Catholics! Who decided all of this?

Great Debates
21

Gee, what a day to get stuck away from this Forum.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to repeat all the good stuff that has already been posted.

A couple of points that have slipped through the general discussion:

The issue of actually worshipping Mary and the saints has been dealt with (we don’t, although there are people who will fight with us over some terminology). The other issue regarding graven images is a little more complex (although it is great fodder for Jack Chick and other haters).

The Jewish Law strictly forbade any graven images and adherence to that law became a central point of Jewish culture. As Christianity spread out into Gentile lands, it encountered people who did not have the same cultural revulsion to statues. It was clear to the various Greeks, Romans, Libyans, Spaniards, Gauls, etc. that they were not actually worshipping the statues, but the gods that the statues represented. As these people converted to Christianity, they matched their own ideas of representational art up against the Jewish Law and decided that since they were not actually worshipping the statue, they were not in violation of the Law. At different times through the history of Christianity, reformers have reviewed the commandments and decided that the Church had gone astray by allowing statues. The Catholic Church has responded by pointing out the narrower understanding of worshipping idols and has shrugged off the complaints. It is fair to disagree with the Catholic position. It is innaccurate to claim that Catholics worship either the saints or the statues. It is vile calumny to suggest that (as I read recently) some cabal of RCC leaders plotted to “remove” the commandment for the purpose of leading the people astray.

(I will freely concede that there are particular Catholics whose veneration of the saints comes a lot closer to my definition of adoration, however, that is still not the position of Church teaching.)

Most of the particulars have been addressed on this point. Two that have not (unless I missed them):
By Catholic interpretation of Scripture, Jesus authorized priests (or the designated successors to the disciples) to forgive sins when he told them “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Jn 20:23 (RSV).

In addition, the Church sees the forgiveness that occurs in the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance/Confession as a reconciliation between the individual and the Body of Christ (the entire Christian community). The Church holds that if a person is truly sorry for their sin(s), God forgives them at the time they repent, but to be reconciled to the whole Church so as to participate fully in the Church, one makes the physical (and public) act of going to confession. The confession does not have to be bruted about for anyone to hear, but the act is public in the sense that the person has approached the visible representative of the community to make that confession.

The birth control issue is one that is contentious even within the RCC. A fairly distinguished group of theologians, pastors, and lay people who worked with families and family issues was called together to make a recommendation regarding contraception in light of the new technology of the Pill and changes to some other forms. Paul VI took much of their presentation under consideration, but promulgated an encyclical that came to a quite different conclusion than the panel had reached. Depending on your perspective, either Paul VI or the Holy Spirit made the decision. (It was certainly not imposed by any group within the RCC.)

Tom~

22

tracer said:

I supose you think the majorityof African-Americans like watermelon, too.

Bigotry against any group is just wrong.

23

Not much I can add to this debate, y’all seem to be doing a fine job of defending my faith for me.

A note on the birth control issue- I’ve heard some conversion testimonies by people who have converted to Catholocism who swear their sex lives got a whole lot better once they stopped using artificial birth control.

Seems they feel that if a couple isn’t open to the possibility of conceiving a child when they make love, they’re holding back something very vital from one another…

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side.” — Han Solo

24

OK. Excellent information so far – and NO NAME CALLING YET!

Birth control: With the general population booming and feeding them becoming a problem, when the general governments of the various nations leap at viable birth control, it seems odd that the Pope disagrees. Many other forms of the Christian Religion feel that too many people tend to follow the ‘go forth and multiply’ section of the Bible far too literally. If there was no artificial birth control, we could, quite literally, breed ourselves out of our food supply and directly into major wars.

Plus, how is it that many of the passages quoted by you respondents seem not to be in the standard Bible and why are there two generally accepted Bibles? One for non-Catholics and one for Catholics. I’m not the world greatest authority on the Bible, but over the years I have read and heard many a passage.

Concerning religious paintings: I wish I could give you a link to some because I have looked at some portraits of the Madonna and Child where Jesus is positively ugly and almost looks sinister while Mary Herself seems to be painted by an amateur. But then, I’ve also seen two paintings of a Monarch of England where in one he looks like Plasticman (old comic book character) with his chin and lower jaw stretched very much out of shape and in another, he looks like a regular guy.

WHAT! No comments on exorcisms?

What? Me worry?’

25

Hi Rainbowcsr,

Just putting in my 2 cents.

About Joseph:

I will not disagree with Gaudere’s assertions. (He’s a Moderator after all.)
But I have read books which do question traditional Church answers.

The arguments are as follows.

  1. Joseph was portrayed in this manner because he was problamatical for the Church.

Jesus is called the Son of David.

So the Church needed Joseph to establish the link to David.

But Catholics deny Joseph ever “knew” Mary.

The argument points out this contradiction.

Also the argument denies that Mary was a maiden.

It says this is a translation error in our English Bibles.

This argument goes like this.
Aramaic bethulah means virgin.
Aramaic almah means unmarried woman.

The word used in the gospels was almah.
NOTE: I don’t speak Aramaic.

So the argument is that Joseph, descended from the line of Davidian kings, knocks up Mary after they are engaged, but before the marriage.
NOTE: I know nothing about ancient jewish marriage customs.

Also these books claim the office of Bishop come directly from the jewish priesthood.

FTR- I’m refering to…
------Blodline of the Holy Grail. by Lawrence Gardner.
------Jesus the Man. by Barbara Theiring.

I have also read somewhere else that Peter maybe wasn’t the first Bishop of Rome. That St. Linus was.
Apparently Peter’s name is missing from some early papal lists.
NOTE: again I have no idea whether this is true or not.

Another interesting mistranslation in English Bibles.

Moses did not part the Red Sea.

Moses parted the Sea of Reeds.
(an unknown location}

Aparently an error crept in when the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek around 400 BCE.

This one is better substantiated.
I got it from: Don’t Know Much About the Bible. by Kenneth C. Davis.

Anyway I hope I haven’t helped confuse the issue for everyone.
Rainbowcsr, I have copies of all these works if you have (brief) questions about them.

God said to Abraham" Kill me a son."
Abe said" Man, you must be putting me on…"

Bob Dylan.

26

Now I’m confused. Is Rainbowcsr asserting that the existence of poorly done artwork by Catholic artists is somehow a case against the Church’s validity? Some of the most beautiful works I’ve seen are representations of the Buddha. Should we all become Buddhists?

27

Mino correction to my point no. 1, concerning the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches: It wasn’t the Pope who anathematised the East, it was Cardinal Humbert, his delegate to a conference at Constantinople in 1054, which had been intended to try to patch things up.

When the conference failed, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Easterns, and Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematized the Latins in return.

I believe that Pope John Paul II and the current Patriarch have lifted the excommunications and anathemas, as a gesture towards reconciliation - but don’t have a cite for that.

::::grumble, grumble grumble - always check references - grumble, grumble, grumble::::

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

28

Me, I’m an atheist, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight.

However, it sure seems to me like a lot of Catholics are doing some serious hair splitting on the distinction between “veneration” and “adoration”. In fact, I’m not so sure this isn’t a distinction without a difference. I’ve known a lot of Catholics who seem to stride boldly across that “veneration”/“adoration” line. (If such a line exists.)

(Isn’t there some ongoing controversy within the Church over the so-called “cult of Mary”. Seems like I read an article in one of the news magazines a while back about the concern that some factions within the church were crossing the line into “worship” of Mary. Don’t recall all the details of the squabble, so I will accept correction if I am misinformed.)

It also seems like hair-splitting to me to have a statue (or “graven image”), but then to take the position that you are not really worshipping the statue, but the being it represents. Seems like an awfully fine line to walk, especially considering the attention that is lavished on these statues in practice. (The Black Madonna of Montserat comes to mind.)

Hey, I do not intend to attack your faith (makes no difference to me what you believe, really), but I do see some issues here.

–In France I’m considered a genius.

29

When I was a kid and in Boy Scouts, we all met at a Methodist Church, in one of the class rooms. Scout Sunday came about, where all of the Boy Scouts would wear their uniforms to church, and most would attend services at the church which sponsored them. For us, that would have been the Methodist Church – no matter which one we normally went to.

A friend of mine and a fellow scout was Catholic and I was quite surprised to find out that he could not attend. Being curious, I asked why and discovered that he was not allowed by the Church to attend services at any other church not Catholic.

Is this true? I recall at first, not knowing about this, joking with him and telling him he WAS going to attend services at the Methodist church and he actually got irritated over it. Later I found out the reason.

Now, not being Catholic, I’m used to being able to attend any church of any other sect I choose without any form of ‘revenge.’ I can even attend services at a Jewish Temple or a Muslim one.

Now, to me, restricting one to one’s own particular church sounds like a form of control and/or prevention of getting other ideas.

What? Me worry?’

30

The rules about worshipping in a non-Catholic Church are considerably revised or relaxed since Vatican II (although not everyone has gotten the word and not everyone understands the differences).

The discipline of the RCC regarding “Keep Holy the Lord’s Day” is to worship at mass whenever possible. (Sailors on long voyages with no chaplains and people in remote areas with few priests (such as Seattle) are obviously exempt.) Going to a different religious service instead of a Catholic mass would be considered a violation of this rule.

Prior to the ecumenical movement that coincided with Vatican II, the RCC was at extreme loggerheads with the “heretical” Protestants and even attending a Protestant service in addition to attending mass was a violation of the rules. Now, it would not be considered improper to worship with other believers, provided that nothing in the other service contradicts Catholic teaching and provided that worshipping at the other service was not a substitute for worshipping at mass. (Personal recollections of Father A agreeing to this activity or Father B condemning that activity are not relative to this discussion. I’m mentioning the general rules, not how different humans have decided to interpret them based on their education and the specific situation they are addressing. The Catholic Church is not nearly the granite monolith that it appears to outsiders and there is always disagreement and contradictory understandings found within it.)

Tom~

31

I don’t remember a rule that Catholics can’t attend other churches’ services, although they would probably not be allowed to participate in the actual rituals, such as taking another’s communion. When I was a kid in Catholic school (1960’s), we were encouraged to learn about other religions, as respectful guests. We held mock Seders at Passover, for example. Was your friend just forbidden by his parents, perhaps, who might have been mistaken about what the Church allows?

32

What book do you call the “standard” bible?

The Authorized or King James Version that was translated using the lofty language of Shakespeare in order to “elevate” the word of God in the highest manner, but had to resort to using the Latin Vulgate for much of its source because the original Greek and Hebrew versions were not available to the English translators? The Douai-Rheims version that was translated exclusively from the Latin Vulgate (as the version of Scripture “approved” by the Catholic Church)? The Revised Standard Version, that started from the basis of the KJV, but went back to original Greek and Hebrew sources to correct errors and clarify language from the KJV? The whole list of bibles published since the 1960’s, each using a different scholarly team to tackle the Scripture in the original languages, but attempting to translate them into language that is more easily accessible to people in Great britain, or Canada, or the U.S., (or to be equally accessible to all those various English dialects simultaneously)?

To understand the whys and wherefores of the various translations, you have to pick up each one and read its Introduction. We have numerous translations because people have looked at existing translations and have found them wanting. That’s people for you.

A separate issue is the Catholic Bible vs the Protestant Bible. Basically, the early Christians had access to a large amount of Jewish literature, some of is clearly Scripture, some of it inspirational, but not necessarily regarded as the Word of God. Those early Christians chose to include a number of the not-yet-scriptural books among the books that they considered Scripture. Around 100 CE, Jewish scholars convened at Jamnia to deal with the issue of which books were truly Scripture for the Jewish Canon. Most of the books the Christians were using were included (the Christians were coming from the same understanding, initially), but they also excluded several books that the Christians had claimed as Scripture. Since, by that time, the 65-year-old Christian cult was clearly separate from Judaism, neither side paid much attention to the other side’s views. Leap ahead 1400 years. Luther has become the most recent (and first successful) “reformer” of the RCC. Once he has broken with Rome, he takes the time to re-evaluate all of Rome’s teachings. He compares the Old Testament to Jewish Scripture and asks “Why do we have books that the Jews do not consider Scripture?” The answer he arrives at is that it is a mistake, and he sets those books aside as the Apocrypha (the “hidden” books). Now, he is not simply being contrary here. Catholic scholars had also noted the same discrepancy between Jewish and Christian Scripture and had listed those same books separately, calling them Deutero-canonical (basically second-tier canon) and there had been discussion about whether some of them should be removed from the canon. Once Luther demanded that they all be chucked out, the RCC demanded that they all be kept in, so there the matter stands.

Tom~

33

Rainbowcsr:

I do too. Until you can, I think the “issue” of ugly paintings is irrelevant, don’t you?

Er, huh? What, pray, is the “standard Bible?” Check the bookshelves, you’ll find dozens of translations. Many of them are much more accurate translations than the good ol’ KJV.

Other than it seems you watch too many movies? Excorcisms are not at all common, public belief to the contrary. And yes, there have been Jewish excorcisms.
2sense:Gaudere is a woman, and her authority stems not from being a moderator, but from being an expert on art and painting.

AFAIK, this is not true. Mary had other children by Joseph, after Jesus. And the contextual meanings of bethulah and almah have been debated for centuries–in fact there are entire books written about them.
Spoke:

That’s as may be, but as Tom pointed out, there is a difference between dogma and practice. While some Catholics might cross the line, the Catholic Church is pretty clearly on the side of veneration and prayers of intercession rather than that of worship.

As a side note, I’m reading Jack Whyte’s Camulod Chronicles (highly recommended, especially for historical fiction fans). Whyte does a very nice job of discussing the rise of papal authority and monasticism as in opposition to Pelaigian Heresy (many elements of which were echoes in the Protestant Reformation) from a secular perspective. Definitely worth the read.

-andros-

34

Maybe I can help a bit.

On exorcism:

By Rainbowcsr at posted 03-26-2000 04:59 PM

I grew up Protestant, and joined the RCC about 7 years ago. Catholics certainly have no monopoly on exorcism, but nobody else that I know of calls it “exorcism”. As a Protestant, I simply called it “driving out evil spirits” or some such. And I saw it happen a lot more in the Protestant church than I see now, as a Catholic.

And to spoke-, on the hairsplitting between veneration and adoration:

The hair being split is not between veneration and adoration, but between veneration/adoration and worship. To venerate is to say “hey, you’re really great, I admire you and strive to be like you” but to worship is to say “you are God, holy, divine Lord…” You will never (I hope) hear a Catholic say “Mary is Lord!”, because she ain’t. She is special, filled with grace, and has been blessed beyond measure. The “Blessed Virgin” can help us by interceding with her Son, but she cannot save us.

As a Protestant-then-Catholic, the worship of Mary has been a tricky question for me, because I thought I saw worship of Mary like you do. Today, however, everyone I know that exhibits that behavior (e.g., dedication to the Rosary, pilgrimages to visitation sites, etc.) has me convinced that they are Jesus-centered, and see Mary as more of an ally, a perfect friend.

On statues and paintings in churches:

I don’t see the statues as any different than the pictures of loved ones hanging in my family room. Catholics don’t worship the icons, and unless it’s a statue of Christ, they don’t worship the being it represents, either.

I agree that is can seem like a fine line to tread, but it’s an important one, and clearly marked. Much like the yellow line in the road!

:slight_smile:

35

I’ll offer a guess as to the “ugly” paintings; Gaudere will correct me if wrong. It seems like you think this particular category of religious art is supposed to be “artistic” or something. You are judging it in modern terms of art. I don’t mean you’re judging it by modern artistic standards, but by a modern value system of what art is supposed to be. “Art for art’s sake” is a relatively recent notion. Medieval artists weren’t trying to “express themselves”; they were doing a job, same as if they were digging moats. They were hired by the Church, or the Church’s managers, on the basis of what talent they had, to produce this art as a means of inspiring an illiterate population. It didn’t really matter whether the art was beautiful or not, as long as it got the message across, by showing Mary and Jesus in a good light. If Joseph was added at all, it was probably for a sense of balance. Kinda reminds me of the MP sketch that has the Pope arguing with Michaelangelo about his Last Supper with three Christs. “It works, mate!”

36

Rainbowcsr:

I’m seeing a pattern in your posts insinuating that the Catholic church is a revision of Christianity. If that’s not your intent, I apologize for misinterpreting you.
However, if it IS your position that Catholicism uses something other than the “standard bible” I suggest that you do some research. You will find that it is all of the other Christian religions that are revisions on the original Christian religion, which is Catholicism. You should be asking questions regarding who gave those other religions the authority to determine their rituals, practices, and traditions.

You must not know those Catholics or their religion very well. Perhaps you should review the words of the ‘Hail Mary’ since that’s obviously what you’re referring to.

BTW, although I was brought up Catholic, I am in no way religious whatsoever. I urge you to do research only for the purpose of fighting your own ignorance, since that’s what this board is all about. If your not interested enough to do your own research, you may want to ask yourself why you’re interested at all.

37

Something seems incongruous,Rainbowcsr. You ask valid questions but bring in ignorant assumptions or poorly understood second hand anecdotes. It is like somebody asking how a photon’s quantum spin is affected by its movement through the ether. One explanation is that you are intelligent but poorly educated. The other explanation is that you are a bigoted asshole. So much for avoiding the name calling.

38

Is this of any use?

Rainbowcsr, having now read all the information above… can you answer these questions for me?

Do Catholics worship Mary?
Is there a rule that forbids Catholics from attending other religious services?
Who decided that the Catholic Church should be against birth control?

  • Rick
39

[Moderator Hat ON]

You should seriously consider avoiding the name-calling, at least in GD, lest you bring the Wrath of Gaud on your head. The Pit is over thataway if you feel you must fling insults. When you’re in GD, please keep it reasonably civil.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

40

andros,

the issue of Mary & Joseph’s sexual relations was thrashed out in Jesus’ Siblings and Virgin Birth. Consensus seemed to be that for the RC Church, doctrine is that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. It’s not a view shared by Protestant churches.

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe