This came up in a conversation with catholic_heart, and I thought I'd get some more opinions.

Eight years ago, when I'd finished school and went on to study, I fretted about not being able to study theology to become a Catholic priest. (Yes, right, it's me, but my faith was much different then ;) There were people, Christians even, who told me I should just convert to the Lutheran church and do it. It really puzzled me that they were serious about it - as if it didn't matter which church, as long as I got to do what I wanted.

I knew back then that I couldn't do it, because I did not want to be Lutheran. I'm Catholic, and despite my now disagreeing with some of the RCC's positions, I still wouldn't want to leave.

How serious can people be about the things they believe if they suggest something like this? How much do they really identify with the beliefs and teachings of their own church? Could this come only from people who do not concern themselves more deeply with the different theological views of different churches? And how much does it take to make someone leave their church and join another because they can't do something there that they want to?

Questions, questions...

There are many misconceptions about Catholicism in the world. I like to think of this community as a place where such misconceptions are challenged and eliminated since this community displays an above average level of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and respect compared to most of the rest of the wretched internets.


All this being so, anyone who says that Catholics think that sex is dirty, that sex is naughty, that sex is bad, that sex is sinful, that sex is only for making babies, etc., is ignorant and, if possible, should be humbly and lovingly instructed in the truth of the matter. I realize that I'm asking a lot, for people to believe something that contradicts what untold millions of people, on TV or the street, say that Catholics say. But honestly, who is in a better position to say what Catholics say? (And, of course, you can look the matter up for yourself in the many hundreds of books available about Catholicism and sex).

I'm not asking you to believe what Catholics believe (though by all means, I'll get the water!). I just want you to know so you won't be one of those people who goes around saying that Catholics believe this, that, and the other, even if your Catholic neighbor / boss / friend / parole officer told you so. It is in the best interest of everyone for everyone of every religion and walk of life to understand and respect everyone else. The misrepresentation of other people's belief systems, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Mormon, or anything else, is contrary to this noble aim.

x-posted to my personal LJ

(And if anyone comments with "tl;dr" I will literally reach through the internets and punch them in the tooth.)

Earlier today, catholic_heart posted the text of the latest papal general audience, this time on the 6th century Church father "Dionysios Areopagita". Here now I present, not only the links to all the audiences on the Church Fathers so far, but also to the full series on the Apostolic Foundation of the Church, begun two years ago with an overview of Christ's "foundation plan", and continued with the apostles and other important individuals of the earliest Church. These two series are very much connected, so that to follow them from the beginning makes a lot of sense, but wherever you find a heading that catches your fancy - just dive in!

Yes, this IS heavy stuff, although presented for laypeople, but Benedict is also eminently readable. Also, one can't but admire the cockiness in starting such a drawn-out task at his advanced age.

 

When Jesus ascended into heaven , He left one Apostolic church behind him- not a ragged bunch of bickering and contesting factions. The church had unity for hundreds of years, until the Great Schism, when the eastern and western halves of the Church broke up.

I wasn't there at the time and know little of this. However, it was not long after this that the western Church itself was also split by controversy, and divided itself into two camps - the 'catholic ( or universal) church', and the protestant faction, who formed many different churches of their own. Although, again , I was not there, I am in fact a citizen of a predominantly Protestant nation, and thus an heir to the protestant tradition.

it all began when the Pope, who lead the western catholic church, centered in Rome, started to raise funds by selling ' indulgences'. For a sum of money, you could buy one, and this was in effect, a free pardon for any sins you may have committed. hence, if you were rich, you could, in effect, buy yourself a way into heaven.

this, for one young priest, was the last straw. the young Martin Luther, a German, nailed 95 theses to a church door. This was a standard way at the time of starting a church debate, but the issue was not resolved by the church leadership and the protest led to many breaking away from the catholic church and forming the 'Protestant' tradition.

I will be honest, i cannot name all 95 theses. Some were issues of local politics in Germany at the time, I suspect and are not part of modern Catholicism. But I can name a few reasons why I feel that I cannot agree with the Catholic Church.

Even so, there are sincere Catholics in this community. As a Reformer, I would like to see unity restored to the church, so I invite our roman catholic brothers and sisters in Christ to state their case.

my case is as follows -

We in the URC believe that the Holy Spirit does indeed direct and lead the church when it meets in council, but that we may fail to discern where it actually wants us to go. there is no question of our leaders being infallible.

