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)?
[ March 29, 2005, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: RackhamsRazor ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
The pope is infallible only so long as he does not contradict my grandfather.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
[ March 28, 2005, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
EDIT: I blame my slowness in posting on Firefly. And before someone jumps on me, I'm watching the first one again.
[ March 28, 2005, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
[ March 28, 2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
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?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1950. And before that, 1854. And before that, never.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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?
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
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 Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Gah. Slow typing on my part.
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ March 28, 2005, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: KoM, it's only on matters of faith and morality, two things which CANNOT be proven by scientific methods.
I think KoM knows that. I think his point was that it's awfully convenient. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
RackhamsRazor,
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.
Dagonee
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Topic: Questions About Catholocism
My question: Isn't it Catholicism?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
I think we all know what his real point was.
Dagonee
[ March 28, 2005, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
aspectre remembers how it really was, because he was there. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Kai: Yes.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ March 28, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Considering the history of the Christian Church, "without fear of contradiction" may be a slight exaggeration. Filioque clause, anyone?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
[ March 28, 2005, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
* Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
[ April 09, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ March 29, 2005, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ March 29, 2005, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
aspectre...again...
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 by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ March 29, 2005, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
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?
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
ps...any way I can edit my title to the correct spelling of catholicism? I just realized that it is spelled wrong-hehe
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
See the pencil-and-paper icon at the top of your first post? Click on that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
aspectre! Okay, okay!
Sheesh.
I'm not part of some movement for crying out loud. I'm posting what the Catholic encyclopedia has in its listing for "Papal Infallibility"
I was just trying to help RackhamsRazor by finding a few things, not enter into a debate on the various movements within the Catholic church.
Yikes! Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
What does that encyclopedia say about "aspectral Infallibility"? Maybe he's the Holy Ghost? Or maybe Mr. Chick of comic-tract fame?
Is papist an offensive label? I have only heard it once or twice.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ March 29, 2005, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
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.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"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.
Good luck, RR.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
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)
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
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...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: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.
At the Easter Vigil, as the elect are being fully initiated, we sing the Litany of Saints. Each verse is 2 or 3 saint names sung by the cantor, and then the congregation responds with "Pray for us."
At the end, it shifts to the Lord and Jesus, and then the response definitively changes to one that could be called worship.
Even the "Hail Mary" is a request that Mary pray for us.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I found a copy of the Baltimore Catechism at my father's house. It's interesting to look at.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Who is this Veronica character who wipes Jesus' face in the sixth station of the cross? I don't remember seeing that name in the Bible.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I do not know enough about Catholic doctrine to add to this thread, but I just wanted to say that I was over 30 before I could really understand and articulate my beliefs well.
I think too many Christians are superficial Christians - they take what parts of the doctrine they want to and don't care much about going deeper.
I even had the assistant pastor of my church tell me my studies into theology, and my desire to want to know more about what I believed and why I believed it made me "elitist" and that I would have to go to seminary school before I'd find people willing to discuss it.
Needless to say, that angered me a bit.
It upsets me to see people taking their views of eschatology from the Left Behind books. And not understanding that the premillenial dispensational view touted by those books is not the one and only view out there.
So, in my opinion, asking questions and examining why the church you belong to takes certain stances can only be a good thing. I wish more people cared enough to really investigate what they believe and why.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The story of Veronica is not told in the gospels, but in early apocryphal writings. An early 2nd century version of The Acts of Pilate reports that a woman named Veronica (Bernice, in the Greek version) was the same woman Jesus cured of a blood disorder (Matthew 9,20-22), and that she came to his trial before Pilate to claim his innocence.
spaceLater versions of the story from the 4th or 5th century say that Veronica possessed a cloth imprinted with the face of Jesus. Western pilgrims returning to Europe passed her story on. As the Stations of the Cross developed in late medieval times, Veronica was remembered at the 6th Station: she wipes the face of Jesus on his way to Calvary and he leaves an image of his face on her veil. A healing relic, impressed with the image of Jesus' face, which came to be known as "Veronica's Veil," was honored in St. Peter's Church in Rome as early as the 8th century.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Perhaps her local leadership has some major issues...
Or maybe it’s just her. I can’t believe some of the things that people have told me they got from my sermons. Usually it’s either something I actually was trying to communicate, or an interesting tangent off of something I said, but every once and awhile . . . *shakes head*
Not everyone has the excellent listening comprehension skills of Hatrackers. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
And maybe somebody would be kind enough to explain the devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus. The article at that site seems way too complicated. Why do we see depictions of Christ with his heart exposed and wrapped in thorns? We see Mary, Mother of God with her heart exposed as well.
[ March 29, 2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
"So, in my opinion, asking questions and examining why the church you belong to takes certain stances can only be a good thing. I wish more people cared enough to really investigate what they believe and why"
Beautifully put, Belle!
As far as the Sacred Heart and all that, I honestly don't know much about that-- I don't recall ever learning about it and it cetainly isn't brought up much. SOme of the more, shall we say, arcane sapect of Catholicism are a bit strange...
It always amazed me, I'm not sure why, that some churches had adult Sunday School classes, but now I think it is great, we Catholics could use them too.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I also never understood the Sacred Heart thing. I've love someone to explain it.
Posted by LTC DuBois (Member # 7661) on :
Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me."116 He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation,117 "is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings" without exception.118
Actually an earlier post reminded me, what is the stance of the Catholic Church on saints and Mary. I never noticed how much focus was put on Mary and the saints until someone asked me why and I couldn't honestly answer them.
Do other churches/religions revere Mary as much as Catholics?
Why are we Catholics (or at least for me when I was young) told to pray to saints and to Mary but no one ever suggests praying directly to God? Why would we pray to saints or Mary when we can pray to God (I mean I know he is busy and all...but still)? What can Mary and the saints do for us that praying to God won't do? Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
I guess I am also wondering, what place to saints have in the church. For a while I thought they were just people who we were supposed to look up to and try to embody how they devoted their life to God or followed Jesus's path. So if they are just people who we acknowledge to be a good example of Christ's followers, why are we told to pray to them?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I never saw the "Sacred Heart" depicted until I was in the Philippines. I saw it *everywhere* there. I wondered if it was unique to the Philippines.
While there, a newspaper reporter interviewed me to get the "Mormon Perspective" on how we view Mary. That was a cool experience. They were very respectful, and seemed to appreciate what I had to say.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote: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...
Or perhaps she came to her mistaken conclusions on her own. I have certainly heard loopy pseudodoctrines coming from people in my ward, like the fellow who insisted to me that the Church teaches that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that any evidence otherwise has been deliberately planted here as a test of our faith... Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:What can Mary and the saints do for us that praying to God won't do?
I'm not Catholic, but I might speculate that to some people, particularly the poor and humble, Mary (or another saint) somehow seems less intimidating and more accessible than the Most High. So they ask her to deliver their petitions to Him, rather than doing it themselves.
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
I think that's right, Yozhik. The saints and Mary intercede on our behalf, basically, is what I was taught. I personally don't pray to the saints, or to Mary, any more. It was something I did without thinking when I was younger, but when I got older and began to look into my faith and the teachings of the Church more, I just wasn't comfortable with middlemen (or women)!
I believe the whole Mary thing is fairly recent in the scheme of things, seems like all the DOctrines about her are form the last 150 years or so. Pope John Paul II is really big on Mary. Didn't he declare Mary Co-Redemptrix with Jesus?
I'm still a Catholic, but I have to admit the CHurch has some pretty weird ideas...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why are we Catholics (or at least for me when I was young) told to pray to saints and to Mary but no one ever suggests praying directly to God?
Actually, we may only pray to God (or, more precisely, Divine Persons). Saints are not considered Divine. Link::
quote:An act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer.
...
