The old Roman Catholic church was not a religious movement-it was a political movement. When Martin Luther brought up the principles of lutheran Christianity, why did he succeed? Why did he suddenly stand up for these ideals? The answer is revelation. In these times the Catholic church is much weaker than it was decades and centuries ago. It is a very traditionalist movement, and if you don't understand and believe in the rituals that the Catholics proclaim, then those rituals are dogmatic. That is the reason why many children who are raised Catholic rebel against it when they grow up. It is the same reason that I would not allow my children to grow up in a Catholic background (that is, if I ever have kids).
There are some people who Catholicism works for-I have a handful of friends in college who are Catholic. Every time I ask them about it, they say it's a "comfort" thing. If their rituals make you love and care about God more, it's fine to do it. The people who get alienated by these rituals lash out against God, which is a load of crap. Catholicism isn't the only form of Christianity.
I don't know whether to be amused or saddened when people try to hold the crimes of the old Catholic church against Christianity as a whole. It's wildly ignorant to substitute the Catholic chruch's will for God's will. It's also equally dubious when someone asks, "why would God let all these bad things happen to _______" when they obviously know nothing about how God operates (and you can't know God's will since you're a human).
The Da Vinci Code is a long, eloquent farce. By debating it you give it credibility in your mind. If you do, I've got to say that you aren't very bright.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
and if you don't understand and believe in the rituals that the Catholics proclaim, then those rituals are dogmatic.
I'm fairly certain you don't know what "dogma" means.
Quote from Snack »
That is the reason why many children who are raised Catholic rebel against it when they grow up. It is the same reason that I would not allow my children to grow up in a Catholic background (that is, if I ever have kids).
I would venture to say that an even higher ratio of people raised in "born-again" Protestant backgrounds rebel against their background when they grow up, especially those under the blanket of "absolute assurance." In general, the lack of acknowledgment of the development of doctrine, a Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and historical saints is replaced with notions of "personal relationship," "individual church," sola Scriptura, and an inordinately high emphasis of celebration over worship. As one raised an Evangelical, I've seen (and lived) the "holier than thou" attitude towards Catholics. The notion is that Catholics are out of touch, mechanically performing rituals without actually "asking Jesus into their hearts," and that this defficiency causes rampant nominalism in the Catholic population. It's an hypocrisy that I've seen it fall flat on its face time and time again.
Quote from Snack »
There are some people who Catholicism works for-I have a handful of friends in college who are Catholic. Every time I ask them about it, they say it's a "comfort" thing. If their rituals make you love and care about God more, it's fine to do it. The people who get alienated by these rituals lash out against God, which is a load of crap. Catholicism isn't the only form of Christianity.
The practices mandated by Catholicism as a whole (not "variable by rite" or "optional by individual" rituals) were exemplified by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church fathers. They include anointing of the sick, baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, sacramental marriage, holy ordination, confession of sins to the community of believers as well as to God, prayer, congregation, tithing, Church hierarchy, missions, etc. With any ritual, Catholic or Protestant, empty practice translates to empty meaning.
I'm fairly certain you don't know what "dogma" means.
There's a pretty widely-accepted distinction betwen dogma and dogmatism. Dogmatism is often defined as rote adherence to dogma for no other reason than the dogma itself - i.e. adherence to dogma out of "loyaly" even with it is impractical, etc. I imagine that he means dogmatic in this sense rather than simly meaning "having to do with dogma."
@Protestantism: what would you say is the problem with these differences? What do you think is the key difference between Catholic systems of priority (value), and Protestant ones?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I'm fairly certain you don't know what "dogma" means.
I would venture to say that an even higher ratio of people raised in "born-again" Protestant backgrounds rebel against their background when they grow up, especially those under the blanket of "absolute assurance." In general, the lack of acknowledgment of the development of doctrine, a Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and historical saints is replaced with notions of "personal relationship," "individual church," sola Scriptura, and an inordinately high emphasis of celebration over worship. As one raised an Evangelical, I've seen (and lived) the "holier than thou" attitude towards Catholics. The notion is that Catholics are out of touch, mechanically performing rituals without actually "asking Jesus into their hearts," and that this defficiency causes rampant nominalism in the Catholic population. It's an hypocrisy that I've seen it fall flat on its face time and time again.
The practices mandated by Catholicism as a whole (not "variable by rite" or "optional by individual" rituals) were exemplified by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church fathers. They include anointing of the sick, baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, sacramental marriage, holy ordination, confession of sins to the community of believers as well as to God, prayer, congregation, tithing, Church hierarchy, missions, etc. With any ritual, Catholic or Protestant, empty practice translates to empty meaning.
Para 1: Yay for semantics.
Para 2: The "stupid people" (holier-than-thou) argument goes outside of the bounds of religion. There are many people who believe in the inherent rectitude of their religion/political beliefs/etc, and try to force that viewpoint on other people in a negative (I'm right and you're wrong) manner.
Para 3: Obviously the problem is forcing religion on your child. My contention is that Catholicism, by its highly ritualistic nature, is easier to force on a child than "born again" Protestantism. The same would be true for Muslim and Jewish doctrines. I think that a religion with more doctrines leads to a greater likelihood that the religion will fail in an individual's life.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
@Protestantism: what would you say is the problem with these differences? What do you think is the key difference between Catholic systems of priority (value), and Protestant ones?
I'd say that underlying difference is that Protestantism is based on an attitude of rebellion against a unified, temporal Church authority. They adhere to sola Scriptura and believe that what's important is a "personal relationship with Christ." "It's not a religion, it's a relationship," they say. They say that almost every ritual, like the Eucharist or even going to Church at all, is optional. They do this in order to reduce empty participation.
The Protestants rejected the temporal authority because of corruption and hypocrisy in Church leadership. This did two things. First, to avoid hypocrisy, they adoped a kind of "anti-ritualism." Second, they applied an attitude of "avoid the middleman" to their doctrines, abolishing stuff like confession to the Church, saintly intercession, and a hierarchical, unified Magisterium. The dissolution of dependence on a Magisterium opened up the floodgates, so to speak; suddenly Protestants couldn't agree with one another about which way was up. "Do we rebaptize? Do we baptize infants? Is baptism regenerative or a mere proclamation of faith to others? How much do we participate in our own salvation? Do we participate at all? What books should be in the Bible? Does the Eucharist become Christ's flesh and blood, contain Christ's flesh and blood, or merely symbolize Christ's flesh and blood? How many sacraments are there?"
It can be boiled down to this: the Catholic Church puts major emphasis on the community of believers as potent agents of maintenance and guidance. Protestants pay lip service to the importance of the community, and I've seen many Protestant churches struggle to emphasize it more, but it's a fractured system that, at its very foundation, relies on the virtue of independence. Instead of listening to the Magisterium, they interpret the Bible themselves using "the Bible itself and the Holy Spirit." Instead of also confessing their sins in church, they do it only to God. The underlying core of Protestantism can be perfectly illustrated by how they interpret Matthew 16:18+.
Catholic interpretation:
"Simon, you are now known as Rock, and on this rock I will build my church."
Jesus is forming an authoritative human institution, God-guided, but visible through the first pope, Simon Peter (Simon the Rock).
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Jesus is giving Peter a special kind of authority over other Christians.
Protestant interpretation:
"Simon, you're now known as Rock in the sense of a smaller, unstable rock that rolls around. And on THIS rock *points to the rock everyone's standing on* I will build my church."
Jesus is telling Peter that he's not that great, contrasting him against the stability of his new church.
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom in the form of salvation instructions, which is for everyone. Whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven."
Jesus is saying that the keys are for everyone and, using them, Christians will be able to discern what has been bound and loosed in heaven.
Quote from Snack »
Obviously the problem is forcing religion on your child. My contention is that Catholicism, by its highly ritualistic nature, is easier to force on a child than "born again" Protestantism. The same would be true for Muslim and Jewish doctrines. I think that a religion with more doctrines leads to a greater likelihood that the religion will fail in an individual's life.
I don't believe it does. I believe more amorphous, ambiguous, contested doctrines and optional rituals lead to a greater likelihood that the religion will fail in an individual's life.
Intradoctrinal apologetics are fun and all, but a little respect should be in order, here. No one who is Christian of any form or flavor is a weaker person than someone who is not, inherently. It simply means that they are looking for something different in the world. The same is true with intradoctrinal differences. (Christians who are "nondeminational", whom I like to call "nondoms", on the other had, really are just about hating the Catholics. Which seems sad and petty. :))
It's not really that simple. Many groups feel that they are doctrinal descendents of the original Christians, a church absent of historical visibility. This includes "just" Christians like nondenominationals and Church of Christ. They can sometimes be fervently anti-Catholic, but I wouldn't say their doctrinal system depends on Catholicism being apostate (like the Lattery Day Saints) or a machine of the devil (like the Seventh Day Adventists).
It's a fine line to be sure. All non-Catholic Christians need to somehow deal with their doctrinal separation from Catholicism, the denomination which, along with the Eastern Orthodoxy, has the highest apparent historicity. The usual theory is that, at some point, corrupt Catholicism stamped out "true Christianity" from historical visibility. Mormons and many Pentacostals believe this point was before the Nicene Creed. Some, like many Presbyterians, believe that "secret true Christian agents" popped up, like Augustine of Hippo, in the midst of the Church's state of error. And then others, like many Methodists, believe that everyone has a kind of "personal Magisterium" and is capable of personally developing doctrine, so new Christian paradigms don't need historicity.
I think I'm rambling a bit. My point is that if you're a non-Catholic Christian, you are either ignorant of the issue of Catholicism, or you must be at least somewhat anti-Catholic. It generally isn't that they're looking for something different. It's that they were either raised/converted into something different, or they think that Catholicism's doctrines are wrong. I think an attitude of "Well Catholicism's doctrines are right, but I'm sticking with my old Protestant church for now, because I feel more comfortable," is only temporary. I know I went through it for a while.
I think that this is a false dichotomy. You can be completely aware of Catholicism, think that it is wrong, and still not be what I would call anti-Catholic. I would restrict the term "anti-Catholic" to people who either systematically or virulently believe that Catholicism is wrong, not to people who think that it is unnecessary.
How are you using the term?
Harkius
If you believe Catholicism is unnecessary, then you by implication cannot believe that Catholicism is correct, because significant parts of Catholicism require it to be necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I think that this is a false dichotomy. You can be completely aware of Catholicism, think that it is wrong, and still not be what I would call anti-Catholic. I would restrict the term "anti-Catholic" to people who either systematically or virulently believe that Catholicism is wrong, not to people who think that it is unnecessary.
How are you using the term?
Well, it's all a matter of context-based degree, like the word "tall." I don't generally call anyone shorter than me "tall," but sometimes I do, when I'm in a certain frame of reference. For instance, I would call John Ankerberg a true anti-Catholic, and I wouldn't really call my mom an anti-Catholic. But my mom does have anti-Catholic beliefs; she bought me a John Ankerberg book for Christmas.
What I'm saying is that unless you are ignorant of what the church believes, a non-Catholic Christian has got to have some beliefs which are against Catholicism. In the strictest sense, this is anti-Catholic. But unless they have a deeply-entrenched, irrational hatred for Catholicism, I would hesitate to call that person an "anti-Catholic."
I am afraid, then, that I don't understand the basis for the statement from your previous post that I already quoted.
Unless I was using the term "anti-Catholic" in the strictest sense, and the use of that strictest sense was apparent in context, I would not call someone anti-Catholic because the usual sense has harsh overtones.
In that case, what you meant to say was that every Christian falls into three camps:
1) Catholicism
2) Ignorant of Catholicism
3) Disagrees with Catholicism to some extent
Is that accurate?
Yes, although my main point was that in disagreeing with Catholicism, you also must justify that disagreement in the face of the Church's historicity by accusing it of spuriousness.
Quote from extremestan »
My point is that if you're a non-Catholic Christian, you are either ignorant of the issue of Catholicism, or you must be at least somewhat anti-Catholic.
I disagree. You don't have to prove that the Church started out wrong, you merely have to believe that somewhere down the line they lost God's phone number, as it were.
I'm fairly certain I never implied that they had to believe it was spurious from the get-go. "The usual theory is that, at some point, corrupt Catholicism stamped out 'true Christianity' from historical visibility," said I. Remember?
Quote from Harkius »
Petros may have been put into power by Jesus, but that doesn't mean that every Pope afterward was. The Catholic Church certainly says so, but if you think that they were wrong about anything, then they would clearly be wrong about this as well.
That could be an argument they would use, I suppose, but they don't. They say that Peter had no primacy.
Quote from Harkius »
It is not really that anti-Catholic to believe that they are wrong.
Not that anti-Catholic, but somewhat anti-Catholic, since you have to believe that at some point in history, the Catholic Church lost its validity.
Quote from Harkius »
The only justification really necessary is a personal belief, like a conversation with your Savior. At that point, their lack of faith in the Catholic Church is completely reasonable.
What would the content of that conversion be? If it's content that justifies believing the Catholic Church is wrong, then must be somewhat anti-Catholic content.
Every time I talk to a Catholic who actually knows about his/her faith, I become more inclined to think that the Church actually knows what it's doing. My question is: why when i go to a mass, am I supposed to not take part in the sacrament? I believe that all Christians (well, almost all) are part of Christ's Church. Not so for Catholics? Just seems to me that they are creating a schizm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Not so for Catholics? Just seems to me that they are creating a schizm.
Actually, it is the other way around. The Catholic Church teaches that sacraments are only a way of bonding in the CC, and believes that other faiths can praise God in their own way. On the other hand, there are a fair group of fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians that believe Catholics are not "true Christians".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
I am a Follower of Christ and do not claim a denomination (though I do worship and belong to a fellowship at a denominational Church). I believe firmly in not ever judging another Christian about whether they are a true believer and follower or not. In James it says that you can know a believer by their fruit (or fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness and self controll) and or deeds giving glory to the father). If a proclaimed Christain shows little or no fruit then they are likely not a follower but I can and will not ever claim to know. Therefore im never going to call a catholic not a "true christian". There are many Catholics who go to Mass then live a complete different life than that of a believer. But the same goes for Southern Baptists. It all comes down to who truely believes the Gospel and lives it.
Actually, it is the other way around. The Catholic Church teaches that sacraments are only a way of bonding in the CC, and believes that other faiths can praise God in their own way. On the other hand, there are a fair group of fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians that believe Catholics are not "true Christians".
Um... I'm talking about the Lord's supper... non-Catholics are not supposed to partake.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Sutherlands, hopefully this answers your question:
"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "
Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).
I would also like to point out that this:
Quote from Sutherlands »
Every time I talk to a Catholic who actually knows about his/her faith, I become more inclined to think that the Church actually knows what it's doing.
...is one of the chief things that brought me out of the Protestant world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
I'd say that underlying difference is that Protestantism is based on an attitude of rebellion against a unified, temporal Church authority.
In other words, they emphasize small, close-knit communities rather than a global community?
Quote from extremestan »
They adhere to sola Scriptura and believe that what's important is a "personal relationship with Christ." "It's not a religion, it's a relationship," they say. They say that almost every ritual, like the Eucharist or even going to Church at all, is optional. They do this in order to reduce empty participation.
What is the counterpoint to the point about relationships?
Also, your use of the word "optional" seems slightly vague. I assume you mean that Protestants don't see any special inherent value to those rituals, whereas Catholics do?
Quote from extremestan »
The Protestants rejected the temporal authority because of corruption and hypocrisy in Church leadership. This did two things. First, to avoid hypocrisy, they adoped a kind of "anti-ritualism." Second, they applied an attitude of "avoid the middleman" to their doctrines, abolishing stuff like confession to the Church, saintly intercession, and a hierarchical, unified Magisterium.
Aside from the points you addressed below, what do you think are moral ramifications of this aspect of Protestantism? Or, to put it another way, what do you think is moral value of "ritualism"?
Quote from extremestan »
The dissolution of dependence on a Magisterium opened up the floodgates, so to speak; suddenly Protestants couldn't agree with one another about which way was up. "Do we rebaptize? Do we baptize infants? Is baptism regenerative or a mere proclamation of faith to others? How much do we participate in our own salvation? Do we participate at all? What books should be in the Bible? Does the Eucharist become Christ's flesh and blood, contain Christ's flesh and blood, or merely symbolize Christ's flesh and blood? How many sacraments are there?"
I might offer the distinction that this could easily (and I'd guess probably) have been because they lacked reliable methods of determining such things - i.e. useable standards outside of the word of authorities.
Quote from extremestan »
It can be boiled down to this: the Catholic Church puts major emphasis on the community of believers as potent agents of maintenance and guidance.
I'd say that this, what you noted here, is probably what I like best about Catholicism.
Quote from extremestan »
Protestants pay lip service to the importance of the community, and I've seen many Protestant churches struggle to emphasize it more, but it's a fractured system that, at its very foundation, relies on the virtue of independence.
Seeing as a religion is primarily a type of social structure, I can see why this would be problematic.
Quote from extremestan »
Instead of listening to the Magisterium, they interpret the Bible themselves using "the Bible itself and the Holy Spirit." Instead of also confessing their sins in church, they do it only to God.
What would you say is the problem with this, outside of religious/social concerns?
Quote from extremestan »
The underlying core of Protestantism can be perfectly illustrated by how they interpret Matthew 16:18+.
Catholic interpretation:
"Simon, you are now known as Rock, and on this rock I will build my church."
Jesus is forming an authoritative human institution, God-guided, but visible through the first pope, Simon Peter (Simon the Rock).
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Jesus is giving Peter a special kind of authority over other Christians.
Protestant interpretation:
"Simon, you're now known as Rock in the sense of a smaller, unstable rock that rolls around. And on THIS rock *points to the rock everyone's standing on* I will build my church."
Jesus is telling Peter that he's not that great, contrasting him against the stability of his new church.
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom in the form of salvation instructions, which is for everyone. Whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven."
Jesus is saying that the keys are for everyone and, using them, Christians will be able to discern what has been bound and loosed in heaven.
Basically similar to the above question, but what is your primary contention with the Protestant interpretation?
Quote from extremestan »
I don't believe it does. I believe more amorphous, ambiguous, contested doctrines and optional rituals lead to a greater likelihood that the religion will fail in an individual's life.
I think this is an interesting observation, and I don't disagree with it.
As I said, one of religion's defining characteristics is that it is a social network, a network used to spread education based on some central dogma, and to provide a kind of social support for members of the religious community (among other things). So, it seems logical that a religion with a stronger communal network would be more beneficial as a religion, and that religion with a clearer dogma would be more beneficial, insofar as a dogma is beneficial.
Now, do you call into question the moral systems implicit with Protestant communities, and do so at least partially because of the weaker communal fabric, or do you merely question the quality and usefulness of that fabric itself?
Incidentally, I agree that it is something of a fallacy to believe that a clearer or stronger dogma necessarily leads to a higher chance of dogmatism (using the definition I used in my most recent post here).
About some claims that some Protestants make regarding Catholicism:
- That Catholicism places more value on rituals than that which the rituals are meant to serve or embody.
- That Catholics tend to have a laissez-faire attitude towards their religious participation because of encouragement to place trust for "being right" in the hands of the Church as a body (the Magisterium), and that Catholics are discouraged to think for themselves.
- That Catholicism is the most mystical of all Christian traditions, and that Catholics tend to rely on "magic."
What might you say in regard to these? Also, what is the Church's general attitude towards such claims?
Quote from extremestan »
My point is that if you're a non-Catholic Christian, you are either ignorant of the issue of Catholicism, or you must be at least somewhat anti-Catholic.
I think you misuse the prefix "anti-" here. Not being in total agreement with a certain way of thinking doesn't necessarily mean you are against that way of thinking. There are said to be three "directions" in which something, like thought, or agreement, can "go" - towards, away, and against, not just towards and against. It is possible to be "away from" Catholic religious tradition without necessarily being "against" it. Also, anti-Catholic generally indicates a willful and distinct dislike of Catholicism and Catholic communities, and that Catholicism, as a whole, is "wrong" (for instance, evil, though that's an extreme example).
You may be saying, however, that because of significant social factors, non-Catholic Christians have an overwhleming tendency, on the whole, to be anti-Catholic. Which may very well not be false, though I tend to be wary of such generalizations.
Quote from extremestan »
And then others, like many Methodists, believe that everyone has a kind of "personal Magisterium" and is capable of personally developing doctrine, so new Christian paradigms don't need historicity.
I realize this is probably getting old, but what might you say is the problem with this? In other words, of how much import is an established Magisterium - is it primarily valued for it being a dependable means of guiding people, or because it is (for example) impossible to have practical, moral, and, dare I say, godly doctrines or ideas without the authority of the Magisterium to sanctify them?
Quote from extremestan »
Not that anti-Catholic, but somewhat anti-Catholic, since you have to believe that at some point in history, the Catholic Church lost its validity.
One may also believe that the Catholic Church always had some "invalidity" (that is to say, some errors) in its dogma and doctrine, and that the same is true of all Christian religious sects. Though this isn't entirely dissimilar from what you mentioned, I believe that the implicit attitude is not so particular anti- as to warrant that description.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
No, you're definitely real Christians. See the bolded part:
"For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. "
Non-Catholic Christians are merely in disunity with the Catholic Church. If they were to participate in the Eucharist with Catholics, it would be a proclamation of unity that doesn't exist.
Also, as was mentioned, most Protestants believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic.
Quote from mamelon »
In other words, they emphasize small, close-knit communities rather than a global community?
Not exactly, since many churches spawn foreign ones through missions. Mostly, they reject a deep hierarchy and a Magisterium.
Quote from mamelon »
What is the counterpoint to the point about relationships?
My counterpoint is two-fold. First, it's not just a vertical relationship. It's also a lateral relationship with the church, which Protestantism de-emphasizes for fear of creating dependence on temporal, potentially corrupt things. The second is that a full and complete "relationship" with Christ involves participation in the "religion"; sacraments are mandated because, like miniature covenants, there is a potent transmission of Grace.
Quote from mamelon »
Also, your use of the word "optional" seems slightly vague. I assume you mean that Protestants don't see any special inherent value to those rituals, whereas Catholics do?
The rituals don't have inherent value. They rely on the genuine participation for the transmission of Grace. For instance, baptism is a sacrament in which Grace is transmitted. But, as Peter tells us, it is not the raw physical act (removal of dirt from the body), but what the act means (an appeal to God for a clear conscience) that instigates that transmission.
Protestants value ritual less than Catholics. Eucharist is optional and, in most denominations, merely symbolic. Baptism, in most denominations, is a mere proclamation to other Christians -- not a reception of regenerative Grace. Confessing sins to other believers, instead of being a reconciliatory requirement in the face of grave sin, is a non-practice in most Protestant denominations.
Quote from mamelon »
Aside from the points you addressed below, what do you think are moral ramifications of this aspect of Protestantism? Or, to put it another way, what do you think is moral value of "ritualism"?
I wouldn't use the word "ritualism" because it has derogatory overtones, but the moral value of putting importance on the meaningful practice of ritual is that it fulfills prescriptions of Christ and the Apostles, and transmits Grace through those prescriptions. Grace is what initially, perpetually, and finally saves us, and the participation in the sacraments is the most effective kind of request for it.
Quote from mamelon »
I might offer the distinction that this could easily (and I'd guess probably) have been because they lacked reliable methods of determining such things - i.e. useable standards outside of the word of authorities.
Definitely.
Quote from mamelon »
What would you say is the problem with this, outside of religious/social concerns?
Outside of religious and social concerns, there's no problem with it! Confession to the people on earth and forgiveness through people on earth by proxy was exemplified by Christ, approved by Christ, and practiced in the early Church. It counsels, encourages, and reconciles.
Quote from mamelon »
Basically similar to the above question, but what is your primary contention with the Protestant interpretation?
Jesus was in all likelihood speaking in Aramaic. In Aramaic, he effectively said, "You are [now known as] Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Matthew's Gospel, however, was written in Greek. In Greek, the most direct translation of kepha is petra. But in Greek, that has female overtones, and Simon was a man, and so his name was written Petros. The Protestants see this distinction ("You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.") and claim that a meaningful distinction was intended. In Greek poetry hundreds of years prior to Christ, Petros implied a smaller rock while petra implied a larger rock. By the time of Christ, however, the words were synonymous except for their gender association.
So Protestants make two errors here. First, they assume that Jesus was talking in Greek, which he probably wasn't. Second, they assume that the writer intended a meaningful distinction between Petros and petra, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Quote from mamelon »
About some claims that some Protestants make regarding Catholicism:
- That Catholicism places more value on rituals than that which the rituals are meant to serve or embody.
- That Catholics tend to have a laissez-faire attitude towards their religious participation because of encouragement to place trust for "being right" in the hands of the Church as a body (the Magisterium), and that Catholics are discouraged to think for themselves.
- That Catholicism is the most mystical of all Christian traditions, and that Catholics tend to rely on "magic."
What might you say in regard to these? Also, what is the Church's general attitude towards such claims?
1) This is a false claim. It probably comes from #2, then applied to Catholicism as a whole.
2) a) This is often true, unfortunately. b) They're not discouraged but, often, they aren't encouraged enough. It takes encouragement to get someone to really examine his religion in-depth. My Catholic friend Chris only delved into it in response to my attempts to bring him out of Catholicism. His delving resolved first, my attempt was countered, LIFO etc.
3) It is definitely the most mystical. I remember when I first started looking into Catholicism, I was like "what's up with all these 'mysteries' they keep talking about?" Now that I know about them, I can't imagine talking about Christianity without using the term repeatedly. It's also true that one could call some of its practices "magical," especially in its belief that matter can be a medium for spiritual change. This is just a remnent of the gradual departure, over time, from accepted Church practices until they appear foreign. If you trace denominations up their derivation roots, you gradually see more and more of this until you eventually hit Catholicism.
Quote from mamelon »
I think you misuse the prefix "anti-" here. Not being in total agreement with a certain way of thinking doesn't necessarily mean you are against that way of thinking. There are said to be three "directions" in which something, like thought, or agreement, can "go" - towards, away, and against, not just towards and against. It is possible to be "away from" Catholic religious tradition without necessarily being "against" it. Also, anti-Catholic generally indicates a willful and distinct dislike of Catholicism and Catholic communities, and that Catholicism, as a whole, is "wrong" (for instance, evil, though that's an extreme example).
You may be saying, however, that because of significant social factors, non-Catholic Christians have an overwhleming tendency, on the whole, to be anti-Catholic. Which may very well not be false, though I tend to be wary of such generalizations.
As I admitted to Harkius, anti-Catholic is usually too strong of a term, and I should be more hesitant to use it. What I meant, though, was not merely that non-Catholics disagreed with Catholicism, but that in order to justify that disagreement in the face of Catholicism's apparent historicity, they have to attack its credibility somehow.
Quote from mamelon »
I realize this is probably getting old, but what might you say is the problem with this? In other words, of how much import is an established Magisterium - is it primarily valued for it being a dependable means of guiding people, or because it is (for example) impossible to have practical, moral, and, dare I say, godly doctrines or ideas without the authority of the Magisterium to sanctify them?
It's primarily valued for it being a dependable means of guiding people. If you give 5 Bible scholars, of different denominations, the same Bible, they'll each come back disagreeing with each other on tough issues, and each will claim that the Holy Spirit is on their side.
Quote from mamelon »
One may also believe that the Catholic Church always had some "invalidity" (that is to say, some errors) in its dogma and doctrine, and that the same is true of all Christian religious sects. Though this isn't entirely dissimilar from what you mentioned, I believe that the implicit attitude is not so particular anti- as to warrant that description.
No, you're definitely real Christians. See the bolded part:
"For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. "
Non-Catholic Christians are merely in disunity with the Catholic Church. If they were to participate in the Eucharist with Catholics, it would be a proclamation of unity that doesn't exist.
Also, as was mentioned, most Protestants believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic.
So where does this lack of unity come from? If we believe that it is just symbolic, then I understand, but just because someone is a member of a different church, there is a division?
Also, I want to hear more about this matter as a vessel for the spirit thing... I had a long discussion with my friend about some of this and basically all I got out of this part was "It's really bread in the physical sense, but it's got something extra!" Maybe I get it, but just a little more explanation would be nice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
So where does this lack of unity come from? If we believe that it is just symbolic, then I understand, but just because someone is a member of a different church, there is a division?
According to Catholicism, Christianity was united at the beginning. Heresies would come and go, but would be refuted and forgotten over time. Everyone was united under a single hierarchical system of bishops (overseers) and priests (presbos, elders).
Then, in the 11th century, there was a great schism. The Christian Church became divided between the Eastern Church (nicknamed "Orthodox") and Western Church (nicknamed "Catholic"). This division was a culmination of a growing series of disputes about relatively mundane doctrinal issues, including the type of bread to use, the form of rite, and the wording of an additional Creed clause. Political issues also came into play, however, and eventually Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated each other. Recently, there have been serious attempts at reconciliation between the two churches.
A few more heresies came and went in the Catholic Church, until the abuse of indulgences. In the 16th century Martin Luther, angry at the corrupt abuse which made it seem like one had to "earn" his salvation, formulated a doctrinal system based on sola fide, or faith alone. In reality, and in what is becoming more obvious today, Lutherans and Catholics actually agree that the economy of salvation is based on sola Gratia and fides formata caritate, or salvation by Grace and through faith that manifests itself in love. The political climate and corruption in Church leadership, however, exaggerated doctrinal misunderstanding and, like in the Great Schism of the 11th century, relatively small issues suddenly became extremely divisive. Luther rebelled and started the Protestant Reformation. Eager to define the doctrinal system of the new "fixed" Catholic Church, several outspoken Christian theologians rebelled as well and began to debate what the new system should say (Luther was so riled up about sola fide, he wanted James, among other deuterocanonical New Testament books, removed from the canon!). Few could agree with one another, however, and soon there were several different attempts at "fixed Christianity."
So it isn't a matter of being in a "different church." It's a matter of rebelling against the Church that Christ founded -- not only the doctrines of that Church, but also the leadership of that Church. It might be emotionally uplifting, for a while, to pretend that there's nothing wrong with that picture. But according to the Catholic Church, the picture is wrong, and it would be a mistake to pretend otherwise.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Also, I want to hear more about this matter as a vessel for the spirit thing... I had a long discussion with my friend about some of this and basically all I got out of this part was "It's really bread in the physical sense, but it's got something extra!" Maybe I get it, but just a little more explanation would be nice.
There are two general doctrines concerning the Eucharist.
The first is nicknamed "the Real Presence." It means that in the Eucharist, the bread and wine somehow become the actual body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearance (look, feel, taste, molecular composition) of food and drink. Catholics and Orthodox believe that this happens through transubstatiation -- the complete conversion of the elements through consecration. Lutherans believe this happens through consubstatiation, although this term is misleading so Lutherans don't like it much. They believe that the body and blood are present "with" and "in" the forms (bread and wine). Anglicans are content to say that the constitution of the Eucharist after consecration is a mystery. The Scriptural evidence of the Real Presence comes mostly from John 6:43-66 and 1 Cor. 11:29. There is also numerous evidence from early Church father writings that this is what early Christians believed.
The second is that "the Real Presence" does not happen, and that the bread and wine are just symbols. Most Protestants subscribe to this.
Not exactly, since many churches spawn foreign ones through missions. Mostly, they reject a deep hierarchy and a Magisterium.
But the basic complaint is that Protestants, as a whole, see community as merely incidental to the practice of Christianity and the Christian experience/lifestyle, whereas Catholics see strong community as essential, correct?
Quote from extremestan »
My counterpoint is two-fold. First, it's not just a vertical relationship. It's also a lateral relationship with the church, which Protestantism de-emphasizes for fear of creating dependence on temporal, potentially corrupt things. The second is that a full and complete "relationship" with Christ involves participation in the "religion"; sacraments are mandated because, like miniature covenants, there is a potent transmission of Grace.
Basically, while Protestants profess emphasis on personal relationships, their religious structure seems to actually de-emphasize personal relationships (such as with a larger community, or the other members of Christ's body).
Quote from extremestan »
The rituals don't have inherent value. They rely on the genuine participation for the transmission of Grace. For instance, baptism is a sacrament in which Grace is transmitted. But, as Peter tells us, it is not the raw physical act (removal of dirt from the body), but what the act means (an appeal to God for a clear conscience) that instigates that transmission.
If I may, I'd say that, when it comes to the value of ritual, you have plunked the proverbial nail on top of its proverbial head.
The value (or perhaps even the power) of the ritual isn't derived from its literal components - words used, motions made, acts committed, materials used, and so forth. The value is an aspect of the meaning - not only what the ritual signals (communicates), but how it is constructed, the intent of its construction, and the state of mind that is linked to the practice of the ritual.
This very thing is what I mean when I say something is "symbolic." Something being symbolic means it has an implicit meaning that extends beyond its literal physical and circumstantial use or characteristics. It doesn't mean that that something that is a symbol is merely useful as a means of communication - I would rather call that a signal. Something's symbolism isn't incidental to its character, it's vitally meshed with it.
Quote from extremestan »
Protestants value ritual less than Catholics. Eucharist is optional and, in most denominations, merely symbolic.
Regarding what I said above, I have a problem with the phrase "merely symbolic" (not your use of it specifically, but its usage in general). The implication is that if something is symbolic, that somehow detracts from it, when in reality, symbolism can be very important.
I assume, however, that you mean something not unlike what I meant by the use of signal, and I can attest to that. From my experience, Protestants tend to identify the ritual of baptism solely as a signal - a communication to others.
Quote from extremestan »
I wouldn't use the word "ritualism" because it has derogatory overtones,...
Which is why I put it in quotations - as the "ism" tends to change the meaning of the term.
Quote from extremestan »
...but the moral value of putting importance on the meaningful practice of ritual is that it fulfills prescriptions of Christ and the Apostles, and transmits Grace through those prescriptions. Grace is what initially, perpetually, and finally saves us, and the participation in the sacraments is the most effective kind of request for it.
It seems that, in short, the idea is that the rituals are a means of "relating" to God (having a relationship with God).
Quote from extremestan »
Outside of religious and social concerns, there's no problem with it! Confession to the people on earth and forgiveness through people on earth by proxy was exemplified by Christ, approved by Christ, and practiced in the early Church. It counsels, encourages, and reconciles.
I was hoping you'd say this. Essentially, participating in such prescribed acts as confessing sins to one another, and so on, doesn't have a special cosmological (or "magical") significance - it's not that there are esoteric mystical laws that necessitate that, should one fail to follow the guidelines of the Church, "bad things" will happen to you. Rather, these rituals and guidelines are a part of the Church's practices because they are thought to be conducive towards the Church's general values (as an example, community), and that ignoring or eschewing these guidelines and practices (which many Protestant communities do) is counterproductive.
Quote from extremestan »
Jesus was in all likelihood speaking in Aramaic. In Aramaic, he effectively said, "You are [now known as] Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church."
In short, Christ was declaring that he (Peter) would become the cornerstone of the Christian community (the Church).
