Wednesday, October 05, 2005
sharing (from a friend and this is very long!)
I actually had this discussion with a Catholic last year, and she actually clarified some things out for me. And I find that she has a better ground on being a Catholic than many Catholics I've met in the Philippines, or so at least according to her reflections and knowledge about it. Of course, I'm going to keep the identity unknown because in the first place it was a personal letter for me. Actually this person have some background on Catholic history but along the way she keeps bringing out her uncertainties on certain subjects. But in the end actually, we two have the same desire, to stop the factions that divides us, the church, who believe in Jesus. Although after a year I have some clarifications of some of the things that were still a wonder to us before, I shall insert a bit but I'll post her email the way it was. She's actually wise not to mass email this discussion, at least not to leave negative impressions on the nonbelievers of this so-called divisions in the church. Here is what she said:
True there was no Roman Catholic church when Jesus built his "rock" upon Peter. Infact, after the time Jesus went back to the Father, I mean the one after Pentecost, (sorry la, my bible knowledge still very blur blur. I admit n working on it :P) he actually sent down the Holy Spirit to guide us. You see, during the Acts of the Apostle and such, there was no need to even call Christinaity, Christianity, or even call it a religion, coz like you said, it was like a lifestyle, but it was more than that to believers - It was new life. Many believed and converted but I do not think they identified themselves as Christians until the the Apostle Paul. He calls the people he writes to as my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and so on. Not sure if he even used the word Christianity, but of course the lingua franca then was not English... (but I have just read from the bible, in their language and at the time of Paul, the believers were called Christians-ibs)
Anyway, there was no need to know the Church by anything else as "the Church" then coz there was no other church. God meant the Christian God we all know now, believing in the teachings of Jesus meant baptism and being inducted into this new life. I don't think things were even considered a religion until quite some time later when most of England was converted (BTW history shows and we know that Christianity originated from Jerusalem ie. the Israel/Meditarranean area) the monarchy/state came to identify strongly with the "church."
But because of the Church saying, I believe it was Henry VIII, cannot get another wife, he called for a split, which was thence considered as the Church of England(COE) as he wanted a break from the seat of Christianity as was in Constantinopole I think. He made a lot of changes apart from that to distinguish COE from "Catholicism" but this didn't stop the accusations by the more "uptight" COEers who thought despite all the changes, the COE was still very alike to the Catholic church, as in very ritualistic n all. So there was a split, and thus we got the Transcendentalists, Calvinists, etc. and from them the Puritans who encouraged industry and self-depravation etc, and from whom we now have America because it was them who were mainly the first immigrants to US which is why the Minnesota area is called New England I believe. And the split/war that followed is what we now know as the great reformation movement... (Ok this ironically is a mega condensation of what I learnt from my The Renaissance and American Literature I modules I'm currently studying btw, so I still shaky in all this but above is the gist which may depart further from the truth than defining it I agree).
Anyway, the Roman Catholics weren't even called "Roman Catholics", but actually were named that by the Protestants when they split off, coz they didn't know what to call us coz before all this the Church was just that - the Church. "Roman" identifies us with the seat of the Pope in Rome, and Catholics was what the protestants gave us which means "Universal" and we really liked the term so I guess we adopted it. N I believe Catholicism was based in Constantinopole some time in history, but the seat of the Pope got transferred to Rome when there was some kind of schism which I think was a war. Not sure. But anyway the Church there is since known as the Orthodox Catholic Church, or Armenian Church (because of locality I believe) and apart from the Anglican high Catholics (like the parishoners of St. Andrews Cathedral, NOT the parishoners of St. Hilda's coz even among the Anglicans there is high and low etc...) the Armenian Church is the closest to Catholicism there is. And we Catholics believe that we were established by Jesus, not in the sense that Jesus came along and organized us into a religion, but like Dan (Brown?-ibs) says about our first Pope being Peter, and we can trace all our Popes to Jesus, coz the papalship is given by laying the hands on the next pope or something (but of course die before time, it means vatican help choose) So we can trace all our Popes back to then, coz no split, in that since then we have kept the basic tenets of the faith.And like the late Pope John Paul II we admit that there were many atrocities created and/or caused and/or supported by the Roman Catholic Church, like the Dark Ages, persecutions and the Holy Wars not one of the least. Many suffered like the "infidels", the Muslims/Turks, Jews, fellow Christians and even fellow Catholics, due to the misdirection or personal agendas or what of the clergy, and sometimes of even the church. Organized religion tends to get like that if read Sociolgy... But that is no excuse at all. But like the late Pope, I also hope for ecumenism, which is that once again we can truly live as true brothers and sisters of Christ, as I believe wat matters most is that we all believe in the one and same God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His son, and the Holy Spirit. What unites us is far greater than what separates us. I pray for the day that we will once again identify ourselves as Christians instead of Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists etc. I hope this helps in clearing up any misgivings or unpleasantness caused, and really my understanding of all this is very "abridged" so I may be wrong or highly "diluted" things here and there so it would be better if you asked people who more solid in thier knowledge of Church history or read up more about all this coz it really is a lot and there is more to it than meets the eye, and do share what you learn with me, coz I think history is interesting to know. But don't let it wedge a greater divide than already there is, but search for ways we can come together. Peace.
Your Sister in Christ,
Anonymous
AND HERE'S ANOTHER EXCERPT OF HER NEXT EMAIL, in response to my further queries...
First is I am aware of the period in history when the bible, indeed education itself, was the exclusive right of the Priesthood or religious people. Much of literature had dwelt on this aspect, and indeed I ironically learnt this from reading literature again.
Secondly about the point about RC (Roman Catholics/Vatican/ppl with power etc.) inserting or taking out things from the bible to support the Mary claim, I have not heard of that yet. But whatever claims we use as evidence to support the privelege Mary holds you can find in the *Protestant* bibles like KJV etc. And definitely we do not agree with the supposed claim she is God (that is plain blasphemy but many misunderstand that we believe that) or we pray to her (we do not pray to her; we give her adorations, or we ask for her intercession, or we recognize the special relationship she has with Jesus and consequently recognize her as our mother too) I have to say that the people who give Catholics the worst flak is Catholics themselves who misplace their worship or emphasise the image more than the thought. The images are not idols but supposd to help us keep in mind the person, just like we have photographs of loved ones to remember them by. And the *Catholic* bible is only different from other bibles in nt what it didn't have, but what it has, an additional 7 or 8 books - I'm not sure. I think they are called the apocryptic (not sure spelling) books. I have heard about claims that Jesus is not Mary's one begotten son, especially with evidence from bible where Jesus called others his brother, but in that context, ie. those times, it was natural to call cousins brothers like many Indians and Chinese still do. However I believe whether Jesus had other siblings has little impact on what we believe, it matters more on who we believe is Lord and Saviour, and that is still Jesus.
Ok those are the two things that came up in my mind when reading thru your response, and on the other points have to say I have to agree with you.Just want to share with you one more story before I pen off:When I got baptised, I was 18 years old. I was at dinner with some teachers who I was closely acquainted with. One of them, an Anglican, knew of my baptism, and remarked to another who happens to be a Catholic that I got recently baptised.
The Catholic looked to me and just said, "Congratulations. The Catholic church has a very interesting and rich history. I'm sure you'll enjoy being a Catholic." I tried my best to contain my surprise.
You see, my Anglican teacher/friend introduced us coz she thought it was Good News that I finally got baptised, the Catholic friend gave me a very academic reply which I should say would have made me cringe otherwise. Because if the Catholic Church had an intersting and rich history, and no basis on the Truth, or no Jesus, or no faith, I would not even care, coz at the end of the day, it was God who made me convert, not the Catholic Church. I guess sometimes the RC community pride themselves too much in what they have accomplished or what than in what really matters, which is God, the Faith and Salvation and Hope bought for us by the death and ressurection of Christ.
I truly hope to go on, but work beckons, and truly will be glad to share and journey with you in discovering more about our Lord. Thanks for taking the time and effort to share with us your views, and I sure hope we can work towards more dialogue and understanding. Go in Peace to serve the Lord and God Bless always.
Your sister in Christ Always,
Anonymous
P.S.
