Also, what would good questions that I can ask my priests?
One thing I never understood, is why Catholics believed that Mary had no children. According to the priest, in the Gospel of John, Jesus asks one of his disciples to watch over his mom. According to the priest, in Jewish tradition, the next eldest brother would watch over his mother if her husband and oldest son had died. Is this true? Some Christians, including myself, always regarded James (from Acts 15, the person that has historically been thought of as the writer of the epistle of James) as Jesus' brother and not his cousin.
Additionally, could someone explain why Catholics have deuterocanonical books in the Tanach/Old Testament that Protestants don't have. The priest told me that the Jews excluded the books from the canon because they were in Greek at the time when they decided to include these books into the Bible (although according to an author I am reading, I Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew). To be sure, these books are important to Jews. They mention Hanukkah. I am guessing that the Jews decided to place these books in Rabbinic literature, but I am not sure. But, why don't Protestants carry these books? Is there a specific reason for that?
Quote: from BleedingSteelWings at 11:09 am on Nov. 7, 2008 Quote: from Trendsetta at 12:21 am on Nov. 5, 2008 Catholics are nice! WRONG. I know too many catholics that are self righteous pricks. And I know too many Catholics who are humble and generally good people. What's your point?
Quote: from Trendsetta at 12:21 am on Nov. 5, 2008 Catholics are nice! WRONG. I know too many catholics that are self righteous pricks.
Catholics are nice!
And I know too many Catholics who are humble and generally good people. What's your point?
I was raised Catholic, for nearly 23 years. I cannot tell you how much it has screwed me up. I'm sure scare tactics used spurned my GAD, and the suppression of who I am led to depression, possibly. I've always known I'm bisexual, and I knowthat it would have been beaten out of me if I came out at a young age. I suppressed it for over a decade, until I finally couldn't deny it any longer. When I came out, my dad wanted to kick me out of the house, he told me he thinks I'm going to hell. Yes, Catholicism has left a very bitter taste in my mouth.
Yes, Catholicism has left a very bitter taste in my mouth.
Well, I'm not aware of any major christian denomination in the US that is very accepting of gays. In any event, I personally think Catholics in the US (perhaps not Europe) tend to be more liberal when it comes to social issues than Protestants.
I really was just curious. I have problems with both historic churches (and all denominations really), but I just wanted to know if you had put any thought into Orthodoxy since it is so often forgotten here in the West.
1. The Bible. The average catholic has very poor bible knowledge. It seems that the bible is almost like a symbol. Catholic churches dont often have bibles in them. Moreover, priests do not even have all that much bible knowledge. 2. Tradition. While tradition is a good thing, it it not an ultimate thing. You shouldnt worship the tradition, but you can use the tradition to worship God. It seems like the catholic church often does tradition for tradition's sake. Often their excuse is thats what the early church did. 3. Leadership. It seems like the catholic leadership is very rigid and impersonal. The leaders are almost worshipped, or at least seen holier than thou. Priests dont seem very approachable or humble a lot of the time. Moreover their leadership heirarchy is apparently the only one, as it has been passed down from Peter. Often they might say the church was built on Peter. Thats foolish, the church was built on Christ alone! While Peter did great things for the church, he was still very fallible. Jesus even refers to him as Satan. (Matthew 16:23)
4. Dogmatic/ exclusiveness. It seems like the catholic church thinks that their position is the only possible position. Even to the point where they think sometimes that they are the only church. They are the only christians.
5. Works. This is a tough issue. James talks about faith without deeds being dead. But Epheisans say that man is saved by grace through faith so that no one can boast. I think we are saved through faith alone, but if our faith is real then of course we will do good works.
6. Pergatory. A myth. If it was so important, surely it would be in the word of God, surely.
I say this with a big log in my eye, as I know my church has many issues, and there is no perfect church out there, that day will come when Christ returns.
