First off, I really don't want this to turn into a Bible bashing thread, so those of you who are inclined to, please don't.
This may turn into a mayfly if nobody else has any questions, but I have a couple if anyone would be interested in answering them.
I attended mass on Palm Sunday with my lady's family and during the service they confirmed 30 new members. In the pamplet everyone gets at the door they explained about this. It said that in order to be confirmed, one needs a sponsor, and that that sponsor must have taken all of the sacriments. Is this specific to that particular church or district, or it is universal? Does that include marriage (I understand that is a sacriment)?
Also, the priest had them all take an oath that they believed and would follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Again, is this specific to that church or universal? Does that refer to all teachings post-canon law or pre-canon, or both?
That is the main question, I guess. Where does the Catholic Church draw the line between what are the current teachings and what is outdated. Or is anything outdated? Is it specific to each church?
Any help would be appreciated.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:and that that sponsor must have taken all of the sacraments. [spelling edited because it was driving me nuts]
It specifically said all? That doesn't make sense, since that would include both marriage and holy orders, as well as the sacrament of the sick (extreme unction, aka "last rites").
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
I'm Catholic, but not as versed in the doctrine as I'd like to be, so any of the other Catholics on the board (Dagonee?) feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
quote:It said that in order to be confirmed, one needs a sponsor, and that that sponsor must have taken all of the sacriments.
Yes, one needs a sponsor for confirmation. I think the "all the sacraments" is a misuse of the phrase, though, because you're right, it does imply all. This actually isn't possible under Catholic doctrine, since both ordination (Holy Orders) and marriage are sacraments, but the Church doesn't allow priests to marry(*). The sacraments required for sponsorship are Baptism, Eucharist (Communion), and Confirmation. Marriage isn't required, as my older sister (two years older than me) was my sponsor for my Confirmation at age 12.
quote:Also, the priest had them all take an oath that they believed and would follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Hmm. This one I'm less sure of. There is a recitation of the Apostle's Creed, but phrased in a question/answer format (Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth? I do.). An oath to believe and follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church does sound familiar, but I can't say exactly what that would refer to. Dagonee might know, or I can see if I can find out for you.
(*) In most cases. There are exceptions if the priest converted from another religion and was already married at the time. But this is rare.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think you may have misunderstood the sacraments thing.
The seven sacraments are: Baptism Reconciliation/Confession Holy Eucharist Confirmation Holy Matrimony Holy Orders - (being ordained a priest) Extreme Unction - (popularly known as Last Rites)
It's a very rare life that would lead someone to have received all the sacraments and still be around for a confirmation sponsor. Also, this would preclude women from being sponsors.
I believe that it's a requirement for sponsors to have been confirmed themselves (which relies on receiving the prior 3 sacraments - collectively known, with Confirmation, as the sacraments of initiation), which might be what was said. Or they could have been followers of the sacraments. But I'm almost completely sure that they were not expected to have received all the sacraments.
---
The Catholic Church maintains that they have never changed in matters of central canon, or rather that they've never contradicted something established as canon. The incidental teachings are more volatile and much more open to person interpretation, however.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is this specific to that particular church or district, or it is universal? Does that include marriage (I understand that is a sacriment)?
It might have said "all the sacraments of initiation," which are baptism, eucharist, and confirmation. This is very common terminology. I can see someone leaving off "of initiation" very easily, though.
It is a universal (to the Catholic Church) requirement that the sponsor have received all three of these sacraments. (edit: it is also correct to word this as "sponsors must have been confirmed," because confirmation has baptism and eucharist as prerequisites.) Sponsors can be assigned before preparation by the Church - it's not like you have to find someone who's willing to "let you in." The sponsor is kind of like a godparent - helping to teach the faith, witnessing, etc.
quote:Also, the priest had them all take an oath that they believed and would follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Again, is this specific to that church or universal?
Again, this is, I believe, universal.
quote:Does that refer to all teachings post-canon law or pre-canon, or both?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
quote:Where does the Catholic Church draw the line between what are the current teachings and what is outdated. Or is anything outdated? Is it specific to each church?
It's definitely not specific to each church (assuming you mean individual Catholic churches, or "parishes" as we call them, and are not including other denominations).
The official catechism can be considered the teachings of the Church.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Also, I'm surprised the Confirmation was done on Palm Sunday. There are several rites that happen at various masses during Lent, so you probably saw one of those. The actual sacraments are made during the Easter Vigil mass on Holy Saturday, which is about three hours long. I can't remember offhand which Rite is done on Palm Sunday. Here's a link that explains the RCIA process.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was surprised by that as well, xnera.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Count me as surprised as well. We have forty in our RCIA class this year. Going to be a big night.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I guess there's some discussion as to what "all the teachings of the church" means. It certainly does not mean "everything the church has ever pronounced." It could mean the Catechism, or merely the Nicene Creed. The Catechism is the safest bet, which is probably the main reason I haven't attended for a while, because I disagree with a section of it.
As an aside, I knew a guy (a fellow confirmation teacher) who had received all 7 sacraments (he was a Deacon, was married, and received Extreme Unction when he contracted a deadly disease as a missionary). He was fairly rare in having done so.
Also, there are a few married priests out there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Heh. OSP would definately fall into the Creed crowd.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Holy Orders - (being ordained a priest)
Missed this earlier. "Holy Orders" includes Nuns and Deacons as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure nuns receive Holy Orders. Holy orders does include "subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers," though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
doorkeepers?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't find a definitive statement on the nuns. I know it is considered a vocation and that there are special vows. I know they don't have ministerial power. I'm not sure which aspects are required for Holy Orders.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Wow, I posted this right before lunch and just came back. Thanks for the quick responces.
quote:It might have said "all the sacraments of initiation,"
That is probably what it said. I didn't know what it meant, so I would have just skipped right over it. Thanks.
So, the priest must have meant the Catechism when he was talking about 'all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.' I know that at least in Episcopal services we say the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed every Sunday, so he couldn't have been talking about that.
quote:Also, I'm surprised the Confirmation was done on Palm Sunday.
I may have my teminology wrong again. There were 30 people who were not officially members of the Catholic Church. They went through a very basic ceremony and were then told they were all officially Catholic. In the Episcopal Church, I remember doing the whole question and answer thing that xnera mentioned. But during this service, the priest asked them just to affirm the oath to practice the teachings of the Catholic Church. And he smeered some perfumed oil on their foreheads and called them by the names of saints. So was this another ceremony? What is involved in becoming confirmed?
That is another question I have. Why did he call them by the names of saints? It was all very confusing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I know that at least in Episcopal services we say the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed every Sunday, so he couldn't have been talking about that.
Sure it could. Same creeds. They pre-date the Protestant split. Both of them are central to Catholicism.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Do catholics really believe that the Nilla waffer and the wine literally turns into Christ?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't we wish it were a Nilla wafer - the host has pretty much the taste and consistancy of packing material.
It is more complicated than that. We believe that Christ is present in the bread and the wine. It is more than a memorial; it is nourishment.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Do catholics really believe that the Nilla waffer and the wine literally turns into Christ?
Yep... in fact I'd say it's *the* distinguishing belief between Catholics and Protestants, since Eastern Rites are considered in communion with the Church and Lutherans and Episcopalians (who believe in "consubstantiation" rather than "transubstantiation") are not.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Dagonee, that's an interesting site. The information on the various historical roles (porters, acolytes, etc.) is fascinating! I noticed though that on their main page, they do not recognise Vatican II or Pope Benedict XVI, so I'm a bit leery of the site being an accurate representation of the Roman Catholic faith.
quote:Why did he call them by the names of saints?
Catholics take the name of a saint as their Confirmation name. It's been many years since my own Confirmation, so I don't remember exactly why, but I do remember carefully researching and choosing a saint who I felt a strong connection to.
edit: This article talks about the practice of taking a Confirmation name.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Sure it could. Same creeds. They pre-date the Protestant split. Both of them are central to Catholicism.
But I thought that the whole point was to diffentiate between other denominations. I'm probably way off, but that is what I gathered. All of the people had been baptised and confirmed in other denominations, and now they were becoming Catholic. So wouldn't the priest be expressing the difference between them when he asked if they would follow the teachings of the Catholic Church?
That is one of the things that would bother me a little bit. I was raised Episcopalian. Would being confirmed Catholic require me to denounce my Episcopalian upbringing?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
oh... and apparently I'm wrong about Nuns having received Holy Orders as a sacrament, though I thought sure I had...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: That is one of the things that would bother me a little bit. I was raised Episcopalian. Would being confirmed Catholic require me to denounce my Episcopalian upbringing?
I was taught, and taught others, that the key things you assent to as a Roman Catholic, are the tenets of the Nicene Creed.
As an Episcopalian, the only thing that I could see as an obstacle is the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So, what's with the whole wine thing. Should they be giving small children wine? Do they clean off the cup?
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Wine is the blood of Christ. Some parishes use Dixie cups for the wine; if they don't, then yes, the cup is wiped after each person partakes of it. Both host and wine are normally offered at every Catholic mass, but many people only partake of the bread. Some parishes may use grape juice for kids. But even if they use wine, I don't see it as a problem; it's a very small sip, and the wine is mixed with water, so it's usually diluted a bit.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I would suggest, perhaps, reading the passion, with an emphasis on the last supper, and you might get a clue as to why we use wine at communion.
Use of the wine is optional and at the discretion of the communicant. They wipe the edge of the cup off, but no, it isn't sterilized or anything. You are sharing wine and spit with everyone else who chooses to take the wine with communion. It would behoove you not to take the wine from a community chalice if you've got a cold.
Communion is totally valid with bread and no wine, but not, as I understand it, vice versa.
Edit: in air force survival training I participated in a mass that used wonder bread and welch's for communion. I don't believe it's valid for most circumstances, but I suppose it's the best the chaplain could do Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Why does the pope bless cars?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Why not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are differences other than the Creed. The only thing the you "denounce" (or actually "renounce") when taking the vows at Easter are Satan and all his works. Catholics accept your Episcopal baptism as a Christian baptism.
Although I would agree with Jim that the difference in our understanding of the Eucharist is an important difference, I don't know that I would consider it the distinguishing difference between Catholics and Protestants in general. Between Catholics and Anglicans specifically , though, it is one of the biggies.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Don't feed the troll, folks...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
aww... c'mon... it can be fun sometimes Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
As a nun, I can quite definitively state that nuns do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.
On the issue of the creeds, they are certainly not a distinguishing factor between Christian religions. They are both a basic statement of what we accept as the truth about God.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
one thing to note, as has already been brought up, that pretty much the only major major differences between Anglicans (or whichever other name you go by) and Catholics are: 1) Transubstantiation of the eucharist 2) Authority of the Pope
and more "minor" in my opinion (though I'm not 100% on those) 3) Married priesthood 4) contraception?
Part of the thing about "denouncing" other religions etc is that Confirmation is meant to be a rite of affirmation, saying "I believe what the church believes, and want to be part of it's community" this indirectly entails giving up former religions that would be in conflict with Catholicism, but nothing direct.
As for the universality, in principle all of these main precepts are going to be universal through all Catholic churches. even some of the "splinter" churches that are closer to eastern-rite are going to abide by the same basic tennants. It's one of the big points that separates catholicism from many other mainstream religions (like OSC indirectly was pointing out in his latest article on Islam). I could go from parish to parish and diocese to diocese, and nothing significant about the faith would change, at most some trappings might be a little different.
As for the Palm sunday thing, it does seem odd as usually it's part of the Easter celebration, but I would imagine there were some kind of scheduling conflicts etc involved which pushed it up to palm sunday for some people. There's always exeptions to the rules.
And the annointing is a good giveaway that you actually saw a confirmation, and not a similar ceremony for those just starting into the catechuminate.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I didn't mean to imply that the creeds were the difference between Catholics and other Christians. I do believe that Transubstantiation is the key difference. Any other difference is likely as much a matter of difference between various protestant sects (I mean no offense by that term, btw) and, perhaps, even a matter of difference between Roman Catholics as well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: oh... and apparently I'm wrong about Nuns having received Holy Orders as a sacrament, though I thought sure I had...
*double-take
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I do believe that Transubstantiation is the key difference.
I disagree. I would say that the understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification is the biggie, and the understanding of the words "grace" and "faith" are next.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that another biggie is the nature of sacrament and creation in general. I know it was the most important to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Communion is totally valid with bread and no wine, but not, as I understand it, vice versa.
quote: Do catholics really believe that the Nilla waffer and the wine literally turns into Christ?
This depends on what you mean by "literally." It would require a rather extensive discussion of the ideas of accident and substance to explain.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There's a disagreement on the number of sacraments but I'm not sure there's a huge disagreement on the nature. Or, at least, it's a difference between the Catholic church and some Protestant churches, but not between Catholocism and Protestantism in general.
What do you mean by "creation in general"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Very briefly - as I know you are crazy busy and I am on my way out the door for the weekend:
I have found a signigicant difference in the importance of sacramentality in Catholic life from what I experienced as a Protestant. Not just the "capital S" Sacraments, but how we incorporate the created world into sacredness. Icons, colors, smells, clothing, art. We celebrate creation itself.
I think that the Reformation was right that Catholics can (dangerously) take this too far - until rather than being a conduit to God, things start to replace God - but it is an important part of worship for me and one I missed before I converted.
Just for reference: the Protestant denominations that I was mostly involved with were Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and UCC.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
It makes perfect sense that this celebration was on Passion Sunday. From the description, thee are people who are already baptised CHristians. This means that they are being brought into full communion, which is a totally different thing that the people who will be baptised at the Vigil, i.e., non-Christians. The two situations are very different, and the Christians being recieved into communion are not supposed to be confused with the catechumens at the Vigil. However, it's the traditional time of year, so perhaps the priest wanted to keep it all together as much as possible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We do it all at the Easter Vigil.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, I'm curious what you're referring to with the "Catholics can (dangerously) take this too far" comment.
If you're referring to trends at the time of the reformation, then I'd probably agree... things like relics of saints and buying indulgences would definately be questionable.
Most of the arguments I hear along these lines are highly uninformed (i.e. "Catholics worship Mary") but I'm curious if there's anything along these lines that you object to or that you think others generally do?
I'd say the Eastern-rite and Orthodox churches are generally those that catch the most flak about this kind of thing, and I suppose the Catholic church prior to Vatican II. I'm just curious to understand what exactly you were getting at here.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I found that, too, Kate.
It's not really surprising that different protestants would have different "key disagreements" with Catholicism. But isn't there much disagreement among protestants as well on those questions, dkw? As far as I know, protestant groups uniformly reject transubstantiation. The only other Catholic things I can think of that are uniformly rejected by protestants are some Marian doctrines and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
CT, sorry for leaving that sentence short... I meant "sure I had heard that they did..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: If you're referring to trends at the time of the reformation, then I'd probably agree... things like relics of saints and buying indulgences would definately be questionable.
Yup. That's what I meant.
Although I do think we need to keep vigilant. That Cardinals live in "palaces", etc. does make me a tad concerned for our priorities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Off to pray. See you Monday. Have a wonderful Easter - or - weekend.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
For myself, I find a lot of joy in going to Mass and have been learning a fair amount. It was quite a change to start attending a church with so many rituals, but I rather enjoy it and I find I grow closer to God this way.
I know that as a Protestant my biggest issues with Catholicism that seperate it from Protestantism came down to the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, Mary Immaculate, Mary ever-virgin, and the Assumption. Currently I'm in a bit of an inbetween stage. I have not been confirmed, but I don't think I can fully say that I am a Protestant (my background is a mixture of Mennonite and Christian Reformed). The Eucharist and Mary ever-virgin have been fully settled in my mind, but I know that I still do not feel fully confident in Mary Immaculate and the Assumption. (On that note, if anyone can give me some solid reasoning for them, I would be much obliged. I should like to be confirmed in the next while and I do not feel I can or should with those unresolved.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I know that I still do not feel fully confident in Mary Immaculate and the Assumption.
The Immaculate conception is one of the very few teachings I have to accept solely on the basis of my faith in the tradition and doctrinal authority of the Church. This link summarizes the (scant) scriptural support and outlines the traditions.
The assumption is similar to me, but the tradition is of an event witnessed by the Apostles but not recorded in Scripture. Link.
It sounds like neither link would have anything new to you, though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
somewhat on-topic: Blessings to everyone this Good Friday and Easter.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the papacy as a major difference between (at least Roman) Catholicism and the Protestant sects.
The mere fact of having a unitary leader (a chief Bishop, so to speak, acting as nominal head of a denomination) isn't really such a big deal, but the power vested in the papacy is a pretty major "bone of contention" seems to me.
Sad to say, really, I think the average church-goer (in any denomination) probably couldn't tell you what their church's doctrine really is in detail with respect to items like transubstantiation, immaculate conception, and so on.
Probably most could recite the creed (or creeds) from memory, but if asked what some of the lines mean, or why it says it one way and not another, they'd draw a blank.
I'd venture to say that most church-goers couldn't really explain their denomination's views on things like justification and sanctification. I know I couldn't. And if asked to profess what I believe on these points would probably slip into a discussion of works versus faith-alone views of salvation, which is related, but not what the real difference is about -- at least not from what I can understand of what dkw has tried to tell me.
I know a few of the folks here on Hatrack really know this stuff, but I'd say the average actively religious person probably doesn't even notice how the underlying doctrines are affecting what gets said during various rites and rituals.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: The only other Catholic things I can think of that are uniformly rejected by protestants are some Marian doctrines and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Bob, I did, albeit briefly. I actually think the two things I mention here are somewhat linked, as the only two ex cathedra (infallible) pronouncements of the Pope in history are the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Bob, I totally agree with your comment. I'm Catholic by upbringing, but for several years now I've been uncertain if I'm Catholic by faith. Over the last year or so, I realised that I didn't really know what it meant to be Catholic (or Prostetant, or whatever), and I don't feel that's right. If I'm going to a church, I want it to be because I understand the doctrine and believe in it. So I'm very slowly starting to investigate my faith, so I can figure out exactly what I believe.
quote:Probably most could recite the creed (or creeds) from memory, but if asked what some of the lines mean, or why it says it one way and not another, they'd draw a blank.
This especially is a good point. I bought Catholicism for Dummies recently, and the first thing I did was flip it open to the "cheat sheet". It included the creed, and a short explanation of each line. And as I read it, I found myself thinking "wait, do I actually believe this?" It was a real eye-opener. I haven't had the courage yet to pick the book up again, because I'm not sure I'm ready for more shocks like that.
I plan on going to Mass sometime this weekend, because I do enjoy the Catholic Mass. After that, I think I will start reading the Bible. I've never read it entirely, and I'd like to.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
xnera, as I've gotten older, but not necessarily wiser, but certainly more tolerant of foibles in myself and others, I have decided the following:
1) Church attendance is good for me even if I don't know all the central tenets or, knowing them, don't necessarily agree.
2) People and God are what it's all about, and if I find myself feeling closer to God when I'm with a particular group of people, and they don't find my particular personal heresies disruptive to their OWN relationship with God, then the rest of the stuff is secondary.
3) Even if I was called to be a witness to God's power in a life, it's not likely to be about doctrinal points, but things that (so far as I know) aren't so much doctrinal sticking points. Things like God's sense of humor, the power of love, the way God influences things, and how one can even detect God's influence are the kinds of things I might be able to bear witness to.
4) I can't be scholarly in non-scientific realms. I'm spoiled by my background in experimental science. I approach scholarly exercises from a testability POV. I don't have the philosophy gene. Whether Arminianism is THE TRUTH or some other variant definition of "grace" holds sway -- that's for the big boys & girls to talk about. Considering whether a piece of bread IS God's literal body, or a symbol doesn't ignite a passion in me. Whether "grace" is a thing or an attribute...meh.
That doesn't mean I don't respect and admire people who do have that "gene" for understanding pure ideas and how they interelate. On the contrary, I even think that I would be a better scientist if I were more of an abstract thinker, so I see in these others (like dkw) something I lack.
But fixing it would mean unravelling much of my core being. And to no certain success either. It's like a tone-deaf person trying to become a great composer. Sure, they could painstakingly learn to play music, and even simulate the feeling of the music. But original composition might (probably would) be forever beyond them.
I've learned to live with it.
I'm not sure why I felt compelled to share this. Perhaps because I know the pain of trying to decide whether to stay within a church when the statements of faith don't line up with my personal beliefs.
In my case, trying to learn what those statements of faith REALLY meant (where they came from, and why) was a never-ending struggle that became more about the doctrines than a faith-building exercise for myself.
I hope your experience is a more positive one. I understand that some folks find that in-depth study of church teachings is a way to open up their own mind to possibilities of the nature of God and faith. I wish it worked that way for me.
As it is, I find them interesting points to ponder, but I feel a certain "disconnectedness" from those teachings and what I have learned God is.
Which brings me to the question -- how can I consider myself a good <insert brand-name religion here> if I haven't vetted my understanding of things against church doctrine? And what if there are non-negotiables within the faith and I either don't know them or don't agree with them?
The real answer is: I carefully read the statements I would have to agree to in order to join the church. Even though I came in as a member through "transfer" rather than profession of faith, I did enough study online and through the text of the joining ceremony for the UMC that I knew I could say "yes" to every question if asked.
They didn't ask me about justification and sanctification, or I might've had to say "huh?"
I also find that the churches I tend to enjoy being around are ones where the congregation views faith as a journey and that allowances are made for people who haven't already settled every question in their own minds first before joining.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Thanks for sharing, Bob.
quote:Which brings me to the question -- how can I consider myself a good <insert brand-name religion here> if I haven't vetted my understanding of things against church doctrine? And what if there are non-negotiables within the faith and I either don't know them or don't agree with them?
Yeah, this is kind of where I'm at now. I'm about to become a godmother in a little over a week, and it's both exciting and scary. I wonder how I can possibly be a godmother when I'm struggling with my faith.
I have come to some of the same conclusions you have. My role as a godmother is to provide an example. That I can do. Even if I'm not certain I believe in the exact tenets of the faith, my beliefs and understand are close enough that I feel I could be a good example to my godson. I am also willing to help him understand his own faith, even if it's not the same as mine.
quote:Things like God's sense of humor, the power of love, the way God influences things, and how one can even detect God's influence are the kinds of things I might be able to bear witness to.
These are the same kinds of things that are important to me.
As it stands right now, I do believe in God, and the God I believe in strongly resembles a Christian God. I'm more uncertain if I believe Jesus was the son of God. I do believe Jesus existed, and that he was a very good man with good teachings that would be of benefit to follow, but I can't quite wrap my mind around the "son of God" part. But this:
quote:1) Church attendance is good for me even if I don't know all the central tenets or, knowing them, don't necessarily agree.
2) People and God are what it's all about, and if I find myself feeling closer to God when I'm with a particular group of people, and they don't find my particular personal heresies disruptive to their OWN relationship with God, then the rest of the stuff is secondary
Yeah. There have been times when I've been at church that I've felt closer to God, or surrounded by love. That is something I want in my life, and something I want in my godson's life.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I have a question. I am really not trying to be offensive or to stir up controversy but I really am curious. I am getting married in the Lutheran church. My pastor went over some of the Lutheran beliefs about birthcontrol. Most forms are ok as long as they don't cause an abortion. However, my fiance is Catholic and when we were talking to the priest at his church he mentioned learning about natural family planning as other forms of birth control are forbidden in the Catholic church. I don't intend to use NFP and my fiance doesn't care what form I chose to use. I am curious however why NFP is the only approved method. I was told by a friend it was because God made sex for procreation but I find this explanation insufficient seeing as NFP has the same goal as other methods in preventing pregnancy. Anyone know of other reasons it is the approved method?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Long story short, because it correlates an abstinence from sex with avoiding pregnancy... that is to say, you avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex during particular (fertile) times. Philosophically it is felt that this respects the reproductive purpose of sexuality by working within its system, rather than simply trying to override it by chemical or physical methods.
Despite the fact that it is the area of my fundamental disagreement with the Church, I think there is much to be said for the Catholic thought on sex. I think over-simplifying it to "sex at these times and places is sinful," as both opponents and proponents are wont to do, does a great injustice towards it.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I wanted to know more about the reasons why the Catholic Church is against contraception (and why NFP is ok) so I took a class on NFP. It is offered in many/most Catholic diocese around the country and you don't have to be Catholic, but you do have to be engaged/married to go. I got special permission as I am a single physician who prescribes birth control on occasion. The class was helpful as far as explaining how far NFP has come since the 1960s but by far the best part of the class was the CD they gave us all, Contraception: Why Not, by Janet E Smith, PhD. It was an excellent explanation on the Catholic teachings. I've already listened to it twice and will listen again soon. It's about an hour long and I just listened to it in the car while driving.
I should note that many Catholics take the class because they WANT to get pregnant. NFP helps you PLAN the kids, not just prevent them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's important to note that the Catholic prohibition on birth control is likely only going to last as long as the Popes are set against it and that a large point of contention is not so much birth control itself, but rather on the immutability of papal authority.
In the wake of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII made plans for a re-examination of the Church's stance on birth control, but died before he could call together a commission. His successor, Pope Paul VI, did convene this commission and, in keeping with the spirit of including the laity promulgated by John and Vatican II, populated it with laity as well as clergy.
The commission overwhelming voted in favor of the statement that they could find no reason, doctrinal or practical, for the Church to be strictly against birth control.
There was, however, also a minority report, co-authored by a Polish Archbishop, Karol Wojtyla, that most people probably know better as Pope John Paul II. One of the central themes of the minority report was that it was impossible to change the stance on birth control without calling into question the completeness of the authority of the Catholic hierarchy and especially that of the Pope. Here's a quote from that report:
quote:"If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubi was promulgated). and in 1951 (Pius XII’s address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died).
“It should likewise have to be admitted that for a hall a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now he declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved."
Pope Paul later issued his encyclical, Humnae Vitae, a significant part of which was the condemnation of all artificial forms of birth control.
However, while they are definitely a minority, there is a strong movement in the Church away from strict papal authority and many agree that one of the first things that is likely to go, if there is ever a Pope John XXIV, will be the prohibition of birth control.
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
My parents are trying very, very hard to have me confirmed in the Catholic Church less than a month from now. I am doing my utmost to have this not happen. There are a lot of reasons why- I don't feel mature enough to make this decision, I'm not sure what I do and do not believe in, and I'm doing a bit of rebelling on the side.
One of my biggest questions, though, is: Why Catholicism? Why should I chose this one when there are so many other options out there? I've asked around and no one has been able to give me any answer besides "Because." For any Catholics, why did you chose to be a part of this church?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
aiua, from the perspective of someone who was raised catholic, fell away, rejoined the church as an adult, and is now having somehing of a crisis of faith as to whether I should still be allowed to call myself a Catholic, I can honestly say that I understand your struggle and that I think it is excellent of you to want to have some good solid reasons for being confirmed Catholic over and above the wishes of your parents.
I really think one of the best answers to your question is a short book called Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, who was actually an Anglican rather than a Roman Catholic when he wrote it, though he later converted. It's basically his personal testimony of how he set about to find the ultimate liberal and revolutionary philosophy and discovered that he was about 1900 years too late. It's clearly and powerfully written with wry humor and some incredibly pithy sayings, but it isn't merely flippant or paradoxical. Rather it contains ideas of breathtaking depth and complexity put forward in extremely simple and common sense terms (indeed, "common sense", meaning "what people naturally feel to be true", is a fairly major theme in the book).
On the other hand, I have recommended it here many times before and no one has ever come back and said "wow! I'm glad you told me to read that, it was just like you said it was!" so tag a big fat "Your Mileage May Vary" caveat on my recommendation.
If you can't spend an afternoon reclining in a Barnes and Noble reading it, it's availible online here
and to Mr. Squicky, I don't disagree with JPII very often, but I think there is room for easing off the "contraception is a grave sin" stance without throwing the Pope out with the bathwater.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
A short answer would be that this is the church that Jesus founded. Nobody else can claim that*. There have been problems in the church, no question. But it has lasted 2000 years and it is still here. I find that very impressive when I think about it. If I believe in transubstantiation (which I do) then there are no other good options out there. There are wider differences between Catholics and Protestants than I ever realized, and I guess I've decided I'm on the Catholic side.
*LDS claims to have been started by Jesus after Catholicism jumped the shark, right? So they also can claim to be a church that Jesus directly started. So I don't mean to slight them. I don't agree with their theory, though, so that brings me right back to Catholicism.
If people take offense at this post it is getting erased, I don't feel like getting yelled at today. Thanks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
aiua, In some schools of Catholic thought, it is actually impossible for you to actually be Confirmed unless you are truely committed to it. If your parents continue to try to force you down this path, air your concerns to the presiding bishop. Assuming he's worthy of the position, he won't perform the sacrament while you are not prepared for it.
He may also help to answer many of the questions you have.
---
I'm an ex-Catholic, so maybe not the audience you were addressing your questions to, but it's possible I could help, so I'll give it a try. I think, given man's extreme limitations when confronting the infinity of existence, the best we can do is capture brief aspects of the whole. Life, the "religious" parts and the "non-religious" ones, is art. There are definitely rules and necessary skills and things like that, but that's the lower bound to it. The parts that make it meaningful come from yur own individual interpretation.
In many ways, commitment is a benefit in and of itself. It gives you a place to stand and a focus that allows you to reach deeper into things than if you never make that choice.
