Catholicism

[Vlad!]

Due to some of the raging (or at least brightly burning) debate surrounding The Passion of the Christ and its Catholic influences, I thought I'd start a thread to discuss Catholicism.

There are a lot of things that Catholics believe that I'm not very comfortable with. My biggest problem is that they are far too concerned with works. But Catholic doctrine still places the emphasis on Christ: you can't be saved without him. So they are not believing contrary to scripture that says 'not by works, that no man can boast.' Man does not save himself in Catholicism.

There is also too much authority given to extra-Biblical sources. This is actually an extension of the events following Jesus' death...the scripture, as we know it, wasn't canonized until after the fact. The apostles regarded the writings of one-another as having the same authority as Scripture. Since the pope is (erroneously, I would say, but he still is) considered the heir of the apostolic tradition as assuming the role of Peter in the church, things that he say in his role as pope can be considered with the same weight as the pronouncements of the (other) apostles and, therefore, as equal to the Bible. Not that this is right, but it does have its roots in tradition.

Finally, too much emphasis is placed on the clergy. As the recent scandals have shown, the clergymen are just people, like you and I. Yet more is expected of them. They oversee the communion sacrament. They take confession. They cannot marry. This is contrary to the teachings of the apostles, in which we are all equal and the church leaders are just men. Good men, qualified to teach and annointed by the Spirit, but men nonetheless.

I don't expect this little blurb to convince anyone, but hopefully it will start some good discussion.

[Vlad!]

Oh, and I got this from a Catholic friend:

People don't seem to understand why Catholics fast during Lent.  In fact, many Catholics don't seem to understand;  I believe that fasting at all, be it during lent or not, is giving up something for the sake of filling it with God.  Many Catholics give up something [particular] like chocolate, but then they go eat hard candy to make up for not eating Chocolate.  That is not the idea!!!  The idea is to fast and to fill the "void" that you will feel with God.  It is purely religious, and not just being obediant.

[enemy anemone]

I don't know too much about Roman Catholicism but I would have a problem with calling the pope  the "Holy Father". I think that only God should be called the "Holy Father". I would also have a problem with praying to the saints and Mary. not sure how much emphasis is placed on that anymore though.

maybe this is true for many denominations in their own way, but I've had the general sense that there is more emphasis on "being Catholic" rather than being Christian.  
 
occasionally I have wondered what it would be like to attend a Catholic service. their buildings intrigue me, and Bach and Mozart wrote some amazing music for "the church", which I presume generally meant the Roman Catholic church. seems like there would be this unique Religious Feeling of being in an old cathedral and singing or listening to a soaring Mass or chanting an ancient hymn in a dead language.
 

[oneafroboy]

I think it's a lot easier to criticize Roman Catholic doctrine, because it's a monolithic church. It's harder to criticize Protestant docrtine, because there really isn't such a thing--that is a universal set of beliefs. I think there is a lot of corruption in certain Protestant churches and even certain denominations. It's a bit scary when there are whole groups of people who believe that unless you speak in tongues, you aren't saved...

[Rachel]

Here is something I've been wondering about: What is all the "worshipping Mary" stuff. I hear people say that Catholics pray to Mary as if she were a deity, but I heard from a trusted friend who knows a Catholic that it is simply like asking Mary to pray for you, just as one might ask a pastor or family member for prayer. Any info?

     There are lots of Catholic teachings I don't quite agree with, but I don't look down on them. The Catholic Church goes back all the way to the apostles and the early church, I guess that has kinda made me more open to their teachings and makes me respect what they believe. After all they are fellow believers.

[Josh]

I hear people say that Catholics pray to Mary as if she were a deity, but I heard from a trusted friend who knows a Catholic that it is simply like asking Mary to pray for you, just as one might ask a pastor or family member for prayer.

Except... Mary's dead...

[enemy anemone]

the idea of asking Mary to pray for me seems strange--as if I shouldn't/can't approach God but have to ask "the mother of God" to nag Him or something.  

[oneafroboy]

Actually, I hear it's more like in addition to praying to God. They still pray directly to God. I'm not defending it, but I'm also going to try and dispel any myths that Protestants have about Catholics.

I knew some Catholics in high school. They were pretty theologically sound people. I mean, they were certainly brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[linds]

i have a friend who grew up in the catholic church, but actually came to christ through a christian ministry at school.
she has been somewhat straddling the two faiths--her parents go to catholic mass but they aren't really believers, and sometimes she'll go to a christian church, but she doesn't find it a very worshipful experience there.
she said she likes catholicism for the richness and beauty of its traditions--let's face it, if you grew up going to a beautiful catholic church, would you be able to get used to a christian church in a building that looks like something between a barn and a bank?  
she is attracted to more orthodox types of worship, but she also realizes the flaws in catholic theology.  it's a struggle.

on the subject of praying to mary, she said that she has never felt led to worship mary, but she just gives her respect by sending her prayers to god through her.
this doesn't really make sense to me, but maybe this helps our discussion a bit.

