prejudices first and approach from a more loving and well informed place. Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
love,
Sopranette
: sopranette Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 10:37:47Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
I don't know, that seems to have its place. (Acts 2:23, 4:10, 5:30, 10:39)
: sopranette Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 10:37:47
I am hoping to introduce a balance concerning Catholics here. If Protestants are going to witness to Catholics, and lead some to Christ (if, in fact, they are lost to begin with ::pondering::), they need to put aside some of their prejudices first and approach from a more loving and well informed place. Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
love,
Sopranette
You must be new to this section. I would encourage you to view the various boards in this section. While your intentions are honorable, I doubt that they are realistic.
There was a time when numerous Catholics posted on this forum. However, as you can see from the various message boards, that time has clearly passed. The atmosphere becomes quite hostile. There are those who are not interested in learning what Catholics really believe in. Many of my Protestant brethren are determined to cling to their stereotypes, misconceptions, and misrepresentations. If people wish to wallow in their ignorance, there isn't much I can do about that.
Besides, when your faith has been called unChristian, anti-Christ, pagan, etc., somehow being called "dark-sided murderers" just doesn't seem all that shocking.
: ravenlorre Tue Aug 21, 2007 - 23:53:44
I am interested in starting a friendly discussion about the similarities and differences between Protestant doctrine and Catholic doctrine; I also hope to clear up any misconceptions about the Catholic Church, along the way. My purpose here is not to talk anyone into becoming Catholic, to attack anyone's faith, or to engage in any conversation that isn't educational in nature. For the record, I believe any person who has a personal relationship with Christ and is in agreement with the Nicene Creed is a Christian - so please do not ask me if you have to be Catholic to be Christian.
It is also important to let you know that I reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church about 6 years ago after about 15 years as a born again Christian in a Protestant tradition.
Finally, I am hardly the last word on Catholicism, if you are Catholic please feel free to answer any questions, enter into dialog, or add to any of my comments. In the end, the Catholic Catechism is the best way to find accurate information on all Catholic teachings.
blessings
If Christ were alive (in the flesh) today, It would be the Catholic church, that would verify if he were real of not.......They would be the ones who would seek to discredit his miricles or prove his miricles...............It would be the Catholic Church that would seek to hang him on the cross......And when Christ spoke against the Scribes .......Today, he would be speaking out against the Vatican and the one who is named "Vicor of Christ" = Substitute for Christ
Jesus would condemn praying "Hail Mary"
The Catholic church breaks the second commandment throughout every one of their buildings around the world....By setting up symbols to be revierred: Cross with dead Christ on it, Rosery, Golden Idols all around........Ritualistic Prayer...........And the belief that one man has a direct line open with God.
The Pope is nothing more than a sinner, no greater than any one man.....
: Corbley Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 14:01:33
If Christ were alive (in the flesh) today, It would be the Catholic church, that would verify if he were real of not.......They would be the ones who would seek to discredit his miricles or prove his miricles...............It would be the Catholic Church that would seek to hang him on the cross......And when Christ spoke against the Scribes .......Today, he would be speaking out against the Vatican and the one who is named "Vicor of Christ" = Substitute for Christ
Jesus would condemn praying "Hail Mary"
The Catholic church breaks the second commandment throughout every one of their buildings around the world....By setting up symbols to be revierred: Cross with dead Christ on it, Rosery, Golden Idols all around........Ritualistic Prayer...........And the belief that one man has a direct line open with God.
The Pope is nothing more than a sinner, no greater than any one man.....
As I stated Sopranette, I rest my case....point made.
"I am hoping to introduce a balance concerning Catholics here. If Protestants are going to witness to Catholics, and lead some to Christ (if, in fact, they are lost to begin with ), they need to put aside some of their prejudices first and approach from a more loving and well informed place. Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
love,
Sopranette "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
That's my girl - I'm very proud of you - you rock!
"Hoping, balance, more loving" ----you go girl!!!
And I will, too. We'll teach these pagan heathens...kidding!! ::hiding::
We all have to sugar coat our words - that's technical for: Prov 4:24
Which I believe says you get more flies with honey...kidding - I'm reading into it.
Manna for you.
