I just don't get Catholicism

[Hiroshi2]

Can somebody explain why Catholics believe the way that they do.........................because really and truly I had no idea what Catholics believed until the pope died and I got into a discussion with some Catholic people, and well...............let me just say this - it's hard for me to understand why Catholics see the pope the way that they do (because he is seen as a physical representation of Jesus Christ, but in my mind I can't fathom how any human being, born into sin, could possibly be seen around the world as being above everyone else and obviously having some sort of speical, superior relationship with Christ that "ordinary" Christians don't have, see what I'm saying?).


So why in the world do Catholic people believe any man/woman on this earth could possibly be seen in such a high regard, when no matter who you choose, it will be a person like everyone else, sinful in nature, capable of good and evil................just like everybody else. It's almost like worshipping a false god in the sense that you're placing so much faith and power in someone who quite frankly doesn't deserve it, because he's not God.




And why are there "saints", what are their purpose? Are they supposed to be somewhere between people and God too, even though they were born as people, just like you and me?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

The Catholics don't see the pope as a physical representation or any type of representation of Jesus Christ at all. The pope is supposedly chosen or ordained by God to be the leader of God's church on earth. Christians, whether they be Catholic or Protestant or any other denomination, all believe that Jesus Christ is unique in his sin-free life and perfection. Catholicism also emphasizes the retaining of church tradition (e.g. the eucharist) and the handing down of duties instead of simply placing all authority into the Bible (sola scripture) like the Protestants. This justifies the selection of specific individuals that are seen by Catholics as "destined" or "chosen by God" to be leaders in their respective capacities, whether they be bishops, archbishops, priests, the pope, etc. In turn, the decisions and perspectives of these leaders and the church are respected and heeded by Catholics.

As I'm sure you know, the Protestant Reformation arose due to the rampant corruption that existed within the ranks of the Roman Catholic church (most significantly one of them being the absurd notion that salvation can be paid through money), and there was a turning away from the authority or credibility of church leaders/the church and more emphasis on the sole authority of scripture and only scripture a la Martin Luther. This post is not an attack on Catholics in the present day, as the RC Church is quite a different creature today as it was before after generations of change and reform, and the Protestant side has divided into numerous branches of thought. Although, like the Protestants, the Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, they do believe that active and regular participation (i.e. "works") in various church traditions and obedience to the RC church apparatus is crucial and one of the signs of solid faith.

Then again, I'm not Catholic. I don't have a complete grasp on all the details.

[PropellerheadCP]

The Catholics don't see the pope as a physical representation or any type of representation of Jesus Christ at all. The pope is supposedly chosen or ordained by God to be the leader of God's church on earth. Christians, whether they be Catholic or Protestant or any other denomination, all believe that Jesus Christ is unique in his sin-free life and perfection. Catholicism also emphasizes the retaining of church tradition (e.g. the eucharist) and the handing down of duties instead of simply placing all authority into the Bible (sola scripture) like the Protestants. This justifies the selection of specific individuals that are seen by Catholics as "destined" or "chosen by God" to be leaders in their respective capacities, whether they be bishops, archbishops, priests, the pope, etc. In turn, the decisions and perspectives of these leaders and the church are respected and heeded by Catholics.

As I'm sure you know, the Protestant Reformation arose due to the rampant corruption that existed within the ranks of the Roman Catholic church (most significantly one of them being the absurd notion that salvation can be paid through money), and there was a turning away from the authority or credibility of church leaders/the church and more emphasis on the sole authority of scripture and only scripture a la Martin Luther. This post is not an attack on Catholics in the present day, as the RC Church is quite a different creature today as it was before after generations of change and reform, and the Protestant side has divided into numerous branches of thought. Although, like the Protestants, the Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, they do believe that active and regular participation (i.e. "works") in various church traditions and obedience to the RC church apparatus is crucial and one of the signs of solid faith.

Then again, I'm not Catholic. I don't have a complete grasp on all the details.

Actually, that's not bad at all. I'd like to give you a *Thumbs Up* for being one of the few who don't confuse the different belief systems (for example: confusing Baptist with Catholics) and lump them up into one big stereotype.

When people have a problem with Catholics, they usually mean Christians or mostly Baptists. When they talk about the Vatican and its past corruption, they think that it's the same church as every other divisions that believe that Christ did come. It's not the same.

So, yes... I totally believe that some people on this forum don't get Catholics because they don't understand the religion at all. Then again, a lot of believers don't understand their own religion in the first place. Especially since a lot of churches preach their own interpretation of the Bible.

[yoMAMA]

good question, hiroshi.

I went to a catholic college, and I have no idea either.

[kuilong]

Although, like the Protestants, the Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, they do believe that active and regular participation (i.e. "works") in various church traditions and obedience to the RC church apparatus is crucial and one of the signs of solid faith.

Yeah, though that might be a little misleading, as the whole model behind the Catholic idea of salvation is a bit different. It tends to regard salvation as a process -- Trent anathematized those who didn't believe that a person couldn't become "more justified" -- move closer to God. This sort of soteriology doesn't make sense in a Protestant context, as Protestants believe in imputed grace. So works are rewarded by God, and justify one further -- though Trent noted in De Iustificatione that nothing that precedes salvation, whether faith or works merits it.

As for the saints -- saints are mentioned often in the Bible. See Matthew 27:52, 1 Corinthians 6:2, Revelation 5:8 and so on. "Saint" means "holy", and the saints are those who have died, but are "alive in Jesus Christ" (as Paul puts it). Catholics view the church as not only consisting of those still on Earth (the Church Militant) but also those who are in heaven (the Church Triumphant).

The Pope, on the other hand, is considered the successor of St. Peter. All apostolic branches of Christianity (Catholics, Orthodox, Assyrians, Anglicans, etc.) believe the apostles established various "apostolic sees" and ordained bishops there. For instance, the Church at Alexandria is held to have been founded by St. Mark, and Rome by St. Peter. Here's a list of Popes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Popes) from St. Peter on. The Pope is considered a human just like everyone else, and prone to making mistakes, but is also the Patriarch of the Roman church, and has complete administrative power over it. (There is also the oft-misunderstood doctrine of papal infallibility, which is only exercised under rare circumstances, but that deserves an explanation of its own.)

Am I making any sense here?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Actually, that's not bad at all. I'd like to give you a *Thumbs Up* for being one of the few who don't confuse the different belief systems (for example: confusing Baptist with Catholics) and lump them up into one big stereotype.

Well, I am Presbyterian after all. As a Protestant, it's a bit difficult to get things mixed up and lump Catholics in with the Baptists or vice versa~

[yoMAMA]

Well, I am Presbyterian after all. As a Protestant, it's a bit difficult to get things mixed up and lump Catholics in with the Baptists or vice versa~

if you get too confused, you are more than welcome to join the atheist camp.

:wink: :biggrin:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Am I making any sense here?

Sure. I mean, I'm not Catholic, so I have no reason to really doubt or question your further elaboration of my words, haha.

[Faithless]

What I find interesting about Catholicism, Protestantism, and the like is how Christianity is made to feel like such a western religion. Catholocism takes it to its extreme with the silk clothes and long fancy robes.

Whose to say the worship of it is all wrong -- that maybe it should be worshipped in the same way as Islam?

Why not? The authors and stories come out of the Middle Eastern region do they not?

Many of the figures mentioned in the bible are most likely dark-skinned individuals, and not light like the western depiction of Jesus that hangs in every church stained glass.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

if you get too confused, you are more than welcome to join the atheist camp.

:wink: :biggrin:

Our camp has bigger and juicier marshmallows than yours :wink: And my pastor can beat up your leader. Er..~~

What I find interesting about Catholicism, Protestantism, and the like is how Christianity is made to feel like such a western religion. Catholocism takes it to its extreme with the silk clothes and long fancy robes.

Whose to say the worship of it is all wrong -- that maybe it should be worshipped in the same way as Islam?

Why not? The authors and stories come out of the Middle Eastern region do they not?

Many of the figures mentioned in the bible are most likely dark-skinned individuals, and not light like the western depiction of Jesus that hangs in every church stained glass.

Well as a Protestant, I would definitely agree that it's not so much how we worship as much as the fact that we are worshipping and in constant communication and obedience to God (with "obedience" holding varying definitions for various groups of Christians and Catholics of course). Does it matter how we line up when we pray? No. Does it matter what we wear? No. All that matters is that we desire to pray, and that we are praying. I know there are many Christians out there who disagree with me on this depending upon denomination, perspective, etc.

