2 disagreements so im not a real Catholic?

[Charlemagne_II]

gurney

People disagree. It happens. And I have said and will continue to say that I don’t think it’s healthy for us to behave as a committee that analyzes with a litmus test how Catholic someone is. It’s not my job. That doesn’t make one a derailer or a person who has rejected the Church.

If we are not to analyze with a litmus test, why have a catechism in the first place? Why not just let everybody believe what they want to believe? That way we could all be self- congratulating anarchists.

 

[Peepers]

Why would you think that anyone such as myself, or the many others here who are also lifelong Catholics – would think that “submitting to a higher authority” is “easy”?

I don’t understand where some of your assumptions arise (Catholics believe that struggles with conscience are “easy” to resolve; priests who entered the priesthood before a lot of lay experience lack empathy, etc.)

Most priests actually do get it. Most have either listened to those struggles, and not just in the confessional, but among brother priests who struggle with a number of personal issues and teachings. Or they have suffered through struggles with conscience themselves, or struggles pastorally – such as having to explain a difficult teaching, regardless of how vigorously they do or do not support such teaching, to a lay person who feels very burdened by that.

You talk as if the priesthood were just an isolated, sheltered, protected walk in the park. It very much is not, and certainly not these days. (The active priesthood, especially the diocesan priesthood.) A priest who has committed deeply to his pastoral responsibilities tends to see much more in the way of negativity & struggle (i.e., The Cross) than the average layperson does. Fr. Mark Riccardo (I forget which diocese) said on EWTN that priests refer to themselves as The Garbage Men because of everything that gets dumped on them, but which just comes with the job.

That said, it certainly is not necessarily easy to find a priest, or more than one, with whom a real rapport is there – but OTOH, we have to give each priest an opportunity to know us. The casual & brief encounters we tend to have with parish priests are not a foundation for a real relationship, and like other people, they can be stand-offish until some real communication is allowed to happen. I know that at one parish I attend, the priests really, really want to know the parishioners. They want to know names; they want to know background & current concerns, so that they can relate well.

Interesting Elizabeth that you make assumptions about what assumptions I might be making, and then ask me why I am making them. Really… If I came across that way, then I apologize. If I thought for some reason that Catholics were magically transformed into mindless sheep or something, then I would not be interested in being here at all. My opinion on the human condition, is that we all share the same problems, challenges, loss, heartbreak, joy, temptation… all of the stuff that life is made of. If we did not share that, then we would not come together in faith communities. We would not have any great works or art or literature.

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I did not in any way mean to be condescending, or to minimize the spiritual journey or anyone here.

 

[estesbob]

That’s not true, bob. Some people just don’t think it’s our job, any of ours, to critique a person’s Catholicity and desgrees of being “okay.” It’s not an attempt to derail a thread but perhaps a disagreement with you or other poster. People disagree. It happens. And I have said and will continue to say that I don’t think it’s healthy for us to behave as a committee that analyzes with a litmus test how Catholic someone is. It’s not my job. That doesn’t make one a derailer or a person who has rejected the Church.

If one does not want their Catholicity critiqued I suggest they not come into a Catholic forum and start telling us what is wrong with the Catholic faith.

I’m sure in Jesus’s time the Pharisees saw him as a derailer. He healed and preached on the Sabbath. By the litmus test of his day, he was considered a bum by the Pharisees. That is why the term comes up. Jesus didn’t like them doing it. I’m sure He wouldn’t enjoy us doing it. Maybe we should leave it up to God to decide in the end. The first will be last and the last will be first…

Again you want to to approach our faith from a secular standpoint. There is no litmus test. What we have is 2000 years of consistent unerring teaching that as Catholics we are to abide by. It is specious for people, again, the, the Catholic form tell people where their faith is wrong and then accuse those who adhere to the faith of being being Pharisees.

I am proud to be a Pharisee, at least by the definition used by dissident Catholics desperately looking for a way to justify their dissidence.

 

[Peepers]

If one does not want their Catholicity critiqued I suggest they not come into a Catholic forum and start telling us what is wrong with the Catholic faith.

Again you want to to approach our faith from a secular standpoint. There is no litmus test. What we have is 2000 years of consistent unerring teaching that as Catholics we are to abide by. It is specious for people, again, the, the Catholic form tell people where their faith is wrong and then accuse those who adhere to the faith of being being Pharisees.

I am proud to be a Pharisee, at least by the definition used by dissident Catholics desperately looking for a way to justify their dissidence.

Estesbob - is it your position that the Church’s teaching on moral issues has not changed in 2,000 years?

 

[estesbob]

Estesbob - is it your position that the Church’s teaching on moral issues has not changed in 2,000 years?

Yes. And before we completely derail the thread please don’t start throwing out usury, slavery, Galileo, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. unless you are prepared to discuss these in detail and can document your claims.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Interesting Elizabeth that you make assumptions about what assumptions I might be making, and then ask me why I am making them.

My “assumptions” were based only on your words, in two successive posts, one of which directly challenged mine. I never assume what it is not logical to deduce from people’s writing. I’m trained to do that.

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I did not in any way mean to be condescending, or to minimize the spiritual journey or anyone here.

I didn’t think you were being condescending. I thought that (based on your posts) you have limited experience with how complex the faith journey is for the ordinary Catholic, and with how such Catholics go about seeking priestly counsel. Thirdly, you may be projecting that limited experience with priests more widely than is warranted. Some priests do selectively relate to people, and have chosen not to widen their familiarity with society since early entrance into seminary, but those are not the majority of priests. Most of them are not able to keep the world out for that long, due to assignments and due to the psychological need to be successful in their priesthood. Given current proportions of priests serving laity full-time, it is decreasingly true that priests are out of touch with modern society and its non-simplistic challenges.

Despite that, some priests - just like some secular counselors – have better communication and listening skills, better command of vocabulary, more developed patience (and other virtues), than others – regardless of level of awareness.

 

[jmcdzzz]

Yes. And before we completely derail the thread please don’t start throwing out usury, slavery, Galileo, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. unless you are prepared to discuss these in detail and can document your claims.

Amen Bob! I’ve been wanting to answer the OP, but in browsing through the thread, the subject has changed several times. What Peeper is bringing up should be a whole new thread.

Back to the original. Sorry but I didn’t read every one. There are just too many of them. From what I have read, I agree with estesbob. I know that it can be hard to just accept what the Church teaches when you don’t understand it or agree with it. But I know from experience that a little doubt can go a long way. When I was 17 I had a lot of doubts. I thought the best way to counter them would be to read up on them and learn why it is that we believe what we believe.

Now this was in 1977, way before the internet, and back in the days when a whole generation, myself included were not properly catechized. I’ve always been a bit of a cheapskate so my “studies” were limited to the books I could find in my local library. That’s when I discovered “Roman Catholicism” by Loraine Boetnner, and “The Two Babylons: or The Papal Worship Proven to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife” by Alexander Hislop.

These little doubts that I had led me away from the Church for almost 30 years when God gave us the internet, and He directed me to Catholic.com. It took a while, but I finally learned about actual Catholic teaching, not perceived Catholic teaching by someone with an agenda.

Now that I have returned, there are a few things that I have trouble with, but I chalk them up to my limited human understanding, and I trust those who the Lord placed over me. And I think this is highly important. If we cannot trust our leadership, then in effect, we are Protestant. If we cannot trust their teachings, even if we can’t fully understand them, we become our own arbiter of truth.

 

[estesbob]

Now that I have returned, there are a few things that I have trouble with, but I chalk them up to my limited human understanding, and I trust those who the Lord placed over me. And I think this is highly important. If we cannot trust our leadership, then in effect, we are Protestant. If we cannot trust their teachings, even if we can’t fully understand them, we become our own arbiter of truth.

I to have had doubts/disagreements with church teaching over the years. I always approached them as follows::

1. I accepted them and adhered to them even if I didn’t understand and/or disagreed with them
2. I prayed and studied that I might come to understand why the church teaches the way it does
3. I never publicly tried to convince other Catholic that I was correct in my disagreement

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Elizabeth

**Despite that, some priests - just like some secular counselors – have better communication and listening skills, better command of vocabulary, more developed patience (and other virtues), than others – regardless of level of awareness. **

I find this is more true today than it was fifty years ago when, it seems to me if memory serves me well, that priests were more often aloof and authoritarian than most of them are today. I now know many priests with whom I am completely comfortable and relaxed. Maybe it’s seniority that gives me the advantage I didn’t have at 20 … young priests may tend to respect the elderly more than the younger laity.

I think also that young priests today, who are theologically leaning back toward orthodoxy, may find older Catholics a source of inspiration because they tend to be more orthodox than many of the so-called “progressive” young Catholics, some of whom are tolerant of abortion and don’t go to confession or even believe in the True Presence.

 

[benidict]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Hi B1,

I think it is good that you stuck to the question of this thread.

From what you have written, you struggle with two questions about Church teaching and wonder whether disagreeing with them makes you not Catholic. Since you love the Church so much, then I would say that the only way is to accept her teaching with your will even if you cannot accept it with your intellect.

I mean, take for example the Eucharist which you love. I don’t think that intellectually you can really explain how that bread is suddenly Jesus when it appears to remain just that - bread. That is a harder thing to apprehend mentally than whatever else you may be struggling with. Since you say that the Church is the true Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, then she would have been guided toward this two teachings as well.

For your peace of mind though and to get some clarity about these two things that you are disagreeing with, I would suggest starting two different threads on these and perhaps other can help shed some light on the matter for you.

Happy Easter! May the Peace and Joy of the Risen Christ be with you, your family, friends and those with you in the battlefield. [sign]Alleluia[/sign]

B2

Hi my Dear Sister. A belated happy Easter. naw, maybe not, since we are in the season! I have never had a problem with the Eucharist thank God. Even as a protestant, I knew there was much more to it, than my pastors were making it out to be. I think I have always held to the True Presence long before I ever converted. A protestant pastor cannot effect this change though. They are kind of like our Deacons in a sense. Only a Priest or higher can do this. The bread and wine Truly do become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I just wish some of the societal issues were this simple. Peace and Prayers for you my Sister. God bless you in this time of celebration of Christ victory over sin, death and Hell. Making our salvation possible for all those that seek Him with their whole being. And yes, I Love the Catholic Church. For me there is no other. I Love Mary. No other Church has the Marian Dogmas as taught by the True Church. I could no sooner leave her, than where she ministers to us. She is the Ark of the Covenant. Sorry bout getting on a rant. LOL! I get pretty emotional on these two issues. Which btw I am in full agreement with Holy Mother Church on. I have been getting some wise council on and off the forums for my problem. I am greatly comforted and have a better grasp of what is going on. I thank God for all of you. Weather I agree with a brother/sister or not. I love all of you, and am educated by all of you. Peace in this our time of Victory!

 

[benidict]

Estesbob - is it your position that the Church’s teaching on moral issues has not changed in 2,000 years?

I think there has been Changes Peepers. Such as this one. I have a copy of the Catechism from pre 1950. At that time you could not even grace the door of a Protestant assembly. Now we are not only allowed to do this, but we refer to them as Seperated Bretheren. Peace to you. This is but one example. I think you are correct.

 

[estesbob]

I think there has been Changes Peepers. Such as this one. I have a copy of the Catechism from pre 1950. At that time you could not even grace the door of a Protestant assembly. Now we are not only allowed to do this, but we refer to them as Seperated Bretheren. Peace to you. This is but one example. I think you are correct.

Really-I cant find it in my copy. Do you have a paragraph number? .

 

[estesbob]

I think there has been Changes Peepers. Such as this one. I have a copy of the Catechism from pre 1950. At that time you could not even grace the door of a Protestant assembly. Now we are not only allowed to do this, but we refer to them as Seperated Bretheren. Peace to you. This is but one example. I think you are correct.

Not in my copy, which you can find here. catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

 

[jmcdzzz]

I think there has been Changes Peepers. Such as this one. I have a copy of the Catechism from pre 1950. At that time you could not even grace the door of a Protestant assembly. Now we are not only allowed to do this, but we refer to them as Seperated Bretheren. Peace to you. This is but one example. I think you are correct.

This sounds more cultural rather than a dogmatic/doctrinal change.

 

[benidict]

This sounds more cultural rather than a dogmatic/doctrinal change.

Excuses excuses. Yes there have been changes over 2000 years. We can start another thread to debate these if you would like. You can say there have not been, But there really have. What has the Churches position been about marrying someone from a different religion say…200 years ago? Marriage is a sacrament. Was this allowed 200 years ago? Or have some changes occured? I dont know. Interesting question though. I know some customs have changed. But I have read it with my own eyes, not on the web, but in a small book about what Catholics believe, given to me by a dear older Catholic, that it used to be a mortal sin to step foot in a Protestant sanctuary. This copy is from apx 1955.

 

[benidict]

Yes folks. Believe it or not, there are still some of us younger to middle aged folks, that like to actually pick up a book, and read it. As opposed to having a nook, a kindle, or just go to such and such website. I think id like a kindle though. It would be soo much handier…Naw. I will keep my 10 volumes of the zohar!

 

[estesbob]

Excuses excuses. Yes there have been changes over 2000 years. We can start another thread to debate these if you would like. You can say there have not been, But there really have. What has the Churches position been about marrying someone from a different religion say…200 years ago? Marriage is a sacrament. Was this allowed 200 years ago? Or have some changes occured? I dont know. Interesting question though. I know some customs have changed. But I have read it with my own eyes, not on the web, but in a small book about what Catholics believe, given to me by a dear older Catholic, that it used to be a mortal sin to step foot in a Protestant sanctuary. This copy is from apx 1955.

B
Hard to have a discussion with one who relies on a secret book only he has to support his claims You comments about marriage were as incorrect as your comments about attending Protestant churches I have posted link to the version of the catechism that was in effect in 1955 and it does not support what you say could you look on the title page and tell us who issued the Nihil Obstat And Impramatur? if it does that’d these you should not trust it as a valid resource about our Faith

 

[benidict]

B
Hard to have a discussion with one who relies on a secret book only he has to support his claims You comments about marriage were as incorrect as your comments about attending Protestant churches I have posted link to the version of the catechism that was in effect in 1955 and it does not support what you say could you look on the title page and tell us who issued the Nihil Obstat And Impramatur? if it does that’d these you should not trust it as a valid resource about our Faith

I will have to dig it up. I have one day before I go back to Iraq. I will find it for you, if I still have it. It does have an imprimature and the Nihil Obstat. I will pass on the title and pages if I can find it. im sure I can do this. Its not a secret book.

 

[pnewton]

And a person who acknowledges 100% BELIEF in Catholic teachings isn’t necessary exalting himself or…

Herein is the rub. Who can rise to this level? The Church’s moral teaching alone is something we all struggle to accept, hence the need for Reconcilliation. Doctrine is so vast that it is easy to find one area where a person lacking in supernatural intelligence can fully understand the mind of the Church. Thus, the need for the Catechism teaching on conscience.

I think the best answer for the OP here is to understand that the Church does account for both our sin and unbelief. Our job is to keep our spirit humble and be willing to be taught. Some sin may be so pervasive they take a lifetime and beyond to purge. Some beliefs are so difficult to understand that learning them is a process of decades and we may not understand in this world. The Catholic Church is a hospital for the mortally sick. Just keep trying to understand the mind of the Church. Even if you give up, then keep receiving the Sacraments in order to receive the grace to overcome that sloth or weariness, and when you can, give it another shot.

 

[benidict]

Herein is the rub. Who can rise to this level? The Church’s moral teaching alone is something we all struggle to accept, hence the need for Reconcilliation. Doctrine is so vast that it is easy to find one area where a person lacking in supernatural intelligence can fully understand the mind of the Church. Thus, the need for the Catechism teaching on conscience.

I think the best answer for the OP here is to understand that the Church does account for both our sin and unbelief. Our job is to keep our spirit humble and be willing to be taught. Some sin may be so pervasive they take a lifetime and beyond to purge. Some beliefs are so difficult to understand that learning them is a process of decades and we may not understand in this world. The Catholic Church is a hospital for the mortally sick. Just keep trying to understand the mind of the Church. Even if you give up, then keep receiving the Sacraments in order to receive the grace to overcome that sloth or weariness, and when you can, give it another shot.

:clapping::clapping::hug1: