I have been reading along with much interest but have mostly withheld comment because there was a long stretch of “all heat, no light.”
Now I would like to add “two cents” for the discussion.
It seems to me that a lot of the angst between the Catholic and non-Catholic Christians may stem from traditions of the Catholic Church which have accumulated over the years in an attempt to communicate doctrine to the illiterate masses.
For instance, there is a lot of “acting out” of Church doctrine such as making the cross over the chest, walking forward to touch or kiss a wooden cross at Easter, kneeling before statues, kissing the ring of a religious authority, sprinkling themselves with water and so on.
God instructed some of the Old Testament prophets to act out His prophecies. And by washing the apostles’ feet Jesus acted out the doctrine of helping one another to rid ourselves of the earthly concerns we gather as we walk in Him in this mortal life. It was not about feet:
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head.
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am. If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. – John 13:3-15
Likewise, I strongly suspect the opulent attire of Catholic men consecrated to God – whether Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, etc. – was an “acting out” of doctrines involving the separation between the spiritual and the earthly with an emphasis on which is to be preferred. Ditto for the opulent buildings, art, altars and devices used in the Mass.
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. – Luke 22:35-36
Then again, the Church was commissioned to preach the Gospel back when most people were illiterate. To their target audience, a picture was quite literally worth a thousand words. A statue of a saint suggests in visual form that a Christian life well lived is honorable and desirable - and honoring that saint in a litany reminds the illiterate that the sanctified Christian life is above the mortal coil.
Now for my complaint.
I believe the Catholic Church was faithful in getting the initial message out there to the illiterate masses but I also believe it has fallen short by not following-through with the converts after confirmation. Where the indigenous indians quite literally moved into the Spanish Missions, there was follow-through. But where the converts simply walked out the door back into their secular life there was not adequate follow-through.
The Catholics on Free Republic are very knowledgeable in their beliefs and in the doctrine of the Church. But “out there” in the secular world, by my experience, they would be the exception, not the rule. Most of the Catholics other than family who I engage in casual conversation – and I am not talking about trying to convert them to any other Christian doctrine – seem to be very hesitant to discuss Christ or their beliefs and/or seem to be ill informed.
Truly, they remind me of those who received an education and then forgot most of it as they went off pursuing life. Continuing education makes sense in many professions and it should be standard among all Christians, Catholic or not.
One would expect those who embrace the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” would be the least inclined to continue their Christian education. But that is not true, on my experience they are often the most driven to ask, seek and knock.
To me, this is a case of the “acting out” back-firing for lack of follow-through.
In the modern secular world, the Christian whether Catholic or not who is not following-through may be inclined to blend whatever doctrine he learns with New Age mysticism or even whatever he may find appealing in modern fiction, e.g. Star Wars' midichlorians, Star Trek's alien nations, Harry Potter's white magic or even (God forbid) benevolent vampires ala Twilight.
I do “get” the point that the Mass is mostly worship whereas the Protestant Service is mostly teaching and it would be wrongful to elevate education to worship. But, in my view, the Catholic Church needs to develop an infrastructure to deal with the masses, whether literate or not, after they walk out the door.
Here they could learn something from the Protestants. In particular, they could encourage small groups within the congregation to get together and socialize on their own in one another’s homes for the purpose of discussing the daily Scripture readings and the doctrines of the Church. In a “Bible Study” like this, it should be lay people talking to one another – priests could unintentionally stifle a group from sharing their views.
And yes I am aware of the Catholic use of television and the internet – but there is nothing quite as effective as the group, which is interactive, reinforcing, social - and people often open up with real world problems, bizarre thoughts or dreams or fears - and are willing to listen to someone who cares enough about the words of God to be there. The focus on Scripture would help all the members in the group to keep themselves centered on God’s will in their secular lives after they walk out the doors.
Any hoot, that’s my “two cents” for the discussion…
God's Name is I AM.
“Here they could learn something from Protestants...”
We have what are called Small Christian Communities and we meet to discuss the bible and Scriptures application to our lives. They are communities within the larger community of the parish in addition to formalized bible study.
If I may say so, you don’t understand the Mass. Unless you understand The Presence, you don’t understand us.
This is a disgustingly nasty thread. I have Protestant friends, evangelical friends, mennonite friends and if they thought like this thread reflects, I would never speak to them again.
Thank you for the intelligent discourse. Salvation is a very personal and private issue for Catholics. I think this stems from a knowledge or belief that we are all sinners and at final judgment we will stand alone before God.
Non-Catholics often confuse the cultural and traditional aspects of Catholicism with Apostolic Tradition or an embrace of paganism. A perfect example is the placement of a Holy Water font at the entrance of a Church. Every Roman home had such a font at the entrance, whether a fountain, pond, or simple clay bowl and visitors to a home would make a washing of hands and feet a ritual of respect to the home owner before entering. To not do so was a serious affront and insult. How much greater an insult would it have been for anyone to enter the house of God without showing a similar respect?
Parishes all over the world now offer Bible study and study of the documents and teachings by the Church.
You are correct in much of that post that too many Catholics are ignorant of the hows and whys of their faith.
Some have no other desire than to accept it like a child, some are lured away when confronted with distortions they haven’t the knowledge to counteract, and some take action, reading and learning and offering what they know on places such as this.
This is not the first instance the Church has been prodded by outside forces and as it has always done, she takes what is useful to her service and the commission given her by Jesus to feed His sheep.
A well reasoned and thoughful post. In the above paragraph, true and true.
THANKS TONS FOR YOUR WONDERFUL WORTHY, FITTING, APT POINTS.
I don’t know any that I wholesale disagree with.
I particularly liked these and felt these were quite IMPORTANT:
The Catholics on Free Republic are very knowledgeable in their beliefs and in the doctrine of the Church. But “out there” in the secular world, by my experience, they would be the exception, not the rule. Most of the Catholics other than family who I engage in casual conversation – and I am not talking about trying to convert them to any other Christian doctrine – seem to be very hesitant to discuss Christ or their beliefs and/or seem to be ill informed.
Truly, they remind me of those who received an education and then forgot most of it as they went off pursuing life. Continuing education makes sense in many professions and it should be standard among all Christians, Catholic or not.
One would expect those who embrace the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” would be the least inclined to continue their Christian education. But that is not true, on my experience they are often the most driven to ask, seek and knock.
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. - Matt 7:7-8
But more disturbingly, there was obviously insufficient follow-through in the Caribbean because the residents, back in the throes of their secular environment, seemed to think it was ok to blend Catholic doctrines with their own religious traditions giving rise to Santeria. And I have read on this forum from a missionary in the Philippines that even today some receive the Catholic doctrine and, back in their secular environments, blend it with their own Buddhist traditions even to the point they make household shrines with statues of Mary alongside statues of Buddha.
For instance, there is a lot of “acting out” of Church doctrine such as making the cross over the chest, walking forward to touch or kiss a wooden cross at Easter, kneeling before statues, kissing the ring of a religious authority, sprinkling themselves with water and so on.
God instructed some of the Old Testament prophets to act out His prophecies. And by washing the apostles’ feet Jesus acted out the doctrine of helping one another to rid ourselves of the earthly concerns we gather as we walk in Him in this mortal life. It was not about feet....
Definitely, this episode is "not about feet."
Some observations come to mind. (1) John 13:3–15 is about the reenactment, or "acting out" of an eternal divine gesture, impulse, or pattern of love and service from God to man, in so doing declaring such a pattern to have force man-to-man likewise. Christ Himself sets the pattern.
The operative word here is gesture: an acting out in physical terms of some aspect of ineffable divine Reality that one has apperceived by the grace of the Holy Spirit in one's mind and soul. One must have recourse to physical analogues to convey such an idea to persons whose intellectual development and/or lack of language skills are incapable of receiving such communications otherwise. (2) It is a very good thing that such should be the case. For Christianity has managed, by means of such devices, to survive and flourish for 2,000 years and counting by now, and has been spread to every corner of the globe by doing so. Were this not the case, there'd have been exactly nothing for the great 16th-century Reformers — e.g., Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al. — to "reform" in the first place.
The point is, the gesture must match the Truth, in present consciousness, in order to be truly effective. People who forget this necessary connection are sleep-walking through the exercise....
It is a very funny thing I have noticed (from my very limited point of view and experience therefrom): Whereas Protties are readily disposed to dialogue on doctrinal/theological issues at the drop of a hat, in my observation Catholics tend to be very reticent to do so.
This goes to your point that the "follow-up," the opportunities for increased divine knowledge by means of dialogue among Christians, is lacking in the RC church.
At this point it seems one can say one of two things: Either Catholics are so brainwashed, and so used to kneeling before the authority of a human institution — the hierarchical church itself — that they cannot think for themselves.
Or, maybe they have thought for themselves sufficiently [even as if through a glass, darkly] to know that human reason does not encompass God's will and works sufficiently to know and explain them in terms of human experience, timebound as it is. To me, this is to stand in a position of humility WRT the eternal divine order of things. I do not disparage such a stance.
Though I might remark that Christianity itself early embraced an "intellectual tradition" grounded not only in faith, but also in reason through Augustine, and later through Aquinas and Anselm — I love them all dearly, but Anselm especially truly speaks to my heart.
Anselm — to me — brings into correspondence the two humanly accessible sources of Truth — that is to say, faith and reason. He wrote, "Lord, speak to my desirous soul what you are, other than what it has seen, that it may clearly see what it desires." [Proslogion VIX].
Then he adds: "O Lord, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but you are also greater than what can be conceived." [Proslogion XV.]
