Practicing Catholic

[chefmomster2]

The reality is that despite all the verbiage directed at me, no one is in any position to say with authority who is, and who is not, a “practicing Catholic.”

We can tell you what it means, but we can’t be absolutely precise when a specific person asks about his own circumstance. God is the only judge of that.

Some suggest “procedural minimums” that not only include Mass weekly, but also now appear to include confession once per year; and/or that we should “look up” “how often should a Catholic [do] X…”, as if “looking it up” somehow means that where we look is authoritative [This list of minimums seems to get added to the more we check this thread.

I have posted the precepts, so you won’t have to look them up. I do suggest, though, that people research it on their own. Why not? It is a way to learn more about our faith.

On this site we often paste church doctrine. We are informing others on what the Church says, as opposed to our own opinion. We give links to offer proofs for our information.

We’re also getting directions to seek pastoral advice, or, if we’re lucky, we’ll have a Catholic ethicist in the family we can look to for guidance.

Certainly if a person needs further help, they should seek it. Often we can learn enough on our own to satisfy our oncerns.

We’re told to do what Jesus said…but we’re also told that “loving others” (which He said to do) is the ideal, not the minimum – but the minimum (attending Mass) is not something He said.

I believe He did say to “Keep my commandments”. Isn’t it a commandment of God that we set aside “the Lord’s Day” for worship?

No one says “loving others” is the “ideal”! Loving others is what we do as a Catholic. It is evidence of faith. It is a “symptom” of our love. By it, we can be “diagnosed” as being Christian.

In other words, it’s all subjective, folks.

Nope. The precepts are not subjective. They are actual and real. You are expected to obey them, just like the commandments or the Great Commandment. Only God can judge the person and determine his faith.

But this I am certain of: All the folks who want to define what a practicing Catholic is, will always define it to include themselves – no matter their failings or their own sins.

Wrong. Most of the folks here want to share their faith and their best knowledge with those who need them.

The ivory towers grow taller as this thread gets older…

And, what about you? What does “practicing” mean? What does Jesus says we “must do”? How would you answer the questions which you feel we have gotten wrong?

Criticism is easy.
[/quote]

 

[PolarGuy]

I come here for many reasons, St. Francis. Learning is one of them. Others are to point out when others are passing off subjective theology as fact; to try to bring some compassion to an awfully legalistic and often hard-hearted board; and to try to convince lurkers/readers that all Catholics are not sin- and hell-obsessed loons and/or OCD sufferers (which wouldn’t be evident at all, for example, looking at the “moral theology” forum, which could be sometimes be described as “the OCD/mortal sin obsession forum”).

Asking me why I come here is as good as acknowledging that you are having difficulty with what I’m writing (because if you weren’t, you wouldn’t change the subject), or ask me rhetorical questions.

Chefmomster, although you are correct that the precepts of the Church “are what they are,” you (and I suspect others) appear to be missing something very important, namely, these precepts speak in pure 100% absolutes, which no one - even the Church - requires we adhere to in all situations. OK, so the Church has a precept that you must attend mass. But there are all sorts of situations where it’s OK to miss, and everyone including the Church itself acknowledges that as well, for example, the soldier on the battlefield. My point – that seems so hard to grasp – is that no one can or should be throwing around who is and who is not a “practicing Catholic,” particularly since 1) there are subjective elements of that and 2) all of us have some failing that prevents us from being one at some point. Saying that “you are a practicing Catholic if you follow the precepts to a T while failing in the other more major aspects of Christianity, i.e., having an affair; hating everyone you meet, etc.” is inane – but that is precisely what you are defending when you state that “following the precepts always equals being a practicing Catholic.” Only God can read hearts. Too bad so many on this board think they can, just be seeing who fits into what criteria.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The concept that there are “procedural minimums” for being a “practicing Catholic” is indefensible.

Why? Because, as usual, these minimums are entirely subjective, in the eyes of who is doing the judging.

