Sinnlos posted:

Has anyone in this thread been through Pre Cana with the Roman Catholic Church? I'm about to start with my fiancé, and have a general idea of what to expect, yet find myself still somewhat apprehensive about the whole affair.

CountFosco posted:

So would Eastern Orthodox recognize the baptism of a protestant? If they're wrong about its legitimacy, and the baptism was legitimate (say, through the holy spirit) would a second baptism have some negative consequences?

HEY GAL posted:

that's for the priests. the less americanized the Orthodox in question are the less likely they are to dress up for church. but men should uncover their heads and women should cover theirs.

also, zonohedron, what is a "particular church"? then i'll let you know if we have them

Keromaru5 posted:

Now that I think about it, I think every church I've ever been to has had a kitchen.

Of course, a number of those were Catholic churches that also had Catholic schools attached.

rap music posted:

you're not a real christian unless you speak fluent galilean aramaic

http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm

quote:

Our Father-Mother Who art above and within: Hallowed be Thy Name in twofold Trinity.

Thirteen Orphans posted:

Yeah I remember reading an article about these guys. It's fair to say scholarship isn't their strong suit.

WerrWaaa posted:

Apologetics seems to exist mostly among inerrantists. Yes? Doesn't seem like something that concerns those of higher liturgical traditions.

WerrWaaa posted:

That's very true! Would I be more accurate to say that current apologetics, the kind that is interested in proving God through shoddy science, is more intended to defend inerrant creation stories? It doesn't seem to me to be in the same vein as a philosophical apologetic.

Bel_Canto posted:

Oh sure, they totally can, it just won't happen overnight. It's like integrating into a new country that speaks the same language as you, at least on the surface, but people use some words differently and look at the world in very different ways. The part where we get annoyed (and this happens with converts to many religions, not just Protestant-to-Catholic) is when they start getting their undies in a bunch about how none of the people around them are sufficiently Catholic because they don't read the Catechism for fun. Not only is this deeply uncharitable and skirting close to mortal sin, but the breathtaking arrogance required to be a newcomer and tell people who were born and raised in a religion and have practiced it most or all of their lives that they're doing it wrong really beggars belief. It's like coming to live in Britain and telling the residents that they need to be more like the cast of Downton Abbey. But at least, like HEY GAL said, we have big enough numbers that an rear end in a top hat convert isn't going to be made a bishop: instead they just congregate on CatholicAnswers and r/Catholicism to bitch about their insufficiently-orthodox RCIA instructors.

Smoking Crow posted:

That's a thing I miss from Protestantism, fire and brimstone angry preaching

that and the phrase "on fire for the Lord"

The Phlegmatist posted:

Question for the Catholics:

Can a member of the laity give someone a Trinitarian baptism and have it be valid even if it's illicit?

Cythereal posted:

Do I need to start lumping you together with the Catholics and Orthodox, too?

Thirteen Orphans posted:

I was thinking it might be fun to do a Christianity Thread Secret Santa for Christmas. Unfortunately, the very first thing we'd have to do is decide when Christmas is and that's going to be difficult.

HEY GAL posted:

nobody celebrates anything on the same day, we got different calendars

JcDent posted:

Glad thing we never had people of color in my country, no racist tradition.

Except for dressing up as a gypsy for... the celebration of winter's end. I dunno how you amrikki call it or even if you do it, seeing how USA is large and full of strange climate places.

Ceciltron posted:

Well the blood of christ isn't supposed to taste good, is it? I'm pretty sure my priest uses wine that's turned to vinegar- I used to be able to smell it when i served as an altar boy.

Same goes for the wafers they use for eucharist: the second it touches your tongue the moisture gives it the texture of a horrible gelatinous lump.

Maybe it's intentional?

System Metternich posted:

Maybe an explanation of the rosary is in order for all non-Catholics itt:

The Rosary is a pretty, uh, "haptic" prayer; you can pray it without the beads, of course,but it's that long and repetitive that it has become common to pray it with the beads in your fingers. It's become *the* Catholic devotion since it was according to legend given in 1214 to St Dominic by the Virgin Mary. It's got its own feast (Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7th, which was initially instituted to celebrate the victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto), there have been dozens of papal encyclicals and apostolic letters been written about it, there are archconfraternities of the Rosary all around the world with millions of members, there are tons of pious legends about the spiritual benefits of praying it and so on.

lt's prayed like this:



You start with the Sign of the Cross followed by the Creed at the cross; the first bead is for the Lord's Prayer and at the following three beads you pray one Hail Mary each and then the Glory Be on the next bead. Afterwards you've got five "decades", that is ten Hail Marys (Maries? ) concerning a specific Mystery (today for example you'd try and meditate on the Glorious Mysteries of the resurrection of Christ, His ascension, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the assumption of Mary and her coronation in heaven) - five Mysteries with ten Hail Marys each altogether. After each decade there's the Glory Be, and the next decade is started with the Lord's Prayer again.

There are some interesting differences between how I pray the Rosary and how it's apparently prayed in the English-speaking world. For one: we don't say any psalms at the cross as the English wiki tells me; at the end of each decade it's common at least in Germany and Austria to say the Fatima Prayer as well ("O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.") And finally, and most surprising to me, is that we don't "simply" meditate on the mysteries as you apparently do; we also insert them into the Hail Mary, e.g. like so:
(first Glorious Mystery). The same goes for the three Hail Marys at the beginning, where we've got a specific addition after the word "Jesus" each. Maybe I'm dumb and you guys do that anyway, but I looked at like a dozen "How to Pray the Rosary" pages and it wasn't mentioned anywhere, so I just have to conclude that you don't do it.

Around here it's also common for groups to recite the Rosary alternatingly, i.e. the one half of the group (normally it's divided left-right) saying the first part of the Hail Mary including the Mystery, after which the other half picks up and says the rest. Which half of the group says what also changes with each decade to keep things fresh Do you do that too?

pidan posted:

Does this make sense to you? Essentially, I can't just take Jesus at his word because he's God, after all, I have to accept his words to believe that he's God in the first place. It's circular reasoning. The Muslims at least claim that their holy book is so well written only God could have done it, Christians don't even have that.

HEY GAL posted:

well until roughly fifteen minutes ago, nobody read these things absent a thousand years of interpretation and ongoing conversation about the text, which we call "tradition" for short

pidan posted:

As for the value of humility, my point is just that the text makes no argument for it at all, it just goes "humility: God approves", and 100% of the reasoning is filled in by the reader.

Edit: I guess my instinct is that there must be some technical meaning to the terms the text uses, so that there is some solid explanation there if you just understand the definition and contexts of the words. But maybe it really is like zonohedron says and is just a shorthand note about an ongoing discussion. Like, the sayings of Confucius don't make too much sense as soundbytes, but when you look at the discursive context it's much clearer.

HEY GAL posted:

the topic of defenestration has followed me to yet another thread

The Phlegmatist posted:

distill the essence of a hundred crotchety old men. form a homunculus of salt and dirt.

speak the secret thaumaturgical words "the poor should just lie down in the street and die" to bring it to life.

that's dale reed.

Man Whore posted:

the concept of televangelists makes me wish someone would go full on cleansing of the temple.

StashAugustine posted:

Just started a job doing data entry/receiving phone calls for government medical/food assistance programs, need an appropriate patron saint stat

Lutha Mahtin posted:

Yes, and while I admit I am not an expert on St. Jude, it just really sits wrong with me to look at charity and social programs for lower-class people, and package them into a box labeled "desperation/giving up". To me this is incompatible with much of the Gospel, as it places a second-class humanity onto those who find themselves in the position to receive such aid, and denies the transformative power of loving one's neighbor.

Jaramin posted:

That really depends on your individual church. Most are just like "well, you said the prayer and signed this card saying you said it with Deacon X, you're God's problem now! Seeya at the rapture!" which may have cost more souls than it saved due to its attitude of apathy and appearance of hypocrisy. A congregation that actually cares will have discipleship programs you can go to at the church, or they'll have someone come to your home if your schedule doesn't permit regular attendance.

Bel_Canto posted:

This must be how Cythereal feels when Catholics and Orthodox start gooning out over liturgy and sacraments.

P-Mack posted:

There should be Mario Kart after mass.

It is easier to evade the blue shell than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jaramin posted:

My denomination considers Christianity contingent solely on individual faith, so if someone converts they might not have any idea what the particular details of our faith are beyond salvation. Since converts often have no real familiarity besides passing knowledge of who some of the major characters in the Bible are, when church meets, etc., before they want to join the church they can be walked through the basics of [our] Christian doctrine, given scriptural instruction, look through the church constitution and so on. In a sense it's like a backwards version of Chatechumanization?

Usually baptism is immediately recommended as a symbolic representation of their newfound faith, but they are encouraged not to join the church until they know enough to decide if they want to stay there or find a place more suitable for them. They're encouraged to participate in church activities like choir, help with maintaining the facilities, seeing to the social and transportation needs of infirm members, or other activities that get them around other Christians more. It could even be recreational activities like a bowling night or everyone going out to eat together.

Samuel Clemens posted:

By far the most important issue for the Christian Right is abortion. With one candidate being heavily pro-choice and the other going strongly pro-life, there was always only one option for them.

HEY GAL posted:

we don't agree on that much, zone; fix yer typos

SirPhoebos posted:

Thanks for your answers. Two follow up questions.

First, how does a miracle get attributed to a specific saint or saint candidate?

Second, if a miracle requires a reputable scientist to examine it and give an official "idk", if later science advances and the examiner says "Oh so that's how it happened!" does that cancel the miracle?

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

Well, what distinguishes a saint from an angel, from Mary, or from the human person of Christ?

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

What is the human relationship to holiness? Is it something you are, something you do, something bestowed on you? Is it the same as goodness?

Bel_Canto posted:

There's a huge bias toward healings, firstly because those get asked for by tons of people, and secondly because they're easy to consult doctors about and verify. I happen to think that Bl. John Henry Newman's second miracle already happened, but it wouldn't be accepted by ecclesiastical authorities because it's super

Thirteen Orphans posted:

There is no (recognized) Saint of my name.

Worthleast posted:

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Interpreting Judaism through an English translation of the Tanakh is like interpreting Christianity through nothing but an English translation of Gospels. Judaism is a practiced and lived religion, and if you want to understand how it is lived and prayed, you don't go to Christian sources to find out.

Ceciltron posted:

I don't think implying that the old testament is angry and mean is antisemitic. I mean there is the entire fact the thing is a kind of racial-supremacy narrative that, *thank God*, is swept away by the decision to bind the Gentiles to the Jews like the branch of a wild olive tree is joined to a cultivated one. Then again, if looking at the (biblical) actions of Jews regarding non-Jews in the places they're in charge of leaves me with a sour taste, then maybe I'm antisemitic!

Caufman posted:

Out of curiosity, how long has this topic's prohibition been going on, and how much longer is it planned for? Eternity is an acceptable answer.

Mercy to the people who bring it up.

Thirteen Orphans posted:

It was you and I. It was what really endeared you as a poster to me. I loved that conversation and it was really important as I went on trying to find my way around magisterial assent.

pidan posted:

I don't think you can get scientific evidence for metaphysics, or at least that's a common claim. But you can certainly get evidence of God in your personal life. Imagine you start believing and your life improves substantially. Of course there are atheistic explanations for that, ranging from "coincidence" to psychological explanations, but a person's experience can lead them to the conclusion that their faith is right.

There are compelling arguments for atheism, and there are compelling arguments for Christianity. Which ones you choose to allow to persuade you, or whether you look for a third alternative, mostly depends on your individual preferences, values and needs.

JcDent posted:

Found it through reddit and chinese gamers studiously recording every tech quote in Civ VI:

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder"

HEY GAL posted:

"i know that my vindicator lives and that one day he will stand up upon the earth. even though my skin will be stripped away, in my raw flesh i will see god"

job knows that everything is hosed up, god agrees with him (and his response is "deal") and he still doesn't give up. everything that arsenic lupin said is true, but job still does not give up.

also if god is/emanates the universe, the whole thing starts making a lot more sense. likewise isaiah 45:7

thechosenone posted:

This is probably not something I shouldn't bother people about, but if god is the person who makes the rules, did they make them so because they wanted to, or because they had to? Not wondering why, but if they just wanted to do things the way they are, or if they didn't. One would imply an arbitrary nature to gods judgement, and the other would necessitate something beyond even gods power.

I mean, you can say you don't know the answer, but it is a dichotomy, and either would be contradictory to things that seem to be thought of as necessary as aspects of god: ultimate power, and the idea that god ain't just fuckin around. Even if it were both, it would still be a problem for each of those by themselves. I also don't see how something being beyond our understanding would make it so it doesn't want to do anything, yet would want to do something.

I guess this is just a rehash of that old thing by plato or something, though I think the wording is distinct.

Its not like god being arbitrary is necessarily antithetical to it being the god you have to worship. Just means it don't feel as good doing so. More like doing what god says because you have to, rather than doing it because you think it is good.