If this be the case, then God does not reduce to terms of human rationality and experience. All the religious talk in the world does not change a thing about this situation, which has obtained since the very foundation of the Creation....
I myself am presently "unchurched," but a faithful Christian nonetheless. I may be more in the "school" of the "bakery Christians" of your own experience, dearest sister in Christ, than I am of any other school at the present time. Unless the Lord moves me otherwise, I am very likely to remain in that condition. And "happy as a clam" to do so (as they say 'round these [New England] parts).
Truth is Truth. And God — the Logos — is source and sustainer of it.
In short, God is the rock on which I stand.
All praise and thanks and glory be unto I AM THAT AM!
Thank you ever so much for your magnificently beautiful essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!
“For instance, there is a lot of “acting out” of Church doctrine such as making the cross over the chest, walking forward to touch or kiss a wooden cross at Easter, kneeling before statues, kissing the ring of a religious authority, sprinkling themselves with water and so on.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Such things as making the Sign of the Cross, using holy water, etc. are called “sacramentals”. They are of a lesser order than the Sacraments, which actually give grace and increase grace in the soul of the person receiving them, properly disposed. What I find insightful in your post is the recognition of the importance of using material things, postures of the body, etc., in Catholic prayer and ritual.
I'd like to excerpt an excellent article by Peter Kreeft, a well-known convert and Catholic apologist, that explains the importance of this in a far better way than I can:. Pardon me for the long excerpt, but I feel it's such an outstanding explanation of the Catholic sacramental view of things that I couldn't resist.
And it really ties in with your comment, in my opinion.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0030.html
excerpt:
To Protestants, sacraments must be one of two things: either mere symbols, reminders, like words; or else real magic. And the Catholic definition of a sacrament — a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace, a sign that really effects what it symbolizes — sounds like magic. Catholic doctrine teaches that the sacraments work ex opere operato, i.e., objectively, though not impersonally and automatically like machines. They are gifts that come from without but must be freely received.
Protestants are usually much more comfortable with a merely symbolic view of sacraments, for their faith is primarily verbal, not sacramental. After all, it is the Bible that looms so large in the center of their horizon. They believe in creation and Incarnation and Resurrection only because they are in the Bible. The material events are surrounded by the holy words. The Catholic sensibility is the inside-out version of this: the words are surrounded by the holy facts. To the Catholic sensibility it is not primarily words but matter that is holy because God created it, incarnated himself in it, raised it from death, and took it to heaven with him in his ascension.
Orthodox Protestants believe these scriptural dogmas, of course, just as surely as Catholics do. But they do not, I think, feel the crude, even vulgar facticity of them as strongly. That’s why they do not merely disagree with but are profoundly shocked by the real presence and transubstantiation. Luther, by the way, taught the real presence and something much closer to transubstantiation than most Protestants believe, namely consubstantiation, the belief that Christ’s body and blood are really present in the Eucharist, but so are the bread and wine. Catholics believe the elements are changed; Lutherans believe they are added to.
Most Protestants believe the Eucharist only symbolizes Christ, though some, following Calvin, add that it is an occasion for special grace, a sign and a seal. But though I was a Calvinist for twenty one years, I do not remember any emphasis on that notion. Much more often, I heard the contrast between the Protestant “ spiritual “ interpretation and the Catholic “material “, “magical” one.
The basic objection Protestants have to sacramentalism is this: How can divine grace depend on matter, something passive and unfree? Isn’t it unfair for God’s grace to depend on anything other than his will and mine? I felt that objection strongly until I realized that the sheer fact that I have a body — this body, with this heredity, which came to me and still comes to me without my choice — is also “unfair”. One gets a healthy body, another does not. As one philosopher said, “Life isn’t fair.”
It’s the very nature of the material world we live in, the very fact of a material world at all, that is so “unfair” that it moved Ivan Karamazov to rebellion against God in that profoundest and most Christian novel, Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. As he explains to his believing brother Alyosha, “It’s not God that I can’t accept, it’s this world of his” — a world in which bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. But it might be better than fair rather than less, gift rather than payment, grace rather than justice, “fair” as “beautiful” rather than “fair” as rational “ — like a sacrament.
The sacraments remind us that the whole world is a sacrament, a sacred thing, a gift; and the sacramental character of the world reminds us of the central sacrament, the Incarnation, continued among us in the seven sacraments of the Church, especially in the Eucharist. The sacramental view of the world and the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments illuminate each other like large and small mirrors.
Both the sacrament of the world and the sacrament of incarnation/ Eucharist also remind us that we too are sacramental, matter made holy by spirit. Our bodies are not corpses moved by ghosts, or cars steered by angels, but temples of the Holy Spirit. In our bodies, especially our faces, matter is transmuted into meaning. The eyes are the windows of the soul.