i know so many catholics (including relatives and friends) who live christ-like beautiful lives
i know so many catholics (including relatives and friends) who live devil-like horrible lives
i've seen parishes with priests who truly love god and people and carry out christ’s loving work
i've seen parishes with priests that i think should be burned down
i personally cannot find god’s comfort in a catholic church, but i don’t deny someone else theirs
as far as “the” catholic church, well that’s another story....
I think your observations would be applicable to any group, and, all things considered with your personal history, are remarkably charitable. I hope that you will some day be able to find some place where you can have some real peace and reconcilliation, although I can fully understand why it wouldn't be within a Catholic church.
By the way, "i've seen parishes with priests that i think should be burned down" -- are you suggesting burning the parish or the parish priest?
A big selling point for TWI back in the 60's and 70's was the claim to not being a church, or a religion.
Oldies has done a fine job pointing out that TWI in many aspects has become what they always claimed they weren't. So TWI has become a denomination without the safe guards most organized religions have in place to protect their members and their donations.
One more reason among many to find someplace else to place loyalties. That is unless one likes the Kool-Aide
Well, they *could* be, if that is the only way a poor soul thinks they might get saved.
Reminds me of when I was a youngster, I was living in so much fear and horror that I'd die and wouldn't go to heaven, not knowing whether I was God's child, or was good enough to eternally enter His kingdom, that I wore a cloth pendant, raising the odds that upon my death, it might matter.
I remember reciting the Hail Mary over and over and over again.
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, amen".
over and over and over and over ....
I also remember that the Roman Catholic church has traditionally held that salvation may be attained only through observance of their sacraments.
Therefore, they have set themselves apart as the only true church.
Only through them, one may have a chance for salvation.
The thing that frightens me about the RC church is the praying to the saints .
I wonder if it is a type of idol worship, and other "gods".
As far as the trinity goes, I have never been instructed about what the trinity is so I can not say it is right or wrong.
when I was in twi I said it was wrong to some strict catholic friends who are now clergy in twi.
funny isnt it?
Jesus isnt god but again I do not know what the RC teaches about who Jesus is enough to comment on how I think about what they teach.
As far as what mark is calling works. well all groups have "woks" they encourage their followers to do.
all of them.. think about it.
give money, buy our tapes listen to our advise, get involed in some way or another to belong.. do what we do to worship the LORD... if I break it down it is all "works" of some sort.
and the purpose is to help people find a life winthin a spirital, sense a sense of belonging and community and purpose.
can it be wrong?
I do not think all people enjoy what one group does... that is why it is many memebers of the body of christ. who is to say what is the wrong part?
As far as christ like life well honestly the chronicle of the man Jesus christ is indeed quite miserable and deadly.. not one anyone with a any sense of happiness or peace.would lke to live.
So we think He is what we should be like? God calls him the ONLY Saviour the ONLY Begotten... honestly no one can be HIm or "like" him.
illusions of who somone is or isnt or looks like runs wild in our culture, the bible speaks of fools who believe them.
well i don't know.... praying to saints doesn't bother me so much.... my mom talks to her mother in her head all the time and my grandmother was a saint....
thanks mark
A big selling point for TWI back in the 60's and 70's was the claim to not being a church, or a religion.
yeah damn it and they were worse (for me, personally), wingnut :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:
Well, they *could* be, if that is the only way a poor soul thinks they might get saved.
Reminds me of when I was a youngster, I was living in so much fear and horror that I'd die and wouldn't go to heaven, not knowing whether I was God's child, or was good enough to eternally enter His kingdom, that I wore a cloth pendant, raising the odds that upon my death, it might matter.
I remember reciting the Hail Mary over and over and over again.
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, amen".
over and over and over and over ....
I also remember that the Roman Catholic church has traditionally held that salvation may be attained only through observance of their sacraments.
Therefore, they have set themselves apart as the only true church.
Only through them, one may have a chance for salvation.
But there are no guarantees!
Oldies,
We undoubtedly believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church. But this statement must be understood in the proper context -- and, unfortunately, that context is often times not taught (particularly for veterans of the Baltimore Catechism). You must always remember when reading this that, from the Catholic Church's perspective, the Church is Christianity itself. When these statements were developed, there was only one Church. Over a period of time, there have been groups who have chosen to leave the Church for one reason or another. But many of the doctrines of the Church they still hold true. Many of these groups still profess belief in the historical creeds, for example. Many of them practice a form of the sacraments, most specifically baptism. Most accept major portions of sacred scripture as being the inspired Word of God. In other words, much of the light of the teachings of the apostles still shines on them...
So a more accurate way of saying this (given today's realities) would be: There is no salvation outside the light of Christ and the fullness of this light is available through the Church.
(I say the above not as an offense to anybody, by the way. If you are offended, my apologies)
You mention having to pray the "Hail Mary" over and over. I assume you are talking about saying a Rosary. As a child, I have a feeling that you were likely taught the rote actions of the Rosary without being taught what the Rosary actually was. It goes a lot deeper than merely repeating "hail mary's" interspaced with a couple of "Our Fathers" and "Glory Be's." You likely were not taught how to meditate on the mysteries while you were saying the prayers...you may not have even been provided full instruction on what those mysteries were and where they were located in the Bible. (Mystery in this case refers to a particular event in the life of Christ, such as the birth of Christ, the carrying of the Cross, the Resurrection, etc.). Its a pity, too, because devotion to a regime of meditative prayer on the scriptures, such as the Rosary, is an incredible way for one to be drawn to a much richer relationship with Christ.
You mention a piece of cloth. I assume you are talking about a scapular (a brown scapular, in particular, if I'd have to guess). Again, the fact that you weren't taught about the meaning of that scapular and what is behind it is a true shame. I would bet that your parents, although I'm sure quite religious, were not properly taught, as well. The scapular is merely an external sign that a lay person has made a commitment to Carmelite spirituality. It is NOT a magical charm. The commitment one makes when invested into the Brown Scapular is to follow Jesus, like his mother Mary did. By that it means to be open to the will of God; to listen (and study) the Word of God, to believe it and put it in practice in your life, to pray always and to put yourself in the presence of God in all things, and to be involved with other people (remember the corporal and spiritual works of mercy I mentioned in an earlier post?). The scapular simply is a reminder to yourself that you have made that commitment and a sign to others (particularly if you wear it on the outside of your clothes). The promise of the brown scapular is: '"whoever dies wearing this (Scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire."' Well, obviously, with an understanding of the background of what is involved with the scapular, it sounds much less superstitious than if one is just handed a piece of cloth and told to wear it as a talisman.
You mention not knowing if you'd go to heaven or hell. The following is an assumption on my part (so no offense if I'm wrong on this part), but, again, I would wager that you were likely brought up in an very scrupulous home setting...I would wager that you were not clearly taught the difference between mortal and venial sin (mortal sin being characterized by three factors: the objective gravity of the act, the knowledge of the person committing the act [ignorance can be an excuse in some cases], and that the person committing the act must have done so as the result of a deliberate decision to do so). As an example, if a woman goes out with a 'gentleman,' he got her drunk or drugged (e.g., fed her triple rum and cokes instead of single ones), and then, when she is intoxicated, takes her to a hotel room and takes advantage of her, she would not be accountable for that act. Why? Even though fornication is objectively wrong and (presumably) she knew that this fornication was wrong, she was, because her date got her drunk through deception, not in a position to make a deliberate decision.
See, oldies, my heart truly goes out to a lot of ex-Catholics. The vast majority of those whom I've met become ex-Catholic not because of the teachings of the Church, but because they were inadequately taught by those who were supposed to teach them the Faith. There are exceptions to this generalization (OK, excathedra), but those are in the minority. For too many years, catechesis of the laity has been limited for the most part to learning the Baltimore Catechism and that was that...in fact, in some, if not most, circles, the tendancy was to suppress questioning rather than to encourage it for those who needed to get a deeper understanding than what the old catechism taught. Is that a fault of the theology and the doctrine of the Church? No. But it is clearly a fault of those who were responsible for passing on the faith. That approach may have been appropriate for the catechesis of the children of serfs or of the working class, who likely would never learn to read and who, in all likelihood, would not have the time or energy to consider deeper spiritual concepts, but in todays pluralistic society with its abundance of free time, it clearly does not adequately arm a person to deal with the spiritual challenges of modern life. They've made great strides to correct that...the publication of the new catechism in 1993, putting the writings of the popes, councils, and curial agencies online so that they can be studied, and many other changes, along with the offering of university-level adult faith enrichment classes...all of these efforts are helping, but those efforts do little to help the generations who weren't given a good grounding to begin with. Those folks are subject to flaky cults (I am speaking about some strange cults that are made up of Catholics), pointy-head heterodox liberals, or complete disenchantment (such as what has happened to the vast majority of former Catholic GSers).
By the way, I'm not suggesting that the few words of explanation that I provide are going to make a particle of difference to you, I'm not hardly that naive! (there are a few decades of despising everything the Church stands for that would interfere with this) But I do, never the less, appreciate any opportunity provided to clarify things.
Well, call me a working class bum Mark, but I don't quite buy the view you're presenting of the current Catholic church, nor that the vast network of parishes in the western U.S. and the education they provided was deficient in passing on what the true essence of the Catholic faith (was). The Code of Canon Law has been under development for a long time. Subjection to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, Peter or whomever as a critical requirement to salvation is just one item of many. I dont choose to recognize his authority, spiritually or politically.
That's not to deny that there isn't a great deal of value in Catholicism. Like I say, they've got some of the best buldings around. I still credit those 10 years of education I got with instilling in me my interest in literature and philosophy, as well as some of the best "old school" readin', writin' and 'rithmetic skills when compared to others my own age.
Plus, one of the recent popes made a great statement I read not long ago. He was on a plane and a writer was along, and he asked the pope what he thought about the statements being made about the tragedy of 9/11 and that it was an action of judgment by god. The writer said the pope stopped and paused and said "it is not an easy thing to know the intentions of god". I thought that was an interesting statement, certainly an honest one coming from him in both how he sees himself and how he knows others see him.
Quote See, oldies, my heart truly goes out to a lot of ex-Catholics. The vast majority of those whom I've met become ex-Catholic not because of the teachings of the Church, but because they were inadequately taught by those who were supposed to teach them the Faith. There are exceptions to this generalization (OK, excathedra), but those are in the minority
Mark I would disagree with you I have had 12 years of Catholic education, also all of my 3 aunts were Sisters of Charity I am full aware of the meanings behind their rituals. That is exactly why I have nothing to do with their church. Rosaries,indulgences and holy cards and scapulars and a line of crazy Popes who did things that are so atrocious that they should invent a new class of sin just for them. Not to mention that none of it has any Biblical basis. I don't remember Jesus or his followers wearing scapulars or counting beads and they acted a world of differant than the so called clergy of the church. No the lessons were quite clear power greed money all in the name of religion and God.
Well, call me a working class bum Mark, but I don't quite buy the view you're presenting of the current Catholic church, nor that the vast network of parishes in the western U.S. and the education they provided was deficient in passing on what the true essence of the Catholic faith (was). The Code of Canon Law has been under development for a long time. Subjection to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, Peter or whomever as a critical requirement to salvation is just one item of many. I dont choose to recognize his authority, spiritually or politically.
That's not to deny that there isn't a great deal of value in Catholicism. Like I say, they've got some of the best buldings around. I still credit those 10 years of education I got with instilling in me my interest in literature and philosophy, as well as some of the best "old school" readin', writin' and 'rithmetic skills when compared to others my own age.
Plus, one of the recent popes made a great statement I read not long ago. He was on a plane and a writer was along, and he asked the pope what he thought about the statements being made about the tragedy of 9/11 and that it was an action of judgment by god. The writer said the pope stopped and paused and said "it is not an easy thing to know the intentions of god". I thought that was an interesting statement, certainly an honest one coming from him in both how he sees himself and how he knows others see him.
Socks,
Call me an elitist, but I don't expect you to buy the view I'm portraying of the Catholic Church. And if you choose not to buy into Catholicism and choose to reject it for whatever reasons, fine. Your business. I am NOT trying to act as some kind of evangelist here, believe me.
As to the quality of Catholic Education throughout the western united states, I can't speak to that at all. What I can speak to is my own observations. Although what I was referring to, specifically was the training provided kids who didn't have the benefit of going through 12 years of Catholic education...those who only went through a few years of catechism class on hour a week until their confirmation. That was, in fact, the majority of people.
As to your comment, <i>The Code of Canon Law has been under development for a long time. Subjection to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, Peter or whomever as a critical requirement to salvation is just one item of many.</i> I'm not sure what, exactly, the code of canon law has to do with any discussion here, but I will agree that it has been under development for centuries. The latest edition to it was put out in 1983. I think you're connecting baptism (since that is the sacrament of salvation) with canon law and with subjecting yourself to the Pontiff. Well, honestly, I've seen a lot of baptisms (including my daughter's) and I don't recall swearing an oath of allegiance to the Holy Father as one of the baptismal vows. Those that I recall (and I don't have a copy of the rite of baptism in front of me here) is a rejection of Satan and affirmation of belief of the statements contained in the Apostle's Creed.
As to the Pope's authority as the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, etc., I refer to my comment in my first paragraph. Your business. However, let me point out that unless you are an 'independent,' and not affiliated with any group, denomination, ministry, or whatever, you are subjecting yourself to that group's rules. Even if you don't buy, as I perceive, the concept of apostolic succession, you have to acknowledge this as the truth. If you question this, just walk into any church out there and try to forcibly advance a completely controversial position, such as TWI's position on the Trinity.
<i>Plus, one of the recent popes made a great statement I read not long ago. He was on a plane and a writer was along, and he asked the pope what he thought about the statements being made about the tragedy of 9/11 and that it was an action of judgment by god. The writer said the pope stopped and paused and said "it is not an easy thing to know the intentions of god". I thought that was an interesting statement, certainly an honest one coming from him in both how he sees himself and how he knows others see him.</i>
I seem to remember reading something like that being attributed to JPII. I also seem to recall a firestorm of controversy around that statement when it was first published. Looking back on it, I think that it was just about the only thing he could say. Consider this: he is the pastor for Christians literally all over the world, including many areas where they are the minority in a hostile environment. So had he pulled a Pat Robertson and said "it is the judgement of God," he'd be branded, on one hand, a fool, and on the other hand, would have endorsed terrorism. Alternatively, had he rejected it out of hand as being a judgement of God, he would have been giving the US a blanket endorsement to do whatever it willed as being an especially blessed country (an remember, he was not an American and didn't particularly care for Americans to begin with). So what else could he have said in his position?
The bottom line is that I am not so naive as to assume that my words will change anybody's mind here. But I am thankful for the opportunity to speak, nevertheless.
Quote See, oldies, my heart truly goes out to a lot of ex-Catholics. The vast majority of those whom I've met become ex-Catholic not because of the teachings of the Church, but because they were inadequately taught by those who were supposed to teach them the Faith. There are exceptions to this generalization (OK, excathedra), but those are in the minority
Mark I would disagree with you I have had 12 years of Catholic education, also all of my 3 aunts were Sisters of Charity I am full aware of the meanings behind their rituals. That is exactly why I have nothing to do with their church. Rosaries,indulgences and holy cards and scapulars and a line of crazy Popes who did things that are so atrocious that they should invent a new class of sin just for them. Not to mention that none of it has any Biblical basis. I don't remember Jesus or his followers wearing scapulars or counting beads and they acted a world of differant than the so called clergy of the church. No the lessons were quite clear power greed money all in the name of religion and God.
White Dove,
You'll note that I took the liberty to highlight a portion of the statement I made earlier with you specifically in mind.
I'm sorry for your rage. If it makes you feel better, feel free to vent any time. But I am glad your 12 years of Catholic education gave you a time portal so that you can so confidently state exactly how the apostles dressed and how they acted. Hopefully my daughter will be able to show me this time portal when she finishes her 12 years of Catholic education. The early Christian artifacts I've seen when living in the middle east and the documents I've read from the early church were obviously forgeries. Its good that somebody is able to point that out to me now. My faith is shaken down to its core.
I'm also so sorry that your three aunts were so horribly decieved. I hope they were all able to escape and repent of their apostasy to true Christianity before they died.
