Really, @Alan29, I'm surprised you're still an RC. If I were RC and thought like you I'd have crossed the Thames or climbed the Alps to Geneva long before now ... 😉
Although Shipmates of a certain vintage will remember how long I sat on the fence before I became Orthodox and how calloused was my arse.
No, I'm more than happy where I am. There are plenty like me in the RCC. As I seem to have to repeat until I am blue in the face "We Catholics are a very diverse bunch" and it smacks of stereotyping to imply otherwise. I know neatly categorised boxes are simple to deal with, but they rarely reflect reality.
I won't comment on your Thames/Alps thought for fear of giving grave offence to others. I would be more likely to head for Constantinople, but I would struggle with the notion of churches being based on nationality.
We had an Infant of Prague dressed doll/statue in our home, brought by my stepfather who became a Lutheran out of Catholicism, and kept it as a remembrance of his parents. I found it interesting, but a bit odd. But then, I grew up in Southern California suburbia, and that sort of thing wasn't on our radar--there was a lot more Buddhism in the air, and various non-physical meditation stuff floating around--a kind of spiritual minimism.
I don't find the dressed statues creepy, so much as childish.
We don't have any such things at Our Place, but we do have a most hideous resin image of Our Lady of Walsingham, painted in garish fairground colours. It was a gift from a much-loved priest who used to help us out from time to time, so is held in some affection.
Really, @Alan29, I'm surprised you're still an RC. If I were RC and thought like you I'd have crossed the Thames or climbed the Alps to Geneva long before now ... 😉
Although Shipmates of a certain vintage will remember how long I sat on the fence before I became Orthodox and how calloused was my arse.
No, I'm more than happy where I am. There are plenty like me in the RCC. As I seem to have to repeat until I am blue in the face "We Catholics are a very diverse bunch" and it smacks of stereotyping to imply otherwise.
FWIW, you sound very typical of RCs in my corner of the American South, while @Gamma Gamaliel’s assumptions sound pretty atypical for these parts.
Could I suggest here, while I am not myself into some of the practices listed, that maybe expressing disagreements or not finding them according to one’s spiritual taste or not finding them personally helpful, could still be expressed, but a bit more gently? I’m imagining a Roman (or other) Catholic Shipmate, or potential Shipmate, who finds the statues, even dressed statues, spiritually helpful, as well as some of the devotions to Mary helpful? Again, I’m not suggesting that people pretend they don’t believe those things, or that those things are not to their personal taste, but just how that’s expressed. One could even say that they believe such things are false or harmful (as some do believe) but please be aware that people who don’t see it that way may be reading.
Could I suggest here, while I am not myself into some of the practices listed, that maybe expressing disagreements or not finding them according to one’s spiritual taste or not finding them personally helpful, could still be expressed, but a bit more gently? I’m imagining a Roman (or other) Catholic Shipmate, or potential Shipmate, who finds the statues, even dressed statues, spiritually helpful, as well as some of the devotions to Mary helpful? Again, I’m not suggesting that people pretend they don’t believe those things, or that those things are not to their personal taste, but just how that’s expressed. One could even say that they believe such things are false or harmful (as some do believe) but please be aware that people who don’t see it that way may be reading.
I think as long as you're punching up or at least sideways, socioeconomically speaking, a bit of jauntiness in critquing other traditions is acceptable.
(And, obviously, yes, I realize that a given denomination can be the underdog in one place, but the tyrant in another. But I think we can use common sense in our examples and how we apply them.
FWIW, anyone put off by my "Backwoods Pentecostals" can substitute it with "Clappy-happy Pentecostals").
All, please be gentle about sectarianism, particularly where you are not feeling harmed.* People reasonably have personal feelings about these things and there's no need to cause hurt without a good reason.
*And no, we are not asking you to tell us whether you feel harmed.
Really, @Alan29, I'm surprised you're still an RC. If I were RC and thought like you I'd have crossed the Thames or climbed the Alps to Geneva long before now ... 😉
Although Shipmates of a certain vintage will remember how long I sat on the fence before I became Orthodox and how calloused was my arse.
No, I'm more than happy where I am. There are plenty like me in the RCC. As I seem to have to repeat until I am blue in the face "We Catholics are a very diverse bunch" and it smacks of stereotyping to imply otherwise.
FWIW, you sound very typical of RCs in my corner of the American South, while @Gamma Gamaliel’s assumptions sound pretty atypical for these parts.
May I ask...
What would you say are the dominant cultural groups among Catholics in your "corner of the American South"?
The low-candle suburban church I mentioned earlier probably had mostly members of N. European stock, plus quite a number of Ukrainians etc. But I would guess a lot of the French-Canadian oriented churches, not to mention the Eastern Rite shacks around, plus of course the Italian, Latin Americans etc, were somewhat more ornate.
(Even the other nearby suburban church that served as our secondary place was more about the smells and bells. FWIW, they had a maryological name, unlike our regular church.)
There are only two Gospels that say Jesus was born of a virgin--though Isaiah says a child will be born of a young woman. The other two Gospels do mention Mary, the mother of Jesus, but not in terms of an unnatural birth,
How one views Mary does not make a Christian. It is how one views the life, death and resurrection of her son, Jesus, that makes one a Christian.
Where has anyone here, RC, Orthodox or Protestant said or implied that how one views Mary determines whether someone is a Christian or not?
I could be cheeky @Gramps49 and suggest that there's a degree of Protestant 'slash and burn' minimalism behind your post. 'Only two Gospels say that Jesus was born of a virgin ...'
Well, that's two Gospels more than noGospels ...
And one more than one Gospel.
Besides, the Gospels don't stand alone but form part of Tradition (or Tradition if you will).
Enough of this reduction already. You'll be asking us to ditch the Epistle of James next. Too much 'straw'. 😉
Ok, I jest - and whilst I can jab at times, at particular emphases or external appearances within other Christian traditions, I'd like to think I try not to give offence and also listen to concerns about my own.
