Im a Catholic AND an American so?

Taking any RESPECTFUL questions or comments.

Published on November 6, 2004 By Dysmas In Religion

I have seen much about the role that Religion should or shouldn't have in Government.
I've read the comments and the concerns and the "facts" that some claim about that issue.
For some quick back ground, I am preparing myself for the Permenent Deaconate in the Roman Catholic Church. I would try to become a Priest but as I am married, and current Church law forbids married Clergy, I will go with the Deaconate.
I have studied for quite some time. Studied theology, mythology, religious history, Christian history, many many things.
Also psychology and sociology. ( ancient and military history too but thats a different area of intrest lol )
What I would like to become is an Apologist for the Church. One who defends the Church and provides answers for those who wish to know. I don't want to be a "general apologist" one who can deal with any and everyone. I hope to be "specific" apologist, to Catholics who have fallen away and for other Christians who wish to know more.
I have absolutly no problem with people disagreeing with me or the Church or even hateing me or the Church, but if you want to hate me and the Religion I adhere to, I hope you will know the real truth about it and hate that, not just some spoon-feed, run-of-the-mill anti-Catholic retoric.
In this blog I simply would like to answer, to the best of my ability, questions some might have on this issue.
If time permits I also will be posting "general" questions and their answers.
Im pretty open minded and will not, in anyway, try to "convert" you and will not insult you or your questions. Nor will I delete anyones responses regardless if they prove me wrong ( hey thats all a part of learning) or if it is a question I am unqualified to answer.
Topics can range from general discussion to specifics such as Spiritual Warfare, Catholic Customs and Traditions and on, pretty much anything.

Comments (Page 3)

Dysmas

on Jan 05, 2005

Without the benifit of a response at this time I will move on to something else.

First let me say.......WOW I have recently purchased a video on the "Easter Tridium" by Father John Coripi. Of all the many homilies and religious speakers I have ever heard, Fr. Coripi is, with question, the most eloquent and powerful speaker I have ever heard.
For anyone who may be interested the video is available at the EWTN website or you can download and hear his words for free from the same site.
I cannnot explain how higly I reccomend this to anyone who may be interested. He covers topics from Good Friday to Abortion.
Please check it out if you are intersted.
Thank you for your time.

Dysmas

on Jan 30, 2005

"Catholics worship Mary"

I am so sick of hearing that already. Even a child reasearching the RCC would find that to be utterly and completly false. Yet there are some out there who continue to spew this spoon-feed view upon the world.

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary or anyother saint for that matter. We, just like any other Christian, worship God and God alone.
We HONOR Mary and the saints of course but worship, no.

Take the "Hail Mary" for example:
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

If we worshiped Mary why in the world would we say "pray for us...." pray FOR us. In Our Lord's prayer you don't ask Jesus to pray for us, you ask him to help you directly not through intercession.

Lemme break it down simply;
Hail Mary full of grace..... ( The BIBLICAL greeting the Angle saluted mary with.)
The Lord is with thee (goes with Blessed is the fruit of thy womb-[Jesus])
Blessed are you among women ( Obviously she would be blessed if she was to be the mother of Christ AND concieved without sin.)
Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus ( Again, obviously the fruit of her womb [Jesus] is blessed.)
Holy Mary, Mother of God ( Being the Mother of Jesus [God] she would be holy)
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. ( We are ASKING her to pray FOR us[obviously to God])

I feel that it is plainly obvious, through this prayer (the most common prayer for a Catholic aside from Our Lord's Prayer) that we don't worship Mary.
The same goes for any other saint. Notice I said "any other saint" Meaning that Mary, although absolutly the most influential saint of them all, is when you get right down to it, a saint like any other soul in heaven.
True we hold Mary in very high esteem, she deserves to be, but we can never believe that she alone can do anything for us if it is not the will of God or from his approval and power. The same goes for your "average joe saint"

Sabbatismus

on Jan 30, 2005

Good reply Dysmas. I think you mean, the Catholic Church doesn't teach people to worship Mary. To that I agree. However, in my opinion, the line has been and is crossed by some Catholics. BTW: I'm Catholic.

