Poll: U.S. Catholics want a younger, more liberal pope

[CMatt25]

Care to share it?

I’ve shared it so many times. You aren’t tired by it? The last time I shared it someone didn’t believe I even had such a letter. And if I recall correctly, someone even wanted the bishop’s name because the poster suggested heresy due to his response with regard to transubstantiation. I won’t make his name public on this forum because I’m not interested in judging and in accusations of heresy. And he has retired since the letter as it was many yrs ago.

But I’ve saved it these many yrs and have it in my hand so okay I’ll share it again if you’d like. I had asked a bishop many yrs ago if a hypothetical person can be a Catholic who did not attend Mass, did not believe in Transubstantiation, and was pro choice. Here was his response and I quote:

“You are asking about who can rightfully be called a Catholic. A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. However a further distinction would be whether one is a practicing or non practicing member. And of course being a practicing Catholic does not exclude the possibility of personal sin in one’s life. That person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non practicing one.”

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I’ve shared it so many times. You aren’t tired by it? The last time I shared it someone didn’t believe I even had such a letter. And if I recall correctly, someone even wanted the bishop’s name because the poster suggested heresy due to his response with regard to transubstantiation. I won’t make his name public on this forum because I’m not interested in judging and in accusations of heresy. And he has retired since the letter as it was many yrs ago.

But I’ve saved it these many yrs and have it in my hand so okay I’ll share it again if you’d like. I had asked a bishop many yrs ago if a hypothetical person can be a Catholic who did not attend Mass, did not believe in Transubstantiation, and was pro choice. Here was his response and I quote:

“You are asking about who can rightfully be called a Catholic. A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. However a further distinction would be whether one is a practicing or non practicing member. And of course being a practicing Catholic does not exclude the possibility of personal sin in one’s life. That person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non practicing one.”

That would be correct. I wish there was a direct citiation for our friend James, but the good Bishop is right. Catholic is Catholic…beliefs, sin, and practice do not make them cease to be Catholic. It’s your family…even if you choose to seperate from that family…it doesn’t mean that you don’t still belong in that family.

 

[CMatt25]

That would be correct. I wish there was a direct citiation for our friend James, but the good Bishop is right. Catholic is Catholic…beliefs, sin, and practice do not make them cease to be Catholic. It’s your family…even if you choose to seperate from that family…it doesn’t mean that you don’t still belong in that family.

Or I’d put it another way if they cause someone to separate because they aren’t following the Catholic Church’s answer and what the bishop said.

 

[Auntie_A]

I agree. We can’t just look at the parts we find appealing and disregard the rest. I see both liberals and conservatives do this and we should stop because it makes the Church look like a political organization. If it’s seen as political, then I can understand why people think it can change. I struggle with certain teachings, I try to keep my opinions to myself in these instances and try to come to a better understanding of the teachings…

Well said.

Back to the original topic on this post: I think U.S. Catholics want a younger, more liberal pope because U.S. Catholics and U.S. citizens have been highly politicized and polarized in recent years, almost like preparing for a civil war where we are supposed to line up on issues that we deem are related to each other. We are being offered a bill of goods in how we deal with everything in our present U.S. culture. And the political parties expect us to somehow line up our beliefs and match the party line, item by item.

I have always felt that the Catholic Church offered the most clarity on how to form our values and beliefs and that the “seamless garment” of Catholic thought and morality understandably makes it difficult to fit into the secular world of fads, thought fashions, and political packages. But even the Church has been infiltrated in some areas by political pressure.

At first, the secular world (and some liberal Catholic circles) presented and embraced “values clarification”, with some illusion of respect for diversity of opinion, now it is presented as a full package of how we must think or else. The thought that the U.S. government is human and therefore imperfect and vulnerable to whatever trend, poll, initiative or vote, is put before us has been replaced by a sense that the government is the throne of truth. So naturally the U.S. Catholics want their religion to match their government. We wouldn’t want to face that some actions of our government and its citizens have been outright immoral, violent, and cruel. We would prefer that our Church join the “package”, not make waves, keep it peaceful.

Our Church has issues, our government has issues, my family has issues. I would prefer in all cases that the moral rot and decay be rooted out of all three rather than the moral code be eased to accomodate further decay and decline. I will not label that struggle for truth and justice as liberal or conservative. I pray that our new pope, the bishops, clergy, religious and laity work in that humble and sane direction

 

[GaryTaylor]

I too said Catholic is Catholic in regards to Baptism and it is, however, I should elaborate in all fairness as perhaps I was too quick to speak. And a letter from a Bishop does not negate the Deposit of Faith…“never”. We follow the teaching authority of the Church, not one teacher of the Church and deem it above the Church. Same with the Saints.

Faith is a supernatural imposed virtue that each of us receive at the moment of Baptism. This virtue does not always remain in every soul. Faith is not a blind or vague concept, its very well defined. It many case’s we know it is lost, and many, are not aware of their obligation to preserve their Faith.

We all have an obligation to preserve our Faith. The basis of our Salvation is our Faith. It is “impossible” to please God without Faith. Faith alone is not enough, but it is absolutely necessary for Salvation, If we lose Faith, we cannot be saved, unless we regain Faith.

Anyone who is not Catholic does not have what the “RCC” defines as “FAITH”. This supernatural virtue empowers us to believe “GODS” teachings. Not our illusion of them. Faith, hope, and charity, can only be practiced through the grace of God.

A heretic believes many things that a Latin Rite Catholic believes. A heretic unlike an apostate denies one or a few of the articles of Faith. An apostate rejects them all.

St Thomas Aquinas points out that a heretic really doesn’t have the Faith, otherwise he would accept everything that God teaches through His most Holy Catholic Church. Because one chooses to accept this or that teaching, he has “ONLY” a kind of opinion, which may or may not agree with the articles of Faith. Because a heretic rejects some RCC teachings, his opinion is not based on “Faith” Where as the faithful soul knows that God who is all Holy, cannot tell a lie. And God who is All Knowing cannot be mistaken.

There are some “Catholics” who believe many things, and perhaps many contrary to the Faith. But they are in ignorance. They don’t know that certain things they believe are against the Faith. For if they knew for certain what the teaching is by Faith, they would accept it. Or they reject it in full knowledge of the Faith, thus they choose the world/death. Your next breath depends on Gods Grace, therefore it would easier to live without oxygen than do good without Gods grace.

Many “Catholics” think they can do good all on their own, with their own plan placed as Gods feet. And they relegate this futile plan to the Baptism column, picking and choosing and disregarding the other teachings and sacraments with a mixed protestant theory which leaves one begging for Gods Mercy at the last moment. I know this plan well. I was one of those souls dying begging for Gods Mercy and “another” chance. Its a prideful futile plan to ignore Gods Church which He divinely established and you compromise your soul for some cute protestant thinking which you add to the RCC and it circumvents the Faith as taught and as explained above, its not what you accept as Faith that’s the Faith. Its not pick and choose, on that path you get the test first and the lesson later “maybe” if the Lord is willing. You are playing this game of life for the highest stakes possible…Your Soul. And satin wants it.

We don’t know what “everyone” else is teaching. That’s their Faith, not the Faith of the RCC. This faith the RCC teaches, is the Tradition handed down from Christ to “HIs Apostles”. The Faith with bought you the Bible. You pick and chose and interpret at your own risk which “you” deem more wise and relevant than Gods wisdom and in His established Church, that being the RCC and those in Communion with the RCC.

Our prayers are with you, with wise advice to accompany. Go Home, you have a Good Home go back to it and remain in it. Salvation for sure it there, have your share.

 

[Arandur]

“You are asking about who can rightfully be called a Catholic. A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. However a further distinction would be whether one is a practicing or non practicing member. And of course being a practicing Catholic does not exclude the possibility of personal sin in one’s life. That person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non practicing one.”

Catholic, yes. But for those who reject teachings of the Catholic Church, is it really satisfying to be a Catholic not in full communion? To be a Catholic in Rebellion?

And rebellion against Jesus? That’s really where the problem almost always lies–not with the Church, but with what Jesus said, what He teaches, and with what He established.

It would be so easy and so much more comfortable for the Church to conform to the world. But then it would cease to be the Church, the Bride of Christ.

I can’t see how it could be comfortable to exist in that state of rebellion against Jesus, a state of worshipping my own god idol based on what I think is right or wrong, not on what Jesus thinks is.

To some extent we all do that, because that’s pretty much the definition of sin. But those of us in full communion with the Church are at least trying to do right and yet falling short like St. Paul says of himself–“I do what I do not want to do.” We at least want to do what’s right; we don’t rebel against it willfully.

I think one of the great things to watch for in Pope Francis is that he will follow Christ’s example (and St. Francis’s) of “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” As I read recently somewhere, expect his call to be:
“Conservatives, change your hearts.
Liberals, change your minds.”

Pope Francis has already called us to greater charity, to go beyond just prayer and study and get out into the streets and love our brothers and sisters, especially the poor, disabled, and needy.

The “liberals” will love this. The “conservatives” may find this calls them out of their comfort zones–because we might think we are doing this, and we might like the idea, but we are most likely not challenging ourselves enough in this area.

He has also called on us to preach the truth, that if we do not preach Jesus, His Truth, and His Cross, we are worldly and we are preaching Satan.

The “conservatives” will love this, because I think we tend to emphasize truth and its unwavering defense and promotion more than “liberals” and “moderates.”

“Liberals,” if they think about it, will hate this. For the truth of the Catholic Church is extremely counter-culture and extremely subversive to Statist designs. It does not allow for same-sex “marriage;” abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia (and the rationed care of EVERY universal health care plan that ultimately abandons the old and infirm), and statism.

In my view, “liberals” don’t like the Church for two reasons:

1. It doesn’t fit with changing cultural ideas of morality–but then, what is the point of Jesus and Truth if it would? The very thing that sets the Catholic Church apart from any other is insistence on an absolute (and unchanging) truth in faith and morals. To ask it to change on these matters is to ask it to cease to be.
2. It doesn’t allow individuals to abdicate all their personal responsibility for charity to the State, empowering rulers to force their subjects to do what they define as good and take away as much free will as possible–exactly the rule of Satan, by the way. Yes, I said it, liberal Statism is ultimately, in practice, very much the definition of Satan’s model of rule, violating free will and forcing subjects to act in a certain way.

These two things amount to “liberals” being in grave danger of making culture and state idols, desiring Jesus and His Church to be subservient to them.

This is what I get from CMatt25’s profile entry, btw: to say “A Christianity that doesn’t exclude or drive liberals away” is to say “my liberalism–defined by my cultural and political views–is my god; I put it before my Christianity and want my Christianity (Jesus and His Church) to be subject to my cultural and political views.”

To prove that I don’t mean to sound too harsh here, but merely to challenge, let me point out my criticism for conservatives (like myself):

Perhaps in response to the rebellion against the truth (and it’s enormously damaging effects) that we see all around us, we conservatives tend to be focused too much on conveying and defending that truth and not enough on living it.

In so doing, we run the similarly grave danger of having “faith to move mountains, but having not love/charity” and thus having nothing. Also an offense that will endanger our souls. For on the day of judgment, Christ may say to a modern “liberal,” “You did well in trying to care for the least of mine, but you did them grave harm instead because you rejected me and the true love I tried to teach you for your own gods. I will give you what you wish: your own gods, for you did not want me.”

But He may also say to a modern “conservative,” “You did well in guarding and professing my truth, but you did not let me into your heart, and so you cared too little for the least of mine. Your faith was not a living thing, for you did not let me live through you. Can you let my love into you and be poured out through you? It is too hot for you. You wanted the idea of heaven, but not heaven itself. I therefore grant you what you wish: the concept, but not the reality.”

We all must avoid these dangerous responses; I have hope that Pope Francis will help us to do so.

 

[Lucky7]

I’ve shared it so many times. You aren’t tired by it? The last time I shared it someone didn’t believe I even had such a letter. And if I recall correctly, someone even wanted the bishop’s name because the poster suggested heresy due to his response with regard to transubstantiation. I won’t make his name public on this forum because I’m not interested in judging and in accusations of heresy. And he has retired since the letter as it was many yrs ago.

But I’ve saved it these many yrs and have it in my hand so okay I’ll share it again if you’d like. I had asked a bishop many yrs ago if a hypothetical person can be a Catholic who did not attend Mass, did not believe in Transubstantiation, and was pro choice. Here was his response and I quote:

“You are asking about who can rightfully be called a Catholic. A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. However a further distinction would be whether one is a practicing or non practicing member. And of course being a practicing Catholic does not exclude the possibility of personal sin in one’s life. That person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non practicing one.”

That was me and you misunderstood my post. I said the person you described was a heretic, not the bishop. The reason why I said that was because a Pope (and I can’t remember which one right now and don’t have the time to google) made it very clear that when one is a heretic, he cuts himself off from the Church.

Whether we want to argue over what that particular Pope said is another story but it seemed quite clear to me.

Edit: Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis Christi :

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

 

[CMatt25]

That was me and you misunderstood my post.

Lucky, yes I remember now that it was you. And yes indeed in this case I misunderstood your post back then and I sincerely apologize. Thank you for calling it to my attention.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Lucky, yes I remember now that it was you. And yes indeed in this case I misunderstood your post back then and I sincerely apologize. Thank you for calling it to my attention.

You’re a stand-up guy, CMatt, I’ll say that for you. You have always acknowledged mistakes when brought to your attention. Now, if you were more like me and never made mistakes …

 

[CMatt25]

Catholic, yes. But for those who reject teachings of the Catholic Church, is it really satisfying to be a Catholic not in full communion? .

This is what I get from CMatt25’s profile entry, btw: to say “A Christianity that doesn’t exclude or drive liberals away” is to say “my liberalism–defined by my cultural and political views–is my god; I put it before my Christianity and want my Christianity (Jesus and His Church) to be subject to my cultural and political views.”

I don’t know how satisfied Catholics are who dissent. My guess would be for some it might be a struggle for them either way. They struggle accepting something and simply can’t. Yet at the same time might not be satisfied without a faith home if they have not found or not yet gone to another where they are fully welcomed wherever it is they are along their journeys. An Episcopal priest once told me it is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are. I liked that that.

I would also think however Catholics would prefer not alienating dissenters to the point where the dissenter leaves the practice of the faith for good. If they hold onto pieces of it, maybe still attend Mass on C&E or in whatever way they still hang onto, I’d think there would be a better chance that they might get back into full communion before they take their last breath. Which I’ll assume is what Catholics would want. To tell them they are not Catholic, or are CINO I would think is detrimental.

No you’re mistaken about my profile. I as a Christian profess the Lord Jesus Christ as my God and Savior. And believe despite politics and culture, it is He the One most important of all that all Christians are united in. In He Whom breaks down walls. God bless you on your journey and the ones in the poll on theirs. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

You’re a stand-up guy, CMatt, I’ll say that for you. You have always acknowledged mistakes when brought to your attention. Now, if you were more like me and never made mistakes …

Thanks Dave I think that was a compliment. Tribe’s having a good spring. Heading to Tampa in April to catch 'em against the Rays. And saw a bit ago, Dave, Obama has the Buckeyes in the final 4!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t know how satisfied Catholics are who dissent. My guess would be for some it might be a struggle for them either way. They struggle accepting something and simply can’t. Yet at the same time might not be satisfied without a faith home if they have not found or not yet gone to another where they are fully welcomed wherever it is they are along their journeys. An Episcopal priest once told me it is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are.

But perhaps the critical part left out by the Episcopal priest is that it is also up to the individual pilgrim to seek that grace – obediently, prayerfully, and by catechesis. IOW, actively, not passively. When I was out of the Church I never assumed it was up to other people to “make me feel welcome.” By virtue of my Baptism, I was already welcome. Catholicism is not about feeling; that might be true (is true) for certain denominations, but not for The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Now, as a practical matter, I agree that being individually welcomed is helpful, but most people who have come back on their own have not come back by individual welcome. Some have come back by group welcome, and that is the point of CatholicsComeHome.org.: a group welcome to disaffected and/or nonpracticing Catholics to take the initiative. Thus, when I did come back, I went first to my local homecoming in my parish for precisely the reason that I needed to get clear on a membership that I was about to reactivate and which had been dormant. As I am an adult, not a child, it was not up to others to lead me by the hand. Rather, it was up to me to listen to the Holy Spirit coaxing me through various ways which the Spirit is known to do: announcements in Church bulletins, Catholic resources on the web, individuals who are actually living their faith, joyfully, and organized groups for that purpose. The Holy Spirit did “speak,” and I listened, but nobody “officially” welcomed me, and had I waited for that, I might still be waiting. It all required my initiative, my investigation, my active prayer, and my willingness to put aside my doubts, which for most people (certainly for me) are just another manifestation of ego (pride).

Faith is lots of work. It does require grace, which is a gift, but the gift is activated to the soul who reaches up and out.

 

[CMatt25]

But perhaps the critical part left out by the Episcopal priest is that it is also up to the individual pilgrim to seek that grace – obediently, prayerfully, and by catechesis. IOW, actively, not passively. When I was out of the Church I never assumed it was up to other people to “make me feel welcome.” By virtue of my Baptism, I was already welcome. Catholicism is not about feeling; that might be true (is true) for certain denominations, but not for The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Now, as a practical matter, I agree that being individually welcomed is helpful, but most people who have come back on their own have not come back by individual welcome. Some have come back by group welcome, and that is the point of CatholicsComeHome.org.: a group welcome to disaffected and/or nonpracticing Catholics to take the initiative. Thus, when I did come back, I went first to my local homecoming in my parish for precisely the reason that I needed to get clear on a membership that I was about to reactivate and which had been dormant. As I am an adult, not a child, it was not up to others to lead me by the hand. Rather, it was up to me to listen to the Holy Spirit coaxing me through various ways which the Spirit is known to do: announcements in Church bulletins, Catholic resources on the web, individuals who are actually living their faith, joyfully, and organized groups for that purpose. The Holy Spirit did “speak,” and I listened, but nobody “officially” welcomed me, and had I waited for that, I might still be waiting. It all required my initiative, my investigation, my active prayer, and my willingness to put aside my doubts, which for most people (certainly for me) are just another manifestation of ego (pride).

Faith is lots of work. It does require grace, which is a gift, but the gift is activated to the soul who reaches up and out.

Perhaps. She’s an Episcopal priest who was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I know maybe she believed the Holy Spirit was coaxing her to go where she did. I have no idea. I haven’t really discussed her journey much with her. Other than I know earlier in her life the Catholic parish would lock its doors where she previously lived and when she wanted to pray there was an Episcopal one nearby in which she would do so. But thank you for sharing you own personal faith journey. And may God continue to bless you in it. Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

She’s an Episcopal priest who was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I know maybe she believed the Holy Spirit was coaxing her to go where she did. I have no idea. I haven’t really discussed her journey much with her…

That ^ has no relevance to this, which is your statement to which I replied:

An Episcopal priest once told me it is only by the grace of God that any of us are where we are.

Why in the first quote are you talking about “the journey” of a female Episcopal priest? The subject is your journey, not hers. The subject more specifically was her comment about the grace of God being responsible for why “any of us are where we are.”

Let’s stick with the statements (replies) people are giving you, instead of going off into an unrelated tangent about the various journeys of the various seekers in the universe. I am affirming her comment, not denying it. Her comment reinforces what I said way back earlier on this thread, which is that faith is a theological virtue which requires work, and that grace is partly dependent on the receiver to be open to that grace within the very situation which challenges him or her. And in your case that would mean inside the Catholic Church, not via religion-shopping, which is an external and unlikely way to arrive at inner clarity.

I appreciate that it is your position, stated here and also on many other previous threads, that church (small “c”) affiliation is simply a matter of groping in the dark, overwhelmed by the supposed inability to “know” the Truth, and that such perpetual seeking, questioning, and being unsure is somehow an inevitable fact of human existence, which — if we are supposedly unlucky enough to be afflicted with it – may follow us virtually to our graves.

This is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church, not a perspective that should have been taught in a single Catholic catechetical lesson. Nor does it hail from any Church document. It merely reflects personal doubt…A baptized Catholic, assuming that the baptism was valid, has resources unlike those of other faith traditions. A bapitzed, confirmed Catholic has been told where to go for resources when faith is so lacking that religious affiliation appears to be some random event, or the result of luck, or some distribution of genes.

While it’s true that some Catholics have “naturally” more faith than others, the degree of faith of any individual is not restricted by human weakness. We are each capable of reaching high levels of faith. Faith is a theological virtue that must be cultivated, actively and deliberately. Our doubts are the very oppotunities to enlarge that faith. …Prior to Vatican 2, the three theological virtues were separately and specifically taught to the faithful, and assists suggested to enlarge each.

Religious faith in the context of Catholicism cannot rely on secular means to get there, or on the rituals and traditions of different religions . (Just “figuring something out” rationally, or just “waiting until X makes sense,” and until then, declaring “I can’t have faith.”) Faith is a journey and a process, and does not benefit, directly anyway, by a person experimenting with other religious traditions in the hopes that those, instead, will “make sense.” The likely scenario there is that neither Catholicism nor UMC nor UCC nor Lutheranism nor Episcopalianism will have be any more of a permanent alternative home for the baptized Catholic than the Catholic Church was. The wrong tools are being used. Human investigation is being sought as a solution to a deficiency in a theological virtue, for which only grace is the cure.

(More precisely, natural investigation is being sought for a deficiency in the supernatural realm.) The cure for doubt is in your hands for your needs. You don’t need to worry about what the needs are of some person in some different religion, and I find it ironic that while you keep referring to other people’s journeys, you seem far more fascinated and connected to theirs than to your own. They don’t have secret successes to share with you, because, as you have said or implied often, the individual’s journey is unique. If you do really care about staying a Catholic and growing as a Catholic and feeling more comfortable (not less comfortable) as a Catholic, you will stop avoiding the uniquely Catholic instruments to arrive there. Anything else is an avoidance game.

 

[twoshoes]

Thanks Dave I think that was a compliment. Tribe’s having a good spring. Heading to Tampa in April to catch 'em against the Rays. And saw a bit ago, Dave, Obama has the Buckeyes in the final 4!

To bad he isn’t as diligant on the economy, and religious freedoms as he is on basketball, he has the brackets down to a science.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Thanks Dave I think that was a compliment. Tribe’s having a good spring. Heading to Tampa in April to catch 'em against the Rays. And saw a bit ago, Dave, Obama has the Buckeyes in the final 4!

Yeah, Matt, I was paying you a compliment.

The Tribe is having a great preseason. I can’t wait for opening day! As for the Buckeyes, I think Obama made a wise choice selecting the Scarlet and Grey to advance to the Final Four. Thad Matta has done a great job in Columbus. My youngest daughter graduates from OSU in May, so the tuition bills will finally end. Between that and my oldest daughter’s wedding on June 1st, I’ll be lucky to have money for any Indians games during my summer visit to Cleveland (only kidding). My Montreal Canadiens are having a great season too. Come this Fall, we look forward to Crimson Tide and Buckeye football success under Coaches Saban and Meyer. Catholicism is my first love, but sports are surely second!

 

[Tigg]

That ^ has no relevance to this, which is your statement to which I replied:

**Why in the first quote are you talking about “the journey” of a female Episcopal priest? The subject is your journey, not hers. ** The subject more specifically was her comment about the grace of God being responsible for why “any of us are where we are.”

Let’s stick with the statements (replies) people are giving you, instead of going off into an unrelated tangent about the various journeys of the various seekers in the universe. I am affirming her comment, not denying it. Her comment reinforces what I said way back earlier on this thread, which is that faith is a theological virtue which requires work, and that grace is partly dependent on the receiver to be open to that grace within the very situation which challenges him or her. And in your case that would mean inside the Catholic Church, not via religion-shopping, which is an external and unlikely way to arrive at inner clarity.

(More precisely, natural investigation is being sought for a deficiency in the supernatural realm.) The cure for doubt is in your hands for your needs. You don’t need to worry about what the needs are of some person in some different religion, and I find it ironic that while you keep referring to other people’s journeys, you seem far more fascinated and connected to theirs than to your own. They don’t have secret successes to share with you, because, as you have said or implied often, the individual’s journey is unique. If you do really care about staying a Catholic and growing as a Catholic and feeling more comfortable (not less comfortable) as a Catholic, you will stop avoiding the uniquely Catholic instruments to arrive there. Anything else is an avoidance game.

Elizabeth - I missed your original post as I have not read this entire thread, but you are spot-on with every in-depth comment you made. CMatt, do you need to validate your personal rejection of Church teaching by drawing attention to the fact that others have as well? I find that somewhat chilling because, as you know, you alone will stand before Christ at the hour of your death.

 

[CMatt25]

The subject is your journey, not hers. The subject more specifically was her comment about the grace of God being responsible for why “any of us are where we are.”… I am affirming her comment, not denying it.

Actually the subject was not my journey. I was merely replying to a question by another poster (not you) about how satisfied Catholics are who are not in full communion. I even began with words such as “I don’t know” and “My guess”. I can’t speak for all Catholics who are not in full communion. So I offered some speculation.

Then you come along following me on my tail and bring up the Episcopal priest whose journey I had merely mentioned, what little I know of it, because she was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, as an example of one not in full communion. You began your post with “perhaps the critical part left out by the Episcopal priest is…” After I had merely referenced her words about God’s grace in relation to where “any of us” are. Not just me. Nor just you, Elizabeth, for that matter. And you somehow see fit to turn the subject into me. You read far too much into my posts, Elizabeth. But I’m glad you affirm her comment. As do I.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually the subject was not my journey.

As discussed by you and by many posters/posts on this very thread, one subject of this thread, often referred to you by you at least tangentially, is very much your journey. You are indeed one of the many U.S. Catholics wanting a “more liberal” Church, which assumes possibly a more liberal head of that Church. You have indicated this throughout your posting history on CAF. And when you brought up, once again, someone else’s spiritual journey as a parallel to some supposedly undefined journey we supposedly all are on, you need to be corrected on that. The Church, the church you keep on referring to as one into which you are baptized and own a legitimate membership card (so to speak) does not agree with you that the journey need be mysterious, except in the generic way that Mystery encompasses the life of every Christian pilgrim, including Catholics. That Mystery does not equal perpetual, persistent, and serious doubt — supposedly requiring experimental journeys into other faith traditions, in the dubious attempt to locate “faith” (elsewhere).

And you somehow see fit to turn the subject into me. You read far too much into my posts, Elizabeth. But I’m glad you affirm her comment. As do I.

No, you “turn” the subject of other people’s undefined “journeys” into a story about you. I read nothing into your posts except what you state and infer. And her comment was about grace. Except that even in the Episcopal tradition, grace does not usually overwhelm an unwitting or unwilling recipient. Not many grace events are as dramatic as what we read about in certain Lives of the Saints. Most illumination into the truths of our Catholic faith happen undramatically, unglamorously, and with the help of a lot of mundane work on our part.

 

[Lucky7]

Lucky, yes I remember now that it was you. And yes indeed in this case I misunderstood your post back then and I sincerely apologize. Thank you for calling it to my attention.

Thanks CMatt. I appreciate that a lot. You know, after I posted that I had this funny feeling it might be taken to mean the bishop. I guess I should have listened to that hunch…lol. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer.