Catholic vs Catholic "Extremists"?

[aspawloski4th]

Our attitudes are so different that they can not be reconciled. I do not accept in any way that an individual must “follow” the instructions of another, whatever name you give him. The idea that kids must be forced to attend Church and are under the control of their parents long beyond the time when they are independant thinkers is just so wrong to me. Following laws made by elected Governments is different. I cannot accept that following, without question, selected passages from writings made 2000 years ago by people without our modern knowledge can provide a suitable way to live. More especially when those words have been translated many times, and at times chosen to fit a pre-determined attitude. The Bible is NOT the word of God. It is a collection of words from many men, some political, most selective. Surely we need to use everything we now have available and to re-interpret the messages. The basic message of Jesus is a thoroughly good one. To love and help one another is a great way to organise society. What is wrong is the importance placed upon the ritual, organisation and various instructions given by those who feel only they have the truth. To elevate these to the point where the basic message is obscured is crazy. When I visited the Church of the Holy Sepulcar in Jerusalem I was appalled by the nuns there, pushing and shoving non catholics away from the “rock”. What impressed me was the Coptic church. Very simple, unadorned by any decoration and direct to the message. In it’s understated way it ministered to the poor and needy and seemed much more like Jesus than any other version of Christianity present in that Church. It did not surprise me to learn that it is actually the “local” church, with a direct route back to the time of Jesus, and not distorted by those who took the word elsewhere and then made it fit the conditions they encountered.
So to many you do appear “extreme”, you certainly do to me!
Of course you should vote according to your own views, that’s your right. However you should also respect the views of the majority. It would also be nice to hear just a little humilty and an acceptance that maybe some others might sometimes be right, and you wrong. There are always three versions of a fact. Your opinion, my opinion and the actual truth. Rarely will either of the first two match the latter, although I doubt very much whether you will ever accept that, for as Catholics you so often claim to be the ONLY people who know the truth.

as a Catholic I accept our country is not a democracy, it;s a republic. We don’t have mob rule here. Each indivdual or group is supposed to have equil protection under the law. If 80% of everyone wanted to outlaw Catrholicism here it still would be illegal and unconstitutional to do so. I’d just like to know how are Catholics imposing their views on everyoe else? It seems more like to me most Catholics got scared and let their views be imposed upon.

 

[RobbyS]

First, I’d say that you should definitely take it as a compliment. It is no doubt that the apostles and early church fathers were “extremists” as well. You would have to be to die for your faith as they did.

That person’s actions do not jive with his claims of being a “good Catholic” (Biden and Pelosi make the same claim). It takes more than going to church on Sunday and part of this includes obeying the church and the pope. He has a major problem with that.

The truth of the matter is that he seems to be living in this world. The world has “progressed” and he obviously believes that the church should “progress” with it, even if it means throwing out eternal truths. I’ll stick with the eternal truths, thank you. As the great Archbishop Fulton Sheen (let’s make him a Saint already!) said: “The church is not there to be right when the world is right, it is there to be right when the world is wrong.”

One more quick point. Anyone that says we are trying to stop free speech by not having Obama speak at ND is near delusion. Just as an atheist is not resisting free speech by not having the pope speak in his private home, ND would not be preventing free speech by excluding an abortion supporter from speaking at its private school and receiving an honorary degree to boot! Adding to this ridiculousness is the implication that Obama will not be getting his message out if he cannot speak at ND. I, for one, has heard his message loud and clear.

I get the impression that many liberal Catholics are positivists: they retain the forms of Catholicism but put littlestock in its “mythology.” Religion of any sort represents a world view that is outmoded. We need to rethink the creeds and treat they as they are, which is outmoded way of expressing the basic views of Christianity. They are postively embarrased by popular devotions. Moral objections to contraception and abortion, or gay marriage are dismissed as unrealistic.

 

[edwest2]

All Catholics should not seek the approval of the world for what we believe. We should understand why people don’t think we are right or why people think we are somehow ‘outmoded.’

