What is the Catholic Church and can it be trusted?
- Thread starter Old_alum
- Start date
Donnie, I did get smarter as I aged. I'm having a ton of fun and I will continue to do so until my health quits on me. Trust me, if you live a good life as a good person, there are more important things than worrying about the Church and an afterlife. Enjoy yourself, you earned the right through hard work and sacrifice. You can't take it with you and I tried FED EX to no avail.
Depends on your definition of childhood. I feel I am living at multiple levels of age at the same time. In addition to the wisdom and resources of my present age I have more energy than many 40 year olds and I use it and I have toys and activities now I wish I had in my 20s & 30s. In the past year I hiked the Grand Canyon, walked the Golden Gate Bridge to Saucalito, and next month I'm going to hike Mt. Rainier in Wa. ( hike, not climb, I'm not crazy ) Do I feel like a kid in a candy store? Yes!
I know you said I am just like a ''frog living in a well'', but do those like you who have experienced the oceans of the ''real world'' construe Paul as addressing his physical attributes when he wrote in
1 Corinthians 13:11 :
''When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.''
...and is all your thought and understanding focused on your toys and triumphs and ''resources''?
In the ''wisdom...of your present age'' have you ever contemplated the metaphysical as well?
Just wondering!
Paul lived in an entirely different world than we in today. He could not begin to imagine Autos, TV's, I phones, Airlplanes, TV, etc.
I think it is obvious from these threads that I think of a lot more than my worldly ways and goods..but I thank SHU & God for these gifts. As for the Metaphysical, mind and matter, I enjoy abstract thinking, but I prefer what I can see and touch.
I think it is obvious from these threads that I think of a lot more than my worldly ways and goods..but I thank SHU & God for these gifts. As for the Metaphysical, mind and matter, I enjoy abstract thinking, but I prefer what I can see and touch.
Oh! So you mean that when Paul put away the things of his childhood he was speaking of something else??
Then I guess one's man's obvious is another's opaque.
Oh, yes! I remember! Like sail boats, golf clubs and girl friends!
Those really must be ''more fun''!
This has been an amazing discussion. I am a former Catholic who chooses not to throw stones at the Church as so many other "ex(s)" have. Having said that I throw this question out to all who care to weigh in and I am sincerely asking for clarification. Why are the 10 Commandments, as taught by the Church, different than the 10 Commandments listed in Exodus and Deuteronomy? In short why was the second commandment (wherein "carved idols" are referenced) removed and why was the ninth commandment split in to two where in "goods" and "wife" were separated? Again, this is "curiousity" and not contention.
Way back when I went to SHU the core curriculum mandated at least 52 required course credits, including 12 in theology and 12 in philosophy. In sophomore theology I asked that same question and was told that the "Old Testament" was transcribed in ancient Hebrew and that not only did ancient Hebrew have no punctuation, most of its documents had no ''spaces'' between words. The example used to illustrate the potential confusion endemic therein was the two English words/phrases: (1) no where or (2) now here. There apparently was no reliable way to distinguish the author's intention when faced with two such almost antithetical renditions from the same script: nowhere.
While all spoke of the "Ten Commandments", these were neither separated nor enumerated. One can count 13 distinct ''thou shall'' or ''thou shalt not'' phrases. There could be no authoritative rationale to identify where the nine ''breaks'' came to separate the 10.
It was explained that the Catholic Church was neither arbitrary nor biased, but it was subjective in choosing where to set the nine breaks. The Catholic ''scholars'' apparently felt that the first commandment should include all of the following dealing with other gods:
1. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
The Catholics also put its ninth break between
9. You shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.
and
10. You shall not covet thy neighbor's goods.
to yield its ten.
That said, many other scholars suggested that the Catholics' first commandment had been intended as two different commandments:
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
and
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
These scholars then combined the coveting of both wife and goods as their tenth.
As I understand it, because of that ancient Hebrew writing style, there can be no definitive ''right place'' for each of the nine breaks.
Some now argue that the Catholics had lumped the ''no graven images'' with the ''no other gods before me'' just so that the former might be ''left out'' in ''abbreviated versions'' of the Ten Commandments, and in this way to surrepitiously ''justify'' its use of sacred statuary.
The Greek Orthodox eschew statues in favor of using the flattened ''icons'' now so associated with these Eastern rites.
Many modern Protestants now claim that Catholics have idol worship because of their veneration of statues not only of Jesus but of Mary and the saints as well.
Catholics teach that it is clear in many places in the Old Testament that God not only permitted graven images when they were not idolized, but He even mandated them. The two most notable examples of this were (a) when He, Himself, designed the Arc of the Covenant with golden angels engraved thereon; and (b) when He instructed Moses to make an engraved statue of a serpent to cure all the diseased Israelites who gazed upon it.
It seems that breaks, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.
Hope this helps. All questions welcomed!
This post was edited on 8/2 9:21 PM by Old_alum
Thank you for taking the time to offer such a thoughtful and scholarly response. My only point of difference would be that when reading Exodus 20 you will see that there are verse breaks between each commandment:
Exodus 20
New International Version (NIV)
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Deuteronomy 5, which re-states the 10 Commandments lists them in the same manner; so, in my opinion the dividing of "False gods" and "Carved images" and the consolidation of "Coveting" is correct. None the less your answer, by far, is much better than any other answer that has been offered to date... by anyone. You are absolutely correct in saying that God gave very detailed instruction for the image on the arc. God was equally specific with the length and design of the poles and rings. God was very specific in the design of other vessels, veils and buildings throughout the Old Testament. When people took it upon themselves to build their own "gods" such as the golden calf and ashera pole(s) God would make his displeasure known and not leave any room for doubt.
I truly appreciate the opportunity to engage in these types of discussions. I left the Church several years ago without regrets; however, I still hold a deep respect for the people who serve it so admirably such as yourself and our friend "Catholicman." You are a credit to your faith!!!
Exodus 20
New International Version (NIV)
The Ten Commandments
20 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Deuteronomy 5, which re-states the 10 Commandments lists them in the same manner; so, in my opinion the dividing of "False gods" and "Carved images" and the consolidation of "Coveting" is correct. None the less your answer, by far, is much better than any other answer that has been offered to date... by anyone. You are absolutely correct in saying that God gave very detailed instruction for the image on the arc. God was equally specific with the length and design of the poles and rings. God was very specific in the design of other vessels, veils and buildings throughout the Old Testament. When people took it upon themselves to build their own "gods" such as the golden calf and ashera pole(s) God would make his displeasure known and not leave any room for doubt.
I truly appreciate the opportunity to engage in these types of discussions. I left the Church several years ago without regrets; however, I still hold a deep respect for the people who serve it so admirably such as yourself and our friend "Catholicman." You are a credit to your faith!!!
Old Alum. What do you think of this use of Q.E.D.:
In chapter six of Douglas Adams, Q.E.D. is included in the following exchange:
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
In chapter six of Douglas Adams, Q.E.D. is included in the following exchange:
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Do you really want an opinion on an irrelevant passage from a science fiction novel. Jim?
Are you asking about the use of qed?? Or is it something deeper or cogent?
Tell you what. Since I have not read the book, why don't you phrase a question or two for me to repond to?
Are you asking about the use of qed?? Or is it something deeper or cogent?
Tell you what. Since I have not read the book, why don't you phrase a question or two for me to repond to?
Aldo,
I shall respond to your thoughtful post more thoroughly when I am at a computer, but for now I would suggest that the English formatting you see was also ''translated'' from the ancient Hebrew with the paragraghing inserted subjectively by the translator.
What was your biggest issue with the Catholic dogma?
I shall respond to your thoughtful post more thoroughly when I am at a computer, but for now I would suggest that the English formatting you see was also ''translated'' from the ancient Hebrew with the paragraghing inserted subjectively by the translator.
What was your biggest issue with the Catholic dogma?
Jim,
I was bemused by that Hitchhiker passage, as it is clever, precise and flawed.
It reminded me of an old --- and weak --- joke, which goes back to the odd epistemological quote you referenced earlier:
Rene Descartes took a flight to New York. The flight attendant asked if he wanted something to drink. Descartes paused and said ''I think not.'' And POOF he disappeared.
In some ways a half truth is worse than a full lie because many can be hoodwinked by their subconscious brain into subscribing to it.
For the premise in Adams' first phrase in that excerpt is flawed:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
Jesus said the whole purpose of life is to love God with your whole heart, your whole soul and your whole mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
So the accurate version of Adams excerpt might be:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, " for proof denies faith, and without faith humans could not choose love over selfishness, and without love humans are no more interesting than ants."
There can be no love without sacrifice. See O'Henry's The Gift of the Magi or, better, see Abraham and Isaac.
As I understand it, this is why in the old testament Abraham and the prophets centered Judaism totally on sacrifice (n.b. the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem circa 70 AD precluded all worship as the Jews had known it for 2,000 years --- with the Catholic Mass being God's continuation of Abrahamic sacrificial worship). Thus, since circa 150, the Jews in Palestine (Roman name) and Babylon had to reinvent their religion under the evolving Rabbinic system of prayer used today.
Without personal sacrifice no one can love.
To love an ''unproven'' or, better, a ''non-empirical'' god, it is as Adams wrote, one must choose a leap of Faith, not just an eternal insurance policy (see: Junior year theology at SHU). Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' is a prerequisite to human love of the divine or else it would be a 'leap of self-preservation'.
