REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
An excellent apologetic for the Catholic Church (as a whole); and I've only finished the "blueprint" page!

I'll see if I can come up with the appropriate selections from the writings of the Fathers at a later time.

EDIT: Being an official Dimwitted Apprentice Loremaster, I forgot to post the link.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/how.htm

wow, that's really a good read for the CAtholic who is looking for knowledge about defending their faith!

another good book I found is "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Karl Keating (I used this one alot when i wrote a paper in high school about the Lutheran Reformation:Jusitification by Faith)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I've got that on the way from Amazon.com.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I've got that on the way from Amazon.com.

yeah, I'll have to read the part on Marian beliefs so that I can answer (or try at least) Rian's questions

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Regarding "Do this as a remembrance of Me". One of my statements regarding this was that the actual text was "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of Me." After looking it up, I learned that I was mistaken. However, another point (and the reason I looked it up in the first place): "Do this as a remembrance of Me" is in one Gospel; "this is My Body" is in three.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Two wonders wonders of the Catholic faith.

God is awesome, isn't he?

And a question for our resident smart Catholic, Guillame: A number of the incorruptibles on the short list I saw were "Blesseds". Is incorruptibility of the body considered insufficient for full canonization?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Two wonders wonders of the Catholic faith.

God is awesome, isn't he?

And a question for our resident smart Catholic, Guillame: A number of the incorruptibles on the short list I saw were "Blesseds". Is incorruptibility of the body considered insufficient for full canonization?

Wow! I've seen pictures like that before and we used to talk about things like that in religion class i high school. I always found it amazing!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

More of St. Bernadette.

I was wondering if either you or Guillame might know a good site (both pictures and text) on the incorruptibles?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Gwaimir, my wife sure got a good laugh out of you calling me “a smart Catholic.” She said: “more like a smart-arse Catholic.” I’m inclined to agree with her. I’m not smart, its just that I was blessed at one time to have a bunch of spare time to read and study this stuff.

Often as not the difference between a beatified and canonized and unrecognized saint is the existence of an organized cause. Right now, for example, there is a tremendous outpouring of sentiment to canonize Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and this has already started the Vatican’s investigation process (which, I think is about two years in the running so far). Since the investigation process for canonization is very long and takes a great amount of resources, if the cause isn’t strong enough or local in character, the process doesn’t get started or moves much slower.

There is a very large collection of beatifieds that are still being considered for canonization. It’s a political process, and at times it can be frustrating. The office of the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints has a very full ledger. I believe there are currently over three hundred causes being considered, and the list continues to grow with occasional occurrences of resurrected enthusiasm for a particular holy man or woman. For example, there is a group of Catholics promoting the cause of Pope Blessed Urban II... a long shot given the political climate today, but I think Pope Blessed Urban II is worth the trouble; he really was an amazing man of faith and conviction. This process, though, reflects the reality of the communion of saints. It isn’t a top down process, but one that emerges and is sustained by the popular sentiment of the common believers.

On the whole, though, those who have been beatified, well the vast majority of those who have been beatified (after all, Charlemagne was beatified, but I probably would not ask him for his prayers... that’s just me though), are worthy of emulation and we can safely ask for their intercession.

Thank you for providing the links to the site about Saint Bernadette. She is stunningly beautiful, especially considering that she has been dead since 1879. Saint Joseph’s stair is absolutely astounding, as well. My wife has seen this with her own eyes, and walked up and down the stairs.

I was wondering if either you or Guillame might know a good site (both pictures and text) on the incorruptibles?

Nope, not off hand, but I'll ask around.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, you're smarter than me.

That is really amazing. Quite a staircase, indeed.

By the way, I did find a good site, after some digging.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Ah, but everyone can't even agree on what the essentials ARE!

How about "The Apostles' Creed"??

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Most Christians can agree on this; but I highly doubt all of them can. I also doubt that all Christians can agree that everything here is essential, or that it is all of the essentials.

[Rían]

I'm back after celebrating Christmas a little early this weekend (my parents are on their way to New Zealand! Hi, BoP!).

I'm sad to say that despite how much I like and admire Gwai, Arien and Guillaume, that the more I read, the more I think the Catholic Church (as in the church structure of the RC church) is NOT the one true church that they (from what I can tell) think they are. I just read part of the link that Gwai gave, and I can't even begin to state how much I disagree with their interpretations. Again, IMO, it's a matter of inappropriate extrapolation.

So altho it pains me to disagree with them, I feel that I must say that I do disagree, and that the true church is made up of those that believe in Jesus as their Savior and Lord, and it not tied AT ALL to any particular church structure. And I think that this is supported by Scripture.

As far as infant baptism, does that mean that if an infant is baptized, they will go to heaven when they die, even if they grow up and choose to revile and reject God? To me, this is against Scripture and sense.

And as far as a possible sin for Mary at the Cana wedding - can't you guys see how an action may be right, but an attitude of the person asking can be wrong? For example (and I'll make it a bit funny to help lighten things up, and I mean no disrespect to Mary at all) - Jesus, being a guy, probably was NOT aware of food/wine status at the wedding . Mary was, as evidenced by her request. Now, Mary could have asked Jesus to do something about it, but with a wrong heart attitude, like this: "That Golda is so irritating! Bragging on and on about her 5 sons, all of whom are doctors or lawyers! Well, I know that my son is by far better than any of them - He's the very son of God, come to save us from our sin - and it's about time that people knew about it. I hate seeing Him so neglected and teased! I'll just go tell Him about the wine, and I bet He'll be glad to do something about it, because He's so loving." I'm exaggerating a bit, but just to illustrate how an action could be right, while the underlying heart attitude of the asker is wrong. Do you see what I mean? Jesus could have rebuked Mary, as He seems to have done, but still done the miracle out of love for the people involved.

[Valandil]

I very much agree with Rian's assertion that the Catholic Church is not the one true church - but that should be expected since I'm a Christian and not a Catholic. I agree with a statement Rian made previously that all churches most likely come up a little bit short... though, not from lack of trying, I think.

As for Mary at the wedding in Cana... there's no way we can know her heart - so we could do no more than speculate about anything beyond what was written. I don't necessarily think that she was really wrong there in any way (while on the other hand - I do still think she needed Jesus as a savior as much as any of us does). It IS a puzzling episode though. Again, I'm venturing into speculation, but maybe Jesus had to deal with a little uncertainty... Christian doctrine is that He was both all God and all man. We see His struggles with His humanity in other ways (fatigue, hunger, grief - even the apprehension He felt at Gethsemane) - so perhaps He was also subject to a bit of uncertainty at that moment. But I'm not certain.

Oh - Rian - about the infant baptism... again, I think it's a matter of confusion by differing definitions. According to Guillaume, Catholics consider someone who has been baptised a Christian - although they may not be 'saved' - while I (and likely you as well) consider someone a Christian because they're saved. So, IOW - I don't think they're saying that an infant who is baptised is thereby saved, no matter what.

Whew!

[Arien the Maia]

As a Catholic, I would like to ask all of the other Christians here why they believe what they believe. I ask you to look back to how the church started and really study why it went the way it did. I did and am convinced that the Catholic Church is the very same one that Jesus founded. I mean NO disresepct to any Christian who believes differently than I. Alot of Christians I know believe what they believe b/c they were brought up that way and don't really know why they believe that. I would always do some research into what I beleive before I really believed it. some people are comfirtable where they are and don't really want to go searching for the truth. As far as I know, the Church is Jesus' Church asn believes the very same things that the early Churstians believed...as is eveidence from their writings. Also, there is nothing in the bible about the Bible being the sole source of info for Christian belief. Just had to say waht was on my mind no offense to anyone who believes a little differently. Merry Christmas

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Rian: Could you give a few examples of interpretation?

Being baptized and going to heaven are two very different things. The Church believes that baptizing an infant protects their soul; UNTIL they reach the Age of Accountability. The idea that someone automatically went to heaven because they were baptized would be very un-Catholic. Baptism is the circumcision of the new Covenant; it intitiates us into the Covenant, but it Does Not ensure that we enter heaven. Salvation for the Catholic is an ungoing process; Catholics don't believe that being baptized means your definitely going to heaven any more than you would believe that going to Church means one automatically "gets in".

But it seems to me that, as Christ would of course know her heart, that would then be an issue of Heart vs. Outward Appearance. I highly doubt that Christ would acquiesce her for asking for a good thing, if her heart was bad. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, the phrase used ("What have you to do with me" IIRC) is not a rebuke, but used during those times as a sign of deference. One of the demoniacs said it to Christ; but does a demon rebuke God? Certainly not, especially if he directly thereafter pleads for mercy.

Valandil: Of course. It is only, and I repeat ONLY in because of the merits of Christ that any of Mary's grace was given to her. She was redeemed in anticipation, whereas we are redeemed after. EVERY SINGLE GRACE given to the Blessed Virgin was exactly that; grace, a gift freely given. I am virtually certain that to say otherwise would be heresy; if not, it would be very nearly so.

A question for Protestants: When do you think that the Church of Christ "faded away" and was replaced with (or by) the Church of Rome, to be revived at the Reformation?

Also, for all Christians who say that no Church possesses fulness of truth; how does that "jive" (sorry, it's late ) with Joh 14:26, "But the Holy Spirit, the Helper, whom my Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you"?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In related news: "Unto you is born [in two days] in the city of David the Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord."

Glory to God in the Highest!

[Rían]

If the Catholic church teaches what Gwai just said about infant baptism, then I'm OK with that. But I don't think that's what Guill was saying ... I'd like to hear from him, whenever he has some time (we all have loads of free time, right? *sigh* I wish!)

And IMO, "saved" means basically "restored" to a right relationship with God; one side benefit being that we will be in Heaven with Him. But "saved" seems to mean something different to Catholics, is this right, since Guill says a Christian can be unsaved If so, what term would you use to describe someone that is going to heaven since they, by personal choice, have been restored to God thru Jesus Christ?

Gwai - my commentaries say that it was a "gentle, but definite rebuke" to Mary; and I tend to agree, given the natural reading of the incident. And I imagine her heart was changed after the rebuke, because of her godly nature and closeness to Jesus, and there is no problem with Him then making the wine out of water. But even if her heart was NOT changed, Jesus could still choose to do the ACTION, if He thought it was right, while pointing out that her MOTIVE for asking was bad.

"I highly doubt that Christ would acquiesce her for asking for a good thing, if her heart was bad" - but as I explained, he could still do the ACTION, if He thought it was right, while pointing out that her MOTIVE for asking was bad.

And the description of the phrase in my commentary says it's a pointing-out of a difference in realms, so to speak - and Mary was intruding on the realm of authority of Jesus by hinting that it was time to start doing miracles. Now a demon could use this phrase, too - they are known to lie and try to deceive, after all! When Jesus rejected it, that's when the demons plead for mercy - Jesus called their bluff.

Again, I think Mary was most probably the most godly woman that ever lived - but I don't think it's right to make important doctrine like her perpetual virginity, her IC, and things like that, based on what I think is very thin evidence. And it's not mainly the thin evidence that bothers me, it's the taking-away from Christ aspect of it that bothers me the most. I could picture Mary saying "Forget me - love My Son!"

[Rían]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
I did and am convinced that the Catholic Church is the very same one that Jesus founded.

But I see over and over that God can remove His annointing from an establishment He has started if it goes wrong in the heart, which I believe the leadership of the RC church did ... and the True Church will spring up in the lives of believers elsewhere. The Church of Christ will never die - and it does NOT have to be confined to any particular "church" structure, IMO.

G.K. Chesteron (a RC, BTW) has a wonderful section on how the Church seems to die out at certain times, then comes to life again - he says something like "after all, it was founded by One who knew how to rise again after death". I'll try to find the passage.

Again, I see the Church as made up of believers, not made up of hierarchy. It's hard to word this, but do you see what I mean?

I mean NO disresepct to any Christian who believes differently than I.

Neither do I, and you and Gwai and Guill are some of my absolute favorite people, and I fully expect to rejoice with you in heaven, God willing!

Also, there is nothing in the bible about the Bible being the sole source of info for Christian belief.

But neither is there anything that says you need to believe what a church authority says without considering it yourself, IMO. I think a very important verse is in Philippians, IIRC - maybe Colossians? - along the lines of "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". And I like what several of my favorite pastors havae said over the years - "don't take MY word for it - go and dig into the Scriptures and think about it for yourself!" I think this is the right way to go, as long as it is with "fear and trembling" - i.e., carefulness and respect.

Just had to say waht was on my mind no offense to anyone who believes a little differently. Merry Christmas

I'm glad you're saying it - and I know you mean no offense, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
In related news: "Unto you is born [in two days] in the city of David the Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord."

Glory to God in the Highest!

Now that's good news!


And as far as interpretations, I mean things like Mary's perpetual virginity, her IC, and things like that. Also many of the things that were in your link but I don't have time to go into now.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If so, what term would you use to describe someone that is going to heaven since they, by personal choice, have been restored to God thru Jesus Christ?

I suppose the closest would be "The state of Grace".

Gwai - my commentaries say that it was a "gentle, but definite rebuke" to Mary; and I tend to agree, given the natural reading of the incident. And I imagine her heart was changed after the rebuke, because of her godly nature and closeness to Jesus, and there is no problem with Him then making the wine out of water. But even if her heart was NOT changed, Jesus could still choose to do the ACTION, if He thought it was right, while pointing out that her MOTIVE for asking was bad.

Well...are they Protestant commentaries?

But if her heart had been changed, don't you think it likely that she would have repented? She said no more about it to Him, but only told the servants to do whatever He told them to.

And the description of the phrase in my commentary says it's a pointing-out of a difference in realms, so to speak - and Mary was intruding on the realm of authority of Jesus by hinting that it was time to start doing miracles. Now a demon could use this phrase, too - they are known to lie and try to deceive, after all! When Jesus rejected it, that's when the demons plead for mercy - Jesus called their bluff.

The actual text from one example is: "What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us?"

It doesn't really make much sense for the demon to rebuke Christ Jesus, pointing out that this was his realm (especially since they were in a synagogue), and then to promptly say, "Did You come to destroy us?"

Again, I think Mary was most probably the most godly woman that ever lived - but I don't think it's right to make important doctrine like her perpetual virginity, her IC, and things like that, based on what I think is very thin evidence. And it's not mainly the thin evidence that bothers me, it's the taking-away from Christ aspect of it that bothers me the most. I could picture Mary saying "Forget me - love My Son!"

The Perpetual Virginity is relatively well supported, actually. And also, it's not based on evidence; it's based on experience. These are the beliefs handed down from the beginning. Documents from the earliest of times indicate that (at least the first Christians believed) the Blessed Mary was ever-virgin, that she "brought forth" Christ in a unique manner, and many other doctrines about her. In Revelations, she is portrayed as crowned and glorified.

To love the Blessed Mary IS to love her Son. Is an artist angry if we look at His masterpiece occasionally?