I still just don't get it

[notself]

I knew what you were doing.

Whether you believe in God or not doesn’t change that He exists. That you don’t believe in Him now, doesn’t mean you can’t have a change of heart. Entrance into Heaven or Hell will come after the God’s judgment. I believe if you even had any idea what Hell was like, you would take a different tone.

It’s simple, and we call it hardness of heart. You have hardened your heart toward your Creator for some reason.

Whatever you do, is of your own free will. If someone tries to wake you up before you sleep past the final buzzer, is that wrong?

Your arrogance is astounding in the sense that you decide the one who Created you is not worth worshiping because you don’t understand. God loves you, despite your rejection at this time. He is very polite, in the fact that if you reject Him and don’t come back, He will grant you your wish for eternity of rejecting Him. If you don’t want to live with Him in eternity, then you are choosing your place. I don’t think He gets any pleasure out of watching you do this. God can mend a broken heart.

I haven’t hardened my heart. I just don’t believe. I did not reject God. It is impossible to reject a thing that one does not believe exists. I understand that you are warning me of what you believe is a great moral danger. I thank you for that.

 

[ricko]

You are not Catholic. If you were baptised as an infant then yes you are Catholic until you reject the Church. If you were baptised as an adult Protestant, you were Catholic for only an instant. This is because the sacarament of baptism comes from the Catholic Church.

Now in your present state. You admit that you know the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet you reject the Church. When Jesus sent out the Apostles he told them “he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects he who sent me.”

“Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium, no. 14).
Vatican II

So by your own admission the above statement (which is official Church teaching) would apply to you.

 

[notself]

You are not Catholic. If you were baptised as an infant then yes you are Catholic until you reject the Church. If you were baptised as an adult Protestant, you were Catholic for only an instant. This is because the sacarament of baptism comes from the Catholic Church.

Now in your present state. You admit that you know the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet you reject the Church. When Jesus sent out the Apostles he told them “he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects he who sent me.”

“Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium, no. 14).
Vatican II

So by your own admission the above statement (which is official Church teaching) would apply to you.

I agree.

 

[Zooey]

With statements like “there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”, I’m sort of left standing at home plate scratching my head wondering just how I could even begin to support that from the Bible". Well, maybe the “you are already Catholic and do not know it yet” approach could at least be supported if you operate from the assumption that the Catholic church is the church of Jesus Christ.

I think that a lot depends on how you define “the Catholic church”.
(Yeah, I know. I sound like Bill Clinton).

You are “in” the Catholic church in by virtue of a valid Baptism, as are all Christians.

:yup:
"mercygate:

But you are not Catholic in the sense of affirming the Faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”

I understand that you believe this. It just isn’t at all clear to **me **that it’s true.

mercygate:

You haven’t yet summoned up the desire, the will, the confidence, the guts (or whatever it is that you need) to say: “Lord, I surrender. I believe this is Your Church and I want to live Your faith on Your terms.”

But what about those of us, who don’t believe that? Do we lie, for (forgive me) fire insurance??

mercygate:

Starting with those scary dead popes worked for me.
The Catechism takes a broader, more theological and mystical view of the boundaries of the Catholic Church than the view the dead popes were working from in their statements.
The view of the *Catechism *is much broader than that of the dead popes whose question was fundamentally narrower.

I do see what you mean by this.
But how about the fact that maybe this was a case where the dead popes erred in their language (though not, perhaps, their meaning)?

Every Christian believes that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ and his redemptive work on the cross. It is only Christians that possess faith in Jesus Christ. Bible Christians everywhere will tell you that you must believe in Christ to be saved.

How is that materially different from the Catholic claim prior to the Reformation?

It isn’t. Its the same thing.
Figured this part out ages ago.

jmcrae:

When we look at history, we don’t find anyone who accidentally fell out of the Ark of Salvation. All of them jumped out, with full awareness of what they were doing.

Maybe yes; maybe no.
I don’t think this is all that black & white.
"jmcrae:

This assumes that they have lived perfectly, without any need of the Sacraments, for their entire lives. If not, then they will go to Hell for the old-fashioned reason - mortal sins not absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation - their ability to know anything about the Church won’t even be a factor.

