I've noticed an anti-Catholic prejudice in many Christian materials - wondering...

[dangermom]

I'm not quite ready to tackle ALL your post, lol, but you can google "anointing of Christ" for more info whether He was baptized for repentance [what John was doing to everyone else] or anointed as a High Priest "to fulfill all righteousness." There's arguments on both sides. interesting reading tho.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to imply that Christ was baptized because he needed to repent! :eek: But "to fulfill all righteousness," I suppose, can be taken in many ways. As an example to us of what we need to do, to obey the commandments, and so on.

[TXMomof4]

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to imply that Christ was baptized because he needed to repent! :eek: But "to fulfill all righteousness," I suppose, can be taken in many ways. As an example to us of what we need to do, to obey the commandments, and so on.

 

Completely just throwing this out there.....commentary welcome (as long as you're nice to me).

 

I had a man teaching a class about the Holy Spirit a few years ago. He said that he had read several commentaries about Jesus being baptized and the purpose of it. Several of them apparently stated that that was when Jesus received the *power* of the Holy Spirit and was able to perform the miracles that supported his ministry. It was the point at which he did begin his ministry.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure of my opinion on this, but thought it was interesting.

[8filltheheart]

I agree wholeheartedly that when you have faith, you will show it, however, again I will point you to the man on the cross with Jesus. There are many ways to express your faith, however only ONE way to salvation. Through faith. period.

 

LOL!!!! Nothing like jumping in on a thread on anti-Catholicism and then informing all the Catholics that they are completely wrong. Gotta love the irony. :lol:

 

Theologically speaking, these discussions have gone on for centuries and have books and books written about them, people have died over them. Posts on this forum are not going to settle the debate.

 

I cannot speak for the other Catholics on the forum, but I know exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I have spent many yrs studying theology, which is my passion. I happen to completely disagree with your position and it isn't b/c I am uninformed and do not know scripture and need enlightenment. :)

[Laura K (NC)]

Can you explain why Jesus was baptized?

[Michelle in MO]

I don't fully understand. Rather than muddle the issue, here's Matt. 3:13-15 from the NIV:

 

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

 

Here are the notes from the NIV Study Bible (my version), on Matt. 3:15:

 

This occasion marked the beginning of Christ's Messianic ministry. There were several reasons for his baptism: 1. The first, mentioned here, was "to fulfill all righteousness." The baptism indicated that he was consecrated to God and officially approved by him, as especially shown in the descent of the Holy Spirit (v. 16) and the words of the Father (v. 17); cf Ps. 2:7; Is. 42:1). All God's righteous requirements for the Messiah were fully met in Jesus. 2. At Jesus' baptism John publicly announced the arrival of the Messiah and the inception of his ministry (Jn. 1:31-34). 3. By his baptism Jesus completely identified himself with man's sin and failure (though he himself needed no repentance or cleansing from sin), becoming our substitute (2 Cor. 5:21). 4. His baptism was an example to his followers.

 

I'm not sure which POV these study notes represent; typically-speaking, I think the NIV was translated by translators from a variety of denominations, although I'm not sure of the origin of the study notes.

 

At any rate, perhaps these notes will shed some light on these verses. HTH!

[Kathy in MD]

As a Catholic, I've seen this bias often enough. On top of that I'm French speaking, and I'm also seeing a bias against French in many English books. I guess the 100 Years War isn't over yet... :001_huh:

 

Makes it hard to find anything suitable.

 

And as if that wasn't enough, there's also a bias in many Christian resources against evolutionists.

 

But there are no French resources at all. So we have to make do and discuss those issues with the kiddos.

 

Part of me is grinning over this. But I want you to take my relating a bit of family history in the spirit of interesting irony. Goodness knows, I've been absolutely appalled at the hatred against Catholics expressed in a picture book on Luther I got for my ds. And I've had other protestant denominations go crazy because we weren't of the "right" flavor. So please take my story well.

 

There is a town in Quebec called Walkerton (Walkertown?). It's not a very French name, is it? But the town's been around since the 1800's. Several years ago a few of my relatives went to see it. No one they spoke to knew how the town was founded, but my family knows ;) My great, great (great?) grandfather, an English speaking Episcapalian, founded it. The French Catholics moved in and the wars began. I don't know what happened to the rest of his offspring, but my great (great?) grandmother left Canada and taught my grandfather to hate Catholics.

 

And today the residents don't know their history. But at least they'll speak to protestants pleasantly and not run them out of town :) :)

 

Now my grandfather got over his early training in hatred and didn't pass it on, thankfully, but the irony was too great to pass up.

[Nicole M]

This is why i don't call universities "institutions for higher learning." :glare:

 

and they're worried about HOMESCHOOLERS being sheltered, lol!!!

 

Whoa there, Peek. I didn't say the conservative POV was dismissed by anyone on that campus. I was saying, in general, among the folks I hang with, there was a lack of true understanding and tacit dismissal of that pov. In the same way that *I* have been dismissed by conservatives as "one of those" liberals.

 

Goodness we've gotten off track here.

 

The point I'm trying to make, and which I'm not making well, is that in order to truly understand each other, we need to take some time to listen to each other. And darned tootin' I'm doing my best to do just that here. I don't assume I know anything about your point of view and I would appreciate it if you withheld judgment about mine as well until we get to know each other better.

 

And besides that, as I mentioned earlier, I loved that community, and no one can talk trash about it in my presence, thankyouverymuch. If you want to complain about universities, please do so in another thread.;)

[Kathy in MD]

...... I mean Catholics aren't going to teach their children that once saved always saved and that there has to be no effort put into it after saying a prayer to God to come into their hearts. Protestants believe once you do this you are saved ,and once saved always saved.... .

 

This is not true of all mainline protestant denominations. I can't say what % of denominations do believe this though. There's a lot of variation and even strong disdain between protestant denonominations to the point that "THEY" can't go to heaven. The same predjudice you run into as a Catholic often gets extended to those of the wrong flavor of Protestantism.

[Carol in Cal.]

generally refers to oldish Protestant and generally considered Christian denominations that are no longer conservative in their views of the Bible, and generally excludes fundamentalists and Protestants whose church bodies have remained conservative. It usually also exclude church bodies which were relatively recently formed or that were liberal when they started.

 

So, for instance, Episcopalians are often considered Main Line, as are members of the United Church of Christ, the ELCA, and many Methodists. Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, and Baptists are not (still conservative), neither are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or Christian Scientists (not traditionally considered Christian), neither are Unitarians (started out quite liberal and stayed that way) and neither are most non-denominational and fundamentalist churchs (conservative and newish).

 

That's a broad set of categories that is somewhat debatable, but the bottom line is that a fundamentalist or old-fashioned view of Biblical inerrancy is uncommon amoung Main Line Protestants, and so one could know a lot of them without becoming familiar with the inerrancy position.

