Catholicism & Christianity

[Renji]

I felt very well when my great grandmother died. So many weeks with that brain problem and she finally got peace. I wouldn´t wish what happened to her to any one, and if it happened to me I would surely appreciate God letting mecheck in early

Then I agree with you dude. Same way, we should not wish harm, such as death even to those people having different beliefs than we do (and rejoice when it happens). That's what I am talking about.

Sheesh! Ihate when that happens! >.< What he tell meis that he is in "montañita" (a place in ecuador) Of course I am actualy talking of afriend that resembles so much Jesus in appeareance and joy that it becomes a different endevour altogether

I just rode a bike with Jesus yesterday!

Now more seriously, I shouldn´t kill anyone because it´s like stealing, just without getting anything from it. No one´s life is mine. I cannot take it. We are in this Earth to learn, I should not by any means take that away from anyone.

Then, well said, dude.

 

[Me Myself]

I just rode a bike with Jesus yesterday!

Tell him that he still owes me that book! (He´ll understand) :yes:

 

[blackout]

We do all know though that MOST members pick and choose which Catholic doctrines
they are going to follow, and which ones they are going to ignore.
ie, they do not follow the teachings of their church
as if their church is THE moral authority.
ex- how many RC's do you think use birth control?
How many of those RC's who use birth control
do you think skip communion on account of their being in a state of mortal sin?

Then there are the "catholic parents",
who don't really participate themselves
but want to see the kids go through first communion and confirmation.
Or at least first communion.
It's a tradition thing, far more than a religion thing.

There are also the accompanying spouses,
who participate as if they are catholic
but go only to share their partner's 'thing' with them.
You could count both agnostics and atheists in these numbers.

And then I know of many others who just go for the ambiance/atmosphere.
Their beliefs are something entirely different,
(and I do mean entirely)
but they grew up Catholic
and enjoy partaking in communion
(though don't believe in transubstantiation-or even that Jesus ever necessarily existed)
and just the whole high ritual thing.

Yet all of these people are counted as practicing Roman Catholics.

It does not change the fact that the churches doctrines are becoming
more and more irrelevant even to it's own members.

Sure lots of people go for their own reasons,
but if they are not actually practicing/following the faith doctrines of the RC,
is it really correct to then conclude "see?! The church is still relevant and growing"?

 

[Renji]

We do all know though that MOST members pick and choose which Catholic doctrines
they are going to follow, and which ones they are going to ignore.
ie, they do not follow the teachings of their church
as if their church is THE moral authority.
ex- how many RC's do you think use birth control?
How many of those RC's who use birth control
do you think skip communion on account of their being in a state of mortal sin?

I agree with these. The problem that the clergy sees nowadays is that many Catholics has their own Catholicism (that is very different of what Catholicism really is).

Then there are the "catholic parents",
who don't really participate themselves
but want to see the kids go through first communion and confirmation.
Or at least first communion.
It's a tradition thing, far more than a religion thing.

Majority, yes. Also, it seems that tradition is given more importance than Catholicism/teachings.

And then I know of many others who just go for the ambiance/atmosphere.
Their beliefs are something entirely different,
but they grew up Catholic
and enjoy partaking in communion


Yet all of these people are counted as practicing Roman Catholics.

These people can actually be regarded as Lazy/ "ritualistic" type of Catholics. They're the type who aren't/ less familiar with the teachings of the church. They just go to mass and take communion because that's (probably) the way they are raised or just to say that they have attended the mass and take the communion. They see rituals of the church as "plain' rituals and not a religious stuff.

It does not change the fact that the churches doctrines are becoming
more and more irrelevant even to it's own members.

To some, but not all.

Sure lots of people go for their own reasons,
but if they are not actually practicing/following the faith doctrines of the RC,
is it really correct to then conclude "see?! The church is still relevant and growing"?

If the Church/doctrines are really irrelevant (or is becoming), it would not have lasted to these days (and perhaps to the next generation) and just "die". It has faced many heresies, and yet it is still here, still active these days.

 

[Villager]

I agree with these. The problem that the clergy sees nowadays is that many Catholics has their own Catholicism (that is very different of what Catholicism really is).

I once asked five educated, 'authoritative' Catholics the same basic question, and received five mutually contradictory answers. That sums up modern Catholicism, imv. This diversity, in what is supposed to be a unity by virtue of a single divinely appointed leader, is by no means restricted to non-responsible 'lay' people. Clerics may or may not even believe in transubstantiation, or in anything else that they seemingly want to be thought optional, just to gain recruits, to retain the faithful.

