Let's look at the Catholic Institution, shall we?

This is just a thread up for discussion about the Catholic Institution.

It is a highly controversial topic so lets keep our posts nice!
This is not a comparison of religions or a thread to bash it.
So if you want to de-rail this, or trash it, stay out.

To start, I have a serious issue with the Catholic 'institution'.
Not necessarily all the beliefs, just some of the rules and laws associated with it..

For one, I don't believe in calling any one, besides my biological dad, 'Father'.
Matthew 23.9
This is a quote from the Bible. The same book that all Christians read.
It clearly states to refrain from the use of 'Father' to anyone from the Earth.
I, for one, call my dad, 'Dad'. Not Father. Seeming as this is my earthly father, he deserves that title.
But he is not the Father, or a representative, as God would be.

But, to this day, millions of people refer to their priest as 'Father'. Hmm....

Another problem I have is that the Pope is referred to as the 'Vicar of Christ'.
Well lets look at the word 'Vicar'.
Definition of Vicar:

In the broadest sense, a vicar (pronounced /ˈvɪkər/; from the Latin vicarius) is a representative, anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand").

So, in essence, one who is referred to as 'Vicar of Christ' is saying that they are in place of Christ.
To me, that is just saying they are comparing themselves to the Authority of Christ.
THAT, is a big problem.
I don't believe in calling ANYONE another Christ.
The only person that would stake that claim, IMO, is the Anti-christ.

One more,
When a catholic goes to confession, he/she is told that her sins are forgiven.
By the priest. "Say 10 Hail Mary's and 4 Our Fathers, and your sins are desolved."
Well, according to the Bible, there's only one being that can forgive sins. Not man.
But GOD. Or Jesus, specifically.

Anything to add? Or am I just a conspiracy theorist?!

My main issue with the RC church is the lies I was told about my home county/Country as a child in RC School..

I was taught facts on how they brought Christianity here, how they converted the pagans who lived here etc.. which simply isn't the truth..

Why would any church need to base their teachings on a lie.. learning the truth undermined my faith in the rest of the institution and led me on my first steps down the conspiracy root to understand why.

Your post reminded me of something that happened to me. A long time ago, when I was a tender age of 16, I almost got fired from a job at a gas station because I refused to call a Catholic Priest, "Father". I had addressed him as "Sir or Mr." and he took offense. He instructed me to call him Father.

I then responded and told him that I was not Catholic and that the Bible forbids me from calling him "Father". I did so in a very respectful manner. This however,enraged him. The Priest then told my boss, one of the members of his church, to fire me.

My boss was very angry with me and asked me to explain myself. When I explained the matter to him, he agreed with me and told his Priest that he was welcome to buy his gas somewhere else. I couldn't believe it. I thought for sure I was going to get canned.

I will never forget the rage on that priests face when my boss told him that.


[edit on 1/29/2010 by Sparky63]

[edit on 1/29/2010 by Sparky63]

Your post reminded me of something that happened to me. A long time ago, when I was a tender age of 16, I almost got fired from a job at a gas station because I refused to call a Catholic Priest, "Father". I had addressed him as "Sir or Mr." and he took offense. He instructed me to call him Father.

I then responded and told him that I was not Catholic and that the Bible forbids me from calling him "Father". I did so in a very respectful manner. This however,enraged him. The Priest then told my boss, one of the members of his church, to fire me.

My boss was very angry with me and asked me to explain myself. When I explained the matter to him, he agreed with me and told his Priest that he was welcome to buy his gas somewhere else. I couldn't believe it. I thought for sure I was going to get canned.

I will never forget the rage on that priests face when my boss told him that.

That's an interesting story.

Oddly, since I am a secular person, I will generally go along with people's choice of title, within reason. But I do understand that a sincere Christian might interpret Jesus' instruction to call no man Father, except literally, to be clear and binding.