 

 

 

 

Remember back when you started the discussion about the term "homosexual lifestyle"? During that conversation, some folks explained that they believe the Bible to be infallible, and that a literal interpretation of God's Word, in their opinion, portrays homosexuality is a sin. (I'm summarizing their pov, of course.) Because I knew about your theological studies and interactions with people from a wide array of faiths, I assumed and stated that you were familiar with their viewpoint. You corrected me and said you aren't familiar at all with that theology.

 

What you mentioned here is why I made my assumption. I'm confused as to how you could have studied with people from every main line denomination and yet never come into contact with what was shared in that other thread. Fodder for another discussion, no doubt, but I was struck by that thought when I opened your post here.

[Laura K (NC)]

It was a socratic question... I'm not sure if it falls within the realm of acceptable on this board, but here goes.

 

Jesus did it for a few different reasons (some of which I haven't seen written here yet), but one of the reasons is to set an example of something we should do. The thief on the cross had no opportunity to do; he could only profess faith. But that doesn't mean that minimum requirement is sufficient for anything. Jesus told us lots of things to do, and he also showed us lots of things to do. There was a reason on that very important night of the last supper, when he knew it was the last time he could instruct his apostles, that he did something. He didn't just tell them to believe. He broke bread and said it was his body, he offered them wine, and said it was his blood. He should have just talked to them some, if a head religion was all that is necessary. He got on his knees and washed his disciples' feet as an example that what he could do, as their master, they should also do, as his friends. During his life he continually used flesh and blood and wine and oil and dirt and spit to show that he was who he really was. Catholics and other Christians say this is a sacramental relationship we have, and sacrament means mystery... a mysterious joining of soul to body, flesh to spirit, creation to creator, like in that great mystery of the Incarnation of Christ. If Christianity is just a faith religion and not a religion of doing, Jesus wouldn't even have needed to become a man and to suffer and die. He wouldn't have done any of those things, if doing wasn't important to salvation.

 

We run the good race, and we fight the good fight. Those are both things that Paul said he did. He worked out his salvation in fear and trembling.

 

The rich man didn't turn away from Jesus because he didn't have faith. He turned away from Jesus because he could not do what was asked of him.

 

In Catholic theology, I think maybe in most Christian theology that allows for free will, God calls us first, and we must respond to that grace with an assent of faith. At that point, if we die, we are saved. We wouldn't have had the opportunity to do as Jesus said, go forth, baptizing (Mt 28:19) and evangelizing, or doing works of charity, or praying, or anything. If we continue to live after baptism and a consent of faith in response to God's free gift of grace, we don't have any choice but to do, or at least to try to be like Christ, and fail, and keep trying, until our dying day.

 

God's relationship with the Church is compared to a marriage several times in the OT and in the New. Imagine a wife who never did anything for her husband. Never physically consummated the union, never kissed him, never held his hand, never made dinner, never worked outside the home, never cleaned, never smiled at him, never loved him. Imagine she thought she was married to him because she said she believed in him. Is it a legitimate relationship if she says she believes in him but feels she doesn't have to do anything?

 

Jesus wants us to do. "Peter, do you love me?"

"Yes, Lord."

Then what does Jesus say? He says to do:

"Feed my sheep." "Tend my lambs." Do. Don't just sit there and love me. Peter had denied Jesus three times, and now he was undoing that by professing his love for him. That wasn't enough for Jesus, his friend and savior. What you profess is not enough as long as you have the ability to follow through and show what you believe. God wants all of us, every bit. Every action. He's like a husband who desperately wants his wife to love him, to embrace him with her whole body. Catholics believe that we can't give Jesus the cold shoulder, saying that I've already given him enough. We can never give him enough. And we are not only minds. God in his goodness gave us hands and feet and flesh and blood to love him and serve him with. I've been taught that to only profess with my lips and not show my love is a kind of neglect.

 

Faith is crucial to salvation. Our good works are meaningless if we don't have faith in Christ alone, who saves us. On that we agree completely. But we are not only called to believe. I believe Jesus' own words in scripture say that over and over... so many times I can hardly count them all. I started making a list one time of all the times Jesus told someone to do something, and I was pretty much writing the whole red-letter part of the Bible down. :)

[Carol in Cal.]

Faith is crucial to salvation. Our good works are meaningless if we don't have faith in Christ alone, who saves us. On that we agree completely. But we are not only called to believe. I believe Jesus' own words in scripture say that over and over... so many times I can hardly count them all. I started making a list one time of all the times Jesus told someone to do something, and I was pretty much writing the whole red-letter part of the Bible down. :)

 

There are several different issues here.

 

One is what kind of good works we are talking about. The Pauline epistles and the reports in Acts of the early church councils indicate that the good works that are no longer necessary are the rituals of the ancient religion. The other kind of good works are the works of good morals and compassion--those are necessary, as taught by Christ, Paul, and James (Peter, too, eventually).

 

Luther argued that the Roman Catholic church effectively reverted to requiring religious works in addition to the works of good morals and compassion and that that was not right. He was a Catholic at the time, and many other prominant Catholics agreed with him whether they joined him or not. He was neither the first nor the last of those who felt that a reformation was necessary. Looking at the historical facts of that period, I would have to say that I agree with them. Things are different now in the Catholic, to a large extent, but not completely.

 

So, I would agree that good works are necessary--that is the clear Biblical witness, and in fact that is also what Luther taught (not that he is on par with inspired Scripture or anything, but I want to be clear that I feel that I'm in the mainstream of his work in my views). I think that most other Protestants and Lutherans would agree as well.

 

OTOH, I would not agree that they are necessary to get salvation. Rather, they are necessary because God tells us to do them. The motivation is different--a subtle but to me crucial point. We don't do these things to get salvation, but rather in gratitude for it--God's great gift to us evokes that response when we understand it rightly. And, it follows then, that when they are not in evidence, it calls into question whether someone has truly been saved. It also calls into question whether they are falling away from the faith, by resisting the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit and refusing to follow the clear commands of Scripture.

 

That is the difference. Catholics say that salvation is achieved by faith and works. Lutherans say that it is achieved by God's gift of faith, and that good moral works are the response to that and to God's leading after salvation has been gifted.

[8filltheheart]

Catholics say that salvation is achieved by faith and works. Lutherans say that it is achieved by God's gift of faith, and that good moral works are the response to that and to God's leading after salvation has been gifted.

 

I have devoted too much time to this thread......School starts on Monday and I didn't get nearly as much done as I wanted today, so I am going to have go do more laundry and cleaning.

 

I just wanted to address the bold part above. Catholics absolutely do not say salvation is achieved faith and works. Catholics believe we are justified by grace.

 

Here is a link with an explanation about grace, justification/santification, and the POV that salvation can be lost.