[Faithless]

Well as a Protestant, I would definitely agree that it's not so much how we worship as much as the fact that we are worshipping and in constant communication and obedience to God (with "obedience" holding varying definitions for various groups of Christians and Catholics of course). Does it matter how we line up when we pray? No. Does it matter what we wear? No. All that matters is that we desire to pray, and that we are praying. I know there are many Christians out there who disagree with me on this depending upon denomination, perspective, etc.
You're a good christian. Honest to your faith.

I'm simply having an inspirational moment brought on by H2's question. :rolleyes:

But as far as how modern Christians worship: Is it conceivable that in the era of those who wrote the bible they actually worshipped shu w ho ye (http://www.aramaicnt.org/NEW/index.php?p=23) (one of the first derivations of the name of Jesus) the process for worship involved kneeling and bowing with faces to the ground as the muslims?

It could matter if in reality any variation on the original manner of meeting the Messiah in spirit was a sin in itself.

[kuilong]

What I find interesting about Catholicism, Protestantism, and the like is how Christianity is made to feel like such a western religion. Catholocism takes it to its extreme with the silk clothes and long fancy robes.

Well, that's probably because you live in the West. :P But the Eastern Catholic churches have their own patriarchs (http://www.saintelias.org/elements/clip_image002.gif), with their own forms of worship (complete with prostrations, ala Islam).

[Faithless]

Well, that's probably because you live in the West. :P But the Eastern Catholic churches have their own patriarchs (http://www.saintelias.org/elements/clip_image002.gif), with their own forms of worship (complete with prostrations, ala Islam).
Whoa, if that man was black, I would have thought that was Afrika Bambaataa.

Probably more like the dress of the "three wise men"? Of the east weren't they?

But I'm with H2 in being in awe of all the cerimony in Catholicism.

I think I like the good gospel twinged way of running Sundays at a church. Good music and uplifting message.

[Yeahman]

The pope is a human being just like you and me. He is capable of sin and he can be wrong. Having said that, as the successor of St. Peter, he is the Vicar of Christ or representative in the sense that Christ left some authority with the office of the papacy which St. Peter first held. Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans believe in apostolic authority. The episcopal authority was physically passed down by the laying of hands for 2000 years. In fact the Catholic and Orthodox recognize each other's apostolic authority. To the Orthodox the pope is a bishop in apostolic succession. It's just that they don't believe in the primacy of authority of the pope. They do aknowledge that the pope once held a primacy of honor though. Because of this mutual acceptable of apostolic authority, a Catholics who converts to Orthodoxy or vice-versa is not re-confirmed or re-ordained (in the case of the clergy). This is why I hold out great hope for reunification of the Churches.
The Catholic Church did recognize the apostolic authority of the Anglicans in the past. However the Anglicans have modified their ordination rites to the point where the Catholic Church no longer regards it as valid.

This apostolic authority is important in understanding the situation in China. The Catholic Church regards the Patriotic Church as valid yet illicit (AKA schismatic). Valid because their clergy is descended from valid ordinations in the apostolic manner but illicit because they operate outside the authority of the Holy See.

In contrast Protestants do not believe that Christ established a physical Church with episcopal offices. They believe that any authority that Christ gave to the disciples died with the disciples and was not passed on.

When Catholics say that the pope is infallible, they do not mean that he cannot ever err. Only on ex cathedra declarations on matters of faith or morals is the pope prevented by the Holy Spirit from error. This is not a common occurence. I believe, the last time this authority was used was in 1950 by Pope Pius XII in declaring the last Marian dogma of the Assumption. These declarations are also called Sacred Tradition (with a big 'T') and hold as much authority as the Bible itself. Rejecting them would be grounds for automatic excommunication. Anything outside of Tradition and Scripture, can be debated and changed as the Church wishes.

Aside from infallible authority the pope and all the bishops have ordinary teaching authority called the Ordinary Magisterium akin to the authority that Protestant pastors claim. They exercise this authority as a shepherd of the Church but do not claim that they cannot be wrong. This is the type of authority exercised day-to-day (ie. anything said about the Terri Schiavo situation). While even this authority demands obedience from the faithful, the Church reserves the right to aknowledge that it was wrong and change its mind.

BTW, what Martin Luther opposed in the Protestant Reformation was the sale of indulgences. Indulgences are NOT, as commonly misunderstood, certificates of forgiveness. Indulgences are the remission of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. Catholics believe that everyone must be cleansed of the stains of their sins even after forgiveness. After death you can either go to hell, directly to heaven, or heaven via purgatory where you are purged of the stains of your sins so you can enter heaven pure. Indulgences are not, nor were they ever, a way to salvation. On earth you can gain indulgences in various ways such as meditating on the the Stations of the Cross. In the past some sold these indulgences as a fundraiser. The Council of Trent outlawed that practice.

Saints are those people that the Church recognize as being in heaven. A deceased relative can be an unofficial saint. All Saints Day is the day to honor all the saints, known and unknown.

[Azn Retribution]

Catholicism. you mean the bizarre melange of christianity and paganism that was created for the political convenience and tool of manipulation and control by the roman empire?

oh and yes I'm christian. just not catholic
and there's no denying the true roots of the catholic church and their adaptation of most of their rituals and traditions come from that.

You're the roman emperor. christianity is threatening to upheave your civilization. You can fight em. or you can join them.
You join them. You take it over. and then you use it for your own ends... voila... the catholic church. twist around the rules and tenets as you see fit for more power. change the sabbath to sunday to get more pagans to convert. convert former icons of paganism to those of christianity. Change idol worshipping to icons of mary. Invent whole new religious concepts like Purgatory, heaven and Hell to ease the transition of those from the old-guard beliefs of the Olympian Gods.

All bow down before the pope. the representation of God on earth. You are not allowed to talk directly to God. The church is your conduit to God. without the church, you have no connection to God. ie without the government and its power control structure, your salvation is non-existent. The Church is the body of God on earth. They reserve the right to change the word of God(The bible) as they see fit. The church is NEVER wrong(until a few decades ago when they finally admitted it). Pay money to us for your salvation. Let us build the churches up with Gold and make em beautiful while the God-fearing people starve and die.

several hundred years later. the Emperor/the Empire is no longer supreme or relevant. People in the church fight for power. Some people realize corruption. Time has distorted everything to the point that they can't determine what originally was christianity and what was paganism. What was implemented for political, corrupt or convenient purposes and what were original(TM) teachings of the gospel.

People split off based on their own interpretations of whatever happened. Some don't like to think criticize that history and just accept.

//off-topic.
Hahaha This is post 666. How hilarious.
//conspiracy theory
if you add up all the letters of the characters on the popes hat.
they equal 666.

[Yeahman]

So many factual inaccuracies with that post it's hard to know where to begin.
You're the roman emperor. christianity is threatening to upheave your civilization. You can fight em. or you can join them.
You join them. You take it over. and then you use it for your own ends... voila... the catholic church.
Except the Catholic Church existed long before Constantine.

twist around the rules and tenets as you see fit for more power. change the sabbath to sunday to get more pagans to convert.
The Sabbath is Saturday. The "Lord's Day" or Sunday was a Christian day of worship long before Constantine.

convert former icons of paganism to those of christianity.
Like?

Change idol worshipping to icons of mary.
Proof?

All bow down before the pope. the representation of God on earth.
He is not the represenation of God on earth.

several hundred years later. Emperor is no longer supreme. People in the church fight for power. Some people realize corruption. Time has distorted everything to the point that they can't determine what originally was christianity and what was paganism. What was implemented for political, corrupt or convenient purposes and what were original(TM) teachings of the gospel.

People split off based on their own interpretations of whatever happened. Some don't like to think criticize that history and just accept.
And some go read some ante-Nicene (pre-Constantine) literature and find the Catholic Church there.
Reading the writings of the early church fathers is a good way to find out what the original teachings were. You should try it.

[Azn Retribution]

It may have existed before constantine but
This does not change the fact that many pagan elements were implemented into the RCC and remain there to this day.

By sabbath I meant it more loosely as the day on which to worship and attend church. There is no *biblical* evidence
that supports the change of this to sunday
In spite of this.
Early church fathers determined sunday as the Lord's day due to Christ's resurrection. It was also convenient to worship on sunday as during the days of persecution, most other pagans worshipped on sunday as well. and during the time of constantine it was an easy way to get them to switch.

As for pagan symbols. Obelisks and Gargoyles to name a few.