In all seriousness though, I simply don't have the time to deal with every point you made right now. I hope to do so presently, but of course that refutation would not be for your benefit. With your background, its obvious that anything I said would not impact your beliefs whatsoever.
The easier route is to simply "agree to disagree." But, of course, with your level of hostility that offer wouldn't be accepted. But one way or the other...
Mark we can agree to disagree that's fine If you are happy with your choice I have no concern in it.
But.... and it's a big one you are promoting a view that is not factually true for discussion. You seem to misinterpret truth as rage sorry it's not the same.
Perhaps you should put the beads down and back away and study the history of the church it is inconsistent with the view you presented.
I have no porthole into the past only what is recorded in church history and the Bible.
Can you show me any record in scripture where Jesus or his followers spoke of Rosaries and Scapulars and if they have such powers why then would Jesus not have mentioned them in his time here on earth and the record of scripture he left us? There is none! it is based on mary worship a claim that a dead person spoke to someone in 1251. It has nothing to do with Jesus or any thing he taught spoke or lived in biblical history. Too bad for all those who lived before 1251 they got no power I guess.
"Whosoever dies clothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire" - Mary's promise to St. Simon Stock - July 16, 1251
The Blessed Virgin Mary told Saint Dominic "One day, through the Rosary and Scapular I will save the world."
The devils revealed to Francis of yepes, the brother of St. John of the Cross, that three things especially tormented them. The first is the Name of Jesus; the second, the Name of Mary, and the third, the Brown Scapular of our Lady of Mt. Carmel. "Take off that habit," they cried to him, "which snatches so many souls from us. All those clothed in it die piously and escape us."
Your Scapular, then, should take on deep meaning for you. It is a rich present brought down from Heaven by Our Lady herself.
"Wear it devoutly and perseveringly," she says to each soul, "it is my garment. To be clothed in it means you are continually thinking of me, and I in turn, am always thinking of you and helping you to secure eternal life."
Without saying to Mary that we venerate Her, love Her and trust her, we tell Her these things every moment of the day, by simply wearing the scapular.
"The Rosary and Scapular are inseparable" - Testimony by Lucia, to whom Our Lady appeared at Fatima with the rosary and scapular.
A former prior general of the Carmelite Order, the Most Rev. Kilian Lynch, warned against abusing the scapular devotion. "Let us not conclude," he said, "that the scapular is endowed with some kind of supernatural power which will save us no matter what we do or how much we sin...Fidelity to the commandments is required by those seeking 'the special love and protection of our Lady.'"
Gee mary spirit I thought we already had a Saviour ,oh thats in the Bible I forgot not the Papal decrees
And aren't rosaries made up of repetitive prayers I think he did address that subject?
Indulgences -(you could read Martin Luther's commentary on this) but again Can you show me any scripture where Jesus and company sold forgiveness for money?
Popes- Now they are the Vicar of Christ according to the church here is some of what I learned in church history lets see if they acted like Christ.
I don't have the time or desire to research all of the Pope's for you but you can Google it or read up on it yourself. Even allowing for some inaccuracies in the sites the facts are pretty obvious.
Here is one I did find online though from Catholic Answers.
Mark, understood. I didn't get the impression you're evangelizing, just stating your views on your religious choice. That's fine, it's your choice. Buuuut you may be reading into posts emotion that isn't there. Either way, for the record, I have no "rage" either. It's difficult to communicate the tone of these words in a post, so picture what I'm saying as being conversational.
The fact that I was a Catholic at one time and am not one now doesn't mean I left the Catholic church hurt, angry, raged, or anything like that. My comments are critical, but they're not angry. I was raised Catholic, and later as I grew into making my own decisions, I left active participation in the church. I certainly retained some of what I felt was of value to me and left the rest. It's not really that complicated, there's really no emotion involved in my thoughts here.
I'd also say that in normal relationships if someone asked me the question that was asked on this thread topic, I'd probably respond very moderately, as I did initially. If a person is looking for something, church, fellowship, growth in their life as a person, answers to needs or questions, and felt they wanted to check out the R.C. church, I'd respond, great, you may like it, let me know what you think if you do. Given an opportunity, if we spoke about it more, I'd be more interested in what it is they're looking for and need. There's lots available. If R.C-ism fills some or all of that need, I can celebrate the success that person has.
At the same time though an adult making a lifetime committment to "be" a Catholic is going to deal with some of these issues in the RCIA's. But babies being baptized don't deal with issues, they're given the sacrament. As one matures, through First Communion and Confirmation and continued involvement and training the full doctrine is learned and absorbed. That's the way I learned it.
Apostolic succession is a non-issue with me. I don't accept it, period. Has nothing to do with the men selected or their performance or weaknesses, I don't accept the office and that interpretation of Matthew and Jesus's words, so it doesn't matter to me who fills it.
But I understand where you're coming from, I think. If you're happy, great. I think some of the beliefs are wrong, but if you're not hurting anyone or breaking the law and basically living a civil life you're fine with me, as are all R.C.'s. If you're getting something out of it, great. Friends I have that are members of the church aren't horrible people, they're generally pretty nice.
Many Catholic apologists take the stance that criticisms of the faith are due to misunderstanding of the finer points of the doctrine and the heart and intent. I didn't misunderstand what I was taught, I followed it for many years and pursued it through my teen years. I was a Catholic, and once the choice was up to me I chose to continue my learning and growth. That growth ultimately led me to not be a Roman Catholic anymore.
like most all big big old old traditions, discussion of relevence or value might want to consider that any such experience of it is going to be an increasingly narrow slice of whatever that _____ism is or ever was or ever will be, in any sense of truth.
i doubt that any such religious tradition has ever been so historically consistently like-minded and monolithic as their ardent critics often describe them, even from one single genuine life's experience. being old, they are big big with many twists and turns. exotic is the word is prefer to use. like any decent wilderness or garden of critters. diverse mixtures of genius and idiocy and truths as they were lived in each vessel, broken and respun over and over again, only to be broken into pieces and reborn in some new generation. swapping spit with other breeds over and over again.
also, i doubt that adherents of any degree are likely to know of or able to take into account ALL of the many strands and lines and movements associated with even their own religion (be it given to them at birth or taken by them later), let alone all the many strands and lines and movements associated with the dozen or more other major old old big big branches of planet earth.
- also, none of tjhe big big old old are getting much smaller any more. and none of them have stopped changing as the world turns. and none of them have stopped splitting into more and more pieces. like some crazy hydras who live largely via entire languages. and how the fish doesnt know how truly and fully wet it is
doesnt seem very useful (for very long, anyway) to try and dismiss any such "it" as "bad," nor render "it" supreme as some monolithic pinnacle. like the roots and branches of a small forest of many species of trees that have been here longer than any of us. living languages like neutral vessels, each full of both mystery and wonder and b.s., by sheer volume alone, if nothing else.
in short...i guess...even the "mere" topic of catholicism is such a vast vast vast and evergrowing tapestry of human experience beyond even a die-hard life-long catholic's comprehension, let alone an often shadow-boxing critic.
:blink:
that said...i have recently discovered a very small couple of truly wonderful catholic lives via their writings, ones that anyone anywhere might learn to enjoy. worth googling, and following then the white rabbits down the cyber-hole...lol
...thomas merton
...father thomas keating
also, i believe that the catholic tradition has so so many historically relevent folks worthy of being called "saints", in the most general sense of the word, whose wisdom and lives alone are worth reading and considering, and being thankful for, regarding in prayer, etc....
(oh yeah...one of my other favorite catholic laymen...JRR Tolkien...B))
Sorry for the delay in answering you last night; however, I was very busy all last night and simply did not have a chance to get to it. Hope this suffices. My apologies for the length of the post; however, I wanted to provide adequate answers to each of your points, not so much for your sake, but for the benefit of anybody else reading the thread.
Indulgences:
I have said/quoted the following recently in regards to indulgences:
As with you, I don't have a problem with a group or a person "rocking the boat," either. Take, for example, Luther. What originally wound him up was the push for donations to construct St. Peter's Basillica in the Vatican. This got translated into the sale of indulgences. A horrible practice and a complete perversion of doctrine. He very rightly railed against it. Frankly, had he not done what he did, the reforms put into place by the Council of Trent would never have happened (one of the chief reforms being the supression of that evil practice).
