M
manualman
Guest
Alas, I am departing myself now to a banishment of 4 days of mere dial-up access (which I am unlikely to use). I look forward to discussion in the New Year!
- Status
M
mozart-250
Guest
woohoo: my hi speed internet is back.
Hi inthecloud.
A couple of questions.
As an amateur historian, are you satisfied that it is a historical fact that both the Catholic and the Orthodox have unbroken succession?
Comment on point 2…if you define creationism as a belief in a literal six day creation 6K - 10K years ago, then at best it is a debated topic. In my experience, none of the churches I have attended are literal 6 day 7000 years ago creationalists (they have the really funny theory that God created light in transit to account for galaxies 10 billion light years away or so). Once saved always saved is also a debatable topic amongst us.
Anyway, I commend you for contemplating a return to Christianity and may God guide you into His plan for your life.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Hi Arnobius. I finally figured out what I meant to say.
It appears to me that the Catholic and the Orthodox have different interpretations of tradition. And as expected, each interpretation has a slant towards their own respective denominations.
This is not unlike different Protestant denominations have different interpretations of the Bible.
I can understand why you would interpret tradition according to a Catholic slant. And I can understand why the Orthodox would interpret tradition according to an Orthodox slant. I don’t know how you (or anybody else) can know that your denomination’s interpretation is correct relative to the other denomination.
Of course I am in no position to judge whose interpretation of tradition is correct…similarly you are in no position to judge which Protestant interpretation of the Bible is correct. It is what it is I guess.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Manny: let me make sure I got this correct.
You know that Catholicism is correct because of Matthew 16:13-20 as interpreted by Catholicism is correct.
Of course this assumes that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:13-20 is the correct one. But you know that it is correct because the church can not err in matters of faith and morals. You know this because this is what the Catholic church teaches. Do I got this right?
Hmm. Something seems circular here.
C
c659smith
Guest
You are very confused as while the Different Catholic Churches 4 in total as having any type of recognition with Rome The Greek, Eastern, Russian, and Roman.
The Eastern is in communion with Rome. Yes they do have some minor variances in tradition but mainly from a custom type from the area they are in.
The Protestant Churches is totally a different animal. They only use Sacred Scripture and Teachings when it is conveinent or what’s popular with their congregation. They have absolutely no authority to perform the major sacraments that are to bo completed by a priest or Bishop of the Catholic Church.
And as a note they do not.
They do not beleive in trans substansiation --Communion body, blood, soul, and divity of Christ,
They do not for the most part believe in the communion of Saints.
One baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
why some protestant sect get baptized every time they change sects or congregations
Some have deleted the bible on baptisn and say you do not need baptism at all.
Look the list goes on and on but they are far from the Universal Church
The Eastern is in communion with Rome. Yes they do have some minor variances in tradition but mainly from a custom type from the area they are in.
The Protestant Churches is totally a different animal. They only use Sacred Scripture and Teachings when it is conveinent or what’s popular with their congregation. They have absolutely no authority to perform the major sacraments that are to bo completed by a priest or Bishop of the Catholic Church.
And as a note they do not.
They do not beleive in trans substansiation --Communion body, blood, soul, and divity of Christ,
They do not for the most part believe in the communion of Saints.
One baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
why some protestant sect get baptized every time they change sects or congregations
Some have deleted the bible on baptisn and say you do not need baptism at all.
Look the list goes on and on but they are far from the Universal Church
B
bobzills
Guest
However, that does not necessarily prove that one is 100% correct, because you could have a situation where some small errors have crept into the teachings of each one. Catholicism really does not hold 100% to the traditions in effect at Apostolic times. Take for example, the Apostolic tradition that women should be silent in the Churches or that women should have their heads covered while praying in Church.
C
c659smith
Guest
You are correct with that reading in the Gospel and I would have to say that up until the mid 1970s that was the standard in the Roman Catholic Church.
However while that is currently not enforced with the Church you can still find women wearing head coverings in church along with remaining silent.
As time progresses some traditions are not enforced but are not forgotten either. Turn the channel onto EWTN and watch a Mass and you will see both. Watch a Mass at the Vatican and you will see most women having a head covering in Saint Peters."With this church,
because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"
Women As Readers
The Conference of Bishops has given permission for women to serve as readers in accord with no. 66 of the “General Instruction” (November, 1969).
In February, 1971, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy prepared a commentary on the liturgical ministry of women:
a. With the exception of service at the altar itself, women may be admitted to the exercise of other liturgical ministries. In particular the designation of women to serve in such ministries as reader, cantor, leader of singing, commentator, director of liturgical participation, etc., is left to the judgment of the pastor or the priest who presides over the celebration, in the light of the culture and mentality of the congregation.
b. Worthiness of life and character and other qualifications are required in women who exercise liturgical ministries in the same way as for men who exercise the same ministries.
c. Women who read one or other biblical reading during the liturgy of the word (other than the Gospel, which is reserved to a deacon or priest) should do so from the lectern or ambo where the other readings are proclaimed: the reservation of a single place for all the biblical readings is more significant than the person of the reader, whether ordained or lay, whether woman or man (cf. “General Instruction,” no 272).
d. Other ministries performed by women, such as leading the singing or otherwise directing the congregation, should be done either within or outside the sanctuary area, depending on circumstances or convenience.
The same can be said of the head covering and as with culturre head covering for women is still the norm in the church outside the United States.
The tradition is there and understood even though at times or in some cultures may prove to be impractable
However while that is currently not enforced with the Church you can still find women wearing head coverings in church along with remaining silent.
As time progresses some traditions are not enforced but are not forgotten either. Turn the channel onto EWTN and watch a Mass and you will see both. Watch a Mass at the Vatican and you will see most women having a head covering in Saint Peters."With this church,
because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"
Women As Readers
The Conference of Bishops has given permission for women to serve as readers in accord with no. 66 of the “General Instruction” (November, 1969).
In February, 1971, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy prepared a commentary on the liturgical ministry of women:
a. With the exception of service at the altar itself, women may be admitted to the exercise of other liturgical ministries. In particular the designation of women to serve in such ministries as reader, cantor, leader of singing, commentator, director of liturgical participation, etc., is left to the judgment of the pastor or the priest who presides over the celebration, in the light of the culture and mentality of the congregation.
b. Worthiness of life and character and other qualifications are required in women who exercise liturgical ministries in the same way as for men who exercise the same ministries.
c. Women who read one or other biblical reading during the liturgy of the word (other than the Gospel, which is reserved to a deacon or priest) should do so from the lectern or ambo where the other readings are proclaimed: the reservation of a single place for all the biblical readings is more significant than the person of the reader, whether ordained or lay, whether woman or man (cf. “General Instruction,” no 272).
d. Other ministries performed by women, such as leading the singing or otherwise directing the congregation, should be done either within or outside the sanctuary area, depending on circumstances or convenience.
The same can be said of the head covering and as with culturre head covering for women is still the norm in the church outside the United States.
The tradition is there and understood even though at times or in some cultures may prove to be impractable
B
bobzills
Guest
Are you sure that it is the norm of the Church outside of the USA? What about in Canada, France and Germany, for example? The
Apostolic tradition was that women were to wear headcovering in Church, isn’t that correct?
Also, in the apostolic tradition, was rock and roll music, and Peter, Paul and Mary, folk type music with handclapping, or liturgical dancing women, etc., allowed during the Liturgy?
C
c659smith
Guest
Your questions were that errors came into the teachings og the Catholic Church. The decisions of the teachings and the traditions come from the Bishops of the Catholic Church same as it was for the Apostles. Some things do change or altered from time to time.
Now the Church does not ban women from wearing a head covering in church but states at this time it is not necessary. Some women young and old alike throughout the world wear a hair covering in church.
Would the Gentiles have been allowed in the Church if Paul had not gone to the Apostles, the bishops of the church and requested that the tradition of circumcision and what one eats not preclude them from entering the Church?
The tradition is still there and through the years most Catholics were circumcised and we refrain from certain foods during Lent.
But this does not stop someone from becoming part of Christ’s Church.
The Bishops like the Apostles are granted lets say special enlightening from the Holy Spirit in the decisions they make. I have to believe that these men and Apostles of Christ would do nothing to harm me or Christ’s Church. Decisions are made as a whole body not just one man when it comes to changes in Sacred Scipture, Tradition, and Teachings. Thus like the Apostles making the church infallible.
If you go to communion you may receive on the tongue --tradition but may also receive in the hands. both are done.
The Church will be persecuted through the centuries but will not fall.
Now the Church does not ban women from wearing a head covering in church but states at this time it is not necessary. Some women young and old alike throughout the world wear a hair covering in church.
Would the Gentiles have been allowed in the Church if Paul had not gone to the Apostles, the bishops of the church and requested that the tradition of circumcision and what one eats not preclude them from entering the Church?
The tradition is still there and through the years most Catholics were circumcised and we refrain from certain foods during Lent.
But this does not stop someone from becoming part of Christ’s Church.
The Bishops like the Apostles are granted lets say special enlightening from the Holy Spirit in the decisions they make. I have to believe that these men and Apostles of Christ would do nothing to harm me or Christ’s Church. Decisions are made as a whole body not just one man when it comes to changes in Sacred Scipture, Tradition, and Teachings. Thus like the Apostles making the church infallible.
If you go to communion you may receive on the tongue --tradition but may also receive in the hands. both are done.
The Church will be persecuted through the centuries but will not fall.
E
emarc
Guest
It’s the only religion with its history that could be traced back to Jesus Christ; the only religion that preserved and defended the fullness of truth and faith as taught by Jesus and his apostles against heresies and false teachings; the incorrupted truth preserved and passed on from one generation to the next by the Church which we believers embrace today. Most Protestants don’t realize how much they owe the Bible from the Catholics. When Martin Luther revolted against the Papacy in the 15th century, the Books and Epistles containing the inspired words of God have already been selected and affirmed by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. The faithful Catholics continue to receive in the Holy Eucharist Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity as Jesus himself, instituted the day before his crucifixion. We walk by faith in Jesus, the Son of God, and not by our sight.
God bless.
emarc
God bless.
emarc
B
bobzills
Guest
But there are traditional Catholics who say that the Church today does not teach the same thing as was taught during the time of the Apostles, as for example, with the question of headcovering for women, and for women teaching in Church. At the time of the Apostles, it was taught that women must wear headcovering in Church. At the present time, it is taught differently. It is taught that it is optional for women to wear headcovering in Church. And in many countries, whether it is optional or not, you see fewer than 10 per cent of women who wear headcovering. And you see women conducting the full communion service with no headcovering. So the teaching of the apostles on that point has not been preserved, and it is not embraced by Catholics today.
C
c659smith
Guest
bodzills,
do you not agree that the Catholic Church has not done away with that tradition but has given women a choice as Peter agreed with Paul when breaking the traditions of being circumcised and eating pork for the gentiles?
The Bishops of the Church gave women that choice and allowed more women to become active participants in the church, Do you believe that was a bad decision.
As a male I do not.
The Bishops also brought back the trinitine Mass so Traditions do not cease but may not be towards the forefront from time to time.
do you not agree that the Catholic Church has not done away with that tradition but has given women a choice as Peter agreed with Paul when breaking the traditions of being circumcised and eating pork for the gentiles?
The Bishops of the Church gave women that choice and allowed more women to become active participants in the church, Do you believe that was a bad decision.
As a male I do not.
The Bishops also brought back the trinitine Mass so Traditions do not cease but may not be towards the forefront from time to time.
C
c659smith
Guest
Can you imagine if Mother Theresa was not a voice in the catholic Church
B
bobzills
Guest
the Church today teaches that women have a choice as to whether or not to wear headcovering in Church. In the USA, more than 90% do not wear the headcovering, even those who are giving the communion service or those who are Eucharistic servers.
The Church in Apostolic times taught that women must wear headcovering in Church.
The teaching of the Church today on this issue is therefore not the same as the teaching of the Church in Apostolic times on this issue.
Whether this was a good decision of the bishops or a bad decision of the bishops is not relevant to the point that the teaching has changed from what the teaching was at the time of St. Paul, and as he elaborated it in the Epistle to the Corinthians.
Another thing that has changed and is not the same as it was at the time of the Apostles is the idea of liturgical dancers or or the mariachi band Mass. Actually, there have been many innovations and changes in Catholic teachings since the Apostolic times, for example, the communion service led by a woman, so the teaching of the Church today is not the same as the teaching as it was at the time of the Apostles.
Maybe these changes are good, but some argue that they are not, this was not my point. My only point was that there are things which are taught today, contrary to what was taught at the time of the Apostles. In other words, I don;t see how I could agree with a previous post which implied that all of the teachings of the Apostles have been handed down uncorrupted and are taught today uncorrupted.
B
bobzills
Guest
Mother Theresa is, or course, a great Saint and holy person of our time.
E
emarc
Guest
But there are traditional Catholics who say that the Church today does not teach the same thing as was taught during the time of the Apostles, as for example, with the question of headcovering for women, and for women teaching in Church. At the time of the Apostles, it was taught that women must wear headcovering in Church. At the present time, it is taught differently. It is taught that it is optional for women to wear headcovering in Church. And in many countries, whether it is optional or not, you see fewer than 10 per cent of women who wear headcovering. And you see women conducting the full communion service with no headcovering. So the teaching of the apostles on that point has not been preserved, and it is not embraced by Catholics today.
Hi BobZill
The Church can not and would not change any teachings falling under the scope of its doctrine or dogmas, but would change others for varied reasons, like adapting to a country’s custom and tradition. There is an elaborate piece of article I read in this website (Catholic.com) but could not tell exactly offhand its title. You can research for it and you’ll see that the Church has been faithful in keeping the Apostles’ teachings and Traditions. Happy New Year.
emarc
Hi BobZill
The Church can not and would not change any teachings falling under the scope of its doctrine or dogmas, but would change others for varied reasons, like adapting to a country’s custom and tradition. There is an elaborate piece of article I read in this website (Catholic.com) but could not tell exactly offhand its title. You can research for it and you’ll see that the Church has been faithful in keeping the Apostles’ teachings and Traditions. Happy New Year.
emarc
D
D317
Guest
One of the many nice things about the Catholic Church is that Christ gave it the power to make changes, such as “head gear” requirements and procedural issues. Matt 16:19.
Gaining 100% compliance is often difficult, especially since Vat II when many of the new teachings became “confused” and misunderstood. This created an entire generation of Catholics with poor faith education (Kat-a-key-sis, if I could spell it!).
Gaining 100% compliance is often difficult, especially since Vat II when many of the new teachings became “confused” and misunderstood. This created an entire generation of Catholics with poor faith education (Kat-a-key-sis, if I could spell it!).
B
bobzills
Guest
C
catharina
Guest
This is the best I can offer to you right now but it comes directly from the Catechism (and it reminds me of what I learned in childhood from the Baltimore Catechism). The mark of “apostolic” signifies authority received from the Apostles by their successors, influenced (inspired) by the Holy Spirit in their efforts to maintain the Church. I quote:
**
IV. THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC
857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:
- she was and remains built on “the foundation of the Apostles,” the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;
- with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching, the “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;
- she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”:
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles
you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of the flock
to share in the work of your Son. . . .**
For example, at one time (in the early Church) Eucharistic bread almost certainly came from kosher bakers. We are not required to seek out kosher bakers today, rather those who are providing the exact bread required for celebration of the Mass according to norms of the Church. Unleavened, yes, but kosher?
I know your issue of the moment is annulment and I understand and support John Paul II’s statements; but I have no idea what took place re annulments in the days of the Apostles.
Do you?
B
bobzills
Guest
It says right here that as a mark of being apostolic, the Church keeps hands on the teaching she has heard from the apostles. Now where did the apostles say that it is OK to annul a marriage based on the soft psychological grounds or reasons that we are reading about today? I don;t think that they did. The proof for this is to look at the situation in the Church as it was in 1930, when there were 9 annulments granted per year. And an annulment would be granted only for the most serious of reasons. Compare that with the situation recently and take a look at the reasons for granting an annulment today, as given in the book Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. These are lsited at the catholic site:
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html
- Status