posted
Ok, so I am a born Catholic. That is, I was born into a Catholic family, therefore I am presently Catholic.
However, there is a lot I do not understand about the Catholic religion. In fact, even after having gone to Catholic school from first through eigth grade, I know very little about my religion. Sadly, I gather from most people that this is not an uncommon occurence.
Right now, I am slowly but surely, looking into my relgion and if it is right for me. I wont admit this to my family right now because I am afraid my mom would freak out about me questioning my faith even though my dad isn't even Catholic.
More and more I am disagreeing with what the Catholic Church states and how it is run. Some of the ideas I just do not understand but I really want to understand the basis behind all of it. I guess what I am thinking is that if I understand why the Catholic Church does what it does then I can make an informed decision on what I believe to be right. Without knowing why I disagree with some things and agree with other things, I can not make any progress on my stance on religion. Plus, I just really want to understand and know what the Catholic Church is all about.
I outright believe there is a God. That is something that will never change. It is the practices of different religions, though, that makes me want to figure out which one is closest to my beliefs.
Therefore, I would like to propose some questions about the Catholic religion that I do not really understand.
My first question is: What makes the pope infalliable? Who stated this and why? Is he not just another human being who happens to spread God's word (except on a much larger scale)?
posted
IIRC (and I'm sure Dag will correct me) papal infallibility is a fairly recent doctrine, first propagated in a bull of 1870 or thereabouts. As for the theological reasoning, I have no idea.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how old you are, RR, but I knew an amazingly little amount about my religion until I was 19 or so. I didn't go to a private school, but I attended church a couple of times a week all growing up.. I think now that you've decided to care, there are lots of rescources available. Just start googling. In my case, I left my church for a while and came back.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure others can give an explanation with more depth, but my understanding is that the scriptural basis for the doctrine of infallibility stems from two things: scriptural interpretation and the Catholic church's claim to the descent of the papacy from Peter.
Scripture:
quote:Matthew 16:18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to you. And whatever you may bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven, and whatever you may loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.
This was also listed:
quote:John 21: 15Then when they broke fast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these? He said to Him, Yes, Lord, You know that I love You. He said to him, Feed My lambs. 16He said to him the second time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? He said to Him, Yes, Lord, You know that I love You. He said to him, Feed My sheep. 17He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him a third time , Do you love Me? And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.
Then, the question of who, if anyone, inherited this power from Peter is solved by the church listing an unbroken line of successors from Peter to John Paul II.
If you're looking for information on the Catholic church, always go to the vatican website (www.vatican.va) because that is the church's "official" stance and not what someone interprets the Catholic Church to be saying
I'll look around for information about the Pope being infallible.
What I remember from teachings when I was a kid was that the Pope is the "mouthpiece" for God on earth and so the Pope has to be infallible if we God is infallible.
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, the Pope is only infallable it when he speaks "ex cathedra". In essence, the Pope makes ordinary statments, which are fallable, and highly solemn statements which are infallable. Who determines whether a statement was ordinary or highly solemn, the Pope himself.
So if the Pope makes an pronouncement and declares that this pronouncement is "infallable", then it is, otherwise it isn't. Such declarations are extremely unusual.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
What subject matters are spoken of infallibly: "only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching"
A member of the Church has a duty to believe "definitive" teachings, but "before being bound to give such an assent (to infallible teachings), the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible)".
So, which teachings are definitive, or "what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard"?
In general, Ecumenical Councils and the Pope are the two primary sources of definitive teachings. "[I]nfallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree." The link contains these conditions, but generally, it's pretty clear. It doesn't happen often.
It should be noted that both of these organs are means of expressing the Church's infallibility, which is also limited to teachings of faith and morals.
The basis (and more is in the link on this) is that promise of Christ's continued guidance of His Church. The best Scriptural example for me is the decision in Acts to not subject non-Jewish converts to the full extent of Jewish law - a clear example of faith being decided by the Apostles. The idea is that the Pope is the successor to Peter, and thus maintains this power to speak ex cathedra or to convene an ecumenical council.
quote:When the Pope teaches ex cathedra, what he says is binding on the consciences of all Catholics. In the more than 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, only two Popes have taught ex cathedra. In 1854 Pope Pius IX taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Immaculately Conceived. And in 1950 Pope Pius XII taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary was Assumed Body and Soul into Heaven.
What the article fails to mention is that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility was considered blasphemous under RomanCatholicDoctrine until PiusIX ramrodded the measure through VaticanI by financial&other intimidation, by political deals with NapoleonIII, etc, and by limiting debate. Due to the acoustics of the debate chamber, most of the audience of voters could not hear the debate. Nor was a copy of the debate allowed to be circulated amongst voters.
posted
It helps but I'm still not sure about it. I mean, so i understand the Pope position comes about because of Peter whom Jesus set to be the rock and foundation of the church.
Im still not sure about the infallability thing, though. I might be a little confused. It appears to me that this is more of an interpretation than something outright stated in the Bible, correct? What happens when the Pope makes an "infalliable" statement that later turns out to be wrong or will that never happen?
So the Pope uses the infalliability thing very little? When was the last time the Pope actually made an "infallibable" statement?
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect the Popes are quite careful not to speak ex cathedra on things that can be disproved. Immaculate Conception and Body-and-Soul are not exactly testable hypotheses.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, it's only on matters of faith and morality, two things which CANNOT be proven by scientific methods.
quote:Im still not sure about the infallability thing, though. I might be a little confused. It appears to me that this is more of an interpretation than something outright stated in the Bible, correct? What happens when the Pope makes an "infalliable" statement that later turns out to be wrong or will that never happen?
The teaching is that it won't happen. There have been many infallible statements made by ecumenical councils - the doctrines of the Trinity and original sin, for example. Is it just papal infallibility or the infallibility of the Church as a whole on definitive teachings you are concerned about?
posted
aspectre, the Catholic Church claims that infallibility has come down unbroken from Jesus through the apostles (and chiefly Peter) and for all time.
The statements in the Vatican Council were merely a codification of what was assumed true all along, according to Catholic tradition.
In addition, the pope when speaking ex cathedra is not doing so just for Catholics but for all mankind.
That is the Catholic doctrine.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say the pope were to make an infalliable statement today, what happens if the majority of the Catholics do not agree or cannot find that they can accept the Pope's statement? Are we, as Catholics, bound to automatically accept whatever the Pope says as fact?
I continually feel this "guilt factor" that I even question or don't believe some of the things that the Catholic Church teaches. In one aspect, I do not know enough about the Bible or my religion so accepting what someone says it true seems reasonable, but then aren't we, as human beings expected to question the things people tell us and find the truth of the matter for ourselves? Does this questioning in itself make me a bad Catholic or not really one at all?
ps mothertree: I just turned 20 this past friday Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag stated what I meant to as well...the church itself is considered infallible in matters of doctrine and morality. Not only the pope, but the Church.
Interestingly, for a Protestant reformation to happen at all, one might assume that the doctrine of the church's infallibility must've been tossed out wholesale by the reformers. Not so! At least not universally by all denominations.
See, the thing is that infallibility in matters of doctrine and morality is a very important doctrine that solved lots of pressing questions of old. Without it, every person is, in theory, free to decide just what it was God was trying to convey. And every person decides for themselves what is moral and what is not moral.
Scripture is useful, but it is also subject to misuse, so the reason for infallibility in doctrine and morals seems pretty obvious from the standpoint of looking at the alternative.
Papal infallibility is sort of special class of this same thing. Just as Peter was made chief among the apostles, the pope is the head of church now. The ultimate earthly authority for all questions.
It's considered a teaching position, ultimately.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many scholars count three uses: papal infallibility is often considered to have been infallibly declared as well.
How could a statement of faith and morals later turn out to be wrong? I mean, after the end of times, sure, but what kind of evidence will turn up proving that Mary was not a virgin?
All this amounts to is that the Catholic heirarchy has the right to enunciate what Catholic doctrine is--what is and is not dogma. Doesn't mean you have to believe it; just that if you don't believe it you are not Catholic. When they say, essentially, all Catholics believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, all Catholics believe Jesus was crucified and rose again, all Catholics believe Jesus is the son of God, well isn't it their place to specify just what it is that Catholics believe?
Also, don't look at it as the pope being perfect by virtue of his holiness or whatever. It's more like a protection. If you are Catholic, you believe God will protect the church from descending into grievous religious error by preventing official ex cathedra declarations on faith and morals from being in error. So the Catholic belief is not that their pope is too perfect to make mistakes, but that the Church will be protected from the most catastrophic mistakes he could make. If you believe in God--especially an active God--and if you believe in a particular organized religious framework, then it's not too much of a stretch to believe that your active God will prevent the people He chose to lead you from leading you into evil.
When I was Catholic, infallibility was not really a big stumbling block for me. We have a hard time with the doctrine in our modern democratic times, but there is a logic behind the belief, and it is not a belief that a given man is better than other men.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say the pope were to make an infalliable statement today, what happens if the majority of the Catholics do not agree or cannot find that they can accept the Pope's statement? Are we, as Catholics, bound to automatically accept whatever the Pope says as fact?
Not automatically, but yes, if you wish to call yourself Catholic. Nobody forces you to number yourself among them. But you can't, for instance, be Catholic and believe that Jesus was merely a human prophet. This is in the same vein.
Is it sinful to question? Of course not. If you never question, then can you truly say that your beliefs are yours? To what extent have you chosen to believe them? Ideally, Catholics are those who question the teachings they receive, and ultimately decide that they agree with the teachings of the Church.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say the pope were to make an infalliable statement today, what happens if the majority of the Catholics do not agree or cannot find that they can accept the Pope's statement? Are we, as Catholics, bound to automatically accept whatever the Pope says as fact?
Technically, we are supposed to believe all that the Church teaches is revealed by God (i.e., if the Church teaches something is revealed by God, we are supposed to believe it). I think one would have to prayerfully consider and research a doctrine that was spoken ex cathedra and determine if one can accept it or not. If not, steps would have to be taken - investigate it with a priest, identify precisely the portion that is objectionable, and examine ones motives for the objection. If one found it morally offensive or blasephemous, one would then have to take drastic steps.
I don't think the likelihood of such a thing happening is very high (in fact, I don't think it would happen at all), but the next time such a statement is made I will analyze and digest it to determine my beliefs.
quote:I continually feel this "guilt factor" that I even question or don't believe some of the things that the Catholic Church teaches.
One thing I learned is that very often, what the Church teaches is not what we think it does. In these cases, research into the definitive teaching may help immensely. It may be that the definitive portion of the teaching is narrower than you suspect. That may not be the case - for example, not believing the doctrines surrounding the Eucharist and Communion and taking it anyway would be a serious thing. In these situations, though, knowledge is good. Research. Pray. Read scripture. Read the Catechism. And most of all, define what it is you believe and what you only suspect.
quote:In one aspect, I do not know enough about the Bible or my religion so accepting what someone says it true seems reasonable, but then aren't we, as human beings expected to question the things people tell us and find the truth of the matter for ourselves?
Yes, we are. But we believe that the Church is there to help us. Somethings need to be taken on faith. But not things that cause us to act in a way we think immoral. If you think some Church teaching requires you to act immorally, then a lot of consideration is needed. The teaching may be misunderstood, or the situation in the world may be different than you think, or there may be another teaching with more immediate relevance.
quote:Does this questioning in itself make me a bad Catholic or not really one at all?
No, it does not make you a bad Catholic. It's better than Catholics who "believe" half-understood doctrines. Questioning can be a road to greater faith and understanding, as long as one truly wants to hear the answers. I believe the answers would lead you to remain in the Church, but even if they don't, I'm not sure you'd be in a better position if you tried to ignore them.
quote:Also, don't look at it as the pope being perfect by virtue of his holiness or whatever. It's more like a protection. If you are Catholic, you believe God will protect the church from descending into grievous religious error by preventing official ex cathedra declarations on faith and morals from being in error.
This is probably the best thing posted in the thread so far.
Bob's posts are also very good, especially about the reasons for the doctrine.
posted
The claim was made after Vatican I, Bob_Scopatz. Before that, the concept of anyone being infallible -- other than the Trinity -- was considered to be a blasphemous assault upon God's Authority. And that is that: regardless of the revisionism being practiced upon RomanCatholic history.
The Church is not the hierarchy. The Church is the laity. Members of the hierarchy are the servants of the Church, the laity. Members of the laity are not the servants of the hierarchy. And that is that: regardless of the desires of some members of the hierarchy; and papists-not-RomanCatholics.
If you want to ask other questions, I'll do my best to answer and will seek help if necessary. I don't mind doing it on Hatrack or via email if you prefer.
quote:I think KoM knows that. I think his point was that it's awfully convenient.
Funny. His point in numerous other threads has been the inappropriateness of doctrines of faith being spoken on topics that can be confirmed scientifically.
posted
The pre-VaticanI historical documents still exist, Icarus, as well as direct reports from contemporaneous observers of VaticanI, of PiusIX's negotiations with NapoleonIII, etc. Any copies of the revisions date only from after VaticanI.
posted
"His point in numerous other threads has been the inappropriateness of doctrines of faith being spoken on topics that can be confirmed scientifically."
Well, he's not always coherent. Personally, I'm fine with doctrines of faith being spoken on topics that can be confirmed scientifically, as long as those doctrines are eventually confirmed scientifically. If they are not confirmed, then they're pretty much useless.
Doctrines of faith on matters of faith are great, but they're also a lot easier to come up with without any fear of contradiction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the history of the Christian Church, "without fear of contradiction" may be a slight exaggeration. Filioque clause, anyone?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he means "without fear of disagreement," KoM.
-o-
Sure, aspectre, but you have chosen to unquestioningly accept one set of recollections and disregard another, though you certainly have no direct knowledge of their correctness.
I believe that RR is specifically looking for a Catholic response (or what a Catholic response would be) to his questions, so he can judge whether or not such a response is satisfactory to him.
I guess there's nothing wrong with your providing counterpoint, but your vociferousness (and your name calling to those who do believe the doctrine) strike me as somewhat disrespectful of the beliefs of some here.
posted
Discussion&debate does not equal different doctrines, KoM.
The USmilitary has a whole heckuvalotta defense plans for invasion of the US or attacks on UScitizens by all different kinds of groupings of other countries, including long-term allies. As well as plans for invading for all those countries. It also has plans on how to react to reception of intelligent signals from SETI*. One set recommends shutting down all radio-frequency broadcasts (including radio, television, cellphone, etc) and high-powered powerlines. Just because "what if" discussions/debates have taken place and have been recorded doesn't mean that those same documents report on wars which have happened or will happen.
More relevant to the RomanCatholicChurch itself, didja know that the most prominent members of the Inquisition which tried Galileo had previously been brought before the Inquisition for their own trials? Kinda like gettin' a PhD
Until CardinalRatzinger's "The Church is not a democracy." and loyalty oaths, debate on RomanCatholicDoctrine had usually been encouraged, and always accepted (within certain very liberal-for-the-times guidelines). Including inside RomanCatholic classrooms.
quote:The claim was made after Vatican I, Bob_Scopatz. Before that, the concept of anyone being infallible -- other than the Trinity -- was considered to be a blasphemous assault upon God's Authority. And that is that: regardless of the revisionism being practiced upon RomanCatholic history.
The Church is not the hierarchy. The Church is the laity. Members of the hierarchy are the servants of the Church, the laity. Members of the laity are not the servants of the hierarchy. And that is that: regardless of the desires of some members of the hierarchy; and papists-not-RomanCatholics.
aspectre, I'm just telling what I found out about what the Church believes to be the case. You've got a strong opinion on the matter, but stating it forcefully or not doesn't do anything to change the fact that the Catholic church has a different take on it. And it IS their history they are relating. In the sources I read, they acknowledge that the term "infallibility" doesn't appear in earlier documents, but the fact of a belief in doctrinal infallibility comes shining through.
In fact, it was not just the scriptures, but the church's tradition that was used to bolster the arguments in favor of stating the doctrine outright.
They also mention that there was clear dissent on the issue.
It's not really a matter for argument if we're discussion what the Catholic doctrine is...you can just go look it up. You don't believe it. That's fine. Neither do I. But we should at least agree that the authority for discovering what that doctrine is should be the church itself. And they say what's been posted here (mostly by Dag, but a little by me and a few others).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatcha think is there ain't there, Icarus.
The opinions being promulgated by CardinalRatzinger, OpusDei, and other papists are not RomanCatholic teaching. Because those same people have a large degree of control over the hierarchy, and/or over popular dissemination of opinions, those nonRomanCatholics are driving good RomanCatholics away from the Church. I believe Bob_Scopatz was one victim, and you were another.
All I am saying is that: No one has to accept an opinion just cuz some cleric says it's so. The hierarchy is not the Church. And RomanCatholics do not have to leave the Church for disagreeing with the hierarchy. That would be like permanently giving up your home because you don't agree with the part-time housekeeper. The hierarchy is the servant of the Church: the laity is the Church.
For evil to prevail, all it takes is for good men to do nothing. Or to just leave, hoping that the unpleasantness won't follow.
posted
And you, Bob_Scopatz, are accepting recent writings as The Church. The Church has existed for nearly a couple of thousand years: most of it within times of internal disputes. Sometimes the liberals win, and sometimes the revanchists win. Sometimes there is Compromise, and sometimes there is Schism. But The Church abides.
I'm just relating what they've put on their website.
Get a grip. I'm not arguing with you. There's nothing to argue ABOUT. It's what they say their doctrine and beliefs are. Is this such a big deal? Do you even KNOW what website I'm using? I haven't told you...
posted
I can link you, Bob_Scopatz, to the AmericanEnterpriseInstitute, the CatoInstitute, etc ad nauseum for rather interesting takes on American history, law, economics, science, etc. And ya know what, they'll pull quotes outta eg The Wealth of Nations such as "the invisible hand of the marketplace..." to support their case. But if one is familiar with the texts/documents/studies they are using, the only conclusions one can come to are: 1) they haven't read the book/etc; 2) they are functionally illiterate, ie can't relate several ideas into the context of a larger construct; 3) they are brainwashed past the point of contact with reality; and/or 4) they are liars hoping that readers-unfamiliar-with-the-topic will not check their less-than-half-truths against the whole.
The neo"conservative"s have bought a large number of pseudo-intellectuals to argue their case. And the recent entrenchment of the revanchists within the RomanCatholicChurch into prominent positions of the hierarchy has allowed them to buy/assign pseudo-intellectuals to promote their desires.
In the manner that neo"conservative"s have tried to shut down debate on what it means to be American, those revanchists have tried to shut down debate on what it means to be RomanCatholic.
Sorry, I ain't gonna sit around and let those backward-facing individuals to act as if they are Authorities. Or allow them to win just cuz nobody bothered to contest their self-appointment to Godhood.
posted
Thanks Dag, etc. That helped. I may have questions later if I indulge into it a little more.
I was pleased, for once, this Easter to hear a priest who knows his Bible. I've been to an handful of churches in my life and heard various priests and never have I actually heard any of them quote a verse from something other than the gospel that was just read. Nor has any priest explained historically or explained the actual passage like this guy. He was funny too. Most priests I hear tell a little story that has some vague link to one line in the passage or the general "moral of the story." Unfortunately, he is in a church about 3 1/2 hrs from where I go to school so I will only get to hear him when I go visit my grandparents.
I'm one of those people who knows very little about my faith and the Bible, though I am trying to correct that. I started reading the Bible last year and I got about 1/3 of the way done before I got caught up in school again. I plan to restart once my finals are over.
For me, Catholic grade school hardly taught me anything about my religion. Sure we read some stories from our religion books that were accompanied by a more modern example to relate it to this day an age, but they didn't even do that great a job in teaching us. As far as I was concerned, religion was just one of those easy classes where you didn't really have to do much. I don't ever remember even openning a bible, just our religion books with the same passages picked out of the Bible every year...how sad is that?
Now for just a general observation of mine. It seems to me that the majority of Catholics I meet (mostly my age but plenty of adults too) do not know a lot about the faith and know even less about the Bible. In fact, I know more nonCatholics that know more about Catholic faith than Catholics who know about Catholic faith.
Does anyone else see this too or is it likely that it is just the school/churches I go to or the area I live in?
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ps...any way I can edit my title to the correct spelling of catholicism? I just realized that it is spelled wrong-hehe
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a VERY offensive reminder of charges made during those years when discrimation against RomanCatholics -- including as targets of eugenics programs -- was backed by the "law of the land" in all too many USstates, and states within other nations.
Unfortunately, there are some folks who call themselves RomanCatholic who are constantly trying to leave the misimpression that RomanCatholics must give their primary allegiance to the Pope: that a pope's word is unquestionable. RomanCatholics don't have such an allegiance to the Pope. And a pope's word ain't unquestionable.
To separate RomanCatholics from those who disinform the public, I've chosen the appropriate descriptive for the latter.
posted
RR, I was raised Catholic and also went to Cahtolic schools through 8th grade. I never felt like I knew a lot about my faith but I have relaized recently that I know more than many Catholics. I don't know why this is so for us Catholics. I teach religious ed at my Church, and I have to admit my classes often seem REALLY bored by all the rituals and weird names for things. So I tend to talk about Jesus amd the Bible more than Catholic doctrine.