For what it is worth, neither the Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthdox Church, both of whom use the honorific Father for their clergy, is sola scriptura. That is, these churches assert that they have teaching authority, which includes the authority to interpret, or even supersede, received texts. Obviously, they have interpreted this passage.

That does not explain this priest's emotional reaction, rage, about being called by the ordinary and polite secular titles appropriate to the secular setting where this exchange occurred. So, I am thinking spiritual deficit or even mental illness, rather than doctrinal disagreement, is what was driving this incident.

In particular, at the risk of political incorrectness, the thought occurs that your being 16 may have been a factor in this priest's concern that you acknowledge his superior status to yours. Just as well, then, that you stood your ground. And a tip of the hat to your old boss.

Originally posted by eight bits

In particular, at the risk of political incorrectness, the thought occurs that your being 16 may have been a factor in this priest's concern that you acknowledge his superior status to yours. Just as well, then, that you stood your ground. And a tip of the hat to your old boss.

I agree. At 16 I thought I pretty much knew it all, and I am sure that this played a role in the Priests reaction. I'm 47 now and have a 15 year old who thinks she knows it all. I am sure that there have been many occasions that the consternation on my face mirrors that of the priest!

[edit on 1/29/2010 by Sparky63]

reply to post by havok


My understanding is that the Pope is called Vicar of Christ because he stands in the place of Christ here on earth until His return in the 2nd coming.

Vicar of Christ

(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

Catholic Encyclopedia

The Pope’s main duty is to maintain the faith unchanged until the return of Christ. This notion is made explicit in the opening sentences of the Papal Coronation Oath:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

For more information on the current state of the church, I recommend the following:

What hath 'the spirit of Vatican II' wrought?

The Siri Thesis – The Pope in Red

Catholic sexual abuse not a result of homosexuality? I say B.S.

reply to post by havok


I don't really see anything in your post that is a conspiracy. However if you want to get your teeth into a big catholic conspiracy check out the pentagram of evil over at www.one-evil.org...
I know its a lot of reading but VERY controversial, well put together and worth it especially when you get to the symbolism and maps. Scary stuff

Being raised in a VERY conservative catholic family, I've had to witness it all.

By far the worst part of it, form my view, is the sacrament of confirmation.

I don't know how it works in other parts of the world; but at least where I live, children who are 12 years old confirm their faith and allegiance to the catholic church.

Basically, all the kids are forced by their parents (forced is a strong word, but seeing as how at this age it is basically impossible for any child to grasp what religion and faith is really about), to confirm their faith and allegiance to the church.

I underwent this sacrament, only in grade 6, not having any idea at all what it was all about.

Now that I look back at it, I realize that I would never have gone through it had it taken place even a couple of years later. Looking back now however, I realize if I would have refused, I probably would have been ostracized by my entire extended family, so I don't really know what I would have done.

That's just one of my problems with the church; being raised in a strict catholic environment however, has revealed to me countless issues and problems I have with the church that I could go on forever with; have any questions just ask me

reply to post by Monts


In the UK confirmation is around 15, at least it is on the South East Coast..

Tho being at a Strict Catholic school meant a huge amount of pressure from the School, and coming up for exams, piling on that extra pressure did not help..

Got to admit I have a number of issues around the whole institution... but my main one is the blatant lies I was taught in school as it knocked the whole foundation of what I thought at the time.

Clearly you're a conspiracy theorist However, imo you have been misinformed about the catholic church, more specifically the RCC. The few qualms you listed are actually Biblical.

On calling a priest "father":

First, if you read the bible line by line, and not include previous lessons or the supporting paragraphs, you are opening yourself to a ton of questions, if not outright contradictions.

Now, in Matthew 23:8-12, Jesus said, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one in Heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The great among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Here, He is speaking of the rabbis, specifically those rabbis that used their position to attain material rewards. These men had essentially placed themselves equal to or above God, and they were being condemned.

Moving along, the Vicar of Christ. Your thinking on this title is new to me, I've never heard anyone claim the Pope, or Catholics, believed that the Pope was Christ. That is an outright fallacy. The title Vicar of Christ refers to the Pope being the representative of Christ on Earth, not Christ. Furthermore, he is only a representative until Christ returns. I suppose you could say he's keeping the seat warm.

The last concern was confession. Again, despite of protests of fellow Christians, confession is a Biblical act.
During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23)

As a Christian I am to assume you believe in the power of baptism, despite whether you subscribe to infant baptism (as Catholics do) or later baptism, the act is to remove the stain of original sin. No matter when the baptism is performed the person very likely will sin (to break God's rules). We believe that Christ gave the power to cleanse the spirit after he left with His apostles, just as he had done while on the earth. Does that mean that the Priest knows what God is thinking, no, it was promised that through confession the taint of further sin is removed. Now, do not get confused I can not go and steal something, know I'm going to continue the behavior, but once a week go and confess and have the sin absolved, that's not how it works. You have to be truly remorseful and not commit that act again, and as to that I suppose only God knows what truly lies in the heart of a person.
A personal note: You are aware that an anti Christ is not someone who claims to be God (which the Church doesn't claim regardless) it is someone that denies the divinity of Christ. I think it is very important to distinguish between the two. Someone saying they are God is blasphemy.



[edit on 29-1-2010 by searching4truth]

Originally posted by Monts
Being raised in a VERY conservative catholic family, I've had to witness it all.

By far the worst part of it, form my view, is the sacrament of confirmation.

I don't know how it works in other parts of the world; but at least where I live, children who are 12 years old confirm their faith and allegiance to the catholic church.

Basically, all the kids are forced by their parents (forced is a strong word, but seeing as how at this age it is basically impossible for any child to grasp what religion and faith is really about), to confirm their faith and allegiance to the church.

I underwent this sacrament, only in grade 6, not having any idea at all what it was all about.

Now that I look back at it, I realize that I would never have gone through it had it taken place even a couple of years later. Looking back now however, I realize if I would have refused, I probably would have been ostracized by my entire extended family, so I don't really know what I would have done.

That's just one of my problems with the church; being raised in a strict catholic environment however, has revealed to me countless issues and problems I have with the church that I could go on forever with; have any questions just ask me

We had confirmation in 8th grade, the sacrament is when the person is considered an adult in the eye of the Church where I attend Catholic school this sacrament was given in our last year of formal religion classes. I'm sure you know that Catholic definition of the sacrament, basically it makes you a perfected Christian. I don't really see how this is different than say a Jewish Bar/Bat Mitzfah and Muslims do not have a ceremony of sorts, but at age 7 they are responsible for their own actions. I think other areas call it the age of reason.

Originally posted by searching4truth
On calling a priest "father":

First, if you read the bible line by line, and not include previous lessons or the supporting paragraphs, you are opening yourself to a ton of questions, if not outright contradictions.

Now, in Matthew 23:8-12, Jesus said, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one in Heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The great among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Here, He is speaking of the rabbis, specifically those rabbis that used their position to attain material rewards. These men had essentially placed themselves equal to or above God, and they were being condemned.

So, you are saying that the Scripture is telling this to rabbi's only?
Ok. That does clear up a few things, but then again, why do they call priests' "Father"?

Moving along, the Vicar of Christ. Your thinking on this title is new to me, I've never heard anyone claim the Pope, or Catholics, believed that the Pope was Christ. That is an outright fallacy. The title Vicar of Christ refers to the Pope being the representative of Christ on Earth, not Christ. Furthermore, he is only a representative until Christ returns. I suppose you could say he's keeping the seat warm.

I am not saying those people think that the pope is Christ, although I do believe followers do worship him a little much...
You're right, though, as these are my opinions.

The last concern was confession. Again, despite of protests of fellow Christians, confession is a Biblical act.
During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23)

Ok. That does make me feel a little better. But, I still see the draw of followers to go to confession, then ask forgiveness as a ritual habit.
By this, I mean, they are "weekend" catholics.
Party during the week, ask forgiveness later. So on, so forth.

As a Christian I am to assume you believe in the power of baptism, despite whether you subscribe to infant baptism (as Catholics do) or later baptism, the act is to remove the stain of original sin. No matter when the baptism is performed the person very likely will sin (to break God's rules). We believe that Christ gave the power to cleanse the spirit after he left with His apostles, just as he had done while on the earth. Does that mean that the Priest knows what God is thinking, no, it was promised that through confession the taint of further sin is removed. Now, do not get confused I can not go and steal something, know I'm going to continue the behavior, but once a week go and confess and have the sin absolved, that's not how it works. You have to be truly remorseful and not commit that act again, and as to that I suppose only God knows what truly lies in the heart of a person.

I understand it better. Yes.

A personal note: You are aware that an anti Christ is not someone who claims to be God (which the Church doesn't claim regardless) it is someone that denies the divinity of Christ. I think it is very important to distinguish between the two. Someone saying they are God is blasphemy.

Yes. I am fully aware. I guess my definition of Vicar is not the same as others. I always thought vicar, in latin, means "another".

Thanks for the input.

reply to post by havok


I'm breaking an unstated rule of forums by posting a reply to the OP without reading the discussion that it prompted first, but here goes:

Your own quote about the definition of vicar states "agent for a superior". I think that's pretty accurate. What's the problem here?

Here are some examples of where people are called 'father' in the Bible who are not actually biological fathers:

Old Testament

Gen. 45:8
Job 29:16
Is. 22:20-21
2 Kgs 2:212
2 Kgs 6:21

New Testament

Acts 7:2
Romans 9:10

Regarding the forgiveness of sins, please read John 20:19 - 23.

Eric

Originally posted by havok

Originally posted by searching4truth

So, you are saying that the Scripture is telling this to rabbi's only?
Ok. That does clear up a few things, but then again, why do they call priests' "Father"?

As I'm sure you're aware, there was no one called Priest at the time either, the religious leaders were rabbis, He was speaking of rabbis, leaders, teachers in general. Anyone in a position authority that has become corrupted by greed. Now, there are titles associated with each position held in the Church and a Priest's title changes as he is prompted. Generally, the term father is used in an informal sense. They are called this because much as how a person's earthly father guides a child in the ways of life, a Priest guides the spiritual teaching of the child or persons in general and the previous quotes should illustrate its acceptability. If not, let me know, and I can try to explain it another way. Basically, a priest is an earthly spiritual father.



I am not saying those people think that the pope is Christ, although I do believe followers do worship him a little much...
You're right, though, as these are my opinions.


Nobody worships the Pope, that is fact. He is the leader of the RCC and he is respected. But that is all.


Ok. That does make me feel a little better. But, I still see the draw of followers to go to confession, then ask forgiveness as a ritual habit.
By this, I mean, they are "weekend" catholics.
Party during the week, ask forgiveness later. So on, so forth.

Lol, yes, that is an issue, but that is an issue for the individual, because any "good" Catholic knows that if you want to go and party it up every weekend and think confession will make it all better, then they need to go to a Catholic refresher course because it doesn't work like that. Just as with every faith though, some people are ala carte religious and picking and choosing what applies to them. I don't fault them for it, we are all human, but the stance of the Bible and the Church are very clear on it.

Thanks for the input.

No problem, feel free to u2u me or post any other concerns here. I'll check back.

Peace in Christ

I thought "Vicar of Rome" was a slur that Henry VIII used against the Pope.

If I find myself having to go to churches (hatches, matches, and dispatches usually - that's baptisms, weddings, and funerals for the colonial types), I will stand when everyone stands, I will sit when everyone kneels, be quiet and be respectful to those involved directly in the ceremony and ritual. I don't participate in any other way. I don't pray. I don't repeat any words. I don't sing. I certainly don't go near the holy water etc.

I also will smile and be pleasant should I be introduced to clergy. I will not, however, refer to them by any religious title. If I'm introduced to, say, Father John, I'll shake his hand and say, "A pleasure to meet you, John." So far I've had no real pushback other than the gossipy, more religious old ladies thinking I've transgressed some law of common decency. If it makes them feel better, they can say a few prayers for my eternal soul...

They're people. I like people. I'll treat them like people and ask that they do the same for me. I find it rather insulting that some believe that I should treat them with any veneration. I don't like the Catholic Church, but I'm not against the people who do.

It just goes to show you that a majority of Catholic followers don't even understand a majority of what they are being told, nor do they have enough individual thought to question what they believe in.

If I was religious and the bible was the most important piece of literature you could possibly have because it is the written word of God, I think I would put a little bit more effort into reading/understanding it other than just going to church on Sunday.

I am glad you can see the hypocrisy that the majority of the masses cannot.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
It just goes to show you that a majority of Catholic followers don't even understand a majority of what they are being told, nor do they have enough individual thought to question what they believe in.

What goes to show that? And how does it show that?

From what are you drawing your conclusions and why do you believe that they have any validity?

Eric

reply to post by havok

Yes, calling priest "father" is a problem...have never understood the Church's justification for this.
Another you didn't list are indulgences (doing something that results in spiritual reward for those alive or dead).
Another is prayer for the dead.
And indulgences via prayers for the dead.
And prayers to the Saints and to Mary.
And holy water.
And the rosary.
And rote prayers.
And kissing/venerating the wood of the cross.
And venerating statues or relics or holy medals.
A much more important problem is the authority of the Bible.
Those who broke away believe the Bible and the Bible alone is infallable and authoritative.
The Catholic Church believes it's the Bible plus.
This is the most fundamental "problem".

As a Christian I am to assume you believe in the power of baptism, despite whether you subscribe to infant baptism (as Catholics do) or later baptism, the act is to remove the stain of original sin.

The "stain of original sin" is a Roman Catholic thing. The Eastern Orthodox Church, which practices infant baptism (infant confirmation, too), and stands in the identical apostolic succession as the RCC, teaches that no person bears responsibility for another person's sin.

Thus, for example, EOC and RCC agree about the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Where they disagree is that immaculate conception makes her one-of-a-kind for the RCC, but she's just like everybody else for the EOC.

Nor is there any "left-over" stain for anybody to work through in EOC doctrine. God told Adam and Eve what they must do in Genesis 3. They did. Adam and Eve are saints in the EOC. That was the end of the matter, although as with all Paulist churches, the practical effects of God's reaction to the sin remain, of course. People die, all creatures have "fallen natures," and that sort of thing.

As to the Protestant churches, they differ among themselves about how much of Roman spin they took with them when they broke off, and how much of that spin survived subsequent development of the sects involved.

Regarding the Vicar of Christ thing, I can't see that the OP said anything more inflated than what is found here

www.newadvent.org...

That source is about a century old, but this is not a labile point.

In mitigation, representing Christ in time and space is not an exclusive office. In the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, and following a phrase of John Cardinal Newman, everybody's conscience is termed the "aboriginal" Vicar of Christ:

www.vatican.va...

So, I think the adoption of the phrase as a title of personal distinction by Roman Bishops is just another example of a tin ear wired up to an enormous ego. All Christians are vicars of the Christ, and most of them manage to get through the day without becoming all puffed up about it.

reply to post by EricD


From what I read from the OP, I thought he was Catholic and had some questions. If he is asking his questions here instead of a church or a relative then either they don't know the answers or he didn't ask them because it might look like blasphemy. Not to knock the OP one bit because at least he is asking questions about his religion.

I took it that they did not know the answers to his questions and thus my statement that a majority of religious people do not know everything they should considering religion is such a major part of of their life. I didn't say everyone, I implied a majority of the masses don't know everything they should about their holy bible, nor do they have the audacity to question it.