Quote from extremestan »
Matthew's Gospel, however, was written in Greek. In Greek, the most direct translation of kepha is petra. But in Greek, that has female overtones, and Simon was a man, and so his name was written Petros. The Protestants see this distinction ("You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.") and claim that a meaningful distinction was intended. In Greek poetry hundreds of years prior to Christ, Petros implied a smaller rock while petra implied a larger rock. By the time of Christ, however, the words were synonymous except for their gender association.
So Protestants make two errors here. First, they assume that Jesus was talking in Greek, which he probably wasn't. Second, they assume that the writer intended a meaningful distinction between Petros and petra, which doesn't appear to be the case.
So, the complaint is that it is linguistic "wriggling." I see the problem, especially as linguistic "wriggling" is a practice I observe happening a lot with this kind of thing.
Quote from extremestan »
1) This is a false claim. It probably comes from #2, then applied to Catholicism as a whole.
Well, it's an accusation, and a somewhat mean-spirited accusation. I say this because valuing religious systems (ritual practices, etc.) over, say, the congregation (people), is always going to be a problem with all religion, and saying that Catholicism has a special problem with that, and that Protestantism doesn't, for the most part, is name-calling.
Quote from extremestan »
2) a) This is often true, unfortunately.
Which is probably what the original Protestants sought to cure, though I personally don't think the souce of such a problem is "curable" merely by changing religious doctrines or practices, or even changing religion altogether.
Quote from extremestan »
b) They're not discouraged but, often, they aren't encouraged enough.
I agree with this distinction.
Quote from extremestan »
It takes encouragement to get someone to really examine his religion in-depth. My Catholic friend Chris only delved into it in response to my attempts to bring him out of Catholicism. His delving resolved first, my attempt was countered, LIFO etc.
It seems that many religious people (of most religions) tend to have something of an ingrained discomfort with "questioning." Some have stated that the number one (usually unwritten and unspoken) commandment of every religion is "do not question." Now, I don't tend to agree that every religion actually enforces "not questioning," but I do think that in religious communities, discomfort with questioning has something of a tendency to be part of the package, so to speak. Many feel that to examine religious beliefs, to think for oneself, and to question established ideas, would be too similar to rebellion, and that it's unnecessary to begin with.
Quote from extremestan »
3) It is definitely the most mystical. I remember when I first started looking into Catholicism, I was like "what's up with all these 'mysteries' they keep talking about?" Now that I know about them, I can't imagine talking about Christianity without using the term repeatedly. It's also true that one could call some of its practices "magical," especially in its belief that matter can be a medium for spiritual change. This is just a remnent of the gradual departure, over time, from accepted Church practices until they appear foreign. If you trace denominations up their derivation roots, you gradually see more and more of this until you eventually hit Catholicism.
Allow me to explain what I mean by "magic."
Mysticism and magic aren't the same at all, as you may know. Magic, specifically, is a kind of system of beliefs and practices with intent to control or take advantage of the effects of certain natural laws - what might be called magical laws - and phenomena, in a mechanical fashion. Magic assigns quasi-scientific value to certain practices, assuming that with correct words, movements, materials, and skill, that natural or supernatural phenomena can be actively manipulated, much in the same way that chemical or mechanical reactions can be manipulated by use of technological devices.
An example of such magic would the idea that some people have about baptism - that bathing someone with water in a baptismal ritual actually has a special power that is derived from the water itself, or from the mechanism of the ritual (i.e. the bathing), and that that power literally evokes the transmission of Grace (or whatever other purpose the ritual in question is linked to), in the same way that a flame is evoked by lighting a match, and that such transmission of Grace cannot be achieved except through the power of the ritual. The magic literally makes it happen.
I'd say, probably in agreement with you, that Catholic rituals are more likely to be mystical than magical (though some practicioners might intend for them to be magical) - they are thought to have certain meanings, many of which are mysterious, as well as spiritual significance, but not necessarily because of a mechanical evocation.
(I also want to note that this definition is not the one always used by religious or mystical groups, in which they may use the term magic to be synonymous with their mysticism).
I should probably point out that in my readings and experience, the attitude that Catholics use or rely on magic is one I've heard more from some Jewish people, because they saw Christianity in general as a very magical religion. Now, I will make no claim that that is the overall attitude of the Judaic meta-community, as I don't know that and because I don't mean to "drag" Judaism into it. However, some Jews feel that even if Christians don't intend magic, they will often end up using magic anyway, and that while Christian rituals aren't supposed to be magic in theory, to most Christians they basically are magic because of the attitude they bring into it (presumably a socially encouraged attitude).
An example of this is the Eucharist. Some Jews have a problem with the practice of the Eucharist because they see that people treat it with a magical significance - that the ritual has a special power, by which Christians mean to "call down" (evoke) the Grace and favor of God.
As a note on mysticism and mystery - some claim that the reason Christianity and Judaism have such appeal, and appear so compelling, is because of how much they admit the reality of mystery.
Quote from extremestan »
As I admitted to Harkius, anti-Catholic is usually too strong of a term, and I should be more hesitant to use it. What I meant, though, was not merely that non-Catholics disagreed with Catholicism, but that in order to justify that disagreement in the face of Catholicism's apparent historicity, they have to attack its credibility somehow.
Basically that, taking history into account, that the Catholic Church was fine with everyone until people started to find fault with it, and that the resulting non-Catholic denominations are based in this finding of fault. Thus, non-Catholic Christians, who generally practice sub-religions based historically off of the problems with Catholicism, are, on the whole, against Catholicism because of it. Correct?
Quote from extremestan »
It's primarily valued for it being a dependable means of guiding people. If you give 5 Bible scholars, of different denominations, the same Bible, they'll each come back disagreeing with each other on tough issues, and each will claim that the Holy Spirit is on their side.
This is certainly true. I remember a conversation I had a few years back with a young man one summer that has stayed with me. He claimed that to "correctly interpret" the Bible, one needed the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that if the Holy Spirit were on your side (as you put it, and that seems adequate in this case), then your "interpretation" would be the correct one. The assumption was that his Church's interpretations and doctrines (I believe he was part of a non-denominational Church) were correct because they knew that they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but he never thought to provide any means of demonstrating how one might be aware of the Holy Spirit's guidance in the first place.
I can see how having an authority like the Magisterium to help curb these conflicts would seem desirable.
I do have my own thoughts on this matter, but I'll refrain from outlining them just now, as I've been going long enough with this post.
Quote from extremestan »
That's a good point, and I agree with you there.
An example might be one who has a general problem with Christendom (though that could conceivably be thought of as anti-Church in general, depending on attitide), or someone who eschews the idea of a "true" Church.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
"One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!
In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding."
The verse doesn't say anything about them offering OUR prayers, so what's to say they can actually here us.
Edit: Also, how is praying to the saints not basically worshipping another god?
Edit: We are supposed to confess mortal sins in confession. Why can we not ask God for forgiveness?
Mamelon: I promise to respond to your post when I have lengthy break.
Quote from Sutherlands »
The verse doesn't say anything about them offering OUR prayers, so what's to say they can actually here us.
If they're in heaven, they have no need to pray to God for themselves. Prayer, in the strictest sense, means a request. In the fullness of God's presence, a soul does not need to ask anything for themselves, since all of their personal needs are already met.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Edit: Also, how is praying to the saints not basically worshipping another god?
Saints are not gods, prayer is not worship.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Edit: We are supposed to confess mortal sins in confession. Why can we not ask God for forgiveness?
We must ask God for forgiveness. However, in the case of grave sin, we can do that through a priest. Many Protestants scoff when they hear those words, but it's explicit in scripture that Christ also gave authority to forgive sins to ordained leaders.
Christ established this authority in three stages. First, Christ demonstrated that men can have that authority:
Matthew 9:1+
Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...."
Now, one might say this authority is only for Christ. Matthew explicitly corrects this interpretation:
Matthew 9:8b
They praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Second, Christ ordained Simon as "the Rock of the Church" and made him the first other person to have this authority:
Matthew 16:18+
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Finally, after Christ's resurrection, he ordained the rest of the disciples:
John 20:20b+
The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Commission of a grave sin is a sign of a rejection of Grace, and subsequently dwelling in that sin is a state outside of Grace. It isn't just an issue of being out of favor with God -- it's a personal corruption that one often needs tangible help to overcome. That's why Christ gave this ministry of reconciliation to individuals. He wanted elders to be capable of counseling and forgiving those cought in sin.
There are some people who Catholicism works for-I have a handful of friends in college who are Catholic. Every time I ask them about it, they say it's a "comfort" thing. If their rituals make you love and care about God more, it's fine to do it. The people who get alienated by these rituals lash out against God, which is a load of crap. Catholicism isn't the only form of Christianity.
I don't know whether to be amused or saddened when people try to hold the crimes of the old Catholic church against Christianity as a whole. It's wildly ignorant to substitute the Catholic chruch's will for God's will. It's also equally dubious when someone asks, "why would God let all these bad things happen to _______" when they obviously know nothing about how God operates (and you can't know God's will since you're a human).
The Da Vinci Code is a long, eloquent farce. By debating it you give it credibility in your mind. If you do, I've got to say that you aren't very bright.
//end rant
I'm fairly certain you don't know what "dogma" means.
I would venture to say that an even higher ratio of people raised in "born-again" Protestant backgrounds rebel against their background when they grow up, especially those under the blanket of "absolute assurance." In general, the lack of acknowledgment of the development of doctrine, a Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and historical saints is replaced with notions of "personal relationship," "individual church," sola Scriptura, and an inordinately high emphasis of celebration over worship. As one raised an Evangelical, I've seen (and lived) the "holier than thou" attitude towards Catholics. The notion is that Catholics are out of touch, mechanically performing rituals without actually "asking Jesus into their hearts," and that this defficiency causes rampant nominalism in the Catholic population. It's an hypocrisy that I've seen it fall flat on its face time and time again.
The practices mandated by Catholicism as a whole (not "variable by rite" or "optional by individual" rituals) were exemplified by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church fathers. They include anointing of the sick, baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, sacramental marriage, holy ordination, confession of sins to the community of believers as well as to God, prayer, congregation, tithing, Church hierarchy, missions, etc. With any ritual, Catholic or Protestant, empty practice translates to empty meaning.
There's a pretty widely-accepted distinction betwen dogma and dogmatism. Dogmatism is often defined as rote adherence to dogma for no other reason than the dogma itself - i.e. adherence to dogma out of "loyaly" even with it is impractical, etc. I imagine that he means dogmatic in this sense rather than simly meaning "having to do with dogma."
@Protestantism: what would you say is the problem with these differences? What do you think is the key difference between Catholic systems of priority (value), and Protestant ones?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Para 1: Yay for semantics.
Para 2: The "stupid people" (holier-than-thou) argument goes outside of the bounds of religion. There are many people who believe in the inherent rectitude of their religion/political beliefs/etc, and try to force that viewpoint on other people in a negative (I'm right and you're wrong) manner.
Para 3: Obviously the problem is forcing religion on your child. My contention is that Catholicism, by its highly ritualistic nature, is easier to force on a child than "born again" Protestantism. The same would be true for Muslim and Jewish doctrines. I think that a religion with more doctrines leads to a greater likelihood that the religion will fail in an individual's life.
I'd say that underlying difference is that Protestantism is based on an attitude of rebellion against a unified, temporal Church authority. They adhere to sola Scriptura and believe that what's important is a "personal relationship with Christ." "It's not a religion, it's a relationship," they say. They say that almost every ritual, like the Eucharist or even going to Church at all, is optional. They do this in order to reduce empty participation.
The Protestants rejected the temporal authority because of corruption and hypocrisy in Church leadership. This did two things. First, to avoid hypocrisy, they adoped a kind of "anti-ritualism." Second, they applied an attitude of "avoid the middleman" to their doctrines, abolishing stuff like confession to the Church, saintly intercession, and a hierarchical, unified Magisterium. The dissolution of dependence on a Magisterium opened up the floodgates, so to speak; suddenly Protestants couldn't agree with one another about which way was up. "Do we rebaptize? Do we baptize infants? Is baptism regenerative or a mere proclamation of faith to others? How much do we participate in our own salvation? Do we participate at all? What books should be in the Bible? Does the Eucharist become Christ's flesh and blood, contain Christ's flesh and blood, or merely symbolize Christ's flesh and blood? How many sacraments are there?"
It can be boiled down to this: the Catholic Church puts major emphasis on the community of believers as potent agents of maintenance and guidance. Protestants pay lip service to the importance of the community, and I've seen many Protestant churches struggle to emphasize it more, but it's a fractured system that, at its very foundation, relies on the virtue of independence. Instead of listening to the Magisterium, they interpret the Bible themselves using "the Bible itself and the Holy Spirit." Instead of also confessing their sins in church, they do it only to God. The underlying core of Protestantism can be perfectly illustrated by how they interpret Matthew 16:18+.
Catholic interpretation:
"Simon, you are now known as Rock, and on this rock I will build my church."
Jesus is forming an authoritative human institution, God-guided, but visible through the first pope, Simon Peter (Simon the Rock).
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Jesus is giving Peter a special kind of authority over other Christians.
Protestant interpretation:
"Simon, you're now known as Rock in the sense of a smaller, unstable rock that rolls around. And on THIS rock *points to the rock everyone's standing on* I will build my church."
Jesus is telling Peter that he's not that great, contrasting him against the stability of his new church.
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom in the form of salvation instructions, which is for everyone. Whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven."
Jesus is saying that the keys are for everyone and, using them, Christians will be able to discern what has been bound and loosed in heaven.
I don't believe it does. I believe more amorphous, ambiguous, contested doctrines and optional rituals lead to a greater likelihood that the religion will fail in an individual's life.
I think that a religion with more doctrines leads to a greater likelihood that the religion will actually matter in an individual's life.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
It's not really that simple. Many groups feel that they are doctrinal descendents of the original Christians, a church absent of historical visibility. This includes "just" Christians like nondenominationals and Church of Christ. They can sometimes be fervently anti-Catholic, but I wouldn't say their doctrinal system depends on Catholicism being apostate (like the Lattery Day Saints) or a machine of the devil (like the Seventh Day Adventists).
It's a fine line to be sure. All non-Catholic Christians need to somehow deal with their doctrinal separation from Catholicism, the denomination which, along with the Eastern Orthodoxy, has the highest apparent historicity. The usual theory is that, at some point, corrupt Catholicism stamped out "true Christianity" from historical visibility. Mormons and many Pentacostals believe this point was before the Nicene Creed. Some, like many Presbyterians, believe that "secret true Christian agents" popped up, like Augustine of Hippo, in the midst of the Church's state of error. And then others, like many Methodists, believe that everyone has a kind of "personal Magisterium" and is capable of personally developing doctrine, so new Christian paradigms don't need historicity.
I think I'm rambling a bit. My point is that if you're a non-Catholic Christian, you are either ignorant of the issue of Catholicism, or you must be at least somewhat anti-Catholic. It generally isn't that they're looking for something different. It's that they were either raised/converted into something different, or they think that Catholicism's doctrines are wrong. I think an attitude of "Well Catholicism's doctrines are right, but I'm sticking with my old Protestant church for now, because I feel more comfortable," is only temporary. I know I went through it for a while.
If you believe Catholicism is unnecessary, then you by implication cannot believe that Catholicism is correct, because significant parts of Catholicism require it to be necessary.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Well, it's all a matter of context-based degree, like the word "tall." I don't generally call anyone shorter than me "tall," but sometimes I do, when I'm in a certain frame of reference. For instance, I would call John Ankerberg a true anti-Catholic, and I wouldn't really call my mom an anti-Catholic. But my mom does have anti-Catholic beliefs; she bought me a John Ankerberg book for Christmas.
What I'm saying is that unless you are ignorant of what the church believes, a non-Catholic Christian has got to have some beliefs which are against Catholicism. In the strictest sense, this is anti-Catholic. But unless they have a deeply-entrenched, irrational hatred for Catholicism, I would hesitate to call that person an "anti-Catholic."
Unless I was using the term "anti-Catholic" in the strictest sense, and the use of that strictest sense was apparent in context, I would not call someone anti-Catholic because the usual sense has harsh overtones.
Yes, although my main point was that in disagreeing with Catholicism, you also must justify that disagreement in the face of the Church's historicity by accusing it of spuriousness.
etc
I'm fairly certain I never implied that they had to believe it was spurious from the get-go. "The usual theory is that, at some point, corrupt Catholicism stamped out 'true Christianity' from historical visibility," said I. Remember?
That could be an argument they would use, I suppose, but they don't. They say that Peter had no primacy.
Not that anti-Catholic, but somewhat anti-Catholic, since you have to believe that at some point in history, the Catholic Church lost its validity.
What would the content of that conversion be? If it's content that justifies believing the Catholic Church is wrong, then must be somewhat anti-Catholic content.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Actually, it is the other way around. The Catholic Church teaches that sacraments are only a way of bonding in the CC, and believes that other faiths can praise God in their own way. On the other hand, there are a fair group of fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians that believe Catholics are not "true Christians".
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I would also like to point out that this:
...is one of the chief things that brought me out of the Protestant world.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
In other words, they emphasize small, close-knit communities rather than a global community?
What is the counterpoint to the point about relationships?
Also, your use of the word "optional" seems slightly vague. I assume you mean that Protestants don't see any special inherent value to those rituals, whereas Catholics do?
Aside from the points you addressed below, what do you think are moral ramifications of this aspect of Protestantism? Or, to put it another way, what do you think is moral value of "ritualism"?
I might offer the distinction that this could easily (and I'd guess probably) have been because they lacked reliable methods of determining such things - i.e. useable standards outside of the word of authorities.
I'd say that this, what you noted here, is probably what I like best about Catholicism.