IMHO --- although Blaise Pascal was an ardent defender of the Catholic faith --- ''Pascal's Wager'' is antithetical to Christian agape --- selfless love. It is a 'leap of self-preservation'.
In Pascal's wager, without a leap of Faith, God would have been holding the proverbial gun to man's head. Man must be able to choose to love or there would be no reason for God to create him. It would not be as interesting as solitaire is to humans!
That's why IMHO, in his last book, Stephen Hawking (consummate mathematician, turned respected Physicist, turned floundering philosopher) seemed to confuse the selfless choice which humans make for love with the selfish choice which animals make for food, survival or whatever.
In any event, while in Hitchhiker the ''q.e.d.'' seemed to be placed with good intentions, Adams laid a false premise confusing the need of Faith for God's existence with the need of Faith for man's ability to love. IMHO Adams seemed to be stretching for his own version of the old Descartes-airplane joke, even though it seems to be only the subconscious brain which might find a flawed version amusing. The human-making conscious-brain should probably interpret it as weak as childish toilet humor.
Hope that furthers the process, Jim.
This post was edited on 8/5 9:48 AM by Old_alum
I was bemused by that Hitchhiker passage, as it is clever, precise and flawed.
It reminded me of an old --- and weak --- joke, which goes back to the odd epistemological quote you referenced earlier:
Rene Descartes took a flight to New York. The flight attendant asked if he wanted something to drink. Descartes paused and said ''I think not.'' And POOF he disappeared.
In some ways a half truth is worse than a full lie because many can be hoodwinked by their subconscious brain into subscribing to it.
For the premise in Adams' first phrase in that excerpt is flawed:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
Jesus said the whole purpose of life is to love God with your whole heart, your whole soul and your whole mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
So the accurate version of Adams excerpt might be:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, " for proof denies faith, and without faith humans could not choose love over selfishness, and without love humans are no more interesting than ants."
There can be no love without sacrifice. See O'Henry's The Gift of the Magi or, better, see Abraham and Isaac.
As I understand it, this is why in the old testament Abraham and the prophets centered Judaism totally on sacrifice (n.b. the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem circa 70 AD precluded all worship as the Jews had known it for 2,000 years --- with the Catholic Mass being God's continuation of Abrahamic sacrificial worship). Thus, since circa 150, the Jews in Palestine (Roman name) and Babylon had to reinvent their religion under the evolving Rabbinic system of prayer used today.
Without personal sacrifice no one can love.
To love an ''unproven'' or, better, a ''non-empirical'' god, it is as Adams wrote, one must choose a leap of Faith, not just an eternal insurance policy (see: Junior year theology at SHU). Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' is a prerequisite to human love of the divine or else it would be a 'leap of self-preservation'.
IMHO --- although Blaise Pascal was an ardent defender of the Catholic faith --- ''Pascal's Wager'' is antithetical to Christian agape --- selfless love. It is a 'leap of self-preservation'.
In Pascal's wager, without a leap of Faith, God would have been holding the proverbial gun to man's head. Man must be able to choose to love or there would be no reason for God to create him. It would not be as interesting as solitaire is to humans!
That's why IMHO, in his last book, Stephen Hawking (consummate mathematician, turned respected Physicist, turned floundering philosopher) seemed to confuse the selfless choice which humans make for love with the selfish choice which animals make for food, survival or whatever.
In any event, while in Hitchhiker the ''q.e.d.'' seemed to be placed with good intentions, Adams laid a false premise confusing the need of Faith for God's existence with the need of Faith for man's ability to love. IMHO Adams seemed to be stretching for his own version of the old Descartes-airplane joke, even though it seems to be only the subconscious brain which might find a flawed version amusing. The human-making conscious-brain should probably interpret it as weak as childish toilet humor.
Hope that furthers the process, Jim.
This post was edited on 8/5 9:48 AM by Old_alum
Aldo,
As I reread your last post, most of the rest was just gracious words for me, so thank you. One thing, though, in Deuteronomy the distinction between coveting goods and coveting people was clearer, I think.
Here is the same text from Exodus which you had just posted but --- to give a semblance of how the ancient Hebrew supposedly looked to the translators --- I have removed, breaks and punctuation and most but not all of the spaces (so it will fit on the board! LOL!):
AndGodspokeallthesewordsIamtheLordyourGodwhobroughtyououtofEgyptoutofthe landofslaveryYoushallhavenoothergodsbeforemeYoushallnotmakeforyourselfanimage intheformofanythinginheavenaboveorontheearthbeneathorinthewatersbelowYoushallnot bowdowntothemorworshipthemforItheLordyourGodamajealousGodpunishingthe childrenforthesinoftheparentstothethirdandfourthgenerationofthosewhohatemebut showinglovetoathousandgenerationsofthosewholovemeandkeepmycommandmentsYou shallnotmisusethenameoftheLordyourGodfortheLordwillnotholdanyoneguiltlesswho misuseshisnameRemembertheSabbathdaybykeepingitholySixdaysyoushalllaboranddo allyourworkbuttheseventhdayisasabbathttheLordyourGodOnityoushallnotdoanywork neitheryounoryoursonordaughternoryourmaleorfemaleservantnoryouranimalsnorany foreignerresidinginyourtownsForinsixdaystheLordmadetheheavensandtheearththesea andallthatisinthembutherestedontheseventhdayThereforetheLordblessedtheSabbath dayandmadeitholyHonoryourfatherandyourmothersothatyoumaylivelonginthelandtheLord yourGodisgivingyouYoushallnotmurderYoushallnotcommitadulteryYoushallnot stealYoushallnotgivefalsetestimonyagainstyourneighborYoushallnotcovetyour neighborshouseYoushallnotcovetyourneighbor'swifeorhismaleorfemaleservanthisoxor donkeyoranythingthatbelongstoyourneighbor
Be that as it may, the numbering IMHO is far less important than the content.
I hope this helps.
BTW what do you believe the New testament was trying to convey in these verses:
John 14:16 (The) ''Paraclete (will) abide with you for ever...teach you all things''
2 Pet 3:16 ''...things hard to understand, the unlearned twist...''
Mat 19:26 ''With men this is impossible: with God all things are possible''
I Cor 3:19 ''wisdom of this world is foolishness with God''
This post was edited on 8/5 11:39 AM by Old_alum
As I reread your last post, most of the rest was just gracious words for me, so thank you. One thing, though, in Deuteronomy the distinction between coveting goods and coveting people was clearer, I think.
Here is the same text from Exodus which you had just posted but --- to give a semblance of how the ancient Hebrew supposedly looked to the translators --- I have removed, breaks and punctuation and most but not all of the spaces (so it will fit on the board! LOL!):
AndGodspokeallthesewordsIamtheLordyourGodwhobroughtyououtofEgyptoutofthe landofslaveryYoushallhavenoothergodsbeforemeYoushallnotmakeforyourselfanimage intheformofanythinginheavenaboveorontheearthbeneathorinthewatersbelowYoushallnot bowdowntothemorworshipthemforItheLordyourGodamajealousGodpunishingthe childrenforthesinoftheparentstothethirdandfourthgenerationofthosewhohatemebut showinglovetoathousandgenerationsofthosewholovemeandkeepmycommandmentsYou shallnotmisusethenameoftheLordyourGodfortheLordwillnotholdanyoneguiltlesswho misuseshisnameRemembertheSabbathdaybykeepingitholySixdaysyoushalllaboranddo allyourworkbuttheseventhdayisasabbathttheLordyourGodOnityoushallnotdoanywork neitheryounoryoursonordaughternoryourmaleorfemaleservantnoryouranimalsnorany foreignerresidinginyourtownsForinsixdaystheLordmadetheheavensandtheearththesea andallthatisinthembutherestedontheseventhdayThereforetheLordblessedtheSabbath dayandmadeitholyHonoryourfatherandyourmothersothatyoumaylivelonginthelandtheLord yourGodisgivingyouYoushallnotmurderYoushallnotcommitadulteryYoushallnot stealYoushallnotgivefalsetestimonyagainstyourneighborYoushallnotcovetyour neighborshouseYoushallnotcovetyourneighbor'swifeorhismaleorfemaleservanthisoxor donkeyoranythingthatbelongstoyourneighbor
Be that as it may, the numbering IMHO is far less important than the content.
I hope this helps.
BTW what do you believe the New testament was trying to convey in these verses:
John 14:16 (The) ''Paraclete (will) abide with you for ever...teach you all things''
2 Pet 3:16 ''...things hard to understand, the unlearned twist...''
Mat 19:26 ''With men this is impossible: with God all things are possible''
I Cor 3:19 ''wisdom of this world is foolishness with God''
This post was edited on 8/5 11:39 AM by Old_alum
O.A.,
Thank you, once again, for your thoughtful post. We can debate this Commandment thing until the second coming; so, I'll let it rest at that. To answer your question as to why I left the Catholic Church.... wow.... hmmm where do I begin without sounding disrespectful. To give you an answer from "10,000 feet" I will just say that I had and still have fundamental differences. I was not just a casual member. I was very, very involved to the point where I was recommended for and was seriously considering pursuing Diaconate studies with the (stated) goal of becoming an ordained Deacon; however, I decided against it. There was no one issue that drove me away as opposed to several issues that I chose to ignore until I could not ignore them any more. The proverbial scales were removed from eyes. By the way... these issues were not based on the behavior of disgraced clergy. Not at all.
Suffice it to say that I made the decision to take myself and lead my family in a different direction; dare I say a more "Fundamental" direction where the Bible drives, the Spirit leads and Christ Jesus is at the center of everything. I can only imagine what must be running through your mind right about now; however, if you honestly reflect upon the Church right now you may (or may not) see where I am coming from. Here's a case in point: All too often at the Parish I attended (St Elizabeth Ann Seton in Port St Lucie, Florida) waaaaaaaaaaay too often our Pastor would preface points of his homily by saying "I do not profess to be a theological scholar or an expert in the Bible.... and I don't need to be"..... seriously?! There's something very wrong with that. When I asked the associate Pastor if he was familiar with parts Matthew's gospel wherein prayer was discussed he would smugly reply "which one of the four Matthews?" intimating that the Gospel according to the evangelist was nothing more than a concordance of different writers under one "Penname." Not to be judgmental; however, that is not how you lead people to Christ.
Another stimulus to my move was the overall attitude of the congregation in general (across most Catholic Churches). To put it in a nutshell I now attend services where the majority of the members can't wait for the Church to begin and these same people are in no rush for it to end. I have to believe you know where I'm going with this so I won't ramble on.
To your question as to the meaning of the below scripture;
John 14:16 (The) ''Paraclete (will) abide with you for ever...teach you all things''
2 Pet 3:16 ''...things hard to understand, the unlearned twist...''
Mat 19:26 ''With men this is impossible: with God all things are possible''
I Cor 3:19 ''wisdom of this world is foolishness with God''
Simple (not really). God's will is pure and perfect and so is His reason which is so beyond our human comprehension. A few years back I lead a year long Bible study wherein we read Genesis through Revelation in 365 days. It was AWESOME! During our weekly in-person discussions I would always say to my group: "Don't try to do this on your own... ask for the help and guidance of God's Holy Spirit to get you through the parts that just don't make sense." I reminded everyone there will be parts that will just make you scratch your head in wonder. It was a great study and to this date there are still parts of the God's word that require extra grace to work through. None the less I still read it in amazement. <
This post was edited on 8/5 9:31 PM by Aldo86
This post was edited on 8/5 9:32 PM by Aldo86
Thank you, once again, for your thoughtful post. We can debate this Commandment thing until the second coming; so, I'll let it rest at that. To answer your question as to why I left the Catholic Church.... wow.... hmmm where do I begin without sounding disrespectful. To give you an answer from "10,000 feet" I will just say that I had and still have fundamental differences. I was not just a casual member. I was very, very involved to the point where I was recommended for and was seriously considering pursuing Diaconate studies with the (stated) goal of becoming an ordained Deacon; however, I decided against it. There was no one issue that drove me away as opposed to several issues that I chose to ignore until I could not ignore them any more. The proverbial scales were removed from eyes. By the way... these issues were not based on the behavior of disgraced clergy. Not at all.
Suffice it to say that I made the decision to take myself and lead my family in a different direction; dare I say a more "Fundamental" direction where the Bible drives, the Spirit leads and Christ Jesus is at the center of everything. I can only imagine what must be running through your mind right about now; however, if you honestly reflect upon the Church right now you may (or may not) see where I am coming from. Here's a case in point: All too often at the Parish I attended (St Elizabeth Ann Seton in Port St Lucie, Florida) waaaaaaaaaaay too often our Pastor would preface points of his homily by saying "I do not profess to be a theological scholar or an expert in the Bible.... and I don't need to be"..... seriously?! There's something very wrong with that. When I asked the associate Pastor if he was familiar with parts Matthew's gospel wherein prayer was discussed he would smugly reply "which one of the four Matthews?" intimating that the Gospel according to the evangelist was nothing more than a concordance of different writers under one "Penname." Not to be judgmental; however, that is not how you lead people to Christ.
Another stimulus to my move was the overall attitude of the congregation in general (across most Catholic Churches). To put it in a nutshell I now attend services where the majority of the members can't wait for the Church to begin and these same people are in no rush for it to end. I have to believe you know where I'm going with this so I won't ramble on.
To your question as to the meaning of the below scripture;
John 14:16 (The) ''Paraclete (will) abide with you for ever...teach you all things''
2 Pet 3:16 ''...things hard to understand, the unlearned twist...''
Mat 19:26 ''With men this is impossible: with God all things are possible''
I Cor 3:19 ''wisdom of this world is foolishness with God''
Simple (not really). God's will is pure and perfect and so is His reason which is so beyond our human comprehension. A few years back I lead a year long Bible study wherein we read Genesis through Revelation in 365 days. It was AWESOME! During our weekly in-person discussions I would always say to my group: "Don't try to do this on your own... ask for the help and guidance of God's Holy Spirit to get you through the parts that just don't make sense." I reminded everyone there will be parts that will just make you scratch your head in wonder. It was a great study and to this date there are still parts of the God's word that require extra grace to work through. None the less I still read it in amazement. <
This post was edited on 8/5 9:31 PM by Aldo86
This post was edited on 8/5 9:32 PM by Aldo86
Rene Descartes took a flight to New York. The flight attendant asked if he wanted something to drink. Descartes paused and said ''I think not.'' And POOF he disappeared.