And now I look back I think this was the deciding reason, because it shouldn't be up to me to shop around for something, its really a tragedy that I have to - and it really is a painful thing. But eventually truth will out, in the meantime - in the thick of history surrounded by all the turmoil of peoples commitments and emotions, I for one cannot be expected to know the answer to this. The person I asked about it when I was trying to decide put it thus on his blog (though I could not find the specific entry there anymore :( and had to find someone's quoting of it which missed out some good bits but ho hum):
This culture of consumerism has also affected the consideration of the Apostolic Churches against each other. If a man considers Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as equally available products, and chooses whichever he likes more, he is acting in a spirit that is inimical to both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and really to any traditional religion. Such a choice is neither Catholic nor Orthodox; it is simply consumerist. It fails to treat conversion as a response to prevenient grace, and makes it a matter of having the necessary taste and intelligence to pick the best Church. Often this takes the form of a series of contingencies: If the Catholic Church were to do this, then I would leave it. If the Catholic Church were instead to do that, then I would return. The most obvious objection to this is that it is not his prerogative to demand that problems be fixed within his lifetime. But worse, that sort of thinking in itself places a man outside of the Church; if not sacramentally, at least intellectually. It places him outside of any Church, for he regards them from a superior vantage. Or to continue the previous metaphor, he regards them like a consumer in a grocery store picking out a jar of peanut butter. This sort of thinking is poisonous to any real sanctification, because he who engages in it is never a member of the Church, of any Church, in the guileless and entire way that Christianity demands. An apologist who acts utterly convinced in such arguments will only make a fool of himself, because a man cannot be convinced that his position is correct if he is not even smart enough to understand the controversy. His conviction is nothing more than a function of his sympathy for a particular side, and that usually is determined by things unrelated. He is simply choosing whom to trust. It should also be remembered that no matter how intelligent and clever and convincing an apologist is, there will always be someone more intelligent, more clever and more convincing to argue the opposite position. A man whose conversion is purely intellectual, made for reasons entirely within his own comprehension, can expect his faith to last until he meets the smartest heretic in the world. Apologetics at best are a means of dispelling lingering doubts for a man who is already responding to the prevenient grace of conversion, so that he may move on to something more substantial.
Often this takes the form of a series of contingencies: If the Catholic Church were to do this, then I would leave it. If the Catholic Church were instead to do that, then I would return. The most obvious objection to this is that it is not his prerogative to demand that problems be fixed within his lifetime. But worse, that sort of thinking in itself places a man outside of the Church; if not sacramentally, at least intellectually. It places him outside of any Church, for he regards them from a superior vantage. Or to continue the previous metaphor, he regards them like a consumer in a grocery store picking out a jar of peanut butter. This sort of thinking is poisonous to any real sanctification, because he who engages in it is never a member of the Church, of any Church, in the guileless and entire way that Christianity demands.
An apologist who acts utterly convinced in such arguments will only make a fool of himself, because a man cannot be convinced that his position is correct if he is not even smart enough to understand the controversy. His conviction is nothing more than a function of his sympathy for a particular side, and that usually is determined by things unrelated. He is simply choosing whom to trust. It should also be remembered that no matter how intelligent and clever and convincing an apologist is, there will always be someone more intelligent, more clever and more convincing to argue the opposite position. A man whose conversion is purely intellectual, made for reasons entirely within his own comprehension, can expect his faith to last until he meets the smartest heretic in the world. Apologetics at best are a means of dispelling lingering doubts for a man who is already responding to the prevenient grace of conversion, so that he may move on to something more substantial.
I think the person was annoyed too because he says also on his site "if one wants to know which religion to profess he should ask the Holy Ghost not some stranger with a pretty website". Which is probably true, but everything was happening all at once back then.
The Orthodox Church has various bishops who are in communion with each other, but then some are not, and some seem to be in communion with some bishops and not others, and - it just doesn't strike me as "one" in that sense. As for universality, I find Orthodoxy very particular, and where the particularities of the various other "churches" (Oriental, Eastern etc) are occasionally found in communion with Rome, there is nothing equivalent to the western practice in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. I mean under the Catholic Church there are Eastern Parishes and Maronite Parishes etc but even though there are a couple of recently created "western" churches in Orthodoxy they are effectively Eastern Orthodox with western style vestments and English language liturgy - not to mention vast swathes (especially in the Slavonic Churches) of Eastern Orthodoxy is very hostile even to that much of a different particularity than their own.
Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:58 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 I like Catholics so much I want to be one. Actually I find Catholics kind of annoying sometimes, especially the middle aged women ones (the old women are kind of cool, but the middle aged hippy ones, oy vey!) but I still think that the Church preserves the deposit of faith and is indefectable at that basic level. Why the Catholic and not the Orthodox church? I ask because the Orthodox church has elaborated doctrine a great deal less in my opinion and has an equal, if not stronger, claim to apostolicity than does the Roman Catholic church since at least some of its primatial sees were established by apostles and they preserve a more ancient ecclesiology than does the Catholic church (late second-early third century rather than the fifth century Catholic ecclesiology).
