Catholics! Who decided all of this?

Great Debates
1

Being one to like to have information on many things in order to have reasonably well rounded opinions, I like to find out about all sorts of subjects. I happened to be thinking about religion the other day after seeing a bit of a television documentary concerning many unpublished books of the Bible and wondered about a few things.

I’m a Christian, though I probably would not be considered a very good one because I go to no specific church and don’t like to pound people over the head with my version of Christianity and have long observed how Christians cannot even get along with other Christians – which is why there seems to be so many different sects and churches. (In my small town of about 14,000 people, there are now something like 200 churches and more being built. It seems that every time I go out, some vacant lot is being plowed under for another church.)

Catholicism always comes under fire and I looked into it, being originally a Methodist. I came up with a few questions, especially after seeing the Pope lately on television.

Who, in history, decided that there should be a Pope?
Since the bible states not to worship any graven images, who was it that decided people of the Catholic religion should worship images of Saints and the Virgin Mary? Who also decided that Catholic Priests should have the power to forgive anyone their sins prior to death no matter what they have done in life? (THAT opened the door to major corruption ages ago.) Who decided that Nuns were to be wedded to Christ? I mean, from what I know, He was a bachelor. Who also decided that Priests and Nuns were to be celibate? Who also decided that the Pope must take such a firm stance against any form of artificial birth control?

I can understand the lure for becoming Catholic, for I think it is the only Christian religion which virtually guarantees one a ticket into heaven upon confessing one’s sins or dying with the last rites even if one is a member of the Mafia and slaughtered a couple of hundred people. (The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.)

So, who decided all of this? I have not come across any text where Jesus set up anything for the Catholic religion and Moses, a Jew, was given the 10 commandments. Jesus was Jewish also. I have observed by looking at many religious paintings how most renditions of the Virgin Mary, painted mainly for the Catholic church, tend to make the Madonna and Child normal looking or radiant, but Joseph, Mary’s husband, is usually portrayed as rather ugly and in a secondary station. Who decided that? (I won’t go into the astonishing amount of really bad renditions of the Christ Child I have stumbled across in such paintings either, by artists of great talent.)

I watched the Pope and thought to myself that this guy is really old. How can he be in charge of a church which makes major life decisions for millions?

Who also started the practice of chopping up the bodies of Saints and Martyrs to spread around in pieces to the various churches?

So, who decided all of this?

What? Me worry?’

2

I thought it was well known that the Illuminati made all of these decisions, with a little input from the Masons.

Crystalguy

3

Pardon the expression, but, Jesus Christ! If you want to know the history of Catholicism, there are a million books and websites you where you could get your answers. If you want to make fun of it, try the Pit.

4

I don’t think Rainbowcsr is making fun of Catholicism by starting this thread, Gilligan. Those are good questions. “Who decided to do these things” is always a good question, in any religion. You may not get a good answer, but hey, it’s worth a try.

Sorry, I don’t know any of the answers to those questions either. But I’ll be watching, just in case anyone does have the answers!

This space blank, until Wally thinks up something cool to put here.

5

Jesus: “Thy name is Peter, upon this rock I build my Church.” Peter was the first Pope, and all Christians for the first 1000 years or so followed his lead.

Hogwash! What kinda tracts are you reading?

Nuns are “wedded” to Christ in the same way that Jesus was wedded to the Church. (Sorry, don’t have the verse handy.)

Do you have a cite for that idiotic statement? No, didn’t think so.

BTW, thanks for the Catholic-bashing, we haven’t had that on the board for awhile.

6

Until tom~ shows up, I’ll take a crack at some of the questions, but I’m not in a debating mood, so I’ll confine myself to what I know of the facts.

  1. origins of the Pope - as the church grew into a broadly based organization, it gradually evolved the office of bishops. The bishop was in charge of the churches in a diocese (one of the administrative units of the Roman Empire). The bishops of certain major centres naturally tended to wield more clout (hey, it may be a religion, but human nature being what it is…). The Bishop of Rome, being the bishop for the capital of the Empire, naturally had a great deal of clout, but bishops from other major centres (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria) just as naturally contested the idea that the Bishop of Rome had any authority over them - all bishops being equal, and so on.

The Popes argued that the first Bishop of Rome was St. Peter, and that Jesus had given him authority over the entire church. According to Matthew, Peter was the first apostle to recognise the divinity of Jesus. Jesus then said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” [a pun on his name that sounded like “rock” in Aramaic]. Jesus then added that Peter would have the power of binding and loosing, the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16: 18 and following).

As the editors of the Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church succinctly state: “The precise interpretation of this passage has been the subject of much controversy.”

The institutional disagreements between the Bishop of Rome, head of the western Latin church, and the bishops of the eastern, Greek churches, simmered along until 1054, when there was a final breach. The Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of Constantinople hurled mutual statements of anathema at each other, and the churches formally split, leaving the Bishop of Rome, as Pope, head of the western church, a condition that subsequently was challenged by the Reformation.

  1. My understanding of Roman Catholic theology (admittedly sketchy) is that the saints are not worshipped. Rather, the saints are in heaven, and can intercede with God through their own prayers. Roman Catholics can pray to the saints for intercession, as illustrated by the “Hail Mary,” which asks Mary to “pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.”

  2. Absolution of sins flows from the concept that Jesus died for all sinners, leading to salvation. On an ongoing, individual basis, the sacrament of penance recognizes this doctrine. The priest in absolving someone who genuinely repents is implementing the doctrine of salvation. The absolution of sins is not restricted to the RC church, but in Protestant churches, the emphasis is more on the individual’s confession to God, without the intermediary of the priest.

  3. Celibacy gradually evolved. There is a long tradition in many religions of abstention as an expression of spirituality, and the Roman Catholic church gradually incorporated the concept of celibacy. Priests were originally allowed to marry, or not, on an individual basis. Gradually, the concept of celibacy spread, until it became church doctrine around 1000 A.D. (Not sure of the date, but somewhere around there.) It has never been accepted as a requirement for priests in the Eastern Orthodox churches (although it is a requirement for bishops), and was rejected by the Protestant churches.

  4. Confession and penance are not automatic, even on one’s death bed. The priest must be convinced that the repentence is genuine, and if there is time, the penitent must take steps to undo the damage done. Penance can be refused.

  5. By tradition, the pope normally stays in office until death. Under canon law of the church, he can resign, but it is extremely rare, because such resignations in the past tended to be forced and contributed to schisms.

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

7

Actually, the situation in the early church was not quite so simple. Peter became the Patriarch of Rome, one of 5 patriarchs in the early church(es). What would become the Catholic Church used the verse cited to argue that the Patriarch of Rome should have precedence over all others. Other patriarchs did not always agree. The first 3 centuries of the church were actually rife with conflict over theological interpretations. Numerous heresies and divisions within the church resulted in thousands being slaughtered as heretics or driven from their homes.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

8

Maybe I overreacted. It’s just that these questions can easily be researched by even an athiest like me with little difficulty. If you are really interested in knowing these things, here is a good source: www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

From this source, some answers to the OP:

Note to David and Gaudere - sorry if this is too much to copy from another source, please remove it if it’s in violation of the rules.

9

I would gently suggest that the OP assumes some facts that are not in evidence here.

I will do what I can.

Who, in history, decided that there should be a Pope?

As suggested in a post above, Christ is said to have declared Peter the first Pope, leaving him in charge of the Church on Earth. When the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles at Pentecost, they became the first bishops of the Church. Each succeeding bishop was ordained by the laying hands on of a previous bishop, and all of these to Christ. So in a sense, if I shake my bishop’s hand, I can trace that touch back through thousands of men, all the way to Christ.

**Since the bible states not to worship any graven images, who was it that decided people of the Catholic religion should worship images of Saints and the Virgin Mary? **

Contrary to what your question suggests, Catholics do not worship images of saints, or of the Virgin Mary. To do so, as you correctly point out, would be to flout God’s command. Catholics do venerate the saints, and of all the saints, Mary, the Mother of God, holds a special place of respect and adoration in our hearts. But this is a far cry from worship.

We do also pray, not to a particular saint, but for a particular saint to intercede on our behalf with God. This may seem silly, but it’s not that far removed from the practice, common to most Christians, of asking others to pray for them. “Please keep my mother in your prayers; she’s very ill.” Is this an acceptable request for the congregation at your church, but somehow unacceptable when directed to St. Mary? Catholics suspect that, as the woman chosen to be the Mother of God, that Mary’s requests in prayer might be granted a bit more divine attention that someone else’s. Even if this is not so, there is certainly nothing worse about asking Mary to pray in your behalf than in asking your friend in the next pew over to pray in your behalf – right?

**Who also decided that Catholic Priests should have the power to forgive anyone their sins prior to death no matter what they have done in life? (THAT opened the door to major corruption ages ago.) **

Once again, you misapprehend the process. Priests absolve a penitent from sin in the name of God, not in their own behalf. The power to act to forgive sins on behalf of God was given to the Apostles, and passed to the scceeding bishops and priests.

And when you say, “No matter what they have done in life…” are you suggesting there are sins so heinous that they should be unforgiveable in God’s eyes?

**Who decided that Nuns were to be wedded to Christ? I mean, from what I know, He was a bachelor. Who also decided that Priests and Nuns were to be celibate? **

He was, in fact, a bachelor. Nuns are wedded to Christ in the sense that they have committed to devoting their lives to His service, not in the sense that they have to discuss which in-laws to spend Thanksgiving with this year. I don’t know who, if any one person, “decided” this, but it is a metaphorical concept.

The celibacy issue is moerely a practice of the Western Rite, and by no means universal over the life of the Church. The tradition dates back to an enactment of a local council in Elvira, Spain, in 306. The first comprehensive law making the priesthood and marriage incompatible was not promulgated until 1139. Who decided it? The bishops making up the Lateran II ecumenical council. The Council of Trent confirm this in 1563.

Recently, a number of exceptions have been permitted by modern popes. John Paul II extended exceptions to a number of married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism, for instance. Celibacy is a matter of church discipline and law, not one of dogma. It is thought to promote total dedication to ministry and service to the Church. But in the same way that the Pope could theoretically decree that henceforth the Mass would be celebrated only by priests wearing a tuxedo and top hat, so too could he change the rule about celibacy. It’s not, in other words, a matter of divine guidance or an article of faith - it’s just a rule to make the Church work better.

Who also decided that the Pope must take such a firm stance against any form of artificial birth control?

This is another matter of Church tradition, not dogmatic principle. The Church takes the position that every marital act must remain open to at least the possibility of the transmission of life. Since this teaching is within the purview of every successive Pope to modify or abolish, I would say that every Pope that’s addressed the issue “decided” it.

**I can understand the lure for becoming Catholic, for I think it is the only Christian religion which virtually guarantees one a ticket into heaven upon confessing one’s sins or dying with the last rites even if one is a member of the Mafia and slaughtered a couple of hundred people. (The majority of the Mafia figures are Catholic.) **

Yes, and I understand the majority of Mafia figures also have eaten peanut butter. What can we conclude about peanut butter from this information?

Your dubious comparison aside, you should know that most Christian sects do not admit to the possibility of unforgiveable sin. So I am at a loss to see why you suggest Catholics are alone in this doctrine.

In any event, genuine sorrow for one’s sins and a firm resolve to avoid sin in the future is necessary for absolution. God’s forgiveness is available to Mafia figures as well as politicians.

**So, who decided all of this? I have not come across any text where Jesus set up anything for the Catholic religion and Moses, a Jew, was given the 10 commandments. Jesus was Jewish also. **

Jesus said that he had come not to change the Mosiac Law, but to fulfill it. He gave us a new covenant, which he explained in his teachings.

I have observed by looking at many religious paintings how most renditions of the Virgin Mary, painted mainly for the Catholic church, tend to make the Madonna and Child normal looking or radiant, but Joseph, Mary’s husband, is usually portrayed as rather ugly and in a secondary station. Who decided that? (I won’t go into the astonishing amount of really bad renditions of the Christ Child I have stumbled across in such paintings either, by artists of great talent.)

I’m not sure I follow. Unquestionably, while St. Joseph is revered, it was Mary who was chosen by God to bear Jesus. It was Mary that was born without taint of original sin. Under these circumstances, Joseph getting second billing is perhaps understandable. But I’ve never seen him portrayed deliberately as ugly. Can you name a particular artist and painting?

I watched the Pope and thought to myself that this guy is really old. How can he be in charge of a church which makes major life decisions for millions?

What should be the age at which you can’t be in charge of a church any more? Defend your answer.

By that I mean, of course, that as long as he can do the job, he outght to keep doing it. He has made major progress in internatinal and ecumenical issues during his papacy. What’s the problem?

Who also started the practice of chopping up the bodies of Saints and Martyrs to spread around in pieces to the various churches?

The veneration of relics (chopped up saints, as you so movingly describe them) was started in the earliest days of Christianity, when St. Ignatius of Antioch was thrown to the lions and two companions came at night to gather his bones.

The Council of Trent affirmed the practice in 1563.

As with a statue or painting, we do not worship the object, but we revere the person represented by the object.

So, who decided all of this?

I hope I’ve helped you answer that.

  • Rick
10

I did not put this in the pit because I did not want it to turn into a soccer riot complete with various forms of name calling and accusations.

As for the section about the Mafia: A. Common knowledge, B. pointed out in two documentaries concerning the Mafia on the Discovery Channel in 1998. As was stated : 'most Mafia members are Catholic because they know that they can run business as usual, repent their sins on their death beds and be absolved.

On Discovery some time back, concerning religious paintings, it was also pointed out that Joseph is almost always displayed as somewhat ugly and twisted, as if the painter considered him evil, if he appears at all. I reflected on that, having once examined various works of art, many of which were religious paintings and came to the following conclusions:
A: They’re right. Joseph is often painted in darker colors and often looks evil. He is also often placed in the background.
B: What some people consider magnificent works of art depicting the Christ Child and the Madonna had to have been done by painters who had 1: no skill at faces or 2: secretly disliked Mary and Jesus because he painted them very poorly and usually, in my opinion, homely or down right ugly.
C: Several of those Holy paintings actually should, in my opinion, be destroyed because of the ugliness.

Now, only one Protestant minister ever mentioned to me that everyone born is free of sin because Christ died on the cross for us and that so long as we believed, we were automatically forgiven. Upon asking him about people who do not believe in Christianity, he intelligently stated that they would be judged according to how well they followed their own laws. (That was a refreshing change from the usual bit where they will be burned in hell.)

I found that fascinating, though I do question the concept of being sinless because I would not find it very reassuring to find Adolph Hitler, Stalin and many others in Heaven.

Someone once told me that Chalamaign (PLEEZ PARDON SPELLING!) decided that there should be a Pope and decided that Priests could forgive a person their sins. If so, who was he to carry that authority?

I’ve also looked at most of the other major religions and observed a tremendous amount of similarities between them all. I find that interesting. It is my opinion that since men seem to have been mainly the inspired ones in the past, that, like many fanatics I’ve known about, they wrote the religious texts according to what they felt it should be and set up religious organizations based on their own beliefs – whether correct or not. (Example – the always harped upon exclusion of women as equal to men and kept virtually as property.)

But, who started the power base? Christ gave Peter a church, but I don’t think he indicated that he was to be the ruler of all future churches of that sect. Most Catholics I know pray mostly to Mary, though in the Bible, Jesus is supposed to intercede for us when we sin. Plus, I probably do understand the ‘Holy Relic’ concept, but find it mildly barbaric. As I understand it, each Catholic Church has a relic in the alter.

Would that not tend to encourage the worship of the relic instead of God?

What? Me worry?’

11

What about the Great Schism?

and Chalamain=Charlamagne? I don’t know much about him deciding church doctrine though.

12

[sarcasm on]I’d bet that would have been news to “Bugsy” Siegel and Meyer Lansky!

Yes, Virginia, if it’s on cable TV, it must be true!

[sarcasm off]

As for the rest of your post, Bricker and others have already explained that Catholics don’t worship Mary or relics. What’s your agenda here?

13

Sociological aside: The Mediterranean area had a widespread tradition of a mother-goddess with a son-consort at the time of Jesus. The artistic tradition of depicting a mother-goddess with a smaller son-consort was well-established, and artists depicting Mary and Jesus naturally went for a similar treatment. Some have felt that the emphasis on Mary was an attempt to reunite the mother-goddess tradition with the all-male trinity. Sociological speculation claims Mary’s prominence in Christian tradition (despite the “officially” minor role she has in relation to Jesus) is a redressing of the excessively patriarchal Hebrew tradition. It is perhaps worth noting that there are many more sightings of Mary than there are of Jesus; regardless of her small part in the Bible compared to her son, it seems that this is a sign of her importance to the psyche.

As to Joseph looking smaller and ugly, I do not see this as too terribly profound. Of course he’ll get second billing; he’s not really all that important. He was also much older than Mary and was never claimed to be particularly attractive, whereas Mary was a beautiful young maiden. Besides, who’s going to depict the mother of God as anything less than as stunningly beautiful as you can paint?

::sputter:: I hope that was hyperbole. Sure, let’s destroy pieces of our artistic history because we think they look ugly now. Even if they don’t look all that great to you, they may have been revolutionary advancements during their time. Toss out a link to one of these “ugly” paintings and I’ll explain its history and artistic merit.

Does saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag make your allegiance to the flag instead of to our country? Give Catholics credit for knowing that they are supposed to worship God, at least, and cannot be confused by simply having a relic in an altar.

Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.

14

milroyj wrote:

Well, if the majority of historical Mafia figures were Italian, and the majority of Italians are Catholic…

15

I agree that the majority of Mafia members are probably Catholic.

