Roman Catholicism (1 Viewer)

[erin_tonkin]

Seeking help from Mary doesnt defy any point of christianity. Jesus is all you need, but Mary is very important as well. Jesus is all you need, but not the only thing which can help you.

well actually it does. In the bible it says that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one gets to the father but through him. The bible says that Jesus is THE mediator between man and God. there is no other nessecary. People pray to Mary and/or the saints and I ask why? If you have Jesus then why do you need anyone else? possibly because RC's believe that such a relationship is impossible yet the bible says you can.
Jesus is the ONLY thing that can help you according to the bible. If this is not what RC's believe then I guess they are not christians.

 

[erin_tonkin]

the important parts aren't so exclusive
how do you suppose that one religion arbitrarily supposed a 'truth' that others have bypassed?

Christians and Muslims both believe in Jesus yet we call them different.

They are mutually exclusive in that Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah and Muslims do not. Someone has to be right. Both views simply cannot be correct.

As to bypassed "trouths" Isnt that what all religion is about. Each person in their own religion believes themselves to be right and others to be wrong. And each other religion bypasses "trouths" that other religions are based on. I guess our choice is to determine which trouths we believe the most.

QUOTE es, either one or no religion can be right. they're mutually exclusive, however, just because you happen to believe in the "wrong" religion, in my religion, that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to hell. QUOTE

Yes. I dont think that God is unfair. He knows how we feel and I dont believe that anyone would go to hell for being born into another religion and knowing nothing else. Its tricky because we dont really know much about Gods view on this but we do know that he loves every single person on this earth and that he is a very fair God. I think that hell is different than pop culture views it. It is often seen as fire and brimstone etc but the way I see it is that God made the earth good with every blessing we see in it. yet there is sin and bad stuff because the devil is here too. heaven is where just God is and hell is just where the devil is. go figure

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Its tricky because we dont really know much about Gods view on this but we do know that he loves every single person on this earth and that he is a very fair God.

You do not "know" that at all. You believe it. There is an important difference!

 

[erin_tonkin]

You do not "know" that at all. You believe it. There is an important difference!

I believe I know it. It says so in the bible and yes I believe that it is evident in life. Sure there is really a lot of crap in the world like an uber load of crap but there Is so much goodness as well.
People who are not religious are quick to blame God when something bad happens but when something good happens it is all praise me arent i good.

If one was to believe in creationisim which i believe that you dont moonlight_sonata then you would believe that "God" loves everyone but yes you do tell the truth I only believe that God loves everyone I cannot proove it but does that therefore make it any less true for me?
Or for that matter any less true for the billions of people who do put their belief in a God who they believe loves everyone and who sent his son to earth to die and rise again in an act of immense grace for not jjust the willing but the people who hate him as well?
Does it make it any less true?
I think not.
Anyway this kind of discussion would be better suited to the Does God Exist thread this thread is about Roman Catholics.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

well actually it does. In the bible it says that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one gets to the father but through him. The bible says that Jesus is THE mediator between man and God. there is no other nessecary. People pray to Mary and/or the saints and I ask why? If you have Jesus then why do you need anyone else? possibly because RC's believe that such a relationship is impossible yet the bible says you can.
Jesus is the ONLY thing that can help you according to the bible. If this is not what RC's believe then I guess they are not christians.

right..... your so smart. hmmmm. i wonder what happened before Jesus came to earth. No one believed in God???

We appreciate Mary very much in the catholic church, but just because Jesus is the way to God, we cant pray to Mary?
The way you talk is as if your only using Jesus to find God, do you really love Jesus, or do you only pray to find God. This is why Catholics pray to Mary, and saints, out of love. Thats very selfish of you, to think someone should only pray to a being which will offer them the most. You should really reflect on your believes.

 

[davin]

i make a point to blame general people irregardless....not to blame God for bad things.

and see, believeing something doesn't make anything true, per se. you can make decisions based on that assumption, but that doesn't mean it is 'true'

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I believe I know it. It says so in the bible and yes I believe that it is evident in life. Sure there is really a lot of crap in the world like an uber load of crap but there Is so much goodness as well.
People who are not religious are quick to blame God when something bad happens but when something good happens it is all praise me arent i good.

If one was to believe in creationisim which i believe that you dont moonlight_sonata then you would believe that "God" loves everyone but yes you do tell the truth I only believe that God loves everyone I cannot proove it but does that therefore make it any less true for me?

It means that you believe, it doesn't mean that you know it. Belief is different than knowledge.

Or for that matter any less true for the billions of people who do put their belief in a God who they believe loves everyone and who sent his son to earth to die and rise again in an act of immense grace for not jjust the willing but the people who hate him as well?

As Bertrand Russell once said, the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

Does it make it any less true?
I think not.
Anyway this kind of discussion would be better suited to the Does God Exist thread this thread is about Roman Catholics.

Agreed -- I'm just correcting you. You said "know", which is incorrect.

 

[euskadi_warrior]

well actually it does. In the bible it says that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one gets to the father but through him. The bible says that Jesus is THE mediator between man and God. there is no other nessecary. People pray to Mary and/or the saints and I ask why?

This is a extremely popular question that people come to ask. I did too a few years to go only to understand the significance of it.

Roman Catholics do truely believe that Jesus Christ is the truth and the life. And Roman Catholics throughout history have recognised this; especially the saints. Roman Catholics do not pray nor worship the saints. This would be against the Church's beliefs. However... Roman Catholics do pray for the saints, pray through the saints and ask the saints to pray for them.

Here is a good statement discussing the why Catholics seek the intercession of saints:

Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" they ask.

The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us.

Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.

Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.

Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us.

In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing.

Website: http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp


So Roman Catholicism is definitely part of Christianity.

In response to your other question (about the candle, raising hands and singing) this is all part of the tradition's way of demonstrating the beliefs of the tradition. For example, the oil used in baptism represents the cleansing of the body and preparing oneself for God. The paschal candle represents the ever-lasting life that humans will gain in heaven. The symbols, texts, rituals and social order of the Roman Catholic Church assist in professing the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

I think that they believe that God is not approachable hence the help from Mary etc. However christianity believes that through Jesus that God is approachable.

Catholics believe that they can approach God (just as many branches of Christianity do) however before the Second Vatican Council, Roman Catholics compared themselves to Jesus Christ; they focused on Christ's divinity while forgetting about his human attributes. This focus on Christ's divinity lead them onto believing that Jesus is nothing like us and there was a huge focus on repentance.

However, these days, Roman Catholics focus on the resurrection of Christ (how humans are called to enter the Kingdom of God as Jesus did thus revisiting the Chalcedonian defintion somewhat) and the immanent aspect of God.

I hope you understand everything that I've said. If not, ask more questions.

 

[lewdogs]

Even though i dont agree with what the catholic church stands for it does have some good basic morales. but the catholic church is solely responsible for millions of deaths in 3rd world countries due to their ban on condoms. ideaoligies like this are totaly outdated and should not even be considered in modern times. also why is mary such cornerstone in catholic religion? all she was, was a vessel. I believe he chose a infertile woman to show his power (doing the impossible).
Also why do they spend billions of dollars a year on lavish cars and golden idols? god does not expect as to creat shrines or worship jesus... sure jesus was meant to be the one who cleansed our spirit of sin but isnt god the so called "lord"? instead of worshipping him they worship jesus..

all religions have there problems though, i mean look at terrorists.

 

[euskadi_warrior]

but the catholic church is solely responsible for millions of deaths in 3rd world countries due to their ban on condoms. ideaoligies like this are totaly outdated and should not even be considered in modern times.

How are ideologies like this outdated? Does anybody know why the Church does not support the use of condoms? The Church believes that acts of sex should include both the unitive dimension and the procreative dimension. The unitive dimension is when the couple become one both mentally and physically and give oneself to eachother; and the procreative dimension is where there a possibility for life. Condoms break the procreative dimension as the possibility of life is extremely minimised (and condoms have been used for that purpose) and also breaks the unitive dimension as the couples are not fully giving themselves to each other. This belief is not outdated.

And how is it the Church's fault? It is possible for people to abstain from sex...

 

[davin]

the problem is that its not a "abstain, but failing that, be safe" platfor

 

[walrusbear]

Each person in their own religion believes themselves to be right and others to be wrong.

speak for yourself

 

[nwatts]

Re: Roman Catholisisim

why don't you actually argue a point?
since my points are so obviously incorrect and anyone with menial knowledge could supposedly 'rip my crap apart' why don't you go for it?

i don't pretend to know everything but i have a fair amount of exposure to catholicism and many people involved in it
i'm suggesting most people here are operating off a common stereotype of 'catholicism' or at best one highly emphasised segment of a very large church

The irony in your last sentence has forced me to do this.

There is no real spirituality in Roman Catholisisim. Its just a massive flock of sheep guided by a mindless dogmatic overture.

i'd wager that's just plain wrong
it has a fair share of fundamentalists much like any other but countless theologians and spiritually centred clergy/lay people exist in the catholic church
as much as any other

Fundamentalism isn't about being led mindlessly. You haven't refuted or commented on Rafy's comments at all. Besides, because of Catholicism's deep roots in tradition, there are far more latent and spiritually-void "members" of the church than any other denomination.

fundamentalism is a word i'd use for that strain of 'dogmatic' thinking because it dwells in literalism
it's an unfair word but i use it because i don't like fundamentalism

if you look at Rafy's original post he suggests that there is 'NO' spirituality and that it's 'JUST' full of 'mindless sheep'. no ones going to deny the existence of such people, but i have issues with how absolute his points are.

you yourself have finished your post with another generalisation that's incorrect. how can you prove that there is more of this thinking in catholicism than other christian denominations? pointing to the 'traditions' of catholicism is no argument.

i'd be interested to know what you mean by 'spirituality' - as i'd argue that many of the younger christian denominations skirt this part of religious practice.

Fundamentalism "dwells in literalism" as you asserted, according to the essential definition of the term. However your idea that "dogmatic thinking", or as Rafy described it, "sheep guided by a mindless dogmatic overture", "dwells in literalism" is not correct. The essence of this traditionalist mindset comes from Catholic dogma, not from "literalism" (assumingly pertaining to The Bible) - they're two entirely different concepts. When speaking on religion- Literalists, fundamentalists (whatever you chose to label them) will think/act according to a very raw and literal interpretation of their holy text - whether it be The Bible, the Koran, or whatever.

Catholic dogma differs immensely from Christian fundamentalism. To prove this with a practical example -
Catholics adhere to the Immaculate Conception, the assertion that the virgin Mary (mother of Jesus) was conceived by normal human means, but was acted on by God, who protected her "immaculate" soul - which served to preserve Mary from "original sin", or more easily understood, being born into sin. God's punishment following original sin was that every man would be born into sin.
According to Biblical "truth", the dogma of Immaculate Conception is contradictory. However because of Catholicism's deep roots in traditional value, the dogma was passed by Pope Pius XI, and is an "universal truth" among Catholics today - even considering it has no grounds within the Bible, their supposed source of truth.

If Catholicism had anything to do with fundamentalism, it would have nothing to do with these obscure dogma that have little/no grounding within the source text, the Bible. This is not a case of literal interpretation - this is a case of very one very skewed interpretation, turned widely believed tradition, turned official dogma.

You challenged my generalisation which asserted that "there are far more latent and spiritually-void "members" [in] the [Catholic] church than any other denomination", considering you provided no grounds for its challenge. The traditionalist aspect of Catholicism that is reasonably esoteric among Christian denominations certainly serves to highlight that the Catholic church breeds traditional churchgoers rather than religious congregations. What does this mean practically? A vast number of Catholics will attend church as part of a routine, and will not have a spiritual reason to draw them to church, rather a traditionalist obligation.

If we look to my earlier example we can see that this is the case. Hypothetically, if a Catholic was encouraged to think about their faith and challenge such dogma as that of Immaculate Conception, they'd realise it's rubbish according to The Bible- which as I mentioned earlier, is what is supposed to be the cornerstone of their faith. However because traditional values have taught them to believe what they're given without active thought (which is essentially the definition of dogma), these issues become reality. This extends to what Christians consider a personal faith- if there is no active involvement/no thought process involved in having faith in the truthfulness of the Bible, the faith is moot. Because of how Catholics are taught to think, they become "spiritually void" as I coined earlier.

I realise this is a generalisation and that there are Catholics/Catholic parishes that do encourage an active faith. However generalisations are what we're arguing, and are important in a discussion such as this, so it'll stand.

 

[Xayma]

DAVIN i think you misinterpreted my post I was not saying those things about mary i was writing the catholic view

Mary gave birth to Christ without having known a man's touch - that's true.
But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed
married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God
and the Virgin Birth - those are leaps of faith. But believing a wife never
humped her husband - that's just gullibility.

I agree with you on these points. And yes the big picture is so often missed when dealing with the small matters that differ between denominational groups.