Seeing as a religion is primarily a type of social structure, I can see why this would be problematic.
What would you say is the problem with this, outside of religious/social concerns?
Basically similar to the above question, but what is your primary contention with the Protestant interpretation?
I think this is an interesting observation, and I don't disagree with it.
As I said, one of religion's defining characteristics is that it is a social network, a network used to spread education based on some central dogma, and to provide a kind of social support for members of the religious community (among other things). So, it seems logical that a religion with a stronger communal network would be more beneficial as a religion, and that religion with a clearer dogma would be more beneficial, insofar as a dogma is beneficial.
Now, do you call into question the moral systems implicit with Protestant communities, and do so at least partially because of the weaker communal fabric, or do you merely question the quality and usefulness of that fabric itself?
Incidentally, I agree that it is something of a fallacy to believe that a clearer or stronger dogma necessarily leads to a higher chance of dogmatism (using the definition I used in my most recent post here).
About some claims that some Protestants make regarding Catholicism:
- That Catholicism places more value on rituals than that which the rituals are meant to serve or embody.
- That Catholics tend to have a laissez-faire attitude towards their religious participation because of encouragement to place trust for "being right" in the hands of the Church as a body (the Magisterium), and that Catholics are discouraged to think for themselves.
- That Catholicism is the most mystical of all Christian traditions, and that Catholics tend to rely on "magic."
What might you say in regard to these? Also, what is the Church's general attitude towards such claims?
I think you misuse the prefix "anti-" here. Not being in total agreement with a certain way of thinking doesn't necessarily mean you are against that way of thinking. There are said to be three "directions" in which something, like thought, or agreement, can "go" - towards, away, and against, not just towards and against. It is possible to be "away from" Catholic religious tradition without necessarily being "against" it. Also, anti-Catholic generally indicates a willful and distinct dislike of Catholicism and Catholic communities, and that Catholicism, as a whole, is "wrong" (for instance, evil, though that's an extreme example).
You may be saying, however, that because of significant social factors, non-Catholic Christians have an overwhleming tendency, on the whole, to be anti-Catholic. Which may very well not be false, though I tend to be wary of such generalizations.
I realize this is probably getting old, but what might you say is the problem with this? In other words, of how much import is an established Magisterium - is it primarily valued for it being a dependable means of guiding people, or because it is (for example) impossible to have practical, moral, and, dare I say, godly doctrines or ideas without the authority of the Magisterium to sanctify them?
One may also believe that the Catholic Church always had some "invalidity" (that is to say, some errors) in its dogma and doctrine, and that the same is true of all Christian religious sects. Though this isn't entirely dissimilar from what you mentioned, I believe that the implicit attitude is not so particular anti- as to warrant that description.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
So basically, we're not real christians?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
No, you're definitely real Christians. See the bolded part:
"For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. "
Non-Catholic Christians are merely in disunity with the Catholic Church. If they were to participate in the Eucharist with Catholics, it would be a proclamation of unity that doesn't exist.
Also, as was mentioned, most Protestants believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic.
Not exactly, since many churches spawn foreign ones through missions. Mostly, they reject a deep hierarchy and a Magisterium.
My counterpoint is two-fold. First, it's not just a vertical relationship. It's also a lateral relationship with the church, which Protestantism de-emphasizes for fear of creating dependence on temporal, potentially corrupt things. The second is that a full and complete "relationship" with Christ involves participation in the "religion"; sacraments are mandated because, like miniature covenants, there is a potent transmission of Grace.
The rituals don't have inherent value. They rely on the genuine participation for the transmission of Grace. For instance, baptism is a sacrament in which Grace is transmitted. But, as Peter tells us, it is not the raw physical act (removal of dirt from the body), but what the act means (an appeal to God for a clear conscience) that instigates that transmission.
Protestants value ritual less than Catholics. Eucharist is optional and, in most denominations, merely symbolic. Baptism, in most denominations, is a mere proclamation to other Christians -- not a reception of regenerative Grace. Confessing sins to other believers, instead of being a reconciliatory requirement in the face of grave sin, is a non-practice in most Protestant denominations.
I wouldn't use the word "ritualism" because it has derogatory overtones, but the moral value of putting importance on the meaningful practice of ritual is that it fulfills prescriptions of Christ and the Apostles, and transmits Grace through those prescriptions. Grace is what initially, perpetually, and finally saves us, and the participation in the sacraments is the most effective kind of request for it.
Definitely.
Outside of religious and social concerns, there's no problem with it! Confession to the people on earth and forgiveness through people on earth by proxy was exemplified by Christ, approved by Christ, and practiced in the early Church. It counsels, encourages, and reconciles.
Jesus was in all likelihood speaking in Aramaic. In Aramaic, he effectively said, "You are [now known as] Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Matthew's Gospel, however, was written in Greek. In Greek, the most direct translation of kepha is petra. But in Greek, that has female overtones, and Simon was a man, and so his name was written Petros. The Protestants see this distinction ("You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.") and claim that a meaningful distinction was intended. In Greek poetry hundreds of years prior to Christ, Petros implied a smaller rock while petra implied a larger rock. By the time of Christ, however, the words were synonymous except for their gender association.
So Protestants make two errors here. First, they assume that Jesus was talking in Greek, which he probably wasn't. Second, they assume that the writer intended a meaningful distinction between Petros and petra, which doesn't appear to be the case.
1) This is a false claim. It probably comes from #2, then applied to Catholicism as a whole.
2) a) This is often true, unfortunately. b) They're not discouraged but, often, they aren't encouraged enough. It takes encouragement to get someone to really examine his religion in-depth. My Catholic friend Chris only delved into it in response to my attempts to bring him out of Catholicism. His delving resolved first, my attempt was countered, LIFO etc.
3) It is definitely the most mystical. I remember when I first started looking into Catholicism, I was like "what's up with all these 'mysteries' they keep talking about?" Now that I know about them, I can't imagine talking about Christianity without using the term repeatedly. It's also true that one could call some of its practices "magical," especially in its belief that matter can be a medium for spiritual change. This is just a remnent of the gradual departure, over time, from accepted Church practices until they appear foreign. If you trace denominations up their derivation roots, you gradually see more and more of this until you eventually hit Catholicism.
As I admitted to Harkius, anti-Catholic is usually too strong of a term, and I should be more hesitant to use it. What I meant, though, was not merely that non-Catholics disagreed with Catholicism, but that in order to justify that disagreement in the face of Catholicism's apparent historicity, they have to attack its credibility somehow.
It's primarily valued for it being a dependable means of guiding people. If you give 5 Bible scholars, of different denominations, the same Bible, they'll each come back disagreeing with each other on tough issues, and each will claim that the Holy Spirit is on their side.
That's a good point, and I agree with you there.
So where does this lack of unity come from? If we believe that it is just symbolic, then I understand, but just because someone is a member of a different church, there is a division?
Also, I want to hear more about this matter as a vessel for the spirit thing... I had a long discussion with my friend about some of this and basically all I got out of this part was "It's really bread in the physical sense, but it's got something extra!" Maybe I get it, but just a little more explanation would be nice.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
According to Catholicism, Christianity was united at the beginning. Heresies would come and go, but would be refuted and forgotten over time. Everyone was united under a single hierarchical system of bishops (overseers) and priests (presbos, elders).
Then, in the 11th century, there was a great schism. The Christian Church became divided between the Eastern Church (nicknamed "Orthodox") and Western Church (nicknamed "Catholic"). This division was a culmination of a growing series of disputes about relatively mundane doctrinal issues, including the type of bread to use, the form of rite, and the wording of an additional Creed clause. Political issues also came into play, however, and eventually Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated each other. Recently, there have been serious attempts at reconciliation between the two churches.
A few more heresies came and went in the Catholic Church, until the abuse of indulgences. In the 16th century Martin Luther, angry at the corrupt abuse which made it seem like one had to "earn" his salvation, formulated a doctrinal system based on sola fide, or faith alone. In reality, and in what is becoming more obvious today, Lutherans and Catholics actually agree that the economy of salvation is based on sola Gratia and fides formata caritate, or salvation by Grace and through faith that manifests itself in love. The political climate and corruption in Church leadership, however, exaggerated doctrinal misunderstanding and, like in the Great Schism of the 11th century, relatively small issues suddenly became extremely divisive. Luther rebelled and started the Protestant Reformation. Eager to define the doctrinal system of the new "fixed" Catholic Church, several outspoken Christian theologians rebelled as well and began to debate what the new system should say (Luther was so riled up about sola fide, he wanted James, among other deuterocanonical New Testament books, removed from the canon!). Few could agree with one another, however, and soon there were several different attempts at "fixed Christianity."
So it isn't a matter of being in a "different church." It's a matter of rebelling against the Church that Christ founded -- not only the doctrines of that Church, but also the leadership of that Church. It might be emotionally uplifting, for a while, to pretend that there's nothing wrong with that picture. But according to the Catholic Church, the picture is wrong, and it would be a mistake to pretend otherwise.
There are two general doctrines concerning the Eucharist.
The first is nicknamed "the Real Presence." It means that in the Eucharist, the bread and wine somehow become the actual body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearance (look, feel, taste, molecular composition) of food and drink. Catholics and Orthodox believe that this happens through transubstatiation -- the complete conversion of the elements through consecration. Lutherans believe this happens through consubstatiation, although this term is misleading so Lutherans don't like it much. They believe that the body and blood are present "with" and "in" the forms (bread and wine). Anglicans are content to say that the constitution of the Eucharist after consecration is a mystery. The Scriptural evidence of the Real Presence comes mostly from John 6:43-66 and 1 Cor. 11:29. There is also numerous evidence from early Church father writings that this is what early Christians believed.
The second is that "the Real Presence" does not happen, and that the bread and wine are just symbols. Most Protestants subscribe to this.
But the basic complaint is that Protestants, as a whole, see community as merely incidental to the practice of Christianity and the Christian experience/lifestyle, whereas Catholics see strong community as essential, correct?
Basically, while Protestants profess emphasis on personal relationships, their religious structure seems to actually de-emphasize personal relationships (such as with a larger community, or the other members of Christ's body).
If I may, I'd say that, when it comes to the value of ritual, you have plunked the proverbial nail on top of its proverbial head.
The value (or perhaps even the power) of the ritual isn't derived from its literal components - words used, motions made, acts committed, materials used, and so forth. The value is an aspect of the meaning - not only what the ritual signals (communicates), but how it is constructed, the intent of its construction, and the state of mind that is linked to the practice of the ritual.
This very thing is what I mean when I say something is "symbolic." Something being symbolic means it has an implicit meaning that extends beyond its literal physical and circumstantial use or characteristics. It doesn't mean that that something that is a symbol is merely useful as a means of communication - I would rather call that a signal. Something's symbolism isn't incidental to its character, it's vitally meshed with it.
Regarding what I said above, I have a problem with the phrase "merely symbolic" (not your use of it specifically, but its usage in general). The implication is that if something is symbolic, that somehow detracts from it, when in reality, symbolism can be very important.
I assume, however, that you mean something not unlike what I meant by the use of signal, and I can attest to that. From my experience, Protestants tend to identify the ritual of baptism solely as a signal - a communication to others.
Which is why I put it in quotations - as the "ism" tends to change the meaning of the term.
It seems that, in short, the idea is that the rituals are a means of "relating" to God (having a relationship with God).
I was hoping you'd say this. Essentially, participating in such prescribed acts as confessing sins to one another, and so on, doesn't have a special cosmological (or "magical") significance - it's not that there are esoteric mystical laws that necessitate that, should one fail to follow the guidelines of the Church, "bad things" will happen to you. Rather, these rituals and guidelines are a part of the Church's practices because they are thought to be conducive towards the Church's general values (as an example, community), and that ignoring or eschewing these guidelines and practices (which many Protestant communities do) is counterproductive.
In short, Christ was declaring that he (Peter) would become the cornerstone of the Christian community (the Church).
So, the complaint is that it is linguistic "wriggling." I see the problem, especially as linguistic "wriggling" is a practice I observe happening a lot with this kind of thing.
Well, it's an accusation, and a somewhat mean-spirited accusation. I say this because valuing religious systems (ritual practices, etc.) over, say, the congregation (people), is always going to be a problem with all religion, and saying that Catholicism has a special problem with that, and that Protestantism doesn't, for the most part, is name-calling.
Which is probably what the original Protestants sought to cure, though I personally don't think the souce of such a problem is "curable" merely by changing religious doctrines or practices, or even changing religion altogether.
I agree with this distinction.
It seems that many religious people (of most religions) tend to have something of an ingrained discomfort with "questioning." Some have stated that the number one (usually unwritten and unspoken) commandment of every religion is "do not question." Now, I don't tend to agree that every religion actually enforces "not questioning," but I do think that in religious communities, discomfort with questioning has something of a tendency to be part of the package, so to speak. Many feel that to examine religious beliefs, to think for oneself, and to question established ideas, would be too similar to rebellion, and that it's unnecessary to begin with.
Allow me to explain what I mean by "magic."
Mysticism and magic aren't the same at all, as you may know. Magic, specifically, is a kind of system of beliefs and practices with intent to control or take advantage of the effects of certain natural laws - what might be called magical laws - and phenomena, in a mechanical fashion. Magic assigns quasi-scientific value to certain practices, assuming that with correct words, movements, materials, and skill, that natural or supernatural phenomena can be actively manipulated, much in the same way that chemical or mechanical reactions can be manipulated by use of technological devices.
An example of such magic would the idea that some people have about baptism - that bathing someone with water in a baptismal ritual actually has a special power that is derived from the water itself, or from the mechanism of the ritual (i.e. the bathing), and that that power literally evokes the transmission of Grace (or whatever other purpose the ritual in question is linked to), in the same way that a flame is evoked by lighting a match, and that such transmission of Grace cannot be achieved except through the power of the ritual. The magic literally makes it happen.
I'd say, probably in agreement with you, that Catholic rituals are more likely to be mystical than magical (though some practicioners might intend for them to be magical) - they are thought to have certain meanings, many of which are mysterious, as well as spiritual significance, but not necessarily because of a mechanical evocation.
(I also want to note that this definition is not the one always used by religious or mystical groups, in which they may use the term magic to be synonymous with their mysticism).
I should probably point out that in my readings and experience, the attitude that Catholics use or rely on magic is one I've heard more from some Jewish people, because they saw Christianity in general as a very magical religion. Now, I will make no claim that that is the overall attitude of the Judaic meta-community, as I don't know that and because I don't mean to "drag" Judaism into it. However, some Jews feel that even if Christians don't intend magic, they will often end up using magic anyway, and that while Christian rituals aren't supposed to be magic in theory, to most Christians they basically are magic because of the attitude they bring into it (presumably a socially encouraged attitude).
An example of this is the Eucharist. Some Jews have a problem with the practice of the Eucharist because they see that people treat it with a magical significance - that the ritual has a special power, by which Christians mean to "call down" (evoke) the Grace and favor of God.
As a note on mysticism and mystery - some claim that the reason Christianity and Judaism have such appeal, and appear so compelling, is because of how much they admit the reality of mystery.
Basically that, taking history into account, that the Catholic Church was fine with everyone until people started to find fault with it, and that the resulting non-Catholic denominations are based in this finding of fault. Thus, non-Catholic Christians, who generally practice sub-religions based historically off of the problems with Catholicism, are, on the whole, against Catholicism because of it. Correct?
This is certainly true. I remember a conversation I had a few years back with a young man one summer that has stayed with me. He claimed that to "correctly interpret" the Bible, one needed the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that if the Holy Spirit were on your side (as you put it, and that seems adequate in this case), then your "interpretation" would be the correct one. The assumption was that his Church's interpretations and doctrines (I believe he was part of a non-denominational Church) were correct because they knew that they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but he never thought to provide any means of demonstrating how one might be aware of the Holy Spirit's guidance in the first place.
I can see how having an authority like the Magisterium to help curb these conflicts would seem desirable.
I do have my own thoughts on this matter, but I'll refrain from outlining them just now, as I've been going long enough with this post.
An example might be one who has a general problem with Christendom (though that could conceivably be thought of as anti-Church in general, depending on attitide), or someone who eschews the idea of a "true" Church.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
"One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!
In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding."
The verse doesn't say anything about them offering OUR prayers, so what's to say they can actually here us.
Edit: Also, how is praying to the saints not basically worshipping another god?
Edit: We are supposed to confess mortal sins in confession. Why can we not ask God for forgiveness?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
If they're in heaven, they have no need to pray to God for themselves. Prayer, in the strictest sense, means a request. In the fullness of God's presence, a soul does not need to ask anything for themselves, since all of their personal needs are already met.
Saints are not gods, prayer is not worship.
We must ask God for forgiveness. However, in the case of grave sin, we can do that through a priest. Many Protestants scoff when they hear those words, but it's explicit in scripture that Christ also gave authority to forgive sins to ordained leaders.
Christ established this authority in three stages. First, Christ demonstrated that men can have that authority:
Matthew 9:1+
Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...."
Now, one might say this authority is only for Christ. Matthew explicitly corrects this interpretation:
Matthew 9:8b
They praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Second, Christ ordained Simon as "the Rock of the Church" and made him the first other person to have this authority:
Matthew 16:18+
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Finally, after Christ's resurrection, he ordained the rest of the disciples:
John 20:20b+
The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Commission of a grave sin is a sign of a rejection of Grace, and subsequently dwelling in that sin is a state outside of Grace. It isn't just an issue of being out of favor with God -- it's a personal corruption that one often needs tangible help to overcome. That's why Christ gave this ministry of reconciliation to individuals. He wanted elders to be capable of counseling and forgiving those cought in sin.