Ask-A-Catholic

[David Ben-Ariel]

So...you refuse to define idolatry...

Well, in his defense, he sorta did...

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! 

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).

[mllevaleur]

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?

[kensington]

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.

[mllevaleur]

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. 

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.

[yogi bear]

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?

[yogi bear]

No answer?

[broach972]

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.

[ravenlorre]

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

[ravenlorre]

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

[ravenlorre]

What is your biggest disagreement with Roman Catholicism?


blessings

[DCR]

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.

[ravenlorre]

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 

[ravenlorre]

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.

[Harold]

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

[ravenlorre]

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

[mllevaleur]

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! 

[mllevaleur]

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. 

[Harold]

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

[mllevaleur]

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. 

God Bless!

[Harold]

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. 

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

[ravenlorre]

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! 

Hey there Stephanie,

I visited your blog - I love it.

We have a lot in common.

blessings

[mllevaleur]

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! 

Hey there Stephanie,

I visited your blog - I love it.

We have a lot in common.

blessings

Thanks! 

[zoonance]

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. 

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"

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

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

[ravenlorre]

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

[janine]

So that stuff I heard about the latest big important Catholic stance on Purgatory being that it doesn't exist, wasn't true?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

[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.

[ravenlorre]

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

[ravenlorre]

[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

[Tyson]

Wow what a great thread Ravenlore...Scott Hahn is awesome!  Helped to bring my wife back home.

[ravenlorre]

Wow what a great thread Ravenlore...Scott Hahn is awesome!  Helped to bring my wife back home.

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

[marc]

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.)

[Bon Voyage]

Wow what a great thread Ravenlore...Scott Hahn is awesome!  Helped to bring my wife back home.

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.

[ravenlorre]

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

[ravenlorre]

What was the brand name of the "Independent Fundamentalist Church?" I am curious as that is my background.

Independent Fundamental Churches of America

blessings