Thread: Purgatory: Is Catholicism Christianity? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001002
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
I know some people might be vehemently opposed to even the idea that christianity and catholicism aren't intrinsically one and the same so I would like to make clear that I am in no way passing any judgement whatsoever, I am asking.
There are 3 major Catholic beliefs that I don't understand how fit into the Word?
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers? My interpretation of the bible is that at best they could be called Brothers and Disciples, but Father to me seems blasphemous (claiming an ownership of parenthood over mankind that only the Father in Heaven can claim. Even if it is only a name, what a name to choose!!!).
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church. This again seems to imply an ownership over the Way. The Way is inherently Jesus' given to Him by His Father and does not belong to any man (through the Son to the Father) and also brings about a semantic paradox of the catholic clergy of fathers being the guides into Heaven when it should be the Son people look to...
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
What are people's views?
[ 06. April 2006, 09:15: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by mr_ricarno (# 6064) on
:
We've had lots of threads about this in the past, and I'm sure someone will nudge you in their direction at some point ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't have full answers to the questions you're asking, but do consider this:
-Catholicism doesn't hold the Bible to be the only authority, it also recognises the authority of the Church's Tradition. This is why there are some beliefs which evangelicals would hold to be unbiblical, though there is Biblical evidence to support many of them
-When the archangel Gabriel appeard to Mary, he did call her 'blessed among women'. In what way is that not a declaration of God setting her aside and placing her 'above' other women?
-In depictions of the Virgin Mary, she is usually pointing at her Son. She is 'the one who shows the way' to Jesus, and is not to be honoured for her own sake.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
From the OP: quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers?
What do you call your own father? I call mine `dad'; does that mean I'm going against what Jesus taught?
Carys
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I know some people might be vehemently opposed to even the idea that christianity and catholicism aren't intrinsically one and the same so I would like to make clear that I am in no way passing any judgement whatsoever, I am asking.
First, it helps to get your terms straight. When you say "catholicism" you presumably refer to the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrines. However, "catholic" basically means something like "universal" and that the church is universal is held by more than just Roman Catholics. Second, the position of the Roman Catholic Church is a little bit more refined than just saying "we're the one and only". Here's the Catechism on the topic:
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church writes:
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
---
320 LG 13.
321 LG 14.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
First, RCs do not pray to Mary in the sense of worshipping. Rather, they "pray" to Mary in the Old English sense of the word, as asking for a favour. Basically, they ask Mary to pray for them, to intercede on their behalf with God. Just as it was Mary who prompted Jesus to turn water into wine, so one hopes that Mary will put in a good word for oneself. It is good Christian practice to ask others to pray for one, as St Paul did as well. RCs also admire and honor the example of saintliness that Mary provides through their prayers. Both aspects go together, since mostly one would ask someone whose faith one admires to pray for one. For RCs Mary is perfectly saintly, so she's a highly popular choice to ask for an intercession. A lot could be said about why RCs believe that Mary was such a holy person and clearly God thought her worthy to bring His Son into flesh. Perhaps this will provide a beginning:
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church writes:
148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."12 Elizabeth greeted her: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14
149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God's word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.
---
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers? My interpretation of the bible is that at best they could be called Brothers and Disciples, but Father to me seems blasphemous (claiming an ownership of parenthood over mankind that only the Father in Heaven can claim. Even if it is only a name, what a name to choose!!!).
As explained in the article linked here, it is a modern development that Protestants shy away from using the title "Father". Clearly, none of us feel that there is a problem in addressing our own father as "father" just because of Jesus' word. Finally, the use of the term "father" for the respected elders of the Christian faith is simply biblical:
quote:
1 John 2:13-14 (RSV):
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
Clearly then a literalist interpretation is not warranted. I think in meditating on Matthew 23:9, you will find that a much more profound meaning emerges when we do not see this as literally forbidding the address "father" for any further human use.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
I hope this has already been answered above. In addition you may wish to read here in the Catechism that the Roman Catholic Church is more optimistic about even the salvation of non-Christians than many Protestants.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
That would be a most unfortunate conclusion. True however is that the Roman Catholic Church is trying its utmost to establish a kingdom - that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
From the OP: What do you call your own father? I call mine `dad'; does that mean I'm going against what Jesus taught?
Carys
I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus, just a little more obvious in me and honour thy mother and father keeps me away from my biological parents, but that's a whole different discussion and didn't really answer your mildly antagonistic question.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
We had a fellow speak in church on Sunday who was a member of our (Anglican) congregation and had been for some time. He was also, until quite recently, the principal of a private Roman Catholic school in our diocese.
Some time during the course of his time in an RC monastery and subsequently he realized that although his beliefs were fundamentally Christian (Jesus is both Lord and God, his death and resurrection give complete assurance of the forgiveness of sins now and forever), his position as a member and representative of the Roman Catholic denomination meant that he was frequently uncomfortable with the official teaching of the Roman church hierarchy.
So he resigned. He was certainly someone who trusted in Jesus for forgiveness, and due to the clash of his personal beliefs with the teaching of the Roman denomination, I believe he was wise to resign.
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
Carys said:
quote:
From the OP:
quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers?
What do you call your own father? I call mine `dad'; does that mean I'm going against what Jesus taught?
Not only Roman Catholic clergy - also Orthodox and Anglican clergy (except in Sydney, perhaps). One of the ironies of this is that Army chaplains are also usually called "Padre", regardless of gender (or protestant leanings) which of course is Spanish for "father".
The OP raises some good questions about Catholicism, and in practice I suspect that some Catholics may, in fact, pray to Mary and are guilty of thinking that salvation is limited to Roman Catholics. Fortunately, the official Catholic position is somewhat different to that, and I can happily join in communion with Roman Catholics.
[Side note - in this Anglican province, the title for priests in pidgin, from one of the indigenous languages, is "Mama" (which means priest, not Father). The word in pidgin for "mother" is "mummi". Since we do not yet have women priests, there are no mamas who are mummis. Perhaps "Father" removes some ambiguities for English speakers here!]
[ 13. February 2006, 09:49: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
This attitude is, sadly, far too common among a wide range of Christian groups. There are some charismatics who would claim that unless you speak in tongues you're not really saved. There are some evangelicals who would say that unless you accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (as they understand those words) you're not really saved. Many more follow the approach that, as I understand it, is the official Roman Catholic view of "We know God saves if you adhere to our teaching. He may well save others, but we can't be sure".
Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I know some people might be vehemently opposed to even the idea that christianity and catholicism aren't intrinsically one and the same.
...
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
I have found this attitude to be uncommon within the RC church since the Second Vatican Council (a large and influential church council that took place in the early 60s, and had far reaching effects on the RC church's outlook).
You will find that the attitude is non-existent within Catholic members of these boards (what with this being an interdenominational discussion forum and all that).
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So he resigned. He was certainly someone who trusted in Jesus for forgiveness, and due to the clash of his personal beliefs with the teaching of the Roman denomination, I believe he was wise to resign.
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
What? That if someone comes to a considered conclusion that they can no longer submit to their church's teaching that they leave? I don't think that's the case here. People may not like people question Roman Catholic's Christianity, but that is a separate issue to an individual person's decisions.
Re "Father", note that Paul uses the term to describe himself:
quote:
For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1 Corionthians 4:15
As Ingo noted, this also seems to go against a literal interpretation. To me, at least.
Jesus also warns to call no-one "Teacher" (Matt 23:10): I don't see people coming down on that. [Though I did have one friend who refused to: I had respect for him as he at least took everything literally: as much as I may've disagreed with him.] I have a suspicion it's yet more anti-Romanism than anything else.
[ 13. February 2006, 11:13: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by mr_ricarno (# 6064) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
Speaking for myself, I don't mind whether people on this board agree with Catholic teaching or not. What I do mind are the misconceptions which have led to the kind of questions U is asking. There's a difference between informed disagreement and ignorance (not meaning to antagonise U, but I feel s/he has misunderstood some central Catholic teachings).
Posted by Charam (# 10979) on
:
The way I see it, Catholics are Christians like any other denominations, to me none of the theological, doctrinal differences are in any way fundamental. I happen to disagree with some Catholic doctrine, but then I've never found a denomination which I completely agree with.
As for the teacher/father thing I always assumed that it meant that we werent to put anyone in the place that only God should have in our lives, not that we literally can't use those words.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
What are people's views?
I'd suggest that the Roman Catholic style of Christianity has its plus points and minus points, which we can and do discuss.
But God doesn't love institutions, he loves individual people. So, hard though it is, I think we should try to take all individuals seriously and all institutions lightly.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Charam (# 10979) on
:
Well said Russ ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
We had a fellow speak in church on Sunday who was a member of our (Anglican) congregation and had been for some time. He was also, until quite recently, the principal of a private Roman Catholic school in our diocese.
Some time during the course of his time in an RC monastery and subsequently he realized that although his beliefs were fundamentally Christian (Jesus is both Lord and God, his death and resurrection give complete assurance of the forgiveness of sins now and forever), his position as a member and representative of the Roman Catholic denomination meant that he was frequently uncomfortable with the official teaching of the Roman church hierarchy.
So he resigned. He was certainly someone who trusted in Jesus for forgiveness, and due to the clash of his personal beliefs with the teaching of the Roman denomination, I believe he was wise to resign.
Gotta warn you though, U, that on this board, this view is not particularly popular.
Gordon, you may like to check out The Coming Home Network. It may come in handy for you someday ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
. If we want to play who's collected the most scalps, my lot beat your lot any day of the week.
As to your silly little last sentence - people on these boards, I find, usually react against bigotry in whatever form it takes. Very, very often the views expressed here do not accord with my own and, sometimes, I engage in debate. I think you will find most of the discussions here relate to challenging and disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church, not trying to provide it with some sort of cosy haven.
Now how about me engaging in some bigotry and see whether I am popular: protestants are silly heretics who need to wake up and see the errors of their ways and get back into the bosom of the Catholic Church so they can be saved. How long do you think I would last here making such a statement? Would it be popular on these boards?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by U:
quote:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
I think there is something wrong with any theology which regards the Mother of our Lord as being merely an oven into which God placed a celestial bun, as it were. The relationship between mother and child is somewhat more fundamental than that.
ETA: Nice one TT!
[ 13. February 2006, 11:55: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Gordo quoth: quote:
his position as a member and representative of the Roman Catholic denomination meant that he was frequently uncomfortable with the official teaching of the Roman church hierarchy.
( my bold)
So repalce Roman Catholic with any other denomination and you will get takers. Gordon you are sounding more like a one trick pony than usual these days. Something wrong? Assimilations down this month?
P
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Jesus also warns to call no-one "Teacher" (Matt 23:10): I don't see people coming down on that.
And I have only rarely seen Protestants object to the title "reverend", meaning "he who is to be revered".
[ETA tangent: I know a priest who signs himself "Father X, your brother in Christ".]
[ 13. February 2006, 12:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
That's an interesting link Triple Tiara. It talks a lot about people converting to Catholicism from other denominations. I didn't realise a change in denomination was a conversion.
It makes it quite difficult to condemn those who say Catholics aren't christians, when many Catholics would say they have a different faith to the rest of christendom.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If moving from one church to another out of conviction isn't conversion, what is it?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Yes, surely it is evident that Catholics (in theory) do have a different faith from Protestants? They have different sources of authority, for one thing.
They're just not major differences. Catholics and Protestants agree on most things. There's no reason for either to chuck the other out of the Christian fold.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If moving from one church to another out of conviction isn't conversion, what is it?
In smaller churches it can easily be a matter of falling out with the leadership on personal grounds.
Around here I sometimes think we have more churches than we have Christians. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I'm finding this conversation absolutely mind-blowing, and not in a good way. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
RC Christians , like other Christians , affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. How much more Christian do you want to get?
And that's all I'm going to say, before something Hellish is transmitted by my keyboard.
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<stuff>
Good to see you back on board, Gordon.
Does this mean to say that you'll be able to respond the various threads that waited for you? How's that Catechism going?
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I actually agree with you LutheranChik (for once!) My point was that, from the way some RCs speak, they shouldn't really be surprised when other Christians say they are Not Real Christians™. I'm not saying people who say these things should be excused, just that the rhetoric from both sides is often unhelpful.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
I am not of the "anything goes" variety of Catholic. I believe truth matters and we need to pursue it. I believe the Catholic Church is the Lord's will and his foundation. I am very firm in my belief that we need to continue to work towards that goal of one Church. So I don't go along with "it doesn't matter what Church you belong to. It's okay if we are just nice to each other".
Which is where misunderstandings arise! That is NOT saying "the rest of you are damned! Damned I tell you and on the way to perdition!" As A Catholic I am clear that all my fellow Christians are my brothers and sisters. When it comes to communal arrangements, we brothers and sisters need to work out how we belong together. The Catholic Church is not happy with "personal Lord and Saviour" theology, because it's not just individuals who matter - we matter together as well. That's an OT and NT insight. The Church is not just an institution - it's the Body of Christ.
It is important that we as Catholics work with other bodies of believers to make that restoration of one Church a reality. But, since the Christian pilgrimage is both personal and communal, when individuals come to a point in their pilgrimage of faith where they believe as we do, we are duty bound to make them welcome. The Coming Home Network recognises this reality and seeks to make the transition into full communion easier for individuals.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
There are 3 major Catholic beliefs that I don't understand how fit into the Word?
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
The best answer to granting special status to Mary that I can give is (particularly the first half of) the Magnificat: quote:
Luke 1:46-55
46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Add to that the concept of intercessionary prayer (praying to someone specially blessed to intercede on your behalf - in much the same way you would ask a lawyer to plead your case rather than do it on your own as a layman).
quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven.
Here is the best rebuttal I can find. In summary, the problem is that English does not differentiate between your (singular) and your (plural). You can call individuals Father as a title of respect (alternatively there's a person I have to call my mother's sperm donor...) - but don't confuse that with being the father of the nation or the like.
quote:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
It is said where? Who by? IngoB has already given the views of the Catholic Catechism - there are Catholics who believe otherwise, but they are heretics and as such are not representative of Roman Catholicism on this point. (Or possibly they are people trying to slander the Catholic Church - in which case take them with a pinch of salt).
And Gordon? What ever gave you the impression that people would dislike the idea of conversion based on principles. What is not looked on favourably is people denying that others are Christians and trying to do what is right (even if they are less than perfect).
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
The whole idea of a thread such as this is irritating and insulting to Catholics. It would be more appropriate to ask if Protestants are really Christian. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace their lineages to the Apostles themselves. While they affirm certain things which can't be found in Scripture that is no surprise because Scripture was formulated by the Church not the Church by Scripture.
All the Church Fathers from the second century until Nicea affirmed a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice at Calvery made for the living and the dead. This was the belief of the universal church for its first 1500 years and is the view of the majority of Christendom to this day. There are more than a billion Catholics worldwide and while that doesn't make them right, it, along with their ancient tradition means there is no need to doubt their Christian credentials.
Protestantism started around 1500. The reformers want us to believe that they discovered new things such as the awful doctrine of penal substutionary atonemnet which those who lived in the century after Jesus had failed to discover. They want us to believe that the whole 1500 years of Christianity, in which most of the core beliefs had remained unchanged, were in error and they got it right. They want us to believe that we are able, on our own, to interpret the Bible when it is full of contradictions and ambiguities.
I think history stacks up much more in favour of Protestantism being in error and when asking who, if anyone is a real Christian, those who have affirmed the creeds of the Church for close to two millennia have every right to look others squarely in the eye with confidence.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her.
Pity he didn't make that clear to Gabriel, who calls her highly favoured. And clearly Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptiser, was waaaaay off base when she said to her, "Blessed are you among women" (which, if you know any Hebrew, you know is the normal way of saying, "the most blessed of women"). You err because you do not know the scriptures.
But maybe I'm just feeling snarky because I tire of hearing my RC brethren (and sistren) denigrated and spoken falsely of.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I trace my Protestant lineage back to the apostles, too. My tradition didn't begin in 1500, we and the RCs merely diverged at that point. As a Baptist I belong to a tradition that has affirmed the Christian faith for 2,000 years.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
?
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers? My interpretation of the bible is that at best they could be called Brothers and Disciples, but Father to me seems blasphemous (claiming an ownership of parenthood over mankind that only the Father in Heaven can claim. Even if it is only a name, what a name to choose!!!).
'And call no-one teacher' according to Jesus in the same passage in Matthew. And 'only God is good, so why do you call me good?' in another place in the same gospel. Any difficulties with describing some people as 'good', or referring to some others as 'teachers', or is this blasphemy too? No? This is because we've put a proper context on the above. Similarly, with 'Father'. Jesus had a clear context in mind.
Just as we can use words like 'good' and 'teacher' without danger of blaspheming, so it's possible to use 'Father'. Context is everything in this case, imo.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The whole idea of a thread such as this is irritating and insulting to Catholics. It would be more appropriate to ask if Protestants are really Christian. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace their lineages to the Apostles themselves. While they affirm certain things which can't be found in Scripture that is no surprise because Scripture was formulated by the Church not the Church by Scripture.
All the Church Fathers from the second century until Nicea affirmed a belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Mass as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice at Calvery made for the living and the dead. This was the belief of the universal church for its first 1500 years and is the view of the majority of Christendom to this day. There are more than a billion Catholics worldwide and while that doesn't make them right, it, along with their ancient tradition means there is no need to doubt their Christian credentials.
Protestantism started around 1500. The reformers want us to believe that they discovered new things such as the awful doctrine of penal substutionary atonemnet which those who lived in the century after Jesus had failed to discover. They want us to believe that the whole 1500 years of Christianity, in which most of the core beliefs had remained unchanged, were in error and they got it right. They want us to believe that we are able, on our own, to interpret the Bible when it is full of contradictions and ambiguities.
I think history stacks up much more in favour of Protestantism being in error and when asking who, if anyone is a real Christian, those who have affirmed the creeds of the Church for close to two millennia have every right to look others squarely in the eye with confidence.
Of course, most Protestant Denominations haven't demonstrated the Simony, the Inquisition and the outright corruption that prompted Martin Luther to nail some theses to a church door. Holy Tradition was thrown out by many (although not all) the reformers because it had lead to the corruption of Christianity.
Sure, you can claim greater authority for yourself than for those who saw that the result of 1500 years of Christianity was corruption of the church, but I'm going to wonder whether you really think those 1500 extra years you have were a good thing - or whether it was the shock to the system provided by the reformation that got the Catholic Church back on to some sort of moral path.
(Translation of the above: almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose.)
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
RC Christians , like other Christians , affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. How much more Christian do you want to get?
Well, the thing is, when I was pentibapticharisevangelistic (that's not my making up a word, folks, that's exactly what the church called themselves), they did NOT affirm the creeds of historic Christianity. The bishop of that particular church (bishop being approximately equal to priest-in-charge), when I asked him once about how the Nicean Creed pretty much contradicted everything he'd just preached about, blinked at me for a few seconds in utter confusion. Then the lightbulb dawned and he told me that, because it was a council called by the Roman church, it was invalid and not real, 'primitive' Christianity.
