Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Any practising catholics here? (and do you follow the rules?)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
5uspect wrote:Are you sure you're even a Christian?:rolleyes:
Christian as a term was only actually used after the death of Christ (though it is mentioned in 3 places in the gospel of John. It was originally used to denote those who follow the teachings of Christ, but was latterly used as an insult (as early as 66AD the term Christian denoted to mean those who are likely to sack by fire (specifically after the great fire of Rome in 64AD)).
Catholic on the other hand means "Universal", and was referred to in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds- and was the term originally denoted to all the followers of the original churches (as opposed to the churches founded by those considered heretics). Up until reasonably recently the term Catholic was even reserved by Protestants for their own usage
What Cathymoran is suggesting is simply that the church provides a set of guidelines for living our everyday lives. A lot of these guidelines are not necessarily set in stone, but open to personal interpretation- which is the manner in which the Jesuits have preached and taught both Christianity and Catholicism down the ages. Certainly it has on occasion very much put them at odds with Rome- but this in no manner suggests that they are Protestants, or even protesting at the core doctrine of the church. The Jesuits have in fact been suppressed and even banned in some countries (often at the instigation of the church authorities, but have normally re-emerged triumphant eventually. In the Czecheslovak area for example, they were driven out altogether as a dissenting voice, along with the non-Catholic groups, after the war in 1618.
There are groups out there who call themselves Christian, who believe in the literal meaning of the bible- and will tell you that the great flood happened all of 142 generations ago (or however long it was). They have wonderous explanations as to where dinosaur skeletal remains came from- and indeed how the different forms of life came to be. Strangely enough their views appear to be gaining precendant in certain quarters (they tend to be various Methodist churches). These people believe that they are the true Christians- and that Catholics and all others are heretics of the highest order and will all perish.
Asking someone whether they consider themselves a Christian, or indeed a Catholic, is a misnomer- as the terms mean different things to different people. If Catholic is universal- what about everyone else, and why are the Jesuits so often at odds with Rome (historically- of late, post Vatican II, they are much in favour- though of course not with the current pontiff).
At the end of the day- a Christian is someone who tries to live their lives according to Christs teachings- the central tenant of which is to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. So if someone tries their very best to live as good a life as possible- they can conceivably call themselves Christian, without ever following the doctrines of the Church.
An a la carte Catholic is not necessarily hypocritical, in so far as doctrines are not set in stone, but are dynamic tools used by the church to suit the day to day running of the church in particular eras. The Jesuits were once revilled by Rome (who even sanctioned a Spanish war against the order), but are now held in high esteem almost universally. The a la carte menu the Jesuit order subscribe to is to make religion more accessible to people in their every day life (which was partly why they were so in favour of having the mass in languages other than in Latin, and why they were among the first to set up contemplative websites for people to use in their daily lives (such as sacredspace.ie etc). Simple actions like those were once considered heretical. The use of contraception is considered heretical by the church today- who is to say that at some point in the future its views may not change. The ordination of women is considered heretical in todays church- yet they welcomed 14 women vicars into the Catholic fold and have allowed them to continue to preach as before, when the furore over the ordination of gays first errupted. Who is to say that tomorrow more may not follow them. Who is to say that the rule on marriage and the priesthood may not change?
Times change, people's needs change, doctrines changes. It may make you a heretic to today's church when you do not follow their doctrine- but it most certainly does not make you a hypocrite. It would be hypocritical to blindly mutter the words and then go off and do your own thing- that is not what the Jesuits practice or advocate- and those who try to follow their teachings do not do so either.
S.0 -
-
-
5uspect wrote:But you still have to believe in the big sky fairy right? The Golden Rule was around long before Jesus. Just because I may subscribe to similar ideas about morality it doesn't make me a Christian.
I'm not familiar with this golden rule
Seems I missed out on something somewhere.5uspect wrote:Genetics shows how closely relatives are related and this was used to develop ideas about kin selection which has been used to describe reciprocal altruism. It benefits us as a species to be nice to our neighbours and avoid conflict. Recognizing this fact of human evolution doesn't make someone a Christian.
Thats entirely true. It also happens to Christian doctrine though- and even doctrine that was modified to suit different purposes at different times in the Churches history. Most people ascribe the rule "Love thy neighbour as thyself- to one of Christs many teachings. Its not actually- its an old testamont order, considered to be the second greatest commandment, and commented on in Leviticus (19:18).5uspect wrote:I made those comments to CathyMoran about being sure she's a Christian simply because she doesn't seem to get the omnipresence thing. Which is a good thing cos its a load of nonsense TBH.:)
A lot of people do believe in the omnipresence thing though- in its literal meaning. More intelligent, questioning people, tend to believe in their own interpretation, or heretical interpretation as the church would have it, of what omnipresence (and indeed omnipotence) means in everyday life. People like to believe that there is more to life than 9-5 at the office, 5 days a week, work at home on Saturday and take things easy on a Sunday. It offends some people's sensibilities to suggest that there isn't something greater out there, a greater purpose, something that we cannot begin to comprehend, so its shrouded in terms such as omnipresence, the greater good, the larger plan etc...... People do not like to question things and feel that they are on their own- its far easier to be part of an unquestioning hoard, akin to a flock of sheep- all perfectly happy little sheep, but no-one knows where they are heading or even why. The church even quite happily recycles this metaphor of Christ as a shepherd- and the people as his flock- complete with stories of how happy Christ is to retrieve the one little sheep who strays or gets lost. It instills happiness and a sense of being wanted in people's lives- and the very idea of questioning this is anamthea to most people. The omnipresence ideal believed by many is not the literal meaning at all, simply a sense of being at one with everything around them, being able to see the good in the little things- not forever on the lookout for the next big thing- happy to take pleasure in the little things and recognise the little things for what they are, things of beauty.5uspect wrote:Our morals shift with the development of society and technology. The contraceptive pill gave way to new sexual and feminist freedoms that were unheard of. If it doesn't hurt anyone its difficult to criticize so the best way for any Church to survive is to go with the flow.
