Prayer -- split from Catholic rant

[yorkshirelad]

No one, just no one hates Catholics the way Ex-Catholics hate Catholics.

I don't hate Catholics, I'm irritated by them. My great Aunt Agnes is 94. She is in the latter stages of alzheimers and she has resolved to give all her worldly goods to the church when she dies.In other words, she is contributing to an organization that has created untold suffering to many for generations. Of course she doesn't have much, but I'm sure there's a local cat's home she can sponsor.

 

[Scott T]

It's a shame you haven't read anything I've said. Your hatred is ugly and repugnant to me. We are done talking.

Whew! Then you'd really hate my response then.

 

[Bruno@MT]

No one, just no one hates Catholics the way Ex-Catholics hate Catholics.

Absolutely. Although I want to make a minor nuance. they usually don't hate Catholics, they hate Catholicism. As you can imagine, this a significant difference.

And that said, hate is probably too strong a term in my case. For me it is more of a dislike, caused by the fact that the RCC was in power here for a long time, and seriously abused that power on an institutionalized scale. Combined with the fact that I don't believe some of the major dogma (on account that a lot of it got added hundreds of years later, coincidentally at a time when it was politically convenient to do so) makes me believe it is a far cry from what Christianity used to be about.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Your extensive quotating from an anti-Catholic web site doesn't actually mean that you're quoting facts.

Why am I going to read a chatechism, written by Catholics.

So you know what the Catholic Church actually teaches. You know, instead of using "reliable" sources like the one that you just posted. It was rather amusing as it reminds me of those good old Chick Tracts! And nearly as accurate! :lol:

I was actually given a copy at my first holy communion. It's in a box somewhere in an attic in England, probably gathering dust alongside Anton Le Vey's Satanic Bible.

:lol: Well, at least you're willing to admit you don't care what the Church actually teaches even in the midst of your insult.

Don't get me wrong, I don't only abhor Catholicism. I abhor any religion that has a history of extreme abuse, the adoration of dead people, and has made billions while it's people have suffered. I won't even get into the inquisition.

Oh, well if that's the case it would be more accurate for you to say that you "abhor Catholicism and any religion that has a history of extreme abuse, the adoration of dead people, and has made billions while it's [sic] people have suffered."

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

Why would I ever want to leave the confines of the Church that Christ founded with Peter as its visible head? They could sooner get me out with blasting caps than I would leave. No, they are, I am sad to say, stuck with me.

That's a confident assertion of the Apostolic Succession given the Western Schism, the concurrent reign of 3 elected Popes, and that the Holy See stood empty for 2 years prior to the election of Martin V to end the controversy.

I'll leave the epistemology problems to others.

 

[chrispillertkd]

That's a confident assertion of the Apostolic Succession given the Western Schism, the concurrent reign of 3 elected Popes, and that the Holy See stood empty for 2 years prior to the election of Martin V to end the controversy.

A legitimate election of the pope doesn't have anything to do with the length of time it takes a conclave to reach a decision. As for there being "three popes" obviously you mean three claimants to the papal throne since there is only ever one Pope just as there is only one Ordinary of a diocese.

I'll leave the epistemology problems to others.

Given the nature of Apostolic Succession there really isn't one.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

As for there being "three popes" obviously you mean three claimants to the papal throne since there is only ever one Pope just as there is only one Ordinary of a diocese.

No, Urban VI, an Italian, alienated the French Cardinals who elected one of their own, Clement VII. Their eventual successors were Benedict XIII and Gregory XII, who commanded the allegiance of their Cardinals mostly along national lines (French vs. Italian). Both were still in "office" when the Council of Pisa elected Alexander V to resolve the controversy. Neither stepped down (even after Constance, Benedict XIII refused and was exiled to Spain), so Alexander V and his successor John XXIII made up the triumvirate of Cardinal-elected Popes making a mess out of Europe with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII. One can't even claim that one Pope was legitimate, since all 3 (including Gregory XII in Rome) were forced to step down by the Council of Constance. The election of Martin V got things back on track.

So who was the true Apostolic successor?

The problems run deeper than that though. The Bishop of Rome was not referred to as "Pope" until as late as the 6th century, and was only specifically reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the 11th century by Gregory VII. The first Church fathers to hold the title were the Patriarchs of Alexandria, centuries before the title was used for the Bishop of Rome. It also took several centuries for the primacy of the Roman church to develop and be recognized when compared to other churchs, particularly the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches. There is no historical reason to believe that Peter led the Roman church, nor that the Roman church had a leading role from the beginning. What if the Apostolic Succession actually goes through the Eastern Church, and has been with the Patriarchs since the split between the Eastern and Western churches? There is no way to tell apart from assertion of the Church itself.

 

[chrispillertkd]

No, Urban VI, an Italian, alienated the French Cardinals who elected one of their own, Clement VII. Their eventual successors were Benedict XIII and Gregory XII, who commanded the allegiance of their Cardinals mostly along national lines (French vs. Italian). Both were still in "office" when the Council of Pisa elected Alexander V to resolve the controversy. Neither stepped down (even after Constance, Benedict XIII refused and was exiled to Spain), so Alexander V and his successor John XXIII made up the triumvirate of Cardinal-elected Popes making a mess out of Europe with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII. One can't even claim that one Pope was legitimate, since all 3 (including Gregory XII in Rome) were forced to step down by the Council of Constance. The election of Martin V got things back on track.

So who was the true Apostolic successor?

Multiple claimants to the See of Peter don't mean they all are bishop of Rome.

The problems run deeper than that though.

Actually, it runs quite a bit shallower.

The Bishop of Rome was not referred to as "Pope" until as late as the 6th century, and was only specifically reserved for the Bishop of Rome in the 11th century by Gregory VII.

An interesting but irrelevant statement

The first Church fathers to hold the title were the Patriarchs of Alexandria, centuries before the title was used for the Bishop of Rome.

Well, not exactly. The first Church Fathers? I'd be interested in seeing who was first to refer to Patriarchs if you're going to act like the word "pope" actually means more than it does. Heck, the Copts have a pope but they don't claim that he's the head of the Church. One shouldn't get caught up on the word pope (which means "papa") when what is at issue is the authority of the Bishop of Rome compared to other bishops.

The fact is, the Church has from very early on held that certain local churches held places of honor. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome were the first and oldest of these patriarchal sees. In fact, the oldest canons admit only the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch as having patriarchal rights. Jerusalem was added later and COnstantinople later, still and it's claim had to be bolstered by a fabricated claim that St. Andrew founded the sees there since all patriarchal sees were either founded by an Apostle or an apostolic companion. In fact, the churches at Rome and Antioch were tied directly to St. Peter, the church at Alexndria was founded by St. Mark (Peter's companion). Jerusalem was headed by St. James, of course. That's three out of five sees with ties to St. Peter and, frankly, given the role St. Peter played in the first part of Acts it wouldn't be a stretch to posit him as a founder of the church at Jerusalem, too.

Interestingly, the church in Rome is well known for being founded by St. Peter, but the earliest sources talk of its pride of place amongst the churches because of the presence of both St. Peter and St. Paul. That's a claim that no other church even attempted to make.

It also took several centuries for the primacy of the Roman church to develop and be recognized when compared to other churchs, particularly the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches.

Not really.

There is no historical reason to believe that Peter led the Roman church, nor that the Roman church had a leading role from the beginning.

Except for the testimony of the Curch Fathers. St. Irenaeus is a pretty early witness. He states matter of factly:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For 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."

What if the Apostolic Succession actually goes through the Eastern Church, and has been with the Patriarchs since the split between the Eastern and Western churches? There is no way to tell apart from assertion of the Church itself.

Oh, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches enjoy Apostolic Succession, of course. But they aren't in full communion with the See of Peter.

Pax,

Chris

 

[seasoned]

Politics and religion, the two major themes that wars and much hatred stem from. Interesting to gab about, but detrimental in the long run. In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.

 

[Blade96]

We haven't gotten to the 'cannibalism' accusation yet; wait for it, I'm sure it will be along shortly. Raw, naked, hatred like this finds no boundaries of decorum, decency, or intellectual honesty.

i see where the cannibalism thing came from though. people who didnt know body of christ and they hear that, they might take it literally. People who didnt know better.

Only the homes in Ireland were specifically Catholic and what wnet on in those Catholic homes was tantamount to torture. It doesn't matter though, because other organizations did it, we'll let it slide shall we. Let's let 9/11 slide also because catholic terrorists attacked Canary Wharf.

i meant dont only blame catholic for that stuff. Blame others who done it too.

I absolutely believe this. Without equivocation. I believe it more than I believe you're a real person sitting at another computer and not some computer program or a room full of monkeys typing randomly.

But that still doesn't make it cannabilism I am sure since you were raised Catholic you know why that is, too, so I won't bore you with the answer

Pax,

Chris

Really? You believe that? I always thought it was symbolism. The bread and wine was supposed to be symbolic. I didnt think people actually believed that.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Politics and religion, the two major themes that wars and much hatred stem from. Interesting to gab about, but detrimental in the long run. In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.

Actually, religion and politics are the only things worth arguing about since they are so important. I hardly find debate about them detrimental, quite the opposite, really.

If people think I'm an idolator who is putting my salvation in jeopardy because I love the Mother of God and pray to her I would hope they'd point that out to me and give me reasons why I am wrong. To do otherwise is to show that they don't care about my salvation. (Of course, when they're done I'm going to explain to them exactly wy they are wrong and why, if they want to more perfectly follow Jesus' example they, too, should honor his mother.) Likewise, if people don't care enough about politics to argue about them we're going to be stuck with more of the same idiocy we already suffer. The last election cycle was a welcome blow against political indifference.

As for wars and hatred being the result of disagreements about religion and politics, only in the sense that wars and hatred are the result of human nature. Man is the greatest creation there is, capable of reaching great holiness. But he is fallen and is capable of anything. Likewise, religion and politics are two of the most important aspects of human life. They can, and have, been responsible for amazing accomplishments throughout history as well as horrible things such as the gulags and Stalin's purges.

Corruptio optimi pessima. It is the corruption of the best that is the worst. But it is no corruption of politics and religion to debate them, even heatedly.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Really? You believe that? I always thought it was symbolism. The bread and wine was supposed to be symbolic. I didnt think people actually believed that.

Catholics believe in the literal change of the substance of the bread and wine, an actual, literal miracle performed by the priest through the power of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[16] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[17] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist[18] when the words are spoken "This is my body ... this is my blood." In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to take place during the prayer of thanksgiving.
Believing that Christ is risen from the dead and is alive, the Catholic Church holds that when the bread is changed into his body, not only his body is present, but Christ as a whole is present (i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity.) The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.[19] This belief goes beyond the doctrine of transubstantiation, which directly concerns only the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
In accordance with this belief that Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.

It is a subtle statement; the bread remains bread to every appearance. But the substance of the bread is no longer bread. We take as literal Christ's statement "this is my body," as well as His commandment to "do this in memory of me," meaning that His Church should do as he did.

There are many criticisms from outside the Church on the issue of Transubstantiation, but the most vehement come from those with antipathy towards Catholics, who often confuse, either through ignorance or willful misrepresentation, the act of taking the consecrated Host and drinking the consecrated wine as 'cannibalism' along the lines of "since Catholics believe that the consecrated Host is literally the body of Christ, by eating it, they practice cannibalism."

It is germane to the topic in that it is yet another issue which is entirely internal to the Church - yet others feel compelled to attack the Church for it. If one is not a Catholic, one is not compelled to take Communion, obviously (in fact, they're not permitted to do so by our rules). So what we believe about the literal 'body of Christ' present in the consecrated Host is of no concern to anyone who is not Catholic. But it is one more weapon in the arsenal of those who hate.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Really? You believe that? I always thought it was symbolism. The bread and wine was supposed to be symbolic. I didnt think people actually believed that.

Symbolism? How shall I put this? The idea that the bread and wine only symbllize Jesus is ... rank heresy!!!

A Catholic priest, acting in persona Christi, consecrates the bread and wine and Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul and divinity. That is the faith handed on to the saints which will be preached until the end of the world. That is what I believe and I would sooner die than deny it.

Churches without valid holy orders (those ecclesial communities with their origins in the Reformation that specifically repudiated the sacrificial aspect of the priesthood) believe the bread and wine are only symbolic of Jesus' body and blood and they do so quite correctly because without a validly ordained priesthood they are unable to confect the Eucharist so that Jesus is sacramentally present.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Blade96]

Thanks Bill and Chris. That answered my question. So you believe Jesus is already there. and so its much more than symbolism. That answered my question, thanks alot

 

[Bruno@MT]

Symbolism? How shall I put this? The idea that the bread and wine only symbllize Jesus is ... rank heresy!!!

A Catholic priest, acting in persona Christi, consecrates the bread and wine and Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul and divinity. That is the faith handed on to the saints which will be preached until the end of the world. That is what I believe and I would sooner die than deny it.

Chris

Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?

 

[yorkshirelad]

In the big picture it is our heart that, will, be read, so guard that and the tongue, and let GOD handle the rest. I just thought I would interject a little common sense.

God didn't handle the abuses of the Catholic church very well. He allowed them to continue, unchecked for generations.

How anyone can try to deny the correlation between Catholicism and Roman Paganism is beyond me!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

Miraculously.

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?

It may not be the answer you're looking for. But it is the answer you're going to get.

There is a lengthy explanation of Catholic dogma on the subject if you're interested:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

[yorkshirelad]

Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?

You know what the answer is going to be Bruno, "The bread is transformed spiritually!" If the bread is transformed physically into Mithra....I mean Jesus, then it would indeed be cannibalism.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Only the homes in Ireland were specifically Catholic and what wnet on in those Catholic homes was tantamount to torture. It doesn't matter though, because other organizations did it, we'll let it slide shall we. Let's let 9/11 slide also because catholic terrorists attacked Canary Wharf.

I'd consider what happened here in Ireland with the abuse to be more to do with the individuals and culture surrounding the church, than because of the religion itself.
The whole parish politics concept is a very strong part of a lot of Irish people's identities, and there was covering up done by families as often as the church. This is in no way justifying the bevaviour of the clergy involved, just that the issue was alot more complex than the Catholic Church being the big bad guy. There's still alot of closed ranks behaviour still going today, did you follow what happened with the recent Listowel rape case?

 

[chrispillertkd]

Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

I think this was already addressed in Bill's post on transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine change while the accidens remain the same. It's actually pretty simple to grasp. I once read an essay where the author talked about a scientist who offered to examine a consecrated host under some sort of powerful microscope to see if there really had been a change in the host. On the surface it sounded like an interesting offer but it completely missed the point of transubstantiation :lol:

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for.

And, technically speaking, "because I believe" does nothing to answer how is Jesus present. "How is the bread Jesus?" "Because I believe!" What? Belief has nothing to do with the mode of his presence, nor does it have to do with whether or not he is present since that is accomplished through the sacramental power of the priest.

If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?

As I said before, the substance of the bread and wine change. Hence, tran-substantiation.

You have to familiarize yourself with what a substance is and what accidens are for this to make sense on a level more advanced than "it only looks like bread and wine" (which is totally true). A friend of mine who used to teach second graders explained it to me this way once (as she used the same example with her students): You know how a catepiller transforms into a butterfly? It's the exact opposite of that."

Now that is a good explanation of transubstantiation!

Pax,

Chris