Originally Posted By cmpaley What's to apologize for? To tell the truth is not something to apologize for. If one is a Catholic, one should live as one. I wouldn't expect a Muslim to not pray five times a day or avoid pork. Those are things that Muslims are expected to DO. I wouldn't expect a religious Jew to not celebrate Rosh Hashanah or the Passover or to not observe kosher because those are things religious Jews DO. If those things are acceptable for a Jew or a Muslim, why is it unacceptable for a Catholic to tell what Catholics are supposed to do and believe? I just don't get the double standard.
Originally Posted By cmpaley What's to apologize for? To tell the truth is not something to apologize for. If one is a Catholic, one should live as one. I wouldn't expect a Muslim to not pray five times a day or avoid pork. Those are things that Muslims are expected to DO. I wouldn't expect a religious Jew to not celebrate Rosh Hashanah or the Passover or to not observe kosher because those are things religious Jews DO. If those things are acceptable for a Jew or a Muslim, why is it unacceptable for a Catholic to tell what Catholics are supposed to do and believe? I just don't get the double standard.
Originally Posted By onlyme The only thing that I'm asked to do is to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and to Love your neighbor as yourself'. All of these rules are unnesessary. You cannot work your way to Heaven. Just because a person goes to church/Mass every week does not mean that they've got a sure ticket to Heaven. And confessing my sins to some guy(who's a sinner, just like me)NO, that's silly. Why would I do that? >>I can only tell you what the Church's((insert: My religion)) authentic teaching is<< BTW, Jesus spoke with humility, not a talking textbook. Please, if your gonna preach it, practice it. Where's Martin Luther, when I need him.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>If an hour a week in the public worship of God's Church is too much, then ask yourself if eternity with Him and His family is really want you desire. That's the real issue at question.<< It's not that an hour in Church is too much to ask, in fact I still go to Church most weeks, although we do generally go on a Saturday (gasp!!) and not every week.<< Saturday Aftenoon/Evening Vigil Masses count for Sunday and I usually avail myself of them when I go to Confession on Saturdays. One is supposed go every week, though. >> I did go every week as a child and in my early teens, and I believe I'm a better, more aware Catholic now than I was then. Church is simply not where I feel closest to God. What it comes down to is that if I went every week it would not be out of the desire to examine my spiritual self - I do that on a daily basis every time I pray, or every time I witness beauty and thank God for it - but because I was afraid of what would happen to my soul if I didn't. I just don't see the value in that. More power to you if you do. << Actually, fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (paraphrase of Prov. 1:7). The question should never be "when do I 'feel' closest go God?" There are times after Holy Communion (where we are closest to God as we will ever be as He is in us Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity at that moment!) where I don't feel anything. As my priest once said, God is not the big prozac in the sky. He is not there to "make you feel good." And I commend you for examining yourself frequently. That's a good practice to get into. For yourself and the betterment of your relationship with God, I highly recommend frequenting confession and going to Mass every Sunday (or Saturday evening, which counts for Sundays) and Holy Day of Obligation (there are only, like three, that don't fall on Sundays anymore.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The only thing that I'm asked to do is to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and to Love your neighbor as yourself'.<< Yes, on these hang all the law and the prophets, as Jesus said. He also said much more. >>All of these rules are unnesessary. You cannot work your way to Heaven.<< Who said anything about working their way to heaven? We are indeed saved by God's grace but it is not a grace that is alone. It is also not by a faith that is alone. In fact. St. James tells us that faith alone does NOT save but faith accompanies by works DOES save. Not faith alone and not works alone. >>Just because a person goes to church/Mass every week does not mean that they've got a sure ticket to Heaven.<< Amen! >>And confessing my sins to some guy(who's a sinner, just like me)NO, that's silly. Why would I do that?<< Because Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors the power to forgive OR retain sins, that's why! The disposition of the minister of the sacrament doesn't have anything to do with its effecaciousness. It is Jesus Himself, acting through the priest (or Bishop) who is forgiving your sins. Once confessed, a sin is obliterated. It is GONE, not just covered over. What a powerful and wonderful gift we have in Sacramental Confession. >>I can only tell you what the Church's((insert: My religion)) authentic teaching is<< BTW, Jesus spoke with humility, not a talking textbook. Please, if your gonna preach it, practice it.<< Um...I try to. When I fail, I avail myself of confession and try to make it right. >>Where's Martin Luther, when I need him.<< Martin Luther's original intent wasn't to leave the Cahtolic Church but to reform it. Luther is a much more complicated figure than most Protestants and Catholics make him out to be. He wasn't the brave renegade bucking the establishment that Protestants make him out to be and I don't think he was the rebel that many Catholics make him out to be.
Originally Posted By DlandJB << There is a REASON women aren't ordained. The ordained ministry is an imaging of Christ, who came to us as a man. Deacons, priests and bishops act as "alter Christus" (another Christ) when acting in their office. A woman cannot image Christ.>> Jesus came to us as a HUMAN. He came as a man because at the time he came women had no voice. He would not have been followed or listened to. It made sense to come to earth as a man. However, he revealed himself first to a woman, and a Samaritan woman at that. With that act, he very clearly acknowleged that women were to hear and share the gospel (good news). But as far as the RCC is concerned, the question is not even open for debate. The biggest problem with the RCC in that regard is the tendency of its members to hold clergy as being more holy than the laity. So when they tumble off their pedestals, they land hard and leave lots of ripples. They shouldn't be seen that way. They are no more holy than the laity. Holy Orders are no greater a sacrament than Marriage. I'm not sorry to be free of the RCC in my faith. It is nice to have a direct line to Jesus and not to have to go through all the rigamaroll to get there. Funny thing, He was there all along.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The biggest problem with the RCC in that regard is the tendency of its members to hold clergy as being more holy than the laity. So when they tumble off their pedestals, they land hard and leave lots of ripples. They shouldn't be seen that way. They are no more holy than the laity. Holy Orders are no greater a sacrament than Marriage.<< This is a VERY good point and was one of the things that Vatican II sought to address. Sadly, it's still around in many circles but it's not what the Church wants to emphasize. From what I understand, there are three classes of Sacrament. The first are the Sacraments of Initiation, namely, Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. The second are the Sacraments of Healing, namely, Reconciliation (or Penance or Confession) and the Anointing of the Sick (formerly known as Extreme Unction). Finally, there are the Sacraments of at the Service of Communion and Mission (or, in simpler terms, Vocation), namely, Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony. From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: ========== 321. What are the sacraments at the service of communion and mission? Two sacraments, Holy Orders and Matrimony, confer a special grace for a particular mission in the Church to serve and build up the People of God. These sacraments contribute in a special way to ecclesial communion and to the salvation of others. ========== Note that BOTH Orders and Matrimony confer special graces, not just Orders. The difference is that one confers the ability to confect the Sacraments of Confession, Confirmation and the Eucharist (deacons can marry and baptize as well as priests). Both are parenthood, in a way, because marriages should always result in families and priests act as spiritual fathers of their parishes.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>The question should never be "when do I 'feel' closest go God?"<<< Who are you to tell others what the question should or shouldn't be? Personally, I can feel god's presence and awsomeness and goodness and purity, if there is such a thing as a god...standing on a beach watching a sunrise. That certainly makes me appreciate the possibility of heaven a lot more than eating some bread and listening to a boring, hypocritical sermon made by some guy who is part of a brotherhood under SEVERE critisism for crimes against our children. Besides, if someone goes to church every week simply because they "have to" or they might go to hell, isn't that pretty selfish? Isn't being selfish a sin? Sounds like Liberty Belle has done lots of SELFLESS stuff...I guess god is more impressed with the hypocrite that has perfect attendance at the end of the term.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Once confessed, a sin is obliterated. It is GONE, not just covered over<<< I thought you said it was still on that old "purgatory checklist"? Sounds like god is more of a "forgive but NEVER forget" kinda guy.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< In answer to post 31, if I remember from my Sunday School days, God and Jesus, despite "having all the answers", as it was put, allows mortal man to determine his own fate, make his mistakes, learn from his experiences, both on a large and small scale. As for the earth revolving around the sun, yeah, God knew about that, and let the churches and everyone else figure it out for themselves. And whaddaya know, they eventually did. I'd wager that people over time gained more of an appreciation for everything around them learning this way. Why read the entire book, plot twists and all, if you can just skip to the end? Why bother to read at all? >>> But it would seem that someone having this belief would realize that not everything their church tells them is actually correct. <<< I didn't find the AWESOME QUESTION all that AWESOME as I did ARROGRANT and DISRESPECTFUL to those who share beliefs other than the person who posed the question. >>> I've been around the Internet over 20 years now, which means I was reading and posting things even before the web or web browsers were invented. One thing that I've learned over the ages is when someone directly calls someone else arrogant, it's almost always the case that the person making the accusation is being arrogant themselves. <<< It's a far too common "gotcha" tactic that grew tiresome decades and decades ago. A lot like "WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS???" What about them? Pretty neat, aren't they? >>> It would seem odd that in a discussion about religion, there's apparently a set of topics that are off the table and can't even be brought up. Regarding being disrespectful, which part of my question to you find as such? Was it something specific that I said, or was it the general notion of the question? Regarding dinosaurs, that's not really an issue for the Catholic Church, as the official belief is that what science tells us about the history of the world (including evolution) is not inconsistent with the Bible or God. So my question isn't about using conflicts between science and religion as "gotchas," since unlike many other religions, Catholicism doesn't appear to (currently) have rigid beliefs that are in conflict with science nor does it deny science when these conflicts arise. Rather, science (including new discoveries as they are made) are considered part of God's creation. My question, although specifically referring to a prominent case where science was involved, was asking not about science but about the historical record of the Church having been wrong on a particular matter, and how this is addressed within the context of the Church supposedly acting with Christ's own authority.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What's to apologize for? To tell the truth is not something to apologize for ... If [other religions' beliefs] are acceptable for a Jew or a Muslim, why is it unacceptable for a Catholic to tell what Catholics are supposed to do and believe? I just don't get the double standard. >>> I don't think a double standard is being applied. In another thread, I asked: <<< So, what is the Catholic belief on religious things in general with regards to non-Catholics? For example, a Jewish person that strictly followed a kosher diet would not think bad of me for eating pork, as those dietary laws were commands from God to the Jews, and since I'm not Jewish, they don't apply to me. Do Catholics believe that their doctrines apply to all people, such that Saddam would suffer in purgatory even though he's not Catholic? >>> and you responded: <<< Yes. The fact that someone isn't Catholic doesn't negate the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church teaches. >>> One issue is that you're not just telling other Catholics what do to and believe, but that you're holding Catholic teachings to be absolute truth for all people, regardless of their religion. And that's very different from, say, the Jewish beliefs regarding a kosher diet.
Originally Posted By onlyme >>as the official belief is that what science tells us about the history of the world (including evolution) is not inconsistent with the Bible or God.<< If you're speaking about the Catholic Church, that may very well be true. I don't know; I'm not Catholic. However, in general, for those who will open their minds a bit, there's more and more evidence showing that there can be a place for both science and religion to co-exist. However, you're right, it's a hard sell. I read a book a few months ago called 'Creation and Time'. In it, the author(yes a PH.d., not simply a religious person), shows how there is not a problem in interpreting the creation 'days' as billions of years each, as opposed to literal 'days'. Obviously, I won't go in to all of the details, but it's very interesting and quite plausable. If, in fact, God has always existed, what his hurry. He had all the time in the world to let things develop. Another example, of which I won't go into details, is the 'Big Bang'. The universe can be traced back to a single, ultimate origin of matter, energy, time, and space. Why couldn't this event had occured at the moment God said, "Let there be...". But, many Christians, ignorant and suspicious of science, immediately cry 'foul'. And for the record, Evolution means 'change with respect to time'. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe that we are ascended from apes. I do believe, however, that there was some type of Neanderthal man roaming the earth way back when. For the past several years, evidence for a divinely caused and designed universe have been accumilating. For instance, in 1988, Paul Davies a British Physicist, denied the possibility of God as Creator and promoted an atheistic interpretation of the universe. However in his book, The Cosmic Blueprint, in 1988, he states, "I see powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming". Anyway, the two sides, distrustful of each other, are missing out on a chance to put 'the whole thing together'.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< >>as the official belief is that what science tells us about the history of the world (including evolution) is not inconsistent with the Bible or God.<< If you're speaking about the Catholic Church, that may very well be true. I don't know; I'm not Catholic. However, in general, for those who will open their minds a bit, there's more and more evidence showing that there can be a place for both science and religion to co-exist. However, you're right, it's a hard sell. >>> It seems that you might have mis-read what I wrote. Note that I said "NOT inconsistent," meaning that religion and science are NOT at odds with one another, at least according to the Catholic church.
Originally Posted By onlyme Yes, I assumed that you were referring to the Catholic Church, however, most Christians of all faiths/beliefs are very skeptical of Science and it's theories of the origin of the universe. That's why I wrote that bloated post
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Yes, I assumed that you were referring to the Catholic Church >>> I was in fact referring to the Catholic Church - I think you're still mis-reading what I said.
Originally Posted By onlyme I do understand what you said, but, Ok, disregard that I quoted something you said. And disregard any notion of Catholicism; which I know very little about. If Catholics and Physicists are on the same page regarding Creation, Creation 'Days', Evolution, etc...Good for them. I wasn't aware of that. Here's my premise: Religion and Science ARE, very much, at odds with each other. Each one distrusts the other. Each one feels that the other is false. Each one, in most cases, is ignorant of the other's position. Most Christians, of which I am one, simply don't have a clue about scientific matters. The minute they hear a Physicist, for example, talk about the age of the Universe, they cut him off and consider him/her to be an athiest. Likewise, most Physicists regard, for instance, creation, as a crutch for the ignorant and weak-minded. I'm saying that the two entitites, who are distrusful of each other, are missing the boat. There's room for both. None of what I have said is 'arguing' against what you, (SuperDry), have said. I'm just making another point, but confused the matter by tying it into your point.
Originally Posted By jonvn "There's room for both." Not when people of "faith" refuse to acknowledge hard physical evidence and science. I see religious people as sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la la" when they get told of some pretty incontrovertible things that have been observed. If you look on usenet, there is this guy called Ed Conrad who goes around and makes tons of posts about how dinosaurs roamed the earth with man, that the planet is only 5000 years old, and so on. People of religion need to base their ideas not around their own superstious concepts and ignorance, but around what people of science are finding out about the universe. If they can't adapt to reality then their ideas become more and more obsolete.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>>The question should never be "when do I 'feel' closest go God?"<<< Who are you to tell others what the question should or shouldn't be? Personally, I can feel god's presence and awsomeness and goodness and purity, if there is such a thing as a god...standing on a beach watching a sunrise. That certainly makes me appreciate the possibility of heaven a lot more than eating some bread and listening to a boring, hypocritical sermon made by some guy who is part of a brotherhood under SEVERE critisism for crimes against our children.<< Ah, that old chestnut. 1% of priests have done evil things, so they're ALL evil and hypocrites. Being a Catholic is about living the sacramental life. >>Besides, if someone goes to church every week simply because they "have to" or they might go to hell, isn't that pretty selfish?<< No, it's called obedience to God's commandments (the Third Commandment, to be precise, or the Fourth by protestant numbering schemes). >>Isn't being selfish a sin?<< It's selfish to want something for one's self. It's not selfish to fear God and obey Him. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7). >>Sounds like Liberty Belle has done lots of SELFLESS stuff...I guess god is more impressed with the hypocrite that has perfect attendance at the end of the term.<< Absolutely NOT. He is impressed with someone who obeys Him in all things, as far as one is able. A hypocrite who has perfect attendance will still be required to die in the state of grace (free of unconfessed mortal sin)...and since they are hypocrites, chances are, they probably won't die in the state of grace and will end up in Hell. Those selfless acts are all commendable. What I am saying is that, in and of themselves, they are not sufficient to merit eternal salvation. We are not saved by works but by grace perfected in love (which involves works). Salvation is a supernatural end, not a natural one. One cannot attain supernatural ends by natural means. That's why the sacraments are necessary. Grace is imparted to the soul in the sacraments and the person is empowered to perform works that become worthy of merit before GOd. Apart from that, our works are nothing more than used napkins (Isaiah 64:6: But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.). Attendance at Mass is to be present at the most sublime event in the history of the universe, namely, the sacrifice of Christ. To receive Holy Communion is to partake of Christ in a real way, as it is no longer bread but Christ's true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. That's where we get the divine assistance (grace) to make our works worthy of merit, this make us worthy of salvation.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>One issue is that you're not just telling other Catholics what do to and believe, but that you're holding Catholic teachings to be absolute truth for all people, regardless of their religion. And that's very different from, say, the Jewish beliefs regarding a kosher diet.<< Different ideas at work. One pertains to practice, the other pertains to what I believe to be dogmatically true. Muslims avoid pork and pray five times a day facing Mecca. Jews observe kosher and celebrate Jewish holidays. Catholics are supposed to go to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation and live the Sacramental Life (that is, partake of the sacraments frequently). Those are what people in these religions DO. Those are practices. If one claims to be a Catholic, I would expect them to, well, BE Catholic. That means going to Mass and partaking of the Sacraments. As a little aside, the word Catholic is derived from the Koine Greek word katholikos which means universal. Before the Great Schism of 1054, there was only one Church with one doctrine and one hierarchy. Those doctrines are held to be true for all people, whether they are Catholic or not. It's like gravity. One can deny gravity all they like but if they were to step off the edge of a bridge, they will end up either dead or severely injured. Their denial of something doesn't make it untrue. As a Catholic, I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches is true and that it's true for all people. I also admit that it is possible to be saved while not formally a member of the Catholic Church (gasp!) because that's also something the Church teaches. That is to say, a person who is invincibly ignorant of the Cahtolic Church and what she really teaches*, but they seek God and try to obey Him as they know how, they can be saved. As the saying goes, *we* are bound to the sacraments, God is not. *Archbishop Fulton Sheen is known to have said, "Not 100 people in the United States hate the Catholic Church for what she really is, but millions hate what they mistakenly believe she is."
Originally Posted By jonvn "1% of priests have done evil things, so they're ALL evil and hypocrites. " Actually, that number is higher, around 4%. And it's not just that they are doing something bad, but that the hierarchy is covering it up, or doing nothing about it. That is what makes the rest of them evil hypocrites.