 

http://www.saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html

 

Here are a couple of other links:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art2.htm

 

This one is on sanctifying grace. It does explain the difference between Catholics and Protestants. I will caution that it is definitely from a Catholic perspective when discussing the errors of the Reformation, so if reading other perspectives bothers you, I would suggest not following the link.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

 

HTH clarifies the teaching. Good night all......off to clean. :)

[Jugglin'5]

Protestants believe once you do this you are saved ,and once saved always saved. Baptism , Communion, Confession or any of the other sacraments play no role in being SAVED to a Protestant, because quite a few Protestant religions donot accept confession to a pastor or preacher, communion is only done on Easter , and Baptism is left as an option or not done at all until the child can decide for themselves if they want to be which in most cases they end up not being baptized at all. Nor do Protestants believe that you can get to Heaven by good works , or good works alone ( depending on which faith you belong to.)

 

As a Protestant, TracyR, I don't recognize myself here. We have communion every Sunday, baptize infants, and would definitely say that the sacraments have a role in salvation, just not in an ex opera operato kind of way. While I don't believe that good works are the ground of my salvation, I do believe that they are necessary in a sense, for faith without works is dead. I certainly don't believe that one can pray a sinner's prayer, like many here have suggested, and then have my fire insurance, while living like hell. Someone who is truly reborn as a child of God will strive to please his Father, although imperfectly. One who doesn't was probably never a child of God, although perhaps they may be a prodigal who will return.

[Jugglin'5]

 

Luther argued that the Roman Catholic church effectively reverted to requiring religious works in addition to the works of good morals and compassion and that that was not right. He was a Catholic at the time, and many other prominant Catholics agreed with him whether they joined him or not. He was neither the first nor the last of those who felt that a reformation was necessary. Looking at the historical facts of that period, I would have to say that I agree with them. Things are different now in the Catholic, to a large extent, but not completely.

 

So, I would agree that good works are necessary--that is the clear Biblical witness, and in fact that is also what Luther taught (not that he is on par with inspired Scripture or anything, but I want to be clear that I feel that I'm in the mainstream of his work in my views). I think that most other Protestants and Lutherans would agree as well.

 

OTOH, I would not agree that they are necessary to get salvation. Rather, they are necessary because God tells us to do them. The motivation is different--a subtle but to me crucial point. We don't do these things to get salvation, but rather in gratitude for it--God's great gift to us evokes that response when we understand it rightly. And, it follows then, that when they are not in evidence, it calls into question whether someone has truly been saved. It also calls into question whether they are falling away from the faith, by resisting the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit and refusing to follow the clear commands of Scripture.

 

That is the difference. Catholics say that salvation is achieved by faith and works. Lutherans say that it is achieved by God's gift of faith, and that good moral works are the response to that and to God's leading after salvation has been gifted.

 

:iagree:As a Presbyterian, (are you Lutheran, Carol?) I would totally agree with this.

 

On another topic, a few others mentioned Luther as the catalyst of the Reformation, but it had been brewing for a while, since at least the 1300's. Think of Wycliffe and John Huss. It didn't just pop out of nowhere.

[Laura K (NC)]

Luther was rejecting real abuses in the Church. He didn't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Of all the reformers (besides Henry VIII) he clung most to a sacramental theology. He objected rightly to the abuse of indulgences and the belief that somehow we can pay our way into heaven.

 

The thing is, modern Catholics have learned from the mistakes of the past. It's a different world. It's not germane, then, to accuse a 21st century Catholic for a 15th or 16th century Catholic's mistakes. It would be like me hating someone because they're German, merely because Hitler ruled Germany in the early 20th century. What is a Catholic like in the 20th century? Anecdotal evidence isn't going to hold water, even if the anecdote of a mistaken Catholic was ourselves 10 years ago. Again, this is relevant to the OP's point. A Protestant with a beef with the Catholic church of 500 years ago, who continues to suspect the Church of teaching Pelagianism is not going to represent the Church accurately in a textbook. The opinion won't line up with the facts, even though the anecdotes might, occasionally.

 

I'm afraid I'm just going to get myself in trouble if I keep on, but bear with these ramblings. To dismiss as errant that modern Catholic works are the same "kind" as in the OT is to show a lack of knowledge about the Catholic understanding of covenant relationship between God and man, in which the "The New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old is made manifest in the New" (St. Augustine). There is a continuity between them that's evident in all the liturgical churches and in the book of Revelation, which fairly reeks of works and a divine liturgy that goes on forever with angels and saints both doing "works" even after salvation is completed in Christ. The continuity between the Old and New Testaments is important. The alternative is a heresy almost as old as some of the canonical books of the New Testament. Scriptural prooftexts to support this paragraph follow below. :)

 

So, about the Catholic Church's belief about redemption: The Catholic Church makes a nice distinction about repentance, which is a facet of salvation, usually, no matter what Christian Church you're talking about. Repentance can be achieved two ways, one more perfect than the other. One is called attrition... fear of hell, so a desire to repent. This is imperfect. Jesus doesn't want us to spend eternity with Him out of fear. He wants us to be in heaven because we love Him, but if we repent out of fear, he'll take it because he is so merciful. The other one is called contrition. Catholics see this as a more perfect "yes" to Christ's call to repentance and conversion. In this repentance, the Christian desires Jesus out of love, not fear. It is a more complete turning from sin and turning toward Christ. It's a more true "yes." That's what Catholics attempt daily -- contrition -- after conversion. Sorrow for sins doesn't mean that we think we're powerless against them, or that we have the ultimate power ourselves over them. It is a constant turning to the continual saving mercy of Christ and the ever-presence of the Holy Spirit in day to day life. "Pilgrim's Progress" is not a Catholic work (on the contrary, there's some anti-Catholic stuff in there) but the same general theology is there. Without God's help we wouldn't even be beginning a Christian walk. Without help also, we wouldn't be able to continue. The Catholic Church makes a distinction between the two helps, between the two graces. I don't know if any Protestant Churches do. I'd be grateful to know we do.

 

When I've had disagreements over faith-works distinctions before, I've noticed that some Protestants don't realize that Catholics believe that the grace of true conversion and salvation comes through assent (we would say cooperation, but that word might be misinterpreted, so let's stick with assent). If the theology stopped here, we'd be in fine shape and wouldn't have too much to disagree about. Catholics believe salvation is ongoing... the running the good race and fighting the good fight, the working out salvation in fear and trembling, and we appeal to the scriptures just as Protestants do in defense of our theology. (BTW, sitting down to read scripture is a "work" that some Protestants insist on, to the point that they condemn Catholics for not doing this particular "work." It's ironic. It's a work most Catholics need to do more of, actually, but that's beside my main point. :))

 

I don't know what some Protestants do with that passage from James that says faith without works is a dead faith. Faith, therefore, can be dead. There's a possibility it won't be viable, that it might lack something. To be fair, Catholics are uncomfortable with some other passages, including "wives, submit to your husbands," ;) and the passages that are clear about predestination.

 

What I hate, hate, hate, is when a particular Christian commits me to Hades on his own interpretation of the scriptures claiming my ****ation (what.... tarnation? d amnation? How can I say this?!) is due to my Catholic profession of faith. Please understand, your post seemed irenic enough! But there's a natural limit to how much we can know about God. When the Bible speaks simultaneously about free will and predestination, about works and faith, about the Law being important (Mt. 5:17-18 in context of that chapter!), (Luke 16:17 in context of the preceding parable!) and the Law being replaced (Gal 5:1-6 (also in context of the chapter!), contradictions seem to occur in the scriptures, and the scriptures, being inerrant on matters of faith, can never contradict. My personal theory is that God is trying to make us humble :) by showing us, like He had to show Job in chapter 38 that we cannot really know all of God's ways or His will. Wisdom is Christ Himself, but we are not wisdom. Wisdom is being revealed as time passes, since it's a gift of the Spirit. We only see a little bit of the truth now, and we have to muddle through as we can, and see the havoc that a million different scripture interpretations do against the unity of the Body of Christ. The only way I can see to rectify the problem is to see the whole of scripture, and not just texts out of context. So to me, Gal 5:6, "the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love," seems to be a compromise. Faith is the only thing that counts -- faith doing something: expressing itself in love.

[Michelle in MO]

we've strayed somewhat off-topic from the OP's question. Nevertheless, when I read what Laura K in NC and momof7 write, it really doesn't sound that different from what I believe as a Protestant. It would take me too long to quote the excellent points you've both made, but suffice it to say that I like what Jugglin'5 said here:

 

While I don't believe that good works are the ground of my salvation' date=' I do believe that they are necessary in a sense, for faith without works is dead. I certainly don't believe that one can pray a sinner's prayer, like many here have suggested, and then have my fire insurance, while living like hell. Someone who is truly reborn as a child of God will strive to please his Father, although imperfectly.[/quote']

 

I don't think someone can merely pray "the sinner's prayer" and have no change of lifestyle, just for fire insurance. Faith without works is dead. We can read that clearly in the book of James: "Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did." (James 2:21-22 and following) One can read the book of James and the book of Romans and think they are in contradiction to one another, but I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself. They support each other, each giving a different viewpoint of the same issue. For example, Paul says in Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!"

 

These truths that seem incongruous become harmonious in the finished work of Christ on the Cross---faith and works. There are truths that seem contradictory, but they really are not, because they find reconciliation in Christ. Psalm 85:10 says, "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." God's desire for mercy and requirement for truth find reconciliation in Christ.

 

I forget which poster said it, but I wonder sometimes if Protestants and Catholics are talking past each other, saying perhaps the same thing (or almost the same thing), but with different terminology and a slightly different shade of meaning?

 

I have known too many godly brothers and sisters in Christ who are Catholic to do this:

 

What I hate, hate, hate, is when a Protestant commits me to Hades on his own interpretation of the scriptures claiming my ****ation (what.... tarnation? d amnation? How can I say this?!) is due to my Catholic profession of faith. Please understand, your post seemed irenic enough! But there's a natural limit to how much we can know about God. When the Bible speaks simultaneously about free will and predestination, about works and faith, about the Law being important (Mt. 5:17-18 in context of that chapter!), (Luke 16:17 in context of the preceding parable!) and the Law being replaced (Gal 5:1-6 (also in context of the chapter!), contradictions seem to occur in the scriptures, and the scriptures, being inerrant on matters of faith, can never contradict.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My understanding, as a Protestant, is very similar to this.

[laylamcb]

and to get back on topic.....

 

I too have noticed the disparity not just against catholics, but in doctrinal issues.

 

When an A Beka science text tries to prove a "literal 24-hour day" creation by saying that the plants would NEED sunlight ASAP to survive, I scratch my head and say....uh, there WAS light. Just no SUN. And if God created it, He can sustain it.

 

That's just one reason why even as a Christian I prefer to use secular materials and insert my own bias ;). Even the evolution questions bring up WONDERFUL points to discuss scripturally.

 

:iagree:

[laylamcb]

Whoa there, Peek. I didn't say the conservative POV was dismissed by anyone on that campus. I was saying, in general, among the folks I hang with, there was a lack of true understanding and tacit dismissal of that pov. In the same way that *I* have been dismissed by conservatives as "one of those" liberals.

 

Goodness we've gotten off track here.

 

The point I'm trying to make, and which I'm not making well, is that in order to truly understand each other, we need to take some time to listen to each other. And darned tootin' I'm doing my best to do just that here. I don't assume I know anything about your point of view and I would appreciate it if you withheld judgment about mine as well until we get to know each other better.

 

And besides that, as I mentioned earlier, I loved that community, and no one can talk trash about it in my presence, thankyouverymuch. If you want to complain about universities, please do so in another thread.;)

 

In your defense, Nicole, you have been remarkably self-deprecatory and open-minded throughout this discussion. You and I would no doubt disagree on a LOT in re theology, but I appreciate your willingness to share what you think and why. We'll NEVER understand each other if we don't share..and then really listen to each other. Right? :001_smile:

[8filltheheart]

Laura,

 

I read your post and this one in conjunction with one of your other ones about different meanings makes me really wonder if when you and I read something if it really means the same thing to others whom are reading it.

 

All of this has been whirling in my brain, and this morning I woke up thinking about it. One of the biggest problems in trying to discuss something like this on a board is b/c same words have different meanings to Catholic and Protestants.

 

Here are some of the things I thought about.......

 

as a Catholic, I believe that sin actually (truly visible to God) damages my soul

Repenting in confession, my soul actually (physically/tangibly) is healed by God

 

Conversely, it is my understanding that Protestants believe that their sin is hidden under the blood of Christ.

 

That is a significant distinction b/c of what grace means to a Catholic. It is also why Catholicism is a sacramental religion. It is why there is so much human laying on of hands........sacraments are the outward visible sign that we as humans need to see concretely to help us understand what is occurring that we can't see.

 

Catholics believe we are saved by grace b/c grace is real, tangible, and directly flows from God.

 

It heals our soul (physically......in both baptism and confession. Our soul really changes in appearance. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Sin stains our soul and destroys our sanctfying grace. Confession cleanses our soul and gives it new life b/c sanctifying grace is returned.)

 

Grace feeds our soul (physically/spiritually.......the sacrament of the Eucharist or Communion is actually receiving the very body, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Really. He feeds our soul and strengthens our soul to go forth and live for God).

 

All 7 sacraments......baptism, reconcilliation (confession), Holy Eucharist, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and annointing of the sick.......all physically and visibly (to God) bring to the recipient sanctifying grace and it stays with the soul giving it strength in need.

 

We also believe in actual grace. It is what is received through prayer. It is when our formed conscience whispers in our ear that we know better than to do the sin we are about to commit. It does not stay with the soul, but is an encouragement, guide, a spiritual reinforcement.

 

All of the above is important b/c it is central to what is significantly different. Catholics believe in the loss of sanctifying grace through mortal sin. (Mortal means death to the soul......and has 3 requirements.

 

1-its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;

2-it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense

3-it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent)

 

Losing sanctifying grace means that the supernatural life of your soul ceases b/c it cannot exist with sin.

 

When someone states that Catholic believe in salvation through faith and good works, it is obvious to us as Catholics that they are wrong b/c we know that sanctifying grace is what we must have to attain salvation. It is also why the example of the thief on the cross does not negate all the other points that have been made about leading a virtuous life for God. He was baptized by desire and received sanctifying grace. He died in a state of grace. If he had lived, he had the equal opportunity of falling into mortal sin as all man.

 

Anyway, I have to really get going today. Here is another link that anyone that wants to know more might want to read. Again, it is presented from a Catholic POV contradicting Protestant POV, so if you are uncomfortable with that, please don't follow the link.

 

http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Hey all,

 

Just a note that you are headed for a bit of confusion on this topic...

 

Although the term Protestant is pretty generic for those Christians who are not Roman Catholic or Orthodox all Protestants are not the same and do not hold the same set of beliefs.

 

That will make this discussion difficult unless you know the particulars of the protestant denomination being discussed. And not all Protestants agree on all the issues being discussed here.

 

I'm a protestant and I'm getting confused because not all the protestant beliefs expressed match those of my denomination.

[8filltheheart]

That will make this discussion difficult unless you know the particulars of the protestant denomination being discussed. And not all Protestants agree on all the issues being discussed here.

 

I'm a protestant and I'm getting confused because not all the protestant beliefs expressed match those of my denomination.

 

I'm sorry. I wasn't meaning to imply that I know about Protestant beliefs......I know very little in the scheme of things. I have studied Catholic theology for 15 yrs and still am only on the tip of the iceberg!! I have read original sources for the main Protestant reformers, but that only gives me a drop in the bucket!!!

 

My objective was to express Catholic theology. I'm sorry if I blanketed people together. I just honestly believe that many of these words mean totally different things to the different people reading them.

 

I am wondering though.......does your Protestant POV believe that your soul is covered in the blood of Christ or do you believe your soul actually changes?

[Laura K (NC)]

I edited my last post to add qualifiers like "some," "a few," "individual." That was definitely an error on my part.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

I am wondering though.......does your Protestant POV believe that your soul is covered in the blood of Christ or do you believe your soul actually changes?

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you in particular but the posts in general. I just happened to be the next poster.

 

As for your question (above)-I doubt that I confess my sins prior taking Holy Communion unless my soul can actually change or that I can be given/receive forgiveness. However I am not a student of theology so I will simply state that is a personal point of view and not speak for any denomination as a whole.

[TXMomof4]

 

I am wondering though.......does your Protestant POV believe that your soul is covered in the blood of Christ or do you believe your soul actually changes?

 

 

The belief that *I* have is that we are covered in the blood. We put on Christ at our baptism, so God looks at us through the covering of Christ's sacrifice. I saw it done once in a children's class with a white figure cut out with red marks on it. The red marks represented sins in our lives. Jesus was a red figure cut out, like transparency paper - when placed in front of the white figure, the red marks were invisible. I still sin, forgivenenss of my sins doesn't mean they never existed or that I don't have to deal with the consequences of my sin in my life. But when God sees me, he sees the blood of Christ.

[Peek a Boo]

Whoa there, Peek. I didn't say the conservative POV was dismissed by anyone on that campus. I was saying, in general, among the folks I hang with, there was a lack of true understanding and tacit dismissal of that pov. In the same way that *I* have been dismissed by conservatives as "one of those" liberals.

 

Goodness we've gotten off track here.

 

The point I'm trying to make, and which I'm not making well, is that in order to truly understand each other, we need to take some time to listen to each other. And darned tootin' I'm doing my best to do just that here. I don't assume I know anything about your point of view and I would appreciate it if you withheld judgment about mine as well until we get to know each other better.

 

And besides that, as I mentioned earlier, I loved that community, and no one can talk trash about it in my presence, thankyouverymuch. If you want to complain about universities, please do so in another thread.;)

 

oh, I'm sure the univerity itself is full of wonderful people ;)

 

MY point is that in order to be a place of "higher learning" your students SHOULD have a much better understanding of so many POV. I don't see that understanding from most university graduates. Including, as you pointed out --yourself. And like you have also pointed out, I do see that sort of "higher learning" HERE.

 

hey-- maybe SWB should call this the Institute for Advanced Classical Studies, lol.....

 

I can better understand Phred's POV about life issues because he takes the time to really try to explain it and puts up w/ our interrogations [thanks Phred!].

 

i can better understand the Catholic POV when Catholics continue to discuss instead of shutting down due to a poster's style or the amount of misinformation they encounter. so thanks to y'all also :)

 

I find discussions to be more INFORMATIVE when people are allowed to speak their mind w/o being attacked.

 

And i've learned a lot from people who refuse to take offense that another person might find their beliefs "wrong."

 

I love this place :D

[Laura K (NC)]

Sometimes the visual instruction we give our kids is the best approach for grownups, too. I've never heard imputed righteousness expressed so clearly. I am going to save that description.

[Amy in NH]

I don't know why, other than indoctrination of children into a particular branch and against other branches of Christianity. One of my Catholic friends is quite upset with Abeka's portrayal of Catholicism.

[SnowWhite]

I believe the biggest difference in expressions of faith between the 2 is the Catholics practice of asking the Saints to intercede for them. I side with Protestants on this issue. No where in scripture is this exampled or condoned that I am aware of. However, I know that a lot of Catholics don't practice this and in all honesty I don't fully understand how this came to be a practice of the church.

 

I agree completely. I was ASTOUNDED when I saw online a 2nd grade text on Saints Around the World... "these are all people we can PRAY TO"... how is Praying to someone different from worshiping them? And have not all Christians (Catholic and Protestant) been commanded to worship only God?

 

Our (nondenominational)church also teaches that baptism and communion are literal ordinances left us by our Lord and necessary for Christians (naturally with the exception of those unable like the thief on the cross). We also believe that Christ living in us gives us the desire and ability to live a Christ-like life (though like Paul we must "die daily", crucifying the weak self that is tempted and sometimes fails).

[Nicole M]

 

MY point is that in order to be a place of "higher learning" your students SHOULD have a much better understanding of so many POV. I don't see that understanding from most university graduates. Including, as you pointed out --yourself. And like you have also pointed out, I do see that sort of "higher learning" HERE.

 

 

I find discussions to be more INFORMATIVE when people are allowed to speak their mind w/o being attacked.

 

And i've learned a lot from people who refuse to take offense that another person might find their beliefs "wrong."

 

I love this place :D

 

I think the key here is trust. You should not assume that there was no exposure to various pov at the university I attended simply because I was too immature to fully understand the dialogue that was very much a part of that place.

 

In my particular case, early in my adulthood I had an experience with a very conservative Christian trying, with the best of intentions, to minister to me. "Spiritual rape" does not even express strongly enough how damaging that experience was to my very soul. In my experience, a lot of for-your-own-good "ministry" is abuse. And in my experience, it has been conservative Christians who are most willing to f*ck around with another person's spiritual salvation, to inflict, again, with the best of intentions, "ministry". (Please forgive my strong language. I feel strongly about this.) Is it any wonder that when I had a chance to engage in real dialogue with other pov at the university, that I was a little gun shy? As I described in another post, there was plenty of conversation, plenty of exposure to other pov, but I did not have the tools to understand what was going on. It has taken me decades to feel not only comfortable enough to ask hard questions but mature enough and healed enough to hear the response. And I only do it here, because this is a relatively anonymous, safe place.

 

Every single day I encounter people whose theology, politics, the very ground of their being - the whole nine yards - totally on the other side of the spectrum from mine. But our conversations are more along the lines of "I need to submit that budget report by Friday" or "may I borrow a cup of sugar?" and not about things that matter. Most of us live our lives on a need-to-know basis. The most conservative people I know irl, well, I don't happen to trust them as far as I can throw them. They dismiss me as having "too much education" (if I had a nickel for every time someone has told me I think too much I'd be rich) and are unable to hear my pov, so the lack of trust is mutual. I don't think college grads have a corner on the one-pov market.

 

About this place I totally agree with you. I fervently hope for continued civility and kindness in the conversations here. And as I said before, I have learned so much here.

 

[ETA: I also know many liberals I don't trust. In fact, I know a brilliant Harvard graduate who is a lovely person in many ways, but also happens to be the most closed minded individual I have ever met. Has everything figured out. So again, I think we tend to engage in meaningful conversations where we find compassion and hope and a possibility of understanding. Or, I would like to think so.]

[HRAAB]

I believe the biggest difference in expressions of faith between the 2 is the Catholics practice of asking the Saints to intercede for them. I side with Protestants on this issue.

 

I agree completely. I was ASTOUNDED when I saw online a 2nd grade text on Saints Around the World... "these are all people we can PRAY TO"... how is Praying to someone different from worshiping them? And have not all Christians (Catholic and Protestant) been commanded to worship only God?.

 

I'm in the middle of weeding the garden (was gone last week and the weeds took over) but wanted to respond quickly to this. Again, perhaps part of the problem is a different understanding of words. PameliaSue used the word 'intercede' which is correct. SnowWhite used the word 'pray' which is not the word I would use. I will admit Catholic will say 'pray to the saints', but they do not mean pray as in the way we pray to God. Only God alone can answer prayers. What Catholics do is ask the Saints to intercede for them. Do you ask your church community or friends to pray for you? If you do, they are interceding on your behalf. That is the same when Catholics ask the Saints to pray for us. The Saints do not answer the prayers. And Catholics DO NOT WORSHIP SAINTS. Worship is reserved for God alone. Catholics believe in the communion of saints: those in Heaven and those still on earth fighting the fight. The Church is an assembly of all the saints; we are one body. We (those on earth and those in heaven) are still connected with the body of the Church with Christ as the head. When viewed that way, it makes perfect sense to me to continue to ask those in heaven for prayers.

 

Another note: some people use the word pray to mean talk with. Again, a different understanding of the word.

 

I have to admit that everything I hear or read someone saying that Catholics worship the saints, I want to get up on a mountain with a megaphone and say, "we do not worship saints; we worship God just as you do."

 

Janet

[Faithr]

Hi Snow White!

 

It does really confuse Protestants when Catholics pray to saints. We use the term to pray in the old fashioned sense. You still see it on legal document sometimes, when someone prays the court to do something. So when we are praying to a saint we are asking that saint who is now in heaven for help! Different from worship. I think a lot of people who haven't grown up with that mindset find this distinction hard to fathom whereas to a Catholic the distinction is a natural one.

 

Which brings me to another point. I don't know if there is scriptural evidence for praying to saints (there very well might be!) but remember that Catholics rely not solely on scripture but also on Tradition. That is not only what was written down in the gospels and epistles but also what was handed down culturally and orally from the first Christians.

 

I could write a lot more but I'm out of time!

[clwcain]

Fundamental difference between Catholics & Protestants, as explained to me by a former Evangelical Christian:

 

Worship for most non-liturgical Protestant communities, the non-Protestant offshoots of the Main Line/liturgical Protestant communities, etc. generally involves the reading of Scripture, perhaps a talk on the matter, and the singing of songs. Prayer is considered worship, and is only offered to God, in one of His Three Persons, directly.

Worship, as a Catholic, Orthodox, some Jews (even today), and some of the liturgical Protestants would recognize it involves sacrifice. Specifically, a representation and participation in Christ's one, eternal, sacrifice on Calvary. It is the continuation/replacement of the Temple sacrifice of the Jews.

 

So Catholics, et. al., do not worship saints, for all that we sing to them, ask them to intercede with the Father on our behalf, utter prayers addressed to a saint, etc. The praying to a saint, for his or her intercession with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost on our behalf is no different than asking your Pastor or your friend to pray with you/pray for you.

 

This is especially true of Mary, declared Theotokos, or Mother of God at the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431. But that's a whole 'nother thread. ;)

 

I'd be happy, if anyone likes, to post some of the more common prayers to the Saints. The prayer is addressed to the Saint, but unless the Divine Liturgy is offered to the Saint, we're not worshiping anyone. Divine Liturgy can be offered for the Saint, as in a Votive Mass or a Commemoration of Martydom, but it is still offered by the Son (through the agency of the ordained priest) to the Father on behalf of the Church and the World.

 

The reason for, and point of, prayer to the Saints is to remind us that we are part of the Living Body of Christ. And that Body includes all who have ever lived and achieved the beatific vision, since Heaven and the Saints are, like God Himself, outside of Time. As such we have friends and allies in the spiritual combat who have run the race and received the crown of victory.

 

Here's an article from Catholic Answers on the subject, including some citations for support of the practice in Scripture. Catholic Answers is a solid source for, well, Catholic answers. They are in communion with their local Bishop and, through him, to His Holiness. Many are former evangelical Christians, although there are also a few completed Jews working there, too, IIRC.

 

HTH

 

And I'm still willing to answer any questions to the best of my ability.

[Spy Car]

there are also a few completed Jews working there, too, IIRC.

 

 

This was an otherwise informative post, however, I would like to suggest the use of the term "completed Jews" (to describe Jews who've converted to Christianity) is orders of magnitude more offensive to Jews than your use of the term "Prottie" as a short-hand for Protestants. I hope you understand this, and discontinue the practice.

 

Bill

[Jenny in Atl]

This was an otherwise informative post, however, I would like to suggest the use of the term "completed Jews" (to describe Jews who've converted to Christianity) is orders of magnitude more offensive to Jews than your use of the term "Prottie" as a short-hand for Protestants. I hope you understand this, and discontinue the practice.

 

Bill

 

I've been called this, and yes I do find it offensive. But then again, I'm cool with being offended... it's life. ;)

[Spy Car]

I've been called this, and yes I do find it offensive. But then again, I'm cool with being offended... it's life. ;)

 

You're pretty cool in every way Jenny :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Plaid Dad]

Bill,

 

I can certainly understand why "completed Jew" could be considered offensive, but it is a term many Jewish converts to Catholicism use to describe themselves. It's even the title of a book. I truly doubt that clwcain was trying to offend anyone; he was just using the term that's most common in his (and my) religious community - and one with a positive connotation for those who claim it.

 

Pax!

[dangermom]

Goodness, I've never heard that term. Wow.

 

OK, Faithr said

It does really confuse Protestants when Catholics pray to saints. We use the term to pray in the old fashioned sense. You still see it on legal document sometimes, when someone prays the court to do something.

Aha! So would "appeal to" make more sense to modern folks who aren't used to the old usage? Actually I knew about the whole 'Catholics don't worship saints' thing, but the usage of "pray" as in "appeal" never occurred to me before.

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

I can certainly understand why "completed Jew" could be considered offensive, but it is a term many Jewish converts to Catholicism use to describe themselves. It's even the title of a book. I truly doubt that clwcain was trying to offend anyone; he was just using the term that's most common in his (and my) religious community - and one with a positive connotation for those who claim it.

 

Pax!

 

Drew, I'm fully understand that there are Jewish converts to Roman Catholicism and other branches of the Christian faith who use the term "completed Jew", but just realize this term makes Jews who do practice their faith very angry. The "implications" of the term are clear, no? And as such are an attack on the Jewish faith.

 

Dlwcain may be totally unaware just how offensive this term is to jewish Jews, so I did considered it an act of charity to mention it.

 

I love you man :D

[clwcain]

Drew, I'm fully understand that there are Jewish converts to Roman Catholicism and other branches of the Christian faith who use the term "completed Jew", but just realize this term makes Jews who do practice their faith very angry. The "implications" of the term are clear, no? And as such are an attack on the Jewish faith.

 

Dlwcain may be totally unaware just how offensive this term is to jewish Jews, so I did considered it an act of charity to mention it.

 

I love you man :D

 

Bill,

 

Thanks for the heads up.

 

I'm not sure what term to use, though, since Jews don't convert, at least as far as Catholics are concerned. They accept that the Covenant has been fulfilled.

 

Perhaps some helpful Jew on the board, if there are any Jews following the thread, could propose an alternative term.

 

ETA: Yes, the implications are clear regarding the Covenant, etc. to those that are willing to think these things through. But, generally, I've left dialog with my elder brothers in the Faith to those above my pay grade. I have a hard enough time expressing myself among fellow Catholics. :D

[8filltheheart]

Every single day I encounter people whose theology, politics, the very ground of their being - the whole nine yards - totally on the other side of the spectrum from mine.

 

The most conservative people I know irl, well, I don't happen to trust them as far as I can throw them.

 

About this place I totally agree with you. I fervently hope for continued civility and kindness in the conversations here. And as I said before, I have learned so much here.

 

I think we tend to engage in meaningful conversations where we find compassion and hope and a possibility of understanding.

 

Well.......I am probably one of the most conservative people you could ever meet. SHould I be glad that this is virtual???? ;)

 

The reason I am constantly re-assimilated into the hive is b/c this is the one place I have found where more often than not intellectual conversations can take place in a dialogue vs. confrontation and demeaning.

 

I really enjoy hearing other's perspectives b/c it spurs me on to make sure I really understand my own. I think if I wallowed in "like-minded" folk all the time, than I would become intellectually dull.

[TXMomof4]

Fundamental difference between Catholics & Protestants, as explained to me by a former Evangelical Christian:

 

Worship for most non-liturgical Protestant communities, the non-Protestant offshoots of the Main Line/liturgical Protestant communities, etc. generally involves the reading of Scripture, perhaps a talk on the matter, and the singing of songs. Prayer is considered worship, and is only offered to God, in one of His Three Persons, directly.

 

Worship, as a Catholic, Orthodox, some Jews (even today), and some of the liturgical Protestants would recognize it involves sacrifice. Specifically, a representation and participation in Christ's one, eternal, sacrifice on Calvary. It is the continuation/replacement of the Temple sacrifice of the Jews.

 

 

 

In my practice as a Christian, I offer a sacrifice of praise to the Lord. That is what we do in worship service, as well in every aspect of our life (in theory anyway). We are called of "offer our bodies as living sacrifices" which to me means to be willing to put God's will above my own in all matters.

 

What sacrifice does worship entail for you? I've never heard this before.

 

I'm learning so much in this thread. Thanks to all of you!

[Faithr]

I have a friend who is Jewish and became Catholic. He refers to himself as a Hebrew Catholic.

[Nicole M]

Well.......I am probably one of the most conservative people you could ever meet. SHould I be glad that this is virtual???? ;)

 

The reason I am constantly re-assimilated into the hive is b/c this is the one place I have found where more often than not intellectual conversations can take place in a dialogue vs. confrontation and demeaning.

 

I really enjoy hearing other's perspectives b/c it spurs me on to make sure I really understand my own. I think if I wallowed in "like-minded" folk all the time, than I would become intellectually dull.

 

Actually, I adore you. You are one of my board heroes. And I trust you.

 

But, um, you're not suggesting that I wallow in "like-minded" folk all the time, right? Because I frequent this board for precisely the same reason you do.

 

[ETA: I re-read your post and don't think you were suggesting any such thing, but rather, offering encouragement. Am I correct? I feel just a smidgen misunderstood and a wee bit sensitive about this, vulnerable. And, gee whiz, I did not mean for this thread to go so crazy-whonky. So that probably confused me.]

[clwcain]

What sacrifice does worship entail for you? I've never heard this before.

 

Sacrifice is offered, in the Old Covenant, by the slaughter of animals and the burning of incense in the Temple by the Aaronic Priests.

 

Sacrifice is offered, under the New Covenant established by Christ, by the Son Himself, acting at the altar through the agency of a priest ordained according to the Order of Melchizedek (Catholic or Orthodox). It is the self-oblation of the Son to the Father which, because of the nature of godhead occurred not only the once in history at Calvary, but occurs eternally in Heaven.

 

The Catholic & Orthodox understanding of the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, mentioned in Revelation/Apocalypse, is the Divine Liturgy (called by most Latin Rite Catholics "the Mass"). That when Mass is offered we are transported into Heaven through the Sacred Mysteries and participate in the Sacrifice offered at Calvary that is also being offered eternally on the altar in Heaven.

 

The Faithful, as part of the Body of Christ, unite themselves spiritually to the self-oblation of the Son, offered through the agency of the ordained priest. This is how we, the Faithful, participate in the Sacrifice.

 

Essential to sacrifice in both the Jewish and Catholic/Orthodox traditions is the shedding of blood. For the Jews, animals were slaughtered in the Temple. For Christians, Christ offered Himself in sacrifice, to satisfy the demands of the Law once and for all.

 

I hope I'm being clear, here.

 

Let me know if I need to clarify anything.

 

HTH

[8filltheheart]

Actually, I adore you. You are one of my board heroes. And I trust you.

 

But, um, you're not suggesting that I wallow in "like-minded" folk all the time, right? Because I frequent this board for precisely the same reason you do.

 

:blushing: Wow, thank you for the huge compliment!!

 

And, no way, I wasn't suggesting that at all! The fact that you asked what you did obviously proves that you don't!! Actually, it was tongue-in-cheek b/c for some reason conservatives tend to be stereotyped that way. I am definitely conservative, but several of my best friends are ultra liberal.

[Nicole M]

:blushing: Wow, thank you for the huge compliment!!

 

And, no way, I wasn't suggesting that at all! The fact that you asked what you did obviously proves that you don't!! Actually, it was tongue-in-cheek b/c for some reason conservatives tend to be stereotyped that way. I am definitely conservative, but several of my best friends are ultra liberal.

 

Oh, phew! I just edited my post above. I am considered the most conservative of my friends, but here on this board I'm way left. Just the mere fact that we homeschool puts us in the "freak" category. People assume that because I have a degree in theology and homeschool that I'm, you know, someone to be frightened of.

 

I guess the thing is none of us want to be stereotyped. We all want to be heard. Hearing, now that's a little more difficult.

 

And yes, you're totally a rock star board hero in my book.

[Faithr]

Dangermom,

 

'Appeal' would work as a synonym. In fact often wording in a prayer often reflects this, for ex. "And we ask Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, to pray for us to the Lord our God."

 

But actually there is more to prayer than just 'appealing' and this is where things get complicated and Protestants get a little nervous about this because again the subtlety is a bit hard to negotiate, but we also 'venerate' saints!!!!! Ahhhh! Doesn't that seem close to worshiping them!!!!! But no, it isn't, because it is more like honoring, showing respect, etc. like you would for a very important or beloved hero on earth. You might have a parade for them, a fan club, bestow on them medals etc etc. Well, when those holy heroes get to heaven, you show your respect and love by venerating them. It still isn't worship in the 'thou shalt not have other gods before Me' sense of the word.

 

Okay, I'm going to scare you even further by saying that because Mary is the best saint of all, born without sin, she gets her own type of veneration called 'hyperdulia' And in fact if you get really, really technical, this is even called 'worship.' In fact all the different types of veneration are called worship but we don't mean it in the sense of making idols out of them.

 

These are technical theological terms that the Catholic Church has been using for 100s of years before the Reformation. And I think that the terms got really changed and misinterpreted due to all that conflict when Protestants broke away. So now it kind of puts Catholics at a disadvantage cuz they have to define things the way a Protestant would and we don't speaka the same language!!!!!

 

But bottom line is: Catholics only worship God and it is right there in the catechism and saints (including Mary) are not treated as idols but as beloved members of the Communion of Saints who have preceded us into heaven and work ever to bring us into heaven so that we may be in union with Christ.

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

Thanks for the heads up.

 

I'm not sure what term to use, though, since Jews don't convert, at least as far as Catholics are concerned. They accept that the Covenant has been fulfilled.

 

Perhaps some helpful Jew on the board, if there are any Jews following the thread, could propose an alternative term.

 

ETA: Yes, the implications are clear regarding the Covenant, etc. to those that are willing to think these things through. But, generally, I've left dialog with my elder brothers in the Faith to those above my pay grade. I have a hard enough time expressing myself among fellow Catholics. :D

 

No problem. It certainly does complicate matters that some (who from a Jewish perspective) are "converts" to Christianity use this term to describe themselves, but I think if you asked one of them how the "unfulfilled Jews" feel about the term (assuming you got an honest answer) you'd soon understand the depth of feeling on the matter.

 

Have you ever come out of a shopping trip and found a Tony Alamo pamphlet on your car? That's about the level of anger were talking about.

 

I fully appreciate you intended to cause no such offense.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill

[clwcain]

Have you ever come out of a shopping trip and found a Tony Alamo pamphlet on your car?

 

No. Who's Tony Alamo? Is he akin to Jack Chick? And if it's way off topic, I can always google-whack him.

 

I can understand why they'd be upset. I just don't have a better term in my experience. And dialog with the Jews has changed dramatically since the post-WW2 era, for obvious reasons. I know some folks who blame the change of tone in Jewish-Catholic dialog on Vatican 2, but that requires an ignorance of history I endeavor to avoid.

 

Cheers!

[Alenee]

Dangermom,

 

'Appeal' would work as a synonym. In fact often wording in a prayer often reflects this, for ex. "And we ask Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, to pray for us to the Lord our God."

 

But actually there is more to prayer than just 'appealing' and this is where things get complicated and Protestants get a little nervous about this because again the subtlety is a bit hard to negotiate, but we also 'venerate' saints!!!!! Ahhhh! Doesn't that seem close to worshiping them!!!!! But no, it isn't, because it is more like honoring, showing respect, etc. like you would for a very important or beloved hero on earth. You might have a parade for them, a fan club, bestow on them medals etc etc. Well, when those holy heroes get to heaven, you show your respect and love by venerating them. It still isn't worship in the 'thou shalt not have other gods before Me' sense of the word.

 

Okay, I'm going to scare you even further by saying that because Mary is the best saint of all, born without sin, she gets her own type of veneration called 'hyperdulia' And in fact if you get really, really technical, this is even called 'worship.' In fact all the different types of veneration are called worship but we don't mean it in the sense of making idols out of them.

 

These are technical theological terms that the Catholic Church has been using for 100s of years before the Reformation. And I think that the terms got really changed and misinterpreted due to all that conflict when Protestants broke away. So now it kind of puts Catholics at a disadvantage cuz they have to define things the way a Protestant would and we don't speaka the same language!!!!!

 

But bottom line is: Catholics only worship God and it is right there in the catechism and saints (including Mary) are not treated as idols but as beloved members of the Communion of Saints who have preceded us into heaven and work ever to bring us into heaven so that we may be in union with Christ.

 

I promise I won't debate the issue with you all but I have some questions in the same spirit the one poster asked about sacrifices. I've been curious for years about two things: One being, what is the basis for believing that Mary was w/o sin? And two, what is the basis for appealing to the saints?

 

Again I promise I won't debate; would just like to be enlightened as to where these beliefs stem from.