posted
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 Where does the Catholic Church draw the line between what are the current teachings and what is outdated. Or is anything outdated?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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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").
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Count me as surprised as well. We have forty in our RCIA class this year. Going to be a big night.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh... and apparently I'm wrong about Nuns having received Holy Orders as a sacrament, though I thought sure I had...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what's with the whole wine thing. Should they be giving small children wine? Do they clean off the cup?
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that another biggie is the nature of sacrament and creation in general. I know it was the most important to me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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..."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