Procedural minimums? The “minimum” is to believe Christ is the son of God and to love Him and our neighbors. The rest is just details.

It’s also interesting that the same poster who put forth that there are “procedural minimums” also wrote that we had best have a “good reason” for missing. But who decides what’s a good reason?

What if the person can’t attend mass because they’re a soldier in wartime and there’s no chaplain? OK, good reason. But what about “I work on Saturdays and Sundays and can’t go?” Somebody will condemn the person for not quitting their job and also for committing the unpardonable sin of making others work on Sundays as well.

For many posters on this board, no reason is ever good enough for not attending mass; or, for that matter, for disagreeing with everything a priest says or does; for criticizing a priest (let alone the Church as a whole) and not agreeing with everything the Church does or says.

Hi, I hope you understood when I spoke of Sunday shopping, dining, or getting a haircut by a Catholic worker, I was not saying it was an unpardonable sin to make others work. I just was adding more things for the other posters to consider as they ponder who is NP.

 

[Xantippe]

I come here for many reasons, St. Francis. Learning is one of them. Others are to point out when others are passing off subjective theology as fact; to try to bring some compassion to an awfully legalistic and often hard-hearted board; and to try to convince lurkers/readers that all Catholics are not sin- and hell-obsessed loons and/or OCD sufferers (which wouldn’t be evident at all, for example, looking at the “moral theology” forum, which could be sometimes be described as “the OCD/mortal sin obsession forum”).

**It’s not subjective. If you do a little research and ask your pastor, you’ll find that there are such things as a minimum number of things Catholics are supposed to do. (I used the phrase “procedural requirements” because I didn’t remember the word "precepts.)

There are lots and lots of possible exceptions for those requirements, but a Catholic who is able to do this stuff should do it. If they have tendencies to OCD and a tendency to overdo, they should ask obey their spiritual director. (In other words, if the spiritual director says, no, you shouldn’t walk two hours each way to Mass, then they should obey the spiritual director.) **

**While rigorism can genuinely be a problem, rigorism mostly deals with maximalism rather than minimalism. For example, a rigorist might insist that every married person should continue having children during their fertile years unless there was clear danger of death, using the terminology “grave reasons” to support that reading. (And yes, one does encounter that particular view now and again.) An orthodox person would have a substantially more generous view of what “just reasons” and “serious reasons” might entail.

And ask anybody or look at my posting history–I’m not a CAF rigorist.**

Chefmomster, although you are correct that the precepts of the Church “are what they are,” you (and I suspect others) appear to be missing something very important, namely, these precepts speak in pure 100% absolutes, which no one - even the Church - requires we adhere to in all situations. OK, so the Church has a precept that you must attend mass. But there are all sorts of situations where it’s OK to miss, and everyone including the Church itself acknowledges that as well, for example, the soldier on the battlefield. My point – that seems so hard to grasp – is that no one can or should be throwing around who is and who is not a “practicing Catholic,” particularly since 1) there are subjective elements of that and 2) all of us have some failing that prevents us from being one at some point. Saying that “you are a practicing Catholic if you follow the precepts to a T while failing in the other more major aspects of Christianity, i.e., having an affair; hating everyone you meet, etc.” is inane – but that is precisely what you are defending when you state that “following the precepts always equals being a practicing Catholic.” Only God can read hearts. Too bad so many on this board think they can, just be seeing who fits into what criteria.

Let’s say that the rule is rock solid objective, but that the application admits of some subjectivity.

As long as one is applying the rule in a reasonable way (rather than denying the rule altogether), I think everybody is going to be pretty happy.

You’re continuing to mix up the idea of “practicing Catholic” with “good person.” It’s not an insult to say that somebody is not a practicing Catholic. In fact, it’s often a self-description.

 

[Sy_Noe]

**

As Catholics we are expected to be obedient in faith. That means to trust in the teachings of the Church. (We have a further duty to explore our difficulties and to come to understand and incorporate the doctrine into our consciences.)

