Dare I Ask?

[Dorothy]

From my view, I am a part of the Catholic (read universal) church. Any who profess faith the redemption offered freely by Christ are welcome to join in communion at my local church. We are all equal co-heirs with Christ even if we have minor doctrinal differences… It’s the Catholic church lead by the Holy See that has the more restrictive view of who belongs to the universal church.

We are saddened by the divisions that separate us.

Everyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is a member of the Body of Christ.

The doctrinal differences are not minor with regard to the Eucharist.

When Catholics receive the Eucharist they are stating that they believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches along with believing the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity (the Risen Christ) is present in the Host and Precious Blood that is consecrated by the priest at Mass.

We need to respect the dignity of one another’s informed convictions.

That doesn’t mean we think that we are better than you.

 

[Nine_Two]

**1st. Tim. 2: 1-5 **“I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: BUT THIS IS CONDITIONAL: Luke 11:28 “But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it… Matthew 18:17 “And if he will not hear them: tell the church. [SINGULAR] And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”

WHAT’S YOU’RE EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING CATHOLIC?

**Luke 14:15-24 **“When one of them that sat at table with him, had heard these things, he said to him: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. But he said to him: A certain man made a great supper, and invited many. And he sent his servant at the hour of supper to say to them that were invited, that they should come, for now all things are ready. And they began all at once to make excuse. The first said to him: I have bought a farm, and I must needs go out and see it: I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to try them: I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. And the servant returning, told these things to his lord. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant: Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the feeble, and the blind, and the lame. And the servant said: Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. But I [JESUS] say unto you, that none of those men that were invited, shall taste of my supper"

Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.” … **Matthew 7:13 ** “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat” … Matthew 7:14 “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”

I agree. That’s why we have a closed Communion.

 

[HappyPagan]

WHAT’S YOU’RE EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING CATHOLIC?

I am a Neo-Druid.

I worship many gods and spirits.

I believe the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are false.

I do not need an excuse.

 

[PJM]

=GeorgeTheWild;9984409]From my view, I am a part of the Catholic (read universal) church. Any who profess faith the redemption offered freely by Christ are welcome to join in communion at my local church. We are all equal co-heirs with Christ even if we have minor doctrinal differences… It’s the Catholic church lead by the Holy See that has the more restrictive view of who belongs to the universal church.

NO MY FRIEND; IT’S GOD AND IT’S BIBLICAL:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

=Porknpie;9983385]Wikipedia references that there are 38,000 “one churches”. To believe Christ set up that many churches all believing different things on faith and morals is to believe he was a very poor teacher and the author of confusion. “Those who hear you (38,000 churches), hear me”. You are right though, you were baptized into the Catholic Church.

You are reading into the text a message that is not there and ignore the history of the Church.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some;** while the Church, which is Catholic and one is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together** by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

AND “TRUTH IS A SINGULAR THING”

THE BIBLE AND JESUS HIMSELF ARE EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR ABOUT TEACHING THAT SINGULAR TRUTH.

ONLY ONE GOD

ONLY THAT ONE GOD’S SET OF FAITH BELIEFS

AND ONLY “ONE CHURCH”; A TERM INVTEND BY JESUS TO INTRODUCE TODAY’S CC IN MATT.16:19

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Ps.127:1 “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain”

The surest answer is God everywhere and every-time taught with consistency:

Believe in only One God:

Malachias 2:10 “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why then doth every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers?”

Mark 12:29 “And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God”

ONLY One set of Faith beliefs:

Genesis 17:2 “And I will make my covenant [singular] between me and thee: and I will multiply thee exceedingly”

Ephesians 4:5 " One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

And always ONLY ONE chosen people

Exodus 6:7 “And I will take you to myself for my people, I will be your God: and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out from the work prison of the Egyptians” …Psalm 33:1-2 “

Mt. 10:1-4 " And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

AND THIS TOO:

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [only one] one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,[SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

AMEN!

 

[PJM]

=(name removed by moderator);9989263]I’ve got to say I find the opening post of the thread a bit triumphalist. If the OP asked my wife that question knowing her sense of humour she would probably ask him what was his excuse for not been a member of one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

AND THE op [ME] WOULD HAVE REPLIED:

because it’s NOt the Once Church; One faith founded by jesus in Person:thumbsup:

God Bless brother!

 

[PJM]

=(name removed by moderator);9989573]The fact that even from a Catholic point of view these Churches are legitimate Churches with valid sacraments and clergy and are regarded as in schism from us but not totally cut of means I would be waroy of making such a sweeping (and I must say triumphalist) assessment of them.

Your opening post is unfortunately rather triumphalist as it presumes that other people’s faith in their Churches or denominations is only based on ‘excuses’ and does not account for the fact they may genuinely feel otherwise.

Your certainly entitled to YOUR opinion; but that does not dear freind, alter the FACTS.

God Bless,
Pat /PJM

 

[Taurks]

I was Catholic - and I was a very active one too: Mass Coordinator, 3rd degree Knight of Columbus, and President of my college’s Newman Club. I also had a spiritual director and, for two years, was actively discerning a vocation to the priesthood.

There are many godly and amazing things about the Catholic Church. However, I simply do not agree with the legalistic, codified understanding of the faith which the Catechism teaches - I believe it is incomplete and detrimental. But nevertheless, since the Catechism is essentially the “operating manual” of the Catholic Church, I had trouble understanding Catholicism by extension.

When I mean legalistic and codified, here are some examples. One of the three Church Hierarchs, St. John Chrysostom, said that a man - “even if he stands at the summit of virtue” - is still only saved by God’s mercy alone. Today, the Catechism makes the distinction between dying in mortal sin and dying in a “state of grace” (which is defined as dying in communion with the Church without the spiritual stain of “mortal sin” [which is defined as a willingly committed “grave act” [which is defined as … you get my point]]). These distinctions did not exist in the early Church and still do not exist in Orthodoxy. Indeed, they turn a religion into a legal transaction with God rather than a living and breathing relationship with Him.

This spirit of legalism and the constant urge to define the faith is pervasive in all aspects of Catholic theology. Catholicism is so well defined that it even contradicts itself in some places. For example: The Catholic Church ruled that Anglican orders were invalid because the “Edwardine Ordinal did not have any language referring to the sacrificial role of the priest.” At the same time, though, none of the ordination rites of the Eastern Orthodox Churches use such language, and Rome recognized their orders as valid.

While I was at odds with the Catechism’s approach, I fell in love with how the Eastern Orthodox church has always understood matters of faith. Instead of a legal model, the Orthodox church uses a medical one - meaning that sins are not addressed as crimes that deserve punishments, but illnesses that need healing. The amount of mercy I first perceived in entering an Orthodox Church was outstanding. Furthermore, no Catechism or strict doctrinal text exists in the Orthodox Church, and the mysteries of the faith are left as mysteries. Orthodoxy is not big on defining every matter of faith or listing rules -** it can be just as much a sin to go to Church if you’re going for the wrong reason** (for example: going to Church just so other people can think that you’re pious - the Orthodox would say it’s better to stay home on Sunday). It is a whole faith to foster a personal relationship, considering the whole being of a person, not a flat list of obligations that one is expected to follow.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Heather
When I was an Evangelical I wrote down all the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism (infant baptism, praying to saints, using relics, apostolic succession, the pope, mariology, the mass, eucharist as true presence) and, because the Evangelicals were always going on about them being like the early Christians, went to the early Church Fathers to find out what they believed.

Lo and behold, the early Church was fully, 100% Catholic.

In fact, and this can also be a reply to our Quaker friend above, if you took an 1st or 2nd century Christian in a time machine to today, it is very unlikely that they would consider Protestants as Christians. Their view on the eucharist alone would be enough for them to consider Protestants heathens or apostates.

While I agree that modern day Protestants would not be recognized as Christians by the early successors of the Apostles, I think they would be more likely considered to be standing in the postiion of Apollos, who was inadequately catechised. They could not be considered either heretics or apostates, since they never embraced the Apostolic Faith in the first place. Both of those categories would require falling away from orthodoxy. You can’t fall away from something you were never standing on in the first place.

 

[guanophore]

I’m episcopalian because that’s what I was baptized and confirmed. I went to Catholic HS and it was stamped on my ID NOT CATHOLIC, so I figured that was it, I’m permanently NOT CATHOLIC. I’m Episcopalian and that’s that… I inquired once about converting, around the time I started at a Catholic University, my academic advisor and I were chit chatting and it came up that NOT CATHOLIC was also stamped on my HS transcripts. I felt it’s on my permanent record there is no way I could ever be Catholic. I know it sounds weird but having that “Stamp” in my mind meant I can never be a Catholic. I’m ok with what I got. I’ve recently been questioning faith and religion in general.

I can see how such a stamp might affect a child, but you are no longer a child. It is incumbent upon you to seek the Truth, no matter where it might be found. When Jesus taught that we must be willing to forsake all in order to follow Him, it includes such ideas and experiences such as these.