The way that the Catholic Church conducted itself in the trial of Galileo, as well as over the matter of selling indulgences does lead me to question the infallibility of the Pope and the cardinals of the day.

In more modern times, the Roman Catholic Church has become embroiled in politics, acting either as the State Religion , or by doing deals with politicians of questionable repute. in pre-war Germany, Adolf Hitler was only able to come to power because of the co operation of the reigning Pope, and when Hitler was in charge, the Pope did not oppose him.

The position of the URC is that Christ never intended his Church to be a political instrument, and thus although it's individual members may belong to any respectable political movement, the church itself endorses none.

The issue of contraception is also something that causes controversy. Is it not a loving and responsible thing to do to limit the size of ones family to the number of children than one can provide for as a father?

These then , are the issues I bring to the table - if others also wish to join in, on either side of the debate, they are free to do so - but I do look to everyone to maintain an atmosphere of Christian love and understanding, seeking unity and truth - not just victory for their own side. Let love and truth prevail.

I'm not a Catholic, nor do I wish this to turn into a debate about Catholicism, but I think that this is pretty interesting and worth discussing. Given that the Pope is the face of Christianity for many in the world, it should not be taken lightly. That is all. Cross posted to ljchristians

---

Fewer confessions and new sins
By David Willey
BBC News, Rome

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

Those newly risking eternal punishment include drug pushers, the obscenely wealthy, and scientists who manipulate human genes. So "thou shalt not carry out morally dubious scientific experiments" or "thou shalt not pollute the earth" might one day be added to the Ten Commandments.( well...what are you waiting for? )

---

I found this text by cardinal Avery Dulles (S.J.) to be a very good summing up of both the current Roman-Catholic standpoint on who can be saved (Note: "can", not "will") and of the process that lead to the current understanding. If you start reading, you are advised not to break off reading midway at some point where you get disgusted or something, but follow through and all will be revealed:

Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

I am just wondering if anyone here is a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism (or from anything else, really).

What were your reasons for converting? What drew you to the Church? Was there a 'process' involved?

Just curious, thanks.

Not to detract from the lovely discussion continuing on nearby below this, but I have a question for catholic_heart specifically and for anyone else in this community who wishes to share. Now, I am going to lay my understanding on the table to make it open for correction, as my incorrect understanding of something might affect what I think of it. Any wrong theological data I have is open to correction.

Why would there be a need for purgatory?

My understanding of purgatory is this: That is a place in between earth and heaven where the saints (referring to all believers) go to be purified further before they go to heaven, with the length of time spent there depending on how much sin is present when the believer dies. According to what I understand, this does not negate hell, only believers enter purgatory, pass through, and then enter heaven.

My interpretation is this: That when Christ died, the curtain was open, and from then on we have access to the 'holy of holies,' and can approach the throne. With all that possible, where is the theological need for additional purgatory? To me, it places a limit on Christ's redeeming work. Basically, for me, it comes down to this: That if there was purgatory, then there was no need for Christ, and if Christ died to take away the sin of the world (usually context lends itself to interpret all sin- past, present, future) then there is no need for Purgatory.

I was reading today's post by catholic_heart  linking to Today's Readings by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and stumbled upon the following statement in the FAQ's:  "Not all of the Bible is included in the Lectionary."

This got me wondering:

1. What part of the Bible is not included?
2. Who decided what to include or exclude?
3. When?
4. Why?

I found an answer to Question No. 1 here 
According to this information (if accurate), if you go to Catholic Mass only on Sundays and Holidays, you are going to only hear a small percentage of the Bible - anything from 0% of some books up to 15.1% of others.

I can probably do my own research to learn the answers to questions 2-4, but I wanted to ask you folks first.

My background for those who don't know me: I was raised Catholic and always assumed that the priest covered the whole bible, but only broke up the verses in order to stay on topic. (I know we should never assume)....I currently attend a non denominational Christian church whose pastors read through the bible from cover to cover.

By the way, catholic_heart , thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading it and it did touch home with me. 

