Doing the Minimum

[Robert_Burns]

Ahh…but your idea of the minimum is VERY different then my idea of the minimum. So…you can judge that I’m just doing the minimum but pardon me but I don’t care what YOU think. See–there is the difference.

What you do or dont do seems to be the gist of YOUR own posts. In not one of my posts did I judge what you do or dont do to be Good or Bad. Anyone that follows the thread can easily see that the things I call Catholics to do are for ALL of us to do (myself included) to be better Catholics and to effect Positive Change in the Church. For some reason you take offense to someone who wants positive change and thus have come here to oppose it.

So thats a “you” problem. What you do or dont do or find objectionable portends that any of care to begin with what YOU think is important. Its not only off topic - but for all intents and purposes a negative sentiment that detracts from what I hoped to accomplish to begin with.

Unles you want to add something constructive to the conversation and pitch in and help rebuild the Church and overcome our challenges - then why post at all. At this point I really have nothing more to say to you. I’d rather hear positive responses.

Pax

 

[Robert_Burns]

Nice. Now you got my attention!

Well I have a call to action. Let me know if you think it’s off-topic and I’ll leave it at this. I like to challenge Catholics to learn about contemplative prayer forms, such as Lectio Divina includes. Why? Because the CCC says that one’s prayer life should go further than vocal or meditation, into a prayer that is truly union with God. (CCC 2708)

Reference: “Expressions of Prayer” from CCC

Alan

Exactly. This is an example of what I was looking for to begin with. Great post !!!

 

[Robert_Burns]

So are you saying that a person with venial sins on his/her soul will not attain heaven? If so, I’m afraid you’re a bit confused; that is, if I understand your post correctly. Most people who end up in heaven probably died with venial sins on their souls. That is what Purgatory is for.

There is only one sin that God will not forgive and that is a sin against the Holy Spirit. If I am incorrect someone please correct me because I don’t want to state anything that is wrong. A sin against the Holy Spirit is the refusal to atone for a mortal sin and that is a guarantee of hell.

There is a big difference in the outcome when we are discussing venial vs. mortal sins.

Well this is not a thread designed by me initially to end up in a fight or argument. When I said we are called to be Saints not sinners it was in reference to the Gravity of SIN. IMO - the Grravity of Sin has been greatly overlooked in recent decades. Hense - we have Issues like Artificial Birth Control / Immoral Dress and behaviour / Habitual use of the Lords name in vain and many other MORTAL SINS that the Church has so defined being practised by people who consider themselves to be Catholic.

And BTW Purgatory is not only for venial sin - but the Stain of Forgiven Mortal sins as well. certainly the Damnable Guilt of Sin is removed in Confession and Penance - but the Stain of that Sin remains and has to be expiated either in this life or in the next. My suggestion is to not overlook that aspect of Purgatory as Sins expiated in Purgatory are far more easily expiated in this life than there. No one should want to go to Purgatory or wait to expiate their sins. As we know - Acts of Charity - Prayers - Suffereings - Sacrifices and many other acts can expiate those stains from forgiven Mortal Sins while we yet live. As for the Sins against the Holy Ghost - they are commonly said to be six in number: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resisting truth, and envy of another’s spiritual welfare according to Catholic theologians.

St Thomas Aquinas equates the Fires of Purgatory with the Fires of Hell itself - the obvious difference being the purpose.

I think somehow there seems to be a disconnect in your interpretation of why I said what I said. Hopefully this clears up your misconceptions.

pax

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

What you do or dont do seems to be the gist of YOUR own posts. In not one of my posts did I judge what you do or dont do to be Good or Bad. Anyone that follows the thread can easily see that the things I call Catholics to do are for ALL of us to do (myself included) to be better Catholics and to effect Positive Change in the Church. For some reason you take offense to someone who wants positive change and thus have come here to oppose it.

So thats a “you” problem. What you do or dont do or find objectionable portends that any of care to begin with what YOU think is important. Its not only off topic - but for all intents and purposes a negative sentiment that detracts from what I hoped to accomplish to begin with.

Unles you want to add something constructive to the conversation and pitch in and help rebuild the Church and overcome our challenges - then why post at all. At this point I really have nothing more to say to you. I’d rather hear positive responses.

Pax

No–what I’m saying is I disagree with what you call “positive” change. That is clearly something you don’t want to hear. It also appears from your first post that you consider people who receive CITH and don’t kneel to be doing the bare minimum. Also something I would disagree with.

I don’t consider it constructive to judge people by telling them they are doing the bare minimum by how they receive.

