 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
DrSharkey
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Jackson, Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Agnostic, Southern Baptist (sorta), church of Christ, looking Romeward |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2007 10:05 pm |
|
| I've gotten a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edit, and I was wondering if everything in it was considered to be Church Dogma? I've been to the Catholic First website and read the various dogmas listed there. If everything in the CCC isn't dogma, how does the Church communicate to the people what is dogma and what isn't (like Limbo)?
____________________
http://sharkeysworld.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2007 10:20 pm |
|
Actually, Criff and I were talking the other day, and we want some help on this issue.
As I understand it, Dogma does not change, has not changed - ever.
Then - how do we know what is Dogma and what isn't (is doctrine instead, etc)?
Is no birth control Dogma? If so, how do we know that it is (ie, what makes it Dogma)? Etc.
Some clarity here would help.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
DrSharkey
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Jackson, Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Agnostic, Southern Baptist (sorta), church of Christ, looking Romeward |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2007 10:24 pm |
|
| I'm not trying to answer my own question, but the Catholic First website lists various dogmas. I'm assuming (you know what happens when you assume...) the list is accurate.
____________________
http://sharkeysworld.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2007 10:48 pm |
|
There are actually several gradations of formality and authority to Catholic doctrine. Dogma is the most formal and of the highest authority. If you take a look at the list of dogmas, you will see that this is only a fraction of our doctrines and beliefs. The Catechism would otherwise be mighty slim.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not distinguish the different gradations of authority. Evidently its editors felt it was not necessary. Another catechism, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, does make some distinctions in this regard. But even if this approach has some importance for scholars, it is all doctrine taught infallibly by the Church and necessary for believers.
David
|
|
|
DrSharkey
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Jackson, Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Agnostic, Southern Baptist (sorta), church of Christ, looking Romeward |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2007 11:19 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: it is all doctrine taught infallibly by the Church and necessary for believers.
David
Does that mean that none of the Catachism can be changed?
____________________
http://sharkeysworld.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
DrSharkey wrote:
Does that mean that none of the Catechism can be changed?
No, because the exact wording used is not necessarily the best or only way to express the doctrine. Later on, therefore, the Catechism or indeed the very definition of the dogma could be changed to reflect changed conditions. They are not once-for-all-time documents. This is part of the definition of infallibility. By the way, even though an official catechism contains infallible statements, it is not in itself an infallible document. It is merely a didactic compilation of doctrines in much the same fashion as Adolph Denzinger’s famous work, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, which lists the various dogmatic declarations of popes and councils from the beginning of Christianity until the death of Pope Pius XII in 1954.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 12:41 am |
|
DrSharkey wrote: I've gotten a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edit, and I was wondering if everything in it was considered to be Church Dogma? I've been to the Catholic First website and read the various dogmas listed there. If everything in the CCC isn't dogma, how does the Church communicate to the people what is dogma and what isn't (like Limbo)?
It's actually not particularly relevant to the average Catholic what is dogma, doctrine, and simple teaching. As Catholics we are bound to accept and believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and believes.
There are three types of teaching: Dogma is that which is officially, formally defined as being part of the Deposit of Faith, and necessary to be held and believed by all the faithful for all time. In order for something to be considered dogma, it must be proclaimed by an ecumenical council, or by a pope in a formal statement called "ex cathedra". Dogma is not declared unless a doctrine has come under serious criticism. Every council of the Church was called to examine a matter or matters of doctrine except for Vatican II, which did not declare any new doctrine, or make any dogmatic pronouncements. The books of the Bible were declared dogmatically by the Council of Trent because of Protestant challenges; they were universally accepted as doctrine for more than a thousand years before that pronouncement. Dogma can never be changed, although the wording of the teachings resulting from it can be revised from time to time as cultures and languages change.
Doctrine is that which is universally held by the faithful as represented by the bishops for a very long time, even if it has hever been formally declared. An example of doctrine which was later declared dogma is the Assumption of Mary. There is evidence it was believed as far back as apostolic days. The feast of the Assumption was first introduced in around the fourth or fifth century, but it was not declared dogmatically until 1950. Today it is dogma, but for more than a millennium before that it was doctrine. Doctrine cannot be changed but the wording conveying the doctrine can be refined, and it can be elevated to the level of dogma by a pope or council. Dogma and doctrine can deal only with matters of faith and morals; no teaching of the Church on any other subject (such as science) is binding on the faithful. Popes and councils may make statements that are not dogma or doctrine, and of course these statements can be changed.
Teaching is something that may not be universally held by the faithful, and can change as circumstances change. Church doctrine tells us that society has the right to conduct war and to carry out the death penalty, but Church teaching tells us that in today's world, both should be avoided at practically all costs. The Church does not deny that World War II was a just war and that the free nations of the world had the right to defend themselves from the threats of the Axis powers. But the Church as disputed the right of the United States to attack Iraq. As a Catholic, I am free to believe that certain offenses deserve the death penalty because Church doctrine permits me to do so. I am free to believe that the war in Iraq is a just war, even though Church documents say otherwise. The pronouncements on war and the death penalty do not represent "Church teaching". The evil of artificial contraception is a Church teaching, and it is binding on all Catholics. But just as a Catholic may kill in self defense, there may be circumstances where the use of contraceptives is a lesser evil, as is the death of an unborn child in a tubal pregnancy. The child cannot survive, and there is nothing to be gained by maintaining the pregnancy and also killing the mother.
It was once taught by the Church that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth. This is a scientific matter, not one of faith or morals, so it was never doctrine.
But in general, as a Catholic, I am bound to follow the dogmas, doctrines, and teachings equally. I am also bound to follow the rules of the Church, such as the requirement to attend mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, or the rule that requires me to confess and receive absolution from a priest before receiving Eucharist if I am in a state of mortal sin, and to follow the marriage rules of the Church. As a certified teacher (called a Catechist), I am not free to teach that which is contrary to Church teaching (as a math teacher may not teach that 2+2=5) but I may personally believe what I want in matters that are not considered dogma or doctrine. However, the burden is on me to determine that it is not doctrine. If I wish to hold differently from the Church, it is my responsibility to prove to myself that I am right and the entire Church is wrong. If I fail to do so and make a decision based on my convenience, I will answer to God.
Can the Catechism be revised? Yes. Can the dogma and doctrine behind the Catechism be revised? No. Can teaching be revised? Yes. Can the dogma and doctrine behind the teaching be revised? No. But the difference is really only significant to theologians.
Otherwise, it's like asking a police officer for the speed limit and when he says 55, you ask, "But will I get a ticket for going 60?" The law doesn't change even if we choose not to follow it. We can't ask "What can we get away with?" If we don't follow both the letter and the spirit of the law, we run the risk of being held responsible. Except this time we're not risking getting a ticket.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 09:45 am |
|
As usual, I've got some questions. 
CajunRick wrote:
It's actually not particularly relevant to the average Catholic what is dogma, doctrine, and simple teaching. As Catholics we are bound to accept and believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and believes.
Why not? If something as serious as one's soul and eternal destiny are at stake, every Catholic ought to know what is necessary for them to believe. I understand your answer in a general sense, but still, not knowing, a Catholic can then claim ignorance. Isn't this the reason, as stated by Beckwith the other night, that many Catholics don't see it as necessary to defend their faith? They just give the pat answer, "The Church says so." So instead of the Bible mantra that Protestants give, Catholics have their mantra as well. "The Church says it, I believe it, that settles it." There is almost an intrinsic mind set to this thinking in that it sets the Catholic up to just trust mother Church without ever having to know what the Church says. But at the same time, if dogma, doctrine and teaching are not particularly relevant to the average Catholic, then they are being groomed to be a nominal Catholic without it ever being incumbent upon them to know what the Church actually teaches. Thus we have the problem of many Catholics who are uncatechized. Let's say for example that an average Catholic is practicing birth control, not quite knowing what the Church teaches on this subject. As long as that Catholic remains in ignorance, they can continue to practice birth control. So they are considered a "Catholic" but due to not knowing, can still participate in taking Communion. So even though they are going against Church teaching, they can get away with it, simply because it isn't relevant to them. This whole idea of just blindly accepting what the Church teaches, without knowing much of what it does teach, is an excuse to remain ignorant, and yet still be considered a Catholic. My predicament at this point (partly) is that I feel it is incumbent upon me to know all that the Church teaches before I become a Catholic. After all, isn't that what every convert is sworn to uphold upon entering the C.C.? If something so serious is required of me, ought I not know what it is that is behind the requirement, namely "all that the Church teaches?" Scripture speaks of the seriousness of a vow. Vows are not to be taken lightly. When we take vows during our wedding ceremony, they are binding upon us. So it is that Church teaching, in the form of doctrine and dogma, are binding upon the person who becomes a Catholic. Why walk into such a committment blindly?
There are three types of teaching: Dogma is that which is officially, formally defined as being part of the Deposit of Faith, and necessary to be held and believed by all the faithful for all time. In order for something to be considered dogma, it must be proclaimed by an ecumenical council, or by a pope in a formal statement called "ex cathedra". Dogma is not declared unless a doctrine has come under serious criticism. Every council of the Church was called to examine a matter or matters of doctrine except for Vatican II, which did not declare any new doctrine, or make any dogmatic pronouncements. I don't want to get into a whole big controversy here but I know that there are many Catholics who would disagree with this statement. They believe that Pope Pius VI changed what other popes taught previously, and I'll leave it at that. The books of the Bible were declared dogmatically by the Council of Trent because of Protestant challenges; they were universally accepted as doctrine for more than a thousand years before that pronouncement. Dogma can never be changed, although the wording of the teachings resulting from it can be revised from time to time as cultures and languages change. Can you give an example of this?
Teaching is something that may not be universally held by the faithful, and can change as circumstances change. Then why are those converting to the Catholic faith sworn to believe and uphold "all that the Church teaches?" Or does the concept of teaching have a different meaning in this instance? Church doctrine tells us that society has the right to conduct war and to carry out the death penalty, Since this is doctrine, does this mean that a Catholic does not have the right to say, I disagree with this? Let's say I am a Catholic conscientious objector. I have not ever agreed that war is the best course of action and I will not support war, no matter what the Church says. Would the Church have a problem with this person? How can this view be reconciled with the Early Church Fathers who spoke out against war of all kinds? but Church teaching tells us that in today's world, both should be avoided at practically all costs. The Church does not deny that World War II was a just war and that the free nations of the world had the right to defend themselves from the threats of the Axis powers. But the Church as disputed the right of the United States to attack Iraq. As a Catholic, I am free to believe that certain offenses deserve the death penalty because Church doctrine permits me to do so. But are you free as a Catholic to believe that the death penalty is wrong in all instances? I am free to believe that the war in Iraq is a just war, even though Church documents say otherwise. The pronouncements on war and the death penalty do not represent "Church teaching". Why not? Don't war and the death penalty have to do with faith and morals? Both involve the taking of life, which is a moral issue.The evil of artificial contraception is a Church teaching, and it is binding on all Catholics. What about those who don't know? Apparently, from many sources that I have read, quite a few Catholics are practicing birth control. Some knowing it is against C.C. teaching, others not. And if the Church views this as such a serious evil, should it not be spoken about much more in local parishes? Shouldn't the average Catholic who is inclined to know merely the minimal amount of teaching (since the deeper matters of doctrine and dogma aren't relevent) be informed that they are endangering their souls if they take Communion and are practising birth control? Seems to me it is like the big elephant in the middle of the room that many clergy and priests don't want to deal with. Think of how many would leave the Church if they were admonished about their sin.
But in general, as a Catholic, I am bound to follow the dogmas, doctrines, and teachings equally. I am also bound to follow the rules of the Church, such as the requirement to attend mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, or the rule that requires me to confess and receive absolution from a priest before receiving Eucharist if I am in a state of mortal sin, and to follow the marriage rules of the Church. So is not knowing/ignorance an excuse? Many Catholics do not know about the Friday Penitential Rite and think it has been lifted. So, if a Catholic, not knowing about this, and not really inclined to study into their faith, partakes in the Eucharist week after week, is he/she endangering their soul? I think that's it for now.  Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 12:21 pm |
|
| Before I decided to join the Church I assumed I would be required to believe all that is in the "big green catechism book." So i read it and realized there wasn't anything to disagree with at all. Then I decided to join the Church. So I go with what is in the "bgcb."
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 03:12 pm |
|
It's actually not particularly relevant to the average Catholic what is dogma, doctrine, and simple teaching. As Catholics we are bound to accept and believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and believes. Why not? If something as serious as one's soul and eternal destiny are at stake, every Catholic ought to know what is necessary for them to believe.
We believe it all. There's no difference to me whether something is dogma, doctrine, or teaching. I am bound to follow all three.
Let's say for example that an average Catholic is practicing birth control, not quite knowing what the Church teaches on this subject.
I honestly don't think there's a Catholic anywhere on the planet who is not fully aware of Church teaching on artificial birth control. They just choose to ignore it.
So even though they are going against Church teaching, they can get away with it, simply because it isn't relevant to them.
You're missing my point. What's not relevant to them is the difference between dogma, doctrine, and teaching.
If something is against the law and I'm going to go to jail for doing it in the same prison for the same length of time, is it particularly relevant to me whether it is federal law, state law, or county ordinance? I have broken the law and I will be punished. If I violate Church teaching and commit a sin by doing so, whether it is dogma or doctrine does not change the sin.
My predicament at this point (partly) is that I feel it is incumbent upon me to know all that the Church teaches before I become a Catholic.
Did you feel it incumbent on you to learn everything your husband had ever done when you married him? For example, did you ask him what he ate for lunch on May 13, 1987? Why not? Isn't it equally important to you to know everything your husband has ever done? Maybe he stole a pencil from a schoolmate in the third grade. Does that make him a thief, and isn't it important that you knew that before you got married?
Instead you learned to trust him. As much as I've studied, I do not know everything the Church teaches. But I do know that when I learn new things they will be reasonable because they will be rooted in the Deposit of Faith, which represents the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. How can I go wrong?
They believe that Pope Pius VI changed what other popes taught previously, and I'll leave it at that.
What did Pope Pius VI teach that was so different?
Dogma can never be changed, although the wording of the teachings resulting from it can be revised from time to time as cultures and languages change. Can you give an example of this?
Trent and Vatican II taught the same thing, but Vatican II never used the word "anathema". Trent was very hard on Protestants, but Vatican II was much more conciliatory. Still, the teachings were the same.
Teaching is something that may not be universally held by the faithful, and can change as circumstances change. Then why are those converting to the Catholic faith sworn to believe and uphold "all that the Church teaches?" Or does the concept of teaching have a different meaning in this instance?
No. The Church teaches today that all forms of artificial birth control are evil. Someone tomorrow may invent a form of contraception that is not considered evil by the Church. I can't imagine what it would be, but it's not impossible. But today, the teaching of the Church is that artificial contraception is morally evil. That is certainly not "universally held by the faithful" and yet the Church's Magisterium believes it to be correct, and so it is part of Church teaching.
Church doctrine tells us that society has the right to conduct war and to carry out the death penalty, Since this is doctrine, does this mean that a Catholic does not have the right to say, I disagree with this? Let's say I am a Catholic conscientious objector. I have not ever agreed that war is the best course of action and I will not support war, no matter what the Church says. Would the Church have a problem with this person?
No, because they are holding themselves to an even higher standard. They are not violating the doctrine. If the Church tells me not to eat meat on Friday and I choose not to eat meat on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I am still following the teaching of the Church.
I don't think anyone would say that war is never ever justified. When the world got together to defend Kuwait in 1991 after it was invaded by Iraq, no nation spoke against it. When the world went into the former Yugoslavia to stop genocide, no one was against it. If Russia today invaded Estonia with nuclear weapons, the world would rise to their defense.
In the same way, if someone was attacking your children, I'm sure you would give your life to defend them, even if it required killing their attacker. And that is morally justifiable under Church teaching. But the reality is not changed by whether we call it dogma, doctrine, or teaching.
As a Catholic, I am free to believe that certain offenses deserve the death penalty because Church doctrine permits me to do so. But are you free as a Catholic to believe that the death penalty is wrong in all instances?
I am free to believe that no offense deserves the death penalty. Sr. Helen Prejean, who wrote "Dead Man Walking", certainly believes the death penalty is never justifiable. Again, you would be calling for an even higher moral standard and so you are not teaching against the Church. It would be violating Church teaching to say that speeders should be shot.
The pronouncements on war and the death penalty do not represent "Church teaching". Why not? Don't war and the death penalty have to do with faith and morals? Both involve the taking of life, which is a moral issue.
I worded it badly. Church doctrine says that governments have the right to execute criminals and to conduct war in justifiable circumstances. That's doctrine. It is an interpretation of that doctrine for the pope to say today that the justifiable circumstances do not exist. That's an interpretation of the basic doctrine, not doctrine itself.
And if the Church views this as such a serious evil, should it not be spoken about much more in local parishes?
This is a different question, and one on which I believe you and I agree entirely. Much of the Church's teachings (whether dogma, doctrine, or teaching) are not preached from the pulpit of the local churches. And it's sad that so many of our priests are so afraid to offend someone in the congregation.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 12:52 am |
|
Just a few additional notes:
Darlene wrote:They just give the pat answer, "The Church says so."
How is this wrong? Certainly we would hope that any Christian would want to know more, but there are many who do not. At least, by following the teaching of the Church, these latter will be saved.
While it is true that this approach does not defend against attacks on the Catholic faith, not all Catholics need to do this. If you will notice, the universal Catechism does not deal with apologetics but strictly with the Church’s doctrine. However, because of the particular situation of Catholics in this country, the US Catechism takes these attacks into account and provides some basic answers to them. This is according to the original design of the catechetical process, whereby special difficulties are treated by the regional catechisms, while remaining based on the material in the universal Catechism.
My predicament at this point (partly) is that I feel it is incumbent upon me to know all that the Church teaches before I become a Catholic.
It is not required that you know what the Church teaches in the sense of having mastered it through study, but that you accept and believe it as proposed to you. In like manner, it is not required that we comprehend the mysteries of the faith, but only that we accept and believe them as they were handed down to us. This is why St. Paul states that “faith comes by hearing” (Romans 10:17) rather than by study. For the test of faith is not the ability to defend one’s beliefs but the simple act of obedience.
Dogma can never be changed, although the wording of the teachings resulting from it can be revised from time to time as cultures and languages change.
Can you give an example of this?
The biblical doctrine regarding usury shows considerable revision due to the changing climate of economics. Another example would be our evolving understanding of the doctrine that outside of the Church there is no salvation. In both cases, the original dogma remains true under the original conditions in which it was formulated. But there has been considerable growth in understanding as, century by century, conditions change.
The pronouncements on war and the death penalty do not represent "Church teaching".
Why not? Don't war and the death penalty have to do with faith and morals? Both involve the taking of life, which is a moral issue.
You are right in one sense. But we are not dealing with an absolute prohibition of either, as there are conditions which would make the taking of life permissible. Therefore, the question properly belongs to moral theology, not to faith directly.
So is not knowing/ignorance an excuse? Many Catholics do not know about the Friday Penitential Rite and think it has been lifted. So, if a Catholic, not knowing about this, and not really inclined to study into their faith, partakes in the Eucharist week after week, is he/she endangering their soul?
The consensus of moral theologians regards this as a venial sin due to ignorance, so one’s salvation would not be in danger.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 08:06 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Just a few additional notes:
Darlene wrote: They just give the pat answer, "The Church says so."
How is this wrong? Certainly we would hope that any Christian would want to know more, but there are many who do not. At least, by following the teaching of the Church, these latter will be saved.
The reason that Evangelical Protestants overall are much better at evangelization and defending their faith is because they see the necessity of doing so. And scripture makes it clear that all, from the least to the greatest, should be able to defend their faith. "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." I Peter 2:9 "Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." Seems to me that the scriptures are clear that all Christians need to be alble to defend their faith. True, some are able to be apologists. Some are able to speak to the hardest of atheists. Yet all must be ready to defend their faith. This preparation helps both the Christian as well as the nonChristian. If one does not understand their faith, at least with a certain amount of clarity, then that Christian can easily be convinced of other beliefs contrary to our Christian faith. Faith is not without reason or understanding.
Mere memorization or reciting the creeds or going to church, none of these can replace personal devotion, which consists of prayer, studying scripture and the catechism, and reading other Christian literature. There may come a time when we are called upon to seriously suffer for our faith. Those who are not deeply rooted and grounded in their Christian faith may very well fail to meet this test.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1268 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 08:30 pm |
|
| I am not a vocal person by nature. I do not process what I hear as well as what I read. In mass I always read along with the missalette instead of just listening as others do. I wouldn't understand it otherwise. Likewise, I am able to write my thoughts down much better than I am able to speak them. I can write things here on the forum that I wouldn't be able to speak to anyone because I don't process quickly enough while speaking. That doesn't mean that I am not able to defend my faith, or that I am weak in it, or that I would fall for another. Some people can and should be able to debate. There is a place for apologetics. But those of us who are not quick to be vocal are not necessarily going through life by rote, reciting creeds and warming pews without having a deep spiritual life. There came a point in my conversion when I determined to accept the Roman Catholic Church, period. I knew I had to do it, it didn't matter that there were things I still didn't know or maybe never would know. It was a matter of full trust. I trust that the church in all her slow moving methodical ways has covered all the bases. She has had plenty of time to do it, she listens only to God and not man for direction. If and when the time ever comes that I will be called to suffer for my faith I will suffer trusting in that faith, not in knowledge.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 11:57 pm |
|
Darlene wrote:But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. I Peter 2:9
Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence. [1 Peter 3:15]
Seems to me that the scriptures are clear that all Christians need to be able to defend their faith….
Mere memorization or reciting the creeds or going to church, none of these can replace personal devotion, which consists of prayer, studying scripture and the catechism, and reading other Christian literature.
Yet as I reminded you elsewhere, actions speak louder than words.
What good do you get by disputing learnedly about the Trinity, if you be lacking in humility and are therefore displeasing to the Trinity? Verily, sublime words do not make a man holy and just; it is a virtuous life that makes him dear to God. I would rather feel compunction than know how to define it. If you knew the whole Bible by heart, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what would all that profit you without the love of God and His grace? (Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ, 1.3)
I have known people who cannot read or write, who have never been to school. They both live and defend their faith very well through their acts of faith and charity without formal training in religion beyond rote memorization.
In none of this am I contradicting you, Darlene. Your specific needs are to know and defend your faith through study and argumentation; this is good. But your personal vocation should not be misconstrued as a universal requirement.
Credo Catholic wrote:I can write things here on the forum that I wouldn't be able to speak to anyone because I don't process quickly enough while speaking. That doesn't mean that I am not able to defend my faith, or that I am weak in it, or that I would fall for another.
Anyone who has known me face to face would know that this applies to me as well. Absolutely speaking, prayer and obedience to God are much more important for salvation than study and argumentation, and I have adopted these as guideposts for my own life. But I would not for that reason deny salvation to a person gifted in the latter disciplines. It’s just that by my personal talents I learn and communicate differently than you.
David
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2007 01:09 pm |
|
My sponser had an interesting story, the story of her walk. I've taken her name out of it, and removed the more personal aspects, but I thought it might be insightful here. See, she was raised a cradle Catholic, and had to go through the whole knowing why you believe what you believe verses just beliving it, and the whole being able to defend her faith, all of it. She wrote up her story for some of my friends and I, and here it is:
It sounds strange to me, but I have no memory of ever discovering God. I can’t remember ever learning about God and it being news to me. Same with Jesus. I’m fairly certain that there was never a time when I became a religious person. I just was. I can only explain this as such—my whole life I’ve been able to feel God, like a thickness in the air around me. When I was frightened I knew I was not alone. When I was talking to myself I had an audience. When I finished sobbing there was comfort. I would fall asleep at night feeling like I was being cradled by the universe—in the palm of Someone’s hand. Jesus was simply God on Earth and I didn’t give it much thought otherwise. I never much thought about religion for religion’s sake or for the sake of my soul. I never thought about being “saved.” I just thought about the world and how I could make it better. I felt loved.
I arrived at college looking for safety, from the high school angst and family dysfunction I left behind. I felt like a new woman and like I could do anything.
My Christian friends and I had poor friendships and no fellowship in high school. So I was shocked to find Campus Crusade for Christ. I was intimidated. I got defensive and angry with all the Christian people around me. They would never accept my spirituality because I did not regularly read the Bible or couldn’t speak apologetics to save my life. I was just shy of being a pagan. Yet, as I lay in bed at night, everything still felt right. I was growing closer to God. I could still feel the palm of his hand beneath me as I slept at night. I was a child of the Earth, of Mother Mary, of God. Jesus was still God on Earth. I was fine.
But then I kept making mistakes. I would try to talk Christianity to Crusade people and just feel like a moron. My pride hurt. I knew the stores. I could tell them quite well in paraphrase. But theology? It just wasn’t really necessary in my world. So I put my foot in my mouth over and over and over again. Finally I did it one too many times for my taste. I went, nearly crying to the bookstore and bought a One Year Bible. I was terrified. I didn’t want to become the person who could only talk about religion and was boring. On the walk back to my dorm, with a latte in hand, crying, I had the following conversation with God (I wrote it down when I came back):
--Why are you crying?
--I don't know.
--You don't know what?
--Anything.
--Why?
--Because I'm too proud to learn.
--Why?
--Because I'm scared.
--Of what?
--Change. I like my life the way it is and I like myself the way I am. I don't want to change too much.
--Because you're proud.
--Yes.
--But who says you have to change who you are? Couldn't you just get better?
--Yes.
--Why are you crying?
--Because I'm scared.
--Of what?
--That this might not be real.
--Why wouldn't it be?
--I don’t know. I hear church bells. No, school bells. But I thought they were church bells. What does that mean? That it's time for me to learn about church?
--Why are you crying harder?
--Because I'm still scared that this might not be real. I could be making this up.
--Why wouldn't it be real?
--I don’t know.
--Precisely.
That was the end of January. I have a hard time doing things gradually. So, I over compensated. I read too much. I learned too much. It was all too fast. By the end of the year I was practically sick of God, but I was addicted to Him. But I also felt like I was loosing Him somewhere in all the books.
Rome. So moving. So wonderful.
But when I got home, I hit the books even harder. By Fall Break of the following semester I was beginning to get miserable. I needed to stop studying God, but I couldn’t stop myself. I was drifting further and further from the simple beauty of my childhood spirituality. I missed it. My curiosity introduced me to a young girl, not much older than me, named Therese Martin. Now known as Saint Therese of Lisieux, The Little Flower of Jesus. She captured my heart. I never dreamed that such spiritual sisterhood was possible. We had so much in common. We were petulant at times, childlike, passionate, dramatic, strong-willed, and embarrassed by attention. The Little Way of Spiritual Childhood, her doctrine, intrigued me, but it took a while for me to delve into it.
Then I read Rediscovering Catholicism by Matthew Kelly. In one chapter he talks about why the Saints are still relevant to our modern, post-enlightenment, independent culture. (They really are very important.) One point resonated with every corner of my soul. He wrote about how every time things in the church were looking bleak. Every time it was time for change and for the church to pick herself back up and battle the evils of society, a generation of Saints has arose to lead the way. To inspire people. To put themselves on the line for God and for God’s people. I felt that even if I wasn’t one of those Saints, I knew people who could be. I knew they were out there and I could do something to raise them up. I felt that was why I was given my words.
I let that simmer. I continued to study God. I tried to find a way to do that immediately. Over Christmas Break, I gave in. I quit my studies. I picked up the Little Way. It was the most natural spiritual path for me. It clicked.
The first part of that semester was hard, as you know. There was spiritual bonding, spiritual intrigue, and spiritual confusion. Those situations were all very draining.
I was tapped of everything by Spring Break. I picked up the Novena of St. Therese again. I prayed to her and to God that they would shower their love upon me because I was drying up. A few days later I woke up to daffodils, my favorite flowers in my house. I lived off that happiness for a month.
Painting helped me regain my spirituality. I grew closer to Jesus during Holy Week. I finally accepted him as a big brother as well as God, the only relationship in which I can fully understand him.
When I came home I was more doubtful of my calling than ever. Then on Sunday I was chatting with Racaela and I felt the Little Way stirring in my heart. I searched for the quotation I wanted.
"It is impossible for me to grow up, and so I must bear with myself such as I am with all my imperfections. But I want to seek out a means of going to heaven by a little way, a way that is very straight, very short, and totally new.
We are living in an age of inventions, and we no longer have to take the trouble of climbing stairs...I wanted to find an elevator which would raise me to Jesus for I am too small to climb the rough stairway of perfection. I searched, then, in the Scriptures for some sign of this elevator...
The elevator which must raise me to heaven is Your arms, O Jesus! And for this I had no need to grow up, rather I had to remain little and become this more and more."
--St. Therese, the Little Flower of Jesus, Story of a Soul
As I talked to Racaela about her parents I remembered the times my parents didn’t understand why I wanted to pursue sainthood or tried to tell me it was too difficult. I also thought about how often I didn’t let myself want the sainthood because I was afraid my desire would lead me astray.
At Mass Sunday night in his homily, Fr. Jim talked about the desire to be closer to Jesus. He spoke some about his recent personal spiritual reading, which brought up the question “Do you desire to be a Saint?” I smiled. He said “How often do you really think about that? Truly, If you do not desire it, it will not happen.” I felt overjoyed. Of course. Duh. God does not force us into any relationship with Him we don’t desire. I felt God pick me up and hold me close to Him and tell me that He loves me very much. He told me that I will be his servant if I only remain small.
As I was processing this, we sang the hymn for the preparation of the gifts. The second verse was “Though I am lowly as a child, I know from this day forward, my name will be remembered, for all will call me blessed.” Today I realized the hymn was a paraphrase of the Magnificant, the prayer in Luke that Mary says during her visit with Elizabeth, commenting on her role as a servant of the Lord.
My eyes filled with tears. The closing hymn was “Let there be peace on Earth (and let it begin with me).” I feel like that mass was the mass of my ordination, all though I am not a priest. That is the story, as yet, of my vocation. I know where my story is going. I just don’t know how it gets there. That is the mystery and the joy of my life with my Lord.
My God calls me Little One. My savior calls me Little Sister. I humbly call myself your sister and your servant.
Last edited on Sun Sep 30th, 2007 01:11 pm by Racaela Fultz
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2007 02:47 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Darlene wrote:They just give the pat answer, "The Church says so."
How is this wrong?
FWIW, I agree with David.
How many of us who are parents would be thrilled to hear our children refuse to participate in dangerous behavior "because my parents said so". Let's look at what's behind that statement:- My parents love me.
- My parents are older than me.
- My parents are more experienced than me.
- My parents are probably smarter than me, or at least have had many more years to learn many more things.
- My parents want only the best for me.
- My parents want to spare me from making the same mistakes others have made before, and especially the same mistakes they made.
- I am young.
- I am naive.
- I am easily misled.
- I do not know everything that can happen.
- I do not know enough to always make the right decisions.
No child (and especially no adolescent) would ever overcome peer pressure by saying "because my parents said so". Instead, the surest way for a parent to influence their behavior is to encourage them to do the opposite of what we want. "I think you'd look great with purple hair!"
So who says, "Because my parents said so"? Only little children.
Jesus didn't say we had to be like adolescents to get into heaven. What did he say? He said we have to be like "little children". Little children have enough faith in their parents to know they would not lead them astray (and please pray for those poor unfortunate children who have to learn that their parents are sinners, too).
Unlike parents, the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Are we going to be like little children and accept the Church's teaching on faith? Or are we going to be rebellious adolescents and be forced to make our own mistakes?
And I'm not saying we should accept blindly. But acceptance comes before understanding, not after (read the quote in my signature line). That's how little children are. That's how Jesus wants us to be.
As Jesus told Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed" (John 20:29).
And please don't misunderstand. I realize that many have been misled before and are very cautious. This is not a bad thing. But don't denigrate those, especially cradle Catholics, who are secure and trusting enough in their faith to accept what the Church teaches "because the Church says so".
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2007 03:24 pm |
|
I think perhaps Rick, David, and others, you fail to understand my point. And since this is under dogma, I will make a separate post. Still, one must know how to defend their faith, even if only as a child. Faith does, afterall, involve a certain amount of reason and intellect.
The point is, I think we are "missing" each other. BTW, when people watched Beckwith, and when they watch other Journey Home episodes, they are looking for answers that involve more than, "I believe Catholic doctrine because the Church says so and expects me to."
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Current time is 03:27 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