And you see, as much as I admire the whole idea of oral confession, I don’t now, & never have believed this.
I can’t imagine it. It doesn’t square with what I understand about God.
It is a good & pious practice.
It even adds to one’s certainty of forgiveness.
But that it is the deal-breaker?:nope:

If the claim of Catholicism was rough equivalency to the rest of us, perhaps. Certainly it would not be a terribly high threshhold to meet.
I could…even buy that there is an implicit advantage in Catholicism in that you have a historical link to the beginnings…
But that is not the claim.

The claim is that you are…“The Church”…
…I just don’t believe it. Sorry.

Welcome to my world.

mozart-250:

Instead I believe that y’all are just as messed up as the rest of us.

I think a lot of “us” are a lot more messed up than Catholics. The very fact of having a Catechism & a Magisterium goes a long way toward ensuring some degree of orthodoxy. (& orthopraxis).

mozart-250:

The Orthodox and Catholic are two mutually exclusive faiths.
Both claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ that the gates of hell can not stand against.
Both can not be that church.

Why not?

mozart-250:

And it is not obvious at all which one is “The church”. At least to this observer. All I would have is my best guess.
…I don’t believe that any one denomination in its entirety is The church to the exclusion of all of the others. If I believed this, I would still have no idea what that church would be.

Probably Orthodox.
At least, that’s my gut feeling as of right now…as close as I can see at this point in time.
But the Orthodox have some really “off” ideas too. o IMHO).

 

[Ruthie]

In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under “The Doctrine of God the Sanctifier,” section 8, “The Necessity of the Sacraments,” #1, “On the Part of God,” he says:

“God can communicate grace even without the Sacraments. (Sent. certa.)
God, in His omnipotence and freedom, can communicate grace in a purely spiritual manner also. Therefore for Him the institution of Sacraments was not indispensably necessary.”

I believe this is the basis of the Catechism’s teaching about “outside the Church there is no salvation.” (here)

Ott goes on to say that the sacraments are ordinarily necessary for men.

It’s way past my bedtime, or I could put more together. I’ll revisit this when my mind is a bit clearer.

Ruthie

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Umm…

…you wish…

NO, there is a difference from wishing and praying;

If the claim of Catholicism was rough equivalency to the rest of us, perhaps. Certainly it would not be a terribly high threshhold to meet.

Hey, I could perhaps even buy that there is an implicit advantage in Catholicism in that you have a historical link to the beginnings that we don’t have.

But that is not the claim.

The claim is that you are…“The Church”…

This is not a claim by Catholics, Catholics only repeat that Jesus instituted his church on earth and built it upon Peter . This is a fact from sacred scripture not a mirage or a human claim.

This is a claim of superiority.

**You better believe it, Jesus stated this in his gospel record, it comes from the highest authority of superiority. That is why the Catholic church is fully divine and fully human. **

I just don’t believe it. Sorry.

No apologies needed, It is not me you dont believe, consider Jesus words from scripture and those who spilled their blood as a testimony for the Catholic faith in Jesus since the first century and beyond. These Saints and Martyrs for the Truth are the ones you should consider being Sorry for not accepting the Truth in the body of Jesus Christ in his Catholic church for which they gave up their bodily lives for, in this Christianity that you have come to know partially.

Instead I believe that y’all are just as messed up as the rest of us.

I hope you are referring to the humanity aspect of the Catholic church and not the divine? Because the divine aspect of the church is infallible, and is unchanging.

I don’t mean that as an insult. Honest. It is just that the evidence in my heart points overwhelmingly to rough equivalency.

I could go into much more detail on this I suppose, but the evidence in my heart clearly points this way.

All I ask is that you stay true to your heart by reflecting what is only truth, and what is pride that keeps us from truth as our first parents. I trust God will always reveal himself to those who truly love him and seek him out. This is the knocking Jesus tells us, and he will always open the door to his revelation of his body on earth, through the Catholic church.

The only other possibility I suppose would be that you are “The Church” but that God has made it just about impossible for anyone to discern this. But that one makes no sense.

