I know that lots of people are Catholics... but I don't understand them, as to why they follow priests and other imperfect men, and claim they follow the bible, when they don't even do as much as to read it.

I don't mean to offend your faith, but I wish to clear up all my doubts... and no better place than Massassi forums.

So... my first question:

Why do you worship the virgin of Mary?

I know that lots of people are Catholics... but I don't understand them, as to why they follow priests and other imperfect men, and claim they follow the bible, when they don't even do as much as to read it.

Why do you worship the virgin of Mary?

Good Lord, if I was Pat Robertson right now I'd say this kid ought to be taken out, but seeing as I'm not I'll ask a question:

Do you know what tact is? Or empathy? Or understanding? Ethos? An emotional connection? Common Sense? God help you, this has to be one thread too many, I don't know how much more the denizens of Massassi can bear. Maybe I should phone up Pat Robertson.

Heh, I like that the "virgin" was just a translation mistake:
http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml (note, I first heard this from a woman who actually studied it. This is just the first source I could find)

Yeah, it's amazing how many people actually believe Catholics believe what they do.

That they worship Mary
That they worship Saints and othe figures (some even think they worship statues)
That you can still 'buy' your way into heaven
That they don't read the bible (I guess this stems from the fact that Catholics don't really take bibles to their services, while other religions use the bible in their sermons "Lets now look at John etc etc")

I agree though, this has huge potential to become a flame war.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Couldn't find anything about translations in there. Only non-canon sources.

HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!!!!
I didn't realize that there were different variations of catholics here, don't blame me. ALL THE CATHOLICS DOWN HERE THAT I KNOW, WHICH WOULD BE ALL MY FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES, WHICH WOULD BE ALMOST AN ENTIRE SCHOOL, ARE ALWAYS SPEAKING OF THE VIRGIN OF MARY AND THIS AND THAT OF MARY, AND THEY ALL SAY THAT THEY DON'T READ THE BIBLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRIESTS TO LISTEN TO... I ONLY ASSUMED THAT ALL CATHOLICS WERE THE SAME BECAUSE OF THIS. HECK THEY HAVE STATUES, PORTRAITS AND IDOLS ALL OVER MY TOWN OF THE VIRGIN OF MARY.

NOW:

As far as I know, this is wrong, along with worshiping any idol, statue or anything. In the bible Exodus 20:4-5 Reads:

"You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth."
"You must not bow down to them nor be indued to serve them, because I Jehovah (Usually replaced with the word God or Lord) your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion..."

Wouldn't this mean praying to crosses, portraits, statues, or to any figure be disobeying this command?

but I wish to clear up all my doubts... and no better place than Massassi forums.

You honestly believe that we pray to objects?

...

whoa.

At the time of the great Schism in Europe, yes this was a point of debate: the reformists led by figures such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin would say that Catholics were guilty of idolatory - that is worshipping shrines, idols or whatever which meant that they weren't worshipping god.

Luther was quite a groovy guy as far as I could see (studying the history of all this).

He was against idolatory, against the Treasury of Indulgences (at this time in history catholics could give money to speed dead relatives through purgatory and into heaven), against hierarchy in the church, and against the use of latin in the mass (because only the educated, ie the rich, could understand what was meant to be the 'peoples' religion) and also against the idea of transubstantiation in the mass ceremony.

There's a great deal more to it, but you have stumbled on the start of what became protestantism.

[ninja edit: this was all circa 1500]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
ABUSES

It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Cor., xi, 27-9). And, as God's forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evil practices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.

Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).

Traffic in Indulgences

These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.

In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. Leaving the details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article (see REFORMATION), it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this evil association: the only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety. Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the payment might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those who sought to gain it might lose sight of the more important conditions. On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of indulgences. This class has happily disappeared, but the type has been preserved in Chaucer's "Pardoner", with his bogus relics and indulgences.

While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it should also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took care to insist on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not difficult to understand why the Church, instead of abolishing the practice of indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements. The Council of Trent in its decree "On Indulgences" (Sess. XXV) declares: "In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away with as a source of grievous abuse among the Christian people; and as to other disorders arising from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any cause whatsoever--since these, on account of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special prohibitions--the Council lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out such abuses as exist in his own diocese, of bringing them before the next provincial synod, and of reporting them, with the assent of the other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence measures will be taken for the welfare of the Church at large, so that the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed on all the faithful by means at once pious, holy, and free from corruption." After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.

The believer of today, like the one yesterday, must be helped in his prayer and spiritual life by seeing works that attempt to express the mystery of faith and never hide it. That is why today, as in the past, faith is the necessary inspiration of Church art.

Authentic Christian art is that which, through sensible perception, gives the intuition that the Lord is present in his Church, that the events of salvation history give meaning and orientation to our life, that the glory that is promised us already transforms our existence. Sacred art must tend to offer us a visual synthesis of all dimensions of our faith."

- Pope John Paul II

Also many people say that Jesus is god... but this could not be true if he took human form, and died, for the price to pay was the blood of a perfect man, not that of a god. So Jesus is the son of God, isn't he? For if he was a god, I doubt that he would be able to feel pain, or would take human form. I don't really know how to express this, but I've seen it before, if only I can find that document again...

The Jesus - God - Holy Spirit Triangle is one of those leaps of faith. (AFAIK)

You just have to believe that God flows through all the three - it's not a question of the physical.