Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

So here's somethin'. Recently I was at a birthday party for someone in a young adults group I recently left (reasons why were not relevant to this story), and struck up a conversation with her brother while he worked on a generator. Somehow the conversation came to him asking me what type of Christian I am and I typically consider myself non-denominational. He and his sister are what I would describe as non-politically correct devout Catholics.

The part of the conversation didn't last long, mainly because I wasn't prepared for him to attack my beliefs and try and argue apologetics at that moment, but also because I was a little drunk just wishing to pass the time. Anyways, he pretty much low key called me a heretic, and accused me of "being my own pope." Because I didn't like the rules, I made a religion to fit what I wanted things to be. He then gave the analogy of people not liking the government but still obeying the laws, or having bad cops but still accepting their tickets. He then started to list what some bishop said about this. I was close to telling to go F himself and leave, mainly because I didn't appreciate getting scolded at that moment not nearly at my best, but instead shook my head and smiled. I also try to hear others out when they challenge my faith anyways, as I believe it keeps our beliefs sharp. Anyways, the subject passed and we got back to more jovial things, but it did leave a lasting thought in my mind.

So I grew up Catholic. Went through 12 years of Catholic school. Did all the Sacraments of Initiation. I left the faith due to disagreements with the hierarchy. Not only that, but throughout those 12 years we were never in a setting that encouraged us to think about our faith and research the Bible and God's Word. It wasn't until I talked with an ex-Jehovah Witness that got me interested in studying the Bible. And I have to say, the Catholic schools left a lot out. I cannot say I am a Protestant as when I reflect on things, my beliefs are maybe a little closer to the Catholic side, but definitely are not Catholic. I have a lot of respect for Catholics, I just think there are a lot of problems with the hierarchy.

Anyways, there are some things that pop out to me from that conversation, and I guess I'm posting them here because I don't like fighting with people not present, as it usually puts words in their mouth and I typically win. The first challenge would be some things he said about Protestantism. Again, I'm not a Protestant, but some of the things he said feel backwards when it comes to history. He stated that Martin Luther wrote his challenges because he was screwing nuns and wanted to change the religion to his own beliefs. He also claimed that Protestantism was created so that the people didn't have to think about their faith, that anyone can "be their own pope".

Umm, Okay. That's not congruent to my experience to Catholicism nor some of the history of the Church. At least in my experience, the monotonous rituals during a Catholic mass lend themselves to a sort of zombie-like trance, where I question if most truly understand what is being said. Most of my family is Catholic, but could never hold up in a deep theological discussion like the ones I have with the Protestants I know. I'm not a history buff but wasn't it the Catholic Church that banned the ownership of the Bible? Didn't the great schism and Reformation occur because the Church was acting too much like corrupt politicians rather than men of God?

Then we get to the "be your own pope" thing, as well as the odd analogies of obeying the law despite not liking the government. I understand what point he's trying to make here. He's likely talking about changing God's Law to something that we want, or something more convenient for us. That's a valid point, but it is irrelevant to "being your own pope". Quite honestly if he asks me again if I "am my own pope", I will probably say "yes, yes I am." This comes to one of my biggest issues with Catholicism, the infallibility of the pope and the hierarchy being the true Apostolic Church. The Church has been infiltrated by the Marxists, both on the lower and upper echelons of the hierarchy. The pope is actively saying and promoting things that are perpendicular to God's Law. That's a simple fact and not for debate. So which side am I to follow? Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction states that it is illogical to follow both, so I'll follow my limited interpretation of what God says rather than someone who is saying known lies.

During a Catholic Mass, there is a point called the Profession of Faith where you state the clear bullet-proof core beliefs of the Catholic faith. In that Profession, you state that you believe in the One Apostolic Catholic Church. Furthermore the most recent revision of the Profession from the Vatican itself states "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." There is little room for interpretation here. It states there is only one church and that is though divine inspiration has the authority of morals and doctrine.

Now riddle me this: what happens when the Church states something incongruent to God's Word? I don't know about you, but there has been several occasions where the Church has done things perpendicular to God's Word, especially in recent history. So who do you side with? Mike (the brother I was talking to) made it really clear he believes all this social justice stuff is very much against God and His Word. So if you follow God's Word over what the pope is teaching today, wouldn't that make you "your own pope" Mike? That archbishop who got excommunicated a few weeks ago, wouldn't that make him an apostate and heretic even though he challenged the heretical things Francis was saying?

My intentions here are not to attack Catholics. If anything, it's been Catholics that were some of the biggest critics of some of this BS. I personally believe that the Catholic Church will undergo yet another schism soon, where one side will rebel against the hierarchy and perhaps form their own vision of what the Catholic Church should be (a part of what will be the Remnant Church IMO), while the other side excommunicates and calls them apostates and heretics.

Mike and his friends that night said that the Protestant Church and non-denominational beliefs are "hot garbage" because of them "going along to get along" with modern Marxist and Relativist beliefs. I challenge this and say it's not the Protestant and non-denominationals that are the issue, the issue is Christianity itself. The entire religion is being judged, especially the Catholic Church. Many have lost touch with the true Word of God (many "Christians" don't even believe that Jesus was the Son of God). There are good churches and preachers out there and IMO revival will happen on the local level, especially at home with friends and family as we get closer to the end of the age (again IMO as I see it).

I'm about to wrap this up (running out of brain juice), but this is kind of why I'm non-denominational. The Word of God is a very complex subject, and nobody has the full picture or all the answers. We all fall short in Jesus's example. Perhaps I'm making to big of a deal out of this, but with a little humility it's through issues like this that can refine our faith rather than locking ourselves in echo chambers in blind faith convinced the shadows dancing on the wall is the entire world.

 

[foszoe]

So here's somethin'. Recently I was at a birthday party for someone in a young adults group I recently left (reasons why were not relevant to this story), and struck up a conversation with her brother while he worked on a generator. Somehow the conversation came to him asking me what type of Christian I am and I typically consider myself non-denominational. He and his sister are what I would describe as non-politically correct devout Catholics.

The part of the conversation didn't last long, mainly because I wasn't prepared for him to attack my beliefs and try and argue apologetics at that moment, but also because I was a little drunk just wishing to pass the time. Anyways, he pretty much low key called me a heretic, and accused me of "being my own pope." Because I didn't like the rules, I made a religion to fit what I wanted things to be. He then gave the analogy of people not liking the government but still obeying the laws, or having bad cops but still accepting their tickets. He then started to list what some bishop said about this. I was close to telling to go F himself and leave, mainly because I didn't appreciate getting scolded at that moment not nearly at my best, but instead shook my head and smiled. I also try to hear others out when they challenge my faith anyways, as I believe it keeps our beliefs sharp. Anyways, the subject passed and we got back to more jovial things, but it did leave a lasting thought in my mind.

So I grew up Catholic. Went through 12 years of Catholic school. Did all the Sacraments of Initiation. I left the faith due to disagreements with the hierarchy. Not only that, but throughout those 12 years we were never in a setting that encouraged us to think about our faith and research the Bible and God's Word. It wasn't until I talked with an ex-Jehovah Witness that got me interested in studying the Bible. And I have to say, the Catholic schools left a lot out. I cannot say I am a Protestant as when I reflect on things, my beliefs are maybe a little closer to the Catholic side, but definitely are not Catholic. I have a lot of respect for Catholics, I just think there are a lot of problems with the hierarchy.

Anyways, there are some things that pop out to me from that conversation, and I guess I'm posting them here because I don't like fighting with people not present, as it usually puts words in their mouth and I typically win. The first challenge would be some things he said about Protestantism. Again, I'm not a Protestant, but some of the things he said feel backwards when it comes to history. He stated that Martin Luther wrote his challenges because he was screwing nuns and wanted to change the religion to his own beliefs. He also claimed that Protestantism was created so that the people didn't have to think about their faith, that anyone can "be their own pope".

