What are some common misconceptions about Catholicism?

Asherz said:

Then how is one saved?

Click to expand...

Through Jesus, His Sacrifice and Resurrection.

and are any saved outside the church?

Click to expand...

Yes. Through Jesus, His Sacrifice and Resurrection.

Where exactly did indulgences come from and what defense is there for them, and are they even used anymore?

Click to expand...

Indulgences are obtained through the Church which opens to us the treasury of merits of Christ and of the good that the Saints have done FOR Christ. An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven by Christ in the Sacrament of Penance. Actually, it can't be sold (the selling of indulgences was done WITHOUT Church sanction). To obtain an indulgence certain conditions are required--the person must be free of all attachment to sin; AND must perform the indulgenced work pefectly as possible (going on a pilgrimage, or whatever the work was); AND within several days before or after, receive Sacramental Penance and Eucharistic Communion; AND offer prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father. And yes, indulgences still exist. Some of them are acts of charity for those in need and some are traditional prayers and devotions (like reading the Bible).

Can someone descibe their view of Mary compared to their view of Christ?

Click to expand...

Mary is the mother of Jesus. She is the "Woman" of Genesis 3:15--the one God promised whose seed would crush the head of Satan. She is the Ark of the New Covenant because she carried THE WORD and LAW GIVER in her womb. She is honored (just as she prophecised in Luke when she said "All generations shall call me blessed") and reverenced BECAUSE of Jesus and His Sacrifice. Only Jesus is worshiped since He is God.

dhuisjen2 said:

Mark,

Thanks for your response! I have copied and printed it out for myself to study more carefully over the course of the summer.

Let me preface all that follows by saying that I am not seriously considering joining the Catholic Church personally, but I have every respect for individual Catholics, and I personally believe that if the Catholic Church of 500 years ago were as sincere and open about its dealings as the Catholic Church of today is, the Protestant Reformation never would have happened. I thus wish above all to reach a clearer understanding of your positions of faith and to build a deeper respect for the rationale behinde them, even if I do not expect to share them.

The indulgence bit is a matter for consideration unto itself, but for now I would like to dig a bit deeper into the issue of papal infallibility. First let me see if I can understand what you have written here:

.............
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
These are difficult questions, but please do not take this as a flame! I really do respect the integrity and intelligence of Catholics as a whole, and I really do want to understand your perspective better.

Thanks, David
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

HI David,

First of all, don't worry about being flamed at all. You come here simply seeking honest answers from Catholics which is commendable. I'm glad NewMan and others stepped in to help you more and probably better than I could. I'll first of all apologize for posting in such haste and in the manner I did yesterday as the weather was getting quite foul and I was loosing my net connection intermiitenly.

In regards to infallibility, what I described were the three levels of papal magisterium. The pope can make infallible declarations in two ways.

1. By exercising his Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium and solemnly defining a doctrine which can be done soley himself or together with all the bishops during an Ecumenical Council. The example I provided was merely to show an instance of the pope, by himself, making an ex cathedra definition. When a pope does this, which is incredibly rare, there is no mistaking it. Notice the langauge used in the example provided: "We declare, pronounce, and define... " The pope is being adundantly clear and extremely specific, he is taking great care to focus our attention to what he is doing, he is speaking as the head of the Catholic Church, and as one voice for the whole Church on behalf of all in the Church (also take note the word "We") "We declare.." etc, as if the whole Church from all ages and now is speaking through the one mouth of the pope.

Ex cathedra definitions are usually, though not strictly always, followed by a condemnation of that which opposses it - in other words, he is binding our consciences to believe it. Here is an example from the same declaration, Ineffabilis Deus, that immediately follows the definition: "Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart. "

2. The pope can exercise his Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The example I provided is probably not the best, I was going to use Humanae Vitae instead, but the nature of it is pretty close the the same. The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the pope is exercised when the pope, in an official manner, repeats - reaffirms a matter of faith or morals, such as pope Paul VI reaffirming the sinful nature of artificial birth control in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae. What usually separates an extraordinary magisterial declaration (ex cathedra) from an ordinary magisterial declaration is that acts of Ordinary Magisterium lack the strict definition of the former. Nonetheless they are infallible because they are repititions dotrines of the faith or morals which have always and everywhere been taught by the Church since Apostolic times.

Lastly, in summary:

Solemnly defined by Pope or Council (ex cathedra): infallible
Always been taught and believed (Ordinary Magisterium): infallible
Other teachings (Authentic Magisterium): fallible, but owed religious assent


Hope that helped

Asherz said:

Hello from a non-Catholic.

I am doing a presentation on Catholicism for a religious studies class and I have to have a part on common misconceptions about Catholicism. So far, I have Mary worship, but I need more!

I thought I would ask you guys, well, because you would be the ones to know.

So, what are some things that people think you believe or do, but you really don't. And, if you could maybe find a few verses or give a small explanation why that is not true that would be really awesome.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Welcome to OBOB, hope you enjoy it here and return many times.

I have actually heard somone say they were told that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine. The fact is Ignatius of Antioch, who was born in A.D. 50, mentions the Catholic Church. Constantine lived more than 300 years later and actually supported the Arians agains the Catholic Church, although he did finally convert to Catholicism on his deathbead in 337 A.D. This is a greate one because it can easily be verified.

I hope this helps.

Your brother in Christ.

gitlance said:

That the Vatican has a secret spy network infiltrating the protestant sects.

I'm not making this up, folks.

Click to expand...

not only infiltrating, but setting up good protestant pastors to fall into sexual sins by sending women to seduce them..

The pope is a devil worshiper and a mason

The catholic version of Mary is a hold-over from the mystery cult founded by Nimrod and Semiramis

That constantine was a sun worshiper who took over the church and made it Pagan the result being the Catholic church, specificly he instituted sunday worship SUN day worship, and he instituted easter to worship Isis.

Thats just a small selection, mostly thanks to everyone's dear friend Mr Chick.

Correct me if I get this wrong, but...

In Catholicism,

Dogma is an infallible, unchangeable teaching of the church, that must be believed in order to be Catholic.

Doctrine is the teaching of the church that is accepted currently but could develop further or change and there is some latitude on having opinions about doctrine

a discipline is a practice which is held to be good and even mandatory in some rites, but it is not held to be necessary for all christians or even for all catholics.

For example,
Death and Resurrection of Christ are dogma

the teaching on the war in Iraq, or just war in general is doctrine

and

praying the rosary and celibate priesthood are disciplines.

Is that correct?

Simon_Templar said:

Correct me if I get this wrong, but...

In Catholicism,

Dogma is an infallible, unchangeable teaching of the church, that must be believed in order to be Catholic.

Doctrine is the teaching of the church that is accepted currently but could develop further or change and there is some latitude on having opinions about doctrine

a discipline is a practice which is held to be good and even mandatory in some rites, but it is not held to be necessary for all christians or even for all catholics.

For example,
Death and Resurrection of Christ are dogma

the teaching on the war in Iraq, or just war in general is doctrine

and

praying the rosary and celibate priesthood are disciplines.

Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Not completly correct

The difference between dogma and doctrine is not well defined and sometime these words are used to say almost the same things with different highlights.
That bc the Faith is indipendent from the philosophy used to study theology.

But to explain it to protestant, you can consider:

Dogma are very few basic facts, like Resurection of Christ, that are the bases of the Faith.
These are facts that shall be believed without asking where they come from, bc they are 100% sure.

Doctrines are the results of dogmas, like Real Presence in the Mass or forbiddance the divorce.

They cannot be changed, but only better explained. The wording or the philosophy used to explain them can be changed.
Many time doctrines cover only one aspect of the dogma (like the Mass as a sacrifice), so they shall be explained alwasys with reference to the above dogmas.
In many cases protestants compare catholic doctrines (results) with dogmas (bases). That is wrong and create misunderstandings
Definitions 'ex cattedra' of the pope or the councils (like immaculate conception, or trinity) are mainly to upgrade a doctrine to a dogma. That means that such a fact is so sure that it can be stay indipendently.

