h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am someone who has been considering the RC church, as one who grew up with a Presbyterian mother - all will know that Presbyterians consider catholics to be absolutely awful! Horns and tails, some think. Then, I .. well, never mind. Point is, I found this article lucid and a great explanation of Catholic history and doctrine.. BUT.. some things are questionable, mostly the de-humanisation of Jesus and Mary - the idea of her perpetual virginity, even though married - I am uncomfortable with that.. and of course, where did Jesus humanity come from, if Mary wasn't one of us? Those are some questions I have.

I'm an ex-Presbyterian now Catholic myself, so maybe I can be of some moderate assistance here.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Church "dehumanizes" Mary and Jesus -- I think it would be more appropriate to say that Mary was especially blessed from the time of her conception. She was still completely and utterly human, though, with human physiology, human soul, etc.

It's also worth noting that many Roman Catholics don't believe and/or heavily endorse some of the more specific doctrines about Mary (i.e., perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.). For me, it's always been one of those issues that I consider relatively inconsequential -- whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not would have absolutely no impact on my faith or how I practice Catholicism.

I'm not sure if that answers your questions, though. Let me know, and maybe I'll try to be more clear.


Mikey

Thank you, Mikey - your comments do help, and the fact that you're an ex-Presbyterian, well, boggles my mind (in a good way). Were I to take the step, and become a Catholic, I think I would have to "not endorse" the doctrines about Mary, but for now, I've taken a baby step, and become an Anglican. Don't know what they're like in the UK, but in NZ, they vary tremendously, between somewhat snobbish, to 'social' Christians (Churchianity, someone I knew called it, referring to the Press-buttons actually!) to genuine commitment on the other end of the continuum. I'm actually an ex-fundamentalist ( heaps in NZ) and that's more of an influence than the Press-buttons on my life.

Thank you, Mikey - your comments do help, and the fact that you're an ex-Presbyterian, well, boggles my mind (in a good way). Were I to take the step, and become a Catholic, I think I would have to "not endorse" the doctrines about Mary, but for now, I've taken a baby step, and become an Anglican. Don't know what they're like in the UK, but in NZ, they vary tremendously, between somewhat snobbish, to 'social' Christians (Churchianity, someone I knew called it, referring to the Press-buttons actually!) to genuine commitment on the other end of the continuum. I'm actually an ex-fundamentalist ( heaps in NZ) and that's more of an influence than the Press-buttons on my life.

Yup, I also did the baby step route here in the US. Was briefly an Episcopalian (which is what we Yanks call Anglicans, as we would never voluntarily endorse something known to be British ). But, I decided after a few months that I really felt like I got more out of the Catholic services than I did the Episcopalian ones. The fact that the cultural diversity was greater in the area Catholic churches was also a factor for me.

Let me know if you have any more questions!


Mikey

Perhaps I can help to clarify this. I am a Roman Catholic, and have attended a Catholic school for 14 years, so I have covered most of these issues in my RE lessons.

Mary was human. She had a human mother, although if I remember rightly (my RE books and Bible are packed away in a box right now), she was immaculately conceived. However, she had a human mother, so was herself human.

Jesus also had a human mother (obviously), but Mary conceived him through the Holy Spirit (an important Catholic belief - the Holy Spirit and God are one and the same thing). Hence, Jeses was human, but he was also the Son of God. The Catholic teachings on the Trinity say that God, the Holy Spirit and the Son of God are all the same, therefore, Jesus was the human manifestation of God.

I'm getting into a bit of a mess with this explanation. It's quite a tricky concept to understand, let alone explain. If I may be allowed to sum up: Mary was human, therefore her son was human. However, her son was also the son of God, so he was also a deity. Jesus was God made Man i.e. God's manifestation on Earth.

Forgive the rather poor explanation. I'll dig out my old RE books, and if you have any further questions, I'll try and answer them (provided I don't confuse myself too much in the process).

Thanks for the added input!

Personally, I found "Path Through Catholicism" to be an incredibly helpful book. It's primarily written for Catholic teenagers going through confirmation, but it's also a wonderful resource for someone considering switching to Catholicism from another Christian denomination. It spends quite a bit of time explaining exactly what it is that makes Catholics different, as well explaining in detail different beliefs, doctrines, practices, etc., but without getting overly theological and philosophical.


Mikey

Or one could always ask a priest. Most of them have many years experience of explaining the more difficult concepts of Catholicism (after all, they do it at daily Mass). Although sadly, in the UK at least, there seems to be rather a shortage of priests, so finding one can sometimes be quite difficult.

Thank you Mikey and 181014 for your explanations to me, I find your comments very interesting. I don't think asking a priest is something I'll do any time soon, as it seems too much of a commitment... Priestly celibacy is another thing that makes me hesitant - I understand some people can be called to celibacy, but for those who are not,and yet become priests, it could lead to tragedy. Is it a rule,a dogma, a discipline, and what is the difference? Thank you both.

Belatedly resurecting this conversation... Della, I'm a former fundamentalist, who used to believe that Catholics were hell-bound unless they repented of their idolatry and accepted Jesus as LAPS (Lord And Personal Saviour ) - and as of Easter 2000, I'm a baptised, confirmed, confessed Catholic myself.

So do feel free to ask.. I'm sure that with all the general wisdom around this place, we can come up with at least some indications of stuff that may be helpful.

(apologies if this posts twice... I got the connection timed out thing)

You also asked:

"Is it a rule,a dogma, a discipline, and what is the difference? Thank you both."

A rule, strictly speaking, is something like, say, the Rule of St Benedict, which is guidance for monastic living. Most orders of monks and nuns will have their "Rules", which generally set out how the community is to live, what their priorities and values are to be, how to handle disciplinary matters, etc etc.

Dogma is, and here I quote the Essential Catholic Handbook: "a teaching or doctrine authoritatively and explicitly proposed by the Church as revealed by God and requiring the belief of the people of God.". An examples of a dogma would be the Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary (that she was conceived without original sin, as we all are... ie she was in the state that we only achieve after baptism).

A Discipline is more often used to refer to a spiritual practice, like fasting during Lent, or committing yourself to praying the Rosary each day.

Priestly celibacy isn't a dogma - it's not something you believe in - it is part of the church's Code of Canon Law. Which is not to say it can't ever be altered (Canon Law used to order CAtholics to abstain from meat on Fridays for example) - and personally, I agree with you on the consequences.. but that's a whole other debate!

What does it mean to "convert" to Catholicism?

I am a Lutheran, which uses the Nicene Creed, but we of course don't do all of the "sacred tradition"

Some of the warning lights I get are:

Catholic conversion-- if you are Christian and I am Christian, why "conversion"?

Sacred Tradition-- Sure, there are lots of religions that add to the Bible: Islam, Mormonism, etc.

Praying with Saints-- they are dead, and furthermore we are all saints because of our relationship with God

Purgatory--this falls under sacred tradition...

I guess I join in with the Reformation crowd "Sola Scriptura!"

Regarding conversion.... my sister is a Presbyterian at a Lutheran college where she is continually encouraged to "convert to Lutheranism" -- the term conversion is commonly used when switching denominations, it's not just a Catholic thing.

Regarding praying with "saints" -- people are not just dead, they are in heaven, which is why we can pray with them. What makes you assume that God wouldn't allow this? It's seems natural that those in heaven would be willing and even eager to pray with us. The idea that we are all "saints" is simply a difference in terminology, not a difference in doctrine.

Regarding sacred tradition -- I'm not really sure what your point is. And if you, as Lutherans, claim to be "sola scriptura", and so do the Baptists, why are there so many huge differences between the denominations?


Mikey

"the term conversion is commonly used when switching denominations, it's not just a Catholic thing."
OK. I just never heard it before, except for converting to another religion.

" What makes you assume that God wouldn't allow this? It's seems natural that those in heaven would be willing and even eager to pray with us." Well, it seems so, but there is nothing in scripture that points to this practice. Jesus prayed to the Father. We pray to the Father, and the only reason we can is that Jesus died to wash away all our sin, so we pray in His name. When we have Jesus Christ to pray with, why would we worry with saints?


"Regarding sacred tradition -- I'm not really sure what your point is."
When (if?) sacred tradition conflicts with the Bible, which one is right? In Mormonism, the book of mormon has the final word when they conflict, In Islam the same. The Bible is the Word of God. What is sacred tradition? If not the Word of God, why listen to it?

"And if you, as Lutherans, claim to be "sola scriptura", and so do the Baptists, why are there so many huge differences between the denominations? "
Differences in denomination come from differences in interpretation of scripture.

I am not speaking for the Lutheran Church. There are ideas that they put into their doctrine that I do not quite agree with. What I do agree with is that we are saved by Faith through Grace. As long as you believe that Jesus died for your sins, you are my brother and I look forward to seeing you in heaven. We can do nothing to make ourselves right with God. That is not to say that doing nothing is prefered, or that doing things is wrong. I believe that for example confession, if done with the right mind, can help a person put their sin behind them. But if they beleive that the confession is what saves them, they aren't beleiving in the right thing.

"When we have Jesus Christ to pray with, why would we worry with saints?"

If this is the case, then why do you pray with other people? Why do you pray with your family? Why do you pray with your pastor? Many of my family members are deceased, but it gives me strength and comfort to know that I can still ask them to pray with me, just as I did when they were here on earth.

In Catholicism, sacred tradition refers to practices, beliefs, and interpretations of scripture that have been handed down from church to church over time. I am not aware of any instances in which Catholic sacred tradition contradicts or conflicts with something in the scriptures.

"Differences in denomination come from differences in interpretation of scripture."

And this is *why* Catholics believe in sacred tradition -- these sacred traditions concerning the interpretation of scripture are what allow us to remain unified as Catholics, rather than splitting up into thousands of separate groups. We believe that while the scripture is important, so is the interpretation -- and our beliefs about the interpretation have been handed down via tradition. In actuality, protestant denominations have similar traditions -- they have traditions of scriptural interpretation, they have traditions of worship style, they have traditions of how the sacraments are carried out. So I don't think it's the *concept* of sacred tradition that you're having a problem with -- perhaps it's specifc traditions?

'[A]nd maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you'
1 Corinthians 11:2

http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/sola_scriptura.asp
(some of the links on this page are better than others, but most explain things far more elegantly than I could)

"What I do agree with is that we are saved by Faith through Grace."

Catholics also believe this, it is the major tenet of all Christian denominations.

"But if they beleive that the confession is what saves them, they aren't beleiving in the right thing."

Catholics do not believe that they are saved by the act of confession. However, we do believe that confession helps bring us closer to God -- in many ways, confession today is much like counseling. I tell the priest what problems I'm facing in my spiritual life, and he gives me guidance on how I can improve myself.


Mikey

Sacred tradition gives autority to non biblical teachings, such as the various beliefs about Mary. Tradition in other churches do not (or tend to not.) If sacred tradition was simply interpretation of the Word, it would be fine, but Immaculate Conception and more are simply not in the Scripture. I don't have a problem with tradition, but when it does not point back to the Word, I do have a problem with it.

Look at Colossians 2:4-8

Here's 8
"See to it that no one takes you captive through deceptive and hollow philosophy, which depends on **human tradition** and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

This is a wonderful open discussion and a pleasure to read so much sincere comment.

Of course all traditon must point to the Word. When one looks at the original article and its identification of Roman Catholic distinctives, there is something missing. The article hardly mentions Jesus Christ. Surely it must be a distinctive to have during the last 2000 years, consistently taught that Jesus Christ with no human father, became a man to teach and redeem us, to have for that whole time maintained a principle form of worship (the Mass) that daily recalls his suffering death and resurrection.

I know you will have heard before that the Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures were written, that the Scriptures themselves refer to tradition etc., and that the tradition shows up in the decisions along the way when the creeds were formulated, the books to be included in the New Testament decided on, the doctrine of the Trinity formulated, and teaching clarified that Jesus was truly God and truly man. At the very time that "tradition" was contributing in this way, the teaching was also developing on the woman whom scripture tells us would be called blessed by all generations.

Let's give Genesis the benefit of teaching a theological truth. Before the fall there was no sin. Adam was created without original sin. Eve was created without original sin. Christ is the second Adam. For God to intervene in history to make the mother of the second Adam at least as beautiful pure and sinless and 'full of grace" as Eve, is less remarkable than the intervention by the incarnation of Jesus. Mary had a natural human father, Jesus did not. Mary is not God, Jesus is.

This may be logically OK but of course it's a big call for those who have not thought this way before. Such a person would instantly need the source and authority for this, especially those feeling their way with tradition, starting to study history. (Though in a sense all Churches have some traditions, even if they are traditions on how they will read Scripture.)

It is even harder if the fruit of this tradition seems to be a deflection from Jesus, from the Word. It would be difficult for me too.

However the opposite is true. There is so much in the Bible that points to the plan of redemption including a perfect Ark to bear the New Covenant, just as the old Covenant was carried in a specially holy place. The teaching exalts Jesus, as the Ark of the Covenant, and the Temple, exalted the old law. The titles point also towards Jesus (like Star of the Sea: guidance towards home; Queen of Heaven: queen because mother of the King etc).

Teaching is one thing. Practice is the other. As you know, Mary is mentioned very little during Mass. Our non-catholic friends are never upset by attending a Mass. Once one acknowledges the primacy of the Mass in Catholic worship, then turning for help to the Lady who provoked the first miracle at Cana, that's probably OK, don't you think?

If the teachings on Mary diverted from Jesus, then the people who hold them would be the first to deny the virgin birth of Jesus, or his resurrection. In fact those who honour Mary seem never to deny these, but hold them stronger.

dear Researcher 197538

Thank you for your very wise words - and for pointing out an obvious oversight. I guess I sort of assumed that the RC church's teachings on Jesus were basically a "given", and not different from any other Christian denomination...

Have you read Scott Hahn's book on Mary - Hail Holy Queen? He goes into a lot of detail on the various "types" of forshadowing in the Bible that refer to her, including the Ark of the Covenant, pointing out that the Ark wasn't holy of itself - it was made holy by what it contained (the tablets with the law, manna, and aaron's rod) - and in the same way, Mary's holiness comes from what she "contained" - Jesus, who is the Word of God, the Living manna from heaven, and the shoot of Jesse that comes from Aaron's rod.

Anyway, welcome to h2g2, glad you're enjoying the discussions here. Have fun and see you around the place...

Researcher 197538
Click edit on your 'Space' and write an intro. This will allow people to welcome you to h2g2. If you click on 'Who's Online' you can see the researchers names, clicking any of these will take you to their 'Space' where you can see what they have contributed to H2G2. If you click on my name (the one at the top), you will load my page.
(I use classic goo)


Alji