BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Catholicism

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Princess
21:30 / 10.04.07
I might convert to Christianity. If I do, I think it might be to Catholicism. So, please help me with research. And interogate me a bit to make sure I'm not just inviting confusion in for no good reason.

Also, I have questions:

Firstly, where can I get a rosary? I know I could just make one, but I don't want too. Online shops are out because my debit card has a void like debt. Where can I go in the real word to buy/get one? I don't want anything exciting. I just want a rosary. Free would be good. If not a rosary then some form of chaplet. Do churches provide them? Do nuns hand them out? I don't know.

Here's my second question. Do I need any specific qualification to be involved in mass? I remember an RE teacher saying something about needing Communion first, but I'm not sure if that's true. Would it be considered voyeuristic to go to Mass even if I didn't receive the sacrament? What is the etiquette on non-Christians going to service.

Three, who do I go to at the church if I want to talk about all this? Who's job is it to educate the newbs?

Four, as a genderqueer gay guy with really strong pro-choice and feminist opinions, is this really the Church for me? Am I just being stupid for looking at this?
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
00:53 / 11.04.07
Do I need any specific qualification to be involved in mass?

It's totally cool to go to mass from my understandings; I've attended a few myself. When they get to the bread and wine bit though it's my understanding that you have to be off the faith to eat and drink. If you aren't then that's asking for trouble.

Three, who do I go to at the church if I want to talk about all this?

I'm sure any priest would help you; just try to talk to him when he doesn't look so busy, if at the very least he can direct you to where you need to go.


I recently attended a Greek Orthodox Easter and had a marvelous time. I absolutely loved it. The Rituals were amazing and it was chocked full of magic and symbolism.
I agree with you though, if I were to go Christian it'd be Catholic or Greek Orthodox.
 
 
grant
01:15 / 11.04.07
much to say, no time to say it.

response includes Great Chain of Being (medieval) vs. blind men/elephant (modern) paradigms, esp. as related to authority...

...plus recent rhetoric regarding "objective disorder" (google just that phrase in quotes)

...plus existence of not-in-communion churches like Our Lady of the Lilies, gay friendly parish in my hometown.

Oh, minor thing, too, anyone can attend Mass, but in order to file up and take Eucharist, you have to be in a state free of mortal sin, which means having been baptized and recently been to confession (roughly). It's called "communion" because you have to be in communion with the church.

More later, with diagrams if I can manage.
 
 
Slim
03:25 / 11.04.07
Going to mass as a non-Catholic is fine; taking the Communion when you're not Catholic is highly disrespectful. Please don't do it.

Catholic churches have RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) programs for adults looking to convert. You get a sponsor that will guide you through the necessary steps. I believe it lasts 6 months to a year but don't hold me to that. Any church employee will be able to give you information on the RCIA program.
 
 
SMS
03:45 / 11.04.07
Oh, minor thing, … Eucharist

grant is funny.

On that, file up and cross your arms across your chest to receive a blessing instead of the sacraments. If you find a good church, attend a few weeks and mingle around for coffee hour. A good church will have ways of inviting you if you seem interested.

With regard to the question, is this really the Church for you,

Being genderqueer and gay is not a bar to being Catholic. Yes, it is considered, as grant said, an objective disorder, and this teaching is part of the moral law graspable by human reason. In other words, it isn’t something we only know because we look in the Bible. This principle claims to have as its basis the dignity of the human person. Now, don’t ask me to defend this position, because I do not understand it, but keep in mind that the position is essentially that the Church regards homosexual behavior as a sin against oneself. Theologians have often, also, fairly often held that sins of lust are … I forget the exact terms used, but, basically the most forgiveable kinds of (the Seven big kinds of) sin, because they approximate the great virtue of love. I don’t know if those kinds of details matter to you at all. They may not. And I’m not defending these positions. I’m only trying to lay them out as I understand them.