If they hadn'tve kicked me out, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have stayed much longer.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
"that the result of 1500 years of Christianity was corruption of the church." This is not founded on historical evidence. In fact, the historical evidence is against you on that one. Your being totally ignorant on Church history is no excuse for embracing the Protestant heresy.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Dear Justinian
I have no doubt that much corruption had found its way into the medieval church. All of the 95 theses which Luther nailed to Wittenburg Church were subsequently conceded by the Roman Catholic Church. So in that sense the Luther was right. His maniacal anti-Semitism disqualifies him from any criticism of Inquisitions etc, but futhermore, his changes to the theology of the ancient church and those of Calvin and Zwingli, had no basis in the undivided Church and can only be regarded as innovations. I don't regard them as in any way superior to the insights of the Church Fathers.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Bears repeating:
[quote]almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose.[quote]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Karl, would you use that phrase with regards to the councils of the church that rejected different heresies throughout the centuries? Does it apply to Gnostics, to Arians, to monophysites, to monothelites, to iconoclasts, to nestorians also, or does it only apply in the dialogue between the Protestants and those that reject Protestantism?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
'U', as said above, there a few older threads on this; sadly little was gained in those discussions (at least from my point of view). I think the short answer to your question is 'yes'.
In a previous thread, I had raised the point that much Marian veneration (the Salve Regina and others) came from the discredited 'gospel' of Pseudo Matthew (N.B. the Roman church realised that is was a fraud and dropped it from the canon, but retained many of the devotions and traditions contained therein). But many non-Roman churches continue to use some of these traditions too (though, I think, ones that pose far less serious theological problems) such as the three wisemen, just to give an example. So the RCs are not the only church guilty of this.
This is point where arguments ran out of steam. As Digory (?) said above, the Roman Catholic church places a greater emphasis and value on those traditions than on providing any basis for them in scripture. So one side said 'but that's not in the BIble!' and the other said 'so what, it's tradition and many things aren't in the Bible', etc.
There are a large number of RCs who do pray to Mary, despite claims here otherwise. I had mentioned a Latin-American petition from several decades ago that asked Rome to elevate Mary to co-redemtrix; and this was rejected by Rome. The reason? Jesus is the only and only redeemer. I find this commonality to be greater than the differences.
So it is Jesus that remains at the centre of the Roman church and most other Christian church, that , methinks, is what makes one Christian.
More interesting would be to ask, what about those who just think Jesus is nifty, but not God; are they Christians? (Mormons, etc.).
As ever,
K.
[ 13. February 2006, 16:03: Message edited by: Komensky ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Of course, why have I never figured it out before the protestant church has it all right and has all the answers. It has never made a mistake, never flirted with heresy, never misinterpreted scripture, never abused power, never chased after the cheap whores of revival and never preached a gospel that smacked of hatred or injustice.
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT.
Thank you, my life is now complete, I have disengaged my brain and am willing to be assimilated, tell me oh Great Ones, what am I to do now?
At times it seems to me that the only effective ministry the protestant church can summon up is tainted with fear and bitterness. No not the cattle prod to the genitals I shall behave I will not doubt, please don’t hurt me.
P
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Pyx_e and Paul
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
The impression I get it is, that other than the externals. some churches are full of art like the RC, the orthodox, etc, these churches are litirgical and others take a more plain approach to worship, or what denoms choose to emphasize, there really at the core is not that much difference. But I think when it comes to these other denoms like the Mormons their theology is far more out there on the edge, it is very much out of the mainstream of say, the Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists Presbyterians etc etc, I read in their beliefs that they don't consider themselves Protestants, because to be Protestant is to be originally an offshoot of the reformation which was a protest against the RC. They consider themselves an original organic religion that came from no other.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
So do some Baptists (eg: Successionists). But they do tend to be on the lunatic fringe of the movement. Trail of Blood , anyone?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
RC Christians , like other Christians , affirm the creeds of historic Christianity.
Of course, some Protestant Christian denominations are non-credal. In my experience, they've harbored a lot of anti-Roman Catholic bigots.
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
lol I guess they are! Hey I am Roman Catholic, all you other guys decide who is part of your club, I can't keep track of the 2 billion sects that sprang out of that miscreant uppity Franciscan who thought he knew better than 1500 years of tradition! Hell 5 million exist in California alone. Sort it out amongst yourselves, you decided you can build a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, and you have been trying ever since. I figure you took a different route but we'll all end up in the same place HOPEFULLY ( that's the RC in me, I don't assume anything) LOL
Posted by Lioba (# 42) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
lol I guess they are! Hey I am Roman Catholic, all you other guys decide who is part of your club, I can't keep track of the 2 billion sects that sprang out of that miscreant uppity Franciscan who thought he knew better than 1500 years of tradition! Hell 5 million exist in California alone. Sort it out amongst yourselves, you decided you can build a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, and you have been trying ever since. I figure you took a different route but we'll all end up in the same place HOPEFULLY ( that's the RC in me, I don't assume anything) LOL
If you allude to Luther, he was an Augustinan, not a Franciscan.
And could you explain about your numbers, please?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
"that the result of 1500 years of Christianity was corruption of the church." This is not founded on historical evidence. In fact, the historical evidence is against you on that one. Your being totally ignorant on Church history is no excuse for embracing the Protestant heresy.
I fail to see anything you say there that is other than completely wrong. (And your ideas about my embracing the "Protestant heresy" are simply amusing).
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Dear Justinian
I have no doubt that much corruption had found its way into the medieval church. All of the 95 theses which Luther nailed to Wittenburg Church were subsequently conceded by the Roman Catholic Church. So in that sense the Luther was right. His maniacal anti-Semitism disqualifies him from any criticism of Inquisitions etc, but futhermore, his changes to the theology of the ancient church and those of Calvin and Zwingli, had no basis in the undivided Church and can only be regarded as innovations. I don't regard them as in any way superior to the insights of the Church Fathers.
Dear Paul,
The state of the Roman Catholic Church after 1500 years was absolutely dreadful, creating the need for Martin Luther and the Reformation. I don't personally agree with many of the reformers - but change was necessary. Therefore to claim those 1500 years as something that gives the Roman Catholic Church greater legitimacy is somewhat ironic. By their fruits shall ye know them.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
GoodCatholicLad: Luther was an Augustinian, not a Franciscan. You really should get the details right before you start beating up on my faith tradition. Actually, you should get up to speed on your own tradition's positive ecumenical dealings with Lutherans, since a couple of years ago the ELCA and the RCC issued a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification that has done a lot to resolve one of the major issues of the Reformation. Pope Benedict, who was one of the movers and shakers of the JDDJ, has a cordial working relationship with Lutheran leaders, including my presiding bishop.
And I guess you probably don't want to know about the covenant relationships that some Lutheran, Anglican and RCC congregations are developing on this side of the pond.
It sounds like you're still happy to be fighting the Reformation, but I'd suggest to you that, as the song says, "War is over if you want it." Remember, I'm on your side's side in this particular discussion.
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lioba:
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By that definition, are Pentecostals Protestants?
lol I guess they are! Hey I am Roman Catholic, all you other guys decide who is part of your club, I can't keep track of the 2 billion sects that sprang out of that miscreant uppity Franciscan who thought he knew better than 1500 years of tradition! Hell 5 million exist in California alone. Sort it out amongst yourselves, you decided you can build a better mousetrap, reinvent the wheel, and you have been trying ever since. I figure you took a different route but we'll all end up in the same place HOPEFULLY ( that's the RC in me, I don't assume anything) LOL
If you allude to Luther, he was an Augustinan, not a Franciscan.
And could you explain about your numbers, please?
Touchy touchy! If i said 2 BILLION sects that didn't give you just a teeny weensy hint I was exagerrating? Just a little?? Excuse me, Augustinian mea culpa. Oh hell I am a liberal in comparison to some I know who thought Luther was an instrament of the devil for breaking up God's church. I figured any institution who had a monoply for 1500 years needed some competition it gets dusty you know? He was uppity and a troublemaker what's wrong with that? The only problem was Luther let the cat out of the bag and all kinds of crackpots came out of the cucina, he even had a problem with some.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Correcting misinformation isn't the same as "touchiness."
If I were touchy I wouldn't be on the Ship.
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
Good Catholic Lad, colourful though your allusions to Martin Luther are (I'm laughing... assuming you are 'doing it on purpose' - he did indirectly leave you with a better behaved RC Church...), I must step in and correct the notion that Luther was a Franciscan (yes, I know others beat me to it - but my Franciscan affiliations give me a privilege, I believe.)
Francesco was a man of great holiness and poor judgement - not an unusual combination for saints. He therefore left a rule to "Live the Gospel," with little embellishment... not knowing that he himself was saintly, and that those less saintly than himself might fill in the blanks of the Rule and such as they chose. Consequently, the Franciscan Order was 'parent' to the largest number of canonised and beatified saints and the most deplorable lot of mediaeval heretics of any congregation. (Some Franciscans did have great minds - particularly in England and in Paris - but in total it was never an intellectual movement, and Franciscans, though marvellous preachers - to the hearers, not the theologians - seldom worry much about doctrine at all.)
That the Franciscans should produce a 'heretic' of the calibre of Martin Luther... no, unlikely. And I do so wish that those who criticise Catholicism today (Luther's theology was Catholic) would have more solid grounds that who is called Father...
Elizabeth Colette of the Good Shepherd, OSF
[ 13. February 2006, 18:04: Message edited by: Newman's Own ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
You might try perusing this thread, now in Limbo, for a variety of thoughts on that topic.
quote:
Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying in the bible not to call anyone on earth Father for we have only one Father and he is in Heaven. Why then are the catholic clergy naming themselves fathers?
And in the same breath, our Lord says we shouldn't call anyone "teacher," but you don't have a problem with people being called teachers, do you? By the same logic, we shouldn't call anyone "King" because there is only one King and Lord of all. And, as others have pointed out, the prohibition, as you're interpreting it, would also ban us from referring to a male parent as "my father." Unless you're willing to go there, I think you have to acknowledge that there's a problem with the way you're interpreting the verse. It isn't really talking about what we call people. It's talking about how we relate to people.
Posted by Fr Alex (# 10304) on
:
Whilst in the parish FATHER knows best ( evos please get over it - priest are called Father, it reminds us who we work for) in the wider scheme Mother Church knows best.
Fr A
P.S. just in case you don't know, Mother is Rome, Rome is Mother, which just goes to show how inclusive Rome is, for it is Mother Church, not Father Church, for there is only one Father in heaven.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
That's an interesting link Triple Tiara. It talks a lot about people converting to Catholicism from other denominations. I didn't realise a change in denomination was a conversion.
It makes it quite difficult to condemn those who say Catholics aren't christians, when many Catholics would say they have a different faith to the rest of christendom.
I have never heard anyone, Catholics that is, say that. I do think that Catholics can be guilty of the sin of pride, in thinking they possess THEE FAITH, the full deposit, the complete truth, that everyone else
is some how lacking, which is not very kind, Christian or charitable. But then I have heard the same thing from the Mormons, it still doesn't make it right. I figure let God deal with it, God can decide.
Fundamentalism is the biggest threat the world faces.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
P.S. just in case you don't know, Mother is Rome, Rome is Mother, which just goes to show how inclusive Rome is, for it is Mother Church, not Father Church, for there is only one Father in heaven.
Are any other sci-fi fans thinking "The corps is mother. The corps is father."?
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The state of the Roman Catholic Church after 1500 years was absolutely dreadful, creating the need for Martin Luther and the Reformation. I don't personally agree with many of the reformers - but change was necessary. Therefore to claim those 1500 years as something that gives the Roman Catholic Church greater legitimacy is somewhat ironic. By their fruits shall ye know them.
Yes change was necessary and led to the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent.
You have also made the logical error of confusing Tradition with its human interpreters, by saying that the errors of the latter invalidate the former. Better perhaps to look at the whole 2000 plus years. Tradition preserves the ancient usages and customs of the early Church, as IngoB explained elsewhere.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
[semi-tangent] Did I once read that the english "doctor" is equivalent to the Latin or whatever - maybe even Greek or God forbid aramaic - for teacher? At any rate I have always been amused at many evos obsession for pronouncing the doctorship and professorship of their allies - Sydney's Jensen's most recent diatribe being a prime example - while wetting their smalls if anyone says "father."
Yes, context is everything. But don't tell the phylactery wearers. [/semi-tengent]
[ET close the [] ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]
[ 14. February 2006, 05:53: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
A few things to throw in:
All of Christianity stems from Judaism and the basis of any RC reasoning for excluding others from their way of believing could be the basis of similar reasoning Judaism could use to exclude RCs. Just because that's the way its always been done doesn't mean that is the Right way to do it?
That we shouldn't call anyone Teacher: Is it possible that maybe our language has become corrupted so that some of our daily accepted words are blasphemous?
Though apostles after the fact may have called each other fathers, it is not what Jesus himself said and as such, maybe they were doing the wrong thing? If we can't trust a portion of Christ's quoted words, instead placing the words of those who followed above His, what in the bible can we trust?
Blessed amongst women... not intercediary to God. Jesus said through the Son to the Father, not through a blessed woman to the Son to the Father...
Protestant and RC churches both have beliefs that clash but I think (most) were in agreeance that the fundamental is the same. Shouldn't it start with Jesus and go from there? Shouldn't any church or individual who guides someone towards looking toward the light stand aside and allow Jesus to take over? Isn't the bible merely a reminder and to be used as a signpost pointing which way to look but after that to be set aside and used as a reference so that Jesus can shine out from people rather than 2000 year old words translated and retranslated into thousands of languages? Churches are built on translations of the bible and people who have spoken using Christ's name. Isn't Christ more important than any church as as such to be revered above and beyond any church, indeed to lay claim to a particular "faith" could be seen as blasphemous because any church that lays claim to the Word is overstepping the authourity given to it by Christ from His Father?
[ 14. February 2006, 08:07: Message edited by: U ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Shouldn't it start with Jesus and go from there?
No, we should start from the Spirit and go wherever He leads us.
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
]I have never heard anyone, Catholics that is, say that.
I don't know about that. It is quite common in colloquial speech in much of continental Europe to hear the expression 'Christians and Protestants' as if they were two different things. Protestant places of worship are habitually referred to as 'temples' in France, even on maps.
Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on
:
What the Rev'd Mr Fiddleback said. In France one even hears the comment "I didn't know protestants were Christian".
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Other way around in the US Deep South and Northern Ireland
Posted by Margaret (# 283) on
:
In some Asian countries (I've read that it happens in Hong Kong, for instance) "Christians" is used for Protestant Christians and "Catholics" for Catholic ones.
This once led to a memorable conversation with the manager of a hotel where I stayed in Sri Lanka; we were talking about religion and he told me, "My family used to be Christians, but now we're Catholics." ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
In some Asian countries (I've read that it happens in Hong Kong, for instance) "Christians" is used for Protestant Christians and "Catholics" for Catholic ones.
This once led to a memorable conversation with the manager of a hotel where I stayed in Sri Lanka; we were talking about religion and he told me, "My family used to be Christians, but now we're Catholics."
When you are surrounded by faith traditions that have been around longer than Judaism, you're entitled to a little terminological vagueness.
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Other way around in the US Deep South and Northern Ireland
And the West of Scotland. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
U, I think you should throw in the towel on the praying-to/through-Mary stuff. The reason I say this is that your RC adversaries will only tell you that, from their perspective, tradition trumps the Bible. I think we must also keep in mind that there is still variety amongst Roman Catholic adherents, it's not as fascistic as you make it sound. There is a huge gamut; those Roman Catholics who seldom if ever pray to/through Mary and those who think she is co-redemptrix.
There are also plenty of oddities, say, from Calvin, though one seldom hears Protestants banging on about the lack of Biblical evidence to support some of his stranger beliefs.
K.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
The Catholic Church - Always the real thing™
Posted by Fr Alex (# 10304) on
:
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Other way around in the US Deep South and Northern Ireland
And the West of Scotland.
Sorry, forgot about the Wee Frees.
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Other way around in the US Deep South and Northern Ireland
And the West of Scotland.
Sorry, forgot about the Wee Frees.
Actually, Matt, it's not just the Wee Frees. There are plenty of Kirk folk who seem very uncomfortable with calling Roman Catholics "Christians".
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
Christian Union Folk seem reluctant to call Catholics Christian too!
Although I was told this the other day:
quote:
Most Roman Cathoics aren't Christian, they seem obsessed by tradition and the ways of the church rather than the way of God - But you're different so I think you are one of the few Catholics I've met who actually are Christian as well!
I didn't actually know how to respond to that - I get the impression that some Protestants aren't Christian and they are obsessed with the ways of the church rather than the way of God! So - it can go both ways really!
-103
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
You have also made the logical error of confusing Tradition with its human interpreters, by saying that the errors of the latter invalidate the former. Better perhaps to look at the whole 2000 plus years. Tradition preserves the ancient usages and customs of the early Church, as IngoB explained elsewhere.
No. I have said that the results of Catholicism and the Tradition after 1500 years lead to that result. Tradition as a whole includes the interpretation of that tradition. If you try to take the humans that passed on Tradition out of Tradition, you have to go back to primary sources - in which case some of the Evo sects have a better understanding of Tradition than the Roman Catholics do. If you keep them in, then the errors of the interpreters become part of Tradition (and lead to the causes of the Reformation).
And if you want the ancient usages and customs of the early church, I await the selling off of the Vatican and meeting in Catacombs (or possibly housegroups) rather than owning very big cathedrals.
What you have is a Tradition that goes back to the early church and has significantly changed in the intervening time rather than the Tradition OF the early church.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The Catholic Church - Always the real thing™
Thanks for making my day.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The Catholic Church - Always the real thing™
Thanks for making my day.
Another one for you then
-103
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
For Roman-Catholic chavs?
K.
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Why then, Fr Alex, are you CofE, and not Catholic, especially given that quote:
Mother is Rome, Rome is Mother
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
??
After all, doesn't Rome consider your "Fr" to be play-acting?
Genuinely
[ 14. February 2006, 11:05: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
Just 'cause I stand in a garage doesn't mean I'm a car.
So, if by "Christian" one means more than "follower, study-er, of Christ" -- which is a marvelous thing in itself --
If by "Christian" one means "in a state of grace", "saved", "credited with righteousness" --
Then naming yourself Catholic or Protestant or Franciscan or Adventist or anything else doesn't mean you're a Christian.
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
Of course not. That's what Tradition and Sacraments are for.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Of course not. That's what Tradition and Sacraments are for.
Oi vay!
K.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
or should I have said 'Oi vay Maria'?
K.
Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Blessed amongst women... not intercediary to God. Jesus said through the Son to the Father, not through a blessed woman to the Son to the Father...
By this argument U, I'm not allowed to pray for you, and you're not allowed to pray for me, or indeed anyone else, since intercession is apparently blasphemous.
Is that what you're trying to say?
[edited to correct spelling]
[ 14. February 2006, 13:56: Message edited by: humblebum ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
U, I think you should throw in the towel on the praying-to/through-Mary stuff. The reason I say this is that your RC adversaries will only tell you that, from their perspective, tradition trumps the Bible.
I don't think you'll find many RCs who say that. Certainly I've never seen any RC on the ship argue that. You might find the discussion more fruitful if you engaged with what they actually believe, rather than a straw man.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If by "Christian" one means "in a state of grace", "saved", "credited with righteousness" --
Who claims it does?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If by "Christian" one means "in a state of grace", "saved", "credited with righteousness" --
Who claims it does?
Just about every preacher I've ever come across whose talked about it.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Why then, Fr Alex, are you CofE, and not Catholic, especially given that
Fr Alex - come over here, the water's lovely!
-103
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
U, I think you should throw in the towel on the praying-to/through-Mary stuff. The reason I say this is that your RC adversaries will only tell you that, from their perspective, tradition trumps the Bible.
I don't think you'll find many RCs who say that. Certainly I've never seen any RC on the ship argue that. You might find the discussion more fruitful if you engaged with what they actually believe, rather than a straw man.
Sorry about my lack of clarity here Josephine. I intended that particular comment (which I admit is an oversimplification, but still justified in this context) to represent the result of discussion on the previous thread.
K.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
we shouldn't call anyone Teacher: Is it possible that maybe our language has become corrupted so that some of our daily accepted words are blasphemous?
The New Testament was originally in Greek, and Jesus spoke Aramaic. So if any language was corrupted, it would have been Greek and/or Aramaic, right? As the English language didn't exist it all, it could hardly have become corrupted by the year 0.
quote:
Shouldn't it start with Jesus and go from there?
Without the church's 2000-year witness, how would either of us ever have heard of Jesus?
[ 14. February 2006, 15:35: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Christian Union Folk seem reluctant to call Catholics Christian too!
Although I was told this the other day:
quote:
Most Roman Cathoics aren't Christian, they seem obsessed by tradition and the ways of the church rather than the way of God - But you're different so I think you are one of the few Catholics I've met who actually are Christian as well!
I didn't actually know how to respond to that -103
One possible response: I caught accidentally Christianity from Anglicanism.
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
"Tradition" began as exegetical - if excessively creative in some early writings. As for 'praying to Mary,' that became very excessive during the past few centuries, but every doctrine about Mary was intended to both set forth a point of Christology (for example, his being both fully divine and fully human) and to show Mary as a representative of the Church.
One of the largest problems with both confusion within and misconceptions about Roman Catholicism is that writings, preaching, practises, and devotions often go far beyond actual doctrine or dogma (not that everyone would agree with the doctrines themselves.) Simple example: besides other large problems Martin Luther addressed, some of which were remedied at Trent, the sort of 'penitential system' (pardons, indulgences purchased, etc.) which existed in Luther's day were highly distorted (if very lucrative. I find Martin to have been far more Catholic than some of those whom he confronted.) Just about everything (ordinations in monasteries to have priests to say Masses for the dead, for example) centred on purgatory and the church's jurisdiction - where, actually, about all there is to the doctrine of purgatory is a concession that we do not know what lies between the earthly life and the last judgement, and that there may be purification after we die. (What Dante Alighieri and Thomas More made of it is poetic but in no way doctrinal.)
I personally think that certain dogmas, such as the Immaculate Conception, would best have never been declared. But excesses in devotion , some of which were still prevalent in my youth (when it seemed all that RCs thought about was Mary and purgatory...), though they date back several centuries, indeed could make it seem that Mary is honoured more than her son. Devotional preaching, intended to touch the heart but not necessarily theologically sound at all (I'll be forgiven for saying Franciscans did it well) could make it seem that one could not pray to God (only 'through Mary,' when she was not too busy distributing the indulgences to those in purgatory which one gave to her when making the 'heroic act of charity'), or that Mary had some sort of parental authority which meant Jesus had to obey her even now.
Another sad fact is that Roman Catholics, including priests, used to think that humble obedience (I believe that because it is what the Church teaches... it is true because it is a church teaching) was all that mattered - and apologetics were unnecessary because no one who was a good RC would ever question anything. Don't think I do not regard both of them highly, but both 103 and Fr Alex have given a demonstration of the unexplained enthusiasm school of theology on this thread.
I'm not suggesting that every Christian is about to agree with Rome on all counts. Yet I would suggest that one be certain of what the actual doctrine or teaching is (it normally will be related to Christology, and in that be perfectly sound) before assuming it is at odds with Christian essentials (in which I would class Christology, the Trinity, and the early creeds.)
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Why then, Fr Alex, are you CofE, and not Catholic, especially given that quote:
Mother is Rome, Rome is Mother
??
After all, doesn't Rome consider your "Fr" to be play-acting?
Genuinely
I was thinking the same thing.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
NO - My Sponsor (a very wise man indeed who possibly might be along later )
Told me this:
quote:
As long as I'm in communion with my bishop who is in communion with the Pope in Rome, I don't need to state an opinion!
Or thereabouts
I think it's a cool position to be in! On the other hand Cardinal Newman talked about obidence to the Holy Catholic Church and that one should only challange the church if it teaches something that goes completly against your conscience! (i.e. If the church taught that Killing was ok - it would be acceptable to challenge the church about that!)
-103
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
Newman, wisely I believe, also remarked that to cut the faithful off from study of doctrine and require implicit faith would "in the educated, terminate in indifference, in the poorer, in superstition."
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
I once heard a Redemptorist priest state, in the course of a typical rousing parish mission hell-fire sermon, "Your salvation depends on your devotion to Our Lady!"
Now this was fifty years ago, and pre-Vatican II.
I doubt if you would hear this sort of pious exagerration today.
Talking of priests addressed as Father - what does one call a woman priest?
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Talking of priests addressed as Father - what does one call a woman priest?
Miss or Mrs
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Talking of priests addressed as Father - what does one call a woman priest?
Miss or Mrs
...just as male Anglican priests are normally titled Mr, unless they have a preference for being addressed as Father.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Talking of priests addressed as Father - what does one call a woman priest?
Miss or Mrs
In the US often "Mother".
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Talking of priests addressed as Father - what does one call a woman priest?
Miss or Mrs
In the US often "Mother".
Yeah but that's just confusing and creepy - so I won't ever do that ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Mrs Vicar will do fine!
-103
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
Come now, 103! "Good morning, Father" to a man priest and "Good morning, Missus" to a married woman priest?
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Come now, 103! "Good morning, Father" to a man priest and "Good morning, Missus" to a married woman priest?
Well - I don't come across many women priests in the Catholic church
-103
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus, just a little more obvious in me
I have real ties to my own family (not biological either in my case) and there are quite a few people here who have ties to their families. Guess we don't love Jesus! Dang, and here I thought...
Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
The Catholic Church - Always the real thing™
Have you taken the Popesy challenge ?
I think FiF could be Diet Popesy !
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
Forward in Faith: Reassuringly Ecclesiastical
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
This Father/Mother/Miss/Mrs/Ms Brown problem seems to admit a variety of asnwers.
It occurs to me, however, that the use of the title "Father" for all RC priests is fairly recent in English usage. In some remote past i think priests were called "Sir" something or other, as in the Italian "Don Camillo".
In the early nineteenth century only priests in religious orders were called Father; ordinary diocesan or secular priests were referred to, and addressed as, Mister. This distinction still obtains in France, where a diocesan secular priest is Monsieur l'Abbe, or Monsieur le Cure and a Jesuit (say) is Mon Pere.
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
Sorry, I think I have crossed my own wires. Will someone confirm that M.l'Abbe refers to a priest in a religiou order, and M, le Cure to an ordinary parish priest? I think I'm right about mon Pere referrfing only to the former.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Talking of priests addressed as Father - what does one call a woman priest?
Miss or Mrs
In the US often "Mother".
Yeah but that's just confusing and creepy - so I won't ever do that
Mrs Vicar will do fine!
-103
Why is Mother creepy? Is your mother creepy? If you can call both your dad Father and your male priest Father, why not both your mom Mother and an Episcopal/Anglican priest Mother?
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
Because Mother is what you call a superior nun! Not a minister!
Also - if you knew my mom, you'd know what I mean by "Creepy"
-103
[ 14. February 2006, 22:37: Message edited by: 103 (One-O-Three) ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I trust your mom doesn't visit the Ship regularly?
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
In some remote past i think priests were called "Sir" something or other, as in the Italian "Don Camillo".
Bernard M.
Indeed. As in Sir Christopher Trychay, whose history is recounted in Eamon Duffy's Voices of Morebath.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I trust your mom doesn't visit the Ship regularly?
No - she doesn't want her pc hooked up onto the network because of viruses!
-103
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
U, I think you should throw in the towel on the praying-to/through-Mary stuff. The reason I say this is that your RC adversaries will only tell you that, from their perspective, tradition trumps the Bible. I think we must also keep in mind that there is still variety amongst Roman Catholic adherents, it's not as fascistic as you make it sound. There is a huge gamut; those Roman Catholics who seldom if ever pray to/through Mary and those who think she is co-redemptrix.
Absolute rubbish. Tradition does not "trump the Bible". The actual position is set out in Chapter II ofDei Verbum. There is a close relation between the Word and Tradition for they form one wellspring of God's communication with his Church. One cannot stand without the other - Tradition certainly cannot contradict the Word.
quote:
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
What Tradition can do is interpret God's meaning and teach the Word, because as is pointed out in Chapter III in the Bible God speaks through the agency of imperfect humans.
[ 15. February 2006, 00:12: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
You have also made the logical error of confusing Tradition with its human interpreters, by saying that the errors of the latter invalidate the former. Better perhaps to look at the whole 2000 plus years. Tradition preserves the ancient usages and customs of the early Church, as IngoB explained elsewhere.
No. I have said that the results of Catholicism and the Tradition after 1500 years lead to that result. Tradition as a whole includes the interpretation of that tradition. If you try to take the humans that passed on Tradition out of Tradition, you have to go back to primary sources - in which case some of the Evo sects have a better understanding of Tradition than the Roman Catholics do. If you keep them in, then the errors of the interpreters become part of Tradition (and lead to the causes of the Reformation).
And if you want the ancient usages and customs of the early church, I await the selling off of the Vatican and meeting in Catacombs (or possibly housegroups) rather than owning very big cathedrals.
What you have is a Tradition that goes back to the early church and has significantly changed in the intervening time rather than the Tradition OF the early church.
See Dei Verbum - we have a living Tradition. 2000 years of it. I don't think your point actually makes sense - as it ignores both the living aspect of Tradition and those who "got it right" as a corrective to those who may have strayed, as it were.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Because Mother is what you call a superior nun! Not a minister!
Also - if you knew my mom, you'd know what I mean by "Creepy"
-103
But logically and originally, Father is what you'd call a superior in a monastery. Not a "minister". How confusing is that! Well, actually we know -- because you now call all priests father.
And you are suggesting your father is less creepy than your mother?
Tell me -- how certain, really certain, they are not reading SoF?
John
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Blessed amongst women... not intercediary to God. Jesus said through the Son to the Father, not through a blessed woman to the Son to the Father...
By this argument U, I'm not allowed to pray for you, and you're not allowed to pray for me, or indeed anyone else, since intercession is apparently blasphemous.
Is that what you're trying to say?
[edited to correct spelling]
No. Praying for and praying to are different. No problem praying for Mary. Praying to her...
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
"Pray" doesn't mean "worship". It means ask, or more generally petition.
Praying to saints, including the BVM, asking for their prayers, is more about what it means to be alive in Christ than it has anything whatsoever to do with worshiping dead people. (They're not dead...)
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
we shouldn't call anyone Teacher: Is it possible that maybe our language has become corrupted so that some of our daily accepted words are blasphemous?
The New Testament was originally in Greek, and Jesus spoke Aramaic. So if any language was corrupted, it would have been Greek and/or Aramaic, right? As the English language didn't exist it all, it could hardly have become corrupted by the year 0.
quote:
Shouldn't it start with Jesus and go from there?
Without the church's 2000-year witness, how would either of us ever have heard of Jesus?
Could it have been corrupted in the last 2000 years. I don't think Aramaic was corrupted because when Paul(?was that ex Saul) spoke it the people listened because it was Jesus' language and the language through which He communicated the Truth to people. Can't the bible be used as a signpost that once you walk past, so long as you keep walking in the same direction, you know where you're going (so long as you trust the signpost)?
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus, just a little more obvious in me
I have real ties to my own family (not biological either in my case) and there are quite a few people here who have ties to their families. Guess we don't love Jesus! Dang, and here I thought...
Apologies for this but that statement is just plain silly... If you meant it to hurt me, mission acheived, congratulations.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
"Pray" doesn't mean "worship". It means ask, or more generally petition.
Praying to saints, including the BVM, asking for their prayers, is more about what it means to be alive in Christ than it has anything whatsoever to do with worshiping dead people. (They're not dead...)
Why pray to Mary, why petition anyone apart from Jesus? Its not like Jesus can't handle the workload. It's not like he hasn't been placed by God as foremost intermediary between the Most Holy and Man. Why do people even think of asking anything of anyone apart from through Jesus directly?
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own
or that Mary had some sort of parental authority which meant Jesus had to obey her even now.
There is biblical reference to Jesus obeying Mary in the way a child is meant to honour a parent (he turned water to wine at her request though he said it was not yet his time) but I agree that He did in no way infer any authourity to her over Him, he did not involve her as a direct influence in, over, through, as, etc His teachings in any way. As such to learn from Him as the Teacher in no way involves Mary and again, why would anyone want to pray to anyone apart from Jesus? It simply introduces complications that needn't be there such as the excessive use of saints as intermediaries for various aspects of daily circumstances not unlike how horoscope readers use the planets and stars. It also opens the way for evil to creep in using our own insecurities about the perfection of these intermediaries where it wouldn't dare if the known perfect Son were the only one we spoke to. In my opinion, it should be Christ we speak to as intermediary to the saints and Mary, not the other way around. What's wrong with going straight to the source, especially one as willing for us and loving of us and as He?
[code]
[ 15. February 2006, 13:59: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
"Pray" doesn't mean "worship". It means ask, or more generally petition.
Praying to saints, including the BVM, asking for their prayers, is more about what it means to be alive in Christ than it has anything whatsoever to do with worshiping dead people. (They're not dead...)
Why pray to Mary, why petition anyone apart from Jesus? Its not like Jesus can't handle the workload. It's not like he hasn't been placed by God as foremost intermediary between the Most Holy and Man. Why do people even think of asking anything of anyone apart from through Jesus directly?
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I bet you ask other people to pray for you. And I bet they often forget because they've got so much to do down here. Why not ask someone who isn't burdened by life down here and won't forget?
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
Lifeteen never lies!
-103
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
"Pray" doesn't mean "worship". It means ask, or more generally petition.
Praying to saints, including the BVM, asking for their prayers, is more about what it means to be alive in Christ than it has anything whatsoever to do with worshiping dead people. (They're not dead...)
Why pray to Mary, why petition anyone apart from Jesus? Its not like Jesus can't handle the workload. It's not like he hasn't been placed by God as foremost intermediary between the Most Holy and Man. Why do people even think of asking anything of anyone apart from through Jesus directly?
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I bet you ask other people to pray for you. And I bet they often forget because they've got so much to do down here. Why not ask someone who isn't burdened by life down here and won't forget?
I don't understand. What's wrong with always asking Jesus?
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
U:
There is nothing wrong with going straight to Jesus. But can I ask: have you never asked anyone here on earth to pray for you? Never? Do you not find it beneficial? Do you not find it helpful to speak to a more mature Christian and seek their advice, counsel and prayers?
I may be wrong, but that is why I may ask Mary and other saints to pray for me, or help me? Just like I'd ring a friend and say, "Everything is crap! Help me!"
Posted by Mountain Man (# 5115) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Why pray to Mary, why petition anyone apart from Jesus? Its not like Jesus can't handle the workload.
Why pray for anyone else if they can pray direct to Jesus? Do you ever ask people to pray for you?
Part of being a Christian is interacting with your fellow Christians. Both those here on Earth and those who have gone on to heaven before us.
[Cross posted with Ian Climacus]
[ 15. February 2006, 07:58: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
[Oh, and 'Hello' from another Aussie: feel free to drop into the Aussie & NZ thread in All Saints and say 'Hello'!]
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
NO - My Sponsor (a very wise man indeed who possibly might be along later )
Told me this:
quote:
As long as I'm in communion with my bishop who is in communion with the Pope in Rome, I don't need to state an opinion!
Or thereabouts
I think it's a cool position to be in!
Please tell me you're kidding here, 103. One of the great attractions of Catholicism for me (currently doing the RCIA) is the amount of honest questioning that I have come across by those within the church - both religious and lay people.
Forgive me, 103, but I can't help but feel that a faith based on blindly accepting the position of others is more an act of will against one's own doubts and difficulties than a real, living, mature encounter with the living God. I hope I am misrepresenting your position, however.
The way I see it, the magisterium represents a 2000-year tradition of prayer and thought which I would be a fool not to listen to. However, without thinking and praying through what one might call the "articles of faith" then ultimately it is someone else's faith, not mine.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
See Dei Verbum - we have a living Tradition. 2000 years of it. I don't think your point actually makes sense - as it ignores both the living aspect of Tradition and those who "got it right" as a corrective to those who may have strayed, as it were.
Please name for me a church that does not have a living tradition (even if some of the Sola Scriptura churches would like to deny it).
That means your only claim here is to a longer tradition than some churches. You don't have a longer one than e.g. the Lutherans or the Anglicans - you simply diverge at relevant points (in rejection of the corruption of the Catholic Church of the time in the case of the Lutherans).
You can claim to have a longer tradition than some of the more Protestant churches. As the results of the first 1500 years of this tradition were abominable, I wouldn't say that this was anything to write home about.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
"Abominable"? Why? How?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus, just a little more obvious in me
I have real ties to my own family (not biological either in my case) and there are quite a few people here who have ties to their families. Guess we don't love Jesus! Dang, and here I thought...
Apologies for this but that statement is just plain silly... If you meant it to hurt me, mission acheived, congratulations.
It is every bit as silly as saying that you have no real ties to your own family - and probably less hurtful than your comments were to most people with adopted families.
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I don't understand. What's wrong with always asking Jesus?
Nothing, really.
What's wrong with asking other people to pray for you, and with you? You don't have to, of course, but many people find that praying together, generally sharing one another's loads, is a Good Thing and helps to build up this community, the Church, the Body of Christ.
Assume for the moment, just for the sake of discussion, that praying with saints isn't worshipping them inappropriately. What does this connection (by faith), this communing together across ages mean, what does it point to?
It points to the living community of the Jesus people that doesn't just transcend the differences between me and my neighbour in the pew, or the neighbour across the city, or across the world. It points to the whole Communion of Saints that the Nicene Creed believes in, this communion that transcends distance, and time, and life and death. It points to the fact that in Christ their are no dead. "God is not the god of the dead, but of the living."
I find that quite a marvellous thing, and something that lifts my spirits and my faith. Having been reassured by those thoughts, recognising that "praying to saints" is not, in fact, inappropriate worship but is rather quite proper veneration, respect and affection, somehow isn't as threatening anymore.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Please name for me a church that does not have a living tradition (even if some of the Sola Scriptura churches would like to deny it).
If a church is sola scriptura, then it doesn't have a Tradition at all, by definition.
Unless by "tradition" you mean "history", in which case you are confusing the issue.
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on
:
Except, of course, the Tradition which dictates sola scriptura...
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
And the tradition which interprets sola scriptura. Many churches would deny it is there but I haven't encountered one which doesn't act from within their tradition.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Abominable"? Why? How?
Why? Because the Church had serious temporal power and therefore attracted most of the people that would now go into politics.
How? Does the Inquisition mean nothing to you? Simony? Keeping priests out of the whore-houses (although I suppose St. Vincent de Paul was about a hundred years later). Luther's Theses?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the tradition which interprets sola scriptura. Many churches would deny it is there but I haven't encountered one which doesn't act from within their tradition.
Exactly. (And with the intricacies of the bible, I don't think it's possible not to have such a tradition and remain a reasonably unified church).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Abominable"? Why? How?
Why? Because the Church had serious temporal power and therefore attracted most of the people that would now go into politics.
How? Does the Inquisition mean nothing to you? Simony? Keeping priests out of the whore-houses (although I suppose St. Vincent de Paul was about a hundred years later). Luther's Theses?
But what does any of that have to do with Tradition?
Are you suggesting there is some kind of direct causal link between, say, Purgatory or the intercession of the saints or the Assumption of Mary and the Spanish Inquisition?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
If a church is sola scriptura, then it doesn't have a Tradition at all, by definition.
Ricardus, I think your statement speaks to a real misunderstanding of sola scriptura .
Sola scriptura , at least as Lutherans understand it, means that, in a discussion of the nature of God/salvation, if a conflict arises between the Scriptural witness and church tradition, Scripture trumps tradition. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that anything not explicitly commanded in the Bible is forbidden (a point of view one finds, unfortunately, in some of the more exciteable fundamentalist sects in the United States); it doesn't mean that Lutherans despise tradition (after all, we are a credal church, and our form of worship is the catholic form, and we greatly respect the great minds of the early Church).
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Exactly.
Re sola scriptura churches not having Tradition, well any fule kno that they do. I know that in my dealings with fundie Baptists for example that despite their assertions that they are SS and practise 'soul liberty', you try exercising that soul liberty by trying to preach a sermon on baptismal regeneration ( based on your interpretation of Scripture) and you will discover very quickly that they bloody well do have a Tradition!
[ETA - first para is reply to Ricardus' last post]
[ 15. February 2006, 11:23: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
LutheranChik: OK, point taken. Oversimplification on my part. However, I think there are some Evangelicals who would see Scripture as the only source of doctrinal authority, at least in theory, and I sort of assumed that was what Justinian was referring to.
AdamPater, quantpole, Matt Black: True, but at most that only shows that those who supposedly take the Bible as their only source of doctrine can't stick to their own principles...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That means your only claim here is to a longer tradition than some churches.
Apart from the tiny number of churches that were started by previously unconverted people with no Christian background at all, all our churches are have tradition as old as any other. We all go back to the apostles. Even when someone leaves one church to found a completely new one (which is not how the mainstream Protestant churches came about) they start from where they left off.
But we all seem to handle "tradition" differently.
The Roman Catholics seem, from the outside at any rate, to have a developing tradition. Things are added as time goes on. There alse seems to be something of a ratchet - they never go back and start again but always have to assume that they are right. So once something is decided they are stuck with it. Which sometimes - to these Protestant eyes - means they go through vast circumlocutions to claim that they haven't changed their mind when in fact they probably have.
The Reformation churches certainly started from the same tradition, but recognised that it can go wrong. That a church, or all the churches, can wander away from where they should be. So they used the Bible as a sort of course-correction device. A quality-control on tradition. If a particular churches tradition seems to have strayed too far from the Bible you are supposed to rewind and start again from where your broke off. That's roughly where the fundamentalist and evangelical streams of Protestantism still are. Though lots of them would not use the word "tradition" they still have traditions.
Modern liberal Protestant churches go further than that and maybe would say that traditions have to be modified by circumstance that that it is not appropriate, or desirable, or possible, to go back to the source of the tradtions in that way.
And the Orthodox - or at least some of them - claim that their tradition is unchanging. That they really do do things the way the apostles did.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But what does any of that have to do with Tradition?
Are you suggesting there is some kind of direct causal link between, say, Purgatory or the intercession of the saints or the Assumption of Mary and the Spanish Inquisition?
By their fruits ye shall know them. I am saying that the Spanish Inquisition thrived in a religious environment shaped by the first 1500 years of Holy Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church has reformed a lot since then - but sweeping the first 1500 years under the carpet would seem a better idea than claiming it as a good thing.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
If a church is sola scriptura, then it doesn't have a Tradition at all, by definition.
Ricardus, I think your statement speaks to a real misunderstanding of sola scriptura .
Sola scriptura , at least as Lutherans understand it, means that, in a discussion of the nature of God/salvation, if a conflict arises between the Scriptural witness and church tradition, Scripture trumps tradition. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that anything not explicitly commanded in the Bible is forbidden (a point of view one finds, unfortunately, in some of the more exciteable fundamentalist sects in the United States); it doesn't mean that Lutherans despise tradition (after all, we are a credal church, and our form of worship is the catholic form, and we greatly respect the great minds of the early Church).
Can you unpack that a bit more please? How for example does one decide whther Tradition is in actual conflict with Scripture rather than interpreting that Scripture and who is empowered to make that judgment call?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
LutheranChik: OK, point taken. Oversimplification on my part. However, I think there are some Evangelicals who would see Scripture as the only source of doctrinal authority, at least in theory, and I sort of assumed that was what Justinian was referring to.
Indeed I was. (Which is why I said some Sola Scriptura churches).
quote:
AdamPater, quantpole, Matt Black: True, but at most that only shows that those who supposedly take the Bible as their only source of doctrine can't stick to their own principles...
Which leads to the question whether it is even possible to stick to those principles. (I think the answer there is a definite no - but that should probably be a matter for another thread).
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Holy God and his angels have mercy! It's amazing how effective propaganda is. I wonder whether Dr Goebbels took lessons from the Tudors and their henchmen. Adolf Hitler of course said something like the majority of the people will more easily fall for a big lie than for a little lie. During the polemical decades of the late 16th century there was just so much propaganda from all sides that you really, really must sift through the myths that are commonly accepted before bandying those propaganda myths about as fact.
I have been known to comment that if you scratch an Englishman and you will find some protestant bigotry not too far from the surface (and no, I am not Irish - I do not have a drop of Irish blood in me). This anti-Catholic nonsense is in the blood, and the misconceptions and untruths seem to be passed on with mother's milk to every English child. Just as anti-protestant anti-British nonsense is passed on to every Irish child. And this, I am sure, is replicated in situations throughout the world.
I can rehearse as many tales of infamy and disgrace against the protestants as Justinian is dredging up here. Except of course, I would be arguing against a parody.
quote:
Why was Jesus born in a stable? Because there was no room in the inn, and the protestants had stolen all the houses!
As soon as rational debate about the Catholic religion begins, you can be sure some protestant apologist is going to bounce in in order to dredge up at least some of the following:
- the Inquisition
- bad popes
- sexual misconduct by priests
- indulgences
- idolatry
***sigh**** All those lovely lily-white innocent pure protestants of England and Ireland, who were only serving God and purging the land of popish excrement when they tortured, killed and plundered from the ignorant, superstitious papists. And their successors today are carrying on that same battle against the papistical evils. *****sigh******
I think dear Fr Jack would be the best one to arague against this kind of rubbish. Can't you just hear him saying: "Fek off the lot of you! I leave you to wallow in your ignorance".
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
If Fr. Jack were a real person, TT, I'd ask him to pray for me, and take his response as a blessing!
Leetle M.
Orthodox Christian who reveres St. Edmund Campion
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
"I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!"
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
"No one exPECTS the Spanish Inquisition!"
Leetle M.
"There's a dead bishop on the landing...."
[Praying they put a lift in the Geneva Airport...soon!]
Posted by Crotalus (# 4959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
This distinction still obtains in France, where a diocesan secular priest is Monsieur l'Abbe, or Monsieur le Cure and a Jesuit (say) is Mon Pere.
IME all French priests, whether religious or secular are called Père . Even if married.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
TripleTiara, I am neither a Protestant nor an Apologist. I am quite prepared to take the Roman Catholic Church on its merits - until and unless some Roman Catholic claims that the history of the Roman Catholic Church gives it some sort of special standing. At that point (and not before) I point out that the results of a large part of this tradition was extremely bad. The figure of 1500 years was brought up not by me but by PaulTH questioning whether Protestants were Christians. My first post on this thread was defending the Roman Catholic Church from U's ill-informed accusations. Most of my subsequent posts have been defending the Prots from Catholic claims that the Bishop of Rome being a long established institution makes the Roman Catholic Church superior.
I have not attacked contemporary manifestations of the Roman Catholic Church. (And the only contemporary manifestation I find truly objectionable is the opposition to contraception - but that is an argument for another time). All I have done is attacked their claims to superiority over other churches by virtue of their Tradition by pointing out what that Tradition includes, and what the results of that Tradition have been.
As I said on page 1, "almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose." This pissing contest was started by some type of Prot - but has been continued by the Catholics.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Thank you Justinian. Sorry to have singled you out so unfairly. I agreed wholeheartedly about your pissing competition - but thought I'd have a quick pee anyway! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Your reply above is gracious. You answer the points very well. It's a bit of a merry-go-round however. For example, I would want to emphasise the historic continuity of the Catholic Church - not as a counterweight to protestant arguments but as an important fact in and of itself.
I guess Catholics get fed up with the regular doses of nonsense we hear spoken about us. Tiring of defending ourselves, we end up pissing right back at our detractors. It's an old game.
And before anyone else comes along to tell me so, yes I know it works the other way round as well.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Apologies for this but that statement is just plain silly...
Well, yes, it was, which is why I pointed it out.
Oh! Sorry. You meant mine? I fail to see how. Yes, really, I do.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
If you meant it to hurt me, mission acheived, congratulations.
The gentle reader will note the phrase "not biological either in my case." I fail to see how my having ties with non-biological family -- like your own adoption -- is hurtful. In fact if anything "I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth" implies that either (a) you have no "real ties" to your adopted family or (b) you don't consider your relationship by adoption to be "family" somehow.
David
current mood: baffled
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on
:
quote:
This anti-Catholic nonsense is in the blood, and the misconceptions and untruths seem to be passed on with mother's milk to every English child.
Speaking as someone raised protestant - sadly, I can vouch for this.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
And getting back to my whole point above...
quote:
Originally posted by U:
... no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus...
Would you care to explain the equation you're making here (love Jesus = no "real ties" to any earthly family)? This is a pretty bold assertion...
David
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
Because Mother is what you call a superior nun! Not a minister!
Also - if you knew my mom, you'd know what I mean by "Creepy"
-103
Do you take after your mum or your dad?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Why pray to Mary, why petition anyone apart from Jesus? Its not like Jesus can't handle the workload. It's not like he hasn't been placed by God as foremost intermediary between the Most Holy and Man. Why do people even think of asking anything of anyone apart from through Jesus directly?
Do you ever pray for someone else? Do others ever ask you to pray for them? You might as well claim that if someone is already praying for himself, then there's no point in your adding your prayers to his. I admit that this is a coherent position, especially if you doubt the efficacy of prayer. But it is not scriptural. The epistles urge us to "pray constantly" and the gospels contain examples of prayer being efficacious.
The phrase "Communion of saints" is in the Apostles' Creed, which is ancient. One of the four ancient marks of orthodoxy was to accept the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, which antedated the canon of scripture. What does this phrase mean to you?
To me (and if I am in any way heterodox here, someone please correct me) the church is the communion of saints, and the church comprises people both on earth and in heaven. It is the will of God that we care about one another; therefore, in heaven those who cared and prayed for one another on earth figure prominently.
So two questions are before us: (1) Would it be in the nature of people who excelled in caring and praying for others on earth to continue caring and praying for others once they reach heaven? If the answer to that question is "yes", as I think would be inevitable, then (2) Would it be God's nature to allow and encourage this continued caring and praying? We are talking, aren't we, about a condition for happiness in heaven among those people whom we would expect to find in heaven. So I think, again, that the answer would be yes.
It's all in Aquinas. You should read what he has to say on the subject of invocation of saints. It convinced me.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[S]weeping the first 1500 years [of the Church's history] under the carpet would seem a better idea than claiming it as a good thing.
Sorry, Justinian - notwithstanding your recent exchange with Triple Tiara, I just can't let this pass without asking... Are you serious about that?
Better to sweep the whole of the first millenium and and a half of the life of the Body of Christ under the carpet?
I mean, I've heard of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but that's more like throwing out the baby, its parents, siblings and whole extended family and ancestry out too.
That's too ridiculous for you to mean, surely?
[ 15. February 2006, 17:02: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on
:
just arrived to check out a new christian site ... and lo and behold ... a whole new bunch of people are arguing about who is the greatest !!!!!!!!
... i do believe that theres a biblical precedent for this conversation, .... eerrmm .. i think it says that people who insist on their own importance in terms of denigrating others .... well, they've lost the plot and are definitely annoying Jesus
... of course you might disagree with me and feel a deep need to point out how wrong i am (and therefore how great you are)... but that'd kind of prove the point wouldn't it !!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Welcome to the Ship Noneen.
Just don't be too disillusioned when you discover the Ship is a place where people of all faiths and none feel at home to talk together. Granted most probably are (or were) Christians, but the Buddhists, atheists and pagans among us (to name but a few) are as much part of the Ship as the rest.
And, by the way, the easiest way to raise a laugh among older shipmates that I know is to complain in frustration that "I Thought This Was A Christian Website" -- sometimes abbreviated for convenience to ITTWACW
John
Purgatory Host
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[S]weeping the first 1500 years [of the Church's history] under the carpet would seem a better idea than claiming it as a good thing.
Sorry, Justinian - notwithstanding your recent exchange with Triple Tiara, I just can't let this pass without asking... Are you serious about that?
Better to sweep the whole of the first millenium and and a half of the life of the Body of Christ under the carpet?
I mean, I've heard of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but that's more like throwing out the baby, its parents, siblings and whole extended family and ancestry out too.
That's too ridiculous for you to mean, surely?
Best of all would be to accept it, say "it happened, some was good and some bad", learn from it, and move on. Sweeping it under the carpet only appears better than saying that it is what Catholics have that Protestants do not.
quote:
Originally posted by TripleTiara:
I guess Catholics get fed up with the regular doses of nonsense we hear spoken about us. Tiring of defending ourselves, we end up pissing right back at our detractors. It's an old game.
And before anyone else comes along to tell me so, yes I know it works the other way round as well.
Indeed - and the pissing tends to do more harm to the pissers than the recipients. Which is why my attitude to such arguments (both here and elsewhere) is something along the lines of "I don't much care who wins - but the fight is a bad thing so when someone throws the first stone, I'll try to end it with my mangonel".
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
TripleTiara, I am neither a Protestant nor an Apologist. I am quite prepared to take the Roman Catholic Church on its merits - until and unless some Roman Catholic claims that the history of the Roman Catholic Church gives it some sort of special standing. At that point (and not before) I point out that the results of a large part of this tradition was extremely bad. The figure of 1500 years was brought up not by me but by PaulTH questioning whether Protestants were Christians. My first post on this thread was defending the Roman Catholic Church from U's ill-informed accusations. Most of my subsequent posts have been defending the Prots from Catholic claims that the Bishop of Rome being a long established institution makes the Roman Catholic Church superior.
I have not attacked contemporary manifestations of the Roman Catholic Church. (And the only contemporary manifestation I find truly objectionable is the opposition to contraception - but that is an argument for another time). All I have done is attacked their claims to superiority over other churches by virtue of their Tradition by pointing out what that Tradition includes, and what the results of that Tradition have been.
As I said on page 1, "almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose." This pissing contest was started by some type of Prot - but has been continued by the Catholics.
Part of that 1500 years you decry included the determination of the Canon of the Bible and formulation of the Nicene Creed. You can't simply throw out the good with the bad.
You confuse Tradition with the acts of fallible sinful members of the Church. You confuse Tradition, as explained in Dei Verbum with tradition in the conventional English sense of the word. And with history. And Pope John Paul II apologised for that history. Repeatedly.
And I repeat you have made the hyperbolic category error of equating the meaning of God's message in Word and Tradition with its fallible practitioners in the Church. We claim a lot of things for the Catholic Church. Being God is not one of them.
Read Dei Verbum if you want to understand what the Catholic view of Tradition is.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
just arrived to check out a new christian site ... and lo and behold ... a whole new bunch of people are arguing about who is the greatest !!!!!!!!
... i do believe that theres a biblical precedent for this conversation, .... eerrmm .. i think it says that people who insist on their own importance in terms of denigrating others .... well, they've lost the plot and are definitely annoying Jesus
... of course you might disagree with me and feel a deep need to point out how wrong i am (and therefore how great you are)... but that'd kind of prove the point wouldn't it !!
Right. But that's what Purgatory is about -vigourous debate. Why don't you have a look at the whole of Purgatory and the rest of the Ship?
Welcome, by the way.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Read Dei Verbum if you want to understand what the Catholic view of Tradition is.
Or at least the 1059 words of Chapter II "Handing on Divine Revelation" (numbers 7-10) of Dei Verbum.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I only count 1,049.
Thanks for posting that Duo: top stuff. I'll have to read the other constitutions there.
[clutching an icon all the while to prevent me being sucked into Rome, of course! ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I only count 1,049. <...> [clutching an icon all the while to prevent me being sucked into Rome, of course! ]
Ahh, no wonder that you weren't able to see the secret ten words of power then...
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
U:
There is nothing wrong with going straight to Jesus. But can I ask: have you never asked anyone here on earth to pray for you? Never? Do you not find it beneficial? Do you not find it helpful to speak to a more mature Christian and seek their advice, counsel and prayers?
I may be wrong, but that is why I may ask Mary and other saints to pray for me, or help me? Just like I'd ring a friend and say, "Everything is crap! Help me!"
I completely and totally understand but in thinking about it, what Jesus did for us and taught us, it's saddening to think that he isn't everyone's closest confident. I know some people want the realism of another body close to them but isn't that an integral part of Christianity, to feel as though Jesus and our Father are there for us every second of every minute of every day and WANT to hear our every thought, feeling, trouble, happiness, sadness, joy, etc. I would like to feel more comforted telling Jesus "Everything is crap! Help me!" than anyone else.
And I can't recall ever asking people to pray for me but I'm weird. I asked my family to stop giving me Christmas presents for years and when they didn't, spent way more than I knew they were going to on me one year then stopped turning up for Christmas the next year on.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus, just a little more obvious in me
I have real ties to my own family (not biological either in my case) and there are quite a few people here who have ties to their families. Guess we don't love Jesus! Dang, and here I thought...
Apologies for this but that statement is just plain silly... If you meant it to hurt me, mission acheived, congratulations.
It is every bit as silly as saying that you have no real ties to your own family - and probably less hurtful than your comments were to most people with adopted families.
You're right, I'm wrong. My deepest apologies for trying to express how I see myself to you and thus give you insight into where I am coming from and perhaps the ability to reason with me in a way that I can comprehend. Thanks for helping... Please, keep going, I really do love pain... And you obviously enjoy inflicting it, making generalised statements about the emotional responses of anonymous people thereby introducing the possibility that I am hurting them wether or not I am, which hurts me. If they are in the same situation as me then maybe they can understand what I mean and can perhaps empathise with how I interpret my situation. If you aren't adopted or don't know someone hurt by my post you should definitely not be making comments about it... And if I have hurt someone who's adopted or is associated in some way with someone who is, or was hurt by the thoughts I presented, sincere apologies, I hope you can see how I did not intend to do that.
Perhaps there's a reason Jesus said "Love your enemy". Perhaps if you would talk with love and compassion rather than taking cheap shots I would hear you and respond in kind.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
U:
There is nothing wrong with going straight to Jesus. But can I ask: have you never asked anyone here on earth to pray for you? Never? Do you not find it beneficial? Do you not find it helpful to speak to a more mature Christian and seek their advice, counsel and prayers?
I may be wrong, but that is why I may ask Mary and other saints to pray for me, or help me? Just like I'd ring a friend and say, "Everything is crap! Help me!"
I completely and totally understand but in thinking about it, what Jesus did for us and taught us, it's saddening to think that he isn't everyone's closest confident. I know some people want the realism of another body close to them but isn't that an integral part of Christianity, to feel as though Jesus and our Father are there for us every second of every minute of every day and WANT to hear our every thought, feeling, trouble, happiness, sadness, joy, etc. I would like to feel more comforted telling Jesus "Everything is crap! Help me!" than anyone else.
Well yes. This is the ideal prayer relationship of closeness and intimacy to God. But do all of us have that level of intimacy and comfort with Jesus? We all should but really there is no inconsistency in asking someone to pray along with us as moral support while we pray to God - even for those real prayer warriors among us.
Really this is what we should all do, but once you get past the "Lord, I want a plastic ray gun and a pony" type of prayer it can get harder to pray. And then prayer is also about praise, adoration and contemplation of God and meditation on aspects of God's revelation to us. I guess that's why people feel the need for advocates to plead for them, to be their representatives in real life and even before God. Some can do their own advocacy, others may feel the need for some moral support from Mary or from a saint. None of this is worshipping or praying to Mary or that Saint but moral support if you will. And intercessory prayer certainly is not compulsory
[ 16. February 2006, 07:47: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Apologies for this but that statement is just plain silly...
Well, yes, it was, which is why I pointed it out.
Oh! Sorry. You meant mine? I fail to see how. Yes, really, I do.
quote:
Originally posted by U:
If you meant it to hurt me, mission acheived, congratulations.
The gentle reader will note the phrase "not biological either in my case." I fail to see how my having ties with non-biological family -- like your own adoption -- is hurtful. In fact if anything "I'm adopted and as such have no real ties to any family on earth" implies that either (a) you have no "real ties" to your adopted family or (b) you don't consider your relationship by adoption to be "family" somehow.
David
current mood: baffled
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I have real ties to my own family (not biological either in my case) and there are quite a few people here who have ties to their families. Guess we don't love Jesus! Dang, and here I thought...
What was hurtful was the sarcastic tone that left no room for me to respond to you in a sensible way sympathetic to your reasoning.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
My deepest apologies for trying to express how I see myself to you and thus give you insight into where I am coming from and perhaps the ability to reason with me in a way that I can comprehend.
U, I don't want to add fuel to the flames but you do seem to be missing the way debate works. When you post an idea here, other people will evaluate that statement and its consequences.
If your idea on closer examination turns out to be offensive or illogical and unreasonable, those people have every right to point this out to you. That's how debate works. If you don't want this to happen, why are you posting on a discussion board?
As it is, you have posted (inadvertently, I'm sure) potentially offensive statements and when people have tried to show you how this is the case, you accuse them of malice.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
My deepest apologies for trying to express how I see myself to you and thus give you insight into where I am coming from and perhaps the ability to reason with me in a way that I can comprehend.
U, I don't want to add fuel to the flames but you do seem to be missing the way debate works. When you post an idea here, other people will evaluate that statement and its consequences.
If your idea on closer examination turns out to be offensive or illogical and unreasonable, those people have every right to point this out to you. That's how debate works. If you don't want this to happen, why are you posting on a discussion board?
As it is, you have posted (inadvertently, I'm sure) potentially offensive statements and when people have tried to show you how this is the case, you accuse them of malice.
That's not what I was saying. Debate leaves room for movement in and around each other's voices, it is an interaction. Sarcasm and the defense of sarcasm excludes the possibility of interaction and pretty much turns debate into cheap worthless attacks at each other's mother's... (to quote a common genre of insults). Needless to say this is getting far away from the point.
And as I pointed out I thought quite clearly at the beginning, I am asking, not telling, presenting a point of view and reading what other people's are. There is no need for cruelty.
If I am truly being offensive, tell me and I'll happily walk away. I don't want to offend anyone. I am here as I presume most are, to interact with people who are asking similar questions to my own and may have different answers that I have not thought of.
I agree with your interpretations of the reasons why asking others to pray for you, here on earth or in Heaven, and that it is not a bad thing. Thanks. It does however make me more than a little sad to think that in so many people's considerations Jesus is not enough...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Yes, but we are creatures of flesh and blood; that's why Jesus has given us His Body, the Church (on earth and in heaven), Jesus-With-Skin-On if you like, to have fellowship with us, laugh with us, cry with us and, yes, pray with and for us.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
And getting back to my whole point above...
quote:
Originally posted by U:
... no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus...
Would you care to explain the equation you're making here (love Jesus = no "real ties" to any earthly family)? This is a pretty bold assertion...
David
I would like to explain but your previous comments have led me to feel that unless I am absolutely 100% precise with every tiny detail you might find a way to ridicule my response with sarcasm and I am not nearly that perfect, I might poorly choose my words, or make a typo or accidently misunderstand something...
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Part of that 1500 years you decry included the determination of the Canon of the Bible and formulation of the Nicene Creed. You can't simply throw out the good with the bad.
You confuse Tradition with the acts of fallible sinful members of the Church. You confuse Tradition, as explained in Dei Verbum with tradition in the conventional English sense of the word. And with history. And Pope John Paul II apologised for that history. Repeatedly.
And I repeat you have made the hyperbolic category error of equating the meaning of God's message in Word and Tradition with its fallible practitioners in the Church. We claim a lot of things for the Catholic Church. Being God is not one of them.
Read Dei Verbum if you want to understand what the Catholic view of Tradition is.
As I have said before, and will say again, "By their fruits shall ye know them." Are you telling me that the fruits immediately prior to (and, for that matter, immediately following) the Reformation were good?
It may surprise you to realise that I have read Dei Verbum. I am, however, also familiar with the True Scotsman Fallacy.
And finally the Roman Catholic Claim to Tradition and its importance is a matter of denominational doctrine - and therefore cuts very little ice with many (either denominations also claim Tradition (Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox) or they simply don't care (the Sola Scriptura subset I mentioned earlier)).
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I would like to explain but your previous comments have led me to feel that unless I am absolutely 100% precise with every tiny detail you might find a way to ridicule my response with sarcasm and I am not nearly that perfect, I might poorly choose my words, or make a typo or accidently misunderstand something...
U: can you see how
quote:
[I ... ] have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus,
could cause questions to be raised?
What are "real ties"? Why don't people who love Jesus have them? Jesus did say, "He who does not hate his father or mother is not worthy of me."(*) -- is this what you mean? But he also got rather upset with people who didn't look after their parents but gave the money as an offering to the temple. And he commanded love and a fulfilment of the commandment, "Honour your father and mother."
I hope I'm not causing pain, because that is not my intent [and I do not think anyone hear is intentionally offending...words on screen don't have the nuances of the spoken word] (and if I have offended, apologies are offered). I just have trouble understanding this.
Ian.
(*)I think: I'm going by memory...
[edit: a big to the Catholics participating here: I'm not sure I could given the thread title's question.]
[ 16. February 2006, 11:24: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As I have said before, and will say again, "By their fruits shall ye know them." Are you telling me that the fruits immediately prior to (and, for that matter, immediately following) the Reformation were good?
And are you saying they are all bad, because that seems to be your implication? Two historiographical truisms come into play here: - bad news is much more likely to be reported than good news
- history is told by the winners, who in northern Europe at least were/are the Protestants.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
U: quote:
isn't that an integral part of Christianity, to feel as though Jesus and our Father are there for us every second of every minute of every day and WANT to hear our every thought, feeling, trouble, happiness, sadness, joy, etc.
U, if that is your experience of Chrisitanity, that's great. There are many Shipmates here who experience the sort of intimacy you describe.
However there are also many Shipmates who do not share that experience. There are some whose faith is more cerebral and less emotional, some who feel supported by the faith of the Church rather than by their individual experience, and some who are hanging on by their fingertips even though it feels as though God is a million miles away..
One of the things that I love about Christainity (and often get frustrated with) is that there are many different ways of being Christian. The Ship is a constant reminder of this. Enjoy your own experience and be proud of the tradition that you belong to. However, if you want to get the best out of the Ship, it's worth learning to enjoy the different approaches here, even when you disagree with them.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think that once you get into the "look how ghastly the Catholic Church was in the sixteenth century" line of argument you instantly open up counter-accusations about Calvin's Geneva, Henry VIII and the private life of Philip of Hesse. No Church that has had any kind of privileged access to the secular arm has come out of the experience uncorrupted.
[ETA - Cross posted with The Wanderer.]
[ 16. February 2006, 12:15: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
To me (and if I am in any way heterodox here, someone please correct me) the church is the communion of saints, and the church comprises people both on earth and in heaven.
It all sounds most orthodox to me, but then I'm a raving Prod. Fr. Gregory has spent a lot of the last couple of years telling us that it is not "Orthodox". Or most recently, on this thread telling us that it is such obvious nonsense there is no point in us even bringing the idea up.
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on
:
First, a big thanks to all who offered 'words of consolation' .... i'm grand, but appreciate the welcome!! In fact, I checked out some of the other boards ... but as someone who loves a good argument (i mean, a healthy discusson !! ) ...i think i'll be adding a few comments here in Purgatory !!!
re: topic.
I suppose what strikes me, when people get talking about denominations, is how easily people seem to disassociate themselves from their own history. Its as if, anything pre-1500 is Vatican-centred-Roman-Catholicism, and therefore not-my-problem!!! But it seems to me that Galilee and Golgotha were pre-1500 .... so you can't disclaim the church fathers without disclaiming Pentecost !!! ... am i right ?!?! !!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Debate leaves room for movement in and around each other's voices, it is an interaction. Sarcasm and the defense of sarcasm excludes the possibility of interaction
Hmmmm... I'm pretty sure it doesn't. People still seem to be able to contact each other and have discussion and debate and argument and even negotiation with really quite large amounts of sarcasm, or even outright anger.
The only thing I can think of that completely rules out discussion (other than not talking at all of course) is if one party thinks the other one is doesn't mean what they say, for example if they think the other one is lying. If you yell at me or mock me what you say might still communicate information to me. But if you just decide to take the piss and say things you don't belive to be true then it doesn't.
quote:
And as I pointed out I thought quite clearly at the beginning, I am asking, not telling, presenting a point of view and reading what other people's are. There is no need for cruelty.
I wonder if someone has inadvertenly stepped on someon else's sore toes? Pushed the wrong buttons? If two people aer having a conversation about topic ABC, and in passing one of them mentions XYZ to make a point, but the other one has some painful history concerting XYZ that they don't know about, they could get hurt without anyone meaning to be nasty.
quote:
If I am truly being offensive, tell me and I'll happily walk away.
No you aren't being offensive. And I don;t think anyone else here is either.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I would like to explain but your previous comments have led me to feel that unless I am absolutely 100% precise with every tiny detail you might find a way to ridicule my response with sarcasm and I am not nearly that perfect, I might poorly choose my words, or make a typo or accidently misunderstand something...
U: can you see how
quote:
[I ... ] have no real ties to any family on earth, same as any who love Jesus,
could cause questions to be raised?
What are "real ties"? Why don't people who love Jesus have them? Jesus did say, "He who does not hate his father or mother is not worthy of me."(*) -- is this what you mean? But he also got rather upset with people who didn't look after their parents but gave the money as an offering to the temple. And he commanded love and a fulfilment of the commandment, "Honour your father and mother."
I hope I'm not causing pain, because that is not my intent [and I do not think anyone hear is intentionally offending...words on screen don't have the nuances of the spoken word] (and if I have offended, apologies are offered). I just have trouble understanding this.
Ian.
(*)I think: I'm going by memory...
[edit: a big to the Catholics participating here: I'm not sure I could given the thread title's question.]
Yes I can, and no it dun hurt if its not intended to
According to my understanding of what Jesus said, those who follow his teachings and spread them do not call this world home, nor their earthly relatives their relatives, their home and family is in heaven and in those around them, wether or not blood, who share their beliefs.
Thus, all I was saying was that because I am aware I do not have any earthly relatives that I am duty bound according to the bible to honour and obey I do not answer to anyone except my Father in heaven thus it MIGHT be a little easier for not to place any value on things in this world than someone who is duty bound as a christian to honour and obey their living relatives. Which is possibly why I have difficulty understanding how Jesus isn't enough. I am not saying I am better or more christian or in any way placing myself above or greater than anyone else and it saddens me that I have to say that so it is not pounced on by the more judgmental people around. I wish I could just assume blamelessness and speak freely as I would wish for anyone around me because that is what a true christian is, blameless, without sin, forgiven...
Jesus is also quoted as saying in the bible that to be His disciple a person must hate their brother, sister, mother, father, wife and children. Someone once told me that just meant that they should love God soo much that any comparison is hate. I have no problem hating my family because they rejected me. Not in a violent bloodspilling kind of way, just in a I reject you and love God and only love you through God kind of way.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think that once you get into the "look how ghastly the Catholic Church was in the sixteenth century" line of argument you instantly open up counter-accusations about Calvin's Geneva, Henry VIII and the private life of Philip of Hesse. No Church that has had any kind of privileged access to the secular arm has come out of the experience uncorrupted.
[ETA - Cross posted with The Wanderer.]
Indeed. I would, however, say that the Catholic Church has had more priveliged access to the secular arm than anyone else (not for want of trying by others at times...). One of the uses of history should be pointing out why the Church gaining secular power is a Bad Idea. (Note that the above does not say that religious people shouldn't be informed by their faith).
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on
:
quote:
Indeed. I would, however, say that the Catholic Church has had more priveliged access to the secular arm than anyone else (not for want of trying by others at times...). One of the uses of history should be pointing out why the Church gaining secular power is a Bad Idea. (Note that the above does not say that religious people shouldn't be informed by their faith)
Re: Catholics have huge power (!!)
How many catholic presidents of the USA have we had?!?, or of Britan?? Do you know that its still the law in Britan, that a person who marries a Catholic must renounce their right to the throne (not an enormous trauma, ... but surely in breach of heaps of civil rights laws!!)
A lot of the talk of Catholic power is based on a view of Catholicism thats at least 50 years out of date (if not a hundred).
re: catholics power is the model of what we shouldn't do !!
You don't have to try to rule the world to be a tyrant ... people do that in their own home. Personally, i think that a priest, pastor, parent, leader or whatever, of/in any community is always in danger of glorifying themselves. All power corrupts to some extent ... even the power of being a leader of a prayer group. Thats why we have to keep ourselves centred in God ... not cause God needs us, but cause we badly need God !!
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
Re: Catholics have huge power (!!)
How many catholic presidents of the USA have we had?!?,
One. But they run the Supreme Court, which arguably has more power than the president ever had.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
so you can't disclaim the church fathers without disclaiming Pentecost !!! ... am i right ?!?! !!
Who is disclaiming the church fathers? The Reformation was full of stuff about the church fathers. Calvin went on about them all the time. The early Puritans loved quoting from them.
Posted by saoirse (# 11025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
What are people's views? [/QB]
Hallo. Looks like there is a whole lot of general worrying going on here.
I am a RC and i call the priests i know 'Father' out of respect for their faith and for their leadership. I couldn't do their job. This doesn't mean that i agree with them on everything. Sometimes I don't and we debate it in the age old christian tradition (just like on this board).
Sometimes when i need someone to pray for me, i call on Mary. She has a good reputation in that area and I reckon she knew Christ pretty well. Sometimes, when i end up at a religious meeting of the more conservative variety i find old Marion Traditions strange and they weird me out a bit. I normally put that down to a lack of experience and background knowledge on my part.
All the time i recognise that other people are able to share their knowledge of God with me. Regardless of their religious tradition or denomination. For that reason i don't know who will be in heaven. I'm guessing that Pope benedict doesn't know for sure either. I guess that is why the Catechism is so open on the subject.
I hope no one will try and keep anyone out.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
Just like the devil likes to quote the scriptures, ken?
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Your point being?
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
I'll probably offend everyone with this post, but I think we're in danger of taking a view of the Reformation that's unrealistic.
Anybody that's spent longer than three minutes looking at Church history knows that there have been reformers throughout, many of them Bishops of Rome. One might say that by this process the Church is repeatedly being brought back closer to Tradition. Luther wasn't the first reformer, there were many before him. Subsequent Catholic reformation and action indicates that Luther's perception of the need for reformation at that point in history was not wrong.
The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that the periodic or even constant reformation process this time resulted in large-scale schism, and once that had taken place the inevitable polarisation led to some extremely nasty outcomes.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I would like to explain but your previous comments have led me to feel that unless I am absolutely 100% precise with every tiny detail you might find a way to ridicule my response with sarcasm and I am not nearly that perfect, I might poorly choose my words, or make a typo or accidently misunderstand something...
No offense was intended on my part but honestly, if this style of discourse will make it impossible for you to respond, then I think you'll be in for a bit of a shock here on the Ship. (As has been mentioned, we often get "I thought this was a Christian website!" when "Christian" is equated with not swearing or using coarse language, with doctrinal adherence to this or that list of beliefs, or when sarcasm is used. We even have an entire board (Hell) for when things get out of hand and things get really heated, to contain the free-for-all which may follow...)
I don't know if you understand that the way your post was worded really does come across, at least to me, as saying that if someone really loves Jesus, then they will have no real ties to any family on earth, with the corollary that if someone has real ties to any family on earth then they -- that is, I, and quite a wide range of people including your fellow Shipmates -- must not really love Jesus. Do you understand how that might come across?
quote:
I have difficulty understanding how Jesus isn't enough
If, in the story of Adam and Eve, while Adam is depicted as walking in the Garden with unfallen God in an unimaginable level of unconflicted fellowship, God could still say "it is not good for man to be alone," then I think that would be a good starting place. We also see many references to friendship and fellowship (for example but by no means the only one, Psalm 133: 1-2, "How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down upon the beard...") with only tangential directly religious aspects.
quote:
I wish I could just assume blamelessness and speak freely as I would wish for anyone around me because that is what a true christian is, blameless, without sin, forgiven...
How do you mean "blameless" and "without sin" here? Because I don't think many of us here would claim to be actually sinless or assume that others here on Earth are.
David
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If, in the story of Adam and Eve, while Adam is depicted as walking in the Garden with unfallen God in an unimaginable level of unconflicted fellowship
I meant to say here -- was editing and re-editing the whole post and now can't repair it because the time to edit is expired --
"If, in the story of Adam and Eve, while unfallen Adam is depicted as walking in the Garden with God in an unimaginable level of unconflicted fellowship..."
David
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on
:
i agree with Greyface !
... i have a ball of problems with the R.C. institution, ... including some of the stuff mentioned here. But none of this implies or means that all Christian badness resides in the Vatican!! reformation is a process not a once-off event,... IMHO !! (in my humble opinion )
We have all messed up - our ancestors, our churches, and ourselves. All that remains is to see if we've learnt anything from it!!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'll probably offend everyone with this post, but I think we're in danger of taking a view of the Reformation that's unrealistic.
Anybody that's spent longer than three minutes looking at Church history knows that there have been reformers throughout, many of them Bishops of Rome. One might say that by this process the Church is repeatedly being brought back closer to Tradition. Luther wasn't the first reformer, there were many before him. Subsequent Catholic reformation and action indicates that Luther's perception of the need for reformation at that point in history was not wrong.
The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that the periodic or even constant reformation process this time resulted in large-scale schism, and once that had taken place the inevitable polarisation led to some extremely nasty outcomes.
No offence here
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"By their fruits shall ye know them."
Yes, indeed! That's a, if not the, bottom line for me, too.
quote:
Are you telling me that the fruits immediately prior to (and, for that matter, immediately following) the Reformation were good?
If looking at the fruits is worthwhile, then looking at all of them is. Why would we confine ourselves to one unhappy small sliver of time as though it were normative? Over two millennia I have no trouble defending the fruits of the Catholic church. They include the foundation of our civilization and the preservation of the written sources of our Greco-Roman heritage. They include magnificent music, architecture, and art. They include monasticism and mysticism. They include great saints. I admire the ideals that these various elements of the Catholic experience uphold. I warm to many devout Roman Catholics whom the church has molded and who personify those ideals.
By contrast, my impression is that Protestant ideals are more superficial, and a number of Protestant sects cultivate personality traits that I find downright repugnant.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Why aren't you RC then?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Why aren't you RC then?
I'm Anglo-Catholic, part of Catholicism in both body and spirit. If ever I ceased to believe that, I would assuredly swim either the Tiber or the Bosphorus.
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
Alogon: quote:
If looking at the fruits is worthwhile, then looking at all of them is. Why would we confine ourselves to one unhappy small sliver of time as though it were normative? Over two millennia I have no trouble defending the fruits of the Catholic church. They include the foundation of our civilization and the preservation of the written sources of our Greco-Roman heritage. They include magnificent music, architecture, and art. They include monasticism and mysticism. They include great saints. I admire the ideals that these various elements of the Catholic experience uphold. I warm to many devout Roman Catholics whom the church has molded and who personify those ideals.
Slightly surprised at you, sir. The injunction to "know by fruits" isn't an invitation to be a conoisseur. Anyway: Bach? Bonhoeffer? Schweitzer? Barth (Hailed by a Pope as the "greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas")? The whole enterprise of critical Biblical scholarship? And that's without taking out any of the denominational aesthetic and intellectual filters that prevent people from outside seeing the beauty and truth of many expressions of Protestant piety.
And then there's the small matter that Protestantism not only invented modernity, but bore with the guilt of having done so, and tried to do something about it and its associated neuroses.
quote:
By contrast, my impression is that Protestant ideals are more superficial,
What an astonishing and utterly insubstantiable statement! Or are you going to produce the twenty most superficial Protestant ideals, and demonstrate that they are more superficial than the twenty most superficial Catholic ones? There's something dodgy about comparing the bests of religious traditions - comparing the worsts is downright shonky! quote:
and a number of Protestant sects cultivate personality traits that I find downright repugnant.
Me too. But see above on comparing worst with worst. Would a list of Catholic personality traits I find repugnant really help the discussion?
Must Do Better.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Would a list of Catholic personality traits I find repugnant really help the discussion?
Cultivated traits-- why not? The subject of fruits was on the table long before my post.
Not to change the subject, but Americans are fairly aswim in the ideals, if you can call them that, of the religious right. I don't think it would be difficult to find a variety of repugnant traits cultivated in the name of Our Lord on the web sites of prominent right-wing organizations. While I agree that in a way it is unfair to point to the "worst rather than the best", part of the point is that the premises and axioms of Protestantism allow them to march under a Christian banner.
I certainly do share your admiration of Bach, Bonhoeffer, and Schweitzer. It's worth noting, though, that in Leipzig Bach participated in quite a high version of Lutheran worship, the like of which is almost unknown today at least in America. And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics, e.g Charles-Marie Widor, his teacher and later his colleague in editing Bach's organ works.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Not to change the subject, but Americans are fairly aswim in the ideals, if you can call them that, of the religious right. I don't think it would be difficult to find a variety of repugnant traits cultivated in the name of Our Lord on the web sites of prominent right-wing organizations. While I agree that in a way it is unfair to point to the "worst rather than the best", part of the point is that the premises and axioms of Protestantism allow them to march under a Christian banner.
I'll see you those fundamentalists and raise you Francisco Franco and the Spanish fascists, who claimed to be doing it for the Church.
Nasty right-wing politics is human, because humans are sinful. If the nasty right-wingers are brought up in a baptist church they'll claim that as an authority. If Catholics, than that. But nasty right-wingery isn't a trait "cultivated" byt those churches.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Why aren't you RC then?
I'm Anglo-Catholic, part of Catholicism in both body and spirit.
So you are in fact a Protestant.
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on
:
while i don't agree with aologon (excuse spelling!! ), the following statement makes me want to eat the computer in frustration !! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:
Why aren't you RC then?
why do people (including those of us christians who are still human, and not perfected ) feel like we can't admire the best in those who are different to us, .... why the need to insist people choose sides of a fence !?!?
its one thing to insist that a person choose their position on a particular argument (!) ... but another to insist they choose their church/ faith immediately, simply as part of an on-going argument (discussion !!)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
While I agree that in a way it is unfair to point to the "worst rather than the best", part of the point is that the premises and axioms of Protestantism allow them to march under a Christian banner.
Except for other Protestant groups with a much more politically liberal approach, like the Quakers. I don't think there is a "Protestantism" as such with an array of formal doctrines; it just means "not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox" (if Anglo-Catholics are Protestant in that sense, but still Catholic, then I think the term "Protestant" could apply here; it's just often taken to mean "not Catholic at all") but there's quite a variety of approaches to theology (compare the Southern Baptists with the Quakers for example) out there and I can't see them all adhering to a formal list of "what makes them Protestant."
David
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"By their fruits shall ye know them."
Yes, indeed! That's a, if not the, bottom line for me, too.
quote:
Are you telling me that the fruits immediately prior to (and, for that matter, immediately following) the Reformation were good?
If looking at the fruits is worthwhile, then looking at all of them is. Why would we confine ourselves to one unhappy small sliver of time as though it were normative? Over two millennia I have no trouble defending the fruits of the Catholic church. They include the foundation of our civilization and the preservation of the written sources of our Greco-Roman heritage. They include magnificent music, architecture, and art. They include monasticism and mysticism. They include great saints. I admire the ideals that these various elements of the Catholic experience uphold. I warm to many devout Roman Catholics whom the church has molded and who personify those ideals.
There is a specific reason I gave the 1500 years I did. It was mentioned by someone else as the difference in time between Rome and the Protestants. It certainly wasn't unqualified evil (neither was it unqualified good). But the fruits of the Catholic Church pre-reformation made the Reformation necessary.
quote:
By contrast, my impression is that Protestant ideals are more superficial, and a number of Protestant sects cultivate personality traits that I find downright repugnant.
What is this monolithic entity "Protestant" of which you speak? If you try and fit The Quakers, The Anglicans and whatever Dr. Dobson's church is under one label, of course you are going to have problems understanding the ideals. (And there are IMO a number of repugnant protestant sects - and Opus Dei (and no, I wasn't informed by Dan Brown...) and at least one extremely harmful part of the catechism - the ban on contraception).
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
while i don't agree with aologon (excuse spelling!! ), the following statement makes me want to eat the computer in frustration !!
quote:
Why aren't you RC then?
why do people (including those of us christians who are still human, and not perfected ) feel like we can't admire the best in those who are different to us, .... why the need to insist people choose sides of a fence !?!?
its one thing to insist that a person choose their position on a particular argument (!) ... but another to insist they choose their church/ faith immediately, simply as part of an on-going argument (discussion !!)
I find it curious that someone who is in a denomination that is essentially protestant should espouse the virtues of Catholicism whilst thinking that the ideals of huge parts of their own tradition are superficial.
(And I'm trying to stop throwing the computer screen out of the window due to all the exclamation marks)
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
Alogon: quote:
And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics,
What a fascinating statement! I'm not sure how it fits into the argument, though. I can't think you mean "Moves easily among Catholics" means "Practically RC already"! For the record, I "move easily among Catholics".
My own point is - as I'm sure you know - that the best Protestant Christians match the best Catholic and Orthodox Christians because they are good Christians. The worst of all of them make one's flesh creep, and often, interestingly, in denominationally differentiated ways. But - for me, at least - to a remarkably similar degree.
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
quantpole: quote:
I find it curious that someone who is in a denomination that is essentially protestant should espouse the virtues of Catholicism whilst thinking that the ideals of huge parts of their own tradition are superficial.
Weirdly, I don't have a problem with this. I'm a Presbyterian, and I find the best of "another lot" - in thois case Catholicism - vastly more uplifting than the worst of my lot! (I'd hope that was the case with most of us on the Ship!)
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I agree up to a certain point Psyduck, and indeed I think there is much of great worth within Catholicism and Orthodoxy that my own lot can learn from.
Alogon's post seemed to go a bit beyond that though.
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
I must admit I thought that, too. Maybe further than he thought.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Well, for some of us we are Catholic, just not Roman Catholic, hence the Anglo-Catholic references he made. The question of whether we are also Protestant depends on the definition of "Protestant" I think.
David
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.
Unless, of course, you're Coptic.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Doh!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Alogon: quote:
And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics,
What a fascinating statement! I'm not sure how it fits into the argument, though. I can't think you mean "Moves easily among Catholics" means "Practically RC already"! For the record, I "move easily among Catholics".
That would be the castors.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.
No, I mean Catholic, not Roman Catholic or (if I am reading you right) small-c catholic. With Apostolic Succession and Sacraments and the lot. If by "Protestant" someone means "not having Apostolic Succession and Sacraments and the lot" then those in my camp don't consider ourselves Protestant in that sense, but if it merely means "not Orthodox or Roman" then that's another matter.
(What do you mean in this case by catholic vs. Catholic? In the sense I am talking about I mean something which is specifically (the Anglo-Catholic understanding of) Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, but not, say, the non-Sacramental churches. (There was a big debate a while back about the Episcopal-Lutheran concordat, but at very least by "non-sacramental" I mean the groups which make no claims to Apostolic Succession and to supernatural Sacraments, for whom the bread and wine are exclusively symbolic, say.) From our point of view we claim to have the same things the Orthodox and RCs have, and are Catholic in that sense.
David
[ 16. February 2006, 20:52: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
The Apostolic Succession, like the Sacraments, has an outward and an inward element. The Arians, the Nestorians, the Monophysites etc all can be said to have the outward signs of these things. The important thing is the share in the Apostolic faith and the holyspiritual (do you like the word?) dimension of the Sacraments.
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
Anselmina: quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Alogon:
quote:
And Schweitzer moved easily among Catholics,
What a fascinating statement! I'm not sure how it fits into the argument, though. I can't think you mean "Moves easily among Catholics" means "Practically RC already"! For the record, I "move easily among Catholics".
That would be the castors.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
"EX-TER-MIN-ATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!"
ChastMastr: quote:
If by "Protestant" someone means "not having Apostolic Succession and Sacraments and the lot"
Er - hang on a second - Protestants have Sacraments too, you know!!! (And we're not actually sure that anybody has the "Apostolic Succession", or that there's one to be had. Though strangely enough, the C of S can trace its orders back to continuity with the mediaeval Ecclesia Scoticana through the Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae. But if that doesn't count, then: quote:
For his sake we have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that we may gain Christ
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of our own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...
[ 17. February 2006, 08:12: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that the periodic or even constant reformation process this time resulted in large-scale schism, and once that had taken place the inevitable polarisation led to some extremely nasty outcomes.
Let's be fair to the reformers as well though. The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that it's hard to imagine what else but a catastrophic schism followed by the wholesale slaughter of entire people could have shaken the Roman Catholic Church out of its near catatonic state. It was shock therapy, and as far as I can see it was necessary. That's not the issue for me, at all. The issue for me is that frankly, with the reforms from Trent to Vatican II the reformation is by any objective standards over and done with. Mission accomplished, time to return to Mother Church who is once more looking holy and healthy. Yet, there are plenty of "Protestants" still around. I think the Protestatants have protested themselves into a plethora of tight little corners and are now themselves growing increasingly stiff and stale. This is a truly sad irony of history. And unfortunately I don't see what could possibly be used as "shock therapy" to shake the Protestants out of it.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I have been known to comment that if you scratch an Englishman and you will find some protestant bigotry not too far from the surface (and no, I am not Irish - I do not have a drop of Irish blood in me). This anti-Catholic nonsense is in the blood, and the misconceptions and untruths seem to be passed on with mother's milk to every English child. Just as anti-protestant anti-British nonsense is passed on to every Irish child. And this, I am sure, is replicated in situations throughout the world.
Sadly I think TT is spot on here. I was raised in the Baptist Church which my Calvinist father used to attend. It was so full of anti-Papist bigotry that at the age of 12 I was frightened to walk past a Catholic Church in case some horned devil might jump out of the door and grab me. My wife is an Irish Catholic raised on how the English tried to exterminate the Irish with the famine of the 1840's. We all need mehr licht. As a teenager I jettisoned the nauseating religion of my childhood and I have climbed up the candle as far as Anglo-Catholic. In the not too distant future I may have to leave the Church of England and climb higher. I have no interest in Protestant doctrine.
But the Englishman still comes out sometimes. Who, as TT says is ingrained with anti-Papalism. Mention the Spanish Armada and Drakes's "We have time to finish the game and beat the Spaniards too" and I revel in England's defeat of a Vatican funded invasion force. Ply me with too much Irish whimsey about the sufferings of its people and I counter that England had to protect itself against a long term Popish plot to recapture her. It truly comes with mother's milk.
But by the same token, in my later incarnation I get angry when I read Eamon Duffy's book "The Stripping of the Altars". This book is not without its critics of Duffy's historical analysis, but I accept that devotions to Mary and the saints were endemic to medieval England and were purposely and purposefully destroyed by the reformers with the engine of the state on their side post Henry VIII. So while I am theologically Catholic, English history sometimes brings out the hidden Protestant in me. My wife is full of anti-English niggle. But we laugh about it. It never comes between us.
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on
:
ChastMastr,
Well, by catholic, I mean the widespread, universal, invisible church. The one I talk about when I say the creeds. Catholic, on the other hand, I see as being shorthand for Roman, which came out of what the church fathers formed when they started shifting from the position of "no salvation outside the church" being true by definition (because the church was made up of all who were saved) to a postion of it meaning "no salvation outside the bishops". It's when the universality became a limiting factor, not a description. I started a thread once questioning what was so great about AS, which you may remember, so you can probably guess that I'm not all that sold on the idea. And as for ACs etc claiming the AS, I'd say that I view that as some protestants getting cold feet and wanting to emulate something which they're not, and if they really wanted to be Catholic they'd cross the Tiber.
I suppose that to put it another way, I view Catholicity (your definition) arising as a sort of excuse to justify Catholicism (my definition). It wasn't needed much anymore once one big church was formed, and then people who aren't Catholic (my definition) decided to rehash the left-behind concept because that way they could get the name 'Catholic' without really being so.
As far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has, "Be of good conduct, Master Ridley, and play the man. For today..." in its history, so like it or not, you're protestant.
Ingo, I suppose that's where "semper reformanda" comes in.
Right, I must remember to dig this thread up on Sun/Monday, and see if either of you replied.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Do you mean catholic, not Catholic? And you're a protestant if you're not either Orthodox or Roman. Fairly simple.
Unless, of course, you're Coptic.
When you're Oriental Orthodox.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
ChastMastr,
Well, by catholic, I mean the widespread, universal, invisible church. The one I talk about when I say the creeds.
We can certainly agree on that one. The Head of the Church as the Body of Christ and also the Haead of the Catholic Church are one and the same - Jesus Christ. "He is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised "where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them' (Mt 18: 20)" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 7). We are all members of that one Church by virtue of our baptism and bound by the action of the Holy Spirit.
quote:
Catholic, on the other hand, I see as being shorthand for Roman, which came out of what the church fathers formed when they started shifting from the position of "no salvation outside the church" being true by definition (because the church was made up of all who were saved) to a postion of it meaning "no salvation outside the bishops". It's when the universality became a limiting factor, not a description.
Oh dear - that's a rather er, Protestant way of looking at it. Actually we are all called to be one undivided communion in Christ and that is the Catholic Church's mission and why we have an absolute committment to ecumenism, as the first chapter of the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint explains. The Church of Christ is actually all of the baptised but we are not all in union.
quote:
I started a thread once questioning what was so great about AS, which you may remember, so you can probably guess that I'm not all that sold on the idea. And as for ACs etc claiming the AS, I'd say that I view that as some protestants getting cold feet and wanting to emulate something which they're not, and if they really wanted to be Catholic they'd cross the Tiber.I suppose that to put it another way, I view Catholicity (your definition) arising as a sort of excuse to justify Catholicism (my definition). It wasn't needed much anymore once one big church was formed, and then people who aren't Catholic (my definition) decided to rehash the left-behind concept because that way they could get the name 'Catholic' without really being so.
As far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has, "Be of good conduct, Master Ridley, and play the man. For today..." in its history, so like it or not, you're protestant.
The Apostolic Succession could be viewed as being one way of identifying the custodians of Tradition, as I have tried to explain Tradition above.
But yes, we should be in union. In fact we must be in union. In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II continues: quote:
[10].In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith.
The Council states that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity".
So "yes, they should be swiming the Tiber" would the flip answer. The real answer ...
quote:
Ingo, I suppose that's where "semper reformanda" comes in.
...is that we should all work together to achieve the union of the sundered Body of Christ.
Which is why I view the topic of this thread as militating against union, why I view jibes about the sins of pre-Reformation Church as somehow invalidating Tradition as offensive because it militates against union.
quote:
The Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity, with all the means with which God wishes to endow his Church, and this despite the often grave crises which have shaken her, the infidelity of some of her ministers, and the faults into which her members daily fall. The Catholic Church knows that, by virtue of the strength which comes to her from the Spirit, the weaknesses, mediocrity, sins and at times the betrayals of some of her children cannot destroy what God has bestowed on her as part of his plan of grace. Moreover, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). Even so, the Catholic Church does not forget that many among her members cause God's plan to be discernible only with difficulty. Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that "people of both sides were to blame",13 and acknowledges that responsibility cannot be attributed only to the "other side". By God's grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.
It really is "semper reformanda" - and we have acknowledged our fault. No doubt members of the Church will slip again. But we are trying.
We have an impaired communion with the other members of the Body of Christ (see also Lumen Gentium.
Focussing on "errors" or claiming that Tradition is invalidated by those errors does not help in perfecting that communion of the Body of Christ and making it whole. The Decree On Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratioin Vatican II emphasises importance of making "every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult".
Reciprocity is vital - when is the blame game going to stop?
[ 17. February 2006, 01:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that the periodic or even constant reformation process this time resulted in large-scale schism, and once that had taken place the inevitable polarisation led to some extremely nasty outcomes.
Let's be fair to the reformers as well though. The tragedy of the sixteenth century was that it's hard to imagine what else but a catastrophic schism followed by the wholesale slaughter of entire people could have shaken the Roman Catholic Church out of its near catatonic state. It was shock therapy, and as far as I can see it was necessary. That's not the issue for me, at all. The issue for me is that frankly, with the reforms from Trent to Vatican II the reformation is by any objective standards over and done with. Mission accomplished, time to return to Mother Church who is once more looking holy and healthy. Yet, there are plenty of "Protestants" still around. I think the Protestatants have protested themselves into a plethora of tight little corners and are now themselves growing increasingly stiff and stale. This is a truly sad irony of history. And unfortunately I don't see what could possibly be used as "shock therapy" to shake the Protestants out of it.
Who was it who said that reformation wasn't a one off?
Anyway, I'm interested in 'stiff and stale', and 'protested themselves into a corner'. I'm really struggling to understand what this means beyond meaningless rhetoric.
It's probably worth quoting Justinian again, "almost anyone who tries entering this pissing contest between churches is going to lose"
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
The direction of this debate, whilst very informative about so many different aspects of Christian history that I don't know about, sort of highlights my point. A very simple request, to love, and a very simple action, forgiving, has been made so very very complex. Would I be wrong in suggesting that many individuals would take a look at the Christian world and describe it as extremely daunting and not have a clue which way to turn?
What would people say is the one basic absolute fundamental of Christianity and all things Christian?
I think it is U (hence my name ). ie Christianity is all about You. Placing you before me. Being a ewe (no sexism intended, just most flocks of sheep are primarily ewes) in a flock of sheep lead by Jesus, saying eww to all things evil and saying to God "I choose YOU, I love YOU".
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
The direction of this debate, whilst very informative about so many different aspects of Christian history that I don't know about, sort of highlights my point. A very simple request, to love, and a very simple action, forgiving, has been made so very very complex. Would I be wrong in suggesting that many individuals would take a look at the Christian world and describe it as extremely daunting and not have a clue which way to turn?
What would people say is the one basic absolute fundamental of Christianity and all things Christian?
I think it is U (hence my name ). ie Christianity is all about You. Placing you before me. Being a ewe (no sexism intended, just most flocks of sheep are primarily ewes) in a flock of sheep lead by Jesus, saying eww to all things evil and saying to God "I choose YOU, I love YOU".
No - Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.
How was saying a number of incorrect things about Catholics and the Catholic Church and asking whether we were Christian an expression of that principle?
Have we managed to convince you that we Catholics are Christian? Have you in fact learned something? Or are you going to fudge it by saying that it's all too "daunting". Step up to the mark, U and take some responsibility for the contentious nature of the OP.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
(Note to Psyduck and Dinghy Sailor: I suppose we shall just have to disagree about AS, the notion of "valid" orders and Sacraments, and the Catholic nature of the Anglican churches, but other than rehashing what was said on those AS and related threads I don't know what else to say. I don't see it as "a sort of excuse to justify" anything or I wouldn't be in the church. Surely you don't think we're all as self-deceiving as all that? Can't we just be honestly mistaken?
DS says:
"As far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has, "Be of good conduct, Master Ridley, and play the man. For today..." in its history, so like it or not, you're protestant."
And as far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has the Apostolic Succession (and the definite validity of the Sacraments which I believe come through that), bishops, priests, and deacons, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and so on and on, so "like it or not" your church is Catholic. (If I did not believe that, was I would go elsewhere.) But while we disagree about this I am not suggesting that you are being self-deceived or have hidden motives.
Psyduck says:
"we're not actually sure that anybody has the "Apostolic Succession", or that there's one to be had"
Well, you not be sure of it, but that doesn't go for many of us who believe in it, or that the Anglican churches have it as well as Orthdoxy and Rome.
But this disagreement need not mean assuming anyone has bad motives. We can just believe different things and think each other is mistaken without it being that I and those who believe as I do "getting cold feet and wanting to emulate something which they're not" -- I'm sorry, but I believe that's just rude.
David
[ 17. February 2006, 11:23: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Surely if you're Anglican, you're both Protestant and Catholic - or better still Reformed and Catholic? At least, that's how I understand it...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely if you're Anglican, you're both Protestant and Catholic - or better still Reformed and Catholic? At least, that's how I understand it...
And I as well. I only quibble with the term Protestant if it's being meant as not having Apostolic Succession and definitely valid, real-presence-not-just-a-symbol, Sacraments. (The issue of whether the Lutherans do or don't has been another thread -- I'm thinking more of the further end of the Protestant matrix where there is an active disbelief in either AS or in more-than-symbolic, almost "magical" Sacraments or in priests as specifically Sacramental, etc. etc. etc.)
I think Reformed and Catholic is closer to my understanding. But in any case the words are only pointing to concepts and whatever words are used, these are the concepts to which I adhere. And while I know we disagree (I know ken does, for example, though I am often more on the same page with him than many other posters otherwise. Hi ken! ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
) I don't think it need be with rancor.
David
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.
This works for me, but it's hardly universal. For some people, loving their neighbor is the first step -- or rather being loved by their neighbor, and loving that neighbor in return -- and it's through other people that they discover God. I see absolutely no reason to insist that loving God comes first, especially when in so many people's experience this is simply not the case.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.
This works for me, but it's hardly universal. For some people, loving their neighbor is the first step -- or rather being loved by their neighbor, and loving that neighbor in return -- and it's through other people that they discover God. I see absolutely no reason to insist that loving God comes first, especially when in so many people's experience this is simply not the case.
Absolutely, RuthW.
But I took DS to mean first, not in the sense of "chronologically prior", but first as in "most importantly".
I may come to God and to my love of God through my love of others without first even feeling I even know God - but the ultimate aim is being loving communion with God, and through that loving communion with the others who love God, for ever. First, "love the Lord your God with all your", etc., and (then) your neighbour as yourself - with "first" here being not "earlier" but "lexically prior"*.
Works for me.
[*With apologies to John Rawls.]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But I took DS to mean first, not in the sense of "chronologically prior", but first as in "most importantly".
Duo said:
quote:
... because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself ...
And this causality implies that love of God comes chronologically first. I agree with you, CB, but what you said is not what Duo said.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't know if you understand that the way your post was worded really does come across, at least to me, as saying that if someone really loves Jesus, then they will have no real ties to any family on earth, with the corollary that if someone has real ties to any family on earth then they -- that is, I, and quite a wide range of people including your fellow Shipmates -- must not really love Jesus. Do you understand how that might come across?
...
quote:
I wish I could just assume blamelessness and speak freely as I would wish for anyone around me because that is what a true christian is, blameless, without sin, forgiven...
How do you mean "blameless" and "without sin" here? Because I don't think many of us here would claim to be actually sinless or assume that others here on Earth are.
I am still hoping you will respond, U, to my questions here. I'm sorry for the tangents re "Is Anglicanism (or Anglo-Catholicism) Big-C Catholic?" but I would like to know your response to these other issues...
David
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I agree with you, CB, but what you said is not what Duo said.
Damn - bang goes my career in international arbitration then!
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
The direction of this debate, whilst very informative about so many different aspects of Christian history that I don't know about, sort of highlights my point. A very simple request, to love, and a very simple action, forgiving, has been made so very very complex. Would I be wrong in suggesting that many individuals would take a look at the Christian world and describe it as extremely daunting and not have a clue which way to turn?
What would people say is the one basic absolute fundamental of Christianity and all things Christian?
I think it is U (hence my name ). ie Christianity is all about You. Placing you before me. Being a ewe (no sexism intended, just most flocks of sheep are primarily ewes) in a flock of sheep lead by Jesus, saying eww to all things evil and saying to God "I choose YOU, I love YOU".
No - Christianity is about loving God first and above all, utterly and completely - and because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself, so that you can deepen your love of God even more ... and so on in a virtuous circle.
How was saying a number of incorrect things about Catholics and the Catholic Church and asking whether we were Christian an expression of that principle?
Have we managed to convince you that we Catholics are Christian? Have you in fact learned something? Or are you going to fudge it by saying that it's all too "daunting". Step up to the mark, U and take some responsibility for the contentious nature of the OP.
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.
I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know. In my opinion people are placing far too much stock in themselves, their choices, their insititutions and what they do and not enough stock in Jesus or God. The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given. Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs. I hope you don't see that as side-stepping because I am not trying to. As I said I do not have the knowledge to argue with you.
Oh, and U in my description is about choosing YOU God, above and beyond all others and from You, through You and in you loving you neighbours and you friends and even you enemies, and coincidence number 234563 in the list is the word tu, Latin for you that connects the cross to the letter and means you, but that's an aside and just part of my personal beliefs as are everything I have said herein.
And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches. I think that given the time and position RC has had, any church would head down the same path RC has. I do however feel that RC is the greatest responsibility to the world to show them Christ and correct any mistakes they are making, because it is from RC that others sprang and RC has the greatest claim over tradition. And despite all the arguments why intercession by friends is not a bad thing, I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit and in that that perform God's will. But these are just my beliefs and as has been said, to each their own
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.
Did you just say that, if someone expresses a point of view, if they believe it and they're not lying, then you agree with them?
That doesn't make sense. If I believe that milk is good for you, and someone else believes that it's bad for you, you can't agree with both of them. You can disagree with both, and you can be agnostic on the subject, but you surely can't believe in both. Unless, of course, you're the White Queen. She could do it easily, before breakfast.
quote:
I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.
Then why did you ask a question about the Catholic Church? To ask, then say, "Don't tell me, I don't want to know" -- what's the point of that?
quote:
The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given.
It might be beyond you, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the reach of other people. Don't project your limitations onto other people. It isn't nice.
quote:
Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs.
Except that the Church was founded by Jesus and is led by the Holy Spirit. So your statement that it's created by man and not by God is just wrong. Do you think God is too simple to do something complex?
quote:
And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches.
Then why on earth did you say this in your OP?
quote:
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
It seems to me, U, that you owe every Roman Catholic on the ship an apology. Your self-professed ignorance is not an excuse to be rude.
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.
Did you just say that, if someone expresses a point of view, if they believe it and they're not lying, then you agree with them?
That doesn't make sense. If I believe that milk is good for you, and someone else believes that it's bad for you, you can't agree with both of them. You can disagree with both, and you can be agnostic on the subject, but you surely can't believe in both. Unless, of course, you're the White Queen. She could do it easily, before breakfast.
quote:
I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.
Then why did you ask a question about the Catholic Church? To ask, then say, "Don't tell me, I don't want to know" -- what's the point of that?
quote:
The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given.
It might be beyond you, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the reach of other people. Don't project your limitations onto other people. It isn't nice.
quote:
Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs.
Except that the Church was founded by Jesus and is led by the Holy Spirit. So your statement that it's created by man and not by God is just wrong. Do you think God is too simple to do something complex?
quote:
And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches.
Then why on earth did you say this in your OP?
quote:
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
It seems to me, U, that you owe every Roman Catholic on the ship an apology. Your self-professed ignorance is not an excuse to be rude.
I don't think you understood any of what I wrote but I will accept full blame for not explaining myself well enough. I can however not explain myself any better so I fail. Sorry. No, not sarcastic, not hurtful, just stating a fact and apologising for my shortcoming.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.
A very interesting viewpoint. People who believe in a flat earth are not wrong because they are not intentionally lying? People who believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not wrong because they are not intentionally lying?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I don't think you understood any of what I wrote but I will accept full blame for not explaining myself well enough. I can however not explain myself any better so I fail. Sorry. No, not sarcastic, not hurtful, just stating a fact and apologising for my shortcoming.
No need to apologize for that. Although, if you honestly can't write with any more clarity than you have shown so far, it's possible that you'd enjoy some other part of the Ship more than Purgatory, where being able to explain oneself clearly is expected of all participants.
However, you still haven't apologized for the offensive statements and implications of your OP. May I request again that you do so?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Well-said, Josephine!!
I'm guessing, U, you have no interest in responding to my query above so I won't bother repeating it.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
And despite all the arguments why intercession by friends is not a bad thing, I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit
It's not an either/or thing. Catholics are allowed to pray to Jesus (and the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the whole Trinity) as well.
Praying to saints isn't a substitute for prayer to God - it is, for some, an aid and an encouragement in prayer. It isn't an obligation, it is a privilege.
You don't have to do it yourself, and if it is a problem for you, then you probably shouldn't (I almost never do). However because you are a Christian, and therefore share in all that Christ is and has done, you have that freedom if you want to exercise it. If you ever feel it would be helpful to you to say something to a fellow Christian who is now with the Lord, you can do so. Some traditions find it helpful.
I'm not entirely convinced by the answers to the 'call no man father' question. Yes, I can see that a strictly literal reading is ruled out (I don't think I break the command by addressing certain classes of judge as 'Master' or 'My Lord', for example), but Jesus did, I assume, mean something by saying this.
I think there is a clear encouragement here to move away from honours and titles in the church. A priest who is concerned for his own status and for the way in which he is addressed probably isn't doing the job he is called to, and if you look hard enough, you can probably find such priests in all denominations. Probably Catholics more than most for the sole reason of their having more opportunity for such abuse to be noticed - but everyone who has tried to dominate their own little workplace, church or household by force of personality is in the same trap.
But on the other hand, we are commanded that we should in humilty esteem others more highly than ourselves, and that means treating them with appropriate, and culturally conditioned, respect. It seems obviously right to me for Christians to grant honour to leaders of the church, in order to honour our Lord, even if it would be wrong for the leaders to insist on any such thing.
We don't use respectful titles much in everyday life, so addressing a priest as "Father" can jar, simply because it is unusual outside particular traditions. I'm sure it becomes familiar soon enough - moving from a school where the teachers were "Mr [whatever]" to one where they were "Sir" felt strange to me for about a week - then it was natural. Addressing a judge as "Master" felt strange exactly once - then it was just another formal title. If I ever move to a church where the priest is "Father" I'll get used to it - and it will be the proper way to show the respect that is due to him as a minister of God, and that I ought to be showing to my priest however he is customarily addressed.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely if you're Anglican, you're both Protestant and Catholic - or better still Reformed and Catholic? At least, that's how I understand it...
As an Anglo-Catholic I'd be happy to see myself as reformed and Catholic - the Church is, after all, always in need of reformation. But I'm not happy with the description protestant. I don't think I have a 'protest' to make against the faith shared by my Orthodox and RC brothers and sisters.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But I took DS to mean first, not in the sense of "chronologically prior", but first as in "most importantly".
Duo said:
quote:
... because of your love of God, loving your neighbour as yourself ...
And this causality implies that love of God comes chronologically first. I agree with you, CB, but what you said is not what Duo said.
Semantics. Actually Chesterbelloc is right - I adopted the order of priority given by Jesus who gave that "most importantly" status to love of God. But I also believe that we express our love for God by loving our neighbour - so someone who truly loves their neighbour is expressing love for God at the same time, even if they are not yet aware that they are doing so. It's another aspect of "if you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to me" applied to good deeds as opposed to bad ones.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.
One difference between Christianity and many other religions is that we claim that God walked among us at a certain time long ago and made that time a central watershed: things were very different for the human race after these events than before.
What meaning does this fact have to us if we aren't interested in history? If we have no perspective to glimpse the meaning of "under Pontius Pilate" as a point in time, then as far as we can appreciate, all this might as well have happened in some kind of mythical time, as with the claims of other religions. If you said that you don't know much history and are too busy with life, or lack opportunity, to study it, I could understand; but not caring to know seems strange.
quote:
people are placing far too much stock in themselves, their choices, their insititutions and what they do and not enough stock in Jesus or God.
Part of faith in God is participating in the means of grace that He has provided. Only by doing so can I have any confidence that I am worshiping or hearing God. Without the church, how do you know that you are, for example, praying to Jesus rather than to some other supernatural being? Just by using the right name? That would be "praying as the Gentiles do."
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I fully agree with all points of view expressed on this post and that each individual firmly believes in what they are saying and it is not wrong because noone (as far as I can see) is intentionally lying.
Did you just say that, if someone expresses a point of view, if they believe it and they're not lying, then you agree with them?
That doesn't make sense. If I believe that milk is good for you, and someone else believes that it's bad for you, you can't agree with both of them. You can disagree with both, and you can be agnostic on the subject, but you surely can't believe in both. Unless, of course, you're the White Queen. She could do it easily, before breakfast.
quote:
I do not know enough about church history to enter into any details about the ideas expressed about the various histories of various churches. I in no way mean this insultingly, but I don't care to know.
Then why did you ask a question about the Catholic Church? To ask, then say, "Don't tell me, I don't want to know" -- what's the point of that?
quote:
The discussion herein is beyond the realm of the vast majority to enter into and as such is beyond the reach of ordinary individuals to whom Jesus wanted His lessons to be given.
It might be beyond you, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the reach of other people. Don't project your limitations onto other people. It isn't nice.
quote:
Whilst such discussions may have a place in everyday life for those who wish it, it will not help anybody who does not already have an intrinsic knowledge of and interest in the institutions man created to house God rather than vice versa. It is way too complex because man created it not God, and whilst God would do His best to ensure His Word is not lost in the intricacies of the institutions, that will only become harder for normal average everyday individuals to see unless a major simplification occurs.
Except that the Church was founded by Jesus and is led by the Holy Spirit. So your statement that it's created by man and not by God is just wrong. Do you think God is too simple to do something complex?
quote:
And Duo, in answer to a question you may or may not be thinking, RC is no worse or better than other churches.
Then why on earth did you say this in your OP?
quote:
Viewing the Catholic Church as a whole from my perspective looks like a spiritual equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire that does more to keep people out of Heaven than guide them in.
It seems to me, U, that you owe every Roman Catholic on the ship an apology. Your self-professed ignorance is not an excuse to be rude.
I thought I did answer ChastMastr, and Josephine, since you seem to have passed judgement on me and are demanding that I apologise I would ask that you please read this with the following in mind "Judge not lest ye be judged". Please also remember that I have not in any way made any intentionally offensive statements about Roman Catholicism, I have always said that I am ASKING, not TELLING. If you choose to read the OP with the view that I am making statements about Roman Catholicism there is nought I can do to change that view except the reminder above. I hope you can see that as people have addressed what I've written I have merely stated the conclusions I have drawn directly related to those statements to ask for any further input.
I will try to eliminate confusion, I will try to address each point made by Josephine individually:
If you believe milk is good for you and you drink it and it keeps you healthy, that is true. If you start to believe that milk is bad for you and it starts making you sick, that also is true. If you then belief it is healthy again and it keeps you well, again it is true. Were you ever wrong? To me, the answer is no. Unless of course you are the White Witch. She would force you to choose one way or another and even if milk was making you sick might force you to drink it anyway on pain of death for disobedience.
I wasn't asking about the Catholic Church, I was asking about Christianity and how it applies to the Catholic Church. You presumed to answer the question from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. What's the point of me asking a question if you don't answer it or make up another question and answer that one?
The discussions herein are beyond the reach of most people. I did not say it was beyond the reach of people here. I was drawing a conclusion about the world based on my experience of the people in it. Don't project your limited understanding and view on me, its not nice.
I think that God is loving enough that He would create a church that met the needs of everyone rather a select few. Do you think God is not loving enough to make things very very simple and therefore easy for even the very very young to understand and yet complex enough for adults to retain interest in?
I issued an apology for my lack of clarity as a means of diffusing a situation, though I meant it, you are just as much at fault for failing to put in enough thought to try to see things from where I stand. I think you owe me an apology for trying to force me to believe I am being insulting though it is not intended that way.
I could keep going but its making me sick.
I hope you have a greater understanding about the whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing and I realise that using the same parameters you can again judge my judgements of you. Why bother? It can just keep escalating until someone backs down. I pray you can see that I am not trying to be insulting no matter what preconceived notions you have of the nature of this thread.
I never said that RC was worse, I was ASKING. I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input. Do I have to explain every single letter? Is it not enough that I make a blanket statement that I don't mean offense and am sorry if anyone takes it that way because it is definitely not intended that way?
Posted by U (# 5930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
And despite all the arguments why intercession by friends is not a bad thing, I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit
It's not an either/or thing. Catholics are allowed to pray to Jesus (and the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the whole Trinity) as well.
Praying to saints isn't a substitute for prayer to God - it is, for some, an aid and an encouragement in prayer. It isn't an obligation, it is a privilege.
You don't have to do it yourself, and if it is a problem for you, then you probably shouldn't (I almost never do). However because you are a Christian, and therefore share in all that Christ is and has done, you have that freedom if you want to exercise it. If you ever feel it would be helpful to you to say something to a fellow Christian who is now with the Lord, you can do so. Some traditions find it helpful.
I'm not entirely convinced by the answers to the 'call no man father' question. Yes, I can see that a strictly literal reading is ruled out (I don't think I break the command by addressing certain classes of judge as 'Master' or 'My Lord', for example), but Jesus did, I assume, mean something by saying this.
I think there is a clear encouragement here to move away from honours and titles in the church. A priest who is concerned for his own status and for the way in which he is addressed probably isn't doing the job he is called to, and if you look hard enough, you can probably find such priests in all denominations. Probably Catholics more than most for the sole reason of their having more opportunity for such abuse to be noticed - but everyone who has tried to dominate their own little workplace, church or household by force of personality is in the same trap.
But on the other hand, we are commanded that we should in humilty esteem others more highly than ourselves, and that means treating them with appropriate, and culturally conditioned, respect. It seems obviously right to me for Christians to grant honour to leaders of the church, in order to honour our Lord, even if it would be wrong for the leaders to insist on any such thing.
We don't use respectful titles much in everyday life, so addressing a priest as "Father" can jar, simply because it is unusual outside particular traditions. I'm sure it becomes familiar soon enough - moving from a school where the teachers were "Mr [whatever]" to one where they were "Sir" felt strange to me for about a week - then it was natural. Addressing a judge as "Master" felt strange exactly once - then it was just another formal title. If I ever move to a church where the priest is "Father" I'll get used to it - and it will be the proper way to show the respect that is due to him as a minister of God, and that I ought to be showing to my priest however he is customarily addressed.
Thankyou and I agree
The main problem that I can see is that the people of the Church themselves made up these titles. Jesus didn't call anyone on earth His Father and asked us not to, He called those who taught His way His Disciples therefore for us to do so doesn't really fit into any of what we know he taught and MIGHT be causing more harm than good...
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I think you owe me an apology for trying to force me to believe I am being insulting though it is not intended that way.
Nope, I'm not going there.
quote:
I pray you can see that I am not trying to be insulting no matter what preconceived notions you have of the nature of this thread.
I never said that RC was worse, I was ASKING. I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input. Do I have to explain every single letter? Is it not enough that I make a blanket statement that I don't mean offense and am sorry if anyone takes it that way because it is definitely not intended that way?
It would help, in a discussion forum, to explain yourself with enough clarity that people know what you meant. If you find that people are taking offense when you don't mean to be offensive, they're probably having problems figuring out what you meant. The way to take care of that problem is not to chastise them for being offended, or complain about having to explain yourself, but to express yourself more clearly.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I thought I did answer ChastMastr, and Josephine, since you seem to have passed judgement on me and are demanding that I apologise I would ask that you please read this with the following in mind "Judge not lest ye be judged". Please also remember that I have not in any way made any intentionally offensive statements about Roman Catholicism, I have always said that I am ASKING, not TELLING.
No. You are telling us what Catholic beliefs are - and then asking us why Catholics believe them.
quote:
If you choose to read the OP with the view that I am making statements about Roman Catholicism there is nought I can do to change that view except the reminder above.
Shall we see what you actually wrote in your OP?
quote:
There are 3 major Catholic beliefs that I don't understand how fit into the Word?
See emphasis - particularly given that you have two of these three beliefs wrong (and the third is interpretable in different ways).
quote:
First of all, Mary who birthed Jesus. God chose her to be a vessel for His son into this world but in no way did He place her above any other women, the focus was all on His Son, not her. Why then is she so intrinsically a part of so many prayers in Catholicism?
You are telling us that in no way did God place Mary above other women and then asking why. In short, you are telling us something about Christianity that is wrong - wrong based on scripture, wrong based on reason and wrong based on Tradition. And then you are asking why you don't understand.
quote:
Thirdly, it is said that the only way to Heaven according to Catholicism is through the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, you are telling us what Catholics believe. And again you are completely wrong about this. (Unless by "it is said", you mean that "someone told me" - in which case go back to whoever said it and tell them that they lied to you).
In short, you are telling us rubbish and then asking about the rubbish you are telling us.
quote:
I hope you can see that as people have addressed what I've written I have merely stated the conclusions I have drawn directly related to those statements to ask for any further input.
We are reading what you have actually written. This may not have been what you intended to write. (See my quotations above, all taken from your first post on the thread).
quote:
If you believe milk is good for you and you drink it and it keeps you healthy, that is true. If you start to believe that milk is bad for you and it starts making you sick, that also is true. If you then belief it is healthy again and it keeps you well, again it is true. Were you ever wrong?
quote:
I wasn't asking about the Catholic Church, I was asking about Christianity and how it applies to the Catholic Church. You presumed to answer the question from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. What's the point of me asking a question if you don't answer it or make up another question and answer that one?
CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS! - therefore by answering from a Catholic (and Orthodox and Anglican and Lutheran and ...) perspective, we were answering your question. Just because the meaning of Christian is wider than you believe doesn't mean that answering from this perspective is invalid. It is your question that got things wrong, not the answers given.
quote:
I think you owe me an apology for trying to force me to believe I am being insulting though it is not intended that way.
You have been repeatedly insulting on this thread. You may not mean to be insulting - but that doesn't mean you weren't. To use an analogy, it is possible to refer to wogs without intending to be insulting - but that doesn't mean that it isn't insult based on ignorance.
quote:
I pray you can see that I am not trying to be insulting no matter what preconceived notions you have of the nature of this thread.
I accept that you are not trying to be insulting. What you are is badly informed and basing many of your assumptions off prejudiced lies.
quote:
I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input.
An intimate enough knowledge to ignore the Virgin Birth and the Magnificat? I suggest you define
quote:
Is it not enough that I make a blanket statement that I don't mean offense and am sorry if anyone takes it that way because it is definitely not intended that way?
I don't mean to be insulting - I just wonder why Jews eat babies. I don't mean to be insulting - I just wonder why all blacks are thick. I don't mean to be insulting - I just don't believe that adoptive parents are real parents. See how not intending to give insult doesn't mean you won't? (And my apologies to anyone insulted by the pernicious lies I used as examples above).
Any time you need to say "I don't mean offence", think carefully before opening your mouth (or putting fingers to keyboard).
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
As far as I see it, if you're Anglican, you're a member of a church which has, "Be of good conduct, Master Ridley, and play the man. For today..." in its history, so like it or not, you're protestant.
On the other hand self-professed Protestant Anglicans are part of a church that has the Laudians, the Oxford movement, the sub-ritualists and Anglo-papalism as part of its heritage. The point is, surely, that Anglicanism has throughout its history had both catholic and protestant elements, which is what makes it both irritating and itriguing. But any given individual may well be entirely 'protestant' or 'catholic' in terms of belief. Most protestants I know would be very uncomfortable with me being described as a protestant.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
the people of the Church themselves made up these titles. Jesus didn't call anyone on earth His Father and asked us not to, He called those who taught His way His Disciples therefore for us to do so doesn't really fit into any of what we know he taught and MIGHT be causing more harm than good...
Do you think that it's o.k. to call clergy "Pastor" or "Reverend"? Or even "Mister?" Why? These are just as made-up as "Father." Or shouldn't there be clergy at all?
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We don't use respectful titles much in everyday life, so addressing a priest as "Father" can jar, simply because it is unusual outside particular traditions.
And as a consequence it might become less usual in the church. It is certainly the case that ACs and RCs call priests by their first names more frequently now than a few decades ago. I don't really see a problem with this, it's hardly an issue of faith. On the other hand, given that many people will use a title of me I far prefer 'Father', not least because it is a good deal less suggestive of personal prestige than 'Reverend' and, in school situations, differentiates my role from that of a teacher in a way that 'Mr' doesn't. As an A-C it also makes the point that I claim to be a priest in the same sense as an RC or Orthodox. All of this aside, the claim that the use of the title is forbidden by scripture is obviously nonsense.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I was stating wrongs as I saw them based on the fundamental truth of Jesus and an intimate knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and ASKING for input.[/QB]
You'll find that (Roman) Catholic priests, of whom there are many on these boards, are also highly familiar with Jesus and the Evangelists. They might not, perhaps, couch their learning in the immodest terms you've used, but all those years in seminary aren't for nothing. I think you might have to acknowledge a degree of personal interpretation and even prejudice in how you see this 'fundamental truth'.
And as for your claim that you're not trying to be insulting, I'm afraid that being effortlessly insulting is not really any nicer. Could you please try not be insulting? I am a Christian and I call myself a Catholic, although I am not a Roman Catholic and have no intention of becoming so. I find your position ill-considered, and your expression of it insensitively expressed. I add my voice to the others here in asking for a proper apology.
T.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Anglicanism has throughout its history had both catholic and protestant elements,
Since it's U's thread, why don't we let him tell us whether, for now, the Anglican church is Protestant or Catholic. My parish, for instance:
1) Has a shrine to Our Lady before which "Hail Mary" etc. is prayed regularly. (Admittedly, this is rather unusual.)
2) Calls its clergy "Father." (Not at all unusual.)
3) Teaches that Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are "generally necessary to salvation." (Quoting from the historic Book of Common Prayer, hence quite normative.) Baptism = initiation into the catholic church (with or without capital C.) Even the Roman Catholics hold that one can be baptized 'into' the Catholic church without being baptized 'in' a Catholic church.
So, U., is my church Catholic? If it is, well, I'm pleading guilty (as I have all along). If not, well, you admit that Protestants can do and believe this stuff you're asking about, too. It's not distinctively RC.
Have it either way you like.
[ 21. February 2006, 15:19: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
And as for your claim that you're not trying to be insulting, I'm afraid that being effortlessly insulting is not really any nicer. Could you please try not be insulting?
T.
Patience! I remember saying plenty of insulting things about gay people in my closeted days. Maybe U. is a closet Catholic on the verge of opening the door. Being fascinated with the apparently forbidden is a classic symptom.
[ 21. February 2006, 15:28: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I thought I did answer ChastMastr
I refer to these two bits here:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't know if you understand that the way your post was worded really does come across, at least to me, as saying that if someone really loves Jesus, then they will have no real ties to any family on earth, with the corollary that if someone has real ties to any family on earth then they -- that is, I, and quite a wide range of people including your fellow Shipmates -- must not really love Jesus. Do you understand how that might come across?
...
quote:
I wish I could just assume blamelessness and speak freely as I would wish for anyone around me because that is what a true christian is, blameless, without sin, forgiven...
How do you mean "blameless" and "without sin" here? Because I don't think many of us here would claim to be actually sinless or assume that others here on Earth are.
David
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by U:
I still think it BETTER to go to Jesus and from Jesus be filled with the Holy Spirit and in that that perform God's will. But these are just my beliefs and as has been said, to each their own
This is founded on a heavily individualistic understanding of Christianity. My view is that we together go to the Father, through Jesus and are equipped with the Spirit do perform God's will. Our sanctification is communal. And the saints are part of the community.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I don't think it would be difficult to find a variety of repugnant traits cultivated in the name of Our Lord on the web sites of prominent right-wing organizations. While I agree that in a way it is unfair to point to the "worst rather than the best", part of the point is that the premises and axioms of Protestantism allow them to march under a Christian banner.
Think you're onto something here.
Without pointing any fingers, it seems likely that there is some basis in fact for a general impression that - the worst protestants include some who are deeply bigoted and unpleasant;
- the worst Roman Catholics include some who are superstitious and idolatrous;
- the worst Muslims include some who are rabidly violent.
Perhaps we can all acknowledge that these worst extremes exist, without any suggestion that they are representative of the respective groups ?
And also acknowledge that the faults of the other groups appear larger in our eyes than the faults of the extreme members of our own group ?
If we try to talk about what Catholicism is, what Protestantism is, what Islam is, how do we deal with the fact that there are significant differences between what the best are and what the worst are ?
If we claim the label as our own, then obviously the characteristics of the best are intrinsic to the category; the worst are just an unimportant minority group who've got it wrong. If I call myself a "denominationalist", then when I talk about what "denominationalism" really is - what's important/essential about it - then I'm talking about my beliefs. The people who are intellectually incoherent and nasty to others in the name of denominationalism are irrelevant; I'm offended if you compare me with them or tar me with their brush, even though I and they both claim the label.
But conversely, when viewing denominationalism from the outside, it's obvious that the worst extremes represent what denominationalism really essentially is - the nice moderate denominationalists we meet on the Ship have the same thing watered down. They're just obviously less denominationalist, more like normal people.
There's a dynamic at work here. It's not a pissing contest for the sake of passing water; it's to do with how we - with honesty about our genuine perceptions but with our limited human capabilities - make sense of ideologies and the range of people who claim allegiance to them.
Russ
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
it seems likely that there is some basis in fact for a general impression that - the worst protestants include some who are deeply bigoted and unpleasant;
- the worst Roman Catholics include some who are superstitious and idolatrous;
- the worst Muslims include some who are rabidly violent.
I wonder if part of it is that the character of each religious group, when corrupted, will still have elements of that character, just in a distorted form. A group devoted to (say) regular fasting but without an element of feasting will not be in danger of, at their worst, being gluttons, but other groups who hold feasting in high regard (but not fasting) may point at the worst examples of excessive fasting as if they are the "real" nature of the group at its best. In the same way, for example, taking my own church, the Episcopal, we tend to try to have a via media, a balance between things, reason and dialogue to resolve conflicts but at our worst can be wishy-washy, or come across that way, and people with a different approach can point fingers and say that really all we are is wishy-washy, without seeing the real value we are aiming for in via media, balance, dialogue and so on. So, I think, with the good things in the other traditions out there. As well, I think that the best things, when corrupted, become the worst...
David
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
But who's to say which is the corrupted version ?
Should we, in charity, take the best as representative ? Say that there's nothing at all wrong with Islam properly understood, it's just a few hotheads holding a corrupted version of it that are giving it a bad name at present ?
Russ
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But who's to say which is the corrupted version ?
I'm not sure what you mean here -- I would think the nastier example would by definition be the more corrupt one.
quote:
Should we, in charity, take the best as representative ? Say that there's nothing at all wrong with Islam properly understood, it's just a few hotheads holding a corrupted version of it that are giving it a bad name at present ?
I think that to say that at its best, this or that religious belief-system (Islam or all sorts of Christian denominations) has various good points as well as bad, and that when corrupted, the way in which it will be corrupted will be related to the very things which make it good, is not at all to say that all religions are equally good or, most importantly, true. I.e., in Islam, or in (insert denomination here), there are things I believe lacking or mistaken, even at its best, but I do not want to compare its worst examples to the best examples of my own faith.
David
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0