Going with the flow isn't necessarily what some groups of people do. Back to the Jesuits again- in 17th century Argentina it was not popular to push for the rights of the indigenous peoples, yet this is what the directors insisted on doing (it got a lot of them killed). Making the church more accessible and more relevant to people in their every day life- is not necessarily going with the flow- its dragging the church out of medieval times and into the lives of its people. Thus- instead of chanting Latin phrases that have no everyday meaning- we have the mass in 122 different languages. Instead of people having to visit their local chapel- they can now pop online. Instead of phoning their priest, they can pop him an e-mail. Its not a case of going with the flow- its a case of dragging the church kicking and screaming out of its 12th century imposed chains into the modern world.0 -
JCB wrote:Ps. Jesuits are a Catholic religious order not a form of protestantism.
Very true. However Rome has sponsored at least 1 war against the order, and organised the suppression of the order in several countries, as vengeance for the order having the audacity to question tenants which were entirely without basis, being imposed by Rome. So, the order were protesting, but were not Protestants
S.0 -
Advertisement
-
A liberal catholic is still not a protestantsmccarrick wrote:Very true. However Rome has sponsored at least 1 war against the order, and organised the suppression of the order in several countries, as vengeance for the order having the audacity to question tenants which were entirely without basis, being imposed by Rome. So, the order were protesting, but were not Protestants
S.
0 -
So...the catholic church doesn't recognise them as catholic?smccarrick wrote:Very true. However Rome has sponsored at least 1 war against the order, and organised the suppression of the order in several countries, as vengeance for the order having the audacity to question tenants which were entirely without basis, being imposed by Rome. So, the order were protesting, but were not Protestants
S.0 -
-
-
-
smccarrick wrote:I'm not familiar with this golden rule Seems I missed out on something somewhere.
The Golden Rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated."
Every religion and philosophy has it in one form or another.smccarrick wrote:A lot of people do believe in the omnipresence thing though- in its literal meaning. More intelligent, questioning people, tend to believe in their own interpretation, or heretical interpretation as the church would have it
But then again its all just metaphorical hand waving and dead ends. Its all essentially just the idea of a "higher power". Many people who claim to be spiritual tend to be wishy washy deists.People do not like to question things and feel that they are on their own- its far easier to be part of an unquestioning hoard, akin to a flock of sheep- all perfectly happy little sheep
Very true. People feel good when they're in a large safe group. It makes evolutionary sense.The omnipresence ideal believed by many is not the literal meaning at all, simply a sense of being at one with everything around them, being able to see the good in the little things- not forever on the lookout for the next big thing- happy to take pleasure in the little things and recognise the little things for what they are, things of beauty.
I can take pleasure in looking at nature and its beauty without having to invoke a higher power. There is a distinct difference between realising the beauty of nature and inventing a sky fairy.
Also I doubt the majority of people think of God as a kind of Gaia type force in the world. Most it seems see God as a wish granter with the keys to heaven.
Yes, sometimes fighting the power is the best strategy too. That's probably why we have the resurgence of creationism in the US recently.Going with the flow isn't necessarily what some groups of people do.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
smccarrick wrote:I don't believe in things just because I am told of them. As a scientist I enjoy looking at oppossing viewpoints and breaking them down to their constituent parts and comparing them to each other then. More often than not- at the core of two sides of an argument are the same core principle. It doesn't make one view right and the other wrong- it gives you an understanding of the reasons that one person may think their point of view is more accurate than another (without having to believe they are right, of course)...... I do not discount that which I cannot prove, I do however have great faith in that which I can prove. I also have great faith in a quotation from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle- ". . . when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Applied carefully- it helps to enlighten many a situation......
Ah so you're a wishy washy Deist
As a scientist you must then you must be aware of falsification? Having ideas about nature and higher powers are nice and fluffy but are utterly untestable and therefore not considering scientifically. Ultimately we cannot prove anything, only show it matches as much of the data as possible.
EDIT: beat me too it. Fluffy Wishy Washy Deist it is so...0 -
And I have issue with the word sinister, insofar as it's meaning is "left handed" etcsmccarrick wrote:I have issues with the term Catholic- insofar as it meaning is "universal" and the Catholic church is anything but universal.........
It saddens me that the modern meaning of words can't be divined through their etymology (I love etymology, and I don't care who knows it), but that's the way it goes.
Edit: And as far as I know, they chose catholic (from catholicus, which means universal) intending it to mean "universally accepted". I don't really have anything to back that up though - might be bollocks.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement