Consider this?

[brumano]

It seeems apparent , I think all will mainly agree,is now a vast chasm existing between so called liberalism* and so called conservatism* in our country and regrettably now within our Catholic Church; that I wonder if it is not now time to clear these differences up once and for all, and take a fresh start as the church that we are called and meant to be. That is the church that becomes (truly) “…one with You Father even as You and I are one.”
What if in all matters of controversy everyone concerned held one understanding of the utmost authority and importance to be observed, imitated and obeyed? Is it not the person of the Lord Jesus Himself?
Remember the Lord was and is and shall ever be…absolutely and at all times perfectly holy in the keeping of God the Father’s Word (Law) and totally giving of Himself in forgiveness, true love, and mercy upon us-the sinners.
Isn’t our Lord really the absolute true conservative?
And isn’t He also the most truly radical liberal?
*personally, I don’t agree with conventional political definitions of what liberalism and conservatism really are.

 

[JackVk]

For 2000 years, the Church has stuck to her principles. A youth minister put it this way: “we are not conservative or liberal; we stick to the truth”.

 

[brumano]

thanks for the reply, that youth minister said it right.

 

[GratefulFred]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” suggests the visual image of a line with degrees extending out to the both ends of the line. The more we are liberal or conservative, the more we are are separated and at odds.

Neither word conveys the idea of TRUE TRUTH, to me, at least.

I think in terms of a target with concentric circles with True Truth at dead center bullseye.

At dead center is Jesus Christ, the Living Son of God.

LOVE is important as well. In some conditions, to love properly, we tolerate (liberal)misunderstanding in ourselves and in others. But in other conditions, to love properly, we must hold ourselves and others accountable (conservative) for their behavior and speech.

It is one thing to question for gaining better understanding. It is quite another to question to be argumentive and obstinate.

For me, it is not what I want, but rather what I think Christ wants of me. To know better what Christ wants, I need to pay attention to Christ and the Church He established.

Read some Encyclicals. Note the Pope’s explanations are footnoted to the Bible. Understanding Christ is so important that I know I need the guidance of those much better trained than myself. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide His Church.

Jesus, I trust in You.

 

[Tuno]

What if in all matters of controversy everyone concerned held one understanding of the utmost authority and importance to be observed, imitated and obeyed? Is it not the person of the Lord Jesus Himself?
Remember the Lord was and is and shall ever be…absolutely and at all times perfectly holy in the keeping of God the Father’s Word (Law) and totally giving of Himself in forgiveness, true love, and mercy upon us-the sinners.
Isn’t our Lord really the absolute true conservative?
And isn’t He also the most truly radical liberal?

This is wonderful stuff. But I agree with GratefulFred that neither political epithet applies here. Moreover, your assertion reminds me of something voiced by Mahatma Gahndi: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” If we look at the Church’s history, I would be rather frightened that in its administration of Divine “love” we might have another Inquisition. We are to this day not above torture, if you look behind the sanitized headlines and realize the trade in humans that is yet going on. God, as an Ideal is a wonderful concept, but rarely one lived. Look to your own scandals even today!

Prove to me that your religion, or any religion has any more goodness inherent in its practitioners than any other! Protestations about the origins of your Church are useless in the face of the fact that good and evil acts are clearly independent of religious affiliation or even lack of it. One only needs to look at the horrors perpetrated on Christians on each other in Northern Ireland to see this all too well. Religion is no safeguard against the horrors of evil. Not a bit.

In fact, there are as many evils associated with religion as such as with any political system. The Church stuck to its principles for 2000 years? Yes, but did it practice them? Is Columbus’ act of dismanuation of an entire population how Catholicism is spread? Or the disembowlment of Catholics in Egypt how the Muslim faith is spread? The examples seem to be endless, and include more than the Mahatma noted. I may be mistaken but as far as I know, Buddhism is the only religion that hasn’t waged a religious persecution, though it has itself been persecuted.

It seems to me that the claims of the Church to be the one, true, and only, does not save its members from culpability any more than do the similar claims of other religions save them. To someone standing outside your faith, what is there different about it other than your belief, which is indistinguishable from the equally sincere belief of others in their faith, that makes it or you right? IMHO, there has to be something more basic and practical than faith, any faith, as useful as it might be to keep some semblance of order with some of its adherents, whom I think would be as good on their own naturally.

