I know years ago that mass had to be given in Latin, right? As one uninformed who doesn't go, is that still done much or at all?
For the most part, they are celebrated in the local language now. Some of the prayers are still done in Latin and a few Masses are still all in Latin. My church has 7 Masses every weekend. One a month in Latin, 1 a week in Spanish, and the remainder in English.
There are other churches that have Mass in Italian, Polish, Tagalog, Korean, French, Croatian, Greek, and German around the area...and a couple who do the Mass in Latin every week.
I was raised Roman Catholic and served as an altar boy.
I have NEVER attended a mass that was given in Latin.
And I had an EXCELLENT attendance record as a kid.
(52 Sundays of the year, plus High Holy Days,
plus a few more here and there when parochial school
classes attended together.)
And yes,
my religious education was much as described here,
with form taught, but no education as to what and
why. It was mechanical and sterile.
If that was representative of ALL Roman Catholics
I know, I'd be advocating for everyone I know
to leave it posthaste.
If the mechanics was all there was then I would agree with you fully. However, as I've tried to explain, there is a tremendous amount of significance that is associated with the actions. And, as I've tried to show, the actions, and their underlying meaning, all have origins in the Bible or have been practiced, in one form or another, since apostolic times.
But you are all too right in your criticism Wordwolf. Historically, the children have been only taught the actions to take, the words to say, and so on, without providing an understanding of their deeper spiritual significance. That was my criticism of the Baltimore Catechism...it correctly taught what was to be believed and what to be done, but it never really went into the "why" behind the "what." And, in all honesty, I'm not sure how much "why" could be effectively taught to a 2nd or 3rd grade child. However, prior to the time a child goes through confirmation, they should be taught the "why," at least to a degree, in addition to the "what." An understanding of the "why" is important so that a teenager or an adult can defend his or her faith against attacks by others. In the modern day, with the improved transportation and improved communications, that understanding is more and more important, because of all the additional seductions that are now attempting to influence our children and young adults.
In addition to the attacks from without, there have been a number of bad influences emanating from within the church, as well. A general liberalization from within Catholic education has happened since WWII (so I'm told). Some teachers, who are supposed to support, understand, and affirm traditional Catholic beliefs have instead actively sought to teach their students where those beliefs were wrong...teaching in the seminary has, for decades, been less and less Catholic. Societal influences have attempted to impose themselves on core Church doctrine, resulting in a secularization of Catholicism rather than attempting to influence society to be more Catholic in nature.
(And, by the way, this is one of the main reasons I am sending my daughter to an orthodox Catholic High School that is located 20 miles away rather than the one that is across the street from our parish church)
This generation, the ones educated from the mid-late 50s through the late 70s, is the one that has produced the largest number of people who have renounced the faith, the number of people who, although they remain in the church, believe contrary to those beliefs taught by the church, and, interestingly, the vast majority of pedophile priests (if you doubt that, take a look at the analysis on the USCCB web site).
However, there have been some corrective actions that, in time, should correct much of the errors that have occurred. The Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesia, mandates that Catholic Universities and their instructors, certify (through a written certification called a "mandatum") that they will teach in accordance with the Magesterium. [This may sound a little strange, but if a institution that calls itself a "Catholic" institution should teach that way] The publication of a new Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a baseline used to form all religious education. I remember a few years ago when my daughter's religion class texts were changed to some that taught using that framework. The publication of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, in 2004, provides an unambiguous statement of the application of Church beliefs in regards to social issues affecting the Church's people. There is currently an "Apostolic Visitation" of all seminaries in the United States, with the goal being correcting heterodox teachings through those seminaries (already one seminary director has resigned as a result of this visitation). Rumor has it that the Vatican is in the process of preparing a very unambiguous statement in regard to Catholic politicians that will essentially state that if a politician chooses to identify himself as a "Catholic" politican, he needs to act as a "Catholic" politician. Sounds tough, but it needs to be...they have let things get out of control, to the detriment of lives, public morals, and peoples' souls.