It’s attitudes like your that I consider one of our challenges…so that is why I’m posting.

I’m sure you would like to hear only positive responses that agree with your point of view. Wouldn’t we all!

 

[Robert_Burns]

No–what I’m saying is I disagree with what you call “positive” change. That is clearly something you don’t want to hear. It also appears from your first post that you consider people who receive CITH and don’t kneel to be doing the bare minimum. Also something I would disagree with.

I don’t consider it constructive to judge people by telling them they are doing the bare minimum by how they receive.

It’s attitudes like your that I consider one of our challenges…so that is why I’m posting.

I’m sure you would like to hear only positive responses that agree with your point of view. Wouldn’t we all!

Sorry , but standing and recieving CITH is by INDULT in other words “allowed” and is a bare minimum. It isnt the correct way. Pope Paul the VI opposed it and the first Bishop who allowed it recieve permission to allow it but that doesnt make it the norm. The fact that they are doing the minimum needs to be pointed out to them - just as a Catholic who goes to Church only on Sunday is only doing the bare minimum.

And its attitudes like your that accept the bare minimum rather than to STRIVE For something better is the reason I started this thread.

As for agreeing with me - thats not necessary - as for positive responses , unlike you I dont come here to argue for MY Point of view. Instead I look at the things the Church has taught for 2000 years on whole and say we need to do more than the minimum. Our Church is 2000 years old not 50. I see the Church from that perspective - not just whats happening today as you appear to.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m sure you would like to hear only positive responses that agree with your point of view. Wouldn’t we all!

I love positive responses. I enjoy it when someone sees what I see, and feeds it back to me.

That said, I also enjoy honest critical responses, especially well-worded ones; with these I get to be challenged and tested, so that I may grow.

Alan

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Sorry , but standing and recieving CITH is by INDULT in other words “allowed” and is a bare minimum. It isnt the correct way. Pope Paul the VI opposed it and the first Bishop who allowed it recieve permission to allow it but that doesnt make it the norm. The fact that they are doing the minimum needs to be pointed out to them - just as a Catholic who goes to Church only on Sunday is only doing the bare minimum.

And its attitudes like your that accept the bare minimum rather than to STRIVE For something better is the reason I started this thread.

As for agreeing with me - thats not necessary - as for positive responses , unlike you I dont come here to argue for MY Point of view. Instead I look at the things the Church has taught for 2000 years on whole and say we need to do more than the minimum. Our Church is 2000 years old not 50. I see the Church from that perspective - not just whats happening today as you appear to.

Oh…SORRY…I’ll take my SINNER self off this thread as I don’t want to stain your life.

But…you wonder why you won’t get many people to bite…apparently I’m the type that you need to “reach” but never will with that type of mentality.

Oh—and you really have NO idea if I do the bare minimum or not as you can not know my heart. I sure hope no one judges you as harshly as you are judging other people.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Oh…SORRY…I’ll take my SINNER self off this thread as I don’t want to stain your life.

But…you wonder why you won’t get many people to bite…apparently I’m the type that you need to “reach” but never will with that type of mentality.

Oh—and you really have NO idea if I do the bare minimum or not as you can not know my heart. I sure hope no one judges you as harshly as you are judging other people.

Annabelle,

Maybe we can think of it as a personal challenge to do the “reaching.” After all, there has to be some common ground somewhere, does there not?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sorry , but standing and recieving CITH is by INDULT in other words “allowed” and is a bare minimum. It isnt the correct way. Pope Paul the VI opposed it and the first Bishop who allowed it recieve permission to allow it but that doesnt make it the norm. The fact that they are doing the minimum needs to be pointed out to them - just as a Catholic who goes to Church only on Sunday is only doing the bare minimum.

And its attitudes like your that accept the bare minimum rather than to STRIVE For something better is the reason I started this thread.

As for agreeing with me - thats not necessary - as for positive responses , unlike you I dont come here to argue for MY Point of view. Instead I look at the things the Church has taught for 2000 years on whole and say we need to do more than the minimum. Our Church is 2000 years old not 50. I see the Church from that perspective - not just whats happening today as you appear to.

Seems to me like we’re back to the argument of externals and their role and their meaning. I know everybody probably wants to gag when I bring it up, so I won’t belabor the point.

I see two philosophies; looking at it from a tangible, observable point of view and thereby judging it, or looking at it from more of a mystical view. Not all that came out of VII is bad, I don’t think. For example, I have heard some bemoan the replacement of teaching about “love” instead of the good ol’ facts. Well, why can’t we have both? Why can’t we strive for both? I don’t see any real potential for disagreement here.

Alan

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The norm for reception of holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm (GIRM 160).

 

[Robert_Burns]

Oh…SORRY…I’ll take my SINNER self off this thread as I don’t want to stain your life.

But…you wonder why you won’t get many people to bite…apparently I’m the type that you need to “reach” but never will with that type of mentality.

Oh—and you really have NO idea if I do the bare minimum or not as you can not know my heart. I sure hope no one judges you as harshly as you are judging other people.

We are all sinners - and the only thing that stains my soul is the gravity of my sins as judged by GOD Himself. As for your sins - you will have to take that up with him.

As for will I “get many people” I am not fishing for people. I am merely submitting a topic that asks the faithful to challenge itself to do better than it has done in the recent past. It never has been about judging anyones salvation. It is a plea for Ideas and for a change of attitude - but as demonstrated - the attitiude of “nothings wrong” seems to be a prevalent attitude of some who frequent this forum. I disagree that nothing is wrong. I see widespread immorality in an increasingly hedonistic society with homosexuals marrying and parading down our streets and 45 million dead babies being carved up and sold in the name of science and I say there is plenty that is wrong. And that something must be done from the grassroots. I was looking for ideas. And for change.

And as for what you do or dont do - as stated prior - I dont really care what you do or dont do - but it would seem there must be something or you wouldnt feel compelled to continue to share your feelings of guilt with me - who can do nothing about it. I am not your judge. Perhaps you need to see a Priest.

Pax

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sorry , but standing and recieving CITH is by INDULT in other words “allowed” and is a bare minimum. It isnt the correct way. Pope Paul the VI opposed it and the first Bishop who allowed it recieve permission to allow it but that doesnt make it the norm. The fact that they are doing the minimum needs to be pointed out to them - just as a Catholic who goes to Church only on Sunday is only doing the bare minimum.

And its attitudes like your that accept the bare minimum rather than to STRIVE For something better is the reason I started this thread.

As for agreeing with me - thats not necessary - as for positive responses , unlike you I dont come here to argue for MY Point of view. Instead I look at the things the Church has taught for 2000 years on whole and say we need to do more than the minimum. Our Church is 2000 years old not 50. I see the Church from that perspective - not just whats happening today as you appear to.

Pharisees were also very concerned with the letter of the law, and not the spirit, were they not?

 

[Robert_Burns]

Pharisees were also very concerned with the letter of the law, and not the spirit, were they not?

Because the Pharisees wanted to appear to be religious while doing the bare minimum from the standpoint of the purpose of GOD’S Commandments. The same seems to hold true today., doesnt it. Traditional catholics seek a return to spriritual devotions and a meaningful religion that matters in people lives - not a once a week floorshow. So indeed - there are pharisees alive and well today , but from my perspective they arent necessarily who you seem to think they are.

Pax

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Because the Pharisees wanted to appear to be religious while doing the bare minimum from the standpoint of the purpose of GOD’S Commandments. The same seems to hold true today., doesnt it. Traditional catholics seek a return to spriritual devotions and a meaningful religion that matters in people lives - not a once a week floorshow. So indeed - there are pharisees alive and well today , but from my perspective they arent necessarily who you seem to think they are.

Pax

Who is leading people closer to the Church? The stern, unpleasant, harshly judgmental type who says my-way-or-the-highway, or the welcoming type?

Mother Theresa understood phenomenon that very well.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well this is not a thread designed by me initially to end up in a fight or argument. When I said we are called to be Saints not sinners it was in reference to the Gravity of SIN. IMO - the Grravity of Sin has been greatly overlooked in recent decades. Hense - we have Issues like Artificial Birth Control / Immoral Dress and behaviour / Habitual use of the Lords name in vain and many other MORTAL SINS that the Church has so defined being practised by people who consider themselves to be Catholic.

And BTW Purgatory is not only for venial sin - but the Stain of Forgiven Mortal sins as well. certainly the Damnable Guilt of Sin is removed in Confession and Penance - but the Stain of that Sin remains and has to be expiated either in this life or in the next. My suggestion is to not overlook that aspect of Purgatory as Sins expiated in Purgatory are far more easily expiated in this life than there. No one should want to go to Purgatory or wait to expiate their sins. As we know - Acts of Charity - Prayers - Suffereings - Sacrifices and many other acts can expiate those stains from forgiven Mortal Sins while we yet live. As for the Sins against the Holy Ghost - they are commonly said to be six in number: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resisting truth, and envy of another’s spiritual welfare according to Catholic theologians.

St Thomas Aquinas equates the Fires of Purgatory with the Fires of Hell itself - the obvious difference being the purpose.

I think somehow there seems to be a disconnect in your interpretation of why I said what I said. Hopefully this clears up your misconceptions.

pax

I’d like the post number where Sailor Kenshin stated that actions mean nothing, please. Thank you.

And Annabelle too, please. Thank you again.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Michelle Arnold stated the following on August 20:

"Reception of Communion on the tongue is the universal norm for the Latin Catholic church. In some countries (including the U.S.) there is a dispensation for reception in the hand, but no communicant is required to receive Communion in the hand if he does not want to do so. A priest cannot deny Communion to someone who wants to receive it on the tongue. That said, a communicant also should not make the Communion line a place for a battle of wills with the priest. If the priest refuses to give Communion on the tongue, the communicant should either accept it in the hand or go to another minister for Communion.

“Kneeling for Communion is not a standard posture for reception of Communion, except at those liturgies at which it is expected for all communicants (such as the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy). The standard posture for the ordinary form of the Roman liturgy is to stand. While a priest should not embarrass someone who inappropriately kneels for Communion by refusing him Communion, he should privately counsel that individual to stand for Communion in the future. If the communicant knowingly and deliberately refuses to follow the priest’s counsel, he does so not out of piety but out of willful disobedience to the just direction of his spiritual father in Christ.”

Thank you, Michelle!!

I hope this clears up any misconceptions about this issue. I would provide a link here except I don’t think I can get back to where I found this. It was from “Ask an Apologist.” Maybe someone else can help with a link. I’ve found it hard to navigate on CAF. Sorry.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think traditional things can be beautiful. In Wichita, St. Anthony is where they have the TLM and where I got to play pipe organ for a few years. No, I didn’t get to play for the TLM (I play at my home parish at 8 am Sunday) but it was breathtaking, especially after it was recently restored. Here’s a view from my “office” up on the rear wall:

http://www.stanthonywichita.com/parts/churchinterior.jpg

They restored that church with a great deal of time, money, and volunteer labor, and amazing talent. Why? Because it is beautiful. They don’t build 'em like that anymore.

That said, I don’t think just because something is traditional automatically means it is more beautiful than something that isn’t.

Alan

 

[Robert_Burns]

Who is leading people closer to the Church? The stern, unpleasant, harshly judgmental type who says my-way-or-the-highway, or the welcoming type?

Mother Theresa understood phenomenon that very well.

By her Words alone or by her profund acts of Charity and of Humility which made her Words carry weight? Why isnt that what I am calling for - a positive change in Attitude and in action? And it appears to be fough tooth and nail by those who seem to want more of the same. Yes , Mother Thesesa showed her catholicism in the slums of Calcutta and in her traditional practise of religion. She understood that Religion isnt merely what you say - but what you DO hense the title of this thread “DOING only the MINIMUM”

Pax

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Longing for greater reverence is commendible.

And if I were to say that I deliberately spat out the Host, or somehow desecrated this Sacrament, you would not only have a right but a duty to judge me (but NOT the state of my soul.)

You have not, however, seemed to acknowledge that a man can receive more reverently standing than one who is kneeling/receiving on the tongue but daydreaming or in a state of mortal sin.

By focusing on externals, there is very much a sense of, ‘You don’t measure up to MY standards of holiness.’

These standards are not those of the Church, which, thank God, is indeed a hospital for sinners.

 

[mick321]

Like it or not, as adult Catholics, folks take notice of our actions.

Some have ill intent. They seek to expose hypocrisy, wrongdoing and malignancy within the Body of Christ and will stop at nothing in their effort to discredit our Faith. We should not play into their hands.

Our actions are also noticed by younger Catholics and recent converts. As presumably those who “know our Faith”, we have a duty to set the best possible example for them to emulate and pass on to others. This applies to clergy and lay faithful alike.

The Catholic Church has form and structure that distinguishes it from other institutions that claim Christian heritage. The Nicean Creed is not a fairy tale that we recite between Marty Haugen tunes. It is a solemn profession of our Holy Faith. Nothing less.

We assist the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to adore God, give Him thanks, beg forgiveness for past sins and petition for our intentions. As human beings, subordinate to God in every way, our best efforts will always fall short of what He is due. Considering what’s at stake, the idea of voluntarily degrading one’s relationship with God to a level that’s “allowed”, seems reckless and irresponsible to me.
.