Studying Catholicism

[Albion]

Well, I am going to comply with the suggestion that the thread be ended.

You carry on if you must.

 

[SQLservant]

to my knowledge, Judaism does not pray to the dead.

Since nobody pointed this out, here you go.
Is it okay to ask a deceased tzaddik to pray on my behalf? - Ask the Rabbi

Not that "because the Jews do it" makes it okay for us Christians per se, but Jews (at least some Jews) do just this. The response sounds remarkably Christian, as well.

 

[Rhamiel]

i never knew that before
that is cool
but I do not look to the jews for spiritual truth, as they currently have scales over their eyes
if they can not see the divinity of Christ, why should I trust them on any spiritual matters?
even on the Torah, I trust Christian writters more then I trust Jewish teachers
ofcourse i am refering to those Jews teachers born after the begining of Christianity

 

[bbbbbbb]

i never knew that before
that is cool
but I do not look to the jews for spiritual truth, as they currently have scales over their eyes
if they can not see the divinity of Christ, why should I trust them on any spiritual matters?
even on the Torah, I trust Christian writters more then I trust Jewish teachers
ofcourse i am refering to those Jews teachers born after the begining of Christianity

Indeed, why should I care what Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists think? I always find it peculiar when Catholic posters here use Jews to buttress their arguments for praying to dead people.

 

[Rhamiel]

Indeed, why should I care what Jews or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists think? I always find it peculiar when Catholic posters here use Jews to buttress their arguments for praying to dead people.

I do not hear of Catholics doing that very often
the argument I mostly hear is that it is an ancient Christian
accepted by Christians in the East and West

 

[Albion]

I do not hear of Catholics doing that very often
the argument I mostly hear is that it is an ancient Christian
accepted by Christians in the East and West

Interesting point.

Thinking back, it seems to me that the Jewish precedent is used most often with Purgatory (i.e. praying FOR the dead) but a rationalistic argument is most often used for praying TO saints--"They are part of the communion of saints, so why not...?" or "They are just like our neighbors in the flesh whom we ask for prayer when we are in need" and so on.

 

[football5680]

Veneration of Saints
Many people have given their life for their belief in Jesus and we should honor them. 10 of 12 apostles were martyred for their faith and they deserve more recognition than just reading their name once or twice in the bible. The bible does not give us in depth information about some of the apostles but they still died for spreading the message of Jesus and we shouldn't sweep them under the rug.

Purgatory
If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15

Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for." Isiah 6:6-7

Purgatory is backed up by both the old and new testament. Your soul will be cleansed by the fire.

Rejection of the priesthood of all believers
The bible backs this up.

Icons-Don't understand what you mean.

Required celibacy of the clergy
This is a personal and traditional choice. The Catholic church agrees with Paul and feels it is best that a priest not marry so that he can dedicate his entire life to god and guiding us in the right direction. Paul says that they shouldn't get married because if you are married you must follow the commandments of the bible which state that a husband must love and care for their wife. So they cannot devote their life entirely to god.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I'm willing to comment further if that's your wish, Football.

Veneration of Saints
Many people have given their life for their belief in Jesus and we should honor them.

Honoring them has never been an issue, at least not with me. My church honors the saints. But performing acts of worship to them and attributing to them the powers of demi-gods is NOT "honor" or "veneration."

Purgatory
If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15

Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for." Isiah 6:6-7

Much of this language is not literal. But Purgatory is.

Purgatory is backed up by both the old and new testament. Your soul will be cleansed by the fire.

That's your mistake. If my soul will be cleansed by fire (and few Catholics even think that Hell is literal fire, so why the insistence that Purgatory's fire is literal?) that doesn't even come close to being what Purgatory has been defined by the RCC as being. A rubber tire does not describe an automobile, but when it comes to Purgatory all the superstitions and inventions, including the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, punishing sins already forgiven, etc. are supposed to be "proven" by reference to a word or two like "fire." All you've done is show us how little evidence there is for even the general concept of something like a Purgatory, let alone Purgatory itself.

Icons-Don't understand what you mean.

Required celibacy of the clergy
This is a personal and traditional choice. The Catholic church agrees with Paul and feels it is best that a priest not marry so that he can dedicate his entire life to god and guiding us in the right direction.

Although that is not the reason for the RCC's policy of clerical celibacy, I agree that it is a personal choice. And "traditional?" Well, considering that for the first millennium of church history, married clergy were the norm, I don't think you can say that.

The real question is whether or not it is right for the church to REQUIRE it as a condition of ordination. If, for some reason, the church required self-emasculation, would that make it right, in your opinion?

Paul says that they shouldn't get married because if you are married you must follow the commandments of the bible which state that a husband must love and care for their wife. So they cannot devote their life entirely to god.

Well, we know for a fact that your so-called "first Pope," Peter, was married. And what Paul said is that marriage is advisable if you can't remain chaste. Also that it's a private choice, not something the church can require as a blanket condition for ordination.

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes, I'm willing to comment further if that's your wish, Football.

Honoring them has never been an issue, at least not with me. My church honors the saints. But performing acts of worship to them and attributing to them the powers of demi-gods is NOT "honor" or "veneration."

Much of this language is not literal. But Purgatory is.

That's your mistake. If my soul will be cleansed by fire (and few Catholics even think that Hell is literal fire, so why the insistence that Purgatory's fire is literal?) that doesn't even come close to being what Purgatory has been defined by the RCC as being. A rubber tire does not describe an automobile, but when it comes to Purgatory all the superstitions and inventions, including the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, punishing sins already forgiven, etc. are supposed to be "proven" by reference to a word or two like "fire." All you've done is show us how little evidence there is for even the general concept of something like a Purgatory, let alone Purgatory itself.

Although that is not the reason for the RCC's policy of clerical celibacy, I agree that it is a personal choice. And "traditional?" Well, considering that for the first millennium of church history, married clergy were the norm, I don't think you can say that.

The real question is whether or not it is right for the church to REQUIRE it as a condition of ordination. If, for some reason, the church required self-emasculation, would that make it right, in your opinion?

Well, we know for a fact that your so-called "first Pope," Peter, was married. And what Paul said is that marriage is advisable if you can't remain chaste. Also that it's a private choice, not something the church can require as a blanket condition for ordination.

I believe there is a purgatory, but I think that the use of fire is metaphorical. What the exact reasons for purgatory is and what its nature is has been for Karl Rahner more of an open question. Rahner had a bit of an unusual problem with the notion of spending time in a purgatory because he thought that time as we know it now does not exist after death. He even went so far as to say that perhaps purgatory is the actual process of death.

As to priests and marriage, it is a matter of what the Church decides, because theologically there is nothing that would prohibit the same person receiving both Sacraments of marriage and orders.

 

[Albion]

I believe there is a purgatory, but I think that the use of fire is metaphorical. What the exact reasons for purgatory is and what its nature is has been for Karl Rahner more of an open question. Rahner had a bit of an unusual problem with the notion of spending time in a purgatory because he thought that time as we know it now does not exist after death. He even went so far as to say that perhaps purgatory is the actual process of death.

All speculation about how we can change Purgatory and make it palatable or acceptable to modern man is of little interest to me. The RCC invented Purgatory, gave it its definition, stands by it, and that is the issue as far as I'm concerned.

As to priests and marriage, it is a matter of what the Church decidesecause

Not if what the church decides is morally wrong, wouldn't you agree? I raised that point in my last point, but I see you didn't address it.

 

[steve_bakr]

All speculation about how we can change Purgatory and make it palatable or acceptable to modern man is of little interest to me. The RCC invented Purgatory, gave it its definition, stands by it, and that is the issue as far as I'm concerned.

Not if what the church decides is morally wrong, wouldn't you agree? I raised that point in my last point, but I see you didn't address it.

I wasn't really debating, I just responded to your post with my impressions. Since I'm studying Rahner in detail, I mentioned what his thoughts were on purgatory.

If an individual in authority in the Church promoted teaching that was wrong, it would need to be corrected.

 

[Albion]

I wasn't really debating, I just responded to your post with my impressions.

Sure, but I wanted to clarify what my perspective is.

Since I'm studying Rahner in detail, I mentioned what his thoughts were on purgatory.

I understand that.

If an individual in authority in the Church promoted teaching that was wrong, it would need to be corrected.

Need is the right word. In today's church, the absence of any corrective action or condemnation in no way means that the teaching in question has been approved, formally or tacitly.

 

[steve_bakr]

Sure, but I wanted to clarify what my perspective is.

I understand that.

Need is the right word. In today's church, the absence of any corrective action or condemnation in no way means that the teaching in question has been approved, formally or tacitly.

I'm a believer in the notion that the Catholic Church should reflect upon itself a bit more critically. Theologians should be allowed to be faithful critics.

The atmosphere in Catholic theology today is kind of chilly and wintry. Catholic theologians have been silenced in terms of criticism of the Church.

Some people in the Church hierarchy have a problem with admitting a mistake. They think the whole structure would be shaken if they did.

It pains me that the Church cannot experience more self-reflection. I think that it would be a good thing for the Catholic Church.

Finally, though, criticism in the Church--say, by a theologian--needs to be done with the utmost respect for the Church, its authority, and traditions.

Sometimes criticism from the outside turns destructive. But outsiders sometimes can do a service to the Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm a believer in the notion that the Catholic Church should reflect upon itself a bit more critically. Theologians should be allowed to be faithful critics.

The atmosphere in Catholic theology today is kind of chilly and wintry. Catholic theologians have been silenced in terms of criticism of the Church.

Some people in the Church hierarchy have a problem with admitting a mistake. They think the whole structure would be shaken if they did.

It pains me that the Church cannot experience more self-reflection. I think that it would be a good thing for the Catholic Church.

Finally, though, criticism in the Church--say, by a theologian--needs to be done with the utmost respect for the Church, its authority, and traditions.

Sometimes criticism from the outside turns destructive. But outsiders sometimes can do a service to the Church.

Actually, the Catholic Church today is probably more self-reflective than it is has been for a very long time. The cold dogmatism of the Catholic Church of my youth makes today's environment look positively tropical.

 

[steve_bakr]

Actually, the Catholic Church today is probably more self-reflective than it is has been for a very long time. The cold dogmatism of the Catholic Church of my youth makes today's environment look positively tropical.

That's interesting. Being a convert, my Catholic experience doesn't go as far back as yours. But I feel that currently we are in a kind of reactionary period regarding Vatican II. But it is good to know that the Church is more self-reflective.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's interesting. Being a convert, my Catholic experience doesn't go as far back as yours. But I feel that currently we are in a kind of reactionary period regarding Vatican II. But it is good to know that the Church is more self-reflective.

Yes, I have seen both sides of the Vatican II divide and you are quite correct that there is an on-going reaction to it. The reactionary forces seem to be getting more organized than previously, but I am not sure if they are increasing in numbers.

 

[WisdomTree]

Happy Saint Valentine's Day!

 

[ceb420]

Please someone tell me how the icons are not idolatry.. I mean praying the rosary, the monstrances, and the other icons are engraved images in some form or another, made by men and despised by God! Eucharistic adoration is something that baffles me too and that's even used in a few Protestant denominations.. Even if you believe the icon contains Christ or the HS, the pagans that worshiped all of their idols believed there was a spirit contained in them as well and God struck them down!

Why should you need an image at all to "remind" you of the sacrifice of Christ!?!? If he is truly in you and you in Him, there is no need for any reminder, He is supposed to be alive in you!! Do you need a reminder you have a heart, or a brain, or eyes too?

BTW, not criticizing anyone in particular, just trying to understand.

 

[Yarddog]

Please someone tell me how the icons are not idolatry..

An idol is a "god" while icons are not.

Eucharistic adoration is something that baffles me too and that's even used in Protestant denominations.. Even if you believe the icon contains Christ or the HS, the pagans that worshiped all of their idols believed there was a spirit contained in them as well and God struck them down!

The Eucharistic is Jesus Christ even though you don't understand this at this time. Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood", thus we believe the words which he spoke. Even though Protestant Church don't believe as the Catholic or Orthodox Churches do, many still believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist so there is no "strange god" present but the known "God and Son".

Why should you need an image at all to "remind" you of the sacrifice of Christ!?!? If he is truly in you and you in Him, there is no need for any reminder, He is supposed to be alive in you!! Do you need a reminder you have a heart, or a brain, or eyes too?

Many don't but many do. We are supposed to argue about what God has given his children to do.

 

[ceb420]

An idol is a "god" while icons are not.

What if the icon is an image of Christ, is that not an image of God? When you pray the rosary, are you not praying to an image of God? And what about Mary, do you not kneel down to statues of Mary, again it is simply a question, not an accusation? And the intersessions of Saints, Jesus said He is the ONLY way to the Father, therefore there is no need to ask anyone in heaven to pray for you, Christ is the ONLY one that you need to ask to pray for you. He is the ONLY mediator by His own words.

The Eucharistic is Jesus Christ even though you don't understand this at this time. Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood", thus we believe the words which he spoke. Even though Protestant Church don't believe as the Catholic or Orthodox Churches do, many still believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist so there is no "strange god" present but the known "God and Son".

With all do respect, please don't tell me what I dont understand. I understand He is 100% present in the Eucharist spiritually. Of course you know it is also called communion, togetherness.. in spirit. Just as he told the disciples He will always be with them (and us), again in spirit as He does live among and in us at all times! No need for any image or icon to remind me of that. When we take communion, it is the remembrance/memorial He instructed the disciples to do at the Last Supper. We are eating the Bread (spiritual body) and drinking the Wine (spiritual blood) in remembrance of His sacrifice for us. To my knowledge, He never said to put the bread in an gravened vessel and worship it...He never said I will turn into a piece of bread on the first day of the week so after you put it in a man made vessel, you can then worship me..