Being "a feminist" doesn’t bar you from being Catholic either. Some of the really big name Feminist theologians are Catholic, admittedly not always in happy relationship with the Vatican, but the tension between the Vatican and the various Reform movements within the church is part of what Catholicism is all about, and this tension isn’t possible without an Episcopal structure. Look at the early (prior to 1300) relationship between Rome and the Franciscans. Look at the Jesuits.

Being pro-choice seems to me to be the biggest difficulty of the three, when it comes to compatibility with the teachings of the Church. I don’t really know how to approach this one. Plenty of Catholics are pro-choice, but plenty of people within churches also deny the Divinity of Christ, relativize the importance of forgiveness, and preach a gospel that sounds like the platform of the Democratic Party, and I worry about being in a Church without real integrity. To be sure, the Church is about much more than any one of these things, and I don’t see why any of them on its own should be a bar to sharing in the Communion of Faith.

Now, of course, there’s always the Anglican or Episcopal Church. In America, this is a light version of Catholicism; maybe in England, it’s just plain protestantism. That church has its share of problems, as well. And there’s something less than attractive to me about looking for a church that won’t make me feel uncomfortable. I don’t want a church that will tell me I’m okay, stroke my ego and send me home happy. But I’ve been worshipping at a lovely Episcopal Church in Denver that I would recommend to you if you lived in Denver. It might just be perfect for you.

Those three points, though? Those are nothing compared to the Eucharist. The Eucharist is an act of re-membrance of the actual Body of Christ (bread and wine) into the life of the body of Christ (the Church). It is the site at which God, infinitely beyond our grasp, reaches to us and becomes the Offering for us, that we may become holy and living sacrifices for God. As I understand it, the reason you need to be baptized and go through confession before partaking of this Gift is that you need to be open to receiving it. Anyway, I may need to be corrected on a number of things.
 
 
yemeth
06:58 / 11.04.07
Holy Communion: You must be in a state of grace, which means that you must have confessed to a priest your latest mortal sin. Symbolically you are eating the flesh/blood of Christ, so you must be clean enough to do so; confessing your sins is supposed to work sort of like cleaning your karma, so you're in a graceful state in which devouring Christ isn't considered cannibalism, but more like getting closer to him.

As it has been pointed out before, there's no problem if you go to the Mass. Even if you don't believe at all, most priests won't care as long as you don't disturb the Mass. Since I live in a mostly catholic country where lots of weddings and other gatherings are celebrated in churches just because it is the tradition, you can always find non-believers in a church. You don't even have to sit down/stand when the priest says so, neither to repeat any sentences which those around you seem to know.

However, if you're catholic you must not eat sacred flesh if you're not clean enough (confessing sins). Doing that when you're a non believer is a terrible heresy (I remember doing it unknowingly when I was a teenager just to "go with the flow" in some celebration as I didn't know what to do when people queued up for it,.. and the catholic part of my family was really outraged as they knew I don't believe)

"Educating newbies": when you're 11 or 12 you are supposed to get two years education before your first Communion, so I guess there'll probably be special lectures for adult people.

On being gay, pro-choice and feminist,... well, catholicism is usually not on that side at all. It is specially problematic if you happen to be a priest (look at the historical prosecution of "Liberation theology" by the catholic hierarchy; "Liberation theology" is the progressive wing, sometimes near to marxism). If you're not a priest it is mostly a conscience issue; the catholic hierarchy tends to far conservative values and has supported fascist dictatorships (Spain is a clear example, where official ideology with Franco was known as "national-catholicism" and political propaganda was usually deployed at the Mass). Not to speak of the current extremes it is reaching in Poland, which coincidentally is the only country in Europe in which most of the people support GW Bush.

Since they've lost a lot of power in the latest centuries, their politic opinions (which are usually spoken in the Mass) focus on issues related to the places where they still try to hold power, which are the main sacraments; that is to say, birth (Baptism), family (Marriage) and death (Anointing of the Sick). So, you can expect speeches mostly on abortion, homosexuality, sex/procreation, divorce, and euthanasia.
 
 
EmberLeo
08:49 / 11.04.07
I was raised Episcopalian in California. I didn't leave because they treated anybody poorly - on the contrary, it's a wonderful place to be. I left because I realized I didn't believe some of the basic tenets of the Episcopalian church, and I was not willing to lie to God and say I did believe.

Now, there's high and low church Episcopalian. If you're drawn to Catholicism for the tradition and ritual, but find yourself comparatively Liberal in your politics, yes, a High Church Episcopalian congregation may well serve your needs. If it matters to you, you might like to know that the American Episcopalian church has unbroken Apostolic Succession - their bishops were never excommunicated by the Catholic church before the denomination was delinated.

Also: Taking the Eucharist in an Episcopalian Mass does require prior baptism from a recognised denomination, but Confession is made directly to God during the quiet time during the ceremony. If you wish to Confess to a priest, you may schedule such, I'm told, but I think it's not very common.

there’s something less than attractive to me about looking for a church that won’t make me feel uncomfortable

Yes, but...

Father John used to say to my Mom, "Religion should comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." Yes, your church should challenge you spiritually, and guide you morally.

And I will say, I understand why folks who are raised Catholic need to get by with how they dissagree with the church by simply doing what they need to do and then going to Confession for Forgiveness. It's what they have, often in a culture where it's what everyone has. Sin, Repent, Repeat makes a certain sense for survival in that context.

However, to conciously and voluntarily convert to a religion from the outside, as an adult while having an active intention to Sin, Repent, Repeat strikes me as disrespectful to yourself, and to God. Nevermind the church itself, per se, but you've essentially lied to God about your intentions by converting to a religion that you don't intend to follow.

For this reason, I would do more research into what, exactly, you DO agree with in the Catholic church, and which other denominations have what you need without the things you don't need.

Don't make promises to God you know you don't intend to keep, eh?

--Ember--
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:18 / 11.04.07
Can I ask what it is that attracts you to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, Princess Swashbuckling?
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
10:48 / 11.04.07
Can I ask what it is that attracts you to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, Princess Swashbuckling?

I'll second that request.

Reading over your original post, I've got a few thoughts:

Firstly, where can I get a rosary? I know I could just make one, but I don't want too.

Seems a little, let's say, odd to me that your first question is about how to acquire an object, rather than a deep faith in a specifically Roman Catholic God. I've no idea what faith, if any, you're thinking of converting from, but it's worth thinking about whether the objects associated with it were integral to it as a spiritual system, or were, in the end, just props, symbolically rich as they may be. Wearing the five K's does not make you a sikh, just as using an altar or a wand does not make you a magician. To an unkind person, your question risks coming off a bit like a gap year kid asking where he can score himself one of those awesome-looking prayer wheels. I don't think this precisely, but your words do suggest an attraction to the cosmetic rather than the cosmic aspects of your proposed faith.

Your questions about Communion / who to talk to at a given church have been answered by other posters, but I must admit I'm surprised that you came to Barbelith for answers. Given that you've obviously got internet access, why didn't you use it to research this question on the hundred of thousands of Catholic sites on the net, or even, say, wikipedia? Not to make assumptions, but this does rather smack of a lack of seriousness on your part. Maybe that's something worth thinking about?

as a genderqueer gay guy with really strong pro-choice and feminist opinions, is this really the Church for me? Am I just being stupid for looking at this?

This is a complex one. From a political standpoint, anybody who is pro-choice, and who respects the parity of human beings of whatever gender, sexuality etc. shouldn't touch the Roman Catholic church with a mile-long pole. Then again, one cannot precisely map politics on to faith. There are of course millions of queer people who have been active members of the church over the millennia (Andy Warhol, interestingly, was a practising Byzantine Rite Catholic, although he kept it pretty quiet), and it would be offensive to state that they were all coerced, pretending at faith, suffering from false consciousness, or were traitors to themselves. Still, I'd be interested to know how many queer adult converts to Catholicism there have been in recent years.

If I were you, I'd leave Catholicism well alone. By all means save up your pennies for a rosary, by all means enjoy the spectacle of mass - these are, in the end, aesthetic experiences. Faith, though, is something different, something more.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:00 / 11.04.07
Firstly, where can I get a rosary? I know I could just make one, but I don't want too.

I bought mine at a cathedral shop, if you live near a Catholic church with a shop attached or in the vicinity then you should be able to pick one up there. Catholicism has been part of my practice in the past but never directly (no mass, certainly no communion as I'm not confirmed). I light votives for the virgin quite often though and I've used a rosary for a few different purposes, I mean let's face it, those of us that worship are god(dess) poachers.
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:41 / 11.04.07
As with most organised belief systems, I'd encourage talking to active practitioners as you explore - you could try contacting the chaplaincy service itself. IME most chaplains tend to be more approachable and amenable to discussion than, say, members of the christian or catholic union (who tend to be a bit more hardcore IMV).

That said, I've done some digging and have yet to find anything in the way of pro-feminist, pro-choice or pro-homosexual catholic literature on the net (a lot of what I have found tends to be the catholic analogue of chick-tracks, not the most intellectually stimulating material). That is not to say that the faith disapproves of these things more than anything else*, but they're still (at this point in time) not fond of them (though perhaps more 'tolerant' than in years gone by). So I would to a point echo your worries. However, I'd still encourage you to familiarise yourself with the faith. Doing so can do no harm, and you may still find some of the answers you are looking for even if you decide that it's not for you.

*for example, with a worldview that envisions sex as first and foremost a means for consenting married het-couples to intentionally make the babies God planned them to have (including those with extreme disabilities), one might say that there should never be a scenario where one might need to consider an abortion. So condemning choice, contraception, or homosexuality is morally consistant if they also condemn any sex that doesn't match the above criteria.
 
 
Ex
14:05 / 11.04.07
Four, as a genderqueer gay guy with really strong pro-choice and feminist opinions, is this really the Church for me? Am I just being stupid for looking at this?

I work at an institution with a strong Catholic inheritance, and there are many many excellent things about them. Some top-notch intellectual rigour, very moving and thought-provoking ritual and liturgy (rosaries - lovely tool). Great history: the Jesuits make interesting inroads into communication with other religious cultures, and another Barbelite told me that they've (as a result) produced some of the best English-language translations of sacred texts from non-European sources.

I don't think, as the person you describe above, you'd get the most out of this by actually joining the church. If you're thinking about it in terms of a community of faith and worship I think it may well let you down, by not valuing any of the sources of your own spirituality. I think that the teaching you will be able to access will be useful in many areas, but will fundamentally hold you back - in the same way that not using one of your capacities for a day may make you value the different kinds of things you achieve, but may prevent you from other kinds of achievement.

The current Pope is hardline on many of the issues that may concern you - not only the gay stuff and the feminist stuff, but also he's just officially censured another chap who was involved in liberation theology (attempted to point the church in South America towards eradicating poverty, IIRC - deemed communist and cracked down upon) - some would asay less harshly than he did previous liberation theologists, but he's not letting up. I wince every time the Pope opens his mouth, these days.

If you can find a good 'bit' of the church then they may well appreciate your contact without requiring you sign up for the whole shebang. This may be an insulting answer if you're seeking a warts-and-all concrete route. I don't mean to imply that you're a dabbler - it just seems you'd have a hard time in an institution which is very top-down, particularly when you disagree with most of its basic tennets.
 
 
Quantum
14:27 / 11.04.07
To echo Flyboy with a slightly different emphasis, why Catholicism?
 
 
Princess
16:07 / 11.04.07
Thanks all for advice/questions. I'm reading through it and trying to think up some answers. But it will probably have to wait till the morrow, as I have thing to do this night.
 
 
EmberLeo
07:49 / 12.04.07
I made a rosary once - well, actually, I deliberately made it wrong, because it was a prop for a LARP, but unless you counted the beads you'd never know it wasn't a rosary.

It's really not at all difficult, or even terribly time consuming, unless you want to make the chain-link kind that are usually sold in chapel shops. Old-fashioned beads and string work just fine.

--Ember--
 
 
Quantum
10:35 / 12.04.07
It's really not at all difficult, or even terribly time consuming

I think that really depends on how you approach it. Princess, check out this site and the only book to look at is the excellent Eithne Wilkins' The Rose-Garden Game: A Tradition of Beads and Flowers. Also see a brief history of the rosary, and here's some fun facts I didn't know;
The most common number of beads is 50 (with or without gauds or additional beads), but there are also strings of 10, 15, 20, 33, 63, 72 and of course 150.

We also find pomanders or scent containers hanging from rosaries, along with heart medallions, tiny purses, flasks of holy water, relics of saints, good-luck charms, and pieces of secular jewelry such as brooches and rings. The Prioress in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales has a brooch with the words “Amor vincit omnia” (love conquers all) to attach her beads to her gown.

Wow, see this very bad site holyrosary.org- "The rose is the queen of flowers, and so the Rosary is the rose of all devotions and it is therefore the most important one."
 
 
Lord Switch
12:26 / 12.04.07
have you considered Voodoo or santeria?
As that faith allows you to use the window-dressing of catholicism whilst working with the saints in a ore devotional way.

Another thing: Many catholics will disagree with me on this:
I would just read up on it and parttake of the communion anyway, without going through the rites of baptism and confirmation. You can easily enjoy the ritual and the community, you can still accept the flesh and body of christ, you do not have to accept the dogmatic beliefs. As adepts and magicians we need to see through the veils of mystery dogmatism and politics of the religions of the world, and one way of doing that is by seeing the universal symbols. You could learn the creed, and make appointments and do the confession just like any other catholic...

I am myself a baptised and confirmed catholic, yet I also have various Gnostic and apostolic successions and I also practice magick and theurgy, which by the church's tenets is wrong. Is it wrong of a priest of santeria to parttake of catholic communion? Nope. You can only become Hindu through birth or marriage, yet there are many born hindu people who refer to the ceremonies as "waving of fire infront of the pictures of dead relatives (as my friend refers to it) and there are people who are called hippies behind their backs who are white, non-hindu who believe in the tenets and go to temple, worship and help out in the community.

During easter sunday, the mass is extremely simillar to old Roman versions of the rites of Isis and Osiris. Christ is refered to as water, ocean etc in the hymns, there is blessing of offerings with incence, the congregation is blessed with water splashed on them by the priest... One can easily see how someone who is fully "pagan" and devoted to the egyptian pantheon can just as easily go to catholic mass and commune.

Less emphasis on the outer and more insight into the inner?
 
 
Quantum
13:17 / 12.04.07
you can still accept the flesh and body of christ, you do not have to accept the dogmatic beliefs.

Sorry, can you elaborate on that for me? If the transubstantiation isn't Catholic dogma, what *is* exactly?
Do you really think it's OK to lie about being confirmed etc. to get communion? I just wonder what God might think about that.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:16 / 12.04.07
Switch - whilst partaking of a communion may be simply a matter between worshipper and God, I'm not sure doing it in a Catholic church is quite as clear cut. If the tenets of the congregation say that their communion is for the baptised true believers only, don't you think that it's best to respect their wishes? Others in the congregation may not be fully committed to their faith, but prevalence does not always equal acceptability. In fact isn't that one of the core messages of Christianity in all its forms? And whilst I agree that worshippers of many religions might be completely comfortable with Catholic ritual and symbolism, that's not to say that they'd agree (or even be comfortable) with all the tenets of the religion.

Also when you say how one can only become Hindu through birth or marriage I'd like to note it's important to distinguish between being a Hindu as having said faith, and being a Hindu as having a place in the caste system.
 
 
Princess
16:38 / 12.04.07
Can I ask what it is that attracts you to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, Princess Swashbuckling? -Flyboy

Course you can.
Well, me and Christianity have sort of a history. I was raised in a strongly C of E family and when I was young I was a believer too. I went to the evangelical groups and the "Spring Harvest" celebrations that they hold at Butlins. I remember being on a stage and telling everyone that I'd spoken to God, and I remember crying with happiness about it. But I don't remember what it felt like, I was only eleven at the time.

In between then and now I fell away from Christianity in a big way. I started off as an atheist, then atheist magician, then agnostic magician, then theist witch. At the moment I've pretty much accepted that there is divinity of some sort. But I've no clue how I should approach it or what form it takes.

I suppose Christianity appeals because it is in some ways familiar? I've grown up with and so in some ways it feels like the "natural" choice. This is true to the extent that all my other spiritual choices have, at times, felt a bit pegged on. At other times they haven't. But I suppose I've always, at some level, seen Christianity as something which would make me good and zap the crazy out of me. I know that's silly, but the promises of peace, fullfillment and connection to God are all very tempting. I've realised that I feel disconnected, maybe even "fallen", and that Christianity is supposed to fix that.

Actually, I think that might be the core of it. I feel fallen. I feel like I need redeeming.

As to Catholicism, well, I suppose the mysticism of it. The ritual and colour and age of it. I respond well to ritual and stories and Saints and relics. Perhaps Roman Catholic wouldn't be good for me. I find the whole "Papal Infalibility" thing a bit scary really. But Anglo-Catholic or Old Catholic or Easter Orthodox might be just right. The only problem with those is that there is no community. I'm tired of being alone in faith. I'd like to have people to pray with and worship with.

Seems a little, let's say, odd to me that your first question is about how to acquire an object, rather than a deep faith in a specifically Roman Catholic God.-Fable of the Bees.

I see your point. It's something I'd been thinking about too, oddly. I suppose this comes down to the whole "connection" thing again. I've spent a long time in pagan practices that can, at times, seem very solipsistic. Having something physical, that a lot of other people use too, would make me feel like I was connected to something.

I suppose part of my interest is due to aesthetics too. I like chaplets, but the various evangelical "jesus beads" just don't do it for me. On some level, I'll admit for the sake of truthfullness, there is a part of me that just wants to be involved in something very magical. I suppose a rosary would be a way of advertising that.

I think that probably makes me sound like Madonna, (Queen of Pop, not of Heaven), and like I just want to "play" at Catholicism and wear the pretty beads. I don't think I do. I suppose I've just got this idea that if you change enough on the outside you could change what's on the inside too.

As to faith, well, that's a hard one. I can't say I'm sure of anything at all, but there is some part of me that thinks I should I be. ANd it seems to think that Christianity is what I should be sure of. But I'm not. It's hard. I'd like to believe. I believe it as much as I believe anything else. I suppose part of the rosary thing was "try it and see". SOrt of, dip my toe in and hope I get swept out to sea.

Given that you've obviously got internet access, why didn't you use it to research this question on the hundred of thousands of Catholic sites on the net, or even, say, wikipedia?-Fable of the Bees

Oh, I have. And I've gone to the Catholic church and arranged to start on the RCIA. The priest was very nice actually. He said that I should stay for as long as I was comfortable, and that it should feel like "falling in love" and "click", and that if it doesn't then another path would be better for me. Which was nice.

If I were you, I'd leave Catholicism well alone. By all means save up your pennies for a rosary, by all means enjoy the spectacle of mass - these are, in the end, aesthetic experiences. Faith, though, is something different, something more.-Fable of the Bees

I know, I want it. I don't think I'd be able to enjoy the spectacle without being involved. It would just highlight the lack of connection I felt and make me feel damned. Which would suck.

Now, of course, there's always the Anglican or Episcopal Church. In America, this is a light version of Catholicism; maybe in England, it's just plain protestantism.-SMS

I'm pretty sure that's the case. C of E (which I think is Anglicanism, if I'm talking balls someoeone please tell me) never seemed to do much with the Saints. Except name churches after them.

I would just read up on it and parttake of the communion anyway, without going through the rites of baptism and confirmation- Lord Switch

I don't think I'd feel right doing that. Not just because I'd be lying, but because I'd feel like a thief. If I found out that an initiate in my (current) tradition was actually faking, then I would be very hurt. That person would have had no respect for me or my faith.

Also, I don't think you can understand some of these mysteries without being initiated. That's the point of the initiation. I'm sure I could derive some meaning from it, but that wouldn't be the same thing that all my Catholic peers (who I'd lied to) would be getting.

Also, I'm not an adept. I have no intention of becoming one either.

TBH folks, it looks like Christianity is on it's way for me. Today I spent some time in the (C of E) church, and it was lovely. There was gold and candles and statues. I also spent some in the Catholic church, the priest was bowing and kneeling and things, and that was pretty too. Maybe I was vastly misguided when I thought that protestantism always had dull churches. I think my best bet is probably to spend some time in both Churches/congregations. I'm already fully comped for the C of E, so that's not an issue, and I can do my RCIA for as long as I feel like it's useful. That way I can explore the boundaries of/ needs of / existence of my faith without making any false promises or fucking anyone over.

Is there some ethical flaw in this plan? I kinda feel like moonlighting between churches might be frowned upon, but I can't really think why.

Thanks all for advice/questions so far.
 
 
Princess
17:19 / 12.04.07
Just found thisanglican guide to prayer which has a sort of hand-rosary thing going on. Which I like. It also says some stuff about free-form incorporation of flowers/candles/jounrnalling/stones etc. WHich I like a lot also. I think my views of mainstream Christianity might have been a tad narrow.
 
 
Princess
17:19 / 12.04.07
Just found thisanglican guide to prayer which has a sort of hand-rosary thing going on. Which I like. It also says some stuff about free-form incorporation of flowers/candles/jounrnalling/stones etc. WHich I like a lot also. I think my views of mainstream Christianity might have been a tad narrow.
 
 
Quantum
17:33 / 12.04.07
Hey, I imagine the proprieters of the churches are aware people try things out before they commit, and since most are short on congregation they'll want you to join. They may recommend an Alpha course.
 
 
Lord Switch
18:16 / 12.04.07
Just a quick answer to Quantum:
Transubstantiation exist in more religions than Catholicism, and it is one of the central mysteries of magick generally. Eating god to become god. Basic internal alchemy, isn't it?
Osiris was eaten as bread.
In the Greek Orthodox Church there is a rite women performed before easter where they use wine and basil instead of yeast tp raise the bread, symbolic of the rising of christ, adapted from various older greek mysteries. What other gods can we name that have bread and wine as symbols?

You also ask me what God would say to that. I don't think God would give a toss and we are all part of god, muslim, catholic gnostic atheist wiccan or whatever. The outward manifestation of religion is mostly a political concept. The mysteries are universal and freely available, not based on whether a priest has splashed water on you or not. God will thus not really care, No matter what the pope might say; besides he is not more or less the representative of God upon earth than I am you are or a tree is.

Joining a specific denomination is akin to joining a nation. Catholicism is the continuum of the Roman Empire, and by becoming Roman catholic you become part of that.

I might need to point out that I am not saying there is no need to join a church if that is what you want to do, as there is strenght in community and in placing yourself under obligations and restrictions. I was merely coming to the discussion from an initiated mystical point of view rather than a layman point of view.

as for Princess:
I'm sure that you would feel cheated if someone in your tradition claimed initiation, but was lying. I would feel cheated as well. but there is a big difference between a tradition where learned skill counts and a congregation where you just need to participate. Is there really a difference between someone who has an unbroken line of initiation to Gardner himself, but who doesn't do any wiccan work and a self-initiated wiccan who doesn't do any work? Nope. No difference. A priest who has never received apostolic succession, but who prays hours per day and when he blesses the host BANG there is something, contrasted with a priest with succession who had a bishop put his paws on him yet doesn't even know the mass properly and is more interested in the choirboys...

Initiation itself only counts for the eventual "secrets" that may be imparted, and for the experience of the initiation itself. Initiation does imho only count if the initiatory experience makes the difference between you being able to work on the level you want to work with the tradition. This is why "self-initiation" is just as valid in many cases.
 
 
Princess
18:52 / 12.04.07
God will thus not really care says you, Lord Switch. But it isn't just God that you are talking about here. If the Catholics involved do care then it seems awfully unkind not to take their views into account.

And yes, I agree with you, lazy practice is lazy practice. But it's not really the same. You are still deceiving people and taking liberties with their beliefs.
 
 
grant
19:45 / 12.04.07
Princess: Something else you might consider -- there are plenty of monasteries out there that offer religious retreats to anyone who needs a little quiet contemplation. Don't have to be Catholic. Here's a list of Benedictines (scroll down for the UK). There are other orders.
 
 
grant
20:01 / 12.04.07
I find the whole "Papal Infalibility" thing a bit scary really.

You're misunderstanding it -- all papal infallibility means is that the pope is the final authority, when speaking officially in his capacity as pope, on anything to do with Catholic belief and practice. There was some debate as to whether JPII was speaking infallibly when he first said women couldn't ever be priests, since it wasn't really an official declaration of law. Plenty of popes have been wrong about plenty of things in the past, and pointing that out isn't a crime in the church.
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
00:56 / 13.04.07
It has to be formally invoked. I believe that, over the centuries, this has only been done about a dozen times. The last that I recall dealt with the immaculate conception as a factual event.

Then, unless you want to join a very large organization, why convert? There's very little authority in canon law for the papacy. If it's ritual that get's you off, find an extreme Anglo-Catholic or Eastern group. Their not hand-cuffed by Vatican II (masses in Latin with perhaps some Aramaic; priest faces altar throughout the entire service; kneeling congregation faces the celebrant's buttocks).
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
00:58 / 13.04.07
they're (typo).
 
 
EvskiG
14:41 / 13.04.07
The Doctrine of Infallibility involves some fascinating (and, in my opinion, amazingly bogus) arguments. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on Papal Infallibility:

* what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration.

* the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

* infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

(The whole article is worth reading for some great apologetics.)

How did the Pope become infallible?

Jesus gave him (and the Church) magic powers, more or less.

From the Catechism:

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
02:34 / 15.04.07
Exactly.

Ev G wrote,

"* infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal."

Yes, well, cut and pasted this way it seems rather bad. Still, it's also clear if you read the above post. closely. that infallability must be specifically invoked: ex cathedra, as doctor and pastor of all Christians, under specific conditions, etc., etc.

It's only been invoked thirteen times. The last, by JPII, who had a special devotion to the BVM, dealt, as I mentioned above, with the immaculate conception as a factual event.
 
 
Alice Bastable
19:03 / 15.04.07
You might want to look into some historical material; a number of the late 19th-century Decadents, especially the not-so-straight ones (Wilde, Verlaine, Pater, etc.) were deeply attracted to Catholicism, both for the aesthetic value, and, in Protestant England, as a form of rebellion. Check out Ellis Hanson's Decadence and Catholicism for more information.
 
 
EvskiG
20:01 / 20.04.07
Limbo no longer exists.

Babies who die without being baptized now MAY be considered to go to Heaven.

Please take note and plan your lives accordingly.
 
 
This Sunday
20:06 / 20.04.07
Didn't the last pope... y'know the one who wasn't a Nazi Youth but had his own dark sordids... didn't he declare all of Hell as basically 'limbo' shortly before dying? Based on the idea that God wouldn't really let people go to Hell on technicalities?

I seem to recall CNN running this, with some Matthew Fox namechecking on the side.
 
 
EvskiG
20:10 / 20.04.07
Adults who haven't been baptized are still fucked, however.

Still, this actually represents a stunningly progressive move by Benedict.

While Catholicism teaches that people are born into a state of sinfulness (original sin), which requires an act of redemptive grace to be washed away, this new document says that a "superabundance" of grace prevails over sin. "Christ's solidarity with all of humanity must have priority over the solidarity of human beings with Adam."

It's all angels dancing on pins to me, but this might be comforting to a lot of devout Catholics who suffer mental agony over the early death of an infant -- or an abortion.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply