Ask me about Catholicism II
Hello all,
You may or may not recall that I did part I sometime about 6 months ago to some decent success. We were all civil at the very least which is a win-win in my book.
I attempt as best as I can to be a good Catholic representative here on DA whether it's about social issues, Scripture, history, etc.
I'm always attempting to improve my knowledge of given areas and questions allow me to know what I've reviewed well and what I haven't. This doesn't mean that every question I receive will be the most informed question but plenty of questions I received were earnest and deserving of a serious answer.
So if fellow Catholics have questions, such as questions about the recent Synod, or if others have other questions, I hope to continue to support polite dialogue here on DA.
You may or may not recall that I did part I sometime about 6 months ago to some decent success. We were all civil at the very least which is a win-win in my book.
I attempt as best as I can to be a good Catholic representative here on DA whether it's about social issues, Scripture, history, etc.
I'm always attempting to improve my knowledge of given areas and questions allow me to know what I've reviewed well and what I haven't. This doesn't mean that every question I receive will be the most informed question but plenty of questions I received were earnest and deserving of a serious answer.
So if fellow Catholics have questions, such as questions about the recent Synod, or if others have other questions, I hope to continue to support polite dialogue here on DA.
Comments234
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Why all the saints?
Comment hidden
If by "pervasive" you mean happening around the world, then I suppose pervasive is a proper word. On the other hand if you mean pervasive as in "large in number" I'm afraid that notion is mistaken.
One of the major problems affecting the priesthood, in my view, is that there are fewer structures of accountability. This is being slowly remedied by a number of things, some of them even being instituted in the 90's including VIRTUS training and requiring all employees of a diocese to be mandated reporters. Some bishops and so forth were ignorant, sure, since there were no way to watch all 400+ priests in their charge, especially if it's over a very large 'territory.'
It's also important to not think of the "hierarchy" of the Church like Congress or the Senate. Each diocese is individually governed by one bishop, so there are lots of variables. When they meet together it is consultation. The bishop of Chicago cannot tell Springfield what to do or how, but there are general structures which all bishops and priests must operate under.
So in answer to your hypothetical:
1) If anyone were aware of misconduct, especially confirmed, he is liable to legal action against him--this has been the case in the past 10 years and the policy of the Conference of Bishops (for the US) for even longer, I believe. I don't know of anyone who, in not reporting child-abuse, actively condones it. However, if they are mandated reporters and do not they are liable for their negligence. Accusing someone of child abuse is not easy, though, especially if it's someone you know. This goes for any living person. Nevertheless, we all need to be vigilant since abuse happens just as easily in the home as it does outside.
2) That's a bit of a stretch that would need proof on a case by case basis as opposed to viewing this like that South Park episode.
3) This isn't so much focused on the topic at hand. I'm not sure what you mean by "doctrinal obligation." Likewise I can't parse out the connections your trying to make.
4) Thus this logical jump from 3 to 4 may make sense to you but not to me. Unless of course you believe that "social norms" are absolutes and indicators of healthy individuals or societies, I'd like to see how one evaluates "norms." Likewise, given how most people dislike scrutiny from others, accusing the members of the Church being uncomfortable with it is strange. But that's an individual problem, turning away from scrutiny. I imagine it's the same for you as it is for me.
5) Perhaps, although when I hear people talk about "rights" there's a lot of baggage that comes with such a term. Everyone seems to have their own view of what their rights are which makes it harder to predict what they actually expect from everyone else and, likewise, if it's justified. Many seem to speak very easily and openly about rights--I don't have such an easy time doing so.
One of the major problems affecting the priesthood, in my view, is that there are fewer structures of accountability. This is being slowly remedied by a number of things, some of them even being instituted in the 90's including VIRTUS training and requiring all employees of a diocese to be mandated reporters. Some bishops and so forth were ignorant, sure, since there were no way to watch all 400+ priests in their charge, especially if it's over a very large 'territory.'
It's also important to not think of the "hierarchy" of the Church like Congress or the Senate. Each diocese is individually governed by one bishop, so there are lots of variables. When they meet together it is consultation. The bishop of Chicago cannot tell Springfield what to do or how, but there are general structures which all bishops and priests must operate under.
So in answer to your hypothetical:
1) If anyone were aware of misconduct, especially confirmed, he is liable to legal action against him--this has been the case in the past 10 years and the policy of the Conference of Bishops (for the US) for even longer, I believe. I don't know of anyone who, in not reporting child-abuse, actively condones it. However, if they are mandated reporters and do not they are liable for their negligence. Accusing someone of child abuse is not easy, though, especially if it's someone you know. This goes for any living person. Nevertheless, we all need to be vigilant since abuse happens just as easily in the home as it does outside.
2) That's a bit of a stretch that would need proof on a case by case basis as opposed to viewing this like that South Park episode.
3) This isn't so much focused on the topic at hand. I'm not sure what you mean by "doctrinal obligation." Likewise I can't parse out the connections your trying to make.
4) Thus this logical jump from 3 to 4 may make sense to you but not to me. Unless of course you believe that "social norms" are absolutes and indicators of healthy individuals or societies, I'd like to see how one evaluates "norms." Likewise, given how most people dislike scrutiny from others, accusing the members of the Church being uncomfortable with it is strange. But that's an individual problem, turning away from scrutiny. I imagine it's the same for you as it is for me.
5) Perhaps, although when I hear people talk about "rights" there's a lot of baggage that comes with such a term. Everyone seems to have their own view of what their rights are which makes it harder to predict what they actually expect from everyone else and, likewise, if it's justified. Many seem to speak very easily and openly about rights--I don't have such an easy time doing so.
Comment hidden
I think it's no stretch to say that we learn values from our culture and, more specifically, from our family and local area. It provides our framework for understanding phenomena. But I think that we have the unique ability to ponder, question, and refine our values (for better or worse). Thus while we may be "inculturated" it is not an absolute bond upon us.
If you were inferring, as such, that because some in our hierarchy have abused or hidden abuse and, because of this, do I feel that it has trickled down to other individuals? No, I don't feel that way. I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, taught in schools, or encouraged as an alternative behavior or lifestyle (that's how we qualify things in American culture--call it a "different lifestyle"). Evil is carried out in the Church as much as it is outside the Church because we all live affected by sin and the sin of one affects many in many ways.
As for your clarification:
There are some rules which we derive from Christ's words but we also look at his life and the lives of those whom he chose, namely the Apostles.
If you were inferring, as such, that because some in our hierarchy have abused or hidden abuse and, because of this, do I feel that it has trickled down to other individuals? No, I don't feel that way. I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, taught in schools, or encouraged as an alternative behavior or lifestyle (that's how we qualify things in American culture--call it a "different lifestyle"). Evil is carried out in the Church as much as it is outside the Church because we all live affected by sin and the sin of one affects many in many ways.
As for your clarification:
There are some rules which we derive from Christ's words but we also look at his life and the lives of those whom he chose, namely the Apostles.
Comment hidden
Having studied Catholic history quite thoroughly, point six is usually attributed (falsely) to the Middle Ages. Likewise "heresy" is a word that is thrown around incorrectly about 95% of the time on the internet.
Your one does not lead you to seven, so talking like (1) is the foundation of all this isn't very good logic.
1) Jesus chose 12 men to be his Apostles--I don't know what to say. I can't change that. Those Apostles chose 7 men to assist them in their duties. I can't change that either. It could have been a number of ways but it wasn't.
2) Virginity and celibacy were seen as spiritual and physical disciplines to devote one's life to holiness.
3) ??
4) Yes and no. If there is no such indication of a change in one's way of life he is expelled. Forgiveness is powerful and sure, we all have faults that we repeat again, but there is a difference between personal vices and attitudes and behaviors that harm others or weaken their faith (e.g., scandal).
5) Not sure where you're getting that from. Thousands upon thousands of priests do plenty of work including ministry to the sick and dying that almost no one ever sees, even at 2, 3 in the morning when it's an emergency.
Also, this is all of human society with respect to scholars, since "schola" also meant leisure, i.e., the ability to study and learn without having to do hard labor just to eat. Plenty of parents sacrifice a great deal to give their children the opportunity to go to college--should we blame those children for being doctors or businessmen and not doing manual labor?
A priest is (usually but not always) one of the more educated members of his community and is trained in nearly a dozen disciplines for (the US average of) about 25,000 a year (taxes not applied), i.e., barely anything. Likewise his "food and house are pain for" is not a simple response since most priests inherit 100-120 year old out-of-date and out-of-code houses and who live on a very uneven schedule, since he's on basically 24/7 for various needs.
6) My guess is that you've never worked with a priest, or seen priests working together, or others working with priests. Some priests are dictators and shame on them, but that's about 5% of my experience. The rest give their lives for their people with gentleness and humility.
7) I guess if history can be read through such simplistic lenses, then yes, that's humanity right there.
Do you think that the casual observer could be forgiven for thinking the whole foundation of the Catholic church is based on looking after the special interests of a group of men whose main measurable personality trait is that they don't "procreate".
With all the above stated, this comes off as pretty rude.
Your one does not lead you to seven, so talking like (1) is the foundation of all this isn't very good logic.
1) Jesus chose 12 men to be his Apostles--I don't know what to say. I can't change that. Those Apostles chose 7 men to assist them in their duties. I can't change that either. It could have been a number of ways but it wasn't.
2) Virginity and celibacy were seen as spiritual and physical disciplines to devote one's life to holiness.
3) ??
4) Yes and no. If there is no such indication of a change in one's way of life he is expelled. Forgiveness is powerful and sure, we all have faults that we repeat again, but there is a difference between personal vices and attitudes and behaviors that harm others or weaken their faith (e.g., scandal).
5) Not sure where you're getting that from. Thousands upon thousands of priests do plenty of work including ministry to the sick and dying that almost no one ever sees, even at 2, 3 in the morning when it's an emergency.
Also, this is all of human society with respect to scholars, since "schola" also meant leisure, i.e., the ability to study and learn without having to do hard labor just to eat. Plenty of parents sacrifice a great deal to give their children the opportunity to go to college--should we blame those children for being doctors or businessmen and not doing manual labor?
A priest is (usually but not always) one of the more educated members of his community and is trained in nearly a dozen disciplines for (the US average of) about 25,000 a year (taxes not applied), i.e., barely anything. Likewise his "food and house are pain for" is not a simple response since most priests inherit 100-120 year old out-of-date and out-of-code houses and who live on a very uneven schedule, since he's on basically 24/7 for various needs.
6) My guess is that you've never worked with a priest, or seen priests working together, or others working with priests. Some priests are dictators and shame on them, but that's about 5% of my experience. The rest give their lives for their people with gentleness and humility.
7) I guess if history can be read through such simplistic lenses, then yes, that's humanity right there.
Do you think that the casual observer could be forgiven for thinking the whole foundation of the Catholic church is based on looking after the special interests of a group of men whose main measurable personality trait is that they don't "procreate".
With all the above stated, this comes off as pretty rude.
Hi, praise be to God,
How come there are priesthood and laymen, if the Gospel says those who are in Christ are all priests and all saints?
How come there are priesthood and laymen, if the Gospel says those who are in Christ are all priests and all saints?
Forgive my late reply. Work has made it difficult to sit down and reply to some questions.
I'll answer simply to start.
Catholics do indeed hold that by virtue of our Baptism (i.e., a valid baptism done with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) we share in the priestly, kingly, and prophetic office of Christ Jesus. We say it in our very rite of baptism.
So by virtue of valid baptism all are priests. To be clear in was in 1 Peter (I believe) that we hear this, not in the Gospels.
Nevertheless there is also plenty of Scriptural evidence that there was a ministerial priesthood. The Old Testament is of course a model: Moses and Aaron set over the people of Israel as guides.
In the New Testament, especially the Acts of the Apostles, we see how the Apostles, the Twelve, were set apart. Surely they too were disciples of Christ as well, but they were the primary leaders and ministers. They also gathered seven reputable men to serve the people so that they might "dedicate themselves to the ministry of the word."
1 Corinthians also has Paul urge others to defer/respect those put "over" them "in the Lord." So this authority should not be domineering (Christ said as much in Mark 10), people have been placed over us to lead us. Catholics express this by sharing in a special way in the priesthood of Jesus Christ as expressed by the ministry of the Apostles.
I'll answer simply to start.
Catholics do indeed hold that by virtue of our Baptism (i.e., a valid baptism done with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) we share in the priestly, kingly, and prophetic office of Christ Jesus. We say it in our very rite of baptism.
So by virtue of valid baptism all are priests. To be clear in was in 1 Peter (I believe) that we hear this, not in the Gospels.
Nevertheless there is also plenty of Scriptural evidence that there was a ministerial priesthood. The Old Testament is of course a model: Moses and Aaron set over the people of Israel as guides.
In the New Testament, especially the Acts of the Apostles, we see how the Apostles, the Twelve, were set apart. Surely they too were disciples of Christ as well, but they were the primary leaders and ministers. They also gathered seven reputable men to serve the people so that they might "dedicate themselves to the ministry of the word."
1 Corinthians also has Paul urge others to defer/respect those put "over" them "in the Lord." So this authority should not be domineering (Christ said as much in Mark 10), people have been placed over us to lead us. Catholics express this by sharing in a special way in the priesthood of Jesus Christ as expressed by the ministry of the Apostles.
Tell me what you think of Pope Francis. I personally think he is quite possibly Best Pope but haven't heard any other's thoughts about him except for protestant.
The "best pope"?
Personally I might give that title to Pope St. Gregory the Great.
His papacy isn't over and I think there still needs to be time to evaluate his papacy--as time, even decades after, will teach us how the seeds various popes planted will show up.
Personally I might give that title to Pope St. Gregory the Great.
His papacy isn't over and I think there still needs to be time to evaluate his papacy--as time, even decades after, will teach us how the seeds various popes planted will show up.
My mam really liked good pope john, she said he was a lovely man.
I presume she means John XXIII, right?
Yeah, i'm too young to remember him and i doubt my mam understands much about the 2nd council but he was supposed to be very nice, thats all i know
That is quite a curve ball... why do you want to say a Pope from the 6th century is Best Pope? I don't know all the popes so I even had to look him up and don't see much that would make him stand out even in that era- soon after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Why can't a pope relevant to your time be considered? Francis is going to attract millions of people (possibly including me) back to the church. He is signaling changes that have never been considered in 2000 years.
I'm not sure where you looked up his merits, but I would reconsider with some different sources if it didn't mention some of his groundbreaking writings. His "Pastoral Rule" is given to every ordained bishop as a manual for his ministry. He was an administrator and pastor, even though he preferred to live the life of a monk. He had many profound theological insights and reigned in a tumultuous time while being compassionate to the poor and oppressed. Really, he is one of the model bishops in numerous ways, and Pope for that matter.
Don't let me detract from your love of Pope Francis. We've been spoiled, honestly, with popes of the past 120 years, all of whom were (at the least) good men, and some of them saintly.
Since you asked me for the "greatest" Pope I am looking for more criteria than recent announcements. "Greatest" carries a lot of weight and among some 230(?) Popes that's a lot to choose from, even excluding outright terrible popes that may leave us with 200, and from there there are simply popes about whom we only have a name or a brief record, so there may be some 100 "greatest" popes to choose from. Someone could easily choose Peter or any Pope who was a martyr for the faith.
As for a relevant Pope, I admire Pius X and Pius XII, as their own writings are immensely profound. Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all had many wonderful merits.
As for "changes never considered in 2000 years" that's more of a media perception then things happening on the ground within the Church which I have seen and witnessed. A lot of what Francis is doing now is on the shoulders of his predecessors.
He is a good man whose papacy I can't judge properly since it's not completed.
Don't let me detract from your love of Pope Francis. We've been spoiled, honestly, with popes of the past 120 years, all of whom were (at the least) good men, and some of them saintly.
Since you asked me for the "greatest" Pope I am looking for more criteria than recent announcements. "Greatest" carries a lot of weight and among some 230(?) Popes that's a lot to choose from, even excluding outright terrible popes that may leave us with 200, and from there there are simply popes about whom we only have a name or a brief record, so there may be some 100 "greatest" popes to choose from. Someone could easily choose Peter or any Pope who was a martyr for the faith.
As for a relevant Pope, I admire Pius X and Pius XII, as their own writings are immensely profound. Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all had many wonderful merits.
As for "changes never considered in 2000 years" that's more of a media perception then things happening on the ground within the Church which I have seen and witnessed. A lot of what Francis is doing now is on the shoulders of his predecessors.
He is a good man whose papacy I can't judge properly since it's not completed.
So when did Jesus Christ Establish the Catholic Church?
Some of the early Fathers contend that it was at the foundations of the world (some modern theologians state this as well), whereas others will simply cite Pentecost as the founding of the Church.
Jesus Christ did not establish any church.
Church of Christ Established.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Christ is not pointing to the churches, He was speaking to his people, who He has chosen to share the "true gospel" into all nation for witness. Upon this "Rock" (Which repressent the Lord Jesus Christ) who hold the true gospel, thus, it cannot be remove.
Because, in the end of time, many churches or congregations and different denominations will fall away from the truth, that you can no longer hear the true gospel from them. The only way, we can hear the truth is that we are to go back and only trust the "Word of God of the Bible", where you can only find the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God predict that there will be a famine, not in the famine of bread. "But, famine of hearing the true gospel in the churches." In another words, the churches will become so apostates that you can no longer hear the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible gives insight to guard against the cunning craftiness of priests, pastors, preachers and false teachers who twist the doctrine for their personal gain while plotting shrewd maneuvers to fleece the flock. We read this in the light of truth in the book of Hebrews 13:8-9.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried (led) about with various and strange doctrines. --Hebrews 13:8-9.
In the book of Ephesians 4:14, where God clearly warns believers to avoid every wind of doctrine. In other words, a "true believer" who knows the true Gospel will not be led astray by a false gospel. Because, what God has promised to his people - upon this "Rock", you shall not be removed.
Because, in the end of time, many churches or congregations and different denominations will fall away from the truth, that you can no longer hear the true gospel from them. The only way, we can hear the truth is that we are to go back and only trust the "Word of God of the Bible", where you can only find the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God predict that there will be a famine, not in the famine of bread. "But, famine of hearing the true gospel in the churches." In another words, the churches will become so apostates that you can no longer hear the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible gives insight to guard against the cunning craftiness of priests, pastors, preachers and false teachers who twist the doctrine for their personal gain while plotting shrewd maneuvers to fleece the flock. We read this in the light of truth in the book of Hebrews 13:8-9.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried (led) about with various and strange doctrines. --Hebrews 13:8-9.
In the book of Ephesians 4:14, where God clearly warns believers to avoid every wind of doctrine. In other words, a "true believer" who knows the true Gospel will not be led astray by a false gospel. Because, what God has promised to his people - upon this "Rock", you shall not be removed.
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.--Ephesians 4:14.
Pope Benedict's reign to Pope Francis' reign
Your opinion.
Your opinion.
Since one's papacy hasn't ended yet it's hard to say one way or the other.
As an academic I personally preferred the breadth and clarity of Benedict's writing, but that's really my own preference.
Francis is a bit looser, from my perspective, but he has also emphasized a care for the poor and oppressed, which I think is a noble thing for our Church to emphasize.
As an academic I personally preferred the breadth and clarity of Benedict's writing, but that's really my own preference.
Francis is a bit looser, from my perspective, but he has also emphasized a care for the poor and oppressed, which I think is a noble thing for our Church to emphasize.
Is pooping a sin?