Unfortunately for all too many Catholics educated prior to, roughly, 1960, the Nuns almost always got this wrong.
There is a Church Law requiring Sacramental Confession once yearly, during the period beginning Ash Wednesday and ending the day before Easter (if memory serves!). This is to be followed by reception of the Holy Eucharist. This has been known, traditionally, as one's "Easter Duty."
Now we have Lent - a 40 day (Sundays don't count) period starting with Ash Wednesday and terminating at midnight (the beginning of Easter Sunday).
Fasting, sacrificial abstinence (giving it up for Lent), etc.
For forty days.
And no meat on Fridays during Lent.
Lots of church; Novenas; Stations of the Cross; Masses; etc. etc.
Yes, you Jewish folk have it easy.
One Day - Blam - Done! Instant Lent! :-)
actually, depending upon one's origins, there are 'slichot' for 10-40 days before Yom Kippur - that's getting up in the middle of the night (around dawn) for prayers daily.
Rosh hashana is 2 days of heavy-duty prayers. There are changes in our daily prayers for a full month before (just an extra psalm and some small changes in wording, but still there...)
And then, you know 25 hours of not eating, drinking, bathing, washing, etc.
Also, we have 9 days of not eating meat except Sabbath in the summer, which also finishes off with a 25-hour fast. (that's mourning, though, not guilt)
Catholics got nothing on us ;)
Just one salient example - the blessings over the bread and then the wine at Mass - Blessed art thou oh Lord our God, King of the Universe, for having given us the fruit of the grape...
Sound familiar?
Actually, the requirement (in Catholicism) for confession (sacramental
confession) and absolution is only for 'mortal' sins. Everything else
can be handled through prayer.
<< leafs through the Bible a bit >>
Actually, the requirement (in Catholicism) for sacramental confession appears to be a "proprietary extension" to Christianity.
<< big stupid grin >>
All kidding aside ... and let me tell you, it's wonderful to have a real discussion about religion without the pedophile atheist trashing everyone ... the strict laws in Judaism make a lot more sense to me than the strict laws in Catholicism.
Much discussion has taken place over the centuries about whether Jesus did or did not abolish the law. Most tend to cite Matthew 5:17 in which He says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In particular He was talking about the elaborate system of sacrifices. He pointed out that those requirements were still in effect -- but after His death, those requirements were completely and permanently fulfilled by Him rather than by us having to constantly perform sacrifices on our own.
This applies to Lent but it also applies to things like burnt offerings.
Our old buddy Ragnar used to tell me about how he used to challenge Rabbis with the question of why Jews don't do burnt offerings anymore. "The Christians have a good reason," he would tell them, "but we don't." He was usually given an answer to the tune of "it's not good to question these things" which is definitely the wrong answer to pretty much *any* question.
Anyway, it seems to me that the fasting, sacrificial abstinence, Novenas, Stations, etc etc were all added by someone else later on, and while it's good to focus on the Cross for a season, who came up with all that stuff and why is it legit that they added it?
The answer I was given is that at the time the First Temple was built, the nation of Israel was forever limited to making sacrifices only in the Temple (i.e. the one on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where the Dome of the Rock is now.)
Heh... 'credo in unum Deum...'
That bit might be the main difference between Catholicism and Judaism.
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et tarrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
I think both beliefs would be okay with that bit. "I believe in one got, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen."
But the next bit might be where the line is drawn:
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum, ante omnia saecula. [etc]
"And in his son Jesus Christ, His only son, and from his birth all are saved."
(if my translation is anywhere near correct, which is debateable).
"It's not good to question these things," is certainly not the right answer. At least, if you assume God prefers for people to have a better understanding of Him than a bunch of zombified ditto-heads who can be easily manipulated by people who probably don't know much about Him in the first place.
But I might have my assumptions wrong.
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre
natum, ante omnia saecula. [etc]
"And in his son Jesus Christ, His only son, and from his birth all are
saved."
(if my translation is anywhere near correct, which is debateable).
Close, but not really close enough.
"And in one lord Jesus Chrise, only son of God, born of the Father before all ages."
There. Much closer.
The only "difficult" phrase is "ante omnia saecula" wherein appears that nasty word "saecula." The first English post-=[2Vatican-II translation of the phrase was "before all worlds." Very misleading in the overall theological context, even though it seemed to "flow" better in the speaking of the Nicene Creed wherein it is used.
The Orthodox (and no, I do not know Greek) seem to have gotten closer.
The contentious phrase there (in Latin here) is at the end of the Doxology:
"per omnia saecula saeculorum"
which also appears at the end of so many Latin Roman Catholic prayers that numbering them would be a lifetime chore.
Every Orthodox priest/bishop I know basically says it means "through every age" or "through all ages".
The common "boyhood" translation used pre-Vatican-II was "world without end" which is, upon anything but the most cursory examination, very much short of the real meaning of the Latin. OK for "us kids in the 1950s" but it started becoming a real issue starting with Latin I in high school (the Christian Brothers at LaSalle HS in Philly). The Nuns could not be bothered with it. There were erasers to clap, boards to clean, and behinds to be smacked with those yard-sticks. Latin? Just say the words and shut up!! <smack>
Ah well, enough for now.
Pax Domine!
Anyway, it seems to me that the fasting, sacrificial abstinence,
Novenas, Stations, etc etc were all added by someone else later on, and
while it's good to focus on the Cross for a season, who came up with
all that stuff and why is it legit that they added it?
None of that is required. At least, not today.
The items you cited are viewed as either pious beliefs or pious practices. Not required. Failure to abstain or to attend Stations of the Cross, or Novenas, or First Fridays, or any other similar thing is not - in and of itself - going to qualify you for a place in Hell. Doing those thing, however, may spiritually predispose you toward wanting to do more of the things that may actually be classified as Good Works (aiding the poor, etc.) and those just may qualify you for a place "upstairs"...
"Deus vult!"
Doing those thing, however, may spiritually predispose you toward wanting to do more of the things that may actually be classified as Good Works (aiding the poor, etc.) and those just may qualify you for a place "upstairs"...
I suppose that's the predominant belief among Catholics (and, in a roundabout sort of way, Calvinists). The rest of us are familiar with Ephesians 2:8-9:
"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast."
Of course, that doesn't mean we can just go ahead and be douchebags (although Calvinists seem to enjoy that) ...
/"*8*For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this
is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— *9*not by works, so
that no one can boast."/
...which is more than offset by "That which you have done unto these, the least of My brethren, so have you also done unto Me." [Jesus Christ]
Tue Oct 07 2014 04:35:20 PM EDT from IGnatius T FoobarDoing those thing, however, may spiritually predispose you toward wanting to do more of the things that may actually be classified as Good Works (aiding the poor, etc.) and those just may qualify you for a place "upstairs"...I suppose that's the predominant belief among Catholics (and, in a roundabout sort of way, Calvinists). The rest of us are familiar with Ephesians 2:8-9:
"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast."
Of course, that doesn't mean we can just go ahead and be douchebags (although Calvinists seem to enjoy that) ...
That crazy Martin Luther dude that ran off with a nun, fell in to that camp as well. re: "The Smalcald Articles".