Full knowledge is a somewhat awkward term. It means that the person is “fully” aware that what they do is sinful. So, whether we like it or not, if we know missing mass is sinful we know enough to be culpable for the sin.

The circumstances you speak of in which the person is in defiance of the doctrines is culpable, generally speaking. If we deliberately defy teachings that can also be grievously sinful since it might be considered vincible ignorance, in other words, a lack of knowledge that we could and should be able to rectify.

The obligation to attend Mass is not fulfilled by the substitution of a charitable act, however wonderful it might be. Charitable works do not bring us into the experience of the full presence of Christ. They don’t provide the Eucharist for our strength. They don’t unite us in the body of Christ, the Church, in as essential a way.

I can’t judge specific cases. No one can. None of us knows the heart and mind of the person, nor the thoughts of God. He is the only judge. Each one of us must judge for him/herself what is acceptable to the Lord by following the teachings of the Church for guidance.

Just some thoughts… Not every Catholic chooses to be. Many are made members within a month or two of their births. And even at Confirmation a young person might not have been fully aware of all it entails. We don’t stop growing in faith at the age of Confirmation. So for them it might be more difficult to be obedient or to force their consciences to be indoctrinated. Also the person in my example who was tired from a long day of work on Saturday and who then slept in one Sunday morning before heading off to serve the Lord at the soup kitchen, is then turned away by the Church from receiving the Eucharist anyway for the rest of their lives if they do not confess to a priest that one Sunday they slept in. And if they don’t repent it with an act of contrition before they die, they die in mortal sin. I know that is one of many things about the Catholic faith that is very difficult for me to believe and to incorporate.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Let’s say that the rule is rock solid objective, but that the application admits of some subjectivity.

As long as one is applying the rule in a reasonable way (rather than denying the rule altogether), I think everybody is going to be pretty happy.

You’re continuing to mix up the idea of “practicing Catholic” with “good person.” It’s not an insult to say that somebody is not a practicing Catholic. In fact, it’s often a self-description.

But might that be the point? Might there be a difference between self description and someone on the internet describing someone?

 

[Xantippe]

But might that be the point? Might there be a difference between self description and someone on the internet describing someone?

Nah–it’s just a description of objective, observable reality. It’s not insulting.

There’s a parallel terminology for Judaism. They talk about practicing and non-practicing Jews.

If it’s rude to say somebody is “non-practicing” what would be the polite way to say “non-practicing Catholic”?

We have to have words to describe things.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Nah–it’s just a description of objective, observable reality. It’s not insulting.

There’s a parallel terminology for Judaism. They talk about practicing and non-practicing Jews.

If it’s rude to say somebody is “non-practicing” what would be the polite way to say “non-practicing Catholic”?

We have to have words to describe things.

I dunno but just a thought. Maybe just don’t be so intent on describing other Catholics?

 

[Xantippe]

Just some thoughts… Not every Catholic chooses to be. Many are made members within a month or two of their births. And even at Confirmation a young person might not have been fully aware of all it entails. We don’t stop growing in faith at the age of Confirmation. So for them it might be more difficult to be obedient or to force their consciences to be indoctrinated. Also the person in my example who was tired from a long day of work on Saturday and who then slept in one Sunday morning before heading off to serve the Lord at the soup kitchen, is then turned away by the Church from receiving the Eucharist anyway for the rest of their lives if they do not confess to a priest that one Sunday they slept in. And if they don’t repent it with an act of contrition before they die, they die in mortal sin. I know that is one of many things about the Catholic faith that is very difficult for me to believe and to incorporate.

Eh, you realize that the rules for mortal sin require knowledge that it is a mortal sin? So, you can’t unknowingly commit a mortal sin. See the three conditions here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin

I think you should make an appointment with a pastor (lunch, perhaps?) and talk over your issues. You seem to have some misunderstandings.

Let’s rephrase your example. Your guy works late, sleeps in, then heads off to the soup kitchen for a day of serving the Lord. He’s there all day. Meanwhile, his wife, whose birthday it is, is wondering where the heck he is and why he chose to spend no time with her on her special day when she had so much planned for them and the whole family was coming to spend time together for an hour to celebrate. Does all the soup kitchen work cancel out the fact that your guy was a jerk to his wife? No, it doesn’t. We can have multiple responsibilities to different parties, and excelling in one department does not let us off the hook for failing at the minimum in another department. (Example–if I took one kid to Disneyland, that doesn’t excuse me for failing to buy new school shoes for the other kid.)

Best wishes!

 

[Xantippe]

I dunno but just a thought. Maybe just don’t be so intent on describing other Catholics?

The OP asked whether to describe himself as practicing. What were people supposed to do?

 

[Xantippe]

Even excelling in service to a person in one respect does not let a person off from performing the minimum in another respect to that same person.

For example, let’s say my husband did some sort of huge, amazing home improvement project. And let’s say that he failed to shower for a month, despite my repeated pleading with him about his hygiene. Excelling at the huge home improvement project does not mean that he can not bathe for a month and have broken even, relationally. Or I can’t deem myself to have excelled in supervising the kids’ homework and then not make arrangements for them to have dinner. I can’t “credit” myself for my achievements in one area and carry it over to another–curing cancer through tireless hard work would not entitle me to one adulterous fling.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Eh, you realize that the rules for mortal sin require knowledge that it is a mortal sin? So, you can’t unknowingly commit a mortal sin. See the three conditions here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin

I think you should make an appointment with a pastor (lunch, perhaps?) and talk over your issues. You seem to have some misunderstandings.

Let’s rephrase your example. Your guy works late, sleeps in, then heads off to the soup kitchen for a day of serving the Lord. He’s there all day. Meanwhile, his wife, whose birthday it is, is wondering where the heck he is and why he chose to spend no time with her on her special day when she had so much planned for them and the whole family was coming to spend time together for an hour to celebrate. Does all the soup kitchen work cancel out the fact that your guy was a jerk to his wife? No, it doesn’t. We can have multiple responsibilities to different parties, and excelling in one department does not let us off the hook for failing at the minimum in another department. (Example–if I took one kid to Disneyland, that doesn’t excuse me for failing to buy new school shoes for the other kid.)

Best wishes!

Oh yes I realize a person must have the knowledge the Catholic Church defines something as grave but then deliberately consents to committing the act anyway. I don’t have all that many misunderstandings. Other than I asked if someone knows the Catholic Church teaches something is grave and a mortal sin but they are not convinced and don’t believe it, so they deliberately consent to the act, is that the same as truly knowing it is when they don’t believe it is? I don’t think lunch will help me. There are too many issues I have of which I just can’t force my conscience to follow along with or force it to be indoctrinated on.

 

[chefmomster2]

Chefmomster, although you are correct that the precepts of the Church “are what they are,” you (and I suspect others) appear to be missing something very important, namely, these precepts speak in pure 100% absolutes, which no one - even the Church - requires we adhere to in all situations. OK, so the Church has a precept that you must attend mass. But there are all sorts of situations where it’s OK to miss, and everyone including the Church itself acknowledges that as well, for example, the soldier on the battlefield. My point – that seems so hard to grasp – is that no one can or should be throwing around who is and who is not a “practicing Catholic,” particularly since 1) there are subjective elements of that and 2) all of us have some failing that prevents us from being one at some point. Saying that “you are a practicing Catholic if you follow the precepts to a T while failing in the other more major aspects of Christianity, i.e., having an affair; hating everyone you meet, etc.” is inane – but that is precisely what you are defending when you state that “following the precepts always equals being a practicing Catholic.” Only God can read hearts. Too bad so many on this board think they can, just be seeing who fits into what criteria.

I agree with most of what you say. But, I think you have misinterpreted some of my statements.

You are right that no one is perfect when it comes to practicing their faith. We all have Sundays we miss for various reasons. Mostly I think we’d agree on them as hypotheticals. For instance, if I just got out of the hospital on Saturday after surgery, most of us would say that it is likely that God would not hold me culpable for missing. On the other hand, if I woke up on Sunday morning with a terrible hangover from my carousing on Saturday night, we would likely recognize that I can’t use my sinful behavior to excuse other sinful behavior. Most decisions are like these. They aren’t such close calls.

No one is saying that a person who misses Mass from time to time is “non-practicing”. We all know how impossible that would be! The fact is, though, that God demands perfection…but He knows that we won’t achieve it. The commandment doesn’t say “Honor your father and mother as much as you can.” No, it demands that we do it each and every time. When we don’t we need to confess it and keep on trying! He has mercy for us when we reconcile with Him and set our minds to keep trying to meet His expectations.

Remember that the phrase “practicing Catholic” is not a theological term. It is used mostly as a sociological term in my experience. For example, a pollster might release poll results taken from 500 “practicing Catholics”. Generally, these are people who define themselves and usually they decide based on whether they go to Church regularly. Flimsy, I know, but it’s not like theological definitions we have for things. Those are always very precise and usually involve looooooooong wooooooooooords!

No one here said that all one must do is fulfill the precepts! We have stated many times that these are not the measures of a good Catholic!

The OP indicated that his/her transport issues had improved, but that s/he was thinking of waiting until Thanksgiving to go back. (S/he later clarified.) But, given that statement, we were asked to judge if someone who could go to Church but will be “taking time off” without a good reason is a “practicing” Catholic. Accepting the term as it’s used in society, we suggested that the answer would be no. We also advised the OP to rethink this. No one was deciding if s/he is/is not a good Catholic, but just a “practicing” one.

Finally, I asked questions of you because you had a lot of criticism without any alternatives for us to consider. I am glad you gave me a bit more information this time. We welcome any comments and opinions, but we appreciate when they are stated in a friendly way and when all of the people in the conversation are open to learn and share. The more kind our interaction is, the more we can discover together.

 

[chefmomster2]

For that matter – what if I’m not a “practicing Catholic?” Am I in a state of mortal sin? Is it grave matter for me to be “non-practicing?” Is it “grave matter” because some hyper-scrupulous folks on the internet said I was non-practicing? Do I need to confess that I’m non-practicing? Is it a mortal sin to fail to confess that I’m non-practicing? If someone said I’m non practicing, can I receive the Eucharist?

If I’m non-practicing, will people welcome me at Church? On the internet? Or will they behave like sin-obsessed, judgmental…people (no namecalling from me!)

This reaches ridiculous proportions quite easily.

“Practicing Catholic” is just a simple modifier that is meaningless except in a sociological sense. It has nothing to do with sin, acceptance in the Church, or any of the things you are suggesting here. It certainly is not a pejorative to be non-practicing. It simply gives information. I am sorry to see you becoming bothered by a phrase that is of no real consequence.

 

[chefmomster2]

Just some thoughts… Not every Catholic chooses to be. Many are made members within a month or two of their births. And even at Confirmation a young person might not have been fully aware of all it entails. We don’t stop growing in faith at the age of Confirmation. So for them it might be more difficult to be obedient or to force their consciences to be indoctrinated. Also the person in my example who was tired from a long day of work on Saturday and who then slept in one Sunday morning before heading off to serve the Lord at the soup kitchen, is then turned away by the Church from receiving the Eucharist anyway for the rest of their lives if they do not confess to a priest that one Sunday they slept in. And if they don’t repent it with an act of contrition before they die, they die in mortal sin. I know that is one of many things about the Catholic faith that is very difficult for me to believe and to incorporate.

As phrased, that would certainly be a Church I wouldn’t want to be a part of! Fortunately, the Catholic Church isn’t quite the way you describe. The Church has always held that a person’s knowledge and consent matter greatly. This includes youngsters, teens who have not yet matured, those with difficult emotional problems, and scores of others who are each judged in a personal way taking into account all of the impediments that may truly release them, at least in part, from full culpability for their sins. God isn’t trying to keep us out of heaven! He wants every single one of us to be there with Him.

No one, not even the pope, could tell you definitively that your person who was tired committed a mortal sin or not. We aren’t able to judge that. But, a good person like the one you describe would seemingly care about missing Mass and most especially about the “possibility” that it might have been a mortal sin. Certainly he would want a chance to make things right. Don’t you frequently hurry to make up with loved ones, even if you’re unsure if you did anything wrong? What if the quarrel could mean that you would never be with them again? If you truly love them, reconciliation isn’t a hoop to jump through! It’s a way back into love you could have lost.

Sin is real and so is the possibility of Hell, but if and when anyone ends up there, it will be because they chose it. It won’t be on a “technical”, but on a case of true and complete rejection of God. And it won’t come as any surprise!

For the rest of us who struggle through, make mistakes, reconcile, try again, and again, and again, we will find ourselves rewarded. IMO, this will be the way for vast numbers of us. God does miracles, He doesn’t expect them. He will do anything you let Him to get you into heaven.

 

[Xantippe]

“Practicing Catholic” is just a simple modifier that is meaningless except in a sociological sense. It has nothing to do with sin, acceptance in the Church, or any of the things you are suggesting here. It certainly is not a pejorative to be non-practicing. It simply gives information. I am sorry to see you becoming bothered by a phrase that is of no real consequence.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

As phrased, that would certainly be a Church I wouldn’t want to be a part of! Fortunately, the Catholic Church isn’t quite the way you describe. The Church has always held that a person’s knowledge and consent matter greatly. This includes youngsters, teens who have not yet matured, those with difficult emotional problems, and scores of others who are each judged in a personal way taking into account all of the impediments that may truly release them, at least in part, from full culpability for their sins. God isn’t trying to keep us out of heaven! He wants every single one of us to be there with Him.

No one, not even the pope, could tell you definitively that your person who was tired committed a mortal sin or not. We aren’t able to judge that. But, a good person like the one you describe would seemingly care about missing Mass and most especially about the “possibility” that it might have been a mortal sin. Certainly he would want a chance to make things right. Don’t you frequently hurry to make up with loved ones, even if you’re unsure if you did anything wrong? What if the quarrel could mean that you would never be with them again? If you truly love them, reconciliation isn’t a hoop to jump through! It’s a way back into love you could have lost.

Sin is real and so is the possibility of Hell, but if and when anyone ends up there, it will be because they chose it. It won’t be on a “technical”, but on a case of true and complete rejection of God. And it won’t come as any surprise!

For the rest of us who struggle through, make mistakes, reconcile, try again, and again, and again, we will find ourselves rewarded. IMO, this will be the way for vast numbers of us. God does miracles, He doesn’t expect them. He will do anything you let Him to get you into heaven.

Yes.

And by the way, there’s a quote from Newman that may be relevant. He’s says in one of his (Anglican?) sermons that if we don’t like church, we’re not going to like heaven.

I think I’ve found a blog dealing with the quote:

"The answer [Newman] gave, in a nutshell, is this: “Even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter.” What does Newman mean?

“Many people are under the impression that heaven is a place where you can do whatever you want. But Scripture, Newman points out, paints a different picture: there we will spend eternity worshiping the Lord. Thus, he suggests that heaven is like a church: “For in a place of public worship no language of this world is heard… Here we hear solely and entirely of God.” For the person who rejects God in this world, entering heaven would be more like hell: “In this house of God, he would hear only of that one subject which he cared little or nothing about, and nothing at all of those things which excited his hopes and fears, his sympathies and energies.” If we don’t have a taste for the things of God in this life, we won’t be prepared to enjoy them for all eternity in the next. And so, according to Newman, the purpose of growth in holiness is to prepare ourselves for the joys of heaven—joys that would be hell to those who would enter unprepared.”

dominicanablog.com/2013/11/21/the-mercy-of-purgatory/

That is a sobering thought.

