I've been watching a lot of EWTN lately. I've learned so much from the friars and the prayers. I thank God for Mother Angelica and her station.
I'm amazed at how many people shut Catholicism out in the cold because they think it's some kind of devilish demon. You know what I like about it? The solidarity. I'm getting so tired of a thousand answers to one question. Being a Lit' man, it can boggle my mind to approach all of the critical angles available. That's what I've found every other day in Protestant and protestant-spawn churches, too. It seems like there's a different idea for every church out there! Some only use a KJV, some want to handle snakes, some want to make their women wear long dress and horrible hairstyles, and some want to clap. Each of the preceding take issue with their particular hang-up and each of them use the same Bible to support their confusion. But, there's only one God, one church, one baptism, one, one, one! I don't feel like I hear that on EWTN. I absolutely love to hear the confidence and unity in the responses and homilies of those on that channel.
I know, I know. Someone is saying that the confusion is the same with members of the Catholic church. Yes. I understand that, but the answers seem to be the same at the core with those who are the leaders and are devout.
No. Don't worry. I'm not going to convert. I wouldn't even know where to buy a Rosary! However, I wish more people would give more consideration to their teachings. They go back farther in history than any other religion, and for well over a thousand years, they were all that was available.
Oh, well. I know this is not a very literary or pensive post, but I've had our Catholic brothers and sisters on my mind for quite a while now and I thought I would share that with you.
7 comments:
Glad to have you writing again!
I agree there is a certain "solidarity" with respect to the answers the Catholic Church presents to the public. Like the protestant faiths, the Catholic Church has many factions among their followers. But, it is refreshing to see and hear a "certainty" in what they believe.
In a world of irrational tolerance, conviction becomes a crime and certainty of faith is something to be repressed.
Just a note about one of your statements. While it is true the Catholic Church's roots can be traced back to the early first centuries, it is false that "They go back farther in history than any other religion". There are faiths that pre-date the Catholic Church. Three come to my mind quickly. First is the Jewish faith which dates back perhaps a few thousand years before the Catholic Church. Second is the Pagan faith, although granted paganism is on the opposite end of the spirituality scale. Third is the "one faith" mentioned in the Bible off which the Catholic Church splintered.
Keep writing; I love it.
Thanks for the comment, Anon.
I stand semantically corrected. I should have said that Catholicism goes back farther in history than any other Christian religion. Yes, the Jews pre-date Catholicism, but, as you know, Judaism is not a Christian religion. And, the many religions the Bible calls pagan, which is simply greek for "rural," probably shouldn't be counted in the discussion because there is no one religion that is represented by the word "pagan." It's a word that covers many religions; far more than it should.
Now, concerning the "one faith," I think you and I have a different interpretation of history. In my study, I've found that the Catholic, or "universal," church is the organized version of the "one faith." In the years following, they initiated many of the practices with which many in the protestant churches disagree. But, God did not reject the initial few hundred years of the Catholic church's existence. Keep in mind, God used the leadership of the Catholic church to establish the NT Canon, in the exact form we see it today through Athanasius. It might be better to say that the Catholic church spintered away from itself.
Thanks again for the comment! I'm going to have to disable the anonymous comments so the world can see your true idenity! (ha!)
Well, I tried to type quickly and left a few grammatical errors in my reply. Mea Culpa. Forgive me.
My identity needs to remain a mystery...lol.
As usual, in any discussion semantics plans a major role. What I mean is the term "Catholic Church" does not mean today what it once meant in terms of common use. Most people do not understand the word "catholic" to mean "universal." Although in the strictest sense of the term it is an adjective, most today would consider it a noun. As is the case with the term "Pagan" religion. Most people today, upon hearing the term "pagan,would not associate it with it's original definition. Instead, they would most likely associate it with it's more popular "noun" form.
The years and man have first warped and then crystalized the religious originator's intents and beliefs. In communiction terms, there is too much static or white noise between what we have today in the systems of religion and what was originally intended, too many assumptions and too many interpretations or misinterpretations. The differences in language also contribute to the barriers rising against truth seekers trying to find what God wanted.
Somehow, my post was posted instead of previewed. Anyway here is the rest of the story (forgive me Mr. Harvey).
The point I was trying to make in my original post was not to "correct" you, but to help your readers who may not be as informed as yourself. As I have stated before, you have an excellent mind and are, quite obviously, well educated. I bet your mom and dad are extremely proud of you.
P.S. I noticed you have not posted anything else since yesterday or the day before...get to writing!
Thanks again!
I do, however, want to be clear that I mean Catholic in both its adjectival and noun usages. I'm not trying to separate theory from reality as I feel that would be a shallow way of trying to declare allegiance or sympathy without really doing so (kind of like Bill O'Reilly trying to sucker people into believing that he's not a Republican). As for "pagan," I don't believe there is a singular, onomastic use for it. People who declare themselves to be pagans are simply declaring their ignorance without having to shed sweat over the extra words.
I took no offense, Anon. You may feel free to correct at will because I want to always be searching. The quest and the questions are the core of erudtion. I almost don't want to know the answers because new questions are so fun!
"As for 'pagan,' I don't believe there is a singular, onomastic use for it."
What I should have said is "I don't believe there is a singular, onomastic use for it in terms of an association with one religion."
Post a Comment