SHJIHM :: Catholic Discussions :: Misconceptions of Catholocism ~ Runboard
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing." -Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
Placating terrorists, meeting with dictators, compassion for murderers... but no humanity for the unborn... incredible.
OOT
I am worried about the wayward and the complacent - those who simply go through the motions... yes, for Devout Catholics it IS both - not for the ones that have lost their focus. Not realizing and dealing with that fact is a travesty against them, and against care IMHO...
This can happen to people of ANY religious affiliation, not just Catholics. This is not an inherent pitfall in the sacraments, disciplines, or traditions of the Catholic Church, but a result of the fallen nature of man. No matter what you choose to believe or how you practice that faith in your life, you can become complacent. We ALL do this at times. To have difficulty with the practices of the Catholic Church because of this is unfair.
quote:
Either way, to be lived you have to have a broader focus than the motion, wouldn't you agree?
Of course. But you cannot assume without complete understanding of the value of the sacraments that everyone is just going through the motions. You seem to have this persistent idea that the Mass and the sacraments are only outward actions, things that merely "remind" us of Christ. No. Rather, they are actions which, when received properly, impart grace on the faithful, the grace we need to actually BE closer to Christ, and yes, hopefully reach Heaven. Let me clear up a couple of things for you:
quote:
The Mass itself - again, from what I have been told here, another means of showing people what Christ did to save us, and the importance of that sacrifice.
The Mass is actually the same sacrifice of Calvary, Lauchlin. It is not a symbol or reminder as it is in Protestant faiths. In fact, the correct term is The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This can be explained more later if you wish.
quote:
Yes, they are actions, ceremonies, practices, traditions meant to keep these ideas in mind - because of human nature, people lose sight of these things. Instead of seeing the ideas behind the actions, they see only the need to go through the actions to guarantee their salvation - and this makes the ceremonies lose their point.
As I said, the sacraments are more than just "reminders," they actually impart grace upon those receiving them, because our good God has given us the means we need to act in accordance with our obligations to Him. Can we go to Mass without really "being there"? Of course. This has happened to me a number of times when I have had to tend to my young children during Mass, or when I have allowed myself to be preoccupied with something else. But this certainly does not mean I think I only need to go through the motions to guarantee my salvation. For one thing, salvation is not guaranteed anyway. It is actually odd to apply this thinking to Catholics because Catholics, out of all the Christian religions in the world, claim the least certainty regarding salvation, and certainly do not view it as guaranteed, no matter how many Masses they attend.
However, I have a problem with your comment here because salvation is the very reason the sacraments exist. We hope for salvation through God's grace, and we receive that grace through the sacraments. It is not wrong to be mindful of the role of the sacraments in salvation because they are necessary for it. You seem to be making a broad assumption here that the extent to which people neglect to understand the meaning of the sacraments is so great as to minimize the value of those sacraments. The reasons you have to make this assumption escape me.
quote:
As well, I believe I mentioned over and over again how appealing to the Church fathers for interpretation does not work for me. I was hoping for something about the idea of the word itself, not about who stated it.
The problem with this, Lauchlin, is that Christ specifically charged the Apostles to "Go forth and teach ye all nations whatsoever I have commanded you." We cannot give any idea about what Scripture means without appealing to the Apostles first.
quote:
Yes, it is hard for me to see the Bible as the pure word of Christ, where it is stated....It would seem I have come to the conclusion that I shall try and follow Christ's example, but I cannot follow the organization that has followed in his name.
Then I have trouble understanding how this is really possible because I don't know how you determine what you believe and what you do not. How do you know the teachings you follow are the ones that are "pure" versus the ones that got altered or changed somehow?
quote:
Sorry to have wasted your time.
I don't think you have wasted our time, Lauchlin. But if this means you are exiting all discussion here, I am troubled by that because I think you do so without full understanding of what you are choosing to reject. I wish you well.
I just think that the ideas behind the ceremonies are more important than the ceremonies themselves.
Example:
Communion - Christ said, do this in rememberance of me - it is meant to remind us of the sacrifice he made to show the world what it was becoming. What he did to save us.
What is it that you feel is different in a Catholic Mass? The Lords Supper has a direct connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion. It is by this action that his disciples would recognize him after his Resurrection, (Lk 24:13-35) and it is this expression that the first Christians used to designate their Eucharistic assemblies (Acts 2:42, 46 ; Acts 20:7, 11). By doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him. (1 Cor 10:16-17). Because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful,= it becomes a visible expression of the Church. (1 Cor 11:17-34).
quote:
Confession - from what has been said here, it is meant to keep in mind that people have a link with the church as the body of Christ, and to keep in mind that there sins do not just affect them, but affect the world they are in, as well as Christ through your dedication to him.
Confession is not a ceremony to be followed simply because your sins will be forgiven. One is not truly forgiven if one does not have feeling of remorse in the depths of their soul. One does not seek a man to forgive sins, one is seeking God. And as such our minds and hearts are focused on speaking to Him. There is much feeling happening in the soul of a person who seeks reconciliation.
quote:
The Mass itself - again, from what I have been told here, another means of showing people what Christ did to save us, and the importance of that sacrifice.
The Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross (not merely its symbolic retelling), and the Mass itself turns away wrath. It is a means by which the forgiveness Christ earned is applied to us. It is not simply a building we go to on a Sunday to stand and sit and hear a man talk.
quote:
Yes, they are actions, ceremonies, practices, traditions meant to keep these ideas in mind - because of human nature, people lose sight of these things. Instead of seeing the ideas behind the actions, they see only the need to go through the actions to guarantee their salvation - and this makes the ceremonies lose their point.
I agree. but what does this have to do with what the Church teaches? We are all responsible for our own actions. We are human, and as such we become complacent. If we do not apply our hearts and souls in participation of the Mass, we are essentially lost. Without the depth of feeling, and focus upon God, what does one truly have? All the doctrines in the world could not save you.
quote:
However, I think that it is important to realize that the Pope is a man we can trust, through his service to the church and through his actions in life. Not that he is infallible as derived from heaven. He is still a man, and calling him infallible and treating him that way is raising him towards God. You have said yourself that the Pope takes the sacrament of confession, confesses his sins. If a person sins, how can they be infallible? This is what keeps confusing me : (
Your confusion lies in the fact that you continue to apply infallibility to all that the pope does. Catholics know better. Infallibility simply means that God guarantees that in matters of faith and morals the Pope cannot make a mistake. Infallibility DOES NOT mean that the Pope cannot sin, nor does it mean that he cannot make a mistake in other matters such as history, politics, science and the like. Only when he declares a certain truth to be a matter of revelation is he infallible.
Now just on a technical note, there are four conditions which are necessary in order that the Pope be infallible:
1. He must speak as the chief pastor and teacher of the Church. The words he uses must make it clear to all that he is speaking as the head of the Church in a matter of faith or morals.
2. He must be speaking to the universal Church, that is, to Christians everywhere in the world.
3. He must speak "ex cathedra," that is, officially, with supreme apostolic authority.
4. It must be on a matter of faith or morals, and not on any other subject. Proof for this is found in St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy where he speaks of the Church of Christ as "the pillar and mainstay of truth." Likewise, in St. John's Gospel, "I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate, to dwell with you forever."
We know from Scripture that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that He promised to be with the Church until the end of time. If these promises mean anything, they mean that Christ would protect the Church in its TEACHING of the truth because He established this Church primarily as a teaching Church.
quote:
One figure sent from a man in the sky is as plausible as another
Not for a Christian who believes the Bible to be the written Word of God. Not for a Christian who believes that Jesus is the way, the Truth and the life.
quote:
As for a protestant not being able to feel that, that is subjective, and frankly kind of nasty.
No offense intended. My point was to show that the depth of feeling in a Catholics soul when accepting the actual Body and Blood of Christ can not be had by a protestant as they simply participate in a Eucharistic ceremony that only serves to remind them of a particular part of Christ's life.
Where is the feeling you say is sorely missing in Catholicism?
quote:
Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean that the feelings another person has, with respect to their own faith, are any less profound. Please do not demean people so.
You are putting words in my mouth. Read my response above carefully. I am not invalidating any feeling a protestant has when they receive communion. I am saying that the feeling a Catholic has is quite different and can never be felt by a protestant who does not believe transubstantiation. The actual Body and Blood of Christ.
quote:
As far as all this goes, protestants do recieve communion. Perhaps the practice is different, but it is meant in the same spirit, I am fairly sure.
I can not accept this. The Eucharist to a protestant is a mere symbol. An outward display of faith to remind them of the Last Supper. It contradicts all that can be read in Scripture. It is devoid of any real connection to God simply because it is a ceremony and pretends to be nothing else.
quote:
tell me why my interpretation doesn't work, why the one you see is better, based on the meaning of the words itself, not on who told you to belive them that way.
This is again a stumbling block for you. I can not agree with your interpretations because much of what ELSE Scripture tells us contradicts your interpretations. I am refuting you not because of what the Church teaches, but because of what Scripture teaches. What the Word of God teaches.
quote:
I believe that the words themselves hold meaning that is defensible on its own, and doesn't need the corroboration of anyone else to tell you the interpretation is right - otherwise, you can make the words mean whatever you want.
Precisely the need for an authoritative teaching facility. Exactly why Jesus left us His Church. Exactly why disputes in doctrine were to be settled by the Church. We see this ALL in Scripture. I am at a complete loss as to how you can not see this? You want us to defend ourselves with Scripture which is exactly what we have done.
In the inspired Scriptures, (the canon of which was determined by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) we discover the very authority we need to determine what is Truth.
In 1 Timothy 3.15, the Apostle Paul says something very important: "...God’s church is the household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
In Ephesians 3.10, Paul likewise taught that it was God’s "…intent that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God should be made known."
In other words it is through the Church that we learn the Truth about Jesus, and not just through the Bible. It is by belonging to the living body of Christ, the Church that we come to understand and know the mystery of Jesus Christ himself.
Paul says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. So the Church is the basis for the Truth, the support for the Truth. It is on the Church that the whole edifice rests and is supported. It’s no exaggeration to say then that not only did the Church establish and validate the inspiration of the Bible, and determine which specific books were to be considered inspired Scripture, but that without the Church we wouldn’t have a Bible at all.
Scripture Lauchlin. We have Scripture telling us who has the authority. We have Scripture telling us where to go for authoritative understanding of Christ's Words. We have Scripture telling us who to turn to, we have Scripture revealing all these things.
quote:
it FELT quite clear that he was trying to say that I am being belligerent,
I do apologize if you felt this way. I can say for sure that this was not AD's intentions. I believe he was simply pointing out the exchange of ideas that we seem to be continually re-hashing. And I have no problem with this just to be clear
quote:
I fear, greatly, that the responses to this will once again simply try to tear me down and tell me what I say is meaningless and without any foundation,
I do not believe for a second that anyone is trying to tear you down. We are trying to find common ground. We are trying to explain why we feel your ideas, although very meaningful to you, are not quite right when viewed in light of God's Word.
quote:
I AM emotional about this, because I DO want to explore it and because I AM afraid...
As are we all my friend. We are ALL emotional about this. And we are ALL afraid Lauchlin. There is no guarantee of Salvation. All we can do is remain in Christ and Trust in Him.
--- "My Sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
