Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Vatican 2 there has been a More Protestantism-style added to common Neighborhood Church Worship? Altars removed, some statues moved? Especially May ones from up front? But especially MORE SINGING AMD PROTESTANTS HYMNS, EVEN BY MARTIN LUTHER CAME IN.
yes, I remember that time when the Catholic Church built churches that had a Protestant look in modern square buildings with little religious symbols or art work. The Church has been trying to be inclusive for a long time and that continues with Pope Francis.
I will be honest: I do not like plain looking churches. I feel much more at home in an old cathedral. I want to feel that I am in a real church and not a warehouse. Dr. Peter Kreef a staunch Presbyterian converted to catholicism after seeing Saint Patricks cathedral in NYC. Watch Dr. Peter Kreeft's conversion to Catholicism in You Tube.
But one only has to see a HIGH MASS IN A CATHREDRAL FOR THE OLD CATHOLIC WORSHIP? My understanding is Pope Ratzinger wanted a reversal? Bring Latin back ect?
Few simpler Protestant Fundamentalist find offense or feel un-Spiritual aspects in a REGULAR NEIGHBORHOOD CATHOLIC MASS. But let them see a Cathedral HIGH MASS especially at the Vatican?
They have another view.
The Catholic Church is all about tradition. This passion for tradition is often misunderstood by Protestants.
Quote:
Also before Vatican 2 ALL Protestants were rejected officially by the Vatican? After it....Anglican's and especially Trinitarian others were. The Ecumenical Movement then could begin.
I remember a Catholic was not even to step foot in a Non-Catholic Church decades ago. They feared it was sin? My strict Catholic Italian neighbor, who was my God-Mother would not attend my wedding in a Methodist Church.
As I said before: The Catholic Church is finally leaving the middle ages. Sadly, I suspect some of the new non-denominational Bible Churches are entering the middle ages.
Quote:
Then in my state of PA Catholics endured 3 waves in 3 decades of Church Consolidations (closings)
1/3 of Parishes in my state closed, even 300 member Churches by me closed. Protestant Churches survive to a handful till they can't support the bills and upkeep. Then some times the Church building is sold for a $1 to a growing Church in need of a building.
By me my Father's Catholic Church was sold in the 80s to Moslems for a Mosque. They kept the building with the Bingo hall. It was only in 1971 a Catholic Church near that burned down and was rebuilt. That one the kept to today? But only if they knew what would come in consolidations ahead? No rebuilding would have been needed.
Last edited by Julian658; 11-19-2014 at 10:02 AM..
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,289,462 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
yes, I remember that time when the Catholic Church built churches that had a Protestant look in modern square buildings with little religious symbols or art work. The Church has been trying to be inclusive for a long time and that continues with Pope Francis.
I will be honest: I do not like plain looking churches. I feel much more at home in an old cathedral. I want to feel that I am in a real church and not a warehouse. Dr. Peter Kreef a staunch Presbyterian converted to catholicism after seeing Saint Patricks cathedral in NYC. Watch Dr. Peter Kreeft's conversion to Catholicism in You Tube.
The Catholic Church is all about tradition. This passion for tradition is often misunderstood by Protestants.
As I said before: The Catholic Church is finally leaving the middle ages. Sadly, I suspect some of the new non-denominational Bible Churches are entering the middle ages.
I didn't mean at all the ARCHITECTURE of new Catholic Churches? When I used the term Protestantization I meant interiors Alters removed in older parishes and more singing including Protestants hymns approved and used now. Because they are more sing-able and Less chant today. You don't have the Monstrance visible in neighborhood churches. Mary statues seemed less in front but near entrances.
I myself prefer a REAL PIPE ORGAN and old simple Protestant hymns. Though I can enjoy those Churches using contemporary hymns. Again few simple Protestants who went to a regular Catholic Mass would find anything to take offence to in what they see or here said. But a High Mass in a Cathedral and especially the Vatican. The see things that could offend and odd even scary to be seen in Christian worship to them? Just like a Saints bone as a relic good luck charm in the Alter? Has a strange reasoning to others?
I always here the Chimes music played from a Catholic Churches Steeple by me at noon every day. Most of the hymns they play I recognize as simple Protestant ones
St Patrick Cathedral is awesome. Especially the white exterior. But true faith is not in the buildings beauty. Just as to me FULLNESS OF FAITH IS WITHIN IF SPIRITUALITY IS REAL. THE HOLY SPIRT REVEALED TO AND IN THEM? NOT THE BEAUTY OF THE BUILDING OR HYMNS OR TRADITIONS TO WORSHIP. MOST EVOLVED OVER CENTURIES? THE APOSTLES EARLY ASSEMBLIES WITHOUT IT WERE JUST AS HOLY.
I don't understand your thumbs up after I mentioned a 1/3 of Catholic Parishes closed in my state of PA in the last 30 years? I don't see it as good?
I didn't mean at all the ARCHITECTURE of new Catholic Churches? When I used the term Protestantization I meant interiors Alters removed in older parishes and more singing including Protestants hymns approved and used now. Because they are more sing-able and Less chant today. You don't have the Monstrance visible in neighborhood churches. Mary statues seemed less in front but near entrances.
Ok, I hear you. There is no question the Church is less Catholic than in the past. And we sing some hymns that are sing-able. And now we hold hands while saying the "Our Father" and say "peace to you" and shake hands or hug. They have introduced some rites that are not as solemn as in the old days.
I still prefer the more traditional stuff and I don't mind Latin or classic liturgical. I think that a rock band in church is an abomination. And this is coming from a true fan or rock and roll. I think mass should always be very solemn.
Quote:
Just like a Saints bone as a relic good luck charm in the Alter?
I don't venerate bones, but this goes all the way back to the era of martyrdom in Christianity. This is was done to honored those people, but we cannot forget that early Christians thought the martyrs and saints had the ear of Jesus. Whether this is true or not is moot. Folks from that era were not as enlightened as the 21st century folk. IN any event you may see stuff like that in you visit very old churches. I will say I have never seen anyone worshiping bones in my life as a Catholic. And I never pray to Mary or any saint. However, I enjoy the imagery and the old traditions associated with that.
Quote:
St Patrick Cathedral is awesome. Especially the white exterior. But true faith is not in the buildings beauty. Just as to me FULLNESS OF FAITH IS WITHIN IF SPIRITUALITY IS REAL. THE HOLY SPIRT REVEALED TO AND IN THEM? NOT THE BEAUTY OF THE BUILDING OR HYMNS OR TRADITIONS TO WORSHIP. MOST EVOLVED OVER CENTURIES? THE APOSTLES EARLY ASSEMBLIES WITHOUT IT WERE JUST AS HOLY.
I don't understand your thumbs up after I mentioned a 1/3 of Catholic Parishes closed in my state of PA in the last 30 years? I don't see it as good?
Peter Kreef was told all his life that Catholics got it wrong when it came to Christianity. And then he visited St Patricks and was in awe. He said: "How could they have it wrong and then build such a magnificent church?" The video is very telling.
God Bless
I liked your post that is why i gave the thumbs up. You are very objective!!
Last edited by Julian658; 11-19-2014 at 05:48 PM..
I googled Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity and found out I had faulty understandings on both. I had thought that the Conception of Mary had not been with intercourse between father and mother but learned that it was though normal intercourse -that Mary had onceived been conceived but she had been given divine grace kand thus was not contaminated by sin. As to perpetual virginity I had been told that Catholics were convinced that the reference to the bothers and sisters of Christ really referred to His nephews and nieces. But in actuality Catholics had been taught that they were children of Joseph by his first wife. But I am confusedby the reference in Matthew chapter 1 that Joseph "took unto him his wife and knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus." Also I am confused that it is not mentioned in scripture that Joseph had been widowed.
If you have any further enlightenments, I would be happy to hear from you. I am not as totally leery of Catholics' traditions as previously.
Per Gabriel's request, I'm starting this new thread to alleviate confusion. Hopefully we can move the entire discussion on this one point to this thread.
Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to the apostle Peter? With respect, I just don't see it. All I see is a line of bishops with no more and no less authority than any other line of bishops.
This is a point which is rarely discussed. The debate rages on between Catholics and Protestants over whether Peter had all of the authority that the RCC claims he did. Lovely as all of that is, that entire debate is completely irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome was never the exclusive and rightful successor of St Peter in the first place.
Since the Pope can make an infalible statement why should this be discussed?
I googled Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity and found out I had faulty understandings on both. I had thought that the Conception of Mary had not been with intercourse between father and mother but learned that it was though normal intercourse -that Mary had onceived been conceived but she had been given divine grace kand thus was not contaminated by sin. As to perpetual virginity I had been told that Catholics were convinced that the reference to the bothers and sisters of Christ really referred to His nephews and nieces. But in actuality Catholics had been taught that they were children of Joseph by his first wife. But I am confusedby the reference in Matthew chapter 1 that Joseph "took unto him his wife and knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus." Also I am confused that it is not mentioned in scripture that Joseph had been widowed.
If you have any further enlightenments, I would be happy to hear from you. I am not as totally leery of Catholics' traditions as previously.
This is my opinion and I am not an expert. Mariology probably goes back to the Gospel of James which was rejected as not clearly inspired and not from the Apostolic era. It deals with the infancy of Jesus and gives more details about Mary. IN this writing they say Joseph was a widow and that he already had children.
As I see it:
If Jesus is God then Jesus cannot have an ordinary Mother that can pass original sin, hence her immaculate conception.
If Jesus is God he cannot have brothers and sisters because God is divine. If Jesus had blood brothers then there are people in the planet with divine DNA (assuming Jesus and his brothers shared the DNA of Mary).
If Jesus is God then Mary is the mother of God. And the mother of God has to be pure and a virgin forever.
This can only happen in religion because in religion anything is possible. And the Church can say this because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The CC is based on Scriptures, Tradition, Apostolic Succession and on the Church itself (See Matt 16: 19).
Non Catholics can ignore this, but they get hung up on this all the time. BTW, there is no worship of Mary during mass. And Mary is no goddess, she is just the mother of God.
Peter kept the laws of Moses, and all the feasts of Israel.
All it's Sabbaths.
Peter never left Judaism.
Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for over 100 years after Jesus died.
The religion of Peter looks nothing like Christianity today.
How could it be the same when there are two wholly different Sabbaths and feasts, and a wholly different view of Torah.
Well I can just imaging Peter going to the synagoge and preaching that Jesus was the Messiah who died and rose on the third day. He would have been thrown out and not allowed to return. Peter went around after Jesus' death preaching what Jesus taught him, starting a new religion. Many Jews converted though but they became Christian and didn't remain Jews. Why do you think Peter was eventually killed?
I googled Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity and found out I had faulty understandings on both. I had thought that the Conception of Mary had not been with intercourse between father and mother but learned that it was though normal intercourse -that Mary had onceived been conceived but she had been given divine grace kand thus was not contaminated by sin. As to perpetual virginity I had been told that Catholics were convinced that the reference to the bothers and sisters of Christ really referred to His nephews and nieces. But in actuality Catholics had been taught that they were children of Joseph by his first wife. But I am confusedby the reference in Matthew chapter 1 that Joseph "took unto him his wife and knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus." Also I am confused that it is not mentioned in scripture that Joseph had been widowed.
If you have any further enlightenments, I would be happy to hear from you. I am not as totally leery of Catholics' traditions as previously.
"and knew her not until" is confusing because the language was translated and some meanings, as the nuances, did not come through exactly as we would understand it.
Mary's spouse is the Holy Spirit so Joseph knew he would not be her spouse as far as married relations were concerned or he would be commuting adultery and the spouse would be God, a really bad thing to do. The Holy Spirit overshadowed her which meant made her pregnant with Jesus.
Well I can just imaging Peter going to the synagoge and preaching that Jesus was the Messiah who died and rose on the third day. He would have been thrown out and not allowed to return. Peter went around after Jesus' death preaching what Jesus taught him, starting a new religion. Many Jews converted though but they became Christian and didn't remain Jews. Why do you think Peter was eventually killed?
Paul remained a Pharisee.
Paul continued keeping the law.
Tens of thousands of Jews believed and it made them even more zealous to keep the law, they didn't stop being Jews, they couldn't.
A council was formed to decided whether Gentiles should keep the law like Jews continued to keep it.
This debate went on for decades,'' Should the Gentiles keep the laws of Moses like Jews?''
Even Peter was on the other side of this debate at one time.
What it does is prove that Jews never ever stopped keeping the law, there was never a question of Jews not keeping the law.
But there was decades of debate over whether Gentiles should keep all the laws as Jews obviously continued in.
It could not have been a new religion, and in fact, it was a legal sect of Judaism for over 100 years.
Time and time again we see Jesus and all his disciples submitting to the authority of the priest of Judaism, they never left Judaism, and Jesus told us that we should do as they say.
God chose out a people, gave them a worship system and then promised that a Messiah would come teaching the secrets of Torah.
Everyone is waiting on a messiah to come and enforce Judaism, not break it down.
If the Messiah comes to do away with his own religion then he cannot be the Messiah.
The Messiah came to graft the world into Judaism and he did for a short period.
He made the Jew and gentile one, if he didn't, then he didn't bring a New Covenant that would make them one.
Christianity didn't break off from Judaism for an entire century.
This is my opinion and I am not an expert. Mariology probably goes back to the Gospel of James which was rejected as not clearly inspired and not from the Apostolic era. It deals with the infancy of Jesus and gives more details about Mary. IN this writing they say Joseph was a widow and that he already had children.
As I see it:
If Jesus is God then Jesus cannot have an ordinary Mother that can pass original sin, hence her immaculate conception.
If Jesus is God he cannot have brothers and sisters because God is divine. If Jesus had blood brothers then there are people in the planet with divine DNA (assuming Jesus and his brothers shared the DNA of Mary).
If Jesus is God then Mary is the mother of God. And the mother of God has to be pure and a virgin forever.
This can only happen in religion because in religion anything is possible. And the Church can say this because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The CC is based on Scriptures, Tradition, Apostolic Succession and on the Church itself (See Matt 16: 19).
Non Catholics can ignore this, but they get hung up on this all the time. BTW, there is no worship of Mary during mass. And Mary is no goddess, she is just the mother of God.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for the clarification. I was not at all aware of the Gospel of James.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