Umm, Okay. That's not congruent to my experience to Catholicism nor some of the history of the Church. At least in my experience, the monotonous rituals during a Catholic mass lend themselves to a sort of zombie-like trance, where I question if most truly understand what is being said. Most of my family is Catholic, but could never hold up in a deep theological discussion like the ones I have with the Protestants I know. I'm not a history buff but wasn't it the Catholic Church that banned the ownership of the Bible? Didn't the great schism and Reformation occur because the Church was acting too much like corrupt politicians rather than men of God?

Then we get to the "be your own pope" thing, as well as the odd analogies of obeying the law despite not liking the government. I understand what point he's trying to make here. He's likely talking about changing God's Law to something that we want, or something more convenient for us. That's a valid point, but it is irrelevant to "being your own pope". Quite honestly if he asks me again if I "am my own pope", I will probably say "yes, yes I am." This comes to one of my biggest issues with Catholicism, the infallibility of the pope and the hierarchy being the true Apostolic Church. The Church has been infiltrated by the Marxists, both on the lower and upper echelons of the hierarchy. The pope is actively saying and promoting things that are perpendicular to God's Law. That's a simple fact and not for debate. So which side am I to follow? Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction states that it is illogical to follow both, so I'll follow my limited interpretation of what God says rather than someone who is saying known lies.

During a Catholic Mass, there is a point called the Profession of Faith where you state the clear bullet-proof core beliefs of the Catholic faith. In that Profession, you state that you believe in the One Apostolic Catholic Church. Furthermore the most recent revision of the Profession from the Vatican itself states "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." There is little room for interpretation here. It states there is only one church and that is though divine inspiration has the authority of morals and doctrine.

Now riddle me this: what happens when the Church states something incongruent to God's Word? I don't know about you, but there has been several occasions where the Church has done things perpendicular to God's Word, especially in recent history. So who do you side with? Mike (the brother I was talking to) made it really clear he believes all this social justice stuff is very much against God and His Word. So if you follow God's Word over what the pope is teaching today, wouldn't that make you "your own pope" Mike? That archbishop who got excommunicated a few weeks ago, wouldn't that make him an apostate and heretic even though he challenged the heretical things Francis was saying?

My intentions here are not to attack Catholics. If anything, it's been Catholics that were some of the biggest critics of some of this BS. I personally believe that the Catholic Church will undergo yet another schism soon, where one side will rebel against the hierarchy and perhaps form their own vision of what the Catholic Church should be (a part of what will be the Remnant Church IMO), while the other side excommunicates and calls them apostates and heretics.

Mike and his friends that night said that the Protestant Church and non-denominational beliefs are "hot garbage" because of them "going along to get along" with modern Marxist and Relativist beliefs. I challenge this and say it's not the Protestant and non-denominationals that are the issue, the issue is Christianity itself. The entire religion is being judged, especially the Catholic Church. Many have lost touch with the true Word of God (many "Christians" don't even believe that Jesus was the Son of God). There are good churches and preachers out there and IMO revival will happen on the local level, especially at home with friends and family as we get closer to the end of the age (again IMO as I see it).

I'm about to wrap this up (running out of brain juice), but this is kind of why I'm non-denominational. The Word of God is a very complex subject, and nobody has the full picture or all the answers. We all fall short in Jesus's example. Perhaps I'm making to big of a deal out of this, but with a little humility it's through issues like this that can refine our faith rather than locking ourselves in echo chambers in blind faith convinced the shadows dancing on the wall is the entire world.

You say a lot here and I will engage some of it later. So please take the following in a somewhat lighthearted but somewhat serious manner in that I am painting with a broad brush. Since there are several varieties of Protestantism, its pretty impossible to encompass them all in 500 words or less in a forum post.

Protestantism and Catholicism are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin. They use pretty much exactly the same terminology defined in pretty much the same way, to define pretty much the same problem. Then they proceed to solve the problem differently.

Protestants "are" their own Popes IF you take them at their word and definitions. Protestants object to the Pope on the basic grounds of the Sola traditions, the most prominent one being scripture. What basically happens is Protestants disagree with the interpretation of scripture by the Catholic Church. For that doctrine to hold, there must still be an appeal to authority. That authority is either the Pope, the Holy Spirit, or the individual Protestant. In other words, the authority is a person. Most Protestants will probably disagree with me, but that's how I see it, again in broad terms. It can't be the scriptures. How can I arrive at that conclusion? Well, with the Pope, its pretty easy. He speaks ex cathedra on a matter of Faith and Morals, it must be accepted, if the authority is the Holy Spirit, then there should be no divergence in dogmatic/doctrinal matters. If there is divergence in theologumen, that's perfectly acceptable until the theologumen results in a fracturing/schism of the Body of Christ. Some will say something like unity in essentials, diversity in other matters, but the clear messaging of scripture is schism is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit. That leaves the third option. Protestantism began fracturing for various reasons almost from its inception. Today, the individual Protestant is his own ultimate authority. The check on a Protestant believer is personal revelation and enlightenment usually attributed to the Holy Spirit. So in that sense, especially in comparison to Catholics, Protestants are their own pope.

So all that said,

You know mention the great schism so you know some of history, yet you don't mention the other party involved in the great schism. Ever given serious consideration that perhaps they may right? If you do, you will undoubtably encounter the belief from Catholic apologeticists that they are just wayward Catholics too obstinate or stubborn to accept the authority of the Pope. You will encounter the belief among Protestants that they are just Catholics that don't accept the pope and Protestants will use their anti-Catholic arguments against them.

The problem for both the Catholics and the Protestants is they fail to recognize that the same terms are being used for they all have their roots in scripture, but they are defined differently pre schism as is the problem faced by humanity with the ultimate solution to the problem being understood differently.

For Western Christianity, the problem and its causes along with its solutions are heavily influenced and almost entirely defined by Augustine and Anselm of Canterbury in Cur Deus Homo. It's how you get from the cause and problem to the solution that differs between them.

Forgive any offense caused by a broad paint brush.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Forgive any offense caused by a broad paint brush.

None at all. I wasn't really attacking Catholics and defending Protestants or vice versa with my post. It was mainly me pointing out some of the logical fallacies of some of his arguments. I felt a little hollow though when I figured out those points since he wasn't around to defend himself. In someway, I posted the above to see how it sat with some of the knowledgeable people on here since I feared I was gaining victory over an imaginary adversary.

You know mention the great schism so you know some of history, yet you don't mention the other party involved in the great schism. Ever given serious consideration that perhaps they may right?

I don't know much about the Orthodox Church, but the little I've heard resonates with me more than Catholicism did. I remember when the Jesuit Pope Francis first got in and one of the Eastern Orthodox leaders was comparing him the False Prophet. I'd say he hit the nail pretty close to the head on that one.

 

[foszoe]

None at all. I wasn't really attacking Catholics and defending Protestants or vice versa with my post. It was mainly me pointing out some of the logical fallacies of some of his arguments. I felt a little hollow though when I figured out those points since he wasn't around to defend himself. In someway, I posted the above to see how it sat with some of the knowledgeable people on here since I feared I was gaining victory over an imaginary adversary.


I don't know much about the Orthodox Church, but the little I've heard resonates with me more than Catholicism did. I remember when the Jesuit Pope Francis first got in and one of the Eastern Orthodox leaders was comparing him the False Prophet. I'd say he hit the nail pretty close to the head on that one.

I have some sympathy for the Popes. I believe some of them had great intentions but they got caught in a spiral.

Broad Brushing again of course.

In early Christianity there were 5 Patriarchiates. Rome was considered the edge of the world because all civilization was in the East. As the West began to collapse, there were mostly barbarian tribes, not gov't and culture in most of Western Europe. The only real authority, spiritual or civil, was in Rome. The Pope had a big vacuum to fill. Civil and religious. As time passed, the Popes amassed more power, reformer popes to try and put everything aright but unfortunately as power became more centralized, by "good" or "bad" popes, the next pope got that and would build on it.

One of the major ecclesiastical differences between Catholics and Orthodox is the above resulted in a Bishop of Bishops where the Pope's authority extended over other Bishop. In Orthodoxy, that never occurred. All Bishop's are equal. So what happened a few years back where the Pope excommunicated an outspoken ArchBishop could not occur in the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, clergy are only ordained after the laity/people declare him worthy. If you go to an ordination of a priest or bishop, a member can stand up and say "unworthy". Ideally, one would do that before the ordination, but it is entirely in one's right to do it all the way up to the ordination and your concerns would have to be addressed before the ordination could go on.

 

[foszoe]

During a Catholic Mass, there is a point called the Profession of Faith where you state the clear bullet-proof core beliefs of the Catholic faith. In that Profession, you state that you believe in the One Apostolic Catholic Church. Furthermore the most recent revision of the Profession from the Vatican itself states "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals." There is little room for interpretation here. It states there is only one church and that is though divine inspiration has the authority of morals and doctrine.

You succeeded in getting me to look something up. When you said Profession of Faith I thought you meant the Nicene Creed with the filioque. I looked in the liturgical texts I have I did not see that phrase in there. I know that is the official Catholic teaching and am not questioning that at all, but if you could link me a liturgical text containing it, I would really appreciate it. Is it typically said along with the Creed or at another location? What I did find was the following on the internet when searching for the Profession of Faith. I am just genuinely shocked that it has made its way into the Roman liturgy.

Additional Elements

In addition to the Nicene Creed, the Catholic Profession of Faith includes:

1. Belief in the Deposit of Faith: Catholics believe in the Deposit of Faith, which consists of the teachings of Christ and the apostles, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.
2. Submission to the Magisterium: Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium, which includes the Pope and the bishops in union with him, even when they are not explicitly defined as dogma.
3. Acceptance of Definitive Teachings: Catholics accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Now riddle me this: what happens when the Church states something incongruent to God's Word? I don't know about you, but there has been several occasions where the Church has done things perpendicular to God's Word, especially in recent history.

I would focus on what the earliest Christians believed, in consensus. Resist the temptation to get into verse-counter verse and really find out what the early Church actually believed and confessed. In general, mystery and humility in scripture reading and its interpretation have been replaced by scholasticism and pride. Then if a novel doctine appears, even if supported by scripture vs scripture, I would discount it. In other words. If the early Church taught the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, then I would believe it. IF someone comes along later and says well you can interpret John 6 another way. I would not deny them that. Sure, you can interpret it a different way, but if the witness of the early Church favors the interpretation that the Eucharish is the body and blood of Christ, then I choose to stand with the early Church over a different interpretation that comes into being centuries later.

My intentions here are not to attack Catholics. If anything, it's been Catholics that were some of the biggest critics of some of this BS. I personally believe that the Catholic Church will undergo yet another schism soon, where one side will rebel against the hierarchy and perhaps form their own vision of what the Catholic Church should be (a part of what will be the Remnant Church IMO), while the other side excommunicates and calls them apostates and heretics.

This is already kind of occurring with the sedevacantist and Latin rite movements, I believe. You would probably be a better judge of that from your vantage point. Although the charismatic movements may also schism.

Many have lost touch with the true Word of God (many "Christians" don't even believe that Jesus was the Son of God). There are good churches and preachers out there and IMO revival will happen on the local level, especially at home with friends and family as we get closer to the end of the age (again IMO as I see it).

I know second hand of Catholic Scholars claiming that Jesus was ignorant of some things or that he may have had little sins in order to be fully human, but faulty theology is everywhere. These things are the fruit of scholasticism. To get a Ph D, one has to come up with a novel theory and defend it, especially in the field of Biblical Studies. Coming up with new theology is antithetical to Christianity for we are to contend for the faith which was delivered once and for all to the saints, not be carried about by the doctrinal whims of the day. I have heard Orthodox scholars speak who were top of their class at Harvard Divinity school but were denied entry into New Testament Studies PhDs because the head of admissions questioned what kind of dissertation would they write? Orthodox scholars are well known and respected in Patristics but have a reputation for not wanting to be novel in their theology. Going back to my belief that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. I don't need to explain it, I don't have to come up with new ways to understand it. That might get me a PhD but that is not my goal. It's a mystery and I humbly accept it.

There are no new heresies under the sun. They were all known by the early Church, they were all settled in the early Church, modern people just "reinvent" them in new clothes.

I'm about to wrap this up (running out of brain juice), but this is kind of why I'm non-denominational. The Word of God is a very complex subject, and nobody has the full picture or all the answers. We all fall short in Jesus's example. Perhaps I'm making to big of a deal out of this, but with a little humility it's through issues like this that can refine our faith rather than locking ourselves in echo chambers in blind faith convinced the shadows dancing on the wall is the entire world.

Well stated.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

You succeeded in getting me to look something up. When you said Profession of Faith I thought you meant the Nicene Creed with the filioque. I looked in the liturgical texts I have I did not see that phrase in there. I know that is the official Catholic teaching and am not questioning that at all, but if you could link me a liturgical text containing it, I would really appreciate it. Is it typically said along with the Creed or at another location? What I did find was the following on the internet when searching for the Profession of Faith. I am just genuinely shocked that it has made its way into the Roman liturgy.

PROFESSION OF FAITH

PROFESSION OF FAITH

www.vatican.va

To be honest, the last Catholic mass I attended was my aunts wedding earlier this year, however the different creeds and prayers said during the mass have changed dramatically since I was little. Things like "I am unworthy. Say the word and I shall be healed" changing to "I am unworthy for you to enter under my roof. Only say the word and my soul shall be healed." The Profession of Faith is one area I remember them adding things. Some of the few masses I've attended in the past few years at some point they do say something similar to the first section in the link. Even with my foggy memory, I remember them distinctly saying it because my friend and I made comments about it at my cousin's wedding.

It's one of the reasons I refuse the Eucharist at Catholic masses. One out of respect because I feel I would be mocking their beliefs if I said "Amen" to something I objected to. I also know a few people who should not be accepting Eucharist at a Catholic mass (either for un-belief or unfaithfulness) and I find that very wrong. To me, saying "Amen" is entering into a covenant into that belief system. I have accepted Eucharist at Methodist, Baptist, and even some non-denominational masses, but can't in good faith accept it at a Catholic mass.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

This is already kind of occurring with the sedevacantist and Latin rite movements, I believe. You would probably be a better judge of that from your vantage point. Although the charismatic movements may also schism.

I'm not really too familiar with the sedevacantist and Latin rite movements, but I do know that the devout Catholics I've been around recently absolutely do not like the charismatic movements. I admit I've been out of the church since around 2018 to focus on my personal relationship with Jesus, so I'm not the most up to date on the latest movements and schisms. But one of the problems I see here is that we have an "unstoppable force meets the immovable object" situation here. As the hierarchy moves further towards the "One World Religion" with the advances of Chrislam, the abandoning of Jesus being the only towards salvation, accepting and promoting the social justice and LGBT nonsense, etc., many in the religion will find themselves at a difficult crossroads. Many will choose the side of God and reject the teachings of the hierarchy, but may still consider themselves Catholic. My point is that by their own beliefs the hierarchy shouldn't be incongruent to God's Law, but it often is (because man is fallen, even the pope), and that's a contradiction that many Catholics whole truly reflect on their faith will have to wrestle with.

By the way, when I say "hierarchy", I'm primarily talking about the mainstream upper echelons and bishops.

 

[foszoe]

PROFESSION OF FAITH

PROFESSION OF FAITH

www.vatican.va

To be honest, the last Catholic mass I attended was my aunts wedding earlier this year, however the different creeds and prayers said during the mass have changed dramatically since I was little. Things like "I am unworthy. Say the word and I shall be healed" changing to "I am unworthy for you to enter under my roof. Only say the word and my soul shall be healed." The Profession of Faith is one area I remember them adding things. Some of the few masses I've attended in the past few years at some point they do say something similar to the first section in the link. Even with my foggy memory, I remember them distinctly saying it because my friend and I made comments about it at my cousin's wedding.