As for the mary reference. That's simple.
It's a Graven Image. it may stand for the virgin mary but
even then there is no biblical substantiation for the
worship of mary. This is also something added and rationalized by the church. Their reasoning be it authority through aposteletic succession or whatever is circular as most of these
debates will end up being. depending on whether we go from historical, literal biblical or interpretative biblical, or rationalized authoritarian context.

[kuilong]

Never mind.

[Faithless]

Oh, oh, this thread might turn-out to be another bash-and-defend thread.

As far as the pope being the "Vicar of Christ".

Is it conceivable that the title lost its affect soon after the second assumption of the title? People decide who should be the pope. (Well right -- no duh.) But what leads these people to their choice? Divine inspiration or political expedience?

[Yeahman]

As for pagan symbols. Obelisks and Gargoyles to name a few.
And the Christmas tree and the names of our days too. Are you of the opinion that Christians should only use things created by Christians and that nothing the pagans used should ever be used?

As for the mary reference. That's simple.
It's a Graven Image. it may stand for the virgin mary but
even then there is no biblical substantiation for the
worship of mary.
Which is why Catholics don't worship her.
Are you also opposed to graven images of the cross or the Jesus fish or paints of the Last Supper?

Their reasoning be it authority through aposteletic succession or whatever is circular as most of these
debates will end up being. depending on whether we go from historical, literal biblical or interpretative biblical, or rationalized authoritarian context.
Sola Scriptura is also circular. Your arguement against Catholics practices is "Show me where it is in the Bible" to which I would say "Show me where it says that everything must be in the Bible." The Bible didn't exist until Constantine. The Catholic Church, worship on Sundays, and Marian devotion all predate the Bible.

People decide who should be the pope. (Well right -- no duh.) But what leads these people to their choice? Divine inspiration or political expedience?
Certainly they pray that the Holy Spirit guide them in making a wise decision. They may vote for someone for whatever reason.
The authority of the "Vicar of Christ" doesn't depend on the person or how he is chosen. It comes with the position. The pope can be chosen by an international vote of all Catholics or chosen as an heir by the previous pope. It doesn't make a difference as far as authority is concerned.

[nonamerasian]

Do you have to confess your sins to a priest if you're a Catholic? If it's done in private without an intermediary, is it invalid or not a true confession?

[PropellerheadCP]

Why do people think it's fine to bash a religion, anyway? It's not like there aren't any good people, who believe that Christ did come.

Yeesh... lump everyone, including the former Pope, into one giant ball. I call that stereotyping.

I see that the concepts of Modernism are alive and well. Perhaps some of you should be reading more Nietzsche and follow his footsteps.

[kuilong]

Do you have to confess your sins to a priest if you're a Catholic? If it's done in private without an intermediary, is it invalid or not a true confession?

Normatively, yes, but extraordinarily, you can have your sins forgiven through perfect contrition (that is, contrition through sorrow for what you've done, not through fear of hell or desire for heaven). However, if you're a Catholic, perfect contrition also includes a desire to go to confession at the first possible opportunity. And if your contrition is imperfect, then you must go to confession.

This is also how Protestants and non-Christians who achieve salvation have forgiven their mortal sins. Orthodox confessions are held to be valid, though Orthodox priests don't have ordinary jurisdiction.

[Azn Retribution]

I am opposed to all uses of those icons if they are revered in a way similar to the way one would worship a God. ie Hail mary's.

When Pagans worshipped idols they didn't worship the stone. They worshipped what it stood for as well. They didn't worship a statue of Ares. but they paid respect to it for what it stood for. This is the same type of worship that is considered bad as laid down in the ten commandments. Graven Images. When catholics pray to mary, to their crucifixes or whatever the focus is similar. It was made pretty clear as well that this sort of objectivity was not desirable. Catholics carry around crucifixes and statues of mary and treat them much like Egyptian and Greek Idols/Symbols were utilized. Which could(theorizing now, freely admit I have no basis at this time) have been a carry over from the mass conversion to christianity during constantines reign. Old Habits die hard.

While the "bible" doesn't predate constantine. The scriptures it draws from are. Just like they pre-date sunday worship. and these original scriptures are generally agreed upon to be correct (in judeo-christian religions including catholicism). what isn't is the catholics church's belief that they can add/modify/change/remove various tenets at will.
I will concede the point that while it says the bible isn't the only thing valid. I will also argue the opposite point that there isn't anything that endorses the catholic church beyond apostletic succession and even that claim is not without dispute.

So therefore it is easier to go by what is universally agreed on in the original scriptures. Not the interpretation or the traditions changed/inputted/whatever by the catholic church. If we didn't keep it within those boundaries, It would turn into a "I'll make whatever I want up because the bible didn't say I couldn't" type argument where people will have to believe whatever they want to believe.. which is ultimately reality :)

The change of sunday to the "Lord's Day" and Keeping the Saturday as a Sabbath that is no longer revered is mere semantics to hide the fact that they had no real reason to change it to sunday(besides convenience/safety/and later on legalization) and keep worshipping on sunday besides tradition.

Various officials in the catholic church have admitted this fact as well.


CP-Propellerhead: I am not making a statement of the people who believe/worship/hold these beliefs. I am making a statement based on the beliefs themselves and their historical/theological and scriptural relevance. There are good people and bad intenteioned people in everything. I have no doubt that there were great popes as well as corrupt popes.


and what you call modernism. I call questioning and testing one's beliefs.

[Hiroshi2]

several hundred years later. the Emperor/the Empire is no longer supreme or relevant. People in the church fight for power. Some people realize corruption. Time has distorted everything to the point that they can't determine what originally was christianity and what was paganism. What was implemented for political, corrupt or convenient purposes and what were original(TM) teachings of the gospel.




So exactly what do you believe? You said you were a Christian but at the same time it sounds like you're saying the entire Bible and everything Christianity is today is invalid.

[nonamerasian]

Normatively, yes, but extraordinarily, you can have your sins forgiven through perfect contrition (that is, contrition through sorrow for what you've done, not through fear of hell or desire for heaven). However, if you're a Catholic, perfect contrition also includes a desire to go to confession at the first possible opportunity. And if your contrition is imperfect, then you must go to confession.

This is also how Protestants and non-Christians who achieve salvation have forgiven their mortal sins. Orthodox confessions are held to be valid, though Orthodox priests don't have ordinary jurisdiction.

Oh.

Why must a priest be there for imperfect contritions?

[Yeahman]

I am opposed to all uses of those icons if they are revered in a way similar to the way one would worship a God. ie Hail mary's.

When Pagans worshipped idols they didn't worship the stone. They worshipped what it stood for as well. They didn't worship a statue of Ares. but they paid respect to it for what it stood for. This is the same type of worship that is considered bad as laid down in the ten commandments. Graven Images. When catholics pray to mary, to their crucifixes or whatever the focus is similar. It was made pretty clear as well that this sort of objectivity was not desirable. Catholics carry around crucifixes and statues of mary and treat them much like Egyptian and Greek Idols/Symbols were utilized. Which could(theorizing now, freely admit I have no basis at this time) have been a carry over from the mass conversion to christianity during constantines reign. Old Habits die hard.
Paintings and statues of Jesus predate Constantine. You have a habit of attributing anything you don't like about Christianity to Constantine. Catholics call "pre-Constantine", "ante-Nicene" of which we have a wealth of information about and from which we draw most of our beliefs.

Catholics do not revere statues like they worship God.
God got pissed at Aaron and the Jews who literally worshiped the Golden Calf.

While the "bible" doesn't predate constantine. The scriptures it draws from are. Just like they pre-date sunday worship. and these original scriptures are generally agreed upon to be correct (in judeo-christian religions including catholicism). what isn't is the catholics church's belief that they can add/modify/change/remove various tenets at will.
The Catholic Church has not modified the Bible since Constantine. Protestants have. You are missing 7 books from your Bible which were removed from most English Protestant Bibles in the 1800's. You'll notice that even the original 1611 King James has 73 books of the Bible just like modern Catholic Bibles.
The books of the New Testament DO NOT predate Sunday worship.

I will concede the point that while it says the bible isn't the only thing valid. I will also argue the opposite point that there isn't anything that endorses the catholic church beyond apostletic succession and even that claim is not without dispute.

So therefore it is easier to go by what is universally agreed on in the original scriptures. Not the interpretation or the traditions changed/inputted/whatever by the catholic church. If we didn't keep it within those boundaries, It would turn into a "I'll make whatever I want up because the bible didn't say I couldn't" type argument where people will have to believe whatever they want to believe.. which is ultimately reality :)
The Bible endorses the Catholic Church.
The Bible commands us to obey tradition. Just because you reject it doesn't mean that it's invalid. The very defintion of tradition precludes the idea of "I'll make whatever I want up."

The change of sunday to the "Lord's Day" and Keeping the Saturday as a Sabbath that is no longer revered is mere semantics to hide the fact that they had no real reason to change it to sunday(besides convenience/safety/and later on legalization) and keep worshipping on sunday besides tradition.

Various officials in the catholic church have admitted this fact as well.
And this is supposed to be a bad thing? Catholics obey Tradition.
BTW the term "Lord's Day" is found in the Bible to refer to Sunday.


“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.” – 1 Corinthians 11:2

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” – Ephesians 2:20

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:15

“Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:6

---------
Azn Retribution, do you know how the Bible came about? Someone had to decide which books to include and which to exclude. It didn't just fall from the sky.
Do you believe that the early Christians who knew the Apostles were liars?

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - St. Ignatius (~100AD)

I'd also like to point out that of the countless writings about apostolic succession in the early church, there is not one that attacks it. Surely if apostolic succession was a ficticous scam, someone would have spoken out. But we see the early Christians citing apostolic authority as the basis for their teachings.

St. Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul.
"Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" - St. Clement (~80AD)

In future posts, if you make claims please back them up with historical evidence.

Why must a priest be there for imperfect contritions?
Because a priest or bishop is the only one with the authority to absolve sin.
Catholics, Orthodox, and the early church understood Hebrews 6:4 to mean that after enlightenment AKA baptism a Christian cannot sin without losing his salvation. Hippolytus of the early 3rd century and others believed that Christians who sin after baptism should be kicked out of the Church. He critisized the pope for offering the sacrament of reconciliation (the official name for confession) which allowed people to return to good standing. Even today Catholics may not participate in Communion while in a state of sin. They must first go to confession. I believe it was Tertullian who defended the practice of the pope against Hippolytus saying that Christ in His perfect foreknowledge knew that man was weak and provided for a way to reconcile himself with God. The apostles received the authority to absolve sin as writen in John 20:23. Through apostolic succession that authority has been passed down through the generations to todays bishops and priests.

“Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.” – James 5:16

[Napoleon Chynamite]

The Catholic Church has not modified the Bible since Constantine. Protestants have. You are missing 7 books from your Bible which were removed from most English Protestant Bibles in the 1800's. You'll notice that even the original 1611 King James has 73 books of the Bible just like modern Catholic Bibles.

Some fairly unbiased elaboration and summary on this note from biblehistory.com:

There is a period of about 400 years between the Old Testament and the New Testament that is called the inter-testamental period. Most Protestants and Jews see it as rich in history but empty of inspired writing. During this time many books were written, but all books that call themselves religious are not necessarily equal. Such is the case with the group of books called "The Apocrypha" pronounced (a pock ra fa). The term apocrypha comes from a Greek word which means hidden or secret. Originally the word was used to suggest that these books contained hidden truth that only privileged people could know. Over the years some of these books were included into an ancient Egyptian Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint (pronounced sep too a gint) and eventually found their way into later versions of the Bible as we know it today.

As history the books and writings from this period have importance because they fill in the time gap between Malachi of the Old Testament and John the Baptist of the New Testament. However, their doctrinal content, as compared to the universally accepted books of the Bible has long been questioned. Originally it was the Roman Catholic scholar, Jerome (died 420 A.D.), who challenged the use of these books for church doctrine and made up the title "Apocrypha" to describe these types of writings.

Later,in the 1500's, the founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther, also doubted the content of the apocryphal books and had them placed in a group at the end of the German Old Testament. He objected to the teachings that were not in harmony with the Bible. In the Apocrypha can be found the idea of purgatory and the supposed benefit of prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45). Also Dr. Luther took exception to the teachings promoting the merit of good works for salvation. (Tobit 12:9; Ecclesiasticus 3:33; 2 Esdras 8:33; etcetera).

In 1546 the Roman Catholic church at the Council of Trent, officially overruled the earlier objections of their own scholar, Jerome, and declared the Apocrypha part of their Holy Scriptures. The official Roman Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1609) includes the Apocrypha scattered throughout.

Today, Protestants choose not to accept the books of the Apocrypha as inspired. The printing of the Apocrypha as part of the Bible was discontinued in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society and later on by the American Bible Society. However, it can be found as supplemental material in The New English Bible published in 1970.

_____________________

One thing I've always had issue with is this "circular authority" type of concept where the Bible allows for authority of the church and obviously vice versa. However, ultimately the insinuation that scripture and church authority are on an even level does not sit well with me. Furthermore, one may argue that church authority and the decisions of religious leaders may even surpass scriptural authority at any time using this rule since you can always use the excuse that scripture permits and justifies our actions as long as we are acting through the church (because the church can do whatever the hell it wants because the Bible gives it authority to do so). Ultimately, scripture often simply becomes a tool for one's own ends. I am aware that there are a vast amount of Protestants out there who also use and twist scripture in order to fit their own selfish motives. However, there isn't this overarching idea that scripture has bestowed us authority and that we share some type of mutual relationship of the permittence of authority thanks to scripture. In this case it's not just permitting authority. It's permitting authority equal to the level of authority commanded by scripture.

[Yeahman]

Over the years some of these books were included into an ancient Egyptian Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint (pronounced sep too a gint) and eventually found their way into later versions of the Bible as we know it today.
The Septuagint was the version used by the disciples and most likley, Jesus himself.

Whether or not the Apocrypha is divine inspired or not is a legitament debate between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants/Jews. But the common charge that the Catholic Church added the books is unfounded since they existed in the Septuagint even before Christ.

[thaite]

and three days later, the pope is reborn! (http://www.azcentral.com/ent/pop/articles/0406popeman06.html)

[Yeahman]

One thing I've always had issue with is this "circular authority" type of concept where the Bible allows for authority of the church and obviously vice versa. However, ultimately the insinuation that scripture and church authority are on an even level does not sit well with me. Furthermore, one may argue that church authority and the decisions of religious leaders may even surpass scriptural authority at any time using this rule since you can always use the excuse that scripture permits and justifies our actions as long as we are acting through the church (because the church can do whatever the hell it wants because the Bible gives it authority to do so). Ultimately, scripture often simply becomes a tool for one's own ends. I am aware that there are a vast amount of Protestants out there who also use and twist scripture in order to fit their own selfish motives. However, there isn't this overarching idea that scripture has bestowed us authority and that we share some type of mutual relationship of the permittence of authority thanks to scripture. In this case it's not just permitting authority. It's permitting authority equal to the level of authority commanded by scripture.
The Catholic Church does not derive its authority from Scripture. Quite the opposite. St. Augustine (who helped to compile the Bible) said that Scripture could not be trusted without the authority of the Church. Scripture is sometimes used to support the idea of the authority of the Church but is not its source. The whole idea is that the authority was given by Christ and later people recorded some of it and then the Church put it all together in a volume called the Bible. The Bible is therefore authoritative because the Church declared it as such.

Of course whether or not Christ gave the Church authority is completely a matter of faith. Likewise the Protestant belief in the inerrancy of the Bible without a Church authority behind it is also completely a matter of faith.

The reason that I come down on the side of the Catholics is that while it cannot be proven that Christ gave the Church authority, the early church seemed to think so as far as we can tell. Of course someone could have made it up and the idea spread.
But I cannot find any reason to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible ala Protestantism. There are no historical records of God giving his blessing to the 27 books of the New Testament nor is there anyone that believed in such a thing prior to the Protestant Reformation.

[Faithless]

Mt. 19:12. How is it to be interpretted?

"He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

As a command, in and of itself, or in the context of the paragraph-chapter it was written in?

[Yeahman]

Of course it should be understood in context which becomes very clear with the next verse.
"But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’" - Matthew 19:12-13

Sandwiched between "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given" and "Let anyone accept this who can" is the teaching of celebacy.

[Faithless]

Mt. 19:12 is the center piece for a book called, "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven."

Author Uta Ranke makes the argument that the verse is not about celibacy.

Uta says the lead-up to it is in verse 9:

"He [Jesus] is questioned by ythe Pharisees about divorce, whereupon he proposes a thesis that was unheard of at the this time, when a man could divorce his wife simply by burning his dinner... . Jesus says: 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another owman commits adultery' (Mt. 19:9). Even his disciples object to this teaching; and Jesus says, 'Not all men can receive this saying' (Mt. 19:11), and he adds that there is a self-castration for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 19:12). This statement which is naturally to be understood metaphorically, has an immediate grammatical connection (throught the word 'for') with the preceding debate over divorce. This issue here is voluntary renunciation of remarriage, which Jesus treats as adultery. 'Unmarried' or 'incapable of marriage' (thus the New English bible) are common but erroneous translations of the Greek word eunochoi."

[Faithless]

Nonetheless, celibacy is a concern for those who consider entering the priesthood.

Number of Catholic priests is dropping in U.S., Europe (http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/04/16/this_day/news03.txt)

By Associated Press * Apr 15, 2005 - 11:49:06 pm PDT

DUBLIN, Ireland -- Patrick Donnelly thought he might like to be a teacher, or maybe a chef. Then the Roman Catholic priesthood captured his imagination -- an increasingly rare event in this former bastion of the faith.

In much of Europe and North America, there aren't enough Patrick Donnellys anymore. The winds of social change and sex abuse scandals have made the priesthood -- with its lifetime commitment and mandatory celibacy -- an unpopular career.

ADVERTISEMENT

While the number of Catholics jumped to more than 1 billion around the globe during John Paul II's 26-year papacy, the number of new priests didn't keep pace. Reversing the decline among American and European men will be a major challenge for the next pope.

"I know many people think I'm facing a lonely life ... a hard life," said Donnelly, 25, a student at St. Patrick's College, the only seminary still running in the Republic of Ireland. Seven others closed from 1993 to 2002. "But I'm happy with my choice and people respect that. I have a love of God, and I want to share that love."

The Vatican says the church had about 405,450 priests worldwide in 2003, a 3.7 percent drop from 1978, the year John Paul took charge. But in the United States and Europe -- which accounts today for nearly half of the total -- numbers have fallen about 20 percent over the period.

While recruitment to the priesthood is thriving in Africa, Latin America and Asia, it's nearly fallen off the map in Ireland, which for generations was a leading exporter of priests. The average age of priests here is nearly 60.

"It's a significant problem," said the Rev. Des Hillery, director of St. Patrick's College, a 210-year-old seminary in the bustling market town of Maynooth, west of Dublin. "I don't think it's a crisis, and it doesn't have to be a crisis. ... But who knows in 10 years' time. Nobody knows what's going to happen."

The seminary had about 600 students annually in the 1960s. When Hillery arrived a decade ago it had 220. Today there's 60, and less than two-thirds are expected to stay the seven-year course. The archdiocese of Dublin has more than 1 million Catholics -- and graduated a single priest last year, and none at all this year.

The Rev. Kevin Doran, a Dublin priest who directs a network of recruiters called the European Vocations Service, says while some parts of Europe produce large numbers of priests -- notably Poland and Malta -- "much of Europe qualifies as mission territory."

Doran and seminary directors across Europe say there's no easy fix to luring young men to the priesthood. They're divided about whether dropping celibacy is part of the answer.

"The culture we live in has become highly sexualized. Many people believe it can be very difficult to be fulfilled if you don't have an active sex life," Doran said.

He cited an opinion poll of Irish priests last October that found 57 percent favored dropping the requirement. He said some men rule out entering seminary because of the celibacy rule, while others drop out midway because of it.

But Doran said he remains skeptical that ending celibacy would strengthen the priesthood, which must focus on the needs of a community, not one's own family.

"In a mature, integrated human being it should be possible that the affection and care which normally goes into a marriage can go into the pastoral care of the community," Doran said.

Others say the priesthood is shrinking in Europe because today's young Catholic men are products of a more selfish age and increasingly loathe to make any long-term commitments in their late teens and early 20s.

"I don't think that the fact that they cannot marry plays the principal role. Everyone tells me that it's because they are scared," said the Rev. Charles Bonnet, superior at the Saint IrenDee Seminary near the French city of Lyon. "This lifetime commitment plays a bigger role in their decision than does the fact of having to remain celibate."

France in the mid-1970s became the first predominantly Catholic country in Europe to suffer a collapse in seminarian numbers. A generation ago the country produced about 800 new priests annually, but today manages just 100, Bonnet said.

In Spain, the number of seminarians has declined to 1,524 this year, a 24 percent drop from 1990. Officials cite materialism and alienation from faith as bigger factors than celibacy.

"The problem is attracting people to Christian life," said Juan Miguel Prim, the rector of a seminary in a Madrid suburb. "These days, a lot of young people have no religious experience and see the church as something very distant."

In Ireland, recruitment has collapsed since the mid-1990s, when the Irish economy took off on the back of high-tech investment -- and the church's image fell amid sex scandals.

In 1992, a popular bishop in Galway was exposed as the father of a Connecticut teenager, whose support he'd been secretly paying from the collection plate. In 1994, the Irish coalition government fell apart after admitting it failed to extradite a pedophile priest wanted in Northern Ireland on dozens of criminal charges.

The floodgates since have opened for more than 3,000 civil claims and criminal cases involving allegations of sexual and physical abuse going back to the 1940s, when Ireland was impoverished and the church ran schools, workhouses and orphanages.

"Obviously the scandals, the child abuse and the poor response to it hit hard. But this Celtic Tiger economy of ours hit just as hard," said the Rev. Joseph Tynan, a parish priest in County Tipperary who is director of vocations in a western Irish diocese. "Vocations never thrive in an affluent society. There are too many other choices, opportunities and temptations."

When Tynan graduated from Tipperary's seminary in 1980 with 25 classmates. The seminary closed in 2002 after failing to attract a single new candidate. Just two of the diocese's 90 priests are under 30, according to Tynan who said the church may need to make celibacy optional.

"There should be room for married clergy," Tynan said, who noted that even "John Paul II acknowledged that celibacy is a church rule rather than a divinely instituted rule."

For Donnelly, the aspirant priest, campus life is a reminder of the less-traveled path he's taking. The seminary is surrounded by a 6,000-student university and Maynooth pubs full of coeds doing what coeds do.

"You do see couples holding hands and going off to do things together, and you do find yourself thinking: I'd like to have that," Donnelly said. "I will miss not being able to have children -- Santy (Santa Claus), the tooth fairy, the first day of school.

"But sacrifice is supposed to be hard. And I see the sense of the celibacy rule. I'm really supposed to be wedded to God, and the parish is my family."

"And I'm still going to make it to the pub," he added with a smile, "because that's where the people are. A good priest must be with his people."

[Yeahman]

I've been reading some stuff about the issue of celibacy in the Catholic Church. Ending it would have some huge negative consequences. Currently, priests and bishops are mobile. Like military troops they can be ordered to pack up and ship out as needed. It happens all the time.
There's also the financial issue. Catholics don't tithe. With dioceses going bankrupt already I don't know if it would be financially possible to pay for entire families.

There's the time constraint too. It's hard to devote yourself entirely to your work when you have a family to take care of.

So ending celibacy would not be ideal. But soon, we may not have a choice.

[BigLew]

Oh so that's why most popes are Italian. LOL this thread is funny.

[DragonKnight]

Geez, all this accusation of Catholics being based on paganism makes it sound like there's something wrong with being pagan. :rolleyes:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Geez, all this accusation of Catholics being based on paganism makes it sound like there's something wrong with being pagan. :rolleyes:

Well it's akin to suggesting that most Democratic beliefs are based upon Republican ideology. There isn't really any insinuation that either one is better than the other, it just sounds a bit ironic and discredits the originality of the former.

[DragonKnight]

Well it's akin to suggesting that most Democratic beliefs are based upon Republican ideology. There isn't really any insinuation that either one is better than the other, it just sounds a bit ironic and discredits the originality of the former.
Hmm, since we're questioning the originality of Catholicism...let's play with Christianity as a whole. Especially since when you look at it carefully...its nothing but an offshot of Judaism with Zoroastrian influences.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Hmm, since we're questioning the originality of Catholicism...let's play with Christianity as a whole. Especially since when you look at it carefully...its nothing but an offshot of Judaism with Zoroastrian influences.

But that's different, since most Christians won't deny that Christianity holds some (or even the majority) of its roots in Judaism. Comparing Christianity or associating it with Judaism isn't nearly the same as comparing or associating Catholicism with Paganism.

[DragonKnight]

But that's different, since most Christians won't deny that Christianity holds some (or even the majority) of its roots in Judaism. Comparing Christianity or associating it with Judaism isn't nearly the same as comparing or associating Catholicism with Paganism.
Deny? If anything Christianity had a long blood fued with Judaism in the past. I find it ironic talking to Christians, Catholics, and your local Jehovah's Witness kid and their shock on the origins of Christianity in terms of its offshot ties with Judaism. They believed to the point that Christianity is original in its form...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. These are people from the SF Bay Area. I don't even wanna imagine how it is in more "Christian" parts of the country.

Hell, if you want to associate Pagansim to Catholicism...then what about Christians who celebrate Christmas like its Christ's birthday? Especially with Christmas trees. If I remember my religious studies professor...Christmas trees were originally pagan. Those shiny tinsel you like to hang...are represented of the entrails of your enemies.

Bet that brings new meaning to those purty Christmas lights your neighbors like to hang. :wink:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Deny? If anything Christianity had a long blood fued with Judaism in the past. I find it ironic talking to Christians, Catholics, and your local Jehovah's Witness kid and their shock on the origins of Christianity in terms of its offshot ties with Judaism. They believed to the point that Christianity is original in its form...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. These are people from the SF Bay Area. I don't even wanna imagine how it is in more "Christian" parts of the country.

This is interesting. I've never met any Christian that denies that Judaism and Christianity are inextricably linked. Judaism uses the friggin entire Old Testament, it's pretty hard to deny something like that. As for the long blood feud, it's one thing to have something against Jews or Judaism, but quite another to be able to convincingly argue that Christianity didn't branch off from the Jewish religion.

Hell, if you want to associate Pagansim to Catholicism...then what about Christians who celebrate Christmas like its Christ's birthday? Especially with Christmas trees. If I remember my religious studies professor...Christmas trees were originally pagan. Those shiny tinsel you like to hang...are represented of the entrails of your enemies.

Well yeah, most people know that December 25th wasn't really Christ's birthday, but...then again, this is another argument altogether. I was simply addressing your initial post about how you thought people were insinuating that Paganism was a bad thing, when really it was to discredit the Catholic religion. Like the example I mentioned earlier, saying that Democrats branched off from Republicans doesn't insult Republicans, it insults Democrats and calls them unoriginal or perhaps hypocritical.

[Faithless]

I've been reading some stuff about the issue of celibacy in the Catholic Church. Ending it would have some huge negative consequences. Currently, priests and bishops are mobile. Like military troops they can be ordered to pack up and ship out as needed. It happens all the time.
There's also the financial issue. Catholics don't tithe. With dioceses going bankrupt already I don't know if it would be financially possible to pay for entire families.

There's the time constraint too. It's hard to devote yourself entirely to your work when you have a family to take care of.

So ending celibacy would not be ideal. But soon, we may not have a choice.
Sounds like a logistics and financial thing they had better consider for the good of the order.

I don't see how a person who is not married nor has kids can tell someone how to deal with their relationships or kids.

I understand that in some circles, celibacy inside Catholicism is concidered wrong, especially if one reads the bible:

1 Timothy 4:1-3 (http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1679.cfm)
... we have reiterated the Biblical truth that teaching Celibacy is a "doctrine that demons teach" [1 Timothy 4:1-3], that is taught by people who have turned away from the truth [verse 1], that it is taught by "liars" [verse 2], that is it taught by liars whose consciences have been rendered useless -- un-working -- because they have been "seared as with a hot iron" [verse 2]. Then, the Apostle Paul states that one of these teachings is "forbidding people to marry" and teaching them to "abstain from certain kinds of food which God created to be received with thanksgiving" [verse 3].

Australian Catholic Church Divided Over Priestly Celibacy (http://news.spirithit.com/index/asia_pacific/more/australian_catholic_church_divided_over_priestly_c elibacy/)
The National Council of Priests (NCP), an organization representing about half of Australia’s 1,650 Catholic clergy, including more than 40 bishops, has written to the Vatican’s Synod of Bishops, urging that marriage no longer prevent a priest from being ordained.

It also asked that the church reinstate ordained priests who had left the church to marry.

The group pointed to a severe decline in the number of priests in Australia. Only priests may hear confession and oversee Mass - both crucial, regular rites for Catholics.

My sneaking suspicion is that they could really work this out if they wanted to, but the one thing that holds them back is not the marriage issue, but the same sex partner issue.

If it is true that there are a few gay Catholic priests, then the removal of the celibacy restriction would allow gay priests to be more open and proclaim their same sex relationships.

[Yeahman]

Deny? If anything Christianity had a long blood fued with Judaism in the past. I find it ironic talking to Christians, Catholics, and your local Jehovah's Witness kid and their shock on the origins of Christianity in terms of its offshot ties with Judaism. They believed to the point that Christianity is original in its form...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. These are people from the SF Bay Area. I don't even wanna imagine how it is in more "Christian" parts of the country.
I was just watching a discussion about the papal hopefuls on TV and there is this one cardinal who's a convert from Judaism. Also from other Jewish-to-Catholic conversion stories I've heard, they don't consider their conversion to Catholicism as a deviation from Judaism but a fufillment of it. None of them renounced their Jewish roots. They still consider themselves Jewish.

Hell, if you want to associate Pagansim to Catholicism...then what about Christians who celebrate Christmas like its Christ's birthday? Especially with Christmas trees. If I remember my religious studies professor...Christmas trees were originally pagan. Those shiny tinsel you like to hang...are represented of the entrails of your enemies.

Bet that brings new meaning to those purty Christmas lights your neighbors like to hang. :wink:
Christmas was not celebrated by the Puritans. The first Americans to celebrate it were the Catholics in Maryland.
I find nothing wrong with retaining local traditions which still spreading the Gospel. You don't have to go all the way back to the European pagans to see local non-Christian traditions practiced by Catholics. In Asia, Catholics still practice ancestrial worship. Not as a belief but as a tradition. I don't have to renounce my Asian tradition to be Catholic. I embrace them both. After my family "worships" at the grave of my grandparents, we say the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be.
It's great that Christianity can take from the beauty of even pagan traditions. Would you rather that we abandon them?

I don't see how a person who is not married nor has kids can tell someone how to deal with their relationships or kids.
I've heard a couple of priests admit the same thing. One said that the seminary he attended recommended that the seminarians be involved in at least one serious relationship prior to continuing on their road to ordination. But even that is a limited experience at best.

I understand that in some circles, celibacy inside Catholicism is concidered wrong, especially if one reads the bible:
Well noone is being forced to be a priest. A person voluntarily takes the vow of celibacy.

My sneaking suspicion is that they could really work this out if they wanted to, but the one thing that holds them back is not the marriage issue, but the same sex partner issue.

If it is true that there are a few gay Catholic priests, then the removal of the celibacy restriction would allow gay priests to be more open and proclaim their same sex relationships.
It hasn't happened in the Orthodox Church or the Eastern Rite Catholic Churcheswhere married priests are allowed. In all those Church and probably also the Catholic Church should she allow a married priesthood, still select their bishops from only among the celibate priests. So there would still be quite an incentive to remain celibate.

That article brought up an interesting point about the many priests (and there are a lot) who have left their ministry because they broke their vows of celibacy. In large part they're faithful Catholics who fell in love and just gave in but still remain faithful. Technically they are still priests since a priest is a priest for life even if he can no longer legally serve as one. I'm interested in knowing if these priests can be reinstated. They broke their vow. There's probably a canon law somewhere about this. kuilong, care to do the research?

[Faithless]

Well noone is being forced to be a priest. A person voluntarily takes the vow of celibacy.
But it has been said that what you get is a limited pool of people with real life experience.

And rather you get guys who really have an agenda, more than anything else.

[rotrab]

So why in the world do Catholic people believe any man/woman on this earth could possibly be seen in such a high regard, when no matter who you choose, it will be a person like everyone else, sinful in nature, capable of good and evil................just like everybody else. It's almost like worshipping a false god in the sense that you're placing so much faith and power in someone who quite frankly doesn't deserve it, because he's not God.

I guess they're stupid. I don't know what else it could be.

And why are there "saints", what are their purpose? Are they supposed to be somewhere between people and God too, even though they were born as people, just like you and me?

Saints are a disguised form of ancestor worship--one of the oldest religious practices on earth.

[Faithless]

I love this comment. It speaks volumes about the internal concern for this issue:

Asked about the figure, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, said church leaders believe the payouts ''should be just to all sides.'' He said victims deserve compensation, but the church must also have enough money to continue serving parishioners.

A yeah. Well, you all should have thought about that years ago, while your priests were raping little kids under your TRUST!

Sex abuse costs U.S. Catholic Church more than $1 billion (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cath10.html)

June 10, 2005 * BY RACHEL ZOLL

The cost to the U.S. Roman Catholic Church of sexual predators in the priesthood has climbed past $1 billion.

And the figure is guaranteed to rise, probably by tens of millions of dollars, because hundreds more claims are pending.

Dioceses around the country have spent at least $1.06 billion on settlements with victims, verdicts, legal fees, counseling and other expenses since 1950. A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., pushed the figure past the billion-dollar mark.

A large share of the costs -- at least $378 million -- has been incurred in just the past three years, when the crisis erupted in the Boston archdiocese and spread nationwide.

The Rev. Thomas Doyle, who left the church to represent victims, warned the bishops in 1985 that abuse costs could exceed $1 billion. ''Nobody believed us,'' said Doyle, a canon lawyer. ''I remember one archbishop telling me, 'My feeling about this, Tom, is no one's ever going to sue the Catholic Church.' ''

Asked about the figure, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, said church leaders believe the payouts ''should be just to all sides.'' He said victims deserve compensation, but the church must also have enough money to continue serving parishioners.

AP

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Whoa, if that man was black, I would have thought that was Afrika Bambaataa.

Probably more like the dress of the "three wise men"? Of the east weren't they?

But I'm with H2 in being in awe of all the cerimony in Catholicism.
Well yeah, a lot of Catholics themselves (at least those who are aware of the existence of the Eastern Catholic churches and realize they're not just Orthodox or whatnot) find themselves in awe of all the ceremony in Syrian, Maronite, etc. non-Latin rite churches.

[Yeahman]

Well yeah, a lot of Catholics themselves (at least those who are aware of the existence of the Eastern Catholic churches and realize they're not just Orthodox or whatnot) find themselves in awe of all the ceremony in Syrian, Maronite, etc. non-Latin rite churches.
Most Roman Catholics in the US probably don't even know that Eastern Rite Catholics exist.
The largest religious group in Iraq after Muslims are Chaldean Catholics.

[Cirrus]

The original poster's question is kind of like asking why anybody believes in any particular religion...there's really no scientific basis anybody could point to for most beliefs in most religions.

Heh, if there was an Athiest church where everybody donated 10% of their yearly income, would you join? There could be like...Athiest Private schools where evolution gets taught even in the bible belt. Or like umm, some crazy cool holiday around the winter solstice where athiests have to take a day off and do 12 things that make the world a better place for people who you don't already know, or somesuch. Hilariousity would definitely ensure.

[kuilong]

Well yeah, a lot of Catholics themselves (at least those who are aware of the existence of the Eastern Catholic churches and realize they're not just Orthodox or whatnot) find themselves in awe of all the ceremony in Syrian, Maronite, etc. non-Latin rite churches.

The Maronites are almost completely Latinized now anyway. I hear they're even starting to adopt versus populum in the wake of Vatican II!

I think the Maronites in Lebanon still haven't gotten used to the fact that they don't run the country anymore.

[Faithless]

I guess somebody didn't get the memo (from on high) on not doing this sort of stuff anymore... :frown:

Military Chaplain Charged With Sodomy, Assault (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7302.shtml)

By JONATHAN M. KATZ * Aug 31, 2005, 00:11

The Army is investigating a Roman Catholic military chaplain on multiple charges of forcible sodomy and assault.

Capt. Gregory Arflack was suspended both by the Army and his dioceses pending the results of the investigation.

Arflack, 44, is a chaplain with the 279th Base Support Battalion. The unit performs administrative functions at its post in Bamberg, Germany, which also houses the 1st Infantry Division.

The Army is investigating 12 charges: three counts each of forcible sodomy and indecent acts, two counts each of fraternization with enlisted service members and disobeying orders, and one count each of indecent assault and conduct unbecoming an officer, said Maj. Bill Coppernoll, a 1st Infantry Division spokesman.

The Army did not discuss specifics about the alleged assaults, except to say they occurred while Arflack was stationed in Doha, Qatar, in March 2004 and in Bamberg on July 29 and 30 of this year.

The pretrial investigation, which began Aug. 11, will lead to an Article 32 hearing, Coppernoll said. That hearing, procedurally equivalent to a grand jury, will decide if the evidence warrants a general court-martial. A hearing could occur as early as next week, Coppernoll said.

The charges were first reported Aug. 17 in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes.

Arflack works under the jurisdiction of the Owensboro, Ky., diocese, where he served his first two assignments as a priest in Paducah and Bowling Green from 1998 to 2002. Like all Roman Catholic chaplains, he is considered to be on loan to the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, which serves Catholics in the military, government service and Veterans Administration hospitals.

Both have suspended Arflack.

The Owensboro diocese is not planning to look into Arflack's behavior until after the military has completed its investigation, said Bishop John McRaith, who has headed the diocese since 1982. It has suspended his activity during the investigation.

"These are allegations at this point so obviously we're not doing any investigating from here to Germany," McRaith said. As bishop, McRaith recommended Arflack for his military chaplaincy.

The Military Archdiocese's suspension allows Arflack to perform Mass for himself and last rites in emergency situations, but it bars him from public ministry, said Vice Chancellor Tom Connelly.

"It's not the same as a final judgment that a person shouldn't be a priest any more," Connelly said.

Arflack was featured in a recent Military Archdiocese documentary called "Fight of Faith," which aired on the Catholic television station EWTN. According to a description, "the program presents Fr. Gregory Arflack, both in interviews and in footage, interacting with new recruits and other soldiers."

As an Army chaplain, Arflack was first stationed at Fort Knox, Ky., from June 2002 to December 2004, said Fort Knox spokesman Ken Beyer.

Arflack was deployed for much of 2004 and took his position in Bamberg in January 2005, said Army spokeswoman Martha Rudd.

Arflack was still in Bamberg as of Tuesday, Coppernoll said.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^ Christians never do bad things. Therefore, the guy obviously isn't a true Christian~

[Faithless]

^ Christians never do bad things. Therefore, the guy obviously isn't a true Christian~
I agree. You need to move from the congregational seats to the pulpit and show them how to live an exemplary life. :cool:

I'm probably just a little naive to think that the scrutiny of priests in the sex abuse scandal would have caused them to back off from that sort of activity.

Maybe most did -- but I guess some were still just clueless.

[nola]

Me too.

It's another public health issue that needs to be studied holistically whether it's cycles or generations of abuse or whatever. Pedophilia is almost incurable so incarceration may be the best answer at this point to prevent further harm.

In the case of Catholicism it is the abused power of higher ups that leads to pedophilia.

[Faithless]

Hope for Catholicism afterall? :cool:

Italian Catholics favor civil unions, despite Vatican (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=41870)

Rome, Jan. 17 (CWNews.com) - Most Italian Catholics support a proposal to offer legal recognition to civil unions, despite strong Vatican opposition, the ANSA news agency reports.

In a survey by the Eurispes research agency, 68.7% of Italian Catholics said that they would favor the proposal to recognize civil unions, known in Italy as PACS. The proposal, which is a key issue in the upcoming April national elections, has been roundly denounced by Pope Benedict and several other Vatican officials.

[Faithless]

Does this mean that YW has to take down Ratzinger's comments?

The move has drawn pointed criticism from prominent journalists covering the Vatican, including papal biographer Vittorio Messori, who co-authored books with John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Messori said he was "perplexed and alarmed" by the new policy, which he characterized as a form of "economic ransom" that undercut the pope's ability to communicate freely -- and for free.

Vatican Charges Publisher $18,000 for Quoting Pope (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/183/story_18395_1.html)

By Stacy Meichtry | Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Are words of a man of God priceless? Not if they come from the pope.

The Vatican has come under heavy criticism for its decision to charge publishers to reprint excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI's public statements and written works dating back to his professorial days as the Rev. Joseph Ratzinger.

According to La Stampa, a Turin newspaper, the Vatican publishing division Libreria Editrice Vaticana recently billed a Milan-based publisher 15,000 euros (about $18,000) for printing a total of 30 lines from speeches Benedict delivered as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The lines were spoken to fellow cardinals immediately before the conclave to choose a new pope and during his subsequent inauguration ceremony.

A statement released by Libreria on Monday (Jan. 23) said the decision was based on a Vatican decree, in which the Holy See assumed full copyrights to all of Benedict's past, present and future writings and pronouncements.

The decree, issued by Secretary of State Angelo Sodano on May 31, was reportedly enacted in December and could also apply to news organizations that regularly quote the German pontiff. It was unclear, however, if the Vatican intended to enforce the new policy on journalists.

It was also unclear if the Vatican reserved the right to take legal action against news organizations that publish leaked material, such as lengthy encyclicals and instructions.

Both Benedict's long awaited encyclical and the highly controversial Vatican document on homosexuals in the priesthood were widely leaked to the Italian press prior to their official release.

The move has drawn pointed criticism from prominent journalists covering the Vatican, including papal biographer Vittorio Messori, who co-authored books with John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Messori said he was "perplexed and alarmed" by the new policy, which he characterized as a form of "economic ransom" that undercut the pope's ability to communicate freely -- and for free.

"Once again the odor of money surrounds the clergy," Messori said.

Under the new policy, the Vatican can charge a publisher from three to five percent of a book's cover price to quote the pontiff at length.

According to La Stampa, the $18,000 bill that the Milan publisher received accounted for 15 percent of the book's cover price plus $4,200 of "legal expenses."

[Faithless]

Saints be praised! Whose going catholic priest? How about Asians:

In the past four decades, the number of priests in the United States has dropped 27 percent, to about 43,000, according to Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. And although Asian Americans comprise of just over 1 percent of Catholic Church members in the United States, they account for 12 percent of all Catholic seminary students nationwide. And the majority of those tend to be Vietnamese.

Catholic Church seeks the new Irish (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/10/ING89MRGNM1.DTL)

Andrew Lam | Sunday, December 10, 2006

(12-10) 04:00 PST Dubuque, Iowa -- If you visit the Divine Word College, a tiny Catholic missionary school outside of Dubuque, the conversations you will hear in its hallways will most likely not be carried out in English. Usually, they are in Vietnamese. So is the music played late at night in the school's cafeteria, when students are hungry for a bite.

Vietnamese dominate this seminary. Forty-three out of its 67 students -- about 2 out of 3 -- are Vietnamese.

"They are replacing the traditional Irish and Italian immigrants who once provided a steady supply of priests in the States," says Len Uhal, the college's vocation director and vice president for recruitment. In his office, a map of the United States is covered with colorful thumbtacks representing potential students approached for recruitment. Many of those tacks mark Vietnamese communities.

"We look to Asians, particularly Vietnamese immigrants, to fill the quotas," Uhal said.

In the past four decades, the number of priests in the United States has dropped 27 percent, to about 43,000, according to Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. And although Asian Americans comprise of just over 1 percent of Catholic Church members in the United States, they account for 12 percent of all Catholic seminary students nationwide. And the majority of those tend to be Vietnamese.

In Orange County, home to the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam, almost 15 percent of the Catholic priests are Vietnamese, a number that is rising. Last year, 3 of every 7 priests ordained in the county were Vietnamese. And four years ago, Vietnamese overseas celebrated when the Rev. Dominic Luong in Orange County became the first Vietnamese bishop in the United States.

...

[Yeahman]

^ That's always the case with immigrants.

I must say it's damn weird when a white person calls an Asian "father" or "sister." It's a good feeling though to see an Asian garner the deep respect of a white community.


On another point, people mentioned Maronite Catholics earlier in the thread. I went to my first Maronite Liturgy last Sunday. It was great. Most of it was in Syriac? Or Arabic? Not sure. I could see a couple of areas where they received Latin influence but not much. It was VERY different from what I'm used to.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^ I was reading a similar article about many young Vietnamese men these days going for the priesthood in an article printed in a local APIA newspaper.

[l_lds2006]

yeah i was reading a similar article as well about the same A Changing Church: More Vietnamese Americans Are Becoming Catholic Priests which is located here at this site http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=542895062662c95231d27 36d3f528a16

[Faithless]

Pope says yes to Latin mass.

It's not like it's making a wide usage come back with tons of church goers scratching their heads and picking their noses. It sounds like it's just for the few old farts who like the old tradition of "mass" confusion.

So what's the problem?

Lost in translation? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-mxa0711tempocover60secondjul11,1,1758319.story?col l=chi-opinionfront-hed)

By Patrick T. Reardon | Tribune staff reporter | Published July 11, 2007

...

Many older Catholics find in the Latin mass a greater majesty and mystery than in the English version. And when I was a child, my own religious faith was nurtured in the Latin rituals of the church in that era. But, as much as I like history and respect tradition, I'm not going to go looking for the old-school version.

...

[Yeahman]

There are surprisingly many "old farts" (Mel Gibson, Pat Buchanan, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas). This move may placate those people. Some such as the SSPX have been excommunicated for not accepting Mass in the vernacular. This move may help to bring them back. Or it may energize them to further spread their "Novus Ordo Masses are defficient" message.

I read an interview with Angela's Ashes author, Frank McCourt, who is anything but a right-winger. He said the Church should return to Latin-only Mass because the Church should be worshiping in one universal tongue and it would give Catholics a leg up in the world if they're forced to learn another language starting from an early age.

I personally prefer the Tridentine Latin Mass as well. But I'm no fanatic. I wouldn't shed a tear if it was banned altogether.

[Faithless]

I hear tell that the Pope can be "bought" (maybe not literally) and it was the likes of Gibson, that nut, to push for the Latin Mass.

Not sure of who McCourt is, so I can only evaluate his words. I see that he is another old fart. There's a general pattern.

What's with this "keeping with tradition" business? Doesn't anybody care about the message? What good is the message, if you're spending the whole time thumbing through your Latin translator figuring out what the preacher said? :confused:

[Faithless]

Pope Nazinger has balls. Knocks other Christian faiths:

Pope's declaration of Catholic primacy has protestants, other faiths miffed (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6368034)

By Jessica Ravitz | The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 07/13/2007 01:16:29 PM MDT

Posted: 12:56 PM- A document released this week by the Vatican, which declares the Catholic Church's primacy and can be seen as deeming other Christian communities defective, has stirred up outrage.

Pope Benedict XVI signed off on the statement, only days after he moved to reinstitute the Latin Mass (which also rankled some), as a way to correct "erroneous interpretation" of the Second Vatican Council's 1960s teachings, which many considered a breakthrough in fostering dialogue between Christian traditions.

As a result, letters of criticism have flourished among some Protestants whose denominations, in the statement, are referred to as "communities" and not churches "in the proper sense." Orthodox churches, on the other hand, are considered "sister" churches because they "have true sacraments" and "apostolic succession," a continued succession of bishops dating back to St. Peter.

Calling the statement, which refers to the Catholic Church as the "one Church of Christ," "disappointing and regressive," Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah wondered in a written response why, in a time already steeped in division and when ecumenism is most necessary, the pope would issue comments that "will not help our efforts to find common ground and to move forward together."
...

[Yeahman]

I hear tell that the Pope can be "bought" (maybe not literally) and it was the likes of Gibson, that nut, to push for the Latin Mass.
It's no secret that this pope is very conservative. He has a lot of support from the traditionalists.

Not sure of who McCourt is, so I can only evaluate his words. I see that he is another old fart. There's a general pattern.
The TLM is actually more popular among the younger generations than their parents generation (who only remember it from their childhood and at the time were glad it disappeared). For the younger generations the TLM is the "new" Mass. Even non-Catholics would agree that the TLM with music by Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, etc... is more beautiful than the Novus Ordo Mass with its 70's American folk music.

What's with this "keeping with tradition" business? Doesn't anybody care about the message? What good is the message, if you're spending the whole time thumbing through your Latin translator figuring out what the preacher said? :confused:
So learn Latin. That's what Catholics did in the past. You start going to the Latin Mass when you're born and by the time you're old enough to understand religion, you'll know enough Latin to understand the Mass.

Pope Nazinger has balls. Knocks other Christian faiths:
Nothing new. The Church has always taught Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (see even post-Vatican II Catholics pick up some Latin among the way).
The only question that people are asking is "why now?" What was he trying to accomplish?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Different Christian denominations or break-off sects have been knocking each other for as long as the denominations have been around. Not a good thing as far as I'm concerned, despite how much "balls" they have.

[Faithless]

Different Christian denominations or break-off sects have been knocking each other for as long as the denominations have been around. Not a good thing as far as I'm concerned, despite how much "balls" they have.
I agree. Keep their balls tucked-in.

Where was I reading a few years ago where some evangelicals were trying to ban Catholics from adopting. Can we foresee that type of backlash out of the latest papal pronouncement?

[JesusIsmyFriend]

Let's not forget that Catholics are Christians as well :)