[Random Conversant] : “So, what’s your religion like?”
[Gaijin] :“Oh, just a sacrifice based vampiristic cult. We eat human flesh, drink human blood… sometimes we smudge ourselves up with burnt ashes. It’s REALLY fun. Wanna join?”
Seriously though, no, I have no difficulty with the idea. Christ did in fact say “This IS my body,” later, “This IS my blood.” Catholics pounce on the verb ‘to be,’ mind you. And we can’t escape from the duty to chow down cannibal style after hearing “DO THIS in memory of me.”
Agreed completely. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, and can be imposed and removed with the snap of a Pope’s fingers. Catholic priests of the Byzantine Rite don’t seem to have a problem with a family. So, for the Roman Rite priests, I say, “Let them eat cake!”
I remember the rumors a couple of years ago that Mary was going to be made co-redemptor with Christ. Did this have many supporters among mainstream Catholics?
I can’t emphasize enough that I do not mean any offense with this next question (there is no faith-based or lack-of-faith-based philosophy of any size without its share of bad examples), but is the attitude of most lay Catholics towards the recent sex scandals (particularly the ephebophlia/pedophilia scandals) one of forgiveness or “prosecute them”? Do lay Catholics generally feel they should be removed completely from the priesthood or merely from the presence of children?
Also, do you feel that the next pope will most likely be as conservative, more conservative, or more liberal than JP2?
And one more series of stupid questions: please explain some basics of canonization to me.
Some people are “Blessed” while others are “Saint”. My understanding is that “Saint” is the higher title, yet the BVM is obviously “Blessed” and she is the queen of heaven.
One of my favorite heroes of the 20th century is Father Titus Brandsma, the anti-Nazi priest and holocaust victim. He has been beatified but not canonized. Is beatification a necessary step before canonization? Can somebody be a saint who has not performed a miracle or of whom there are no relics?
(Another pointless sidestory: I worked in the library of a tiny public college in GA whose only claim to fame was its association with the family of Jimmy Carter. The library received a great deal of “Miz Lillian’s” [think of her as the mother goddess of Plains, GA- she was the mother of Jimmy, a lifelong social activist, nurse, Peace Corps worker, etc- all in all an admirable and impressive lady] papers and effects [some of the papers still had most of the coupons and crossword puzzles intact]. Since the school has no budget for proper archiving, most of her items were/are stacked in lined cardboard boxes in the backroom and upon occasion I would look through them; one was marked “Vatican Visit” and contained the dress she wore on a state visit to Rome and, among other items, a Rosary she received from Pope John Paul I. As he was only pope for a month and canonization is being considered for him, I was stunned that this isn’t under glass and on display, but c’est la academie.)
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the Prefect (boss) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which, happyheathen will be delighted to point out, used to bear the name Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition). It is the Vatican office dedicated to ensuring that Catholic publications do not fall into error. (No racks or scourges are currently in use.)
The “co-redemptrix” movement was fairly active in the 1950s until it was quashed by Pius XII. John Paul II has a strong Marain devotion and it has popped up again in recent years. It is hard to tell how strong it is in the Catholic church, because it makes the news more frequently among Fundamentalist Protestants. I would say that the movement still lives, but that there is no strong swell of support for it among the people in the pews. (Of course, if it is being carried along by proponenets in the Vatican, they might spring it on is some day.)
Everyone that I know among the laity has a general attitude that pedophile priests need to be exposed and prosecuted and that Cardinal Law and some of his fellow prelates should also be prosecuted.
Beyond that, there is a mixed view of how to treat specific priests for specific events. Does a priest who had an “affair” or engaged in sexual harrassment with a teenager on one occasion thirty years ago deserve the same condemnation as a serial pedophile who preyed on six-year-olds, constantly, over a course of twenty or forty years in the ministry? Opinions tend to be divided–and often depend on whether one knows the accused priest and what that relationship is.
It’s not the same “Blessed”. “Blessed” is the title for someone who has been beatified ( a necessary step on the way to canonization), but here, it’s being used more as an adjective referring to the Virgin Mary. She is not referred to as " Blessed Mary" (without the “Virgin”) as a beatified person would be referred to as "Blessed Titus Brandsma ", and her many titles include simply “St Mary” (mostly used to name schools and parishes)
This was/is a popular theory among some of the more hyper-orthodox Catholics. (These are people who tend to believe that the world’s salvation depend on making communion on the tongue mandatory.) The idea, as I understand it, is that Mary was not to be viewed as the “co-redeemer” of man, so much as that Mary’s elevated role in the church makes her a “but-for” cause of salvation. Technically, she was to be called “co-redemptrix,” which doesn’t translate as “co-redeemer.”
This was a proposal, which as far as I know, has been shot down for prudential reasons by the heirarchy of the church.
You’ll get as many answers as there are Catholics. I was, however, listening to a radio call-in show in Philadelphia over the summer in which Anthony Cardinal Bevilaqua was answering questions about the scandal. One of the callers was furious that the church wouldn’t de-frock priests to the fullest. Bevilacqua’s response, which was in line with church teaching, is that a priest may be prohibited from functionally acting as a priest, but will always remain a priest in status. It’s the same teaching as with Baptism or marriage: these are permanent events that alter the form of the human soul. (Pause for metaphysical effect.) Seriously. You can’t “un-priest” a priest anymore than you can unbaptize someone. You can only lock him up and keep him from acting.
The three sacraments that imprint a character are baptism, confirmation, and Holy Orders. So the thrust of your comment is exactly correct; I post merely to note the matrimony can be received more than once, and does not imprint a character upon the soul.
Actually, there is one thing about Catholicism as practiced by some congregations which nags me. Some congregations will not allow non-Catholics to take communion. The leaflet in the pew at my brother’s wedding contained a paragraph specifically asking non-Catholics not to participate because participating would “imply a oneness which does not exist.” (Me? Bitter? Never!;))
I realize this sort of narrowness is not exclusive to the Catholic church, but as an Episcopalian mutt, I’d like to learn more about this policy, specifically, why it’s in place (other than what was in that leaflet) and why it apparently varies from congregation to congregation. Is this policy set at Diocesan level?
Because in the view of the church, receiving communion denotes (not simply implies) an existing communion of believers. Catholics do not share communion with the Orthodox (whose views of the Eucharist are, clearly, the same as those of the RCC (although aspects are given different emphasis) because we are separated from them by schism and are not “in communion” with them.
Of course, if a person is a member of a group that does not believe in the Divine Presence, there are rather more obstacles to permitting them to partake in an action that expresses communion.
I have heard the suggestion put forth that we (all or most) Christians are certainly in “communion” regarding the core beliefs of our faith and that Orthodox and Anglicans are in “communion” even with the actual belief in the Eucharist and that we should, in any event, share communion in the hope of future reconciliation.
I will not argue that such points have no merit, but they are not the view of the Catholic Church.
If you encounter a Catholic church in which non-Catholics are encouraged to receive communion, that parish is simply not following church law. As to places where they do or do not make an issue of it, I suspect that it has to do with the number of times the pastor has been asked about the issue and whether he felt that pre-emptive literature would make it clearer.
It doesn’t vary either from congregation to congregation or even from diocese to diocese. I don’t know if you’ve been to Masses other than weddings, but normally there’s a book in the pew containing the readings,psalms prayers, etc. In every one I’ve seen, there is also a section about non-Catholics and the reception of Communion, which asks some non-Catholics not to participate while advising others that the Catholic Church has no objection to their participation.
But here’s a question back from a Catholic- seriously. Why would a non-Catholic want to receive Communion in a Catholic church? I would never think of receiving Communion in a Lutheran or Episcopalian church because I don’t share their beliefs. (which I think is what the leaflet meant about "implying a oneness which does not exist)
The wedding I mentioned was on the East Coast. When I discussed the matter with a good friend who’s a Catholic in Hawaii, he was surprised to hear this policy. That’s what gave me the impression that things varied.
As to why I would want to receive Communion in a Catholic church, to me Communion is an integral part of any service which incorporates it. The Episcopal church’s policy is “all baptized Christians” are permitted to take Communions because we all acknowledge the divinity of Christ and the core beliefs of Christianity. Therefore, asking “some non-Catholics not to participate while advising others that the Catholic Church has no objection to their participation” strikes this hard-core egalitarian as not quite right. Also, I’m about as close to Catholic as you can get – how do I know which group I fall into? In my opinion, in the important matters, Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and yes, Baptists, Mormons, and Fundamentalists do not disagree. Logistical details, however, are a nightmare!
Excuse me. Thanks to my own life-experiences, I’ve got issues with being left out, especially when it’s something I’m used to being part of. This is also, by the way, why I don’t visit my brother at Christmas or Easter. Attending Mass on those days matters a great deal to me, and my choices there would be attending a Catholic church where I would not be fully welcome, or arranging logistics for me to attend an Episcopal church were I would be. That and I’m usually singing in the choir on those days!
As an agnostic, I never take communion as I feel it’s disrespectful to whatever church I’m visiting. My understanding of communion at both Catholic and Protestant churches is that it’s roughly like saying “we are all one and have the same beliefs”. I’ve yet to encounter any rudeness when I declined to take communion.
My father’s family was Jehovah’s Witness- now THAT’S an odd communion. Only those who are going to heaven take the wine (or grape juice) and wafer (or pinched bread); those who are going to repopulate the New Earth do not. Since the latter far outnumber the former, I understand that there are some JW ceremonies at which NOBODY partakes of the communion (though I don’t believe it’s actually consecrated [especially considering their opinions on taking blood transfusions] so it’s probably safe to toss it at the end of the ceremony).
But see, even Catholics are not permitted to take communion unless they have received the sacrement of First Communion, and even then there are rules about not taking communion if you’re in a state of sin or what have you.
Actually, it lists the specific groups in the latter category- but I don’t remember them.
And my question wasn’t meant to offend you- I was quite serious. Apparently Catholics and Episcopalians (or at least you and I) have very different beliefs about Communion and Masses.Because, you see, attending Mass on Christmas and Easter is important to me too, but attending an Episcopal Mass instead of a Catholic Mass wouldn’t be an option, as it won’t fulfill my obligation.
But that all depends on which matters are important, and I suspect there’s some disagreement between groups there.
Another point on the communion policy: when one goes to receive, the priest (or whomever is filling in for him) says “the Body of Christ” to which the recipient replies “Amen.” This little exchange is literally to be taken as “this is the true living presence of Jesus Christ, God-made-man, in the flesh, and while it may look and taste exactly like a wafer, by partaking of this meal you hereby certify that Christ stands before you.”
And “Amen” literally means “it is true,” or “yeah, I believe that.”
So there’s something degrading about handing out communion to non-believers, to the extent that it’s a serious, sacred event in the Catholic tradition. (Yes, yes, I’m aware that thousands of non-beliving nominal Catholics probably partake every Sunday.) You’ve got a twofold problem here: the church would be willing to degrade Christ into whatever the recipient wants to believe, while the recipient is falsely stating that he/she believes Christ is present in that apparent wafer.
It’s not that the Church WANTS to exclude anyone from Communion; it’s that they want them to appreciate what they’re doing when they do.
Just to add a little bit to Tomndeb’s excellent post about this, as a Buffalo Catholic, I can certainly see where you’re coming from with this. No catholic I know would ever claim to “worship” Mary. We venerate Mary. Also, we are well-schooled in what the difference is, so that we can explain to non-Catholics who might be thrown off by the level of Marian devotion.
The funny thing about the recent co-redemptrix interest is that in some ways, it bridges two distinct generations of catholics. Remember that for a long time, Catholic girls were instructed at home and at school (Catholic school, natch) to use Mary as a model for their behavior. I have somewhere a Catholic school textbook that shows how girls can look to Mary as an example as they neogotiate good performance in school, meeting and dating boys, and getting married, raising children, and keeping an organized household.
This pre-dates me, when I was in school in the 1970s, being Catholic was all about making banners out of felt and having hosts made out of whole grain. Ahh, folk mass. I think there is a significant population of female Catholics who are of my generation who look at the co-redemptrix issue through the lens of feminist theology, and it is very empowering.
I confess I was a little surprised that Tomndeb felt the co-redemptrix question was a minor issue. I would say in my parish, it’s still very much on people’s minds. However, this does illustrate that Catholics don’t have a hive-mind or anything, and just like many other current events, interest and opinion change from neighborhood to neighborhood, and region to region.
As you say, Catholics can have a wide variety of opinions.
I’m not surprised to find that I am out of touch with proponents of the co-redemptrix issue. I suspect that I could guess where it would be popular in the Cleveland area (and in metro Detroit, where I was raised, I could probably name the actual parishes where there are a lot of supporters).
Still, I have never personally met a supporter in real life, and even on the internet I encounter it as an accusation from Protestants much more frequently than I encounter Catholic supporters. (Doesn’t mean they’re not out there, only that I don’t hang out in the same places.)