I don't think I have read the whole bible myself too yet, because most of what I understand of the bible is through the readings and Gospel readings at masses, and on and off I read here and there, but always jumping and all. I'm trying to cultivate a bible reading habit in me, and hope you'll pray for me in achieving to this end. Also, my *history* of the church definitely is not definitive, and if you can find the time, do research more on it and correct me if I misrepresented things, but of course must be valid, but otherwise I'm sure the essence of it should be there.. I hope :P
SO THAT'S IT. I THOUGHT WHAT SHE SAID WAS INTERESTING AND EVEN ENLIGHTENING. EVEN UNTIL NOW I STILL THINK SO. ¶ 6:25 PM
True there was no Roman Catholic church when Jesus built his "rock" upon Peter. Infact, after the time Jesus went back to the Father, I mean the one after Pentecost, (sorry la, my bible knowledge still very blur blur. I admit n working on it :P) he actually sent down the Holy Spirit to guide us. You see, during the Acts of the Apostle and such, there was no need to even call Christinaity, Christianity, or even call it a religion, coz like you said, it was like a lifestyle, but it was more than that to believers - It was new life. Many believed and converted but I do not think they identified themselves as Christians until the the Apostle Paul. He calls the people he writes to as my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and so on. Not sure if he even used the word Christianity, but of course the lingua franca then was not English... (but I have just read from the bible, in their language and at the time of Paul, the believers were called Christians-ibs)
Anyway, there was no need to know the Church by anything else as "the Church" then coz there was no other church. God meant the Christian God we all know now, believing in the teachings of Jesus meant baptism and being inducted into this new life. I don't think things were even considered a religion until quite some time later when most of England was converted (BTW history shows and we know that Christianity originated from Jerusalem ie. the Israel/Meditarranean area) the monarchy/state came to identify strongly with the "church."
But because of the Church saying, I believe it was Henry VIII, cannot get another wife, he called for a split, which was thence considered as the Church of England(COE) as he wanted a break from the seat of Christianity as was in Constantinopole I think. He made a lot of changes apart from that to distinguish COE from "Catholicism" but this didn't stop the accusations by the more "uptight" COEers who thought despite all the changes, the COE was still very alike to the Catholic church, as in very ritualistic n all. So there was a split, and thus we got the Transcendentalists, Calvinists, etc. and from them the Puritans who encouraged industry and self-depravation etc, and from whom we now have America because it was them who were mainly the first immigrants to US which is why the Minnesota area is called New England I believe. And the split/war that followed is what we now know as the great reformation movement... (Ok this ironically is a mega condensation of what I learnt from my The Renaissance and American Literature I modules I'm currently studying btw, so I still shaky in all this but above is the gist which may depart further from the truth than defining it I agree).
Anyway, the Roman Catholics weren't even called "Roman Catholics", but actually were named that by the Protestants when they split off, coz they didn't know what to call us coz before all this the Church was just that - the Church. "Roman" identifies us with the seat of the Pope in Rome, and Catholics was what the protestants gave us which means "Universal" and we really liked the term so I guess we adopted it. N I believe Catholicism was based in Constantinopole some time in history, but the seat of the Pope got transferred to Rome when there was some kind of schism which I think was a war. Not sure. But anyway the Church there is since known as the Orthodox Catholic Church, or Armenian Church (because of locality I believe) and apart from the Anglican high Catholics (like the parishoners of St. Andrews Cathedral, NOT the parishoners of St. Hilda's coz even among the Anglicans there is high and low etc...) the Armenian Church is the closest to Catholicism there is. And we Catholics believe that we were established by Jesus, not in the sense that Jesus came along and organized us into a religion, but like Dan (Brown?-ibs) says about our first Pope being Peter, and we can trace all our Popes to Jesus, coz the papalship is given by laying the hands on the next pope or something (but of course die before time, it means vatican help choose) So we can trace all our Popes back to then, coz no split, in that since then we have kept the basic tenets of the faith.And like the late Pope John Paul II we admit that there were many atrocities created and/or caused and/or supported by the Roman Catholic Church, like the Dark Ages, persecutions and the Holy Wars not one of the least. Many suffered like the "infidels", the Muslims/Turks, Jews, fellow Christians and even fellow Catholics, due to the misdirection or personal agendas or what of the clergy, and sometimes of even the church. Organized religion tends to get like that if read Sociolgy... But that is no excuse at all. But like the late Pope, I also hope for ecumenism, which is that once again we can truly live as true brothers and sisters of Christ, as I believe wat matters most is that we all believe in the one and same God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His son, and the Holy Spirit. What unites us is far greater than what separates us. I pray for the day that we will once again identify ourselves as Christians instead of Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists etc. I hope this helps in clearing up any misgivings or unpleasantness caused, and really my understanding of all this is very "abridged" so I may be wrong or highly "diluted" things here and there so it would be better if you asked people who more solid in thier knowledge of Church history or read up more about all this coz it really is a lot and there is more to it than meets the eye, and do share what you learn with me, coz I think history is interesting to know. But don't let it wedge a greater divide than already there is, but search for ways we can come together. Peace.
Your Sister in Christ,
Anonymous
AND HERE'S ANOTHER EXCERPT OF HER NEXT EMAIL, in response to my further queries...
First is I am aware of the period in history when the bible, indeed education itself, was the exclusive right of the Priesthood or religious people. Much of literature had dwelt on this aspect, and indeed I ironically learnt this from reading literature again.
Secondly about the point about RC (Roman Catholics/Vatican/ppl with power etc.) inserting or taking out things from the bible to support the Mary claim, I have not heard of that yet. But whatever claims we use as evidence to support the privelege Mary holds you can find in the *Protestant* bibles like KJV etc. And definitely we do not agree with the supposed claim she is God (that is plain blasphemy but many misunderstand that we believe that) or we pray to her (we do not pray to her; we give her adorations, or we ask for her intercession, or we recognize the special relationship she has with Jesus and consequently recognize her as our mother too) I have to say that the people who give Catholics the worst flak is Catholics themselves who misplace their worship or emphasise the image more than the thought. The images are not idols but supposd to help us keep in mind the person, just like we have photographs of loved ones to remember them by. And the *Catholic* bible is only different from other bibles in nt what it didn't have, but what it has, an additional 7 or 8 books - I'm not sure. I think they are called the apocryptic (not sure spelling) books. I have heard about claims that Jesus is not Mary's one begotten son, especially with evidence from bible where Jesus called others his brother, but in that context, ie. those times, it was natural to call cousins brothers like many Indians and Chinese still do. However I believe whether Jesus had other siblings has little impact on what we believe, it matters more on who we believe is Lord and Saviour, and that is still Jesus.
Ok those are the two things that came up in my mind when reading thru your response, and on the other points have to say I have to agree with you.Just want to share with you one more story before I pen off:When I got baptised, I was 18 years old. I was at dinner with some teachers who I was closely acquainted with. One of them, an Anglican, knew of my baptism, and remarked to another who happens to be a Catholic that I got recently baptised.
The Catholic looked to me and just said, "Congratulations. The Catholic church has a very interesting and rich history. I'm sure you'll enjoy being a Catholic." I tried my best to contain my surprise.
You see, my Anglican teacher/friend introduced us coz she thought it was Good News that I finally got baptised, the Catholic friend gave me a very academic reply which I should say would have made me cringe otherwise. Because if the Catholic Church had an intersting and rich history, and no basis on the Truth, or no Jesus, or no faith, I would not even care, coz at the end of the day, it was God who made me convert, not the Catholic Church. I guess sometimes the RC community pride themselves too much in what they have accomplished or what than in what really matters, which is God, the Faith and Salvation and Hope bought for us by the death and ressurection of Christ.
I truly hope to go on, but work beckons, and truly will be glad to share and journey with you in discovering more about our Lord. Thanks for taking the time and effort to share with us your views, and I sure hope we can work towards more dialogue and understanding. Go in Peace to serve the Lord and God Bless always.
Your sister in Christ Always,
Anonymous
P.S.
I don't think I have read the whole bible myself too yet, because most of what I understand of the bible is through the readings and Gospel readings at masses, and on and off I read here and there, but always jumping and all. I'm trying to cultivate a bible reading habit in me, and hope you'll pray for me in achieving to this end. Also, my *history* of the church definitely is not definitive, and if you can find the time, do research more on it and correct me if I misrepresented things, but of course must be valid, but otherwise I'm sure the essence of it should be there.. I hope :P
SO THAT'S IT. I THOUGHT WHAT SHE SAID WAS INTERESTING AND EVEN ENLIGHTENING. EVEN UNTIL NOW I STILL THINK SO. ¶ 6:25 PM
