Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 2

HotRod said:

What do you think of the majority of priests being child molesting kiddie fuckers??

 I'm assuming you're joking, but only a very small percentage of priests are pedophiles or something similar. It is an unfortunate situation and some dioceses are taking steps to prevent child molestation by priests and volunteers in the parish, but it is not nearly as big a concern as one might think as it is blown out of proportion by the media. A lot of bishops are at fault for keeping it so low key to protect their priests, and they should be trying to stop it, not hide it. Unfortunately what happens is they often just transfer the priest to another parish and bring the problem there. These bishops are still in the minority though, as their are thousands of bishops throughout the world and only a handful are really at fault. I have met a lot of priests in my life, and as far as I am aware, not one of them was guilty of pedophilia. It is fairly rare though and the Church is trying to prevent it, so hopefully the situation will improve.

RicOlie_2 said:

timdiggerm said:

How can Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reconcilliation take place?

 It could be very complicated, since both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe they have the fullness of the truth, so a compromise in beliefs between them likely won't happen, or at least not for some time. Unification will have to be a very gradual process, and as the first steps towards reconciliation only began in the mid-20th century, so there is a long ways to go. The Catholic Church (unless I specify otherwise I will always be referring to the Roman Catholic Church when I use the term "Catholic") permits Catholics to receive Orthodox sacraments and go to Orthodox churches on Sunday if there isn't a Catholic church nearby, but the Orthodox Church has yet to respond in kind. Making peace with each other is the first step and that has gone quite far, but there may never be true unification.

If by "reconciliation" you mean unification, then it will probably take something pretty drastic to unify the two churches. Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm taking you to mean making peace with each other and not necessarily unifying. Well, this has already began with Pope John XXIII I believe, the Pope who began the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s. There were several representatives from the Orthodox Church present at the council and I believe the Pope had met with at least one of their main Patriarchs before that. Later Popes, most notably John Paul II, also met with Orthodox Patriarchs and I believe it was he who declared the Orthodox Church's sacraments valid (I'm going off the top of my head right now, but I will make sure I have my facts straight when I have more time). The next step is for the Orthodox Church to reciprocate and then the two Churches can take further steps forward. The Churches are in a far greater state of reconciliation than they were a hundred years ago, so we have made progress and I believe the best way to reconciliation is mostly to continue as we are now with a bit more communication and cooperation between the Churches.

(I have heard that many members of the Orthodox Church are willing to join the Catholic Church and accept papal supremacy, but that is just hearsay and I'm not sure what "many" means.)

Hopefully that answers your question. If not, then I can find you some links and give a better explanation later.

 what drove the Orthodox and Catholic Church apart in the first place?

btw, you RicOlie_2 you might like this post I did a while back:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Random-Thoughts/post/467437/#TopicPost467437

Thanks Warb.

In an Anglican church, we invite everyone to take communion whatever denomination, if they are are in good standing with their church.

If I enter a Catholic church, why can I not take communion. Am I not good enough ?

timdiggerm said:

If Peter was the first Pope, why did James preside over the Council of Jerusalem?

Here's an article that might explain it better and in more detail than I can:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-james-the-real-leader-of-the-early-church

James was the local Bishop and Jerusalem was pretty much the headquarters of the Church at the time, so James would have had a good deal of authority there. There is a theory that Acts 15 describes two separate events, one regarding circumcision, which was the Council of Jerusalem (led by Peter), and another regarding dietary laws which was a local decree and not Church wide like the Council. This is evidenced by Acts 21:15-25 in which Paul once again goes out to Jerusalem and they address the dietary and Mosaic laws a seeming second time which would be odd if they had already brought it up in the council of Jerusalem. If that were the case, then there is no problem as Peter would have presided over the Council of Jerusalem. If this is not the case however, then consider that he was the first to speak, which is indicative of his higher position. He also calls directly on the authority of God, as is the role of the Pope. The Pope is a mediator between God and his Church and is not himself the authority behind the Church's teachings, so by giving his judgement, James was not necessarily contradicting Peter's authority. Peter also spoke authoritatively, stating, "we believe that we are saved by through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they", (Acts 15:11) rather than giving his "judgement" on the matter. This may have just been a character trait of his, but it may also indicate that he had enough authority just to state that it "was" a certain way or "should be" a certain way rather than giving his judgement or opinion on the matter. James also only reinforced what Peter said. It is also notable that Peter met with no opposition to his statements (Acts 15:12a: The whole assembly fell silent...), even though there were many present who did not agree with that position initially, so that also indicates that he had authority.

Check out the link if my explanation doesn't quite cut it and hopefully it will help. You may want to skip straight to the explanation, which begins about two thirds of the way down at "Petrine Primacy in Acts."

Wolfman said:

In an Anglican church, we invite everyone to take communion whatever denomination, if they are are in good standing with their church.

If I enter a Catholic church, why can I not take communion. Am I not good enough ?

 To answer that question, I would like to ask what your beliefs are regarding communion. There are three different beliefs among Anglicans, so my answer may depend on which belief is held in your church. One of the beliefs is that of transubstantiation, the belief held by the Catholic Church, in which we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolically or spiritually, but in every way aside from appearance. Another Anglican belief is that Christ is completely present in Communion, but that the bread and wine are not Christ himself. The third belief is that of consubstantiation in which Christ is believed to be present in the sacrament to those who "permit their souls to be radiated with the Holy Spirit at the time of the sacrament."

The second belief is that which is defined in the Thirty-Nine Articles, but I may have misunderstood it, so apologies if I didn't define it correctly. I will answer your question as soon as you clarify your beliefs on the sacrament of Communion. :)

Warbler said:

what drove the Orthodox and Catholic Church apart in the first place?

 I'll get back to you on that with some links hopefully.

RicOlie_2 said:

Wolfman said:

In an Anglican church, we invite everyone to take communion whatever denomination, if they are are in good standing with their church.

If I enter a Catholic church, why can I not take communion. Am I not good enough ?

 To answer that question, I would like to ask what your beliefs are regarding communion. There are three different beliefs among Anglicans, so my answer may depend on which belief is held in your church. One of the beliefs is that of transubstantiation, the belief held by the Catholic Church, in which we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolically or spiritually, but in every way aside from appearance. Another Anglican belief is that Christ is completely present in Communion, but that the bread and wine are not Christ himself. The third belief is that of consubstantiation in which Christ is believed to be present in the sacrament to those who "permit their souls to be radiated with the Holy Spirit at the time of the sacrament."

 The first from your list. Simply, The bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

Wolfman said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Wolfman said:

In an Anglican church, we invite everyone to take communion whatever denomination, if they are are in good standing with their church.

If I enter a Catholic church, why can I not take communion ? Am I not good enough ?

 To answer that question, I would like to ask what your beliefs are regarding communion. There are three different beliefs among Anglicans, so my answer may depend on which belief is held in your church. One of the beliefs is that of transubstantiation, the belief held by the Catholic Church, in which we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolically or spiritually, but in every way aside from appearance. Another Anglican belief is that Christ is completely present in Communion, but that the bread and wine are not Christ himself. The third belief is that of consubstantiation in which Christ is believed to be present in the sacrament to those who "permit their souls to be radiated with the Holy Spirit at the time of the sacrament."

 The first from your list. Simply, The bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

 

 Well, the answer is certainly not because you aren't good enough or anything like that. The Catholic Church prefers to share communion only with those who share the same beliefs and church practices. Some outside of the Church are granted access to the Catholic sacraments such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, due to the similarities in their sacraments to those of the Catholic Church. One of the reasons Catholics practice closed communion is that many Protestant denominations don't have the same beliefs regarding the sacrament, so there is a concern that visiting Protestants won't have the same reverence or disposition to receive it as they should or that they won't be baptized, which is an essential requirement for reception of Communion in all but extreme cases. Of course many Catholics don't have the proper reverence or disposition either, and it is sad that the respect for the Eucharist has plummeted so far, but we believe God will take care of any injustices against his sacrament. There are rules to decrease these injustices though, and closed communion is one of them.

Obviously, because you believe in transubstantiation, you would likely know to show the proper respect when receiving it, but if you think about what the word "communion" means, you might understand this a bit better. Communion means "union", so the sacrament of Communion is a symbol of the unity of our beliefs and worship in the Catholic Faith. If you are not a member of the Catholic Faith you don't have the same beliefs as we do and are therefore not really in "communion" with the Catholic Church and the parishioners at the specific church you are visiting. Our intention is not to make you feel unwelcome, but considering that the sacrament is also symbolic of our unity, it is preferably shared only among baptized members of the Church.

There are exceptions to this rule though. If a non-Catholic is in danger of death or the local Bishop decides that their is a grave need, then members of other Churches/denominations can receive the sacrament if (a) they are not able to receive it from ministers of their own denomination, (b) they ask for it of their own accord, (c) they demonstrate a belief in the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist, and (d) they are properly disposed to receive the sacrament.

Hopefully that clears it up a bit for you. Our restrictions on reception of Communion are not because of a holier-than-thou attitude (or at least that is not an attitude endorsed by the Catholic Church), so please don't feel unwelcome at a Catholic Church because of closed Communion.

Ryan McAvoy said:

I'd be interested to know which Pope brought in mandatory Celebacy, when it was and what were his reasons?

 The rule of celibacy was recognized in the west (i.e. in Europe) by the time of Pope St. Leo I (the Great) who was Pope from AD 440-461. It was made a rule in the Synod of Elvira (AD 305 (as a synod it is and was not applicable to the church as a whole but directed at a certain region) and reaffirmed in the Council of Carthage (AD 390). The rule of celibacy is not a Church doctrine, meaning that it is a rule that is not universal in the Church and can be changed. It is what is known as a discipline and its purpose is to allow a priest to focus on God and his parish alone, without the difficulties of having a spouse and a family. In most rites of the Catholic Church, the Latin Rite being the main exception, priests are allowed to be married when they are ordained but cannot marry afterwards. In the Latin Rite, that same rule applies to deacons only. Married converts to the Catholic Faith can be granted exception to the rule of celibacy in priesthood and can be ordained. This usually happens with Protestant ministers who convert to the Faith and in fact this happened recently in my diocese.

The rule of celibacy might change in the future, or more allowances may be made. It is understandably a frequently misunderstood rule and one that causes a lot of criticism of Catholics, but hopefully my explanation makes the rule a bit clearer to you (if not, feel free to clarify if you wish).

RicOlie_2 said:

...his acceptance of homosexual people as opposed to homosexuality.

 That makes zero sense.

I'll clarify then. Catholics do not hate homosexual people, but rather condemn homosexual acts. That is an important distinction to make. Not all homosexuals engage in homosexual acts; they are distinct concepts. That doesn't mean we should shun those who have or do commit such acts, but we should not encourage what they do. If you had a son who started stealing cars as a teenager, you could still love him, but you most likely would not encourage him. Chances are you would do your best to get him to stop. The same thing goes for just about everything. Catholics (and all Christians for that matter) are supposed to have love for everyone, but that love does not encompass the wrong they do. Instead we are supposed to discourage their sinful actions, mainly by example.

Hopefully that does clear up the distinction instead of confusing it more or making me sound bananas. :P

Double post :(

You just compared two people in a loving relationship to someone stealing a car.  Also, if you condemn homosexual acts, you are condemning homosexuals.  Separating one from the other might make you feel better, but it's not reality.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

timdiggerm said:

How can Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reconcilliation take place?

 It could be very complicated, since both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe they have the fullness of the truth, so a compromise in beliefs between them likely won't happen, or at least not for some time. Unification will have to be a very gradual process, and as the first steps towards reconciliation only began in the mid-20th century, so there is a long ways to go. The Catholic Church (unless I specify otherwise I will always be referring to the Roman Catholic Church when I use the term "Catholic") permits Catholics to receive Orthodox sacraments and go to Orthodox churches on Sunday if there isn't a Catholic church nearby, but the Orthodox Church has yet to respond in kind. Making peace with each other is the first step and that has gone quite far, but there may never be true unification.

