Confused, and I guess I am not a real Catholic..

[MarieaGrace]

Thanx. Interesting though in that case how the Vatican can define puberty as not having begun yet in any 14 yr olds and adulthood at 15.

lease if you were to read it then you would see that it is just what i thought he said that it was ok to view if the child is 14 and over. This should never be allowed and if he said it’s ok he is breaking our laws in this country even if his country it is different.I am confused still, and don’t like the sound of it.Most men are going to be dong this now thinking the Pope said it was ok. Do you know what i am saying? puberty is one thing but adulthood really is when you are ready not your age.Children should be in school and learning and not at the abortion mills and having babies because in this country you cannot work etc. If at puberty you are of age then they all should be able to drink, smoke, quit school, have children, see rated x movies, drive cars all the time, Go to bars, dance naked . can you see what it leads to? they can even be in a playboy magazine etc.These rules are contrary to our rules in this country and should be in he churches all over.

 

[jmcrae]

If you are sayng only unless harm would be done, one must otherwise indoctrinate the mind and conscience against its free judgement.

I don’t know what the basis for your conscience is, but the basis for mine is, 1. Does it do harm? 2. If it does no harm, what does the Church teach about it? 3. If the Church makes no ruling on it, would it be edifying to others, or would it cause a stumbling block to them?

Then in a nearly robotically manner, act against it and condemn oneself as a result (according to CCC 1782/1790), that is an opinion of which I do not share.

Going against your personal opinions or your private judgement has nothing to do with your conscience, and nor would it cause you to become a robot. There are often times when we have to go in a way that we don’t happen to like - it’s part of the discipline that life gives us, to teach us to put others ahead of ourselves, and, far from becoming a robot, you would become a very pleasant person to be around - generous, kind, and pleasant to speak with.

 

[CMatt25]

lease if you were to read it then you would see that it is just what i thought he said that it was ok to view if the child is 14 and over. This should never be allowed and if he said it’s ok he is breaking our laws in this country even if his country it is different.I am confused still, and don’t like the sound of it.Most men are going to be dong this now thinking the Pope said it was ok. Do you know what i am saying? puberty is one thing but adulthood really is when you are ready not your age.Children should be in school and learning and not at the abortion mills and having babies because in this country you cannot work etc. If at puberty you are of age then they all should be able to drink, smoke, quit school, have children, see rated x movies, drive cars all the time, Go to bars, dance naked . can you see what it leads to? they can even be in a playboy magazine etc.These rules are contrary to our rules in this country and should be in he churches all over.

Hi MarieaGrace, I understand you were just stating what you thought Benedict’s message was saying. I won’t go as far to say most men are now going to do this because they think the Pope said it’s ok. But I most certainly echo your concerns about the sound of it based on what I just read in America, a national Catholic weekly magazine. (Probably not a favorite magazine of many here on CAF because of it’s Jesuit ties but it was one of the first items popping up in my google search about the Pope’s message.) Anyway if he means a priest will be defrocked if caught with porn of children under age 14 but not if the porn is of someone 15 to 18, then I have concerns about such a policy as well.

Peace and may God continue to bless you always on your walk with Him.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t know what the basis for your conscience is, but the basis for mine is, 1. Does it do harm? 2. If it does no harm, what does the Church teach about it? 3. If the Church makes no ruling on it, would it be edifying to others, or would it cause a stumbling block to them?

Going against your personal opinions or your private judgement has nothing to do with your conscience, and nor would it cause you to become a robot. There are often times when we have to go in a way that we don’t happen to like - it’s part of the discipline that life gives us, to teach us to put others ahead of ourselves, and, far from becoming a robot, you would become a very pleasant person to be around - generous, kind, and pleasant to speak with.

The basis for my conscience includes the 3 parts of your basis but does not stop there.

Once I determine any potential harm or lack thereof and inform my conscience of what the Church teaches or does not teach about something, and the effect on others, I then study, use my own God given brain in which to think and reason with, contemplate and pray.

Contemplate and pray some more.

And then do lots and lots and lots of further praying.

It is not something I take at all lightly and it is not until I have done all of these things in multiplication that my conscience is eventually formed on something.