I was ejected from parochial school and felt rejected and unwanted too, but God was able to heal me. There is nothing in this world that can prevent you from becoming Catholic except your own pride and resentment.

 

[guanophore]

I thought I was Catholic, when I saw the stamp on my ID I went to our principal to get it corrected. That’s when Fr. explained to me the difference between Episcopalian and Catholic. Fr. is a very good man. I read for masses during my time in HS, he did that to include me and show the other girls to welcome me. Fr. McLaughin is truly a lovely man…

I still have a mental issue with being permanently defined… I can’t get over it being on my permanent record. I know it’s silly but for some reason I can’t get past that… I’m not angry or bitter, its just that whole you are not catholic and it’s on your record so you can’t change that.

I am glad you are not angry or bitter, at first I thought that was what you meant. But the idea that you are defined as an adult by something written on your paperwork as a child reflects childish thinking.

The first Palestinian Christians were all Jews, and circumcised under the covenant of Moses. When Jesus came and fulfilled the whole Law, circumcision and the observance of the Levitical laws was no longer necessary. Yet they could not go back and uncircumcise themselves, could they?

And Jews who became Christians before or during the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime were still arrested and executed a Jews because of their birth names, place or circumcision. Such thhings do not define what a person is, but rather, the state of the heart.

I agree with what has been posted that this was stamped on your card to exempt you from certain things required of Catholic students that did not apply to you. But you are in a different state in life now. You can now get a paper that says “Catholic” with your name on it, if you want.

 

[seeker57]

“WHAT’S YOU’RE EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING CATHOLIC?”

Why would I need an excuse?

I am a Unitarian Universalist, who is quite happy with his faith, its teachings and traditions.

Oh, and since unitarianism, by its very definition, denies the existence of a trinity, that would made adhering to Catholic beliefs impossible.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Reuben_J]

Today, the Catechism makes the distinction between dying in mortal sin and dying in a “state of grace” (which is defined as dying in communion with the Church without the spiritual stain of “mortal sin” [which is defined as a willingly committed “grave act” [which is defined as … you get my point]]).

Unless one can say that the definition in itself is wrong, I hardly can see any problem with it. Definition is good because we want to be informed about our belief. How much and how far do we know about what we believe in? That the reason for definition.

However, it is still a mystery; definition can only define how much and up to a point. The rest would be a mystery, a knowledge that we are not revealed with and only for God to know.

‘A state of grace’ is where we are free of sin by the forgiving grace of God. There are some factors that come into play with that – was that person forgiven, did he made a good confession and what was God’s final response to him? All of this we don’t know. Therefore ‘a state of grace’ is still a mystery. What we know however, is that for a person to die in that state, he will be saved. And this is obvious, a fundamental teaching in a belief in Christianity.

Similarly about ‘mortal sin’, where the same principle applies. We cannot define whether a person dies in mortal sin or not. Only God knows that. But we are made the wiser by the knowledge of the definition of ‘mortal sin’ though it is still a mystery whether we are in a state of mortal sin or not because that is only for God to know.

While I was at odds with the Catechism’s approach, I fell in love with how the Eastern Orthodox church has always understood matters of faith. Instead of a legal model, the Orthodox church uses a medical one - meaning that sins are not addressed as crimes that deserve punishments, but illnesses that need healing. The amount of mercy I first perceived in entering an Orthodox Church was outstanding. Furthermore, no Catechism or strict doctrinal text exists in the Orthodox Church, and the mysteries of the faith are left as mysteries. Orthodoxy is not big on defining every matter of faith or listing rules -** it can be just as much a sin to go to Church if you’re going for the wrong reason** (for example: going to Church just so other people can think that you’re pious - the Orthodox would say it’s better to stay home on Sunday). It is a whole faith to foster a personal relationship, considering the whole being of a person, not a flat list of obligations that one is expected to follow.

There is no argument that the Orthodox Church does have merit of its own and why many people are attracted to it.

I am in defense of the Catechism (of the Catholic Church) which is a very useful document and a very important one for a believer to know what his belief is all about. What are we without the full knowledge of what we believe in? We cannot keep saying it is a mystery, surely.

 

[SophiaK]

I don’t feel like I have excuses. I enjoy conversation with Roman Catholics and want nothing but to get along, but I’m happy with where I stand on things.

1. I reject Papal Infallibility.
2. I reject the doctrine of breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church as heresy, because -
3. I reject the doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church and churches in full communion with it are the Only Church.
4. I reject the doctrine of women being ineligible for priesthood.
5. I reject the doctrine of children not old enough to complete catechism being barred from the Eucharist.
6. I am comfortable with ideological differences amongst Christians, even when I flat out think someone is wrong. I enjoy having the freedom to read the Bible, come to conclusions on my own, and to allow my views to change as I develop.

Not adding this to the list exactly, but I will admit receiving the message that my church does not take the Eucharist seriously ruffles the feathers a bit. It is not that I think Roman Catholics should be forced to allow me to take the Eucharist in their church, because it is their right to have requirements in order to receive and I agree it’s not something adults need to doing without any thought whatsoever. And I know there are Episcopal Churches in this country that do not follow traditional services. But oy, I take it seriously, I do I do!

 

[lonelypetunia]

I am glad you are not angry or bitter, at first I thought that was what you meant. But the idea that you are defined as an adult by something written on your paperwork as a child reflects childish thinking.

The first Palestinian Christians were all Jews, and circumcised under the covenant of Moses. When Jesus came and fulfilled the whole Law, circumcision and the observance of the Levitical laws was no longer necessary. Yet they could not go back and uncircumcise themselves, could they?

And Jews who became Christians before or during the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime were still arrested and executed a Jews because of their birth names, place or circumcision. Such thhings do not define what a person is, but rather, the state of the heart.

I agree with what has been posted that this was stamped on your card to exempt you from certain things required of Catholic students that did not apply to you. But you are in a different state in life now. You can now get a paper that says “Catholic” with your name on it, if you want.

Everyone has their own journey with Faith. I’m still on mine. I may find my way back to my own church someday. I don’t feel I will ever convert because there are teachings of the Catholic church that I personally disagree with. That doesn’t mean I don’t have respect and admiration for them, I do.

 

[jrtrent]

WHAT’S YOU’RE EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING CATHOLIC?

Much has already been said about doctrinal differences, competing church’s claims to be the One Church authorized by Christ, and so on. I’ll only add a brief quote from Archbishop Haverland (of the Anglican Catholic Church) on the issue of Anglicans seeking union with the Roman Catholic church:

“We believe that classical Anglicanism, as presented clearly in The Affirmation of Saint Louis and in our liturgies and other authoritative formularies, is already faithful to Scripture and the Fathers and is already fully Catholic and Orthodox. Conversion is not necessary and absorption is not appropriate.” virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=11534

 

[Dorothy]

May the Most Blessed Trinity help us all, so that we may all be one someday. Holy Spirit, lead us, guide us.
Father, bless us, Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us!

 

[Taurks]

Unless one can say that the definition in itself is wrong, I hardly can see any problem with it. Definition is good because we want to be informed about our belief. How much and how far do we know about what we believe in? That the reason for definition.

Similarly about ‘mortal sin’, where the same principle applies. We cannot define whether a person dies in mortal sin or not. Only God knows that. But we are made the wiser by the knowledge of the definition of ‘mortal sin’ though it is still a mystery whether we are in a state of mortal sin or not because that is only for God to know.

That may very well be true, Reuben, and it may be a matter of how we deal with the definitions. However, I can look around this board and find a mountain of places where definitions have absolutely stifled the spirituality of believers and have caused them only scrupling and fear - such was the case with me. There is a thread on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum where someone asked if it’s permissible to go to a ceremony where the ashes of the deceased are being sprinkled into the ocean. I would go with my conscience and say yes, but others are running to the rulebook to interpret out an answer. This is pharisaical - just like the Pharisees (and modern day Orthodox Jews) who couldn’t do so much as light a match on the Sabbath because of the rules.

There is also the problem of when two definitions contradict. I gave the one about Anglican orders above, but here is one more:

1. The Church believes it’s a mortal sin to schism from her, but then declares that Eastern / Oriental Orthodoxy (and a few other churches which “schismed”) are valid Churches. This seems to leave modern-day converts like myself hanging in the air. Am I safe because I’m now in the apostolic Orthodox Church, or should I be in mortal sin because I left the Catholic Church?

What are we without the full knowledge of what we believe in? We cannot keep saying it is a mystery, surely.

Vladimir Lossky, St. John Chrysostom, Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus the Confessor and Moses when he was in the Cloud of Unknowing would all disagree. Kataphatic theology (theology with definitions) brings one only so far up Jacob’s ladder - but just like Moses who had to pass by the sound of trumpets and the visible world on his way up to God, the highest spirituality embraces mystery.

“A comprehended God is no god.” -St. John Chrysostom, one of the three Hierarchs of the Church.