 

[DL82]

'Therefore ever scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old’ (Matthew 13:52)

Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine is a good read on precisely this issue.

 

[GratefulFred]

This is wonderful stuff. But I agree with GratefulFred that neither political epithet applies here. Moreover, your assertion reminds me of something voiced by Mahatma Gahndi: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” . . . God, as an Ideal is a wonderful concept, but rarely one lived. Look to your own scandals even today!

As long as humans are imperfect, we are a mix good and bad behavior both individually and as organizations. If one likes (loves) Christ but rejects His Church BECAUSE those in the Church have sinned, then one is also justified in rejecting others BECAUSE they have sinned too. Who would be left to love, if being sinless is a prerequisite? The fact that the Church has sinned does not prove that Christ is wrong, but only that His followers are not perfect.

We should, at least, see that what Christ teaches is indeed the TRUE TRUTH regardless of how well we ourselves and others follow that Truth. If one believes (or suspects) that there is a God and, in the end each of us will end in either Heaven or Hell for all eternity, then one should realize each of us will be judged on our behavior and NOT on the behavior of others. We cannot use their weakness as an excuse for us being weak in our relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.

Prove to me that your religion, or any religion has any more goodness inherent in its practitioners than any other!

One should get a book and read about the lives of the Saints to see splendent examples of the goodness in practitioners of the Catholic Faith. See the life Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta for just one example.

One should also see that the Catholic Church, with its line back to Christ, has accomplished a lot more good, BY FAR, than it has erred in the way it has treated people throughout history. Catholic schools, hospitals, and social services have and continue provide considerable support for societies everywhere.

Is the Church or it practitioners perfect? NO, we are human. But there is no other single organization, religious or secular, today, or in history, that has done and is doing so much good as the Catholic Church. The good far exceeds the harm. The harm is NOT Christ’s intent but rather the imperfections of individuals. Search also for the many apologies publically expressed by Pope John Paul II.

Is Columbus’ act of dismanuation of an entire population how Catholicism is spread?

***Does history really teach that Columbus intended such loss just so that Catholicism could be spread? He went looking for a short cut to the Far East and stumbled upon the new world. He had no knowledge that there were Continents. He got lucky. How could he know that the natives had no immunity to European diseases that had already ravaged Europeans leaving survivors to rebuild. ***

It seems to me that the claims of the Church to be the one, true, and only, does not save its members from culpability any more than do the similar claims of other religions save them. To someone standing outside your faith, what is there different about it other than your belief, which is indistinguishable from the equally sincere belief of others in their faith, that makes it or you right?

***Short version: Focus on Jesus Christ, what He said, what He did. Read carefully the Gospels and the rest of the the New Testament, even if only for an honest intellectual inquiry. If you conclude that Christ was indeed a good man, worthy of respect and consideration, then, it seems that what He said was indeed TRUE. Christ is either the Living Son of God, as He said, or he was the worst of men, unworthy of respect. If the latter, how is it that His Way has more than 1 billion followers today? ***

The Church’s claim to be the Church Christ Himself established, does not, in itself, save its members from culpability. What saves us from culpability is Christ’s love for us and His Mercy, if we but choose to follow Christ. The Church is there to help us. But we must first accept Christ as the Son of God and choose to follow Him, in His Way as best we can.

IMHO, there has to be something more basic and practical than faith, any faith, as useful as it might be to keep some semblance of order with some of its adherents, whom I think would be as good on their own naturally.

I would encourage you to ask for and seek greater Wisdom - better knowledge and better discernment. Intellectually allow for the possibility that God does exist. Examine what Christ said and did. In your inquiry, set aside the weakness of imperfect human beings. Focus on Christ.

 

[Tuno]

I’m sorry GratefulFred, but what in my post suggested to you that I do not know that God IS? Your good/bad declamations sound Zoroastrian. Do you have such leanings? And I have read volumes, literally, of the lives of the Saints. Those are a heady mix of everything from astounding devotion and insight through exemplary behavior to perverse zealotry. And to say that the Church as a body of ideation and behavior has done more good than harm not only is a problematic statement difficult of assessment, but verifies that adherence to a religion is no guarantee of good.

Sinlessness is not a prerequisite for Love as Love knows neither good nor evil. It is simply Present as an attractive Force attributable to God. In which regard, Mother Teresa had her own agony of doubt which was a necessary result of her devotion, but she couldn’t see beyond dogma, though she was in one of the ascribed homes of the Philosophy which would have given her liberation from the suffering of her questioning.

And in regards to Columbus, you didn’t look up “dismanuation,” or read an account of Columbus reign of terror did you? Any decent human would shudder that we honor someone who stole from, tortured, raped, enslave, dismembered, and hunted the natives of the islands he discovered, his soldiers even using the bodies of these poor souls to feed their dogs.

This he did to a people whom he described to his Queen as “So tractable, so peaceable, are these people, that I swear to your Majesties there is not in the world a better nation. They love their neighbors as themselves, and their discourse is ever sweet and gentle, and accompanied with a smile; and though it is true that they are naked, yet their manners are decorous and praiseworthy.” He was helped in this endeavor by his good Catholic crew until his arrest and deportation home. Again I emphatically state that religious affiliation has nothing whatsoever to do with being good. (The underline is mine.)

From the sound of it, I’d say that the peoples that Columbus discovered were already in practice far better Christians in fact than many religionists I could point to today. They obeyed, lived and died for the very principle Christ enunciated, and died at the hands of one professing Catholicism. Go figure. I have little doubt that the Inquisition, the Crusades, and many missionary efforts were in the manner of Columbus’ documented behavior. What other things of this nature are hidden from you by pop religion and history?

And I have read the NT and OT and all manner of commentaries on them in the spirit of an honest intellectual inquiry, as well as the history of the Church. And if the claims you make are so convincing, why are there schisms upon schisms in the Church and only one of six billion on our planet Catholics after 2000 years? Do they see something you don’t? Probably not, as they are just as likely in their own world of belief as you are in yours.

All that said, if the Church could see through its own dogma to the actuality of its own teaching, there would be a transformation of the world of unimagined proportions. But because of its public adherence to only the exoteric form of Catholicism, that is not likely to happen;

I truly appreciate your exhortation to wisdom. I prayed and worked at that for years, and still do. I feel I have been rewarded in some small measure in this regard. And if I had not focused on the Perfection of the Divine in all my years I would surely be mad with rage and sorrow by this time.

 

[GratefulFred]

Tuno, Both your posts are well stated and if I have offended in any way I am sorry, as that is not my intent. I did not know of your efforts to inquire at a deeper level until your second post. I considered your desciption of Religion on your banner and probably made some unfounded assumptions. Clearly you are a very thoughtful person and I admire that.

Had to look up Zoroastrian. The short version - the battle between good and evil with good prevailing eventually and the existence of an after life, are elements of the Christian Faith. Christianity is so much more especially when one tries to follow Christ as closely as one can in the Catholic Faith.

I’ll concede the Columbus issue as I have not yet read “the rest of the story” history. I am only aware that Europeans unknowingly brought diseases that devastated the natives. And I realize that explorers and adventurers are often too zealous and badly treat strangers they encounter. But I am not aware that there was any significant “Become Catholic or I will kill you” going on. I would think such killing would have been from “Give me want I want (economically)” and “Get out of my way.” Neither of these motivations are Christian and if done with a Christian element, that was wrong on the individuals and not on the tennets of Christian Faith. No tennet of the Christian Faith implies “Kill the Infidel.”

Why so many schisms? Christ knew and said that many would reject Him even with knowledge of the miracles He performed. He was crucified by those who rejected Him. His Apostles were tortured and killed by those who rejected His teachings. Even Christ’s followers argued and sought clarification from Peter. Some walked away. King Henry VIII not only left but killed his subjects who did not go his way.

Why is only 1/6 of the world Catholic? While we enjoy freedom of religion in America and the West, the same is not true in the Muslim world or in China. A splendent Mosque can be built in Rome with the Church’s blessing but a Church cannot be built in Saudi Arabia. The Church is growing significantly in Africa these days.

Is the Church trying to spread the Good News of Christ? YES. Could it do better? Most likely. But offering is one thing. Accepting is another. Free Will is at play.

If one knows that God does exist, then it follows to ask, “What does God expect of me and how do I know I am meeting His expectations?” Thinking Christians know that God has revealed Himself in the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. They respond to God’s love by trying their best to love God and to love others for the love of God.

Taking Christ at His Word, I believe that the Catholic Faith is the one that is the closest to Christ. I know the Church, made of humans, is not perfect, but the tennets of the Catholic Faith are THE WAY Christ wants us to understand and to relate to God. I especially love the Holy Eucharist established at the Last Supper and the Forgiveness of Sins established by Christ after He resurrected from the dead.

I truly admire your long efforts to understand the Divine and seeking more Wisdom. I would further encourage you to pray for the Gift of Faith. Knowing who Jesus claimed to be and allowing that Jesus was not a liar, a short prayer you might want to say daily is

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU.

 

[Tuno]

“Give me want I want (economically)” and “Get out of my way.” Neither of these motivations are Christian and if done with a Christian element, that was wrong on the individuals and not on the tennets of Christian Faith. No tennet of the Christian Faith implies “Kill the Infidel.”

---

The Church is growing significantly in Africa these days.

---

If one knows that God does exist, then it follows to ask, “What does God expect of me and how do I know I am meeting His expectations?” Thinking Christians know that God has revealed Himself in the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. They respond to God’s love by trying their best to love God and to love others for the love of God.

Hi GF, I like that your handle includes the word “Grateful.” I say prayers of great gratitude every day for that asonishing outflowwing of blessings I and mine recive. I am also impressed that you have a tollerance, unlike some on here to differenc and are responsive rather thatn reacitve. To me, reactivity is not a good advretisemt for any faith or belief system and demostrates immaturity. You appear to be adult in your considerations and rightfully explicate your position and viewpoint.

Going backward up your quotes:

According to a recent NPR broadcast, I understand that the Church and Christianity is fareing rather well in China these days. there are even “parallel” Catholic congregations that are not of the faith but claim to be. Don’t get that, but that is what they said.

I certainly appreciate what you say about thinking Christians, many who are not Catholic. I know many myself and engage in lively conversations, as I do with thinkers and tinkers of any discription. But here for me is an interesting point: if you look at the words you use in your statement, the pronoun “He” is attached to “God.” This leads me to suspect that either you or the people you are refering to have kept their considerations about God to intellectual or faith based material within the Christian context. So I would wonder how much any of you have examined of the phenomenology of the Bible and history of the Church from a third party view. And I do not mean someone atheist or adversarial with the Church, just someon who has no stake in the matter. I will bet that you get a radically different view, especially if your study includes ways of understanding God not as a person. By that I mean a range of views from the astoundingly wonderous Catholic mystics, some of whom were nearly banned by the Church, to such as Franklin Merrell-Wolff, Dr. Ron Smothermon, Ramana Maharshi, KG Mills, Adi Shankara, and the great litany of proponents from the ages of what in my opinion is the mystical and esoteric root of Catholicism which IMHO has been debilitated by popularization into the faith as we now see it. That is not to say that the Church has not been a factor in doing good; it is just to say that one owes onesself a deeper understanding of history than what the vast majority of very well meaning and honestly convinced Christians display.

I’m sorry, but I do yet consider the Crusades a “kill the infidel” effort. And while I agree with you that many missionary motivations are economic, there are records of missionaries preaching that sexual intercourse with the priest was a requirement for virgins for entrance into heaven. In my lights, missionaryism of any sort is a darned poor idea. If there is not conversion by attraction, what good is it? Too much proportionally is by attempts to argue and convince. And what do we have? As today we see, we get bastard clones of native practice and Catholicism or whatever. Ask some honest missionaries if you know any.

It is a pleasure to have met you on here. I hope that my diligent and more inclusive than just Catholic decades of inquiry are not a hinderance to your faith, but an encouragement to think and dig deeper in the same way you encourage me. My disclaimers in the banner are necessary to point out that there is a commonly unthought of yet perforce viable and more penetrating way of Understanding than what is purveyed as religion to the majority. And I also do not mean that it is necessarily suitable or useful to everyone. But it would be wonderful if its was at least known of as a Way among thinking folks.

 

[GratefulFred]

Thank you for your kind words, Tuno. Getting to the best relationship with God does require a personal choice. A proper relationship with God cannot be forced upon anyone. On this forum we can share thoughts for others to consider. What we do with those thoughts is our own choice. Free Will is always at play. God does not want a forced love.

The Church is always hopeful for better relations in China. It is clear that Mao persecuted the Church and killed or expelled many. More currently, China does not recognize Bishops appointed by the Holy See. Rather the Chinese government appoints its own Bishops. The Chinese government would not allow Pope John Paul II to visit China or Hong Kong. So there are two Catholic Churches in China and the one in union with Rome is greatly restricted.

There is no logical reason why so many Europeans would walk to the ME just to kill people they did not know. The Crusades were about preserving and defending the places where Christ walked and taught when some Muslims decided Christianity had to be expelled and wiped out. But wars, no matter how justified, do have their ugly events. Atrocities are commited on all sides. However, the atrocities commited by MEN do not make the teachings of Christ wrong. I will not be judged by God by the sins of others.

I use “He” for God because Christ used the Pronoun. I follow Christ as best I can. I do not know and thus have not read the thinking of the people you listed. It has not been important to me to study alternatives to Christ. It is for others to debate those views.

I am familar with the OT and NT and the stories how some accepted God in the OT, and Christ, the Son of God in the NT, while many others did not. I am familar with the Council of Nicaea about 325 AD that resulted in the Nicene Creed which is the penultimate statement of our Faith in the Catholic Church and several other major Christian Faiths. I am familiar with the ‘protests’ from Luther, Calvin, King Henry VIII, and new beginnings from folks like Joseph Smith. I find the ‘protests’ and new beginings lacking and they do not cause me to reconsider being anything but Catholic.

Perhaps like you, I am dismayed (appalled?) at the wide range of belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ by those who claim they follow Christ. If I were not already an educated Catholic, I could see how the acts of many followers would give me pause. Half the golfers never break 100. If all I saw were them and read the critics of golf I would avoid the sport. But, I have studied the rules of golf, caddied for decent amatuers, and seen pro golfers play, and yes, even Tiger before his fall from grace (two pars and a birdie). We didn’t talk, but Arnold Palmer engaged me in conversation.

But again, I think it MOST IMPORTANT to consider Christ in His own words and the proofs He offered that He is indeed the Son of God, and NOT by the failings of many followers or by the rationale used by those who either misunderstand Christ or chose to reject Him. Consider also the writings of the Apostles and great theologians who offer clear convincing explanations of Christ. The fact that we all are imperfect and fail in one degree or another to live up to the standard of our Christian Faith does not make Christ Himself wrong. Do not reject Christ because so many fail to understand and follow Him appropriately.

JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU.

 

[Tuno]

… Free Will is always at play. God does not want a forced love.

Yes, I agree. We sometimes do, though, as in an unrequited romantic relationship. God is more like gravity which just is what it is; we work with it or get hurt.

… It is clear that Mao persecuted the Church and killed or expelled many.

Yes, and I do not mean to single out the Church or some of its members having a corner on hellish behaviour. That seems to be a trait all to common with individuals or gourps bent on belief that theirs is the one true political, religious, or whatever way.

However, the atrocities commited by MEN do not make the teachings of Christ wrong. I will not be judged by God by the sins of others.

No, of course not. I’m just speaking to the evidence that simple claim of being religious does not in itself cause goodness, and that goodness is on an independent line of consideration than religious affilitaion.

I use “He” for God because Christ used the Pronoun. I follow Christ as best I can. I do not know and thus have not read the thinking of the people you listed. It has not been important to me to study alternatives to Christ. It is for others to debate those views.

Your understanding and following are admirable in their naturalness and simplicity. I have a more scholarly and skeptical orientation to the matter due to my upbringing and life experience. I had to go outside the Church for information because due diligence failed to account for the reason for and implicaitons of a number of mystical experiences I had. Though I am more reconciled now by way of study of some Catholic mystics, the general scope of the language of the Church is too narrow to be functionally useful. I could write a book on that, but won’t here. Suffice it to say that the personal pronoun as applied to any aspect of Diety is misleading and not in line with usage as usually understood in the kind of teaching ascribed correctly or not to Jesus at that time and that area and East of there, where His native language originated. There are serious considerations regarding translation that even in simple regard cause deep questioning in regards to even the best translaitons we have.

… I find the ‘protests’ and new beginings lacking and they do not cause me to reconsider being anything but Catholic.

So do I. I am familiar with these as well both through my sister, who is a Mormon, and my own decades of reading on these matters. It was the lack of useful information and insight regarding my experience that forced me to look outside the Faith. That has always been a point of great regret for me.

Perhaps like you, I am dismayed (appalled?) at the wide range of belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ by those who claim they follow Christ.

Arnold Palmer! Very cool! It is always a privilege to speak with the greats. I can’t go into it here, but I have had similar and profound experiences in the realm of theology and metaphysics. Suffice it to say that there is a clear, practical, and mind bogglingly expansive way of understanding that exactly fit my experience and brought me clarity regarding my Catholicism as well. I now understand Catholicism in a rather different light and my emotional loading of anger and disappontment regarding it have been almost completely defused.

But again, I think it MOST IMPORTANT to consider Christ in His own words and the proofs He offered that He is indeed the Son of God,… Consider also the writings of the Apostles and great theologians who offer clear convincing explanations of Christ. The fact that we all are imperfect and fail in one degree or another to live up to the standard of our Christian Faith does not make Christ Himself wrong. Do not reject Christ because so many fail to understand and follow Him appropriately.

I do consider Christ in the words ascribed to Him, as well as the rest that you mention. I find that His words are congruent with my current understanding, but that the alleged explanations are sadly lacking in scope, though wonderful as ideas. They are not sufficient in the face of His words as I now hear them. They are far more wonderous than any exegesis I ever heard in the Church or catechism.

JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU.

I never lost any wonder, devotion or understanding of God due to my experiences. I only came to see that theology as I learned it is inadequate by itself to even point to the wonders of the Christ as I now percieve that. I am not lost to the Christ, my dear friend in Him, I am only disenamoured of what I now see as what was for me an inadequate glorification.

 

[GratefulFred]

Tuno,

Excellent responses. I want to continue our discussion. But we have company this afternoon and I need to help prepare and entertain.

Fred

 

[Tuno]

One of my joys is preparing a fine table. I live alone now, but used to set table for up to 24 as domestic help in the home of a wonderful Maestro, for his wonderful guests. Go to it! Have fun; the company of Saints is good, and sinners better , as in both cases we learn!

 

[brumano]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” suggests the visual image of a line with degrees extending out to the both ends of the line. The more we are liberal or conservative, the more we are are separated and at odds.

Neither word conveys the idea of TRUE TRUTH, to me, at least.

I think in terms of a target with concentric circles with True Truth at dead center bullseye.

At dead center is Jesus Christ, the Living Son of God.

LOVE is important as well. In some conditions, to love properly, we tolerate (liberal)misunderstanding in ourselves and in others. But in other conditions, to love properly, we must hold ourselves and others accountable (conservative) for their behavior and speech.

It is one thing to question for gaining better understanding. It is quite another to question to be argumentive and obstinate.

For me, it is not what I want, but rather what I think Christ wants of me. To know better what Christ wants, I need to pay attention to Christ and the Church He established.

Read some Encyclicals. Note the Pope’s explanations are footnoted to the Bible. Understanding Christ is so important that I know I need the guidance of those much better trained than myself. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide His Church.

Jesus, I trust in You.

 

[GratefulFred]

God is more like gravity which just is what it is; we work with it or get hurt.

I know of nothing in the OT or NT that supports this perception. I do accept that God’s Ways are so far above man’s ways that we humans cannot know the mind of God. We can only know what God has chosen to reveal of Himself in the Bible, especially through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is the way God wants us to understand Him and how He wants us to relate to Him. Because God is so important, I am not willing to be self directed when He has authorized the Church to be my direction.

I am aware that God does, on rare occassions, reveal more to selected individuals. The issue is knowing whether such revelations are indeed God ‘touching’ man or rather individuals puting on a great act in their search for God in their own way. I am not qualified to judge. But I am also not quick to accept a self confirmed claim to a mystical connection. For me, confirmation must come from a trusted source - the Catholic Church. St Philip Neri and St. Padre Pio come to mind.

That seems to be a trait all to common with individuals or gourps bent on belief that theirs is the one true political, religious, or whatever way.

Many people and groups do think that theirs is spot on. That is why freedom of religion is so important. 'Tis wrong to kill or punish those who believe differently. That said, in the matter of Truth, there is only one objective truth. There are not a series of equal truths each being just as acceptable as the other - relativism. 2+2=4. Those who assert the answer is 5 or 3 or 1.999 or 2.001 miss the objective truth. I take Jesus Christ as the absolute truth. Unauthorized personal interpretations are lacking no matter how well intended.

No, of course not. I’m just speaking to the evidence that simple claim of being religious does not in itself cause goodness, and that goodness is on an independent line of consideration than religious affilitaion.

Actions speak louder than words. Claims are short lines of credit until we see the actions. Action over time and in periods of challenge reveal more about one’s true character.

**I do not believe that true goodness can be independent from our relationship with God, THE SOURCE OF ALL GOODNESS. Folks can be good without knowledge of religion as we know it, becasue God has written His basic law in our hearts. But folks make better efforts at doing more good and less evil WHEN they act in accordance with God’s Commands even though at times we forget and do evil. At those times, I am glad for the Sacrament of Reconcilation for those who do remember God’s Law and seek His forgiveness. **

Your understanding and following are admirable in their naturalness and simplicity.

Thank you. It is natural for me because it does make sense to me. Christ said unless you become like children . . . It is given to some to study at a much deeper level, but for most of us, simple is good. Just as 2+2=4 (simple) and 2 to the 12th power plus 2 to the 12 power is 2 to the 24th power (complex) are both true, most of us are not called to deal with the complex. BUT the complex is based on the SAME principle. The complex is not based on a different principle.

I have a more scholarly and skeptical orientation to the matter due to my upbringing and life experience. I had to go outside the Church for information because due diligence failed to account for the reason for and implicaitons of a number of mystical experiences I had. Though I am more reconciled now by way of study of some Catholic mystics, the general scope of the language of the Church is too narrow to be functionally useful. I could write a book on that, but won’t here.

**I admire your tenacious search for the truth. I would hope your journey has been with the guidance of a trusted spiritual advisor, one who is committed to Christ, our penultimate TEACHER. It is not ours to design our own religion if we trying to follow Christ in the Way He established. **

Suffice it to say that the personal pronoun as applied to any aspect of Diety is misleading and not in line with usage as usually understood in the kind of teaching ascribed correctly or not to Jesus at that time and that area and East of there, where His native language originated. There are serious considerations regarding translation that even in simple regard cause deep questioning in regards to even the best translaitons we have.

I am aware that there are translation problems. Again, I am not educated well enough to discern which is more correct than others. I do put my Faith in the Church that Christ established. And my Church is constantly (over the centuries) correcting translations to ensure the language we use today remains as close to meaning in Christ’s time.

So do I. I am familiar with these as well both through my sister, who is a Mormon, and my own decades of reading on these matters. It was the lack of useful information and insight regarding my experience that forced me to look outside the Faith. That has always been a point of great regret for me.

Believing that Jesus Christ and His Church is THE BEST path in this life, I hope you find your way back into full communion with the Church by finding an excellent Catholic spiritual advisor. Remaining self directed, estranged from worthily receiving Holy Communion, if that is where you are now, is a very risky path.

Reflect on the Annunciation. A young virgin without great scholastic education TRUSTED God and said YES. You know a lot. Are you ready to TRUST God?

Jesus, I trust in You !

 

[Tuno]

Again thank you for your concern, GF. I am happy for you that you have the complete trust in your way that you do. I assure you I have no less in mine. I was, for many years, with a spiritual advisor who was sought out by the devout, the learned, and the Saintly of many faiths, including Catholicism. Privacy prevents me from saying who those seekers were, but one in particular you would instantly recognize and praise, and possibly some others. Rest assured that I have done and am doing due diligence in this matter. I have at this time neither wish nor desire to re-engage with the Church. I would be too busy doing comparisons, etc, to be of any use or receive benefit.

As I is, I drop my Mom off and come back later to pick here up, and that contact and what comes with it are sufficient. As it is, I feel a far greater sense of honesty in my “risk” than I would in shaming interest in a way that has irrevocably transformed its significance in my experience. I have no truck with such duplicity. It is not likely that you have any concept of the depth of the rift between my present and past understandings of the Church. They would not be reconcilable on the level of Parish participation or priestly counseling. I remind you that I did intense effort in that direction already. It would take a recapitulation on the Church’s part as to the actual significance of its teachings, and that is not about to happen, as we both know.

So I am happy to support you in your position, as it is what you have honestly and thoroughly arrived at. Given that you think mine is lacking, I do not expect or hope to elicit similar support from you. At least from where I stand, though, we are not at odds. We are, as I see it, simply in different parts of the landscape and report the view from there. Moral relativism? I guess that depends on what basic assumptions one has about God and Being. Mine came unbidden and unceremoniously and are what they have to be.

 

[GratefulFred]

Again thank you for your concern, GF. I am happy for you that you have the complete trust in your way that you do. I assure you I have no less in mine. I was, for many years, with a spiritual advisor who was sought out by the devout, the learned, and the Saintly of many faiths, including Catholicism. Privacy prevents me from saying who those seekers were, but one in particular you would instantly recognize and praise, and possibly some others. Rest assured that I have done and am doing due diligence in this matter. I have at this time neither wish nor desire to re-engage with the Church. I would be too busy doing comparisons, etc, to be of any use or receive benefit.

As I is, I drop my Mom off and come back later to pick here up, and that contact and what comes with it are sufficient. As it is, I feel a far greater sense of honesty in my “risk” than I would in shaming interest in a way that has irrevocably transformed its significance in my experience. I have no truck with such duplicity. It is not likely that you have any concept of the depth of the rift between my present and past understandings of the Church. They would not be reconcilable on the level of Parish participation or priestly counseling. I remind you that I did intense effort in that direction already. It would take a recapitulation on the Church’s part as to the actual significance of its teachings, and that is not about to happen, as we both know.

So I am happy to support you in your position, as it is what you have honestly and thoroughly arrived at. Given that you think mine is lacking, I do not expect or hope to elicit similar support from you. At least from where I stand, though, we are not at odds. We are, as I see it, simply in different parts of the landscape and report the view from there. Moral relativism? I guess that depends on what basic assumptions one has about God and Being. Mine came unbidden and unceremoniously and are what they have to be.

I do respect your comments, Tuno, as they do ring sincere after much searching which cannot be fully identified on a platform as this. My comments are simply my personal understanding.

In the end, each of us must be true to our conscience. It is one thing to maintain a position just to maintain it, or in fear of what change would require, or to change because one felt pressure, or from a desire to be socially accepted. To the degree we are capable, we must know WHY we are where we are at in relationship to God. Not one of us is at THE PERFECT POSITION in relationship to God; we all can improve with God’s grace, be it large or small growth steps toward God.

I tend to agree that the typical parish priest may not be the one you could relate to. Perhaps a good Catholic University professor although I hear that some CUs are Catholic now in name only.

In my Junior year in Catholic high school, the old wisened Brother taught us about conscience and the need to develop a well formed conscience and the need to trust the Church Christ established. But he also taught that, in the end, if we really tried to understand, accept, and follow, but could not for reasons of conscience, then the resolution was between God and ourself. Conscience matters that much. The trick is to not take short cuts or try to justify a positon that pleases us in spite of what we know in our heart is not the best position. God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Only God knows our heart, even better than we do. So none of us can judge another on these matters.

Later that year Brother taught about Martin Luther and one day really lambasted Luther for quite a period of time. I was surprised at his anger. So I gently asked if he could reconcile the unit on conscience with Luther’s repeated attempts to be understood by Rome. I asked if Luther had not met the conscience requirement. My second surprise that day was Brother’s sincere apology for beating up on Luther. He had not put the two ideas together before in his long teaching career. To me, in front of the class, he said he would never do that again.

So an exchange of ideas and reasoning is important. Change will occur, or not, as deemed appropriate by each reader. If we do change , we should have reason to believe it is to a better, not worse position.

Meanwhile, I continue to encourage you in your continuing personal prayer for the gift of better Wisdom and stronger Faith. Change or not.

Jesus, I Trust in You !

 

[Tuno]

I think I would have gotten along very well with your wisened Brother, GF. We had such a man in my high school. He had entered the priesthood after a career in the Navy as a SEAL. He had, in addition to the respect called for by his vocation, the added bonus of credibility that came from his having lived in the world, and that s a military man. Kind of a contemporary Loyola, I guess. He taught our religion class, physics and moderated the gun club. I tried to visit him as often as I could after graduating. He used to “hold court” on the side entry to the school every morning, and likely did more good there with his morning chats than a hundred priests from the pulpit. The auditorium couldn’t hold the crowd at his last service. I miss him dearly. He earned our respect by respecting us at the place we were, and by being practical, not pious, though there was no doubt as to his own devotion. He followed the injunction of St. Francis of Assisi to “Always preach the Gospel, and use words if necessary.” He required of us both to think and to be responsible. And if I ever met a master of Zen, save one, it was this man.

I do believe that if it was not for him, I would have gone off the deep end. Of all the people I talked to about my “experience,” he alone took me at face value on my own terms and credited me with the validity of my perceptions at a time I needed sanity before piety. I will always be grateful for that.

 

[brumano]

just generally to grtflfr: I really should read more encyclicals…I should also have stated in the first post, how amazing well I think the papacy of Pope John Paul ll reflected “The Person of Christ”. Thanks for the reply.