You can call it what you want. But it is no more a personal opinion nor a private judgment than your faith beliefs are. Nor does it necssarily make one less pleasant, kind or generous than someone who assents to all Catholic teaching and thought. But I trust you were not implying such was the case. In any case it is my conscience as I believe the Holy Spirit is leading me. Of which I must be free to form and must not disobey or else condemn myself.

I hope this helps you understand my basis, Jmcrare, and God bless you always in your lifelong journey of faith with Him and in the discernment of His Holy Spirit.

If we open our hearts and minds to God’s Sprirt, He will let us know where He wants us to be.

As we all walk together united :grouphug: in the One most important of all, Whom is far greater than any differences any of us may have… Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

The basis for my conscience includes the 3 parts of your basis but does not stop there.

Once I determine any potential harm or lack thereof and inform my conscience of what the Church teaches or does not teach about something, and the effect on others, I then study, use my own God given brain in which to think and reason with, contemplate and pray.

Contemplate and pray some more.

And then do lots and lots and lots of further praying.

It is not something I take at all lightly and it is not until I have done all of these things in multiplication that my conscience is eventually formed on something.

You can call it what you want. But it is no more a personal opinion nor a private judgment than your faith beliefs are. Nor does it necssarily make one less pleasant, kind or generous than someone who assents to all Catholic teaching and thought. But I trust you were not implying such was the case. In any case it is my conscience as I believe the Holy Spirit is leading me. Of which I must be free to form and must not disobey or else condemn myself.

I hope this helps you understand my basis, Jmcrare, and God bless you always in your lifelong journey of faith with Him and in the discernment of His Holy Spirit.

If we open our hearts and minds to God’s Sprirt, He will let us know where He wants us to be.

As we all walk together united :grouphug: in the One most important of all, Whom is far greater than any differences any of us may have… Peace.

I think it’s good to contemplate and pray. However, for the sake of your Final Judgement, it would be essential to keep all of your contemplations within the realm of conscience, so as to avoid any dangers of following your own intellect, or your own judgement, or your own emotional response or sense of pride. Be certain that what you are following is, indeed, from outside of yourself, and not from anything within yourself, lest at the Final Judgement, instead of meeting Jesus, you are simply handed a mirror, and then told to look upon your god.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have often heard the point made, and think there’s some truth to it, that we all follow our own judgment and intellect when we succumb to the papacy. We have to first decide intellectually that the Church is what it says it is. We have to analyze it, study it, and make a judgment call. We use our own reasoning and perceptions of truth and history, theology, etc. to submit and say, “the pope is infallible, I will follow his teachings.” So in some way, one way or another, we are following our own intellects and rationale and an emotional response in choosing Catholicism. We might change our opinions, for example, going from being pro-choice to pro-life because the pope tells us the importance of the life issue, but initially we had to choose intellectually to follow the pope in the first place to allow him to inform our intellect. Am I making sense here?

I think it’s good to contemplate and pray. However, for the sake of your Final Judgement, it would be essential to keep all of your contemplations within the realm of conscience, so as to avoid any dangers of following your own intellect, or your own judgement, or your own emotional response or sense of pride. Be certain that what you are following is, indeed, from outside of yourself, and not from anything within yourself, lest at the Final Judgement, instead of meeting Jesus, you are simply handed a mirror, and then told to look upon your god.

 

[CMatt25]

I have often heard the point made, and think there’s some truth to it, that we all follow our own judgment and intellect when we succumb to the papacy. We have to first decide intellectually that the Church is what it says it is. We have to analyze it, study it, and make a judgment call. We use our own reasoning and perceptions of truth and history, theology, etc. to submit and say, “the pope is infallible, I will follow his teachings.” So in some way, one way or another, we are following our own intellects and rationale and an emotional response in choosing Catholicism. We might change our opinions, for example, going from being pro-choice to pro-life because the pope tells us the importance of the life issue, but initially we had to choose intellectually to follow the pope in the first place to allow him to inform our intellect. Am I making sense here?

Yes more or less. Gurney, you know you always make at least some sense.

Initially we must indeed place our faith in our study, reasoning, analysis, and personal judgement calls. Always in mind we walk by faith not by sight. I would though as such just offer some caution in any of us being so presumptous to think we for certain have every “i” dotted and “t” crossed correctly in all matters of faith. And that includes if we choose to follow and believe what another human being indoctrinates our minds and consciences with.

Peace.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes more or less. Gurney, you know you always make at least some sense.

Initially we must indeed place our faith in our study, reasoning, analysis, and personal judgement calls. Always in mind we walk by faith not by sight. I would though as such just offer some caution in any of us being so presumptous to think we for certain have every “i” dotted and “t” crossed correctly in all matters of faith. And that includes if we choose to follow and believe what another human being indoctrinates our minds and consciences with.

Peace.

Um, what about what Jesus teaches us, and the Holy Spirit has guaranteed is truth? The fact that a human being ‘speaks’ the guaranteed truth of what Jesus has revealed doesn’t mean that this comes ‘from the human’.

And ‘indoctrinates’, sheesh, nothing biased about the use of that word as opposed to ‘taught’ now is there?

Matt, you’re twisting in the wind here, blown first in one direction and then another because you will not ‘cling’ to any foundation. You think there is no way that the foundation could not be ‘corrupted’. You think the only way to be free is to reject any possibility of absolute truth in the Church (or any other church) and to accept or reject whatever you find anywhere that you --you!–judge is ‘right’ according to your limited, finite, human conscience which is not necessarily formed correctly, no matter how ‘sincerely’ you think you have ‘formed it.’ (I’d be a little more likely to think that you WERE sincere in your searching if it weren’t for the fact that you use such highly colored and biased language about the things you reject. Just my opinion though.)

 

[jmcrae]

I have often heard the point made, and think there’s some truth to it, that we all follow our own judgment and intellect when we succumb to the papacy.

There is a difference, I think, between analyzing various different outside sources of information on the basis of their own merits, and making a decision that “I don’t like being told what to do” and rejecting the Papacy entirely out of hand based on that - or, choosing the Papacy based upon, “Well, I’m feeling insecure, and I feel the need of someone to tell me what to do, and the Papacy is as good as anything else.” That would also be a flimsy basis for faith.

Can you see the difference between seeing that the Papacy was established by Christ in the Scriptures, and noticing that it carries on through every generation since - and basing a decision to follow it on that outside information - or basing the decision on interior judgements - “I want” - “I like” - “I think” - etc.

We have to first decide intellectually that the Church is what it says it is.

Yes, but we also have to do this based on outside information - history, Scripture, and tradition. Not based on our interior judgements of “I think” and “I like” etc.

We have to analyze it, study it, and make a judgment call. We use our own reasoning and perceptions of truth and history, theology, etc. to submit and say, “the pope is infallible, I will follow his teachings.”

Well, hopefully we’re using the process of logic that we learned in school (again, an outside source of information not based on personal judgement), of first collecting the data, then compiling it, and then analyzing it, without prejudging the outcome.

 

[CMatt25]

Um, what about what Jesus teaches us, and the Holy Spirit has guaranteed is truth? The fact that a human being ‘speaks’ the guaranteed truth of what Jesus has revealed doesn’t mean that this comes ‘from the human’.

And ‘indoctrinates’, sheesh, nothing biased about the use of that word as opposed to ‘taught’ now is there?

Matt, you’re twisting in the wind here, blown first in one direction and then another because you will not ‘cling’ to any foundation. You think there is no way that the foundation could not be ‘corrupted’. You think the only way to be free is to reject any possibility of absolute truth in the Church (or any other church) and to accept or reject whatever you find anywhere that you --you!–judge is ‘right’ according to your limited, finite, human conscience which is not necessarily formed correctly, no matter how ‘sincerely’ you think you have ‘formed it.’ (I’d be a little more likely to think that you WERE sincere in your searching if it weren’t for the fact that you use such highly colored and biased language about the things you reject. Just my opinion though.)

Others besides Catholics believe they are taught correctly by their leaders who they believe speak the truth as well.

And I don’t blow around in the wind when I have Jesus to cling to. I cling to my faith in Him and those things He clearly taught. Love. Peace. Concern for the poor, the homeless, the sick. I do not think He is corrupted. And neither do I judge myself right on everything any more tha I judge you right on everything. So I truly have no idea what you are talking about in insinuating that I do. But God bless you and peace.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Others besides Catholics believe they are taught correctly by their leaders who they believe speak the truth as well.

And I don’t blow around in the wind when I have Jesus to cling to. I cling to my faith in Him and those things He clearly taught. Love. Peace. Concern for the poor, the homeless, the sick. I do not think He is corrupted. And neither do I judge myself right on everything any more tha I judge you right on everything. So I truly have no idea what you are talking about in insinuating that I do. But God bless you and peace.

If Jesus taught more than what you think he ‘clearly’ taught (and He assuredly did, otherwise you would not find some things ‘unclear’, and you are ONLY following what you find ‘clear’, you are not completely following Jesus. And even what you ‘think’ is clear, if it contradicts Catholic teachings as at least SOME of what you claim is ‘clearly taught according to you and your conscience’, then even the incomplete teachings you follow aren’t being followed correctly.

I’m not judging you. . .but Jesus never said that we could not judge actions as right or wrong; in fact He encouraged it. Why would He have asked His disciples to preach His teachings if the average pagan or Jew was following his conscience and thus was pretty much doing all the ‘love, peace and justice’ (certainly the Jewish people are pretty solid in teaching that, and as far as those, the Greeks and Romans, Buddists, and even the Muslims are all for ‘love, peace and justice’ but their ideas don’t necessarily contain all the truth of those concepts. )

So if we can just bumble along secure in doing what our ‘conscience’ teaches, and not requiring any more of any one else, why did Jesus want His gospel spread? There must be ‘more’ to it than peace, love and justice and helping the poor etc. because you know, those have all been ‘written on the human heart’ and to an extent practiced (in a limited way) by all peoples. . .

Do you think Jesus’s teachings are limited only to the above? What makes Him more than other ‘teachers’ and wise people teaching the same stuff about Love your Neighbor, strive for peace, work for justice and help the poor?

 

[jmcrae]

Others besides Catholics believe they are taught correctly by their leaders who they believe speak the truth as well.

And I don’t blow around in the wind when I have Jesus to cling to. I cling to my faith in Him and those things He clearly taught. Love. Peace. Concern for the poor, the homeless, the sick.

He also very clearly taught that the office of Peter (also called the Papacy) was the foundation of His Church.

If you put all of your trust in Jesus, then you must trust Him on this, as well. We cannot pick and choose from the teachings of Jesus, as if from a buffet, choosing only those things that seem sweet and pleasant, while rejecting the things that are more difficult.

 

[CMatt25]

There is a difference, I think, between analyzing various different outside sources of information on the basis of their own merits, and making a decision that “I don’t like being told what to do” and rejecting the Papacy entirely out of hand based on that - or, choosing the Papacy based upon, “Well, I’m feeling insecure, and I feel the need of someone to tell me what to do, and the Papacy is as good as anything else.” That would also be a flimsy basis for faith.

Can you see the difference between seeing that the Papacy was established by Christ in the Scriptures, and noticing that it carries on through every generation since - and basing a decision to follow it on that outside information - or basing the decision on interior judgements - “I want” - “I like” - “I think” - etc.

Yes, but we also have to do this based on outside information - history, Scripture, and tradition. Not based on our interior judgements of “I think” and “I like” etc.

Well, hopefully we’re using the process of logic that we learned in school (again, an outside source of information not based on personal judgement), of first collecting the data, then compiling it, and then analyzing it, without prejudging the outcome.

Can you see the difference between faith and belief vs the knowledge that another human being got it all correct? We can believe in history and Scripture all we want. But in the end it comes down to faith and belief. Whether we have a difficult time understanding that or not. Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Can you see the difference between faith and belief vs the knowledge that another human being got it all correct?

Do you believe that Jesus got it all correct? It was Jesus who established Peter as our first Pope, and gave us the Church, and promised it, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail.” Was He wrong about that?

We can believe in history and Scripture all we want.

It’s a firm foundation to rest on. Whatever contradicts it is incorrect - even if I feel that it couldn’t possibly be, based on an emotional reaction.

But in the end it comes down to faith and belief.

Not an empty faith or just any belief, though. It’s firmly established in solid reality, without any kind of “what’s true for me,” as if truth - as if reality - were dependent upon the observer.

 

[CMatt25]

If Jesus taught more than what you think he ‘clearly’ taught (and He assuredly did, otherwise you would not find some things ‘unclear’, and you are ONLY following what you find ‘clear’, you are not completely following Jesus. And even what you ‘think’ is clear, if it contradicts Catholic teachings as at least SOME of what you claim is ‘clearly taught according to you and your conscience’, then even the incomplete teachings you follow aren’t being followed correctly.

I’m not judging you. . .but Jesus never said that we could not judge actions as right or wrong; in fact He encouraged it. Why would He have asked His disciples to preach His teachings if the average pagan or Jew was following his conscience and thus was pretty much doing all the ‘love, peace and justice’ (certainly the Jewish people are pretty solid in teaching that, and as far as those, the Greeks and Romans, Buddists, and even the Muslims are all for ‘love, peace and justice’ but their ideas don’t necessarily contain all the truth of those concepts. )

So if we can just bumble along secure in doing what our ‘conscience’ teaches, and not requiring any more of any one else, why did Jesus want His gospel spread? There must be ‘more’ to it than peace, love and justice and helping the poor etc. because you know, those have all been ‘written on the human heart’ and to an extent practiced (in a limited way) by all peoples. . .

Do you think Jesus’s teachings are limited only to the above? What makes Him more than other ‘teachers’ and wise people teaching the same stuff about Love your Neighbor, strive for peace, work for justice and help the poor?

The difference between you and I, Tantum, is yes I believe Jesus clearly taught essentials and the rest is all interpretation by men, differences none of which are as important as those essentials in His Gospel which you mentioned as being found among various other groups as well.

And I am humble enough not to presume I nor any other human to ever live on the planet, has or has ever had the rest of everything all figured out exactly right down to every dotted “i” and crossed “t”.

But what makes Him more is my faith, indeed our faith, Tantum, and belief that He, God, died on the cross for my sins and for yours. For all our sins. Was buried and resurrected into heaven. And is sitting as we speak at the righthand of God our Father in heaven until He comes again. What makes Him more is our belief that He is the Savior promised.

And may He continue His blessings upon you and His peace be with you always, Tantum, as you walk your lifelong journey of faith with Him. Until that time as promised, when in faith, He, Truth, shall come again. Amen.

 

[CMatt25]

He also very clearly taught that the office of Peter (also called the Papacy) was the foundation of His Church.

Well sure very clearly taught that is subject to the interpretation of the Church which interprets Herself to be without err and never in need of correction by the Chief cornerstone, which is Himself alone, Christ Jesus. Anything is very clearly taught in that case.

Does not necessarily result though in said interpretation being or not being absolutely 100% perfectly correct. As it still in the end comes down to a matter of faith. God bless!

 

[CMatt25]

Do you believe that Jesus got it all correct? It was Jesus who established Peter as our first Pope, and gave us the Church, and promised it, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail.” Was He wrong about that?

Nope I do not believe Jesus was wrong. I do not believe the gates will prevail in the end. He’s Jesus. Whom I believe is God. So I believe He is fully capable of making certain that does not happen.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The difference between you and I, Tantum, is yes I believe Jesus clearly taught essentials and the rest is all interpretation by men, differences none of which are as important as those essentials in His Gospel which you mentioned as being found among various other groups as well.

And I am humble enough not to presume I nor any other human to ever live on the planet, has or has ever had the rest of everything all figured out exactly right down to every dotted “i” and crossed “t”.

But what makes Him more is my faith, indeed our faith, Tantum, and belief that He, God, died on the cross for my sins and for yours. For all our sins. Was buried and resurrected into heaven. And is sitting as we speak at the righthand of God our Father in heaven until He comes again. What makes Him more is our belief that He is the Savior promised.

And may He continue His blessings upon you and His peace be with you always, Tantum, as you walk your lifelong journey of faith with Him. Until that time as promised, when in faith, He, Truth, shall come again. Amen.

Well, between you and me, Matt, I can’t understand where you came up with your ‘interpretations’. For sure they are not Biblical nor are they traditional–and that doesn’t really leave anything other than human error (not err) on your part.

The greatest minds in theology over the last 2000 years have been able to submit to lawful, Biblical authority and to seek guidance of the Spirit, which confirmed the correctness of the teachings.

So why would a person (no matter how much he or she sought to present himself as ‘humble’ and ‘not judging’) in essence set himself up **against God **and presume that somehow all --from the Scripture we have which he thinks ‘could be corrupted’, from the Church that we have which he is SURE ‘got corrupted’, and despite God’s own words to the contrary, HE alone living 2000 years or so ‘post’ Jesus is among the ‘few’ who has managed to ‘get it right’. . .

If he has any intellectual honesty, he would also note that his ‘acceptance’ of absolutely contradictory teachings as being 'all right for person X if his conscience decrees but not for person Y" is so illogical that it renders all his premises void.

Sure, it sounds all ‘tolerant’ to murmur of how we are all ‘lacking’, only God is great, etc. It’s a kind of half-truth though which has been distorted into the appearance of an ‘only’ truth. We (as individuals) ARE lacking. But the Church is something beyond that.

If you can’t recognize that, Matt, and insist on a flawed belief and a defiance of the Church’s teaching, you are defying and denying the God whom you claim you wish only to follow. The fact that you can’t claim ‘ignorance’ in doing so (since you have been given extremely thorough ‘instruction’ here on the forums, as well as directions to accurate teaching documents, over and over) and yet you still want to present yourself as the sweet 'voice of reason of Catholicism as it SHOULD be seen" is something you’ll be ‘splainin’ to somebody some day, hopefully with REGRET and remorse. However, the longer we go on ‘speaking’ and I don’t mean just the two of US, I mean you and anybody on these forums, the more you seem to be erecting your position as ‘the truth’ and the less you seem to even consider anything else as a possibility. ANd that is very dangerous for your soul.

When every discussion is met with, “peace to you but I know I’m right” --which in a fine display of projection you insist on attributing to US but never yourself – all we can do is keep on witnessing to the real truth, no matter how you deny it, and to pray for you.

 

[Carlan]

Others besides Catholics believe they are taught correctly by their leaders who they believe speak the truth as well.

And I don’t blow around in the wind when I have Jesus to cling to. I cling to my faith in Him and those things He clearly taught. Love. Peace. Concern for the poor, the homeless, the sick. I do not think He is corrupted. And neither do I judge myself right on everything any more tha I judge you right on everything. So I truly have no idea what you are talking about in insinuating that I do. But God bless you and peace.

Sorry to butt in here dear Matt, I just gotta to say it once again, “lean not unto thine own understanding”. God bless you, that you don’t see it yet still. I’m still praying.Peace, Carlan

 

[GroovyCatholic]

There are a lot of questions that even life-long Catholics have about the points you have brought up. And we all have a slightly different take on things, so looking it up from the source and using tools such as RCIA are GREAT suggestions.

I struggled to explain confession to several nonCatholic friends of mine. It’s something that has many layers, and many parts. There isn’t a one-liner that will satisfy you if all you are looking for is a “book” answer. But look deeper into the beauty that confession is, and you might find, as I have, that it is actually something you long to do.

We are many parts of the same body. My sin, especially my mortal sin, doesn’t just affect me…it affects my brothers and sisters in Christ. I could take my sins and write them down or apologize to God for them during my prayer time, but repenting is more than that. When you repent, as you are called to do in confession, you are saying, “I am truly sorry for the sin(s) that I have committed, and I am making a promise right now to try my best and change my life from here on forward, not repeating these sins that I have committed.” It isn’t a one-and-done thing. And because we are repenting when we confess, we need someone (other than ourselves) to hold us accountable. The priest, and the church, can serve that purpose. Also, the priest, as well as being the representation and tool of Christ during confession, also stands in as the rest of the body. As mentioned before, our sins are not singular events that only affect us. When we confess to the priest, we are also confessing to the entire community of saints. A diseased body part poisons the entire body. We ask forgiveness and begin healing our community when we confess.

I have truly felt the cleansing affects of confession. There is something amazingly freeing about letting those sins go, about telling someone I messed up, and talking with them and praying with them, and feeling that forgiveness that comes from them. It isn’t the only way, but its a tried and true one, and it is a gift from God. He touches us, touches our lives, through the sacrament. Have I felt God’s presence while not partaking in a sacrament? Of course. Have I felt a true interaction back and forth with God without a sacrament? Not really. He gave us these gifts for a reason. He gave us these sacraments in order to set up definite meeting points in our lives with Him…because He knows that left to our own devices, we would forget His presence until we needed His help or guidance.

Stop looking at these things as a must do, and begin viewing them as a get to. The faiths that don’t embrace things like confession are truly missing out on such a special and beautiful time with our savior.

Don’t ever feel bad about asking questions…that is how we grow in faith. But be strong enough to research and truly look for the answers. Don’t ask questions and then wait for people stronger in faith to feed the answer to you…because you’d be amazed at how many other people will try to step up and feed you untruths. Thanks for the question!