What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

Run_to_da_hills

For people to believe that a priest can magically convert a bit of bread and wine into human body components and then try to make you believe that you are eating them is just ludicrous in this day and age. :eek:

c_man

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

For people to believe that a priest can magically convert a bit of bread and wine into human body components and then try to make you believe that you are eating them is just ludicrous in this day and age. :eek:

Yeah, he's actually inserting RFID chips into your body.

marty1985

Seachmall wrote: »

"Probably no clearly defined method to distinguish between literal and symbolic genres of the Bible".

If there's no objective and clear method to do so then it's subjective interpretation.

If it's subjective interpretation then the distinctions are arbitrary.

If the distinctions are arbitrary arguing "this is literal, but that is symbolic" is not a valid argument.

I think that's krudler's point.

Oh wait, I think I get it. You wanted me to say no so you could poke holes at a straw man version of Catholicism. I didn't so you rephrased my answer to redirect us to krudler's straw man version of Catholicism which is actually biblical fundamentalism (with which New Atheists share literal interpretations) and not Catholicism at all, which is a shame because biblical literalism be an easy object of ridicule. Well played.

As the thread is about Catholics, I suggest just going with Catholic interpretations based on their official teachings, and if they say "this is literal, that is symbolic" then it's valid for Catholics.

krudler

Seachmall wrote: »

"Probably no clearly defined method to distinguish between literal and symbolic genres of the Bible".

If there's no objective and clear method to do so then it's subjective interpretation.

If it's subjective interpretation then the distinctions are arbitrary.

If the distinctions are arbitrary arguing "this is literal, but that is symbolic" is not a valid argument.

I think that's krudler's point.

there ya go. "this event really happened because someone hundreds of years ago I never met said so, that event is just a morality tale or fable" doesnt hold much water

Seachmall

marty1985 wrote: »

Oh wait, I think I get it. You wanted me to say no so you could poke holes at a straw man version of Catholicism. I didn't so you rephrased my answer to redirect us to krudler's straw man version of Catholicism which is actually biblical fundamentalism (with which New Atheists share literal interpretations) and not Catholicism at all, which is a shame because biblical literalism be an easy object of ridicule.

I rephrased your answer but didn't change it's meaning.

And Krudler's, and my, ridicule is not directed at biblical literalism.

And it's not a strawman.

Well played.

The argument plays itself.

As the thread is about Catholics, I suggest just going with Catholic interpretations based on their official teachings, and if they say "this is literal, that is symbolic" then it's valid for Catholics.

Krudler's point is suited to Catholic interpretations, it's directed at any interpretations that are not purely literal or purely symbolic but a mixture of both.

And it's a perfectly valid argument.

krudler

c_man wrote: »

Yeah, he's actually inserting RFID chips into your body.

just be thankful thats all a priest is inserting into your body

bah dum tsh!

marty1985

Seachmall wrote: »

I rephrased your answer but didn't change it's meaning.

And Krudler's, and my, ridicule is not directed at biblical literalism.

And it's not a strawman.

The argument plays itself.

Krudler's point is suited to Catholic interpretations, it's directed at any interpretations that are not purely literal or purely symbolic but a mixture of both.

And it's a perfectly valid argument.

You rephrased my answer to attribute to me something I never said. I never said "probably not", I said I haven't studied the bible and I'd suggest you to ask someone who does or follow your church. Since this thread is about Catholics, I feel we should focus on catholic interpretations of the bible. The reason you changed my answer, and even used scare quotes, is because you have a record you want to play and it's easier to attack a straw man version of Catholicism.

Cokeistan

God and Jebus

LordSutch

bluewolf wrote: »

they believe in the right to call themselves catholic no matter how much of actual catholicism they disagree with

Not forgetting that Church of Ireland folk are catholic too!

Interesting to note that if you strip out many of the RC beliefs, then you are left with Protestant beliefs: Take Transubstantiation for example, or what about contraception, then there's praying to Mary (instead of Jesus)? women priests, married priests? 1st Communion at age (seven)! I know its a contraversial thing to suggest, but if so many RCs don't believe in thr basics of RC teaching, then maybe they are Protestant in their thinking (without realising it)? There's not much between the different Christian traditions anyway, so if you adjust one or two beliefs hear or there, and gain another, then you could in theory feel more comfortable sitting in a Protestant Church than sitting in a Roman Catholic one (and vice versa of course). Many people have left Protestant Churches and become RCs (due to women priests being introduced), so its a fine line to tread . . .

Run_to_da_hills

c_man wrote: »

Yeah, he's actually inserting RFID chips into your body.

You may have a point.:)

It is more than mere coincidence that 1,000,000,000 Catholics worldwide receive marks on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.

They are being conditioned to receive the mark of the beast. :eek:

Seachmall

marty1985 wrote: »

You rephrased my answer to attribute to me something I never said. I never said "probably not", I said I haven't studied the bible and I'd suggest you to ask someone who does or follow your church.

You haven't studied the Bible, fair enough, hence "Probably".


You then suggested applying "Common Sense", and noted that "Most churches will have teachings based on their official interpretations" which to me suggests they have different interpretations.

As my question stated "objective methods to distinguish between these genres" this leads me to "No".


Thus I give you "Probably Not".

Not a strawman.

Since this thread is about Catholics, I feel we should focus on catholic interpretations of the bible.

I agree. So lets focus on the Catholic Church.

Does the Catholic Church have objective methods to distinguish between these genres?

krudler

LordSutch wrote: »

Not forgetting that Church of Ireland folk are catholic too!

Interesting to note that if you strip out many of the RC beliefs, then you are left with Protestant beliefs: Take Transubstantiation for example, or what about contraception, then there's praying to Mary (instead of Jesus)? women priests, married priests? 1st Communion at age (seven)! I know its a contraversial thing to suggest, but if so many RCs don't believe in thr basics of RC teaching, then maybe they are Protestant in their thinking (without realising it)? There's not much between the different Christian traditions anyway, so if you adjust one or two beliefs hear or there, and gain another, then you could in theory feel more comfortable sitting in a Protestant Church than sitting in a Roman Catholic one (and vice versa of course). Many people have left Protestant Churches and become RCs (due to women priests being introduced), so its a fine line to tread . . .

being a protestant has an unpopular connotation south of the border, even though the differences arent that many and like you said a lot of catholics would be closer to protestants in their beliefs, they'll just never admit that. if you dont believe in or follow most of the rules of the RCC just call yourself a christian if thats closer to your beliefs, or protestant, there's more than one church and belief system that may suit your own particular beliefs so why refer to yourself as something you're not?

Duggys Housemate

lazygal wrote: »

Not a bashing thread, more curiosity.

How's that working out for ya?

prinz

lazygal wrote: »

Not a bashing thread, more curiosity.
Any Irish 'Catholic' I know doesn't really follow or believe in a lot of the teachings. I know gay men who go to mass every week...

A gay man at mass :eek:.... There's nothing to say a gay man can't be Roman Catholic, or must not attend mass. So that point is out straight away if you excuse the accidental pun.

lazygal

prinz wrote: »

A gay man at mass :eek:.... There's nothing to say a gay man can't be Roman Catholic, or must not attend mass. So that point is out straight away if you excuse the accidental pun.

Even if he's in a relationship and having sinful, non marital homosexual sex? AND using condoms?


Or does the confession box take care of that? I'm not saying he can't attend mass, I just don't know how he can support a church that thinks he's so inherently wrong in his sexual orientation.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

A gay man at mass :eek:.... There's nothing to say a gay man can't be Roman Catholic, or must not attend mass.

Indeed, saying Mass has been the occupation of choice for gay men for the last few hundred years, until they've finally become relatively accepted in this country over the last 20.

This is something of an irony that the church owes so much to hundreds of thousands of gay men that it shamed into joining their ranks as preachers.

Penn

prinz wrote: »

A gay man at mass :eek:.... There's nothing to say a gay man can't be Roman Catholic, or must not attend mass. So that point is out straight away if you excuse the accidental pun.

No, but there is the whole problem of a gay person participating in the events of an organisation which generally believes that the way they live their life is an abomination, is a threat to humanity and is "intrinsically evil"

Same way that you shouldn't go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting drunk, with a naggin of whiskey in your pocket, and when you're planning on drinking some more after the meeting.

prinz

Penn wrote: »

No, but there is the whole problem of a gay person participating in the events of an organisation which generally believes that the way they live their life is an abomination, is a threat to humanity and is "intrinsically evil..........

Really. So basically nobody should attend any sort of religious service whatsoever........ I am sure all of the people there have told a lie, maybe stolen something, spread rumours, haven't been as kind to others as they might have been etc etc.

But I am so glad there are all those willing to come down and attack gay people who choose to go to mass. Aren't they lucky to have such good friends helping them out. A must tell a good friend of mine who is both gay, Catholic and a weekly mass-goer he's letting the side down and becoming a 'problem'.

I Heart Internet

lazygal wrote: »

prinz wrote: »

A gay man at mass....

Even if he's in a relationship and having sinful, non marital homosexual sex? AND using condoms?


Or does the confession box take care of that? I'm not saying he can't attend mass, I just don't know how he can support a church that thinks he's so inherently wrong in his sexual orientation.

This kind of thinking, it seems to me, is at the route of an awful lot of confusion about the church at the moment.

Somewhere along the line the rumour got about that every catholic and especially those that go to mass is a saint or worse, a holier than thou hypocrit.

Well let me be the one to tell you, we're not. We're all sinners and all failing to live up to what the J man has asked of us and what the church's tradition advises.

One of the hardest working parishioners in my parish is a gay man living with another gay man. I helped out while living with my girlfriend - now my wife. We all rub along nicely with the little old ladies who, God knows, I'm sure are far more christian than most of us.....

Summary: We're all sinners but Jesus came to help us. We're all hypocrits in that we fail to live up to our avowed standards but sure there's always room for one more.

prinz

lazygal wrote: »

Even if he's in a relationship and having sinful, non marital homosexual sex? AND using condoms?

OK so a gay man, or woman for that matter, attending mass isn't actually your issue.

lazygal wrote: »

Or does the confession box take care of that? I'm not saying he can't attend mass, I just don't know how he can support a church that thinks he's so inherently wrong in his sexual orientation.

Freedom of choice etc yadda yadda.

Duggys Housemate

Homosexuality ( i.e the acts) is no more evil that sex outside of marriage, or masturbation in Catholic teachings. So no reason for a gay man to not go with every other sinner.

dvpower

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Homosexuality ( i.e the acts) is no more evil that sex outside of marriage, or masturbation in Catholic teachings. So no reason for a gay man to not go with every other sinner.

To eternal damnation in hell. :eek:

Seachmall

RCC's official stance on gay people,

Chastity and homosexuality

2357

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


2358

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.


2359

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Underlines are mine (obviously), and clearly a source of great confusion.

Pace2008

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Homosexuality ( i.e the acts) is no more evil that sex outside of marriage, or masturbation in Catholic teachings. So no reason for a gay man to not go with every other sinner.

Sinning is allowed. It is considered an inevitability, all branches of Christianity of which I'm aware accept this, and in the case of Catholicism they can be absolved of their sins through the rite of confession

The thing is that most of the people do not consider themselves to be sinners, they just don't really think they're doing anything wrong. And I think this is the crux of the Irish Catholic issue - the problem is not that people are trying to live good lives but succumbing to temptation, or that they disagree with certain aspects of Catholic doctrine - this again is inevitable with an organisation with so many rules as the Church - it's that they simply don't look to Rome for spiritual guidance at all, they've just formulated their own notions of what constitutes Catholic morality based on a moral system derived independently of the Church. At which point you have to wonder why they actually consider themselves Catholics.

dvpower

Pace2008 wrote: »

Sinning is allowed.

It might be expected, but its hardly allowed.

Pace2008

dvpower wrote: »

It might be expected, but its hardly allowed.

What I mean is that you're not going to considered an apostate for cracking open the laptop and knocking one out when you wake up in the morning.

krudler

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Homosexuality ( i.e the acts) is no more evil that sex outside of marriage, or masturbation in Catholic teachings. So no reason for a gay man to not go with every other sinner.

I dont hear the pope saying sex outside marriage is evil and is a threat to mankind though.

dvpower

Pace2008 wrote: »

What I mean is that you're not going to considered an apostate for cracking open the laptop and knocking one out when you wake up in the morning.

No. Its far worse than that - unless you repent, you will be sent to hell for eternity apparently.

Pace2008

dvpower wrote: »

No. Its far worse than that - unless you repent, you will be sent to hell for eternity apparently.

Well, yes. Which is why I made reference to absolution through confession.

I Heart Internet

Pace2008 wrote: »

The thing is that most of the people do not consider themselves to be sinners they just don't really think they're doing anything wrong.

I think this has probably been the case since moses was a boy....

Pace2008 wrote: »

they've just formulated their own notions of what constitutes Catholic morality based on a moral system derived independently of the Church.

I think there's some truth to that but catholic morality has always been subject to local interpretation and mores. For example, the social mores of a roman catholic in Bavaria would be very different to those of a catholic in maybe Sierra Leone or Peru.

Pace2008 wrote: »

At which point you have to wonder why they actually consider themselves Catholics.

Because the Catholic Church is a ridiculously wide and broad tree with many, many branches. The phrase itself - catholic, I'm sure you know, means something along the lines of "in general" often used as meaning "universal" or broad.

Also, flawed as it is, the RCC does have a direct, traceable, historical connection to the person of Jesus and the first pope Peter. Unity and tradition, although scoffed at by some, are important to many people.

krudler

prinz wrote: »

Really. So basically nobody should attend any sort of religious service whatsoever........ I am sure all of the people there have told a lie, maybe stolen something, spread rumours, haven't been as kind to others as they might have been etc etc.

But I am so glad there are all those willing to come down and attack gay people who choose to go to mass. Aren't they lucky to have such good friends helping them out. A must tell a good friend of mine who is both gay, Catholic and a weekly mass-goer he's letting the side down and becoming a 'problem'.

I just wouldnt support an organisation that publicly says my lifestyle is evil.

evil.

I mean, seriously?

hatrickpatrick

I believe in God and I believe Jesus was his son. I believe the words of Jesus as laid out in the gospels.

Any additions after that by human beings are, in my view, "unofficial" representations of God's will. Most of the sexual BS the church goes on about was never even mentioned by Jesus himself. That oft-misquoted line about lust does not refer to a "woman" but a wife, and in its original translation means that if you look at a married woman with the intention of hitting on her, you are indeed a w@nker. (No pun intended)

I respect the religion. I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the human beings who, charged with its upkeep, instead corrupted it, twisted it, and ran it into the ground.

Penn

prinz wrote: »

Really. So basically nobody should attend any sort of religious service whatsoever........ I am sure all of the people there have told a lie, maybe stolen something, spread rumours, haven't been as kind to others as they might have been etc etc.

But I am so glad there are all those willing to come down and attack gay people who choose to go to mass. Aren't they lucky to have such good friends helping them out. A must tell a good friend of mine who is both gay, Catholic and a weekly mass-goer he's letting the side down and becoming a 'problem'.

If you actively sin against the religion and choose to ignore some part of the religion, then you are no longer following that religion, you've invented your own religion.

Forgiveness for sins can't be given if the sinner intends to sin again. So if your gay friend doesn't engage in gay sex, he's fine. If he does, and intends to keep doing so, then he's supporting an organisation which hates him.

If you're gay, you can still believe in God/Jesus/woman who bled for 12 years but didn't die/Noah etc and worship God in your own way. But by supporting the church, you're supporting an organisation which hates you

prinz

krudler wrote: »

I just wouldnt support an organisation that publicly says my lifestyle is evil. evil. I mean, seriously?

..and that's fair enough, I just find it hilarious that those who complain about the RCC interfering in what people choose to do etc, don't see the irony in describing what a gay man does with his Sunday morning as a 'problem' because he chooses to go to mass. Hypocritical much? ..and I appreciate that it wasn't yourself.

prinz

Penn wrote: »

If you're gay, you can still believe in God/Jesus/woman who bled for 12 years but didn't die/Noah etc and worship God in your own way. But by supporting the church, you're supporting an organisation which hates you

..and what business is that of yours exactly? If the lad was spending an hour or so a week getting walked around a fetish club on his hands and knees with a dog collar on his neck while a large group of men spanked him with ping pong paddles and called him Daisy you'd probably say 'well that's his business'.......... he instead goes to mass, suddenly you have the right to call what he does a problem.

krudler

prinz wrote: »

..and that's fair enough, I just find it hilarious that those who complain about the RCC interfering in what people choose to do etc, don't see the irony in describing what a gay man does with his Sunday morning as a 'problem' because he choose to go to mass.

The guy can do what he wants, like i said if it was me I wouldnt support a group that publicly villifies me, maybe I'm odd that way.

Seachmall

krudler wrote: »

I just wouldnt support an organisation that publicly says my lifestyle is evil.

evil.

I mean, seriously?

But the Church says people aren't gay, they just have the gay.

Which, ironically, is the phrase people use when they are intentionally being absurdly disrespectful and contemptible towards gay people.


It's ironic because in the same breath the Church says to be respectful towards people with the gay.

dvpower

Penn wrote: »

If he does, and intends to keep doing so, then he's supporting an organisation which hates him.

No. They love him, but will see him punished for eternity in hell.
Its a kinky kind of love.

I Heart Internet

Some people are very keen to put all gay people in a "gay box" and they are considered odd if they stray outside what is expected of them as gay people.

Say you're gay and don't support the redefinition of marriage for example:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0420/1224314969794.html

Seachmall

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Some people are very keen to put all gay people in a "gay box" and they are considered odd if they stray outside what is expected of them as gay people.

Say you're gay and don't support the redefinition of marriage for example:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0420/1224314969794.html

You don't have to be gay to observe the absurdity of the situation, and you don't have to be straight to wave it off.

To expand the situation to even more absurd lengths I think it's ridiculous to believe a loving God created us as humans, loves us as humans, but will punish us for acting as humans.

I Heart Internet

dvpower wrote: »

No. They love him, but will see him punished for eternity in hell.
Its a kinky kind of love.

If you believe that any mainstream christian, let alone catholic, would see (as in would like to see) gay people in hell (as you seem to be suggesting) then you clearly haven't the faintest notion of what christianity is about.

dvpower

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If you believe that any mainstream christian, let alone catholic, would see (as in would like to see) gay people in hell (as you seem to be suggesting) then you clearly haven't the faintest notion of what christianity is about.

I'm sure they want to see gay people turn from their sinful ways, repent and get to heaven.

But they are perfectly fine with unrepentant gay people going to hell and will continue to praise the God that sends them there.

Penn

prinz wrote: »

..and what business is that of yours exactly? If the lad was spending an hour or so a week getting walked around a fetish club on his hands and knees with a dog collar on his neck while a large group of men spanked him with ping pong paddles and called him Daisy you'd probably say 'well that's his business'

No, I'd say "Where is this business? I'll meet you there!"

prinz wrote: »

.......... he instead goes to mass, suddenly you have the right to call what he does a problem.

I never said it itself was a problem. Mainly, the problem lies with the churches stance on homosexuality.

But okay then, do you think there is a problem with a murderer going to Mass on a Sunday, killing people during the week, then going to mass the following the Sunday, never asking for forgiveness for their crimes and knowing that it's one of the ten commandments, yet he chooses to ignore it. Would you consider him to be a good Catholic?

There's nothing wrong with being gay. There is something wrong with being gay (as in engaging in homosexual activity) and supporting an organisation which says you're evil for doing so, knowing you can never get forgiveness for your acts (as you choose to continue engaging in homosexual activity) which directly goes against being a part of that organisation.

Napper Hawkins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I believe in God and I believe Jesus was his son. I believe the words of Jesus as laid out in the gospels.

Any additions after that by human beings are, in my view, "unofficial" representations of God's will. Most of the sexual BS the church goes on about was never even mentioned by Jesus himself. That oft-misquoted line about lust does not refer to a "woman" but a wife, and in its original translation means that if you look at a married woman with the intention of hitting on her, you are indeed a w@nker. (No pun intended)

I respect the religion. I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the human beings who, charged with its upkeep, instead corrupted it, twisted it, and ran it into the ground.

Nicely put, I don't believe in any of it myself but, as a believer, you seem to be going about it the right way.

Liamario

They believe whatever they are told to believe and whatever is popular at the time. They are too weak emotionally to think for themselves.

I Heart Internet

dvpower wrote: »

I'm sure they want to see gay people turn from their sinful ways, repent and get to heaven.

But they are perfectly fine with unrepentant gay people going to hell and will continue to praise the God that sends them there.

Untrue generalisation. But, heh, whatever....

Napper Hawkins

68Murph68 wrote: »

Basically Irish Catholics in my experience believe

1) you get a child baptised to get into school
2) First Communion and Confirmation are 1) so that the kid will get money and wont be left out and 2) to have a day out
3) Marriage - you get married in a church because a church is where people have proper romantic weddings in films/ where your parents got married
4) Funerals - Less hassle to have a church funeral. What the alternative?
5) Christmas - Midnight Mass/ Mass on Christmas morning is a nice ritual but it doesn't mean anything really.
6) Heaven is a nice idea and less scarier than the alternatives even though it doesn't hold up to any sort of critical thinking
7) Religion in schools is fine because you have to teach kids right from wrong :rolleyes:
8) Confession is really weird and creepy

Their real opinion on the whole theology business of the church
Virgin birth - pull the other one
Jesus the son of God - no not really
Jesus died and came back three days later - yeah right
Transubstantiation - you're having a laugh
Children are born in a state of sin and thus need to be baptised to be cleansed - feck off

Hardly any Irish Catholics believe that any of the following are in any way actually morally wrong
-sex outside marriage
-contraception
-homosexuality
-divorce

Most believe that
-Priests shouldn't be celibate
-The Pope is not infallible and is a bit of a bollix
-The organisation itself is massively corrupt and there are some serious bad apples.

This is based on my experience with my family (parents, siblings, cousins) and friends. My family would all identify as Catholic (that's what they put down on the census) All have been married in churches. My sister had no problem with me being godfather to her son (even though I told her I believed it was morally wrong to baptism him - her response was "yeah but that doesn't matter" :rolleyes: ; I baptised him in the name of Satan, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Batman while babysitting him one day and I reckon that I this baptisms cancel out the other one)

That was class, thanks for that!

I Heart Internet

Liamario wrote: »

They believe whatever they are told to believe and whatever is popular at the time. They are too weak emotionally to think for themselves.

hahahaha..........generalise much?

Duggys Housemate

I Heart Internet wrote: »

hahahaha..........generalise much?

Liamario is the world's most original thinker, himself.

Seachmall

I Heart Internet wrote: »

dvpower wrote: »

I'm sure they want to see gay people turn from their sinful ways, repent and get to heaven.

But they are perfectly fine with unrepentant gay people going to hell and will continue to praise the God that sends them there.

Untrue generalisation. But, heh, whatever....

Are there Catholics who disagree with God when he sends unrepentant gay people to hell?


(Genuine question.)