Catholicism

YoungVader, I'll pray for your grandmother. I am sure that she's in the arms of Jesus right now watching over you.

 

I'll say a pray for you, and for your grandmother.


Peace.

 

Prayers sent for you youngvader and for your grandmother. Although I would have to agree with Jedi_Liz that she is in heaven now. I miss my own grandmother. She a died few years ago, and she always prayed for me. Knowing that someone is always praying for you without asking is very comforting.

 

Ya it is, My Grandmother used to say the rosary for me and it made me feel good to know she was praying for me while i was busy with life.

 

It was truly the only she could do at her age - to pray for all of us in the family. I remember as a child praying the Rosary every Sunday evening with family. It stopped once we moved to the South due to lack of time. My grandmother had lots of time.

The day she died (she was back home in her country), everyone in our family who could went to my aunt's house and prayed the Rosary and Novenas.

 

I also pray for your grandmother YoungVader.

 

I went to Mass today and didn't need to do any volunteer work during that time so I got to focus on the Mass more than usual.

The homily was based on Jesus's Two Great Commandments, which was the Gospel Reading today. I was just wondering what anyone's thoughts are on the relationship of these Two to the Ten Commandments given in the Old Testament within the Catholic Teachings.

 

I can give you my view on the ten commandments: they are only 50% correct. 5 of them are bull****.

 

doc4converse was referring to the two commandments that Jesus spoke of in the Gospel, NOT the 10 commandments.


'Love your neighbor as yourself' is a good way to live your life - be kind to people because that's the way you'd want to be treated.

 

I am sad to say that I have never visited the Cathoic church but would like to, I have been inside several cathedrals, but never been to mass.

I have had mixed feelings toward the Catholic Church. On one hand it teaches of Christ and does many good things, and helps people become better people, on the other hand it keeps many from greater truths and has been misused by some evil men.

To me, other than my own it is the only one that could plausibly be the only true church because it actually tries to claim a lineage from Peter, but it doesn't take long to look at the history and see that it has changed very much throughout it's history, and there have been many times that the leadership did things that were wrong.

However the greatest things are the non-biblical practices and doctrines that were introduced. And of those I would say infant sprinking baptism, the lack of the same organization of the original church with prophets and apostles, and the sale of indulgences stand out.

 

I went to the beginning of this thread early on and I was rather turned off by it by time I got to the 4th or 5th page, which is why I posted my question here. I was to see that the thread started in 2002. Anyway, this is the list of the ten commandments from one of those early pages of the thread:

I. I am the Lord your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.
II. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
III. Remember to keep holy the Lord's day
IV. Honor your father and your mother.
V. You shall not kill.
VI. You shall not commit adultery.
VII. You shall not steal.
VIII. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
IX. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife [spouse].
X. You shall not covet you neighbor's goods.


And from The New American Bible - Mark 12:29-31:
"This is the first...'you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the second, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "

But I guess I did not need to ask the question, since it right there in front of my eyes as I reread this. The first commandment as shared by Jesus reflects the first three of the ten commandments and the second commandment reflects what is the remaining ten commandments.

But I think Jesus, whether you believe him as the Son of God or as a historical figure, tried to teach that love is what drives us to do what is right - to show compassion to others, to treat others as you would be treated, etc. And as someone said earlier in this thread, I think he would be very disappointed with any of the organized religions today.

And yes, Espaldapalabras, infant baptism is a very lovely and important Tradition of the Church, I think. We baptize our infant with the same reasoning of talking to our infant. Baptism is a way of showing the community that this child will be raised in the Christian faith. One does not "not talk" to an infant until they are able to speak or make ready decisions, language like religion is introduced early. Or like I sometimes say - religion is there to 'brainwash' you - which is why it so important to learn how to think logically and independently.

EDIT: I will admit that I have broken more than half of the ten commandments at some point in my life. I am just not going to tell you which ones. I am only human

 

I can't fault you for trying to introduce children early on, in my religion we do bless the infant and have quite an extensive children's program.

However it is first of all non-biblical, only adults were baptized, but what is more important is that when you are baptized you are making a promise to God to keep his commandments and that it is to cleanse from sin. From my understanding, according to your doctine, correct me if I am wrong, but a child who is not baptized who dies will not go to heaven. Now I understand this to be because of original sin, but to me, I would think such a belief denies Christ's mercy and sacrifice.

I don't think I meant this to be as confrontational as it probably sounds, but it is what I honestly believe.

I must admit that I have been a missionary to an area that was predominatly Catholic, and to most of those that I talked with about this agreed with me that such a child should not be condemmed, but I know at least there was time in the Catholic church that such was the belief, but tell me if this is not true now.

And because a child does not know what they are doing, or rather what is being done, they aren't making a covenant with God to keep his commandments because you can't enter into a contract that you don't know about.

Also baptism by immersion is a huge part of this, if Christ was the perfect example of everything and he was baptised that way, by what authority did they change this ordenence?

I guess I should probably stay out of this thread because I don't know if I can be as respectful as I should be, but after so long explaining to Catholics why they needed to be baptised correctly, it is pretty hard to break the habit. I guess the biggest criticisms of the church I have heard were those made by the former Catholics that I saw converted. To be honest, the Catholic church is the one that theologically is closest to my own, however I found that it was one of the easiest to um, how do I say, show the problems with? It is kind of hard to say "prove wrong" in a nice way, so please forgive my failure. I really don't mean to be inflamatory, and I think you guys are great people that do great things, and I think I pretty much failed at trying to disagree without being disagreeable so please forgive me.

 

well, at Confirmation, we renew the Baptismal promises made by our parents and our godparents. We also do that at Easter time. Yes, an infant doesn't know what's happening. The purpose of infant baptism is to take away the stain of Original Sin that we are born with.

 

And that is really the point, that I don't think that an infant who dies without baptism will be condemed to hell because of original sin.

 

There is some Church doctrine that explains "original sin" and the Church does not state that infants go to Hell - it should be at one of the Catholic websites. But I would be described as a so-called liberal Catholic to the point that some Catholics and even Protestants would say that I am not a Christian. I grew up in the Bible Belt of the United States and was always told that I would be going to Hell for being Catholic. That is one of many reasons why I am still a member of the Church, despite all of its issues. The Church has been horrendous in teaching the importance of Personal Faith, but I believe that is changing. Most Catholics who leave the church for intelligent and logical reasons usually end up in Lutheran or Episcopalian [spelling] Churches because the doctrines are similar to a certain extent.

From what I can see from this thread, it is alright to post here with your questions since someone will answer eventually
But I also prefer to avoid the thread myself because in my mind there is no correct or wrong way of practicing a faith or practicing no faith. I saw this thread early in the summer and never posted until today I think.

 

First of all, I encourage anyone who has questions about what Catholics believe to look it up in the Catechism, as it does an excellent job of explaining Church teaching. For example, if you look up baptism in the Catechism, you'll find it seems to prefer baptism by immersion:

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

It also explains that the reason for pouring water over the head is also a valid and very ancient practice (i.e. having its origins with the apostles). The Didache, written in AD 70 says this about baptism, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Though the exact method in which Jesus was baptized is preferred, it is not always practical and thus other methods were deemed acceptable.

RE infant baptism:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

The "households" baptized in Acts can be interpreted to have included infants as well. It also says that infant baptism demonstrates just how undeserved the grace of salvation is. Everyone is born with original sin and let's not forget "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23. It is by no action or promise of ours that we are saved but only through the grace of God.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[cf. John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

God

 

Speaking of baptism, where did the Catholic Church find authorization to move from full immersion baptism to the sprinkling they currently practice?

 

Here's a detailed answer. It's a pro-Catholic source, but explains why the practice is done.

In the Didache, which was written in 70 A.D, it states: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

It's a practice that has been around since the beginning.

 

Fair enough, although that doens't really address the question of why there was an inversion from "method of last resort" to the apparently preferred method.

 

full immersion for an infant would be a bad idea. The sprinkling and the blessing by the priest are valid.

 

I think this might be a good time to express my views on Catholicism, sorry if it's not about the current discussion in this thread.

The Catholic Church couldn't breed more ignorance if it tried. They've gotten more liberal, but if you look back during the last few centeries, and even the last 50 years you will find that they can't let go of anyting, including their hateful beliefs. It took them a long time to stop believing that if you weren't Catholic you were going to hell. I actually knew someone whose mom was Baptist and dad was Catholic and they told her her mom was going to hell. And being born a family of different religions she tried to learn something from the Baptist church and one day they found out and kicked her out of the Church, simply for attending events that really weren't that religious. Anyway, they make strict laws for their religious leaders and priests, which are uneccessary and stupid. These being that priests and nuns can't marry because "they're married to God." Bull****. They want these people to help preach love but they cut off love from them. Don't even get me started on how long it took them to accept that the earth was round. They make their rules to strict, too narrow-minded, and they go off and say it's a sin to vote for anyone who doesn't agree with them. *cough*Jonh Kerry's views on abortion*cough* They preach a strict interpretation of the bible, which causes all sorts of prejeduce and what not, and then of coarse they cling to the bible as fiercly as possible until they can't hold on any longer.

I'd say they're getting better but in consideration of their new pope, I definately think that will be stunted. This guy said that Harry Potter was evil because it has "witchcraft" in it. As for evolution, in the last 50 years the church has actually been pretty good about it and not condeming it with damnation threats, but that will change with Ratzinger (hope I spelled that right.) Overall the Catholic Church needs to losen up a little and be more open minded.

Note: I was not refering to all Catholic churches. Just the official stances on the church, or the beliefs of most of the churches.

 

Shredder, although I don't agree with the church position on priests and nuns marrying (a great many Catholics don't, and many priests don't either), there is no way that the Church will bend on the issue of abortion.

Nor should they. Murder of the unborn out of convenience is a mortal sin in Catholic dogma, and any politican who supports it is party to it because of their position of influence and responsibility.

Just saying that that you're a politician doesn't excuse you from sin.

I also don't know of anyone but the most extremely orthodox that says any other Christians but Catholic Christians don't go to heaven, but I do hear a great deal about that from Protestant faiths about Catholicsm. My fiancee's aunt and cousin go to a church just like that, and we have to hear about it every time there is a family get together.

heh

 

Shredder, although I don't agree with the church position on priests and nuns marrying (a great many Catholics don't, and many priests don't either), there is no way that the Church will bend on the issue of abortion.

Nor should they. Murder of the unborn out of convenience is a mortal sin in Catholic dogma, and any politican who supports it is party to it because of their position of influence and responsibility.

Just saying that that you're a politician doesn't excuse you from sin.

True, however, I don't agree they you should totoally dismiss a politician just because of one stance. And say it's a sin to vote for him....all because of one stance seems absolute and silly.

I also don't know of anyone but the most extremely orthodox that says any other Christians but Catholic Christians don't go to heaven, but I do hear a great deal about that from Protestant faiths about Catholicsm. My fiancee's aunt and cousin go to a church just like that, and we have to hear about it every time there is a family get together.

Yeah, I think they've changed this. The story I was refering to was one in the 50s or 60s I think. I think they've gotten rid of this view.

 

There's reason that Nuns can not marry. They take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. They devote their lives to prayer. I have an aunt who is a nun and yes it would have been nice for her to marry, but I think that the religious life was best for her. And nuns can have fun - my aunt loves to play Scrabble and cards.

Priests being celibate is a discipline and while its possible for it to change, it won't likely change. The Byzantine Catholic rite allows married priests (and I've posted about this before - its probably a page or two back).

As for Evolution - i think they allow some acknowledgement, but we do NOT leave God out of the picture **entirely**.

 

There's reason that Nuns can not marry. They take vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. They devote their lives to prayer.

Why can't they devote their lives to prayer and their spouse?