Religion, as I see it, should be something that you choose because it works for you in this respect. I think, when you get down to it, this is basically what most trustworthy people are going to tell you about why they chose their separate religions. There's this pretty undefinable something that works for them and following the path they chose assists them in the work of art that is their life.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Auia, I agree your concerns should be addressed, and talking to someone might be helpful. The books that have helped me are by Scott Hahn. He is a minister that converted to Catholicism. He is very smart and very good at communication skills. I particularly enjoyed A Father Who Keeps His Promises.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I highly recommend "the Fourth Cup", given the season. I believe Rivka had some issues with his view of Passover, FWIW.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, I joined because they have the best wine.
Kidding, of course. I joined because I think Communion is so great that it should be done every week. That meant Orthodox (which is rare where I live), Charismatic Episcopal (nonexistent), Reformed Episcopal (they spent all the time talking about what's wrong with regular Episcopal; I wanted more), Catholic, and Episcopal.
I was going to be Episcopal until the bishop came to our Sunday School class and reminded us that we fund the United Way, which gives money to promote and perform abortions. I can't finance that! He also reminded us that, whether Jesus was born of a virgin, well, who cares? (Joseph did!) ...If you don't believe the faith, why not stay home?
So I'm Catholic because of high-church and because of moral stance. Lots wrong with my church, too, but such is life in an imperfect world.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:It sounds like neither link would have anything new to you, though.
Those links may have been old hat for Reiko, but I learned alot from them. I had never heard of the Assumption before, and I was completely off base in my understanding of what the Immaculate Conception was. So thanks for posting those links, Dagonee.
I've really been enjoying this thread. I feel fairly confident in my knowledge of what my own religion (LDS) teaches, but very shaky in knowing what others believe.
On that note, would anyone be willing to define Justification and Sanctification for me? The terminology is not familiar. Thanks!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It seems that they can't do without me at work so I am here in between services. Sigh. The very bright silver lining is I get to participate in this!
What I know about Catholicism regarding birth control exactly matches what Squicky wrote. If you are curious, I have a book at home that has the specific data - dates and numbers, who voted for what, etc. I'll bring it on Monday. It also examines the Church's position on divorce. It also has the results of a survey of faithful, attending American Catholics and their position on those issues. Overwhelmingly, Catholics disagree with the papal stance. I posted that survey here once. I'll see if I can dig it up.
For the record, I know a great many more good Catholics that use birth control than don't.
xnera, another book I would recommend very strongly is Garry Wills', "Why I am a Catholic".
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Sanctification means the process of becoming a saint, or holy.
From the New Catholic Dictionary Justification is "That process in the soul of a sinner by which he is transferred from the state of enmity with God to the friendship of God."
I might lead you wrong if I tried to discuss these terms as technical terms (which is how I think dkw meant them).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the other hand, I have recommended it here many times before and no one has ever come back and said "wow! I'm glad you told me to read that, it was just like you said it was!" so tag a big fat "Your Mileage May Vary" caveat on my recommendation.
I just haven't had a chance to finish, alright?
But I said something good about it even so, didn't I?
aiua, I second talking to a priest or your bishop. Someone being confirmed makes some solemn promises. If you can't make them whole-heartedly, it's better to wait.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Thanks, Jim!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But I said something good about it even so, didn't I?
and here I thought that was just because I pestered you via personal e-mail.
You're welcome, Amilia. The way I think of it, sanctification is God's long-term plan for what He wants us to become and Justification is a sub-process-- specifically the part where we are reconciled with God and renew our relationship with Him. I don't know that that's a particularly Catholic view on it, though I imagine it would be, since that's the philosophy and worldview I most strongly identify with.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think you may have misunderstood the sacraments thing.
The seven sacraments are: Baptism Reconciliation/Confession Holy Eucharist Confirmation Holy Matrimony Holy Orders - (being ordained a priest) Extreme Unction - (popularly known as Last Rites)
It's a very rare life that would lead someone to have received all the sacraments and still be around for a confirmation sponsor. Also, this would preclude women from being sponsors.
I believe that it's a requirement for sponsors to have been confirmed themselves (which relies on receiving the prior 3 sacraments - collectively known, with Confirmation, as the sacraments of initiation), which might be what was said. Or they could have been followers of the sacraments. But I'm almost completely sure that they were not expected to have received all the sacraments.
---
The Catholic Church maintains that they have never changed in matters of central canon, or rather that they've never contradicted something established as canon. The incidental teachings are more volatile and much more open to person interpretation, however.
I don't know if someone else has pointed this out, but I don't think it would exclude women, as we can also get them Holy Orders by becoming nuns.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It was pointed out, and then it was corrected (by katdog, who is a nun).
Nuns do NOT receive holy orders.
[ April 15, 2006, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
they just carry them out.
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
niiiice... Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort*
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:On that note, would anyone be willing to define Justification and Sanctification for me? The terminology is not familiar. Thanks!
Some LDS terms that might help you understand are "Redemption" and "Exaltation". If you look at the words as they stand "To Justify" is to put in line or to come into compliance. A carpenter might justify a door frame to allow the door to work well. "To Sanctify" to to make something or someone holy or sacred.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Then what the heck DO they get? If there was one thing I could change in the church, it would be that. I wouldn't want to be a priest anyway, but just the fact that I cannot be one even if I wanted irritates me just a little.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
AoD:
It's a weird thing in the church that always bothered me as well. There are women (nuns, I believe) who were allowed to say mass in some areas of the world (in extreme cases where people were converted but no priest was available). My nuns in Catholic school told us about that -- probably a deliberate act of subversion on their part.
I don't know why women could not be ordained or why priests cannot marry -- i.e., what the source material used by the churhc to develop or retain those doctrines is. But I do know that it has been reaffirmed every time the church considers these questions. I have heard financial arguments made in defense of a celibate priesthood, but I don't really think that's a major consideration in the doctrinal discussions. I could be wrong.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
It's always something that has bothered me, too, that women cannot be ordained as priests. It has always seemed a bit unfair.
As for nuns, we do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders as that is specifically the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood. Instead, we have a ceremony in which we make our vows or profession (depending on the type of community). The same goes for religious brothers who are not priests. Often the profession or vows are made in conjunction with the mass and thus a sacrament is involved and it is a very holy time, but the profession or vowing itself is not sacramental in the strictest sense of the word.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
"Holy orders" as I understand it means "priesthood." Yes, nuns aren't priests; true.
About celibacy: yes, the arguments for a celibate priesthood are practical, rather than theological. The Church doesn't say it's wrong for priests to be married, just that it would be ineffective.
The arguments pro and con priestesses seem weak all around to me.
Pro: it's only fair; we need more talent. But priesthood isn't a right. I'm a man, and I don't have a right to priesthood either. It's a gift, and we have no right to demand gifts. Needing more talent? God can provide for his own church. If he can't, we need a new God.
Con: Jesus never gave us permission to ordain women; the priest is supposed to represent Jesus to the congregation. But Jesus never gave us permission to use email or speak English, either. It's true that the priest is supposed to represent Jesus; so are we all. Why is the relevant characteristic sex, rather than ethnicity, character, language, or whether the representative is wearing robe and sandals? I never got a satisfactory answer.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Sad to say, really, I think the average church-goer (in any denomination) probably couldn't tell you what their church's doctrine really is in detail with respect to items like transubstantiation, immaculate conception, and so on.
quote:I'd venture to say that most church-goers couldn't really explain their denomination's views on things like justification and sanctification. I know I couldn't. And if asked to profess what I believe on these points would probably slip into a discussion of works versus faith-alone views of salvation, which is related, but not what the real difference is about -- at least not from what I can understand of what dkw has tried to tell me.
I could not agree with you more, Bob. For example, when Wes and I were asked why we voted against a pastoral candidate (the vote was over 100 for and 2 against, and we were the 2) we said one of our major issues was that he differed from the church doctrine in his eschatological views. Not a single person in our church even knew the term eschatology besides the youth pastor and the assistant pastor who are seminary trained.
When my daughter mentioned in Sunday School that she was studying the catechism, we were questioned why we were teaching our children Catholic doctrine. I had to educate the teachers on the fact that catechism wasn't a term owned by the Catholic faith and that what my daughter was learning was the catechism for Young children, which is a simplified version of the Westminster shorter catechism.
Out assistant pastor did a series last summer where he went through our church doctrine on Wednesday nights and explained why we believed the things in the doctrinal statement. Everyone in the congregation I spoke to about it (with the exception of the church's elders) were hearing it for the first time. They had been members of the church, some for their entire lives, and had never read the church's doctrinal statement. It was the first thing Wes and I asked to see when we considered joining the church.
The amount of ignorance many typical protestants have about what they're supposed to believe amazes me sometimes. I had a discussion with my aunt about where my beliefs differed from hers (she's Southern Baptist) and she told me I was wrong, she didn't believe what I said. I then asked her why she was a southern Baptist then, because it was part of her doctrine. When she denied that, I looked it up on the internet and showed her.
It's very sad. I truly believe you need to know what you believe and why you believe it and be able to articulate that belief to others. If you can't, then you need to immerse yourself in study until you can.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I'm reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church now and it IS very eye opening. I am enjoying it. In fact, I should read some today, I've been slacking off. I find that there's no point in trying to read it unless I'm in the right frame of mind for it, though, or it is just counterproductive.
Belle, I knew a girl in college who just loved being Baptist. I don't know what kind. She told me that being directly descended from John the Baptist meant they avoided all the errors of the Catholic Church, because they were competing religions from day one. She firmly believed that, there was really no arguing with her. I was more shocked about the historical inaccuracies than anything.
Priesthood: in a way all Catholics, men and women, have a sort of priesthood. But to recieve Holy Orders, I believe they are looking for men with a paternal instinct. Men who would make great husbands and fathers but sacrifice that life to choose the life of celibacy and dedication to duties in the church. Women aren't paternal, they are maternal, and therefore aren't suited. I have trouble understand WHY this is the way it is but I can just accept it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I very seldom accept things when I don't understand the "why". At least not things I care about.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Well, since I don't care to become a priest, I haven't tried hard to understand it completely. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have a question. What is it with finding images of Christ or Mary in trees, walls, glass, etc. and venerating them? Is that a Catholic practice and teaching, or more a populist belief? I have heard that officials will check them out, so it must have some recognized importance. I just don't get it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Occasional, are you asking about images in general or those that just 'appear.'
quote: * "It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone." * "We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God." * "We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them." * "We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."
As to those that appear, to the best of my knowledge the Church never says, "this is definitely a miraculous apparition." Rather, it investigates for fraud and might issue a statement to the effect that belief that such an appearance is a miracle is not contrary to the faith.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dagonee,
What about Our Lady of Guadalupe? I thought the church did say that was a miraculous image? It's private revelation and not binding, obviously, but I thought she did endorse that particular one, at least. Perhaps I am remembering the story wrong...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps I am remembering the story wrong...
It's at least equally possible that "the best of my knowledge" has gaps in it.
I don't know much about Guadalupe at all.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
These kinds of things can also be important, as sainthood requires (if I remember correctly) 3 miracles being attributed to praying to a deceased individual. There's a whole long process to it, but that's part of it.
As for married priesthood, while there are somewhat legitimate practical concerns as briefly mentiond (i.e. married priests can't devote as full attention to their flocks when they have a family to tend to, and open the church to further criticism when the stresses of the priesthood cause marriages to break up etc...) I definately see the priesthood opening more to married priests before female priests (though I think it's dumb).
Certainly there are a lot less valid reasons behind not allowing female priests, but I think it'll be a while before the all-male priesthood and college of cardinals etc decides to open that door.
As for holding off on confirmation, it's always been my opinion that those who join the church on their own through RCIA are generally showing more real faith and dedication. When we go through confirmation in middle-school or highschool we are generally being pressured by parents and/or just doing it because that's what you do after CCD...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooh. I have just been reading about that. Our late Pope, John Paul II was a big supporter of the followers of OLoG. Including even the canonization of Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin despite the lack of documentation and the various weirdness surrounding this apparition.
This may have been a move of simple solidarity with the Mexican people, but it does give the impression of endorsing what, while it shouldn't be "worship" exactly, looks very much like it.
edit to add: The Pope endorsed the canonization of several people that I don't think are very "saintly", so YMMV.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I did a little research and it looks like there is no official word on the image, though the apparition seems to be soundly recognized by the church.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I have a question. What is it with finding images of Christ or Mary in trees, walls, glass, etc. and venerating them? Is that a Catholic practice and teaching, or more a populist belief? I have heard that officials will check them out, so it must have some recognized importance. I just don't get it.
When we (in Chicago)had an image under the highway that caused some stir recently, one of the priests said that people should be seeing Christ in the homeless people that were living in the underpass.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Yeah, the church is in general pretty good about trying to refute these kinds of things (i.e. Jesus in the taco sign) and it takes a LOT of investigation before being declared a miracle.
Also, the teaching is not to venerate the icons/apparitions etc, but to honor them while praying to God, or saints etc...
And in terms of praying to saints/mary, it's important to note that we are not praying to them so that the saint/mary should actually do anything directly in our lives, but with the thought that they might also pray to God for us. i.e. in the end all prayers are going to the Divine, not to some sprits etc (just want to clarify because the misconception of marian devotion causes a lot of ruckus with some protestants)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:When we (in Chicago)had an image under the highway that caused some stir recently, one of the priests said that people should be seeing Christ in the homeless people that were living in the underpass.
That's fantastic!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My best guess as to why females are not allowed to become priests goes back to Paul. Paul brought Christianity to the Gentiles, he's the founder of the Catholic church, and if you read his letters, he's not really keen on women doing much in church.
According to Paul, women should mostly keep quiet and keep their heads covered. Paul also was fairly anti-marriage, one of the reasons priests are not allowed to marry.
I'm not a Catholic, but I went to a Jesuit university, and had to take a lot of theology classes Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"He is the founder of the Catholic Church"
I, and many millions of other Christians, would strongly refute that. Lots of people believe Constantine founded the Catholic Church. In fact, I would even say, theologically, Catholics would refute that as they would consider Jesus and Peter to be the founders. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Along another line - I don't think my question has actually been answered. There has been a lot of side-stepping the issue. What is the official catholic position on Jesus and Mary images in tacos to walls? Certainly there is religious justification for accepting some and rejecting others? I would think there is some kind of "official rules" associated with the practice. Otherwise, I will have to go with the assumption that it is mostly "populist practices" that are simply tolerated. Frankly, I would hope that was the case in the interest of my own discomfort with the practice.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Cow, my theology classes have focused almost entirely on non-Christian religions!
But I am taking a survey course on women in Christianity in a few weeks.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There has been a lot of side-stepping the issue.
There hasn't been any side-stepping.
Guadalupe aside, the Church's positive statement about modern miracles is limited to pretty much limited to "believing that event X is a miracle would not be contrary to the Catholic faith." No one is ever required to believe in such a miracle to be in conformance with the faith.
quote:- posted April 25, 2006 09:58 PM Profile for Occasional Email Occasional Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote "He is the founder of the Catholic Church"
I, and many millions of other Christians, would strongly refute that. Lots of people believe Constantine founded the Catholic Church.
Such people are, of course, totally wrong.
quote: In fact, I would even say, theologically, Catholics would refute that as they would consider Jesus and Peter to be the founders.
Theologically, I believe the most commonly agreed to point of founding is the Great Commission. Christ is the founder, but sometimes Pentecost is celebrated as the founding of the Church because that is when the Commission began to be carried out.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Of course you think such people are totally wrong. Your Catholic.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Occasional, why would non-Catholics, at least non-Catholics that aren't experts in religious history, have any real understanding of the origins of the Catholic church?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome... after he converted, which directly implies that the religion pre-dates him.
Dag, I think your statement is what I meant about Guadalupe being endorsed-- they had investigated and not found it incompatible with the faith, which, as far as I know, is as about far as they go with anything that isn't actually dogmatic, isn't it?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Jim-Me, I am not saying that Christianity did not exist before the Catholic religion. I am saying that Constantine (by making a version of Christianity the official religion of Rome) founded the Catholic Church. He is the one who took the steps to convene councils that ultimately decided the future acceptable creeds of Christianity. He is the one, again through councils, who created the organizational structure of Catholic authority. He is the one, through councils, who decide the Biblical cannon. Without him Christianity would have remained a small group of a splintered faith.
"Occasional, why would non-Catholics, at least non-Catholics that aren't experts in religious history, have any real understanding of the origins of the Catholic church?"
Generally, I will concede I don't think they know a lot. However, you are dealing with a secterian more than scholastic question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional,
Just to clear things up:
Christ is the founder and head of the Church.
Peter is "first" among the apostles. The Catholic Church is an apostolic church. He is considered to be the first "pope" (although that term wasn't in use and wouldn't have meant the same thing).
Paul was responsible for the spread and growth of Christianity in the first century. His writings make up a large part of the New Testament. He and Peter are considered the two major figures in the early church.
Constantine, when he embraced Christianity (when he converted is in some dispute) in 316 (or thereabouts - I could be off by a couple of years) was responsible for making Christianity the official religion of the empire. (Personally, I don't think he did us any favors, getting us all tangled up with power and politics.)
edit to add (cross posting!): What Constantine did with the Councils was basically saying, "now that Christianity is a state religion, we have to know what is "officially" Christian." You will notice that I say "Christian" as opposed to "Catholic". Since the split didn't happen until approximatly a millenium later, Constantine's influence must apply to non-Catholics as well.
[ April 26, 2006, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmboots, from one point of view - yes. We are dealing with secterian arguments at this point. To be honest, even scholars question your view of the development of the Christian religion. Not that I agree with them, but I am not Catholic and therefore hold different beliefs and views than Catholics and even Protestants might.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Crossposting again: see my edit above. I am talking history rather than theology here. What different views are you holding?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The view I hold is that as soon as Constantine said "now that Christianity is a state religion, we have to know what is "officially" Christian," that original Christianity no longer existed. It had become a mere shadow of itself in Catholicism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that would be a theological perspective rather than an historical one. And a not very widely held one, as well. Just out of curiousity, who are the scholars you mention earlier?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Occasional is lds, right?
Constantine is when lds think Catholicism jumped the shark, requiring Jesus to go to America, I think? When and how did the lds come up with the specific belief that Christianity was fine until Constantine's changes?
I'd like to hear a protestant point of view too, ie Dana, about her understanding of the early church and this Constantine theory.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ahh. So that would be a theologically based opinion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Protestant denominations that trace their history through the reformation(s) (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, United Church of Christ, Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) would tend to agree with the Catholics on this, the ones that consider themselves “restorations” (Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), etc.) would be with Occaisional’s position.
Personally, I think the idea that Constantine “founded” any church is historically unsupportable. He was influential in calling together the councils to rule on the various theological debates raging at the time, but that would likely have happened fairly soon in any case. However I do agree with Kate that making Christianity a required religion and enforcing that requirement did great harm, to the church as well as to those who ran afoul of the enforcement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Constantine is when lds think Catholicism jumped the shark,
This is not correct. LDS believe the apostasy occurred shortly after the original apostles + Paul and so died. In other words, within the first century after Christ died.
Christ came to America shortly after he died and was resurrected - around the same time that he appeared as a resurrected being to the apostles in Jerusalem.
The apostasy of the original Christian church did not have anything to do with Christ coming to America, except perhaps indirectly because the Book of Mormon was part of the Restoration that needed to occur because of the apostasy. No connection two thousand years ago, however.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
All valid points, and I apologize if there was any inaccuracy in my post due to massive oversimplification of early Christian history
I find Christian discussions very entertaining, because there are so many different interpretations, understandings, and beliefs, even within a single sect. You have changing beliefs and understanding through the history of the religion, disagreements within any given period of time, and strangely worded and differently understood articles of faith to contend with, among so many other difficulties.
When you bring Catholics, various Protestant beliefs, and LDS all into the same discussion, it's a big, confusing party.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
God is a pretty big topic. It would be more astonishing if we had all the answers and our understanding never grew. We Catholics have a saying. "It's a mystery." In the past that has been interpreted to mean "because I say so". I prefer a more modern interpretation - that there is always more to discover.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:In other words, within the first century after Christ died.
I'm LDS, and I don't believe that at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* Okay. Will you share what you believe?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Hey! This is a Questions About Catholicism thread! If you want to talk about LDS start your own thread! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a question about Catholicism in a way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought it was. I would interested in hearing what Dante believes.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Absolutely.
Also, Occasional's thoughts about the early church seem different too. Is there an official place in lds literature where these beliefs are written down?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
The Apostasy happened on Thursday, May 2, 287 at 6:39 a.m.
Nah, I don't know. But my feeling is that the Apostasy was a process (rather than event) that started in the first century--it's already apparent in the New Testament--and continues in certain forms to this day. I guess I would say that a general apostasy had occurred by about Constantine's time (though I'm not sure there's any causal link there).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
vonk, was there a question you wanted to ask?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think there is. There are exact dates for the Restoration, but not for the other. I don't think that there was a line in the sand, exactly.
Although, come to think of it, if there had to be a line in the sand, it would be the day the priesthood passed from the earth for that dispensation. I'm not sure when Dante and Occasional believe that was.
Added: I think we were all writing at the same time. I concur that it was a process and not a single dramatic moment.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
no, I already asked my question. Sorry to interupt, I was feeling frisky. I've already swatted my own nose.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Although, come to think of it, if there had to be a line in the sand, it would be the day the priesthood passed from the earth for that dispensation.
What's this talking about?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"apostasy" is an awfully strong word... do LDS really believe all other Christians (or even Roman Catholics alone) are apostates?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I just thought I would move this discussion back over to LDS and Philosophy so there isn't a distraction. I will answer some questions at the end of the second page soon as I have time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"apostasy" is an awfully strong word... do LDS really believe all other Christians (or even Roman Catholics alone) are apostates?
There's a difference, I think, in the connotations of the words apostasy and apostate. Apostasy, to me (and thus, in my mind, Mormonism), is a general, unspecific, state of being fallen away from God. Apostate, on the other hand, implies an individual, willful turning away from God and His truth.
