-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
All you want to know about the Catholic Church
- Thread starter Renji
- Start date
Renji
Well-Known Member
As of what the Church teaches about it, the Church believed that it is not aimed to answer how everything was created or to explain the origin of life (how would the author of Genesis know what had transpired if he's not yet living when everything began?) but rather, the story shows how powerful and creative God is; that from nothingness He has made everything and has made order/harmony into his creations. It should be noted that while some believe that God has dictated everything into the authors of the Bible and they just wrote it word per word(verbatim) , the Bible does not work that way. Ofcourse, God has helped them in writting it, through inspiration etc but God did not disallow the authors to put what they wrote based on the understanding and the literature existing when they existed. Therefore, when we read the Bible as well as the story of creation, we should therefore allow our selves to the literature of people during those times (way, way back), not taking all the verses literally for there are verses written as historical records, prophetic speeches, stories that impart morals and greatness of God, etc. As Catholics, we do accept the ToE.
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
In the Church, we have the Magesterium or the "teachers of the Church" composed of all the bishops in unity with the Pope. While they all in all determine and teach what is official, there's no specific guidelines in which is which; which is literal and which is not. Hence, the answer lies on the Catholic theology. If let's say that the Church teaches that a verse should not be taken literally based on the theology, then the faithful should listen and accept it.
Last edited:
Renji
Well-Known Member
Renji
Well-Known Member
I can give you three. St. John of the Cross- who joined St. Teresa of Avila in her efforts to effect a reform in the Order. He founded the house of reform at Duruelo where he took the name St. John of the Cross. Some of his writtings include the Ascent of Mt. Carmel, The spiritual canticle, and the Dark Night of the soul. Hence he is one of the greatest West mystical writters and is also a Doctor of the Church. Another is St. Teresa of Avila aka St. Teresa of Jesus. She wrote Counter reformation and theologian of contemplative life through mental prayer. Also a doctor of the church. St. Catherine of Sienna was a theologian and a scholastic philosopher; brought papacy back to Rome from its displacement in France. And those writtings that I've mentioned are examples of contemplative (or contains guidelines) traditions of the Church. There are many others and it'll be extensive for me to elaborate on them.if you have questions about one of them though, just ask.
I'd like to know more about the differences between the Protestant (I am aware there are many different denominations with slightly differing views on some things) and Catholic doctrines, if that's okay.
What is the status of Mary? I know that neither Protestants nor Catholics would say she is God, of course, but from what little I know, Catholics hold extremely high reverence for her. What is the nature of this reverence? Is she considered a Saint, or Divine, or Sinless, or something else? Protestants for the most part consider her blessed, and special in that she bore Christ on earth, but we do not pray to her or the saints. Apologies in advance if I'm making wrong assumptions or misinterpretations.
What is the status of Mary? I know that neither Protestants nor Catholics would say she is God, of course, but from what little I know, Catholics hold extremely high reverence for her. What is the nature of this reverence? Is she considered a Saint, or Divine, or Sinless, or something else? Protestants for the most part consider her blessed, and special in that she bore Christ on earth, but we do not pray to her or the saints. Apologies in advance if I'm making wrong assumptions or misinterpretations.
Renji
Well-Known Member
Actually I see more similarities than differences. Catholics and Protestants both believe in God as a Trinity, both give importance on the Bible and of course, our faith in Christ. I think there are a lot of Protestant churches so the difference can be quite difficult to identify, but in general the difference can be: 1) Protestants doesn't accept the infallibility of the Pope or the Catholic Church as a whole. 2) Protestants believe in the Bible alone while the Catholic Church accept both the Bible and the Sacred tradition. 3) Protestants do not recognize the 7 Deuterocannonical books in the Catholic Bible. 4) Protestants does not believe in the rosary, the purgatory and asking for the intercession of the saints. 5) Protestants do not believe in transubstantiation ( bread and wine turns literally to the body and blood of Christ).
About Mary, the Catholic's honor of her is based on the early writtings of the Holy/ Apostolic Fathers. St. Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John's disciple, Polycarp, calls Mary our most eminent advocate. St Igantius of Antioch, who was able to live in the "Apostolic times", wrote the mysteries of Lord Jesus' life in a way that he related in in the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary. With regards to the status of Mary in the Church, saints like St. Bonaventure tells us that "Mary, has this privilege compared to other saints, that she is the most powerful in obtaining whatever she requests from her son." So yes, she is a saint, but of all the saints she is somewhat special in a way that she is the Mother of God, who by her obedience, is preserved in purity and without a stain of sin.
Last edited:
I can give you three. St. John of the Cross- who joined St. Teresa of Avila in her efforts to effect a reform in the Order. He founded the house of reform at Duruelo where he took the name St. John of the Cross. Some of his writtings include the Ascent of Mt. Carmel, The spiritual canticle, and the Dark Night of the soul. Hence he is one of the greatest West mystical writters and is also a Doctor of the Church. Another is St. Teresa of Avila aka St. Teresa of Jesus. She wrote Counter reformation and theologian of contemplative life through mental prayer. Also a doctor of the church. St. Catherine of Sienna was a theologian and a scholastic philosopher; brought papacy back to Rome from its displacement in France. And those writtings that I've mentioned are examples of contemplative (or contains guidelines) traditions of the Church. There are many others and it'll be extensive for me to elaborate on them.if you have questions about one of them though, just ask.
________________________________________________________________________
Just remembered the writtings of St. Iganatius of Loyola, the Spiritual Exercises. It's also one of the "contemplative writtings" in the Church.
Thanks Renji,
I grew up in a protestant tradition and basically 'went east' to get my mysticism and contemplation lessons, via Buddhism and other Indian Dharmas.
It wasn't' until year later when I started volunteering with a Catholic Drop in centre that I first encountered Christian contemplative and mystic practices. Turns out my journey wasn't completely necessary after all!
I admired Kabbalah and Sufism for years in the Abrahamic front and always wondered how Christianity missed this boat. Well the more I got into it the more I understood how it was suppressed in the RC tradition at some point, and how it never really even had a chance to be expressed in a Protestant term... Unless you include the Quakers
I am now part of the Anglican Church of Canada and got my Mom to start attending Episcopal worship in the states. Both of these Churches (Same church body) have a middle way of doctrine, which is why it's called 'via media'. It examines Roman Catholic Doctrine as well as Protestant.... but surprisingly and happily for me, Orthodox doctrine as well. My Mom's church has 'Silent Worship' two Sunday evenings a month, and also 'Celtic Service' which is more evocative of God in Creation... really different.... WAY more contemplative and meditative.
I'm happy to have found a Church which seems to honour these traditions more and I've been studying some of the doctrines and writings you mentioned.
But thanks for bringing them more info focus in the words of a Catholic.
Meister Eckhart is another writer I enjoy from the same time period as St. John and Teresa that you mentioned, although I think he was sought out by some Franciscans and excommunicated before his death, which may or may not have been related to the whole event... history isn't clear on that matter.
If I can interject to balance an answer, which was quite good.
Anglican theology has elements of both, but what caught my eye was the 'Deuterocannonical', sometimes give the hood of 'Apocrypha'. In the High Church, for certain, these books aren't taught from, but are in the RSV which is the common translation in Anglicanism.
So it's worth separating Anglicans from the mix, I think.
Although the Episcopal Church in the States is 'Low Church' or Protestant in influence,over 'High' which leans to the Churches Catholic roots.
Also there is also an Anglican rosary, with it's own prayers...
Although I'm sure it differs in theology/meaning....
I hope this was okay to share as it seemed on topic.
And I hope that even though we are in the Catholic DIR,
That the bonds established between Canterbury and Rome can be held here in my sharing on the different traditions of the Body of Christ.
Firstly I come in Love. Then I talk particulars
If not... I will clean up anything you ask.
Just PM me.
Renji
Well-Known Member
Just drop by in here if you have some questions in mind. And thank you too for your question.
Thanks for sharing, Sagetree! Sure, that's fine. Besides, I'm not the authority here on this DIR.
If you mean me as a Staff person.... we can still get our butts kicked for venturing where our knowledge and spiritual practice is not
Thanks for letting me share.
Renji
Well-Known Member
If you mean me as a Staff person.... we can still get our butts kicked for venturing where our knowledge and spiritual practice is not
Thanks for letting me share.
What I meant is that I'm not in the right position to say "hey, just stop" or something like that.
Your answer is out of line with official church teaching. The RC church, as well as the bible, teaches that the bible is inspired by God and therefore inerrant and infallible.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (Emphasis mine)
I agree that some parts of the bible should not be taken literally, because they were not intended to be taken literally, but Genesis is not one of those parts. There is nothing in the text to suggest that it was not intended to be taken as anything but plain straight forward history.
You seem to imply that the people who wrote the bible had inferior understanding and literature, where did this idea come from? If anything, the bible implies that early man was more inteligent than us. The idea that early man was less inteligent than us is actually part of evolutionary theory that has been subconsiously ingrained into the way we read scripture. And also, 21st century man likes to think he is the ants pants and the bees knees
An understanding of the literature and culture can be invaluable to our understanding of scripture, but it does not mean we get to I realise I may possibly be reading somthing into your statement that you did not intend to say, if I am, then sorry!
I suppose ToE means Darwinian evolution . . . . . If you don't believe Genesis, why don't you believe evolution? I mean, you could possibly reject evolution based on scientific flaws, but if you do that, then I see absolutely no reason not to take all of Genesis as intended.