Which is why I think @Alan29 makes a very valid point about the ethnocentricism of Orthodox jurisdictions. In practice, here in the UK many - if not most - Orthodox parishes are multicultural irrespective of 'label' - although there are moves in some quarters - I'm looking at you, Romanian hierarchy - to create mono-ethnic enclaves.
I'm ashamedly conscious that I could topple over into stereotyping territory in the way I've expressed surprise at RC or ex-RC posters position on Mary. I am, of course, aware that there is a wide range of views and cultural expressions across the RCC as a whole.
I no more expect every single RC to favour Sicilian Baroque than I expect every Orthodox parish to have at least one walnut-faced Greek granny who upbraids anyone who doesn't do everything in her particular way.
No, my surprise wasn't that not all RCs go in for Marian 'dolls', but that she hardly appears to feature in their understanding or approach at all.
It's rather like @Gramps49 trying to fillet the Gospels and to 'dislocate' the two that do include the Virgin birth from those that don't or placing it to one side as an optional extra.
As I've tried to indicate, however we approach these things, there is a Christological dimension here. Crucially. In Orthodox iconography the Theotokos always looks to or points towards her son.
Whether we have statues - clothed or otherwise - icons, processions, rosaries or whatever else - plain walls or posters with biblical texts - that's the point. That's the point.
It might be over-egging things to say, as the Church-in-Wales priest I mentioned did, that 'Unless you are a good Marian, you are a good Arian.'
But there's something in what he said. And that is that Mariology (not Mariolatry) is first and foremost a Christological thing.
Yes,,@Gramps49 it is all about the life, death and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and our response to that - and engagement with him not simply a kind of nodded doctrinal assent.
But what think we of Christ?
Whose Son is he?
That's the issue. Our Marian material, for want of a better word, should always support, reinforce and embody that.
I've taken a day or two to get back. For family reasons, I've not been on line much for two days. Thank you @Jengie Jon for your reply and to @Gamma Gamaliel and everyone else for what you've shared. I can relate to much of this, especially the thought that why does it have to be so terrible that one should recognise that the communion of saints includes those who have gone before those of us now living as active active brothers and sisters rather than just slumbering ones. I recognise nobody has specifically referred to this, but I've heard it before.
On tat, I can't think of anything I relate to, not even dolls in ornate ponchos, with quite as much distaste as that monstrosity in Ely Cathedral, a demonstration if ever there was one, that a committee of bland liberal protestants hiring a professional 'artist' to express themselves creatively, does not stop anybody from getting the whole thing not just wrong but really wrong.
I don't really understand why people find the virgin birth such a problem. If God is God, why not, and it is the obvious way to become incarnate.
Since I can't go physically to Mass today I shared in the Mass in the crowded Salzburg cathedral today on a day when the RC Church recalls Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
The music was Mozart's Coronation Mass. What is the difference between this work of artistic genius and the work of piety which is the holy picture of Maria Plain on the Plain hill just outside of Salzburg and for which the Coronation Mass was composed ? To me there is no great difference. Both may well have been created 'Gott zur Ehre,uns zur Freude' (in God's honour and for our joy) as the bishop said at the end of Mass.
There are so many things in this world which we see in different ways from other individuals, like the story of my friend's musical box of his grandmother which was for me a physical reminder of the story of the apparitions of Lourdes.
The Church is the whole of humanity, created by God. It has a human face in the person of Jesus Christ, who is 'true God and true man' Part of that Church are all those who have gone before us who can still influence and help us, just as we often look to those who are physically close to us for help and advice.
Could someone please explain why God needs reminders from dead people of what we have prayed for.
I just don't get it at all. It seems counter to what Jesus said about prayer.
You could equally say that God doesn't need reminders either from ourselves or from anyone else in this life. Even on SoF there is a prayer thread where people are invited to pray for others/
Perhaps we should remember that those who are 'dead' to this world are according to Christian teaching 'alive' in the Lord.
Why does God 'need' prayer at all if the Almighty 'knows what we need before we ask"?
There's the 'Church Militant' and 'Church Triumphant' thing of course ...
It depends how 'utilitarian' we want to become about all this. Does God listen more to someone who says 6 Hail Mary's rather than 3?
Are my prayers more turbocharged because I have an Apostle as a Patron Saint and more efficacious than someone who invokes the prayers of an obscure 5th century Saint somewhere?
I'm hearing a lot of what I'd expect from the RC tradition from @Forthview - and from @Jengie Jon as an Anglo-Catholic from a URC background. People can assume I'm RC from some of the things I say where there are parallels and overlaps between the RC tradition and my own.
I'm still very puzzled by @Alan29's position. I'm not expecting him to be like a caricature Irish priest from a sit-com but I would expect him to sound at least vaguely Catholic on a thread like this.
I might expect the saints to aid me in framing my prayers. I wouldn't expect them to press my petitions on to the Almighty, like couttiers of a Tudor monarch, as portrayed in 'Wolf Hall'. And there's the caricature of an R.C. thinking 'I'll oray to Mary, if the Lord won't listen to a poor sinner like me, he'll listen to his Mother. She;s got a soft heart.'
I'm not saying he isn't entitled to his views. Far from it.
But they aren't views I'd expect to hear from an RC and I'm intrigued by that.
If I were posting something like, 'I'm an Orthodox Christian but I think we shouldn't baptise infants but only believers, that we should adopt a "memorialist" view of the eucharist, adopt a congregationalist polity and scrap vestments,' people would rightly wonder why I wasn't a Baptist.
I'm not saying that Alan29 should leave the RCC and become Anglican or Presbyterian or anything else. Heck, if he became Orthodox he wouldn't encounter statues but he would encounter popular Marian piety similar to what he's found in the RCC.
But we aren't talking about popular piety but practices that are pretty standard in both the RC and Orthodox Churches - such as the invocation of Mary and the Saints.
I quite like statues in frocks, but then I like a lot of Catholic tat. Not sure why, I suppose it gets me away from the intellectual drift of some Christian views.
Really, @Alan29, I'm surprised you're still an RC. If I were RC and thought like you I'd have crossed the Thames or climbed the Alps to Geneva long before now ... 😉
Although Shipmates of a certain vintage will remember how long I sat on the fence before I became Orthodox and how calloused was my arse.
No, I'm more than happy where I am. There are plenty like me in the RCC. As I seem to have to repeat until I am blue in the face "We Catholics are a very diverse bunch" and it smacks of stereotyping to imply otherwise.
FWIW, you sound very typical of RCs in my corner of the American South, while @Gamma Gamaliel’s assumptions sound pretty atypical for these parts.
May I ask...
What would you say are the dominant cultural groups among Catholics in your "corner of the American South"?
You may ask, but be warned that my answers are those of an outsider—an observant outsider, I think, but an outsider.
The answer is, I think, generic American Catholic, with a sizeable Hispanic population. You have to understand that until the late 1960s or 1970s, North Carolina had the smallest Catholic population (per capita) in the US. (Until 2017, the Diocese of Raleigh had the smallest Catholic cathedral in the lower 48.) That changed when significant numbers of people began to move here from other parts of the country in the 60s and 70s, and then with large Hispanic movement here starting in the 80s or 90s.
There are relevant implications of this history. First, the sorts of ethnic parishes often found in other parts of the country were never really a thing here. I’m aware of one Vietnamese parish nearby, and there may be a few others around, but it’s mostly just “the local Catholic Church.” Even with Hispanic movement into the state, there hasn’t been formation of separate Spanish-speaking parishes, but rather Spanish Masses offered at “regular” parishes. So, this leads to a “generic American” Catholicism.
And second, it means most Catholic Church buildings around here are newer. To be sure, there are some old (and very beautiful) Catholic churches, but they are the exception. Most Catholic church buildings in these parts were built post-Vatican II, so their designs were informed by post-Vatican II ideas and tastes (and modern costs). For example, in Raleigh, by far the largest city in the Diocese of Raleigh, only one church—the former cathedral—was built before Vatican II.
From my observation, that generally means a simpler space, with few (one or two), or maybe even no, statues, at least not in the main space. There may be an image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe somewhere, but often to the side or in a separate chapel/space.
I would be interested in any survey that told us what percentage of any denomination matched the stereotypes held by non-members.
I'm not talking about stereotypes. I've made that pretty clear.
I've heard that there are RCs, for instance, who don't believe in Transubstantiaton.
I'm surprised at that, but don't doubt that it is the case. I've heard one RC flatly deny it and other suggest that it isn't the 'only way' to understand it. I get that and whilst on one level I'm not at all surprised that there are a range of views within the RCC, I am surprised to find such a diverse range over issues that I'd take to be 'standard' and distinctive RC positions.
'statues in frocks' as quoted by @quetzalcoatl can also be found in varying versions.
I never thought that I would hear the name of the Infant of Prague mentioned on this site.
The statue which has been copied and was at one time a popular representation of the Child Jesus is very rarely heard of nowadays.
What interests me, however, that the popular representation of the statue is not quite like the original statue in the church of our Lady of Victories in Prague. Wherever the original statue may have come from it fits into the Central European post Tridentine pious tradition of statues.The one in Prague fits that tradition of being tiny and dressed in various clothes to fit the liturgical season of the year .
I suppose there's a tradition of being naff, or in more polite language, folk-loric. Anyway, I like naff. I don't want my religion to be high falutin, but down and dirty.
'statues in frocks' as quoted by @quetzalcoatl can also be found in varying versions.
I never thought that I would hear the name of the Infant of Prague mentioned on this site.
The statue which has been copied and was at one time a popular representation of the Child Jesus is very rarely heard of nowadays.
What interests me, however, that the popular representation of the statue is not quite like the original statue in the church of our Lady of Victories in Prague. Wherever the original statue may have come from it fits into the Central European post Tridentine pious tradition of statues.The one in Prague fits that tradition of being tiny and dressed in various clothes to fit the liturgical season of the year .
It cracks me up, then, that it was I, a Lutheran, who did it to your unsuspecting ears!
For what it's worth, our family Catholic background is Mexican (Michoacan) moved to Detroit in the 1940s. I think my grandmother on that side was Irish Catholic. Can't tell you at what point the Infant of Prague came into the family.
@Nick Tamen, Mary, the mother of Jesus was not involved in the raising of Lazarus. Mary was a common name even at that time.
You seem to forget Mark 3: 31-35 where it says his mother and brothers were concerned about Jesus' preaching and went to intervene. Now, the inclusion of his brothers raises some very important questions too.
Then, there is Mark 6:1-6a (cited above) where Jesus had gone to his hometown, and the crowds were, shall we say, disturbed (citation says astounded) at this preaching, but the people asked "Isn't he the son of Mary? Aren't his brothers living here? v3 even names the brothers. But it sounds as if Jesus had been just an ordinary kid.
We also know Jesus' mother was at the cross from both Luke and John.
I happen to believe that the mother of Jesus was a source of a number of the Gospel stories. Luke says Mary had pondered what happened at the birth of Jesus. There is the encounter with Anna and Simeon, and there is the story of Jesus staying behind at the temple after the family had gone to Jerusalem. Those stories likely came from Mary.
BTW, the Jerusalem Post carried a report of a papyrus that was discovered in the Berlin Library in 2023 that appears to be a part of the Gospel of Thomas. Interesting article.
And @Gamma Gamaliel, since the Bible is the manger on which the Christ rests, one can assume, like most mangers, there is a lot of straw in it.
I would be interested in any survey that told us what percentage of any denomination matched the stereotypes held by non-members.
Well, if you wanna get technical about it, praying to Mary and the saints isn't just a stereotype, it's something that ALL observant Catholics do every week, with "...and I ask blessed Mary ever virgin, all the Angel's and saints...to pray for me, to the Lord our God."
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that. As a marian-phobe myself, I'll admit the implications of it had probably never really occurred to me until now. It was always just something recited without really thinking about it.
@Nick Tamen, Mary, the mother of Jesus was not involved in the raising of Lazarus. Mary was a common name even at that time.
I know that. And it’s totally irrelevant to my point, which was that something appearing in only one or two Gospels has never been reason to reject it.
You seem to forget Mark 3: 31-35 where it says his mother and brothers were concerned about Jesus' preaching and went to intervene.
I have no clue why you think I’ve forgotten that, nor do I see how it and most of what follows in your post is the least bit relevant to the point I was making.
Interesting, though, that you think Mary was probably Luke’s source for what is said about the birth of Jesus—particularly given that Mary pondering in her heart, the encounter with Anna and Simeon, and twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple are all only found in Luke—but you seem to dismiss Luke saying that Mary was a virgin because that only appears in two Gospels. So Mary was probably the source for all of it except that one detail?
I would be interested in any survey that told us what percentage of any denomination matched the stereotypes held by non-members.
Well, if you wanna get technical about it, praying to Mary and the saints isn't just a stereotype, it's something that ALL observant Catholics do every week, with "...and I ask blessed Mary ever virgin, all the Angel's and saints...to pray for me, to the Lord our God."
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that. As a marian-phobe myself, I'll admit the implications of it had probably never really occurred to me until now. It was always just something recited without really thinking about it.
The "I confess" that you quote is one of three options for the Penitential Rite. It is incorrect to say that all observant Catholics will say it every week. Here (uniquely )in England we end the Intercessions with all saying the Hail Mary. Neither I nor my wife partake.
Thanks. Yeah, that's pretty much the demographics I'd expect for a heavily low-candle Catholic community, especially if, as you say, Hispanics never really developed separate congregations.
And while Edmonton probably has quite a few churches with pre-V2 sensibilities, the minimalist one we attended was definitely post. It was entirely round, with very few icons, in a style I always associate with a strive toward primitivism.
(I've sometimes wondered if our church was designed by Douglas Cardinal, a local architect who was allergic to corners and flat surfaces. He designed at least one RC church in Alberta, and went on to do, among other buildings, the National Museum Of The American Indian in Washington DC.
Though I think if our church had been done by Cardinal, we woulda heard about it.)
I would be interested in any survey that told us what percentage of any denomination matched the stereotypes held by non-members.
Well, if you wanna get technical about it, praying to Mary and the saints isn't just a stereotype, it's something that ALL observant Catholics do every week, with "...and I ask blessed Mary ever virgin, all the Angel's and saints...to pray for me, to the Lord our God."
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that. As a marian-phobe myself, I'll admit the implications of it had probably never really occurred to me until now. It was always just something recited without really thinking about it.
The "I confess" that you quote is one of three options for the Penitential Rite. It is incorrect to say that all observant Catholics will say it every week. Here (uniquely )in England we end the Intercessions with all saying the Hail Mary. Neither I nor my wife partake.
Okay, thanks. I never knew there were variations on that rite. (Well, probably more accurate to say "never noticed", because I've likely sat through alternate versions.)
I've taken a day or two to get back. For family reasons, I've not been on line much for two days. Thank you @Jengie Jon for your reply and to @Gamma Gamaliel and everyone else for what you've shared. I can relate to much of this, especially the thought that why does it have to be so terrible that one should recognise that the communion of saints includes those who have gone before those of us now living as active active brothers and sisters rather than just slumbering ones. I recognise nobody has specifically referred to this, but I've heard it before.
On tat, I can't think of anything I relate to, not even dolls in ornate ponchos, with quite as much distaste as that monstrosity in Ely Cathedral, a demonstration if ever there was one, that a committee of bland liberal protestants hiring a professional 'artist' to express themselves creatively, does not stop anybody from getting the whole thing not just wrong but really wrong.
I don't really understand why people find the virgin birth such a problem. If God is God, why not, and it is the obvious way to become incarnate.
As a side question, are the “dressed up” statues naked underneath, like a Barbie doll, or are they sculpted with clothing, so additional clothing is on top of that, like layering?
I'm sure that's the case, @chrisstiles. The Orthodox insist on The Real Presence but don't necessarily resort to Transubstantiation to understand that. Some do.
But we are meandering.
At the risk of a tangent again, @Gramps49, as an Orthodox Christian I'm not a 'sola scriptura' type, so whilst I can understand your manger and straw analogy - and it is very wittily done - I'd suggest that your response to @Nick Tamen exposes some weaknesses in your approach.
That isn't to elide problems on the Big T side, of course. Big T Tradition has a way of accounting for Christ's brothers and sisters whereby they become half-brothers and sisters (from Joseph's previous marriage) or else cousins or other relatives.
You could argue for special pleading of course.
But if Mary was an eye-witness source for the Gospel accounts, was she the source for the virgin birth stories? 🤔
Incidentally, it's been suggested that Christ would never have commended Mary to John at the crucifixion - 'behold your son ... behold your mother' - had there been siblings.
We can't 'prove' any of this either way of course.
But we either have Big T Traditions in their more 'Catholic' forms or small t Protestant traditions, which can, if they ate not careful, dislocate scripture from T/tradition or scripture from the C/church.
As a side question, are the “dressed up” statues naked underneath, like a Barbie doll, or are they sculpted with clothing, so additional clothing is on top of that, like layering?
Gosh. I've never thought to disrobe them to find out.
Transubstantiation. This from Wiki
"A 2019 Pew Research Report found that 69% of United States Catholics believed that in the Eucharist the bread and wine "are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ", and only 31% believed that, "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus".
Transubstantiation. This from Wiki
"A 2019 Pew Research Report found that 69% of United States Catholics believed that in the Eucharist the bread and wine "are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ", and only 31% believed that, "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus".
I'd be interested to know how many of the "symbolists" recognize that their view contradicts Church teaching.
Transubstantiation. This from Wiki
"A 2019 Pew Research Report found that 69% of United States Catholics believed that in the Eucharist the bread and wine "are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ", and only 31% believed that, "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus".
A (former, alas) friend once told me that I was more Catholic than most Catholics. This may be true after all. :O
(I’m Jewish by blood but was not raised in any religion; I became a Christian and selected the Roman Catholic Church while in my teens (my rationale was that “everything else broke off from it, so it was the original” (didn’t know much of Eastern Orthodoxy at the time) so I was baptized Roman Catholic at that age (plus Communion and such); a couple of years later, partly because (at the time—it’s not much of an issue now) of concerns about what I perceived as excessive devotions to the saints and Mary over Jesus, and the infallibility of the Pope (which is not what I thought it was at the time), I sought a new church in college, and other than a brief less-than-a-year attendance of a Southern Baptist church with my roommates, I’ve been Episcopal ever since (and I believe in its valid Apostolic Succession, definitively valid Sacraments, etc. along with those being present in RC and EO). I describe myself as “an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto” because it’s the easiest way to sum things up, but the Anglo-Catholic part is specifically in terms of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and such, not the number of candles on the altar, or tat in general. I’ve asked the prayers of various saints, and even some non-canonized people like C.S. Lewis and others over the years, but of course we’re all subordinate to Jesus.)
Well, I'd have no problem invoking the prayers of C S Lewis or asking him to place an order at the Heavenly bar for a pint of their finest hand-pulled ale in case, by some miracle of grace, I am able to rub shoulders with him there.
I would imagine there'd be a fair number who didn't go along with Transubstantiation but not as high a proportion as that.
I will hang-fire on further comment as there should be 'own voice' testimony here rather than musings from an outsider like me.
In all Christian churches of course, there'll be people who don't conform or go along with what is seen, correctly or otherwise as the party line.
I've come across Pentecostals who are anything but in their beliefs. My own nephew attends a rather full-on evangelical charismatic church despite being far more liberal in his theology than most - if not all - people there and certainly more so than the leadership team.
For my money. The view of reality as being made up of substance and accidents was Aristotle trying to understand how the world works using the knowledge of his time. Modern science tells us that it isn't like that. So an explanation of the Real Presence (which I accept) based on superceded science, which Transubstantiation is, makes no sense to me. I have no idea how the Real Presence works, but I have Jesus's words telling me it is real.
To go back to 'dressed dolls' (easier to deal with than transubstantiation) the figures are not normally naked underneath. It is just a custom of putting usually cloaks or veils on them.
The Infant of Prague is, in popular plaster statues ,shown with a red robe, wearing a crown and carrying an orb. These all indicate his kingship. The actual , original statue ( which just may have belonged to Theresa of Avila) is a wooden statue with a wax covering. The Carmelite nuns who look after the statue will usually put on different coloured robes usually to suit the liturgical colour of the day. It was the custom during Habsburg times for important people to offer sets of robes for the Infant as a tangible sign of their piety
Madonnas will often have a lace veil but I have never ever seen one with a full set of clothes starting from bra and pants.
For my money. The view of reality as being made up of substance and accidents was Aristotle trying to understand how the world works using the knowledge of his time. Modern science tells us that it isn't like that. So an explanation of the Real Presence (which I accept) based on superceded science, which Transubstantiation is, makes no sense to me. I have no idea how the Real Presence works, but I have Jesus's words telling me it is real.
To go back to 'dressed dolls' (easier to deal with than transubstantiation) the figures are not normally naked underneath. It is just a custom of putting usually cloaks or veils on them.
The Infant of Prague is, in popular plaster statues ,shown with a red robe, wearing a crown and carrying an orb. These all indicate his kingship. The actual , original statue ( which just may have belonged to Theresa of Avila) is a wooden statue with a wax covering. The Carmelite nuns who look after the statue will usually put on different coloured robes usually to suit the liturgical colour of the day. It was the custom during Habsburg times for important people to offer sets of robes for the Infant as a tangible sign of their piety
Madonnas will often have a lace veil but I have never ever seen one with a full set of clothes starting from bra and pants.
Such underwear on a Madonna would be massively anachronistic anyway.
To go back to 'dressed dolls' (easier to deal with than transubstantiation) the figures are not normally naked underneath. It is just a custom of putting usually cloaks or veils on them.
The Infant of Prague is, in popular plaster statues ,shown with a red robe, wearing a crown and carrying an orb. These all indicate his kingship. The actual , original statue ( which just may have belonged to Theresa of Avila) is a wooden statue with a wax covering. The Carmelite nuns who look after the statue will usually put on different coloured robes usually to suit the liturgical colour of the day. It was the custom during Habsburg times for important people to offer sets of robes for the Infant as a tangible sign of their piety
Madonnas will often have a lace veil but I have never ever seen one with a full set of clothes starting from bra and pants.
Such underwear on a Madonna would be massively anachronistic anyway.
OK, but that might depend on which Madonna. I think there's one who majored in underwear
To go back to 'dressed dolls' (easier to deal with than transubstantiation) the figures are not normally naked underneath. It is just a custom of putting usually cloaks or veils on them.
The Infant of Prague is, in popular plaster statues ,shown with a red robe, wearing a crown and carrying an orb. These all indicate his kingship. The actual , original statue ( which just may have belonged to Theresa of Avila) is a wooden statue with a wax covering. The Carmelite nuns who look after the statue will usually put on different coloured robes usually to suit the liturgical colour of the day. It was the custom during Habsburg times for important people to offer sets of robes for the Infant as a tangible sign of their piety
Madonnas will often have a lace veil but I have never ever seen one with a full set of clothes starting from bra and pants.
Such underwear on a Madonna would be massively anachronistic anyway.
OK, but that might depend on which Madonna. I think there's one who majored in underwear
I've sometimes wondered how anti-Catholic fundy-proddies regarded that schtick of hers.
I know at least some Catholics were offended by Madonna's (re-)eroticization of Catholic imagery. So, conversely, would some fundies, while possibly disliking the open sexuality of her act, still be basically unperturbed by the specific insult toward Catholicism?
Or would some of them still object to biblically derived imagery being treated that way, even if they otherwise had theological objections to iconographic representations?
(I'm guessing that at least some of the less-churched among them would just think "bible stuff = good", and that therefore it should not be used in a burlesque show.)
I don't think Protestant fundies would regard any of that imagery as 'biblically derived.'
I'm not sure I would either, come to that ...
But speculating about the precise mechanics of a fundamentalist mindset doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful line of enquiry.
On a more general note, it seems axiomatic that anyone riffing with RC imagery in a subversive or satirical way is going to sexualise or ratchet it up in order to cause offence, challenge or draw attention to whatever point they want to make.
The vast majority of RCs are not interested and the few fundies ( read traddy triddies, schismatics and sedevacantists) have got their heads so firmly jammed up their collective fundaments that they’re unlikely to notice.
Yes, really, GG take it from a R(etired and Recovering)C.
Comments
No, I'm more than happy where I am. There are plenty like me in the RCC. As I seem to have to repeat until I am blue in the face "We Catholics are a very diverse bunch" and it smacks of stereotyping to imply otherwise. I know neatly categorised boxes are simple to deal with, but they rarely reflect reality.
I won't comment on your Thames/Alps thought for fear of giving grave offence to others. I would be more likely to head for Constantinople, but I would struggle with the notion of churches being based on nationality.
We don't have any such things at Our Place, but we do have a most hideous resin image of Our Lady of Walsingham, painted in garish fairground colours. It was a gift from a much-loved priest who used to help us out from time to time, so is held in some affection.
I think as long as you're punching up or at least sideways, socioeconomically speaking, a bit of jauntiness in critquing other traditions is acceptable.
(And, obviously, yes, I realize that a given denomination can be the underdog in one place, but the tyrant in another. But I think we can use common sense in our examples and how we apply them.
FWIW, anyone put off by my "Backwoods Pentecostals" can substitute it with "Clappy-happy Pentecostals").
All, please be gentle about sectarianism, particularly where you are not feeling harmed.* People reasonably have personal feelings about these things and there's no need to cause hurt without a good reason.
*And no, we are not asking you to tell us whether you feel harmed.
May I ask...
What would you say are the dominant cultural groups among Catholics in your "corner of the American South"?
The low-candle suburban church I mentioned earlier probably had mostly members of N. European stock, plus quite a number of Ukrainians etc. But I would guess a lot of the French-Canadian oriented churches, not to mention the Eastern Rite shacks around, plus of course the Italian, Latin Americans etc, were somewhat more ornate.
(Even the other nearby suburban church that served as our secondary place was more about the smells and bells. FWIW, they had a maryological name, unlike our regular church.)
How one views Mary does not make a Christian. It is how one views the life, death and resurrection of her son, Jesus, that makes one a Christian.
I could be cheeky @Gramps49 and suggest that there's a degree of Protestant 'slash and burn' minimalism behind your post. 'Only two Gospels say that Jesus was born of a virgin ...'
Well, that's two Gospels more than noGospels ...
And one more than one Gospel.
Besides, the Gospels don't stand alone but form part of Tradition (or Tradition if you will).
Enough of this reduction already. You'll be asking us to ditch the Epistle of James next. Too much 'straw'. 😉
Ok, I jest - and whilst I can jab at times, at particular emphases or external appearances within other Christian traditions, I'd like to think I try not to give offence and also listen to concerns about my own.
Which is why I think @Alan29 makes a very valid point about the ethnocentricism of Orthodox jurisdictions. In practice, here in the UK many - if not most - Orthodox parishes are multicultural irrespective of 'label' - although there are moves in some quarters - I'm looking at you, Romanian hierarchy - to create mono-ethnic enclaves.
I'm ashamedly conscious that I could topple over into stereotyping territory in the way I've expressed surprise at RC or ex-RC posters position on Mary. I am, of course, aware that there is a wide range of views and cultural expressions across the RCC as a whole.
I no more expect every single RC to favour Sicilian Baroque than I expect every Orthodox parish to have at least one walnut-faced Greek granny who upbraids anyone who doesn't do everything in her particular way.
No, my surprise wasn't that not all RCs go in for Marian 'dolls', but that she hardly appears to feature in their understanding or approach at all.
It's rather like @Gramps49 trying to fillet the Gospels and to 'dislocate' the two that do include the Virgin birth from those that don't or placing it to one side as an optional extra.
As I've tried to indicate, however we approach these things, there is a Christological dimension here. Crucially. In Orthodox iconography the Theotokos always looks to or points towards her son.
Whether we have statues - clothed or otherwise - icons, processions, rosaries or whatever else - plain walls or posters with biblical texts - that's the point. That's the point.
It might be over-egging things to say, as the Church-in-Wales priest I mentioned did, that 'Unless you are a good Marian, you are a good Arian.'
But there's something in what he said. And that is that Mariology (not Mariolatry) is first and foremost a Christological thing.
Yes,,@Gramps49 it is all about the life, death and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and our response to that - and engagement with him not simply a kind of nodded doctrinal assent.
But what think we of Christ?
Whose Son is he?
That's the issue. Our Marian material, for want of a better word, should always support, reinforce and embody that.
On tat, I can't think of anything I relate to, not even dolls in ornate ponchos, with quite as much distaste as that monstrosity in Ely Cathedral, a demonstration if ever there was one, that a committee of bland liberal protestants hiring a professional 'artist' to express themselves creatively, does not stop anybody from getting the whole thing not just wrong but really wrong.
I don't really understand why people find the virgin birth such a problem. If God is God, why not, and it is the obvious way to become incarnate.
The music was Mozart's Coronation Mass. What is the difference between this work of artistic genius and the work of piety which is the holy picture of Maria Plain on the Plain hill just outside of Salzburg and for which the Coronation Mass was composed ? To me there is no great difference. Both may well have been created 'Gott zur Ehre,uns zur Freude' (in God's honour and for our joy) as the bishop said at the end of Mass.
There are so many things in this world which we see in different ways from other individuals, like the story of my friend's musical box of his grandmother which was for me a physical reminder of the story of the apparitions of Lourdes.
The Church is the whole of humanity, created by God. It has a human face in the person of Jesus Christ, who is 'true God and true man' Part of that Church are all those who have gone before us who can still influence and help us, just as we often look to those who are physically close to us for help and advice.
I just don't get it at all. It seems counter to what Jesus said about prayer.
Perhaps we should remember that those who are 'dead' to this world are according to Christian teaching 'alive' in the Lord.
There's the 'Church Militant' and 'Church Triumphant' thing of course ...
It depends how 'utilitarian' we want to become about all this. Does God listen more to someone who says 6 Hail Mary's rather than 3?
Are my prayers more turbocharged because I have an Apostle as a Patron Saint and more efficacious than someone who invokes the prayers of an obscure 5th century Saint somewhere?
I'm hearing a lot of what I'd expect from the RC tradition from @Forthview - and from @Jengie Jon as an Anglo-Catholic from a URC background. People can assume I'm RC from some of the things I say where there are parallels and overlaps between the RC tradition and my own.
I'm still very puzzled by @Alan29's position. I'm not expecting him to be like a caricature Irish priest from a sit-com but I would expect him to sound at least vaguely Catholic on a thread like this.
It shows I've led a sheltered life ...
The efficacy, or lack of it, of prayer is a fitting subject for another thread, though I daresay we've had such threads in the past.
But they aren't views I'd expect to hear from an RC and I'm intrigued by that.
If I were posting something like, 'I'm an Orthodox Christian but I think we shouldn't baptise infants but only believers, that we should adopt a "memorialist" view of the eucharist, adopt a congregationalist polity and scrap vestments,' people would rightly wonder why I wasn't a Baptist.
I'm not saying that Alan29 should leave the RCC and become Anglican or Presbyterian or anything else. Heck, if he became Orthodox he wouldn't encounter statues but he would encounter popular Marian piety similar to what he's found in the RCC.
But we aren't talking about popular piety but practices that are pretty standard in both the RC and Orthodox Churches - such as the invocation of Mary and the Saints.
You may ask, but be warned that my answers are those of an outsider—an observant outsider, I think, but an outsider.
The answer is, I think, generic American Catholic, with a sizeable Hispanic population. You have to understand that until the late 1960s or 1970s, North Carolina had the smallest Catholic population (per capita) in the US. (Until 2017, the Diocese of Raleigh had the smallest Catholic cathedral in the lower 48.) That changed when significant numbers of people began to move here from other parts of the country in the 60s and 70s, and then with large Hispanic movement here starting in the 80s or 90s.
There are relevant implications of this history. First, the sorts of ethnic parishes often found in other parts of the country were never really a thing here. I’m aware of one Vietnamese parish nearby, and there may be a few others around, but it’s mostly just “the local Catholic Church.” Even with Hispanic movement into the state, there hasn’t been formation of separate Spanish-speaking parishes, but rather Spanish Masses offered at “regular” parishes. So, this leads to a “generic American” Catholicism.
And second, it means most Catholic Church buildings around here are newer. To be sure, there are some old (and very beautiful) Catholic churches, but they are the exception. Most Catholic church buildings in these parts were built post-Vatican II, so their designs were informed by post-Vatican II ideas and tastes (and modern costs). For example, in Raleigh, by far the largest city in the Diocese of Raleigh, only one church—the former cathedral—was built before Vatican II.
From my observation, that generally means a simpler space, with few (one or two), or maybe even no, statues, at least not in the main space. There may be an image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe somewhere, but often to the side or in a separate chapel/space.
I’ll leave it there.
I'm not talking about stereotypes. I've made that pretty clear.
I've heard that there are RCs, for instance, who don't believe in Transubstantiaton.
I'm surprised at that, but don't doubt that it is the case. I've heard one RC flatly deny it and other suggest that it isn't the 'only way' to understand it. I get that and whilst on one level I'm not at all surprised that there are a range of views within the RCC, I am surprised to find such a diverse range over issues that I'd take to be 'standard' and distinctive RC positions.
As I've said, I've led a sheltered life.
I never thought that I would hear the name of the Infant of Prague mentioned on this site.
The statue which has been copied and was at one time a popular representation of the Child Jesus is very rarely heard of nowadays.
What interests me, however, that the popular representation of the statue is not quite like the original statue in the church of our Lady of Victories in Prague. Wherever the original statue may have come from it fits into the Central European post Tridentine pious tradition of statues.The one in Prague fits that tradition of being tiny and dressed in various clothes to fit the liturgical season of the year .
It cracks me up, then, that it was I, a Lutheran, who did it to your unsuspecting ears!
For what it's worth, our family Catholic background is Mexican (Michoacan) moved to Detroit in the 1940s. I think my grandmother on that side was Irish Catholic. Can't tell you at what point the Infant of Prague came into the family.
You seem to forget Mark 3: 31-35 where it says his mother and brothers were concerned about Jesus' preaching and went to intervene. Now, the inclusion of his brothers raises some very important questions too.
Then, there is Mark 6:1-6a (cited above) where Jesus had gone to his hometown, and the crowds were, shall we say, disturbed (citation says astounded) at this preaching, but the people asked "Isn't he the son of Mary? Aren't his brothers living here? v3 even names the brothers. But it sounds as if Jesus had been just an ordinary kid.
We also know Jesus' mother was at the cross from both Luke and John.
I happen to believe that the mother of Jesus was a source of a number of the Gospel stories. Luke says Mary had pondered what happened at the birth of Jesus. There is the encounter with Anna and Simeon, and there is the story of Jesus staying behind at the temple after the family had gone to Jerusalem. Those stories likely came from Mary.
BTW, the Jerusalem Post carried a report of a papyrus that was discovered in the Berlin Library in 2023 that appears to be a part of the Gospel of Thomas. Interesting article.
And @Gamma Gamaliel, since the Bible is the manger on which the Christ rests, one can assume, like most mangers, there is a lot of straw in it.
Well, if you wanna get technical about it, praying to Mary and the saints isn't just a stereotype, it's something that ALL observant Catholics do every week, with "...and I ask blessed Mary ever virgin, all the Angel's and saints...to pray for me, to the Lord our God."
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that. As a marian-phobe myself, I'll admit the implications of it had probably never really occurred to me until now. It was always just something recited without really thinking about it.
I have no clue why you think I’ve forgotten that, nor do I see how it and most of what follows in your post is the least bit relevant to the point I was making.
Interesting, though, that you think Mary was probably Luke’s source for what is said about the birth of Jesus—particularly given that Mary pondering in her heart, the encounter with Anna and Simeon, and twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple are all only found in Luke—but you seem to dismiss Luke saying that Mary was a virgin because that only appears in two Gospels. So Mary was probably the source for all of it except that one detail?
The "I confess" that you quote is one of three options for the Penitential Rite. It is incorrect to say that all observant Catholics will say it every week. Here (uniquely )in England we end the Intercessions with all saying the Hail Mary. Neither I nor my wife partake.
Thanks. Yeah, that's pretty much the demographics I'd expect for a heavily low-candle Catholic community, especially if, as you say, Hispanics never really developed separate congregations.
And while Edmonton probably has quite a few churches with pre-V2 sensibilities, the minimalist one we attended was definitely post. It was entirely round, with very few icons, in a style I always associate with a strive toward primitivism.
(I've sometimes wondered if our church was designed by Douglas Cardinal, a local architect who was allergic to corners and flat surfaces. He designed at least one RC church in Alberta, and went on to do, among other buildings, the National Museum Of The American Indian in Washington DC.
Though I think if our church had been done by Cardinal, we woulda heard about it.)
Okay, thanks. I never knew there were variations on that rite. (Well, probably more accurate to say "never noticed", because I've likely sat through alternate versions.)
I think the elements are one subject on which there is a considerable amount of slippage between official and popular views in every denomination.
Amen.
But we are meandering.
At the risk of a tangent again, @Gramps49, as an Orthodox Christian I'm not a 'sola scriptura' type, so whilst I can understand your manger and straw analogy - and it is very wittily done - I'd suggest that your response to @Nick Tamen exposes some weaknesses in your approach.
That isn't to elide problems on the Big T side, of course. Big T Tradition has a way of accounting for Christ's brothers and sisters whereby they become half-brothers and sisters (from Joseph's previous marriage) or else cousins or other relatives.
You could argue for special pleading of course.
But if Mary was an eye-witness source for the Gospel accounts, was she the source for the virgin birth stories? 🤔
Incidentally, it's been suggested that Christ would never have commended Mary to John at the crucifixion - 'behold your son ... behold your mother' - had there been siblings.
We can't 'prove' any of this either way of course.
But we either have Big T Traditions in their more 'Catholic' forms or small t Protestant traditions, which can, if they ate not careful, dislocate scripture from T/tradition or scripture from the C/church.
Gosh. I've never thought to disrobe them to find out.
"A 2019 Pew Research Report found that 69% of United States Catholics believed that in the Eucharist the bread and wine "are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ", and only 31% believed that, "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus".
I'd be interested to know how many of the "symbolists" recognize that their view contradicts Church teaching.
A (former, alas) friend once told me that I was more Catholic than most Catholics. This may be true after all. :O
(I’m Jewish by blood but was not raised in any religion; I became a Christian and selected the Roman Catholic Church while in my teens (my rationale was that “everything else broke off from it, so it was the original” (didn’t know much of Eastern Orthodoxy at the time) so I was baptized Roman Catholic at that age (plus Communion and such); a couple of years later, partly because (at the time—it’s not much of an issue now) of concerns about what I perceived as excessive devotions to the saints and Mary over Jesus, and the infallibility of the Pope (which is not what I thought it was at the time), I sought a new church in college, and other than a brief less-than-a-year attendance of a Southern Baptist church with my roommates, I’ve been Episcopal ever since (and I believe in its valid Apostolic Succession, definitively valid Sacraments, etc. along with those being present in RC and EO). I describe myself as “an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto” because it’s the easiest way to sum things up, but the Anglo-Catholic part is specifically in terms of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and such, not the number of candles on the altar, or tat in general. I’ve asked the prayers of various saints, and even some non-canonized people like C.S. Lewis and others over the years, but of course we’re all subordinate to Jesus.)
@Alan29 and @stetson, interesting Pew Research stats.
I would imagine there'd be a fair number who didn't go along with Transubstantiation but not as high a proportion as that.
I will hang-fire on further comment as there should be 'own voice' testimony here rather than musings from an outsider like me.
In all Christian churches of course, there'll be people who don't conform or go along with what is seen, correctly or otherwise as the party line.
I've come across Pentecostals who are anything but in their beliefs. My own nephew attends a rather full-on evangelical charismatic church despite being far more liberal in his theology than most - if not all - people there and certainly more so than the leadership team.
The Infant of Prague is, in popular plaster statues ,shown with a red robe, wearing a crown and carrying an orb. These all indicate his kingship. The actual , original statue ( which just may have belonged to Theresa of Avila) is a wooden statue with a wax covering. The Carmelite nuns who look after the statue will usually put on different coloured robes usually to suit the liturgical colour of the day. It was the custom during Habsburg times for important people to offer sets of robes for the Infant as a tangible sign of their piety
Madonnas will often have a lace veil but I have never ever seen one with a full set of clothes starting from bra and pants.
Well yes.
Such underwear on a Madonna would be massively anachronistic anyway.
OK, but that might depend on which Madonna. I think there's one who majored in underwear
I've sometimes wondered how anti-Catholic fundy-proddies regarded that schtick of hers.
I know at least some Catholics were offended by Madonna's (re-)eroticization of Catholic imagery. So, conversely, would some fundies, while possibly disliking the open sexuality of her act, still be basically unperturbed by the specific insult toward Catholicism?
Or would some of them still object to biblically derived imagery being treated that way, even if they otherwise had theological objections to iconographic representations?
(I'm guessing that at least some of the less-churched among them would just think "bible stuff = good", and that therefore it should not be used in a burlesque show.)
I'm not sure I would either, come to that ...
But speculating about the precise mechanics of a fundamentalist mindset doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful line of enquiry.
On a more general note, it seems axiomatic that anyone riffing with RC imagery in a subversive or satirical way is going to sexualise or ratchet it up in order to cause offence, challenge or draw attention to whatever point they want to make.
The vast majority of RCs are not interested and the few fundies ( read traddy triddies, schismatics and sedevacantists) have got their heads so firmly jammed up their collective fundaments that they’re unlikely to notice.
Yes, really, GG take it from a R(etired and Recovering)C.