How difficult is it to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ, when Jesus states it is. Scripture states we all need an interpreter of scripture, and that the pillar of truth is the Church. We all just need to know where is that pillar of truth in the Church today?

Peace Mozart250, if I were you, and we have all had our doubts one time, but those who really seek God and Love him, will always end where Jesus started his Church, and would not settle for anything but nothing but the Truth, which I have found to be the body of Jesus Christ on earth in his Catholc church he built upon Peter.

 

[mozart-250]

You are not Catholic. If you were baptised as an infant then yes you are Catholic until you reject the Church. If you were baptised as an adult Protestant, you were Catholic for only an instant. This is because the sacarament of baptism comes from the Catholic Church.

Now in your present state. You admit that you know the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet you reject the Church. When Jesus sent out the Apostles he told them “he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects he who sent me.”

“Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium, no. 14).
Vatican II

So by your own admission the above statement (which is official Church teaching) would apply to you.

It depends.

I know what you claim about the Catholic church. I know what the Orthodox claim about the Orthodox church.

God has not told me that the Catholic church is “The Church”. God has not told me that the Orthodox church is “The Church”.

I have my doubts whether any of us are “The Church” to the exclusion of everyone else.

One might say I know about it because I know the claims. Another might say I don’t know about it because God has not yet weighed in on the matter to me.

So it depends on what the word “knowing” means I suppose.

 

[mozart-250]

I think a lot of “us” are a lot more messed up than Catholics. The very fact of having a Catechism & a Magisterium goes a long way toward ensuring some degree of orthodoxy. (& orthopraxis).

True. I can think of quite a few groups that broadly would be Protestant, that can really mess you up if you get involved in them.

Why not?

The question is why can’t both the Orthodox and Catholics be the church of Christ.

Well…that is possible…but then the premise that the church of Jesus Christ is today exclusively one denomination to the exclusion of the rest of them is not true. That is the fundamental assumption upon which Catholicism rests (oh and yes…they are “that church”).

Probably Orthodox.
At least, that’s my gut feeling as of right now…as close as I can see at this point in time.
But the Orthodox have some really “off” ideas too. o IMHO).

The key words here being “gut feeling” and “as close as I can see at this point in time”. Somebody else could just as easily have a “gut feeling” of Catholic. There is absolutely no certainty in this process.

If only one denomination is the church of Jesus Christ, then somebody guessed right while somebody else ended up with leftovers.

If the dead popes are right, somebody is baking in the lake (and that would be you )

 

[mozart-250]

As long as you look at it from the bottom up, then you’ll probably never get there. You’ll spend an infinite amount of time just looking at earthly or man made features. The true Church has a Divine Nature as well.

OK.

But the Orthodox claim the same for themselves.

For that matter, the invisible church (is that the buzzword) claims the church has a Divine Nature. It’s not an organization like Boy Scouts. The only difference being is that “The Church” is not confined to one ecclesiastical organization of “The Church”.

Actually it has occurred to me that the whole direction this thread is going is a little removed from the original proposition. But that is fine by me. Because another thing that I just don’t get is why God would create a church that today resides exclusively in one denomination and then make it really difficult to figure out what that denomination is.

 

[ibkc]

Because another thing that I just don’t get is why God would create a church that today resides exclusively in one denomination and then make it really difficult to figure out what that denomination is.

That state of affairs is the work of men, not God.

 

[mercygate]

I could understand a slight shift in emphasis since the dead popes were speaking to a different audience and answering different questions than the Catechism.

But gosh, it seems to me that what the dead popes are saying is fundamentally different than what the Catechism is saying.

I just can’t see how this statement leaves any room for any ambiguity (now I don’t believe it at all either, but that is a separate issue).

This was written before 14 generations had been formed in Christian communities that denied the faith. The particular “audience” of the “dead popes” is those who left the faith deliberately or who rejected it when presented to them. The dead popes were speaking of the known world.

The Church does not hold individuals responsible for what they CANNOT know [invincible ignorance]. We often try to expand the definition of invincible ignorance – I believe – beyond what it will bear.

Since salvation is through Christ alone, and since He promised to build His church on the rock of Peter, I see no reason to quibble with that. I see the continuity of history, tradition, and doctrine running down the thread that spins out from Mt. 16:18 and carries through the Acts of the Apostles, the first centuries of persecution, the great Councils . . . down to myparish church on the corner of Washington and Main.

Call me a wuss. But for me, this isn’t rocket science. It’s like the old “two rowboats and a helicopter” joke.

 

[mercygate]

But this is not relevant. In fact the closeness of the two faiths actually work against each other if one had to pick between the two.

The Orthodox and Catholic are two mutually exclusive faiths.

Perhaps to the Orthodox. But the Eastern Churches of Catholicism retain their Eastern character, their theology and all the unique practices of their Traditions while in Communion with Rome. The Orthodox will cry “Heresy!” against Rome. Rome will cry “Schismatic!” Big diff.

Both claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ that the gates of hell can not stand against.

Both can not be that church.

And it is not obvious at all which one is “The church”. At least to this observer. All I would have is my best guess. [/wuoyr]Yes, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can BOTH be “the Church.” The Orthodox descend from the ancient Church and maintain their authentic Orders, sacraments and theology. The schism is tragic but the Orthodox retain the marks of “the” Church.

This is one big reason amongst a few that I don’t believe that any one denomination in its entirety is The church

to the exclusion of all of the others. If I believed this, I would still have no idea what that church would be.Ah. There’s that word: “denomination.” We’re not talking about a denomination when we refer to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Denominations are confessional associations of like-minded people formed AGAINST the orthodox church(es). There is a fundamental difference in attitude.

 

[mozart-250]

That state of affairs is the work of men, not God.

Very true statement…

Now I could take this thread in another direction with another observation that I have made that just does not add up. But…I think not.

Just suffice it to say that one assumption of Catholicism is that whenever the church has divided upon itself (yes, these being the work of men, not God), that God has always sided with the Catholic church, leaving the other side with table scraps as it were.

Suffice it to say, that I am not going to presume to speak for God in these “works of men”.

But that will muddy the waters even more.

 

[MDK]

I haven’t hardened my heart. I just don’t believe. I did not reject God. It is impossible to reject a thing that one does not believe exists. I understand that you are warning me of what you believe is a great moral danger. I thank you for that.

Your heart is not receptive to God. You have indeed rejected Him by claiming He does not exist. There are reasons, which you may determine if you seek to get to the bottom of this. I believe it is due to fear or resentment, but you must determine whether it is or not. Even if you think God doesn’t exist, He still very much does exist. In fact, He is more real than the building I am in right now. When the Jews turned away from God, and treated Him as though He was not their God, His response was to treat them like they were not His people. What you’re doing is not only gravely sinful, it could cost you eternity in Heaven, where the trials and pains of this life are no more, and you will be in Paradise with your Creator. Our Father wants to be just that to us, our True Father, and Christ our Brother and Redeemer. If you begin to come to Him as your Father, He will welcome you with open arms. I don’t want to imagine life without Him. However, this chance you’re taking is the most serious thing I can think of. I can’t imagine a bigger risk or problem in one’s life, and I urge you not to rest until it is resolved. That you come to Catholic Answers Discussion Board, I think you’re still looking for something.

 

[mozart-250]

This was written before 14 generations had been formed in Christian communities that denied the faith. The particular “audience” of the “dead popes” is those who left the faith deliberately or who rejected it when presented to them. The dead popes were speaking of the known world.

The Church does not hold individuals responsible for what they CANNOT know [invincible ignorance]. We often try to expand the definition of invincible ignorance – I believe – beyond what it will bear.

Then to you it would be illegitimate to take the quotes of the dead popes, apply them to today, and use them to damn all Protestants.

Fair enough.

But fellow Catholics would disagree with you. I mean, I did come upon these quotes in a Catholic forum. From Catholics who eloquently argued a different position.

It seems to me that it boils down to either a literalist reading of what the dead popes said to maybe a broader understanding. Using the Bible as an analogy, I could relate this to different understandings of Genesis 1.

I still have a problem in that I don’t know who is correct here. That seems out of place to me.

Since salvation is through Christ alone, and since He promised to build His church on the rock of Peter, I see no reason to quibble with that. I see the continuity of history, tradition, and doctrine running down the thread that spins out from Mt. 16:18 and carries through the Acts of the Apostles, the first centuries of persecution, the great Councils . . . down to myparish church on the corner of Washington and Main.

Call me a wuss. But for me, this isn’t rocket science. It’s like the old “two rowboats and a helicopter” joke.

Actually Matthew 16:18 is subject to interpretation. Just reading this passage in my English Bible, I can’t say with 100% confidence which interpretation is correct, even though I might have my humble, fallible opinion.

I don’t debate this because your interpretation at least seems to have a confidence level of at least credible (actually I think maybe a bit higher than credible on this one point). Anyway, debating my credible interpretation of Scripture against your credible interpretation of Scripture is something that I just refuse to do.

 

[mozart-250]

Yes, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can BOTH be “the Church.” The Orthodox descend from the ancient Church and maintain their authentic Orders, sacraments and theology. The schism is tragic but the Orthodox retain the marks of “the” Church.

Logic 101 time.

Either the church of Jesus Christ today resides in one ecclesiastical organization (being good and not using the word denomination) or it does not.

If it does, then the other ecclesiastical organization is excluded.

If it does not, then one ecclesiastical organization is not “The church” and should not refer to itself as that.

This is not rocket science.

Ah. There’s that word: “denomination.” We’re not talking about a denomination when we refer to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Denominations are confessional associations of like-minded people formed AGAINST the orthodox church(es). There is a fundamental difference in attitude.

I use the word denomination with its dictionnary meaning as a branch of Christianity. I could use the term “branch of Christianity”. I have sometimes used “ecclesiastical organization”. I do prefer using one word instead of 2-3 words, and have not come upon a better word.

 

[mercygate]

Then to you it would be illegitimate to take the quotes of the dead popes, apply them to today, and use them to damn all Protestants.

Fair enough.

But fellow Catholics would disagree with you. I mean, I did come upon these quotes in a Catholic forum. From Catholics who eloquently argued a different position.

It seems to me that it boils down to either a literalist reading of what the dead popes said to maybe a broader understanding. Using the Bible as an analogy, I could relate this to different understandings of Genesis 1.

I still have a problem in that I don’t know who is correct here. That seems out of place to me.

Actually Matthew 16:18 is subject to interpretation. Just reading this passage in my English Bible, I can’t say with 100% confidence which interpretation is correct, even though I might have my humble, fallible opinion.

I don’t debate this because your interpretation at least seems to have a confidence level of at least credible (actually I think maybe a bit higher than credible on this one point). Anyway, debating my credible interpretation of Scripture against your credible interpretation of Scripture is something that I just refuse to do.

Yeah. I don’t debate either. I can share my understanding of how the Scriptures, history, and tradition play out and affect my own life. I’m not “selling”.

As for “credible” interpretations of Scripture Mt. 16:18, for my money, with even Protestant scholars recognizing that Peter [though not *without his faith!] is “the” rock, and the testimony of the Fathers consenting, I was convinced enough.

 

[notself]

Your heart is not receptive to God. You have indeed rejected Him by claiming He does not exist. There are reasons, which you may determine if you seek to get to the bottom of this. I believe it is due to fear or resentment, but you must determine whether it is or not. Even if you think God doesn’t exist, He still very much does exist. In fact, He is more real than the building I am in right now. When the Jews turned away from God, and treated Him as though He was not their God, His response was to treat them like they were not His people. What you’re doing is not only gravely sinful, it could cost you eternity in Heaven, where the trials and pains of this life are no more, and you will be in Paradise with your Creator. Our Father wants to be just that to us, our True Father, and Christ our Brother and Redeemer. If you begin to come to Him as your Father, He will welcome you with open arms. I don’t want to imagine life without Him. However, this chance you’re taking is the most serious thing I can think of. I can’t imagine a bigger risk or problem in one’s life, and I urge you not to rest until it is resolved. That you come to Catholic Answers Discussion Board, I think you’re still looking for something.

I come to religious boards because I find religion the most interesting of the philosophies. When people talk politics, they seldom talk about core beliefs. When people talk religion, they spill all of their beliefs right out there. Just visit fundamentalist Christian boards or the religious section of secular boards or Buddhist forums or Hindu forums and you will see what I mean. More than party or policy or politics, religious belief shapes our minds and our minds are shaped by religion.

As for looking for something, it is information about my fellow humans and their beliefs. I have found my spiritual path and my only regret is that I had not found it years ago. I wish you the peace, joy and equanimity in the pursuit of your path as I have found in mine.

 

[Tonks40]

I admire your restraint, mozart-250.

 

[MDK]

OK.

But the Orthodox claim the same for themselves.

For that matter, the invisible church (is that the buzzword) claims the church has a Divine Nature. It’s not an organization like Boy Scouts. The only difference being is that “The Church” is not confined to one ecclesiastical organization of “The Church”.

Actually it has occurred to me that the whole direction this thread is going is a little removed from the original proposition. But that is fine by me. Because another thing that I just don’t get is why God would create a church that today resides exclusively in one denomination and then make it really difficult to figure out what that denomination is.

It’s difficult for you, not for me.

Doesn’t matter whether all 3x,xxx Protestant Churches also claim to be the Church Christ built. What matters is what Christ did, what He established and built.

In this thread, like many others, false underlying suppositions disturb the conversation and make it almost impossible to answer the original post until fixed. I could add my perspective on the Church’s (including Vatican II’s) teaching regarding salvation outside the Church. A good farmer will prepare the soil before planting the crop.

If you are starting with what exists today, and going backward, you are not starting with Christ. You will also find it difficult to get to Christ by this method, especially when you limit to less than all revealed truth, then make your own fallible twist on that which you use. One must start with what Christ did, when He did it, and come forward to today. It starts with Christ, and ends with Christ.

You love Scripture, right, to get the warm and fuzzy (hopefully heartfelt and not otherwise). Take a look at what was done, and what it means. Look at how it all fits together, as this is the only way to really do it properly. Scriptures are not formally sufficient, but are materially sufficient and will do you well. It is always referred to as “the Church” and not multiple Churches. Jesus asked for unity, how do you get that? Jesus built His Church upon the rock of St. Peter… unless one screws up the Greek and or Aramaic, then they’ll understand this properly. You also have to look at the backdrop that Jesus did this at… Cesarea Philippi… it’s a long and seemingly difficult walk up there from Galilee, so it wasn’t for no good reason. The false god that had been worshiped there had been called “pan,” and he was the false god of shepherds. The big rock there had a temple to the current false god. The symbolism was there, and Jesus used this for this scene to show that He is the true God, not these false gods. Simon answered Jesus’ question correctly of Who Jesus was, but not of Simon’s own intelligence, but because of the Father had taught through Simon. Jesus then changed Simon’s name to Kepha (which means rock). Jesus said He would build His Church on the rock of Peter, who would be the true Shepherd of Christ’s people. Christ also gave Peter the keys, which symbolize authority, as a King did to His Prime Minister to take care of things when He was going away (note that Christ gave the keys to none of the others, but Peter). Later, Christ asked Peter to feed His lambs, feed His Sheep. Looks like Christ established His true Shepherd for His flock as Peter, and gave Peter authority (symbolized by the keys) in the Kingdom of Heaven. Ultimately, Christ the King has all the authority, but has delegated authority to Peter as His “Prime Minister”. It’s not that Peter can just do what he wants with this authority, but the Holy Spirit will protect Peter so that Jesus’ Church is protected.

I think you would have to at least admit that what I wrote above is certainly a possibility of correct interpretation of Scriptures. It is supported by Scripture, as what I described above is in Matthew 16 and John 21. It is not disproved by Scriptures (when they remain undistorted). Also, it is in line with the other Scriptures (when they are not distorted). I will go further, and say that this is what happened back then. This is what Christ did as He was establishing His Church. There is more, but this certainly gets one started. I would think that from this alone, one would find it fairly easy to take it from there and identify the true Church today.

Like I said, when you start with what Christ did, it’s pretty easy to end up at the right location. It’s those who refuse to do this, that find things more difficult.