[cbluejays]

yeah, my two best friends are Catholic, and we have shared our beliefs quite a bit.  

As has been said, they try to pray to God through Mary (along with praying directly to God)...kind of like asking a friend that has connections to ask their "connection" for free tickets to a concert...except, in this case your "friend' is dead...and uh...yeah, I think I'll stop my anology there.  It didn't quite work out.

Anyways, they also pray to other saints to "intercede" on their behalf to God.  I think this practice is taken from a scripture that says something like, "And when you pray, the saints will intercede on your behalf" or something like that...I know I didn't get it exactly right.

ALso, the Catholic's have a very, very strong sense of pride.  Their church is THE church of God.  I'm not saying they think all other christian churches will go to hell.  But they do believe that the Catholic church is the one and only true church of God, starting with the first pope, Peter (in scripture, God says Peter will be the rock He builds His church around), and continuing on down the line.  When I brought up the corruption and greed that eventually led to the reformation, my friend usually just shrugs it off, or sidesteps the question.

Also, their faith has two "pillars"...the Word of God, and sacred tradition.  I have a problem with their "traditions," as I feel that the focus gets put on the tradition itself, and not on God.

The "purgatory" thing is another hot topic between my friends and I.  Basically, Catholics believe that each sin we commit here on earth takes us further away from God, and even if we repent and confess that sin, part of the sin stays with us.  Thus, the time in purgatory is needed to fully "cleanse" oneself of the sin.  This is one of my biggest problems with the Catholic faith...it is my belifef that we are made perfect by the Cross, if we accept His gift of salvation.  What good was Jesus dying on the cross if we have to go spend another 1000 years in Purgatory?  The bible says that "as far as the east is from the west, so He will remove our transgressions from us," which contradicts the idea of purgatory.  

Anyways, I might think of more stuff later, but that covers some of the basics.

   

[leinad]

I have a lot more respect for Catholicism than I used to.  We know that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways (look at the divisions even within Protestant Fundamentalism), and Catholics believe they have scriptural support for their doctrines.  Plus I have doubts about how viable "sola scriptura" ("scripture alone") really is.

[polka_dot]

My boyfriend is Catholic, and so I have been learning a lot about his faith in the past year.  I have gone to mass with him a lot, too.  I really respect Catholicism, and I have come to understand that there are deeply-rooted reasons for what they believe - they are not just blindly following tradition.  However, I have problems with some of the theology and have a hard time picturing myself ever becoming Catholic.  But if you have any questions about Catholic doctrine, I probably know at least a vague answer to them.

Catholics do not pray "to" Mary - at least, not the ones that follow proper doctrine.  They basically pray "through" Mary.  It's like asking your friend to pray for you.  This is based on a few Bible passages, there is one in Revelation about the prayers of the saints in heaven.  They also pray through the other Saints.  I have been told that theoretically, you could pray to anyone in heaven you want to.  This is one of my biggest issues, as I have no desire whatsoever to pray to anyone other than God.  But anyways.

I love how they respect tradition.  I wish sometimes that my church would pick up a little bit of that, instead of just going along with what is cool at the moment or designed to make non-believers feel like they're at a concert.  Though I find that I am still not comfortable with attending mass - I don't know what to say, or when to stand, and sometimes it feels like a secret club that only members know about.  And it bugs me that there is not much emphasis placed on applying the Word to your life, not just simply reading it.  I think if I had gone to a Catholic church when I first thought of becoming a Christian I probably would have been scared out of my wits.  However, I must say that now that I am getting used to it, I am finding more and more things that I really like about they way they worship.  There is a lot more quiet time, for prayer and reflection.  There is a lot more congrational participation, so that you actually feel like you're part of the service.  There is just something about the whole congregation saying "thanks be to God" that makes me feel more part of a community than at my church.  There are probably a lot of Protestant denominations that do this, too, but it was just an observation of mine.

Catholics believe the Christian faith is ever growing and changing, and that God didn't intend the Church to only ever have the Bible as a guidebook.  They believe God uses people to get his message across - that was how the Bible came  to be written in the first place.  They point out that Protestants believe the same thing - things like not following the Biblical ideas of women wearing headcoverings.  Any Protestant will tell you that that passage was written to people in a different time, and that we should look not simply at the words, but at the underlying meaning.  Well, that's pretty much what Catholics believe, too.  We are not the same society that the Bible was written to.  They also recognize the fact that the Bible doesn't explain what to do in every situation in life.  So where should we turn to when we don't know, for example, at what age to baptise people?  They believe that we should look at tradition, because that is the next best thing.  At least, that's how it's been explained to me.  I, too, question the doctrine of "sola scriptura" at times, but I also don't understand giving the Pope's opinion the same weight as the Bible - simply because I believe he is infalliable.

Another thing that I don't agree with about Catholicism is how  the clergy are treated like they are somewhat more spirtual or have some secret gifts from the God the rest of us don't have.  I don't believe in transubstantiation (communion actually turning into the body and blood of Jesus), but if I did, I would have serious issues with how it can only happen when a priest is the one giving communion.  Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the priests I know - they seem like real men of God.  But that doesn't change the fact that we are ALL a royal priesthood, and that we all have an equal share of the Spirit.

Anyways, I've babbled enough.  Something else that makes me laugh about Catholics is how they use capitals to distinguish things, like Catholic instead of catholic or Saints instead of saints.  And The Church vs. the church.  Heh.

[linds]

good thoughts, polka dot.  (i really, really wanted to say "polka dots" just to make it rhyme...but i refrained.)

i really admire the catholic church for their emphasis on church history.  there are far too many christian churches today that don't teach anything about church history.  kids don't know about even the basic church fathers such as  luther or calvin.  i think that catechism is an important tool that most modern churches throw aside.
 

[Bonovox]

Thank goodness this isn't a catholic bashing thread.  I am catholic, but I have mix feelings about some of the teachings same goes to fundamental christians, but its. . . interesting to read peoples thoughts and feelings about catholicism.  I have friends who are fundamental christians, and they are wonderful because they don't "judge" because we believe in God.  Unfortunately, I have met fundamental christians, who gave me "odd" and even "dirty" looks when I tell them that I am catholic.  So, I am very cautious to tell some people that I am catholic, rather I tell them that I am christian.

[leinad]

Perhaps someone can help me out here:  Did the Council of Trent in 1545 add the 7 "apocryphal" books to the Old Testament, or did the Reformers remove them?  The standard fundamentalist line seems to be that the Catholic Church added those books after the Reformation, while Catholic apologists and others insist that those books were in the canon to begin with, and the Council of Trent officially affirmed the 73-book canon in response to the Reformers' attempt to remove the 7 books.  I've also heard that at one point, Luther wanted to remove four books from the New Testament: James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, and in fact placed them in an appendix in the back of his German translation of the New Testament.

[dgp11776]

I can't understand praying to God through sinful humans.  My mind immediately goes to the verse that says, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."  That just seems too clear to me.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the notion of confession.  Saying to a man, "Forgive me, father, for I have sinned" just seems nearly blasphemous.  Though blatently wrong in most cases, the Pharisees actually had a good point regarding this.  They thought, "No one can forgive sins but God only."  

I'm also leery of transsubstantiation and the proliferation of statues that Catholics pray to.

That being said...do I think some Catholics are truly saved?  Absolutely.  My aunt is one of them.

 

[Josh]

I can't understand praying to God through sinful humans. My mind immediately goes to the verse that says, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." That just seems too clear to me.

Yes.

I'm also leery of transsubstantiation

Yes, although, to be fair, some Protestants believe this, too.

[Vlad!]

leinad: A good question, though one that may not have a definite answer. The problem is that the 'canon' is kind of an ephemeral thing, and Catholics like to play fast and loose with it from time to time. Most Protestants believe that the canon is closed, and was closed after John authored the Revelation. After his death, there were no more apostles, hence, no more books of the Bible. The apocrypha (which come before the New Testament) are slightly different than stuff like the 'Gospel of Thomas', in that they can be placed in the same category as the other Old Testament books. I'm can't remember (though I knew at one time, about three years ago ) what each one specifically had wrong with it, but for varous reasons, it was decided that they neither showed evidence of direct revelation or added much to the understanding of the faith. The biggest thing the current OT books had going for them was the weight of tradition, and the apocrypha just didn't have it.
However, the canon, as the Catholics (that is to say, the monolithic Catholic church, not every single Catholic) understand it, is still 'open.' Why? Because the Pope is an 'apostle' of Christ. Church councils and papal decrees can be considered 'canon.' The pope can also canonize other things, and in the church's many centuries of existance, a lot of stuff has been canonized, officially or unofficially.

Ok, enough about Vlad!'s spottily-researched essay on the canon. On to other posts.

dgp, I agree with you. Your arguments are essentially the same as many others who are uncomfortable with the Catholic doctrine. However, I feel about Catholicism the same way I feel about, say, Calvinism: I don't think it's right, but darned if they can't point to scripture that seems to verify some of their claims. Just as I consider Calvinists my true brothers in Christ, I would gladly pray with and fellowship with a Catholic as a fellow believer without any qualms whatsoever.

[polka_dot]

I can't understand praying to God through sinful humans.  My mind immediately goes to the verse that says, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."  That just seems too clear to me.

But do you not ask your friends to pray for you?  That is what Catholics are doing - they are asking Mary to pray for them.  She isn't really "mediating" in the true sense of the word.  Not that I agree with it, but I see where they are coming from.  There is also some discrepency about whether Mary was sinless or not, which I just simply cannot understand.  And the stuff about her perpetual virginity flabbergasts me.  But anyway.

Perhaps someone can help me out here: Did the Council of Trent in 1545 add the 7 "apocryphal" books to the Old Testament, or did the Reformers remove them?

From the small amount of research I've done on this, I believe that the Council of Trent neither removed or added any books to the Bible - they simply re-affirmed the ones that were already there.  This was in response to the reformation.  I believe that what happened was this: When the Bible was cannonized, there was some discrepency amoung the Jews of time about which books should be included in the OT.  The Christians used the OT that was accepted amoung the Jews at the time - one that contained the 7 apocryphal books.  The Jews, for reasons that are still argued about, later removed these 7 books.  Some people (mostly Catholics) say that it was in response to the growth of Christianity, and that the books are still valid.  Others (mostly Protestants) say the books were removed because the Jews concluded they were not inspired.  However, the church used the OT with the 7 apocryphal books until the reformation, at which time the reformers decided to use the OT that Jewish people believed to be inspired.

I'm not entirely a 100% positive on all these details, I'll research it a bit later.

Who was right?  Who was wrong?  I don't know, and I somehow don't know if it matters.  Most of the apocrypha don't really say too much.  I believe one of the books is where Catholics get the idea of purgatory, though.

[leinad]

Who was right?  Who was wrong?  I don't know, and I somehow don't know if it matters.  Most of the apocrypha don't really say too much.  I believe one of the books is where Catholics get the idea of purgatory, though.

The problem, as I see it, is that any question (without a clear resolution) as to what really belongs in the Bible casts serious doubt on Sola Scriptura.  

The apocrypha (which come before the New Testament) are slightly different than stuff like the 'Gospel of Thomas', in that they can be placed in the same category as the other Old Testament books. I'm can't remember (though I knew at one time, about three years ago ) what each one specifically had wrong with it, but for varous reasons, it was decided that they neither showed evidence of direct revelation or added much to the understanding of the faith. The biggest thing the current OT books had going for them was the weight of tradition, and the apocrypha just didn't have it.

That logic would seem to put the canon up for debate, because that kind of argument is sometimes made against books in the Protestant canon as well.  For example, there are some (including apparently Martin Luther in regards to James and possibly other books) who dispute whether some of the New Testament epistles were actually written by the apostles they attribute themselves to.  And Catholic apologists claim that these kinds of arguments demonstrate why you need an external authority to define and interpret the Bible.  (And I'm not arguing any position here, just explaining why I now understand the Catholic perspective on this issue.)

[Vlad!]

Well, leinad, I think you're right...it's no secret that Hebrews was 'attributed' to Paul for its inclusion. There exists no definitive evidence that it was, in fact, written by him.

I think our understanding of the canon is fairly flawed (though I've gotten in trouble here for saying that before  ), but one thing for sure is that the Bible sitting on your bookshelf is one incredible document, and deserves our consideration.

One point I would like to make regarding the OT and the apocrypha was that, from what I hear, Jesus either quotes or alludes to all books except Esther in some point in the gospels. There are a couple other books I don't recall hearing from myself, but the point remains that both Christ himself and his apostles who knew him placed considerable stock in the Old Testament. Few references are made to the apocrypha, and (to my limited knowledge), no apocryphal reference in the NT refers to a 'non-historical' event; that is to say, there are no direct references to or affirmations of the miracles recorded in those books.

My feelings on the scriptures aside, I would like to allude to Mel Gibson from Signs: there are those who believe things are done for a purpose, and that there is a hand that directs and guides when necessary. There are others who believe we're alone and without help. If you're the former, you can have hope that the canon we believe in today exists for a reason, and it's no coincidence that, out of all the books that COULD have been included, those were. If you're the latter, well, why are you looking at the Bible at all?

[dgp11776]

But do you not ask your friends to pray for you?  That is what Catholics are doing - they are asking Mary to pray for them.  She isn't really "mediating" in the true sense of the word.  Not that I agree with it, but I see where they are coming from.

I guess the biggest difference is my friends are alive; Mary is dead.  That's why I don't get it.  

[Guest]

I am little confused here, if mary is dead than there is no heaven?