Actually it isn't as unbelievable as it sounds. Also it is wrong to say "that's true" whoever actually said it, a better way would be "many religions believe that Mary...". But asexuality does exist in the world and many people can happily go through life without sex. If Joseph was asexual (that is only sexual urges he might have married for reasons of emotion) then Mary doesn't have to be putting out (she herself might have been asexual).

 

[= Jennifer =]

Remember the context, sexual intercourse was only for really having children in those times and nowdays it is seen more as a pleasure thing. Also, they had so much work to do back then more than what we have to today, we are pretty lazy compared to all the duties they had to perform.

erin_tonkin, I do not know how you think of things like that, seriously. Anyway, I believe that they never engaged in sexual intercourse because of their position with God and their respect towards him. Joseph was the foster father of Jesus, the son of God and I doubt that he would really be thinking about sex. It is the whole idea of purity which then comes into play.

that's my two cents.

 

[walrusbear]

Re: Roman Catholisisim

Fundamentalism "dwells in literalism" as you asserted, according to the essential definition of the term. However your idea that "dogmatic thinking", or as Rafy described it, "sheep guided by a mindless dogmatic overture", "dwells in literalism" is not correct. The essence of this traditionalist mindset comes from Catholic dogma, not from "literalism" (assumingly pertaining to The Bible) - they're two entirely different concepts. When speaking on religion- Literalists, fundamentalists (whatever you chose to label them) will think/act according to a very raw and literal interpretation of their holy text - whether it be The Bible, the Koran, or whatever.

Catholic dogma differs immensely from Christian fundamentalism. To prove this with a practical example -
Catholics adhere to the Immaculate Conception, the assertion that the virgin Mary (mother of Jesus) was conceived by normal human means, but was acted on by God, who protected her "immaculate" soul - which served to preserve Mary from "original sin", or more easily understood, being born into sin. God's punishment following original sin was that every man would be born into sin.
According to Biblical "truth", the dogma of Immaculate Conception is contradictory. However because of Catholicism's deep roots in traditional value, the dogma was passed by Pope Pius XI, and is an "universal truth" among Catholics today - even considering it has no grounds within the Bible, their supposed source of truth.

If Catholicism had anything to do with fundamentalism, it would have nothing to do with these obscure dogma that have little/no grounding within the source text, the Bible. This is not a case of literal interpretation - this is a case of very one very skewed interpretation, turned widely believed tradition, turned official dogma.

I think you'll find for all practical purposes that there is no difference between fundamentalists and 'literalists'. focusing on dogma or scripture (no matter any contradictions) as a means of worship is still a misguided practice no matter which christian denomination. you're just plain fooling yourself if you think there are no catholic fundamentalists. the fine 'definition' you've made between the two doesn't really prove that catholics are more 'spiritually-void' than others (i like how you imply that there is more merit in taking the bible for its word than taking dogma for its word - they're both filled with crap).
i'm uncertain what pointing out contradictions between dogma and the bible is suppose to achieve anyway? even the bible contradicts the bible. how does anyone of this suggest that roman catholics, in particular, are more 'spiritually-void' than other christian groups?

You challenged my generalisation which asserted that "there are far more latent and spiritually-void "members" [in] the [Catholic] church than any other denomination", considering you provided no grounds for its challenge. The traditionalist aspect of Catholicism that is reasonably esoteric among Christian denominations certainly serves to highlight that the Catholic church breeds traditional churchgoers rather than religious congregations. What does this mean practically? A vast number of Catholics will attend church as part of a routine, and will not have a spiritual reason to draw them to church, rather a traditionalist obligation.

you've tried to suggest, once again, that because the church has esoteric traditions that somehow it lacks spirituality? so if i extend this logic i can assume the same of islam and judaism? because your logic essentially only says that because a church is old it is thereby 'traditionalist' and 'spiritually void'.

If we look to my earlier example we can see that this is the case. Hypothetically, if a Catholic was encouraged to think about their faith and challenge such dogma as that of Immaculate Conception, they'd realise it's rubbish according to The Bible- which as I mentioned earlier, is what is supposed to be the cornerstone of their faith.

that's simply wrong. scripture isn't the 'cornerstone of faith' for catholics. Traditions, rituals and the message of scripture are the basis.

However because traditional values have taught them to believe what they're given without active thought (which is essentially the definition of dogma), these issues become reality. This extends to what Christians consider a personal faith- if there is no active involvement/no thought process involved in having faith in the truthfulness of the Bible, the faith is moot. Because of how Catholics are taught to think, they become "spiritually void" as I coined earlier.

I realise this is a generalisation and that there are Catholics/Catholic parishes that do encourage an active faith. However generalisations are what we're arguing, and are important in a discussion such as this, so it'll stand.

the heart of your argument is that because the Catholic Church has its own dogma, and doesn't apply its faith strictly to the bible, it produces members that are 'unthinking' and 'spiritually void'. not only is that an absurd assertion, you speak as if the Church is a static entity. i pointed out in an earlier post that the Catholic Church is very diverse and has a long history of change - a point that you choose to ignore in favour of an incorrect and flimsy stereotype.
as to your last point, i don't think any discussion is helped by poor stereotypes. simplifying a discussion doesn't achieve anything. i'm trying to challenge this one sided notion of Catholicism that is expressed in this thread.

 

[Enlightened_One]

i think the notion of a particular religion being 'right' more than others is beside the point
there obviously is no 'right' religion
at the core of all of them is an approach to living that i think is summed in the christian traditions by 'love god and love others'.
the differences between religions seem peripheral and almost trivial outside of this goal. the cultural associations and rituals of each religion is really a framework for expressing spirituality.
i think sometimes the newer christian denominations get bogged down in the semantics of dogma and ritual. to the point where churches like hillsong seem to fetishise the act of worship itself.

This isn't the exact post I was looking to quote, but it's close enough. When it comes to the discussion abou the different religions of the world and how they can all be right, it reminded me of something my grandmother told me. I'll probably not do it justice though.

Anyway (someone who knows the bible correct me if I'm wrong on any of this), when God destroyed the tower of Babylon he spread mankind throughout the world as punishment and changed their language and (I'm not sure about this bit) made it so that they could not uncover history, or something. Anyway, the point is, different races were then created throughout the world and as such different religons arose (that's speculation upon my part) and, according to my grandmother God's plan is for all mankind to once more come together as brothers (like they were). In essence, God divided the people of the world and it is their task to reunite themselves.

I really wish I'd asked her to write this down, because she told me this two years ago and my memory is a little hazy.

 

[erin_tonkin]

right..... your so smart. hmmmm. i wonder what happened before Jesus came to earth. No one believed in God???

We appreciate Mary very much in the catholic church, but just because Jesus is the way to God, we cant pray to Mary?
The way you talk is as if your only using Jesus to find God, do you really love Jesus, or do you only pray to find God. This is why Catholics pray to Mary, and saints, out of love. Thats very selfish of you, to think someone should only pray to a being which will offer them the most. You should really reflect on your believes.

but jesus IS the way to find God. It is not selfish it is what i believe to be the truth!
As to the whole praying to mary doesnt hurt she is just helping. well i dont really know how i feel about that. i just think that if you have jesus then why mary. its not selfish its just that Jesus died and rose for us and i dont think he minds us talking to him

 

[euskadi_warrior]

but jesus IS the way to find God. It is not selfish it is what i believe to be the truth!
As to the whole praying to mary doesnt hurt she is just helping. well i dont really know how i feel about that. i just think that if you have jesus then why mary. its not selfish its just that Jesus died and rose for us and i dont think he minds us talking to him

so if you have Jesus, you think you dont need Mary. Then by that way of thinking, why have any friends and why would you get along with your family???

You see, Jesus is the way but we all need help from people around us. These people around us not only include family and friends but also the saints in heaven and the Holy Spirit. These people can help us simply by praying for us and we can help them by praying for them.

[read my previous post to get an understanding of what I am saying].

 

[erin_tonkin]

Well we have friends to fellowship with them and talk about God and we are told to tell these people about Jesus. That is why we have friends. It seems selfish to have friends for personal gain.

there are people who dont have friends. I am not one of them and I agree Mary can just be your friend yet she doenst exist anymore.
She gave birth to Jesus but that is where the similarities end. She was sinful and depended on his grace just as much as anyone else does. Yes its great to have friends who can pray for and with you but does Mary really do this. Is your conversation with her two sided?
The Holy Spirit is God it is part of the trinity so it is in a lleague of its own not likened to saints or family.
As to saints. what do you/others believe of them. The bible in Pauls letters calls any follower of Jesus a saint. This term has been changed somewhat though and sainthood is something earned which I find odd.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:27
There is noone righteous not even one. Romans 3:10