But I disagree that the reason they are Catholic is their deisre of a life of crime followed by death-bed forgiveness. The reason they are mostly Catholic, as was pointed out above, is that if you accept that most Mafia members are Italian, you’re drawing from a population that is overwhelmingly Catholic.

  • Rick
16

To those of you who have responded without rancor and sarcasm, I thank you, for obviously you display brains.

The Discovery channel is not known for putting on slanted or distorted programs, being mainly there for educational purposes. I have so far seen several ‘who killed Kennedy’ episodes, with each one pointing the finger at someone else – the government – the mob – the Cubans. All got equal time, leaving us to figure out what really happened – aside from the common fact that someone powerful deliberately screwed up the autopsy and had two people killed.

Concerning art. I might not know antiquity from beans, but I know what I like and I came to the conclusion years ago that artists in the first few centuries certainly could paint great background scenery but sucked at painting people. Either that, or we had some really strange looking ancestors back then. In the area of religious paintings, I am somewhat surprised that churches would even accept some of the ugly paintings concerning the baby Jesus and display them. Not just the Catholic Church either. Just because it is old doesn’t mean, to me anyhow, that it is good or even worth holding on to.

But then, I recently observed an artists work who likes using massive chunks of rolled steel to make vast forms with. I thought the best work was the newly delivered, gray-black slabs. The balanced, extensive, rusty things he put together, to me, sucked. At least he could have coated them with something to show the beauty of the metal and not the brownish, dusty rust. I can find that in any junk yard.

Joseph seems to have been pretty much ignored in the Christian religion, though he was the protector and provider for both Mary and Jesus for some years and, obviously, a good all round guy. Lately I found out that there are masses of Gospels that never made it into the Bible, including the Gospel of Mary Magadline – who turns out to have been quite revered after all. I wonder if there is a Gospel of Joseph? The way he is portrayed was mentioned on a show concerning works of religious art by the curator of a museum, which caught my attention.

Does the Catholic Church have the priority on exorcisms? Every time I read of one, it is being done by a priest – or do Catholics seem to be the most harassed by ‘demon’ possession? I don’t recall there being any Protestant exorcists, even when it come to ridding a place of ‘ghosts’.

I haven’t even heard of any Jewish ones – don’t they have possession problems?

What? Me worry?’

17

Nu Vo Da Da,

I don’t think that the Great Schism affects the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession - it was a dispute about who would be Pope, but there was no doubt that the various candidates for Pope had all been properly ordained as priests and bishops. Eventually, it ended when both camps settled on an agreeable compromise candidate for Pope, Martin V.

With respect to Charlemagne: he was actively involved in reforms of the Western Church, and I think may have contributed to the addition of the “Filioque” passage to the Nicene Creed, which in turn contributed to the Schism with the Eastern Church.

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

18

Concerning the depiction of Joseph in various and sundry works of art: could it be that he is painted in darker colors and left in the background because Mary and the Christ child are considered to be divine, and Joseph merely a man? As for Mary and the Christ child being ugly. . . I guess that’s just a matter of personal preference.

“There are more things you don’t know than there are things that I do know. I despair of the imbalance.” – Dr. Morgenes, The Dragonbone Chair

19

Catholicism does not guarantee even absolution, much less heaven, based on confession or last rites.Walking into a confessional or being annointed is not what gains absolution, repentance does.

As for most Mafia members being nominally Catholic, yeah,probably, but practicing is another story.Is that a direct quote from the documentary?If so, I suspect Discovery messed it up. It would make far more sense to say that they believe they can run business as usual, repent and be absolved _because_they are Catholic ( not that I believe that) than the other way around. After all, if you’re choosing a religion based on what it teaches about getting into heaven, there are at least a couple that teach that once you accept Jesus as your savior,you will go to heaven, regardless of what you do, with no requirement for repentance.

20

By Catholic doctrine, you are only absolved of your sins if you are honestly repentant. If you say you are simply to avoid Devine Retrobution, you’re not going to win. You cannot lie to God.

That’s not to say that some - or even many - I wouldn’t go so far as to say most - Catholics believe that a Death-bed confession, no matter how half-assed or insincere, will get them past St Peter, but please don’t present it as Catholic Doctrine because of a Discovery Channel special on the Mob.

Interestingly, the only time I’ve ever seen ‘No matter what sin you commit, or if you’re sorry about it, if you’re one of us, you can still go to Heaven’ it was in a tract by the ANTI-Catholic Jack Chick. ‘The Killer’ I believe it was called. Unfortunately, chick.com isn’t responding, so I can’t provide a link to it. :confused:

Eschew Obfuscation