And there will be pushback to this: I am sure the above couple of paragraphs upset many on this board who read them. And I am sure that there will be not a few very nasty posts in response to those paragraphs. Just as important, when confronted with this, I am certain that there will be many people who decide they prefer to stick with their social/ political positions than with being Catholic. And the implementation of them will take a while. Many of the current bishops are those who went through seminary during the times of heterodox teachings. They are often reticent to take a bold stand (see a report on the current pope's statement to the Austrian bishops here. You can see the original full document (in German) here.
What does all this matter to you, somebody who has many years ago, decided to leave the Church? Well, the bottom line is this:
- If you have friends or relatives who are still "in," hopefully the posts I've done earlier in the thread will provide you some comfort in knowing that their practices and beliefs do have some basis, even if you've decided not to subscribe to them.
- If you left, not so much because of doctrine, but because of "deadness," hopefully you'll have some comfort in knowing that your people who are still "in" are, in many cases, seeing more signs of "life" and that actions are being taken even now to improve that.
I well know how frustrating it must be to see people you care about participate in an institution that you've been taught for decades is the antichrist itself. Well, the last thing I'll say on it (for now) is this:
Most of us who were in TWI through the 80s either have read or have seen Ralph Woodrow's book, Babylon Mystery Religion. Well, if you take a look at Ralph Woodrow's website, you will see that he has completely renounced that book and the teachings contained therein. Think about all the teachings you've heard and maybe have given that were based, at least indirectly, upon that book. If he has renounced that book (and think about how difficult that must be...to publically say you're wrong), then maybe the apocryphal considerations spurred on by that book should be re-examined, as well.
Rumor has it that the Vatican is in the process of preparing a very unambiguous statement in regard to Catholic politicians that will essentially state that if a politician chooses to identify himself as a "Catholic" politican, he needs to act as a "Catholic" politician. Sounds tough, but it needs to be...they have let things get out of control, to the detriment of lives, public morals, and peoples' souls.
Now what happens then, should what the Church teaches runs smack against what the Constitution requires, hmmm? What/who should the Catholic politician be loyal to then? ... The Constitution? Or the Church?
See, this is Yet Another Reason why we need to enforce separation of Church and State. For those who want 'God back in the public square', it then begs the question: Which God? According to which 'right and orthodox' religion?
Remember reading about the concerns that people had when John Kennedy (our first Catholic president) was elected? That he was going to be somehow a 'vassal' or otherwise subject to the Pope? (He said & proved that that wasn't going to be the case) Kind of silly and unsubstantiated (even based on some anti-Catholic bigotry) fears, weren't they? Well, you have Catholic politicians seriously implement what you have indicated here, and those fears won't be so silly after all, hmmm? And the same principle goes for any form of Protestantism as well.
Now what happens then, should what the Church teaches runs smack against what the Constitution requires, hmmm? What/who should the Catholic politician be loyal to then? ... The Constitution? Or the Church?
See, this is Yet Another Reason why we need to enforce separation of Church and State. For those who want 'God back in the public square', it then begs the question: Which God? According to which 'right and orthodox' religion?
Remember reading about the concerns that people had when John Kennedy (our first Catholic president) was elected? That he was going to be somehow a 'vassal' or otherwise subject to the Pope? (He said & proved that that wasn't going to be the case) Kind of silly and unsubstantiated (even based on some anti-Catholic bigotry) fears, weren't they? Well, you have Catholic politicians seriously implement what you have indicated here, and those fears won't be so silly after all, hmmm? And the same principle goes for any form of Protestantism as well.
The Catholic should be loyal to his God. The document will say nothing about non-Catholic politicians, but if they choose to label themselves as Catholic then they should act as such...otherwise, don't use the label.
(I sure am glad you act like I predicted you would Garth)
I take it that it'll be thru the Dictates of the Catholic church, right? That being the case, wouldn't that strengthen the anti-Catholic's argument that Catholics shouldn't run for office? That the silly fears that people had re: John Kennedy aren't so ill-founded? Which also brings up another question: Since John Kennedy promised the American people that the Catholic Church wasn't going to hold political sway over his office, was he less 'loyal to his (read 'Catholic') God' because of that?
... Doncha just LUV these 'pain in the arse' type questions?
(I sure am glad you act like I predicted you would Garth)
... and I am glad I 'acted' like that too. I keep consistant with what I believe in. That way, you know where I'm coming from.
Mark, I wanted to say on the quote of the pope on the plane - personally I found the quote interesting from a different perspective, if disconnected from the question about 9/11. For the pope it offered a pastoral opportunity, which may have been how he answered it. As a politician, the pope's response didn't really answer yes or no but I doubt he was concerned with that specifically at the time. He also may have felt he didn't know the answer. That being the case the I would suspect any answer he would give has to deal with the Catholic view of how God works, what He does, why, and how.
But really the answer rang true to me in a different way. We live in a world where so many people all claim to know exactly what "God" is thinking about nearly everything. Clear cut answers on everything abound from people who say they're absolutely sure about whatever it is, no question about it, because they know how God Views It.
His answer - it's not an easy thing to know God's intentions - resonates against that in a way that I would say is both true and very "Catholic" in that recognizing the limitations of ourselves when compared to the whole of "God" immediately puts us in a humbled position, recognizing that if God is who we make Him out to be, we may not have hands-on experience with knowing His mind, as if it were the back of our hand so to speak.
People have the capacity to do evil, we know that. We can dream up all kinds of bad things and do them to ourselves and each other for no other reason than we decide that's what we want to do. We can credit or blame the god of our making. 9/11 shows that.
His answer interested me. My answer would be "why drag God into this?" His answer moves ever so slighly in that direction, to me anyway.
I remember writing a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia newspaper in 1979 in answer to a story of "Why did God choose, then take the Pope?" (This was just after Pope John Paul I died.) No, I did not get into the question of God choosing the Pope or not...just into the taking part.
At the time I was interim corps helping to run the WOW branch there. yes, the letter was printed.
His answer - it's not an easy thing to know God's intentions - resonates against that in a way that I would say is both true and very "Catholic" in that recognizing the limitations of ourselves when compared to the whole of "God" immediately puts us in a humbled position, recognizing that if God is who we make Him out to be, we may not have hands-on experience with knowing His mind, as if it were the back of our hand so to speak.
I don't get around on this forum as much as I would like, so I offer that as a way of explanation... Geeze, you're a real dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, huh? And I've been so impressed by your intellect on many issues, too. Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed but I've known all my life that I can't predict peoples' religious beliefs based on limited information.
So... you believe little babies go to purgatory?? Can we still commit adultry, get drunk and screw, and generally act debauched but get ourselves an indulgance or two? A get-out-of-Hell card for the right price? Or what was good for Catholics in the 15th century no longer good today? You see, Mark.. I'm picking at you a bit because it seems strange to me that a sharp guy like yourself would still believe in ANY of that hokem pokem. But alas... lots of folks believe in lots of hokem pokem. We seem to have no end to the number of Islamic fundies who'll blow themselves up for "the cause". As long as you're happy dude. A good long life to you.
I take it that it'll be thru the Dictates of the Catholic church, right? That being the case, wouldn't that strengthen the anti-Catholic's argument that Catholics shouldn't run for office? That the silly fears that people had re: John Kennedy aren't so ill-founded? Which also brings up another question: Since John Kennedy promised the American people that the Catholic Church wasn't going to hold political sway over his office, was he less 'loyal to his (read 'Catholic') God' because of that?
... Doncha just LUV these 'pain in the arse' type questions?
... and I am glad I 'acted' like that too. I keep consistant with what I believe in. That way, you know where I'm coming from.
B)
Sure, Archie. Actually, Catholics should not be allowed to vote either. In fact, Catholics should have their citizenship stripped away. Sheesh.
Give me a break. Again, as usual, you take your positions to a ridiculous extreme. Most people I know of, Catholic or not, vote for a person not only because he makes every conceivable promise, they vote for the person because they believe that he will make the right decision in a given circumstance.