I like Catholics so much I want to be one. Actually I find Catholics kind of annoying sometimes, especially the middle aged women ones (the old women are kind of cool, but the middle aged hippy ones, oy vey!) but I still think that the Church preserves the deposit of faith and is indefectable at that basic level.
Actually I find Catholics kind of annoying sometimes, especially the middle aged women ones (the old women are kind of cool, but the middle aged hippy ones, oy vey!) but I still think that the Church preserves the deposit of faith and is indefectable at that basic level.
Why the Catholic and not the Orthodox church? I ask because the Orthodox church has elaborated doctrine a great deal less in my opinion and has an equal, if not stronger, claim to apostolicity than does the Roman Catholic church since at least some of its primatial sees were established by apostles and they preserve a more ancient ecclesiology than does the Catholic church (late second-early third century rather than the fifth century Catholic ecclesiology).
Catholics and the Bible: It is the stance of the Catholic Church that it predates the Bible and was instrumental in the canon, which in some ways is true and in other ways is entirely specious (if you want me to expand on that, I can). Because the Church created the Bible, the Church is not subject to it as a sole authority (as is the belief of many Protestant churches). Thus, the Bible is entirely true but not the entirety of truth. The tradition of the Church is also normative for Christian living. So, for example, the doctrine of purgatory is not outlined in Scripture, but belief in it became normative for Catholics during the Middle Ages. The immaculate conception is not in Scripture, but it is part of a Mary cult that finds its roots in the fifth century. And so on and so on. If you believe that the Bible is the sole normative authority in ethics and doctrine, you'd make a bad Catholic.
The perpetual virginity of Mary: The aforementioned Mary cult began formally in the fifth century with the Nestorian controversy and the Council of Ephesus. Since then, the Catholic church has elaborated its doctrine of Mary a great deal. Mary was a perpetual virgin, thus making the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus cousins or half-brothers (something for which there is no textual evidence). Mary was immaculately conceived, and therefore did not carry original sin in her when she conceived and bore Christ. Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. And so on and so on. You're going to have to swallow a lot of Mary to be a thoroughgoing Catholic. She plays a larger role in their doctrine and liturgy than most other Christians are used to or comfortable with.
The Apocrypha: When discussing the Hebrew versus early Christian Old Testament canons, one must realize that the concept of a Jewish canon was by no means set during the earliest period of Christianity. The Septuagint included different books depending on what region of the empire it was translated in. The Apocryphal books are given a sort of secondary status in Catholicism, part of a broader group of "deuterocanonical books" which includes both Old and New Testament writings. It's most easily understood as part of the greater Catholic scheme of graded authority. There are the two broad categories of tradition and sacred scripture and under the latter category you have canonical literature and deutero-canonical literature. Protestants rejected the books because their movement was reactionary. They wanted to strip away everything from Catholicism that was extra-biblical. Since the Apocrypha and other deutero-canonical literature was considered sub-canonical, so to speak, it was rejected. In my opinion, the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of deutero-canonical literature as profitable but not independently normative is far superior to the Protestant view.
Questions for your priest [or] issues that many people have going into Catholicism who only have exposure to Protestantism: Some doctrines you may want to ask about are apostolic succession, the papacy, transubstantiation, original sin, the sacraments, penance and absolution, and most importantly ask what the Catholic Church believes about social issues you consider to be important. What do they believe about abortion, birth control, gay marriage, war, divorce, etc.? If it is important to you, you need to know what the Catholic Church believes about it.
Hope that helped.
I'm converting to Catholicism. I was curious what some people thought about the Catholics. I have heard members claim that Catholics practice or hold beliefs that are not found in the Bible. Could you expand a little bit by what you 'mean' by that?
Catholicism is based on both Scripture and Tradition. While the traditions of the Catholic Church often possess a tangential basis in scripture, they exist separate from it.
Additionally, could someone explain why Catholics have deuterocanonical books in the Tanach/Old Testament that Protestants don't have.
The books in question were excluded by the Protestants when they split off to have their own party.
468 users online 
225452 members 566 active today Advertise Here
468 users online 225452 members 566 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
