Proof of how Christian division really hurts us

[AlanFromWichita]

Sherlock:

No, “for the third time” is meant to indicate that you haven’t answered my question despite my having asked it three times. If it reflects any emotion of mine, it reflects my frustration with not getting my question answered. That you take it as an insult, as condescension, as “intended to make me look stupid or unresponsive” indicates a willingness to be offended on your part.

I think you are exactly right. If I am willing to be offended, and if you have loaded words in your page due to frustration, then those loaded words are likely to take the easiest path from your frustration to my defensivenes.

You have convinced me that you are sincere in not trying to condescend to me, so that’s why I say I offer the comments in love. You are expressing yourself in an extremely calm way compared to many people, who are understandibly frustrated with heterodox if they really believe it is harming the Church.

In effect, you may also consider it my compliment to you that you would understand what I mean, making it worth my having typed it! I crave people understanding what I say, but I actually crave them challenging me too, so thank you for affirming my confidence.

Lesson here: “for the third time” is objectively loaded, and the same sentence does quite nicely without it, as it adds no relevant content. When I read it, who knows if you typed “for the third time” for any reason at all. It may have been totally benign, like a cut-and-paste accident or listening to another conversation while typing and stuck it there. Statistically, however, my claim is that it is ripe fruit for a troubled soul (who wouldn’t be troubled when one is a heterodox after all ) to pick up and use to raise the emotional shields.

As for being “self-proclaimed”----again, there is an objective standard here. If a person follows Church teaching, then they are objectively orthodox. If they don’t, they are objectively heterodox. I don’t need to “self-proclaim” my orthodoxy: it is simply a fact that can be discerned by my adherence to Church teaching.

I can claim I am a perfected saint, guided entirely by the Holy Spirit and unable to commit a mortal sin because it is no longer within my capability to do so.

That has an objective standard too.

You don’t have to prove yourself to God, you’re right. You either are or you aren’t.

But if you’re talking to me, especially telling me that you possess a particular virtue or freedom from some particular sin, then you better come in with more than an antecdotal claim, especially if you use language with loaded words. Those loaded words are how the unknown becomes known. They do not reveal details, but they reveal spirits that cause anxiety.

So what I do is shut out everything else and dwell on the fact that, here is a person who says I will be happier if I become like him, but he can’t even stand to talk to me without becoming agitated. Why do I want to be like him?

I am using myself as a stereotype here, and in reality I try to think very differently. What I try to think is, “ok, this person is upset, let me see if I can understand what the person is trying to tell me, how I can benefit from it, and how I should respond, if at all.”
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

Wow—all I want is for you to answer my question, and you’ve gone on to decide what is in the content of my heart. I’m just going to ignore all of that, and concentrate instead on what you finally gave (thank you) as your answer:

I’m sorry if you haven’t answered your question, but so far I am still very interested in this discussion, and I’d like to answer your question if I could focus on it for a minute without all my baggage getting in the way.

You are welcome to ignore it, because I understand your shock that I would seem to be so presumptuous.

First of all, as I mentioned above, I am using myself as a stereotype, and I’ll add here that I am perhaps verbally exaggerating feelings to the point that I am clear about what direction those feelings seem to point.

That said, I think this is exactly where the breakdown occurs, in most – yes, I’ll wager $10 to say most – unfruitful communication between orthodox and liberals is based on this exact emotional impasse.

When you speak to me as an orthodox, and I’ll assume you really are and aren’t trying to deceive me or practice wishful thinking, to a heterodox, about why I Need To Be More Like You in some way, then I, as a sensitive person, just might respond either positively or negatively to the emotional content, the “loaded words” for example, of your comments. Some people perk up and listen when they know a wannabe teacher is frustrated with them. Personally I shut off because once a teacher starts getting frustrated I feel intimidated and pay more attention to staying out of his/her wrathful way than understanding the lesson anymore. In this forum, I feel bold through my relative anonymity so I speak on up.

You see, by not listening to you, I am secretly getting back at all the teachers who fussed at me because I Couldn’t See It Their Way. Maybe that’s my passive-aggressiveness coming through.

You can trust I know about being emotional, as a certified psycho with bipolar. I know about trying to teach people who won’t even try to get it, as I taught College Algebra to cocky high school seniors who would never take another math class in their lives and were taking this pass/fail, just before graduation. You have to use radical methods to get through to people who don’t seem to givadam about what you think is important, and what in fact your mission in life is currently about doing.

Those radical techniques include never disclosing frustration to your student, especially as long as the student is actually trying to listen, which who knows? Maybe they are? Maybe they want to believe you, but can’t if they feel defensive.

I asked why the orthodox would go away from the Church, since it is their adherence to her teaching that makes them orthodox. I thought that you were honestly expressing an actual wonderment felt by the heterodox in seeing the orthodox stay in the Church, which was why I asked my question.

Oh, I’m sorry for that misunderstanding. I intended it to be a defensive reflex that my cognitive brain comes up with, when I am frightened because a person with more Church knowledge and therefore possibly more authority than me threatens to kick me out, or even wonders why I’m here. If there are two groups of people, and one group sees the other as a threat and doesn’t even know why they are there (or even should be there since they aren’t accepting the therapy) the other one catches that wind and becomes defensive.

Sandbox 101 translation. “If you don’t like the way I play why don’t you just go home? Why do you even want to be here with us?” “I don’t want to go home. I like it here. Why don’t you go home if you think you are so much better than me”
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

But instead, you have answered a question I never asked: I never asked why YOU wished the orthodox would go away.

I do not wish the orthodox to go away. I wish they would wake up to the same truth I woke up to when I was on the "correct" side and others were following any path at all without regard to Jesus or the Church's own Diocesan guidelines, and wouldn't even allow those issues as a frame of discussion.

They wished I'd go away. Some of them, fools in positions of authority, tried to get my kids kicked out of school but the Holy Spirit interceded, I believe.

Now I'm on the other side. You are trying to speak God's Honest Truth to me, and I am grateful to you for it. The technical issues at hand, though, are not as important to me as your relationship with me.

I am fascinated by the learning process, and the impediments thereto, and a strained emotional relationship with the teacher only works when the teacher has the ability to hurt me somehow. If something worldly depended on my listening to you, then I would eat the insults and perceived innuendos and grit my teeth and try to listen through it.

After sitting for years listening to teachers who sometimes were very unreasonable and maddening, and then listening to bosses who are duty-bound to care more about the company than about you, a person gets pretty tired of it.

My advice is that you clear your own heart of frustration, which is based in fear. If you don't have that problem, then perhaps you misspoke earlier because it is your words, not mine, with which I am reading your heart.

Once that happens, you will lose the desire and drive to express frustrated emotions, and you will stand with a higher chance of actually winning one of the emotional basket cases such as me, over to your side.

I’m afraid you still haven’t answered my question, but have simply changed the format and inserted your personal problems into the matter.

Oh, dear.  Well, please keep the following in mind:

I have no problems with you being exactly as you are. I think you are honestly able to discern fact from feeling, and are probably on the verge of becoming a better communicator. If you can get through a basket case passive-aggressive, manic-depressive person like me, then chances are you'll be able to speak to other weak-faithed "heterodox" with greater acceptance.

That's all I'm doing. Trying to be your punching bag to you can devise you scheme. I'm trying to be a very tricky punching bag, though, and I know that no matter what, as long as I have faith in God, the Holy Spirit has everything under control.

We really don't have to fear for the Church. Perhaps some get frustrated with her, but nothing at all, not any division that has been so far expressed, is going to change the fact the the gates of hell will never prevail against her. We can argue into eternity about what exactly that means, but the fact is as long as we stay aboard, we are in the saving vessel that is the Catholic Church. I have no desire to see you fall overboard; I just want to help you see yourself from my "pathetic" position, so you can adjust your approach accordingly.

In other words, in this thread I'm trying to play the role of your "magic mirror" which tells you what the least common denominator, no make that the least of Christ's brothers, might see when you say the things you do.

Am I not offering you a gift greater than gold?  :twocents: OK, two cents worth of gold? Myself I am bankrupt, jobless, mentally ill, and with overdue bills. I cannot give you gold but I can give you my most earnest shot at making my own weaknesses count for something to somebody. If anybody wants to talk about trading my two cents for some paycheck or contract job, let me know!

I have to run now---I'll try to respond to the rest tonight.

I'll be looking forward to it. :thumbsup:

Please don't feel obligated to answer every point unless you wish to; these exchanges are getting so long I'm sure I'm not going back to check if we left anything unanswered!

I’d like to think we’re on the verge of seeing some positive attitude shifts in both of us toward each other, God willing. And if so, isn’t that also a lot of what Catholicism is all about? Loving each other and fixing attitude problems?

After many years of having analysis paralysis, now I am swinging the other way and shooting from the hip, to see how that works. This leads me to think that we need to establish the we each love and respect each other, regardless of behavior or beliefs, and use that as a groundwork for friendly, fruitful discussion. It's like, can some of the more esoteric details wait until we get over our "judgment" and "division" cloud?

Alan

 

[Sherlock]

AlanFromWichita,

Again, I don’t have much time this morning to respond, and I will be busy this evening as well (the annual Chesterton conference begins!!!), but I’ll try to address a few points with what time I have available. Since I haven’t finished responding to your earlier posts, I might skip between those and your latest ones and, for now, pick out a few items that I can address more easily.

You wrote: " I would think an intelligent “orthodox” Catholic would be able to make the intellectual leap to apply that reasoning to see the absurdity of telling someone, “you are not well, but since you do not know and accept everything that goes on in this entire hospital, then why do you seek treatment here at all?”"

Of course. However, your scenario implies that the heterodox are interested in “seeking treatement”. If they are, then bless 'em, as their heterodoxy is then simply a temporary situation that they are seeking to be cured of. But that’s not what faithful Catholics are objecting to: to use your scenario, what a person like myself objects to is not someone coming to the Church, honestly seeking to understand what they honestly do not, but the heterodox coming to the Church and saying, in effect, “I don’t like or understand your hospital guidelines and I have no intention of doing so, so change them to suit me. And while we’re at it, my “illness” is not an illness at all, so change your definition of illness so that I can call myself healthy.”

You wrote: “One good thing to having my own belief system is that whenever I find a part of it to be wrong, I can easily change it because I control it rather than letting it control me.”

Every person has their own “belief system”, so I’m not sure how a “belief system” can be, as you imply, a kind of external mind control. If you are saying that you acknowledge no moral authority other than your own, then I don’t know what to say to you as I don’t see how someone can follow Jesus and say that. I don’t have a problem with God controlling me; or rather, I should say that I am working at trying to make that a reality.

I’ve got to run.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sherlock:

Of course. However, your scenario implies that the heterodox are interested in “seeking treatement”. If they are, then bless 'em, as their heterodoxy is then simply a temporary situation that they are seeking to be cured of. But that’s not what faithful Catholics are objecting to: to use your scenario, what a person like myself objects to is not someone coming to the Church, honestly seeking to understand what they honestly do not, but the heterodox coming to the Church and saying, in effect, “I don’t like or understand your hospital guidelines and I have no intention of doing so, so change them to suit me. And while we’re at it, my “illness” is not an illness at all, so change your definition of illness so that I can call myself healthy.”

I can see your point, that what they are doing is offensive to your set of beliefs, and indeed causes a challenge for the Church.

Then I ask, how does this affect you personally, and why does it cause you to distinguish yourself from them by using the term “faithful” Catholic? Are these people complete deadbeats? If they show up for Mass and throw some money into the plate then at least they are pretending to be a participant. They may have issues different than yours, but we are all parts of the same body, even though those parts might give each other a little grief.

Why does it hurt you? Is it that you fear for the Church? Fear not, for she is protected. Is it that you believe it is your job to fix them? If so, then if you have that responsibility you will also be given the means.

It seems that you feel this phenomenon has hurt you, personally. That’s why I’m asking all the questions about that. My belief is that there are many more heterodox than any survey probably even reveals. Some progress, others may not.

I guess this divides the issue somewhat, in my mind. First, there is the question of why heterodox stay in the Church; the second is why that is painful to you and others.

We all see threats to the Church. Personally, one of the greatest ones I see, and have faithlessly tried to solve in the past and continue to do now, is people having bad attitudes toward each other, looking at each other as problems rather than precious children of God (who may in fact be ignorant or even stupid) and in general stewing over others’ sins. This is the kind of thing I’m trying to work with you to help combat. If we can develop and maintain a mutual respect for each other, and neither of us thinking that the other is a “problem” or a “jerk” or whatever, then I think we can establish a friendly dialog. To my limited way of thinking, that is a crucial step toward having any hope at all of actually helping to teach a person who may not want to hear “all” of the Truth at this time in their lives.

You wrote: “One good thing to having my own belief system is that whenever I find a part of it to be wrong, I can easily change it because I control it rather than letting it control me.”

Every person has their own “belief system”, so I’m not sure how a “belief system” can be, as you imply, a kind of external mind control. If you are saying that you acknowledge no moral authority other than your own, then I don’t know what to say to you as I don’t see how someone can follow Jesus and say that. I don’t have a problem with God controlling me; or rather, I should say that I am working at trying to make that a reality.

This is funny the way you put that, because it sounds like your making your case and mine at the same time.

You say we all have a “belief system” and not an “external mind control,” but if I submit my own beliefs to those of the Church, then I have actually hired the Church to be my “external mind control” and I just can’t do that, nor do I think it is what I should be doing.

The part about moral authority is a much more interesting question, and I’m not sure how to answer exactly. Hmmm.

I had a great analogy using my knowledge of FAA rules and airplane and instrument characteristics, assenting to it, but knowing the PIC (pilot-in-command) has authority to break FAA rules in an emergency. It made this post too lengthy, and I didn’t want to break it into two again, so we can take that up later.

Thank you again for all your time and attention; I honestly think we could be on the verge of something useful. My dream for this thread is that we can learn to speak substantively, directly, and non-judgmentally, about our differences in beliefs, and how we can respond to and support each other despite those differences – and that we have taken one step closer to bringing about World Peace.

That’s my real goal here on the forums, is to help bring about World Peace. It’s a bit grandiose, but I can always blame it on my being a crazy dreamer.

I’ve got to run.

Me, too. I get way too attached to these conversations!

Alan

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings javelin

javelin
How very sad that our divisions drive some away from the God that we try to show them. Let us never forget to pray unceasingly for unity.

You have highlighted a negative aspect of a divided body; but maybe this can be used in a very positive and powerful way.

I am a Catholic and about two months ago I went out door knocking in the style of the Jehovah Witness followers. I went with an Anglican and it seemed to have a profound affect on a few of the people we called on. I openly said I was Catholic, and John said he was Anglican they seemed at first astounded that we could work together in mission.

This provoked curiosity and we found people were willing to talk to us about Christ; and I felt it helped break down some barriers in people’s minds. It also had a profound affect on me in as much that door knocking on strangers is not in my nature, but if I had to do it again, I would but only with a member of another Christian denomination.

I feel that this has also been a great help in building bridges between our Churches were I live.

In the spirit of interfaith relations

Eric

 

[petra]

Objective truth exists and it matters greatly that we find out what it is. I believe that the smorgesboard of doctrine amongst Protestant churches impedes Christian evangelism. The Church Universal should be unified in doctrine.

We should also be unified in our hearts and attitudes. Alan is correct that division may consist of more than just doctrinal differences. Pride and condescension destroy unity, too. But it is entirely possible to be faithful to the deposit of apostolic faith and proclaim orthodox doctrine without being condescending. Seeking and asserting objective truth does not preclude love and humility.

