Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Catholicism
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4148		 Page 3 of 6
Author:  What's Her Face [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
WHF: Luther was not making assumptions there. He was essentially saying what God himself had already said on the subject. The Scriptures make it very clear that our salvation depends entirely upon the mercy and the work of God. Even faith itself is a gift of his mercy (Ephesians 2:8-9). And even the good works that Christians do are a gift from God (v. 10). When Peter made his great confession of Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus responded by telling him that his faith was a gift from God (Matthew 16:13-19). Therefore, for the Christian, faith is simply this: trusting in God's mercy. As I have already explained, this does not mean that a Christian does not do good works, but as stated above, the Christian recognizes such good works as not earning favor, but rather being a gift from God.


Ahh, I'll take that back then. :)

By way of answer to seamusz - I've never heard of that. Maybe some Catholics believe(d) that, but I've never been taught this personally.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
But if you want a fair understanding of what a RC believes, you'd be better off actually asking them.

That's what I've been trying to do.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:10 am ]
Post subject: 
IanTheGecko wrote:
Didymus wrote:
But if you want a fair understanding of what a RC believes, you'd be better off actually asking them.

That's what I've been trying to do.


And I think we've made ourselves clear. ;)

If not, keep firing those questions and we'll do the best we can.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:13 am ]
Post subject: 
OK...why shouldn't I be a Protestant? ;)
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Why shouldn't you, indeed, be a Protestant? ;) ;)
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:17 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm asking you.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm telling you. You could be a HinduBuddhistMuslimChristianJewSikh, it doesn't matter to me. You go with what you believe, my child. :cheatgrin:

TOAST PAINT! Ahh, finally got to do that!
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:11 am ]
Post subject: 
You asked me to "keep firing" with my questions, so you fired back with the same one.
Author:  Jitka [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:19 am ]
Post subject: 
IanTheGecko wrote:
You asked me to "keep firing" with my questions, so you fired back with the same one.


Ian, the thing about Catholicism that may be strange to you is that we (or at least every Catholic I've ever known) do not generally proselytize. Catholics that I know do not care what religion you are. Apart from the occasional missionary type thing (most of which are relief efforts anyway), we do not really go out of our way to convert people.

Generally, the existence of Protestantism is no skin off our backs. If you want to be a Protestant, go right ahead. We all worship the same God.

By the way, I love your Blue Man Tubulum smiley dudes avatar. Heh.

Toastpaint.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:36 am ]
Post subject: 
JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:
Ian, the thing about Catholicism that may be strange to you is that we (or at least every Catholic I've ever known) do not generally proselytize. Catholics that I know do not care what religion you are. Apart from the occasional missionary type thing (most of which are relief efforts anyway), we do not really go out of our way to convert people.
Go say that in Ireland. ;)

But don't most Catholics (especially in Ireland) think Protestants are going to hell & that Catholicism is the "One True Church"?
Wikipedia wrote:
It is also the official teaching of the Church that Protestant faiths do not contain the fullness of truth.
Author:  Jitka [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:47 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't know the situation in Ireland, ask WHF. She lives there, or she used to, or something like that. Now, as to whether we think Protestants are going to hell, no, most Catholics don't. Granted, there are some hardliners, but then there are also extremists on the Protestant side who think Catholicism is controlled by Satan and that the Pope is the Antichrist.

In response to that fullness of truth and the question about whether we believe non-Catholics go to Hell thing,

Wikipedia also wrote:
The Catholic Church maintains that salvation is possible for non Catholics and even non Christians. If anyone outside of the visible boundries of the Church (i.e. not a member of the Catholic Church) lived their life in such a way that they responded positively and fully to the grace and truth that God revealed to them, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for them through the graces Jesus won for humanity by sacrificing himself on the cross.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:04 am ]
Post subject: 
But doesn't that contradict John 3:16? Once again, I point to that verse & the Five Solas.
Author:  Jitka [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Wikipedia also wrote:
The Catholic Church maintains that salvation is possible for non Catholics and even non Christians. If anyone outside of the visible boundries of the Church (i.e. not a member of the Catholic Church) lived their life in such a way that they responded positively and fully to the grace and truth that God revealed to them, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible for them through the graces Jesus won for humanity by sacrificing himself on the cross.


I take the bolded text to mean that anyone who has not heard about Christianity (and there can't be many left) will not be condemned for their lack of knowledge. God MUST have that much mercy. If you flat-out reject Christianity, that's another story. That probably could have been phrased more clearly, huh?

And I stand by my position on Protestantism. You worship the same God as we do; therefore why would we think you'd go to hell over mere human traditions? The core principle of all of Christianity remains the same.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Basically, you're saying that if you're not a Christian & lived a generally "good" life, then you essentially "plead ignorance" & God "lets you in"? That's still against what the Bible says. Being a "good person" isn't enough; if you don't believe Jesus came to the world to save it, died for your sins on the Cross & rose again, then you're not saved. [/quote]
Author:  Jitka [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, that is what I am saying. I believe God is merciful to his people. The God I believe in would not send ignorant third-world tribesmen, unbaptized infants, the mentally handicapped to Hell because they don't know any better. How could He? And why would He? God is not petty.

You'll defend your stance with the Bible, but that takes us back to the Catholic interpretations of the Bible. You take it, obviously, word-for-word literally, "It's in there, so it's automatically the unchallengable truth," whereas we take into consideration the human authors of the book itself. God is infallible; humans, not so much.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
IanTheGecko wrote:
But don't most Catholics (especially in Ireland) think Protestants are going to hell & that Catholicism is the "One True Church"?


Ok, point number one: ARAGH!??! GRHGHH!???!!!!!! I don't have any clue where you got the idea that "most Catholics (especially in Ireland) think Protestants are going to hell", and I find that just a tad offensive.

The situation in Northern Ireland (if that's what you're talking about) is purely political - Nationalism versus Unionism. The fact that the Nationalists are largely (but not solely) Catholics and the Unionists are largely (but not solely) Protestants has been used by some ignorant people to portray this as a Catholic versus Protestant situation, but it is not.

It's true that the two sects didn't co-exist well through Irish history - but this was due to the wider political situation. Like the fact that the Irish were predominantly Catholic, and the British landlords and rulers were largely Protestant. But this was incidential to such things as the Penal Laws, the Great Famine, British opression, the fight for Irish independence. But as a sidenote to that, many of those to fought to see a free Ireland were actually Protestant, or of Protestant extraction, themselves - Robert Emmett, Patrick Pearse, W B Yeats, Charles Stewart Parnell, to name a few. Therefore, a political, not religious, situation.

And, well, if my fellow countrymen all think that Protestants are going to hell, they've certainly been keeping quiet about it. We're not the cavemen you think we are - we're a modern country with modern attitudes. In fact, I wouldn't say Ireland was ever a very religious country, with a clear message as to who went to hell and who didn't - though it's sometimes portrayed as being almost fanatical. People get confused because the Catholic Church did once regrettably have a lot of power over the policies of some Irish governments (not any more, thankfully). And because of what people see in Hollywood-made films. :rolleyes:

IanTheGecko wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
It is also the official teaching of the Church that Protestant faiths do not contain the fullness of truth.

Point number two: Um, isn't that exactly what you're doing now - you're saying that Catholicism does "not contain the fullness of truth". If a Protestant can say that about Catholicism, why can't Catholics say the same? It's crazy to say such things anyway, but there's no need for any double standard.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Question Numba X: Is it really necessary to say "Hail Marys" or a rosary after I've confessed?
Quote:
Holy Mary, Mother of God
hu-WAH‽
Author:  Jitka [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
IanTheGecko wrote:
Quote:
Holy Mary, Mother of God
hu-WAH‽


Mary was Jesus' mother, yes? Jesus is God, yes?

Therefore, Mary=mother of God.

Now, as to saying rosaries, it's just praying. If I understand it correctly, praying after confession is your way of expressing your sincere regret and repentance to God.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let's do a little clarification before this becomes a full-blown argument. Here it is in a nutshell: Just like Jitka said, Mary is in a very real sense the mother of God. Jesus, who was God in the flesh, was Mary's Son according to the flesh. This means that Mary truly is the Theotokos (bearer of God). To deny this is to deny that Jesus is truly God in the flesh.

Now here's the problem with saying that: many modern protestants see this as attributing divine characteristics to Mary herself (i.e., if she is the mother of God, then she must be divine like God). I do not believe the RC Church teaches or believes this. Although, I must admit, the notion of Co-Redemptrix comes very close to it.

So here's the essential question: is calling Mary Theotokos the same as calling her divine? If the answer is yes, then it is wrong. But if the intended meaning of Theotokos is to point to Jesus' divinity, then it is not wrong to call her Theotokos, but in fact necessary.

Now about Penance (that is, doing things as a part of a rite of confession intended to make forgiveness real): Penance is not necessary for the forgiveness to be real. The only thing required is the confession itself and the forgiveness offered by Christ (which might or might not take the form of Absolution proferred by a pastor or priest).

The Scriptures do tell us that we are to confess our sins, and I do not believe this is limited to private confession in prayer, but includes confession to pastors and other Christians. As I said before in this thread, God wants us to take our battle with sin seriously, and one way we are to do that is to make ourselves accountable to others through confession.

Very few protestants practice this these days, but it is so vital for a Christian life that we bring our darkness into the light. I think most protestants don't do this is because of shame and embarrassment. Understandable, particularly if you belong to a hyper-legalistic church that places such a high value on holiness that it fails to place an equal amount of respect on mercy and forgiveness. So if you'd like to practice this, find fellow Christians that you can trust with such things, and make sure they understand that what you tell them is in strict confidence, and that they'd be breaking a sacred trust if they shared it with anyone. That's why we pastors are so valuable in this regard: we are taught to respect confidentiality as a sacred trust, and will share your secrets only if you present a clear danger to yourself or to others (i.e., confess suicidal tendencies or murderous inclinations--but even then, it's for your best interest).

So for those of you who do not regularly practice confession, please consider doing so. You'll be doing yourself a favor. And if you don't want a priest or a pastor involved, then find a trusted Christian friend.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:09 am ]
Post subject: 
But wasn't Mary's purpose just to bear the Child? This fulfills the prophecy (the verse of which escapes me) that the Messiah would be woman-born, doesn't it?

I do agree that confession should be in private, though.

I guess I pretty much understand Catholicism now, but I find it too "serious", too formal for my taste. Worship-wise, I'm an Enthusiast, I "make a joyful noise to the LORD." I celebrate Christ's love. Granted, I still take Communion once a month (as is my home church's tradition), I was baptized at my church, & I become an official Member of Colorado Community Church (which would be Confirmation).

But it's not works that matter--it's your heart. And I believe in mine that God sent His Son Jesus to die on the Cross & save the world from sin.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Ian, I would suggest a study of the Psalms sometime. Sometimes worship is serious business. Sometimes its not so easy to make a joyful noise. For example, Psalm 137 pretty much says, in a nutshell, "I'm sick of being a slave in Babylon, Lord. I sure wish you'd smash their children's heads against rocks." I'm not so sure Psalm 137 is exactly what people would classify as "a joyful noise." More like, "blind raging hatred noise." But to the psalmist's credit, he's only voicing to God his own inner turmoil, his own grief, crying out to the Lord with all the pain of his heart. And I suspect you'll find a lot of the Psalms are like that, though perhaps not as strongly.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but enjoy the good times while they last. Because as I've learned from my own life, and from the lives of others, they don't last. And when you do find yourself in dark places, don't be afraid to cry out the the Lord from the depths (Psalm 130).

But do not be afraid of the dark times either. They are for our benefit, if we recognize it as such and learn to grow from them.

One of my professors in college told a story about a man whose wife had just died. The next Sunday he was in church, and the opening hymn was "What a Friend We Have in Jesus." The man could not sing (and frankly, if it were me, I'd have trouble, too). But the pastor saw him and sat beside him, put his arm around his shoulder and said, "I know you cannot sing today. I don't blame you. But don't worry. We'll sing for you."

Personally, I've tread some dark roads these past few years (Seethroo, Buz, and StrongCanada know what I'm talking about, but I will say no more). I know what it is like to cry out to the Lord from the depths. Indeed, I know what it is like to be in the depths, and to feel like the Lord didn't give two spits where I was. I know what it is like to pray the words of Jesus, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" If anyone tells me my faith is lacking because I shouted those words, AND MEANT THEM, well, let's just say I dare him.

I'm not saying it's wrong to celebrate. But I wonder if that kind of celebration is always appropriate. I also wonder if the ones who truly understand what it means to celebrate are not also those who know what it means to cry out from the depths.

I'm just rambling now. I do not intend to challenge your faith or the way you prefer to express it. But I am challenging you to grow. And part of that means to be ready to face the Way of the Cross, which is often frought with heartache and suffering. And when we do face trials and pains in life, it is much better to show those wounds to our God--AND to others in our lives--so that we can be healed from them.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Job continued to praise God through all the tests he went through, & so have I.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Ah, but go and read Job 3, and see what exactly constituted praise from him. Cursing the day he was born - not exactly the most popular subject of hymns these days. Seriously, Job continued to praise God, but from the depths of his grief. He in fact came very close to calling God unjust on a number of occasions. Yet, despite it all, God commended Job for speaking well of him, whereas the friends (the ones who kept telling Job his faith was not good enough) were rebuked for not having praised him. Interesting paradox, huh?
Author:  kaemmerite [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's her face wrote:
I doubt if Christ would wish his ministers to tell Africa - a continent dying of AIDS - the lies they tell about the use of contraception.

Hmm, no one addressed this. So I guess I'll take a stab at it.

Who says that the use of contraceptives is okay? The Protestant Church? Many people claim this, "Oh, we're not Catholic, so birth control is okay." WELL...

That ignores the fact that EVERY MAJOR PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN said birth control was sinful and evil. Quotes? Why yes.

Martin Luther - "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin - "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring"

John Wesley - "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls"

Not much of a leg for Protestants to stand on, huh? Every single one of the fathers of the Protestant faith said birth control was sinful, evil, and to be despised. So...why do Protestants believe now that birth control is okay? Ah, look, Wikipedia has the answer:

"This condemnation was relaxed by the Anglican Communion at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, and most Protestant groups followed suit over the course of the 20th century. . ."

Oh, for the record, I don't believe birth control is sinful at all. However, I don't dare say the Catholic church's teachings against it are lies, because nowhere in Scritpure does it state birth control is okay. The only thing we have to go on is Onan's example, which seems to indicate birth control is wrong (though one could argue Onan was not punished for the deed itself, but for failing to fulfill his obligation to his deceased brother, but that gets kinda complicated).

Wow, that was a long post...

As far as praising God, that doesn't always mean you're going to have a smile on your face and be cheerful. Job, as you mentioned (and Didymus as well) went through horrible trials, and I don't recall him skipping along and and humming "How great thou art." No, Job continued to place his trust and faith in God, and that is how he praised God, not by being cheerful and singing loudly.

It's absurd to assume that when something a friend of mine went through, where his entire family was killed, that he should stand up tall in church and sing with a smile on his face, because he hurts. And God knows he's hurting, and God doesn't sit there and say, "I know everyone you love just died, but be happy, darn it!" God merely requires that we stay true to Him and continue to live a Godly life...and THAT is more worshipful to Him than any song you could sing, I think.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:48 am ]
Post subject: 
kaemmerite wrote:
Who says that the use of contraceptives is okay? The Protestant Church? Many people claim this, "Oh, we're not Catholic, so birth control is okay." WELL...

That ignores the fact that EVERY MAJOR PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN said birth control was sinful and evil.


Oh yeah, I don't doubt that. But it seems the Catholic Church in particular misuse their influence over Africans regarding contraception, and as an ex-Catholic that sickens me. They're telling Africans disgusting lies - that condoms let the virus through, and now the Opus Dei crowd have conspired with Muslim fundementalists to deny African women access to condoms.

Opus Dei's conspiracy with the Muslim fundementalists proves it isn't about religion - it's about power, and repressing women. That in one move are my objections to the Vatican - their exploitation of the poor, the uneducated, the vulnerable - and their repression of poor, uneducated and vulnerable women in particular. I know that sounds patronising, but that's what they're doing - they did it to the Irish, before we became more educated and saw through their deceit.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
OK, what about transubstantiation? I don't believe that when taking Communion, I actually take in the physical blood & body of Christ. At the Last Supper, Jesus said, "Do this in rememberance of me", so aren't the bread & wine (or wafers & juice) just symbolic?
Author:  Jitka [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jesus actually said it was his body and blood.

Here's the Roman Catholic belief.

Here's the article on Transubstantiation.

Didymus will be able to better explain it, since Lutherans believe more or less the same thing as Catholics, but the idea of it is that, while we believe that, for all intents and purposes, it still is bread and wine, the essence of it has been replaced with that of Jesus.

That was a long sentence.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jesus used a LOT of metaphors; why wouldn't this be another one?
Author:  Jitka [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 
By that logic, Ian, I could claim that ANYTHING Jesus said was a metaphor, including the whole, you know, son of God thing. So you can't use that argument, because there'd be no way to figure out what was a metaphor and what wasn't.

oh, and

:mrgreen: :eekdance: :eekdance: 1900TH POST!! :eekdance: :eekdance: :mrgreen:
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:52 am ]
Post subject: 
I'll take it, Jitka.

1. Being that Jesus is God, I believe it is entirely possible that he could indeed provide his own Body and Blood within the blessed Sacrament. To doubt that is to essentially doubt God's ability to do something miraculous.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:27 states very clearly that to take the Sacrament in an unworthy manner is to sin against the Body and Blood. Now, if the Body and Blood of Christ are not truly present, then how can one sin against them?

3. V. 29 further says that if anyone eats and drinks without recognizing the Body and Blood, it is a sin. Therefore, to take the Sacrament without faith that the Sacrament is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ is a sin.

4. In John 6:54, Jesus says that in order to inherit eternal life, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. How else are we to do so except in the blessed Sacrament? And if he meant this in a merely symbolic sense, then why did the crowd reject him and leave him? He could have just said, "Oh, I meant that in a symbolic sense only," and no one would have left. Even the disciples were baffled as to why he was saying this, only they trusted him, even though what he said didn't make sense to them.

So there it is. My rule of thumb is real simple: unless there is a compelling reason to interpret the Scriptures symbolically, then it is better to go with a literal meaning. In the case of the Sacrament, the Scriptures do not point to a symbolic meaning at all (in fact, away from it). Therefore, it makes sense to go with a literal meaning.

Now various people in the history of the Church have often tried to apply allegorical understanding to those things of our faith that do not make sense, including Zwingli (a reformer like Luther who concocted the whole "symbolic" view of the Sacrament). My thought is, considering what the Scriptures actually say, then how in the world can we justify a symbolic view? To me, it makes no sense.
Page 3 of 6 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/