What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

Nothingbetter2d · 03-05-2012 09:51AM

i believe everyone should not listen to the rantings of long since dead people about a person who may have existed but in reality didnt have any godly powers and nor was his mother Mary a virgin. She loved someone else's cock and then lied to Joseph about it because she would have been stoned to death if she admitted it. Even Jesus himself banged a hooker. as for walking on water or healing the sick.... grain at the time often had a fungus (Ergot Poisoning) which is known to cause hallucinations.... it happened again in the US which led to the witch hunts.

Mr. Presentable · 03-05-2012 09:53AM

Buggery and subsequent absolution

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 10:03AM

Penn wrote: »

It's amazing when you actually start to realise what people are saying in church. I got chills the first time I realised everyone in unison chanted "IT IS RIGHT TO GIVE HIM THANKS AND PRAISE"

Really, how far away is that from chanting "THE LEADER IS GOOD, THE LEADER IS GREAT. WE SURRENDER OUR WILL AS OF THIS DATE"

Yeah I always thought the same. However, this little exchange is essential for the mass. It has a long history, it's found in ancient rites and in the earliest church liturgies. The Latin word for this part is the sursum corda ("hearts lifted"), and the bit that freaked you out actually indicates assent to the priest continuing to offer the rest of the Eucharistic prayer for the people, and it is the necessity of such assent which accounts for the universality of the little exchange.

krudler · 03-05-2012 10:04AM

super_furry wrote: »

Know what I miss? Limbo. When were we supposed to stop believing in it?

Limbo exists, its just called the social welfare office these days.

Penn · 03-05-2012 10:06AM

krudler wrote: »

Nailed it, its probably the only organisation where a lot of its members dont believe in the majority of its rules and teachings, yet call themselves members anyway, its kinda baffling.

What's more baffling are the people who go too far and believe everything like Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark. Or the story of Jesus curing a woman who'd been bleeding for 12 years. Which supposedly happened 2000 years ago. 2000 years ago, where if someone bled for about 12 hours they'd be so infected they'd be killed just to be put out of their misery.

Or Jesus alone in the desert, being tempted by the Devil before being saved by the angels. Of course, as Jesus was alone, the only person who could have told that story to anyone was... Jesus. Bet he also told his disciples that he could turn invisible but only when no-one was looking at him.

I'm sure the Bible has some nice stories, but it cannot and should not be taken literally. That's one thing I'll agree with the a la carte Catholics on

philstar · 03-05-2012 10:08AM

Sindri wrote: »

Well mostly they are just 'cultural Catholics' and they also, I would think gain some comfort from it.

cultural catholic

whats that?

Penn · 03-05-2012 10:08AM

marty1985 wrote: »

Yeah I always thought the same. However, this little exchange is essential for the mass. It has a long history, it's found in ancient rites and in the earliest church liturgies. The Latin word for this part is the sursum corda ("hearts lifted"), and the bit that freaked you out actually indicates assent to the priest continuing to offer the rest of the Eucharistic prayer for the people, and it is the necessity of such assent which accounts for the universality of the little exchange.

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LEADER! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LEADER! LEADER! LEADER! LEADER!

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 10:09AM

philstar wrote: »

cultural catholic whats that?

The New Atheist's worst enemy.

Penn · 03-05-2012 10:11AM

philstar wrote: »

cultural catholic whats that?

People who only really go to Mass, get married in church, have children baptised/make communion/confirmation etc simply because it's the "done thing" and what is perceived to be the normal way of doing things and that anyone who doesn't do these things is weird and unusual.

Not to be confused with the "a la carte" Catholics, who do believe in most of the religion, but decide to ignore whatever they don't like about it (condoms, sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce etc) for whatever reason (not relevant in today's society, My God wouldn't agree with that, I like sex etc)

krudler · 03-05-2012 10:20AM

Penn wrote: »

What's more baffling are the people who go too far and believe everything like Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark. Or the story of Jesus curing a woman who'd been bleeding for 12 years. Which supposedly happened 2000 years ago. 2000 years ago, where if someone bled for about 12 hours they'd be so infected they'd be killed just to be put out of their misery.

Or Jesus alone in the desert, being tempted by the Devil before being saved by the angels. Of course, as Jesus was alone, the only person who could have told that story to anyone was... Jesus. Bet he also told his disciples that he could turn invisible but only when no-one was looking at him.

