Do you believe there is one true church?

[Contarini]

Been there done that and I regretted it. Take it from someone who was Catholic for 34 years.

Take what? That you regret it, sure. That there is something wrong with venerating the Mother of God–absolutely not!

Your regret is regrettable.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Here we go again referring to the church as a she. That is just as bad as all of the veneration of Mary that goes on. It disgusts me and it makes Mary weep and it is an abomination to Jesus who is the head of the church!

You will I hope pardon us for not abandoning ancient traditions of the Church because they happen to disgust you. The Catholic Faith was not constructed with your personal taste in mind.

Nor am I aware that you have any particular link to the Blessed Virgin that would enable you to know what makes her weep.

And how is it an abomination to Jesus for us to honor His mother? I find it disappointing that you claim not to be a “full-blown Protestant” and yet you have adopted wholesale one of the most unfortunate and destructive attitudes of Protestantism–its rejection of Marian devotion.

Edwin

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;2131933:

Hi Carol,

Welcome back, I thought you were traveling, no?

There is absolutely no question that the Catholic Church is diverse, its arms are open to all. She is present in every corner of the world and enjoys members from every country, race, gender, sexual orientation, physical description, etc. She does great charitable work around the world often in some of the most depressed and dangerous of places.

Here we go again referring to the church as a she. That is just as bad as all of the veneration of Mary that goes on. It disgusts me and it makes Mary weep and it is an abomination to Jesus who is the head of the church!

Traveller,

Is this a personal objection or something else?

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

You will I hope pardon us for not abandoning ancient traditions of the Church because they happen to disgust you. The Catholic Faith was not constructed with your personal taste in mind.

Nor am I aware that you have any particular link to the Blessed Virgin that would enable you to know what makes her weep.

And how is it an abomination to Jesus for us to honor His mother? I find it disappointing that you claim not to be a “full-blown Protestant” and yet you have adopted wholesale one of the most unfortunate and destructive attitudes of Protestantism–its rejection of Marian devotion.

Edwin

Well said.

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

We are perhaps talking past each other in terms of the word ‘unity’. Your unity, put crudely, is unity within the paradigm of the Catholic Church. My unity, put crudely, is unity within the universal church of Christ, or Christendom.

I think you are right, and I do see this. This is what I meant by “prejudice”. Since the rest of Christendom was formed by denying or contradicting some element of the Teachings of Jesus, then I am reluctant to look further afield for unity.

I am failing to see why there cannot be diversity within the unity of the universal church, the body of Christ.

Oh I affirm with confidence that there is a great diversity in the univeral church. My concern is that so much of it is rooted in this error, or that.

Is it not like a country, a nation, with many varying ethnicities, geographical features, and economic circumstances, which is nevertheless regarded as a single unity - like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom or South Africa (and perhaps particularly the latter, given its recent past under the apartheid regime).

I do think this is an accurate repsentation of what Christ intended.

Canada in particular has resisted always the ‘melting pot’ concept of a nation, and has endorsed and encouraged multi-ethnicity, many different peoples under one flag. This is quite distinct from the US pressure on citizens to be Good Americans before anything else. Canadians are hyphenated (Chinese-Canadian, French-Canadian, Russian-Canadian, and even a few of the original Scots-Canadians). Toronto is said to be the most multi-ethnic city in the world, and I believe that is true.

But, by this analogy, we would have african catholics, united states catholics, canadian catholics, etc.

Internationally, Canada is seen as Canada. … the ethnic and regional differentiations are more visible. But Canadians are Canadians.

That would mean that the Catholic Church would need to absorb different ethnicities and preserve their ethnicities while infusing them with the uniquely Catholic teachings of Christ.

Likewise, it is possible to contemplate that Christians are Christians to the world, but that within that framework, great diversity is not only permissible, desireable but encouraged.

This might be the case, except that there is so much error floating around.

I know that that concept confronts every principle of the supremacy of the Catholic Church and its ownership of the Absolute Truth. But I do believe that this is the way the world is moving, and our faith must move with it.

No, I do not think so. I think the Catholic Church is able to infuse ethnicities without destroying them, thereby valuing diversity. This is demonstrated at my local Byzantine parish, which is about as “un-Roman” a Church as you might find. It is irrelevant which way the world is moving, because we are living in a culture of death, and the world is destined for a crash. Faith must not move with the world, but with the Spirit. I believe the Spirit values diversity, and that God wants all the unique cultures and persons He has created to be in unity together.

Unity in diversity, strength in diversity.

But how to have diversity without departing from the truth?

 

[usr88]

Right… And Protestants ARE part of the Catholic Church, whether they realize it or not…

Somehow protestants ignore John 6 and that makes me think they are not of the true fold of the christianity that Christ established. A friend of mine created a Church (His own denomination, he said).I asumed then that he was the pope of that church because he didn’t report to any body. I don’t believe he had pronounced any dogma or created any doctrine. I don’t believe his members had any notion of whether abortion or the use of birth control pills for instance were wrong or right. At least I don’t think he had the time to teach all those 'cos he 's now dead. Is his Church part of the Catholic Church then? Nah. I don’t think so. I think his church is just like one of those created by those many who thought they have the right to create one.

 

[Chancellare]

Excuse me… God commanded us to venerate (worship) Mary?? I certainly think not. Mary is a saint and foremost of all saints yes, but putting her in a super-natural realm is wrong. She was a human just as we were. Not perfect and not a virgin her whole life as you are taught (and not from scripture).

I hope your church still recognizes correct English:
ven·er·ate
Pronunciation: 've-n&-"rAt
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin veneratus, past participle of venerari, from vener-, venus love, charm
Venerate - to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference.

wor·ship
Pronunciation: 'w&r-sh&p also 'wor-
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
1 chiefly British : a person of importance – used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

Catholic venerate Mary AND worship God.

The difference is so huge that to confuse the 2 words is like being unable to distinguish the moon from the sun.

 

[rando78]

What’s ridiculous?

The Eucharist is not just ‘symbolic’.
The one true Catholic Church is not a “denomination.”

Nothing ridiculous about either statement.

“Catholic” was originally just used to describe the Christian Church. It comes from the Greek word “Katholicos” (I believe that’s the correct spelling) meaning “universal” which refers to Christianity as having no national or racial identity. This term has been traced back to around A.D. 100-110. Today, “Catholic” is actually not the official name of the Church, but it is used to label our Church among other denominations.

 

[Pater_Familias]

Amen to that. I would say the when Jesus said do not hinder the little children he wasn’t conveying the idea of sexually abusing them to keep from hindering them. How sad can it be that the person in the place of Christ (the priest) would pray on children in such a way. I would never subject my 3 year old son to this atrocity nor should anyone with any good sense regardless of the ridiculous infallible claims of the church! This is trully an abomination of God in the purest and most potent form!

Aah yes when in doubt or lacking a coherent argument then the “sexual abuse” banjo is plucked out and streneously played.

ill this simple maybe you will follow if not seek help.

1 catholic and apostolic church that contains saints,sinners and people like me struggling from sinner to saint. The presence of sinners far from detracting from the holiness of the church is a testament to its duty on earth to lead all to salvation. Protestants at best belong to christian communities not churches

 

[Harsalter]

Aah yes when in doubt or lacking a coherent argument then the “sexual abuse” banjo is plucked out and streneously played.

Someone claiming to be a cradle Catholic of 34 years, but doesn’t even understand the Church’s Marian doctrine, and then twisting it into something it is not. Traveller1534 may or may not be Catholic of 34 years, but he/she does not understand the Church’s Marian doctrine or has chosen to misrepresent it.

In the radio industry on political talk shows, the host has to be on the look out for callers claiming to be from one political party, but actually from another, These callers think they bring more credibility ‘for example’ if they say they are republican but disagree with the GOP policies. The same goes on this forum quite a bit, protestants representing themselves as disgruntled Catholics.

It may be the case here. I tend to think so. The topic of this thread invites these sorts.

 

[RNRobert]

I know that that concept confronts every principle of the supremacy of the Catholic Church and its ownership of the Absolute Truth. But I do believe that this is the way the world is moving, and our faith must move with it.

Again, I disagree. To repeat what I quoted from G.K Chesterton several posts back, "We don’t want a church that moves with the world, we want a church that will move the world. We want one that will move it away from any of the things towards which it is moving…It is by that test that history will really judge any church, whether it is the real church or no.

Jesus called us the salt of the world. Salt preserves food from rot by being *unlike *the thing it is placed in. As Guanophore pointed out, we are living in a culture of death, and if we become like the world, than our salt has lost its savor, and we become useless.

I think this is a problem the Church has faced in every century. Even in the degeneracy of Roman times, the “world” excpected Christians to “move” with them. But as St Paul wrote in Romans 12:1-2, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is.”

 

[Harsalter]

No comprehension problem here Rich, I think that you should study Catholic 101 and check out the word venerate and do some research on it. Tell you what, I will share some knowledge with you; venerate means deep honor and worship. To kneel before a statue of Mary isn’t just to say “how ya doin’”. Been there done that and I regretted it. Take it from someone who was Catholic for 34 years.

Take it from a Catholic of just a few weeks. Read post #10 at

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2133294#post2133294

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I hope your church still recognizes correct English:
ven·er·ate
Pronunciation: 've-n&-"rAt
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin veneratus, past participle of venerari, from vener-, venus love, charm
Venerate - to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference.

wor·ship
Pronunciation: 'w&r-sh&p also 'wor-
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
1 chiefly British : a person of importance – used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence

Catholic venerate Mary AND worship God.

The difference is so huge that to confuse the 2 words is like being unable to distinguish the moon from the sun.

Chancellare,

Jsut waht teholoigcal pnoit are you tyrnig to mkae by corercintg smoenoe’s sepllnig and gamermr? Seems uncharitable to me.

