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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1215 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I highly recommend "the Fourth Cup", given the season. I believe Rivka had some issues with his view of Passover, FWIW.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I very seldom accept things when I don't understand the "why". At least not things I care about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since I don't care to become a priest, I haven't tried hard to understand it completely. Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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 Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
