Protestants: What is the oddest thing about Catholicism?

[Sepharad]

Thanks to both of you for understanding! I figure its definitely a lot better than what a lady I knew did, who left Catholicism for Buddhism…she took her rosary and made Buddhist mala beads out of it! I just don’t see it as right to take something of one religion and use it for another (though maybe that’s Deut. 12 in me coming out again).

 

[mercygate]

Thanks to both of you for understanding! I figure its definitely a lot better than what a lady I knew did, who left Catholicism for Buddhism…she took her rosary and made Buddhist mala beads out of it! I just don’t see it as right to take something of one religion and use it for another (though maybe that’s Deut. 12 in me coming out again).

Yeah. That Pentateuch has a way of penetrating WAY down deep.

 

[peacelight]

Thanks to both of you for understanding! I figure its definitely a lot better than what a lady I knew did, who left Catholicism for Buddhism…she took her rosary and made Buddhist mala beads out of it! I just don’t see it as right to take something of one religion and use it for another (though maybe that’s Deut. 12 in me coming out again).

You are welcome . I don’t see as right either to take something of one religion and use it for another religion.

 

[patrick457]

I realize this thread is directed to Protestants, but I wonder if I may ask one question that always puzzled me?

Earlier today, I had to meet with the wife of an American Baptist pastor I know, who is our licensed homeschool evaluator (in our state, homeschooled students need to be evaluated once a year to conform to state academic requirements).

Anyway, while in her home, I noticed a portrait of Jesus she had hanging in the living room. He looked rather rugged, and if I may say so, even handsome!

I have always noticed that Protestants tend to portray Jesus this way: rugged, handsome, very masculine, smiling, sometimes even with short hair (which is probably more historically accurate anyway).

In contrast, Catholic pictures of Jesus always seem to portray him as delicate, sorrowful and sometimes even a bit effeminate.

Is this intentional for doctrinal reasons, anyone know?

(BTW she and I had an interesting discussion after the evaluations, I’d told her about this message forum and I shared with her some feelings I had about Catholicism vs Protestantism, as an outsider looking in (because I’m Jewish.)

They don’t carry any doctrinal meaning at all, they were just depictions of Jesus in a specific artistic style. As far as I know there are also depictions of Jesus as a rather rugged and ‘short-haired’ man (even depictions of Him laughing, though that would raise some people’s eyebrows) in Catholic homes.

That said, works of art depicting Jesus as a rather effeminate Aryan man also irks me a bit; I prefer early images of Him who, while still (in some cases) depicted long-haired, has a more serious and almost ‘tough’ look:

https://www.domainmarket.com/buynow/genxrising.com

Icon of the Pantokrator, 6th Century

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/images/rome/costanza/resized/f10_139.jpg

Jesus with St. Peter, 4th Century, presently in Santa Costanza, Rome



A Coin from the 2nd reign of Justinian II (669-711; reigned 685-695, 705-711). Jesus is on the left.

Though that’s just my artistic preference.

 

[patrick457]

The portrayal of Jesus with long hair derives, I believe, from a misunderstanding in the NT where it claims that the Jewish prophecies foretold that the Messiah would be from Nazareth.

They confused “Nazareth” with “nazarite”, which referred to a type of vow in Judaism in which a Jewish male did not cut his hair or drink anything from grapes.

I doubt Jesus could have had long hair anyway, because in the NT it says that a woman’s long hair is given to her for a covering, and that it is her “glory”. I doubt, therefore, than a man in those days would have long hair too, because it would make him appear feminine.

You’re referring to Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians (11: 1-16)

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.

It could also easily mean that Paul is condemning hair which in his culture would be considered ‘long’ (note that they might have had a different idea on how long a man’s hair should be before it is considered ‘too long’ for him than us moderns, thus we could think that some 1st century Jews have hair which would be quite ‘long’ in our modern-day thinking but still ‘medium’ or even ‘short’ in theirs).

Also it could be a reference to Jesus being at the head of man, just as the husband was the head of the wife, that he wasn’t even discussing fashion at all. He was addressing how others were insisting upon following Jewish tradition in order to be a good Christian, and he was clearly pointing out to steer clear from that type of thinking, which is why he mentioned hair length.

 

[patrick457]

Exactly, iconography of Jesus prior to the mid-6th century usually showed him looking like a typical pagan Roman shepherd. Short hair, short skirt. Sheep over his shoulders. One image shows him in the guise of Apollo riding the chariot of the sun. The only way you can tell it’s a Christian image is by the distinctive halo.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/...herd-ceiling-s-callisto-catacomb-3rdc-300.jpg

Catacombs of St. Callixtus, c. 250

That is one of many depictions of Jesus during the Early Christian period. The reason He is depicted such is due to the danger of being a Christian, thus the necessity of disguising Christian art in pagan motifs so as not to arouse suspicion. Thus Jesus is depicted in various guises as the sun god Helios/Apollo, as Orpheus, as a young philosopher, etc.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-and-apostles-catacomb-domitilla-c350-500.jpg

Jesus with Apostles, Catacombs of Domitilla, ca. 350 AD

By the latter half of the 4th century and later, images of Jesus with long hair with a beard began to appear in Christian Art. However, the former depiction of Jesus as a beardless young man was still widespread:

http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/newStuffForXnCours/catacumbasCristianas/xPeterPaul.jpg

Jesus with Peter and Paul, Catacombs of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter, 4th c.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/...ral-commodilla-catacombs-late-4thcent-500.jpg

Jesus, Catacombs of Commodilla, 4th Century. This is one of the first images to show Jesus with long hair and full-grown beard.

http://orthodoxtech.com/images/D10.San_Vitale-Apse-Christ_Enthroned.jpg

Jesus with Angels and Bishop Ecclesius, San Vitale, Ravenna, 560 A.D.

By the 6th Century, depictions of Jesus as a short-haired man with curly hair and a beard became widespread in the East.

Icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery in Mt. Sinai, 6th C.

Then, by the latter half of the 6th century and after, icons of Christ with long hair and beard began to be widespread; this was taken to be due to the the Shroud of Turin/Mandylion.
This eventually became the standard appearance of Jesus in art:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s.jpg/180px-ChristPantocratorStCatherines.jpg

Icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, 6th C.

http://content.answers.com/main/con.../180px-Christ_pantocrator_daphne1090-1100.jpg

Apse, Church of Daphni, Daphni, 1090

 

[Sepharad]

I like the ikon pictures the best, and the 1970s Protestant ones. I figure if they’re going to be accurate, they should make him look a)Jewish and b) strong and rugged (he worked in a carpenter’s shop, after all!)

 

[RCSoCal]

For me, I respectfully say…

The Priesthood’s “authority” <— I use the word lightly because I have NO problem with Priests, Bishops, the Pope etc…but how they decide what’s valid or not…ie marriages, communion, confession etc. And not so much calling a Priest “Father”, but calling the Pope “Holy Father”.

I believe in authority, no doubt. And I think that Pope John Paul II was one of the best represenatives of Christianity ever ( I don’t know too much about Pope Benidict) I just don’t agree with the “Rome has spoken, no more questions” perspective I see SOMETIMES…not all the time.

I have nothing against Catholics, and I’d go as far as to say that I’m probably as close to Catholic as I can get without actually going to RCIA and converting. 99.3% Catholic…if that’s possible

Hi, I am a Lutheran-raised person that came home to the RCC in the 1980’s and I read your comment with interest because I had that same issue.

The way I think about it is this way: “how they decide what is valid” is decided based on clear logic derived from the teachings of the scriptures and the tradition of the Church since the early church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries of Jesus or knew those contemporaries, so there is an unbroken link there.
There is also a reference in the Bible, I believe Timothy, indicating that tradition is just as important as the Bible. They didn’t write everything down .

The reason, I think, that it is “Rome has spoken” and that is it, so to speak, is that, for unity to exist, there has to be some tie-breaker, some place where the arguments stop. That is the problem with the Protestants and something that I always had a problem with. Even the Lutherans can’t all agree on what they believe so this creates disunity. Everyone in the Church will not always be good - some will even be evil - and having over a billion members and clergy even statistically guarantees this, but in the Bible Jesus promises that his Church will never fall to Satan, I forget where. So to a Lutheran it just represents a bit of a paradigm shift - I would rather have the Pope, drawing on this huge treasure of tradition and intellectual/theological writing and well considered logic (RCC teaches that reason and faith are complementary) interpret things that a minister that has much less access to information, history and resources (time and people) so to me the Lutheran church relied too much on the decisions of single men. An example is Martin Luther stating that he couldn’t bring himself to believe in this one doctrine - I am forgetting which one, but that was one of his arguments.

I am just citing examples from my Lutheran background - not sure of yours, but if you are interested in studying the history of the church, you might find as I did, that a BIG amount of information and writings were withheld from me (from Church Fathers to Reformation) and it is priceless. Even if you weren’t interested in becoming Catholic it is worth reading. And I think if you study it, you will start to understand how all the doctrines have an unbroken link to the times of Jesus and this is wonderful.
So this gives you more confidence in the judgement of the Pope.

Hope this makes sense. God bless,

 

[RCSoCal]

Do you know much about the claims by non catholics about Pagan practices within the RCC?

I’d like to hear what you think.

God Bless

A.G.

Hello and welcome. I may be of some help on Mary as a convert from Lutheranism in the 1980’s. The way I think of it is this, and it took me a LONG time even after conversion to understand it. And it is optional by the way so don’t be too worried about it. It’s just that now I understand it and have derived TREMENDOUS benefits from it, I want everyone to share the joy so to speak. So if we that love Her get too extreme just ignore us - it’s optional and you may never identify with it.

1. Jesus asked us to honour our parents, so we must assume that he as a good Jewish boy honoured his mother; we should do the same;
2. For Jesus to be born without sin, he had to be born of a sinless vessel - many liken Mary to the Ark of the Covenant. She wasn’t born sinless by her own merit; God made her so because he knew she would say “Yes” to the request to bear Jesus (her fiat is her assent); if she were not sinless she would have transmitted her sin to Jesus.
3. We ask her to pray for us; we don’t treat her like God. As a protestant it was very touchy for me because there is so much emphasis on avoiding idolatry. I think this was because Luther was so concerned about separating from the Church. He did, however, continue to pray the rosary daily. It is like asking your sister to pray for you but she is closer to God in Heaven. It would help you to read church’s teaching on the communion of saints;
4. Mary’s value (one of them) is as an example to us to that we should accept God’s will for us.
5. Jesus gave her to us as our mother (“behold your mother” - dying on the cross he wasn’t going to say any unnecessary words - I believe he meant she was to be the mother of the church). We who may have parents that weren’t very warm and demonstrative can get this mother type of love from her.
6. The rosary is all taken from scripture. Hail Mary is not Praise you Mary it is the salutation of the angel to Mary. Hail was a Roman way of saying, Hey there, sort of…
7. It is strange, but since I have prayed the rosary and asked for answers, it is really weird but something always happens that is a very clear answer to my prayer - maybe something comes on TV, or someone tells me something - it is not coincidence. I feel this very strongly.
8. Check out EWTN or EWTN.com. They have some great books that explain her. There is very detailed and a lot of information on this topic so you have to patiently read it. But it all makes sense.
   I hope this very quick summary has not distorted anything and I know there is a lot I missed, but these could be starting points for you. God bless,

 

[RCSoCal]

The way they dictate sexuality between a husband and wife. How they consider birth control sinning. Everything is about the embryo and not the person who is living. :twocents:

Hello, I think it would be interesting for you to read the detail of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. A lot of the teachings on birth control are because it interferes with how sex is perceived by the couple, - once you take the possibility of procreation out of sex, it changes the interaction between the couple and for the worse. I am not explaining this well - please check out EWTN.com for some great books on this. Also, there are other ways the couple can avoid children so focus is not just on unborn child. There is a place in the Bible that indicates that when a society starts to kill its unborn and born children, God will at some point withdraw His protection from it, I forget where - maybe someone else knows. But the church is very pro husband and wife relationship, - logical since this prolongs the marriage and avoids divorce, so it wants to enhance sex. It is very pro quality of sex. Please read the writings of Pope John Paul II. There is a Jesuit father on EWTN that did a great program on it.

 

[RCSoCal]

They are a developing human at that point. They are not still a “person” until the embryo is born. In response to chewchoo.

Did you see the recent news story about the “embryo” that was found to have cancer, so “it” was extracted from the womb, the cancer removed, and then “it” was replaced.

This kind of proves that the embryo can breathe air. I don’t think breathing air is the defining factor.