Cheers, Elaine
: Elaine Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 15:39:49
"I am hoping to introduce a balance concerning Catholics here. If Protestants are going to witness to Catholics, and lead some to Christ (if, in fact, they are lost to begin with ), they need to put aside some of their prejudices first and approach from a more loving and well informed place. Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
love,
Sopranette "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
That's my girl - I'm very proud of you - you rock!
"Hoping, balance, more loving" ----you go girl!!!
And I will, too. We'll teach these pagan heathens...kidding!! ::hiding::
We all have to sugar coat our words - that's technical for: Prov 4:24
Which I believe says you get more flies with honey...kidding - I'm reading into it.
Manna for you.
Cheers, Elaine
But it is not the "Catholics that Christians condemn.....It is the Catholic Church and all of the Idols it creates, That is what we condemn
: Corbley Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 16:22:18
: Elaine Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 15:39:49
"I am hoping to introduce a balance concerning Catholics here. If Protestants are going to witness to Catholics, and lead some to Christ (if, in fact, they are lost to begin with ), they need to put aside some of their prejudices first and approach from a more loving and well informed place. Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
love,
Sopranette "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
That's my girl - I'm very proud of you - you rock!
"Hoping, balance, more loving" ----you go girl!!!
And I will, too. We'll teach these pagan heathens...kidding!! ::hiding::
We all have to sugar coat our words - that's technical for: Prov 4:24
Which I believe says you get more flies with honey...kidding - I'm reading into it.
Manna for you.
Cheers, Elaine
But it is not the "Catholics that Christians condemn.....It is the Catholic Church and all of the Idols it creates, That is what we condemn
Now see Corbley, one small tiny step -and already - you've clarified that it's the Church and not the Catholics ----now let's see if we can soften that darn word 'condemn' a bit.
Let's see - how's about "It's not the Catholics
some Christians have an issue with..." See how that is an easier pill to swallow? That's all...so you're point was made, but without the polarizing words ( picture 2 north pole magnets together -that's polarization).
That's all and it takes practice and thought ---can you tell I've been in a lot of couples therapy --oh yeah. That's why you'll never get any judgment from me.
It's a b**ch to have to think about everything you say -so it will be accepted instead of a brick wall going up from the other person.
Put the check in the mail, My little boy's growing up, I'm chokin' up here...
XXElaine
: Elaine Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 17:07:46
: Corbley Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 16:22:18
: Elaine Mon Nov 03, 2008 - 15:39:49
"I am hoping to introduce a balance concerning Catholics here. If Protestants are going to witness to Catholics, and lead some to Christ (if, in fact, they are lost to begin with ), they need to put aside some of their prejudices first and approach from a more loving and well informed place. Calling people dark sided murderers is just going to result in the closing of more doors, and reach nobody.
love,
Sopranette "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
That's my girl - I'm very proud of you - you rock!
"Hoping, balance, more loving" ----you go girl!!!
And I will, too. We'll teach these pagan heathens...kidding!! ::hiding::
We all have to sugar coat our words - that's technical for: Prov 4:24
Which I believe says you get more flies with honey...kidding - I'm reading into it.
Manna for you.
Cheers, Elaine
But it is not the "Catholics that Christians condemn.....It is the Catholic Church and all of the Idols it creates, That is what we condemn
Now see Corbley, one small tiny step -and already - you've clarified that it's the Church and not the Catholics ----now let's see if we can soften that darn word 'condemn' a bit.
Let's see - how's about "It's not the Catholics some Christians have an issue with..." See how that is an easier pill to swallow? That's all...so you're point was made, but without the polarizing words ( picture 2 north pole magnets together -that's polarization).
That's all and it takes practice and thought ---can you tell I've been in a lot of couples therapy --oh yeah. That's why you'll never get any judgment from me.
It's a b**ch to have to think about everything you say -so it will be accepted instead of a brick wall going up from the other person.
Put the check in the mail, My little boy's growing up, I'm chokin' up here...
XXElaine
But Elaine, I have always believed that way, So perhaps, it is a little of both....Perhaps, I need to "soften" my words a bit.....
But also, Catholics need to realise it is not them personally, that Christians speak against.....It is the symbols and Idols within
Corbley,
Can I ask you something?
Why do you care so much?
I mean about whether someone bows in front of a statue or says a Hail Mary 50 times.