 

[GKC]

That may very well be true, Reuben, and it may be a matter of how we deal with the definitions. However, I can look around this board and find a mountain of places where definitions have absolutely stifled the spirituality of believers and have caused them only scrupling and fear - such was the case with me. There is a thread on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum where someone asked if it’s permissible to go to a ceremony where the ashes of the deceased are being sprinkled into the ocean. I would go with my conscience and say yes, but others are running to the rulebook to interpret out an answer. This is pharisaical - just like the Pharisees (and modern day Orthodox Jews) who couldn’t do so much as light a match on the Sabbath because of the rules.

There is also the problem of when two definitions contradict. I gave the one about Anglican orders above, but here is one more:

1. The Church believes it’s a mortal sin to schism from her, but then declares that Eastern / Oriental Orthodoxy (and a few other churches which “schismed”) are valid Churches. This seems to leave modern-day converts like myself hanging in the air. Am I safe because I’m now in the apostolic Orthodox Church, or should I be in mortal sin because I left the Catholic Church?

Vladimir Lossky, St. John Chrysostom, Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus the Confessor and Moses when he was in the Cloud of Unknowing would all disagree. Kataphatic theology (theology with definitions) brings one only so far up Jacob’s ladder - but just like Moses who had to pass by the sound of trumpets and the visible world on his way up to God, the highest spirituality embraces mystery.

“A comprehended God is no god.” -St. John Chrysostom, one of the three Hierarchs of the Church.

You did give a partial statement on the stated judgment on Anglican orders, per Apostolicae Curae. The form in the Edwardine Ordinal for consecrating bishops/ordaining priests, was judged defective, for the reason you said. But that alone was not the complete rationale for the judgment. Intertwined with it was a judgment of invalid sacramental intent, on the part of those who used the form. Invalid intent, in the sacramental act, and the use of an invalid form (a couple of more technical points are involved, but I’ve intruded sufficiently here; I recently mentioned it in another thread) must be considered together.

I’m Anglican, and do not affirm Apostolicae Curae, but it’s been a hobby of mine for many years.

GKC

 

[Reuben_J]

That may very well be true, Reuben, and it may be a matter of how we deal with the definitions. However, I can look around this board and find a mountain of places where definitions have absolutely stifled the spirituality of believers and have caused them only scrupling and fear - such was the case with me. There is a thread on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum where someone asked if it’s permissible to go to a ceremony where the ashes of the deceased are being sprinkled into the ocean. I would go with my conscience and say yes, but others are running to the rulebook to interpret out an answer. This is pharisaical - just like the Pharisees (and modern day Orthodox Jews) who couldn’t do so much as light a match on the Sabbath because of the rules.

There is also the problem of when two definitions contradict. I gave the one about Anglican orders above, but here is one more:

1. The Church believes it’s a mortal sin to schism from her, but then declares that Eastern / Oriental Orthodoxy (and a few other churches which “schismed”) are valid Churches. This seems to leave modern-day converts like myself hanging in the air. Am I safe because I’m now in the apostolic Orthodox Church, or should I be in mortal sin because I left the Catholic Church?

Vladimir Lossky, St. John Chrysostom, Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus the Confessor and Moses when he was in the Cloud of Unknowing would all disagree. Kataphatic theology (theology with definitions) brings one only so far up Jacob’s ladder - but just like Moses who had to pass by the sound of trumpets and the visible world on his way up to God, the highest spirituality embraces mystery.

“A comprehended God is no god.” -St. John Chrysostom, one of the three Hierarchs of the Church.

I am replying from my IPad now so I just lump everything in this paragraph.

I agree when you mention about the too many details legalistic definition and I cringe every time when I come across them. Don’t know whether that would make me a bad Catholic but not all Catholics dwell in micro definitions. So I can see your point there. More importantly the best manual would be the Catechism (CCC) as reference to understanding the faith. There are many levels about the strength of Catholic’s rules. For example in devotion prayers, the rules there are not binding on everybody.

About the examples you gave about contradicting definition on who are being saved and mortal sin, yes, that can be quite confusing. These should be covered clearly in the CCC again about whether there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Any you will see that it depends on the individual concerned.

On your last paragraph and with respect to the saints and doctors of the Church mentioned, perhaps you put up wrong examples. I did not say we can define everything. In fact even in the so called definitions, there is still mystery there. It is just that definition wherever possible is a source of greater knowledge but that does not solve all mysteries. On the other hand, not everything is left as mystery because that can lead to ignorance when we already know what it is.

God bless.

Reuben