Kennedy's private life aside, I don't believe he made any policy decisions that were counter to the official policy of the Church.
If JFK would have supported laws that undermined the teachings of the Church, then, yes, I'd say he was being less loyal to his God. He may have; I just can't think of any examples (again, his private life is a different matter completely...but he kept that private and scandal was not involved).
Many modern so-called Catholic politicians seem to take pleasure in sticking their tongues out at the teachings of the Church, blowing a big, wet raspberry, and daring the Church to say something. Then if the Church has the audacity to say something...and the something being the politician's status as a Catholic...the politician (and sympathizers like you) starts screaming "Separation of Church and State" over and over, ad nauseum.
As I alluded to previously, if a politician chooses to advance policy that is directly counter to the teachings of the Church, so be it. That politician should simply stop using the label "Catholic" next to his name and shouldn't automatically expect to receive communion.
By the way, Archie, I don't particularly enjoy this pain in the arse questions. Not that they are all that difficult to answer, but they are a waste of perfectly good electrons. The only trouble is, I do feel honor bound to answer.
I don't get around on this forum as much as I would like, so I offer that as a way of explanation... Geeze, you're a real dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, huh? And I've been so impressed by your intellect on many issues, too. Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed but I've known all my life that I can't predict peoples' religious beliefs based on limited information.
So... you believe little babies go to purgatory?? Can we still commit adultry, get drunk and screw, and generally act debauched but get ourselves an indulgance or two? A get-out-of-Hell card for the right price? Or what was good for Catholics in the 15th century no longer good today? You see, Mark.. I'm picking at you a bit because it seems strange to me that a sharp guy like yourself would still believe in ANY of that hokem pokem. But alas... lots of folks believe in lots of hokem pokem. We seem to have no end to the number of Islamic fundies who'll blow themselves up for "the cause". As long as you're happy dude. A good long life to you.
sudo (disappointed)
Sorry to disappoint, old man.
Thanks for the nice words. Believe it or not, the intellect is the main reason why I am a Catholic. Despite all efforts to the contrary, I have always had this unshakable belief in God. As I said over in Geo's "Why Religion" thread, it's just something that has always been there for me since I was but a wee tot. And, to tell you the truth, despite looking at pretty much all of the various varieties of Christianity, Catholicism was the only one that I found truly intellectually satisfying. Having said that, the Catholicism I practice and teach to my children is hardly the simplistic, superstituous, voodoo that it is accused of (and how some people practice). But I recognize that there are some who believe that any belief in a supreme being (outside of themselves) is simply mumbo-jumbo. And that's just fine.
Anyway, as to your specific questions:
Purgatory for babies? Where did that come from???
15th Century abuse of indulgences?? Admittedly an abuse by a horrible Pope...one that was suppressed by the Council of Trent a few years after the Reformation (the actual quote suppressing the practice I quoted earlier in the thread, if you are curious...yeah, right)
Look, Sudo, I have no arguments with anybody on the subject of religion (or lack thereof). Generally speaking, outside of the Doctrine forum, I rarely bring the subject up. I figure that it's a personal decision one way or the other. And as long as people don't start slamming each other (particularly with inaccurate information), then we ought to be able to respect each other's beliefs.
The only reason I vociferously started defending Catholic beliefs here was that a person brought up that he went back to Mass and enjoyed it and was thinking of going back. And, as is usually the case here, somebody else decided to start slamming the beliefs of the Church (and not as you did, above, which I take as good-natured ribbing). And the slams were not based on legitimate criticism, but on inaccuracies.
Again, I do sincerely appreciate your nice words. Sorry that my beliefs are a disappointment to you; however, I've held those beliefs since long before I started posting on gsc.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? :unsure:
You misread what I said in your latest reply to me. Nowhere am I suggesting that Catholics should not run for office, not vote, etc. But when the pope puts forth suggestions (which apparently to you is excathedera, it seems) about in order to be a good Catholic, their loyalty to the Church must come above their loyalty to the Constitution when and where the two conflict, (kinda funny that it's coming from Ratzinger; yet I sorta expected as much from him) and folks like you take it at least semi-seriously, people are going to wonder about the points that I brought up.
And yeah, folks like me are going to scream 'separation of church and state' (a position that the Church never supported fully and officially by the way, and you can look all thru Wikopedia for evidence to the contrary; you won't find it), because while the denomination headed in the Vatican has no official and legal authority over here, folks like me don't appreciate the Church endeavoring to 'take the back door in' by way of guilt tripping, and even using the "You cannot take communion while you support laws and bills that contradict the Church's teachings" tactic (currently it deals just with abortion, but hey, it can be used just as effectively on other issues important to the Church as well) to get the lawmakers to bend to the Church's will.
Basically, I think that your point should be reversed. In that, if you cannot reconcile your Catholic teachings with our laws and secular lawmaking process, maybe you should not run for office. That way, you can still be a 'good Catholic', and our legal system can be free of your church's ecclesiastical meddling.
And if this point is 'Archie Bunker' type of bigotry, its no more than yours is.
<_<
P.S., and biblically, the only thing that I notice that is commanded in whatever church/government conflict appears, is that you should not worship any other gods, nor stop "preaching in His name" (I think its in Acts). Nothing about remaining faithful to the Church's teachings, a good number of which undoubtedly conflict with the Constitution, particularly the one about 'Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion". ALL Catholic governments throughout history made laws with regard to the establishment of (orthodox) religion. As did many Protestant governments.
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
markomalley
For the most part, they are celebrated in the local language now. Some of the prayers are still done in Latin and a few Masses are still all in Latin. My church has 7 Masses every weekend. One a month in Latin, 1 a week in Spanish, and the remainder in English.
There are other churches that have Mass in Italian, Polish, Tagalog, Korean, French, Croatian, Greek, and German around the area...and a couple who do the Mass in Latin every week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
AFAIK,
that began changing with Vatican II.
I was raised Roman Catholic and served as an altar boy.
I have NEVER attended a mass that was given in Latin.
And I had an EXCELLENT attendance record as a kid.
(52 Sundays of the year, plus High Holy Days,
plus a few more here and there when parochial school
classes attended together.)
And yes,
my religious education was much as described here,
with form taught, but no education as to what and
why. It was mechanical and sterile.
If that was representative of ALL Roman Catholics
I know, I'd be advocating for everyone I know
to leave it posthaste.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
If the mechanics was all there was then I would agree with you fully. However, as I've tried to explain, there is a tremendous amount of significance that is associated with the actions. And, as I've tried to show, the actions, and their underlying meaning, all have origins in the Bible or have been practiced, in one form or another, since apostolic times.
But you are all too right in your criticism Wordwolf. Historically, the children have been only taught the actions to take, the words to say, and so on, without providing an understanding of their deeper spiritual significance. That was my criticism of the Baltimore Catechism...it correctly taught what was to be believed and what to be done, but it never really went into the "why" behind the "what." And, in all honesty, I'm not sure how much "why" could be effectively taught to a 2nd or 3rd grade child. However, prior to the time a child goes through confirmation, they should be taught the "why," at least to a degree, in addition to the "what." An understanding of the "why" is important so that a teenager or an adult can defend his or her faith against attacks by others. In the modern day, with the improved transportation and improved communications, that understanding is more and more important, because of all the additional seductions that are now attempting to influence our children and young adults.
In addition to the attacks from without, there have been a number of bad influences emanating from within the church, as well. A general liberalization from within Catholic education has happened since WWII (so I'm told). Some teachers, who are supposed to support, understand, and affirm traditional Catholic beliefs have instead actively sought to teach their students where those beliefs were wrong...teaching in the seminary has, for decades, been less and less Catholic. Societal influences have attempted to impose themselves on core Church doctrine, resulting in a secularization of Catholicism rather than attempting to influence society to be more Catholic in nature.
(And, by the way, this is one of the main reasons I am sending my daughter to an orthodox Catholic High School that is located 20 miles away rather than the one that is across the street from our parish church)
This generation, the ones educated from the mid-late 50s through the late 70s, is the one that has produced the largest number of people who have renounced the faith, the number of people who, although they remain in the church, believe contrary to those beliefs taught by the church, and, interestingly, the vast majority of pedophile priests (if you doubt that, take a look at the analysis on the USCCB web site).
However, there have been some corrective actions that, in time, should correct much of the errors that have occurred. The Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesia, mandates that Catholic Universities and their instructors, certify (through a written certification called a "mandatum") that they will teach in accordance with the Magesterium. [This may sound a little strange, but if a institution that calls itself a "Catholic" institution should teach that way] The publication of a new Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a baseline used to form all religious education. I remember a few years ago when my daughter's religion class texts were changed to some that taught using that framework. The publication of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, in 2004, provides an unambiguous statement of the application of Church beliefs in regards to social issues affecting the Church's people. There is currently an "Apostolic Visitation" of all seminaries in the United States, with the goal being correcting heterodox teachings through those seminaries (already one seminary director has resigned as a result of this visitation). Rumor has it that the Vatican is in the process of preparing a very unambiguous statement in regard to Catholic politicians that will essentially state that if a politician chooses to identify himself as a "Catholic" politican, he needs to act as a "Catholic" politician. Sounds tough, but it needs to be...they have let things get out of control, to the detriment of lives, public morals, and peoples' souls.
And there will be pushback to this: I am sure the above couple of paragraphs upset many on this board who read them. And I am sure that there will be not a few very nasty posts in response to those paragraphs. Just as important, when confronted with this, I am certain that there will be many people who decide they prefer to stick with their social/ political positions than with being Catholic. And the implementation of them will take a while. Many of the current bishops are those who went through seminary during the times of heterodox teachings. They are often reticent to take a bold stand (see a report on the current pope's statement to the Austrian bishops here. You can see the original full document (in German) here.
What does all this matter to you, somebody who has many years ago, decided to leave the Church? Well, the bottom line is this:
- If you have friends or relatives who are still "in," hopefully the posts I've done earlier in the thread will provide you some comfort in knowing that their practices and beliefs do have some basis, even if you've decided not to subscribe to them.
- If you left, not so much because of doctrine, but because of "deadness," hopefully you'll have some comfort in knowing that your people who are still "in" are, in many cases, seeing more signs of "life" and that actions are being taken even now to improve that.
I well know how frustrating it must be to see people you care about participate in an institution that you've been taught for decades is the antichrist itself. Well, the last thing I'll say on it (for now) is this:
Most of us who were in TWI through the 80s either have read or have seen Ralph Woodrow's book, Babylon Mystery Religion. Well, if you take a look at Ralph Woodrow's website, you will see that he has completely renounced that book and the teachings contained therein. Think about all the teachings you've heard and maybe have given that were based, at least indirectly, upon that book. If he has renounced that book (and think about how difficult that must be...to publically say you're wrong), then maybe the apocryphal considerations spurred on by that book should be re-examined, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Now what happens then, should what the Church teaches runs smack against what the Constitution requires, hmmm? What/who should the Catholic politician be loyal to then? ... The Constitution? Or the Church?
See, this is Yet Another Reason why we need to enforce separation of Church and State. For those who want 'God back in the public square', it then begs the question: Which God? According to which 'right and orthodox' religion?
Remember reading about the concerns that people had when John Kennedy (our first Catholic president) was elected? That he was going to be somehow a 'vassal' or otherwise subject to the Pope? (He said & proved that that wasn't going to be the case) Kind of silly and unsubstantiated (even based on some anti-Catholic bigotry) fears, weren't they? Well, you have Catholic politicians seriously implement what you have indicated here, and those fears won't be so silly after all, hmmm? And the same principle goes for any form of Protestantism as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The Catholic should be loyal to his God. The document will say nothing about non-Catholic politicians, but if they choose to label themselves as Catholic then they should act as such...otherwise, don't use the label.
(I sure am glad you act like I predicted you would Garth)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... Doncha just LUV these 'pain in the arse' type questions?
... and I am glad I 'acted' like that too. I keep consistant with what I believe in. That way, you know where I'm coming from.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Mark, I wanted to say on the quote of the pope on the plane - personally I found the quote interesting from a different perspective, if disconnected from the question about 9/11. For the pope it offered a pastoral opportunity, which may have been how he answered it. As a politician, the pope's response didn't really answer yes or no but I doubt he was concerned with that specifically at the time. He also may have felt he didn't know the answer. That being the case the I would suspect any answer he would give has to deal with the Catholic view of how God works, what He does, why, and how.
But really the answer rang true to me in a different way. We live in a world where so many people all claim to know exactly what "God" is thinking about nearly everything. Clear cut answers on everything abound from people who say they're absolutely sure about whatever it is, no question about it, because they know how God Views It.
His answer - it's not an easy thing to know God's intentions - resonates against that in a way that I would say is both true and very "Catholic" in that recognizing the limitations of ourselves when compared to the whole of "God" immediately puts us in a humbled position, recognizing that if God is who we make Him out to be, we may not have hands-on experience with knowing His mind, as if it were the back of our hand so to speak.
People have the capacity to do evil, we know that. We can dream up all kinds of bad things and do them to ourselves and each other for no other reason than we decide that's what we want to do. We can credit or blame the god of our making. 9/11 shows that.
His answer interested me. My answer would be "why drag God into this?" His answer moves ever so slighly in that direction, to me anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I remember writing a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia newspaper in 1979 in answer to a story of "Why did God choose, then take the Pope?" (This was just after Pope John Paul I died.) No, I did not get into the question of God choosing the Pope or not...just into the taking part.
At the time I was interim corps helping to run the WOW branch there. yes, the letter was printed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Profound statement, Socks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Mark,
I don't get around on this forum as much as I would like, so I offer that as a way of explanation... Geeze, you're a real dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, huh? And I've been so impressed by your intellect on many issues, too. Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed but I've known all my life that I can't predict peoples' religious beliefs based on limited information.
So... you believe little babies go to purgatory?? Can we still commit adultry, get drunk and screw, and generally act debauched but get ourselves an indulgance or two? A get-out-of-Hell card for the right price? Or what was good for Catholics in the 15th century no longer good today? You see, Mark.. I'm picking at you a bit because it seems strange to me that a sharp guy like yourself would still believe in ANY of that hokem pokem. But alas... lots of folks believe in lots of hokem pokem. We seem to have no end to the number of Islamic fundies who'll blow themselves up for "the cause". As long as you're happy dude. A good long life to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sure, Archie. Actually, Catholics should not be allowed to vote either. In fact, Catholics should have their citizenship stripped away. Sheesh.
Give me a break. Again, as usual, you take your positions to a ridiculous extreme. Most people I know of, Catholic or not, vote for a person not only because he makes every conceivable promise, they vote for the person because they believe that he will make the right decision in a given circumstance.
Kennedy's private life aside, I don't believe he made any policy decisions that were counter to the official policy of the Church.
If JFK would have supported laws that undermined the teachings of the Church, then, yes, I'd say he was being less loyal to his God. He may have; I just can't think of any examples (again, his private life is a different matter completely...but he kept that private and scandal was not involved).
Many modern so-called Catholic politicians seem to take pleasure in sticking their tongues out at the teachings of the Church, blowing a big, wet raspberry, and daring the Church to say something. Then if the Church has the audacity to say something...and the something being the politician's status as a Catholic...the politician (and sympathizers like you) starts screaming "Separation of Church and State" over and over, ad nauseum.
As I alluded to previously, if a politician chooses to advance policy that is directly counter to the teachings of the Church, so be it. That politician should simply stop using the label "Catholic" next to his name and shouldn't automatically expect to receive communion.
By the way, Archie, I don't particularly enjoy this pain in the arse questions. Not that they are all that difficult to answer, but they are a waste of perfectly good electrons. The only trouble is, I do feel honor bound to answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sorry to disappoint, old man.
Thanks for the nice words. Believe it or not, the intellect is the main reason why I am a Catholic. Despite all efforts to the contrary, I have always had this unshakable belief in God. As I said over in Geo's "Why Religion" thread, it's just something that has always been there for me since I was but a wee tot. And, to tell you the truth, despite looking at pretty much all of the various varieties of Christianity, Catholicism was the only one that I found truly intellectually satisfying. Having said that, the Catholicism I practice and teach to my children is hardly the simplistic, superstituous, voodoo that it is accused of (and how some people practice). But I recognize that there are some who believe that any belief in a supreme being (outside of themselves) is simply mumbo-jumbo. And that's just fine.
Anyway, as to your specific questions:
Purgatory for babies? Where did that come from???
15th Century abuse of indulgences?? Admittedly an abuse by a horrible Pope...one that was suppressed by the Council of Trent a few years after the Reformation (the actual quote suppressing the practice I quoted earlier in the thread, if you are curious...yeah, right)
Look, Sudo, I have no arguments with anybody on the subject of religion (or lack thereof). Generally speaking, outside of the Doctrine forum, I rarely bring the subject up. I figure that it's a personal decision one way or the other. And as long as people don't start slamming each other (particularly with inaccurate information), then we ought to be able to respect each other's beliefs.
The only reason I vociferously started defending Catholic beliefs here was that a person brought up that he went back to Mass and enjoyed it and was thinking of going back. And, as is usually the case here, somebody else decided to start slamming the beliefs of the Church (and not as you did, above, which I take as good-natured ribbing). And the slams were not based on legitimate criticism, but on inaccuracies.
Again, I do sincerely appreciate your nice words. Sorry that my beliefs are a disappointment to you; however, I've held those beliefs since long before I started posting on gsc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Marchie, errr Mark,
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? :unsure:
You misread what I said in your latest reply to me. Nowhere am I suggesting that Catholics should not run for office, not vote, etc. But when the pope puts forth suggestions (which apparently to you is excathedera, it seems) about in order to be a good Catholic, their loyalty to the Church must come above their loyalty to the Constitution when and where the two conflict, (kinda funny that it's coming from Ratzinger; yet I sorta expected as much from him) and folks like you take it at least semi-seriously, people are going to wonder about the points that I brought up.
And yeah, folks like me are going to scream 'separation of church and state' (a position that the Church never supported fully and officially by the way, and you can look all thru Wikopedia for evidence to the contrary; you won't find it), because while the denomination headed in the Vatican has no official and legal authority over here, folks like me don't appreciate the Church endeavoring to 'take the back door in' by way of guilt tripping, and even using the "You cannot take communion while you support laws and bills that contradict the Church's teachings" tactic (currently it deals just with abortion, but hey, it can be used just as effectively on other issues important to the Church as well) to get the lawmakers to bend to the Church's will.
Basically, I think that your point should be reversed. In that, if you cannot reconcile your Catholic teachings with our laws and secular lawmaking process, maybe you should not run for office. That way, you can still be a 'good Catholic', and our legal system can be free of your church's ecclesiastical meddling.
And if this point is 'Archie Bunker' type of bigotry, its no more than yours is.
<_<
P.S., and biblically, the only thing that I notice that is commanded in whatever church/government conflict appears, is that you should not worship any other gods, nor stop "preaching in His name" (I think its in Acts). Nothing about remaining faithful to the Church's teachings, a good number of which undoubtedly conflict with the Constitution, particularly the one about 'Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion". ALL Catholic governments throughout history made laws with regard to the establishment of (orthodox) religion. As did many Protestant governments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd like to request that you guys either move this thread
to Doctrinal so you can more formally attack Mark,
or start a NEW thread in Doctrinal so you can more
formally attack Mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... but, what if we want to INformally attack Mark?
Okay, okay, you got a point. It is getting hot in here. That being the case, mea cupla Mark. My bad. I'll back away from this argument.
(Wow! I actually said a Latin phrase, and here I thought that Latin was a dead language.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth, it would clearly have to go in the Doctrine Decaffeinated Forum!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
gee
i didn't mean to start trouble
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.