Cute joke at first glance but flawed. The quote " I think not" means that Descartes was actually thinking at that time, therefore "I think therefore I am" and he would not have disappeared.
The same holds true in the Hitchhiker joke. I feel that God had to be thinking, and, as Descartes, he too would not have disappeared.
Thanks, Jim
This post was edited on 8/6 1:17 PM by jim34238
Cute joke at first glance but flawed. The quote " I think not" means that Descartes was actually thinking at that time, therefore "I think therefore I am" and he would not have disappeared.
The same holds true in the Hitchhiker joke. I feel that God had to be thinking, and, as Descartes, he too would not have disappeared.
Thanks, Jim
This post was edited on 8/6 1:17 PM by jim34238
Aldo,
Thanks for the response!
There is an old saw about the Catholic Church --- which could apply to any organization: it would be wonderful except for its members and its leaders.
I grew up and started my career in the Northeast but I lived in the deep South for 20 years. It has been my experience that different people choose different churches --- or parishes --- for many reasons. A key question everyone has to ask herself/himself is: why (s)he goes to church at all? You see, the reason which I feel is not only the most important but also the only essential question often does not even show as a blip on many folk's radar: Christ's grace-giving sacraments. To me, this is a ''don't throw the baby out with the bath water'' issue.
But first let's discuss what I call the ''Big Five'' criteria:
1. The dogma
2. The pastor
. . . . a. his personal behavior
. . . . b. his knowledge
. . . . c. his preaching style
3. The piety of the congregation
4. The society of the congregation
5. The non-liturgical activities of the church
1. Dogma
Dogma should be the undergirding of all these choices. IMHO the integrated and consistent logic shown in Catholic teachings and in Catholic history completely validates the Church's interpretation of the bible, even though many come to this realization only after very serious discussion with an informed and articulate Catholic apologist, as I did. To me it is abundantly clear that any other Christian --- or IMHO non-Christian --- choice would be illogical --- and you know how strongly I feel about logic
In their religious studies, many often posit a simple but flawed premise, only to end up spinning their wheels for years or decades of diligent reading and discussion. It's a funny thing about a premise. If one were to make even a minor error on a premise, then everything which follows it --- no matter how stridently we vet its logic --- might in a moment be proved not logical at all. (Frustratingly, this has been true in finance and other fields as well.)
That is why I posted those four verses earlier. Christ promised the Apostles and their successors that the Paraclete would assure them the truth forever. Peter said that many wise men who do not listen to the Apostles (and their successors) can --- and do --- get twisted up in their own interpretations, to their own demise. Many non-Catholics say that protecting "oral" tradition is impossible. But Matthew pointed out that what seems impossible for man is easy for God. Many non-Catholics say that the wisdom of their own logic and interpretations are admired by men, but Paul in Corinthians says that the ''wisdom of this world is foolishness with God''.
But this seems irrelevant to our discussion.
Most seem to pick a church because it makes them feel right. Feeling right is wonderful, but IMHO secondary to thinking right.
But what is it which makes many people feel right about a non-Catholic church?
2. The pastor
Well, it almost always starts with the pastor.
Everyone would prefer a pastor who is:
a. brilliant
b. persuasive
c. entertaining
d. kind
e. considerate, and
f. invigorating.
But if one's own pastor were to be none of those, should one abandon one's dogma? Which is more important? More specifically which is more essential in a pastor --- right teaching or good feelings? Worshipping God through the Sacraments or being invigorated with intellectual stimulation and musical talent?
When the prophets arose in the Old Testament it was usually at a time when Israel and its leaders had strayed from the path set out by Abraham, Moses, et al. When the hearts of their time were hard, did the prophets throw up their hands and start a whole new church? Or, did they warn the miscreant leaders and guide them and their followers back to the way of truth?
Unfortunately, there are few pastors anywhere who meet all of the listed criteria. Alas, I fear that there are even fewer Catholic pastors who meet many of them. I think there is a good explanation for this. Protestant ministers must often create a congregation on their own, and then they must earn the congregation's support. If they fail to impress the flock, then they are out of business. Only the talented survive. On the other hand, Catholic pastors are first and foremost Priests empowered to worship God as He commands --- through the grace giving Sacraments which Christ instituted. They have more or less knowledge than some, more or less charisma than others. But for the most part they are rightly aligned with the Catechism, and --- as I stress --- Christ says that they are empowered to deliver His Grace.
Some pastors can be exasperating --- such as settling for simplicity in their role when it could be so much more inspirational. Some are personally annoying --- such as simply regurgitating the less-than-inspired ''historicity'' of the Gospels some were taught in seminary. Some are downright wrong! They make up their own interpretations which they like, or they feel their parishioners might like better.
For a Catholic, the good things are: (1) that there are usually many different parishes within a manageable drive, and, (2) that one can get stimulating and even entertaining religious discussion in many different --- and still Catholic --- venues other than the parish. One can even work to create all that is desired in his/her own parish!
IMHO the Catholic Pastor always fulfills his essential role as Priest, and anything more is gravy.
3. The piety of the congregation
The social motivation of sharing a struggle --- any struggle, even weight Watchers --- gives one reinforcement. When one's fellow churchgoers are antisocial, disrespectful and even aggressive driving out of the parking lot, it seems to drag down more than build up one's determination. Two things: judge not lest you be judged, and it is just such folks who give a Christian a ''bogey-rich environment'' to practice agape. Even the heathen loves those he enjoys.
4. The society of the congregation
The thrills of learning and debate can sometimes be characterized as pleasures of the flesh. The human animal is uniquely empowered to go beyond the mere pleasures of the flesh. When a pleasure is truly --- or even apparently --- shared with ''others'' that sharing brings all of those pleasures to the higher plane of joy. Therefore, one's friends and associates --- one's congregation --- can be primary in helping one achieve the true joy of religious strivings. I can assure you that I have experienced far more joy discussing religion with many of my fundamentalist friends in the South than I almost ever did with any Catholic! But I did not have to abandon Christ's teachings, his Sacraments or His apostolic Church to experience that joy. (BTW, the highest plane is happiness and that is what life --- and religion --- is all about. Mother Teresa gave up this joy for His sake).
5. The non-liturgical activities of the church
To many it might be a vibrant Youth Group or pleasing music heard (this might be classified as liturgical) or joining the choir to make the music or even playing in a Tuesday basketball league, that determines which church one chooses. How sad. Does that not deprecate the Lord's instructions and the saving grace of the Sacraments He instituted?
IMHO all non-Christian churches pray but few worship.
God's prophets made very specific strictures about the Sabbath and about the proper form of worship (sacrifice). Jesus' Apostles delineated a very specific sacrifice as the key to Sunday worship. Prayer is not enough.
IMHO Transubstantiation is an incredible gift! Why would anyone choose to sit at home looking a picture of his/her 87 year old grandmother, when she is sitting right down the street hoping for a visit? How can one ignore the instructions of Revelation: to knock, to enter and to EAT!
Many devoutly believe that non-Catholic churches offer a ''personal relationship with Jesus'' --- and perhaps they do. But I fail to understand how one's personal relationship with Jesus is dependent on one's fellow churchgoers, on one's pastor or on one's unique dogma. The former is the biggest part of one's Christian mission, but wouldn't one's relationship blossom even more fully if one were to do everything Jesus instructed?
This post was edited on 8/6 9:16 PM by Old_alum
Thanks for the response!
There is an old saw about the Catholic Church --- which could apply to any organization: it would be wonderful except for its members and its leaders.
I grew up and started my career in the Northeast but I lived in the deep South for 20 years. It has been my experience that different people choose different churches --- or parishes --- for many reasons. A key question everyone has to ask herself/himself is: why (s)he goes to church at all? You see, the reason which I feel is not only the most important but also the only essential question often does not even show as a blip on many folk's radar: Christ's grace-giving sacraments. To me, this is a ''don't throw the baby out with the bath water'' issue.
But first let's discuss what I call the ''Big Five'' criteria:
1. The dogma
2. The pastor
. . . . a. his personal behavior
. . . . b. his knowledge
. . . . c. his preaching style
3. The piety of the congregation
4. The society of the congregation
5. The non-liturgical activities of the church
1. Dogma
Dogma should be the undergirding of all these choices. IMHO the integrated and consistent logic shown in Catholic teachings and in Catholic history completely validates the Church's interpretation of the bible, even though many come to this realization only after very serious discussion with an informed and articulate Catholic apologist, as I did. To me it is abundantly clear that any other Christian --- or IMHO non-Christian --- choice would be illogical --- and you know how strongly I feel about logic
In their religious studies, many often posit a simple but flawed premise, only to end up spinning their wheels for years or decades of diligent reading and discussion. It's a funny thing about a premise. If one were to make even a minor error on a premise, then everything which follows it --- no matter how stridently we vet its logic --- might in a moment be proved not logical at all. (Frustratingly, this has been true in finance and other fields as well.)
That is why I posted those four verses earlier. Christ promised the Apostles and their successors that the Paraclete would assure them the truth forever. Peter said that many wise men who do not listen to the Apostles (and their successors) can --- and do --- get twisted up in their own interpretations, to their own demise. Many non-Catholics say that protecting "oral" tradition is impossible. But Matthew pointed out that what seems impossible for man is easy for God. Many non-Catholics say that the wisdom of their own logic and interpretations are admired by men, but Paul in Corinthians says that the ''wisdom of this world is foolishness with God''.
But this seems irrelevant to our discussion.
Most seem to pick a church because it makes them feel right. Feeling right is wonderful, but IMHO secondary to thinking right.
But what is it which makes many people feel right about a non-Catholic church?
2. The pastor
Well, it almost always starts with the pastor.
Everyone would prefer a pastor who is:
a. brilliant
b. persuasive
c. entertaining
d. kind
e. considerate, and
f. invigorating.
But if one's own pastor were to be none of those, should one abandon one's dogma? Which is more important? More specifically which is more essential in a pastor --- right teaching or good feelings? Worshipping God through the Sacraments or being invigorated with intellectual stimulation and musical talent?
When the prophets arose in the Old Testament it was usually at a time when Israel and its leaders had strayed from the path set out by Abraham, Moses, et al. When the hearts of their time were hard, did the prophets throw up their hands and start a whole new church? Or, did they warn the miscreant leaders and guide them and their followers back to the way of truth?
Unfortunately, there are few pastors anywhere who meet all of the listed criteria. Alas, I fear that there are even fewer Catholic pastors who meet many of them. I think there is a good explanation for this. Protestant ministers must often create a congregation on their own, and then they must earn the congregation's support. If they fail to impress the flock, then they are out of business. Only the talented survive. On the other hand, Catholic pastors are first and foremost Priests empowered to worship God as He commands --- through the grace giving Sacraments which Christ instituted. They have more or less knowledge than some, more or less charisma than others. But for the most part they are rightly aligned with the Catechism, and --- as I stress --- Christ says that they are empowered to deliver His Grace.
Some pastors can be exasperating --- such as settling for simplicity in their role when it could be so much more inspirational. Some are personally annoying --- such as simply regurgitating the less-than-inspired ''historicity'' of the Gospels some were taught in seminary. Some are downright wrong! They make up their own interpretations which they like, or they feel their parishioners might like better.
For a Catholic, the good things are: (1) that there are usually many different parishes within a manageable drive, and, (2) that one can get stimulating and even entertaining religious discussion in many different --- and still Catholic --- venues other than the parish. One can even work to create all that is desired in his/her own parish!
IMHO the Catholic Pastor always fulfills his essential role as Priest, and anything more is gravy.
3. The piety of the congregation
The social motivation of sharing a struggle --- any struggle, even weight Watchers --- gives one reinforcement. When one's fellow churchgoers are antisocial, disrespectful and even aggressive driving out of the parking lot, it seems to drag down more than build up one's determination. Two things: judge not lest you be judged, and it is just such folks who give a Christian a ''bogey-rich environment'' to practice agape. Even the heathen loves those he enjoys.
4. The society of the congregation
The thrills of learning and debate can sometimes be characterized as pleasures of the flesh. The human animal is uniquely empowered to go beyond the mere pleasures of the flesh. When a pleasure is truly --- or even apparently --- shared with ''others'' that sharing brings all of those pleasures to the higher plane of joy. Therefore, one's friends and associates --- one's congregation --- can be primary in helping one achieve the true joy of religious strivings. I can assure you that I have experienced far more joy discussing religion with many of my fundamentalist friends in the South than I almost ever did with any Catholic! But I did not have to abandon Christ's teachings, his Sacraments or His apostolic Church to experience that joy. (BTW, the highest plane is happiness and that is what life --- and religion --- is all about. Mother Teresa gave up this joy for His sake).
5. The non-liturgical activities of the church
To many it might be a vibrant Youth Group or pleasing music heard (this might be classified as liturgical) or joining the choir to make the music or even playing in a Tuesday basketball league, that determines which church one chooses. How sad. Does that not deprecate the Lord's instructions and the saving grace of the Sacraments He instituted?
IMHO all non-Christian churches pray but few worship.
God's prophets made very specific strictures about the Sabbath and about the proper form of worship (sacrifice). Jesus' Apostles delineated a very specific sacrifice as the key to Sunday worship. Prayer is not enough.
IMHO Transubstantiation is an incredible gift! Why would anyone choose to sit at home looking a picture of his/her 87 year old grandmother, when she is sitting right down the street hoping for a visit? How can one ignore the instructions of Revelation: to knock, to enter and to EAT!
Many devoutly believe that non-Catholic churches offer a ''personal relationship with Jesus'' --- and perhaps they do. But I fail to understand how one's personal relationship with Jesus is dependent on one's fellow churchgoers, on one's pastor or on one's unique dogma. The former is the biggest part of one's Christian mission, but wouldn't one's relationship blossom even more fully if one were to do everything Jesus instructed?
This post was edited on 8/6 9:16 PM by Old_alum
