Posted on 09/06/2007 3:27:02 PM PDT by annalex
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we think we have MORE of the truth? We don't have the WHOLE truth, that's fer shur. And we don't think the others have NO truth.
Excellent series! Thank you for posting it.
But ... but ... I AM white bread! (Okay, if you overlook my Jewish great grandfather ....)
What I'm seeing as a nouveau Catholic is that the ethnic parishes, at least in the boonies or where Catholicism and the local populace have been overwhelmed by migrations, are no longer so ethnic. In my parish the mix is amazing. We have an international food festival thing and there is Korean, Vietnamese, Fillipino, English (white bread?) (Yes, the English HAVE been known to cook)(rarely), French, EYEtalian, and more.
Personaly I have a real problem with a church that won't help me get thin, but that's another issue.
On the other hand we do have in the Diocese of Richmond a specifically Vietnamese parish., so it's not a slam dunk either way.
The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.
If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible.
that’s not the point.
Oh good! Then I can eliminate a whole bunch o' stuff. A clean miss is almost always helpful.
But please tell me WHAT's not the point? How did I miss it, and what IS the point?
(Missing the point is one of my, ah, gifts.)
Having grown up Protestant, one of my biggest problems with it is that its structure leads to a very shallow knowledge of its faith by its members. I know a great many who distinguish themselves as “Bible believers”, and who could recite many a passage, but do not dwell on the messages contained therein.
That’s one of the great effects of standardized prayers such as the Rosary, the Lord’s Prayer, etc. So many have castigated them as merely repetition without meaning, but in actuality, one cannot help but to reflect on their depth of meaning as one learns their use and utility over time.
Back to being a “Bible Believer”, I never know whether to be shocked or amused when I hear that used as opposition to Catholicism. As you said NYer, just where do they think their Bible came from?
. . . but nobody wants to eat it.
We would have starved to death in London if it hadn't been for Indian and Chinese restaurants . . . and McDonald's. Which just goes to show you how bad English cooking is, that we voluntarily ate Macky-D's!
The Catholic Church does not build mosques, — what are you talking about?
Pope John Paul II chose to kiss the Koran presented to him. It was an act of courtesy, generally expected of a diplomat. He liked kissing things: he also kissed the ground wherever he went. Whatever you think of his actions, — I personally think he should have found a polite way not to kiss that book — this is his action as an individual and not an instruction to us to go and kiss the nearest Koran. Should we, given that he is our Holy Father, imitate him? There is no obligation on Catholics to do so any more that we should imitate his skiing style or Polish accent. The fact that he was polite to the Muslim we should probably imitate, especially if they mean good and give us expensive presents. I was recently given an extra yoghurt with my kebob in an Afghani meat shop. I remembered the Holy Father kissing the Koran and said “Thank you very much, Sir”. I then ate the yoghurt. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church spoke through me that asfternoon to the infidels.
Some folks seem to confuse the Founder with the Foundation.
Wow! Trifle for dessert! Nirvana!
Or not.
This is not what Al is talking about. What he probably meant is that some Catholics for sure do superstitious things and are ignorant of what their church teaches. The things you enumerated are indeed parts of Catholicism, and as such are to be understood and followed. But they are not superstitions.
The numerous titles of the pope are simply custom. Nothing mysterious or supernatural attaches to them. If you have a question about a specific title, I can try and answer your question.
The Marian dogmas and the veneration of saints are all the belief system of the early Church, whether they have a direct scriptural prooftext or not. They certainly all make scriptural sense. If you have a specific question, again, I will try to answer, or you can educate yourself using the Internet or your local parish as a resource.
The priesthood is quite simply scriptural. Christ sent his apostles to give the Eucharist and educate; they sent others and still do. When an unconsecrated person attempts to imitate a priest, then that is superstition and bad things happen, scripture tells us (Acts 19:13-16).
Human tradition has some place in the discourse, but human tradition must be judged by God's Word, and not the inverse.
Now this is superstition. Where did you get that from? Please see On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Now, where is it we go to resolve a dispute over interpretation?
The question though is not what ‘others’ do in the face of ‘superstition and ignorance’, but what we as followers of Christ are called to do.
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. (2 Ti 4:2)
I would also echo the injunction in 1 Cor and Eph here to do so 'with love'.
As to what constitutes ‘superstition and ignorance’, in this sense my meaning is that which is not supported by clear scriptural antecedents and which is built upon the (often well meaning) traditions of men.
Your comment on birth control is an interesting one, as it raises an issue that's been on my mind lately. If you like, this can be considered a 'superstition' by my definition, as the scriptural support for it is weak at best. Such things though have much broader theological implications.
Are we saying that the God of Abraham and Isaac, the Great I Am, for whom nothing is impossible... can have His will thwarted by a few microns of latex? Are we saying that sexual intercourse within a lawful marriage is not meant to be joyful and physical? Are we saying that Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law, needs to have a new law created by man (though the RC would argue it is by God though His vicar upon earth... yet did Christ come to fulfill the law so that His 'vicar' could reestablish it?)?
