How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[Root of Jesse]

How does self torture bring one closer to God.
I think he's deceived to believe it tbh.

Fasting isn't torture unless you're a glutton lol.
Although I lack the self control to do much of it

There are many forms of fasting. There's total fast, there's fast from a particular category of food, fasting from a particular food, and so on.

Fasting from something you love is tough. If you do it right, it's self-inflicted suffering, which you offer to God. Today, Catholic kids, at Lent, are told by their parents to give up something for Lent, but they don't understand what it's about. But here's an example that might help:

Your company is hosting a lunch to honor the employees of a department. They've set it on Friday, at a Brazilian Barbecue place. Your normal practice is to not eat meat on Friday, as the Church has observed for decades and centuries. It's a private thing, you don't make a big deal of it. So the Friday rolls around, and the crew all goes to lunch. There's a salad bar, and there's the waiters coming around with spits of meat, and they set it right down next to you, and offer you a slice. True to your committment to God, you turn down every time one of these guys comes around. Everyone's looking at you in wonder, because you love meat, and everyone knows you love meat. Some of them realize that you fast from meat on Fridays, and they say "Can't you just relax your fast this once?" You say, no, because the kind of sacrifice you're making might require some self-denial.

The point is that, whatever suffering you're undergoing, put it to good use. Offer it, cheerfully, to God. Whether you inflict it on yourself, or it's brought on to you. Accept it cheerfully, and turn it into good.

 

[Root of Jesse]

hmmm?

That's NOT what the Apostles presented, but whatever...you may have been taught...

You do know that the Nicene Creed, which we all affirm here, acknowledges the Word of God of the O.T? as does the RCC?

s

Oh, I acknowledge that. But it was spoken publicly, not privately, as to the prophets, in the NT alone. I was also pointing out that red lettering was a later invention.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Unfortunately in this case you've just got your history dead wrong. The overall tendency in the history of Christian monasticism has been toward tempering extreme asceticism through community rules. There are exceptions (revival movements within Benedictine monasticism such as the Carthusians, and later the Trappists, reinvigorated harsh interpretations of the Rule; and Spiritualist Franciscans made a virtue out of extreme asceticism until they were suppressed in 1296), but in general cenobitic monasticism has arisen to curtail the extreme renunciative impulse. Such was the case with Rules of Basil of Caesarea, the annonymous "Master," Augustine of Hippo, and Benedict of Nursia.

Non-cenobitic rules for consecrated church workers like the Dominicans and Jesuits are also relatively unadorned. So are the non-consecrated cenobitic rules, like those of the Beguines and Beghards, and that of the Brethren of the Common Life.

The only ongoing church order where you really have a case is with the Franciscans, but as I said, even there, the Spiritualist wing of the Franciscans was surpressed.

Moreover, there has always been a recognition among monastics- especially in the Augustinian and Benedictine traditions- that the consecrated life is not for the strong, but for the weak. That strand of the tradition was certainly not prevalent in the days before the Reformation and I totally agree with you that it should be the prevailing attitude, but it is absolutely present in the various Rules. As for the Rules of various church-worker movements- the Dominican missionaries, the Franciscan caregivers, the Jesuit "papal footsoliders"- the idea there is that people on the front lines of the fight against sin, death, and the devil need stricter discipline.

I'm not prepared to accept on the basis of more reasonable rules that the things the rules were tempering were less spiritually pernicious, and one of those exceptions to the general moderation of the monasteries led to the monastic reforms wherein western clergy were obliged to remain celibate. Denial of sex to those not gifted with celibacy is more ascetic than a thousand hairshirts, and whereas other elements of mortification may have virtue in strengthening the weak in certain contexts, Paul writes the complete opposite about marriage, advising that it is better for those not properly gifted to marry rather than burn.

I could probably be reconciled to a lot of monasticism if it were presented as you presented it. I take regular trips to the wilderness for a purpose similar to what you suggest monasticism is. But you yourself admit this was at most an undercurrent in popular understanding of the monkish life during the middle ages, and I don't think you could deny that in popular religion, people looked at monks as being better Christians by reason of their asceticism, which means when many (if not most) of them became monks, they had it in mind to become better Christians by reason of harsh treatment of the body, particularly by means of wrongly protecting their own celibacy as if virginity equated to purity.

And if we have the masses of the people equating virginity with godliness and a church that formalized this error by, for instance, banning sex on Sundays and Wednesdays, it's not hard to imagine why they made up the story that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Members have no choice but to accept every jot and tittle of official teachings AND findings...

Not regarding private revelations, which all Marian apparitions are considered.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I might suggest that prayers to Mary are not optional in the RCC.

You might suggest wrong. Strongly encouraged. Not required.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Interesting. This (women priest at Rome) would explain why the PoJ asserts Mary entered the Holy of Holies.

Simply more refutation and explanation from where "Mary" ideas arose.

What was inside the Holy of Holies?

 

[Epiphoskei]

"RCC" is a kind of nickname and Catholic Church is the proper name of the Church. Best to stick with the proper name; you can abbreviate it - CC, for example, would be consistent with CCC as abbreviation for Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You know full well that the meaning of Catholic is such that no non-Roman can call Rome the Catholic Church. It'd be like the American president changing his title to "Emperor of the World" and demanding all other leaders address him as such.

 

[FireDragon76]

I could probably be reconciled to a lot of monasticism if it were presented as you presented it. I take regular trips to the wilderness for a purpose similar to what you suggest monasticism is. But you yourself admit this was at most an undercurrent in popular understanding of the monkish life during the middle ages, and I don't think you could deny that in popular religion, people looked at monks as being better Christians by reason of their asceticism,

I think you are interpreting monasticism through Protestant eyes and seeing something that is not really there. Luther did not become a monk for the best reasons, he became a monk because he was afraid for his own soul. The best monks and nuns become monastics because they love God and wish to devote their whole life to him alone, to sacrifice a life in the world for God's glory. For instance, when St. Francis became a mendicant monk, it was not out of fear. Indeed, his friends noticed such a change in him they assumed he must be in love with someone, because his personality had changed so much.

This is not to say Luther's spirituality is worthless, he found some important insights into God and himself in his spiritual struggles in monasticism. But when he left the monastic life he took some of his prejudices against it with him into his writings. In reality, he wanted to infuse ordinary life with the kind of piety that monastics have, because his writings, far from encouraging some kind of laxism or easy-believism, emphasize that the justified will undertaking self-mortification and asceticism, daily putting to death the "Old Adam". So that's why its curious that some people who claim to be heirs to his legacy would criticism ascetical practices.

The truth is Protestant anti-Catholicism that has so infused much of American and English history, that underlines the presuppositions of much of this thread, is not so much rooted in Calvin or Luther, as it is rooted in the secular powers of northern Europe, many of whom, like the Dutch, had political reasons to be hostile to predominantly Catholic countries. So our cultures WASP-ish fear of Catholicism is actually not rooted so much in the essence of Protestantism as it is rooted in the politics and division of the fragmentation of Christendom that happened after the Reformation. At the core of Lutheranism, for instance, are some very Catholic ideas and it is not for nothing that Pope Benedict XVII had suggested the possibility of accepting the Augsburg Confession's "Catholicity".

 

[squint]

That's not really true- it's perfectly OK to not believe a particular apparition or vision, and I know Catholics that take their faith seriously, but otherwise are not particularly devoted to apparitions or the piety assosciated with that.

IF a particular Saint has been determined, Mary for example, and various official findings surround that matter, then all the adherents have no choice but to accept the official findings or be in contempt.

I am not aware of any 'official apparations' but have not researched it as the Mary apparitions to me are entirely demonic in nature and intentions, therefore I don't waste much time on them.

When the RCC approves of something like the Divine Mercy devotion, they aren't necessarily saying that a person has to believe Jesus appeared to a polish nun and taught her some prayers- they are saying the practice of the Divine Mercy is consistent with their received tradition and the Bible.

I don't believe it is optional to believe in a less than ever Virgin Mary in the RCC. It is mandatory as well as mandatory prayers to her.

There is no option for objections of conscience.

The same is true with other devotions like the rosary- it's not necessary to believe any of the particular stories about it, merely that it is beneficial and consistent with the Catholic faith.

which is why I observed that prayers to Mary are not optional in RCC land.

There are Protestants, particularly among some Anglicans and Lutherans, who do accept the reality of much of Roman Catholic religious experience,

I am firmly on record here that I do not condemn a single RCC member to hell for any reason...whatever contrariness to their positions I might observe.

faith isn't always a clean cut matter for anyone...

That kind of sight however is not MUTUAL...and I take issue of fact with any member who claims it so.

while still regognizing that the debates of Petrine supremacy and so forth that seperate Catholics from Protestants are not resolved. For instance, I am currently reading a book, written by a Lutheran pastor and writer, on Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, a mid-twentieth century Italian charismatic saint. And the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterburry, Rowan Williams, visited Lourdes and gave a sermon there. So there are Protestants that are not automatically inimical or hostile to Roman Catholicism and can recognize what is true and good there, there is no need to be a Christian and have an "us" vs. "them" mentality.

I was for a time a faithful RCC charismatic member myself, so I am not entirely ignorant about the matters. Just partly so in their views...

Mostly it is optional, yes. The only place it might appear is if the Confitetor, a confession of sin, is used in the Mass's penitential rite, and even then, Mary is not addressed directly, the Confitetor is addressed to the assembled faithful. "Prayers to Mary" fits more with private devotion, something people can take or leave as it suits them.

I'm fairly certain that any request for zero hail Mary penitence exercises would be denied by a Priest in standard operating procedures.

I happen to believe there is A MOTHER, WISDOM, [who is not Mary] who is also our 'Mother' in the Spiritual sense...from Gal. 4:26...

My bad... And I pray TO MOTHER, WISDOM, for same. Which she has granted me on the subjective side of the ledgers.

Objective Father is another Greater-est Matter and I approach there with all the caution and reverence....I can muster.

Lutherans and Anglicans, two protestant groups, absolutely do accept the idea that Mary prays for the Church, by the way. The issue for Lutherans is the propriety of asking saints to pray for us- some Anglicans even accept this practice, others do not.

That may be a stretch...

s

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are correct to identify the Roman Catholic Church with RCC or RC (Roman Catholic).

For some unknown reason, some of the RCers here like to make mention that they think they are the Catholic Church, as if to hope no one knows their doctrines/dogmas are far different from what the church taught long ago.

PS As an example, Cyprian and Firmillian argued against the Roman Church (pope Stephen) back in the 3rd century about Rome's belief that any baptism by any group was equivalent (regenerative) to the Christian one. They were the Catholic Church, not Rome is what they argued.

There's a big difference between what Cyprian is doing and what Henry VIII was doing. And what you guys are falling back to is Henry. Henry used "Roman" Church to be pejorative.

 

[Root of Jesse]

IF a particular Saint has been determined, Mary for example, and various official findings surround that matter, then all the adherents have no choice but to accept the official findings or be in contempt.

This is not the same as having such a devotion to said saint, or not.
I'm sure there's Catholics who don't believe JPII should be canonized, and will not engage in devotions to him. Mostly, if someone doesn't like a particular saint, they just don't mention that saint.

I am not aware of any 'official apparations' but have not researched it as the Mary apparitions to me are entirely demonic in nature and intentions, therefore I don't waste much time on them.

Demonic in what way? How does something demonic point to God?

I don't believe it is optional to believe in a less than ever Virgin Mary in the RCC. It is mandatory as well as mandatory prayers to her.

That she's ever Virgin is dogma. We're not required to pray to anyone except Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There is no option for objections of conscience.



which is why I observed that prayers to Mary are not optional in RCC land.

What land would that be??? Prayers to Mary are optional.

I am firmly on record here that I do not condemn a single RCC member to hell for any reason...whatever contrariness to their positions I might observe.

faith isn't always a clean cut matter for anyone...

That kind of sight however is not MUTUAL...and I take issue of fact with any member who claims it so.



I was for a time a faithful RCC charismatic member myself, so I am not entirely ignorant about the matters. Just partly so in their views...



I'm fairly certain that any request for zero hail Mary penitence exercises would be denied by a Priest in standard operating procedures.

I happen to believe there is A MOTHER, WISDOM, [who is not Mary] who is also our 'Mother' in the Spiritual sense...from Gal. 4:26...

My bad... And I pray TO MOTHER, WISDOM, for same. Which she has granted me on the subjective side of the ledgers.

Objective Father is another Greater-est Matter and I approach there with all the caution and reverence....I can muster.



That may be a stretch...

s

Mother Wisdom sounds...fishy...to me.

 

[Standing Up]

What was inside the Holy of Holies?

Nothing, but make no mistake that they would violate all of their other laws.

You should do some research, you will find no women were permitted past the court of the women. Don't accept a non-Jewish, pseudoraphical work written some 200 years after the facts as your source of info.

Women in Ancient Israel. The Court of the Women in the Temple (Bible History Online)

Second Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Watson E. Mills, general editor (1990) Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press; p. 880 "An inner court, raised and enclosed by a stone partition three cubits high led to the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel. ... They would enter the Court of the Women. Men might enter the inner court from any of the nine gates."

Enough of the nonsense known as PoJames.

 

[Standing Up]

There's a big difference between what Cyprian is doing and what Henry VIII was doing. And what you guys are falling back to is Henry. Henry used "Roman" Church to be pejorative.

I've already shown the CCC using the word Roman Church to identify itself.

Augustine, Gregory the Great, Lucifer the bishop, and many others identified it as such. In fact, they did this to distinguish it, identify itself to others of its religion.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I think you are interpreting monasticism through Protestant eyes and seeing something that is not really there. Luther did not become a monk for the best reasons, he became a monk because he was afraid for his own soul. The best monks and nuns become monastics because they love God and wish to devote their whole life to him alone, to sacrifice a life in the world for God's glory. For instance, when St. Francis became a mendicant monk, it was not out of fear. Indeed, his friends noticed such a change in him they assumed he must be in love with someone, because his personality had changed so much.

This is not to say Luther's spirituality is worthless, he found some important insights into God and himself in his spiritual struggles in monasticism. But when he left the monastic life he took some of his prejudices against it with him into his writings. In reality, he wanted to infuse ordinary life with the kind of piety that monastics have, because his writings, far from encouraging some kind of laxism or easy-believism, emphasize that the justified will undertaking self-mortification and asceticism, daily putting to death the "Old Adam". So that's why its curious that some people who claim to be heirs to his legacy would criticism ascetical practices.

I think the entire body of church history is too vast a subject to be summed up concisely, and which elements you bring to the forefront when you reduce it to a paragraph depend on how much good faith you assume. Protestants may be guilty of being overly critical of Rome in places, but perhaps this is only because a Roman's history of his own church always sounds like a whitewash.

 

[squint]

You might suggest wrong. Strongly encouraged. Not required.

I'd suggest that Mary is not optional for any RCC member, period.

Members have no choice but to accept whatever findings the RCC officialdom presents in these matters no matter what any individual may think. That's just the way it is within the sect. Not saying that is a bad thing...just there it is not optional.

s

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nothing, but make no mistake that they would violate all of their other laws.

You should do some research, you will find no women were permitted past the court of the women. Don't accept a non-Jewish, pseudoraphical work written some 200 years after the facts as your source of info.

Women in Ancient Israel. The Court of the Women in the Temple (Bible History Online)

Second Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Watson E. Mills, general editor (1990) Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press; p. 880 "An inner court, raised and enclosed by a stone partition three cubits high led to the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel. ... They would enter the Court of the Women. Men might enter the inner court from any of the nine gates."

Enough of the nonsense known as PoJames.

That Women in Ancient Israel article speaks only of participation in worship. Doesn't speak of every-day life. Like sewing, washing vestments, cleaning, etc. Who do you suppose did such things??

 

[squint]

Mother Wisdom sounds...fishy...to me.

Proverbs 1:
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;
4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

I happen to have a penchant for O.T. literary devices. The subjective presentations of Wisdom as a HER and the Objective Delivery of God, the Father, as HE Is.

s

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the entire body of church history is too vast a subject to be summed up concisely, and which elements you bring to the forefront when you reduce it to a paragraph depend on how much good faith you assume. Protestants may be guilty of being overly critical of Rome in places, but perhaps this is only because a Roman's history of his own church always sounds like a whitewash.

Which Roman Catholic history are we talking about? Again, this is the esssentialist flaw. In reality there are many Roman Catholic self-understandings, not all of them are based on the sort of extreme positivism you are criticizing- the sort of thing not alien to Protestants, either.

I reject the extreme cynicism that underlines much of the Protestant polemic. Cynicism is a horrible thing to invite into ones spiritual life.

 

[Stryder06]

Under supervision of a spiritual director or priest, self-inflicted pain can be useful to fight the passions and cravings for things such as food or comfort, and encourage detachment from them so that a person avoids sins and developes virtues such as moderation. In a more Latin (Western Catholic) context, as well, they can be seen as uniting oneself with the sacrifice of Christ and offering up ones own sacrifice for some particular intention (prayer). There are psychological risks to this "minor torture" though, and it is controversial, but that isn't to say it is somehow un-Christian or unbiblical (and it is found in the Bible, too- wearing sackcloth and ashes was a kind of atonement among the Jews because it was physically uncomfortable).

You think sackcloth and ashes were a kind of atonement? That wasn't used for atonement sake but to express grief. I'm certain it was uncomfortable, but it wouldn't have been painful. That said, Christ never asks us to hurt ourselves to overcome sin, but to bring our burdens to Him. Inflicting pain upon yourself isn't what Christ is calling you to do to overcome sin.

 

[FireDragon76]

You think sackcloth and ashes were a kind of atonement? That wasn't used for atonement sake but to express grief. I'm certain it was uncomfortable, but it wouldn't have been painful. That said, Christ never asks us to hurt ourselves to overcome sin, but to bring our burdens to Him. Inflicting pain upon yourself isn't what Christ is calling you to do to overcome sin.

Yes, it can be a kind of atonement. This isn't incompatible with the catholic understanding of atonement, since there must be contrition or sorrow in repentance. In the eastern Christian tradition they speak of penthos - sorrow, as a result of repentance. This idea that we must be cheerful and happy all the time and so on, to be a valid view of reality is false, it is inconsistent with the deepest understandings in the Christian tradition. As the Lord said, "Blessed are those who mourn". Life in a fallen world is sad, penthos is all about acknowledging and making peace with that, seeing the sorrow as a pathway to God.

Sometimes when people are grieving, they want to do things to process that sorrow. I could see sackcloth and ashes as a way that people would process those feelings, making them much more physical in nature. They also tore their clothes sometimes too.

"Bring your burdens to Him" smacks of 19th century pietism more than it does ancient Christian tradition, or even something that is "Biblical" in the classical Protestant sense used by Luther or Calvin. Jesus is not your therapist.