Mormonism proclaims that it is the "one true church," but doesn't deny that other churches have truth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
heh. That sounds familiar.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:whistles innocently:
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, Mormons and Catholics agree on lots of things: the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the importance of authority...
It is good to find common ground.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It is good to find common ground.
This is a very underrated aphorism...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(Some of us are a little "iffy" on the importance of authority...)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Even so, don't you feel the love?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Always.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hey, where did the post I was about to respond to go? Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I removed it when I realized that it had some inaccurate information.
Edit: Here is an interesting timelime of Christianity.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Hey, where did the post I was about to respond to go?
Oh, respond anyway. I love your posts.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Great link Enochville, thanks Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Thanks, enochville, that's a great link.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, Mormons and Catholics agree on lots of things: the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the importance of authority...
I don't think it's accurate to say that Mormons and Catholics agree on the divinity of Jesus. Just because they use the same word doesn't mean the teachings are at all similar, and the focus of the doctrine for Catholics rests heavily on the areas of disagreement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh.
EDIT: I think it's fair to note that I'm pretty sure the Catholic church doesn't consider the Mormon beliefs "Christian."
And I'm being deliberately non-confrontational.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Scott's response made me laugh.
(edit: yes, I know you were.)
[ April 27, 2006, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
a short aside back to a previous discussion: adding on to what Dag (an others) were saying about miracles/appearances...
I think most of what you are talking about, Occasional, is a populous thing. Perhaps a folk-religion movement within the church. Seeing Jesus in a taco sign is generally not confirmed in any official capacity, though as long as there is no harm being done as a result would probably be deemed harmless and/or slightly beneficial by the church in general.
There are however "certified" miracles and have been at least in the range of 6-10 (possibly a few more or less) within the last century or so. (actually probably more than that, but I can only think of a handful, and others were probably more minor and/or less well-known). These occurances are carefully investigated by officers of the church (generally priests from a specific organization within the vatican whose name I can't recall. But I think other religious, i.e. brothers and sisters can sometimes be used) this will involve interviews with those involved, background investigations, investigations of the site/occurance etc... basically a very thourough investigation to make sure people aren't just making things up and/or this isn't just an odd natural phenomena. I'm sure there are some specific criteria they look for but it's an extensive process and fairly subjective in the end. At the end of the process I'm not sure that they technically declare the occurance a miracle so much as they might just declare it not a hoax.
Notable examples are the marian visitations at Fatima, various miraculous healings, and there was I believe a crucifix somewhere in southeast asia (maybe the phillipines) that bled human blood
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Oh.
EDIT: I think it's fair to note that I'm pretty sure the Catholic church doesn't consider the Mormon beliefs "Christian."
And I'm being deliberately non-confrontational.
I don't think honest discussion or acknowledgement of the differences is confrontational, even if we disagree. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
NOW you're just arguing for arguments sake.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Am not!
------
I don't know whether RCC recognizes Mormon baptism or not -- I'd suspect not -- but I'm Catholic, and a well-informed one, and I don't see differences to be nearly severe enough to call us different religions. I don't know what LDS means by the divinity of Christ, of course, but for RCC, it's just that Christ is 100% God (and 100% human).
And if the catechism says something else, I guess I can take it . . . :~|
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:KMBoots from another thread:
From Lumen gentium:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I suppose that if we ever all agree on anything, we are likely to be right.
That seems to be more toward the idea that the creeds are dogmatic and everything else not so much, in which case I could totally and unreservedly be Catholic... that there would be room for dissent even on a fairly accepted moral teaching...
In case I wasn't clear before, part of my problem comes from having a serious disagreement with a very authoritative teaching... just how authoritative and binding is a matter of deep concern for me.
I might not have been clear before... sounding like my worry was primarily about whether they would let me... my real worry was that I disagreed on a dogmatic moral teaching. Because if the chruch was teaching something "infallibly" and I believed that was wrong, well.. the implications of that are obviously that I was in the wrong church.
So if anybody has a different citation or interpretation regarding wiggle room here, I'd love to hear it. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The last Pope, while I applaud a lot of what he did, made great strides in reversing the advances made at the Second Vatican Council. And One of these strides that I particularly abhore was (without invoking infallibility) to declare certain topics off limits even to discussion. Divorce, celibacy, birth control, sexual abuse by clerics for example. I (along with many other faithful Catholics) don't believe that he had that authority.
Most Catholics (by a huge margin) including most priests and Bishops disgree with the Vatican's position on birth control and divorce. The Vatican is not the Church, so "the Church" is not teaching at least those things infallibly.
I understand that struggle. I think it is the struggle of anyone who examines their own conscience and their faith. It is one of the first things we address with folks who are thinking about converting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
By the way, for anyone who is interested, my cousin's book is finally out. It is called, Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes. Despite this title it is actually an academic treatise on the history of abuse, and canon law. I have read the first 30 pages or so (just got it last night) and it is deep but not difficult.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And just to triple post:
Do you know how many really good Catholics have disagreed with the Vatican? Been censured and silenced by the Vatican. Do you know how many of them became Cardinals. Saints? How many of their views are now considered doctrine?
Lots. And the Church is better for them.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
kmbboots, can you provide a link to John Paul II's telling Catholics we can't discuss the issues you mention? It's the first I've heard of it, and it's such a major break with Catholic tradition (to forbid discussion) that I can't believe this could have slipped by without me ever seeing anything about it. So I'll need some evidence.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
He said he wasn't going to change the church's position... that is to say, he refused to discuss it officially. He most certainly did not forbid people to talk about it...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And IIRC, his rationale for not changing the church's position was primarily that even to admit that the church's position on these topics might be changed would call into question the doctrinal authority of the papacy.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I recall something like that as well...
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I've never heard the church justify a position with "because if we reverse ourselves it calls into question our authority." Such a statement would *itself* call into question the same authority. Am I misunderstanding you?
I have heard what's close to the opposite justification: "because even the pope doesn't have the authority to overrule Christ." This is for not ordaining priestesses.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's not the stated reason for the beliefs nor is it in defense of the beliefs per se... there are plenty of reasons for holding the positions... but I do recall JPII noting that certain positions could not be reversed without undermining the current understanding of church authority... and there's nothing wrong with noting that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: kmbboots, can you provide a link to John Paul II's telling Catholics we can't discuss the issues you mention? It's the first I've heard of it, and it's such a major break with Catholic tradition (to forbid discussion) that I can't believe this could have slipped by without me ever seeing anything about it. So I'll need some evidence.
It is not at all a major break with Catholic tradition; sadly it is a return to Catholic tradition as it was prior to Vatican II. Check into the Anti-Modernist Oath.
In 1979, Pope John Paul II said, It is the right of the faithful not to be troubled by theories and hypotheses that they are not expert in judging."
The Vatican has tended towards the illusion of infallibility without actually declaring certain doctrines infallibly. As one example of this, here is a rebuttal of an article of Archbiship Bertone, Secretary for CDF, from 1996. I haven't been able to find the article itself online.
Finally, I, from personal knowledge, know that the Vatican tried many ways to keep Tom Doyle quiet on the subject of sexual abuse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: It's not the stated reason for the beliefs nor is it in defense of the beliefs per se... there are plenty of reasons for holding the positions... but I do recall JPII noting that certain positions could not be reversed without undermining the current understanding of church authority... and there's nothing wrong with noting that.
As did Paul VI when the council gathered to study birth control returned an overwhelming majority in favor of, at least, examining the issue.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)