My comment of priests was not a denigration of the need for leadership, order, and authority within the church (we are to be a people in submission to governing authorities, and most of all to be a people in willing and loving submission to an all sufficient God), rather it was a critique of all churches where a priesthood has arisen which sets itself up (whether willfully or not) as a mediator between God and man. This does not even address the question of priest acting as alter Christos in persona Christi
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti 2:5)
There well may be elements of RC understanding of priesthood with which I'm unfamiliar. If there are any points which you believe are germane, please bring them to my attention.
Agreed that there are some traditions that are given to us from God, yet we need to teach them clearly so that they are obeyed not just in physical action, but in full spirit and in truth.
His peace be with you.
How many guesses do I get? ;-)
Uh, The 700 Club?
No, I know! Mother Angelica.
Breathes there a man with so little gracePope, schmope! It's the thought of her brandishing a ruler that brings me in line and shuts me up!
That he'd dare disagree with her to her face?
I am working toward becoming a lay Dominican, so the notion of preaching in season and out of season (and even with love, but only if absolutely necessary ;-) ) is like mother milk to me -- or something like that. No argument there.
my meaning is that which is not supported by clear scriptural antecedents and which is built upon the (often well meaning) traditions of men.
Well, "clear" is where the conversation hinges, isn't it?
Let me take as an example something to which this guy refers, though he treats it slightly differently from the way I do.
If you think about what a good son wants for his mother, and if you think that Jesus was the perfect Son, you have not left behind anything that is clearly in Scripture, right? And if you think what happened when the woman with the issue of blood touched just His clothing, and when people touched the fringes of his clothes, AND you think that a mother touches and is touched by her child in the most intimate and immediate manner imaginable, you are still within the bounds of Scripture. What good son does not want to give to his mother all he can give?
I am not seeking to persuade you of Marian dogmas. My goal is humbler, namely: to say that it is precisely in contemplation of Scripture that those dogmas arise.
Okay, YOUR comment on what is amusingly referred to as 'ABC' (Artificial Birth Control) gets MY attention! It was throughout Christianity condemned until the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the C of E made the first crack in the wall. It may be "merely" a tradition but it was pretty widely observed, as much by Sola Scriptura types as by anyone. That's not dispositive either way, but it's worth considering.
Further, when one thinks about "witchcraft" in a pre-scientific age, specifically a pre-medical science age, what are the kinds of things one might go to a sorcerer for as a matter of regular affairs. (Checked your junk mail lately?) Abortifacients and contraceptives would, I think, be almost a main seller in the armamentarium of the little herbs and potions mixer and vendor down the street. The word translated by many as "sorcery" in Gal 5:20 is ...
φαρμακεια
pharmakeia, as in pharmacy.
(Gad! Maybe the Christian Scientists are right!) (Get a hold of yourself, Mad Dawg!)
So again, it's closer to what's right there "in the Bobble!" (as we used to say at Seminary) than you might think at first, or even second, glance.
To your series of questions I would say, "No." AS to specifics:
Did you read the guy's discussion of ABC? I thought it wasn't bad. And one thing about NFP (Natural Family Planning) is that it makes sexual intercourse deliberate and solemn, which does not contradict "joyful". (I didn't get the "physical" part of the question. How else you gonna do sex?)
As to the "new law" question, I guess I don't get that either. There are still morals after Pentecost. A great many things may now be "lawful" but there are still things that are "unedifying". And a gluttonous approach to sexual intercourse is, I think, disintegrative of persons. Our will should lead and our body follow. To the extent that the body leads, our will is either not involved or overwhelmed. And on a practical level, since sexual desire is often different in the parties to a marriage, one thing that ABC does (I hear from women I have counselled or discussed it with) is make it harder for the wife to turn aside the husbands importunacies. One person agreed that she was more or less thinking, "Okay, this'll take another 10 or 15 minutes, and then I can get back to my book." Does such a thing make for good marriages or even good sex?
As somebody else has already said, we Catholics find mediators everywhere -- even though some of us have read I Tim 2:5. It is in Christ and His Spirit, we would say, that we all are mediators for one another and even for those outside the Faith. "Kings and priests to God" all of us. The priesthood of the, uh, priesthood is kind of a special case of that. (I could be wrong on this aspect of it - I mean wrong about our teaching -- the whole conversaiton must presume I could be wrong altogether.) AS you wish me peace, you are mediating, and as I wish you peace I am ditto, as I see it. But it is because we are in Christ that we can do that.
That's got to be enough for a start. We're going to start writing encyclopedias to one another!
For the average catholic, praying the rosary is rote prayer - if and when they do it. It took a minor catastrophe to jolt me into praying the Rosary on a daily basis; it is now my constant companion.
While preparing 11th graders for the Sacrament of Confirmation, I introduced them to meditative and contemplative prayer. They truly enjoyed that. Personally, I try to start my day with the Prayers of Safro (Morning) of the Maronite Divine Office. These are so beautiful!
I wasn't saying anything about English home cooking, there is good food to be had among friends and relatives, so long as they're not of the "boil the vegetables to mush, don't season anything, and make sure the meat is tough" school.
It's the restaurant and pub food that's inedible. Even Dr. Samuel Johnson (who thought dining at his favorite tavern was as close to heaven on earth as one could get) warned that "the safest dish in an English tavern is a fowl."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.