I used to get irritated or mad at so many things and would hang onto them for a long time ( see, you won't be judged by me)---when asked why these things got me so angered ---by a person that this "thing" happened in front of also, say ----I had to go deep to ponder later by myself ---and ask "Yeah, why does this bother me sooo intensely...What is my problem anyway...boy, I have issues."
I've lost people in relationships because of my "issues" - things I couldn't let go of ----whether it was how they squeezed the toothpaste -or - leftover childhood issues --where most of the stuff comes from.
In other words -why this need to control people -or change people - why do they have to believe as you do - or as you interpret the Bible ?
And why these people ( Caths) --why not Hindus, or Buddhists. Or selfish people or gluttonous people. Maybe all of that bothers you and you want it all to change, too, I dunno.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm hoping you don't answer immediately with ---you ' love Christ and you're acting this way for His sake' or something of this nature.
No, I think it's deeper and more complicated and pathological --and I may be totally wrong at the same time.
I think you may be this way in many aspects of your life.
Does it raise your blood pressure if you don't get served in a timely manner at a restaurant -and even worse -if others get served first that came after you?
Will you sleep on this and wait a little to answer me?
I don't know you - it's hard not being in person. I hope you understand.
Still love ya, Elaine
I'm thinking you're in your early 30's...or did you say that .
: Elaine Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 21:23:16
Corbley,
Can I ask you something?
Why do you care so much?
Because I love you,,,,Christs love is in me and I love you and do not want you to burn in Hell for giving reverence to a statue
I mean about whether someone bows in front of a statue or says a Hail Mary 50 times.
I used to get irritated or mad at so many things and would hang onto them for a long time ( see, you won't be judged by me)---when asked why these things got me so angered ---by a person that this "thing" happened in front of also, say ----I had to go deep to ponder later by myself ---and ask "Yeah, why does this bother me sooo intensely...What is my problem anyway...boy, I have issues."
I've lost people in relationships because of my "issues" - things I couldn't let go of ----whether it was how they squeezed the toothpaste -or - leftover childhood issues --where most of the stuff comes from.
In other words -why this need to control people -or change people - why do they have to believe as you do - or as you interpret the Bible ?
And why these people ( Caths) --why not Hindus, or Buddhists. Or selfish people or gluttonous people. Maybe all of that bothers you and you want it all to change, too, I dunno.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm hoping you don't answer immediately with ---you ' love Christ and you're acting this way for His sake' or something of this nature.
No, I think it's deeper and more complicated and pathological --and I may be totally wrong at the same time.
I think you may be this way in many aspects of your life.
Does it raise your blood pressure if you don't get served in a timely manner at a restaurant -and even worse -if others get served first that came after you?
Will you sleep on this and wait a little to answer me?
I don't know you - it's hard not being in person. I hope you understand.
Still love ya, Elaine
I'm thinking you're in your early 30's...or did you say that .
Elaine,
It is my job as servant of Christ to spread the gospel message, to as many people as I can. I willfully, choose to follow Christ. When I see something that goes against bible teachings, I point it out and pray that people will listen and study in the word to find the truth, but that part is not up to me.
Today, mankind has gotten so full of self and this world, that we tend to form our own oppinions and theories. Then those theories have been written in books and pasted down to you. Now because, someone tells you these things are OK...You do them...Perhaps, you do not even know that type of behavior is a sin against God (it says so in the bible), Thats were God uses people like me to point out the things that people do, that go against bible teachings.
It will make very little difference to me, one way or the other...If you choose to hear anything I ever talk about. It is only God who would choose to deal with it, If that is his will.......But my part is done, when I say "HEY! That is a sin against our Lord! Stop it!"
: Elaine Tue Nov 04, 2008 - 21:23:16
Corbley,
Can I ask you something?
Why do you care so much?
I mean about whether someone bows in front of a statue or says a Hail Mary 50 times.
I used to get irritated or mad at so many things and would hang onto them for a long time ( see, you won't be judged by me)---when asked why these things got me so angered ---by a person that this "thing" happened in front of also, say ----I had to go deep to ponder later by myself ---and ask "Yeah, why does this bother me sooo intensely...What is my problem anyway...boy, I have issues."
I've lost people in relationships because of my "issues" - things I couldn't let go of ----whether it was how they squeezed the toothpaste -or - leftover childhood issues --where most of the stuff comes from.
In other words -why this need to control people -or change people - why do they have to believe as you do - or as you interpret the Bible ?
And why these people ( Caths) --why not Hindus, or Buddhists. Or selfish people or gluttonous people. Maybe all of that bothers you and you want it all to change, too, I dunno.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm hoping you don't answer immediately with ---you ' love Christ and you're acting this way for His sake' or something of this nature.
No, I think it's deeper and more complicated and pathological --and I may be totally wrong at the same time.
I think you may be this way in many aspects of your life.
Does it raise your blood pressure if you don't get served in a timely manner at a restaurant -and even worse -if others get served first that came after you?
Will you sleep on this and wait a little to answer me?
I don't know you - it's hard not being in person. I hope you understand.
Still love ya, Elaine
I'm thinking you're in your early 30's...or did you say that .
Gosh, Elaine. Awesome post...again. I want to be you when I grow up.
love,
Sopranette
[/quote]
Gosh, Elaine. Awesome post...again. I want to be you when I grow up.
love,
Sopranette
[/quote]
Girl, You better have given me manna then...I'm watchin' for it. ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Corbley,
I know all about loving Christ and loving others because of Christ in them and Christ in me - and not wanting people to burn in hell and all that. And I follow all of your post we are tracking together...
But, that wasn't my question.
My question or point was - why does it bother you so much.
It seems to - maybe it doesn't at all - and you're all mellow when you speak in person with someone and look like a darling little angel.
It could be that in the written word here it comes off more intensely. It's ok if it does bother you---but why does it. I've fishing in deeper waters here.
I'm trying to get to some stuff here. Like if a child screws up - and we really are all children -- would you be more gentle?
Example --"You're going to burn in hell for that." ---as opposed to - say, "That's not the best thing you could be doing and God would be happier if you did this instead"... - again ---telling me I'm going to be condemned for something -I don't feel like you love me - or that you really care about me at all - I feel that you have a trigger about this ---it scares the crap out of me and pretty much I start feeling afraid of God with all this condemning/ fire talk.
I kinda feel when people get all intense about some religious Bible thing that they are kinda nutty -because they haven't mastered the 'art of the approach' - or finesse. If I'm not being approached with kindness and gentleness like from a teacher ----I feel all judged, afraid, alienated from the Lord and think the person again is not someone I want to be around.
Does this make any sense to you? I don't know why I like you so much and am taking the time to talk to you - I think you probably remind me of me.
Yup, that's it. I want to do for you what very kind people did for me.
My middle name used to be " intense". Yup, that's it in a nutshell.
Love ya, Elaine
Hi Elaina - and everyone else,
This thread has taken a friendly turn since the last time I checked in - I am glad. The fact is, Christ called us to love God and love and serve our neighbors as ourselves; in order to do this - we need to spend our lives connecting with ourselves and our neighbors and living out Christ's love.
I have certainly failed at this throughout my life, yet I continue to get back on the horse and ride on to salvation.
Midnight
: midnight Sat Nov 15, 2008 - 02:20:11
Hi Elaina - and everyone else,
This thread has taken a friendly turn since the last time I checked in - I am glad. The fact is, Christ called us to love God and love and serve our neighbors as ourselves; in order to do this - we need to spend our lives connecting with ourselves and our neighbors and living out Christ's love.
I have certainly failed at this throughout my life, yet I continue to get back on the horse and ride on to salvation.
Midnight
Hi Midnight ,
I was so surprised to see that there was a post here -I've been so involved with other topics. I love that "Notify" thing at the bottom. Very handy. I hope to catch you on other topics...I left this Catholic area.
Yes, getting back on the horse ---my phrase is 'putting the needle back on the record.' Ha!!! Big smile.
I would love to know if you have ever read anything on Sister Faustina? I'm reading about her now - since this is the 'ask the Catholic' section. :)
Some people think that if it didn't happen in the Bible - they don't want to know about it. I was in a 14 person Book Club -and I found that to be very true. People seemed to get the heebies if I talked about my own experiences or insights --if it wasn't in the Bible -"Well, forget it. " Was kind of the attitude. That's definitely ok with me --but
I can't go there.
I don't know why - but I have been very blessed with many experiences of the Divine --so Sister Faustina interests me. I was thinking you may be Catholic. Anyway, it's a starting point to get to know each other.
God Bless you, Isn't He wonderful, :)
::yummy:: Elaine