Has the 'Non-Catholic Religions' forum lost its purpose?

[Guyonthestreet]

Wow. That sounds very much like “there are no atheists in foxholes” to me.

You’d be surprised

But it was that plea that started it all for me. I had never been religious and stood and fell by my own decisions.

I was totally self relient. I made by own luck. I survived and thrived by my own skill and intelligence.

I had people to look after - and I took that respnsibility seriously.

Afterwards, it shocked the hell out of me I called out to God, I never had before.

It troubled me for a long time. Why? Why would I do that. It wasn’t the worst situaiton I had ever been in. And death is always a milisecond away. I had no worries there - when youre dead youre dead. My affairs were always in order so noone would ever be burdened by me not comming back. Yeah, a few might miss me for a bit but there ya go.

It kept me awake. Why, at that precise moment, did I call out to God? What could possibly have overtaken me that never had before that I should call to God.

And then it hit me like a train. Kids. Kids call out to their mammas and pappas. Why? Yes because they are dependent and vulnerable, but that wasnt the answer.

The answer was because the mamma and pappa are a part of the child. They cry out to the parents because the parents are part of them.

So there must be something of God in me that cried out at that moment to the father. Something a part of me, and yet almost independent of me at the same time, that at a moment of near death, called out to be succored by the parent.

It made sense to me - I had a soul and it belonged to God, and it would cry out to God, because it belonged to God.

That’s the best I can explain it - I’m a fighter not a writer - Im not great with this stuff.

I’ve been on a journey ever since to passify my soul.

 

[Peter_J]

I recall a new Bishop tried to explain to the Sisters of a convent that they needed nothing but the bible and the CCC.

sola scriptura et catechismus

 

[guanophore]

You’d be surprised

But it was that plea that started it all for me. I had never been religious and stood and fell by my own decisions.

I was totally self relient. I made by own luck. I survived and thrived by my own skill and intelligence.

I had people to look after - and I took that respnsibility seriously.

Afterwards, it shocked the hell out of me I called out to God, I never had before.

It troubled me for a long time. Why? Why would I do that. It wasn’t the worst situaiton I had ever been in. And death is always a milisecond away. I had no worries there - when youre dead youre dead. My affairs were always in order so noone would ever be burdened by me not comming back. Yeah, a few might miss me for a bit but there ya go.

It kept me awake. Why, at that precise moment, did I call out to God? What could possibly have overtaken me that never had before that I should call to God.

And then it hit me like a train. Kids. Kids call out to their mammas and pappas. Why? Yes because they are dependent and vulnerable, but that wasnt the answer.

The answer was because the mamma and pappa are a part of the child. They cry out to the parents because the parents are part of them.

So there must be something of God in me that cried out at that moment to the father. Something a part of me, and yet almost independent of me at the same time, that at a moment of near death, called out to be succored by the parent.

It made sense to me - I had a soul and it belonged to God, and it would cry out to God, because it belonged to God.

That’s the best I can explain it - I’m a fighter not a writer - Im not great with this stuff.

I’ve been on a journey ever since to passify my soul.

This is an AWESOME testimony, and one that I hope you will continue to share. I think you are so right on! We are made in HIs image and likeness, and we are part of Him. Our hearts are restless until they rest in Him. It is, as you say, the deep knowledge of the soul within us which knows the One who made us.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

sola scriptura et catechismus

That is rude. Cut it out!!!

There is no context here for the comment, certainly not enough to justify such a pejorative interpretation. In the context of what is contained in the Deposit of the Faith (something Protestants do not acknowledge exists), it is indeed all one needs. However, there’s still work to do beyond that, though none of it adds to the Deposit of the Faith.

And it so happens, with respect to Holy Scripture, that there are fewer than 20 passages of Holy Scripture that have been interpreted de fide by the Magisterium. Catholic exegetes have a good deal of freedom.

And this is a cheap trap. A Protestant wants reference to documents; it is provided, and another Protestant trots out sola scriptura, on the basis of a comment cited utterly without contest. Very impressive .

Gerry

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
sola scriptura et catechismus

Good point, I should have added, Please excuse my “language”.

 

[SonofMonica]

You’d be surprised

But it was that plea that started it all for me. I had never been religious and stood and fell by my own decisions.

I was totally self relient. I made by own luck. I survived and thrived by my own skill and intelligence.

I had people to look after - and I took that respnsibility seriously.

Afterwards, it shocked the hell out of me I called out to God, I never had before.

It troubled me for a long time. Why? Why would I do that. It wasn’t the worst situaiton I had ever been in. And death is always a milisecond away. I had no worries there - when youre dead youre dead. My affairs were always in order so noone would ever be burdened by me not comming back. Yeah, a few might miss me for a bit but there ya go.

It kept me awake. Why, at that precise moment, did I call out to God? What could possibly have overtaken me that never had before that I should call to God.

And then it hit me like a train. Kids. Kids call out to their mammas and pappas. Why? Yes because they are dependent and vulnerable, but that wasnt the answer.

The answer was because the mamma and pappa are a part of the child. They cry out to the parents because the parents are part of them.

So there must be something of God in me that cried out at that moment to the father. Something a part of me, and yet almost independent of me at the same time, that at a moment of near death, called out to be succored by the parent.

It made sense to me - I had a soul and it belonged to God, and it would cry out to God, because it belonged to God.

That’s the best I can explain it - I’m a fighter not a writer - Im not great with this stuff.

I’ve been on a journey ever since to passify my soul.

Wow, I got chills reading that. :winter:

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I get where you are coming from Gary. Thanks. I recall a new Bishop tried to explain to the Sisters of a convent that they needed nothing but the bible and the CCC. They didn’t exactly take well to that. But I see how you are interpreting the CCC. Blessings to you.

Sorry, but I don’t believe you. Were you there when the bishop told all these sisters? What were you doing in a convent? Were you a nun?

 

[Harpazo]

Sorry, but I don’t believe you. Were you there when the bishop told all these sisters? What were you doing in a convent? Were you a nun?

It is things like this that sadly prove my point exactly…

Please, let us get back on topic folks.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5494601:

Hi Gerry,

The formal description of the purpose of the Non–Catholic Religions

forum (for those who take the time to read it, anyway) is that it’s for “Comparing and contrasting beliefs.” There’s no warning for we unsuspecting Non–Catholics that there exists inside a host of ethereally–minded Catholics who have their own list of subjects that are not up for discussion and are impatiently waiting to take offense in order to fight us into believing what they believe until we’re all punched into submission whereupon we can gratefully receive their “Blessings.”

Just thought I’d point that out.

Ecumenically,
Mick
:thumbsup:There is nothing “ethereally-minded” about the proposition that the characteristics of a Sacrament, such as Matrimony or Holy Orders, cannot be changed by anyone, even the Magisterium of the Church. Now not infrequently, when the topics of women’s ordination or same sex marriage comes up, and a Catholic’s reply that to ordain women or marry 2 men or 2 women to each other is not in the Church’s power (that, by the way is indeed her position), what follows is a denial of that as being the case, and that it is really a matter of male dominance, or intolerance, or something else equally as odious.

I would hope no one would pounce on someone who asked why the Church did not, say, ordain women. But if they came back with unsavory alternatives for the Church’s position that she cannot, when they are told that, things may not likely go very smoothly.

I’ve observed over the last 5 years that when it comes to setting traps, lots of non-Catholics have come to this forum to set them in the manner I have just described. Why don’t you ordain women? Because we can’t change the characteristics of a sacrament. You’re just saying that; it’s because you oppress women … or some such.

And really this is a Catholic forum. When in someone else’s home, should one not, as a point of good manners, take caution with one’s tone? Catholics, remember, know the Church to be their Holy Mother. Is it nice to bad mouth someone’s mother, or impute nefarious motives to her?

Blessings,

Gerry

Hello again, Gerry,

As I’m a relatively new member I’m unable to say anything sensible about your interactions with Non–Catholic posters who have ventured into this forum during the past five years apparently with the intention of setting traps for you in this, your home for home, but if in your dealings with them you adopted a welcoming, friendly understanding tone then I hardly think you have anything substantial about which to feel guilty.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

It is things like this that sadly prove my point exactly…

Please, let us get back on topic folks.

In Christ,
Andrew

Doesn’t matter. I’d like to know exactly what she means by this. There is nothing wrong with doubting one’s story.

 

[SonofMonica]

Doesn’t matter. I’d like to know exactly what she means by this. There is nothing wrong with doubting one’s story.

I kinda took it as a “guy walks into a bar” story. I doubt this was experienced first hand or was even real. But I’m not sure that was the point.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I kinda took it as a “guy walks into a bar” story. I doubt this was experienced first hand or was even real. But I’m not sure that was the point.

Thank you. Now if she can come and explain herself.

 

[SSTeacher]

SonofMonica;5502079:

I kinda took it as a “guy walks into a bar” story. I doubt this was experienced first hand or was even real. But I’m not sure that was the point.

Thank you. Now if she can come and explain herself.

Why don’t you just send her a courteous private message?

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Why don’t you just send her a courteous private message?

Helpfully,
Mick

Why? Has she ever sent me one? She has been uncharitable before to me. I just want an answer that backs up what she said. If she can state this to everyone here, she can explain this to everyone here. Simple.

 

[Peter_J]

Please, let us get back on topic folks.

We can try, although it’s possible that the thread has already run its course. BTW, isn’t it interesting that pretty much the whole discussion thus far has been about intra-religious dialogue (dialogue among Christians) when in fact the forum is dedicated to inter-religious dialogue (dialogue with other religions)?

… But as I say, we can try to get back on topic. For me, it comes down to the question of whether the forum has strayed from its purpose, or whether the purpose itself has changed. (See also the post quoted below.) Eh?

Janet,

I hear what you’re saying, but I think there’s another possibility you’re overlooking: namely, that the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ forum hasn’t strayed from its purpose, but that the purpose itself has changed. Big difference.

Keeping things in perspective, the forum-purpose isn’t something that going to change every day or even every month, but it may very well change in 2 years and 3 months (note: the post you and Dale linked to is dated Apr 11, '07).

So has the purpose, in fact, changed in the last 2 years and 3 months? Well, I think the simplest way for me to convince you that it has changed is if you read this post (which, incidentally, was written by the very same person you quoted).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Actually, since I read it with the Church, not in isolation, I see what the writers said. And it’s not arcane or obscure, but rather like a section of harmony in a symphonic composition. Try to read it any other way, and it becomes rather like noise, not music.

A pity the sisters “didn’t take to it well.” A Bishop is part of the Magisterium, and exercises the teaching authority of the Church. They do not. Hopefully, they didn’t turn to some renegade Catholic academic as a substitute.

Blessings,

Gerry

No doubt you see it in that manner.

I was rather impressed when they told me the story. The were simply expressing that they were not and would not be constrained to understanding their faith based on only the CCC for elucidation. I would call that prudent, given that that their are several hundred if not thousands of very brilliant Catholic theologians and biblical experts out their writing books. I can’t imagine limiting oneself to so narrow a view. And no, they are still a very legitimate congregations. The Sisters of St. Joseph in Kalamazoo Michigan.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

sola scriptura et catechismus

indeed. LOL

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

No doubt you see it in that manner.

I was rather impressed when they told me the story. The were simply expressing that they were not and would not be constrained to understanding their faith based on only the CCC for elucidation. I would call that prudent, given that that their are several hundred if not thousands of very brilliant Catholic theologians and biblical experts out their writing books. I can’t imagine limiting oneself to so narrow a view. And no, they are still a very legitimate congregations. The Sisters of St. Joseph in Kalamazoo Michigan.

Catholic News Flash: Unlike postmodernists, not everything a Catholic says is merely a matter of personal perception. Catholics who think with the Church reject the nonsense of postmodernism that suggests that everything is mere individual opinion.

Now being impressed on hearing a story, THAT is personal impression. And what’s new here? Some less-than-fully-faithful Catholics bad mouth the Church to a Protestant, and the Protestant likes it? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. We don’t even have the context of the original comment, just a naked citation.

And for yet another time, theologians and biblical experts do not exercise teaching authority in the Church. The Magisterium, the Bishops in union with the Holy Father, do that. Universities, including theology departments, are frequently the last bastion of lost causes, and they are certainly among the last to realize that Vatican II did not, repeat not, change the Church one iota. In particular, it did not make a faculty appointment, Ph D, publishing contract, or religious vows sufficient to exercise teaching authority.

And the Catechism narrow? That is too preposterous and ridiculous a comment to do other than say that it is preposterous and ridiculous. Many Anglican scholars locally have told me they were staggered by its breadth and comprehensiveness (and Christ-centeredness, too).

Nice to know an Episcopalian thinks an order of nuns that seemingly thumbs its nose at the Magisterium is “very legitimate.” But I think I will wait for the findings of the Curial officials who are examining the orders of religious women in the US to discover whether or not they still have legitimacy. If Michael Ingham invites a Catholic to have a boo at, and pass an opinion on, the legitimacy of his Anglican diocese locally, I may reconsider that one.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

No doubt you see it in that manner.

I was rather impressed when they told me the story. The were simply expressing that they were not and would not be constrained to understanding their faith based on only the CCC for elucidation. I would call that prudent, given that that their are several hundred if not thousands of very brilliant Catholic theologians and biblical experts out their writing books. I can’t imagine limiting oneself to so narrow a view. And no, they are still a very legitimate congregations. The Sisters of St. Joseph in Kalamazoo Michigan.

Why not answer my question Spiritmeadow? Can you not answer it? You had to tell everyone here a bishop told a group of sisters something, yet you cannot stand behind what you said as were you there or not? Your ignoring my questions shows how you are not telling the truth. Why do you insist in lying about the Catholic church? You were once a Catholic?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Catholic News Flash: Unlike postmodernists, not everything a Catholic says is merely a matter of personal perception. Catholics who think with the Church reject the nonsense of postmodernism that suggests that everything is mere individual opinion.

Now being impressed on hearing a story, THAT is personal impression. And what’s new here? Some less-than-fully-faithful Catholics bad mouth the Church to a Protestant, and the Protestant likes it? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. We don’t even have the context of the original comment, just a naked citation.

And for yet another time, theologians and biblical experts do not exercise teaching authority in the Church. The Magisterium, the Bishops in union with the Holy Father, do that. Universities, including theology departments, are frequently the last bastion of lost causes, and they are certainly among the last to realize that Vatican II did not, repeat not, change the Church one iota. In particular, it did not make a faculty appointment, Ph D, publishing contract, or religious vows sufficient to exercise teaching authority.

And the Catechism narrow? That is too preposterous and ridiculous a comment to do other than say that it is preposterous and ridiculous. Many Anglican scholars locally have told me they were staggered by its breadth and comprehensiveness (and Christ-centeredness, too).

Nice to know an Episcopalian thinks an order of nuns that seemingly thumbs its nose at the Magisterium is “very legitimate.” But I think I will wait for the findings of the Curial officials who are examining the orders of religious women in the US to discover whether or not they still have legitimacy. If Michael Ingham invites a Catholic to have a boo at, and pass an opinion on, the legitimacy of his Anglican diocese locally, I may reconsider that one.

Blessings,

Gerry

The tone of your posts is increasingly antagonistic. I am not sure why. I have no problem with what you believe.

So your opinion is that a number of sisters of a reputable convent are “less than faithful?” Well that comes as no suprise, since I’ve seen many a religious congregation bashed her by the “right” kind of Catholics. In any case, I was not a Protestant at the time, but a RC and in discernment for that particular house. I was actually accepted into the Dominican order before I realized that I was not called to this particular service within the Church.

It is deeply sad that so many Catholics here like to categorize their fellow Catholics as either real or not, or faithful or not. I have not seen this from other denominations and I am sad to see people so divide against their own fellow Catholics.

As you point out, the small truly faithful remnant of the RCC also has no great liking for many of not most of the Catholic schools of higher education nor to the many brilliant scholars it produces. All wrong headed and thinking as I understand it.

Perhaps some day you will be lucky enough to have the purity you desire.

Your slams at Protestants at not having the intelligence to judge the legitimacy of RC religious orders is stunning. But as I said, your entire post is uncharitable and rude.

I personally don’t care if you believe what I said of course. Why would I? Actually, disbelief on the part of some here is more insurance that one is indeed still sane.

Blessings to you as well.