Although God the Father is mentioned in this prayer as the one to whom we are to pray, it is not out of place to address our prayers to the other Divine persons. The special appeal to one does not exclude the others. More commonly the Father is addressed in the beginning of the prayers of the Church, though they close with the invocation, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end". If the prayer be addressed to God the Son, the conclusion is: "Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end"; or, "Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity, etc.". Prayer may be addressed to Christ as Man, because He is a Divine Person, not however to His human nature as such, precisely because prayer must always be addressed to a person, never to something impersonal or in the abstract. An appeal to anything impersonal, as for instance to the Heart, the Wounds, the Cross of Christ, must be taken figuratively as intended for Christ Himself.
quote:Why would we pray to saints or Mary when we can pray to God (I mean I know he is busy and all...but still)? What can Mary and the saints do for us that praying to God won't do?
What we may do is ask the saints to pray for us, just as we ask friends to pray for us. There is common, non-spiritual usage of the word pray ("To make a fervent request or entreaty"). In this sense, we may "pray" for saints to pray to (or "intercede with") God for us.
But this does not replace the need to pray, in the spiritual sense, directly to God often.
quote:When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
I don't know that this has officially been pronounced yet.
Dagonee
[ March 29, 2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
quote: What we may do is ask the saints to pray for us, just as we ask friends to pray for us.
ahh...now that makes more sense!
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Just to add to what Dag said about asking saints to pray for us: people of many religious persuasions often ask their friends and family to pray for them, for specific intentions. Asking the saints to pray for us is just the same, except maybe the prayers for us don't have as far to go, considering the saints are already in heaven with God.
And we admire saints for the holy lives they led, and look to them as role models.
At an All Saints Day mass, one priest described how we treat saints in his homily. He said that God is like an artist, and saints are like some of the great masterpieces in God's gallery. When you talk to the artist, you for sure always talk to him directly, but you also take time to admire his work and reflect on what those works mean to you. Such is it with saints.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm going to have to disagree that the concept of asking friends to pray for you makes sense. God is omniscient, he already knows your desire or need. Bringing it to his attention is just nagging; asking his friends (the saints) to bring it to his attention is a particularly annoying form of nagging, bordering on marketing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
King of Men, apparently God doesn't agree with you, since we are instructed in the scriptures to pray for one another.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Why are we Catholics (or at least for me when I was young) told to pray to saints and to Mary but no one ever suggests praying directly to God?
The why of "praying to" Mary and the saints has already been answered pretty nicely, but I wanted to comment on this idea of Catholics being discouraged from, or at least, not encouraged to, pray directly to God. This might be a particular oddityof the Catholics around you. When I was Catholic, I personally preferred to pray to God myself rather than asking someone else to intervene for me, and I never felt discouraged in this. If you look in scripture (and in the mass) when Jesus was asked the proper form for prayer, he taught his disciples the Lord's prayer, i.e., the "Our Father." That seems to pretty clearly suggest that praying directly to God is more than acceptable. If you look at the actual prayers in the Mass, God is directly prayed to many times:
quote: I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord, our God.
quote: Lord, have mercy.
quote: Christ, have mercy.
quote: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
quote: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
quote: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
quote: Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles: I leave you peace, my peace I give you. Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.
quote: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
quote: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
The first prayer is a good example of how Catholics actually pray to God, and simply ask Mary and the saints to also pray for them, believing of course that these people are still alive. All in all, plenty of precedent for the idea of praying to God yourself, if that is what you are comfortable with.
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
quote: I'm going to have to disagree that the concept of asking friends to pray for you makes sense.
Why wouldn't it make sense? It's like asking for a little support from your friends when you are in a time of need. Jesus asked his friends to sit and pray with him when he was in a time of need.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The Catholic I am closest too supposedly doesn't know that much about her doctrine, but it doesn't really cause her to not want to be in the church.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I'm going to have to disagree that the concept of asking friends to pray for you makes sense. God is omniscient, he already knows your desire or need. Bringing it to his attention is just nagging; asking his friends (the saints) to bring it to his attention is a particularly annoying form of nagging, bordering on marketing.
And if prayer was about bringing your needs/wants to God's attention, you might be right.
Since it's actually about making changes in oneself, it makes perfect sense that we should pray on behalf of others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Since it's actually about making changes in oneself, it makes perfect sense that we should pray on behalf of others."