It's one of the reasons I refuse the Eucharist at Catholic masses. One out of respect because I feel I would be mocking their beliefs if I said "Amen" to something I objected to. I also know a few people who should not be accepting Eucharist at a Catholic mass (either for un-belief or unfaithfulness) and I find that very wrong. To me, saying "Amen" is entering into a covenant into that belief system. I have accepted Eucharist at Methodist, Baptist, and even some non-denominational masses, but can't in good faith accept it at a Catholic mass.

My wife was raised Roman Catholic. She has been Orthodox for about 12 years. When we go to mass with her family on occasions, she too remarks how much she notices has changed.

 

[foszoe]

I'm not really too familiar with the sedevacantist and Latin rite movements, but I do know that the devout Catholics I've been around recently absolutely do not like the charismatic movements. I admit I've been out of the church since around 2018 to focus on my personal relationship with Jesus, so I'm not the most up to date on the latest movements and schisms. But one of the problems I see here is that we have an "unstoppable force meets the immovable object" situation here. As the hierarchy moves further towards the "One World Religion" with the advances of Chrislam, the abandoning of Jesus being the only towards salvation, accepting and promoting the social justice and LGBT nonsense, etc., many in the religion will find themselves at a difficult crossroads. Many will choose the side of God and reject the teachings of the hierarchy, but may still consider themselves Catholic. My point is that by their own beliefs the hierarchy shouldn't be incongruent to God's Law, but it often is (because man is fallen, even the pope), and that's a contradiction that many Catholics whole truly reflect on their faith will have to wrestle with.

By the way, when I say "hierarchy", I'm primarily talking about the mainstream upper echelons and bishops.

There is a conservative counter movement in the Roman church that is pushing back. It is reminiscient of what has played out in the Episcopalian/Anglican communion and the United Methodist Church or is currently pushing the Southern Baptists to the brink.

The charismatics are interesting and are manifesting across multiple denominations because it is more of a movement than a denomination unto itself with its roots in the holiness movement at the beginning of the 19th century.

 

[historian]

All I'll say is that the whole thing about Luther screwing nuns is about the dumbest argument. It is right up there with those who refuse to even believe that Jesus was an actual historical person.

Popes were screwing more nuns than Luther ever did.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

PROFESSION OF FAITH

PROFESSION OF FAITH

www.vatican.va

To be honest, the last Catholic mass I attended was my aunts wedding earlier this year, however the different creeds and prayers said during the mass have changed dramatically since I was little. Things like "I am unworthy. Say the word and I shall be healed" changing to "I am unworthy for you to enter under my roof. Only say the word and my soul shall be healed." The Profession of Faith is one area I remember them adding things. Some of the few masses I've attended in the past few years at some point they do say something similar to the first section in the link. Even with my foggy memory, I remember them distinctly saying it because my friend and I made comments about it at my cousin's wedding.

It's one of the reasons I refuse the Eucharist at Catholic masses. One out of respect because I feel I would be mocking their beliefs if I said "Amen" to something I objected to. I also know a few people who should not be accepting Eucharist at a Catholic mass (either for un-belief or unfaithfulness) and I find that very wrong. To me, saying "Amen" is entering into a covenant into that belief system. I have accepted Eucharist at Methodist, Baptist, and even some non-denominational masses, but can't in good faith accept it at a Catholic mass.

Honestly, quite a few people receive communion in the Catholic Church that shouldn't. Only Catholics in good standing are supposed to receive communion. Anyone who has committed a mortal sin or even skipped weekly mass without a good reason should not receive communion until they go to confession.

 

[foszoe]

Honestly, quite a few people receive communion in the Catholic Church that shouldn't. Only Catholics in good standing are supposed to receive communion. Anyone who has committed a mortal sin or even skipped weekly mass without a good reason should not receive communion until they go to confession.

In my experience with Roman Catholics, and I do mean practicing Roman Catholics as in retired go to daily mass, Sunday mass etc and others who are faithful, Confession is neglected as in I know several that haven't gone in years. I thought the requirement was once per year.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

In my experience with Roman Catholics, and I do mean practicing Roman Catholics as in retired go to daily mass, Sunday mass etc and others who are faithful, Confession is neglected as in I know several that haven't gone in years. I thought the requirement was once per year.

Confession is definitely neglected by most Roman Catholics. The requirement is to have no mortal sins since the last confession. In this day and age, most people ignore that requirement and go to communion anyway.

Here is the churches definition of mortal sin:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

 

[foszoe]

Confession is definitely neglected by most Roman Catholics. The requirement is to have no mortal sins since the last confession. In this day and age, most people ignore that requirement and go to communion anyway.

Here is the churches definition of mortal sin:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Thank you for the correction! I don't ever want to deliberately misrepresent

 

[Leo]

Honestly, quite a few people receive communion in the Catholic Church that shouldn't. Only Catholics in good standing are supposed to receive communion. Anyone who has committed a mortal sin or even skipped weekly mass without a good reason should not receive communion until they go to confession.

The instructions for communion in the Catholic NRSA bible: ! Corinthians 11:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

There are a lot of Catholic traditions commonly jammed in-between vs 27, and vs 28. I do not see the regulations in the Text in any version. I take "examine yourself" just as it is written.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

The instructions for communion in the Catholic NRSA bible: ! Corinthians 11:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

There are a lot of Catholic traditions commonly jammed in-between vs 27, and vs 28. I do not see the regulations in the Text in any version. I take "examine yourself" just as it is written.

I was taught the rules I mentioned earlier.

There are more details about the churches guidelines here.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/who-can-receive-communion

 

[JettaKnight]

Yesterday, the opening of the Olympics featured what many thought was a drag show depiction of the Last Supper Da Vinci painting.

This morning, I read this from the Prologue of Ohrid for July 27th. I thought it was worh sharing.

Let them scoff.

What did Jesus do to those that mocked him? He let them kill him. Why should I act differently than Christ? Should I fight against a world that not my home? No, I should take up my cross and follow Christ in meekness and humility just as He.

 

[Magyars]

Seems to me that the disgust I feel for the oylimpic opening ceremonies fall under the definition of righteous anger

 

[foszoe]

Let them scoff.

What did Jesus do to those that mocked him? He let them kill him. Why should I act differently than Christ? Should I fight against a world that not my home? No, I should take up my cross and follow Christ in meekness and humility just as He.

Historically those that suffered persecution and were crowned as confessors and martyrs for Christ did so willingly, joyfully, and without animosity towards their persecutors. Their actions were responsible for the conversion of many. I can't recall in the life of any confessor or martyr an attempt to raise the irascibility of others against their persecutor.

In ancient Christianity, it was the custom to recognize the Apostles on Thursdays. A prayer offered on occasional Thursday mornings goes like the below quote. It is a grave thing to attempt to correct others regarding the Way. Sometimes it is unavoidable, especially if we are asked. That's a good time to pray this prayer. If it is avoidable, then I would choose not to do it and instead simply offer prayers on behalf of others to the one who will ultimately judge us all.

Enable my tongue to speak clearly, O my Savior. Open my mouth and fill it, and give my heart compunction, that I may be the first to follow what I say, and do what I teach; for everyone who does and teaches, the Gospel says, is great. For if I speak without doing, I am a clashing cymbal. Grant me to speak the needful words and to do what is right, fo you alone know the secrets of our hearts.

 

[JettaKnight]

Seems to me that the disgust I feel for the oylimpic opening ceremonies fall under the definition of righteous anger

I mean, it's France. The whole thing was really gay.

Why should I give someone the satisfaction of getting a rise out of me?



And how do you define righteous anger and and its expression?