Unity is also intrinsic in the Church. Whoever is indwelled by the Holy Spirit is a member of the Church (this is why the Catholic Church says that Protestants are really Catholic–they just don’t know it and are formally separated.) But in spite of the visible separation, there is also an aspect of unity. In some ways, this is more profound than the unity of faithful Catholics receiving the Eucharist together once a week. The unity of the indwelling Holy Spirit is a reality that persists 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. The Orthodox have a more developed understanding of this than Catholics, which is why they feel less need to enforce unity.

This leads me to my main point. Assuming doctrine is clearly defined and consequences to violating eternal spiritual and moral law are clearly communicated, on matters that pertain exclusively to unity, I do not think there is a need for heavy-handed enforcement.

Now, I’m anticipating people misreading what I just said. I’m not suggesting that dogmas or docrinal issues be watered down, and I’m not suggesting that morality be compromised. Set these issues aside. I’m also not suggesting that the Church change disciplines that promote unity.

But I question the Church’s methods to enforce unity – specifically elevating the pain of violation of Church disciplines to mortal sin or inventing new rules altogether that have a penalty of mortal sin. This heavy-handed approach is an abuse of the authority Christ gave the Church and it robs me of the joy of doing something I already want to do. I want to attend Mass every Sunday, and I want to observe Lenten fasts from meat. But it doesn’t matter that I want to do it. The Church confiscates what I intend to be a gift. It feels like spiritual violence in my soul–like I’m raped.

The Church’s obsession with external unity also fails to recognize the Holy Spirit’s role in the life of the believer. Hebrews 12:3-11 promises that if we are God’s child, He will discipline us. Why doesn’t the Church give God more credit for the work He does in our life?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

But I question the Church’s methods to enforce unity – specifically elevating the pain of violation of Church disciplines to mortal sin or inventing new rules altogether that have a penalty of mortal sin. This heavy-handed approach is an abuse of the authority Christ gave the Church and it robs me of the joy of doing something I already want to do. I want to attend Mass every Sunday, and I want to observe Lenten fasts from meat. But it doesn’t matter that I want to do it. The Church confiscates what I intend to be a gift. It feels like spiritual violence in my soul–like I’m raped.

Dear petra,

This is the best description I’ve ever heard of a problem I have been trying to work for years. I would like to devote a good deal of my life on earth to help restore the Good News to those who have been robbed of it by good-intentioned Catholics trying to mix and match worldly and heavenly solutions to problems.

The problem is, stewardship that is coerced is not stewardship.

Threats of sin or promises of rewards are external influences, that cause pleasure and pain, and therefore are coercive.

The reason a steward gives time, talent, or treasure to the Church is not based on the Church’s need to receive, but the steward’s need to give. When stewardship is preached, we don’t really make that point well because rarely do we hear a call to stewardship without its being infected with statements like “your responsibility to the Church” or “the Church operates in faith, but has ‘real world’ needs that require her to pay bills.”

Some of the worst ones try to convince me that I Owe It To Them because of all they’ve done for me. This is a manipulative guilt trip.

You can use electric shock to train a rat. You can use the shock and threat of hell to train an intelligent being like a rat. Either one can learn to find the cheese in a maze, and avoid “sinful” aisles along the way.

What a human can do that a rat can’t, is learn to be motivated entirely by love and not by fear for their earthly or heavenly selves. Nothing wrong with being aware of consequences, but if you wave a gun in my face every time you ask me to do something, then you really aren’t giving me a chance to show you how much I love you at all. For all you know maybe I’m just doing it because you have the gun and if I could I’d shoot you with it. If you want to know if I love you, put the gun down or give it to me and see if I am still obedient to you or if I run away or if I shoot you.

I had a really irritating flying instructor, with whom I never flew a second time. I was nearly qualified for a license, but he kept his hand on the wheel the entire time. He would tell me to execute a maneuver, but his hand never came off the wheel.

These are all the same things, if you abstract them far enough.

Alan

 

[Fiat]

petra:

The Church’s obsession with external unity also fails to recognize the Holy Spirit’s role in the life of the believer. Hebrews 12:3-11 promises that if we are God’s child, He will discipline us. Why doesn’t the Church give God more credit for the work He does in our life?

Dear Petra:
I am sympathetic to your position, here (I think), but it seems to me that God works in our lives in part through the Church herself. You seem to be divorcing God from the Church, indicating that the Church unnecessarily constructs policies geared at leading us toward Christ, when in fact the Church is the Body of Christ. Perhaps I’m not fully understanding your point.

Fiat

 

[petra]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear petra,

This is the best description I’ve ever heard of a problem I have been trying to work for years. I would like to devote a good deal of my life on earth to help restore the Good News to those who have been robbed of it by good-intentioned Catholics trying to mix and match worldly and heavenly solutions to problems.

Thanks, Alan.

It’s true that individual well-intentioned people are sometimes responsible for the use of guilt and manipulation. I wish the problem were as simple as zealous individuals who want everyone to do the right thing. But my issue is actually with the Church itself forcing unity with an extremely heavy hand. Eating meat on a Lenten Friday is a mortal sin, as defined by the Church. It is only a sin because the Church says it is, not because eating meat on a particular Friday is inherantly immoral or unspiritual. On the grounds of “binding and loosing”, the Church not only claims to be able to create new sins, but can define the penalty. The Church does so to enforce unity. This is an abuse of the authority that Christ gave the Church.

 

[petra]

Fiat:

Dear Petra:
I am sympathetic to your position, here (I think), but it seems to me that God works in our lives in part through the Church herself. You seem to be divorcing God from the Church, indicating that the Church unnecessarily constructs policies geared at leading us toward Christ, when in fact the Church is the Body of Christ. Perhaps I’m not fully understanding your point.

Fiat

Hi Fiat,

I don’t have any problem with the Church creating disciplines that are intended to benefit our spiritual growth and promote unity. But to elevate violations to mortal sin is like a mother saying to a child, “Eating your vegatables, taking your vitamins, and getting 8 hours of sleep is very good for you. It is so good for you that I am going to set up some consequences if you don’t do these things. If you refuse to do these healthy things for yourself, I will kill you. Now if you repent and then do the thing you at first refused to do, then you are forgiven. But if you do not repent, I will kill you.” This is exactly how the Church’s approach strikes me. Jesus NEVER gave the Church this kind of authority.

The punishment for not taking the medicine should never be more severe than the natural consequences of not taking the medicine. And again, this has nothing to do with sins that are inherantly and eternally sinful. I’m talking about disciplines that the Church establishes on a given day of a given year and from that day forth, violations are considered sinful under pain of mortal sin. I’m talking about disciplines that are intended simply to force unity. I think forced unity is cheap, and it is damaging to the soul. Like I said before, the Church takes my gift of wanting to participate in unity and confiscates it from me. That is rape to my soul.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

On the grounds of “binding and loosing”, the Church not only claims to be able to create new sins, but can define the penalty. The Church does so to enforce unity. This is an abuse of the authority that Christ gave the Church.

It is, but just as I’m typing this I came up with a way to view the Church in a “less nefarious” light along these lines than I have in the past.

One of the struggles I’m still having with the Church, is the idea that her teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Never mind they are often complex and debated among well-meaning Magesterium-fearing theologians. If they are complex, and particularly if there are subjective criteria based on my own mental disposition in order for it to be a mortal sin, then realistically the Church can say whatever she wants about my behavior; she cannot infallibly say whether it is a mortal sin in my particular instance. If I am somewhat in touch with my inner thoughts and feelings and motives, then I am in a better position to judge whether I am actually guilty according to their guidelines.

Now, if the Church can make up things, and we assume she can based on your analysis, then I give her the authority, as the self-proclaimed, or God-proclaimed through her, as you prefer, to make up the rules and try to articulate them so anybody has a clue what they mean in any instance. If I don’t consider her infallible, but I do forgive her and believe the gates of hell ultimately will not prevail, then I can still love her without her being perfect. In fact, if she wants to think she’s perfect, then why can’t I play along – and if I think she’s wrong about that, then don’t sweat it. We may think it’s dangerous that she looks at it that way, but then it would be our own fear and lack of faith, for there is that gates of hell thing again.

Now, what is her authority over me? She can say what she wants, and I am free to choose to obey her or not. I am also choose to pretend that I obey her when I don’t, or vice versa depending on what facade I have on at that moment. For example, if I’m at a pro-life meeting after Mass and a priest talks about assent to all Church teachings, then as a lemming I will say I support them all. In reality, I may neither know or particularly care if my morals are in line with the Church’s, because I consider myself a good person and get my morals by cloning other people’s behavior, have a good life and family and job.

If I play by her rules the best I can, then I can “blame” or “credit” my salvation status to her. If I choose to go against her rules, then I’m on my own with God, and I understand that. If I go Against Her Spiritual Advice, for whatever reason such as she doesn’t understand my situation, then I figure I no longer have her protection and now it’s up to Christ and nobody else.

Sorry there I go blubbering again.

Alan

 

[Fiat]

petra:

Hi Fiat,

I don’t have any problem with the Church creating disciplines that are intended to benefit our spiritual growth and promote unity. But to elevate violations to mortal sin is like a mother saying to a child, “Eating your vegatables, taking your vitamins, and getting 8 hours of sleep is very good for you. It is so good for you that I am going to set up some consequences if you don’t do these things. If you refuse to do these healthy things for yourself, I will kill you. Now if you repent and then do the thing you at first refused to do, then you are forgiven. But if you do not repent, I will kill you.” This is exactly how the Church’s approach strikes me. Jesus NEVER gave the Church this kind of authority.

The punishment for not taking the medicine should never be more severe than the natural consequences of not taking the medicine. And again, this has nothing to do with sins that are inherantly and eternally sinful. I’m talking about disciplines that the Church establishes on a given day of a given year and from that day forth, violations are considered sinful under pain of mortal sin. I’m talking about disciplines that are intended simply to force unity. I think forced unity is cheap, and it is damaging to the soul. Like I said before, the Church takes my gift of wanting to participate in unity and confiscates it from me. That is rape to my soul.

Dear Petra:
Thank you for the explanation, although I completely disagree with your suggestion that the Church is raping your soul in this area. Frankly, your position is much like many nondenominational Christians I have met, as you seem to subscribe to the idea that “personal spirituality” is acceptable and organized religion serves merely as a roadblock to that spirituality. The idea that we as Catholics must subscribe to is that the Church is there to facilitate our spirituality. To see it as otherwise, particularly regarding matters of faith and morals, is to suggest that the Church is nothing more than a man-made political organization.

If the Church prescribes the lenten fast as obligatory, then to consciously forego that fast is to disobey the Church. Doesn’t Christ tell His apostles when He sends them out into the world that if people refuse to listen to them, they refuse to listen to Christ Himself? This sort of disobedience seems fairly damnable to one’s soul, if you ask me.
Peace,
Fiat

 

[petra]

AlanFromWichita:

Now, if the Church can make up things, and we assume she can based on your analysis, then I give her the authority, as the self-proclaimed, or God-proclaimed through her, as you prefer, to make up the rules and try to articulate them so anybody has a clue what they mean in any instance. If I don’t consider her infallible, but I do forgive her and believe the gates of hell ultimately will not prevail, then I can still love her without her being perfect. In fact, if she wants to think she’s perfect, then why can’t I play along – and if I think she’s wrong about that, then don’t sweat it.

Alan, what you say above expresses my ultimate conclusions about the Church. I still love her even if she is not perfect. And I believe that apostolic faith has been faithfully preserved and handed down through the centuries. For the extra things she has added to maintain control over her people and procure external unity, I forgive her for that. I hope and pray that someday the Church would realize that Christ is still the head and is still guiding us. I hope that the Church learns to give the Holy Spirit more credit for motivating individuals to obedience, rather than pushing Him aside.

But this is not a deal breaker. It’s like being in a dysfunctional family. The dynamics may be difficult at times, but they are still family.

 

[petra]

Fiat:

Dear Petra:
Thank you for the explanation, although I completely disagree with your suggestion that the Church is raping your soul in this area. Frankly, your position is much like many nondenominational Christians I have met, as you seem to subscribe to the idea that “personal spirituality” is acceptable and organized religion serves merely as a roadblock to that spirituality. The idea that we as Catholics must subscribe to is that the Church is there to facilitate our spirituality. To see it as otherwise, particularly regarding matters of faith and morals, is to suggest that the Church is nothing more than a man-made political organization.

You have misunderstood my posts. I have specifically excluded matters of faith and morals. I am only talking about disciplines that are intended to promote unity. What I object to is heavy-handed tactics to force unity. I also don’t disagree that creating disciplines to promote unity and articulating what they are is important. But if the Church is going to make up a rule that didn’t previsouly exist as a result of eternal spiritual and moral law, and if the Church is going to assign a penalty for violating that rule, making it a damnable offense is akin to the Church telling God what to do. Again, I am only talking about matters of Canon Law and rules that are designed to procure unity.

If the Church prescribes the lenten fast as obligatory, then to consciously forego that fast is to disobey the Church. Doesn’t Christ tell His apostles when He sends them out into the world that if people refuse to listen to them, they refuse to listen to Christ Himself? This sort of disobedience seems fairly damnable to one’s soul, if you ask me.

You’ve made a huge leap here. Are you suggesting that the disciples wrote Canon law and defined penalties for violations before embarking upon their journey? Are you suggesting that on their journey, they were preaching these new laws and if the people did not listen to them, they in essense refused to listen to Christ?

I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that. The disciples were preaching eternal truths–things they had been taught by Christ. They were stewards of the deposit of faith that Christ had given them. If the people rejected what they said, they were rejecting Christ, because the disciples were speaking on behalf of Christ. Yes, that rejection would be damnable.

But this is not at all what I have been talking about. I’m talking about things the Church has added (disciplines) that are not part of the deposit of apostolic faith. The Church acknowledges that disciplines are not part of the deposit of faith. Disciplines can be changed. I don’t have any objections to the Church creating disciplines, as they are techniques for helping us in our spiritual journey. But, I’ll say again, the penalty for not taking the medicine should never be worse than the natural consequences of not taking the medicine. Elevating the penalty to mortal sin is an abuse of power and simply a scare tactic to manipulate people. It is in no way a rejection of Christ because it is not part of the deposit of apostolic faith.

Peace.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

Alan, what you say above expresses my ultimate conclusions about the Church. I still love her even if she is not perfect. And I believe that apostolic faith has been faithfully preserved and handed down through the centuries. For the extra things she has added to maintain control over her people and procure external unity, I forgive her for that. I hope and pray that someday the Church would realize that Christ is still the head and is still guiding us. I hope that the Church learns to give the Holy Spirit more credit for motivating individuals to obedience, rather than pushing Him aside.

But this is not a deal breaker. It’s like being in a dysfunctional family. The dynamics may be difficult at times, but they are still family.

Petra,

There are not many people who seem to understand this. They seem to either idolize the Church herself (please forgive me Lord if I am mischaracterizing it), using her as proxy for God rather than a pointer to God, or they have “issues” with the Church and completely distrust her.

I think that telling people who have partial buy-in to the Church that they must believe all or the whole thing is a charade, just confirms their suspicions because their worldly mind is rightly constructed with resistance against believing different truths because of a threat of reward. Threats or rewards certainly motivate outward behavior, but they cannot change objective truth, and an intelligent mind knows that. Since I am a wimp physically, I can easily be persuaded to pretend I agree with somebody. Since I have ever increasing faith, strong arm tactics are less and less effective over my inner beliefs every day.

So many people are convinced that the Church would be meaningless if she were not infallible in her teachings, but that signals a tremendous lack of faith – alternate explanations are misguided wishful thinking, or maybe they’re right and I’m wrong. If she needed an infallible leader, then why for example would Christ have picked Peter, who was known for rushing to error despite his good intentions to protect Christ – using methods that were not according to His teaching? No, if she needed an infallible leader in human form, then He would have stayed here Himself and guided her. He did leave us with an infallible guide, but when he gave the Spirit, it was to more than just One Man.

I think when Christ handed the keys to Peter, He did so knowing that Peter would make mistakes like everyone else but that ultimately the collective faith in God would hold this family together. If someone tells me that the “gates of hell will not prevail against me,” then I would rejoice because in the end I cannot lose – why is that thought by some to mean “from now on you cannot sin at all, forever?”

Please do not take this as an insult, but it is my observation that there is worldly comfort and security in the belief that there is a human being on earth who can infallibly settle any moral issue on earth. The fact that we never get to talk to him directly through scores of sinful and noisy communication channels doesn’t seem to diminish this comfort in many people’s minds. That’s like saying that if I get arrested unfairly, then I can take comfort in the knowledge that the President of the United States has authority to give me a pardon. Yeah, right, like there’s anything I could do to get through the police, lawyers and politicians to get direct access to the One Man who can understand and save me.

Belief systems and even tradidtions are great and infinitely useful, but they are not faith, and once they are comprehended by a human mind they become worldly. If we put all our eggs in the “belief system” basket, then we are actually clinging to those beliefs. Christ did all He could to teach us not to rely on our own understanding. Wasn’t that a cruel message, if what we are supposed to do is gear up our understanding to meet a particular belief and behavior system? Isn’t that an insult to people who worked all their lives to understand the Catholic faith? No, I don’t think so. Use your own understanding of things both spiritual and material to be shrewd, wise, and loving around sinners like ourselves – but do not RELY on that. When the dirt hits the fan, all my human calculations will fail and I have to rely on pure faith that God’s will is, in fact, being done and that I will be taken care of justly by God, whether or not anybody on this planet has a clue what was in my heart and mind. Perhaps Joan of Arc felt that way.

One other way to look at it, is what if a Pope actually did teach something against faith and morals? I heard stories of popes being struck dead after speaking heresy, but they were in fact in charge at the time they did, so until they died, yes, the successor of Peter introduced heresy, and passed it along to other members of the Church or we never would have known what struck those popes dead. If the pope cannot introduce heresy without contradicting Christ, then we must not be in the right church after all because it has happened. Sure, the pope through whom these things happened was punished, but for an instant, a day, a month, or some other amount of time, there were members of God’s church who heard Her leader speak heresy.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

petra:

You have misunderstood my posts. I have specifically excluded matters of faith and morals.

For the record, I have included matters of faith and morals in my own argument, so if I go down as a result of that expanded indictment, I will not get to take you with me.

Anyway I may have misunderstood or just piled on with that.

This issue about feeling like you’re being raped is fascinating. I’ve never heard such a strong word applied, but I can certainly see how it fits.

What if your father says, “Son, come here please,” and you immediately respond, “coming” but he doesn’t hear you. A few seconds later, when you are nearly in sight, he bellows, “Son, I said come here and if you aren’t here in two seconds you’re going to be punished!!!” Well, guess what, two seconds later you show up, so you don’t get punished. Yes, you obeyed your father, and you weren’t outwardly punished with a spanking or grounding. You were actually spiritually punished in a much more subtle and sinister way. Now you know that dad has no confidence in your Doing the Right Thing, you also know that he thinks you have to be coerced to obey him, which was not the case but you’ll never be able to prove it to him. In essence, the father was faithless in his son to have threatened him, when there was no way he had of knowing what was actually in the son’s heart.

That’s an issue I have with “stewardship” training in high schools. They require a certain number of hours of family, parish and community service. I think having community service hours is wonderful, and is a good thing. To call that “stewardship,” however, troubles me because ultimately the children may be motivated not by intent to do good, but because they are required to do those things under pain of not graduating. I’d rather they just called it “community service” and left it at that, because stewardship that is done for others to see and evaluate is not stewardship at all. True stewardship comes from the heart, and is never intentionally disclosed for the purpose of getting credit or admiration.

Here’s another example: your mother said to do the dishes, and you have a track record of putting them off until mom gets home, then have to be told again. OK, so this time you’ve decided that you are going to be a Better Person and wash them while she’s gone like you’re supposed to. Then just after you’ve completed them, you go take a bathroom break or whatever and miss the phone ringing. Mom calls and leaves a message from a pay phone that she is bringing home guests and you really need to have the dishes done before she gets home or there will be consequences.

Mom gets home, and is pleased the dishes are done, and is glad she made the extra call because the guests did not witness the dirty dishes. You have been robbed of your deed of obedience and repentence, at least in her mind. You tell her that you actually had the dishes done before she called, and she says in a loving voice, “why, of course you did, dear.”

Alan

 

[petra]

AlanFromWichita:

There are not many people who seem to understand this. They seem to either idolize the Church herself (please forgive me Lord if I am mischaracterizing it), using her as proxy for God rather than a pointer to God, or they have “issues” with the Church and completely distrust her.

So many people are convinced that the Church would be meaningless if she were not infallible in her teachings, but that signals a tremendous lack of faith – alternate explanations are misguided wishful thinking, or maybe they’re right and I’m wrong. If she needed an infallible leader, then why for example would Christ have picked Peter, who was known for rushing to error despite his good intentions to protect Christ – using methods that were not according to His teaching? No, if she needed an infallible leader in human form, then He would have stayed here Himself and guided her. He did leave us with an infallible guide, but when he gave the Spirit, it was to more than just One Man.

Your observations about how people either idolize the Church or mistrust her are similar to what I notice.

Are you familiar with the “trilemma” to prove the diety of Christ? Since Christ claimed to be God, only 3 conclusions are possible, and only 1 tenable. He was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. The option that He was a good man and a prophet, but not God, does not exist because of the way He lived His life and what He said. This line of logic works because it specifically deals with the nature of one person. We can read from history that He did not sin, He was very sane and wise, and He claimed to be God. But I have seen Catholics that attempt to use a similar method of logic to prove the Church is perfectly infallible. Either the modern Catholic Church is the perfect successor of the Church of the apostles, or it really is a farce. I respect Peter Kreef immensely, but even he presents that dilemma. However, unlike the situation of discerning the diety of one man, Jesus, making a similar discernment of a Church, which has consisted of millions of people, hundreds of popes, and volumes of teachings is much more complex. This is particularly true as the Church says it is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and no single person is infallible except for the pope when speaking ex cathedra, which has only occurred twice in 2000 years. Additionally, identifying what falls in the faith/morals category and what falls in the “everything else” category is ambiguous. If something changes, it is conveniently put in the “everything else” category even though it seems to have something to do with faith and morals. (I’m thinking of the changes in teaching regarding the death penalty, for example.)

Anyway, sorting through all this is rather messy and difficult. You are absolutely right that it is much easier to either accept the whole package or write the Church off altogether. Working out our salvation with fear and trembling means that we seek Truth. It is a difficulty journey and things don’t always make sense. But reducing this to a multiple choice quiz (Baptist, Presbyterian, or Catholic) is a shortcut that will cause us to miss the fullness of truth. Your points above are exactly what I mean by this.

 

[petra]

AlanFromWichita:

For the record, I have included matters of faith and morals in my own argument, so if I go down as a result of that expanded indictment, I will not get to take you with me.

Anyway I may have misunderstood or just piled on with that.

Oh, no. I was responding to Fiat. I was not implying that you had misunderstood my post.

This issue about feeling like you’re being raped is fascinating. I’ve never heard such a strong word applied, but I can certainly see how it fits.

What if your father says, “Son, come here please,” and you immediately respond, “coming” but he doesn’t hear you. A few seconds later, when you are nearly in sight, he bellows, “Son, I said come here and if you aren’t here in two seconds you’re going to be punished!!!” Well, guess what, two seconds later you show up, so you don’t get punished. Yes, you obeyed your father, and you weren’t outwardly punished with a spanking or grounding. You were actually spiritually punished in a much more subtle and sinister way. Now you know that dad has no confidence in your Doing the Right Thing, you also know that he thinks you have to be coerced to obey him, which was not the case but you’ll never be able to prove it to him. In essence, the father was faithless in his son to have threatened him, when there was no way he had of knowing what was actually in the son’s heart.

That’s an issue I have with “stewardship” training in high schools. They require a certain number of hours of family, parish and community service. I think having community service hours is wonderful, and is a good thing. To call that “stewardship,” however, troubles me because ultimately the children may be motivated not by intent to do good, but because they are required to do those things under pain of not graduating. I’d rather they just called it “community service” and left it at that, because stewardship that is done for others to see and evaluate is not stewardship at all. True stewardship comes from the heart, and is never intentionally disclosed for the purpose of getting credit or admiration.

Here’s another example: your mother said to do the dishes, and you have a track record of putting them off until mom gets home, then have to be told again. OK, so this time you’ve decided that you are going to be a Better Person and wash them while she’s gone like you’re supposed to. Then just after you’ve completed them, you go take a bathroom break or whatever and miss the phone ringing. Mom calls and leaves a message from a pay phone that she is bringing home guests and you really need to have the dishes done before she gets home or there will be consequences.

Mom gets home, and is pleased the dishes are done, and is glad she made the extra call because the guests did not witness the dirty dishes. You have been robbed of your deed of obedience and repentence, at least in her mind. You tell her that you actually had the dishes done before she called, and she says in a loving voice, “why, of course you did, dear.”

Alan

Those are great example! Isn’t it wonderful that God knows our heart every minute of the day? The conviction and prompting of the Holy Spirit is the perfect remedy for where are at. When the Church crowds the Holy Spirit out of the way, injury occurs because people cannot know the heart of another.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Here’s a summary:

• You are hereby commanded under pain of eternal damnation, to do works to show that you love me, which only have meaning if done voluntarily.
• Further, we teach you to follow the Truth instead of the world, by using worldly methods to beat you up when you go wrong. Therefore we don’t really believe in our own product.
• We teach you to accept “natural consequences” by imposing consequences in excess of those that naturally resulted.

If you really try to align yourself with this kind of reasoning, you will go insane. I think most Catholics hear these messages, though not so closely juxtaposed perhaps, coming through one way or the other.

Alan