Americanism

[CentralFLJames]

Europe already had what you propose and it definitely failed - long before the U.S. was an independent country.

Eventually, people’s spiritual understanding and experience will transcend words.
Not too long after enough reach that state, all religions will fall by the wayside - the more obsessed they are with the form of their words over the substance that the words merely attempt to express, the quicker the fall.

Europe had a part of what I announced but there was never a subsidiarity component to it. The monarchs were at constant tension to vie for control over the pope and played politics and encouraged and manipulated heretics within her (Luther) for their own gain (and destruction). The Monarchs of course never let the local communities have any real degree of self rule and decision making. You don’t understand the Catholic principal of subsidiarity.

As for your notion of human spiritual evolution - there is no valid concept of spiritual pluralism in Christianity. This is just an extension of the same hubris and errors that lead to the legion of false faiths and partial truths that fell out of Protestantism; an anarchy that leads to mediocrity and damnation all under the pacifying guise of freedom. Being a slave to false belief and philosophies is no more freedom than being a slave to sin. Unitarians are one among others (WCC) who are attempting to play on this error by proposing to knit and integrate (in the manner of the fictional Borg) a network of religions to assimilate the current plurality of error into a perverse web of “anything goes” spirituality. A spiritual Tower of Babel is hardly a stable structure for anyone to reach heaven much less a platform that will find favor with God. It is all crashing down as we speak.

The general negative connotation you place on “religion” extends from your correct recognition that there are so many false religions. What you are really seeing though are modern manifestations of individualism - these are all forms of spiritual self actualism in the manner of Maslow. I think you are now caught up in all this yourself.

There really is no valid spiritual tower of babel as you imagine. Religion by any other name or philosophy is still religion. But there happens to be a true religion and that is Catholicism - of this I am certain. The Catholic Church is the same Church you “sampled”, as if only just one flavor from a buffet of arbitrary offerings. But you found it not to be to “your tastes” and so left it. Perhaps you will come back when you have cast off the fast-food of “me-ism” after you have matured and developed a taste for the truth…

James

 

[anon5216]

…
There really is no valid spiritual tower of babel as you imagine. Religion by any other name or philosophy is still religion. But there happens to be a true religion and that is Catholicism - of this I am certain.

Being certain is no guarantee of anything.
People of those other religions you call ‘false’, are just as certain as you.

Religion deals indirectly with concepts of the Divine.
When direct experience comes, religious mythology is seen for what it is.

The Catholic Church is the same Church you “sampled”, as if only just one flavor from a buffet of arbitrary offerings. But you found it not to be to “your tastes” and so left it. Perhaps you will come back when you have cast off the fast-food of “me-ism” after you have matured and developed a taste for the truth…

James

When my serious spiritual quest began, I found that Catholicism was woefully inadequate. That’s not to say I disagree that people like Padre Pio didn’t manage to get somewhere spiritual within the context of the Catholic faith.

My personal spiritual quest is by no means of the ‘fast-food’ variety. Over the years, my taste for the truth has increased many-fold, and yet I’ve never acquired any more taste for Catholic mythology.

 

[GreenLantern]

This really just seems like a localized brand of Modernism, as opposed to it’s own distinctive heresy.

 

[CentralFLJames]

My personal spiritual quest is by no means of the ‘fast-food’ variety. Over the years, my taste for the truth has increased many-fold, and yet I’ve never acquired any more taste for Catholic mythology.

“Being certain [that a thing is mythology] is no guarantee of anything”.

I can point to a concrete visible Church that has existed and continuously taught the same faith from apostolic times - 2,000 years in fact. Since you have as you say “tasted” it - just what have you tasted that you cant point to as concrete evidence of mythology?

What do you go by? Is “the real thing” a sensual experience of some sort or are you just disappointed that you still sin and have no apparent good-works (fruits) as signal graces to give you a self-confidence that The Holy Spirit is alive in you?

You mention St. Padre Pio. Have you looked into the contemplative aspects of Catholic prayer life or monastic practices and specific religious spirituality that have produced so many Catholic Saints (Carmelite, Franciscan, Dominican etc.)? If not can you really say that you understand the deep dimensions of Catholic faith, disciplines and traditions? Have you ever heard of the Catholic spiritual process of theosis that flows out of the God’s infused divininizing grace that Catholics receive over their life as they cooperate with God’s grace? How can you bemoan Catholic mythology while acknowledging the reality of at least one if the many Catholic Saints? Have you fully cooperated with God’s grace and kept yourself in a high state of grace by going to regular confession and received The Eucharist? Did you really believe in real-presence? Where you baptised a Catholic and confirmed through the divine office of an apostolic bishop with a physical laying on of hands? How long did “you try” Catholicism?

St. Padre Pio didn’t “try” Catholicism. He committed his life to the faith and lived and died in the faith. One can’t “try” Catholicism - one must commit to it just as one must commit to Jesus since the two are inseparable.

James

 

[tomarin]

Tomarin didn’t mention a particular church document, I offered one definition, others offered different ones. If you really want to keep the thread on topic, let Tomarin define his term.

After having read “Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae” (thanks again Napad) I would define it as religious pluralism. But to be honest when I started this post I think I was thinking of “The Syllabus of Errors” (which I believe is a general condemnation of modernism, so related but separate).

I believe that as a result of Vatican II the Church officially altered its stance towards approval of religious pluralism – with the understanding that only the Church contains the fullness of the truth, of course.

 

[tomarin]

What are you talking about?

That’s a reference to “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” the Matthew Broderick movie.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I believe that as a result of Vatican II the Church officially altered its stance towards approval of religious pluralism – with the understanding that only the Church contains the fullness of the truth, of course.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from here. There are many Catholics who are very uncomfortable with The Church giving even a faint perception for anyone to think that The Church’s ecumenical outreach suggests that there is one iota of compromise in Catholic beliefs on the table. The Church’s participation in ecumenical efforts should be only as it has always been - to teach the faith and to correct misperceptions about what it is Catholics really believe and to use that venue purely as a means for evangelization and conversion to Catholicism. In other words Catholics should stand firm and signal that will certainly come to the table to teach and correct but no change to our teaching will ever be granted just to appeal to a least common denominator compromise to “get along with the heretics” or even to get greater numbers of converts.

So far the Catholic Church remains only as an observer member of the World Council of Churches (WCC). If The Church ever makes itself a formal member to become just another denomination among many we will know for certain that we have been successfully infiltrated at the highest levels of the episcopate.

James

 

[anon5216]

“Being certain [that a thing is mythology] is no guarantee of anything”.

I can point to a concrete visible Church that has existed and continuously taught the same faith from apostolic times - 2,000 years in fact. Since you have as you say “tasted” it - just what have you tasted that you cant point to as concrete evidence of mythology?

Hinduism is much older. So is Buddhism, etc., etc.
Rituals and incantations (of any religion) are mythology.
They may represent some Truth and may even lead to it indirectly, but they aren’t Truth itself.

What do you go by? Is “the real thing” a sensual experience of some sort or are you just disappointed that you still sin and have no apparent good-works (fruits) as signal graces to give you a self-confidence that The Holy Spirit is alive in you?

The “real thing” is beyond the 5 senses.
No longer being Catholic, I have a different sense for what in my consciousness still needs transformation.
I have had “fruits” of my spiritual practice that indicate I am on my correct path.

You mention St. Padre Pio. Have you looked into the contemplative aspects of Catholic prayer life or monastic practices and specific religious spirituality that have produced so many Catholic Saints (Carmelite, Franciscan, Dominican etc.)?

In the past, I’ve read the lives of several Catholic saints and been inspired by them.
I’ve also read the lives of many non-Christian saints and been inspired by them as well.

If not can you really say that you understand the deep dimensions of Catholic faith, disciplines and traditions?

Not being particularly drawn to the external form of Catholic spirituality, I can’t claim to be expert at all of the inner substance.
I have read things like “The Imitation of Christ” and “The Cloud of Unknowing”, etc.

Have you ever heard of the Catholic spiritual process of theosis that flows out of the God’s infused divininizing grace that Catholics receive over their life as they cooperate with God’s grace?

The word is new to me. Looking it up in wikipedia, the description parallels the spiritual process of other religions as well. In that sense, I can say the process is familiar to me.

How can you bemoan Catholic mythology while acknowledging the reality of at least one if the many Catholic Saints? Have you fully cooperated with God’s grace and kept yourself in a high state of grace by going to regular confession and received The Eucharist?

Every religion has mythology. You have to get beyond it in some measure to get to the spiritual substance.
While many of the saints did get beyond the mythology of the Catholic Church, the Church hierarchy itself places far to much emphasis on toeing the mythological line.

Did you really believe in real-presence?

No.

Where you baptised a Catholic and confirmed through the divine office of an apostolic bishop with a physical laying on of hands? How long did “you try” Catholicism?

Yes, I went through the mythological rituals and incantations while yet a minor in my parent’s household.
Other than reading the lives of the saints and books like those mentioned above, I did not follow Catholic rituals and incantations as an adult.

St. Padre Pio didn’t “try” Catholicism. He committed his life to the faith and lived and died in the faith. One can’t “try” Catholicism - one must commit to it just as one must commit to Jesus since the two are inseparable.

James

I agree that Padre Pio fully committed himself, and that to achieve spiritual results via any method requires a full 100% commitment. That was long since clear to me from reading the lives of many saints and teachers of many different spiritual traditions.

The bottom line is that following none of those traditions via external form of rituals and beliefs guaranteed anyone of actual spiritual results. The common thread of those who really accomplished something spiritually was no specific religion or path. All went beyond the external form in the substance of their spirituality, (even if they kept up appearances externally to stay within the particular religion they belonged to).

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

That’s a reference to “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” the Matthew Broderick movie.

This is a waste of a post, but “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” is still one of my favorite movies.

 

[tomarin]

This is a waste of a post, but “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” is still one of my favorite movies.

Weirdly enough, I’ve never seen it (although I think I was in high school when it came out, so target demographic notwithstanding); nevertheless I’ve heard these phrases so many times I feel like I’ve seen it.