|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:10 pm
 |
|
|
|
jix-kun Oh yes, do fill our minds with mandates from the 15th and 16th centuries. Demonize the catholic church for its earlier beliefs and practices. But do read this. "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964)"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize." "The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." "Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964)"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." And on the note of transubstantiation, you again critisize a practice that you don't understand. Its not like we're condoning cannibalism. The blessed bread and wine are a symbol of Christ's last supper.
I don't believe it is demonizing pointing out the facts to make someone realize things are not right. 15th and 16th century papal mandates still stands. There is now just a papal conflict of mandates...
Which to trust considering that all Popes are infallible? Which of them is wrong? Can a Pope retract the decisions of a previous Pope? Then what of papal infallibility?
infallible
1.
absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2.
unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3.
not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
So you don't hold an orthodox view of transubstantiation of it being the actual flesh and blood of Christ?
From Catholic Encylopedia:
By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:45 pm
|
|
|
 |
Quote: But the true fact is that you have no evidence of evil practices, or any true wrong-doing of this or the previous century
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
Born to a minor noble family in Anagni, Italy, Benedetto Caetani became a successful student of canon law and later a member of the Roman Curia, eventually winning the position of cardinal priest in 1291. He was elected Pope Boniface VIII on December 24, 1294 after the pious yet incompetent Pope Celestine V abdicated (possibly due to Boniface’s own insistence). One of his first decisions as pope was to sentence Celestine to prison in the Castle of Fumone, where the old man was mistreated and eventually died ten months later.
Boniface quickly became one of the church’s strongest advocates for papal supremacy in both spiritual and civil matters, involving himself in foreign affairs to no end. His desire for political domination, of course, did not sit well with many rulers of the day, such as Philip IV of France, whose policies of clerical taxation angered the pope and prompted a string of bulls culminating in the famous Unam Sanctam, which essentially claimed all civil and spiritual authority for the papacy.
Other famous clashes include Boniface’s feud with the powerful Colonna family, which led to several of their towns being demolished – Palestrina, for example, was razed to the ground and 6,000 citizens were killed. In addition, Boniface aroused the anger of Dante Alighieri, whose portrayal of the pope in his Inferno is anything but kindly, since he places Boniface in the eighth circle of his imaginary hell.
Boniface never quite attained to the absolute power he craved. Not surprisingly, his insatiable ambition led directly to a brutal beating at the hands of those who refused to submit to him, and within a month of this incident he was dead.
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
Often associated with Martin Luther and the upheavals of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Leo X is also well-known for being one of the most lavish, uncontrollable spenders who ever headed the Christian church. A famous phrase attributed to Leo aptly illustrates his greatest priority: “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” According to Alexandre Dumas, “Christianity assumed a pagan character” as Leo doggedly pursued worldly pleasures.
Born Giovanni di Lorenzo de Medici, Leo came from a powerful family and enjoyed early favors that helped him acquire the papal throne by the time he was 37. A patron of the arts, education, and charity, Leo certainly deserves to be recognized for elevating the church’s status, but his preference for money and political advancement rapidly exhausted the treasury. So financially unstable did his position become that he was eventually forced to pawn off furniture, jewels, and statues from the palace, as well as borrow huge sums of money from creditors (who were ultimately ruined when he died).
In addition to living a life of splendor, Leo practiced nepotism, famously used the sale of indulgences to finance the reconstruction of St. Peter’s Basilica, and was even accused of homosexuality. In fact, some sources hold that he died in bed while getting it on with a youth. That accusation may or may not be true, of course, but one thing is for sure: Leo certainly let his love of luxury get the best of him.
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
Pierre Roger, a Frenchman, was the fourth of the Avignon popes, and took the name Clement VI for his pontificate. He was not a particularly evil man; in fact, his efforts during the Black Plague did much to provide refuge for the Jews, who automatically became the scapegoats for the deadly breakout. Described as a fine gentleman, a prince, and a patron of the arts and learning, Clement lacked one important characteristic that is rightly expected of popes – saintliness.
By his own words, Clement was “a sinner among sinners.” His love for expensive living quickly drained the savings of his frugal predecessor (Benedict XII), and Clement resorted to raising taxes and selling off bishoprics to finance his worldly pursuits.
Throw in a little nepotism to boot, and you’ve got yourself a pope who may very well have been a man of decent character, but who also used his powerful position for his own sexual adventures, cheerful pleasures, and overall celebration of the world’s many vices.
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
It’s undeniable that Otho de Lagery, who became Pope Urban II in 1088, was a talented diplomat and successful leader, responsible for establishing the modern Roman Curia and supporting reforms of the clergy. What he is most often remembered for, however, is his unfortunate role in launching a bloody holy war against Muslims that has since come to be known as The First Crusade.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexios I requested Urban’s aid in fighting off the Turks, who had conquered most of Anatolia. Urban responded favorably by using his remarkable rhetorical skills to preach “Just War” – a holy, God-ordained crusade to liberate the eastern churches and the Holy Land from Muslim rule. By appealing to Catholic anger over the rumored (and often unfairly trumped-up) atrocities committed by the invading Turks, and by guaranteeing remission of sins to those who would participate in the fight, Urban was able to organize a large-scale uprising of piously outraged soldiers of Christ.
The religiously-sanctioned First Crusade, while successful in defeating Muslim forces in Anatolia and the Holy Land, was very costly in terms of casualties. Not only was there a huge loss of lives on both sides, but the horrible offenses committed by enraged Christians against Jews, Muslims, and even members of the “schismatic” Eastern church will always be a bloody stain on the pages of church history.
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
Born to a famous Roman jurist, Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte was elected pope in 1550 as a compromise candidate, and chose the title Julius III. While his early career in the church shows that he was very capable and successful, his papacy is known for being extremely ineffective and undistinguished. For the most part, Julius withdrew to his palace and spent the majority of his time seeing to his own personal pleasures and keeping out of political affairs.
However, it was his relationship with a boy named Innocenzo that tarnished his name more than anything. Julius discovered Innocenzo as a young beggar in Parma before ascending to the pontificate, and he adopted him as his own nephew. When Julius became pope, he elevated Innocenzo to the status of cardinal-nephew and bestowed many gifts and benefices upon him. In fact, the relationship between Julius and Innocenzo showed signs of being much more intimate than normal family ties, and many reports indicate that Julius actually had an extended sexual affair with the young man.
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
Little is known about Pope Stephen VI’s personal life and background, although he was a Roman and the son of a priest named John. The reason his name stands out in church history is because of his involvement in what is perhaps the most bizarre ecclesiastical trial of all time – the Cadaver Synod of January 897.
As the name reveals, this grotesque synod was convened to put a corpse on trial. Stephen ordered it for the sole purpose of passing judgment on the freshly-exhumed body of Formosus, who had held the papacy from 891-96. Due to activities in Bulgaria which compromised his duties as bishop of Porto, Formosus had been excommunicated by then-pope John VIII (872-882), but after John VIII’s death he had reassumed his bishopric in Porto and was elected pope in 891.
Political interests regarding rightful claims to the throne of the Holy Roman Emperor resulted in animosities that created a trickle-down effect and impacted later popes. Stephen VI and the Cadaver Synod are the most famous instance of reactions to Pope Formosus.
While it is not perfectly clear who exactly instigated the trial, the fact of the matter is that Stephen ordered Formosus’s body to be disinterred and seated on a throne in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. A deacon stood next to it to act as its spokesman while Stephen lambasted it with accusations.
The corpse was condemned for transmigrating sees, committing perjury, and acting as bishop after being deposed. As punishment, his body was stripped of its vestments, the three fingers of the right hand used for benedictions were cut off, and all his former ordinations were declared null. The body was then buried, exhumed again, and finally thrown into the Tiber River.
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
The son of a Roman noble and a member of the ultimately unsuccessful faction which opposed the policies of Pope Formosus, Sergius III must chiefly be understood through the biased writings of his enemies, since almost all sympathetic accounts have been destroyed.
Nevertheless, what we do have on Sergius suggests that he didn’t quite measure up to Christian standards for piety. He was accused of ordering the murders of his predecessor Pope Leo V and Antipope Christopher in prison. It is said that his mistress was the young Marozia (later to become a powerful Roman noblewoman), and it was their son who became Pope John XI in 931.
It gets weirder, though. Pope Stephen VI’s infamous Cadaver Synod had been declared void by succeeding popes, but when Sergius came to power, he voiced his displeasure with Formosus by annulling all of his recently reinstated ordinations. There is even a report that Sergius had the corpse of Formosus exhumed, tried, beheaded, and thrown into the Tiber – all over again!
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
Benedict IX, born Theophylactus of Tusculum, is known mainly for two things: 1) he held office on three separate occasions, and 2) he is the only pope who ever sold the papacy (to his own godfather, of all people).
Benedict became pontiff at a very young age, thanks to the political prowess of his father, who had managed to get the papacy reserved ahead of time for his son. With little actual training or preparation that qualified him to act as pontiff, Benedict led a highly immoral life, and was accused of various rapes, adulteries, and murders. According to St. Peter Damian, Benedict was “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest,” and his carousing eventually caused him to be forcefully expelled from Rome.
Benedict managed to regain his throne, but then – surprise, surprise! – he was sidetracked by a prospective marriage (to his cousin) and sold the papal chair for a significant amount of money to his godfather, a priest who named himself Pope Gregory VI. His later repentance and attempt to resume his position created quite a controversy, forcing the German King Henry III to intervene. Benedict was subsequently excommunicated from the church.
“His life as a pope,” wrote Pope Victor III, “was so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
Born in Rome, the young Octavianus practically had the papacy handed to him on a silver platter. His father, a patrician of Rome, made the Roman nobles swear an oath that at the next vacancy in the papal seat, Octavianus would be elected. Sure enough, when he was only 18 the reigning pope passed away, and Octavianus was chosen as the successor, taking the name Pope John XII.
Almost everything known about John XII is found in the writings of his enemies, so it’s possible that the accounts we have are factually distorted. Nevertheless, the stories we do have are quite shocking – he was accused of committing many adulteries (even with his own niece), turning the Vatican into a whorehouse, blinding his confessor, castrating and then murdering a subdeacon, invoking demons and foreign gods… the list goes on and on.
Even if some of the reports were falsified, it still appears that John XII made for a pretty bad pope. When we read the account of John’s death that claims he was murdered by a jealous husband whose wife was the object of the pope’s special attention, it’s not too hard to believe it.
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
The reward for “Baddest Pope Ever” arguably goes to Rodrigo Borgia, who enjoyed the benefits of having an uncle who just happened to be Pope Calixtus III. Thanks to his convenient social status, Borgia passed through the ranks of bishop, cardinal, and vice-chancellor, gaining enormous wealth along the way. In 1492, he was actually able to buy his way into the papacy, defeating two other opponents by means of bribery.
Alexander was so corrupt that his surname eventually became a byword representing the hellishly low papal standards of the time. He sired at least seven different illegitimate children by his mistresses, and didn’t hesitate to reward them with handsome endowments at the church’s expense. When low on finances, he either established new cardinals in return for payments, or he slammed wealthy people with completely fabricated charges, jailed or murdered them for said false charges, and then stole their money.
Not surprisingly, there is very little about Alexander VI that can be considered godly or even lawful. His goals were selfish and ambitious, and the orderly government he initially administered quickly deteriorated until the city of Rome was in a state of complete disrepair. The words spoken by Giovanni de Medici (the future Pope Leo X) after Borgia’s election are telling:
“Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:51 pm
|
|
|
|
In a nutshell, John Wycliffe presaged Martin Luther as a Protestant reformer. Wycliffe lived from c. 1328 to 31 December 1384, about a hundred years before Luther, and Wycliffe saw very much the same problems in the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism itself was fine with him, but the Church was largely corrupt by his day. A lot of its practices will make entries farther down.
Wycliffe wanted people to worship God and Jesus according to the Bible, not according to the popes and their bishops and priests. He saw that people are corruptible, while the Bible is not, and thus, there was no good sense in taking one’s troubles to a priest, so the priest could make one feel better. Communication directly with God, via prayer, was not impossible, but required an understanding of the Bible, and the next entry outlines a specific grievance Wycliffe had with the Church on this subject.
Wycliffe preached in England, and on the Continent, that priests should do nothing more than oversee church services and help the laypeople interpret the Bible for themselves. He argued based on various Bible passages that secular kings and queens had a divine right, direct from God Almighty, to be kings and queens. Thus, their rule should not be opposed by anyone, anymore than God’s rule should be opposed. The popes, however, routinely told Europe’s monarchs what was what in every field of activity.
It didn’t take long for Wycliffe to irritate a few Catholics, especially Pope Gregory XI. Their animosity toward each other may be without rival in the history of the Catholic Church. Gregory issued no less than five Papal Bulls attempting to shut Wycliffe up, but he would not be silent. Wycliffe went so far as to argue that the pope and the Antichrist were practically equivalent, and denounced the papal throne as the throne of Satan on Earth. He may have been the first to declare this now-popular idea (popular among Protestants).
He was the first to translate the complete Bible into English, which did not endear him to the Catholic hierarchy. The Church did not attempt to catch and kill Wycliffe, ostensibly because it could not find him (he traveled extensively in England, France, and the Netherlands), or because it did not like the risk of invading England to get him. He died three days after suffering a stroke during Mass. 30 years later, the Council of Constance ended “the three popes’ reign” and elected Alexander V, who immediately denounced Wycliffe as a heretic, had as many of his books burned as could be found on the Continent and in England, excommunicated and consigned to everlasting flames from the moment of his death. In 1428, Pope Martin V had him dug up and burned at the stake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Indulgences are various degrees of the remission of punishments from sins that have already been forgiven. Indulgences are given, not sold, to anyone who performs a Christian act, especially doing a good deed for someone else, or for saying a prayer. This practice really isn’t that un-biblical, in itself, but the problem is that people immediately see it as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Sin all you want, then say a Hail Mary, and you’re good to go. It has never worked that way according to the Bible and official Catholic doctrine, and anyone who reads the Pauline Epistles will realize this.
But certain Bishops of the Catholic Church saw indulgences as a very good way to get rich, and it worked magnificently. Threaten an ignorant person with eternal burning, and he’ll give you some money to feel safe again. It got ridiculously out of hand from about 500 until Martin Luther spoke against it in his 95 Theses, in 1517. One of the most notorious abusers of the practice was a man named Johann Tetzel, to whom is attributed this infamous couplet, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”
These Bishops extorted people for years by horrifying them that they’re departed loved ones were currently frying in Purgatory, and would remain there for a very long time, unless their surviving loved ones paid the Church money. This money would atone for the dead persons’ sins, and they would then enter Heaven. Indulgences are not supposed to be sold. If they were, people with lots of money would be holier than thou art.
Indulgences are still given in the Catholic Church – some which remit part of the punishment owed for sin, and some which remit all. The most recent indulgences were granted in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, for people who took part in pilgrimages to Lourdes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:49 pm
|
|
|
|
Symbolism, yaaaaaaay! =D
Catholicism has often been... um... political. Especially in Europe. The book Constantine's Sword has a good analysis of how this all went down in relation to the Jews, for example, and it was quite an enlightening read for me. That's why I'm often of the opinion that some statements were made for reasons that were... not entirely religious in nature, let's say.
That said, religion can make a lot of people do some very bad things, believing it's good. If you believe, if you honestly and truly believe to the very core of your soul that only you/your church know the way to salvation, and everyone else is doomed... how could you possibly justify not doing anything in your power to try and save the souls of others? Isn't there a basic moral obligation to try and save as many souls as possible, whatever means are necessary... especially since no permanent harm can come to any believer? All the pain and injuries of the world will be discarded when we exchange our bodies, after all...
^
This is how some people may think. Me, I sorta disagree. Yes, saving other souls is all well and good... but if you choose to do bad things (like, say, locking up and persecuting minorities, which the Catholic Church has done and/or permitted many times) in your pursuit of "saving" others, I think you're probably losing sight of the whole point. I believe that choosing to follow God of your own free will is what matters. Choosing at the point of a sword is worthless morally, and church doctrines that are made for political reasons, well... I'm sure they meant well for expanding the power of the Church and trying to save others, but I'd still continue to question and test everything, rather than simply believing, blindly, that anyone is absolutely correct. Even if that person is the Pope himself.
Heck, Jesus himself taught in parables, and with symbolism. How can you be absolutely sure that your interpretation of anything not obviously literal is, in fact, correct if you aren't checking and examining to see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:54 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: @Green: Papal infalliability only covers difinitive teachings of the interpretations of the bible presented by the catholic church. In other words, not everything the pope says is covered by Papal infalliability. Also, Papal infalliability never truly became defined as dogma until the creation of Vatican I.
The Popes making these decrees I have posted regardless of them being from the 1400's or earlier stated that they made these decrees ex cathedra.
Ex Cathedra
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." From Catholic Encyclopedia
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311?1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non?exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non?exempt,
belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:45 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Most of the people who I see bashing Catholicism are either Protestants or Atheists, but I think a lot of the conflict comes from how several Catholic traditions were invented by mankind, and a few of them were distracting from the teachings of Christ.
I was raised in a Catholic family, but I myself just consider myself "Christian", as I don't follow Catholic-specific traditions.
These seem to be the main things I'm seeing people disagree with, and some things I disagree with as well:
1) Celibacy for priests; they cannot get married. Since priests are considered to be leaders that help people learn about Christ and encourage them to grow in their relationship with God, people often forget that relationships held with fellow humans are also important.
2) Confessions. You shouldn't have to go through a priest to confess your sins. You can pray to God and tell him directly.
3) Too many ceremonies/sacraments/traditions. Communion, confession, confirmation, baptism, marriage, etc. In other words, it's become too machine-like, and focuses too much on fulfilling a checklist of traditions rather than helping anyone to become a better human being.
"If I do XYZ sacraments and I go to church, I'm a good person, I'm guaranteed to go to Heaven because I fulfilled what the church said" is a mistaken way to think, but that's what many people do. When they're distracted by the requirements of so many unnecessary traditions that don't reinforce the lessons that Christ taught, people rarely make an effort to go the actual mile of doing what Christ told them... What's better: making sure you get communion every Sunday while doing absolutely nothing else for your community, or going out and donating clothing and food to the poor, forgiving your enemies, and making an effort to help others, even if it means you miss church every week?
4) Too much formality. The Catholic Church is very formal and wrapped-up in ceremonies and rules instead of concentrating on human beings and helping everyone on an individual level. Most churches I've observed are just full of people who go to church, then leave without ever talking to anyone. Where's the human relationships? Where's the neighborly love? This may be a personal experience and bias, but I have not noticed a sense of community in Catholic Churches, either inside or outside of the weekly church meeting.
5) The elitism of a majority of the clergy makes them seem above other humans, when they are not. They are not more holy, they are people just like us, but they are still respected leaders of our Christian community. We don't need bishops, cardinals, or a pope to tell us anything, or to excommunicate people from the Church if they disagree. Christ has already spoken, and his word is in the Gospel, and he makes things VERY clear. He doesn't need anything added or detracted from it. We can ALL have a personal relationship with God, without clergy or a church.
6) Excommunication. This goes with #5. Only God has power to send someone away from God. Being excommunicated means jack squat. It doesn't mean you're guaranteed a trip to Hell, but most importantly, this contradicts the teachings of Jesus. We should never give up on our fellow humans, and excommunication is basically saying "Well we don't want to deal with you, we give up on you, you can't be a part of the Church anymore", which is absolutely ridiculous.
7) Veneration of the Saints. This also goes with #5. The saints are not more holy than any of us. They did a LOT of good works and were great examples of what we should do, but again, they're human like us. Same with the virgin Mary. They don't need to intercede for us. They're not closer to God. They are humans, and great examples of how to live our lives. But to be canonized really means nothing; canonization is a man-made idea.
I'm not even going to go into the philosophical doctrines of transubstantiation and free-will and all that because I feel it's irrelevant. I'm just trying to keep things in layman's terms here.
NOW, that doesn't mean any of these things are explicitly detrimental to one's spiritual health or relationship with God... HOWEVER, the overload of man-made traditions distracts from the main messages and teachings of Christ. And distractions means that as a tree, many people end up not bearing any good fruit, or end up as one of the seeds scattered in the thorns or on the rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
