In a sense, Sunday mass is just an all-hands where you're told the CEO's vision and you get to think about how aligned you are with the vision.
OP did not explained why they think it is the same either. They just fired something.
The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".
I meant Catholic as in Catholic Church - the huge hierarchical organization lead by Pope. The mass is the ritual part, the bread, wine and the ceremony. Then there is the preaching which is separate thing. You can have mass only, the preaching only or the combination of the two. Catholicism is really big on rituals and tradition, they have meaning by themselves.
The Midnight Mass for example does not have much preaching. That is not the point of going there. The point is to celebrate.
Sorry, can you help me understand what you mean here?
I attended a Catholic mass from 1-18 (and occasionally since then), and there was definitely a bunch of moral reflection from the readings, gospels and the sermons.
So I'm struggling to understand how this would differ across other Christian denominations, so I'd really appreciate a better awareness of what you mean here.
Yes, they tend to be combined on Sundays, because that is practical and many believers want both on Sunday anyway. But that does not make them the same thing.
Have you ever gone to a mass on random Thursday? There is often no sermon during daily, non-Sunday mass. Yes, there are readings, but the central part of the mass is the Eucharist, which the Catechism (¶1324) calls the "source and summit of the Christian life".
Again, super confused. Like yeah the Eucharist is clearly the most important part for many Catholics, but the notion that the readings don't contain moral teachings is very strange to me.
Am I missing something in your point?
I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
Sadly, they're not the majority, but living this way is pretty hard so it's not that surprising.
> I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
I don't think this is a good take. I think C. S. Lewis got in better in Mere Christianity:
> We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
A "Christian" is someone who believes certain things (e.g., Nicene Creed), and that he should do (or not do) certain things. The inability to live up to one's ideals does mean you reject those ideals (or make them invalid).
Much as I dislike disagreeing with C.S. Lewis, my personal nomenclature is to reserve the term Christian for those who live the values promoted by the Gospels. This is clearly non standard though, so I see the potential for confusion.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:23
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)
There was an early Christian heresy what believed that clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
And another belief that humans can be saved by their own efforts, without the need for God's grace:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
In some ways your idea would be contrary to scripture (?): since no one can (fully/perfectly?) live those values, then no one can (fully/perfectly?) be Christian. Whereas is in the 'Lewis model' every one can be a Christian, but just a better or worse 'instantiation' of one.
Yeah, I definitely take that point.
That being said, I don't have a better term for the small number of people who actually try to live the teachings of the Gospels, as opposed to those who mumble along to the Nicene Creed, take the Eucharist and go right back to robbing their fellow humanity.
So that's the term I picked.
Like, to be fair, I am almost certainly a heretic from the perspective of the Catholic Church, but if the Source of All judges me based on that, then I guess we have very different priorities.
For context, I grew up in an Ireland where literally everyone was a practicing Catholic, but very few actually lived it in their lives, hence why this annoys me. As Jesus (did not) say, blessed be the hypocrites etc.
CEOs are psychopaths.