YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLICISM

[Major1]

As you stated so well in your 3rd paragraph, it is not always the traditions themselves, but the legalism that can be associated with such traditions. In these situations, it becomes more about keeping a law, than about faith in Christ. The good Samaritan is a prime example, the Pharisees were on their way to temple, and touching the poor guy who was beaten by thieves would have made them unclean; yet Christ holds the Samaritan who cared more for the injured man than for himself, and even paid to have him lodged during his recovery, in much higher esteem than he did the pious Jew who strives to keep the law.

Ultimately, the problem may not lie so much in the tradition itself, but rather the forensic treatment of holding and keeping those traditions. The real issue falls on the miss-placed exercise of authority.

Excellent. I agree completly with that.

 

[concretecamper]

WHY should I do such a thing??? Don't YOU have a bible??? Don't YOU have a computer???

And when I do, will you not reject them????

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:21
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

John 10:35
If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken!

Stike 2, please show us all where scripture says that it is the sum total of ALL Divine Revelation.

 

[concretecamper]

"For you are save by GRACE THROUGH FAITH and not of yourselves".

I noticed how you didnt capitalize BY.

Only a Sola Scripturist could conveniently ignore "For you are saved by Grace"

As expected, Trent agrees with scripture:

If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema

If there is another way to be saved, now would be the time to post it.

you've done it for me. We are Saved by Grace.

Try to look beyound religion and to the Word of God. Religion does not save anyone and in fact it actyllay keeps men from being saved.

Christ established the Church to save souls from Satan. One cannot save themselves. One cannot independently pick up the bible and declare themselves saved. I put my trust in Christ. I suggest we all do the same.

 

[Major1]

I noticed how you didnt capitalize BY.

Only a Sola Scripturist could conveniently ignore "For you are saved by Grace"

As expected, Trent agrees with scripture:

If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema

you've done it for me. We are Saved by Grace.
Christ established the Church to save souls from Satan. One cannot save themselves. One cannot independently pick up the bible and declare themselves saved. I put my trust in Christ. I suggest we all do the same.

You said.........
"Christ established the Church to save souls from Satan. One cannot save themselves. One cannot independently pick up the "

That is an in-correct statement which any Christian teenager can correct.

God gave His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to save souls from Satan and hell.

The church has never and will never save anyone any more that keeping the law saved anyone in the Old Test.

Ephesians 2:9........
"not by works, so that no one can boast."

Good bye Mr. Camper and be safe in these days we live in.

 

[concretecamper]

You said.........
"Christ established the Church to save souls from Satan. One cannot save themselves. One cannot independently pick up the "

I said much more too

That is an in-correct statement which any Christian teenager can correct.

hmm, I doubt it

God gave His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to save souls from Satan and hell.

precisely

The church has never and will never save anyone any more that keeping the law saved anyone in the Old Test.

According to scripture, Christ and His Church are One. I can see how teenage thinking missed that.

Good bye Mr. Camper and be safe in these days we live in.

be safe also

 

[zippy2006]

A 'Brother' is normally a monk, who lives in a monastery. Not working in a school etc.

Monks and Franciscan friars are called Brothers. Many are also priests but not all are. Monks usually live in a monastery but a Franciscan friar may not.

Some well known orders of monks are Benedictines, Dominicans, Trappists and Carmelites. Each order has different missions in the Church, e.g. teachers, preachers, missionaries and those who are devoted to prayer.

Hello Lost4words, thanks, that's what I always thought too, but I've run into them a number of times in schools (there were at least three brothers working at my son's Catholic HS for instance, one, in fact, was the head of the school, and we referred to all of them as "Brother" so and so when talking to or about them).

This was an all boys Catholic HS. Perhaps the "brothers" were there instead of nuns (who seemed very involved in our all girls Catholic HS's here in town, but were no where to be found in our two all boys Catholic HS's)?

Thanks again.

--David
p.s. - our son's school was in the Marianist tradition, if that makes any difference?

Generally speaking in the Catholic world there are ("active") consecrated religious who live in the world and ("contemplative") consecrated religious who are cloistered from the world. The men who live in the world are called friars (Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Marists...); the women are called sisters (Sisters of Mercy, Missionaries of Charity...). The men who are cloistered are called monks (Benedictines, Carthusians, Cistercians, Norbertines...); the women are called nuns (Poor Clares, Second-Order Dominicans...).

The names get a little tricky due to the fact that many contemplative Orders have become more active, so you might see active monks or active "nuns". This is especially true in the United States. When you translate everything into English we end up calling monks and friars "brother" indiscriminately. Finally, there is the custom of calling priests "Father," such that monks or friars who are ordained are often called "Father".

If there is a male religious working in a school he would most likely be a friar, and you would call him "brother" (or "Father" if he is ordained). He could also be an active monk, in which case you would call him the same thing.

Clear as mud?

So, what is a Catholic "brother", and what do they normally do in church and/or in school? Also, are they paid staff, or are they volunteers? Oh, and can they marry, or are they under the same restrictions that priests and nuns are under concerning marriage?

A friar could really perform any function at a school, but nowadays he would probably work in administration or teach religion. A friar who is a priest would probably be a chaplain and perhaps also teach religion. Traditionally non-ordained friars and monks ("brothers") would do more menial work, such as supporting the monastery or priory, cooking, cleaning, repairing buildings, etc. It has become more egalitarian over time, but canonical restrictions still exist for the non-ordained.

They would probably be paid staff, though at times they could be volunteers. Either way the money would go to their Order rather than to them, since they have taken a vow of poverty. They are celibate, just like a priest. All Catholic consecrated religious effectively take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and none of them can be married. Indeed, diocesan priests are not even vowed to celibacy in the same way that religious are, and thus are "more" able to be married (say, in the case of an Anglican convert or somesuch thing).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Generally speaking in the Catholic world there are ("active") consecrated religious who live in the world and ("contemplative") consecrated religious who are cloistered from the world. The men who live in the world are called friars (Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Marists...); the women are called sisters (Sisters of Mercy, Missionaries of Charity...). The men who are cloistered are called monks (Benedictines, Carthusians, Cistercians, Norbertines...); the women are called nuns (Poor Clares, Second-Order Dominicans...).

The names get a little tricky due to the fact that many contemplative Orders have become more active, so you might see active monks or active "nuns". This is especially true in the United States. When you translate everything into English we end up calling monks and friars "brother" indiscriminately. Finally, there is the custom of calling priests "Father," such that monks or friars who are ordained are often called "Father".

If there is a male religious working in a school he would most likely be a friar, and you would call him "brother" (or "Father" if he is ordained). He could also be an active monk, in which case you would call him the same thing.

Clear as mud?

I have always been curious as to when the RCC decided to use an adjective (religious) as a noun. Do you know?

 

[zippy2006]

I have always been curious as to when the RCC decided to use an adjective (religious) as a noun. Do you know?

I'm not really sure. It's probably a consequence of the way Latin texts talk about the religious state. For example, in Vita Consecrata #25 John Paul II uses religiosis as a noun. Aquinas does the same thing with religiosus in ST II.II.186.2. I am fairly certain that the Rules of Benedict and Augustine do not use the word that way, so my guess is that it started sometime between Benedict of Nursia and Peter Lombard, at least after the idea of a "religious state of life" was somewhat developed. It might even be later, after the Mendicants were founded and began theologizing about religious life apart from simple monasticism.

It is part of the Catholic tradition to see religion as a natural virtue and to see Christianity as a religion. A "religious" would therefore be someone who is particularly dedicated to the virtue of religion: their whole life is dedicated to God.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am infuriated by the apparent attempt by Pope Francis to revoke Summorum Pontificum and I want to ask my traditional Roman Catholic friends how bad this new instruction is? Like, are the diocesan Latin masses likely to go away?

Rorate Caeli published an article to the extent that the new motu proprio Traditione Custodes is limited in scope to a literal reading and might not have the intended effect because it inadvertently refers to the 1965 missal.

I really wish Pope Benedict had not resigned, and that Pope Francis would. I have to be very frank: I probably would have converted to Roman Catholicism in the past decade were it not for Pope Francis.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not really sure. It's probably a consequence of the way Latin texts talk about the religious state. For example, in Vita Consecrata #25 John Paul II uses religiosis as a noun. Aquinas does the same thing with religiosus in ST II.II.186.2. I am fairly certain that the Rules of Benedict and Augustine do not use the word that way, so my guess is that it started sometime between Benedict of Nursia and Peter Lombard, at least after the idea of a "religious state of life" was somewhat developed. It might even be later, after the Mendicants were founded and began theologizing about religious life apart from simple monasticism.

It is part of the Catholic tradition to see religion as a natural virtue and to see Christianity as a religion. A "religious" would therefore be someone who is particularly dedicated to the virtue of religion: their whole life is dedicated to God.

Thank you!

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am infuriated by the apparent attempt by Pope Francis to revoke Summorum Pontificum and I want to ask my traditional Roman Catholic friends how bad this new instruction is? Like, are the diocesan Latin masses likely to go away?

In some dioceses Latin masses will be forced underground. In the long run no new priests will be given faculties to say the Latin mass. Doesn’t look good. But a good bishop will allow it and some bishops have already stated that they will.

Rorate Caeli published an article to the extent that the new motu proprio Traditione Custodes is limited in scope to a literal reading and might not have the intended effect because it inadvertently refers to the 1965 missal.

The text is sloppy. But the effect will be that where a bishop wants to stomp on priests and communities that prefer the Latin mass, this facilitates that stomping.

I really wish Pope Benedict had not resigned, and that Pope Francis would. I have to be very frank: I probably would have converted to Roman Catholicism in the past decade were it not for Pope Francis.

I feel for you. This is a pope to endure. Not at all easy. He has a right to use his authority in this manner but it is nonetheless a gross mistake. I could go on and on. I only go to a rare Latin mass, having been to one in the past year. Still, I feel stomped on. My abp will probably make generous allowances for Latin masses.

By the way, there are such things as novus ordo Latin masses. Should not be banned by this.

Anyhow, this has made me mad. But a pope comes and a pope goes, if only I can endure this one.

 

[The Liturgist]

I feel for you. This is a pope to endure. Not at all easy. He has a right to use his authority in this manner but it is nonetheless a gross mistake.

Does he though? This is my main headache, the problem that a bad pope can cause such devastation in the RCC.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Does he though? This is my main headache, the problem that a bad pope can cause such devastation in the RCC.

And we all know there have been plenty of bad popes, but the RCC goes on. Our RCC friends are prompt to assure us that the gates of hell will not prevail against their church. So, ultimately, it seems that the quality, or lack thereof, of a pope is not at all that significant.

 

[Albion]

And we all know there have been plenty of bad popes, but the RCC goes on. Our RCC friends are prompt to assure us that the gates of hell will not prevail against their church. So, ultimately, it seems that the quality, or lack thereof, of a pope is not at all that significant.

That seems reasonable to say.

If, for example, knowing that the Great Western Schism, during which time there were two lines of Popes, each with their College of Cardinals, etc., and then, briefly, three of them...

or having the presiding bishop (the Pope) of the Diocese of Rome moved off to France...

does not cause any doubts for the faithful, then having another bad Pope once in awhile is not likely to shake the belief that the denomination is infallible and is the only true church.

 

[concretecamper]

So, ultimately, it seems that the quality, or lack thereof, of a pope is not at all that significant.

humans are weak. We count on God and His promise.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Does he though? This is my main headache, the problem that a bad pope can cause such devastation in the RCC.

A bad pope has legislative power, and he can misuse that power to do bad, evil, nefarious things. He could ban English at mass if he wanted to and only allow Spanish. It would be absurd. It would backfire. It would be an evil thing for him to do. I would hazard to guess that he sinned in exercising his authority. Same authority that the old temple priests had, where Jesus said to do what they say but not as they do.

We have had bad popes before. We will have them again. And we have one now. It's hard, especially after a run of good ones.

 

[Placemat]

humans are weak. We count on God and His promise.

But who taught you that His promise was about the Catholic church specifically, sincerely, how do you determine that this teaching is true?

 

[Valletta]

But who taught you that His promise was about the Catholic church specifically, sincerely, how do you determine that this teaching is true?

Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God. As per the Bible, Jesus renamed Simon as Rock (Peter) and gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, making Peter our first pope. Jesus gave him His promise.

 

[Placemat]

Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God. As per the Bible, Jesus renamed Simon as Rock (Peter) and gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, making Peter our first pope. Jesus gave him His promise.

Who taught you this, as concrete camper and others have pointed out, how weak or unfaithful and unreliable, etc.etc. humans are, so who taught Catholics that Peter was their first pope?

 

[concretecamper]

But who taught you that His promise was about the Catholic church specifically, sincerely, how do you determine that this teaching is true?

the bible taught us all that Authority was given the the Apostles as a whole and to Peter as an individual. It ain't rocket science. I suggest to study what the "Keys" meant in the Davidic Kingdom.