Dysmas

on Jan 30, 2005

Sabbatismus:
Yes you are absolutly correct. Some people may put Mary equal with God and they are wrong and will answer for it when its thier turn before the Lord. On a different note, some others seem to "worship" the Bible even though they scream IDOLITRY at Catholics when we pray to a Saint for help.

Sabbatismus

on Jan 30, 2005

Addressing the Catholic issue, while some of the priests and bishops have made progress in setting the role of Mary in context, I'm afraid that too many have not properly addessed the issue. There is no doubt that most of Protestantism does not grasp the concept of the communion of the saints and this does leave the members of the church open for attack on something they are for the most part innocent.

Dysmas

on Jan 30, 2005

I don't think it is the duty of Priests or Biships to "settle" the role of Mary in any way. Her role in the Catholic Church is fully explained already and one has but to simply look to know. It's not a deep or hard concept to grasp.

Protestants, in general, don't grasp the the communion of saints and the role of Mary in the Church because they don't WANT to know. Those issues are very clearly stated in the CCC. It is really not all that hard to understand, indeed even my five year old son understands it rationaly. So I don't think anyone who attacks the RCC on it's teachings, without KNOWING the teaching, is innocent at all.
Nor do I think that the Catholic layity, who have decided not to actually KNOW what they believe and WHY they belive it, are innocent either.
The Church commads us to 'continue to grow in knowladge and understanding' .....if a person dosent study at all then they cant and as I said, this issue isnt something one would have to reasearch, it is a BASIC teaching, right on par with the Sacraments.
I would not argue the position of OSAS ( once saved always saved) if I did not : A- Know where they got that idea from and B- if I did not know how to properly refute it.

Ignorance may be bliss but its not an good excuse.
As you know our Church tells its people to study and reflect upon her teachings. And it says, as the apostles said, to be ready to defend her........espeically on such a basic issue.

Sabbatismus

on Jan 30, 2005

Dysas, there are large numbers of people in the Catholic Church incapable of studying and learning the truths taught by the church. I disagree with you regarding the responsiblity of Priests to educate and settle the errors of the flock. Sure, there are some Protestants who don't want to know what the Catholic Church teaches or believes, but I think the main problem is that there is still so much misinformation floating around, people are automatically turned off by the subject, especially Mary. On the other hand, I don't believe that every person is born to study the scriptures throughout his life and try to sort through thousands upon thousands of doctrinal controversy, either. If the Church would do its obligation to inform and command that the flock properly use prayer and worship, it would be very helpful. Also, that requires that the clergy deal honestly with the scriptures, instead of a over bearing father "do as I say, because I said so" approach that has been taken in the past. In some cases, on the local level at least, they have not been honest. Likewise, Protestantism needs to learn to allow the for the Church's belief (Catholic) and at least understand that there is a scriptural basis for most of the Catholic Church's belief and if so be it, agree to disagree with the final analysis.
I
Although, in recent years, there has been a good deal of progress in understanding both Protestant and Catholic beliefs through the internet and other endeavors by both groups. I disagree with you that the beliefs of the Catholic Church are easy to understand. Actually, they are quite complex. Mary is likely one of the more complex subjects of all. So, I have a bit of empathy for my Protestant brethren when it comes to trying to understand Catholic Beliefs. I can certainly understand why any Protestant might at first recoil from the idea of Co-mediatrix. It's perfectly natural. It takes considerable study to even get close to getting a grip on that doctrine. Nonetheless, once they have studied the Catholic reasoning, they may find it palatable.

Dysmas

on Jan 30, 2005

Your comment is very true, by an large. And of course I have no problem with a disagreement, even amongst Catholics.
I would like to make a few things clear. Please dont feel that i am attacking you personaly, nor am I attacking the Catholic layity or our Protestant cousins. And thank you very much for this conversation, it always helps to get a second point of view on the same side. that being said let me address some of your responses.

there are large numbers of people in the Catholic Church incapable of studying and learning the truths taught by the church.

How could there be "large numbers" of Catholics incapable of studying and learning? One needs to be simply be able to read and think to be capable. I don't quite understand what you mean by that response.

I disagree with you regarding the responsiblity of Priests to educate and settle the errors of the flock.