Well, five gold stars to everyone who correctly guessed Martin Luther as the author of the Marian quote I posted. But now that leads to my question. This is not a question about our own individual beliefs (though they're always welcome), but rather a historical question for anyone who may know. As we read often in Luther, he held Mary in the highest esteem. He vociferously defended the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born completely without sin by a special grace from God), he held her up as the true model of Christians, he esteemed her highest above all the saints. This is a far different attitude than that of many Reformed Christians today. Calvin and Zwingli, while perhaps not quite as strong as Luther, certainly had a very high esteem of Mary, with Zwingli saying that God esteemed her above all other creatures, men or angel. So my question is, historically when did the Reformed churches begin to lose that sense of esteem of Mary. Though this isn't universal, there are many Reformed Christians who think of Mary as just another woman, who is no more special than any of the other women in the Bible. I'm just curious when this thought became prevalent, historically speaking. Thanks :)

 

What is a genuflection and when should I do one visiting a catholic church?

Are there any good "intro to Catholicism" Or "intro to Catholic spirituality" books you'd reccomend for someone who knows absolutely nothing about Catholicism?

I actually know a little bit already, but I'm requesting the book for a friend of mine, who recently asked me "Are Catholics Christian?" and who seems to know very little herself.

The litany is a chanted prayer of intercession peculiar to the Western (Catholic) Church (though of course there are similar prayers to be found in the East as well). This is one I'm particularly fond of: the “Night Litany for the World”, said every evening before compline ("good night"-prayer) by the contemplative Birgittine monks (“The Order of the Most Holy Saviour”) of Amity, Oregon. Since I know quite a lot of you here come from denominations that more or less frown upon pre-written prayers, praying with another's words or "vain and idle repetitions", I'm curious as to your thoughts on this prayer:

( “Night Litany for the World” )

Pope Benedict released his second encyclical today. It's called Spe Salvi (Saved by Hope), based on the words of Saint Paul "in hope we were saved" (Rome 8:24). The introduction is as follows:

1. “SPE SALVI facti sumus”—in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans, and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?

Not unexpectedly, the news media has distilled 75 pages on Christian Hope down to The Pope Blasts Atheism.

As has been pointed out a lot recently, it's always good to read the original rather than basing opinions off of what other people say. ;-)

in our church we recite the Nicene and Apostle's creed. Both reference the "catholic church", and the Nicene references the "apostolic" church. I know both creeds were written to solidify Christian understanding of doctrine against various blasphemies (I forget which was written to what now). What is the significance of stating that the church is "catholic and apostolic"? how does that differ from the Catholic Church?

How do you other protestants handle catholics who believe in Mary?

I have enormous difficulty with this. On the one hand I believe they are also christians, but Christ made me understand that they're not doing anything right. For example, today at church I was in a catholic service. I believe catholics think that wine and bread are actually transformed into Christ. But personally I see communion as a feast of remembrance of Christ. I try to remember his love at the last supper, his prayer to the Father for those who would follow Him. That sort of thing. I suppose catholics meditate on God's body in the wine and the bread. Can my understanding and their understanding coexist?

I have a similar oddity about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. On the one hand it was an atoning sacrifice, on the other hand God writes in the bible that He is against sin offerings, it would be like idolatry. So I'm trying to stick with what Jesus says, that He is going to the Father with his suffering on the cross, to be able to send us the Holy Spirit, yes, that's what Jesus told the disciples.

But I suppose those things can take a lifetime to understand. And even a 100 years may not be enough.

I'm not looking for starting a controvery, but how do you handle christians with whom you differ in terms of doctrine. Does believe in doctrines save us? I get so confused when I think about these things. For example, how can catholics believe in Mary when it's Jesus who were are told to believe in? I've seen small altars with a very small crucifix and above it a huge picture of Mary.

I'm not getting it. Do you?

I have a question on patron saints, and asking saints for intercession. I get the general idea of this I think, that namely not even death can break the communion of saints. But this is where it gets tricky for me: saints are canonized by the church, correct? Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics have those saints in common from before the Schism, but since then they have not canonized the same people. Let's say someone had a patron saint as a Roman Catholic, but became Orthodox. If there is not mutual recognition of this person's sainthood, what happens? What if someone converts to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy but wants to ask for the intercessions of their dear saintly Methodist grandmother?

I guess what I'm saying is I understand the general idea of the communion of saints. And I can even somewhat passively acknowledge the logic of it, even though you won't likely find me doing this in practice. But the question of recognition and authority muddies what I can grasp of this concept. Any info or answers would be appreciated.

Has anybody ever read the book called Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating?

It's a book defending Catholic beliefs. I'm not Catholic (or Fundamenalist, for that matter) but I'm enjoying the book a lot.

posted in apologetics and christianity