That about dogma and doctrine. The other two points are easier:

Disciplines are practices, as you told, which is held to be good and even mandatory in some rites, but it is not held to be necessary for all christians or even for all catholics. (praying the rosary and celibate priesthood are disciplines)

The teaching on the war in Iraq is not a doctrine nor a disciplines. It is simply the personal opinion of the pope, who sometime, (or manytime in the past), can make mistakes.

plainswolf said:

HI David,

First of all, don't worry about being flamed at all. You come here simply seeking honest answers from Catholics which is commendable.

Click to expand...

Hi again Mark,

As an Irish friend of mine was prone to say, I've got on my asbestos underwear on here, so I'm not really worried about being flamed myself. I more want to watch out for creating an appearance of going out and flaming Catholics. In my first weeks in CF I lost a bunch of health points and got a PM from a moderator for pointing out the etymology of "Hocus pocus". I honestly have malace towards none here, and I feel that it is important to keep repeating that.

plainswolf said:

I'm glad NewMan and others stepped in to help you more and probably better than I could. I'll first of all apologize for posting in such haste and in the manner I did yesterday as the weather was getting quite foul and I was loosing my net connection intermiitenly.

Click to expand...

Your tone left nothing to apologize for. At worst it could be said that your post left some questions open, but in a discussion forum that is generally a good thing!

plainswolf said:

In regards to infallibility, ...

Lastly, in summary:

Solemnly defined by Pope or Council (ex cathedra): infallible
Always been taught and believed (Ordinary Magisterium): infallible
Other teachings (Authentic Magisterium): fallible, but owed religious assent

Hope that helped

Click to expand...

In fact it did. So in other words it would not be heresy for Catholics to say that the majority of, say Urban II's or Leo X's pastoral teachings were wrong, provided they were not using the strict ex cathedra or Ordinary Magisterium formulas at the time. That would be a surprise to most Protestants to find out!

Let me clarify another matter though: are you saying that at this point in history it would not be possible for Catholics to accept birth control (or fertility treatments) or female clergy without relinquishing papal infalibility at the same time? What other "modernizations" would require this sort of concession?

AMDG said:

[/color]
An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sins that have already been forgiven by Christ in the Sacrament of Penance. Actually, it can't be sold (the selling of indulgences was done WITHOUT Church sanction). To obtain an indulgence certain conditions are required--the person must be free of all attachment to sin; AND must perform the indulgenced work pefectly as possible (going on a pilgrimage, or whatever the work was); AND within several days before or after, receive Sacramental Penance and Eucharistic Communion; AND offer prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father. And yes, indulgences still exist. Some of them are acts of charity for those in need and some are traditional prayers and devotions (like reading the Bible).

Click to expand...

For those of us whose primary association with indulgences is the process running from the 95 theses to the Diet of Worms, this statement requires clarification in a few respects:

* Luther's starting assumption in posting the 95 theses was that the pope was unaware of the abuse being propogated by the German bishops in terms of the sale of indulgences in particular, and in classically undiplomatic fashion he tried to raise public and clerical awareness of the abuse. The message he received in return was that if he continued to dare to question this practice he was to be burned as a heretic! IOW pope Leo X was entirely aware of the practice of the sale of indulgences and gave it his personal sanction. Are you saying that these are not the historical facts of the matter, or that as pope Leo was acting outside of the proper limits of Catholic doctrine? (I suspect that you have not read the original text of the 95 Theses, as I have not read the original text of the bull of excommunication, so perhaps we might each learn something from each other here.)

* The classic sales pitch for indulgences which Luther found most offensive was that by contributing to the building of St. Peter's Basillica, a person could enable their loved ones to escape from purgatory years earlier. Are you saying that acquiring indulgences by proxy for the deceased also goes against Catholic teaching (since one cannot insure the loved one's detatchment from sin and the loved one obviously can no longer receive the Eucharist)?

* When you refer to temporal punishment that indulgences can free the person from, are you speaking of things like the bad luck Mark was having on account of the weather the other day, or temporary punishment after death (purgatory) or church discipline in terms of exclusion from fellowship? Or is there some other definition for temporal punishment that I am overlooking here? Each of these alternatives raises a number of questions in return.

Once again, all standard disclaimers apply!

Peace, David

dhuisjen2 said:

In fact it did. So in other words it would not be heresy for Catholics to say that the majority of, say Urban II's or Leo X's pastoral teachings were wrong, provided they were not using the strict ex cathedra or Ordinary Magisterium formulas at the time. That would be a surprise to most Protestants to find out!

Click to expand...

Infallibility is only for Faiths fact, like Trinity, not for any other act or attitudes or believe of the Pope.
So if the pope believe that crusades are good acts, ot that IRAQ war is a bad act, these are not indeed infallible sentences.

So the infalible teaching of the church is that marriage is for procreaton, not to have lust with own wife. Any catholic from that general sentence can arrive to the result of not to use contraceptives.

dhuisjen2 said:

Let me clarify another matter though: are you saying that at this point in history it would not be possible for Catholics to accept birth control (or fertility treatments) or female clergy without relinquishing papal infalibility at the same time? What other "modernizations" would require this sort of concession?

Click to expand...

That is a trick question.
Even if the pope relinquish his infalibility (ad instance to get unity with orthodoxes), such matters will not change, because it is not the pope to decide on them, the pope simply teach them.
You can check, also Orthodox Churches have not women-priests, and they consider marriage a sacrament like us !!!!

Honestly, it has been YEARS since my study of Luther and the 95 thesis, but from what I can remember Luther got in trouble not for wanting the reform of the abuse of selling indulgences, but from the way he went about it (disrespectfully) and how he started adding questioning and disbelief to other firmly held doctrines. If I recall correctly, the political climate at the time also led political officials to want to squelch rebel-rousers. (I know it was not addressed, but I, personally, can't help but note that Luther was in Germany while the Pope was in Rome and there was no instant communication between them. I keep wondering what communication was finally told the Pope. Surely, it wasn't "there's this Augustinian monk who has an axe to grind with the Church and has posted...")

Hi AMDG

To be honest with you, philosophy of religion and ecumenical studies are more my specialty than church history per se, so I'm certainly not going to be critical of you for forgetting such matters that don't tend to relate to your day to day life, but the three basic issues I raised are things I want to reach a mutual understanding on.

FWDIM, I do honestly believe that the Protestant reformation, such as we had it, could never have taken place without the abusive sale of indulgences preceeding it, and that the Catholic church of today is something that Luther would have been more than satisfied with.

It is also worth pointing out that Philip Melanchthon, Luther's right hand man and legal advisor, actually managed to negotiate what he believed would be an acceptable compromise for reunion between the Lutherans and Catholics following Luther's death, but the political forces at work prevented it: the newly independent churches were enjoying their freedom too much to give it up after disagreements over the abuses which lead to the split had been settled. Melanchthon eventually became a bit of an outcast in his own camp.

So we all have room to grow...

Peace, David

Here's a common misconception:

We all drink a lot of beer. I've actually had people tell me that.

An interesting story I'd like to tack on here, which might be worth a thread of its own, though not this week:

I toured the Vatican once about 20 years ago, mostly walking around on my own with my 35mm camera, but I managed to partially drift along behind a group being guided around by this lovely old Irish priest telling the history and the moral lessons behind each of the larger statues there. Particularly memorable was his description of the statue of St. Peter to the right (from the congretation's perspective) of the main altar.

He first of all pointed out that the sculptor had effectively done a shoddy hack job of it by taking an old statue of a Roman senator and lopping the head and hands off so that he could put on the trademark curly hair and bearded fisherman's features associated with Peter, and so he could make one hand signing a blessing and the other holding the keys to the kingdom. So overall the authenticity of the image of Peter there is highly questionable.

But his main point was that this did not stop that statue from being the object of immense superstitious attention. He pointed out how people continuously walk up and rub or kiss the right foot of the statue (one of the conspicuously unauthentic features of the work) to the point where over the years the big toe had been entirely worn away! This, the dear old guide explained, was a superstitious ritual which was intended to insure that the person would be able someday to return to St. Peter's, but there was no official sanction for such a practice. It was a superstition, and faith and superstition, in his opinion, need to be kept as far apart as possible.

I've pondered that a lot since then. To what extent do people within all branches of Christiandom base their life on magical superstitions, even though their leaders consistently try to discourage this? To what extent is it inevitable that superstitions will supplement or replace theology among the less educated in all traditions? At what point do superstitions become harmful and prevent the person from truly growing in grace and knowledge of our saviour? Under what circumstances, on the other hand, can superstitious rituals bring an affective element into one's religious experience that is more emotionally satisfying and reinforcing of one's beliefs than statements of doctrine can be? For that matter, to what extent is each religious tradition responsible for the superstitious beliefs it passively accepts, even if it doesn't officially approve of them?

These are questions that theologians of all stripes should consider, but they are perhaps most relevant to the Catholic Church, in that, as a factor related to the age of her traditions, she has (both literally and figuratively) the "most skeletons in her closets" in this regard.

Perhaps this is one of the main causes of misunderstandings concerning Catholics. If so, how do you believe the issue should be dealt with?

Random Sunday evening ramblings of an outsider, FWTW.

Peace still, David

Simon_Templar said:

...Thats just a small selection, mostly thanks to everyone's dear friend Mr Chick.

Click to expand...

Of course if you really want to get offensive about it you should start quoting Frank Zappa, but please, let's not go there!

dhuisjen2 said:

He pointed out how people continuously walk up and rub or kiss the right foot of the statue (one of the conspicuously unauthentic features of the work) to the point where over the years the big toe had been entirely worn away! This, the dear old guide explained, was a superstitious ritual which was intended to insure that the person would be able someday to return to St. Peter's, but there was no official sanction for such a practice. It was a superstition, and faith and superstition, in his opinion, need to be kept as far apart as possible.

Click to expand...

Yes, superstitions are everywhere, not only in catholic countries:

- Santa Claus is a superstition (against christianism)
- Halloween is a supestition.
and so on

dhuisjen2 said:

It was a superstition, and faith and superstition, in his opinion, need to be kept as far apart as possible.

Click to expand...

"2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed Himself to His people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion..."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church covers "superstition" in #2110-2111 as well as in 2138 where it states that "Supersition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic."

Of course one has to know exactly what IS superstition. Is it something someone just observes another doing and therefore says to himself "THAT'S superstitious" regardless of what the intent of the person or is it something else? (When a person kisses the photo of a loved one, is it superstitious or is it simply that the photo reminds the person of the loved one and at the moment it's all that they have.)

Superstitions exist everywhere in life--not just in religion. (I know people who insist on reading their horoscope in the newspaper each day, others who refuse or get out of bed on Friday 13th, or refuse to have the number 666 associated with them and more. All supertitious. Hardly really helpful, but hardly a violation of the First Commandment against idolatry, IMO.)

As for your statement about the traditions of the Catholic Church, I hope that you know the difference between Traditions (capital "T") and traditions (small "t").

AMDG said:

Superstitions exist everywhere in life--not just in religion. (I know people who insist on reading their horoscope in the newspaper each day, others who refuse or get out of bed on Friday 13th, or refuse to have the number 666 associated with them and more. All supertitious. Hardly really helpful, but hardly a violation of the First Commandment against idolatry, IMO.)

As for your statement about the traditions of the Catholic Church, I hope that you know the difference between Traditions (capital "T") and traditions (small "t").

Click to expand...

Points acknowledged. Distinctions recognized. Questions remain open.

Blessings, David

Bump
(I'd still like to know...)