I thought about this and i've decided that, upon further reflection, you are right and I stand corrected. Indeed it IS the responsability of Priests to educate, however it is also the responsability of the layity. Its a dual issue.

but I think the main problem is that there is still so much misinformation floating around, people are automatically turned off by the subject, especially Mary. On the other hand, I don't believe that every person is born to study the scriptures throughout his life and try to sort through thousands upon thousands of doctrinal controversy, either.

The misinformation about the Catholic Church comes from anti-Catholics and from ill-informed Catholics. on the second part I agree that not every person is meant to study the "deeper meanings" so to speak, on Scripture but on the basic issue of if we worship Mary or not, it is, as I said, a BASIC, COMMON teaching. One that children learn in CCD.

If the Church would do its obligation to inform and command that the flock properly use prayer and worship, it would be very helpful. Also, that requires that the clergy deal honestly with the scriptures, instead

Yes. But I don't see how the Clergy does not deal "honestly" with Scripture? Can you give me an example. (not withstanding an individual schismatic or heretical Priest's teaching)

Protestantism needs to learn to allow the for the Church's belief (Catholic) and at least understand that there is a scriptural basis for most of the Catholic Church's belief and if so be it, agree to disagree with the final analysis.

Yes but not "most" but ALL. there is not one issue of Catholic belief that is not Scripturaly founded.
Read 95 CCC "........are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others...."
Begins with Article 81 CCC

I disagree with you that the beliefs of the Catholic Church are easy to understand. Actually, they are quite complex. Mary is likely one of the more complex subjects of all.

SOME are, the more in-depth ones perhaps. But for the issue at hand i.e the worship of Mary, it is not complex in any way.

I can certainly understand why any Protestant might at first recoil from the idea of Co-mediatrix. It's perfectly natural. It takes considerable study to even get close to getting a grip on that doctrine.

To tell you the truth, even I recoil from the idea of "Co-mediatrix". and worse "Co-Redemptrix".....to my knowladge they are of the more esoteric theorys and explanations of Marian Doctrine. Indeed Mary and her role withing the Church IS quite complex and I am still trying to figure many of the things out. But again, the basics are as easy to grasp as the fact of gravity and the basics are taught to children.

Sabbatismus

on Jan 31, 2005

Dysas, there are nearly a billion Catholics in the world. Millions of them are not able to read or comprehend or capable of deep meditative thought. On the subject of dealing with the scripture honestly, I will give you an example like that on the sin of Onan. His sin wasn't merely that he allowed his seed to fall upon the ground. The sin was that he refused to have children with his wife. The context of that scripture is now readily admitted by most Catholic clery that it has nothing to do with contraception, as we know it, today. Yet, for centuries it was misused, I rather think intentionally because it appears it is so haphazard proof-texting from the context, that it would lead one to mistrust the abliity to accurately look at any other scripture.It is something that underminds the integrity of the church. That kind of thing is something you expect from some independent church but not one that has the clerisy to know the difference. Got to go for now. I'll write more later.

shadesofgrey

on Jan 31, 2005

Catholics do not need embryology to convince them of life at conception since they believe it is the marriage of spirit and matter.

I'm going to respond to this comment--which wasn't elaborated on earlier. Catholic doctrine does not talk about the marriage of spirit and matter at conception. In fact, St. Augustine said it was impossible to know when the spirit entered the body--so therefore, this statement is not correct.

This is an interesting thread.

Dysmas

on Jan 31, 2005

Millions of them are not able to read or comprehend or capable of deep meditative thought.

I can conced that perhaps millions are not able to read but for them not to be able to "comprehend or capable of deep meditative thought" I disagree. Just becuase one is unable to read why would that make them unable to comprehend? Furthermore why would it be an impediment for deep meditative thought.
Remember the issue at hand was the supposed worship of Mary. ( lAnd we have settled that thankfully.)
However I am glad our conversation has evolved into a more general topic of Catholic teaching vs. Catholic comprehension.
In regions where the population is unable to read, they are normally converted due to the efforts of missionarys. Those same missionarys, knowing they cannot read english or whichever language they chose to use, would have to convert them through speach. And through that same speach they would teach the converts, as did the Apostles, the truths of Catholic Faith.
Missionarys also set up schools, among other things, in order to teach the people how to read.
And my main point is not the "complex" aspect of some Catholic teaching, it is the "basics".
To profess oneself as Catholic requires nothing more than knowing the simple truths of our faith. The rest may come later.

