Thu 31st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Thu 31st Jul 2014 at 10:25am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Ignorance of faith risks creating cafeteria Catholics, says Pope

By on Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Pope Benedict XVI at his weekly general audience in St Peter's Square (Photo: PA)

Pope Benedict XVI at his weekly general audience in St Peter's Square (Photo: PA)

Ignorance of the faith puts Christians at risk of following a “do-it-yourself” religion, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

People need to become more familiar with the Creed because it is there that the “Christian moral life is planted and … one finds its foundation and justification”, the Pope said today at his weekly general audience.

Before an estimated 20,000 people gathered in St Peter’s Square, the Pope began a new series of audience talks to accompany the Year of Faith, which marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council.

He said he hoped the series of instructional talks, which is expected to run until November 24, 2013, will help people “strengthen or rediscover the joy of faith and realise that it isn’t something foreign to or separate from everyday life, but is its soul”.

Pope Benedict said the widespread and dominant nature of today’s secularism, individualism and relativism means that even Christians are not completely “immune from these dangers”.

Some of the negative effects include faith being lived “passively or in private, a refusal to learn about the faith, and the rift between faith and life”, he said.

“Often Christians don’t even know the central core of their own Catholic faith – the Creed – thereby leaving room for a certain syncretism and religious relativism,” he said. Without a clear idea of the faith’s fundamental truths and the uniquely salvific nature of Christianity, “the risk of constructing a so-called ‘do-it-yourself’ religion is not remote today”.

“Where do we find the essential formula of the faith? Where do we find the truths that have been faithfully handed down and make up the light of our daily life,” he asked.

He said the answer is the creed, or profession of faith, which needs to be better understood, reflected upon and integrated into one’s life.

Christians need to “discover the profound link between the truths we profess in the creed and our daily life” so that these truths are allowed to transform the “deserts of modern-day life”.

The Christian faith is not a belief in an idea or just an outlook on life, he said, but a relationship with the living person of Christ who transforms lives.

That is why having faith in God isn’t merely an intellectual activity, but something that “truly changes everything in us and for us; it clearly reveals our future destiny, the truth of our vocation within history, the meaning of life and the pleasure of being pilgrims heading toward the heavenly home”.

Pope Benedict said faith doesn’t take anything away from one’s life, rather it is what renders life more just and humane.

Current cultural changes “often show many forms of barbarity, which hide under the guise of victories won by civilisation,” he said. However, “wherever there is domination, possessiveness, exploitation, treating others as a commodity”, and arrogance, humankind is “impoverished, degraded and disfigured”.

Faith shows that humanity will not find its full realisation unless the human person “is animated by the love that comes from God”, he said. The gift of faith then finds expression in “relationships full of love, compassion, care and selfless service toward others”.

Hundreds of pilgrims from Honolulu; Whitehorse, Canada; and Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, Alaska, attended the general audience with their bishops. They were in Rome for the canonisation of Blessed Marianne Cope of Molokai, Hawaii, and Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, a Native American who was born in upstate New York and died in Canada in 1680.

The Pope also marked International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, observed on October 17, to promote greater awareness of poverty and destitution worldwide.

The Pope encouraged those working to end poverty to “preserve the dignity and rights of everyone who is condemned to be subjected to the scourge of poverty”.

  • daclamat

    And I thought I was complimenting you! Dear Benedict, foresooth.

  • daclamat

    When you can go into a shop and make your order, in Latin, I’ll begin to believe you.  Why on earth should we have to have a bilingual text to enter the intimacy of the eucharist? In the meantime, visne currere atque silere ad teipsum.

  • JabbaPapa

    First of all, how much of it ISN’T there in the NO. It’s been butchered.

    *particularly* compared to the typical English-language rendition.

    There’s much that’s implicit in the NO that is explicit in the TLM — which, combined with rotten catechesis, can in fact destroy the understanding of its meaning and purpose — especially where the Mass is grossly abused by whichever radical clergy.

  • Rizzo the Bear

    I remember when our wonderful Holy Father was elected in 2005, an American Roman Catholic online shop sold a mug/beaker with a picture of the Pontiff with the following legend:

    THE CAFETERIA IS NOW CLOSED.

    Unfortunately, there are some Catholics who are still attempting to prize open the roller shutters. Their Roman Catholic sat-nav is so seriously off-kilter, it’s ridiculous. These are the ‘catholics’ who think our faith is either a sushi bar or cafeteria.

    Time for the Year of Faith to get ours calibrated to the max. The Eucharist is a set meal, after all!

  • Jon Brownridge

     I don’t claim to own the Church – I just want to be part of it.

  • Potablepaj

    The councils most certainly intended to be understood – but not in a plodding this proposition is true, this proposition is true and this syllogism is valid therefore the conclusion is true but rather to be understood as pointing the true way to Christ and the Father by being with them in prayer and through trying to live life in Christ to understand and enjoy something of the Trinity. They were saying that being human is a first step into the life of Christ and therefore of God and that by embracing the whole lived truth of Christ the living God would live in us and for us. I think the comments of JabbaPapa below rather underlined my earlier point.

    And, apologies, not trying to educate you. I  am far too uncertain for that. Just offering a different perspective on the landscape across which we are invited to journey.

  • Sweetjae

    I got your good points however, IF the teacher is at fault so be it, no problem, everybody makes mistakes, the problem started when Mr. C included and threw some nonsense trash to the academic subjects as if the “teachings” of science, mathematics, history etc. have something to do with the teachers’ incompetence. Do you get my point?

    I do not force myself for him (Mr.c) to agree with me, that’s preposterous, my intention is to put some refutation on his misrepresentation and false accusations against the Pope, VII and the “nu” Church he fondly called. Though I admit he also write some valid and true statements, I don’t deny that.

  • Sweetjae

    “They wished to destroy the Mass”….absolutely false and nonsense.

  • Sweetjae

    It’s so easy to label another of Modernist. You are wrong Jabba. Calling God as the Supreme Being is not a heresy, quoting the Baltimore Catechism:

    “God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.”

  • Sweetjae

    You WAKE up.

  • scary goat

     I’m guessing you’re more familiar with Latin than me.  Mine’s a bit “basic”. And I’m guessing you’re a bit more clued in than me on what to expect.  Even so, I’d advise doing your homework.  I needed 3 pairs of eyes….one to follow the Latin, one to follow the English, and one to follow the priest.  If I watched the priest I lost track of the book, if I watched the book I lost track of the priest, and that was with the very kind housekeeper keeping an eye on me and making sure I was on the right page! And I thought I knew what I was doing!  I know the NO like the back of my hand…..wooooow….culture shock.  It was like “welcome to the real world”. I still feel a bit like “why oh why didn’t I take the blue pill”. 

  • Sweetjae

    Is it a heresy to call Christ as a human “being” too? The word BEING means Living, Alive, Life, and God is definitely ALIVE, so there is absolutely no contradiction here.

  • Sweetjae

    God also called us to be His adopted sons, sharers and partakers of His Kingdom and Glory thus technically the Church belongs also to the elect because the Church whether Militant, Triumphant and Suffering are composed of human souls.

  • Sweetjae

    Are you really serious Jabba? I put my academic credentials because your dear friend Mr. “c” attack me by calling me illiterate. You are going down to his level which I have no problem with.

  • scary goat

    ” Big, big grin at my end! Well done Sir!!”

    LOL……that’s nice to be elevated to the rank of “Sir”.  I’m a nanny-goat though, not a billy-goat.  Cheered me up though for the moment.  Now I just need to work on un-boggling my mind!  :-D

  • JabbaPapa

    oh dear, DO stop getting all hot and bothered about things that are beyond your understanding, it’s not the *word* that’s the problem here, as you’d know if you had a grounding in any of the Humanities instead of Maths.

    It’s obviously the statement “God is just a very exalted being about whom we can assert various truths

  • Sweetjae

    I have an understanding way beyond your computer seat knowledge. Probably the word “just” has taken the sentence to a lower level that shouldn’t be the case but beyond that there is no problem with the sentence and the word “Being”.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Without any input from the teachers it seems. What do you actually collect your salary for?

    My niece – at a Catholic school – just looked at me blankly when I asked her to say the Our Father for me. 

  • JabbaPapa

    I have an understanding way beyond your computer seat knowledge

    Oh good grief !!!

    I mean — let’s start out by completely ignoring the fact that the forum member in question has explicitly agreed with my analysis of his statements, right ???

    Your arrogance is just incredible, and believe me, I know all about arrogance because I’ve a strong tendency towards it myself.

    Not only haven’t you the faintest clue about my own understanding of Revelation — but given your continuing efforts to discuss minor grammatical quibbles, it’s clear that you’ve not even *tried* to understand the objection that I made to sclerotic — whose words you’re evidently just trying to appropriate as if they supported your own personal views against those that you wish to attack.

  • scary goat

     Caecilius est in horto. Mater est in culina. Canis est in via. Felix…..dunno, can’t remember where the cat was.

    Any good?
    :-D

  • scary goat

     Having children in the Catholic school system and older ones who went to state schools, I would say our Catholic schools are vastly better than the state schools (in terms of teaching good values etc) but they could be better…..more Catholic. They teach the good values which are a result of the Catholic faith but the actual teaching of the faith, although it is there, is a bit thin on the ground.

  • scary goat

    I’m not convinced with the “conspiracy theory” stuff.  More of a case of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” I would have thought. Although there is one conspiracy theory I do  believe in: Satan will make use of any opportunity, and it serves his purpose well to knock the Church off balance.

  • JabbaPapa

    Dona mi unum kilo tomatarum, per favorem, duum kilo spaggetorum, medium kilo macinatum, basilicum et unam tabletam de cioccolatam. Hmm et duos ampullas Côtes du Rhône. Eheu, et novus Catholicus Heraldus etiam.

    Acceptis cartam Visa ?

  • scary goat

     LOL. Tu greedius gittus.

  • scary goat

     On a more serious note (showing my ignorance here) how exactly can we distinguish between an “office” and a man?  I mean the question of V II and the bishops and the Holy Spirit.  I mean is it possible that the Holy Spirit was guiding the council, so in the bigger picture of things it was sort of pointed in the right direction, but could bishops (the men) if they weren’t quite listening straight do a poor job of interpreting? “Sloppy secretarial work.”
    Could it be that the main aims of the council were right, but now it needs clarification (the Holy Spirit still at work). I mean in general The Holy Spirit guides the Church, you can see that in the bigger picture, but it has never stopped certain elements within the Church “doing things wrong” according to the understanding of human beings according to their times.  Could it be that the whole idea of better engagement with the modern world was a good thing, and still is, and that is why we have Pope Benedict….the Holy Spirit working through him to make it how it was meant to be.  Maybe SSPX were necessary at a difficult time when things “went over the top” to hold on to something that “got lost in translation”  The Holy Spirit compensating for the excesses of others, but now we have Pope Benedict steering the ship back on course, maybe SSPXs work is done and they need to be careful not to dig their heels in too much, get too stuck in their ways and lose sight of the bigger picture.

  • JabbaPapa

    I have an understanding way beyond your computer seat knowledge.

    Oh deary me, keep on congratulating yourself to the detriment of others, it’s bound to go down well …

    This. Is. Not. About. One. Word.

    It seems to have escaped your mathematical genius that sclerotic explicitly agreed with my comment on what he wrote.

  • JabbaPapa

    I can’t remember him accusing you of being innumerate…

  • JabbaPapa

     Replying in a new combox.

    Getting too thin.

  • JabbaPapa

    scary :

    how exactly can we distinguish between an “office” and a man?

    OUCH — that’s actually a very delicate and complex question, that includes not only the difficulties that you yourself have alluded to, but some more practical difficulties too, concerning monarchism and feudalism as functional political systems.

    I mean the question of V II and the bishops and the Holy Spirit.  I mean
    is it possible that the Holy Spirit was guiding the council, so in the
    bigger picture of things it was sort of pointed in the right direction,
    but could bishops (the men) if they weren’t quite listening straight do a
    poor job of interpreting? “Sloppy secretarial work.”

    Well, yes and no (simultaneously).

    It is impossible to observe from such a distance in both space and time the workings of the Holy Spirit in individual Council Fathers — and the Spirit (or angels and Saints and whatnot) can guide people either with their knowledge or without, with their consent or without.

    I mean, we tend to think of divine intervention as either supplicants or as beneficiaries — but we can just as much be vehicles. Which is directly related to the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit, and to the divine portion of our own souls made in the image of God.

    But it is possible to refuse God — and such a refusal can either be sinful, or not ; depending on the manner and the nature of the request.

    And, it is also possible to be so caught up in worldly affairs that you can subject God’s Will (in your own mind, that is) to the contingencies of this secularity.

    However there can also be cases where God’s Will simply manifests willy-nilly, so that people will just do His Will even whilst imagining that they are doing their own.

    Of course, central here is the point that God’s Desires for each and every one of us are far FAR more informed and just simply better in every way than our own desires for ourselves and each other.

    We are OTOH availed of our Free Will, and where God acts through us without our awareness, he never violates it in any way.

    (it is very hard to understand the sheer magnitude of God’s intellect, so this is all quite impossible to explain with anything even remotely approaching “adequacy”)

    Could it be
    that the main aims of the council were right, but now it needs
    clarification (the Holy Spirit still at work).

    Yes and no (NOT simultaneously).

    The aims of the Council are not identical to those of the Holy Spirit — BUT the Holy Spirit acts through the Council, insofar as the Free Will of the participants will provide, so that God’s desire for His Church will inform those purposes.

    Nevertheless, the results of any Council are contingent on the expressed goals of the Council Fathers — and God does not act to prevent those desires where they are faithfully and honestly sought.

    Past dogmas and doctrines are otherwise always in need of clarification — if only because ordinary linguistic, cultural, technological, civilisational, and philosophical shift in the minds of the population will always require that the Eternal Truth should need to be re-expressed in the vocabularies and cultural matrices of these new paradigms.

    Something that both Blessed John Paul II and Saint Pius X understood very VERY profoundly indeed.

    (though each would have expressed this idea very VERY differently !!! LOL … )

    I think the problem is less one of clarification, than one of resistance to obfuscation, and of the new expression of the Ancient Tradition that the Council Fathers wished to convey in these new fashions.

    The new fashions are completely transient, and they will fade away quite naturally in a few centuries’ time — but the Ancient Tradition is of God, and it endures.

    The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS at work, God be praised !!!

    I mean in general The
    Holy Spirit guides the Church, you can see that in the bigger picture,
    but it has never stopped certain elements within the Church “doing
    things wrong” according to the understanding of human beings according
    to their times.

    Certainly !!!

    Though here, I’ll have to point out that philosophically, I’m a Catholic Foucauldian — my director of studies at the Sorbonne was a direct disciple of Foucault’s — so that from my point of view, Civilisations evolve from one paradigm to another, occasionally redefining the interrelationship of certain core societal functions and meanings according to technological, intellectual, financial, social, and other such fundamentally human aspirations and wants according to whichever functional balance that these various elements require for their coherent fulfillment.

    God, through Catholic Christianity, is the very source of that divine fulfillment — but the Church is the source of its human coherence.

    Christ is the Source of the Eucharistic Communion of the one with the other.

    This is necessarily a dynamic relationship — but its purpose is towards the Faith and towards God and towards Salvation, in a transcendentally antecedent Revelation that is not subjected to human History.

    Could it be that the whole idea of better engagement
    with the modern world was a good thing, and still is, and that is why we
    have Pope Benedict….

    Yes, Yes, and YES !!!

    the Holy Spirit working through him to make it
    how it was meant to be.  Maybe SSPX were necessary at a difficult time
    when things “went over the top” to hold on to something that “got lost
    in translation”

    Maybe, but I’d try and avoid second-guessing God in His intentions.

    They are FAR beyond our capacity for understanding.

    It’s also quite possible (as you suggest) that the only big job that God needed the SSPX for was the preservation of the Traditional Mass into the 21st century. But that’s not necessarily the whole truth either…

    (I’ll explain the political aspect if you want me to, insofar as I understand it, but it’ll have to be in a different post)

  • Sweetjae

    It was removed by the Herald Editor.

  • scary goat

     Thanks Jabba.  Marvellous answers.

    “Civilisations evolve from one paradigm to another, occasionally
    redefining the interrelationship of certain core societal functions and
    meanings according to technological, intellectual, financial, social,
    and other such fundamentally human aspirations and wants according to
    whichever functional balance that these various elements require for
    their coherent fulfillment.”

    Sorry, that was a bit over my head.  Could you re-do that in slightly simpler terms please.

    The “political aspect”……mmmm, maybe later.  Let me get my head round one thing at a time.

    Have you read any of the SSPX stuff?  Like ” Time Bombs of V II”. I was just reading it and got as far as the section on Islam.  Oh my goodness.  As an ex-muslim I can see exactly why SSPX object to that.  Didn’t I read somewhere that Pope Benedict criticised that document recently himself?  More info and an opinion would be appreciated please.

  • scary goat

     Mr. C…..where are you?  Could do with some input from you too please.

    Can you please explain how you reconcile “On this Rock I build my Church” and other similar references to the Pope with the SSPX position.  I’m not trying to be funny or “baiting”……I really NEED an answer.  I’m struggling here. I’ve wandered into territory that’s beyond my understanding and I need to sort it out.

    Deary me, I’m never going to get the washing up done!  I need to read all the V II documents. I have to find a way of reconciling the SSPX position with the “mainstream” (in my own mind). 

    There is something wrong and I don’t understand :-(

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Not innumerate. But he is illiterate. Perhaps English is not his native language. 

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry, that was a bit over my head.  Could you re-do that in slightly simpler terms please.

    hmmmm, I don’t think so, that’s actually the *simplified* version hehehe

    Foucault, Les mots et les choses

    No, I’ve not read stuff like “Time Bombs of V II”, though I’m generally aware of the contents of such texts, indirectly.

    Positions like that are philosophically, hermeneutically, and theologically quite dubious.

    I had a run-in with Ben (IIRC) over Nostra Aetate the other day — the bottom line from my point of view is that the English translation of Nostra Aetate is horrendously bad in its treatment of those particular sections — because the UK Bishops in charge of that translation were 1960s liberals, and as much as possible, they filled their translations with Protestantisms instead of providing the contents more faithfully.

    Nostra Aetate should really be read in the Italian that it was written in…

  • JabbaPapa

    Some parts of the SSPX position cannot be reconciled with the orthodox position.

    Their claims against Ecumenism are greatly exaggerated, because all Catholics may personally disagree with Ecumenism anyway if they want to. Doctrinally, their rejection of Ecumenism is a non-problem — it’s only a “problem” in their own eyes.

    Their claims against Collegiality are irrational, because they are simultaneously claiming rights and privileges that can only be provided by Collegiality in the first place !!! They want to have their cake and eat it, which is theologically indefensible.

    The real tough question is the one about Religious Freedom, because the Vatican II texts may arguably contradict some previously established infallible doctrines. From my own point of view the difficulty lies in the fact that Vatican II establishes a theology of religious freedom without properly relating it to the existing doctrines of Christian & Catholic religious duty ; as well as the theologically complex fact that religious freedom is a particular facet of Free Will, which as a dogma is not merely infallible, but completely indefectible. — This is one that can only be clarified by the Magisterium, it’s beyond the pay grade of anyone else in the Church.

    The rejection in toto of Vatican II that *some* SSPX priests advocate is incompatible with the Catholicity itself.

    Just remember — Catholics may attend SSPX Masses for the purpose of worshipping God via the Traditional Mass, but NOT in order to express their opposition to the teachings of the Holy See.

    Given that the SSPX chapel in question is very close to your home, as I understand, there are no serious objections against attending their Masses, if you keep the above in mind — but if their priests are of the more radically anti-Rome persuasion, as might appear in their homilies for instance, then I’d personally advise that you be quite cautious with them.

  • scary goat

     Ok.  Thanks Jabba. Yeah….caution.  That’s where I am at the moment.  It’s too much for my little brain.  Need to understand much more.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The reconciliation is easy. As Catholics, the SSPX of course accept Papal authority and therefore the Scriptural underpinnings for it. Even their enemies wouldn’t think to accuse them of not accepting it. 

    Then why are they in a state of canonical irregularity? This is a different question.

    Well, you’d need to know the history (early 1970′s on) of their dealings with Rome. Suffice it to say that Rome is, in that story, far from being ‘whiter than white’. 

    But the main reason is that they have, from the beginning (I think this can be dated broadly to the period of Archbishop Lefevre’s growing disquiet at the post-Council meltdown around the time of the publication of the famous “Ottaviani Intervention” – which you MUST read) voiced their unhappiness at the doctrinal deviations of several – not all – of the Vatican II documents. 

    The Hierarchy’s embrace of the Council (far greater than it warranted, a kind of drunken embrace) is now at long last JUST beginning to diminish, and though there is a long way to go, calmer words are now being spoken on both sides, and even though the doctrinal disagreements remain, it seems to me that both parties will be driven together out of necessity at some point in the next few years. 

    I do not agree at all with Jabba’s answer below, because as always he seeks to minimise the real and substantive differences between the pre-Vatican II Magisterium (extraordinary and Ordinary) and some of the “New Theology” underpinnings of Vatican II and subsequent Ordinary Magisterium.

  • scary goat

     Nostra Aetate….

    Can you please post the original with a “good” translation of the section on the Islam which starts “Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem…..” and finishes “…..and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving, and fasting.”

    Sorry to be nagging in your earhole….but this is important!

  • JabbaPapa

    I cannot find that passage in the online version at the Vatican website.

    The word “upon” does not appear in that text, so I suppose it must have been re-translated.

    I’ve got :

    The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

    from

    La Chiesa guarda anche con stima i musulmani che adorano l’unico Dio, vivente e sussistente, misericordioso e onnipotente, creatore del cielo e della terra (5), che ha parlato agli uomini. Essi cercano di sottomettersi con tutto il cuore ai decreti di Dio anche nascosti, come vi si è sottomesso anche Abramo, a cui la fede islamica volentieri si riferisce. Benché essi non riconoscano Gesù come Dio, lo venerano tuttavia come profeta; onorano la sua madre vergine, Maria, e talvolta pure la invocano con devozione. Inoltre attendono il giorno del giudizio, quando Dio retribuirà tutti gli uomini risuscitati. Così pure hanno in stima la vita morale e rendono culto a Dio, soprattutto con la preghiera, le elemosine e il digiuno.

    The original English is fairly close :

    I’d say (corrections in bold) :

    The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam willingly links itself, submitted to God. Although they do not recognise Jesus as God, they nonetheless revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God, especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

  • JabbaPapa

    I do not agree at all with Jabba’s answer below, because as always he seeks to minimise the real and substantive differences between the pre-Vatican II Magisterium (extraordinary and Ordinary) and some of the “New Theology” underpinnings of Vatican II and subsequent Ordinary Magisterium.

    We disagree because I perceive far more theological continuity than you do.

    Which is fair enough on your part, we’ve had this argument don’t know how many times now !!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alicia-Mendiola/100000335038688 Alicia Mendiola

    Amen!  The Apostles Creed is the faithful summary of the message handed down by the apostles as taught to them by our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.  As Catholics we need to know what it truly means to “believe”.

  • scary goat

     Thank you very much for taking the trouble to post that.

    ……….stunned silence……..

  • scary goat

    ” Maria, e talvolta pure la invocano con devozione.”Is it possible to translate this as “speak about” rather than “call on”?  This is VERY important.

  • JabbaPapa

    Yep.

    The Latin has “invocant”, which may be a direct mistranslation from the Italian.

    Given the fundamentals of islamic theology, your suggestion is quite possibly the better translation, though I’d use “speak of her”.

    I’d be interested in your comments, as a convert.

  • scary goat

     “I’d be interested in your comments, as a convert.”

    Ummmm……yes, exactly, that is why I have homed in on this point. ….but I’m not sure that I want to discuss this any further on a public board.  I wouldn’t mind discussing with you and mr. C but I don’t know how many thousands might be reading this. It’s a bit ummmmm ” Houston we have a problem”.

    At very least that current translation is “problematic” but the whole question of the Islam is “problematic”.  You could do your own research or you could request my email address from the moderator if you like.  It all has “implications”.

  • scary goat

     Thanks mr. C.  Sorry if the question caused offence.  That’s not my intention.  I just need to get to the bottom of this. I am not as highly educated as some on here, nor do I have donkey’s years of experience, just trying to understand. I am borrowing “Ottaviani Intervention” ….it’s coming tomorrow. I do realise it’s all not simple….but I am finding it difficult to get my head round some of it.

  • JabbaPapa

    No problem, there’s stuff I’d never discuss in public myself, though there’s less than there used to be.

  • daclamat

    you and your mate Ben are muddying the water.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    “As Catholics we need to know what it truly means to “believe””

    And what does all that actually mean, Alicia? Sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Then DO read them, and then comment.