<p>It’s a difference in emphasis, J. A difference in approach. If there weren’t any differences, then there wouldn’t have been a Reformation nor would there have been all the subsequent divisions that gave rise to all the Protestant denominations.</p>
<p>In my mind, Christianity is Christianity, despite the different “rules” and emphasis. Not everyone believes that, I realize.</p>
<p>I agree with timely. If college kids are discussing important things (and hopefully they are), their beliefs, including religious ones, are going to be challenged. This might be done in an “anti” way or simply as a means of seeking truth.</p>
<p>Mom: The reformation wasn’t about Mary. The reformers (at least most) honored Mary, prayed to Mary, and insisted that she be called “Mother of God” when others said that she is only “Mother of Jesus”. If the reformers came back today they wouldn’t recognize many of their churches.</p>
<p>SJmom, I must disagree with you on the issue of withholding a sacrament based on a public politician’s stand on legislation. As a legislator, a politician represents not the Church but his constituants who will be people of all faiths. I agree that in his personal life he should abide by his church’s teachings. But in his public life he needs to make choices from a broader perspective.</p>
<p>And with the issue at hand I recall that the Pope took a public stand against the war in Iraq citing the church’s just war rational which is also Catholic dogma, yet those bishops who would deny the Eucarist to pro-choice politicians did not do the same for those supporting a war which the Pope considered unjust. That just smacks of politics to me. And using the Eucharist, the most holy of sacraments, as the penalty just makes it that much worse.</p>
<p>And what reason would those clergy use to deny the Eucharist to a pro-life politician? That it was a sinful choice? It may well be but then who among us is not a sinner? Shall we deny the sacrament to everyone?</p>
<p>Actually the Church still reserves the right for a head of state to determine whether war is justified. The Church acknowledges that a head of state is going to be privy to info and intelligence that is not available to Rome.</p>
<p>Believe me, if the Church thought is was immoral for Catholics to be in Iraq, then the Church would demand all of its priest/chaplains to leave.</p>
<p>And, war is not intrinsically evil.</p>
<p>Also, the just war doctrine is not a dogma. All dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogmas.</p>
<p>In a discussion with Christians of many denominations it best not to use the “Church” (capitalized) when what you really mean is the Catholic Church. It is somewhat confusing.</p>
<p>JLauer,
I think the thing with the statues is that it certainly appears to non-Catholics as if the statues are being worshiped. I don’t think most would say that it is a problem to have a statue, but that it’s a problem to worship it. Many Protestant churches have stained glass windows with pictures of Jesus and other Bible figures, but no one bows to the windows and speaks to them.</p>
<p>I live in Texas, and most of the Catholics I know of are Latin Americans. When I see news reports on Catholic stories, it sure <em>looks</em> like the people are worshiping the statues. Also, as you know, many hang images of Mary from their rear view mirrors, wear St. Christopher medals for good luck, etc. To a Protestant, that is idolatry. It is looking to an object as a source of spiritual power.</p>
<p>We do not bow to statues.</p>
<p>We do not worship statues</p>
<p>It is a serious sin to worship anything but God.</p>
<p>Talking, in and of itself, is not worshiping. Singing, in and of itself, is not worshiping. singing to somebody is not worshiping (otherwise when I sing “happy Bday” or “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” to someone then I’m worshiping them.)</p>
<p>Worship is worship and only to God</p>
<p>When someone speaks to a picture of their dead mom, dad, grandma, etc. Do you think they are worshiping them?</p>
<p><<< Also, as you know, many hang images of Mary from their rear view mirrors, wear St. Christopher medals for good luck, >>></p>
<p>Anyone with true understanding of Catholism does not wear anything and think it brings them “good luck” The idea of “charms” is a serious sin. A belief in superstitions is a serious sin. People are supposed to wear these items for the SAME reason that they wear a memento from a beloved grandma – to remember them.</p>
<p>I agree that for someone to say that Catholics are not Christians is inflammatory. The terminology is a lot of the problem. After all, Catholics were called Christians before Protestants were called Christians. However, Catholics and Protestants do have a completely different basis of belief about salvation. If I am not mistaken, Catholic doctrine teaches that those who are not of the Catholic faith are to be “anathema”. I sometimes think that many Catholics are not even familiar with that teaching. So, a Catholic who was informed as to the church’s teaching, should also say that Protestants are not Christians. After all, they are not baptized into the Church, not confirmed, and do not partake of the Eucharist. How could a Catholic consider a Protestant to be a Christian without ignoring the clear teaching of the Church?</p>
<p>Now, for the record, I am a Protestant, and I do not see this as anti-Protestant bigotry. It’s just true that different religions have different beliefs. I think I should be free to say that I believe one thing, and it’s different than what you believe. Again, that doesn’t mean I need to be inflammatory about it or act superior in some way. </p>
<p>If I am wrong about the Catholic church’s teaching on the eternal destiny of non-Catholics, please correct me. I am kind of fuzzy about what I read concerning that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True understanding is probably the key. Would you agree that there is a problem with superstitions and use of charms among some groups of Catholics? (I’m not trying to say that all do this, but I’m sure you know that it is prevalent in some areas.) If so, why do you think that the priests don’t speak out more to stop it?</p>
<p>The Catholic Church does not say that non Catholics are destined to hell. As a matter of fact, a priest (Fr. Feeney) was excommunicated in the 1940’s for refusing to stop saying that. </p>
<p>The Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that people of all faiths can get to heaven.</p>
<p>timely, the Eucharist is really about the only major difference between the two. The Catholic church is certainly very similar to the Orthodox churches, where the main difference is they don’t accept the authority of the pope. </p>
<p>
:)</p>
<p>feel free to continue picking nits and making mountains out of molehills, Timely. You are doing great so far! Or maybe you just need a lens change so that you can see the bigger picture and get rid of those pesky distortions…</p>
<p>I’m willing to give Timely the benefit of the doubt. It’s a matter of not knowing or being given incorrect information – not harboring anti-Catholic bias. I grew up in conservative fundamentalist territory. Got a lot of wrong information about the Catholic Church. Was the area anti-Catholic? I’m thinking not, seeing as how they elected a Catholic to the State House and then the Senate for 20+ years. </p>
<p>Moved to south Louisiana as a teenager to a place 95% Catholic – the good news is my misunderstandings were corrected simply by observation. The bad news is that the Catholics had a bunch of wild ideas about Protestants that I had to correct. And then there’s the former girlfriend who dragged me to a church involving snake handling, faith healing, and speaking in tongues, but I digress. </p>
<p>My point, if I have one, is that being misinformed is not the same as being biased. </p>
<p>And I have to second one of the above comments. Even after all these years of (hopefully) gaining insight into different beliefs, one thing that drives me crazy is the habit some people have of saying “the Church” instead of “the Catholic Church” in a conversation with members of other faiths. It’s confusing at best, condescending at worst.</p>
<p>As I said, the Catholic Church is not monochromatic. In our diocese, the Eucharistic ministers are instructed to give Communion to all who present themselves; it is not for the Eucharistic minister to determine who is eligible to receive and who is not, even if they “know” that someone isn’t supposed to receive…it is a matter of that person’s conscience and God. </p>
<p>I thank God that the USA isn’t one of the Latin American or Mediterranean countries (or Poland! you forgot about Poland!) where elements of the church hierarchy are accustomed to successfully imposing their will on secular politics. I’d feel free to tell any American bishop who crossed that line to go stick it. Many more would look for a politer way to say the same thing.</p>
<p>Btw, JLauer, my sister in-law’s theology degree that you sneered at is a Master’s from Marquette, a good Jesuit institution. Where is yours from?</p>
<p>being truly misinformed is one thing. I do find it somewhat incredulous sometimes at how consistent the “misinformed” are…</p>
<p>“Up until a few years ago the President of Bob Jones University characterized Catholicism as a mongrel religion. And I suspect a surprising number of evangelical Protestants today continue to feel the same way though they would never dare to admit it. But then they feel the same way about Presbyterians, Methodists and Episcopalians too.”</p>
<p>I think you are confusing evangelicals with fundamentalists. I would consider myself to be an evangelical, and I have no problem with Catholics or any of the other groups you mentioned. While I have large theological differences with some of them, I consider all of these groups to be Christian. In fact, I will most likely attend Notre Dame this fall. Please do not assume that all or even most evangelicals are anti-Catholic.</p>
<p>
This is the case for all parishes/diocese, to the best of my knowledge. And, in fact, I think it’s only in the case of someone who is making a point of promoting a belief that is contradictory to Catholic doctrine that anyone would ever be denied a sacrament. That, in itself, is very serious and I’m not aware that it has actually happened to a politician.</p>
<p>However, the Vatican has made it clear that pro-abortion activists should not receive Communion. I think it’s up to each individual to make that choice, but I can’t imagine taking Communion knowing that it was a sin to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t sure of this, so I didn’t say. My little mental cameras and tape recorders catch a variety of differences whenever we go to churches in other areas. I can assume that if there are differences that I see, there are also differences that I don’t see. (N.B., most of the differences are things that you’d have to be a “liturgy nut” to catch and the implications differences may or may not have thought out liturgical thinking behind them. Though my eyebrow really twitches where we’re in a church that offers Communion only under one specie.)</p>
<p>
Well, he said dryly, the bishop of St. Louis in Fall 2004 said that voting for Kerry was a sin that required confession. My brother in-law, the former seminarian turned lawyer/partner, went into orbit over that one. I’d love to have a copy of the letter he sent the bishop; alas, I only have his description.
Your mileage may vary. It certainly does in our parish. I imagine that any pro-Choice–note nomenclature for future reference–activist would leave it to God as to whether or not it was a sin. Fwiw, the stats I’ve seen suggest that Catholic voters are very near the national norms as for voting for Choice. What is considered “activism” might also be another Talmudic question for discussion.</p>