or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Do I have to believe everything the Catholic church believes to be Catholic?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do I have to believe everything the Catholic church believes to be Catholic? - Page 4

post #61 of 92
Bluegoat, my apologies for misstating the branch of the Anglican Communion you belong to. Thanks for correcting that.

And thanks for explaining your interest.
post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
I think that no matter how you look at the inquisitions and the crusades, one has to admit that at one time the Church sanctioned torture, imprisonment and execution for some crimes of heresy and apostasy. We also recognize that this is no longer the case. So, the question is, how do you deal with the difficult things in Church history? Can you reconcile Church history with the viewpoint that the Church has never been wrong? How do those of us connected with the Church deal with the history of the Church, especially the darker parts, and how does it relates to whats currently going on?

My view is a bit simplistic, but I think those mistakes are human mistakes, not Godly ones. I realize there is the whole papal infalliability clause, but I also bet that if one spoke to the Pope he would happily admit many mistakes he has made in his life before and after ordination.

We pray and have faith that the Pope and the Church are led by the Holy Spirit, but alas, this is not always the case. :
post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
It's hard to have understanding without love.
How very true!

Also, I am wondering about the doctrine of papal infallibility ... is that more of a big-T tradition, or more little-t?

From my understanding, it was one big reason why the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church went their separate ways.
post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
How very true!

Also, I am wondering about the doctrine of papal infallibility ... is that more of a big-T tradition, or more little-t?

From my understanding, it was one big reason why the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church went their separate ways.
Well, the official dogma of papal infallibility wasn't defined until the 19th century during Vatican I, long after the Orthodox and RC Church split. The Orthodox believe all bishops have the same standing and do not accept that the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is supreme. They also have not accepted the authority of any Councils that have been summoned after the split. The Orthodox/Catholic split really requires its own thread. Hopefully some of the Orthodox girls can jump in if you have any questions relating to their faith (for instance, I do not believe they accept the doctrines relating to Purgatory since they were also defined in the 19th century).

Papal infallibility is greatly misunderstood by most people (I was one of them until recently!) and only applies in very specific parameters.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
post #65 of 92
The patriarch of the Orthodox churches occupies the seat of St. Andrew in Istanbul, while the Catholic Pope occupies the seat of St. Peter in Rome. My priest explained the Catholic/Orthodox split as a fraternal feud (Sts. Peter and Andrew were brothers). The original problem was (and still is today) the issue of papal authority -- is the Pope of Rome "the first among equals" or the head of the Church? The 19th century doctrine of papal infallibility complicates this problem further. Another problem was the word "filioque" that was added to the Nicene Creed by the Pope of Rome, but that theological issue has been worked out between the Catholics and Orthodox.
post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay View Post
Another problem was the word "filioque" that was added to the Nicene Creed by the Pope of Rome, but that theological issue has been worked out between the Catholics and Orthodox.
That would be a very controversial statement. If you threw it into a small room full of RC and OC members, I'm not sure how many would emerge.
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
That would be a very controversial statement. If you threw it into a small room full of RC and OC members, I'm not sure how many would emerge.
Well, I think the Eastern Catholics would emerge just fine. The joint statement issued in 2003 says that the "filioque" is no longer a "church-dividing issue."
post #68 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay View Post
The patriarch of the Orthodox churches occupies the seat of St. Andrew in Istanbul, while the Catholic Pope occupies the seat of St. Peter in Rome. My priest explained the Catholic/Orthodox split as a fraternal feud (Sts. Peter and Andrew were brothers). The original problem was (and still is today) the issue of papal authority -- is the Pope of Rome "the first among equals" or the head of the Church? The 19th century doctrine of papal infallibility complicates this problem further. Another problem was the word "filioque" that was added to the Nicene Creed by the Pope of Rome, but that theological issue has been worked out between the Catholics and Orthodox.
His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch, Patriarch of Constantinople and New Rome, to give him his full title, is *not* "the patriarch of the Orthodox Churches." He is *one* patriarch. He occupies a place similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion. While there is only one patriach in the West (Rome, the pope), there are many among the Orthodox. Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria are the other original members of the Pentarchy. But there are also patriarchs of Russia and Serbia, to name two.

The Filioque issue has *not* been worked out. And the issues of papal supremacy and infallibility are *huge* issues.

Disclaimer: I'm Orthodox, but was raised Catholic.
post #69 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
That would be a very controversial statement. If you threw it into a small room full of RC and OC members, I'm not sure how many would emerge.



and yes, it is still very much a divisive issue.
post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd View Post
His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch, Patriarch of Constantinople and New Rome, to give him his full title, is *not* "the patriarch of the Orthodox Churches." He is *one* patriarch. He occupies a place similar to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion. While there is only one patriach in the West (Rome, the pope), there are many among the Orthodox. Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria are the other original members of the Pentarchy. But there are also patriarchs of Russia and Serbia, to name two.

The Filioque issue has *not* been worked out. And the issues of papal supremacy and infallibility are *huge* issues.

Disclaimer: I'm Orthodox, but was raised Catholic.
Also, it is worthwhile to point out that in the OC, there is a slightly different way in which the Church is perceived to speak compared to Catholicism. Even if ALL the patriarchs and Bishops were to agree, if the Orthodox people reject it, it doesn't fly. It's not exactly democratic, it's not like there is a vote, but it has happened in the past. There seemed to be an agreement with all the appropriate leaders involved, but when they returned home, no one would follow them on the issue.

The understanding of what constitutes the Tradition of the Church is the key, I think. It is not what the hierarchy proclaims on any given day. It is the full consensus of the Church, past, present and future. The Church includes not only Bishops and Patriarchs, but common people and the saints in Heaven and those yet to be born.
post #71 of 92
ETA: Oops the article is not there any more, so I pulled the link.

Thought you ladies might be interested in this article about a nun being banned from teaching catechism in her area, because of her public support of women being ordained as priests.

Most of the commenters seem to be in favor of women's ordination -- and I get the impression that most or all of the commenters are Catholic.
post #72 of 92
Whoooops posted in wrong thread.
post #73 of 92
mammal: your article has been pulled or something, because it wasn't there. I found an article on the same thing on another site. I applaud the Archbishop for pulling her, although I think it just makes sense and it would have been an outrage if he hadn't. I am very happy that the Vatican is doing a "visitation" or investigation of nuns in the US. I hope to see more of this in the future! So many religious orders in this country (and probably around the world) have gone way off base and need to be disciplined.

Honestly though, the orders that are very liberal are dying out. No girl wants to be part of them. On the other hand, conservative, orthodox orders are growing quickly. Some have so many girls they have to turn them away because they can't accomodate them! That's awesome!

Actually, it's the same in the seminaries. The very orthodox -particualrly the Latin Mass orders- are growing by leaps and bounds. It's exciting! We need priests and God is giving them to us. Like He said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her.

Thanks for sharing the article!
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew View Post
I am very happy that the Vatican is doing a "visitation" or investigation of nuns in the US. I hope to see more of this in the future! So many religious orders in this country (and probably around the world) have gone way off base and need to be disciplined.
Even though I strongly disagree with you on this point, I deeply respect your perspective and right to your opinion. My question is why is the Vatican not doing this with male religious orders too?

And WHY did they never do it to weed out or discipline religious and priests who were sexually abusing children? The Vatican's choice to focus on who is "toeing the line" of official Church teaching when it looked the other way as much as possible when religious (men and women) and priests were violating the commandments of scripture, church teaching and morality, as well as the law enrages me as a Catholic.
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew View Post
On the other hand, conservative, orthodox orders are growing quickly. Some have so many girls they have to turn them away because they can't accomodate them! That's awesome!
That's really interesting. I'm not aware of any women's religious orders that are growing rapidly right now. Could you post some links about this?

Thanks.

(Also one really tiny point: Girls do not take vows to enter religious communities. Women enter religious life.)
post #76 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by chfriend View Post
That's really interesting. I'm not aware of any women's religious orders that are growing rapidly right now. Could you post some links about this?

Thanks.

(Also one really tiny point: Girls do not take vows to enter religious communities. Women enter religious life.)
THis is from the NY times.
post #77 of 92
Bluegoat, the article is interesting -- but it was actually talking about the new women wanting tradition in areas like communal living, common prayer, and wearing a habit.

I think people can enjoy a more traditional liturgy and style of living, without necessarily being theologically or politically conservative.

But maybe I say this because of my experience with VERY conservative (both theologically and politically) fundamentalist folks who are totally cool with wearing jeans to church and worshipping to rock music (I am cool with jeans and rock in church, too -- but am also finding an appeal in old liturgy ... maybe it's my advancing age, LOL).
post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Bluegoat, the article is interesting -- but it was actually talking about the new women wanting tradition in areas like communal living, common prayer, and wearing a habit.

I think people can enjoy a more traditional liturgy and style of living, without necessarily being theologically or politically conservative.

But maybe I say this because of my experience with VERY conservative (both theologically and politically) fundamentalist folks who are totally cool with wearing jeans to church and worshipping to rock music (I am cool with jeans and rock in church, too -- but am also finding an appeal in old liturgy ... maybe it's my advancing age, LOL).
The Vocations forum at Catholic.com is both informative and interesting to read. http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=75 In my experience of reading about various religious orders, it does appear that the more orthodox orders continue to wear habits - it is sort of an outward physical indicator of their orthodoxy. This is probably not true in all cases but for the most part it seems to be.

This is a bit of a tangent, but the physicality of Catholicism was one of the first attractions I had to the religion. The incense, the candles, the glorious altar, the various garb worn by religious (in fact, I am now living in a more conservative diocese and in my parish the priests wear cassocks, all the altar servers are boys and also wear traditional garments, which immediately tipped me off that the parish was going to be very conservative and it certainly is), the statues, rosaries, etc. Many Protestants (myself included when I was a practicing Protestant) shrugged all the "trappings" off as distraction or labeled them as even worse, but I've found those physical things get me into a spiritual space in a way that a rock band and a pastor wearing jeans was never able to do so. It feels more reverent for ME, it is like dressing a really nice table for a holiday dinner to indicate that it is special and has significant meaning to the participants, if that makes sense.

If you'll humor me, I'll add a sweet story that goes along with what I was trying to say in the above paragraph. I entered the Church this past Easter during the Vigil service and my children were baptized then as well. We had no family living nearby so aside from my local sponsor and his wife, the only people who attended with my family was a good friend of mine and her daughter, the friend being a very active Protestant in a non-denominational church. Her daughter was a new 4 and had never been to any other Christian denomination service before so the sanctuary during the Vigil was probably overwhelming a bit for her. Remember, the Vigil is sort of the pinnacle of Catholic liturgy during the year, it is AWESOME and I encourage you to attend this year if you can. Anyway, shortly into the service my friend's daughter leans over to ask her, "Mama, is this heaven?" And that just sums up my own feelings about the physical experience of celebrating the liturgy of the Mass knowing that we are indeed joined with heaven, the choirs of angels singing right along with us. It is a miracle each and every time for me.
post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbeau View Post
Her daughter was a new 4 and had never been to any other Christian denomination service before so the sanctuary during the Vigil was probably overwhelming a bit for her. Remember, the Vigil is sort of the pinnacle of Catholic liturgy during the year, it is AWESOME and I encourage you to attend this year if you can. Anyway, shortly into the service my friend's daughter leans over to ask her, "Mama, is this heaven?" And that just sums up my own feelings about the physical experience of celebrating the liturgy of the Mass knowing that we are indeed joined with heaven, the choirs of angels singing right along with us. It is a miracle each and every time for me.
Wow, Charbeau, that is beautiful!
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Bluegoat, the article is interesting -- but it was actually talking about the new women wanting tradition in areas like communal living, common prayer, and wearing a habit.

I think people can enjoy a more traditional liturgy and style of living, without necessarily being theologically or politically conservative.

But maybe I say this because of my experience with VERY conservative (both theologically and politically) fundamentalist folks who are totally cool with wearing jeans to church and worshipping to rock music (I am cool with jeans and rock in church, too -- but am also finding an appeal in old liturgy ... maybe it's my advancing age, LOL).
Well, I think you will find that the two are somewhat related. They are interested in a more traditional religious expression because they have a more traditional understanding of some aspects of religion.

Conservative isn't always the best word to use in this context though some do, and it's a somewhat of a subtle distinction that you can see in all of the small-c catholic groups. It is difficult to suss it out at first coming from a more fundamentalist background. But it doesn't mean conservative much like politically conservative - you would find such people vote a variety of ways for example. (One very conservative priest I knew always voted for the Communist Party of Canada - he wasn't a communist at all but said they came closest to actually representing what he thought was important.) It does see the continuity of the Church and the basic catholic/orthodox understanding of Scripture and Tradition as fundamental, and also tradition as having an important place in supporting that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Do I have to believe everything the Catholic church believes to be Catholic?