That would have been my reply to KoM, too, except for two things:
1) Many people do indeed pray for specific things, or on behalf of something specific: "Lord, please cure Janie's cancer."
2) If it's about making changes in oneself, why do we ask saints to intercede? What changes are they making in themselves?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the link on prayer from one of my earlier posts:
quote:By prayer we acknowledge God's power and goodness, our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything, not merely because the thing asked be good in itself, or advantageous to us, but chiefly because we wish it as a gift of God, and not otherwise, no matter how good or desirable it may seem to us. Prayer presupposes faith in God and hope in His goodness.
I think this is very similar to what she was saying. And the second explains that we are directed to pray for others.
Asking others to pray for us is an acknowledgement of our need of help - an expression of humility which can help dispose us to change. Praying for others is an act of charity.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You know, in a parental relationship, it is usually considered healthy not to look to your parents in all things, and eventually to stand on your own feet.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
quote: 1) Many people do indeed pray for specific things, or on behalf of something specific: "Lord, please cure Janie's cancer."
2) If it's about making changes in oneself, why do we ask saints to intercede? What changes are they making in themselves?
Tom, from what I've been taught "God answers all of our prayers just not necessarly in the way we think he might or when we might like it". Basically, we're supposed to trust God to make the right decissions. If we ask God to cure "Janie" that doesn't mean it's the best thing for us/her so God might not do it.
I'd say asking the saints for help to change oneself is more moral support then anything. *shrugs*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, in a parental relationship, it is usually considered healthy not to look to your parents in all things, and eventually to stand on your own feet.
In most parental relationships, the child is going to be, relatively soon, a creature with the same magnitude of abilities and knowledge. Except for Mormons, most monotheists don't believe that is true about our relationship with God. And with Mormons, I don't believe "relatively soon" would be an accurate description.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Dag, that's a good point. For example, I can type in a post on Hatrack. Let's see your god do that. I contend, then, that human abilities are in fact greater than those of Yahweh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM, please confine this crap to other threads. This is getting very old.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'd say asking the saints for help to change oneself is more moral support then anything."
But why not just ask God directly?
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
quote: For example, I can type in a post on Hatrack. Let's see your god do that. I contend, then, that human abilities are in fact greater than those of Yahweh.
Wow-then your abilities are sad indeed since God can do way better things than post a message on the Internet. Let's see you create heaven and earth
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, let's see your god create heaven and earth. Go on - I'll wait. But really, it seems a rather large test to begin with. Why not start small?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
KoM, seriously. I've done a pretty good job of ignoring your posts the last several weeks about religion, because better people than I have taken you to task about the reasons your approach to the subject are wrong. Please though, this thread is an honest attempt by one member of Hatrack to better understand her own religion. She is making an open effort to understand the things she does not know enough about, in an attempt to decide just where it is she stands on religion.
She is doing so here because there are people like Dagonee who are believers of the Catholic faith that are able to answer her questions. She would like to hear their side of the story. She already knows yours. Therefore, your childish attempts at scorning both her religion and her attempts to better understand that religion are out of place. There is no need for you here. There are several other threads currently available for your type of conversation. Please confine your scorn and atheistic proselytizing to those threads.
--ApostleRadio
EDIT: Wow, for a moment there even I had no idea what that sentence meant.
[ March 30, 2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: prolixshore ]
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
ok...moving on to something more worth my time...I am curious as to why Catholics confess their sins to a priest. I haven't done it in years, mainly because I haven't been forced to do it (like I was in Catholic school) and because I never felt comfortable about it. It also probably has something to do with being afraid of the older priest at our church when I was little (the younger guy was cool though).
Why are we told to confess our sins to a priest instead of ask for forgivenness to God directly?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'll try to get to this tonight, but may need to push it into tomorrow.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The Catholic view of this sacramant (first of all, correctly called reconciliation, not confession) is that it is a reconciliation not only with God, but with the entire community of believers. Sin interferes with your participation in that community, and the act of reconciliation heals that separation. It is an acknowledgment that sin is not merely a personal matter between a believer and God. In an oddly ironic way, it also repudiates a perverse notion of shame: all are sinners, so nobody should feel the need to hide his or her particular sins (and thus avoid getting help for them).
There are secondary reasons for the manner of the sacrament as well. For one thing, it's the same intermediary idea as asking others to pray for you. For another, talking with a good confessor--one who doesn't merely assign you two our fathers and an act of contrition, but actually talks to you nonjugmentally about what you do and why you do it and how you intend to improve--can have similar benefits to those some people receive from a psychologist. There can be a sense of relief, and a sense of being loved by God despite one's sins, and one can receive spiritual advice. If you're in a state of sin and keeping it all inside, it may be hard to have the perspective to figure all of this out for yourself.
There is no reason to feel shame in confession: it is not the priest's role to judge you, but to give advice and help you pray. Also, all are sinners, so you're unlikely to be saying anything the priest has not heard. However, all that being said, I would give you some advice if you choose to remain Catholic. Don't be one of those people who simply goes to whichever priest is not busy at a given time. By now you must have realized that not all priests are created equal. Develop a relationship with a priest that you trust, who will be understanding and non-condemning, and always go to that person. You don't need to hide behind a screen then, because you are not ashamed of who you are, and you are really there for advice. I highly recommind having your own "personal confessor," if you are Catholic.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You shouldn't be forced to do it, but then you run into the age old question of how to encourage someone to do something that may not come naturally. And confession as most Catholics (don't) practice it is such an ordeal, that how can you get someone to do it without forcing them (or them forcing themselves)?
Again, the answer comes down to finding a priest who is not merely a distant authority figure, but a trusted, honestly respected person.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Icky, my man GKC once said that Psychoanalysis was just confession without absolution... and having been through a ton of therapy lately, I think you are dead on about the counseling effects of having a good priest to confess to. (Yes I ended with a preposition. Shoot me... then see a good priest about it )
As for bilbical basis (which seems to be important to RR, forgive me if I'm off on that), at the end of the Gospel of John, the risen Jesus appears, breathes on the disciples, and says something like "receive the holy spirit. If you forgive mens sins, they are forgiven in heaven. If you hold them accountable, they are held accountable in heaven."
The Catholic Church interprets this as applying to the 10 men in the room (Thomas was absent) and their designated successors in the apostolic tradition (Thomas, Matthias, Paul, etc.) and, eventually through that, to today's priests.
If you say this applies to all believers, then I have a problem with it because any prideful and hypocritical believer (and, let's face it, we all are, to some degree, both) could condemn several hundred people to hell quite easily.
If you say it only applied to the men in that room, then it begs two questions:
1) why did they pass it on? 2) why would Jesus make such an important statement (and this is one of three places in the Bible, if you count Pentecost, where God "breathes on" [inspires] man... no small event) with such short-range consequences?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Also, someone mentioned something about Marian Doctrines being recent inventions.
Yes and no.
They only became doctrine recently, but the the beliefs of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are QUITE old. They were only codified and made dogmatic recently (mid 19th and mid 20th centuries, respectively).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Icarus and Jim-Me answered beautifully, but this can expand a little more on the asking God directly point:
quote:that penance is not a mere human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to relieve the emotional strain of troubled souls; it is the ordinary means appointed by Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on conditions of his own choosing but on those which God has determined, and these for the Christian are embodied in the Sacrament of Penance.
No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.
Some of the concrete benefits have been discussed nicely above. The following is a perspective I've had for a while, although I've not seen it explained this way before:
One of the difficulties in praying, at least for me, is the difficulty in trying to mentally differentiate between the praying and the thinking about praying. This is problematic enough for normal prayers. In situations where I actually need to be forgiven, it can be almost insurmountable to me. Have I really asked for forgiveness? Am I truly repentant?
Although these are important questions, the mere asking of them can divert me from the process of reconciliation. Both the process and the help of a good priest can make this easier to overcome.