In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.
The refutation of the practice of the sale of indulgences, from Session XXV of the Council of Trent. Posted on Oct 9, 2005
You asked the question, Can you show me any scripture where Jesus and company sold forgiveness for money? No I can't. But, on the other hand, I can think of no place where the Catholic Church has sold forgiveness for money.
An indulgence is not the forgiveness of sins. I would have thought you'd remember that.
An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due for sins
already forgiven
as far as their guilt is concerned. This remission the faithful
with the proper dispositions
and under certain determined conditions acquire through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the Saints.
So let's talk about what an indulgence IS rather than a faulty understanding of it.
First, to get something out of the way: the Church acknowledged that abuses were committed in the sale of indulgences. The quote from the Council of Trent was the Church's corrective action for that abuse.
Now:
- Note that an indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. This presupposes that the sins have been forgiven already, which, in turn, supposes that the sins have been confessed and absolution pronounced, which, in turn, presupposes that true contrition for those sins has been felt by the penitent.
- Note that this remission specifies that the faithful have the proper dispositions. What is the proper disposition to receive an indulgence? Well, according to the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, it says to receive a plenary indulgence, "It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent."
Of course, this presupposes the validity of the doctrine of purgatory. That is a related subject, but is out of scope of the conversation.
Please consider something, if you would be so kind: if a person has no attachment to sin, even venial sin, and has had all past sins absolved, then that person is truly in no danger of purgatory, as the person's heart is already pure. If you were to take a look at the indulgenced acts, all those acts are such that, with the heart in the right place, the person's heart would be drawn closer to God through the performance of those acts.
As to the scriptural authority, Matt 16:18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
(Of course, if you have a problem with Apostolic Succession, then this means nothing)
OK, so now onto the scapular.
What you posted, wherever it was from, is just fine and dandy with me. But, again, I urge whoever reads this to consider that there are a whole lot of activities that are associated with the wearing of the brown scapular. I summarized those activities in an earlier post on this thread and so won't bother repeating them here. The brown scapular, and more specifically the actions associated with it, do tend to draw a person closer to Christ. A scapular is a variety of sacramental. A sacramental prepares one to receive grace...they don't impart grace in of themselves, but their (proper) use helps dispose a person to receive that grace.
As I said previously, the brown scapular has its origins in the Carmelite Order. More specifically,it is a part of a religious' uniform (or habit). It is the piece of cloth that hangs over the shoulders and goes to the feet. What we all recognized as a scapular is a smaller (much smaller) version of that cloth, worn by the laity in imitation of the orders with which they associated themselves (e.g., confraternal relationships). Can I provide a Biblical origin for the wearing of habits? No, I'm afraid I can't. But on the other hand, I would have a hard time finding a Biblical problem with the wearing of them, either.
Of course, I see that you went back to your post three hours after originally posting it and highlighting the references to the Blessed Virgin. As you know from your Church history that you took during your 12 years of Catholic education, you fully recgonize the unique position of Mary in the economy of salvation and know that she was venerated even while she was still alive and that this veneration has continued through the Millenia (the first recorded note of this is correspondence between St. Ignatius of Antioch and Mary as well as his epistle to the Ephesians. Again, keep in mind that these were written when Mary was around!) However, I realize that fundamentalists cultivate a disgust for anything that is outside of their theological framework, so I realize that this will mean nothing to you.
As to the conduct of some popes, I believe you and I have had this conversation before, so I really don't see the benefit in having it again. I will fully acknowledge that there are some Popes who have been completely miserable. And, I will further acknowledge that part of this was the intermixing of political and religious power that occurred during medievel times. Is that a reason to condemn the Church? Obviously in your mind, it is.
The Rosary
I will be the first to state that the Rosary of St. Dominic has, in its present form, its origins in the middle ages. It has an interesting origin, though. I'm sure you already know it, but since there are others reading this thread, I hope you'll indulge me by letting me give a brief accounting of it. In brief, monks have been required since the earliest advent of monastic life, to say the a third part of the psalter (150 psalms) daily. Even to this day, in the form of the Liturgy of the Hours, they still do so (although it takes four weeks now to go throught the psalter. As more and more illiterate people were allowed into religious orders as lay brothers, some form of prayer was needed, as they were not able to read the psalms. A simple repetitive set of prayers was provided for this purpose. For example, in the Knights Templar, repetition of the Our Father was mandated. All of this prayer was for the repose of the souls of the brothers and for their benefactors. I believe that the modern Rosary grew out of this.
That leads to your criticism of the Rosary. I believe that it likely comes from Matthew 6:7-8
In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
If I'm right, then, I would surmise that this specific criticism is related to the structure of the prayer, more so than the specific contents of the prayer (although you undoubtedly would criticize the contents, as well). So that is where I'll focus.
The Rosary is a variety of prayer called a chaplet. A chaplet is simply a set of prayers that are counted. The Rosary is undoubtedly the most common form of chaplet, but there are others. The technique of any chaplet is to repeat a set of prayers in a defined pattern, while meditating on (a) certain pious subject(s) prescribed for that chaplet. There are many, mnay kinds of chaplets in use, including the Blessed Sacrament Chaplet, St. Patrick's Chaplet, and, of recent origin, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Without a doubt, they all pale in popularity to the Rosary of St. Dominic.
Closely related in structure to chaplets are Litanies. (Yes, this is going somewhere) -- a litany is a repeated, structured prayer...although, as used in these days, it is almost always said in a group setting. Without a doubt, the most famous litany is known as the Litany of the Saints. Its a very long prayer, so I won't repeat the whole thing here, but a small extract is important to see:
Through the mystery of Thy holy Incarnation, deliver us
Through Thy Coming, deliver us
Through Thy Birth, deliver us
Through Thy Baptism and holy Fasting, deliver us
Through Thy Cross and Passion, deliver us
Through Thy Death and Burial, deliver us
Through Thy holy Resurrection, deliver us
Through Thine admirable Ascension, deliver us
Through the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete. deliver us
In the day of judgment, deliver us
Why bother even sharing a small portion of it...so that the reader can observe the structure of a Litany...they all share this type of structure!
It seems to me that if the Protestant application of Matthew 6:7-8 is a valid verse to cite as their authority to condemn the Rosary, that the same criticism would apply to litanies, as well (such as the one shown above).
Let me show you a small extract of another Litany, just to see what you think:
Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever.
You heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever.
All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever.
All you hosts of the Lord, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Sun and moon, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Stars of heaven, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Every shower and dew, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
All you winds, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Fire and heat, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Cold and chill, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Dew and rain, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
Frost and chill, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever.
It seems that the above should fall under the same crticism. OK, let's try one more:
Praise the Lord of lords; God's love endures forever
Who alone has done great wonders, God's love endures forever
Who skillfully made the heavens, God's love endures forever
Who spread the earth upon the waters, God's love endures forever
Who made the great lights, God's love endures forever
The sun to rule the day, God's love endures forever
The moon and stars to rule the night, God's love endures forever
Who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, God's love endures forever
It seems to me that if the Protestant criticism of the Rosary, based upon the "vain repetitions" phrase in the KJV verion of Mt 6:7-8 was valid ("vain repetitions" being their "translation" of battologeo, which, in fact, should be translated "babblings," as it is done in modern translations), it would apply to these prayers, as well. But there is a little problem, though. With the last two litanies I extracted, the first was Dan 3:59-69 and the second was Psalm 136:3-10.
Again, my apologies for the excessive length of this post. However, I needed to provide a decent refutation of your statements.
I am not attributing any anger to anything you've posted. I appreciate the attitude of most ex-catholics on this board...not their cup of tea, but if it works for somebody else, so be it.
As I've said before, I think that the majority of ex-Catholics are ex-Catholic because of horrible teaching on the part of those who were supposed to teach them or they had the misfortune of being in parishes that didn't meet their needs (the two are often closely related). And, in many cases, they either drifted off or they got captured by somebody with a better offer. I'm sorry for that; if there are misunderstandings, I'd love to have the opportunity to correct those misunderstandings; but, in the final analysis, if we have a live-and-let-live attitude, then the conversation can at least stay civil.