Iowa Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Traveller1534:

No comprehension problem here Rich, I think that you should study Catholic 101 and check out the word venerate and do some research on it.

You made the claim. You give the cite. Otherwise, you concede the point.

Traveller1534:

Tell you what, I will share some knowledge with you; venerate means deep honor and worship.

From where did you get this knowledge?

Traveller1534:

To kneel before a statue of Mary isn’t just to say “how ya doin’”. Been there done that and I regretted it.

Then you did so in error. Projecting your error onto the Church is illogical, unfair, and unkind.

Traveller1534:

Take it from someone who was Catholic for 34 years.

Are you claiming to be an authority?

By the way, what is the topic of this thread again?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Today, “Catholic” is actually not the official name of the Church, but it is used to label our Church among other denominations.

“Our”?

Do you have any evidence for this strange point of view? Care to share it with us?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;2131933:

Hi Carol,

Welcome back, I thought you were traveling, no?

There is absolutely no question that the Catholic Church is diverse, its arms are open to all. She is present in every corner of the world and enjoys members from every country, race, gender, sexual orientation, physical description, etc. She does great charitable work around the world often in some of the most depressed and dangerous of places.

Here we go again referring to the church as a she. That is just as bad as all of the veneration of Mary that goes on. It disgusts me and it makes Mary weep and it is an abomination to Jesus who is the head of the church!

Traveller,

I am still awaiting an answer to my question to you in another post about why you object to calling the Church “She”. I asked if this was a personal bias or something else. Now I have a second question for you, "If you were a Catholic for 37 years, what caused you to abandon the faith and become such a vehement critic?

Iowa Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Just trying to put it all in its correct form and call a spade a spade. I am an ex cradle Catholic but i have many Catholic friends and most of my extended family is Catholic. no problem

The problem is your misrepresentation of Catholic Church.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

“Catholic” was originally just used to describe the Christian Church. It comes from the Greek word “Katholicos” (I believe that’s the correct spelling) meaning “universal” which refers to Christianity as having no national or racial identity. This term has been traced back to around A.D. 100-110. Today, “Catholic” is actually not the official name of the Church, but it is used to label our Church among other denominations.

Rando78,

Gee I’m surprised. If the Roman Catholic Church is actually not the official name of the Church, what is it?

My second point…the RCC is not a denomination, it is the One True Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church. When Jesus founded the Catholic Church…it was the only Christian Church ergo the term Catholic applies to the Roman Catholic Church and is not a generic name to describe Christianity as it exists post the Reformation.

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

I am perhaps pervaded by a cloud of unsureness about whether I will be chained or tetheredto, or brainwashed into a faith defined by a Church which insists that I accept all or nothing.

It certainly does not sound like one entering an experience of freedom. If Christ’s words are true, and the Truth will set you free, then perhaps the Truth you need is elsewhere?

This goes against the grain of democracy (and perhaps Christ was the first democrat) to which we have been born, and the encouragement we have been given to think for ourselves. In my formative years, it was the Kremlin, the Chinese Communist Party of Mao Tse Dong (I could give other examples, but they would give offence) which insisted on absolute devotion to its promulgated principles. And that took us all down routes that we would rather forget.

Clearly you see what the Church is asking as from man, and not God. If you believed it was indeed the Church that Christ founded, then you would experience His yoke as easy, and His burden light. Instead, it seems like an external source is forcing a way of life upon you that your inner self is kicking against.

There is therefore perhaps a reluctance on the part of some of us - perhaps older ones - to commit totally, absolutely, in black and white - to a doctrine promulgated by an organisation, whether it is in Christ’s name or not.

There is a vast difference between doing something “in Christ’s name” and doing it " in Christ", or even “as Christ”. Jesus said that people would do good works and cast out demons in His name, that never knew Him. He also told his apostles, He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects me. So, if the Catholic Church is just “doctrine promulgated by an organisation”, or if it is actually the Body of Christ, and the authority established by Him to enact the great commission.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Iowa_Mike:
The 1995 Quebec referendum was the second, nearly identical referendum in the Canadian province of Quebec (see 1980 Quebec referendum) that put to public vote the political roles of Quebec and Canada. Specifically, the referendum asked whether Quebec should secede from Canada and become an independent state. One minor difference between the 1980 and the 1995 referendums was that whereas the first vote was on a proposal to negotiate something termed ‘sovereignty-association’, the second one was on ‘sovereignty’ along with an optional partnership offer. The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to pursue Quebec’s independence was defeated by an extremely small margin, 50.58% “No” to 49.42% “Yes”.

This response wrt the Province of Quebec and its responsibility for some of its foreign affairs links is quite beside the point of this discussion, as I am sure you are aware. The issue is that the federation has grown, and it has held. What might have happened did not happen, and is not likely to happen. The analogy I made stands.

There has been little further talk, as far as I, a Canadian resident in Canada for two months each year, know because the economic consequences for the province would be egregous.