Dagonee P.S., confession is the element of my faith I have the most difficulty following in practice (I don't go often enough, and I don't do it well), yet it's also one of the few I don't have any difficulty in appreciating the theology behind.
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
Wow. Thanks, Icarus and Jim-Me and Dag. RR isn't the only one learning a lot about her faith from this thread! I always hated reconciliation but lately I've been changing my attitude towards it... I know I wasn't the only Catholic who did see it as the priests trying to "control" us, but you've all given me a new insight into it.
[ April 01, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: ctm ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
My Catholic question has to do with ancient history, but I think also has some present-day doctrinal implications. It's about heresies.
While reading the Belisarius series by David Drake, I came across several mentions of a heretical group (from around the 5th or 6th century A.D.) called the Monophysites. Simply understanding that they were considered heretical was enough to understand the plot itself, but I couldn't help but wonder what their heresy was really all about.
So I went to an online Catholic encyclopedia and looked it up. I learned that the Monophysites had a distinct belief about the nature of Christ, which was diametrically opposed to the belief of the Nestorians, who were another heretical group. The orthodox doctrine was in between the two. Fair enough.
But for the life of me I couldn't understand the distinctions being made. I couldn't understand the controversy. It had something to do with the word "hypostasis" (I think), but I couldn't figure out what that meant, either.
Dag, or anybody else, can you shed some light for me on the concepts that are in question when talking about the nature of Christ, hopefully with reference to these two ancient heresies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.
quote:the historical person, Jesus Christ, is really and truly God, --i. e. has the nature of God, and is a Divine person.
"Christ is true Man," which means he had a material body, was born of Mary, and a human soul. (summed up from opposition to several heresies)
Hypostatic union:
quote:the Divine nature was really and truly united with the human nature of Jesus, i. e., that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God and man. We speak here of no moral union, no union in a figurative sense of the word; but a union that is physical, a union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person, a union which means that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Nestorianism was best described as disbelief in the unity (note, it's not clear from the quote, but the following is considered heresy):
quote:Nestorius called the union of the two natures a mysterious and an inseparable joining (symapheian), but would admit no unity (enosin) in the strict sense of the word to be the result of this joining (see "Serm.", ii, n. 4; xii, n. 2, in P. L., XLVIII). The union of the two natures is not physical (physike) but moral, a mere juxtaposition in state of being (schetike); the Word indwells in Jesus like as God indwells in the just (loc. cit.); the indwelling of the Word in Jesus is, however, more excellent than the indwelling of God in the just man by grace, for that the indwelling of the Word purposes the Redemption of all mankind and the most perfect manifestation of the Divine activity (Serm. vii, n. 24); as a consequence, Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), not the Mother of God (Theotokos).
Monophysites is described a little more clearly:
quote:A new heresy soon began. It postulated only one Person in Jesus, and that the Divine Person. It went farther. It went too far. The new heresy defended only one nature, as well as one Person in Jesus. The leader of this heresy was Eutyches. His followers were called Monophysites. They varied in their ways of explanation. Some thought the two natures were intermingled into one. Others are said to have worked out some sort of a conversion of the human into the Divine.
If you're interested in more in-depth knowledge, the whole article will help understand what was going on.
Dagonee
[ April 01, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
In reference to the sacrament of reconciliation, I have to raise my hand and say that I'm one of those that finds the grace of God's forgiveness just a little more tangible thanks to it. The physical and mental actions of preparing to receive the sacrament (examination of conscience, preparing to go in to talk to the priest, expressing the Act of Contrition, and especially doing the penance) all bring it home to me much more as a result.
Not to mention the fact that I believe strongly that just saying you're sorry just isn't enough. When we do something that harms our relationship with God or with one another, it's like there's an imbalance, and actively doing something to try to right the wrong (even if all you can do is pray) satisfies me in a way that I almost can't explain. I don't mean to imply that forgiveness isn't total, it's just that the wrong was still done, and something constructive done to help restore the "balance" is just plain the right thing to do. And since I often run out of ideas on how to do that, I also very much support the idea of having a long-time relationship with a single priest who can know you well and help you work on improvements.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)