What do you about Catholicism? Wanna know if it's true? Ask me.
- Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago
0Ugh! bBerean, I just typed a long post in response to this question - which is a great one, thanks! - and hit something that made it disappear. I'm stepping away, but I'll come back and do it again!
Mo, I salute you. I admire your courage in starting this thread. You are the only Hubber I know with the knowledge, humility, and patience to pull it off amicably.
The GotQuestions.org ministry makes a convincing case for the existence of absolute truth. “If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards.” {1}
Accepting their arguments, absolute truths are, therefore, constant and eternal. If they are absolute, they can not change with time. If a sin offends God to the degree that raises it to the level of a mortal sin, it follows by divine implication that such a mortal sin is an absolute wrong that can not diminish over time.
I recall being taught as a youth that causing or participating in cremation after death was a mortal sin. If not absolved, it would result in eternal damnation in hell. Furthermore, if it was your own cremation, obtaining absolution was probably no longer an option. According to Canon Law, "The bodies of the faithful deceased must be buried; and their cremation is reprobated. (Canon 1203:1) If a person has in any way ordered that his body be cremated it is illicit to obey such instructions; and if such a provision occur in a contract, last testament, or in any document whatsoever, it is to be disregarded. (Canon 1203:2)” {2}
[Two words underlined for added emphasis.]
The seriousness of this transgression was further implied in another section of Canon Law. “Canon 1240: The following persons are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless they have before death given some signs of repentance: ...(5) persons who have given orders for the cremation of their bodies;”
Much like the “rules” painted on the barn in Orwell’s Animal Farm, not all absolute truths seem to be eternal. In May, 1963, the prohibition against cremation was lifted and permission was later incorporated into the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983. “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burial be retained; but it does not forbid cremation, unless this is chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching. (Canon 1176, No. 3)”{3}
Therefore, a Catholic layman who, a hundred years ago, chose cremation after death was reprobated, i.e. “foreordained to damnation” {4}, for that which ecclesiastics deemed to be illicit, i.e. “activities that are not considered morally acceptable.” {5} Why? Because he had been taught it was a mortal sin. Meanwhile, someone who does the same today gets a pass.
There are countless volumes online explaining the R.C. church’s position on cremation both before and after the Second Vatican Council and the resulting changes to Canon Law. However, I have yet to uncover a word that justifies the shift of morality or explains the fate of the souls condemned to hell in the past.
Finally, my question. Thanks for your patience.
What is 1) the church’s justification for redefining God’s perception of cremation as a serious mortal sin and 2) how does this philosophical and ethical shift reflect on Papal Infallibility and 3) on the eternal aspects of absolute truths?
With ever growing respect, I thank you in advance for the time and effort you invest in a reply.
{1} http://www.gotquestions.org/absolute-truth.html
{2} http://www.olvrc.com/norms/cremation.html
{3} http://www.catholic-cemeteries.org/chur … ation.aspx
{4}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprobate
{5} http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illicitWow, Quill, what a big question. Let me take some time to look into it. I'll share my opinion as well as doing my best to explain the Church's stand. I appreciate your patience in giving me some time to formulate a response.
For all kinds of things!
Many thanks for your input, Ms. McFarland.
You are historically correct on all points and they are confirmed by my own research. However, my question is meant to focus on the justification for redefining the parameters for salvation.
Abominable acts that were designated by Canon Law to be serious mortal sins, causing a soul to forfeit final rites, a burial in consecrated ground, and entrance into heaven in one year are declared by Canon Law to be acceptable, but not preferred, abominable acts the next year. I am hoping Mo will provide the church’s justification for a philosophical shift in morals and ethics that literally redefines the parameters for salvation.
BTW, I am an admirer of your commentary in the Hubpages' forums. I thank you again for contributing to this thread as well.
Thank you, Mo. You are so kind. I sincerely appreciate your totally thorough reply.
I will only add that I, too, was unable to uncover any explanations based on church doctrine. Furthermore, I have observed that even the most devout and knowledgeable in the laity are left to improvise explanations when no reasonable rationale exists.
Thanks again, Mo. I hope you enjoy a bright tomorrow.Often we are, Quill. In all fairness, there is just so much we don't know. Most of us are just guessing a good deal of the time anyway.
I am so sorry, Mo, to see your thread hijacked by those bent on evangelizing.
Are there any other hubbers with questions for Mo? This may be a good time to return the thread to the intended topic.Hi Jeremy, To respond to the points about other Christians needing Catholicism to come first, I have to kindly disagree and here is partly why I say that. If we were to compare what I believe as say a non denominational Christian to Catholicism, we could find a fair amount of overlapping belief or common denominators. Almost all if not 100% of those things can be backed easily or supported by biblical texts and mostly in the gospels or NT text.
To the rest of the added or extra beliefs of Catholics I can't answer for those in the same way. My point is that one can go back further to a very simple gospel message and that is my personal Christian belief. Straight back to Jesus and his disciples. This to me makes sense that it came first necessarily and chronologically in history. If one does adopt the catholic teachings as true is does come into play very soon after Jesus with Peter.
In short, while I would have been on board absolutely with Martin Luther in getting back to the scriptures, I don't need him or any Protestant denomination to have the very base and simple beliefs I have that Jesus taught. This explains in short, a response to what I have seen you express a couple of times now. It may help or not to know where I and some others may be coming from. If what I had said were not the case then I can see your points for sure.
On a side note I really like your information you share about the prophecy stuff. Thank you for that, as I can tell you have dedicated a fair amount of time to the subject.
Thanks for your respectful attempts to keep us focused, Quill. I appreciate you.
Yes and no. Jesus is the penultimate expression of godliness. His life, words, and wisdom alone are enough. But others have followed (or proceeded) with messages of godliness as well and all goodness and truth lead to him. Says the teaching of the Church.
IMO, to not recognize the goodness, truth, love, and wisdom of others as well means that we're missing something that Jesus is trying to show us. Maybe, just maybe, he was wise enough to understand that cultural context is an important part of faith.
Now, remember, I'm not speaking for the Church alone. I'm sharing some of my own interpretation of our teachings, but I'll preface those by introducing them as opinions.That was one of the reasons why I asked the question of going to hell. I don't think that is something Jesus would support, yet it can be argued from reading the Bible and by teachings of the Church, He does support that. Personally, I see no wisdom or goodness in that, something Jesus should not be teaching, if in fact He does.
That is why Jesus may not be enough for us, that there are indeed words from others who say we have the right as humans to freedom of religion, just as we have the right to freedom from religion. We have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to abuse that freedom.
If Jesus did in fact teach this, I would be very interested to see that.
Always a pleasure.
- Emile Rposted 10 years ago0
It's always happened. The admonition of Jesus to call no man Father also included an admonition to call no man teacher (rabbi), in an effort that no man be elevated above another. It was more or less his telling us all that everyone is equal. We call the men whose seed fertilized our mother's egg to create us "father," and I've never seen anyone throw scripture at us when we do that. We call Jewish ministers Rabbi, with no one questioning them. The Church teaches that this was a metaphor meant to keep us mindful of our equality. We also call our ancestors our "fathers," the men who formed our nation our "forefathers."
This one...honestly I have no idea. My opinion has to come from the understanding of why I wore a habit as a nun. It was an outward sign of my consecration to God. A visible sign that I was set apart from the rest in that I was entirely consecrated to a life of service to God and to the Church. Different habits carry different symbolism. Brown means you follow a Franciscan or Carmelite spirituality, for example. White is Dominican. That was the original intention of clerical garb and vestments as well.
IMO, it's one of those things that been exaggerated and in some cases become extreme. The ring-just a sign of showing respect to one who represents Christ.
This is SUCH a painful subject.
We do try to be forgiving, because we are called to forgive. A lot of us have a very hard time with this. Personally, I feel that any Church official caught committing a crime should be automatically subject to secular authority and be charged, tried, and appropriately penalized for it. There is, IMO, absolutely nothing that justifies the way the sexual abuses perpetrated by Catholic clergy has been handled. Anyone involved in such an action or a cover up of such should be held accountable individually. The Church, as a whole, and those within her who are blameless should not have to suffer the consequences. We should, however, face the consequences of blindly defending wrong action because of a delusion of infallibility that we allow to surround our religious leaders.Oh, jonny, I don't know about setting a high standard, but thank you.
You are so kind!
I can't help but to be honest about it. Anything else is just wrong. I've spent the larger part of my life trying to learn honesty and kindness. I can't be honest with anyone until I can be honest with myself.
- Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago0
Sure.
I'd say that in modern times, we can look to the deafening silence of the Church during the Second World War as wrong. The cover ups of sexual abuse in the Church. The Crusades, if we go back into history a bit farther.
The pope is considered the vicar of Christ-his representative on earth and leader of his church. But then, all Christians are called to represent Christ. We're not all called to lead the Church though.
*Edit: it occurred to me that you may be asking about the doctrine of papal infallibility. The pope is human, and subject to temptation and sin like anyone else. We believe his word to be infallible only in matters of faith and doctrine-because we trust that he has considered all decisions prayerfully and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and because, Jesus, when installing Peter as the leader of the early church, did tell him, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth..."
First...sinful flesh is not a reference to sex at all. It just means that because of the fall, we now have that barrier between the sinless life of God and our now sinful human nature (spirit v. flesh). Flesh is just a term used to describe a human nature now subject to temptation that wasn't present before the original sin. Make sense?
The condemnation of Adam and Eve came from their disobedience to God. The consequence was that they were now aware of the evil that they had been sheltered from before. And Catholics do embrace the Old Testament as part of the word of God, but as a rule do not interpret its words literally as do some other denominations.
In a nutshell, Catholics are Christians. The basics of the salvation narrative are the same as for all other denominations. BUT, we believe that at the celebration of The Lord's Supper, the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. It is celebrated every day at mass. We pay higher honor to Mary than other denominations (although we do not worship her as is often claimed). And, of course, the Pope and a celibate priesthood.
We believe that special overwhelming sense of God's presence in a Catholic Church is because he is actually present there always in the reserved consecrated host from mass. The light that burns at the tabernacle is never extinguished because Jesus is always present there.
I love churches, even the most simple ones, and the Catholic faith, when properly understood is a beautiful one. I hope you continue to explore, Kathryn! Your church sounds like a lovely place.I can. Although we celebrate the mass daily (which includes readings and teachings from scripture), we do not offer his sacrifice again. We commemorate it as he himself commanded when he said "do this in memory of me." It's no different than other denominations having a communion service, we just do it more frequently and, from John, Chapter 6, believe that the bread and wine are more than just symbols.
Oceans, I need to look into this one a bit more. The only references I know for Mary's immaculate conception are extra-biblical, so I want to dig into some official teaching material (the Cathechism and Scripture) before I answer that question.
To be fair, I didn't say it wasn't there, just that I had only ever been exposed to extra-biblical evidence...LOL But nice spin ya got there.
I asked for some time to check. I personally don't see it as beyond the realm of possibility. Mary was not sinless by nature. The teaching is that she was made that way by grace in preparation to bear Christ in her womb. It isn't all that strange an idea when you consider that Elijah was taken to heaven before Jesus has opened the gates of heaven to humanity through his resurrection.Sure. I explained the concept. I didn't give an opinion on it, other than to say it didn't seem outside of the realm of possibility.
Debunk away.
Not to deify Mary-once again the reasoning that if she was to carry the son of God in her womb, she would have to be spotless to do so. Why would her mother have had to be spotless if she wasn't the redeemer?
The Scripture references that I found didn't really satisfy me. Luke 1:28-55.