If by "reconciliation" you mean unification, then it will probably take something pretty drastic to unify the two churches. Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm taking you to mean making peace with each other and not necessarily unifying. Well, this has already began with Pope John XXIII I believe, the Pope who began the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s. There were several representatives from the Orthodox Church present at the council and I believe the Pope had met with at least one of their main Patriarchs before that. Later Popes, most notably John Paul II, also met with Orthodox Patriarchs and I believe it was he who declared the Orthodox Church's sacraments valid (I'm going off the top of my head right now, but I will make sure I have my facts straight when I have more time). The next step is for the Orthodox Church to reciprocate and then the two Churches can take further steps forward. The Churches are in a far greater state of reconciliation than they were a hundred years ago, so we have made progress and I believe the best way to reconciliation is mostly to continue as we are now with a bit more communication and cooperation between the Churches.

(I have heard that many members of the Orthodox Church are willing to join the Catholic Church and accept papal supremacy, but that is just hearsay and I'm not sure what "many" means.)

Hopefully that answers your question. If not, then I can find you some links and give a better explanation later.

 what drove the Orthodox and Catholic Church apart in the first place?

 A variety of things spread out over several hundred years caused the first Great Schism and the disagreements built up over time, culminating in complete separation. One such disagreement was over papal supremacy. The Orthodox Church has multiple Patriarchs as leaders rather than having a single Pope like the Catholic Church. Political and theological disagreements (there is a clause in the Nicene Creed that created a bit of a rift for example) also contributed. The Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated by a cardinal representing the Pope and he excommunicated the Pope in turn, which really helped to push the Church towards the Schism. In 1054 they split and have remained separated ever since.

Here are some links for further reading in case you are interested.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Centers_of_Christianity

Christianity Today Article: http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1990/issue28/2820.html

(This one has a short bit about reconciliation between the Churches if you are interested, timdiggerm):  http://www.theopedia.com/Great_Schism

TV's Frink said:

You just compared two people in a loving relationship to someone stealing a car.  Also, if you condemn homosexual acts, you are condemning homosexuals.  Separating one from the other might make you feel better, but it's not reality.

 I compared car-stealing with homosexual sex acts with the intention of demonstrating that it is possible to love a person who does things you think/believe are wrong, not because I think they should be punished the way a car-thief should or anything like that. There is a distinction, whether or not it is clear the way I explained it.

That definition of "love" is highly debatable.  

You say you believe homosexual acts are wrong.  Why?

Regarding homosexuality, it appears to be psychological. since homosexuals can be reoriented to be straight and many have been. It can work in the reverse too. Apparently the statistics are quite high for men who join the navy becoming gay because their "sexual orientation," if you want to call it that, changes when they are away from contact with the opposite sex for so long. Because of that, Catholics don't recognize it as true and good sexuality.

Here are a few articles on the subject, for informational purposes.

Reorientation

Increase of Sexual Tolerance

Further Increase of Sexual Tolerance

Disclaimer ;): I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you, just trying to give you something from our perspective. If you are offended by it, I'm fine with you saying that, but please be respectful, I'm not trying to start a hate war here.

TV's Frink said:

That definition of "love" is highly debatable.

I don't disagree that something someone does won't harm a relationship, but it won't always end it.

You say you believe homosexual acts are wrong.  Why?

 To understand why we believe homosexual acts are wrong, you have to understand what we, as Catholics, believe about sex. We believe that the primary purpose of sex is for procreation of the human race. Secondary to that is that it is an expression of love between a married man and a woman. (This may seem extremely limiting to non-Catholics, but studies such as one that shows that those who only have sex within marriage are far less likely to divorce are examples of why we believe what we believe besides the fact that much of it is covered in the Bible.) The first is why contraceptives, homosexual sex, sterilization, masturbation, etc. are not permitted by the Catholic Church. It is a broad topic, so if you have specific questions I will answer them as they come, rather than writing a full-length essay on the subject. :)

Yeah, linking to articles that draw parallels between pedophilia and homosexuality is extremely offensive, no matter your intent.  Oh well.

As always when this subject comes up, I present...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFo8NGO4nTA

Sorry, my goal is not to insult people here, though it's hardly surprising when they are insulted, but please realize that the point is not to equate one with the other, as I believe pedophilia is far worse, but to show that it is headed that way, and how can you be sure adult/child sex won't be acceptable to society in the future if the child gives consent? If it is going that way with pedophilia, then perhaps we are being to accepting of homosexual sex and marriage.

Again, pedophilia is worse, so I'm not saying homosexuality is just as bad, so that is not my point.