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

[*anj*]

Oh, I want to come to the party too, but I have a terrible problem! I'm allergic to chocolate! It's gives me killer migraines.

 

Can I come too even though I'm such a party pooper? I wouldn't mind a little scotch. . . . I only get headaches from that if I drink too much!

 

I know a place that makes killer vanilla fudge. It is so good, I almost like it better than chocolate. I will stop there on my way to the airport and I'll bring it for you. How's that? :001_smile:

[8filltheheart]

Holy mackerel! Allergic to chocolate! {{shudder}} Bless you, dear. :001_smile:

 

My thoughts exactly!!! I can't imagine life w/o Reese's peanut butter cups, my complete weakness!!

 

Though, if I had to think positively about this.....hmmmm......if I were allergic to chocolate I could easily be a size 4!! :D

[Laura K (NC)]

Now it's different and the Magisterium will not outright defend one position or another, but until the late 1800's the doctors and saints (and popes) of the Church were of one mind that Genesis meant what it said and that the Pentateuch was compiled by Moses. The same "enlightenment" and rationalism has plagued many Protestant biblical scholars as well, unfortunately (imo).

 

One of the reasons I like A Beka is because I lean farther toward fundamentalism rather than to rationalism with regard to the scriptures. I like their stand on pro-life issues and creation.

 

(couldn't resist the "ironically" !)

[laylamcb]

Though, if I had to think positively about this.....hmmmm......if I were allergic to chocolate I could easily be a size 4!! :D

 

You call that thinking positively, do you, momof7? Humph. :glare:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Carol in Cal.]

Only one of those scientists in the quote was Catholic -- Galileo. And he was silenced by the Church.

 

In chapter 10, the textbook says that it was because of the Reformation reliance on the Bible that Christian scientists finally saw the light. Before the Reformation -- superstition. After the Reformation -- Bible truth even on science matters. On the same page there are also some digs at scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas et al) who relied on Aristotle to marry faith to reason. It was scholasticism, ironically, that paved the way for these scientists to do the same.

 

I quote the texts concerning the Catholic Church:

 

 

 

 

 

 

To their credit, they didn't actually come out and say that the Reformation was a Reformation against Catholicism. I don't think they really needed to say that, though, because of course the Reformers were trying to reform... the Church. The superstitious Church that didn't know or care to know the Bible. There is a lot of bold type on that page to drive the point home.

 

This is just so inaccurate. I'm not going to go on and say how the situation concerning nature was exactly the opposite. I'm just going to keep that to myself. Unless someone asks, of course.

 

I'm not sure that they address Catholicism as clearly to me as they seem to to you, but I would not want to teach those summary opinions as fact to any student, Catholic, Lutheran, atheist, Prostestant, or whatever. Because I consider them to matters of historical interpretation which should be presented as such, and as a matter of fact, as a student of history, I disagree with them. Yet another reason I'm glad I don't use Abeka exclusively like many of my friends do (actually, I have never used it at all.)

[Gretchen in NJ]

Oh, I want to come to the party too, but I have a terrible problem! I'm allergic to chocolate! It's gives me killer migraines.

 

Can I come too even though I'm such a party pooper? I wouldn't mind a little scotch. . . . I only get headaches from that if I drink too much!

Allergic to chocolate!:svengo:

 

I life without chocolate! :svengo:

[8filltheheart]

LOL.....yep.....isn't it ironic. :)

 

Actually, it was back in the 90s when Pope John Paul II wrote his letter to scientists that I decided I need to delve into my real beliefs on the issue. I am definitely more in the intelligent design camp. However, I don't teach my kids any specific POV and let them make their own decisions and most of them are in the creationist camp. Nothing like kids debating you when you are presenting a topic! Definitely keeps me and them on top of the issues.

[8filltheheart]

:001_smile:

[8filltheheart]

Their resistance to the idea of conversion makes complete sense since they are the "seed of Abraham". It's not just a choice of changing your religious identification, but of changing your heritage. I could see they would allow someone to follow their religious practices, but you can't just decide to join a new "race".

 

I'm still not sure I get the whole sacrifice thing. I understand the Old Testament sacrifices. I get that. I'm going to have to do some more studying on this other though.

 

Thanks for all the info.

 

I absolutely think that sacrifice is probably firmly removed from most Protestant thinking b/c Christ is seen as once for all and therefore it is seen as done.

 

This is a huge shift between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholicism is firmly rooted in its birth from Jewish tradition. I'll try to explain it, but it is really beyond my ability to type it all out. (this is definitely book/books material!!)

 

Sacrifice.....it is seen as the highest form of adoration in which an "authorized" priest (or in Catholicism, an ordained priest) in the name of the people offers a victim in acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion and of total human dependence on God.

 

In the OT, there are 4 types of bloody sacrifice:

1-holocaust was the most perfect....it is the whole-burnt offering. The animal was completely consumed by fire and as the "perpetual sacrifice" it was offered 2x daily, morning and night

2-sin offering was made to expiate what we would consider venial sin, sins committed through ignorance or inadvertence. The victim (sacrifice) depended mainly on the dignity of the person offended

3-guilt offering was prescribed for sins demanding restitution

4-peace offerings were in gratitude or in fulfillment of a vow

 

In the OT there are 2 types of unbloody sacrifice which are oblations (offerings) which are either solid food or liquid food. These food offerings accompanied every holocaust and peace offering, but never for sin or guilt (except for the cleansing of a leper)

 

When you transfer that understanding to the NT where Christ is identified as the Sacrificial Victim (Corinthians, Ephesians, 1Peter, 1 John) and you interpret Revelations as Catholics do, which is the eternal nature of the Lord's Sacrifice, the whole letter to Hebrews is about the high priesthood of Christ, who by his perfect obedience has "offered one single sacrifice for sina, and then taken his place forever at the right hand of God." He is, therefore, the eternal priest who even now intercedes with his heavenly Father for a sinful humanity.

 

It comes down to the fact that Catholics view the Last Supper as the Institution of the Eucharist. The way for humanity to merge the bloody and unbloody sacrifices in the eternal sacrifice of Christ. He is the "victim in acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion and of total human dependence on God."

 

In one of the links I posted, it states:

 

Taking bread into His Hands, He said: "This is my body, which shall be delivered for you," i.e., delivered unto death. Then over the chalice of wine, He said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." Thus in an unbloody symbol of the parting of the Blood from the Body, by the separate consecration of Bread and Wine, did Christ pledge Himself to death in the sight of God and men, and represent His death which was to come the next afternoon at three.(1) He was offering Himself as a Victim to be immolated, and that men might never forget that "greater love than this no man hash, that a man lay down his life for his friends," He gave the divine command to the Church: "Do this for a commemoration of me."

 

The following day, that which He had prefigured and foreshadowed, He realized in its completeness; as He was crucified between two thieves and His Blood drained from His Body for the redemption of the world.

 

The Church which Christ founded has not only preserved the Word He spoke, and the wonders He wrought; it has also taken Him seriously when He said: "Do this for a commemoration of me."

 

Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us to Him; a choir in which sweet sentiments are sung brings us no closer to His Cross than to His garments. A temple without an altar of sacrifice is non-existent among primitive peoples, and is meaningless among Christians. And so in the Catholic Church the altar , and not the pulpit or the choir or the organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His Passion. Its value does not depend on him who says it, or on him who hears it; it depends on Him who is the One High Priest and Victim, Jesus Christ our Lord. With Him we are united, in spite of our nothingness; in a certain sense, we lose our individuality for the time being; we unite our intellect and our will, our heart and our soul, our body and our blood, so intimately with Christ, that the Heavenly Father sees not so much us with our imperfection, but rather sees us in Him, the Beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. The Mass is for that reason the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only Holy Act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth, thus renewing that decisive moment when our sad and tragic humanity journeyed suddenly forth to the fullness of supernatural life.

 

What is important at this point is that we take the proper mental attitude toward the Mass, and remember this important fact, that the Sacrifice of the Cross is not something which happened nineteen hundred years ago. It is still happening. It is not something past like the signing of the Declaration of Independence; it is an abiding drama on which the curtain has not yet rung down. Let it not be believed that it happened a long time ago, and therefore no more concerns us than anything else in the past. Calvary belongs to all times and to all places. That is why, when our Blessed Lord ascended the heights of Calvary, He was fittingly stripped of His garments: He would save the world without the trappings of a passing world. His garments belonged to time, for they localized Him, and fixed Him as a dweller in Galilee. Now that He was shorn of them and utterly dispossessed of earthly things, He belonged not to Galilee, not to a Roman province, but to the world. He became the universal poor man of the world, belonging to no one people, but to all men.

 

The figures at the Cross were symbols of all who crucify. We were there in our representatives. What we are doing now to the Mystical Christ, they were doing in our names to the historical Christ. If we are envious of the good, we were there in the Scribes and Pharisees. If we are fearful of losing some temporal advantage by embracing Divine Truth and Love, we were there in Pilate. If we trust in material forces and seek to conquer through the world instead of through the spirit, we were there in Herod. And so the story goes on for the typical sins of the world. They all blind us to the fact that He is God. There was therefore a kind of inevitability about the Crucifixion. Men who were free to sin were also free to crucify.

 

our Lord on the Cross saw His eternal mind, the whole drama of history, the story of each individual soul and how later on it would react to His Crucifixion; but though He saw all, we could not know how we would react to the Cross until we were unrolled upon the screen of time. We were not conscious of being present there on Calvary that day, but He was conscious of our presence.

 

Calvary is one with the Mass, and the Mass is one with Calvary, for in both there is the same Priest and Victim."

 

As I wrote in an earlier post, the priest acts "in persona Christi," in the person of Christ. THe priest is only physically present for the actions of the the TRUE priest. Christ is truly present as both the high priest and the victim and the Mass is the one and same sacrifice as Calvary.

 

Some people will say that means we are re-crucifiying Christ in every Mass. That is denying the mystical life. God is timeless. Christ is the once for all sacrifice. BUT, from the beginning of time God has demanded sacrifice. It continues, but in the perfect sacrifice of Christ. He ended the need for animal sacrifice b/c HE is the sacrifice. But, He also commands us to participate in the sacrifice, "Do this in rememberance of Me." (the key is that this is the one and same sacrifice. Just as the Trinity is a mystery in how 3 are 1, the timelessness of the single sacrifice is in the omnipotence and the omnipresence of God)

 

 

I have no idea whether that clarifies it for you or simply confuses you more!!! :tongue_smilie: It is the best I can think of via this type of communication.