But, I did say to bBerean and also to Sir Dent that the most important thing to keep in mind is that Mary's sinlessness came from Christ, as did our righteousness. It was not in her nature-it was a gift of grace.
That said, I don't see it as any sort of problem to acknowledge it as true.
It's important to keep in mind also that it did not become official church dogma until the 19th century, so that makes me personally feel that it isn't an absolute, must believe it to be saved sort of idea.It makes perfect sense what you're asking.
There isn't a whole lot about Mary in scripture save for the circumstances surrounding Jesus's birth and death and her presence at the wedding in Cana when Jesus turned water to wine. That said, we aren't told of many of her actions. I personally feel that if she was indeed immaculately conceived, and her sinlessness came from grace, that she was preserved from sin by God's grace-meaning, the way I see it, that she was not exposed to the same temptations as others. The easiest way for us to avoid sin is to avoid temptation, right? I can see how God kept temptation away from Mary...like we pray in the Lord's Prayer for him to "lead us not into temptation," he simply kept it away from her.
And remember that she was present at the time of Jesus's death. She did not fight, she didn't do any of the things she might have done to try to stop it-meaning that she did God's will with no complaints at all, and without the temptation to save her son or put a wrench in the works.
Oh! I just wanted to throw in there that it wasn't an official Church doctrine till the 19th century, so I don't personally find it to be a deal breaker. I don't take issue with it-it's no more strange or unlikely to me than OUR being saved by grace.
Okay.
First, the statues, etc. Remember when Moses went up the mountain and the Hebrews made an image of a calf to worship? That's key. We do not worship statues, images, or anything but God. Statues and images are, first of all, visual focus points that help to draw our attention to God, and second, just art. They are no different than pictures and paintings of Jesus that you see all over any Christian church or home, inside the cover of a bible, or in front of a building at Christmas (Nativity Scenes). And no different from keeping photos of a loved one.
The Rosary is a prayer. We count the beads as part of a rote, meditative prayer that goes through the life of Jesus from his conception to his ascension. The repeated prayer help the mind to focus on each event. Each prayer, except for the Apostle's Creed, is taken directly from the Gospels.
Confession is not a requirement, and you are absolutely right in that we all have access to God. We confess our sins to a priest and are reminded verbally of the forgiveness of God, and offered the assistance of the people of the church to turn away from future sin. Strength for the journey, as it were. But no one has to partake, and it is never a substitute for speaking to God directly. The thing is, though, that when a priest hears a confession, he stands "in persona Christi" so we are confessing not to a man, but to The Lord. He simply speaks the words of absolution. If anything, it renews our boldness in approaching God at the moment of our sin as a reminder of his grace and mercy.
For years, you are correct, scripture was withheld from the average Christian-some reasons were actually practical ones, some were as a means to hold down the people and allow the Church to hold power over them. It was never meant to be that way and is NOT that way anymore...and has never been in my lifetime. Catholics are encouraged to read scripture privately and as often as possible to deepen their relationship with Christ.
It's a pleasure to share about it, actually. I'd so rather that people ask me than make assumptions based on what they think they know, so thank you!!Thanks, your inside view is enlightening.
I have wondered about the Catholic churches like forever. Laypeople seem to not know specifics.
The reception given to the new Pope seems bananas to me. And I must say that I do get a "spooky" vibe when I go to Mass.
Oh! Why do you Hail Mary? Isn't that like praising? Jesus made it clear that she was not particularly especially special I think when he said, "Who is my mother?...they that do God's will are my family." The bible says she is blessed and would be remembered; but hailed?Actually, the words of the Hail Mary are taken from Luke Ch. 1. They were spoken by her cousin Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist). They are words of praise, but not worship, which is reserved for God alone. We praise people all the time in our lives. The visitation in Scripture is also why we believe in the divinity of Christ...Elizabeth asks Mary in the same chapter, "Who am I that the mother of my lord....?" And, of course, the Jews had only one lord.
Again, though, while Marian devotion has become extreme in some instances, it is quite scriptural. The issue lies really in people taking it too far.
As to Jesus's words, I understand what you're saying. IMO, he's reminding us all that we are ALL special, and that we ALL have access to him by grace, just like Mary. But he also made a point of acknowledging her from the cross and giving her care into the hands of an apostle, so I think he thought she was pretty special.
Every parish has a relic, usually embedded into their altar. They are pieces of something-bone, maybe a sliver of wood that has touched what is believed to be the cross on which Christ was crucified, maybe something that was on the person or in the possession of a great saint. They must be necessary for the celebration of a mass. Which is why outdoor masses are uncommon. If celebrating a mass where there is no permanent altar, a priest carries an altar cloth that contains a relic. I don't know how I personally feel about relics. I know that I don't believe they're necessary for faith or to celebrate a mass.
I can certainly see how thinking of something like that could create that "spooky" feeling during a mass though.Ha! That is funny, Julie! I've never heard the story, but it really wouldn't surprise me...not that I think anyone would deliberately lie about it, but I'd think it might be kinda tough to trace the provenance of something like that.
Are the relics of each Parrish public knowledge? Is it proper to share what it is? I'm curious. And if it is not a private matter, I just might visit every Cathedral I encounter with one question!!!
I like learning about/seeing old stuff.It's not private at all, although it may take a little digging into church history records (individual parishes, I mean), especially if a church is old.
This is really interesting stuff.
The Catholic church has always seemed a bit like a secret society to me. So glad, "I got you Babe."
See you back here soon when my other questions come. It is an immense organization.Thanks! I'm glad I can help. The problem is that so few people ask, and sometimes, even fewer people can answer.
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/w … the-bible/
I'm going to refer you to an article from an apologist for references to scripture.
For the references that come from apocryphal books, I just want to point out that it wasn't until the 16th century that those books were removed from biblical canon by Protestants. That means that for a really long time, those books were indeed considered inspired scripture by the majority of Christendom.
Now, MY take on purgatory is slightly different from the official one. I do believe that there will be people there who we're not Christians in their earthly life. I just believe this because I feel that God's mercy is farther reaching than we can fathom. My opinion differs from official teaching, as does my opinion on hell. So, take that with a grain of salt if you can.
You know what you think you know. I think you might have missed the joke. I was talking about running from the ones who wanted to burn me for having a personal opinion.
Duuhh. Not only did I NOT miss your joke, I was helping you laugh. I was sure you'd pick up on that... I was on full-swing goof mode last night. But I do know you are kinda on defense for very good reasons. I was just teasing
I did mention earlier in the thread that I felt that the Church maintained control of the bible as a means of controlling the congregations. I wouldn't deny that. My understanding is that mass in the vernacular didn't happen until the second Vatican council, which was in the 60s. I wouldn't argue any of your points. Genaea and I had already been through that, however, so I didn't feel it necessary to go over it again. I was addressing some of the practical reasons for it. The rest if the reasons were entirely political, and I don't argue that point at all.
I have to say that I've never heard of anyone being told that prayer was only for priests and nuns, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. That might be the most disturbing thing I've ever heard.
I can't imagine how being Catholic keeps you from having to know the bible. It was the bible that led me to Catholicism. Of course, everyone is different.
Eh. The Church is one messed up institution, full of messed up people. I wouldn't deny that at all. Like I said earlier, though, I'd rather people ask what I believe than just attack my beliefs from a lack of understanding, or from misconceptions.
Interesting stuff Mo. Thanks. For so long it seemed that the Catholic church was mob-like. Not to mention the "dracula music" in the sanctuary.
lol.
Please don't be offended. When I was a kid visiting Mass with one of my neighborhood friends...same spooky music as the vampire movies. And we had quite a few vampire movies when I was comie up now that I think of it.
It's a shame what movies do to young minds.Hahaha! Dracula music! I love it! I'm not a huge fan of organ music, tbh. That spooky element tends to go away the more you know.
- Me too!
That would be so cool!!!
For sure, it's the choice of music sometimes and not the musician! I've heard organists do some amazing things. That's one I'd love to here for sure.Wilderness,
This may not be Atlanta, GA, but will Mesa, AZ be okay?
Lew Williams Drives the Train at the Mighty Organ Stop Pizza in Mesa, Arizona.
http://youtu.be/OOvXRqpy1Ys
jonny, I always have respect for lovers of great art, and while I'm not a personal fan of organ music, I am often astounded and appreciative of anyone who can make it.
I'm the same way with opera...I appreciate its value, it's just not my thing.
To a point, though, I see what Genaea's saying. Sometimes organ music seems dark and all consuming. That's not something I sense from God. For a long time, I laughed at the joke that Pentecostal Christians celebrated their faith while Catholics mourned theirs (in relation to the musical offerings of each). Then, thankfully, things lightened up a bit musically in the Church.
- Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago0
Guys, overall this discussion has been a lot of fun. I've enjoyed sharing about what I've been taught and what I believe. I'm looking forward to a continued conversation.
I am glad to hear that Mo, and I know that I appreciate it.
No, you haven't offended me at all. Ask away. I'm not afraid to say if I feel like it's above my pay grade...LOL Like I said, I can talk about the Church's teachings and share my own opinions. I don't do apologetics though, and I won't defend something that I don't believe in ir agree with.
- Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago0
Oceans, to be fair, I may not have been entirely clear about what I was willing and able to answer. That said, I have no problems discussing as much as possible about how scripture supports the beliefs and practices of the Church. What I don't want to do, though, is try to spin or manipulate or guess to make it all line up. In a lot of instances, the Church relies heavily on tradition, and there is an element of dishonesty, IMO, in trying to imply otherwise-which is something I often see apologists doing. It's my hope that in this thread, I can clarify which is which, and hopefully to show where the core elements of faith among Catholics don't really differ from other denominations of Christianity. The fact is that many Catholic practices can't be justified by simply pointing to a scripture verse, because it is a faith of tradition as well. Do not feel as though you misunderstood or have asked about anything that I'm afraid to answer.
I appreciate your participation and look forward to your questions.Ok, and thank you Mo.
I had been going back over a lot in this thread, and I found myself (in thought) echoing a little bit of what bBerean was saying/communicating. I don't know if that helps to explain or not a little more of where I am coming from also perhaps. I think he/she expressed some of what I was trying to say a little or a lot better than I was. (Though I am not in full knowledge of their views totally, by any means, so may not fully know where they are coming from exactly.)
This does help, what you say here. Thank you.That was you with the virus book??? Oh! Somehow I though it was Rad. My bad!
Everybody has a book... all sides of the coin. Research? My book was researched. And peer reviewed. Many times over.
Is there information on any valid and sane writers of the bible? I think i keep hearing you school people say that it cannot be determined who the actual writers of the bible were. To me, that makes it even more extraordinary because they're still printing it in many stylish colors. Lol...
I am not one for sensitivity; I believe that the virus is highly desirous. (That's two! maybe I'll try poetry. Lol).
No sleep last night. Dang near delirious...
Chattanooga Choo-Choo!?!?
I guess you can move to that...Well, tbh, this is a bigger theological question than I feel I can handle in detail. I'll give you the most basic answer I can. The Church examines a million factors that I can't address here, so please keep that in mind.
My understanding is that evil/sin is anything that is done for our pleasure that hurts another. Before the fall, our needs were all met and we had no desires that weren't out of line with nature. Afterward, we became more hedonistic and concerned with our earthly pleasure, and did whatever we could to fulfill those desires no matter how it affected nature or the people around us. It was a willful disobedience solely to make ourselves happy, and not to meet our needs.
This is in no way meant to be a serious rebuke to anyone here... I just find it hilarious! But impressive and honourable at the same time....
- Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago0
Jerami, I don't consider you to be interrupting at all. I appreciate that you've come into the conversation.
I don't have a terribly great interest in end times prophecy as a rule, so it's nice to have someone willing to address those questions.
Good morning, Cat.
There are, in my experience, doctrines of the Church that contradict scripture, and those that have been added along the course of history. I have never felt any compulsion to follow those doctrines as a part of my faith practices. Those that I cling to are supported by scripture, and I've done a lot of searching and seeking to be sure of that. What I've seen in my journey as a Catholic is that, like in any other denomination, people have misconstrued and/or manipulated the words of scripture for their own gain or justification, to appease the masses, for the purposes of gaining or retaining members. In my experience, I have only EVER seen Jesus not do that, so as best am I'm able, I try to follow his words and directives, without trying to support or qualify them through any human effort. Does that make sense? For me, the core message of Christianity has always, always been to listen to him and to try to become like him. If elements of my denomination do not lead directly to that goal, I can easily set them aside with no guilt or fear. I am not concerned with the judgment of man, only God.
Regarding staying Catholic? I've been to just about every type of Christian church in my journey. There is something beautiful in almost every one - and I believe it's the presence of the Holy Spirit that makes that so, despite our differences. The Catholic Church meets many of my personal needs - a long history, a sense of comraderie, a true community, and a deep commitment to service to the underprivileged. Also a deep reverence for the word and the presence of The Lord that I often feel is missing from other denominational worship experiences. More than anything, though, I have never encountered the same belief in the body and blood of Jesus Christ outside of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Church. That is the belief and practice that keeps me Catholic no matter what. If I found that in another denomination and not in Catholicism, I wouldn't be averse to exploring. Till then, I'll stay Catholic.I love that
you are awesome Cat!Thank you, Cat. I appreciate the blessings and encouragement.
Thanks so much for sharing this Mo
. After reading this, it turns out you and I have a lot in common regarding beliefs, and I had no idea.
I have more questions and may ask them before long.Oceans, we usually find out, when we really listen to each other, that we have more in common than not. Feel free to be yourself and ask questions. As I mentioned, I'm okay with saying if I don't feel properly willing or able to answer a specific question, and I'm always, always willing to help direct you to answers if I don't have them. You are all welcome, with all of your different perspectives, all of your concerns, and all of your questions.
Thank you and for the clarification for all of us in the thread.
My pleasure! It's been enlightening and fun!
Unlike some denominations, as I said, we believe there would be a period of purgation from the evils one had committed on earth. 
Related Discussions
- 478
Jesus Was Jewish So What Religion Was He Leading His Followers To?
In the Bible it is clear that Jesus was Jewish. You will find it written multiple times, however what religion was he leading the followers to? Catholicism believes that Jesus told Peter, " And I say unto thee, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell...
- 34
Why Do you Hate Catholicism?
As a Catholic, I was wondering why is it that every Christian Denominations are lambasting/bashing Catholic doctrines and teachings. This is purely based on my experience when I was still in college when I joined other Christian sect like the Born Again Christians and others.
- 23
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?The earliest Protestant church was the Lutheran Church, named after the Catholic monk Martin Luther. The man that broke away from the only christian church in existence, the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was...
- 76
Christian doctrine; every human beings is sinful
Is it not a Christian doctrine that every human beings is sinful except Jesus?
- 23
Is Christianity the only religion with an immaculate birth - Maryʻs birth to chr
Is Christianity the only religion with an immaculate birth - Maryʻs birth to christ.I recently found that American Indians supported a similair belief through prophet Dekanwida. My christian friend says christianity is the only religion where God reaches down to man. I would love to learn...
- 39
Is praying to Mary & the saints, like Catholicism teaches an act of false worshi
Is praying to Mary & the saints, like Catholicism teaches an act of false worship?The Bible teaches us to worship God only (Ex. 20:3-5; Rev. 19:10); but the Roman Catholic Church teaches its adherents to pray to Mary and the saints. They even bow down to statues and pictures of them when they...