• 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!

Catholic Q/A

Katholish

Member
To many people who are not Catholic, the Catholic Faith sometimes seems confusing. There is usually at least some point in which a non-Catholic may ask, Do they really believe that? Well, I wish to give you an opportunity to ask. It has also been my experience that most non-Catholics have some misconceptions of what Catholics believe, sometimes rather serious ones.

So, please feel free if you had any questions. Or wanted to know why the Church believes as she does.
 

Katholish

Member
Wow, I didn't realize that there was a whole system of subforms in the Abrahamic heading. I'll stay here if it is all the same though, this type of thing tends to become somewhat debate-like.
 
Almost all of my Catholic friends disagree with the Church on one issue or another. The Church seems to have an official statement regarding everything...from religious to social and even political issues. To what extent are Catholics "allowed" to disagree with Church teaching?
 
Great question, Mr. Spinkles! After being raised Catholic and 12 yrs. of Catholic schooling....I don't know the answer either. I agree that most Catholics have something they disagree with in terms of Catholic Doctrine....Best I have observed amongst my friends, it is kind of a don't ask...don't tell policy. For example, I know many who use birth control methods aside from natural family planning....they don't consider it a sin nor do they confess. Also, in this type of instance, I have never known a parish priest to broach the subject with couples of child-bearing years to ask why they lack any children or why they have a small family even though statistically the large number of child-bearing couples in a parish should actually reflect much larger families. I cannot imagine that the priest would think they are either all barren or have been exceeedly successful with NFP.

Another example is in divorce cases. Most divorced people, even those who marry again outside the Church often continue to practice the Catholic Faith or identify themselves as Catholic. Some, however, will refrain from taking Communion but not all.

Please note that all I have stated above is based on personal experiences and observations
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
I have an inquiry. Where do catholics believe they get authority for the clergy? I know that deacons and elders/bishops/overseers are authorized in 1 Timothy and also in Titus, but what about priests, cardinals, and others? Please let me know.
 

Katholish

Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
Almost all of my Catholic friends disagree with the Church on one issue or another. The Church seems to have an official statement regarding everything...from religious to social and even political issues. To what extent are Catholics "allowed" to disagree with Church teaching?

All Catholics must accept the Church's teaching on matters of Faith and Morals especially what she has declared as dogma and as Divinely revealed (as part of Scripture or Sacred Tradition).

There are three levels of acceptance.

1) Submission of Divine and Catholic Faith.
This is the highest form of acceptance and must be given to what is explicitly taught in the Deposit of Faith (such as the True Presence of the Blessed Sacrament)

2) "Firmly accept and hold"
This is the second highest form and pertains to matters that are imtimately connected with Divine Revelation and have been infallibly declared by the Church (such as Transubstantiation)

3) "Religious submission of the will and intellect"
This is the lowest of the three and pertains to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium (such as the declared status of certain groups)

In practice, the distinction among these three is not really noticable.

Catholics may disagree with the disciplinary practices of the Church, such as priestly celebacy, however, the greatest discretion should be used in regards what form this disagreement might take. Disciplinary matters must be obeyed however, regardless of what one's opinion of them might be, because we are bound in obedience in matters of which are legitimately under the authority of the priests, bishops, or the pope in such matters.

There are also matters of Faith and Morals on which the Church has not made a definitive teaching on, and these are open to speculation (such as whether or not there is a Limbo for unbaptized babies).
 

Katholish

Member
Linus said:
I have an inquiry. Where do catholics believe they get authority for the clergy? I know that deacons and elders/bishops/overseers are authorized in 1 Timothy and also in Titus, but what about priests, cardinals, and others? Please let me know.

Thank you for the question, Linus.

I will address priests first and then Cardinals.

Priests are also called presbyters, if that helps. They are mentioned in the Scriptures, but a whole diagram of the differences between the hierarchy is not as clearly stated in the Scriptures as we might like.

Acts 14:
20 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch:
21 Confirming the souls of the disciples and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.
22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostles and possibly had seen Christ writes, in about 107AD on his way to Rome to be martyred, a more detailed information.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans:
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

It is clear from this that a bishop has authority over the local church, and the presbyters and deacons (in that order) are under his authority. The presbyters are the ones that the bishops could entrust the celebration of the Eucharist to, although again, this point isn't as clear as we would like it to be.

Much of the more practical understanding of the differenciation between the clergy must be taken from Divine Tradition, in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the way in which the Church has preserved the sacrament of Holy Orders, the laying on of hands.

As for Cardinals, their authority, according to my understanding, is solely as representatives of the Pope, they don't really have authority aside from him. However, most cardinals also hold high ecclesiastical office, most are bishops or archbishops, and only very few are priests.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response.

But here's the problem I have with your answer. I have read and investigated many different translations of this passage (Acts 14:20-22) and not only does none of them mention the word "priest" but none even imply any similar meaning. Here are some of the translations I have found of Acts 14:22:

strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said.

strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."

putting muscle and sinew in the lives of the disciples, urging them to stick with what they had begun to believe and not quit, making it clear to them that it wouldn't be easy: "Anyone signing up for the kingdom of God has to go through plenty of hard times."

Establishing and strengthening the souls and the hearts of the disciples, urging and warning and encouraging them to stand firm in the faith, and [telling them] that it is through many hardships and tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

where they strengthened the believers. They encouraged them to continue in the faith, reminding them that they must enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations.

Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

In each city they helped the Christians to be strong and true to the faith. They told them, 'We must suffer many hard things to get into the holy nation of God.'

I have more if you want them, but could you please explain these differences?
 

Katholish

Member
Yes, actually I can very easily explain why none of the translations that you quoted mention priest or presbyter, because if you look at my quote, you will see that the quote is from the 22nd verse, and yet every translation that you just listed is verse 21.
 

Zero Faith

Member
I have a question for you:

The mystery of transubstantiation is, I find, often confused amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Does the Catholic faith believe that the host (bread and wine) at communion is literally and miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Christ, or is it merely symbolic?
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Katholish said:
Yes, actually I can very easily explain why none of the translations that you quoted mention priest or presbyter, because if you look at my quote, you will see that the quote is from the 22nd verse, and yet every translation that you just listed is verse 21.

Actually, all of my translations number it as verse 22. But upon further investigation, I found that verse 23 says, "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust."

First of all, why do the difference in the numbers of the verses occur? Do the Catholics simply number their Bible diferently?

And second, my trasnlations say "elders", not priests. Would you not agree thast these are different positions? What is the explanation?
 
I can field that one, Zero Faith. Catholics believe that it is not "just symbolic". They also believe that the bread and wine are not "literally" the blood and body of Jesus...in other words, Jesus' DNA can't be extracted from them. Catholics believe that the bread and wine DO transform into Jesus....just not in a physical sense...in a spiritual one. :p
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
*clears throat* Actually, thats not entirely true. The Catechism of the Catholic church states that Catholics are indeed supposed to believe that the host and wine make a physical change. Why can't samples of flesh and blood be extracted for study? Well you see, they only change for the short period of time during the Eucharist...and then they change back. Of course, taking samples during the Eucharist is just too scandalous to even think about, so it seems we've got ourselves a bit of a pickle going on here.

I would say that catholics are the pros when it comes to covering bases.
 

Katholish

Member
Zero Faith, Mr. Sprinkles, and Ceridwen,

The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine used at Mass truly become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus He is substantially present, though the Eucharist retains the accidents of Bread.

Because in transubstantiation, the Sacred Host retains the accidents of bread, one could not take a DNA sample. However, there have been Eucharistic miracles where the consecrated Host has not only been substantially changed, but also physically in that it has taken the accidents of human flesh and blood. There have been several such miracles all over the world and throughout history.

Even when the accidents of bread remain though, it is not true that the True and Substantial Presence of Christ remains for only a little while during the Mass, as Ceridwen suggested, but this Host becomes the substance of Christ's Body, and hence the substance does not "disapear" after a certain amount of time, it does not revert back into bread.

So Zero Faith, to answer you question, the Church believes that the bread ceases to be bread and truly and literally becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and is not just symbolic.
 

Katholish

Member
Linus, I have never seen anything like that before. Very interesting. I found the source of the problem which occurs eariler in the chapter.

Douay-Rheims Version, Acts 14:
6 They, understanding it, fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the whole country round about: and were there preaching the gospel.

King James Version, Acts 14:
6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
7 And there they preached the gospel.

St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate (382 - 405AD) (Bold added), Acts 14:
14:6 intellegentes confugerunt ad civitates Lycaoniae Lystram et Derben et universam in circuitu regionem et ibi evangelizantes erant
14:7 et quidam vir in Lystris infirmus pedibus sedebat claudus ex utero matris suae qui numquam ambulaverat

The Catholic numbering system follows the translation by Jerome at the turn of the 5th Century. I bolded the term "evangelizantes" because it is the word for gospel, and shows that the referrence is in verse 6 and not 7. Since this is a new thing for me, I don't know why the King James has it numbered as it does, nor do I really know why Jerome has it numbered this way, I have never looked into the numbering of verses before.

Since I had found an online Vulgate, I though that I would also look up verse 22 in question to see how it renders "priest" or "elder".

Vulgate Version, Acts 14 (bold added):
14:22 et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros et orassent cum ieiunationibus commendaverunt eos Domino in quem crediderunt

I highlighted the word presbyteros for obvious reasons.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Very interesting stuff indeed. But why do you translate your Bible from Latin and not the original languagein which it was written, Greek? It would seem that you would get a more acurate translation directly from it instead of from greek to latin to english.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
I get back from vacation what do I see?????????

Hello and welcome Katholish! Great posts....... keep on defending the Truth!

Peace,
Scott
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Linus said:
Very interesting stuff indeed. But why do you translate your Bible from Latin and not the original languagein which it was written, Greek? It would seem that you would get a more acurate translation directly from it instead of from greek to latin to english.

Well, it would be helpful to have it in the original Aramaic. Even the Greek is a translation from one language to another. Too bad the oldest existing manuscripts are from 300 years after it was all written.
 
Top