 

I have got to go to bed. I have been up way to late the last few nights.

 

God bless,

Karen

[Michelle in MO]

Only one of those scientists in the quote was Catholic -- Galileo. And he was silenced by the Church.

 

In chapter 10, the textbook says that it was because of the Reformation reliance on the Bible that Christian scientists finally saw the light. Before the Reformation -- superstition. After the Reformation -- Bible truth even on science matters. On the same page there are also some digs at scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas et al) who relied on Aristotle to marry faith to reason. It was scholasticism, ironically, that paved the way for these scientists to do the same.

 

To their credit, they didn't actually come out and say that the Reformation was a Reformation against Catholicism. I don't think they really needed to say that, though, because of course the Reformers were trying to reform... the Church. The superstitious Church that didn't know or care to know the Bible. There is a lot of bold type on that page to drive the point home.

 

This is just so inaccurate. I'm not going to go on and say how the situation concerning nature was exactly the opposite. I'm just going to keep that to myself. Unless someone asks, of course.

 

pretty biased. This is from Abeka's 7th grade science book, you said? I've never used Abeka, but we have used Apologia. Primarily we've used Apologia for ease of use, and I'm still undecided which camp I'm in, and both dh and I believe that God created, but we tend to believe more old earth/intelligent design. We don't delve too much into the time frame, as we weren't there at the time (LOL!) and also I think there's room in Scripture for a different understanding without twisting the meanings of words.

 

Yes, if I was Catholic, those statements would ruffle my feathers, too. I've heard blanket statements about Catholics, and that would certainly get old after a while.

[Michelle in MO]

Oh, I want to come to the party too, but I have a terrible problem! I'm allergic to chocolate! It's gives me killer migraines.

 

Can I come too even though I'm such a party pooper? I wouldn't mind a little scotch. . . . I only get headaches from that if I drink too much!

 

for you; I could bake a cheesecake (regular, with strawberry topping). I also bake a pretty mean blueberry pie. You pick the dessert---I'll supply it, OK? :D

[Michelle in MO]

However, I don't teach my kids any specific POV and let them make their own decisions and most of them are in the creationist camp. Nothing like kids debating you when you are presenting a topic! Definitely keeps me and them on top of the issues.

 

and exactly how my kids respond. I don't try to undermine what they believe, and my own beliefs are still somewhat muddled on the issue. It's enough for me to believe the Scriptures are inerrant and that God created.

[Faithr]

Oh my, they both sound absolutely yummy! Can't I bring something? I feel it is rude to attend a party and not have something in hand. . . .

 

I know! I'll bring the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We can pass it around and read random selections from it! Maybe somebody else can bring Westminster's Catechism or something!

[*anj*]

Maybe somebody else can bring Westminster's Catechism or something!

Oh yeah, I'll bring mine! ;)

[Nicole M]

Oh my, they both sound absolutely yummy! Can't I bring something? I feel it is rude to attend a party and not have something in hand. . . .

 

I know! I'll bring the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We can pass it around and read random selections from it! Maybe somebody else can bring Westminster's Catechism or something!

 

How about a rosary? I have no idea what you people do with that thing.

[laylamcb]

How about a rosary? I have no idea what you people do with that thing.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Gretchen in NJ]

How about a rosary? I have no idea what you people do with that thing.

 

:lol::001_huh::lol:

[clwcain]

How about a rosary? I have no idea what you people do with that thing.

 

Just don't ask my oldest. He's gotten very inventive with his...but none of the uses are proper.:lol:

 

 

 

Actually, I'm not sure whether or not you are joking. As I'm under a deadline at work, PM me if you want details. :blushing:

[Gretchen in NJ]

Just don't ask my oldest. He's gotten very inventive with his...but none of the uses are proper.:lol:

 

 

 

Actually, I'm not sure whether or not you are joking. As I'm under a deadline at work, PM me if you want details. :blushing:

 

If she PM's you, then I wont be able to read it.;)

[*anj*]

If she PM's you, then I wont be able to read it.;)

You call yourself a Catholic, and you don't know what to do with rosary beads?:D:D:D

 

Okay, I'll do it. Let's see if my memory serves correctly.

 

The Rosary is a set of prayers that are "said" or counted off using a series of beads. A typical strand of rosary beads has five sections of beads, each containing 10 smaller beads. The complete Rosary actually consists of 15 sections of prayers, which will make more sense in a minute.

 

There are three sets of Mysteries that are to be contemplated during the praying of the Rosary. These are all connected to the life of Christ.

There are the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries.

I am not going to remember every single one, but the joyful include The Annunciation (Angel to Mary), The Visitation (Mary to Elizabeth), The Nativity (Birth of Christ), The Dedication (in the temple), and The Finding in the Temple (when Jesus got lost from the crowd and they found Him back at the Temple.)

The Sorrowful are all related to His crucifixion.

The Glorious are all related to the Resurrection.

 

All but a few are taken directly from Scripture. The others are part of the Church's Tradition.

 

The praying of the Rosary dates back to St. Dominic, I think. I think he received the format in a vision (that part is sketchy in my memory.)

 

Oh yeah. So on the larger beads you pray the Lord's Prayer (Our Father), and on the smaller beads you pray the Hail Mary. And there are some Glory Be's in there too. And in recent years people have added a couple more. For instance, the nuns that I used to spend time with would pray "Lord of the harvest, send laborers into your harvest" after the "Glory Be."

 

Okay, that's really basic. There is more, but that's pretty much it. How'd I do, guys? ;)

[Gretchen in NJ]

You call yourself a Catholic, and you don't know what to do with rosary beads?:D:D:D

 

Okay, I'll do it. Let's see if my memory serves correctly.

 

The Rosary is a set of prayers that are "said" or counted off using a series of beads. A typical strand of rosary beads has five sections of beads, each containing 10 smaller beads. The complete Rosary actually consists of 15 sections of prayers, which will make more sense in a minute.

 

There are three sets of Mysteries that are to be contemplated during the praying of the Rosary. These are all connected to the life of Christ.

There are the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries.

I am not going to remember every single one, but the joyful include The Annunciation (Angel to Mary), The Visitation (Mary to Elizabeth), The Nativity (Birth of Christ), The Dedication (in the temple), and The Finding in the Temple (when Jesus got lost from the crowd and they found Him back at the Temple.)

The Sorrowful are all related to His crucifixion.

The Glorious are all related to the Resurrection.

 

All but a few are taken directly from Scripture. The others are part of the Church's Tradition.

 

The praying of the Rosary dates back to St. Dominic, I think. I think he received the format in a vision (that part is sketchy in my memory.)

 

Oh yeah. So on the larger beads you pray the Lord's Prayer (Our Father), and on the smaller beads you pray the Hail Mary. And there are some Glory Be's in there too. And in recent years people have added a couple more. For instance, the nuns that I used to spend time with would pray "Lord of the harvest, send laborers into your harvest" after the "Glory Be."

 

Okay, that's really basic. There is more, but that's pretty much it. How'd I do, guys? ;)

 

I said I was Catholic, but I never said I was a good Catholic.;)

 

I was teasing in my earlier post. Plus, explaining The Rosary would envolve too many words for me. I only like to write short posts. Writing is too stressful for me. I come here for writing therapy. I much prefer numbers.;)

[clwcain]

You covered the basics admirably. Good show.

 

The prayers serve as a means of contemplating the mysteries, helping you to focus on the events and their importance. The goal is contemplative prayer, although many people never get there.

 

From the card in my wallet:

You always begin with the Sign of the Cross and the Apostles' Creed.The Paters, Aves, and Gloria Patris are uttered on prescribed beads, as anj noted above.

 

The Mysteries are as follows

 

Joyful Mysteries

The Annunciation of the BVM

The Visitation of Elizabeth by Mary

The Nativity of the Lord

The Presentation of the Lord in the Temple

The Finding of Our Lord in the Temple

 

Sorrowful Mysteries

The Agony of Our Lord in the Garden

The Scourging at the Pillar

The Crowning with Thorns

The Carrying of the Cross

The Crucifixion of Our Lord

 

Glorious Mysteries

The Resurrection of Our Lord

The Ascension of Our Lord

The Descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost

The Assumption (or Dormition) of the BVM

The Coronation of the BVM as Queen of Heaven

 

Late in his Pontificate, John Paul II added another set, although fewer people pray these, for a variety of reasons.

 

Luminous Mysteries

Baptism of Our Lord in the Jordan

Manifestation of Our Lord at the Wedding at Cana

Our Lord's Proclamation of the Kingdom of God

The Transfiguration of Our Lord

The Institution of the Holy Eucharist During the Last Supper

 

The traditional sequence involves 150 utterances of the Ave Maria (Hail Mary) and maps to the 150 psalms prayed weekly in the traditional, monastic form of the Divine Office. As such, the Rosary was known for many years as the "Peasant's Psalter".

 

It's use does predate Dominic's vision in the 13th century, but the Dominican Order, based on his vision, is responsible for the widespread popularization of the practice among the Faithful (both clergy and laity).

 

It is not, contrary to popular opinion, a required practice of Catholics. There is nothing in the dogma or doctrine of the Church mandating the adoption of the practice. Nor is there, as John Paul II frequently pointed out, anything juridical to prevent or discourage non-Catholics from praying the Rosary. That was one of his rationales for the promulgation of the Luminous Mysteries.

 

HTH

[*anj*]

I said I was Catholic, but I never said I was a good Catholic.;)

 

I was teasing in my earlier post. Plus, explaining The Rosary would involve too many words for me. I only like to write short posts. Writing is too stressful for me. I come here for writing therapy. I much prefer numbers.;)

 

:D:DI hear ya!

[FlockOfSillies]

ITA. I appreciate his forthrightness and willingness to acknowledge the very real differences between Catholic and Protestant theology. I think he's completely wrong, but that doesn't make him a bad egg. Sometimes we're too nicey-nice here on the boards when genuine disagreement must be acknowledged, but it isn't done because no one wants neg rep.

[Parrothead]

Wow!

 

I spent the last hour reading from page 16 or so. I had no idea that this thread had gotten so big.

 

Hey, can I come to the pow-wow too? I'll bring the Rosary beads and cake.

[TXMomof4]

I absolutely think that sacrifice is probably firmly removed from most Protestant thinking b/c Christ is seen as once for all and therefore it is seen as done.

 

This is a huge shift between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholicism is firmly rooted in its birth from Jewish tradition. I'll try to explain it, but it is really beyond my ability to type it all out. (this is definitely book/books material!!)

 

Sacrifice.....it is seen as the highest form of adoration in which an "authorized" priest (or in Catholicism, an ordained priest) in the name of the people offers a victim in acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion and of total human dependence on God.

 

When you transfer that understanding to the NT where Christ is identified as the Sacrificial Victim (Corinthians, Ephesians, 1Peter, 1 John) and you interpret Revelations as Catholics do, which is the eternal nature of the Lord's Sacrifice, the whole letter to Hebrews is about the high priesthood of Christ, who by his perfect obedience has "offered one single sacrifice for sina, and then taken his place forever at the right hand of God." He is, therefore, the eternal priest who even now intercedes with his heavenly Father for a sinful humanity.

 

It comes down to the fact that Catholics view the Last Supper as the Institution of the Eucharist. The way for humanity to merge the bloody and unbloody sacrifices in the eternal sacrifice of Christ. He is the "victim in acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion and of total human dependence on God."

 

 

 

 

Alright, forgive my slaughtering of your original post, but I can't figure out the multi-quote thing.

 

I can only speak for my individual church's beliefs, because I'm not well versed in the beliefs of any other.

 

The idea of sacrifice - I completely get the Levitical Laws pertaining to sacrifice. The only thing that could allow the people cleansing was the blood of the animal. But that was an imperfect sacrifice, so it had to be repeated because it couldn't atone sins once and for all. Hence, Christ was presented as the *perfect* sacrifice, so that sacrifices didn't need to continue. His blood covered our sins from beginning to end, if we choose to take on Christ as our salvation.

We offer praise as our sacrifice, according to Hebrews, that is what God desires, our praise and our worship. We offer our lives to God's will, Romans 12.

 

I'll admit to avoiding Revelations because it is so hard to understand.

 

I think it isn't quite fair to say that we don't understand sacrifice. The center of our worship service every Sunday is the Lord's Supper. It is a remembrance meal, a meal of thanksgiving, and a meal of celebration for what Christ has done for us.

 

Maybe the idea of the Mystical Christ is just to far beyond my experience to grasp right now. I understand that every one of my sins is responsible for the pain he experienced on the cross and during the 3 days in the tomb, I am responsible for putting Christ there. But I also understand he is at the right hand of God right now acting as my intercessor.

 

But the sacrifice he requires from me is my life, my will. I hand it over to him. It's an ongoing battle, but that's the choice I have to make. Every day I choose to sacrifice my desires and wants to God's plan.

 

Sometimes that plan is pretty close to what I want myself. Sometimes, it is so hard I can't hardly make it through the day.

 

I'm still cogitating on all of this. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions!

[8filltheheart]

 

I think it isn't quite fair to say that we don't understand sacrifice. The center of our worship service every Sunday is the Lord's Supper. It is a remembrance meal, a meal of thanksgiving, and a meal of celebration for what Christ has done for us.

 

 

Oh, please don't take what I wrote to imply you didn't understand sacrifice in general!!

 

What I was trying to explain is that for us the Holy Eucharist is not simply a remembrance meal. It is the actual, real, same, true present sacrifice of Calvary. That is the understanding of the sacrifice that I'm not sure most outside of Catholicism understand. (It can even be argued that many Catholics don't understand it either!!)

 

Our belief is that the once for all of Calvary exists. BUT, the heavenly liturgy of that sacrifice is perpetual in time until the 2nd coming. The priest, in persona Christi, is actually physically doing the actions of the Real Highpriest, Christ. Christ is the both priest and victim on our altars during Mass. We believe in the transubstantiation of the offering of the bread and wine.

 

The bread and wine truly become (not symbolically) the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ. It becomes the unbloody presentation of the bloody sacrifice offered for our sin.

 

I think that is the main distinction. Orthodox religions share these beliefs as well, though they reject the terminology of transubstantiation and a few other distinctions.

[SnowWhite]

Our belief is that the once for all of Calgary exists.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

And Alberta, and Quebec, and Winnipeg, and all those other Canadian cities.

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[8filltheheart]

:lol::lol::lol:

And Alberta, and Quebec, and Winnipeg, and all those other Canadian cities.

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

LOL!!!! That's what I get for typing with kids all over me and talking at the same time!! I wrote the OP last night when everyone was in bed!!

 

I am definitely going to edit that !!

[clwcain]

Makes sense to me. Confirms some of what I inferred from the few years I lived in a predominately Jewish neighborhood in Philadelphia.

 

Thanks.

 

Being a Jew means having a Jewish neshama. One can be born to it by being born to a Jewish mother, or choose it by going through geyrus (conversion) - for some this is a rebirth with a Jewish neshama, for others a... a coming home, a formal acknowledgement of the sense of having been born out of place and needing to find the way home, so to speak.

 

 

A ger is as much of a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother (assuming s/he underwent a kosher conversion) - his/her neshama is a Jewish neshama from the moment s/he immerses in the mikvah (the culmination of the geyrus process).

 

 

Someone who follows no faith, or a different faith is no less a Jew than I am, not by the slightest fraction. Religious observance is a Jew's obligation and privilege, not our identity, if that makes any sense. Our souls are bound to G-d, and the Torah is our contractual obligation.... but as a gift, not a limitation.

 

That said, observance levels impact whether someone is a kosher witness in a Jewish court, whether I can accept their statement that the food they offer me is kosher among other things, but it doesn't affect their identity as a Jew.

 

Someone who publicly renounces Judaism or who converts to another religion is, as I understand it, not "Jewish" in the eyes of the State of Israel, but that is a legal, not a halachic issue.

 

Does that help at all? I'm pain befuddled at the moment and not typing as clearly as I would like to....

[FlockOfSillies]

Catholics aren't going to teach their children that to get to Heaven they need to be saved. Plain and simple there.

 

I apologize for not expanding on that. 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. 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.)

 

That one and only prayer that I remember saying as a child and not really understanding by asking Jesus Christ to come into my heart ensured that I was going to Heaven.

 

Catholics donot believe this is the way to Heaven.

 

So through my late night ramblings last night I didn't make myself clear. The definition of being Saved for a Catholic is not the same for a Protestant at all.

 

While it's true that Catholics and Protestants would define the process of salvation differently, you've completely misrepresented the biblical teachings on salvation. I'm sorry that some knucklehead told you that all you had to do was say a prayer. If that were true, then you'd be earning your way to heaven by saying a bunch of dumb words. The apostle James would define your "faith" as being DEAD. USELESS.

 

I can understand why you've "wandered off the reservation," so to speak, in terms of what you believe about God, given the crazy things you've heard. But I'd encourage you to go back to scripture and just read it and let it speak for itself. Forget the creeds, or what your Aunt So-and-So said, or your mom, or anyone else, and just read the Book.

[Plaid Dad]

I can understand why you've "wandered off the reservation," so to speak, in terms of what you believe about God, given the crazy things you've heard.

 

Ouch.

[Nicole M]

While it's true that Catholics and Protestants would define the process of salvation differently, you've completely misrepresented the biblical teachings on salvation. I'm sorry that some knucklehead told you that all you had to do was say a prayer. If that were true, then you'd be earning your way to heaven by saying a bunch of dumb words. The apostle James would define your "faith" as being DEAD. USELESS.

 

I can understand why you've "wandered off the reservation," so to speak, in terms of what you believe about God, given the crazy things you've heard. But I'd encourage you to go back to scripture and just read it and let it speak for itself. Forget the creeds, or what your Aunt So-and-So said, or your mom, or anyone else, and just read the Book.

 

Plaid Dad is right. Ouch. Are you aware of how condescending and unkind this sounds?

 

To be honest, I am confused. Our discussion here has mainly been about the difference between Catholic and Protestant belief systems. I think Tracy was trying to point to those differences. And she admitted that she was tired when she posted. Are you saying that both the Catholics and Protestants are wrong, and we just need to go back to the Book to understand the nature of salvation?

[Alenee]

Plaid Dad is right. Ouch. Are you aware of how condescending and unkind this sounds?

 

To be honest, I am confused. Our discussion here has mainly been about the difference between Catholic and Protestant belief systems. I think Tracy was trying to point to those differences. And she admitted that she was tired when she posted. Are you saying that both the Catholics and Protestants are wrong, and we just need to go back to the Book to understand the nature of salvation?

 

I hope I interpreted Flockofsillies post correctly...if I did, then what I think she meant was that all people should read the bible w/o ascribing to anyone else's beliefs first.

 

Deleted the rest...

[PameliaSue]

Are you saying that both the Catholics and Protestants are wrong, and we just need to go back to the Book to understand the nature of salvation?

 

I won't add my 2 cents concerning whether or not any of that was harsh... but I will say that TracyR herself mentioned that there are several differing opinions between the protestants and the catholics.. not just 2 different ones. And my impression from at least the part from flockofsillies where she said to read it for yourself was just that. There isn't just 2 options and if one is interested they can just read it and decide for them self which out of the several seems right. Scripture does say to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12 With that in mind it would seem prudent to just read it for oneself.

[dymphna57]

I was interested in the original question regarding the possible anti-catholic prejudice in many Christian materials. I was able to find a few posts where homeschooling families tried to identify prejudices, especially in history materials in order to provide better or at least opposing information. Unfortunately, in my view, the subject moved on to a criticism of religious beliefs which seems to deteriorate at some points. :confused:

 

I like to have lots of historical fiction on hand for my dc but it is nice to be forewarned about innaccuracies and prejudices so I can point them out and discuss them. I was very disapointed to have to begin with Veritas Phonics Museum and their book about Martin Luther. It was too much to have to explain to my four year old! We ended up skipping it and we used the episode for the older children to study his life. I found that even though some of the other books in this package were anti-Catholic and inaccurate, I kept using it. I do wish that it wasn't neccesary to be inaccurate.

 

I wonder if people could share some of their " finds " so that I could benefit from their experiences. Thanks!

[Plaid Dad]

I think she meant was that all people should read the bible w/o ascribing to anyone else's beliefs first.

 

::gently:: That may indeed be all she meant - and I hope so - but the idea that one can "just read the Bible" and sort out the meaning for oneself is a distinctively Protestant approach to Scripture and belief. In other words, it's another example of the differences between Protestant and Catholic belief. The Catholic Church does not teach "sola Scriptura" nor the private interpretation of Scripture. That does not mean that Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible and ponder its meaning for our lives, only that we are to take into consideration the Church's understanding, over 2000 years, of what Scripture means. And that absolutely includes things like the various creeds.

[Nicole M]

I was interested in the original question regarding the possible anti-catholic prejudice in many Christian materials. I was able to find a few posts where homeschooling families tried to identify prejudices, especially in history materials in order to provide better or at least opposing information. Unfortunately, in my view, the subject moved on to a criticism of religious beliefs which seems to deteriorate at some points. :confused:

 

I like to have lots of historical fiction on hand for my dc but it is nice to be forewarned about innaccuracies and prejudices so I can point them out and discuss them. I was very disapointed to have to begin with Veritas Phonics Museum and their book about Martin Luther. It was too much to have to explain to my four year old! We ended up skipping it and we used the episode for the older children to study his life. I found that even though some of the other books in this package were anti-Catholic and inaccurate, I kept using it. I do wish that it wasn't neccesary to be inaccurate.

 

I wonder if people could share some of their " finds " so that I could benefit from their experiences. Thanks!

 

Actually, I think several spin off threads could have been started from this one. And I'm sorry you think this one has deteriorated into criticism (though you're right, in some places it has). I've found, overall, a spirit of sharing information and genuine curiosity.

 

I've been thinking about your question about sharing "finds" and I'm just not sure you to ask that one, in a separate thread. I think there has been a small bit of consensus here in this thread that comparing sources is useful. Perhaps it would be easier to ask and easier to answer if the question were asked about one particular time period? Not sure.

 

As for the Martin Luther thing, I totally understand what you're saying, though I'm not familiar so much with VP. At four, I figured the most my son needed to know about ML was that he had some ideas that were super important, he hung 95 of those ideas on the door, and did most of his thinking in the toilet. Four year olds can remember toilet stories. And just to be sure I wasn't confusing my reformation thinkers, I googled "Martin Luther constipation" and found this:

 

"Physician's Notes: Although his "95 Theses" instigated the Reformation which eventually led to the enlightenment, he was convinced the devil dwelt inside his very own body from time to time. Throughout his life, Luther suffered from severe constipation, and it is a recorded fact that he received his greatest enlightenment--that it is man's faith and not his achievements that guarantee his salvation--while he was sitting on the toilet. Again, it was while straining to evacuate his bowels that he had his vision of the devil. The devil would whistle and roar in his ears, squeeze his heart, and sometimes spin so fast in his head that Luther would fall out of his chair. Modern physicians have speculated that Luther was probably suffering from Meniere's disease...."

How's that for bringing the conversation to new, uh, depths?

 

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I guess I've found that I have to do quite a lot more research than I ever imagined I would have to do to flesh out our history studies, especially as my boys get older. A little research can have big rewards, as in the case with poor old Martin. Knowing a tidbit about a life helps my boys and me to remember those famous folks. In fact, this year my youngest was coloring his timeline guys and put no color on ML's face. He explained that, well, he didn't get much sun so I figured he'd be pretty pale.

 

I personally like to find as many biographies as possible, compare different authors, and double check key facts and data with a good encyclopedia. Maybe these scattered ideas will help you formulate a question for the board about treasures and finds in historical fiction?

 

It's not yet 6am here so forgive my ramblings. I need my coffee. I hope this is a tiny bit helpful.

[mommaduck]

That begs the question...would the Reformation still happened, except for Luther? Yes, I believe it would have. Many would claim that it was started with Tyndale, Erasmus, and others in various ways and that Luther just happened to be ONE of the many that was pushing for Reformation.

[Nicole M]

That begs the question...would the Reformation still happened, except for Luther? Yes, I believe it would have. Many would claim that it was started with Tyndale, Erasmus, and others in various ways and that Luther just happened to be ONE of the many that was pushing for Reformation.

 

Oh, my. That's not the question that I thought was begged here, but I commend you for your effort to bring a little dignity back to the conversation.

 

Sure, one person can be a catalyst for change, but only if the time is ripe, kwim? So I have no quarrel with this.

 

What I think is interesting to ponder is whey VP would have started with Luther, right off the bat. I'm stating the obvious here, but beginning points and lists can reveal bias. I was a bit horrified, for instance, that All American History has one sentence about native Americans. One. That's their beginning point. A perfectly valid one for some, but not where I would start.

[*anj*]

 

What I think is interesting to ponder is whey VP would have started with Luther, right off the bat.

 

Well, they don't exactly start with Martin Luther right off the bat. It's actually Book 17 in the series, so it comes at around the middle of first grade. And the whole series of primers covers a huge expanse of history. You've got St. Patrick, vikings, pirates, and Ella Fitzgerald. So even though most people wouldn't think that the Reformation was a crucial bit of history for 7 year olds, I think that they were just trying to touch on a lot of key periods.

 

Having said that I can easily see why Catholics would feel insulted by that book. I used the Phonics Museum for all of my children, but after the oldest read that book I took it out of the rotation, out of respect for my husband. The author (R.C. Sproul, Jr.) attempted to take fairly sophisticated subject matter and

#1 make it understandable to young children and

#2 use words that could be decoded by children at that level of phonics instruction.

 

So I think that he chose some unfortunate words that weren't necessary nor ummm, prudent. I don't think that it is wise to teach children that someone else's church is "silly." On a few pages the Catholic church officials are drawn with really mean, angry faces.

[Alenee]

There are gobs of curriculum out there that come from Protestant publishers. Are there not the same amount coming from Catholic publishers? If you all know of some, it might be helpful to post those. (just trying to get back on topic here :)

[BlueGator]

I just read the whole thread. Wow, that was intense.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I have enjoyed the learning opportunity here. Thanks for the enlightening discussion.

 

I guess in the end (and 35 pages later, I mean in the end tee hee), I am thankful for this thread b/c it inspired me to put key to computer and think out what I believe.

 

 

 

No offense, and honestly, gently spoken, I don't fit into any of the "molds" of any denomination, in so much as I believe all, or even a majority, that they teach. I don’t want to be catholic, protestant or any other religious label. Honestly, I don’t even like being given the label Christian b/c the labels leaves too much room for interpretation….I prefer to represent my faith, as I understand it, and allow for others to do the same. I do believe in absolute truth, so please don't misunderstand, but I find it less worthwhile to create a doctrine, creed or platform and instead to live out my faith, daily, until I hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." This thread certainly shows that even within denominations, there are different explanations for faith, so I am just me, and I only hope it can encourage others to Christ, the touch of the Holy Spirit and a relationship with a loving Father, who although is called by many names, true name we do not yet know.

 

Nice to see a thoughtful, honest, not too "nicey nicey" discussion, but still meant in earnest love.

[johnandtinagilbert]

sounds flippant, but not meant to be, you get what you pay for. I would not expect anything less than a protestant, mennonite, catholic perspective from materials published by same, so yes, they are slanted, biased....which is why I am always a step ahead in school...I have to be.

[Nicole M]

sounds flippant, but not meant to be, you get what you pay for. I would not expect anything less than a protestant, mennonite, catholic perspective from materials published by same, so yes, they are slanted, biased....which is why I am always a step ahead in school...I have to be.

 

It does sound flippant. I think I made the point that I do expect bias and pov, and, in point of fact, find bias to be an opportunity for learning. What surprised me was the mean spirited jabs - the difference to me between bias and prejudice. I do expect more from curriculum materials than that. I think we all should.

[johnandtinagilbert]

It does sound flippant. I think I made the point that I do expect bias and pov, and, in point of fact, find bias to be an opportunity for learning. What surprised me was the mean spirited jabs - the difference to me between bias and prejudice. I do expect more from curriculum materials than that. I think we all should.

 

hope I didn't offend you...I really wasn't being flippant to you, just matter of fact. You probably did point that out..I read this entire thread b4 responding at all...there was a lot said

 

I hear you about the jabs, I might even call some comments I have read (in text, living books), "superior" in tone, KWIM? I have tried to use them as learning experiences (especially when studying science, history, and church history) We do tend to use a lot of living books, so I think there can be a larger influx of slant there...I suppose this original topic though, is why *I* am cautious about using Christian Materials (cuz our beliefs don't strongly follow any denomination).

[Nicole M]

hope I didn't offend you...I really wasn't being flippant to you, just matter of fact. You probably did point that out..I read this entire thread b4 responding at all...there was a lot said

 

I hear you about the jabs, I might even call some comments I have read (in text, living books), "superior" in tone, KWIM? I have tried to use them as learning experiences (especially when studying science, history, and church history) We do tend to use a lot of living books, so I think there can be a larger influx of slant there...I suppose this original topic though, is why *I* am cautious about using Christian Materials (cuz our beliefs don't strongly follow any denomination).

 

I'm sorry. I was abrupt. I had to nip out the door and was rushed. But thinking about this on my errand, I realized that my bias is tolerance. And the hardest thing for me to tolerate is intolerance, and in fact, my impulse is to be intolerant of intolerance. Whew. Now there's a paradox to live with, eh? And the intolerance and ignorance about other religious pov that I've encountered, the mean jabs... unnecessary and icky, in my book. Though after these 35 pages, I get it more.

 

I can't believe you read the whole thread in one swell foop. I'd need a stiff drink after that, and I'm not a drinker. Congratulations! Chocolate for you, too!

 

I am cautious about Christian materials, for the same reasons. But ya know, "those Christians" kinda have a corner on the market. :D The folks who have the same biases as I do aren't coming up with any materials I like. So I work with what is available.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I'm sorry. I was abrupt. I had to nip out the door and was rushed. But thinking about this on my errand, I realized that my bias is tolerance. And the hardest thing for me to tolerate is intolerance, and in fact, my impulse is to be intolerant of intolerance. Whew. Now there's a paradox to live with, eh? And the intolerance and ignorance about other religious pov that I've encountered, the mean jabs... unnecessary and icky, in my book. Though after these 35 pages, I get it more.

 

I can't believe you read the whole thread in one swell foop. I'd need a stiff drink after that, and I'm not a drinker. Congratulations! Chocolate for you, too!

 

I am cautious about Christian materials, for the same reasons. But ya know, "those Christians" kinda have a corner on the market. :D The folks who have the same biases as I do aren't coming up with any materials I like. So I work with what is available.

thank you...and I find that paradox often...a few cups of coffee and total avoidance of my lesson planning for the entire morning (my eyes are exhausted and I'm still avoiding!)...looking forward to the chocolate!:)

[Laura K (NC)]

nt