That's the way I've seen it with you...we may not agree on things, but, we can keep it civil. And that is a good thing.
Cheers!
Mark, as a Lutheran, I have respected Popes John 23rd, John Paul 2nd and Benedict 16th. I wish Vatican
II had been the church council at the time of the Reformation. Then Lutheranism would have been like
Franciscans or like the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
And I wish Trent would have happened before Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles....speaking as a Catholic...
I would like to think that ex-catholics left a lot of religious platitudes behind them and have encountered the power of the Holy Spirit, holy spirit. I too was brought up catholic..I know all the 'hail mary full of grace, the lord is with thees' and none of it did a dam**d thing for me or those I hold dear.
Each to their own,but I think that a 'returning' catholic would be as 'rare' as a 'returning' twigee.
p.s. if that 'sounds' uncivil I apologize in advance.
Mexico is one of the most RC countrys of the world, the old "Pope" use to say that he was Mexican. So I studied in a RC School all my life up to college. Over ther I started at The Way and when I go out The Way and have a "regular" life, a wife (not believer also not RC), a baby kid an all that I had to act accordingly with the traditions of my comunity who is 90% RC. Very few mormons and very few JehovaW. But in my hart I do not like to go to church. And do not like what RC represents. Very few word, a lot of idols an a lot of devil spirit stuff. "The deaths are no death, the are with god", What god? "You have too carry the Cross of Christ" Well I am a son of God, delivered from condemnation. "You have to be babtize" What? I have holy spirit in me. If I have to sin I rather prefer to go to a Table Dance Bar and invite LC Martindale with the girls.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
5
6
16
Popular Days
Nov 14
15
Nov 20
14
Nov 18
10
Nov 16
8
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 7 posts
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net 5 posts
socks 6 posts
markomalley 16 posts
Popular Days
Nov 14 2005
15 posts
Nov 20 2005
14 posts
Nov 18 2005
10 posts
Nov 16 2005
8 posts
excathedra
i know so many catholics (including relatives and friends) who live christ-like beautiful lives
i know so many catholics (including relatives and friends) who live devil-like horrible lives
i've seen parishes with priests who truly love god and people and carry out christ’s loving work
i've seen parishes with priests that i think should be burned down
i personally cannot find god’s comfort in a catholic church, but i don’t deny someone else theirs
as far as “the” catholic church, well that’s another story....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I think your observations would be applicable to any group, and, all things considered with your personal history, are remarkably charitable. I hope that you will some day be able to find some place where you can have some real peace and reconcilliation, although I can fully understand why it wouldn't be within a Catholic church.
By the way, "i've seen parishes with priests that i think should be burned down" -- are you suggesting burning the parish or the parish priest?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
A big selling point for TWI back in the 60's and 70's was the claim to not being a church, or a religion.
Oldies has done a fine job pointing out that TWI in many aspects has become what they always claimed they weren't. So TWI has become a denomination without the safe guards most organized religions have in place to protect their members and their donations.
One more reason among many to find someplace else to place loyalties. That is unless one likes the Kool-Aide
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mark, thanks for the feedback.
Well, they *could* be, if that is the only way a poor soul thinks they might get saved.
Reminds me of when I was a youngster, I was living in so much fear and horror that I'd die and wouldn't go to heaven, not knowing whether I was God's child, or was good enough to eternally enter His kingdom, that I wore a cloth pendant, raising the odds that upon my death, it might matter.
I remember reciting the Hail Mary over and over and over again.
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, amen".
over and over and over and over ....
I also remember that the Roman Catholic church has traditionally held that salvation may be attained only through observance of their sacraments.
Therefore, they have set themselves apart as the only true church.
Only through them, one may have a chance for salvation.
But there are no guarantees!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
The thing that frightens me about the RC church is the praying to the saints .
I wonder if it is a type of idol worship, and other "gods".
As far as the trinity goes, I have never been instructed about what the trinity is so I can not say it is right or wrong.
when I was in twi I said it was wrong to some strict catholic friends who are now clergy in twi.
funny isnt it?
Jesus isnt god but again I do not know what the RC teaches about who Jesus is enough to comment on how I think about what they teach.
As far as what mark is calling works. well all groups have "woks" they encourage their followers to do.
all of them.. think about it.
give money, buy our tapes listen to our advise, get involed in some way or another to belong.. do what we do to worship the LORD... if I break it down it is all "works" of some sort.
and the purpose is to help people find a life winthin a spirital, sense a sense of belonging and community and purpose.
can it be wrong?
I do not think all people enjoy what one group does... that is why it is many memebers of the body of christ. who is to say what is the wrong part?
As far as christ like life well honestly the chronicle of the man Jesus christ is indeed quite miserable and deadly.. not one anyone with a any sense of happiness or peace.would lke to live.
So we think He is what we should be like? God calls him the ONLY Saviour the ONLY Begotten... honestly no one can be HIm or "like" him.
illusions of who somone is or isnt or looks like runs wild in our culture, the bible speaks of fools who believe them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i don't know.... praying to saints doesn't bother me so much.... my mom talks to her mother in her head all the time and my grandmother was a saint....
thanks mark
yeah damn it and they were worse (for me, personally), wingnut :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oldies,
We undoubtedly believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church. But this statement must be understood in the proper context -- and, unfortunately, that context is often times not taught (particularly for veterans of the Baltimore Catechism). You must always remember when reading this that, from the Catholic Church's perspective, the Church is Christianity itself. When these statements were developed, there was only one Church. Over a period of time, there have been groups who have chosen to leave the Church for one reason or another. But many of the doctrines of the Church they still hold true. Many of these groups still profess belief in the historical creeds, for example. Many of them practice a form of the sacraments, most specifically baptism. Most accept major portions of sacred scripture as being the inspired Word of God. In other words, much of the light of the teachings of the apostles still shines on them...
So a more accurate way of saying this (given today's realities) would be: There is no salvation outside the light of Christ and the fullness of this light is available through the Church.
(I say the above not as an offense to anybody, by the way. If you are offended, my apologies)
You mention having to pray the "Hail Mary" over and over. I assume you are talking about saying a Rosary. As a child, I have a feeling that you were likely taught the rote actions of the Rosary without being taught what the Rosary actually was. It goes a lot deeper than merely repeating "hail mary's" interspaced with a couple of "Our Fathers" and "Glory Be's." You likely were not taught how to meditate on the mysteries while you were saying the prayers...you may not have even been provided full instruction on what those mysteries were and where they were located in the Bible. (Mystery in this case refers to a particular event in the life of Christ, such as the birth of Christ, the carrying of the Cross, the Resurrection, etc.). Its a pity, too, because devotion to a regime of meditative prayer on the scriptures, such as the Rosary, is an incredible way for one to be drawn to a much richer relationship with Christ.
You mention a piece of cloth. I assume you are talking about a scapular (a brown scapular, in particular, if I'd have to guess). Again, the fact that you weren't taught about the meaning of that scapular and what is behind it is a true shame. I would bet that your parents, although I'm sure quite religious, were not properly taught, as well. The scapular is merely an external sign that a lay person has made a commitment to Carmelite spirituality. It is NOT a magical charm. The commitment one makes when invested into the Brown Scapular is to follow Jesus, like his mother Mary did. By that it means to be open to the will of God; to listen (and study) the Word of God, to believe it and put it in practice in your life, to pray always and to put yourself in the presence of God in all things, and to be involved with other people (remember the corporal and spiritual works of mercy I mentioned in an earlier post?). The scapular simply is a reminder to yourself that you have made that commitment and a sign to others (particularly if you wear it on the outside of your clothes). The promise of the brown scapular is: '"whoever dies wearing this (Scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire."' Well, obviously, with an understanding of the background of what is involved with the scapular, it sounds much less superstitious than if one is just handed a piece of cloth and told to wear it as a talisman.
You mention not knowing if you'd go to heaven or hell. The following is an assumption on my part (so no offense if I'm wrong on this part), but, again, I would wager that you were likely brought up in an very scrupulous home setting...I would wager that you were not clearly taught the difference between mortal and venial sin (mortal sin being characterized by three factors: the objective gravity of the act, the knowledge of the person committing the act [ignorance can be an excuse in some cases], and that the person committing the act must have done so as the result of a deliberate decision to do so). As an example, if a woman goes out with a 'gentleman,' he got her drunk or drugged (e.g., fed her triple rum and cokes instead of single ones), and then, when she is intoxicated, takes her to a hotel room and takes advantage of her, she would not be accountable for that act. Why? Even though fornication is objectively wrong and (presumably) she knew that this fornication was wrong, she was, because her date got her drunk through deception, not in a position to make a deliberate decision.
See, oldies, my heart truly goes out to a lot of ex-Catholics. The vast majority of those whom I've met become ex-Catholic not because of the teachings of the Church, but because they were inadequately taught by those who were supposed to teach them the Faith. There are exceptions to this generalization (OK, excathedra), but those are in the minority. For too many years, catechesis of the laity has been limited for the most part to learning the Baltimore Catechism and that was that...in fact, in some, if not most, circles, the tendancy was to suppress questioning rather than to encourage it for those who needed to get a deeper understanding than what the old catechism taught. Is that a fault of the theology and the doctrine of the Church? No. But it is clearly a fault of those who were responsible for passing on the faith. That approach may have been appropriate for the catechesis of the children of serfs or of the working class, who likely would never learn to read and who, in all likelihood, would not have the time or energy to consider deeper spiritual concepts, but in todays pluralistic society with its abundance of free time, it clearly does not adequately arm a person to deal with the spiritual challenges of modern life. They've made great strides to correct that...the publication of the new catechism in 1993, putting the writings of the popes, councils, and curial agencies online so that they can be studied, and many other changes, along with the offering of university-level adult faith enrichment classes...all of these efforts are helping, but those efforts do little to help the generations who weren't given a good grounding to begin with. Those folks are subject to flaky cults (I am speaking about some strange cults that are made up of Catholics), pointy-head heterodox liberals, or complete disenchantment (such as what has happened to the vast majority of former Catholic GSers).
By the way, I'm not suggesting that the few words of explanation that I provide are going to make a particle of difference to you, I'm not hardly that naive! (there are a few decades of despising everything the Church stands for that would interfere with this) But I do, never the less, appreciate any opportunity provided to clarify things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, call me a working class bum Mark, but I don't quite buy the view you're presenting of the current Catholic church, nor that the vast network of parishes in the western U.S. and the education they provided was deficient in passing on what the true essence of the Catholic faith (was). The Code of Canon Law has been under development for a long time. Subjection to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, Peter or whomever as a critical requirement to salvation is just one item of many. I dont choose to recognize his authority, spiritually or politically.
That's not to deny that there isn't a great deal of value in Catholicism. Like I say, they've got some of the best buldings around. I still credit those 10 years of education I got with instilling in me my interest in literature and philosophy, as well as some of the best "old school" readin', writin' and 'rithmetic skills when compared to others my own age.
Plus, one of the recent popes made a great statement I read not long ago. He was on a plane and a writer was along, and he asked the pope what he thought about the statements being made about the tragedy of 9/11 and that it was an action of judgment by god. The writer said the pope stopped and paused and said "it is not an easy thing to know the intentions of god". I thought that was an interesting statement, certainly an honest one coming from him in both how he sees himself and how he knows others see him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Quote See, oldies, my heart truly goes out to a lot of ex-Catholics. The vast majority of those whom I've met become ex-Catholic not because of the teachings of the Church, but because they were inadequately taught by those who were supposed to teach them the Faith. There are exceptions to this generalization (OK, excathedra), but those are in the minority
Mark I would disagree with you I have had 12 years of Catholic education, also all of my 3 aunts were Sisters of Charity I am full aware of the meanings behind their rituals. That is exactly why I have nothing to do with their church. Rosaries,indulgences and holy cards and scapulars and a line of crazy Popes who did things that are so atrocious that they should invent a new class of sin just for them. Not to mention that none of it has any Biblical basis. I don't remember Jesus or his followers wearing scapulars or counting beads and they acted a world of differant than the so called clergy of the church. No the lessons were quite clear power greed money all in the name of religion and God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Socks,
Call me an elitist, but I don't expect you to buy the view I'm portraying of the Catholic Church. And if you choose not to buy into Catholicism and choose to reject it for whatever reasons, fine. Your business. I am NOT trying to act as some kind of evangelist here, believe me.
As to the quality of Catholic Education throughout the western united states, I can't speak to that at all. What I can speak to is my own observations. Although what I was referring to, specifically was the training provided kids who didn't have the benefit of going through 12 years of Catholic education...those who only went through a few years of catechism class on hour a week until their confirmation. That was, in fact, the majority of people.
As to your comment, <i>The Code of Canon Law has been under development for a long time. Subjection to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, Peter or whomever as a critical requirement to salvation is just one item of many.</i> I'm not sure what, exactly, the code of canon law has to do with any discussion here, but I will agree that it has been under development for centuries. The latest edition to it was put out in 1983. I think you're connecting baptism (since that is the sacrament of salvation) with canon law and with subjecting yourself to the Pontiff. Well, honestly, I've seen a lot of baptisms (including my daughter's) and I don't recall swearing an oath of allegiance to the Holy Father as one of the baptismal vows. Those that I recall (and I don't have a copy of the rite of baptism in front of me here) is a rejection of Satan and affirmation of belief of the statements contained in the Apostle's Creed.
As to the Pope's authority as the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, etc., I refer to my comment in my first paragraph. Your business. However, let me point out that unless you are an 'independent,' and not affiliated with any group, denomination, ministry, or whatever, you are subjecting yourself to that group's rules. Even if you don't buy, as I perceive, the concept of apostolic succession, you have to acknowledge this as the truth. If you question this, just walk into any church out there and try to forcibly advance a completely controversial position, such as TWI's position on the Trinity.
<i>Plus, one of the recent popes made a great statement I read not long ago. He was on a plane and a writer was along, and he asked the pope what he thought about the statements being made about the tragedy of 9/11 and that it was an action of judgment by god. The writer said the pope stopped and paused and said "it is not an easy thing to know the intentions of god". I thought that was an interesting statement, certainly an honest one coming from him in both how he sees himself and how he knows others see him.</i>
I seem to remember reading something like that being attributed to JPII. I also seem to recall a firestorm of controversy around that statement when it was first published. Looking back on it, I think that it was just about the only thing he could say. Consider this: he is the pastor for Christians literally all over the world, including many areas where they are the minority in a hostile environment. So had he pulled a Pat Robertson and said "it is the judgement of God," he'd be branded, on one hand, a fool, and on the other hand, would have endorsed terrorism. Alternatively, had he rejected it out of hand as being a judgement of God, he would have been giving the US a blanket endorsement to do whatever it willed as being an especially blessed country (an remember, he was not an American and didn't particularly care for Americans to begin with). So what else could he have said in his position?
The bottom line is that I am not so naive as to assume that my words will change anybody's mind here. But I am thankful for the opportunity to speak, nevertheless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
You'll note that I took the liberty to highlight a portion of the statement I made earlier with you specifically in mind.
I'm sorry for your rage. If it makes you feel better, feel free to vent any time. But I am glad your 12 years of Catholic education gave you a time portal so that you can so confidently state exactly how the apostles dressed and how they acted. Hopefully my daughter will be able to show me this time portal when she finishes her 12 years of Catholic education. The early Christian artifacts I've seen when living in the middle east and the documents I've read from the early church were obviously forgeries. Its good that somebody is able to point that out to me now. My faith is shaken down to its core.
I'm also so sorry that your three aunts were so horribly decieved. I hope they were all able to escape and repent of their apostasy to true Christianity before they died.
In all seriousness though, I simply don't have the time to deal with every point you made right now. I hope to do so presently, but of course that refutation would not be for your benefit. With your background, its obvious that anything I said would not impact your beliefs whatsoever.
The easier route is to simply "agree to disagree." But, of course, with your level of hostility that offer wouldn't be accepted. But one way or the other...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Mark we can agree to disagree that's fine If you are happy with your choice I have no concern in it.
But.... and it's a big one you are promoting a view that is not factually true for discussion. You seem to misinterpret truth as rage sorry it's not the same.
Perhaps you should put the beads down and back away and study the history of the church it is inconsistent with the view you presented.
I have no porthole into the past only what is recorded in church history and the Bible.
Can you show me any record in scripture where Jesus or his followers spoke of Rosaries and Scapulars and if they have such powers why then would Jesus not have mentioned them in his time here on earth and the record of scripture he left us? There is none! it is based on mary worship a claim that a dead person spoke to someone in 1251. It has nothing to do with Jesus or any thing he taught spoke or lived in biblical history. Too bad for all those who lived before 1251 they got no power I guess.
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Power of the Scapular
"Whosoever dies clothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire" - Mary's promise to St. Simon Stock - July 16, 1251
The Blessed Virgin Mary told Saint Dominic "One day, through the Rosary and Scapular I will save the world."
The devils revealed to Francis of yepes, the brother of St. John of the Cross, that three things especially tormented them. The first is the Name of Jesus; the second, the Name of Mary, and the third, the Brown Scapular of our Lady of Mt. Carmel. "Take off that habit," they cried to him, "which snatches so many souls from us. All those clothed in it die piously and escape us."
Your Scapular, then, should take on deep meaning for you. It is a rich present brought down from Heaven by Our Lady herself.
"Wear it devoutly and perseveringly," she says to each soul, "it is my garment. To be clothed in it means you are continually thinking of me, and I in turn, am always thinking of you and helping you to secure eternal life."
Without saying to Mary that we venerate Her, love Her and trust her, we tell Her these things every moment of the day, by simply wearing the scapular.
"The Rosary and Scapular are inseparable" - Testimony by Lucia, to whom Our Lady appeared at Fatima with the rosary and scapular.
A former prior general of the Carmelite Order, the Most Rev. Kilian Lynch, warned against abusing the scapular devotion. "Let us not conclude," he said, "that the scapular is endowed with some kind of supernatural power which will save us no matter what we do or how much we sin...Fidelity to the commandments is required by those seeking 'the special love and protection of our Lady.'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee mary spirit I thought we already had a Saviour ,oh thats in the Bible I forgot not the Papal decrees
And aren't rosaries made up of repetitive prayers I think he did address that subject?
Indulgences -(you could read Martin Luther's commentary on this) but again Can you show me any scripture where Jesus and company sold forgiveness for money?
Popes- Now they are the Vicar of Christ according to the church here is some of what I learned in church history lets see if they acted like Christ.
I don't have the time or desire to research all of the Pope's for you but you can Google it or read up on it yourself. Even allowing for some inaccuracies in the sites the facts are pretty obvious.
Here is one I did find online though from Catholic Answers.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801fea4.asp
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/heresies_heretics/86201
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Mark, as a Lutheran, I have respected Popes John 23rd, John Paul 2nd and Benedict 16th. I wish Vatican
II had been the church council at the time of the Reformation. Then Lutheranism would have been like
Franciscans or like the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Mark, understood. I didn't get the impression you're evangelizing, just stating your views on your religious choice. That's fine, it's your choice. Buuuut you may be reading into posts emotion that isn't there. Either way, for the record, I have no "rage" either. It's difficult to communicate the tone of these words in a post, so picture what I'm saying as being conversational.
The fact that I was a Catholic at one time and am not one now doesn't mean I left the Catholic church hurt, angry, raged, or anything like that. My comments are critical, but they're not angry. I was raised Catholic, and later as I grew into making my own decisions, I left active participation in the church. I certainly retained some of what I felt was of value to me and left the rest. It's not really that complicated, there's really no emotion involved in my thoughts here.
I'd also say that in normal relationships if someone asked me the question that was asked on this thread topic, I'd probably respond very moderately, as I did initially. If a person is looking for something, church, fellowship, growth in their life as a person, answers to needs or questions, and felt they wanted to check out the R.C. church, I'd respond, great, you may like it, let me know what you think if you do. Given an opportunity, if we spoke about it more, I'd be more interested in what it is they're looking for and need. There's lots available. If R.C-ism fills some or all of that need, I can celebrate the success that person has.
At the same time though an adult making a lifetime committment to "be" a Catholic is going to deal with some of these issues in the RCIA's. But babies being baptized don't deal with issues, they're given the sacrament. As one matures, through First Communion and Confirmation and continued involvement and training the full doctrine is learned and absorbed. That's the way I learned it.
Apostolic succession is a non-issue with me. I don't accept it, period. Has nothing to do with the men selected or their performance or weaknesses, I don't accept the office and that interpretation of Matthew and Jesus's words, so it doesn't matter to me who fills it.
But I understand where you're coming from, I think. If you're happy, great. I think some of the beliefs are wrong, but if you're not hurting anyone or breaking the law and basically living a civil life you're fine with me, as are all R.C.'s. If you're getting something out of it, great. Friends I have that are members of the church aren't horrible people, they're generally pretty nice.
Many Catholic apologists take the stance that criticisms of the faith are due to misunderstanding of the finer points of the doctrine and the heart and intent. I didn't misunderstand what I was taught, I followed it for many years and pursued it through my teen years. I was a Catholic, and once the choice was up to me I chose to continue my learning and growth. That growth ultimately led me to not be a Roman Catholic anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
for what its worth...
(hope it makes sense to someone)
like most all big big old old traditions, discussion of relevence or value might want to consider that any such experience of it is going to be an increasingly narrow slice of whatever that _____ism is or ever was or ever will be, in any sense of truth.
i doubt that any such religious tradition has ever been so historically consistently like-minded and monolithic as their ardent critics often describe them, even from one single genuine life's experience. being old, they are big big with many twists and turns. exotic is the word is prefer to use. like any decent wilderness or garden of critters. diverse mixtures of genius and idiocy and truths as they were lived in each vessel, broken and respun over and over again, only to be broken into pieces and reborn in some new generation. swapping spit with other breeds over and over again.
also, i doubt that adherents of any degree are likely to know of or able to take into account ALL of the many strands and lines and movements associated with even their own religion (be it given to them at birth or taken by them later), let alone all the many strands and lines and movements associated with the dozen or more other major old old big big branches of planet earth.
- also, none of tjhe big big old old are getting much smaller any more. and none of them have stopped changing as the world turns. and none of them have stopped splitting into more and more pieces. like some crazy hydras who live largely via entire languages. and how the fish doesnt know how truly and fully wet it is
doesnt seem very useful (for very long, anyway) to try and dismiss any such "it" as "bad," nor render "it" supreme as some monolithic pinnacle. like the roots and branches of a small forest of many species of trees that have been here longer than any of us. living languages like neutral vessels, each full of both mystery and wonder and b.s., by sheer volume alone, if nothing else.
in short...i guess...even the "mere" topic of catholicism is such a vast vast vast and evergrowing tapestry of human experience beyond even a die-hard life-long catholic's comprehension, let alone an often shadow-boxing critic.
:blink:
that said...i have recently discovered a very small couple of truly wonderful catholic lives via their writings, ones that anyone anywhere might learn to enjoy. worth googling, and following then the white rabbits down the cyber-hole...lol
...thomas merton
...father thomas keating
also, i believe that the catholic tradition has so so many historically relevent folks worthy of being called "saints", in the most general sense of the word, whose wisdom and lives alone are worth reading and considering, and being thankful for, regarding in prayer, etc....
(oh yeah...one of my other favorite catholic laymen...JRR Tolkien...B))
peace
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
Sorry for the delay in answering you last night; however, I was very busy all last night and simply did not have a chance to get to it. Hope this suffices. My apologies for the length of the post; however, I wanted to provide adequate answers to each of your points, not so much for your sake, but for the benefit of anybody else reading the thread.
Indulgences:
I have said/quoted the following recently in regards to indulgences:
From a post made on Oct 25, 2005
The refutation of the practice of the sale of indulgences, from Session XXV of the Council of Trent. Posted on Oct 9, 2005
You asked the question, Can you show me any scripture where Jesus and company sold forgiveness for money? No I can't. But, on the other hand, I can think of no place where the Catholic Church has sold forgiveness for money.
An indulgence is not the forgiveness of sins. I would have thought you'd remember that.
So let's talk about what an indulgence IS rather than a faulty understanding of it.
First, to get something out of the way: the Church acknowledged that abuses were committed in the sale of indulgences. The quote from the Council of Trent was the Church's corrective action for that abuse.
Now:
- Note that an indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. This presupposes that the sins have been forgiven already, which, in turn, supposes that the sins have been confessed and absolution pronounced, which, in turn, presupposes that true contrition for those sins has been felt by the penitent.
- Note that this remission specifies that the faithful have the proper dispositions. What is the proper disposition to receive an indulgence? Well, according to the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, it says to receive a plenary indulgence, "It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent."
Of course, this presupposes the validity of the doctrine of purgatory. That is a related subject, but is out of scope of the conversation.
Please consider something, if you would be so kind: if a person has no attachment to sin, even venial sin, and has had all past sins absolved, then that person is truly in no danger of purgatory, as the person's heart is already pure. If you were to take a look at the indulgenced acts, all those acts are such that, with the heart in the right place, the person's heart would be drawn closer to God through the performance of those acts.
As to the scriptural authority, Matt 16:18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
(Of course, if you have a problem with Apostolic Succession, then this means nothing)
OK, so now onto the scapular.
What you posted, wherever it was from, is just fine and dandy with me. But, again, I urge whoever reads this to consider that there are a whole lot of activities that are associated with the wearing of the brown scapular. I summarized those activities in an earlier post on this thread and so won't bother repeating them here. The brown scapular, and more specifically the actions associated with it, do tend to draw a person closer to Christ. A scapular is a variety of sacramental. A sacramental prepares one to receive grace...they don't impart grace in of themselves, but their (proper) use helps dispose a person to receive that grace.
As I said previously, the brown scapular has its origins in the Carmelite Order. More specifically,it is a part of a religious' uniform (or habit). It is the piece of cloth that hangs over the shoulders and goes to the feet. What we all recognized as a scapular is a smaller (much smaller) version of that cloth, worn by the laity in imitation of the orders with which they associated themselves (e.g., confraternal relationships). Can I provide a Biblical origin for the wearing of habits? No, I'm afraid I can't. But on the other hand, I would have a hard time finding a Biblical problem with the wearing of them, either.
Of course, I see that you went back to your post three hours after originally posting it and highlighting the references to the Blessed Virgin. As you know from your Church history that you took during your 12 years of Catholic education, you fully recgonize the unique position of Mary in the economy of salvation and know that she was venerated even while she was still alive and that this veneration has continued through the Millenia (the first recorded note of this is correspondence between St. Ignatius of Antioch and Mary as well as his epistle to the Ephesians. Again, keep in mind that these were written when Mary was around!) However, I realize that fundamentalists cultivate a disgust for anything that is outside of their theological framework, so I realize that this will mean nothing to you.
As to the conduct of some popes, I believe you and I have had this conversation before, so I really don't see the benefit in having it again. I will fully acknowledge that there are some Popes who have been completely miserable. And, I will further acknowledge that part of this was the intermixing of political and religious power that occurred during medievel times. Is that a reason to condemn the Church? Obviously in your mind, it is.
The Rosary
I will be the first to state that the Rosary of St. Dominic has, in its present form, its origins in the middle ages. It has an interesting origin, though. I'm sure you already know it, but since there are others reading this thread, I hope you'll indulge me by letting me give a brief accounting of it. In brief, monks have been required since the earliest advent of monastic life, to say the a third part of the psalter (150 psalms) daily. Even to this day, in the form of the Liturgy of the Hours, they still do so (although it takes four weeks now to go throught the psalter. As more and more illiterate people were allowed into religious orders as lay brothers, some form of prayer was needed, as they were not able to read the psalms. A simple repetitive set of prayers was provided for this purpose. For example, in the Knights Templar, repetition of the Our Father was mandated. All of this prayer was for the repose of the souls of the brothers and for their benefactors. I believe that the modern Rosary grew out of this.
That leads to your criticism of the Rosary. I believe that it likely comes from Matthew 6:7-8
If I'm right, then, I would surmise that this specific criticism is related to the structure of the prayer, more so than the specific contents of the prayer (although you undoubtedly would criticize the contents, as well). So that is where I'll focus.
The Rosary is a variety of prayer called a chaplet. A chaplet is simply a set of prayers that are counted. The Rosary is undoubtedly the most common form of chaplet, but there are others. The technique of any chaplet is to repeat a set of prayers in a defined pattern, while meditating on (a) certain pious subject(s) prescribed for that chaplet. There are many, mnay kinds of chaplets in use, including the Blessed Sacrament Chaplet, St. Patrick's Chaplet, and, of recent origin, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Without a doubt, they all pale in popularity to the Rosary of St. Dominic.
Closely related in structure to chaplets are Litanies. (Yes, this is going somewhere) -- a litany is a repeated, structured prayer...although, as used in these days, it is almost always said in a group setting. Without a doubt, the most famous litany is known as the Litany of the Saints. Its a very long prayer, so I won't repeat the whole thing here, but a small extract is important to see:
Why bother even sharing a small portion of it...so that the reader can observe the structure of a Litany...they all share this type of structure!
It seems to me that if the Protestant application of Matthew 6:7-8 is a valid verse to cite as their authority to condemn the Rosary, that the same criticism would apply to litanies, as well (such as the one shown above).
Let me show you a small extract of another Litany, just to see what you think:
It seems that the above should fall under the same crticism. OK, let's try one more:
It seems to me that if the Protestant criticism of the Rosary, based upon the "vain repetitions" phrase in the KJV verion of Mt 6:7-8 was valid ("vain repetitions" being their "translation" of battologeo, which, in fact, should be translated "babblings," as it is done in modern translations), it would apply to these prayers, as well. But there is a little problem, though. With the last two litanies I extracted, the first was Dan 3:59-69 and the second was Psalm 136:3-10.
Again, my apologies for the excessive length of this post. However, I needed to provide a decent refutation of your statements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Socks,
I am not attributing any anger to anything you've posted. I appreciate the attitude of most ex-catholics on this board...not their cup of tea, but if it works for somebody else, so be it.
As I've said before, I think that the majority of ex-Catholics are ex-Catholic because of horrible teaching on the part of those who were supposed to teach them or they had the misfortune of being in parishes that didn't meet their needs (the two are often closely related). And, in many cases, they either drifted off or they got captured by somebody with a better offer. I'm sorry for that; if there are misunderstandings, I'd love to have the opportunity to correct those misunderstandings; but, in the final analysis, if we have a live-and-let-live attitude, then the conversation can at least stay civil.
That's the way I've seen it with you...we may not agree on things, but, we can keep it civil. And that is a good thing.
Cheers!
And I wish Trent would have happened before Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles....speaking as a Catholic...Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Amen brother! I do thank God for that Catholic!
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I would like to think that ex-catholics left a lot of religious platitudes behind them and have encountered the power of the Holy Spirit, holy spirit. I too was brought up catholic..I know all the 'hail mary full of grace, the lord is with thees' and none of it did a dam**d thing for me or those I hold dear.
Each to their own,but I think that a 'returning' catholic would be as 'rare' as a 'returning' twigee.
p.s. if that 'sounds' uncivil I apologize in advance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
allan
that may not be so
i have started to go to mass again
never back to twig!
the mass is so different from what i remember it 40 years ago
mark thank you again for your enlighting post
keep them up, peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Mexico is one of the most RC countrys of the world, the old "Pope" use to say that he was Mexican. So I studied in a RC School all my life up to college. Over ther I started at The Way and when I go out The Way and have a "regular" life, a wife (not believer also not RC), a baby kid an all that I had to act accordingly with the traditions of my comunity who is 90% RC. Very few mormons and very few JehovaW. But in my hart I do not like to go to church. And do not like what RC represents. Very few word, a lot of idols an a lot of devil spirit stuff. "The deaths are no death, the are with god", What god? "You have too carry the Cross of Christ" Well I am a son of God, delivered from condemnation. "You have to be babtize" What? I have holy spirit in me. If I have to sin I rather prefer to go to a Table Dance Bar and invite LC Martindale with the girls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
good post themex !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You're welcome. A pleasure to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Mark thanks for taking all the time to post all of the info. I'll try to respond as soon as I can free up some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.