That's great that you are reading the Bible! We had a priest tell a great joke a few months back-- The Catholic woman and the Baptist woman were talking, and the Baptist woman said, "I really need a new Bible, I've only had this one for a few years but it's really falling apart." The Catholic woman says "Really? I've had mine for 20 years and it looks brand new!" He went on to say that we Catholic really need to read and know the Scripture better. He's a great priest-- retired, in his 80's but so full of life.
Posts: 239 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I started reading the Bible last year and I got about 1/3 of the way done before I got caught up in school again. I plan to restart once my finals are over."
It might be easier for you, for now, to check out some websites and tv shows. My mom is a big Zola Levitt fan. He teaches a lot on the Jewish practices behind Christianity. Even if you disagree with some of what he teaches, at least you'll have a better idea of why you believe what you do.
Don't think I'm saying don't read the Bible. But if you don't have time right now, some programs are worth checking out. Also, which third did you read? A lot of times people try to start with Genesis and go straight through. It's not the way I would recommend. I'd start with John since his central message of love is pretty warm and fuzzy. After that, try some of Paul's epistles like Galatians or Ephesians. Paul wrote to the Gentiles so if he mentions any Jewish customs, he stops to explain them.
posted
RR, my local church offers lessons on the Catholic faith (for those who are already Catholic but want to find out more about their faith).
My favourite Priest was one who taught me in high school. He was terrific and -very- strange. (He decided to go be a shepherd for a summer since the Bible mentioned it so much and he felt he couldn't understand the Bible and lead people if he'd never been a shepherd )
I come from a very "liberal" Catholic region. I find it interesting hearing what others were taught compared to what the Priest's around me teach . (Next time I go by the local Seminary I'm going to pop into their library and have one of the Father's direct me to the interpretations/readings about Papal/church infallability. Not because I don't believe what people have posted, but because I like to read the original sources and get my own ideas on these subjects)
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I had heard that starting from genesis and going on was hard, so I followed this schedule. I know it isn't for a Catholic Bible (which is different) but I was given a Bible from my boyfriend since he knew I wanted to learn more. I figured I could go read the parts not included in this book that are included in the Catholic Bible later. I got through the first 5 months before I got caught up in everything.
I started reading the Bible because I had no clue why I did some of the things I did in Church. Such as, why do Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays during lent and on Ash Wednesday. I just used to do it without questioning until someone asked me why I did it. It took me a while to not get angry when people questioned what I do in the Church (in fact-sometimes I still do-mostly because I'm angry that I don't know myself). So now when people question me, I try to go figure things out instead of just blindly doing things like everyone else without knowing why.
I'd have to say, my mom was weirded out when I first began reading the Bible, like it was something gastly or whatever. Then again, I think she is just afraid I'll switch religions or something.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't agree with the statement that non-Catholics generally know more than Catholics about what Catholics believe, since I have many times had to straighten out rather severe misinterpretations of what Catholics believe from non-Catholic friends or acquaintances of mine. I would agree with you, however, that Catholics aren't nearly as well-versed (!) when it comes to the Bible as other Christians are.
Not to excuse it, but there is a reason why this happens. Other faiths use the Bible much more centrally as a vehicle for revelation than the Catholic Church does, so it would make some sense that they study it much more. Catholics also aren't (generally) fundamentalist, so they won't study it as closely as a fundamentalist who believes every word is literally true. Catholics are more apt to consider the Bible divinely inspired and useful as a source of wisdom/vehicle for prayerful meditation, and so they will focus on the stories that seem better suited toward that end. That's why you seem to get the same Bible stories over and over again.
Still, it would be good for Catholics to know the Bible (and their faith) better, if only to have a better foundation for dialogue with non-Catholics.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had dinner with a family on Easter, and in attendance were some elderly Catholic women. One of which stated quite clearly that her Church 'Teaches us to worship the Saints and Mary, never talked much about Jesus, and discouraged us from reading the Bible, because it would only confuse us.'.
The thought running through my head at that moment was: Dagonee and Eaquae_Legit would have a FIT if they heard her affirm that.
Nevertheless, this old woman firmly believed that this is what she was taught. I didn't know what to say to her.Perhaps her local leadership has some major issues...
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