I'm sure the Bible has some nice stories, but it cannot and should not be taken literally. That's one thing I'll agree with the a la carte Catholics on

or the old, oh Noah and the whale/talking snakes/burning bushes was a METAPHOR, Jesus walking on water/becoming the first zombie was FACT. errr, it comes from the same book, why is some open to interpretation other parts not? that and god being a genocidal maniac in the old testament and a loving, all forgiving nice guy in the new, I guess everyone goes through their wild phase and then calm down once the first kid arrives though. Its a book of fables and morality tales written hundreds of years after the supposed events, its like the worst wikipedia entry ever, Jesus thus rose from the dead [citation needed]

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 10:27AM

Penn wrote: »

I'm sure the Bible has some nice stories, but it cannot and should not be taken literally. That's one thing I'll agree with the a la carte Catholics on

And, you know, the Pope.

OP, I think Christianity and perhaps in particular Catholicism is the most scrutinised religion in the world because they are so clear on written rules and seem to put less emphasis on rituals. But the doing part should be as important as the believing part.

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 10:47AM

krudler wrote: »

errr, it comes from the same book, why is some open to interpretation other parts not?

Not sure if you're just having fun or actually serious.

In fairness, the bible is not all "the same book" (but I suspect you know this). It's a collection of about 66 books. Some written centuries and centuries apart by different people in different places. The reason they say some is literal and some not is because it is subdivided into genres (history, prophecy, laws, poetry, proverbs, biography, letters, emails etc).

elefant · 03-05-2012 10:47AM

Penn wrote: »

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LEADER! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LEADER! LEADER! LEADER! LEADER!

BATMAN!

I mean, Jesus!

Seachmall · 03-05-2012 10:49AM

marty1985 wrote: »

In fairness, the bible is not all "the same book" (but I suspect you know this). It's a collection of about 66 books. Some written centuries and centuries apart by different people in different places. The reason they say some is literal and some not is because it is subdivided into genres (history, prophecy, laws, poetry, proverbs, biography, letters, emails etc).

Is there an objective method to distinguish between these genres?

philstar · 03-05-2012 10:52AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnao5SBunfI

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 10:57AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Is there an objective method to distinguish between these genres?

Having never studied the bible, I'm not sure. But I would discard the literal interpretations of fundamentalists and a lot of the New Atheists (that they are similar is no surprise as these movements often grow in opposition to each other), use common sense as a rule of thumb, and check with a teacher or someone who is into theology. Most churches will have teachings based on their official interpretations, so check with your church too.

I Heart Internet · 03-05-2012 10:58AM

As a Roman Catholic, the Nicene Creed provides and excellent summary of what I believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Current english translation is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#Latin_Rite

I've posted this before on AH as a statement, generally, of my catholic beliefs but some were unhappy because it wasn't my own words or wasn't snappy enough. It's a summary so its hard to make a summary of a summary without loosing stuff in the process.

I have no doubt many catholics don't believe certain parts of this or have simply forgotten what they believe. Fair enough.

I think its a very good summary of what the catholic church believes in.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of gags here on AH for this nominally "non-catholic-bashing thread" but for the OP and others interested, the nicene creed is the answer to your question.

Seachmall · 03-05-2012 10:59AM

marty1985 wrote: »

Having never studied the bible, I'm not sure. But I would discard the literal interpretations of fundamentalists and a lot of the New Atheists (that they are similar is no surprise as these movements often grow in opposition to each other), use common sense as a rule of thumb, and check with a teacher or someone who is into theology. Most churches will have teachings based on their official interpretations, so check with your church too.

"Probably not".

Which brings us back to krudler's point.

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 11:06AM

Seachmall wrote: »

"Probably not".

Which brings us back to krudler's point.

Probably not what?

In fairness to the poster, I don't think he made any point except poke fun at biblical literalists which seems out of place in a thread where lazygal is asking about Catholics.

Seachmall · 03-05-2012 11:13AM

marty1985 wrote: »

Probably not what?

In fairness to the poster, I don't think he made any point except poke fun at biblical literalists which seems out of place in a thread where lazygal is asking about Catholics.

"Probably no clearly defined method to distinguish between literal and symbolic genres of the Bible".

If there's no objective and clear method to do so then it's subjective interpretation.

If it's subjective interpretation then the distinctions are arbitrary.

If the distinctions are arbitrary arguing "this is literal, but that is symbolic" is not a valid argument.

I think that's krudler's point.

Run_to_da_hills · 03-05-2012 11:14AM

For people to believe that a priest can magically convert a bit of bread and wine into human body components and then try to make you believe that you are eating them is just ludicrous in this day and age. :eek:

c_man · 03-05-2012 11:15AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

For people to believe that a priest can magically convert a bit of bread and wine into human body components and then try to make you believe that you are eating them is just ludicrous in this day and age. :eek:

Yeah, he's actually inserting RFID chips into your body.

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 11:17AM

Seachmall wrote: »

"Probably no clearly defined method to distinguish between literal and symbolic genres of the Bible".

If there's no objective and clear method to do so then it's subjective interpretation.

If it's subjective interpretation then the distinctions are arbitrary.

If the distinctions are arbitrary arguing "this is literal, but that is symbolic" is not a valid argument.

I think that's krudler's point.

Oh wait, I think I get it. You wanted me to say no so you could poke holes at a straw man version of Catholicism. I didn't so you rephrased my answer to redirect us to krudler's straw man version of Catholicism which is actually biblical fundamentalism (with which New Atheists share literal interpretations) and not Catholicism at all, which is a shame because biblical literalism be an easy object of ridicule. Well played.

As the thread is about Catholics, I suggest just going with Catholic interpretations based on their official teachings, and if they say "this is literal, that is symbolic" then it's valid for Catholics.

krudler · 03-05-2012 11:20AM

Seachmall wrote: »

"Probably no clearly defined method to distinguish between literal and symbolic genres of the Bible".

If there's no objective and clear method to do so then it's subjective interpretation.

If it's subjective interpretation then the distinctions are arbitrary.

If the distinctions are arbitrary arguing "this is literal, but that is symbolic" is not a valid argument.

I think that's krudler's point.

there ya go. "this event really happened because someone hundreds of years ago I never met said so, that event is just a morality tale or fable" doesnt hold much water

Seachmall · 03-05-2012 11:21AM

marty1985 wrote: »

Oh wait, I think I get it. You wanted me to say no so you could poke holes at a straw man version of Catholicism. I didn't so you rephrased my answer to redirect us to krudler's straw man version of Catholicism which is actually biblical fundamentalism (with which New Atheists share literal interpretations) and not Catholicism at all, which is a shame because biblical literalism be an easy object of ridicule.

I rephrased your answer but didn't change it's meaning.

And Krudler's, and my, ridicule is not directed at biblical literalism.

And it's not a strawman.

Well played.

The argument plays itself.

As the thread is about Catholics, I suggest just going with Catholic interpretations based on their official teachings, and if they say "this is literal, that is symbolic" then it's valid for Catholics.

Krudler's point is suited to Catholic interpretations, it's directed at any interpretations that are not purely literal or purely symbolic but a mixture of both.

And it's a perfectly valid argument.

krudler · 03-05-2012 11:24AM

c_man wrote: »

Yeah, he's actually inserting RFID chips into your body.

just be thankful thats all a priest is inserting into your body

bah dum tsh!

marty1985 · 03-05-2012 11:28AM

Seachmall wrote: »

I rephrased your answer but didn't change it's meaning.

And Krudler's, and my, ridicule is not directed at biblical literalism.

And it's not a strawman.

The argument plays itself.

Krudler's point is suited to Catholic interpretations, it's directed at any interpretations that are not purely literal or purely symbolic but a mixture of both.

And it's a perfectly valid argument.

You rephrased my answer to attribute to me something I never said. I never said "probably not", I said I haven't studied the bible and I'd suggest you to ask someone who does or follow your church. Since this thread is about Catholics, I feel we should focus on catholic interpretations of the bible. The reason you changed my answer, and even used scare quotes, is because you have a record you want to play and it's easier to attack a straw man version of Catholicism.

Cokeistan · 03-05-2012 11:30AM

God and Jebus

LordSutch · 03-05-2012 11:32AM

bluewolf wrote: »

they believe in the right to call themselves catholic no matter how much of actual catholicism they disagree with

Not forgetting that Church of Ireland folk are catholic too!

Interesting to note that if you strip out many of the RC beliefs, then you are left with Protestant beliefs: Take Transubstantiation for example, or what about contraception, then there's praying to Mary (instead of Jesus)? women priests, married priests? 1st Communion at age (seven)! I know its a contraversial thing to suggest, but if so many RCs don't believe in thr basics of RC teaching, then maybe they are Protestant in their thinking (without realising it)? There's not much between the different Christian traditions anyway, so if you adjust one or two beliefs hear or there, and gain another, then you could in theory feel more comfortable sitting in a Protestant Church than sitting in a Roman Catholic one (and vice versa of course). Many people have left Protestant Churches and become RCs (due to women priests being introduced), so its a fine line to tread . . .

Run_to_da_hills · 03-05-2012 11:34AM

c_man wrote: »

Yeah, he's actually inserting RFID chips into your body.

You may have a point.:)

It is more than mere coincidence that 1,000,000,000 Catholics worldwide receive marks on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.

They are being conditioned to receive the mark of the beast. :eek:

What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

Comments