The context of that scripture is now readily admitted by most Catholic clery that it has nothing to do with contraception, as we know it, today. Yet, for centuries it was misused, I rather think intentionally

I also agree that for centuries it was misued but Im not sure it was completly intentionaly. Our understanding of Scripture has always and contiunes to grow and develop. I would imagine the point of its "misuse" was to drive home the issue of birth control. In that ultimatly there are NO valid means of birth control just for birth control's sake. ( which includes "pulling out" and even NFP)
So when the Clergy would say that it was a sin, I think the message was that any form of birth control is a sin.

[*Note*: ANY artificial birth control is sinful and the only approved natural method of birth control is the NFP method.
On NFP it is ONLY to be used to "space out" the birth of children when a couple has too many already. It is NOT to be used to have "sex without consequences".]

Catholic doctrine does not talk about the marriage of spirit and matter at conception. In fact, St. Augustine said it was impossible to know when the spirit entered the bodyThis is an interesting thread.

According to the CCC on conception and abortion I would venture:
CCC 2270 " Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception...."
CCC 2270 "... Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)"
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.(73)"

Based on the above quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would venture that, although we do not know the exact moment of "marriage of spirit and matter" it would be safe to assume it is, in fact, partially done before conception ( Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. )and then comes to its completion at the moment of conception. ( Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. )

* CCC 2270
Item '72'- From Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11
Item '73'- From Ps 139:15

I agree this is an interesting thread. There is much to learn, especially for me. Thank you.

Sabbatismus

on Jan 31, 2005

Dymas, thank you for your reply. I hate to demur but deep thought is something that comes from education, where the person is able to collect many ideas and organize them into a logical pattern and apply them in a profound manner. There are very rare cases where the uneducated is able to do this, but generally, it is not so. That is why I said, the unlearned and iliterate are not able to do deep mediative thinking. It's not intended to insult anyone but it is a matter of the way the brain is composed. I would never say that being iliterate does not mean you can't be a Christian or Catholic, for those who make a distinction.

I only brought up the subject of contraception as an example of a place where bibical scripture is misused to support a doctrinal stance. I wasn't really trying to open a topic on contraception. Frankly, the bible doesn't have a great deal to say about contraception one way or the other. In actuality, the bible doesn't give any spoken advice on natural or un-natural birth control. The lines between natural and un-natural were set up by the Church, where scripture gives no guidelines for it at all. And that which is given the title "NFP" or "natural" is an attempt at contraception as much as the un-natural because they both are measures to prevent the conception. One is just better than the other. Abstinence itself, may and does take a form of contraception. "Pulling out" as you say, is scaresly a form of contraception. Thats a misconception about contraception

. Many a woman and man can tell you of the failure rate of that along with the statics, its far more likely to produce than what is commonly title "natural method" of contraception.

Augustine, who went much farther than the Apostles or scripture on the subject, fell into a form of a far more radical anti-sexuality which vastly affected the church. In some ways it was a form of gnosticism where sexuality was considered evil. This was egged on by the monastics and some others who "appeared" to be outdoing the Church on being religious. Consequently, the church took on the beliefs to one degree or another and enforced his beliefs and practices upon the family. His austerity on the matter has caused many a heartache and bitterness for the family of Christians who lived long after him. Only recently has the church began to acknowledge that it was unbalanced. On this subject and on some others the church has moved too far to the right. For many centuries, a man and wife were told that once childbearing years were over, or for physical reason even in their youth, they were no longer allowed to conjugate. And that idea comes directly from the thought that matial relations are strictly for the purpose of pro-creation. "Sex without consequences" was forbidden . However, that is contrary to the scripture that the marriage bed is undefiled and that the purpose in marriage besides procreation, which is implicit, was so that man was not to "burn" with unfulfilled desire outside of the proper means of finding relief within the marriage. (1Cor.7:9 ) That is explicit. The fact is there are and have always been case where martial relations should have been afforded to those who for whatever reason could not have children, yet they weren't . Thus, breaking the rule of the bond of marriage between husband and wife by not giving consent and allowing as Paul put it to "defraud one another" . Only fasting was to keep them apart and that only for short period of time. Notice 1Cor.5:7 "..come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." Paul's concern is not for childbearing or conception, it is that Satan does not tempt them for their incontinency" . Yet, the Church's advice was for husband and wife to live together and not to conjugate again for the rest of their lives. That is what I mean by the church moved too far to the right.

I know I may sound like what you think is a "liberal" but I'm not . I'm very much a firm Catholic but I don't live in a rose garden, either. I'm very concerned for both the Church and the fabric of the church, the stablity of the family, as well as, how Catholicism relates itself to the real world.

CCC 2270 and the items 72 and 73 do apply to abortion, which there is every good reason to abhor. That is the taking of life.

Dysmas

on Feb 01, 2005

I hate to demur but deep thought is something that comes from education

Im not exactly sure what you mean by education. Are you refering to "higher education" - Collage and the like?

I would never say that being iliterate does not mean you can't be a Christian or Catholic, for those who make a distinction.

Of course not, If I did imply that I apologize. And there is no rational distinction. We who became to be known as "Catholics" are the first Christians. On an off topic- I really detest when some refer to the RCC as a "denomination" because we are not a denomination of anything. Denomination means roughly "detraction from" the Protestants are denominational precisely because their belifes are "detracted" from ours. I often chuckle when I see signs saying "non-denominational" I always say to my self. "Catholics are the only Christians that are truely non-denominational.

anyway lol

I only brought up the subject of contraception as an example of a place where bibical scripture is misused to support a doctrinal stance.

Im note sure if I would use the word "misused". Perhaps "misconstrued" but it is a matter of personal preference I think.

Augustine, who went much farther than the Apostles or scripture on the subject, fell into a form of a far more radical anti-sexuality which vastly affected the church. In some ways it was a form of gnosticism where sexuality was considered evil. This was egged on by the monastics and some others who "appeared" to be outdoing the Church on being religious. Consequently, the church took on the beliefs to one degree or another and enforced his beliefs and practices upon the family. His austerity on the matter has caused many a heartache and bitterness for the family of Christians who lived long after him.

In your opinion.
The fact of the matter is that St. Augustine IS a Doctor of the Church and the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has accepted many of his teachings. Im not sure on your "facts" about being egged on by the "monastics" but I am going to look further into it. I thank you for some food for thought.

The fact is there are and have always been case where martial relations should have been afforded to those who for whatever reason could not have children, yet they weren't . Thus, breaking the rule of the bond of marriage between husband and wife by not giving consent and allowing as Paul put it to "defraud one another" . Only fasting was to keep them apart and that only for short period of time. Notice 1Cor.5:7 "..come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Absolutly correct and im glad that the Church re-examined it's position on that issue.

Yet, the Church's advice was for husband and wife to live together and not to conjugate again for the rest of their lives. That is what I mean by the church moved too far to the right.

"WAS" being the operative word. That is no longer the case.
One of the things I really love about our faith is that it is ever growing and maturing as more and more is understood in the proper context. It is nice to live in and be a part of a "living" faith.

I would not label you as a liberal Catholic based upon what you have stated so far. Leaning to the left....perhaps. But unless you are a heretical liberal or a heretical conservative you are a Catholic just as I. And for our conversation I am gratefull.

kingbee

on Feb 01, 2005

the cross with the image of the suffering Christ on it?

isnt this--or more accurately, the use of a cross without the corpus--the result of some long-ago controversy about icons? i could be wrong but i seem to recall that being one of the issues that ultimately led to some schism.

Sabbatismus

on Feb 01, 2005

Yes Kingbee, around 600 AD there was a large debate over the use of icons. It become known as the iconoclastic heresy. While there was and still is some truth, that people misuse at times icons, it doesn't mean it use of icons should be totally banned. Like many other social issues, abuse of some, should not result in the banning of the propper use. The Protestants after Luther and Calvin picked up many of the early heresies and renewed them. You've probably noticed I have written several articles refuting the first great heresy of the New Testament against the Judaizers of Christianity. The Judaizers were the first to cause a schism in the church, they have been revived and are still around today. There's not much new under the sun. The same old heresies keep circulating.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!