Catholicism was born in an age of widespread trouble, increasingly widespread poverty, increasing ignorance and certainly utter absence of anything approaching democracy and independence of thought. It grew up in worse circumstances, giving rise to an unprecedented superstitious mindset that few non-historians can even get their minds to grips with. Medieval Catholicism had no inkling that things could ever be different, clerics and religious acting as though there could be no end to the supremacy and freedoms they enjoyed. Until the Renaissance, there was simply no intellectual competition; and even then, for several centuries, it could be silenced.

But not now- and in a sense, the Renaissance is still alive, as far as the Vatican is concerned, and equivocality is not unknown in its attempts to adjust. It is unsurprising if democracy, freedom and independence of thought, science, education, the open Bible, the challenge of evangelicalism in its traditional heartlands, make the nature of Catholicism seem less than clear.

 

[blackout]

These people can actually be regarded as Lazy/ "ritualistic" type of Catholics. They're the type who aren't/ less familiar with the teachings of the church. They just go to mass and take communion because that's (probably) the way they are raised or just to say that they have attended the mass and take the communion. They see rituals of the church as "plain' rituals and not a religious stuff.

Yes, those exist as well, and they are probably in the majority.

The type I was pointing to though,
has their own personal spiritual life.
Their own spiritual beliefs and outlooks,
and they DO know the teachings of the RC.
But they go literally for their OWN reasons,
to do their own thing,
in an ambiance/atmosphere
you really can't find anywhere else.
It's kind of a medieval thing.
Sometimes the church is gothic.
Or sometimes it's simply the ritualistic ambiance.

It's just... where else can you go for it?

And yes, quite often they grew up in that atmosphere.
It can bring very peaceful and heightened feelings,
actually, ESPECIALLY, if you are mostly just using it as a kind of ritual chamber.
You don't even have to listen,
just experience the ambiance.
This kind of thing is not "lazy" at all,
and in fact is very well thought out,
and purposeful.

 

[Renji]

I once asked five educated, 'authoritative' Catholics the same basic question, and received five mutually contradictory answers. That sums up modern Catholicism, imv. This diversity, in what is supposed to be a unity by virtue of a single divinely appointed leader, is by no means restricted to non-responsible 'lay' people. Clerics may or may not even believe in transubstantiation, or in anything else that they seemingly want to be thought optional, just to gain recruits, to retain the faithful.

Haven't encountered clerics that are like that. If ever that happens, then they will be entitled as heretics. So, where exactly did you find these so-called 'authoritative' Catholics?

Catholicism was born in an age of widespread trouble, increasingly widespread poverty, increasing ignorance and certainly utter absence of anything approaching democracy and independence of thought. It grew up in worse circumstances, giving rise to an unprecedented superstitious mindset that few non-historians can even get their minds to grips with. Medieval Catholicism had no inkling that things could ever be different, clerics and religious acting as though there could be no end to the supremacy and freedoms they enjoyed. Until the Renaissance, there was simply no intellectual competition; and even then, for several centuries, it could be silenced.

But it is certainly is not the church who spread those worse stuff.

But not now- and in a sense, the Renaissance is still alive, as far as the Vatican is concerned, and equivocality is not unknown in its attempts to adjust. It is unsurprising if democracy, freedom and independence of thought, science, education, the open Bible, the challenge of evangelicalism in its traditional heartlands, make the nature of Catholicism seem less than clear.

I'm sorry, science and education? I don't think so. Pope Leo XIII once said: "Science and religion should co-exist." Also, Catholicism does not force itself on anyone for you to conclude that "democracy, freedom and independence of thought" contributes on what makes it "unclear". And, if you know your faith fully, your thought wouldn't actually be shaken if you read the Bible, but it will rather increase.

 

[Renji]

Yes, those exist as well, and they are probably in the majority.

The type I was pointing to though,
has their own personal spiritual life.
Their own spiritual beliefs and outlooks,
and they DO know the teachings of the RC.
But they go literally for their OWN reasons,
to do their own thing,
in an ambiance/atmosphere
you really can't find anywhere else.
It's kind of a medieval thing.
Sometimes the church is gothic.
Or sometimes it's simply the ritualistic ambiance.

It's just... where else can you go for it?


And yes, quite often they grew up in that atmosphere.
It can bring very peaceful and heightened feelings,
actually, ESPECIALLY, if you are mostly just using it as a kind of ritual chamber.
You don't even have to listen,
just experience the ambiance.
This kind of thing is not "lazy" at all,
and in fact is very well thought out,
and purposeful.

Well then, as you said, it is based on their own reasons. Whatever that reason is, we do not know. But still, it depends. Not all Catholics (as I said) are like that. There are still some who are really serious about their faith and does not see Catholic stuff as merely rituals. And sometimes, may I just add, it's is not just on how much you "know" about your faith but also on your awareness and willingness to respond to the teachings. This, for me is the "life" of the Church. As long as there are still people who are like that, we can say that the Church is still "growing".

 

[blackout]

To be clear Lawrence,
I'm not saying that there are not ALSO many doctrinally dedicated Roman Catholics.

I'm simply saying that the numbers of people who show up on the rosters and in the pews,
is not a reflection at all on how relevant catholic doctrine is to those very same people.
To many of those people it IS relevant.
To many more it is not.


Bottom line each individual goes for their OWN reasons.
Whether they are doctrinal or not.

 

[Renji]

To be clear Lawrence,
I'm not saying that there are not ALSO many doctrinally dedicated Roman Catholics.

I'm simply saying that the numbers of people who show up on the rosters and in the pews,
is not a reflection at all on how relevant catholic doctrine is to those very same people.
To many of those people it IS relevant.
To many more it is not.

Exactly my point.

Bottom line each individual goes for their OWN reasons.
Whether they are doctrinal or not.

This is our common ground. True.

 

[Villager]

Haven't encountered clerics that are like that.

Such people have been celebrated, reported in the media. Though not lately- not since I first made the point I just made here.

But it is certainly is not the church who spread those worse stuff.

It is estimated that the medieval wood from pieces of the cross found in Catholic buildings would have built a small galleon. Of course the clergy have since had them quietly disposed of.

Then there's the rest of the sponsored, religious superstition, some of it still around. There was an enormous amount of it, until the Counter-Reformation, at which one cardinal told his colleagues, "The best way to avoid criticism is not to deserve it." So it may sensibly be supposed that Catholicism looks far better now than it would do had democracy, education and freedom of expression not forced it to reform itself. All this protestation that Catholics are like Protestants is hollow. It's mere copycat stuff. Europe was becoming increasingly corrupt and pagan at the Reformation, and had there been no reaction, no Reformation and Industrial Revolution, the state of the RCC would probably be utterly dire by now. Though some may say that it is close to that, anyway.

Pope Leo XIII once said: "Science and religion should co-exist."

Does that somehow convince you that a desire is a fulfilment? A Catholic priest not long ago told me that transubstantiation was a medieval superstition, and the New York Times, I think it was, said that this was not uncommon a finding among clerics in the USA; and among 'lay' Americans, even more so.

Go for it, Leo! Scrap Real Presence!

Catholicism does not force itself on anyone

Not now- and regrettably, to some Catholics. Its existence is via force. To be an informed Catholic is to endorse the use of force for religious purposes.

if you know your faith fully, your thought wouldn't actually be shaken if you read the Bible, but it will rather increase.

That's why the medieval Vatican made the Bible so popular!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does that somehow convince you that a desire is a fulfilment? A Catholic priest not long ago told me that transubstantiation was a medieval superstition, and the New York Times, I think it was, said that this was not uncommon a finding among clerics in the USA; and among 'lay' Americans, even more so.

Do you think that Catholics are unique in this regard?

You might want to read some of Daniel Dennett's studies about atheist pastors. There's a surprising number of them in just about every denomination: people who came to a position in ministry honestly, found that their views changed, and then for various reasons (everything from social pressure to a lack of skills for other jobs), found themselves "trapped" preaching beliefs that they didn't actually believe themselves.

 

[Villager]

Do you think that Catholics are unique in this regard?

You might want to read some of Daniel Dennett's studies about atheist pastors. There's a surprising number of them in just about every denomination: people who came to a position in ministry honestly, found that their views changed, and then for various reasons (everything from social pressure to a lack of skills for other jobs), found themselves "trapped" preaching beliefs that they didn't actually believe themselves.

If the deity is truly that represented by His Vicar in the Vatican, it would be far better to be atheist, imv. But if atheists are taking money under false pretences, maybe there's not much to be said for atheism, either.

 

[doppelganger]

You might want to read some of Daniel Dennett's studies about atheist pastors. There's a surprising number of them in just about every denomination: people who came to a position in ministry honestly, found that their views changed, and then for various reasons (everything from social pressure to a lack of skills for other jobs), found themselves "trapped" preaching beliefs that they didn't actually believe themselves.

Just an interesting aside. I read the biography of the Reverend Jim Jones called "Raven" last year and the people closest to him agreed that he was atheist, but believed that the human religious impulse could be captured and turned toward good ends like social justice, ending discrimination, etc. Of course, it can also be used to herd the flock off the cliff with you as you go insane from excessive drug use and wildly out-of-control ego. But that's how prophets roll . . .

 

[Renji]

Such people have been celebrated, reported in the media. Though not lately- not since I first made the point I just made here.

Still, I can't recall any of clerics like that. Even if it's so, it is still not the Catholicism but their Catholicism, since it is not the official teachings of the Church.

It is estimated that the medieval wood from pieces of the cross found in Catholic buildings would have built a small galleon. Of course the clergy have since had them quietly disposed of.

Amazing, where did you get this?!

Then there's the rest of the sponsored, religious superstition, some of it still around. There was an enormous amount of it, until the Counter-Reformation, at which one cardinal told his colleagues, "The best way to avoid criticism is not to deserve it."

So how did you arrive with this statement? Through speculations?

So it may sensibly be supposed that Catholicism looks far better now than it would do had democracy, education and freedom of expression not forced it to reform itself. All this protestation that Catholics are like Protestants is hollow. It's mere copycat stuff.

But you just said earlier that democracy, education, etc are the things that makes Catholicism "unclear".

Europe was becoming increasingly corrupt and pagan at the Reformation, and had there been no reaction, no Reformation and Industrial Revolution, the state of the RCC would probably be utterly dire by now. Though some may say that it is close to that, anyway.

Is it because of the Church or the Reformation? Dire? How?

Does that somehow convince you that a desire is a fulfilment? A Catholic priest not long ago told me that transubstantiation was a medieval superstition, and the New York Times, I think it was, said that this was not uncommon a finding among clerics in the USA; and among 'lay' Americans, even more so.

Go for it, Leo! Scrap Real Presence!

FYI, I studied my primary, secondary and part of my first year college in Catholic schools and have never recalled anything like that being taught by our religion teachers nor have encountered that in any of the homily.
It would be more feasible if you have the link.

Not now- and regrettably, to some Catholics. Its existence is via force. To be an informed Catholic is to endorse the use of force for religious purposes.

Boy, I didn't force anyone to be a Catholic or to believe in its teachings (nor any Catholic would do in this millennium). I mean, I don't need to be repressive just for you to say that I am aware of Catholicism.

That's why the medieval Vatican made the Bible so popular! [ /quote]

Boy, didn't you know that the Bible is an essential part of Christianity? If I am going to establish a Christian religion, of course it is expected to have the Bible.

 

[Villager]

Still, I can't recall any of clerics like that. Even if it's so, it is still not the Catholicism but their Catholicism, since it is not the official teachings of the Church.

Official teachings, phooey. These guys are, or were, cultured by their bishops in order to retain credibility and popularity. It's what comes of getting your way for centuries with Peter's Second Sword, then haplessly finding yourself without it. The propaganda that could be successfully transmitted by coercion is too implausible to be accepted by any other means.

Amazing, where did you get this?!

Amazed you didn't know, or at least found it feasible.

So how did you arrive with this statement? Through speculations?

Through scholarship.

But you just said earlier that democracy, education, etc are the things that makes Catholicism "unclear".

That's non sequitur.

I didn't force anyone to be a Catholic

But you follow the religion of those who did. It's impossible that your organisation could exist without the use of force. Your every post is testament to the use of force, if you did but realise it.

didn't you know that the Bible is an essential part of Christianity?

Really? In the 15th century, a papal legate travelled from Rome to Austria. Not far. He got lost, though, comprehensively, and wrote bemoaning the lack of suitable priests on his route, from whom he expected to get travel directions. The problem was that few of the priests knew Latin, even though their Bibles were in Latin. And this failing generally got worse, the further you went from Rome.

So Catholicism cannot be Christianity, can it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Through scholarship.

Which scholarship?

 

[doppelganger]

Which scholarship?

Chick Tracts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Chick Tracts.

Cracker Jacks.

 

[doppelganger]

Cracker Jacks.

The prize inside the box. Don't get too excited though, the prize in the box is a piece of junk.