May I ask another question about Catholicism?

[Michelle in MO]

As Laura K in NC so aptly wrote, it seems to be "Catholic Awareness Week" on these boards, and since it has been a topic of discussion, I've wanted to ask this question.

 

Let me preface this by stating first that we're on a short family vacation and I may only be able to access the boards a couple of times per day (at motels). However, if I wait a few more days, perhaps it won't be the right time to ask.

 

My question is this: are Catholics as diverse in their beliefs as Protestants, or is there more unity among church members? For example, as a Protestant I would say that there are so many varieties of Protestantism that I'm sure I couldn't even begin to name all of the branches of Protestantism.

 

Is there the same level of diversity among Catholics? I know that there are different monastic orders: Benedictine, Augustinian, Franciscan, Dominican, Jesuits, and probably many others. I read periodically about Catholics who want to support positions that are typically not supported by Catholics (i.e., some who are pro-choice, want to see the ordination of women, etc.).

 

About a year ago, when we were still doing Latin, a lawyer buddy of my dh was asking us about our study of Latin. Although their family (they are also Catholic) does not attend a Catholic church that celebrates the Tridentine mass (did I say that correctly?), he stated very clearly that he felt that the fact that the Catholic mass used to be celebrated in Latin kept the Church more unified and cohesive. I was surprised to hear this, but he went on to say that there would be gatherings of priests from all over the world who would be speaking Latin with each other. He also seemed to believe that this led to greater unity in the church.

 

Would any Catholics on these forums agree with his statement, or not?

 

Maybe the bigger question is: what keeps the church---Catholic and Protestant---in unity? I know that I can talk to close friends who are also Christians about certain issues and we can still have a wide variety of beliefs on certain issues, but we're still in unity and in harmony with one another.

 

Does unity go back to the basic beliefs expressed in the Creeds?

[Ashleen]

[Warning: I am not Catholic, though I have strongly considered converting and am more than 90% certain that I will convert.]

 

The Catholic Church has certain teachings (the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a great way to learn what they are). Catholics are either loyal to the teachings or not. But they don't have denominations. They might have members who wish the church would change its stance on an issue, but at the end of the day, the teachings of the church are still the teachings of the church and that's that. Some people prefer Latin mass, but when someone starts doing things like ordaining female priests they are no longer considered Catholic.

 

Edited to clarify the last sentence: Preferring Latin mass is not something that makes one no longer Catholic. A lot of people don't like the Vatican II changes and prefer something more traditional. Ordaining female priests is something that is not validly Catholic. Hope I'm making sense and not mucking it up further.

[LMA]

Actually, this topic was addressed in this thread.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48836&highlight=Catholic+churches

 

Louise

[Ashleen]

Does unity go back to the basic beliefs expressed in the Creeds?

 

To address this part, I've spent the past few years studying various Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and I even peeked into Orthodox Christianity. It seems that the Apostle's Creed is the one unifying belief among all of them. I have not met a Christian who disagrees with the tenets of the Apostle's Creed.

 

The Nicene Creed split the Catholics from the Orthodox. In the East, the Nicene Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and in the West it says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This seemingly minor difference in theology was not and is not minor to the churches involved. In Orthodox theology, the Trinity is like a triangle with the Father at the top and the Son and Spirit as the two lower corners. In Catholic theology, the Trinity is like a family and the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Clear as mud?

 

But the Apostle's Creed seems to be the consistent summary of Christian beliefs even among people who can't agree on the canon of the Bible or what certain verses mean, etc.

[Parrothead]

 

My question is this: are Catholics as diverse in their beliefs as Protestants, or is there more unity among church members? For example, as a Protestant I would say that there are so many varieties of Protestantism that I'm sure I couldn't even begin to name all of the branches of Protestantism.

 

In a way there is a diverse population of Catholics. There are those that consider themselves to be very orthodox, and that anything after Vatican II is wrong. There are those who are called "Cafeteria Catholics." (I've never liked that name) They pick and choose which teachings they want to agree with. They don't agree on everything the Church teaches. Areas of disagreement include women in the priesthood, pro-choice, and the like. Then you can have non-practicing Catholics. They have had various sacraments, but choose not to practice their religion.

 

But no matter how Catholics feel about changes in the church, areas of disagreement and practicing or non-practicing they are all still Catholic. It isn't like different Protestant denominations. As best as I can tell each Protestant denomination has some belief or teaching that makes them different from the others. The Catholic church's teachings are the same whether or not individuals take them to heart or not.

[Michelle in MO]

Actually, this topic was addressed in this thread.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48836&highlight=Catholic+churches

 

Louise

 

and I guess I was so engrossed in the other thread about the anti-Catholic "tone" in some homeschooling materials that I didn't engage myself in the other thread. Thanks, Louise---I'll make sure I read that one.

 

Ashleen, I appreciate your reminder about the Apostle's Creed predating the Nicene Creed. I did not realize that there was a difference in interpretation between the Catholic and Orthodox churches on the subject of whether the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father or from the Father and the Son.

 

I believe you're right, though. Even churches that do not have a formal creed or study the Creeds would agree with the Apostle's Creed.

[Murphy101]

as for your specific question about latin, a common language unifying priests - yes. being able to communicate in a common language unifies people or at least makes unification possible. not being able to communicate with one another is and would be a major detriment to unification of any group. I would think that would still be the case as most priests are still required to learn latin as it is still the official language of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

however, the main reason for offerring the mass in the common language of the people was and is to unify laity and clergy. I do not know that has been achieved. The homily was always in the common language of the people. I would like to see the Jewish equal of "hebrew school" for Catholics - a Latin school.

 

as to your question about different denominations

the firm answer is no.

those not in union with Rome are said to be in schism - such as Eastern Orthodox. (when the byzantines broke from rome)

 

It should be noted that the Church rarely needs to formally excommunicate someone. The act of defiance is an act of self-excommunication. Therefore the Church does not excommunicate anyone, they excommunicate themselves with their acts. For example, those females who ordained themselves? They also excommunicated themselves in the process. Henry VIII did the same in defying the Pope's order that his marriage to his first wife was valid.

 

So there are schisms, not denominations. For that matter, many protestant denominations could be called schisms from the Roman Catholic Church. Lutherians come easy to mind. Martin Luther was a priest who defied Rome and started his own church, but he was not and is not considered a "denomination" of Catholicism.

 

Okay hope I didn't mess up that explaination too badly.

 

Moving on to diversity amoung Roman Catholics, the good kind, not the dividing kind.:D That answer is a resounding YES, thank you Jesus!

 

Many people think that if you are a catholic, or a "good" Catholic, you have to act a certain way. (usually the way those people act or the way they've seen it on tv. ;)) But the Chruch offers many ways to be a wonderful Catholic knowing that God calls us all in different manners. You could have never said a rosary in your life and still be a good, even great, Catholic. Some are led to a life of poverty, solitude and prayer. Some are led to be very much a part of the world and their prayers are very private after their days work is done. There have been saints who lived in caves alone with the lord in prayer. Saints who converted entire nations as king or queen because of their kind and good leadership. And dozens of levels in between there to accomodate all the many different ways God calls people to holiness.

[BusyMum]

And the different religious orders (Franciscan's, Benedictines, Opus Dei, Legion of Christ, etc) and Lay Movements of the Church (Regnum Chrisiti, Opus Dei, Focalare etc) are all like different flavours of icecream. They share the same essential characteristics that make them Roman Catholic, but they express their mission in different ways - some are contemplative, some apostolic, some work with the sick, others in the missions and so on.

 

They are still Catholic just as ice cream is still ice cream whether it is maple walnut or triple choc (Mmmmmmm!). It is something I love about the Catholic church, that within the trajectory of Catholic belief there is room to accomodate the interests and talents of such a wide and varied range of people.

[Laura K (NC)]

I think the papacy and the magisterium are generally misunderstood, even by Catholics. There is a lot of freedom in Catholicism, but at the same time, there are limitations.

 

In my town there are several Catholic parishes and each one is different. My parish has a beautiful Gothic stone building, but another has the congregation fanning out in a more modern building that seats many more people. Some Catholic churches have very few statues and images, others don't have a space anywhere that is unfilled with some kind of decoration. Many modern Catholic churches are built without organs, but the old ones like mine have them.

 

The mass is always the same, except when it isn't. A priest can add words in certain parts of the mass to help the congregation understand, especially in masses where there will be a lot of children (Pueros Baptizatos, which allows this, was a document from the Vatican as part of the continuing reform). A Catholic in communion with Rome has a lot of different rites to choose from, too. I love the eastern Catholic rites and if there was one anywhere near here I'd be pressuring my husband to go instead of to the Roman rite. In the past year or so we've been very fortunate to have the older Tridentine rite available. I went to a beautiful Tridentine rite on Friday, the feast of the Assumption of Mary. It is so different than the "novus ordo" (the modern mass in English) yet it is so much the same. I disagree with your friend in picking only the Tridentine rite because the teaching authority of the Church gave us a choice... and it did so for a very good reason. The bishops worldwide at the 2nd Vatican Council in the 60's recognized, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that religion can't be forced, that people have to be able to exercise their free wills, and that interior conversion must come before ritual, and not suffer at the expense of ritual. Abuses arose, and are still around, because that idea is hard to understand. Some very good Catholics attend only the Tridentine rite now where its available, and many more good Catholics attend the novus ordo in the vernacular. I like the Tridentine and think it suits me better personally, but I would never say that everybody should be going to Latin masses. Pope Benedict, when he was still Joseph Ratzinger, said in The Ratzinger Report that when he was a young man, every student in the primary schools studied Latin in Germany, so it really was a universal language then. Now, he said, things are different, and it is rare to find a student who knows Latin, so the Latin language is much more remote from the faithful. There is truth in that, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is a different subject. Classical homeschoolers might lament more than some others. :)

 

A Catholic child, learning about his faith, will learn the same thing as any other Catholic child (or at least I hope he will!). At the center of the Catholic faith there is a strong unity of belief that we have to assent to. In an RCIA class (the class you go to if you want to become Catholic) you learn what the non-negotiables are. There really are very few. I think most Catholics would be surprised to learn how free we are. Predestination or free will? The answer is both. Study the scriptures on your own or be influenced by the magisterium? The answer is both, again. Works or faith? Well, both, rather than either. There's a saying about the Church, that its main theology is a "both/and" look at both God and the universe on many points. The eucharist is the chief exception, in that it is only the Body of Christ, and not at all bread any more, but it is also a sacrament that joins nature to grace, heaven to earth, physical to spiritual. The authority of the Church isn't nearly so oppressive as some make it out to be. The pope doesn't have a KGB to make sure we're crossing ourselves correctly or that we've said all our prayers or have been to confession in the last year. (There are enough lay busybodies to do that on their own authority. :001_rolleyes:Vatican II relaxed the rules about fasting and abstinence, but some Catholics still keep the custom of abstaining from meat on Fridays. It's much better now, I think, than it used to be. I think God must rather have the sacrifice that comes from the spirit of the fast, rather than from the letter of the requirement. Which is why I can't understand some militant conservatives (or liberals, for that matter), who try to impose a uniformity on all Catholics in incidental matters, and completely miss the idea of what is meant by unity. Unity was a great overarching theme of Vatican II, but some say that Vatican II destroyed Catholic unity.

 

The main unity is that of the Body of Christ, with Christ as the head. This is the greater unity than that of the Creeds, because creeds can be (and are) divisive. Scripture is unitive as well (believe it or not, lol; it's interpretations that are divisive!). Christ Himself is what unites Catholics to Protestants. In another sense, there is also unity under God and the Old Testament, and an undeniable unity between Christians and Jews as well, though there are still some hard feelings. In the past week there was a announcement that the word YHWH would not be allowed to be spoken in Catholic worship anymore, and this was certainly in solidarity with the Jewish respect for the sacred Name, a respect that we Catholics could learn a lot from. That will mean an adjustment in some hymnals, but it is a good thing.

 

Abortion is another non-negotiable. So are women's ordinations. Priestly celibacy is a negotiable. The eastern Catholic rites have married priests, and Episcopal priests who enter the Catholic Church with their wives can remain married and remain priests. It may be the case that priests can marry in the future. (I'm cringing now, as I think of the controversy these points and how much they will be debated here!)

[Ashleen]

Laura K, you are always so eloquent. I appreciate many of your posts, which are so intelligent and thoughtful.

[Pink Fairy]

Laura K, you are always so eloquent. I appreciate many of your posts, which are so intelligent and thoughtful.

 

:iagree:

[cathmom]

as for your specific question about latin, a common language unifying priests - yes. being able to communicate in a common language unifies people or at least makes unification possible. not being able to communicate with one another is and would be a major detriment to unification of any group. I would think that would still be the case as most priests are still required to learn latin as it is still the official language of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of the priests I know have studied Latin.

 

I think moving to Mass in the vernacular was extremely short-sighted, especially in the US. First of all, if Mass were still mostly in Latin, immigrants could attend and be able to understand a lot of it. Parishes would not be split into English communities and Spanish communities like mine is. Priests would have a head start on learning Spanish, as they would already know Latin, which would help them minister to Hispanics.

 

Different orders of priests, nuns and lay people have different charisms within the Church. Some focus more on one aspect of Catholicism. But they should all have the same beliefs.

[Michelle in MO]

Moving on to diversity amoung Roman Catholics, the good kind, not the dividing kind.:D That answer is a resounding YES, thank you Jesus!

 

Many people think that if you are a catholic, or a "good" Catholic, you have to act a certain way. (usually the way those people act or the way they've seen it on tv. ;)) But the Chruch offers many ways to be a wonderful Catholic knowing that God calls us all in different manners. You could have never said a rosary in your life and still be a good, even great, Catholic. Some are led to a life of poverty, solitude and prayer. Some are led to be very much a part of the world and their prayers are very private after their days work is done. There have been saints who lived in caves alone with the lord in prayer. Saints who converted entire nations as king or queen because of their kind and good leadership. And dozens of levels in between there to accomodate all the many different ways God calls people to holiness.

 

This is not too dissimilar from many Protestants I know. There are some Protestants who feel called to live a very simple life of solitude and prayer. There is a group of Lutheran nuns (surprise!) in Darmstadt, Germany called the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, who feel called to a life of prayer. There are many of us ordinary folks in the middle who try to raise their children in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord". There are all different levels in between.

 

This was beautifully written, Martha.

 

Laura, I can't quote you because I'm at a motel computer, and it doesn't have the ability to do tabbed browsing, but you were eloquent, as always. Actually, my dh's lawyer friend does not attend a church that celebrates the Tridentine mass, but it was obvious by his comment that he felt that the mass should still be in Latin, and that Latin was a unifying element in the Catholic church. I can understand that classical homeschoolers would especially want to preserve the Latin! Ashleen, I'm glad you brought up the point about the Creeds. I need to go back and re-read the history surrounding their formation. Even among churches that don't recite the Creeds, I can't imagine any church that I know of that would not at least agree with all of the statements in the Apostle's Creed.

[Murphy101]

None of the priests I know have studied Latin.

 

I think moving to Mass in the vernacular was extremely short-sighted, especially in the US. First of all, if Mass were still mostly in Latin, immigrants could attend and be able to understand a lot of it. Parishes would not be split into English communities and Spanish communities like mine is. Priests would have a head start on learning Spanish, as they would already know Latin, which would help them minister to Hispanics.

 

Different orders of priests, nuns and lay people have different charisms within the Church. Some focus more on one aspect of Catholicism. But they should all have the same beliefs.

 

Yikes. Maybe it's where I live... but most of the priests I know know at least some level of latin. That does not mean they are able to give the latin rite mass, but they know at least some latin.

 

Actually, before VatII the laity did not know latin and the reality is that most didn't. At best, they just followed along in their missel which had latin on one side and the english (or whatever language) on the other. And parishes have ALWAYS been split over cultural barriers. It's just a natural thing that happens. Like tends to want to congregate with like, kwim? For example, I know of a latin rite parish that has 2 masses, one is predominatly spanish attendees and the other anglo. This has been the case throughout history. the irish parish, the english parish, the latino parish, the asian parish... Most of the time, the priest has nothing to do with it - it's just a natural phenom.

 

Now, I think that having it in the vernacular does have some wonderful points. Mainly that as a convert the first time walking into a parish - I knew what that guy up there was saying. I can say without doubt I don't think we'd have gone back if it'd been in latin. The mass that day really spoke to me. My non-catholic dh still has no tolorance for latin mass other than, "That was a pretty show. Can we leave yet?":glare:

 

However, I still agree it was a mistake to move entirely to vernacular. They should have started "Latin school" instead.:)

[cathmom]

Yeah, I always hear that people didn't understand Latin. But how can you go to Mass every week and hear the same Latin and not understand it? I don't get it!

 

I like Latin Mass, but I don't need it. I would be happy with a Novus Ordo Mass done right, which doesn't exist where I live unfortunately.

[Murphy101]

Yeah, I always hear that people didn't understand Latin. But how can you go to Mass every week and hear the same Latin and not understand it? I don't get it!

 

I like Latin Mass, but I don't need it. I would be happy with a Novus Ordo Mass done right, which doesn't exist where I live unfortunately.

 

The same way you can speak english and live around a spanish population and not pick up spanish. (or the reverse for that matter)

 

Also, many didn't have those expensive dual translation missels, which meant they may never have learned the meaning of the latin words they heard. Not to mention at any given mass a person might not have heard all the words. I've met many elderly catholics that don't know latin. They might know some of the prayers in latin, but many couldn't follow without those missles.

 

I hear lots of things every week (or every day!) that I don't absorb. Like when my dh rants about his job. You'd think after 13 years *I* could do his job he's told and shown me so much about it, but I'm not even sure what his job title is.:lol:

 

Unfortunately this was and is true of the mass as well. Many people just go through the motions of the mass because they don't understand it. At least knowing the language removes that obstacle. For some at least.

 

Again, this is especially true for converts I would think? I know it was/is for me. I have a terrible time picking up any foreign language. I could hear latin every minute of the day and still struggle or completely fail to translate it during mass.:blushing:

[asta]

One of my most referenced pages:

 

A Timeline of Church History Very helpful in putting the "who did what, when" in context, visually.

 

 

asta

[StaceyinLA]

In answer to what you asked about denominations - no. The Catholic Church may have folks in it that don't believe every single Catholic teaching (as do many Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc), but there are no denominations within the Catholic Church.

 

I think that is the one thing that has really stuck with me about Catholicism vs. Protestantism (and I have been a Protestant for 15+ years). The Catholic Church really stands by TRUTHS (of course, non-Catholics would say some of those things aren't truths) and history. There isn't a lot of room for varying beliefs within those basic truths.

 

The Protestant religions are extremely diverse. There are so many differences in the beliefs of the various protestant faiths.

 

I guess that is the one thing that has really stuck with me in my studying the church again. It's not Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The Protestants are all different too. It just made me start to question how all of those other denominations came about and whether or not they were really "legitimate" (for lack of a better word). I mean, it was ultimately just someone's opinion of scripture that caused divisiveness among the protestants and now they are divided into lots of groups. The Catholic faith is rooted in scripture, tradition and the teachings of saints from the time of Jesus on. It just seems like that is more solid to me.

 

I know I'm rambling and not making much sense. I just don't know how to concisely state what I want to so I'll just leave it at this...

[Plaid Dad]

One of my most referenced pages:

 

A Timeline of Church History Very helpful in putting the "who did what, when" in context, visually.

 

Just for reference, this is from an Eastern Orthodox perspective and reflects their view of events. :)

[Murphy101]

In answer to what you asked about denominations - no. The Catholic Church may have folks in it that don't believe every single Catholic teaching (as do many Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc), but there are no denominations within the Catholic Church.

 

I think that is the one thing that has really stuck with me about Catholicism vs. Protestantism (and I have been a Protestant for 15+ years). The Catholic Church really stands by TRUTHS (of course, non-Catholics would say some of those things aren't truths) and history. There isn't a lot of room for varying beliefs within those basic truths.

 

The Protestant religions are extremely diverse. There are so many differences in the beliefs of the various protestant faiths.

 

I guess that is the one thing that has really stuck with me in my studying the church again. It's not Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The Protestants are all different too. It just made me start to question how all of those other denominations came about and whether or not they were really "legitimate" (for lack of a better word). I mean, it was ultimately just someone's opinion of scripture that caused divisiveness among the protestants and now they are divided into lots of groups. The Catholic faith is rooted in scripture, tradition and the teachings of saints from the time of Jesus on. It just seems like that is more solid to me.

 

I know I'm rambling and not making much sense. I just don't know how to concisely state what I want to so I'll just leave it at this...

 

I understood it exactly what you were saying. Many a convert wanders into the the faith with those same thoughts.:)

[love2read]

So many excellent responses that I probably don't need to add my thoughts, but I just can't resist.

 

If you were to distill the pool of Catholics to those who really understand the Faith, accept it and actively live it, you would find that the differences amongst those Catholics was one of personal preferences and spirituality. In terms of preferences, that might include worship (e.g., rites, time spent in prayer, posturing), devotions, etc. A Catholic's spirituality is not self-determined, but a gift from God and usually follows one of the main religious lines or styles such as Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, Benedictine. A person may or may not label their spirituality, but they almost always express their unity with Christ in a way that would fit with one of the main types. A Catholic with a Dominican type of spirituality, for example, would appear on the surface to be very different from one with a Carmelite spirituality.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I don't know. I don't think all Catholics learned Latin. My parents were born in the late 20's and neither learned Latin. Dad went to Catholic school and Mom went to public school (couldn't afford Catholic school after her dad took off.) They went to the mass and couldn't understand much except to read the translations in the missal.

 

Even well before Vat II, there were splits by nationality and culture. Most major cities had parishes broken down by immigrant culture. St. Pat's, the Irish church was just down the street from St. Joseph's, the Slovenian church, which was next door to the Polish church, etc. It wasn't just about the language barrier, it was about creating "home" from immigrants in a foreign land and facilitating aclimatizing new immigrants to a new way of life. That is part of the function that the Spanish language masses fill.

 

I, for one, am glad to have Mass in the vernacular. If you weren't a good student of Latin (or weren't fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to learn it), you were just as clueless as if you were going to mass in another country. While I am glad the Latin Mass is making a comeback, I will always be grateful for Mass in the vernacular.