Everyone needs to examine where their worldview comes from. Our worldview does come from God. The nuns, priests, other religious, and the neighbors I had growing up, would not harm a fly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mapleoak]

I cannot accept that following, without question, selected passages from writings made 2000 years ago by people without our modern knowledge can provide a suitable way to live.

The fact that something was writtern 2000 years ago makes it wrong? The fact that a modern computer wasn’t use to type it makes it wrong?

More especially when those words have been translated many times, and at times chosen to fit a pre-determined attitude.

A specific example of this?

The Bible is NOT the word of God.

Yes it is.

It is a collection of words from many men, some political, most selective.

Written by man, inspired by God.

Surely we need to use everything we now have available and to re-interpret the messages.

We have now, as we have had for the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church which is our interpreter. The Church is unchanging. Irregardless if we now have tractors and airplanes, the way of salvation and perfection remains the Cross of Christ and His Church.

The basic message of Jesus is a thoroughly good one. To love and help one another is a great way to organise society.

That is not the basic message of Jesus. There is a bit more to it than that.

What is wrong is the importance placed upon the ritual, organisation and various instructions given by those who feel only they have the truth.

Why are you concerned if the Church has rituals and hierarchy? If you don’t agree with the Church, what does it matter to you what traditions the Church values or its call of obedience upon its members.

Of course you should vote according to your own views, that’s your right. However you should also respect the views of the majority.

This is like a square circle. Vote in line with Catholic Church, however just make sure it doesn’t contradict the wishes of mob rule.

It would also be nice to hear just a little humilty and an acceptance that maybe some others might sometimes be right, and you wrong.

When the Church defines something as wrong, for instance that abortion is an intrinsic evil, we are to instruct those ignorant of the truth in what the truth is. We share in the responsibility of the errors of others, if we allow them to persist in error without correction. If they choose to persist in error after adequately instructing them in truth, it is then their persistance in choosing to defy the Church.

There are always three versions of a fact. Your opinion, my opinion and the actual truth.

And we can look to the Church to give us the Truth. It is there for those who seek it.

Rarely will either of the first two match the latter, although I doubt very much whether you will ever accept that, for as Catholics you so often claim to be the ONLY people who know the truth.

No, the Catholic Church does not claim to be the only institution with the Truth. It is however the only institution that has the fullness of the Truth. Others may share in some truth. Anything they offer which is not the truth of couse, is wrong. Truth is the same for you as it is for me.

 

[Trader]

A man who hates his brother is already a murderer.

The man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

Love one another as I have loved you.

It’s all extreme. The problem is lukewarmness, not extremeism.

 

[edwest2]

And indifference. The constant What’s the big deal? about sin? Who cares? Why should you care? I’m OK, you’re OK.

We should be at peace with all men but when other people post on this forum and suggest everyone has answers, it has to be said that not all of those answers are equal or even true. The rise of internet opinion culture has created vaguenes, Catholics need to tell others about the truth clearly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tigg]

Our attitudes are so different that they can not be reconciled. I do not accept in any way that an individual must “follow” the instructions of another, whatever name you give him. The idea that kids must be forced to attend Church and are under the control of their parents long beyond the time when they are independant thinkers is just so wrong to me. Following laws made by elected Governments is different. I cannot accept that following, without question, selected passages from writings made 2000 years ago by people without our modern knowledge can provide a suitable way to live. More especially when those words have been translated many times, and at times chosen to fit a pre-determined attitude. The Bible is NOT the word of God. It is a collection of words from many men, some political, most selective. **Surely we need to use everything we now have available and to re-interpret the messages. **The basic message of Jesus is a thoroughly good one. To love and help one another is a great way to organise society. What is wrong is the importance placed upon the ritual, organisation and various instructions given by those who feel only they have the truth. To elevate these to the point where the basic message is obscured is crazy.

So to many you do appear “extreme”, you certainly do to me!

Of course you should vote according to your own views, that’s your right. However you should also respect the views of the majority. It would also be nice to hear just a little humilty and an acceptance that maybe some others might sometimes be right, and you wrong. There are always three versions of a fact. Your opinion, my opinion and the actual truth. Rarely will either of the first two match the latter, although I doubt very much whether you will ever accept that, for as Catholics you so often claim to be the ONLY people who know the truth.

The most basic question ever asked by anyone is “Why was I made?” It is also the very first question answered in the catechism. “God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven. We gain the happiness of heaven by knowing, loving and serving God in this world.” This is the very crux of the matter and very simply put, we are not on this earth for any other reason. An omnipotent God created us for eternity; we belong to Him (with the submission of our free will.) The service of God is the daily living of our lives by following the instruction He ordained while on this earth through the Institution of His Church. It is a life-long process with varying degrees of how closely each individual will “walk the walk.” This is truth whether or not you accept or reject it. Extremist? I would say a more accurate description would be singular.

And part of the instruction as required by our God is to educate our children in the faith. Yes, it all comes down to that one word, **faith **– a gift freely given by God (for He desires all be saved) that priceless gift that cannot be understood by anyone who does not desire to possess it.

And you see, the reality for those who truly believe and follow the Statutes of Chirst is that we have come to know there really can be no other choice for us. We do not listen to the voice of the world when we have fully formed consciences; our very goal is only to hear the voice of the Shepherd. And that Shepherd is changeless – He has already revealed all His timeless Truths. There is no need to re-interpret anything.

 

[KC91]

I am extreme… in everything

 

[Contarini]

I am truly surprised that you have not stumbled upon such language before, as it is nothing new; Fr Raymond E. Brown, for instance, was wont to refer to orthodox Catholics as “ultra-right”, “fundamentalist”, “ultra-conservative”, “right-wing vigilantes” and “extremists”.

And conservative (self-proclaimed “orthodox”) Catholics call him a liberal heretic, in spite of the fact that he was never condemned as such and was repeatedly honored by the Popes as a Catholic scholar.

Name-calling abounds on both sides.

Edwin

 

[Ronald_E]

And conservative (self-proclaimed “orthodox”) Catholics call him a liberal heretic, in spite of the fact that he was never condemned as such and was repeatedly honored by the Popes as a Catholic scholar.

Name-calling abounds on both sides.

Edwin

Thank you Edwin for bringing reality into this. I have wondered how leaders of my faith could immediately call this event with ND and Obama a scandal. It seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction based on a materialistic view of my faith and God.
I returned to Catholicism after 40 years away right in the middle of a real evil being committed by priests against innocent children. I only came due to God’s Grace and not someone telling me that I am wrong for not being in the Catholic faith. I wasn’t aware of this forum at that time and consequently I do not know the intensity of the response.
The pedophiles who were impersonating priests were hidden by higher authorities. That was beyond a scandal.
Why hasn’t anyone considered that God cannot be found protesting and evangalization is not protest. Why hasn’t anyone considered that this may be exactly what God wants to happen? The unborn, God and the Church do not need protest they need sacrifice.
Graduation is a human event to give reward for human effort. What if God wants us to see that this human event is meaningless and that He has another purpose for this event? Would anyone be willing to explore that?
If those who are against Obama coming to ND are really concerned about the “scandal” of this event then they might be interested in how non-believers feel about staging a protest.
Protesting appears weak and gives the impression of a shallow martyrdom that influences those we want to convert to dismiss us. That is what the secular really think.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you Edwin for bringing reality into this. I have wondered how leaders of my faith could immediately call this event with ND and Obama a scandal. It seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction based on a materialistic view of my faith and God.

Don’t thank me too soon. I don’t get your point about a “materialistic view,” and I have not heard leaders of Catholicism calling Obama’s invitation a scandal. Bishop D’Arcy’s letter was dignified, respectful, and well-reasoned. Do not confuse his stance or that of other bishops of your Church with the rantings that you see on this forum. The folks here are not leaders of Catholicism. They are devout conservative Catholics who are trying to take back their Church from what they perceive as a liberal infestation. Their opinions are their own, although they would like you to think that they are simply expressing orthodox Catholicism.

I support Bishop D’Arcy’s refusal to attend the ceremony, and I would have been happy if Notre Dame had not invited Obama. In fact, I would be happy if they would make a practice of inviting people who really need the recognition instead of making a point of inviting the most powerful man on earth in order to obtain worldly honor for themselves.

Why hasn’t anyone considered that this may be exactly what God wants to happen? The unborn, God and the Church do not need protest they need sacrifice.

That’s an interesting point. I am not sure that the two are always mutually opposed.

Graduation is a human event to give reward for human effort. What if God wants us to see that this human event is meaningless and that He has another purpose for this event? Would anyone be willing to explore that?

I don’t think you will generally find your fellow Catholics willing to consider human events meaningless. At least I would hope not. I don’t think that’s good theology. And in this case we are talking about a graduation ceremony at a Catholic institution, where everything is supposed to be done for God’s glory. This is not spiritually meaningless, and there is a problem with giving such a prominent role at such a ceremony to someone who so basically rejects orthodox Christian moral teaching.

If those who are against Obama coming to ND are really concerned about the “scandal” of this event then they might be interested in how non-believers feel about staging a protest.
Protesting appears weak and gives the impression of a shallow martyrdom that influences those we want to convert to dismiss us. That is what the secular really think.

From a pragmatic point of view, that’s an excellent point, and one that indeed I wish more folks on here would consider. Unfortunately, our culture is becoming more and more polarized, so that people in both “liberal” and “conservative” camps don’t really care what the “others” think–they protest and shout and argue more to rally the faithful and prove their loyalty to the cause than to convince those who differ.

Edwin

 

[Ronald_E]

Don’t thank me too soon. I don’t get your point about a “materialistic view,” and I have not heard leaders of Catholicism calling Obama’s invitation a scandal. Bishop D’Arcy’s letter was dignified, respectful, and well-reasoned. Do not confuse his stance or that of other bishops of your Church with the rantings that you see on this forum. The folks here are not leaders of Catholicism. They are devout conservative Catholics who are trying to take back their Church from what they perceive as a liberal infestation. Their opinions are their own, although they would like you to think that they are simply expressing orthodox Catholicism.

I did not thank you too soon. I know you will challenge my position without attacking me. I was referring to EWTN personalities that present the faith to a whole lot of people.

I support Bishop D’Arcy’s refusal to attend the ceremony, and I would have been happy if Notre Dame had not invited Obama. In fact, I would be happy if they would make a practice of inviting people who really need the recognition instead of making a point of inviting the most powerful man on earth in order to obtain worldly honor for themselves.

I think the Bishop needs to be at the ceremony. I think someone else is going to be there and I do not know her name at this time. That is a shame because she does represent and speak for the sanctity of life and if I am correct she will follow Obama.
Regardless of their motivation to invite him, I view this as opportunity and we should welcome opportunity.

I don’t think you will generally find your fellow Catholics willing to consider human events meaningless. At least I would hope not. I don’t think that’s good theology. And in this case we are talking about a graduation ceremony at a Catholic institution, where everything is supposed to be done for God’s glory. This is not spiritually meaningless, and there is a problem with giving such a prominent role at such a ceremony to someone who so basically rejects orthodox Christian moral teaching.

I think with Obama there it has an even deeper spiritual meaning. I do not know if he rejects instead he has not been graced to know it. Could this be an opportunity for that Grace?

From a pragmatic point of view, that’s an excellent point, and one that indeed I wish more folks on here would consider. Unfortunately, our culture is becoming more and more polarized, so that people in both “liberal” and “conservative” camps don’t really care what the “others” think–they protest and shout and argue more to rally the faithful and prove their loyalty to the cause than to convince those who differ.

Edwin

Thank you Edwin for your considerate thoughts.

 

[Ronald_E]

Don’t thank me too soon. I don’t get your point about a “materialistic view,”

By materialistic I mean classical Newtonian physics in which there is an observable cause and effect. In this case what is most easily observable is taken as reality and truth.
Obama is pro-abortion/choice=intrinsic evil=ND is honoring someone who supports intrinsic evil. That is very obvious and logical.
This materialistic perspective then promotes a materialistic response of outrage and the resulting response of a power struggle of us against them. This is all too obvious but it is also very divisive and does nothing to deepen our understanding of faith and God.
I must keep this short for now because I have to return to work.

 

[magdelaine]

By materialistic I mean classical Newtonian physics in which there is an observable cause and effect. In this case what is most easily observable is taken as reality and truth.
Obama is pro-abortion/choice=intrinsic evil=ND is honoring someone who supports intrinsic evil. That is very obvious and logical.
This materialistic perspective then promotes a materialistic response of outrage and the resulting response of a power struggle of us against them. This is all too obvious but it is also very divisive and does nothing to deepen our understanding of faith and God.
I must keep this short for now because I have to return to work.

Hi Ronald! I personally am with the “materialistic” Jesus who threw the money changers out of the temple. I think you misunderestimate the impact of “scandal” upon the Church. Jesus did not preach a sermon against this practice, implore people to not use the money changers or engage in other, non-confrontational actions - he threw the bums out! Yes, feathers were ruffled. Yes, it created division…after all, the temple was getting kick backs from all those money changers. How dare Jesus upset the status quo? And yet, that’s what he did.

Faithful Catholics who are upset over the scandal of a *Catholic *institution conferring upon Obama *honors *are simply following in Christ’s footsteps when they protest. Sometimes, it’s **neccessary **to “throw the bums out”.

 

[RobbyS]

I am not a catholic but I am married to one, know many and live half my life in a country where it is the established religion, so feel qualified to give an opinion on why you may be regarded as “extremist”.
By any comparison the views expressed in these forums are at the extreme end of the range of opinions found in most societies. That does not make them wrong of course. I happen to feel they are wrong, but that you are entitled to hold them. What distresses me is your determination to try to force these opinions on others and to influence public policy. For me religion is personal and should be kept so. No religion should seek political influence and if they do run the risk of being labelled “extremist” if the views advanced do not fit the mainstream.

Why should not people of religion “force their opinions” on other by means of law, if they are in the majority? Other voluntary associations such as Planned Parenthood certainly do. Why shoudl religious opinion be “personal” when opinions about other things are considered “public.”?

 

[fix]

Why hasn’t anyone considered that God cannot be found protesting and evangalization is not protest. Why hasn’t anyone considered that this may be exactly what God wants to happen? The unborn, God and the Church do not need protest they need sacrifice.
Graduation is a human event to give reward for human effort. What if God wants us to see that this human event is meaningless and that He has another purpose for this event? Would anyone be willing to explore that?
If those who are against Obama coming to ND are really concerned about the “scandal” of this event then they might be interested in how non-believers feel about staging a protest.
Protesting appears weak and gives the impression of a shallow martyrdom that influences those we want to convert to dismiss us. That is what the secular really think.

You can’t muffle the truth because some claim a false impression. What about the people who see it and they begin to understand the gravity of the issue?

 

[fix]

As Jesus Christ spoke to the learned teachers of His time who did not accept part of what He had to say, He remarked, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” John 3:12

The non-Catholic world feels that by constantly searching, some sort of truth will be found. But the Bible speaks of two truths, one literal and historic and one spiritual, about a God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and who interacted directly with His people.

God does not force us to love Him. Do you think you could force someone to love you? That is the heart of it. Jesus said, “If you love me keep my commandments.” The Catholic Church has a physical reality and an unfolding spiritual reality.

Relativism says there are many answers, or, the nihilistic, “I could be wrong.” Is that how anyone should think? Especially someone who has been given the truth by God? I don’t think so. The internet has helped to create an opinion culture. This is bad. There should be the right answers and the wrong answers – all we should do is choose to live according to the right answers. Period. End of story.

Jesus spoke of the pearl of great price and how a man sold all he had to obtain it. This is what Catholics have. It’s unfortunate that some think that by man’s wisdom this pearl will be found. But the Bible tells us men did look but did not find it through their wisdom.

Too many are caught up in modernism. But ask yourself, did knowledge or wisdom or enlightenment pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century? The answer is no. But the media fills our heads with these images and ideas of the future or exalts men, who will die. Our lives are much more than this brief appearance on earth.

Peace,
Ed

You are very right. Searching for the truth is accepted by the enlightened. The problem is if one finds the Truth then one is called an extremist.

 

[Ronald_E]

Hi Ronald! I personally am with the “materialistic” Jesus who threw the money changers out of the temple. I think you misunderestimate the impact of “scandal” upon the Church. Jesus did not preach a sermon against this practice, implore people to not use the money changers or engage in other, non-confrontational actions - he threw the bums out! Yes, feathers were ruffled. Yes, it created division…after all, the temple was getting kick backs from all those money changers. How dare Jesus upset the status quo? And yet, that’s what he did.

Faithful Catholics who are upset over the scandal of a *Catholic *institution conferring upon Obama *honors *are simply following in Christ’s footsteps when they protest. Sometimes, it’s **neccessary **to “throw the bums out”.

I am sorry you do not see nor understand what I have been shown. Christ on the Cross and the Rosary are what form my thoughts that I do not actively formulate. They are not my thoughts. I do not try to think of them.
You cannot see that the Church really cannot be hurt. However, you act like the Church is being hurt because you think the Church is being hurt.
The Church is hurt when you think and act like the Church is being hurt. The Church is timeless and you are putting it into a finite image of your making.
Christ was not hurt on the Cross. The suffering you see is the human perspective. He was not hurt. He permitted everything to happen to Him. He is teaching us to go beyond our human senses and meet with Him where He is now. Somehow you want to do it your way. Everything He did had a purpose and it wasn’t to throw the bums out. It was to show you that you can act this way and it will get you nowhere with anyone’s conversion. Actually, it might drive them to persecute you even more but you will not convert anybody.

 

[magdelaine]

You cannot see that the Church really cannot be hurt. However, you act like the Church is being hurt because you think the Church is being hurt.
The Church is hurt when you think and act like the Church is being hurt. The Church is timeless and you are putting it into a finite image of your making.

Do you believe in Hell, Ronald? I’m not thinking of the Universal Church, no. I believe Christ when he says “the gates of hell” will not prevail against it. I’m thinking of the innocent lives lost to abortion; I’m thinking of the souls of those who do not stand up to defend God’s innocents spending an eternity in Hell because they were led astray by false teachings.

Christ was not hurt on the Cross.

But souls do go to Hell.

The suffering you see is the human perspective. He was not hurt. He permitted everything to happen to Him. He is teaching us to go beyond our human senses and meet with Him where He is now. Somehow you want to do it your way. Everything He did had a purpose and it wasn’t to throw the bums out. It was to show you that you can act this way and it will get you nowhere with anyone’s conversion. Actually, it might drive them to persecute you even more but you will not convert anybody.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Your understanding of what it means to be Christian in this world is anemic.

 

[Ronald_E]

Do you believe in Hell, Ronald? I’m not thinking of the Universal Church, no. I believe Christ when he says “the gates of hell” will not prevail against it. I’m thinking of the innocent lives lost to abortion; I’m thinking of the souls of those who do not stand up to defend God’s innocents spending an eternity in Hell because they were led astray by false teachings.
But souls do go to Hell. I respectfully disagree with you here. Your understanding of what it means to be Christian in this world is anemic.

I guess you think you know me and my relationship with God. If that is the case you will not understand because of your prejudice. You have no idea how deeply I feel about abortion, yet, you think you do. You have no idea how deeply I am connected to the suffering of those inside and outside the womb who are suffering, yet you think you know me. That is the expression of materialistic and relativistic faith in your quote. You cannot see that the disposition of those who stand up and the way in which they stand will determine the response.
You seem to want to just scream and yell that abortion is wrong and the president supports abortion. What kind of strategy is that except a strategy that is indulging in the expression of anger without any intelligent thought about consequences.
You do not respectfully disagree because you call my understanding of what it means to be Christian in this world as anemic. That is not respect. That is disrespect and prejudiced.