 

[chefmomster2]

Yes.

And by the way, there’s a quote from Newman that may be relevant. He’s says in one of his (Anglican?) sermons that if we don’t like church, we’re not going to like heaven.

I think I’ve found a blog dealing with the quote:

"The answer [Newman] gave, in a nutshell, is this: “Even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter.” What does Newman mean?

“Many people are under the impression that heaven is a place where you can do whatever you want. But Scripture, Newman points out, paints a different picture: there we will spend eternity worshiping the Lord. Thus, he suggests that heaven is like a church: “For in a place of public worship no language of this world is heard… Here we hear solely and entirely of God.” For the person who rejects God in this world, entering heaven would be more like hell: “In this house of God, he would hear only of that one subject which he cared little or nothing about, and nothing at all of those things which excited his hopes and fears, his sympathies and energies.” If we don’t have a taste for the things of God in this life, we won’t be prepared to enjoy them for all eternity in the next. And so, according to Newman, the purpose of growth in holiness is to prepare ourselves for the joys of heaven—joys that would be hell to those who would enter unprepared.”

dominicanablog.com/2013/11/21/the-mercy-of-purgatory/

That is a sobering thought.

Wow! Something to think about!

 

[St_Francis]

Yes.

And by the way, there’s a quote from Newman that may be relevant. He’s says in one of his (Anglican?) sermons that if we don’t like church, we’re not going to like heaven.

I think I’ve found a blog dealing with the quote:

"The answer [Newman] gave, in a nutshell, is this: “Even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter.” What does Newman mean?

“Many people are under the impression that heaven is a place where you can do whatever you want. But Scripture, Newman points out, paints a different picture: there we will spend eternity worshiping the Lord. Thus, he suggests that heaven is like a church: “For in a place of public worship no language of this world is heard… Here we hear solely and entirely of God.” For the person who rejects God in this world, entering heaven would be more like hell: “In this house of God, he would hear only of that one subject which he cared little or nothing about, and nothing at all of those things which excited his hopes and fears, his sympathies and energies.” If we don’t have a taste for the things of God in this life, we won’t be prepared to enjoy them for all eternity in the next. And so, according to Newman, the purpose of growth in holiness is to prepare ourselves for the joys of heaven—joys that would be hell to those who would enter unprepared.”

dominicanablog.com/2013/11/21/the-mercy-of-purgatory/

That is a sobering thought.

It is indeed the case that Heaven is like a church… or rather, churches and the Mass are like Heaven. This article has a table which shows the relationships between the Mass and the description of Heaven in Revelation.

 

[St_Francis]

I come here for many reasons, St. Francis. Learning is one of them. Others are to point out when others are passing off subjective theology as fact; to try to bring some compassion to an awfully legalistic and often hard-hearted board; and to try to convince lurkers/readers that all Catholics are not sin- and hell-obsessed loons and/or OCD sufferers (which wouldn’t be evident at all, for example, looking at the “moral theology” forum, which could be sometimes be described as “the OCD/mortal sin obsession forum”).

Asking me why I come here is as good as acknowledging that you are having difficulty with what I’m writing (because if you weren’t, you wouldn’t change the subject), or ask me rhetorical questions.

Well, no, I have no problem answering what you are saying, but it seemed like you weren’t responding to what I was saying so I wondered if you were interested in learning something or just tossing out opinions, which is something people do from time to time. I have found that I need to stop replying in the latter case, so sometimes I just check with the other person.

Since the others have offered some great responses to the topic, I will wait to see what you think before replying some more.